The Main Character's Personality

[André The kid]

15 hours ago, Extrasolar said:

I don't necessarily think that lords have to be cold or grow colder during their stories to be interesting or well-written characters.

I like Marth's development in Shadow Dragon and New Mystery and think it's well-written - he starts off very much as wide-eyed, sweet idealist, but is emotionally destroyed by Gra's invasion and losing all of his family. He's generally kind, but shows surprising moments of bitterness and anger (his conversation with Nyna, for example) that shows that even he struggles with cynicism. Even though he's in war, he continues to be optimistic, even if it's difficult. He continues believing in the good of people, even when he's betrayed by Hardin, and the like. I think that's a strength, and is compelling in its own right.

Well, they don't need to grow colder with time. But Growing colder means accepting reality for what it is, and learning from its experiences, This makes Micaiah a well Written Character Overall, just like Sothe.

Marth's Behaviour in Shadow Dragon and New mystery could have been handled slightly better, but, overall, a good protagonist. His bitter moments really show how he grew from the idealistic character he originally was. This gives him depth that most Fire emblem Lords do not have.

 

 

Anyway, It's up to intelligent systems at this point. I just want someone better than Corrin. He was far too bland to be a main character.
In any case, Intelligent Systems has indeed written some good fire emblem Lords in the past, so why not take some inspiration? 

4 hours ago, Nanima said:

I had this story idea of a young (late teens-early twenties) crown prince/ss who feels trapped by their duties and responsibilities (along with their court being full of scheming snakes) and abandons it all by running away and becoming a simple sell-sword. Kind of like a reverse-Ike. They do experience their share of adventures and total freedom, but always end up finding themselves in positions of athority anyway (like becoming the leader of their own small mercenary band, and playing general in a couple foreign wars). They just can't look away and mind their own business, both changing things for the better but also fucking some things up in the meantime (and getting called on it). So eventually they start questioning whether they really hate having authority or want to run from responsibility, and contemplate their actual problems with being a royal. Coming to the decision that it's more to do with how things are run in their country and resolving to improve it, they start making their way home.
Once there, they find out that their father/mother has been dead for a couple years at this point, and their younger sibling has ascended the throne in their absence. The younger sibling is understandably less than pleased about their return, having held the country together for so long only to be essentially told "Thanks for keeping it warm, now shove off.". So there ends up being a civil war, with the younger sibling leading the "traditional" faction and the older one leading a "reformist" faction. The tradtional faction, and especially the younger sibling, would have their sympathetic points, while the "reformists" wouldn't be entirely in the right either.

That's the basic premise I have thought up. It obviously needs some refining, but I am curious what others think of it.   

Now this, is something i can get behind. 
Unlike Fates, where it could be clearly seen as "Nohr = Bad / Hoshido = Good" , i'd like to see a war where no one is in the right. Where both sides' claims are valid, and their beliefs are justified. 

I'd Say this has potential. A War where the people divide because of their ideals, and not just because of loyalty. I'd like to see where Intelligent Systems would take this. 

Though unfortunately, i can definitely see this idea being turned into an avatar-like thing , in which the avatar becomes the protagonist. Let's see. 
I do like the idea, especially if an "Arc" is made to explore the adventures they've had as mercenaries.

PS: Joshua anyone? No? ok...

[Nanima]

2 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

If they had just run off without renouncing their claim then yes. And to add to the rest, have the parents be abusive to the younger sibling because they always wanted their older son, who they preferred, to rule. That opens the door for a complicated villain. Also, May I suggest having the protagonist be based on Tsar Peter the Great? He also ran off to see the more developed Western Europe (he worked in the ports of Amsterdam) before going back to Russia and reforming it. The hero's adventures could take him to a more developed kingdom that doesn't have the problems with corruption, and the monarch of that kingdom could convince him to get off his ass and do his duty. But yeah, overall this is a pretty kickass idea.

I am not sure if it's neccessary to make the parents be abusive to the younger sibling specifically, as much as generally neglectful of both siblings (part of why the older sibling ran away, besides their other issues). I think it's easy to justify a grudge by the younger sibling just for first having the older sibling run off and drop all those duties and responsibilities into their lap. That's already a pretty big deal, especially if the younger sibling hadn't been too well prepared for rule in comparison to their older sibling. They then spend years working themselves into competency, doing their best to hold the country together in the only way they think is possible, just to have their elder sibling return spouting ridiculously unworkable (in their mind) ideas that would threaten everything they have built. In the face of that, I don't think there needs to be targeted childhood abuse to make their sense of bitterness and resentment believable.

