Serge's Pairing Polls Part 2: Elincia!

[Arceus]

I do hope this conversation doesn't end up like the first poll.

It actually makes me sad that every poll I make has to turn into an argument.

Sometimes I think it's my fault.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Arceus

[Jedi]

I do hope this conversation doesn't end up like the first poll.

It actually makes me sad that every poll I make has to turn into an argument.

Sometimes I think it's my fault.

It's not your fault, trust me on that. Shipping especially in tellius gets alot of heat on both sides of arguments.

Ewewewewewewewewewewewewewewewewewewewew. I'm so glad I don't have a little sister.

Congrats on insulting everyone with a little sister, hope you feel good about yourself. Granted what you were quoting was implying the majority of us likes incest [which isn't true in the slightest]

[Momentai~]

We need more mutual understanding in this thread D:

maybe some hugs too?

Also crack pairings:

Elincia and Soren find comfort in each other after Ike runs off with Geoffrey/Lucia/Aimee or something.

Discuss.

[Alabaster]

I kinda ship Elincia x Tibarn, but out of these two... Geoff x Elincia lol °-°

[Narga_Rocks]

I do hope this conversation doesn't end up like the first poll.

It actually makes me sad that every poll I make has to turn into an argument.

Sometimes I think it's my fault.

It's not your fault. Your responsibility is non-zero since you made the poll in the first place, but we are talking about such an insignificant value that one could hardly call it your fault at all. It's mostly my fault maybe, since I probably could have just let everybody bash Ana for a couple posts and that would've been the end of it in like a page.

Also, am I the only one that enjoys a good argument once in a while?

Anyway, it's pretty interesting that someone out there actually likes the pairing enough to draw Elincia x Soren.

[PresidentEden]

Could not care less about the actual spat b/t Anacybele and Sal, I was just backing what I felt was a correct interpretation on the part of Integrity of a running subthread in the conversation. It was an offhand comment and probably not meritorious of the side discussion.

As for G and E, they weren't raised as siblings, fine, however they were apparently all raised in the same house or whatever. At least it seems that way. In fe9 Elincia appears to think of Geoffrey and Lucia more as siblings.

They weren't raised in the same house. Elincia made it clear that she was raised in a country villa somewhere away from court. Meanwhile Geoffrey was being raised at court to become a count (or duke, I don't recall of which he's the son), a general and the commander of the Crimean knights, and Lucia was being raised at court to become a lady of the court (and apparently elected to pick up swordsmanship on the side; dubious, granted, but that's standard fare in the Fire Emblem franchise, so not that dubious). This is not incest; they were neither biological siblings nor raised as siblings. Raised as good friends, absolutely, that's clear from the text, and you can question the pairing's validity on other grounds all you like, but let's call a spade a spade -- or in this case, a not-spade a not-spade. It's not an incestuous pairing.

Frankly I applaud her consistency and bravery in stating such opinion when it is so looked down on here and disapprove of Integ's double-standard, but that's just me.

Laying on the white-knighting a little thick, huh? If we presume that tolerance of these relationships is a good thing (a presumption that I'm going to make, and consider not a big leap), then it would be silly to applaud being consistently "bad" on something because it's consistently so, and would be more sensible to defend a so-called "double" standard for at least getting it right half the time, while working to change the other half. (Then again, it's also important to note that it isn't a double standard at all. He never commented on incest, simply observed a consequential implication about homosexuality during the discussion. If you don't want people getting on Anacybele's case for observing that gay/lesbian and incestuous relationships are popular here then it's downright fallacious and hypocritical to do the same when Integrity makes a similar observation.)

[Narga_Rocks]

They weren't raised in the same house. Elincia made it clear that she was raised in a country villa somewhere away from court. Meanwhile Geoffrey was being raised at court to become a count (or duke, I don't recall of which he's the son), a general and the commander of the Crimean knights, and Lucia was being raised at court to become a lady of the court (and apparently elected to pick up swordsmanship on the side; dubious, granted, but that's standard fare in the Fire Emblem franchise, so not that dubious). This is not incest; they were neither biological siblings nor raised as siblings. Raised as good friends, absolutely, that's clear from the text, and you can question the pairing's validity on other grounds all you like, but let's call a spade a spade -- or in this case, a not-spade a not-spade. It's not an incestuous pairing.

Well of course once he got old enough he went off and she didn't see him for a while. You don't train to be a knight in a country villa. But didn't they grow up together? According to the westermarck effect (right or wrong), the ages from 0 to 6 are the most important for that. I can't be bothered to look through the script of the game so I'll admit I could be remembering wrong, but I thought they were all raised together?

