Genocide and pretty lights

[zahlman]

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

Please elaborate on this point.

[Gaggle of Geese]

Guys, the Scouring never happened! It's a lie perpetuated by reptiles!

Also, they control the world's banks.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Dalsin

[Lanko]

You know...i never actually noticed all that... Great stuff.

Somehow it's like the Crusades. Western kings wanted more land and used a pretext invade and started the whole thing. Some people resent it even today.

Even when they make a movie about it, the western side have a sympathic hero, who treats the supposed enemy good, etc. Even the defeat is show as a conciliation between them. It doesn't show what really happened and when asked we just turn away ''religion was to blame'', ''times were different'', etc. Few actually face it.

Like Soren says : "Humans are shameless creatures that carelessly ignore any misfortune which does not befall them directly. They can--and often do--turn a blind eye to all manner of wickedness so long as it does not touch them or their kin. They will bow their heads, condemning those victims for bringing calamity upon themselves, and then they will cast their eyes toward heaven in thanks while their neighbors lay dying around them."

[Tamanoir]

You know...i never actually noticed all that... Great stuff.

Somehow it's like the Crusades. Western kings wanted more land and used a pretext invade and started the whole thing. Some people resent it even today.

Even when they make a movie about it, the western side have a sympathic hero, who treats the supposed enemy good, etc. Even the defeat is show as a conciliation between them. It doesn't show what really happened and when asked we just turn away ''religion was to blame'', ''times were different'', etc. Few actually face it.

Like Soren says : "Humans are shameless creatures that carelessly ignore any misfortune which does not befall them directly. They can--and often do--turn a blind eye to all manner of wickedness so long as it does not touch them or their kin. They will bow their heads, condemning those victims for bringing calamity upon themselves, and then they will cast their eyes toward heaven in thanks while their neighbors lay dying around them."

You know that the Heroes' name came from the Chanson de Roland, right ?

It's the first official text in French and it's about the perfid, vicious, treacherous Ganelon, and Roland and co fighting the Sarracen to death even with his brain dripping by his ears. At the end, Charlemagne come to kill them all,; and god let the Sun shine until they are all murdered. Fun times, really. B)

I think it was written before or when Crusades happens.

...Back to the topics at end, I don't think it changes anything to what Roy says, because he really thought it at the time.

Then, Yahnn. I always saw it as someone wo was still as war. He refuses to accept anything related to humans, and that's why he repress his Human Emotions. Also, because he's on the losing side and is ready to do everithyng to win the war. Emotions are just a useless burden in this case

Then... He's never showed as an evil person. He's amoral, but not evil. The main difference is that he's not using Idoun because he enjoys making girl suffering, but because it's the best way to attain his goal : Winning the war against Humans.

See Madoka, for a comparable example

Also, instead of revealing a truth that will completely destroy Roy's mind and so giving him victory, why did he szaid something that have the absolutely inversed effect ? I think he's honest when he says that thing about Harmut and Idoun, because he doesn't have any reason to say that.

Or else it completely change the interpretation of the character.

It makes him some kind of trickster mentor for Roy, who sacrifices himself to savecIdoun and helping Roy to finally achieve peace between Dragons and Humans.

...That could be a far more interresting game, in fact !

And I don't really think that Humans and Dragons lived peacefully together. I can't see any humans living near Giant Fire Breathing Lizard and feeling fine.

They may have been considered as Gods, but it didn't last forever.

I doubt that Dragons really are always saints and bearer of wisdoms, so when the first mistakes happened, they decided to end this tension and suppressing them, becausethey thought it was impossible to have PEACE BETWEEN THE TWO SPECIES;

[Sublime Manic]

SO happy to have happened upon this thread. This is something I've thought about a lot over time and I'm really happy to be able to find a discussion on it. Thank you for making it, BrightBow.

And I don't really think that Humans and Dragons lived peacefully together. I can't see any humans living near Giant Fire Breathing Lizard and feeling fine.

They may have been considered as Gods, but it didn't last forever.

I doubt that Dragons really are always saints and bearer of wisdoms, so when the first mistakes happened, they decided to end this tension and suppressing them, becausethey thought it was impossible to have PEACE BETWEEN THE TWO SPECIES;

Literally the first thing you read in the opening to FE7 says "Once, dragons and men coexisted. They shared a peace forged in wisdom," with an image depicting said peace. And, as the Scouring makes very clear, humans are also capable of killing dragons. The dragons could very well have felt the same way about humans retrospectively - humans CREATED the divine weapons(and dragons DID lose the war, after all). Actually, the fact that they're called "divine" weapons despite being man-made is quite something, but I think it definitely speaks to humans not feeling like much "lesser" beings. If they were sentient creatures living peacefully together at some point, the fact that they're capable of killing each other probably wasn't an issue. Someone can be watching someone else cut something up with a sharp butcher knife to make a meal, and know that that person is capable of turning around and stabbing them to death on some level, but it probably doesn't cross their mind or make them fear for their lives. That's what I'd imagine it would be like.

