Genocide and pretty lights

[BrightBow]

I can kind of understand your frustration at getting a concrete answer, but it probably won't ever come. Which isn't a bad thing because then fans have got stuff to talk about.

Case in point, FE1/3, 20 years ago, already had a story where man attacked dragons and I'm pretty sure they never explained why man did it.

They never explain it but they acknowledge it. That's the big difference.

Chaney makes no secret about him not liking humans. And he admits sympathy towards Medeus. Fitting in nicely with that, back in the first game Gato said that he turn his back on humanities affairs but that Marth's actions convinced him otherwise. Chainey also says that he helps Marth because he is different then the other humans.

And Anri's situation is not the same then the ones from his counterparts in Elibe. He wasn't the guy who lead humans to wipe out the dragons. He was the guy who freed humans after the dragons enslaved them. In that story, dragons are clearly the evil ones.

The implications of Elibe's setting simply don't exist in Akaneia.

If you notice the similarity in FE1/3 and FE6/7's backstory, it's likely the developers have similar themes in their games. So I'm wondering if you could look to the Beorc and Laguz conflict for a reason why the humans may have invaded. I mean, the humans invaded the Laguz as well early on in Tellius's history, but the Laguz actually managed to make a successful comeback unlike the dragons.

I would go as far as saying that the themes are nearly identical. It's about human nature. Their bad sides and their good sides. The latter represented by the hero and his companions. Just like Roy, Ike's travels confronted him with human failings.

That's why it's so irritating that they don't bring up this big result of humankind's bad side. Especially with a villain who demands mankind's end for those failings.

But knowing the opening, Roy's speeches come across as ignorant. Everything would work fine if it wasn't for that opening.

And if we use the Laguz/Beorc conflict to explain what was going one in Elibe, then the "Divine Generals" were racists bastards. Those games weren't shy to point out that nasty aspect of humans.

Which in turn makes it inexcusable for the Elibe games to not only fail to acknowledge their crime but also to present them as actual heroes on par with Anri, the Crusaders, Team Altina and the others.

Edited September 24, 2012 by BrightBow

[BBHood217]

Unfortunately, neither Roy nor Jahn seems to be interested in the origin of the war. We need a game based around it (or at least some exposition) so we can have some closure.

A game where every single enemy unit is a dragon? Not wyverns, fire-breathing defense-ignoring dragons?

Sounds like fun.

[BrightBow]

With all the disagreement I get on this topic... both here and in the past... I'm kinda wondering about something.

I already elaborated what I felt about FE7 when I first played in at the very beginning of my first post but I would like to know what others felt back then.

How was it when you played Fire Emblem 7 for the first time?

What did you think you about the humans and the Divine Generals after watching the opening?

If you changed your attitude towards them from negative to positive, then what caused that change?

Edited September 26, 2012 by BrightBow

[eclipse]

I was completely neutral on the entire thing when I first saw it. Still am.

[Sunwoo]

Regarding the comment about laguz in FE9/10, I can't recall exactly where I heard this, but I think it was said somewhere that in the far, far past of Tellius, it was the laguz who attacked and invaded humans. Perhaps it was Nasir, in the boat chapter of FE9. However, in FE10, it had also been said that the laguz and the beorc originated from the same ancestor and that they just waged war on each other equally before the Great Flood. So even though beorc get the "short end" of the stick on Tellius' morality scope, I'd say that the laguz are not shown to be blameless either.

While I do agree that the whole FE7 dragon/human thing is vague and needs more explaining, I'm not too bothered about it.

[Baldrick]

A game where every single enemy unit is a dragon? Not wyverns, fire-breathing defense-ignoring dragons?

Sounds like fun.

I don't know whether that was sarcasm or not, but you've given me a great idea.

But knowing the opening, Roy's speeches come across as ignorant. Everything would work fine if it wasn't for that opening.