Laying on the white-knighting a little thick, huh? If we presume that tolerance of these relationships is a good thing (a presumption that I'm going to make, and consider not a big leap), then it would be silly to applaud being consistently "bad" on something because it's consistently so, and would be more sensible to defend a so-called "double" standard for at least getting it right half the time, while working to change the other half. (Then again, it's also important to note that it isn't a double standard at all. He never commented on incest, simply observed a consequential implication about homosexuality during the discussion. If you don't want people getting on Anacybele's case for observing that gay/lesbian and incestuous relationships are popular here then it's downright fallacious and hypocritical to do the same when Integrity makes a similar observation.)

What?

i like the implication that homosexuality is as morally repugnant as incest

Tell me I'm interpreting it wrong, then. I read that as Integ suggesting that incest is morally repugnant and that Ana dumping the two in the same barrel is bad because she's therefore implying that homosexuality is morally repugnant.

As for the first part of what you said here, frankly I don't care if someone suggests a lifestyle that doesn't hurt others is good or bad. As long as they don't have the power to do something to prevent the lifestyle, or if they have the power they choose not to exercise it, I applaud consistent opinions and I applaud bravery in voicing them. Am I wrong to do so? Maybe, but I believe that free discussion of ideas, whether we agree or not with those ideas, can only be a good thing. How else do we discuss our opinions without fear of getting attacked for them? Harping on people for their opinions will instantly get me harping on the harper.

[Shotguner159]

Well of course once he got old enough he went off and she didn't see him for a while. You don't train to be a knight in a country villa. But didn't they grow up together? According to the westermarck effect (right or wrong), the ages from 0 to 6 are the most important for that. I can't be bothered to look through the script of the game so I'll admit I could be remembering wrong, but I thought they were all raised together?

In his A support with Calill, Geoffrey mentions chasing Lucia and Elincia around a villa.

[PresidentEden]

Tell me I'm interpreting it wrong, then. I read that as Integ suggesting that incest is morally repugnant and that Ana dumping the two in the same barrel is bad because she's therefore implying that homosexuality is morally repugnant.

'Fraid so. It's an observation of the conversation; the two were arguing over whether the pairing was incestuous, and both were coming from the position that incest is repugnant, and in the process homosexuality got thrown in with it... implying that homosexuality is as repugnant as incest. It's a humorous observation because of the distinct difference in opinion a lot of people have on their views of the two subjects. But that's all it is... an observation.

As for the first part of what you said here, frankly I don't care if someone suggests a lifestyle that doesn't hurt others is good or bad. As long as they don't have the power to do something to prevent the lifestyle, or if they have the power they choose not to exercise it, I applaud consistent opinions and I applaud bravery in voicing them. Am I wrong to do so?

From a logical standpoint, certainly. Consistency and bravery are naught but descriptors, no more meritorious than color or texture. It is the ideas behind those descriptors that make those descriptors worthy of praise or censure. Say for instance that I believed all children were evil and decided to go kill children to prove it. Incidentally I accidentally impregnate a woman, she bears my children and I kill them. Would you praise my consistent application of my kill-all-children ideology, and my bravery in sticking to those principles despite the heightened censure that would arise from killing my own children? If not, the point is made. If so, I'm afraid we're coming from drastically different and likely irreconcilable perspectives on the matter.

Maybe, but I believe that free discussion of ideas, whether we agree or not with those ideas, can only be a good thing. How else do we discuss our opinions without fear of getting attacked for them? Harping on people for their opinions will instantly get me harping on the harper.

Do you not see the innate contradiction in these sentences? How can one have "free discussion of ideas" with a white knight flying around threatening (and carrying out the threat) to attack people for expressing dissent? In this case there wasn't even an expression of dissent, merely an observation, which apparently sufficed to activate your judgment -- how is that free discussion? You're defeating your own end with your methodology.

EDIT: oh lol forgot the pertinent-to-topic part

Well of course once he got old enough he went off and she didn't see him for a while. You don't train to be a knight in a country villa. But didn't they grow up together? According to the westermarck effect (right or wrong), the ages from 0 to 6 are the most important for that. I can't be bothered to look through the script of the game so I'll admit I could be remembering wrong, but I thought they were all raised together?

I don't think the game explicitly says one way or another if they were ever actually raised together as siblings. That's really the only thing that would prove it's incestuous in nature, too. And it would explicitly have to be as siblings; if Elincia had said at some point that she regards Geoffrey as "like a brother to her," then all that means is the poor sap has no chance. (She never says that to my knowledge, to be clear, I'm just highlighting specifically what would constitute proof.) I'm just not seeing the textual evidence that indicates it's incestuous.