Also worth noting is that any character that says anything about the Scouring or the Divine Generals or dragons for that matter is coming from a fallible character with a specific view on things and bias. The opening to the game doesn't have that attached to it; it's literally the game telling you something in a much more omniscient manner. This definitely verifies that mankind ended the peace in a "sudden onslaught". Quite the choice of words.

Mankind as a whole arguably initiated and participated in a genocide. That not every dragon died and that some escaped doesn't mean the term "genocide" doesn't fit. Did humans go on this "onslaught" with the collective notion of letting some dragons continue on? Probably not. That doesn't mean every human was happy about it, though. Nor that every human who participated wanted to. But once the conflict has started and it's in pretty explicit "us or them," kill-or-be-killed terms, it's understandable that someone who would otherwise be against killing dragons or participating in something like this would do so nonetheless. Although humankind as a whole did something bad, it doesn't mean every single human alive at the time should be marked or seen as equally guilty.

I think it's more than possible that such could be the case for the Divine Generals. While Elibe does revere them, I don't think any of the few you're able to encounter ever refer to themselves or each other as Divine Generals - and that could very well be because they don't consider themselves heroes; they have just done what they felt they had to, and could very well have NOT been happy with themselves for doing so.

As for how poorly the characters presented in the games seem to handle it,

-The Scouring was 1,000 years ago.

-Humans won the war and got to write what happened.

-As far as the vast majority of humanity knows, dragons aren't around anymore. And when they appear again in FE6, it's as a threat.

Combine those first three things together and it makes more sense. 1,000 years of being told how great the Divine Generals are and how awful dragons are, those stances probably being exaggerated further and further as the years went by, and it may as well be expected that dragons are painted as vile and humans heroic.

Awful, but understandable. The Holocaust happened not even 100 years ago and yet already we have people contesting and dismissing its very happening, despite all the evidence of it. Take 1,000 for Elibe develop as it did, and the very notion that this was anything close to being a genocide would seem far-fetched at first to most. So much so that it seeps into the likes of Eliwood's "some responsibility" line.

As to Roy saying the destruction of Idoun's soul is awful,

What IS a "soul" in the Fire Emblem universe, anyway? And is a dragon's soul ontologically different from a human's? The game doesn't provide answers to those questions, but Idoun clearly didn't die and is even smiling by the time the credits role so Roy saying that the way dragons destroyed her soul was "awful" may well not mean anything bad at all. In general, I completely agree with you that Roy is ignorant. How can he NOT be? He's a 15 year old boy who grew up very sheltered.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Sublime Manic

[Tamanoir]

It could be Divine as in "Divine killer". Or they thought/told that God/Gods were on their dide to defeat Dragons, like in the Crusades.

I think that the Crusades are a better example than the Holocaust, because it's directly referenced (See, Chanson de Roland in my previous post).

Also, once again what is the interest of Jahn/Yahnn not to tell this. He's supposed to hate humans, so he should have used this opportunity to crush Roy's belief instead of giving him the one information that reinforce his beliefs and allows you to have a goodending for everyone.

...Granted, I'm not basing this on pure facts, that's just my own interpretations of what I saw back then...

The eight divine general are shown quite positively by everyone, so I don't think that they were bad people.

However, it's entirely possible that they thought dragons were evil creatures and were used by warmongers power-thirsty lords.

We don't know how long the peace between humans and dragons was lost when the Scouring begins, really...

[Sublime Manic]

I agree that your Crusades example works better in a number of ways. I only brought up the Holocaust example to point out how short a period of time it takes for people to twist something.

The Elibean games don't speak much of any gods they might have, which is a shame; so many of the other Fire Emblems have gods and creation stories and the like that directly influence their worlds. Something like that might have shed some light on some of the questions at hand.

Also, it's rather inevitable that the Divine Generals are spoken of well; we don't exactly speak to very many people who knew them during the Scouring, and even fewer on the losing side. The one clear-cut case of someone who was around and NOT on there side is Jahn, who doesn't praise them. Admittedly, we don't have a lot to go on to answer these questions to the extent many might like to in general. For a dragon, it's probably a completely different story. Jahn is one dragon, unfortunately, and so it's tough to have to base so much off of a single person from an entire race.

On your final note, we also don't know how long the Scouring went on for, itself. If dragons were losing because they couldn't reproduce as quickly, that definitely opens up the possibility that it went on for generations, which would open up the possibility that Athos grew up after any such peace, hence his surprise and finding dragons and humans coexisting in Arcadia. It might also explain Jahn's believe that the very notion that humans and dragons could live together is absurd. Does Jahn even hate humans? He really seems to see things in a detached black or white "us or them" paradigm, much like how people in the Scouring who did not initiate might have felt. The story he shares with Roy, he could also simply be sharing to have that knowledge known, since how it was depicted became so inaccurate over time.

[Paper Jam]

Also worth noting is that any character that says anything about the Scouring or the Divine Generals or dragons for that matter is coming from a fallible character with a specific view on things and bias. The opening to the game doesn't have that attached to it; it's literally the game telling you something in a much more omniscient manner.

