There has to be something Morally Wrong/Odd about siding with Hoshido

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

Emmeryn was a screwup anyway.

yeah pretty much

[Saladus]

It's even worse when you consider how she gets propped up as a saint while Gangrel and Walhart are set as jerkfaces to be beaten down then later recruited with The Real Superpower Of Teamwork.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Saladus

[NekoKnight]

It's even worse when you consider how she gets propped up as a saint.

Why was she a screwup? She dedicated her life to revitalizing the reputation of a previously warmongering nation. Then she sacrificed herself to end a war sooner. Is that not saintly?

[Buttocksinator]

This plot premise sounds like choosing to play as Crimea (defending itself from Daein) or the Apostle faction of Begnion. You'll be playing as the good guys either way.

Um, deaths in the peaceful nation will be the fault of the aggressor nation. When you're being invaded, it's fight or die. Forgive me for the lazy analogy but was France just as bad as Nazi Germany for defending themselves against invasion? I think politics and motivations do matter...

Yes, and the deaths in the aggressor nation would be the fault of the defending nation. I didn't say that Hoshida was wrong to fight back against their invaders, I said they weren't necessarily right to do so. Regardless of which cause is right, many will die simply because of loyalty, fear of punishment, fear of losing their way of life etc. Yes, Nohrs leader is a power hungry asshole, yes, Hitler was a power hungry asshole. I still wouldn't say it was "right" to kill a Nohrian or German soldier who is simply doing what his country expects of him. I'm not saying that Nohrs conquest is justified, but not everyone in the country follows his power hungry way of thinking. The leaders of the countries are not the ones fighting and dying, it's their respective citizens. That is why I say that the motives behind the conflict are irrelevant.

Also, I'm not sure why you're speculating that Emmeryn would stand by and do nothing if Ylisse were invaded, because Ylisse WAS invaded, then they repelled the invaders and mobilized their army to topple the leader of the nation that attacked them.

No, Chrom did that, not Emmeryn. Chrom says himself that she would never order Gangrel killed, and clearly killing Gangrel was the only way to stop Plegia since he was a bloodthirsty asshole. As I recall the game opens up with Chrom and friends defending a village from a group of Plegian bandits, for whatever reason Emmeryn never adresses or responds to these Plegian attacks. That's the problem with having a pacifistic ruler, she just stands by while everyone else steps all over the country, Chrom even points this out;

Chrom: She IS peace. But some men would take advantage of that. Men like King Gangrel.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Buttocksinator

[Saladus]

>Runs into a trap after a bunch of Pegasus Knights were wiped out.

Anything else? And her ''sacrifice'' actually working was poor writing.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Saladus

[Book of Ereshkigal]

I don't have a problem with characters being idiots, I do have a problem with a story showing the idiot's stupid actions resulting in good things like they weren't stupid, I don't really see why Emmeryn jumped off a cliff inspired Plegians to surrender. Like... what meaning would some plegian soldiers would get from their enemy queen jumping off a cliff?

Edited April 13, 2015 by L95

[Espella]

Why was she a screwup? She dedicated her life to revitalizing the reputation of a previously warmongering nation. Then she sacrificed herself to end a war sooner. Is that not saintly?

She's a terrible wartime leader. What kind of idiot says "Okay so our most hated enemies are setting up an extremely obvious trap, let me just walk right into it with no gaurds and get captured so they can easily see how completely defenseless PEACEFUL we are!"

It's a bad sign when the best decision she could possibly make (also the only thing she ever did to influence the war) was to throw herself off a cliff. Hell, even if it didn't somehow magically motivate the Plegians to stop fighting, the fact that it put Chrom in charge who is sometimes competent to actually attack people is a benefit in of itself. Emmeryn was a detriment to her country.

It's been a while since I've played Radiant Dawn, but I'm pretty sure Emmeryn's pacifist attitude is the same attitude Elincia had, and everyone hated her for it and she learned that you can't accomplish anything thinking like that.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Espella

[NekoKnight]

No, Chrom did that, not Emmeryn. Chrom says himself that she would never order Gangrel killed, and clearly killing Gangrel was the only way to stop Plegia since he was a bloodthirsty asshole. As I recall the game opens up with Chrom and friends defending a village from a group of Plegian bandits, for whatever reason Emmeryn never adresses or responds to these Plegian attacks. That's the problem with having a pacifistic ruler, she just stands by while everyone else steps all over the country, Chrom even points this out;

Chrom: She IS peace. But some men would take advantage of that. Men like King Gangrel.