Edited April 5, 2013 by PresidentEden

[Narga_Rocks]

'Fraid so. It's an observation of the conversation; the two were arguing over whether the pairing was incestuous, and both were coming from the position that incest is repugnant, and in the process homosexuality got thrown in with it... implying that homosexuality is as repugnant as incest. It's a humorous observation because of the distinct difference in opinion a lot of people have on their views of the two subjects. But that's all it is... an observation.

Based on my experience with Integ, pretty sure you are wrong here, but he's not talking to me anymore so I don't expect him to come in and state unequivocally that he detests incest and believes it to be morally repugnant. I will grant that it is possible, although unlikely, that you are right and he doesn't find it morally repugnant?

From a logical standpoint, certainly. Consistency and bravery are naught but descriptors, no more meritorious than color or texture. It is the ideas behind those descriptors that make those descriptors worthy of praise or censure. Say for instance that I believed all children were evil and decided to go kill children to prove it. Incidentally I accidentally impregnate a woman, she bears my children and I kill them. Would you praise my consistent application of my kill-all-children ideology, and my bravery in sticking to those principles despite the heightened censure that would arise from killing my own children? If not, the point is made. If so, I'm afraid we're coming from drastically different and likely irreconcilable perspectives on the matter.

How does this example meet my requirements of "a lifestyle that doesn't hurt others?" But let's say it did. I'm kinda nuts but I actually do say "well, at least he's consistent. Still want him to rot in jail, but at least he's consistent. I can't hold inconsistency against him."

edit: oh, missed some of what you said. The bravery isn't for being consistent, the bravery is for stating an unpopular opinion in a way that doesn't advocate for actions that I already stated would be bad. Oh, and I got mixed up in what I said, so I need to fix it. I said opinions and stating opinions, not actually doing crap. So basically, if you want to run around saying "child killing is a good lifestyle" and then you said "even my own children" this wouldn't qualify, because I said "a lifestyle that doesn't hurt others" so obviously stating an uncommon opinion about that kind of lifestyle is bad. And if you want to talk about actually doing it, that also doesn't apply because again, I was talking about stating unpopular opinions, not doing crap.

Do you not see the innate contradiction in these sentences? How can one have "free discussion of ideas" with a white knight flying around threatening (and carrying out the threat) to attack people for expressing dissent? In this case there wasn't even an expression of dissent, merely an observation, which apparently sufficed to activate your judgment -- how is that free discussion? You're defeating your own end with your methodology.

But I don't think so. I don't like mocking for opinions. I have no problem with him saying, well Ana, I disagree with you on that one for these reasons but kumbaya let's get along anyway. But everyone, as near as I can tell, basically said "oh look at Ana and her horrible opinion let's burn her at the stake" and I don't like that. Granted fighting fire with fire is clearly not the best solution, but it's certainly more fun than just coming in and saying "hey let's be nice to someone who has a different opinion instead of hounding her."

edit3: To put fighting fire with fire another way, if you come up and see 5 people beating someone with sticks, do you

a: ask them nicely to stop

b: pick up a stick and start beating those 5 people

c: pick up a gun and start shooting those 5 people

d: turn around and quietly walk away hoping that the 5 people don't decide to start beating you too

e: other, something you can fill in yourself

Now, I pretty much chose b, or c depending on your opinion. Unfortunately, I'm like that for some reason.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[Florete]

Holy shit @ this topic. Like wow, people. Wow.

I'll not pretend Ana said what she did in the smartest way possible, but some of you took her words way too personally. I mean, when did she even imply that there's anything morally wrong with incest or homosexuality in the first place? She just said it's not her taste. See:

1. I said BORDERLINE incest, not that it absolutely WAS incest. Meaning, it's not incest exactly, but it's very close and way too close for my tastes.

And she's explained that she didn't mean to say that everyone likes homosexuality and incest on this forum. While she might not be right that a majority of the users like it, she's probably right that there is a greater ratio for it here than in most places.

Anyway, my vote here would sooner be Elincia x Lucia before anything else, and that's homosexuality and - according to Ana - borderline incest. But of the options, I'm for Elincia x Ike.

[shadykid]

well this thread went downhill faster than Ike x Elincia after FE9

inb4 a certain someone shows up

nope

did not see this derail coming at all, totally shocked

e:

Anyway, my vote here would sooner be Elincia x Lucia before anything else

psst

let's sneak in that option on the poll and have it beat both

Edited April 5, 2013 by shadykid

[Narga_Rocks]

We can just change the options to say Elincia x Lucia and Elincia x Soren.

