How Fire Emblem can have better major antagonists. (MAJOR SPOILERS FOR FATES)

[Alazen]

Neither Awakening or Fates inspire confidence here, which is especially problematic for Fates considering how its narrative was noted before release. Validar is a worse Manfroy, Grima is a Lovecraft deity and Loptyr thrown into a blender with shoddy results, Gangrel could have been better, Walhart's ideology or whatever is underexplored with the claim he was trying to stop the Grimleal looking like a cheap attempt to make Valm more relevant, Hydra is a WoW raid boss, Fake Garon apparently has nothing better to do than to try to make Kamui cry, Ganz and Macbeth are both cartoon villains.

Now, what to do you suggest for future FEs to do on this front?

[You]

Well, the answer is pretty simple - the writers simply have to stop using melodrama as a substitute for the character development of villains (and other Fire Emblem characters, too). Now that I think about it, I realize that Awakening never focused upon character change - everyone just stuck to their gimmicky personalities even though Validar hit the fan and everything was going to Grima. Perhaps if the Awakening characters significantly changed through the development of the story, writers would be forced to make the plot deeper. I was hoping that Fates was going to improve upon Awakening in this regard, but from what I have been hearing about the game, I think I would be better off keeping my expectations for the game low.

[Jedi]

I'd have to say the best done antagonists in the franchise have been Alvis, Lyon and The Black Knight.

They have reasons for their actions. Morally grey in aspects and such, Travant also fits this. We need another foe like this.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Jedi

[Baldrick]

A major antagonist needs to have a motivation/ideology for doing what they do, and there should be a good reason as to why they think that way. Nobody really thinks of themselves as evil, and while a villain who does can be good, I don't think such a story fits well with FE's gameplay.

[Phantom037]

I'd have to say the best done antagonists in the franchise have been Alvis, Lyon and The Black Knight.

They have reasons for their actions.

I'd like to add Zephiel to that list if that's alright

Fates took a step in the right direction by focusing on one villain for the most part, now they just need to make them have a personality deeper than just being a jerkwad.

[Baldrick]

Garon is basically Trabant, without all the stuff that made him a good villain.

[solrocknroll]

I don't care if villains have some overly thought out story. I really dislike the trend that villains need to be tragic that the video game industry has. In the end, there's nothing better than a good old fashioned sociopath who's entire motive is that they don't feel a thing. People like Trabant are actually kind of boring.

However, that doesn't mean these villains were done the best. They all certainly had some problems, but I still love Gangrel at least. As for FE villains, I still think Ashnard is on top.

[Lord Raven]

The difference is in execution. You can have inherently simple villains if there's proper execution behind it (namely, caring about the player characters' motives), it just tends to evoke more feeling if they're tragic.

EDIT: For instance, someone like Gihren Zabi was a great villain despite being basically unrepentantly evil. There's absolutely no way you can sympathize with him, especially since even his own father compares him to Adolf Hitler and he calls himself one of Hitler's followers.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Lord Raven

[Jedi]

I'd like to add Zephiel to that list if that's alright

Fates took a step in the right direction by focusing on one villain for the most part, now they just need to make them have a personality deeper than just being a jerkwad.

Acceptable, especially if we add in the FE7 backstory to it all.

[Alazen]

In the end, there's nothing better than a good old fashioned sociopath who's entire motive is that they don't feel a thing. People like Trabant are actually kind of boring.

Do you really believe that? Are you going name any actual serious conquerors or rulers whose entire motive was that?

[solrocknroll]

The difference is in execution. You can have inherently simple villains if there's proper execution behind it (namely, caring about the player characters' motives), it just tends to evoke more feeling if they're tragic.

I definitely get what you're saying. Obviously villains should have some reason to care about them. I think what I'm thinking over is along the lines of Suikoden's Luca Blight. That's my favorite way ever to do an antagonist. Everyone being the same would be boring though. I mean, Lyon's pretty cool.

EDIT: Also, to the above post, Luca Blight is pretty much exactly that. No real life rulers required. Unless of course you think Luca was bad at which case lol

Neither Awakening or Fates inspire confidence here, which is especially problematic for Fates considering how its narrative was noted before release. Validar is a worse Manfroy, Grima is a Lovecraft deity and Loptyr thrown into a blender with shoddy results, Gangrel could have been better, Walhart's ideology or whatever is underexplored with the claim he was trying to stop the Grimleal looking like a cheap attempt to make Valm more relevant, Hydra is a WoW raid boss, Fake Garon apparently has nothing better to do than to try to make Kamui cry, Ganz and Macbeth are both cartoon villains.