Actually, it might not be that omniscient; it might be something out of a history book, and history books are written by human authors (who have specific views and biases).

If anybody gives us the clearest view of what the Scouring was really like, it's Athos. I'll take what Athos says about the Scouring over what the opening says about it, since at least we know what Athos' views and biases are.

Then again, nothing that Athos says really contradicts the opening, does it?

If nothing else, he proves that at least one of the Divine Generals was capable of making peace with the dragons centuries after the Scouring. Either the dragons of Arcadia didn't recognize him or they forgave him. Probably the latter, if what Sophia says in FE6, chapter 14x is any indication; she speaks highly of him even though he was one of the Divine Generals.

Then again, Athos did see a need to hide the Arcadians from the outside world.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Paper Jam

[Tamanoir]

Something I just thought about... Could the story told at the beginning, the Dragons' version of the story. It would explain a lot.

We don't know anithyng about the dragons, so they may not be as good or evil as they are made. What is sure is that they didn't deserve to end like this...

I also think that it's not a War in the actual sense. We had a war called the 100 Years War...

Of course, we didn't fought constantly for 100 years straight... That should have benn the same here...

I don't know if the 8 Generals are really evil... Hartmut seemed also really surprised that dragons can be similar to human. If he didn't have seen Idoun in human form, he would have murdered her without a second thought.

It seems that the 8 Generals came near the end of this war. Maybe even Jahn didn't see the beginning of it.

They may have thought really that it was for the best, and been considered as worthy opponents. They're

Also, there's a lot of reasons for a Human ruler to attack the Dragons. Even more if you both live separately for hundreads of years znd forgot that they are beings equal to you. If your Empire is in a dangerous state, or if you just want more power, they are the perfect Scapegoat to unite every humans on your side and eliminating a future nuisance. And maybe they really thought that they were helped by God/The Gods who inspired the Divine Weapons. (Crusades, once again)

...In fact, I think my problem is that some considered that every humans is a bastard because of this.

We don't know the exact role of the 8 Generals.Where they just fighters, like the ones in Roy's team, or where they each the leaders of some Tribes ?

If they were under the order of the Emperor/Kings, then you can't treat them the same way as irf they decided this war.

Moreover, they don't seems like the kind of guys who will kill other sensible beings for fun. If they saw them as monsters or as ennemies it makes more sense.

IN this kind of war, every sides will do his best to antagonize the others are horrible and cruel monsters who works directly under Satan's order.

That's what happened in the World War I, where no sides was really better than the honest. And they were others human beings, so imagine how easy to deshumanize people who doesn't even look humans to begin with...

[Just call me AL]

As to Roy saying the destruction of Idun's soul is awful,

What IS a "soul" in the Fire Emblem universe, anyway? And is a dragon's soul ontologically different from a human's? The game doesn't provide answers to those questions, but Idun clearly didn't die and is even smiling by the time the credits roll so Roy saying that the way dragons destroyed her soul was "awful" may well not mean anything bad at all. In general, I completely agree with you that Roy is ignorant. How can he NOT be?

But why wouldn't it be anything bad at all? Idun was explicitly mentioned to oppose what the dragons fighting the war were doing, and may have been opposed to the humans' and dragons' war on each other from the start. However, she opted to stay behind because of it, fearing it would escalate into conflict. We never get any reasons why she opposed the Dragon/Human War, (Which is one of the things that I didn't like about FE6.), so we can only assume at this point. I mean, did she have some very good human friends before the war. Maybe she thought of doing what Aenir did? (Whether she would know Aenir or not is irrelevant in this case.) Who knows? All we know is she opposed the war, and she was reduced to an empty shell because of her opposition. I mean, how would you feel if you've been forced to do something that you clearly feel is wrong? She might not have died in the literal sense the moment she became a Demon Dragon, but it's arguable that she did die in a way that's more than figuratively.

@bolded: Only if you have Roy finish her off in Endgame, which spares her life. And the reason she's smiling is mainly because her rehabilitation is starting to show signs of success.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Little Al

[Jotari]

(I would like to note at the start of this post I in no way think the destruction of any race, species or culture is in anyway right and that I have also yet to play Fe7)I think the term genocide is being thrown around here too much without a lot of consideration. Genocide isn't merely the destruction of one race/species by another it is (to quote an online dictionary), "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group."

Nothing supports the fact that humans wanted to destroy all dragons, even if they invaded first. After all when one country invades another it doesn't mean they automatically want to eradicate the local inhabitants. There is much more evidence to suggest that the Scouring built up into the large conflict it became over time. This is very different to genocide, the humans did not round up the dragons and put them into work camps with the intent of seeing them all die. They fought each other in a war that escalated until eventually it really was a case of us or them because things got so out of hand. Even if they were the original aggressors it's just as likely in the end they were doing all they could to defend themselves from the giant fire breathing lizards. From what I see, nothing suggests the humans wanted to kill or banish all the dragons even if that's what the ended up doing. And really that makes all the difference. War changes the way things work on many levels. On a smaller more relatable note, we all know killing people is bad yet in war killing people is what has to be done. Sure it's a bad thing that humans ended up killing all the dragons but they were fighting a goddamn war against giant fire breathing dragons, their choices were very limited.

