What sort of protagonist, villain and possible deuteragonist would you like to see next?

[Thane]

Hello everyone.

Having a few hours to myself, I decided to browse the interwebs, and YouTube recommended several Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lord videos which caught my attention. An unfinished game that is easily exploited, lacks many pages worth of content due to being rushed and has aged rather poorly in many aspects. Now, you may wonder why I bring this up here, and the answer is simple:

The setting and main villain are some of the best in video game history.

The game is dripping with atmosphere and isn't afraid to deconstruct a lot of RPG tropes or make the player think about what they're doing and why. The writers also didn't shy away from occasionally making the players' actions seem futile, but not in a way that came across as a result of bad writing, but rather a deliberate move.

However, even that's not the most important part. KotOR II has my favorite video game character of all time: Kreia. A cynical, cryptic, inredibly manipulative blind old woman who pulls essentially all the strings in the entire game and blackmails essentially your entire party into helping you - the best thing of all is that this happens on screen, and it's not a mystery kept from the player. Kreia dominates every conversation she's in, and as a player we know far more than the protagonist; it's impossible to tell to what degree Kreia controls everyone and how much impact you have on those around you since, at least initially, people follow you out of fear.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the kind of villain I'd like to see in the next Fire Emblem game. I dearly hoped for Azura to be similar, but sadly that didn't turn out to be the case. I would like to see a villain who's with you the entire time and controls things from the shadows - or at least just hidden from the protagonists. Blackmailing the support cast and even villains, manipulating the protagonists, all while posing as an invaluable member of the team to fulfill their own goal, which should definitely not be random destruction, conquest, glory, riches or what have you; gray morality is key.

Sadly, I don't have as many ideas for a protagonist or a deuteragonist, but I hope you do! Please tell me about what kind of main characters you want to see in the next installment of the series!

[Alex95]

Villain: One with a good backstory and reason for being evil. I'd like to see a bad guy who was originally good and turn traitor (a la Orson), who ultimately becomes the main hero's villain and is intertwined with the main villain.

Protagonist: One who fights the traitor and reluctantly fights the main villain only because he/she has to. But they try to spare the traitor, offer them a chance at redemption, but that can be up to the player I guess.

I have no idea what a "deuteragonist" is.

[Soapbar]

I have no idea what a "deuteragonist" is.

a character who is second in importance to the protaganist, or simply the second most important character

Edited March 21, 2016 by Soapbar

[MCProductions]

Protagonist: Something similar to Lyn or Roy character and unit wise

Deuteragonist: Robin, with less player worship

Antagonist: Something more like Zephiel and Arvis, preferably Arvis, and less Grima and Garon.

Edited March 21, 2016 by MCProductions

[solrocknroll]

Protagonist: put Marth, Seliph, and Eirika in a blender and hit frappe. I want a blue haired sword lord from an innocent country who is forced to campaign across the continent and then goes to fight the big evil country. They defeat the evil king, but then have to face an evil dragon man.

Deuteragonist: idk, something similar to Robin with slightly less importance.

Villain: an emperor from another country who's started a war and an evil dragon behind the scenes are what I want from villains. I also want a Paladin who has way too much loyalty and dies for it. Maybe an axe crazy Wyvern Lord?

I legitimately don't want depth lol. I want Shadow Dragon style stories because that's what FE does best. This may sound like satire, but stories like Birthright or Shadow Dragon or FE6 are my favorites. Just because X villain has no motive doesn't mean that they're worthless. I love villains who are evil just for the sake of it. It's fun to be bad in fiction tbh, so who needs a tragic backstory when you can be Kefka Palazzo

Edited March 21, 2016 by Ms. Bunch

[fengaridotdll]

Villain: A well-intentioned extremist who is actually trying to go for world peace but is twisted into thinking genocide is the only way to attain it

Protagonist: An anti-hero who was actually executed properly

Deuteragonist: The protagonist's son who is completely oblivious to their father's morally questionable acts

Edited March 21, 2016 by LordBraixen

[Griffonite]

I don't know if this would work very well in execution, but here's what I just thought of:

What if the protagonist and antagonist fell into the antihero and antivillain archetypes respectively? The deuteroganist would fill a role similar to Robin. Initially, the protagonist and antagonist are portrayed as the epitome of good/evil. However, as the story progresses and the two are seen side-by-side more, things become more grey and it becomes harder to tell the difference between the two. Eventually the protagonist does something so "evil" that it causes the Robin to break from the protagonist and be branded a traitor.