Chrom thought highly of his sister because of her saintly qualities, not in spite of them. Yes, he believes that she was being too soft in the context of fighting a war but he deeply respects her. I'm not saying there is nothing to criticize about Emmeryn but the story and characters explain that she did a lot of good for the country. Do people criticize Jesus because he knew he was going to be betrayed but let it happen anyway and got killed? It's a messianic character archetype.

She's a terrible wartime leader.

Like the above quote from Chrom shows, this is an intentional part of the story. Emmeryn is a peaceful saint/martyr archetype to balance out Chrom's realism. Emmeryn is great for peace, and Chrom is more suited for dealing with war. What Chrom said could be restated as "Emmeryn is the hero Ylisse deserves, but not the one it needs right now."

Edited April 13, 2015 by NekoKnight

[FrostyFireMage]

We are all forgetting that Awakening is set in a magical idealistic dimension where the rules of logic do not exist.

[Buttocksinator]

Chrom thought highly of his sister because of her saintly qualities, not in spite of them. Yes, he believes that she was being too soft in the context of fighting a war but he deeply respects her. I'm not saying there is nothing to criticize about Emmeryn but the story and characters explain that she did a lot of good for the country. Do people criticize Jesus because he knew he was going to be betrayed but let it happen anyway and got killed? It's a messianic character archetype.

I can respect a mentality without agreeing with it. Pacificism is great in theory, but there are people in the world far to ignorant to just leave each other alone, sometimes using force is the justified solution. Like if a kid is getting bullied and you beat his ass. Usually a good ass-whooping is the only cure for ignorance. You won't get anything from a bully by telling him you don't appreciate being shoved in a locker or verbally abused, but if you shove your foot in his ass he will get the message and hopefully even wake up and stop being such an asshole.

She did do one thing right I guess, she got the people of Ylisse to stop hating the government, just like Hitler. But then she got a lot of her own people killed, just like Hitler. Just replace "concentration camps" with "Plegian bandits that Emmeryn doesn't think are serious enough of a problem to really do anything about". Seriously, if she gave a damn about homeland security Plegia wouldn't have such an easy time getting far enough into Ylisse to start burning down villages.

I don't see the connection you're making with jesus either, were not talking about when Emmeryn killed herself, were talking about her refusal to take action against the country that is actively attacking her people. That's not messianic, that's cowardly.

The statement I made in my original post was meant to be a joke, not to completely derail this thread, so sorry about that.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Buttocksinator

[Dark Holy Elf]

I can respect a mentality without agreeing with it. Pacificism is great in theory, but there are people in the world far to ignorant to just leave each other alone, sometimes using force is the justified solution. Like if a kid is getting bullied and you beat his ass. Usually a good ass-whooping is the only cure for ignorance. You won't get anything from a bully by telling him you don't appreciate being shoved in a locker or verbally abused, but if you shove your foot in his ass he will get the message and hopefully even wake up and stop being such an asshole.

While these types of things are immensely case-by-case, in general, no, this is not a good idea, and certainly isn't the "only cure". Even if you can beat up the bully (which is often not the case, as bullies more often attack those weaker than them, or with their target outnumbered), it seems at least as likely to teach them that the solution is to become stronger/more violent, and to focus more on picking on those weaker than them in the future. Not to mention that if their bullying was entirely verbal/emotional, the "victim" here could be seen as the aggressor by others and invite serious social (and if an adult, legal/financial) consequences.

That said, I don't disagree with your broader point. While beating up the bully may not work, standing up to them is highly recommended, and I would definitely say "having enough soldiers to defend your territory" is analogous to the latter. (The analog to beating up the bully on a nation-scale is invading them, conquering them, then expecting them to have "learned their lesson", e.g. post-WW1 Germany or post-FE9 Daein. And that always works so well!)

[blah the Prussian]

Okay, what the fuck. There is nothing morally wrong whatsoever with killing an enemy soldier, especially if you're on the right side. Wars would be un winnable if you couldn't actually fight them. Fighting to repel an invasion is never wrong. At the same time, invading can be right or understandable, like the invasions of Belgium and Serbia in WWI.