It would have been nice to see such a thing brought up in the story but really it isn't all that strange that it wasn't. Even if humans were murderous bastards (especially if they were) the fact that no one worries about it is mainly based on the point that it happens 1,000 years ago, which is a very long time for humans. For better or for worse the majority of people don't particularly care about what happened back then. It's in the past, way way back in the past and is only made somewhat relevant during the events of the game. Roy's reaction to the scouring is something like "Oh I heard about that." It's not treated as the only important moment of human history. Aside from that as we all know, history was wrote by the victors and the victors blamed the ending winter on the dragons alone. Probably something they shouldn't have done in terms of morals but something they did do meaning many people aren't all upset a thousand years later that their ancestors killed a few dragons.

As for how the divine generals are glorified, it is in no way surprising. It's pretty clear from Yahn's story that the war went on for a long long time. The divine generals likely weren't the original aggressors of the war, instead they were the ones who put an end to probably decades of war fare bringing peace to the world. Maybe the result of this was unfortunate mass slaughter but nothing suggests they were murderous bastards who wanted all dragons dead. They were probably in all likelihood good people fighting a war to defend themselves. Wasn't Roland even a child (or was he just quite small?). Another one was declared a saint meaning she must have been a pretty good person in the public eye. And we get first hand proof the Hartmut was someone who could be sympathetic to dragons going so far as to spare one of the biggest threats to his species existence. If that's not proof her isn't a genocidal maniac then I don't know what is (excuse my double negative).

And one short final point. While I know this kind of interpretation, I really don't think Yahn was emotionless. He might like to think he is but he comes across to me as very very bitter. He claims to hold no ill will towards humans but does use every chance he can get to berate them. The way I see him is that he desperately wants to believe he doesn't hate humans because his hatred is so great that the thought of hating them would make him too similar to them if that makes any sense.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Jotari

[Sublime Manic]

Actually, it might not be that omniscient; it might be something out of a history book, and history books are written by human authors (who have specific views and biases).

If anybody gives us the clearest view of what the Scouring was really like, it's Athos. I'll take what Athos says about the Scouring over what the opening says about it, since at least we know what Athos' views and biases are.

Then again, nothing that Athos says really contradicts the opening, does it?

If nothing else, he proves that at least one of the Divine Generals was capable of making peace with the dragons centuries after the Scouring. Either the dragons of Arcadia didn't recognize him or they forgave him. Probably the latter, if what Sophia says in FE6, chapter 14x is any indication; she speaks highly of him even though he was one of the Divine Generals.

Then again, Athos did see a need to hide the Arcadians from the outside world.

It hypothetically could be, but I don’t see any particular reason to believe it’s from a book (and if it is from a book, why is it not explicitly presented as such; there wouldn’t be any reason not to since doing so would be a nice framing device). Especially if we look at the entirety of the opening. It’s saying a millennium has passed, which means if it were a history book, it would have to be a book written at the same time the game is taking place. Based on what the rest of the game presents of with, it is rather hard to believe there would be a human author writing the opening in that manner with those particular biases. This is the same world in which Eliwood claims humans shared SOME of the blame of the Scouring after traveling around with a pair of dragons for half the game. If that’s the closest Eliwood gets with exposure to dragons, how is someone presumably without exposure to dragons going to develop those biases in the favor of dragons? What human in the world that’s close to a millennium past the Scouring is going to have those particular biases? Seems rather impossible. That doesn’t mean it explicitly IS impossible, but if that’s the case, then I’d imagine it would most likely be written by someone in Arcadia who would know both dragons, some of which likely participated in the Scouring, and probably know Athos too. In which case their knowledge and presentation of it would be more accurate than just about anything else presented in the game about the Scouring.

If I were to see it as anything other than literally just the game telling us something with authority, it would be more an etiology/mythology story to the game, personally.

As you say, though, nothing Athos tells us disagrees with the opening. So I’m inclined to believe both Athos and the opening.

@bolded: I completely agree. A lot of us seem to be in consensus that the Divine Generals are not bad people/probably very good people.

But why wouldn't it be anything bad at all? Idun was explicitly mentioned to oppose what the dragons fighting the war were doing, and may have been opposed to the humans' and dragons' war on each other from the start. However, she opted to stay behind because of it, fearing it would escalate into conflict. We never get any reasons why she opposed the Dragon/Human War, (Which is one of the things that I didn't like about FE6.), so we can only assume at this point. I mean, did she have some very good human friends before the war. Maybe she thought of doing what Aenir did? (Whether she would know Aenir or not is irrelevant in this case.) Who knows? All we know is she opposed the war, and she was reduced to an empty shell because of her opposition. I mean, how would you feel if you've been forced to do something that you clearly feel is wrong? She might not have died in the literal sense the moment she became a Demon Dragon, but it's arguable that she did die in a way that's more than figuratively.