After a few chapters of fighting both sides, something happens that requires Robin's immediate attention (i.e. town being attacked). While fighting this battle, the antagonist and his/her party show up to help Robin out. After the battle, Robin is initially hostile toward them, but after talking with the antagonist (and maybe a battle against them next chapter), Robin sees the person that s/he was following at the start within them. Robin agrees to align with the antagonist and takes the battle to the protagonist. It could even be taken a bit further by greying things up again toward endgame, and giving the player the ultimate decision: protagonist, antagonist, or neither (read: fight both).

TL;DR: protagonist and antagonist are initially played straight, then role switched, with the player ultimately deciding who's "right."

[Topaz Light]

I think it'd be interesting for the next Fire Emblem game to be somewhat self-aware (at least in regards to the series it's part of) in its writing, and deliberately play with fan expectations by presenting characters as well-established archetypes, only to pull the rug out from under that as they turn out to fill a totally different role in the story.

Some ideas I'd had were having an Emmeryn/Mikoto-type character who either turns into or turns out to have always been a villain, have the main villain be the standard "Lord" character (complete with the Lord/Great Lord class; bonus points if they're masquerading as the game's Avatar) gone horribly wrong, etc. Then have the real main character turn out to be one of those really lame units you get early on and probably don't think much of, who steels their resolve and takes the reigns of (realistically, "what's left of") the main party when the faux main Lord goes off the deep end.

(In order to avoid having their true importance revealed too early through an inexplicable Game Over or retreat death quote, the true main character could covertly be protected from death by rigging the RNG to forbid it from rolling up any battles that would result in reducing their HP to zero, a la Eyvel in the early chapters of Thracia 776. Obviously, this protection would be removed once they take the helm.)

Edited March 21, 2016 by Topaz Light

[secondworld]

A protagonist that's idealistic sure, but not naive, makes mistakes and learns from them, grows as a leader throughout the game.

For a deuteragonist... something like Hardin, if Hardin actually had screen time. A respected hero/leader in their own right who joins up with the protag early on. More pragmatic and cynical, not a jerk though, conflicts with the protag on various issues throughout. Not shown to be clearly more intelligent than the protag though, they make mistakes just the same and both learn from each other.

For the villain, well here's one idea. I like the king and his squad of generals setup that Sacred Stones had, so something like that. The enemy kingdom/empire has a history of being 'that kingdom', the kind that's the bad guys of most other FE games, that's had tyrant after tyrant who were causes of several wars. It's been years since then though, and the world is in a period of peace it hasn't seen in a while. Then that kingdom/empire(Imma just call them "the Empire" for convenience) allies with a neighboring nation that currently has the standard power-hungry ruler, and they suddenly invade a few small countries seemingly out of nowhere, starting another war. It's not a complete take-over though, but something more like FE6 and FE10 part 3 where the tide of the war is constantly shifting, and is fought with politics just as much as weapons. The Emperor and his general squad are never shown to be 'evil', in fact they'd even have some conflict with their actually evil allies, and their soldiers that the heroes fight are shown to be loyal to their nation to an almost unnatural extreme. The heroes eventually learn more about the Empire, the effects of all the wars in the past that ended up on their home soil, reconstruction took longer and became less fruitful each time, resources lost lost forever. They were getting along well enough before the war, but the Emperor knew that eventually if action wasn't taken they would slowly decline(or maybe some other impending doom, but that gets a bit too similar to Grado). He reached out for help from other nations, but none were too keen on helping 'that kingdom', not enough as was needed anyway. Faced with the slow death of his country and backed into a corner, he decided on one last war, a surprise invasion to take what they needed by force, putting everything they still had into it. The Emperor has resolved himself to do whatever he thinks is needed to for his people, no matter how extreme. Even if the world remembers him as a monster, he doesn't care.

...I got a bit too specific on that one I guess.

[Sire]

Protagonist - A prince or princess whose kingdom was conquered by another. This character is initially out for revenge and tries to usurp the kingdom that conquered them, but...