Or it would be funny to swap the options.

[PresidentEden]

Based on my experience with Integ, pretty sure you are wrong here, but he's not talking to me anymore so I don't expect him to come in and state unequivocally that he detests incest and believes it to be morally repugnant. I will grant that it is possible, although unlikely, that you are right and he doesn't find it morally repugnant?

I'm relatively new here, so I'd defer to your greater share of experience on the matter, but I have actually discussed this with him elsewhere, in another thread... I want to say, even, that you participated? I could be misremembering. Anyway, I recall him being opposed to more homosexual/incestuous pairings than the average poster here, but not on the grounds that they were homosexual or incestuous -- rather, on the grounds that they were poorly supported (if supported at all) by story context. I don't know his views on the matter and I'm not going to speculate any further than I have here, but I've never seen an explicit statement on the matter from him, and this observation in this thread, in any case, most certainly doesn't qualify.

child-killing thought experiment

Notice that you've said that you applaud bravery and consistency in expressing and defending viewpoints that cause no harm to others. You're not actually praising bravery and consistency on their own, just in context of something else. (Which is the logical thing to do, and forgive me if this distinction seems unnecessarily tedious, but I do consider it an important one to make, because it's easy to get carried away with praising consistency to principle without first checking that the principle itself is worth praising.) If you want to praise someone for expressing a popular but not harmful opinion, then that's fine, provided that...

Granted fighting fire with fire is clearly not the best solution, but it's certainly more fun than just coming in and saying "hey let's be nice to someone who has a different opinion instead of hounding her."

...you're not also bashing people who make an observation you don't like, and do so for fun.

sticks parallel

Your analogy is faulty to a degree. For one, I only saw Sal actually giving Ana shit for what she said. Integrity made an observation and a couple of people troll-voted or laughed at the situation, but it was two people arguing, not some kind of gang-up mob. More importantly, though, I think the better way to approach the situation would be to try (a), and when that fails, and fighting fire with fire is the only remaining option, then you do it. From the sounds of your post you seem to prefer skipping (a) because it's more enjoyable to you. It's... puzzling, because your previous posts seem to indicate a desire to put the fires out, whereas this one almost seems to imply you like piling onto the fire with your own.

In any case this seems to be dying down, and perhaps it ought. I don't really have anything to add beyond what's been said to this point.

[Renne]

I'll not pretend Ana said what she did in the smartest way possible, but some of you took her words way too personally. I mean, when did she even imply that there's anything morally wrong with incest or homosexuality in the first place? She just said it's not her taste. See:

And she's explained that she didn't mean to say that everyone likes homosexuality and incest on this forum. While she might not be right that a majority of the users like it, she's probably right that there is a greater ratio for it here than in most places.

Totally this here.

Just wanted to add that before adding my own opinions. I personally didn't find myself liking Ike/Elincia in either FE9 or 10 but that might be because I don't really like damsels in distress types so Elincia annoyed me during the start of when she entered the game / army. I liked her more in FE10 perhaps because I can control her more and she wasn't so helpless. Maybe she had a small crush on Ike, but eh, I still can't say I pair those up. So for the options, I voted for Geoffrey/Elincia and because they knew each other more.

As for that whole argument.... all I can say is... well, what I just quoted in the first part of my post.

[Anacybele]

...Wow. Just wow. Did my comment REALLY result in three pages of arguing over it? I realize I probably could've worded what I said better, but I meant no harm to anyone at all.

Also, this kind of gave me deja vu. Last time there was an argument in involving me and the IkexElincia pairing, Narga came to my defense, just as he did here. lol But I thank him deeply. He's a cool dude. :)

Edited April 7, 2013 by Anacybele

[Draith]

Ike X Elincia all the way!

There was definately a hint at them liking each other in PoR, even though it kind of dissapeared in RD.

Also, Ike is a lot cooler then Geoffrey.

[Anacybele]

Ike X Elincia all the way!

There was definately a hint at them liking each other in PoR, even though it kind of dissapeared in RD.

Also, Ike is a lot cooler then Geoffrey.