@bolded: Only if you have Roy finish her off in Endgame, which spares her life. And the reason she's smiling is mainly because her rehabilitation is starting to show signs of success.

Her rehabilitation from what, though? From having her “soul destroyed,” whatever that means? If that’s the case, destroying a soul in the first place doesn’t seem particularly awful since it doesn’t seem to have permanent repercussions. Do dragons’ souls regenerate or grow back or something? Or does it particularly matter whether they have a soul or not, and to what extent if it does matter? We can’t know, but I ask anyway because it raises the point that the moral consequences of her having her soul destroyed also have some ambiguity enshrouding them because of what we can’t know with just what the games present to us. For all we know, the soul of a dragon is not particularly important in the eyes of dragon culture, or the act of destroying one is known not to be a permanent thing, or some such thing. What we do know is that she seems to be “getting better” which means a dragon with their soul destroyed is capable of “getting better” which presumably impacts the moral ramifications of destroying a soul in the first place. That is what I’m most concerned with when I say destroying a dragon’s soul might not be “awful” or bad at all.

Your point about them doing so against her will is more explicitly something you could see as bad, I agree. But if an entire species, or a vast majority of a population sees it as their only hope for winning the war and preserving themselves, it could also arguably be an “ends justifies the means” situation or a “greatest good for the greatest number” type of thing which, while necessarily including some “bad”, might very well be ethically seen as the least bad and completely morally justified.

[Jotari]

Based on what the rest of the game presents of with, it is rather hard to believe there would be a human author writing the opening in that manner with those particular biases.

Zephiel wrote the opening!

[Sublime Manic]

Zephiel wrote the opening!

This actually briefly crossed my mind as I was writing that!

[Tamanoir]

Zephiel wrote the opening!

I said before that I thought the opening is the Dragons' Version of the story.

Since they live longer than dragons, it's more accurate, but means it certainly is really biased.

I could actually see Jahn telling this story to Zephiel !

[Airship Canon]

Opening is the truth.

In game? History is written by the victors. Losers are vilified. That's just the way it is.

[Tamanoir]

Opening is the truth.

In game? History is written by the victors. Losers are vilified. That's just the way it is.

Except we don't know that. We can assume it's a part of the truth, but it isn't the entire story

We know that in game is false, or at least twisted in some way, but nobody know where the opening comes from !

It's told like a legend or old story, so it can elude large parts of the story.

More specifically, it doesn't tell how many times there was between the "peace forged in wisdom" and the beginning of the Scouring

What we know is that dragons have been eliminated completely, but Hartmut and Athos doesn't seems like murderer.

They doesn't seems to have lived during this "peace forged in wisdom".

[Just call me AL]

Her rehabilitation from what, though? From having her “soul destroyed,” whatever that means?

What else do you think I mean?

If that’s the case, destroying a soul in the first place doesn't seem particularly awful since it doesn't seem to have permanent repercussions.

So no sense of of self, no sense of emotion. Possibly reduced to being unable to move at all if her condition happened to worsen? Those aren't "permanent repercussions"? We don't even know how it was done in the first place. If the elders in Arcadia weren't able to do all they could to undo her condition, what are the chances that she would have wound up like Canas's brothers? Seems pretty likely if you ask me.

Do dragons’ souls regenerate or grow back or something?

You could ask the same thing about humans' souls. Granted, we don't know it works, but you can't just assume that the soul restoration thing applies to only Dragons. Going outside of the Elibe FE continuity here, there have been instances in which a character has been able to recover from being an empty shell. And how their conditions were able to be reversed were also given some details. And yes, they were humans.

[spoiler=Outside FE examples]Kairi from Kingdom Hearts, the Zeldas from TLoZ: Twilight Princess and TLoZ: Spirit Tracks, and arguably Cloud Strife from Final Fantasy VII, just to name a few examples. But in their cases, how they became empty shells is explained in their stories. (Kairi's heart is somehow inside Sora's body, relinquishing her abilities to help Midna, separation of body and spirit thanks to Cole, and extreme case of Mako Addiction. All mentioned respectively of course. And they were all respectively restored by returning Kairi's heart to her body, Midna using the Fused Shadows to restore Zelda's condition, regaining her body by exorcising its then current occupant, being given the will to fight off the addiction with Tifa's help.)

With Idun, it's never explained how she was reduced to an empty shell. We only know that it was able to be reversed somehow. And even then, those that managed to reverse the condition didn't even know how successful they were, if they were successful at all. And I bet we don't know the extent of the success ourselves. Believe me when I say that if Elibe is revisited sometime in the future, I would like for both how she became an empty shell and how her recovery goes to be given in-depth detail.

We can’t know, but I ask anyway because it raises the point that the moral consequences of her having her soul destroyed also have some ambiguity enshrouding them because of what we can’t know with just what the games present to us. For all we know, the soul of a dragon is not particularly important in the eyes of dragon culture, or the act of destroying one is known not to be a permanent thing, or some such thing.