Villain - A conqueror with a purpose. He / she seeks to unite the separate kingdoms under one rule in preparation for the end times (think Walhart from Awakening). However, most of the other kingdoms care little for the prophecies and most diplomatic attempts have failed, so this character goes to claim the land by force before the "real bad guy" arrives.

Real Bad Guy - Evil dragon, demon from the abyss, crazy god or goddess, the normal for any Fire Emblem game. Alternatively, perhaps have a twist where the Protagonist was possessed or serving the "Real Bad Guy" the entire time, and near endgame, the player character switches sides and has to kill the Protagonist (and perhaps even former allies if they can not be persuaded to defect). Or, if one wants an evil ending, stick with the Protagonist and the "bad guys win". It's a matter of perspective, right?...

Deuteragonist - A mostly silent avatar character that occasionally has a small impact on the story. Think Xenoblade Chronicles X player character, a "bad*** rookie", but the overall plot revolves around someone else. In this case, perhaps the avatar character serves as a champion or something for the protagonist and has interactions with the main cast, but the main story mostly revolves around someone else.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Sire

[Azz]

Protagonist: put Marth, Seliph, and Eirika in a blender and hit frappe. I want a blue haired sword lord from an innocent country who is forced to campaign across the continent and then goes to fight the big evil country. They defeat the evil king, but then have to face an evil dragon man.

Deuteragonist: idk, something similar to Robin with slightly less importance.

Villain: an emperor from another country who's started a war and an evil dragon behind the scenes are what I want from villains. I also want a Paladin who has way too much loyalty and dies for it. Maybe an axe crazy Wyvern Lord?

I legitimately don't want depth lol. I want Shadow Dragon style stories because that's what FE does best. This may sound like satire, but stories like Birthright or Shadow Dragon or FE6 are my favorites. Just because X villain has no motive doesn't mean that they're worthless. I love villains who are evil just for the sake of it. It's fun to be bad in fiction tbh, so who needs a tragic backstory when you can be Kefka Palazzo

This, this, this.

Give me a Fire Emblem with amazing gameplay and I could care less about story (Why do you think Conquest is my favourite FE game). Of coarse I would like to see good character that are not the main character or the avatar, but I want my blue-haired-sowrd-using-naive-little borther/sister-that wields a holy blade-shit lord back. IMO, Fire Emblem will never have a story akin to what they tried to do with Fates, it's just too complicated for a SRPG that focuses to much on a small group of characters when there tends to be 40+ characters in the game. If we do get a story like that, that is pulled off well enough along with the gameplay akin to RD or Fates, well then fuck yes, we got ourselves a great FE, but I would be absolutely fine if we go a plot similar to what we used to get.

[Karasz]

I've an idea for this of my own. It's a little lengthy, and a little dumb, but bear with me.

Protagonist: Someone who is not at all connected to anything that happens in the main story. Fully customizable. Kind of similar to Ike and how he starts in Path of Radiance, but unlike Ike, this person does not achieve power, nobility, or any form of title/renown through their actions. Instead, they are prone to being extremely reckless, and they constantly makes mistakes. While their heart is in the right place, they does not have a decent way of showing this outwardly. They have a very one-track mind, and seek to achieve the goal they set for themselves, be it ending a tyrant's reign, avenging the death of a loved one, or something similar.

Deuteragonist: The actual lord character of the game. Heart of gold, virtuous resolve, wants to defeat the evil guy and bring peace to the world, blah blah blah, the usual Hero of Light schtick.

Antagonist: Conqueror type. Usual kind of evil person who wants to rule stuff because he craves power and the feelings of domination this will bring him. You know, usual bad guy stuff.

(I will abbreviate Protagonist to P, Deuteragonist to D, and Antagonist to A from this point on.)

The Idea: Now here's where it gets interesting. What makes the P this bumbling, incompetent idiot? What reason do the D and A have for being so generic? Well, the D and the A would have the same name. For example, the D could be named "Lew" while the A could be named "Llew," (short for Llewelyn, but it's an example) so therein lies a similarity. Another similarity could be D's name being "Tristan" and A's name being "Tristram" (kind of a stretch, but it works) But then how does P factor into all this? Well, A could have killed someone dear to P at some point, but all P knows is the shorthand of A's name. So what would happen when they learn that someone named (insert shorthand of D and A's names here) has been going around the land doing "things?" Of course they're going to go after the wrong person trying to avenge so and so's death. Thus begins a grand adventure of P allying with others for a cause against evil, confronting the wrong person, accidentally letting the bad guy win, and then working long and f***ing hard to undo all their mistakes near-singlehandedly.