I can respect a mentality without agreeing with it. Pacificism is great in theory, but there are people in the world far to ignorant to just leave each other alone, sometimes using force is the justified solution. Like if a kid is getting bullied and you beat his ass. Usually a good ass-whooping is the only cure for ignorance. You won't get anything from a bully by telling him you don't appreciate being shoved in a locker or verbally abused, but if you shove your foot in his ass he will get the message and hopefully even wake up and stop being such an asshole.

She did do one thing right I guess, she got the people of Ylisse to stop hating the government, just like Hitler. But then she got a lot of her own people killed, just like Hitler. Just replace "concentration camps" with "Plegian bandits that Emmeryn doesn't think are serious enough of a problem to really do anything about". Seriously, if she gave a damn about homeland security Plegia wouldn't have such an easy time getting far enough into Ylisse to start burning down villages.

I don't see the connection you're making with jesus either, were not talking about when Emmeryn killed herself, were talking about her refusal to take action against the country that is actively attacking her people. That's not messianic, that's cowardly.

The statement I made in my original post was meant to be a joke, not to completely derail this thread, so sorry about that.

This. Fuck pacifism.

[Saladus]

(The analog to beating up the bully on a nation-scale is invading them, conquering them, then expecting them to have "learned their lesson", e.g. post-WW1 Germany or post-FE9 Daein. And that always works so well!)

Your Germany example doesn't help you, seeing as how the Allies were just as harsh on it after WW2, if not even harsher. And frankly, letting Daein be ''independent'' so soon after the war is ridiculous.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Saladus

[Dark Holy Elf]

I can't say I've seen that opinion before. The Treaty of Versailles was extremely punitive, are also significantly was seen as very punitive, assigning Germany the moral responsibility for the war as well as imposing harsh reparations which helped lead to the devastating hyper-inflation of the 20's. By comparison the Allies were clearly more concerned with Germany's economic welfare after WW2, see them being included in the Marshall Plan.

Regardless, you must admit the track record of "just go in and invade the country" doesn't have a great track record for solving problems. I'm not advocating full-on pacifism and I never questioned the right of a person or state to defend itself, but disproportionate retribution rarely improves things.

[Vineron]

This topic went from FE:if to FE:Awakening to Hitler.

What.

[Saladus]

I can't say I've seen that opinion before. The Treaty of Versailles was extremely punitive, are also significantly was seen as very punitive, assigning Germany the moral responsibility for the war as well as imposing harsh reparations which helped lead to the devastating hyper-inflation of the 20's. By comparison the Allies were clearly more concerned with Germany's economic welfare after WW2, see them being included in the Marshall Plan.

Regardless, you must admit the track record of "just go in and invade the country" doesn't have a great track record for solving problems. I'm not advocating full-on pacifism and I never questioned the right of a person or state to defend itself, but disproportionate retribution rarely improves things.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4545835?uid=3739552&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21105980601171

http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/Myths%20of%20the%20great%20war_tcm8-31600.pdf

https://books.google.com/books?id=yj5R_3wfsO0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=WWI:+A+History+Zara+Steiner+%22The+Peace+Settlement%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Yf-UVJu0I4_8oQTXvYDAAw&ved=0CCAQ6AEwATgK#v=snippet&q=Versailles&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=91TMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT319&dq=inauthor:#v=snippet&q=unjust&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=zqj-oHp4KsgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=WWI:+A+History+Zara+Steiner+%22The+Peace+Settlement%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Yf-UVJu0I4_8oQTXvYDAAw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=marks&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=9OfrTvu7CNYC&pg=PA142&dq=inauthor:%22Gerhard+L.+Weinberg%22+generals&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x9jzVJi0PIu4oQTi2IGQDw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=snippet&q=Versailles&f=false

Germany was split with the Soviet Union, had its military removed as a threat, and was kept in no position to seriously challenge the powers. The Treaty of Versailles didn't go far enough in removing Germany as a threat to its neighbors. Germany's economy would have been in trouble regardless of the reparations.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Saladus

[FrostyFireMage]

I honestly doubt IS was going for realism with Emmeryn's sacrifice. The story writer wants us to think 'hurr durr emmeryn was a good person who killed herself to stop a war so that means she's completely perfect and hurr'.

If Awakening's story wasn't saturated with idealism Emmeryn would be seen as a weak and naive queen who chose death over actually trying to be a good ruler.

Pacifism is only good if you realize compromises must be made.