Or it could mean that the Dragons fighting the war didn't have much regard for life. Even if it was that of one of their own kind.

What we do know is that she seems to be “getting better” which means a dragon with their soul destroyed is capable of “getting better” which presumably impacts the moral ramifications of destroying a soul in the first place. That is what I’m most concerned with when I say destroying a dragon’s soul might not be “awful” or bad at all.

Aside from the point that other characters were able to recover from being empty shells despite not being dragons, being reduced to such is sometimes considered a fate worse than death. And need I repeat that the Arcadian elders weren't sure of their success?

Your point about them doing so against her will is more explicitly something you could see as bad, I agree. But if an entire species, or a vast majority of a population sees it as their only hope for winning the war and preserving themselves, it could also arguably be an “ends justifies the means” situation or a “greatest good for the greatest number” type of thing which, while necessarily including some “bad”, might very well be ethically seen as the least bad and completely morally justified.

Even so, I cannot imagine the Diving Dragons recommending against turning one of their own into a Demon Dragon for no absolute reason. Wasn't committing such an act a crime against nature anyways?

[Sublime Manic]

What else do you think I mean?

Making sure we were on the same page since it was a necessity for my points that followed. I did follow it up with "If that's the case". And my language was meant to point out that having your soul "destroyed" doesn't seem to be permanent. That being the case, is a soul really "destroyed?"

So no sense of of self, no sense of emotion. Possibly reduced to being unable to move at all if her condition happened to worsen? Those aren't "permanent repercussions"? We don't even know how it was done in the first place. If the elders in Arcadia weren't able to do all they could to undo her condition, what are the chances that she would have wound up like Canas's brothers? Seems pretty likely if you ask me.

No. Apparently they are NOT permanent repercussions, since she gets better. If it can be reversed, that doesn't sound very permanent at all.

You could ask the same thing about humans' souls. Granted, we don't know it works, but you can't just assume that the soul restoration thing applies to only Dragons. Going outside of the Elibe FE continuity here, there have been instances in which a character has been able to recover from being an empty shell. And how their conditions were able to be reversed were also given some details. And yes, they were humans.

You're absolutely right; we can't just assume it only applies to dragons. But the example we're given is with dragons, so they're the primary concern. There's not sufficient evidence one way or the other presented in the game to know whether or not the dragons KNOW a soul can grow back. I suggested it might be different between dragons and humans because Roy knows close to nothing about dragon culture as Yahn makes very clear, so his moral estimations of their actions are dubious to say the least.

Also, if these other instances point out more examples where one gets back their soul after it's been destroyed or some other functional equivalent, that just seems to be more evidence of the repercussions not being permanent, no? Which makes destroying a soul, especially when it might be morally justifiable, all the more acceptable.

With Idun, it's never explained how she was reduced to an empty shell. We only know that it was able to be reversed somehow. And even then, those that managed to reverse the condition didn't even know how successful they were, if they were successful at all. And I bet we don't know the extent of the success ourselves. Believe me when I say that if Elibe is revisited sometime in the future, I would like for both how she became an empty shell and how her recovery goes to be given in-depth detail.

Nothing I disagree with here. As I said earlier, because of all the things we don't know, there's a lot of ambiguity around the actions of the dragons (and the humans).

Or it could mean that the Dragons fighting the war didn't have much regard for life. Even if it was that of one of their own kind.

One life? To save a species? Sounds like a really awesome deal. Sounds like a situation that regards the livelihood of an entire species as having more value than just the life of one of their own. Since the humans started the war, should we say they don't have much regard for life forms that differ from their own? That's a tremendous blanket statement to make.

Aside from the point that other characters were able to recover from being empty shells despite not being dragons, being reduced to such is sometimes considered a fate worse than death. And need I repeat that the Arcadian elders weren't sure of their success?

Well, even supposing her ability to recover is unknown, I see no reason to see it as a fate worse than death. Especially in this example (I can't speak of your others since I'm unfamiliar with them). She doesn't appear to be suffering or in misery the way a lot of "fate worse than death" situations have their victims suffer perpetually (the circumstances in "Eye Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream" make Idoun's situation look downright glamorous by comparison).

Even so, I cannot imagine the Diving Dragons recommending against turning one of their own into a Demon Dragon for no absolute reason. Wasn't committing such an act a crime against nature anyways?

Well, that last point is probably my strongest in justifying the dragons destroying Idoun's soul, honestly. Even supposing destroying Idoun's soul WAS a permanent act and that the dragons knew this when they did it (which is being generous), it could still be validated as an "ends justifies the means" and "greatest good for the greatest number" action. So what if the Divine Dragons were against it? They don't account for the entirety of dragons. And obviously it wasn't for no reason.