I agree with this whole post, pretty much. I always found Geoffrey to be rather boring, nothing special, even before I began liking IkexElincia as much as I do. And when I played FE7, I thought he was too much like Kent. Both become the generals of their knights, are able to marry the princess of their region, and have the generic chivalrous knight nature. They also are good friends with their sub-commanders, who happen to be the "red knights" of the games. Sain in Kent's case, Kieran in Geoffrey's. Sain has green armor, yes, but his other traits are those of red knights. He and Kent are the reverse of the traditional red/green knight duo. The only reason I give Kent more points than Geoffrey is the CG in FE7 where he's facepalming at Sain, cause it's hilarious. lol

But I've fairly recently made myself like Geoffrey more because of how I've written him in fanfics. He's so fun to improvise and give more interesting characteristics to make him cooler and more interesting (like despite his strive to be a real man and tough leader, there's still a little boy in there somewhere and he even still has his favorite childhood toy, lol. I'm not trying to make him seem immature, just give him a less two dimensional character). x3

[Silver Lightning]

Yeah, I prefer Ike and Elincia, no matter what RD says; they are too sweet to get retconned. :)

...And that's why I ship Geoffrey with Nephenee. My two best lancers! *gets shot for non canon*

[Anacybele]

I'd have paired Geoffrey with Nephy in my writing, but she wouldn't have fit with the ideas I came up with. So I'm giving our blue-haired knight general an OC that's based on Elincia. Also as compensation for Elincia herself not being paired with him. See, even though I loathe her being romantically involved with Geoffrey, I'm still trying to be kind towards any readers that do like the pairing. And I don't think Geoffrey deserves to remain alone. He may be boring in-game, but he'd certainly be a good husband and any girl would be lucky to win his heart.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Anacybele

[Silver Lightning]

Haha, I know! I have this really bad habit of wanting to pair the spares, so I end up coming up with lots of OC's or pairing them with no-where-near canonical people. You should see all the ones I came up with for my RD second gen fanstory (of course, a lot of them are needed if I want to have much of a second gen, since Tellius has very few definitive paired endings, and a good 2/3 of them I don't even like anyways).

As for Geof/Neph, I just happened to read a random fanfic from a friend one day about those two; they struck me as really sweet and believable in the context (Geoffrey and Nephenee's mutual friend Calill was matchmaking them together in rather hilarious ways) so I haven't looked back since. And I agree, Geoffrey should have someone since I like him, even if he does come off as a little bland, which is a problem I have with knight characters...but enough topic derailing, I suppose.... XD

[Anacybele]

Haha, I don't like many of RD's possible paired endings either. In fact, the only ones I like at all are HaarxJill and NaesalaxLeanne. Screw the others. I'm not counting Ike and Ranulf/Soren because they obviously aren't romantic. And even then, I prefer the Ranulf version because I love Ranulf and I also dislike Soren. xP

lol, that fic DOES seem believable! I've seen Geoffrey and Nephenee shipped a lot, actually, despite that they don't interact. I've also seen him shipped with Callil quite a bit. She's who I would prefer for him, actually, if not for Largo. >.>

I've discovered though, that you have to be very careful at times when looking for fics that have your preferred pairings. And I found out the hard way. I saw this fic on FF.net called Rejection, and the pairings listed were IkexElincia and IkexMia. I figured "oh, interesting, either Ike will reject Mia for Elincia or Elincia for Mia." Obviously, I hoped for the former. I read the story, but I discovered that that listing of pairings was terribly misleading. It turned out that Ike wasn't rejecting anyone. Rather, he was the one BEING rejected. By Elincia. For Geoffrey. And she basically just went "oh sorry, I'm in love with Duke Delbray. Why not date Mia?" I felt like I was stabbed in the gut AND Elincia was very out of character. And it was just terribly written overall (This isn't bias either. I've found real IkexElincia fics that were badly written too). GeoffreyxElincia and IkexMia are my least favorite Tellius pairings (besides homosexual ones, which I am not into at all). And the former wasn't mentioned in this fic's description at all.

Of course, I'm long over it, as it's silly to get worked up over a single fic, especially if the writing was bad. But I was still very shocked and disappointed in how misleading the description was.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Anacybele

[Kon]

Personally, I really liked all of the pairings in RD, even Astrid X Makalov. :D Although, it would have been really nice if they had added in at least a few more endings for pairings like Laura X Aran. I was a bit miffed when they didn't get an ending together. :c

Oh, and I guess I can throw in the opinion of my brother in-law. He prefers Ike X Elincia, 'cause the hero should always get the girl, but he doesn't mind Geoffrey X Elincia.

[Anacybele]

Yeah, AranxLaura was cute. D:

I was disappointed Kieran couldn't marry Marcia as well.

And why was Gatrie forever alone? Poor guy, he would've been cute with Astrid, imo.

I really did not fancy a lot of RD's endings, to be honest. I would've preferred multiple options for several characters like in the GBA games. This way, pretty much everyone would've been happy.

[phokingbeast]

elincia and ike