That's an interesting position to take. Because one source says humans started the war, without elaborating on the situation at all, you think humans deliberately went out to wipe dragons from the face of the earth, and all humans are intolerant? If the opening didn't exist, the war would still be called the Scouring, the dragons not in Nabata would still have all been driven out or killed, the revisionist history demonising dragons would still be in place, and there wouldn't even be any evidence that the dragons started the war. Everything would happen the same. If humans committed genocide in Elibe, then they also committed genocide in No Opening!Elibe.

How was it when you played Fire Emblem 7 for the first time?

What did you think you about the humans and the Divine Generals after watching the opening?

If you changed your attitude towards them from negative to positive, then what caused that change?

If I watched the opening the first time I played, I had forgotten about it before the dragons even came into the story. When Athos talked about finding Nabata, I was surprised as the lords, because I assumed that dragons had no human intelligence. After the ending, I decided that ice dragons were intelligent, and fire dragons were mindless.

When I played FE6, it was in Japanese. I thought Fa was an ice dragon, and reading the script, concluded divine dragons = ice dragons. Jahn made me think intelligent fire dragons were typical western-style evil dragons.

When I first thought about the opening, I figured dragons and humans didn't mix, and attacks by fire dragons had provoked the humans into declaring war. The ice dragons fled and left the humans and fire dragons to kill each other.

[BrightBow]

Regarding the comment about laguz in FE9/10, I can't recall exactly where I heard this, but I think it was said somewhere that in the far, far past of Tellius, it was the laguz who attacked and invaded humans. Perhaps it was Nasir, in the boat chapter of FE9. However, in FE10, it had also been said that the laguz and the beorc originated from the same ancestor and that they just waged war on each other equally before the Great Flood. So even though beorc get the "short end" of the stick on Tellius' morality scope, I'd say that the laguz are not shown to be blameless either.

Yes, Nasir said that the situation used to be reversed on the boat, saying that Ike's worldview would change during his travels.

Also in the extended version of the script where Lehran tries to convince Deghinsea to make a move, Deghinsea also recalled that while Beorc are the dominant ones now, there was also a time where it used to be reversed.

Interestingly, this was when the goddess had only slept for 150 years. So there is still a lot of time for a entertaining back-and-forth between the races.

It's kinda entertaining that when Ike confronted Ashera, all he could do was ask for another chance. He couldn't bring up anything as an actual defense. He had no solution to the circle of violence besides: "We will try."

The Goddess knew what she did when she judged everyone equally. The punishment was well deserved. Only the branded were innocent.

While I do agree that the whole FE7 dragon/human thing is vague and needs more explaining, I'm not too bothered about it.

The problem is that what we do know is not vague at all:

There was peace, "a peace forged in wisdom". Then the humans attacked and afterwards there were no dragons anymore.

Afterwards Humans cynically called it the "Scouring" to express their conviction what happy place the continent now is.

The only things we learned afterwards, don't help humanities case at all. Sure, there were survivors... by escaping into the depths of a desert or into another dimension. And if Aenir's case is any indication, even that wouldn't save you if you were not fast enough.

I would say that this is all pretty evil. Hence why I wonder what everyone else thinks about the opening.

That's an interesting position to take. Because one source says humans started the war, without elaborating on the situation at all, you think humans deliberately went out to wipe dragons from the face of the earth, and all humans are intolerant? If the opening didn't exist, the war would still be called the Scouring, the dragons not in Nabata would still have all been driven out or killed, the revisionist history demonising dragons would still be in place, and there wouldn't even be any evidence that the dragons started the war. Everything would happen the same. If humans committed genocide in Elibe, then they also committed genocide in No Opening!Elibe.

True... after all the opening is the only source of those events.

What I was getting at is that both Zephidel and Roy have both good points.

They both have entirely valid perspectives on humanity.

But with the genocide existing, Roy's view (that humanity always makes up or their mistakes) was entirely incompatible with what would be humanities greatest evil act.

If this element wasn't there, it would work.

So the opening would just need to be replaced with an easy black & white issue with the humans as thee good guys.