Also, please expand on this "crime against nature" point if you could. If nature isn't sentient, I don't see how one can commit a crime against it (and funnily enough, the creation of the Divine Weapons would fit the bill as a more literal "crime against nature" since it directly impacted nature itself, and that was the humans - not the dragons). It's a crime against Idoun, certainly, but one that can be seen as justifiable. Honestly, it's a term I've never liked in arguments and that in my experience usually ties into the persecution of gays for same-sex sexual acts. I'm gay. So-called "crimes against nature" are my bread and butter and something I'll happily endorse.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Sublime Manic

[RJWalker]

It seems that the 8 Generals only appeared at the tail end of a war that had lasted generations. Since that's the only possible way that human's faster reproduction could become an advantage. The 8 Generals were probably raised in a time when all feared and hated the dragons as a fierce war raged. I don't think we can put the entire blame on them.

As for their glorification, that happens in real life as well.

[Jotari]

How clear is it that Idoun is recovering? All I can remember is a picture of her with Fa in Arcadia with a faint smile on her face. I always saw the situation as something like Idoun will gain some form emotion but will never really be the same again.

[GoogleKrom]

This is silly.

We don't know what motivated the start of the Scouring. Ancient history tends to be ambiguous. But we do know that humans spurred the conflict, probably for admittedly selfish reasons, and then were themselves nearly exterminated. Even if we all agree that genocide is bad, we can also agree that fighting to preserve our species is good. Athos himself loves dragons and lived with them for centuries; when he praises the heroes of the Scouring, he's clearly referring to those who fought for man rather than those who kicked off the war for personal gain.

The Elibe games don't condone xenophobia. They tell the tale of a devastating conflict between two species, both very intelligent and with a right to their own survival, where one succeeds and the other is nearly wiped out and forced into exile. Nowhere is this glorified in any way. Eliwood and company oppose Nergal not because they're raging xenophobes and hate dragons; they oppose him because they don't want to see the return of dragons as tools to wipe out civilization.

Why is the opening post so long? And why are there so many long responses? This seems simple to me.

EDIT: I think I've found the problem. I rewatched the opening scroll, and it doesn't mention that humans were on the verge of extinction at some point during the war. I'm pretty sure this is the case, but I may have my Fire Emblems mixed up; someone who's played FE7 more recently, feel free to correct me. Even if this isn't the case, the answer is still very simple: There was a war between humans and dragons. Humans started the war, but whichever species lost the war would be wiped out / exiled. The heroes of the Scouring are those who led the final push against the dragons and defeated them, ensuring the continued survival of the human race. Either way, many were lost on both sides and it was a bloody, tragic conflict. The key point here is that the heroes of the Scouring are heroes because they secured a future for man, not because dragons are horrible and deserve death. The Elibe games go out of their way to make the dragon race sympathetic, and (as mentioned in the OP) Eliwood even apologizes to Ninian about his ancestor's actions. This "glorification" of genocide is illusory. Nowhere is the initial attack on dragons treated as justified, but once things broke loose, both species were in danger of extinction. The heroes made sure the extinct species wasn't humanity. Seems reasonable to call them "heroes" to me.

EDIT 2: At the risk of being a complete hypocrite, I'm going to make this post even longer. Ignore this if you're here for the talk about genocide. I'm just rather puzzled and need to respond to...

Hyuck hyuck hyuck...

This is desperate. You're criticizing FE7 when this topic is about the Elibe games in general, and no one is even talking about Sacred Stones; why bring it up? Better yet, why bring up the other games in the series, EarthBound, and Final Fantasy VII? Why are you trying to downplay the importance of FE7 when this topic clearly isn't about that? Why push this strange agenda instead of staying tangentially on-topic? The point the OP is making is a simple one: that the Elibe games condone or even glorify genocide. They don't. If you want to argue that many Fire Emblem games have simple storylines (and everyone will agree), that's something for another topic.

And not to be rude, but this post is poorly written. One of the worst I've ever come across, actually. You really should work on your overwriting.

Edited January 14, 2013 by GoogleKrom

[BrightBow]

This is silly.

We don't know what motivated the start of the Scouring. Ancient history tends to be ambiguous. But we do know that humans spurred the conflict, probably for admittedly selfish reasons, and then were themselves nearly exterminated. Even if we all agree that genocide is bad, we can also agree that fighting to preserve our species is good. Athos himself loves dragons and lived with them for centuries; when he praises the heroes of the Scouring, he's clearly referring to those who fought for man rather than those who kicked off the war for personal gain.

The Elibe games don't condone xenophobia. They tell the tale of a devastating conflict between two species, both very intelligent and with a right to their own survival, where one succeeds and the other is nearly wiped out and forced into exile. Nowhere is this glorified in any way. Eliwood and company oppose Nergal not because they're raging xenophobes and hate dragons; they oppose him because they don't want to see the return of dragons as tools to wipe out civilization.

Why is the opening post so long? And why are there so many long responses? This seems simple to me.

First of all: There isn't anything that implies that humans were near distinction. More like the opposite. The war went like this:

-Humans attack and kick the dragons ass

-The dragons create the Dark Dragon, which turns the war around.

-The humans "soon found out about the Dark Dragon" and created the Divine Weapons and proceed to kick the dragon's scaly butts.