Now, what to do you suggest for future FEs to do on this front?

although I'll continue by taking offense to TC's lack of tact

Calling Ganz and Iago "cartoon villains" is terribly grating. Whenever people consider animation inferior is when I get mad. I mean, animation has come really far from Dick Dastardly and other Hanna-Barbera villains. It's asinine to typecast all animated villains like that. Would you call Bill Cipher, Jasper/Peridot, Plankton, or the Ice King "cartoon villains?" How about flat villains for Iago and Ganz? Cartoon villains makes you sound like the last cartoon you watched was in the 70s.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Franziska von Karma

[Alazen]

Suikoken 2 would have been noticeably worse if Luca Blight was the only major antagonist. And even he had the trauma of what happened to his mother.

Would you approve if I said ''cartoonishly evil'' instead?

[Lord Raven]

I definitely get what you're saying. Obviously villains should have some reason to care about them. I think what I'm thinking over is along the lines of Suikoden's Luca Blight. That's my favorite way ever to do an antagonist. Everyone being the same would be boring though. I mean, Lyon's pretty cool.

I'm thinking like Kefka myself, but even he had some sort of sympathetic backstory. It's very hard to really care for a villain who is simply evil on their own will.

Even Ashnard had a cause that wasn't outright said unless you had Reyson battle him (and it also gave more character to Shinon).

although I'll continue by taking offense to TC's lack of tact

Calling Ganz and Iago "cartoon villains" is terribly grating. Whenever people consider animation inferior is when I get mad. I mean, animation has come really far from Dick Dastardly and other Hanna-Barbera villains. It's asinine to typecast all animated villains like that. Would you call Bill Cipher, Jasper/Peridot, Plankton, or the Ice King "cartoon villains?" How about flat villains for Iago and Ganz? Cartoon villains makes you sound like the last cartoon you watched was in the 70s.

That's exactly the kind of villain we're referring to though. Cartoon villain is probably not the best term. Saturday morning cartoon villain is a little bit better. Cartoons have had great villains, but when people refer to cartoon villains they refer to stuff like the 70s villains.

Like I mentioned before (I edited my post), Gihren Zabi is a pretty monstrous - and good - villain who garners no sympathy from the audience. He had a cause and wasn't a stereotypical "cartoon villain." This whole 'cartoon villain' thing seems to be just a colloquialism you understand but don't agree with.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Lord Raven

[Jedi]

Hell even some of the more cartoonish villians have somewhat noble ambitions.

Look at Ganondorf, at first he just wants to allow Gerudo to survive, but then he succeeds and it goes to his head.

[Fire Emblem Fan]

I'd have to say the best done antagonists in the franchise have been Alvis, Lyon and The Black Knight.

They have reasons for their actions. Morally grey in aspects and such, Travant also fits this. We need another foe like this.

I'd agree with this (although I'm not a fan of The Black Knight) and I'd add Nergal to the list. I like his backstory, it feels tragic, but not in an overdone kind of way if that makes sense.

[Ryo]

Effective villains don't necessarily have to be sympathetic, but in my opinion, they at least need to show the following qualities:

- Have a solid motivation for why they're doing certain evil things (i.e not being evil and destroying the world for the sake of being evil). This should apply to both "villain masters" and their lackeys.

- Have interesting philosophy/ideology of their own, even if it isn't something the audiences would necessarily agree with or relate themselves to.

- The story must show different sides of said villains, even if they're not necessarily sympathetic/tragic.

- Not a strict must, but it would be interesting if a villain comes off as a foil to the protagonist.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Ryo

[ruadath]

I'd have to say the best done antagonists in the franchise have been Alvis, Lyon and The Black Knight.

They have reasons for their actions. Morally grey in aspects and such, Travant also fits this. We need another foe like this.

Was Nergal not a great villain? I know that his morphs kind of sucked, but I always thought that FE7 had a pretty reasonable and compelling plot.

[Jedi]

Was Nergal not a great villain? I know that his morphs kind of sucked, but I always thought that FE7 had a pretty reasonable and compelling plot.

Nergal does threaten Eliwood and co on a regular basis. He's just hit and miss.

[Refa]

Jugdral had great villains overall just due to the nature of the plot. Heck, even some of the generic bosses were fairly interesting.

[The Geek]

I think there's even value to be put into a villain who's just so diabolically evil that you love to hate him. One of the most popular anime villains of all time is Dio Brando. He's not a particularly deep character, though he isn't really static and one note either, but he is just such a complete and utter asshole that you have to love him in a way.

