Talk:Roxas

It mentions that he may be above Axel but definitely below Xemnas; going strictly by strength, Roxas is Xemnas' second-in-command! There's something wrong with that.

(I get this from the promotional video with Roxas having 14 bars and Marluxia with 10 or 11 as third).Therequiembellishere 22:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ...Are you serious? The article only specifies that Roxas is stronger than Axel, but weaker than Xemnas. Beyond that is debatable. And health bars don't determine anything. DannyP 23:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, going strictly by strength, it's strange that the newest and youngest is stronger than all the rest.Therequiembellishere 20:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't strange. Roxas is the Nobody of Sora, who holds incredible strength. So why shouldn't Roxas hold incredible strength?
 * Because he's stonrger than Sora and Xemnas, while only existing a year. 14 bars isn't something he just got.Therequiembellishere 20:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, seriously, STOP basing strength based on something as trivial as health bars (and that video is months old. Things change in time). And nothing, and I mean nothing, implies that Roxas is stronger than either of them. He and Sora were evenly matched in their fight, and Xemnas is explicitly said to be the strongest. DannyP 22:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, gameplay stats may not be that indicative of plotline "strength", I mean, Xemnas in Final Mix was a secret boss and incredibly hard, and he was just "testing" Sora. He looks much easier in KHII, but I doubt he grew significantly weaker during the time between.  Maybe Roxas has so many life bars because he's just late in the game.  Scott ch 06:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, I know and Danny P, you don't have to react so harshly at something like this, and you should really sign you're messages. Going off subject, is there a less grindy pic for him?Therequiembellishere 18:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Harshly? How am I reacting "harshly"? DannyP 22:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OMG, never mind! Therequiembellishere 21:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)