So yeah. Dumb idea. But if someone at IS (or another SRPG dev team) is taking note, then it could work. Maybe. I dunno.

[Jayvee94]

Protagonist: A sword fighter who starts as a Merchant and later becomes a mercenary due to his/her fame, and charity.

Deuteragonist: A villager-type axe Fighter sibling to the protagonist.

Villains :

A noble of each of the rival nations influencing its leader to declare war on the other.

A new influential leader from a previously defeated country. Leads his army into genocide of the remaining Dragons and the members of the dragon Temple.

A beautiful white Dragon who thinks he deserved to be worshiped. He destroys those who refuse to.

[NekoKnight]

There are two ways I'd approach this.

Method 1: Conquest done right

The protagonist is an idealistic young lord of an impoverished nation that wants to defend the weak and avoid war. His father (or father figure) is the king of this nation and starts a war with a prosperous nation to take badly needed resources. While the protagonist is reluctant to support this war of aggression, for the sake of his family and country, he goes along with it and tries to minimize the damage they do. After the conquest of the prosperous nation is complete, the king of the poor nation becomes increasingly cruel, heading towards outright genocide. The protagonist eventually decides that he can no longer abide this and sets out to dethrone the king. Optional: Other siblings with distinct personalities and opinions on the war to act as a foil to the protagonist.

Method 2: Dark Souls

This would be something similar to what Sire suggested before but with a different spin on the 'true villain'. The protagonist would be your standard hero but the antagonist would be a 'hero from another story', someone who's been doing this hero business a lot longer than our protagonist, so they've come to understand some important realities of the world. The 'true villain' might not be an actual entity, rather a fundamental law of the universe that will be the inevitable doom of mankind. The antagonist wants to stop or forestall this doom but his methods can be horrifying, making him look like a villain. Even if the protagonist learns the truth about the world, it will be ambiguous whether stopping or supporting the antagonist is the right thing to do. Both the protagonist and antagonist will have a group of True Companions who are drawn to their heroic efforts and charisma.

[Thane]

I legitimately don't want depth lol. I want Shadow Dragon style stories because that's what FE does best. This may sound like satire, but stories like Birthright or Shadow Dragon or FE6 are my favorites. Just because X villain has no motive doesn't mean that they're worthless. I love villains who are evil just for the sake of it. It's fun to be bad in fiction tbh, so who needs a tragic backstory when you can be Kefka Palazzo

Can't say I was expecting an answer like this. Why don't you want depth?

There are two ways I'd approach this.

Method 1: Conquest done right

The protagonist is an idealistic young lord of an impoverished nation that wants to defend the weak and avoid war. His father (or father figure) is the king of this nation and starts a war with a prosperous nation to take badly needed resources. While the protagonist is reluctant to support this war of aggression, for the sake of his family and country, he goes along with it and tries to minimize the damage they do. After the conquest of the prosperous nation is complete, the king of the poor nation becomes increasingly cruel, heading towards outright genocide. The protagonist eventually decides that he can no longer abide this and sets out to dethrone the king. Optional: Other siblings with distinct personalities and opinions on the war to act as a foil to the protagonist.

Method 2: Dark Souls

This would be something similar to what Sire suggested before but with a different spin on the 'true villain'. The protagonist would be your standard hero but the antagonist would be a 'hero from another story', someone who's been doing this hero business a lot longer than our protagonist, so they've come to understand some important realities of the world. The 'true villain' might not be an actual entity, rather a fundamental law of the universe that will be the inevitable doom of mankind. The antagonist wants to stop or forestall this doom but his methods can be horrifying, making him look like a villain. Even if the protagonist learns the truth about the world, it will be ambiguous whether stopping or supporting the antagonist is the right thing to do. Both the protagonist and antagonist will have a group of True Companions who are drawn to their heroic efforts and charisma.

I like the sound of the first one, but I haven't seen many games or even arts in general pull of something like "inevitable doom of mankind" well. I think Fire Emblem works best with both feet on the ground, so to speak. Human characters with human motivations, ethics, tragedies etc. I feel like there's so much potential in the series that simply isn't used because they always choose to take the easy way out.