There is absolutely no reason for it not to be like that, since this is how everyone in-universe treats it anyway by worshiping the Divine Generals.

Edited September 26, 2012 by BrightBow

[Baldrick]

True... after all the opening is the only source of those events.

No, that's the opposite of what I'm saying.

There was peace, "a peace forged in wisdom". Then the humans attacked and afterwards there were no dragons anymore.

Afterwards Humans cynically called it the "Scouring" to express their conviction what happy place the continent now is.

The only things we learned afterwards, don't help humanities case at all. Sure, there were survivors... by escaping into the depths of a desert or into another dimension. And if Aenir's case is any indication, even that wouldn't save you if you were not fast enough.

If we remove the opening, the bolded parts still happen. If Roy's argument fails because humans have not made up for their deeds during the Scouring, then it fails regardless of whether the opening is there or not.

--

The opening says that humans and dragons shared "a peace forged in wisdom". From the only two sources that were around before the Scouring:

Athos: [When he encounters Arcadia] At first, I doubted what my own eyes showed me.

Jahn: Dragons and humans, living together in harmony? Rubbish... I have no intention of listening to such nonsense.

[BrightBow]

If we remove the opening, the bolded parts still happen. If Roy's argument fails because humans have not made up for their deeds during the Scouring, then it fails regardless of whether the opening is there or not.

The opening is the only source that paints the Eight Heroes in a negative light.

If it was changed to one where the dragons were clearly the bad guys, then the context changes.

-The dragons were deserving to be fought because they were the aggressors. The end of their whole species was unintended on the part of the Eight Heroes.

It's a recurring theme in FE that the bad guys aren't the only ones to cause innocent victims or that good guys can have reason to fight on the side of the bad guys but have to be done away with regardless.

-The people in Nabata would be more then everything victims of the war in general. A war that the dragons started. Look at how Athos describes them:

Athos: They had refused to fight humans in the war, and instead, they retreated to this wasteland. They desired nothing but to remain hidden from the outside.

-Aenir and the name "Scouring" would be a regrettable reminder of humanities bad sides. That we might have done some things wrong.

But for this we have Eliwood admitting that humans are carrying "some responsibility".

The Divine Generals could not be blamed for that. During the war, they did what they had to do to stop the evil dragons. They can't possibly control the actions of every human. And they can't make sure that humanity keeps the correct outlook on history after they died.

The opening says that humans and dragons shared "a peace forged in wisdom". From the only two sources that were around before the Scouring:

Athos: [When he encounters Arcadia] At first, I doubted what my own eyes showed me.

Jahn: Dragons and humans, living together in harmony? Rubbish... I have no intention of listening to such nonsense.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Do you want to say that the opening is wrong? If that's the case why would the opening lie to us? It doesn't really adapt anyone's perspective of the events, so that would be pretty random.

And if that's the case I would like to say that Jahn has reason to think this way since he saw humans break the peace, slaughter his people and leave him injured below rocks for a thousand years.

I can understand that he isn't very enthusiastic about the idea.

As for Athos, I would say there are two ways to make sense out of that.

1. He was not around before the scouring. Jahn said that humanity's high rate of reproduction gave them the edge initially. This points towards the war lasting for decades. If he was born during that time, he would of course not know that dragons can live peacefully with humans.

2. If he was born before the Scouring, he was born during the time were racism against the dragons had to grow slowly.

Like, there was harmonic peace for a thousand years or so and during the last 50 years humans grew mistrusting more and more until it ended in open hostility. Such a period has to exist in cases like that.

He simply was a child of the Zeitgeist which wasn't challenged until he came to Arcadia.

This is of course all assuming I understood the point in the first place.

Edited September 26, 2012 by BrightBow

[Gaggle of Geese]

I think it's worth pointing out here that the name "The Scouring" was only used in the US version of the game. The FE6 fan translation frequently (erroneously) refers to it by its Japanese name, which is simply "The Dragon-Human Wars."