[blah the Prussian]

The Soviets wanted to be really hard on Germany. So did FDR. Can't say I blame the Soviets. Fortunately, it didn't happen, but not for lack of trying on Stalin's part.

This topic went from FE:if to FE:Awakening to Hitler.

What.

Yeah, this actually happens a lot when I enter the discussion. It seems that just by my presence people get a sudden interest in discussing history.

[The Gift of Jericho]

This topic went from FE:if to FE:Awakening to Hitler.

What.

Nothing like seeing Godwin's law in action.

[Irysa]

As far as I remember, Emmeryn knows Chrom is fighting Plegian incursians, but chooses not to officially respond with a mobilisation of the Ylissian army against Plegia. This is because she doesn't want the country to end up in a full on war again, and because she knows a full on war is exactly what Gangrel wants.

This is actually a reasonable position. The problem is that Emmeryn does not appear to have actually done anything anyway. War is not the only possible option. She doesn't appear to have made any attempts at diplomatic negociations with Plegia, or at least, we're not made aware of any. This supports the claim that she was willfully negligent as a ruler. Given that Gangrel was pretty hell bent on a war though, it's pretty unlikely those negociations would have gone anywhere, but, procedure and all, even if it's just going through the motions. Simply sending a letter stating that Plegia must cease it's attacks on Ylisse, but that they are willing to talk, even if it was completely rejected would have been a good idea. Gangrel wanted the Fire Emblem, but I'm honestly not sure why. Was Aversa trying to manipulate him to get it for Validar? (I assume so). If so, then we end up going down the path of "why do the Grimleal want Grima to be ressurected?" which is pretty confusing in itself, since they don't appear to benefit from it, and one can't exactly negociate with crazies.

Given that this negociations are likely to fail , the only remaining option would be to usurp Gangrel. This could be attempted via subterfuge, or force. The most sensible thing would be to attempt to stealthily assassinate or remove Gangrel from the throne of Plegia, as this would cause the least amount of bloodshed. Chrom would probably object because of it being dishonorable or whatever, but Gangrel is clearly no stranger to such things, and it would ultimately save more lives. If it failed, a war would probably end up starting, but seeing as that's the only other realistic option, simply entering an alliance with the Feroxians to prepare and attempting an assassination would have made the most sense. Alternatively, somehow back an anti Gangrel movement so that it happens from within Plegia.

HOWEVER

Having said all this, I don't believe that Awakening was ever really trying to execute a compelling political drama, so it's a mistake to analyse it from this perspective solely. The game is abound with idealism in all it's foppy glory. In this sense, it is difficult to properly criticise aspects of characters and the nature of their behaviour and beliefs when they're more means to an end of conveying a few (very cheesy and unrealistic) themes and ideas to the player, and I think they definitely got that across fine. There are plenty of other faults with Awakening but I can't really bring myself to get angry about a Pacifistic ruler being unrealistic and irresponsible when there are Saturday Morning Cartoon tier bad guys going around and being evil for the sake of it. If you happen to dislike such stories, then okay, but they do have a purpose, and I'm honestly fine with it as long as the presentation and coherance of the narrative is good enough to make it compelling (which I think is Awakening's biggest issue really).

Edited April 13, 2015 by Irysa

[blah the Prussian]

As far as I remember, Emmeryn knows Chrom is fighting Plegian incursians, but chooses not to officially respond with a mobilisation of the Ylissian army against Plegia. This is because she doesn't want the country to end up in a full on war again, and because she knows a full on war is exactly what Gangrel wants.

This is actually a reasonable position. The problem is that Emmeryn does not appear to have actually done anything anyway. War is not the only possible option. She doesn't appear to have made any attempts at diplomatic negociations with Plegia, or at least, we're not made aware of any. This supports the claim that she was willfully negligent as a ruler. Given that Gangrel was pretty hell bent on a war though, it's pretty unlikely those negociations would have gone anywhere, but, procedure and all, even if it's just going through the motions. Simply sending a letter stating that Plegia must cease it's attacks on Ylisse, but that they are willing to talk, even if it was completely rejected would have been a good idea. Gangrel wanted the Fire Emblem, but I'm honestly not sure why. Was Aversa trying to manipulate him to get it for Validar? (I assume so). If so, then we end up going down the path of "why do the Grimleal want Grima to be ressurected?" which is pretty confusing in itself, since they don't appear to benefit from it, and one can't exactly negociate with crazies.