[Etrurian emperor]

Villain: I'm fine with either a well intended extremist or someone who's just evil. Both types have their strengths and weaknesses. What I want most for a villain is a personal conflict with the hero. Have the hero meet and know the villain and have their relation to one another progress as the plot advances.

Deuteragonist: I would like someone like Soren again. A more morally flexible character to a goody two shoes lord. It would be nice if that actually causes friction between the two when the Deuteragonist does shady things behind the lords back.

[solrocknroll]

Can't say I was expecting an answer like this. Why don't you want depth?

I like the sound of the first one, but I haven't seen many games or even arts in general pull of something like "inevitable doom of mankind" well. I think Fire Emblem works best with both feet on the ground, so to speak. Human characters with human motivations, ethics, tragedies etc. I feel like there's so much potential in the series that simply isn't used because they always choose to take the easy way out.

Phrased it weirdly, but I think the kind of scenarios you presented are laughable. Depth does not mean that we have to have sweeping tapestry stories with chess master villains at every turn. Depth comes in many flavors, and I think Seliph is one of the best lords both design and character wise. Keep in mind that FE4's main antagonist was literally a Gharnef who basically kicked puppies if the child hunts were any indication. Doesn't make FE4's story bad to have Fire Emblem's wonderful cliches.

You say that Gray morality is key, but it's highly overrated. Everyone desires it, but it's not nearly as interesting as for the evuls villains who are in it for glory or even fun. Try to name me a FF antagonist who utilises gray morality, but yet every one of them is beloved. Sephiroth didn't try to get the Black Materia and summon Meteor because he is actually a good person who does bad things because he must. Kefka didn't create the World of Ruin because it helped save another human being.

If you think that human motivations or whatever are what works best for FE, I don't think we played the same games. FE is at it's best with absurd, evil old men villains, a grand enemy kingdom, and a naive sword lord. Ethics didn't really show up outside of Jugdral or Tellius at all. Tragedies aren't really a thing either. Even the Battle of Belhalla doesn't mean as much when it turns out that only like six people actually died and the rest either escaped or got turned to stone.

I cannot understand why people want stories from FE that would much better fit Game of Thrones or Tactics Ogre or Final Fantasy Tactics. All of those exist on their own and away from FE. I want my simple, sweet plots from every game except for Conquest. Even Tellius and Jugdral used a lot of FE's great story tropes.

Without it's tropes, FE wouldn't be the same at all. I need my shota wind mages, my edgy myrmidons, my gladiator mercenaries, my dragon lolis, young cleric girls, Jeigans, Christmas Cavaliers, evil sorcerers, ancient evil god/dragons beings, and naive blue-haired sword lords. And that's how FE has been since it's inception.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Ms. Bunch

[Thane]

Phrased it weirdly, but I think the kind of scenarios you presented are laughable. Depth does not mean that we have to have sweeping tapestry stories with chess master villains at every turn. Depth comes in many flavors, and I think Seliph is one of the best lords both design and character wise. Keep in mind that FE4's main antagonist was literally a Gharnef who basically kicked puppies if the child hunts were any indication. Doesn't make FE4's story bad to have Fire Emblem's wonderful cliches.

If you think that human motivations or whatever are what works best for FE, I don't think we played the same games. FE is at it's best with absurd, evil old men villains, a grand enemy kingdom, and a naive sword lord. Ethics didn't really show up outside of Jugdral or Tellius at all. Tragedies aren't really a thing either. Even the Battle of Belhalla doesn't mean as much when it turns out that only like six people actually died and the rest either escaped or got turned to stone.

I cannot understand why people want stories from FE that would much better fit Game of Thrones or Tactics Ogre or Final Fantasy Tactics. All of those exist on their own and away from FE. I want my simple, sweet plots from every game except for Conquest. Even Tellius and Jugdral used a lot of FE's great story tropes.

Without it's tropes, FE wouldn't be the same at all. I need my shota wind mages, my edgy myrmidons, my gladiator mercenaries, my dragon lolis, young cleric girls, Jeigans, Christmas Cavaliers, evil sorcerers, ancient evil god/dragons beings, and naive blue-haired sword lords. And that's how FE has been since it's inception.