Edited September 28, 2012 by Dalsin

[deranger]

Placing the blame for a war on one side is an extreme generalization. It would make sense that the scouring was an escalation of conflict, with wrongs on both sides. Blaming anything other than the inability to live alongside one another (and possibly not fear each other) becomes extremely shaky.

[General Banzai]

Hyuck hyuck hyuck...

Welcome, friends and family, to Elibe Saga. The curtain is drawn, the stilts are tilting, and nothing beyond the surface is ever addressed. The fans don't care, the dondon is in full swing, and FE7 is placed upon a podium it doesn't deserve. Harsh words like genocide are plopped down as backstory but rarely given any thought. The heroes are wooden, the villains hackneyed. The tropes are rehashed Archanea; the plot is Jugdral in reverse. Fortunately for us, we have Tellius to discuss these questions in greater depth, right? In Tellius we find everything laid out, all the controversies and intricacies mapped, and the player is guided scene-by-scene through each tragic phase of the in-game history. Better, right?

But on the other hand...

Is Elibe not stronger for its imperfections than weaker? Does its silence on its most central theme make it incomplete or rather serve as an invitation for the player to reach through the fourth wall and construct their own solutions? Although Tellius is more complex, more analytical, in the end we know more-or-less everything to it. It treats its two sides with ambivalence, to be sure, and sinks everyone into intermittent shades of gray, but by the end of the day, we know exactly where everyone stands. Figures from the past swim to the surface and explain their actions so nothing is left to the imagination. These large discussions, these friendly debates, they mostly revolve around these two games, rather than anything else. FE4 gets circle-jerks over the Battle of Barhara, FE8 is universally derided as shallow (and in some aspects it is... what's more cut-and-dry than a final villain who is the physical embodiment of evil? But of course, that doesn't hurt Earthbound any...), Tellius is generally met with lukewarm approval with a side of Sue-bashing. But these two games, and in particular FE7, seem to be the most controversial in the series. Perhaps this stems from FE7 suffering from an FF7 complex, with the multitude in support but a select set of vocal hipsters decrying it, but at the same time, FE7 is an unusual game in the series. Transitional, of questionable relevance even to the game it is the prequel of, and told in a markedly new style for the series, it serves as a waypoint between the more traditional Japanese FEs and the more complex, even "modern" American FEs. FE7 wants to be something it isn't, and perhaps that explains why it shies away from delving into much depth about the Scouring. I've stated before my belief that FE6 and FE7 were geared towards a younger audience than any other game in the series, and I stick by that assessment here.

The reason these games don't discuss the question this thread is set about discussing is because it doesn't want to. It has borrowed its backstory from Archanea and even though it now has the tools to tell that story in greater depth, it shirks from such a responsibility. Vincent is spot-on: Rather than think of it in terms of "Archanea Saga," "Elibe Saga," etc, we should instead think of it as a constantly evolving single story told in more-or-less a series of drafts. FE1 and 3 are draft 1, 6 and 7 draft 2, and 9 and 10 draft 3 (or perhaps a final draft).

(As a secondary note, the "Fire Emblem story" appears to have predicted the path of Western RPG storytelling perhaps 20 years before Bioware.)

Ultimately, I still prefer FE8. It drops pretensions of grandeur to instead focus on a narrower, more intimate story. It prefers character to out-of-reach "humanity themes" (Tellius, in its infinite juggling, attempts both, and thus we get the madhouse that is FERD) and its ambiguity and depth comes from its ability to manipulate a concise, complete story rather than to attempt to grapple with things far out of its control.

[BBHood217]

The FE6 fan translation frequently (erroneously) refers to it by its Japanese name, which is simply "The Dragon-Human Wars."

Wasn't that because said fan translation was made before FE7 was released in English? So there was no "Scouring" to refer to at the time.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Baby Bonnie Hood

[bookofholsety]

Wasn't that because said fan translation was made before FE7 was released in English? So there was no "Scouring" to refer to at the time.