Given that this negociations are likely to fail , the only remaining option would be to usurp Gangrel. This could be attempted via subterfuge, or force. The most sensible thing would be to attempt to stealthily assassinate or remove Gangrel from the throne of Plegia, as this would cause the least amount of bloodshed. Chrom would probably object because of it being dishonorable or whatever, but Gangrel is clearly no stranger to such things, and it would ultimately save more lives. If it failed, a war would probably end up starting, but seeing as that's the only other realistic option, simply entering an alliance with the Feroxians to prepare and attempting an assassination would have made the most sense. Alternatively, somehow back an anti Gangrel movement so that it happens from within Plegia.

HOWEVER

Having said all this, I don't believe that Awakening was ever really trying to execute a compelling political drama, so it's a mistake to analyse it from this perspective solely. The game is abound with idealism in all it's foppy glory. In this sense, it is difficult to properly criticise aspects of characters and the nature of their behaviour and beliefs when they're more means to an end of conveying a few (very cheesy and unrealistic) themes and ideas to the player, and I think they definitely got that across fine. There are plenty of other faults with Awakening but I can't really bring myself to get angry about a Pacifistic ruler being unrealistic and irresponsible when there are Saturday Morning Cartoon tier bad guys going around and being evil for the sake of it. If you happen to dislike such stories, then okay, but they do have a purpose, and I'm honestly fine with it as long as the presentation and coherance of the narrative is good enough to make it compelling (which I think is Awakening's biggest issue really).

Jesus fuck, this is Fire Emblem, not East vs West.

[Irysa]

Hey man, FE6 has a reasonable amount of political turmoil as a crux of it's plot for a significant portion of the game. There's no need to sell the series so short.

[NekoKnight]

As far as I remember, Emmeryn knows Chrom is fighting Plegian incursians, but chooses not to officially respond with a mobilisation of the Ylissian army against Plegia. This is because she doesn't want the country to end up in a full on war again, and because she knows a full on war is exactly what Gangrel wants.

This is actually a reasonable position. The problem is that Emmeryn does not appear to have actually done anything anyway. War is not the only possible option. She doesn't appear to have made any attempts at diplomatic negociations with Plegia, or at least, we're not made aware of any. This supports the claim that she was willfully negligent as a ruler. Given that Gangrel was pretty hell bent on a war though, it's pretty unlikely those negociations would have gone anywhere, but, procedure and all, even if it's just going through the motions. Simply sending a letter stating that Plegia must cease it's attacks on Ylisse, but that they are willing to talk, even if it was completely rejected would have been a good idea.

Solid post, Irysa. I'm glad you can appreciate the intention and context of the script, even if you don't like it so much. Let me just respond to a few points. First, what I've bolded is the single most important thing to remember for why Emmeryn does what she does. She knows what's going on and what Gangrel is trying to do but is powerless to take a hardline approach to it because another war would be disastrous for both Plegia and Ylisse. Emmeryn cares about her people, but Gangrel is insane so he's pushing everyone to ruin.

As for no attempts at diplomacy, she does try to talk Gangrel down but it doesn't work. She even confronts him about the raids disguised as bandit attacks and he responds "lol, not my fault you guys have a bandit problem".

The Awakening plot has some serious holes but the set-up for the Plegia-Ylisse conflict is competently written.

Anyway, back on topic. If there is to be moral greyness for Hoshido, I want it to be concerning things that are happening right now and not the past. "Used to be bad guys but not anymore" is NOT moral greyness!

[Irysa]

As for no attempts at diplomacy, she does try to talk Gangrel down but it doesn't work. She even confronts him about the raids disguised as bandit attacks and he responds "lol, not my fault you guys have a bandit problem".

There was no formal attempt to have a proper negociation. The Plegian attacks have (according to Chrom) been going on for a while, and apparently they haven't met until Chapter 5. I outlined many options available to her in the event Gangrel refused to cooperate, and none were taken. Thus, incompetance. At least from a more realistic perspective.

For someone who thinks it's pointless to analyze Awakening in this manner I sure end up doing it a lot.

[blah the Prussian]

You know, in the real world, we have a word for what Emmeryn does. That word is appeasement. Appeasement led to some... nasty things in our world. Oh, and the EvW thing was a joke.

Edited April 13, 2015 by blah2127