You didn't answer my question.

[arvilino]

Protagonist: The youngest prince of a kingdom that was once the centre of a greater and ambitious empire. But due to hard hard times and shrank due to lack of resources and inability to control it's other nations that eventually separated and became independent kingdoms. It is still known for it's military power but depends heavily on surounding nations to maintain itself.

Deuteragonist: Two: A Crown prince of the kingdom eventually becomes the king during the story and another character who's a brilliant strategist who prove's himself between chapter 1-11 but eventually defects to a different side later on(not the villan's one however).

Villain: A merchant ruler of a wealthy and fertile kingdom, he "supports" the protagonist's kingdom with resources/food at high prices and materials but is also secretly sabotaging trade routes with hired bandits to pressure the protagonist's kingdom into famine and eventually take it over. He knows he's unlikely to win in a direct confrontation he wants to weaken the kingdom indirectly while appearing as an ally and then later conquer it when they're too weak to defend themselves. He's doing this part out of greed but also to keep the protagonist's kingdom in check as he fears they'll try to conquer his own kingdom if they were well supplied.

This would probably only be a chapter 1- 11 kind of conflict as Fire Emblem games usually have a greater conflict with a supernatural element. I think a conflict that's just two kingdoms fighting with nothing else is kind of lame and a waste of the fantasy genre.

[solrocknroll]

You didn't answer my question.

I'm pretty sure I did, and even then, just look at Magvel. We know literally nothing about the continent's history and the villains don't have very interesting motives except for Lyon. Valter, Riev, and Selena are typical FE tropes and I loved them for it.

What you ask for isn't depth. I'm interested in gameplay depth, but trying some overdramatc story would be a bad thing. Fates's story hit it out of the park for me as a whole. Some missteps, but Birthright in particular has an excellent story.

[Thane]

I'm pretty sure I did, and even then, just look at Magvel. We know literally nothing about the continent's history and the villains don't have very interesting motives except for Lyon. Valter, Riev, and Selena are typical FE tropes and I loved them for it.

What you ask for isn't depth. I'm interested in gameplay depth, but trying some overdramatc story would be a bad thing. Fates's story hit it out of the park for me as a whole. Some missteps, but Birthright in particular has an excellent story.

No, you excused Fire Emblems lackluster stories by saying that it relies heavily on tropes as if it were a good thing. That's not an answer to why you specifically want a lack of depth in a story.

Why is an attempt at a deeper story a bad thing? Why do you love villains without motives?

[OakTree]

No, you excused Fire Emblems lackluster stories by saying that it relies heavily on tropes as if it were a good thing. That's not an answer to why you specifically want a lack of depth in a story.

Why is an attempt at a deeper story a bad thing? Why do you love villains without motives?

To be fair, there are times where villains who are just evil for the sake of being evil can work.

EDIT: Sorry, misinterpreted your post.

Edited March 21, 2016 by OakTree

[arvilino]

No, you excused Fire Emblems lackluster stories by saying that it relies heavily on tropes as if it were a good thing. That's not an answer to why you specifically want a lack of depth in a story.

Why is an attempt at a deeper story a bad thing? Why do you love villains without motives?

I can't speak for him but I think deeper stories can ruin the pacing of a story itself and even extend past the story and lead to large gaps between the actual gameplay. The first three Advance Wars and Batallion Wars I & II have very simple stories and characterisations that can fit on a cue card but in my opinion are pretty entertaining and Days of Ruins is told is a similar way to Awakening and Fates before and after chapters.

I think there can be a lot of elegance in telling a good story without much dialogue(especially since videogames are a visual medium), some RPGs that have little dialogue due to hardware specs of older systems are still held up as telling good tales or experiences. On the same note with enough time any one could coming up with motivations to justify and create a deeper character or story when they have essentially no limit on how much text they can write. Yet a shallow character done well can be far more entertaining or memorable or just a better fit for certain type of story.

Fire Emblem could be suitable with a simple story because that may best complement the gameplay. The memorable moments woven into the gameplay and the player's feeling while playing the game and what happens during their playthroughs. due to the sheer number of characters, simpler trope based, but distinctive characters so they stand out amongst the rest of the cast so even if you don't read their supports so even if they don't play a role in the story you have an understanding of them without digging through a mountain of text.