As far as I know, the earliest playable release of the patch was in 2005, two years after FE7's English release. The most recent incarnation is from 2006. It's not impossible that the project commenced before FE7's English release, but it seems somewhat less likely. At any rate, the patch does still use "Scouring" in general in the important places, like the opening and the final chapters, but sometimes it seems to forget that and goes with variations on "dragon-human war", the Japanese name, instead, though these instances are of lesser importance.

[Paperblade]

video game stories suck

more at 11

[dondon151]

wall of text

weren't we told to stop with the nonsense replies already

[General Banzai]

weren't we told to stop with the nonsense replies already

I missed you

[Baldrick]

Guys could you take the flirting to PM? Thanks.

Wasn't that because said fan translation was made before FE7 was released in English? So there was no "Scouring" to refer to at the time.

It'd be interesting to see what the Japanese versions say about the Scouring. If the words used carry the same implication as "Scouring" does, then that might lend credibility to the villainous Generals argument.

[BrightBow]

It'd be interesting to see what the Japanese versions say about the Scouring. If the words used carry the same implication as "Scouring" does, then that might lend credibility to the villainous Generals argument.

You were already arguing that against me before anybody did as much as doubting the term. Why would this make a difference now?

Nevermind that no one can even blame the Generals for the history whitewashing that happened after their death.

As any Fire Emblem, those games do make a point about humans being flawed creatures, after all.

Besides, I am not as much arguing the Generals as being evil as that this is the logical conclusion of the information presented in the opening.

-They were the aggressors

-They purged the continent of the dragons.

How does this saying go in English?

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands."

But for the rest of the game, the writers are all like "Hey, those guys were actually totally good people" without providing anything resembling a reason for their actions being anything but exactly what it sounds like.

All they provide, is their instance to avoid having anyone ask unpleasant questions.

Edited October 2, 2012 by BrightBow

[Baldrick]

You were already arguing that against me before anybody did as much as doubting the term. Why would this make a difference now?

I assumed that "Scouring" was a literal translation. But if a later source defies that translation in favour of one without those implications, then it could suggest the implications were invented by the translators and not intended by the authors.

Nevermind that no one can even blame the Generals for the history whitewashing that happened after their death.

Weren't you suggesting that the Generals were to blame for the start of the war, even though they were merely strong warriors chosen to wield the dragon-killing weapons?

And if there was whitewashing, we can blame Athos, at the very least. But the kind of person who would condone that whitewashing wouldn't protect a village full of dragons.

Besides, I am not as much arguing the Generals as being evil as that this is the logical conclusion of the information presented in the opening.

-They were the aggressors

-They purged the continent of the dragons.

Unless you believe the opening to be misleading, arguing the latter is essentially arguing the former.

But for the rest of the game, the writers are all like "Hey, those guys were actually totally good people" without providing anything resembling a reason for their actions being anything but exactly what it sounds like.

All they provide, is their instance to avoid having anyone ask unpleasant questions.

All the evidence towards "Generals = evil" is in the opening. And it's not even strong evidence. The fact that the writers never feel the need to bring any evidence that "Generals = good" suggests that they never intended there to be any other explanation.

[BrightBow]

Weren't you suggesting that the Generals were to blame for the start of the war, even though they were merely strong warriors chosen to wield the dragon-killing weapons?

The grief I always had with this issue can probably best summed up from this line from my opening post:

How can somebody who committed mass-murder be sympathetic? There had to be a justification. It just had to be somewhere.

Besides, the title "Divine Generals" implies a position of authority. And therefore responsibility as well.

And if there was whitewashing, we can blame Athos, at the very least. But the kind of person who would condone that whitewashing wouldn't protect a village full of dragons.

Except he only found Arcadia at least 500 years after the war.

Back then he was someone who by his own admission couldn't believe that dragons and humans could live together.

That guy most certainly would have allowed it to happen.

If he believed that, it's presumably that he also believed the couldn't live together so one of them had to go. And who would choose their own kin in that situation?