One thing I've noted is that we haven't had all that many diabolical female villains. There's Hilda in FE4, Sonia in FE7, and... they're pretty much it as far as I remember.

Or maybe try something where a character you have in your party throughout the entire game turns out to be either the main villain or a major villain. Like actually consciously a villain the entire time. Like imagine if you had an awesome character in your party kind of like Seth who later turns out to be a double agent and then you fight them as a boss. Or even better/worse, have it be a Deirdre/Ninian-like character who turns out to be evil the whole time, having simply played with the lord character's emotions.

[Jedi]

Or maybe try something where a character you have in your party throughout the entire game turns out to be either the main villain or a major villain. Like actually consciously a villain the entire time. Like imagine if you had an awesome character in your party kind of like Seth who later turns out to be a double agent and then you fight them as a boss. Or even better/worse, have it be a Deirdre/Ninian-like character who turns out to be evil the whole time, having simply played with the lord character's emotions.

TRS did this with Zeek, not FE I know. But it was a Kaga creation so -shrugs-

[Alazen]

Post-Awakening FE really should try harder to go beyond Black (or Dark Grey at best) and White portrayals of conflicts between nations. Or within nations.

[Kirb]

I really don't think there is a clear-cut answer for this. It really does boil down to what sort of character you're dealing with. Grey antagonists can lead to rather interesting characters and seem to be rather popular with this series, although aren't always the right path to take. Greater sympathy and understanding behind motions can be had with these characters, although at the same time, it's harder to convey the feeling of power and threat across if you see them constantly hesitating and questioning everything whenever they engage battle with the 'good side'. This type of approach worked well with characters like The Black Knight and Lyon, yet poor with someone like Ashnard.

On the other hand, antagonists with a black approach have their own merit. As I mentioned before, someone like Ashnard is a black character, and adding too much emotional dialogue or sudden backstory could ruin his psychotic character somewhat. The threat Ashnard posed in the game created a constant struggle, and the final moments of the game were quite tense. And they didn't go ahead with adding a sad backstory to him so a sympathetic feeling towards him could be felt. Let's reveal he murdered everyone who stood in line to be a ruler, and trick his own father into signing a blood contract. He's a complete madman, yet that's what makes him great. In my opinion, I think that is a fantastic way to build up a black character to a high potential. I do think there are also other ways to do this other than having power, but I don't have the time or patience to go into any more detail.

At the end of the day, I think it's important for the developers and story writers to determine what sort of character they're creating, stick with it, and don't stop. Despite being pleased with how Ashnard was handled, I was disappointed in a certain other 'Mad King', Gangrel. I really do not think he lived up to the name of a Mad King, especially compared to the likes of Ashnard who did far, far more than just try and kill off individual people. And no character should truly just be the living essence of a single personality type, antagonistic or not. Didn't you know Ashnard had a soft side a loved puppies (I may have made that up)? That's really how I personally think a villain should be handled. Although adding a small bit of a sad background to even a black character can be a nice thing, with limits. I could go on and share more of my strange opinions, but I won't.

Also, apologies I don't reference older games. I haven't played anything prior to the seventh game. Maybe one day I'll get around to playing one or two of the older games...

[NoNameAtAll]

Ehh...FE's always been hit or miss with antagonists. For every Arvis, Manfroy and Travant, you have the likes of Beldo (Who is worse than Validar IMO), Lyon (On Eirika's route. On Ephraim's, he's actually really interesting) and Jiol (Boring cowardly king is boring).

FE's also had plenty of villains you just downright despise. Gharnef is the foremost example. Everything he's done was out of jealousy, which is hilariously petty when you look back at it. He's not capable of compassion due to the Darksphere/Sable's effects, but even before that, he was an "ends justify the means" kind of guy. Then there's Hilda who's just an outright bitch with her torture of Tiltyu and glee toward the child hunts. Her kids are sympathetic characters, Ishtar especially, but even Blume's nowhere near as evil as Hilda (He didn't do anything to stop her, but he did disagree with the child hunts.)

Not every villain's gonna be tragic. It's just a fact. You'll have plenty of one-dimensional villains that don't have a sympathetic angle.

[Radiant head]

I think tragic/sympathetic villains are kind of overrated. I mean I appreciate the idea of depth and all, but some characters are just so despicable that I don't want to feel bad for them. That's why I find people like Ashnard or the Joker to be my ideal type of villain.