How does one become a Black Knight?

[FE Apprentice]

In Radiant Dawn all the knights ride a horse except the black knight, so why doesnt he have a horse? Is he the black knight because he cant ride a horse and they made him the black knight as like a mark of shame? I mean how could he have been one of the four riders of Daien if he doesnt ride anything? Oh well im just messing around so hopefully some hardcore black knight fans dont hunt me down and lob off my head but i think it would be funny to hear some peoples' ideas on this.

[uguu]

In Fire Emblem armored units were originally simply called Knights (this was kept for the first 3 American Fire Emblems IIRC) and brown horsy units were called Social Knights (This was changed to Cavaliers for the first 3 American Fire Emblems IIRC) So yeah, that's how he became a Knight.

[bgf]

Is he the black knight because he cant ride a horse and they made him the black knight as like a mark of shame? I mean how could he have been one of the four riders of Daien if he doesnt ride anything?

Same goes for Tauroneo. Maybe that's the reason he got sacked. :P

Then again, Bryce didn't ride a horse either. Not 100% certain on Gawain but most likely the same case.

Maybe the BK should be renamed to Black General/Marshall.

[鳴美]

In Fire Emblem armored units were originally simply called Knights (this was kept for the first 3 American Fire Emblems IIRC) and brown horsy units were called Social Knights (This was changed to Cavaliers for the first 3 American Fire Emblems IIRC) So yeah, that's how he became a Knight.

You liar. Socials were called simply 'Knights' in FE2, and Armours were always Armourknights/Armours/(weapon) Armours in Japan.

[uguu]

You liar. Socials were called simply 'Knights' in FE2, and Armours were always Armourknights/Armours/(weapon) Armours in Japan.

I said IIRC. If I Remember Correctly. You're lying about me lying. <_<

[Weisspraline]

I think it's explained in RD.

I think it said the reason the Black Knight got his name is because he always wore his black armor; and he always wore his black armor because he didn't want people to notice how slowly he ages, because he's a branded. So I think they just coined the name 'Black Knight' for him, as no one really saw him without his armor.

[Camus The Dark Knight]

Armors and Knights are both "Knight" classes. Their original names are social knight and armor knight, or "insert weapon they use knight" (arch knights that used bows could be an exception as well as free knights who were not "standard" knights). The Dark Knight was originally a general, which is a "knight" class, changing it to "Dark/Black Knight" just made it sound more unique.

And I mean come on, does any other type of warrior wear that much armor other then knights (Accept barons and emperors, but in a sense they are like lead knights)?

And quite obviously nobody save a certain few know who he is, so it's only natural he would gain the title of dark knight since his armor is all black.

[CGV]

cuz the BK is too huge with all that armor. No horse in the world could run with him on

[Allan's Aokage]

You become a Black Knight by mamboing on top of a flagpole.

[Wist]

The Black Knight is capable of warping to different locations instantaneously. The only use he would have for a horse would thus be in battle; however, because of the nature of his armor as well as his inherent strength, riding a horse would likely prove a hindrance. Any steed or vehicle would likely be the most suitable target for any assailant of the Black Knight because it would not be as well protected as its rider. Felling the horse would fell the Black Knight. This defeats the purpose of his donning impenetrable armor in that, by riding a horse, he would be creating an unnecessary vulnerability.

I do not, however, believe the aforementioned reasoning to be the most likely justification for the Black Knight lacking a mount in regard to the game’s writers. Leaving the Black Knight without a horse makes him a more suitable active antagonist for Ike who also does not ride a horse. Ike has no relation to the nobility or any formal army whilst most characters with their own mount share one or both of these relations. The Black Knight also lacks a direct relation to both the nobility and any formal army in that he does little in the way of active combat alongside other troops, at least whilst under the guise of the Black Knight. This gives both Ike and the Black Knight a more equal footing in terms of their relations to society, even if only on a superficial level.

While Ashnard is the final boss of Path of Radiance, the Black Knight is clearly intended to be the primary antagonist for the major duration of the game. The cinematic which plays upon the completion of chapter seven does much to evidence this possibility. Much like Zephiel in Fire Emblem 6, Nergal in Fire Emblem 7, and Lyon in Sacred Stones, the primary antagonist of Path of Radiance was most probably intended to be seen as a human with no reliance on any other person or animal. This trait, which one might tentatively consider to be an archetype, not only makes the character in question more relatable but it is also more likely to provoke an emotional reaction separate from that of triumph. This makes the story feel stronger and more engaging while still allowing a more epic endgame battle, or so the game creators would likely hope (Idoun is not a very impressive final boss aside from her appearance).

This is, of course, entirely speculatory on my part. It is entirely possible that the Black Knight’s lack of a mount is of no symbolic importance of all, but I have presented my perspective on the matter. This point of view is based off of similarities among the Fire Emblem games as well as games of other series.

[Weisspraline]

Wist, you are amazing. I really envy you- I wish I could anylize things like that, but I'd need a lot of pushing in the right direction before I got there. I'd have to say I agree with about 95% of everything you said, but I still think the Burger King isn't a class, but a title that

Zelguis received because of his blessed armor/sword.

I give you mad props, Wist. Very nice.

[CGV]

yeah same here. i can never expand on my posts. i type 20 words and run out of ideas. kinda like this one right here

[FE Apprentice]

Oh yeah speaking about that warping of the Black Knight how does he do that?

[Fireman]

Oh yeah speaking about that warping of the Black Knight how does he do that?

Warp powder, duh.

[Camus The Dark Knight]

Villains have always been the main antagonists rather then the boss (accept maybe Garnef and Medeus, although Garnef does appear more, not sure about Judah from FE2, since I don't know the story well). Also the Villains are harder bosses most of the time.

Garnef=Medeus

Hardin>Medeus (Even though it was Medeus)

Alvis>Julius

Leidrick>Beldo

Zephiel>Idoun

Nergal>Dragon

Lyon>Demon King

Dark Knight>Ashnard

I am not sure what FE10s villain is supposed to be, I thought Sephiran fits the bill (40 in nearly every stat, boss just before the game boss, the guy plotting everything, personal weapon and battle music, etc.). But there are other possible candidates. Sephiran is easier then Ashera though.

[Wist]

I agree. Fire Emblem's final bosses seem to be less challenging, but more decorated and visually impressive, than each game's villain. I will admit, however, that I am not very familiar with the first three Fire Emblems. It appears that your experience helps to confirm the legitimacy of the aforementioned trend.

Fire Emblem 10 is more difficult to meld into this observation because the overall story is much more disjointed than the stories of its predecessors. The villains for the first two parts of Fire Emblem 10 are easily identifiable but defining a single primary villain is much more difficult further into the game. I think that Fire Emblem might not quite fit into this trend because of the manner in which its storyline is presented. Sephiran is only once or twice mentioned during the first half of the game (if I remember correctly) although, as you say he is eventually revealed to be the most important catalyst to the most important events of the story

via both his relations with the Black Knight and his involvement with awakening Ashera

. Conflict with the Black Knight is shown early on as evidenced by his dialogs with Sothe but, in this game, there is little to define the Black Knight as an evil character aside from his history from Fire Emblem 9.

I am off to bed, I will give this matter a little thought tomorrow because it had not previously crossed my mind. I would be interested to learn if you have any further speculations or observations. I had erstwhile, probably in error, not even thought to consider Sephiran as a villain due to his late introduction.