All the evidence towards "Generals = evil" is in the opening. And it's not even strong evidence. The fact that the writers never feel the need to bring any evidence that "Generals = good" suggests that they never intended there to be any other explanation.

It is evidence. Which is more then can be said about any Generals = good argument.

Besides, it's the freaking opening narration.

Sure, a lot of openings have it's word put into a different context during the course of the plot.

But this didn't here. Nothing that the opening says is ever challenged. There is no reason to doubt it.

And they even used essentially the same opening in both games. So I would say that the writers demonstrated their conviction to that version.

Also, I took myself the liberty to move this quote down here since I think I need to clarify something:

Unless you believe the opening to be misleading, arguing the latter is essentially arguing the former.

Technically I guess. But it's missing the point.

Which is, that the writers treated the very serious issue of genocide ridiculously halfassed.

To the point that they ended up blaming the victims for their own demise and glorified their killers. Either because they didn't notice or because they didn't gave a damn.

That is my problem.

Edit:

And they even made a follow up game where they had the opportunity to set things straight. But that didn't happen.

We got essentially the same opening again.

By the word of the writers, the Humans were still the badguys, except somehow not.

Of course, the info that showed that humans weren't all a bunch of genocidal jackasses totally wasn't important enough to be put into the game.

Edited October 2, 2012 by BrightBow

[FionordeQuester]

Perhaps maybe BOTH sides were in the wrong? Like, perhaps it was the equivalent of Adolf Hitler vs. Joseph Stalin?

[CT075]

have you ever heard of confirmation bias

[Baldrick]

The grief I always had with this issue can probably best summed up from this line from my opening post:

How can somebody who committed mass-murder be sympathetic? There had to be a justification. It just had to be somewhere.

Occam's Razor; they never committed mass murder. 99% of the killing were justifiable self-defense. The Generals never killed a dragon that wasn't trying to kill them as well.

Besides, the title "Divine Generals" implies a position of authority. And therefore responsibility as well.

They only became Divine Generals during the war. Why are they supposed to take responsibility of something that happened before the war started?

Except he only found Arcadia at least 500 years after the war.

Back then he was someone who by his own admission couldn't believe that dragons and humans could live together.

That guy most certainly would have allowed it to happen.

1) There's a difference between believing that humans and dragons can't live together and hunting dragons for sport.

2) Athos is a scholar whose desire for knowledge was so great it made him immortal. If he couldn't believe dragons and humans could live together, then there's no evidence of them having lived together remaining, not even abandoned buildings, old texts, or artifacts. This makes it highly unlikely there was ever a peaceful co-existence.

It is evidence. Which is more then can be said about any Generals = good argument.

Athos protected a village full of dragons. Unlike the opening, this is conclusive proof.

Besides, it's the freaking opening narration.

So what? The opening does not say why humans attacked first. Maybe the Generals were evil. Or maybe dragons attacked civilians, causing the humans to declare war in retaliation. The fact that there's doubt means the opening is not a strong source.

Sure, a lot of openings have it's word put into a different context during the course of the plot.

But this didn't here. Nothing that the opening says is ever challenged. There is no reason to doubt it.

Refer to my previous post about Jahn and Athos challenging the line "peace forged in wisdom".

And they even used essentially the same opening in both games. So I would say that the writers demonstrated their conviction to that version.

If they're committed to that version, why didn't they address it at all?

Which is, that the writers treated the very serious issue of genocide ridiculously halfassed.

To the point that they ended up blaming the victims for their own demise and glorified their killers. Either because they didn't notice or because they didn't gave a damn.

May I suggest a third option? They never intended genocide to be an issue. They didn't realise the implication of the opening, or thought that the events of the game would clearly disprove that interpretation of the opening.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Minor Baldo

[Paper Jam]

If he couldn't believe dragons and humans could live together, then there's no evidence of them having lived together remaining

Except Nergal's old house on the Isle of Valor, which had that eerie picture of the human and the dragon who weren't fighting.

Not that Athos would have had any reason to investigate the Isle of Valor for artifacts from the Scouring.