So it seems like that except for a short timeframe, humans had the dragons on the ropes the whole time. Though admittedly that is nitpicking.

Way more importantly: "fighting to preserve our species" is indeed something I am sympathetic towards. But this game is not. Not when it comes to the dragons.

Read my introduction post again where I elaborated on how the game presents Jahn, a guy who survived a 1000 years buried under rocks after his entire species was exterminated. The game does everything in his power to prevent the player from having any sympathy for him or his species.

And the closest thing we ever get to a critical word to the humans of that time was Eliwoods: "We share some of the blame" line, when the game actually failed to provide any reason that the dragons deserved any blame to begin with. That's not "the tale of a devastating conflict between two species, both very intelligent and with a right to their own survival"

Edited January 14, 2013 by BrightBow

[GoogleKrom]

First of all: There isn't anything that implies that humans were near distinction.

Read the edit.

More like the opposite. The war went like this:

-Humans attack and kick the dragons ass

-The dragons create the Dark Dragon, which turns the war around.

-The humans "soon found out about the Dark Dragon" and created the Divine Weapons and proceed to kick the dragon's scaly butts.

So it seems like that except for a short timeframe, humans had the dragons on the ropes the whole time. Though admittedly that is nitpicking.

I don't disagree with much of this. (Well, saying the humans always had the upper hand and were "kicking ass" is sort of a baseless inference, but that definitely is nitpicking!) Humans definitely started the war, and humans definitely won the war. The text makes this explicit.

Way more importantly: "fighting to preserve our species" is indeed something I am sympathetic towards. But this game is not. Not when it comes to the dragons.

Read my introduction post again where I elaborated on how the game presents Jahn, a guy who survived a 1000 years buried under rocks after his entire species was exterminated. The game does everything in his power to prevent the player from having any sympathy for him or his species.

The bold is true. Jahn is an antagonist. He represents the opposite end of the spectrum: a genuine speciesist who refuses to believe dragons and humans can live in harmony and who would rather see humanity wiped clean from Elibe. That isn't a sympathetic position and the game rightfully doesn't frame it this way.

But as for the species? Ninian. Nils. A glimpse into the civilization beyond the Dragon's Gate. Eliwood's apology. Fire Emblem 7 does quite a bit to show that dragons, like humans, aren't all self-absorbed. Not every dragon is a Jahn. So why claim that " if [FE7] wanted to retcon something, they wasted their opportunity here"? Read this line from "Victory or Death" and tell me the game's narrative hates dragons and condones their genocide:

Nils:

…… OK, I'll tell you. I want you all to know about me and Ninian. A millenium ago… Man chased dragonkind from the land, exiled us. We had no place to go… not on this world. So we used the Dragon's Gate to flee into another world. When we passed through this chasm in space and time, many of us were lost. Still, we endured the journey. We found humans there, too, but they were few in number. We had a few skirmishes, but at last, we found a home. We were stable there, happy, even.

That's clearly sympathetic.

And the closest thing we ever get to a critical word to the humans of that time was Eliwoods: "We share some of the blame" line, when the game actually failed to provide any reason that the dragons deserved any blame to begin with. That's not "the tale of a devastating conflict between two species, both very intelligent and with a right to their own survival"

As I already stated, we don't know the exact details of the original conflict. Humans could have been wronged, or (as I suspect) humans allowed their greed and bloodlust to get the better of them. Either way, once the war began, both species' survival was on the line. The Generals fought and won for man's survival. Is that not a hero's thing to do? At the very least, would that not be remembered- by men- as a hero's tale?

[Jotari]

Nothing suggests the humans were nearly drove to extinction yet nothing suggests the humans in a mad blood lust wanted to kill all of the dragons in the name of a superior race. Let's reflect on the things we know for a fact about the war. Humans struck first. Humans had the upper hand because they could reproduce easier. Dragons created war dragons to increase their number the method of which was debated against with the dragon's society. Humans created divine weapons. Humans won the war yet spared the dragon capable of creating more dragons. That last point alone indicates that not all humans wanted to kill all dragons. Another important point is that humans got the upper hand because they could reproduce easier than dragons which suggests the war lasted a long time by human measurement. The only way a war could last a long time is because neither side would give up. The fact that dragons were drove to extinction means that this was an extremely large scale conflict that lasted a long long time regardless of it's intent. So humans struck first. Maybe they were in the wrong. But when a war lasts so long that birth rates increase to the point were it makes a difference to the fighting population then it doesn't make a difference who's truck first because everyone is fighting for real. We don't get a lot of info about the scouring (and as I say justifiably so as it happened such a long time ago) but from what we do get it seems, at least to me, that it's a lot more likely humans were fighting for survival just as much as dragons were by the end. Certainly seems a lot more likely then the alternatives, which is humans gaining an insane blood lust towards dragons and desired to see them all slaughtered which nothing in the game suggests is the case. The fact that humans struck first does in no way mean they wanted to see the entire dragons population wiped out.