I think a deeper story would be better for a game with a smaller cast and much better served in a novel than a videogame.

[Lanko]

Protagonist: A common person who lives in a small village or town. Learns to fight for defense and to defend his/her home from bandits. Their are attacked one day and the village is destroyed. A knight, cavalier and archer from the kingdom arrive to help, but can't do much. The protagonist's family is killed and very few people survive and the protagonist enlists in the army or something similar to proceed with his life.

Deuteragonist: Someone like Soren, cynical and nihilistic, not afraid to say the harsh truths about the world, but maybe more ironical. I thought of a Thief that lives in the same place as the protagonist and steals to survive. She meets the protagonist when trying to steal from him and is caught, but the protagonist shares a part of his stuff and let her go. She remembers this and helps save the life of the protagonist when the bandits attack.

Is at odds with the kingdom's soldiers that join you later, as they have those "honor" notions. Later they both help each other see things differently.

Antagonist: Someone that is not crazy, don't want to destroy the world just cuz and has actual reasons to do whatever they are doing. Would also like to see multiple antagonists and also a main female antagonist. An Emperor who would conquer other nations, but it's not cruel, just methodical, like in Medieval times, when a large country would annex a very small region to it.

Then another antagonist who runs away but plots to take his land back, or avenge family that was killed. Slowly builds power and alliances, it's willing to "ends justify the means", but doesn't become possessed or anything like that. He/She knows what they are doing.

Also possibly a religious power that seems the confusion and tries to achieve even more influence. Then everyone clashes.

I'm shocked people don't want better stories for Fire Emblem, specially in this time and the resources available. I certainly don't want another Grima, Gooron, Hardin or Formotiis. I'm ok with delusional villains like Zephiel (with delusions with life) or even Ashnard (delusions of grandeur and against the "system"). Hardin and Lyon get possessed by evil forces, which kind takes a lot of responsibility from them. It would have been better if they self-destructed in another way.

FE has a cast that's much smaller than a GoT and has visuals to help. Most people are fed up with good x evil clichés, that are tons of other ways to deal with familiar tropes and conflict. I've played games with atrocious or boring gameplay just to see what the story/characters would pull off, but the reverse wasn't exactly true. Gameplay can only carry someone so far, as the awesome battles are rewarded with the main characters doing stupid or contradictory things all the time.

Thought most of the problems are with execution. Fates' premise was great, for example.

[Etrurian emperor]

There is something to be said for more complex stories but at the same time we have seen that stories don't necessarily benefit from being more complex.

Radiant Dawn is without a doubt the most complex Fire Emblem story and its also one of the more criticized. The ambition of the story is very clear but that same ambition is the direct cause for questionable choices, both in the story and the gameplay like the blood pact or the multiple faction approach making some characters just disappear for half of the game.

The GBA games and Path of radiance on the other hand are as traditional as they come but because of that they have an easy time playing all their cards right and the common opinion seems to be that they succeed in doing that.

We see this in Final Fantasy as well. The more beloved stories like 4, 6 and 7 aren't shy with using tropes and staples of the rpg genre. 13 tried to move away from that, start its own more complex mythos and as a result bombarded the audience with so many strange terms like L'cie, fal'cie and the like that it became very hard to get into the story. The game tried so hard to impress us with its story that it became one of the worse FF stories as a result. Perhaps it would be looked more kindly upon if they used more classical FF terms instead of the whole L'cie nonsense.

The sympathetic villain falls into this as well. Making villains more complex by giving them sympathetic motivations or making them more human has a very clear pitfall that the cliche evil villain does not have. If the plot fails to convince the player that the villain in question is worthy of any kind of sympathie then the whole villain falls flat.

To me Zephiel would be a good example of that. Because FE7 firmly establish that Zephiel's father was the only person in Bern, maybe even Elibi who did not adore Zephiel it doesn't make me buy that daddy trying to kill him is a believable justification. Instead it makes me think Zephiel is just a big drama lama and as such I have no respect for the villain the game tries to present. Nergal and Lekain on the other hand are completely irredeemable scumbags and I can respect that. Taking the example even further, Kid Icarus' Hades and Metal Face from Xenoblades are completely irredeemable scumbags who clearly LOVE being irredeemable scumbags and I consider them the highlights of their games for it.