Peter the Great would make for a good inspiration (though I have to confess that my knowledge of Russian history is a bit spotty in that department, so I can't say exactly how much). There'd be a great sense of wanting to learn more about the world. At first it's of course less for the sake of their country, and more idle curiosity while passing through. But in the end the repeated contact with different forms of authority would make them more invested. There just needs to be this dawning realization that, yes, they do care for their country and want to better it instead of just living it high elsewhere.

45 minutes ago, André The kid said:

I'd Say this has potential. A War where the people divide because of their ideals, and not just because of loyalty. I'd like to see where Intelligent Systems would take this. 

Though unfortunately, i can definitely see this idea being turned into an avatar-like thing , in which the avatar becomes the protagonist. Let's see. 
I do like the idea, especially if an "Arc" is made to explore the adventures they've had as mercenaries.

Turning it into an avatar system would definitely result in a loss of nuance. IntSys doesn't even have to actively endorse the avatar's side like in Fates for that to happen. The fact that there is a character that's supposed to be "you", already is designed to make the opposite faction seem more "wrong".

 

[André The kid]

9 minutes ago, Nanima said:

I am not sure if it's neccessary to make the parents be abusive to the younger sibling specifically, as much as generally neglectful of both siblings (part of why the older sibling ran away, besides their other issues). I think it's easy to justify a grudge by the younger sibling just for first having the older sibling run off and drop all those duties and responsibilities into their lap. That's already a pretty big deal, especially if the younger sibling hadn't been too well prepared for rule in comparison to their older sibling. They then spend years working themselves into competency, doing their best to hold the country together in the only way they think is possible, just to have their elder sibling return spouting ridiculously unworkable (in their mind) ideas that would threaten everything they have built. In the face of that, I don't think there needs to be targeted childhood abuse to make their sense of bitterness and resentment believable.

I Do actually think that them being abusive to the older sibling because they wanted the younger one to rule would make much more sense. I'd say that The main character leaving because they found out his/her parents wanted to kill him/her to give the younger sibling the throne would make for a kickass story.

The brother/sister then believing that the main character was just a lazy idiot who wanted to shove his/her duties onto the younger sibling, making the younger sibling hate the older one even more, due to the boemian Life that the younger sibling had led until the older one left.

And when finally the younger one managed to get himself back together, the older one shows up.
I'd think this would make for a cool plot.

Cool idea!

[Nanima]

1 hour ago, André The kid said:

I Do actually think that them being abusive to the older sibling because they wanted the younger one to rule would make much more sense. I'd say that The main character leaving because they found out his/her parents wanted to kill him/her to give the younger sibling the throne would make for a kickass story.

The brother/sister then believing that the main character was just a lazy idiot who wanted to shove his/her duties onto the younger sibling, making the younger sibling hate the older one even more, due to the boemian Life that the younger sibling had led until the older one left.

Eh.. that would cvhange a whole lot about the stories tone though. The older sibling is supposed to be someone who ended up resenting their dutites and responsibilites and ran away, only to grow during their travels and finally return to do the right thing. Coming-of-age type story if you will. Having their parents out to kill them would just force them on the run because their parents are evil puppykickers. That doesn't add to their character and leaves out their immaturity and rebellious spirit as contributing factors. The younger sibling should still have a point in their resentment for the sudden abandonment. 

If you are all still sold on child abuse, it doesn't have to involve outright murder. Have the parent repeatedly lament that they think their younger child is better suited to rule, and have this be a point of conflict. Just no outright murder attempts and utter depravity where it is really not neccessary for the story..

[JJ48]

On ‎2‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 7:14 PM, saisymbolic said:

I wouldn't mind a main lord that is something of a spoiled brat. They would expect people to follow and obey them because of who they are, showing a bit of immaturity and genuine confusion when they don't get their way. They would have some manners and some appreciation to learn for the people of their nation to help them get over their hubris attained by living with a silver spoon in their mouth for the entirety of their life; there would be some difficulties establishing alliances and gaining officers because of their childish temperament. They would obviously be educated and privy to battle formations, but they would lack the experience and patience leading a troop would require. They would initially be overly confident in their orders and reckless in the execution of them. Participating in a battle for the first time would obviously shake them and losing troops would devastate them—slaying someone with their own hands and hearing of a battle from their parents' generals are two completely different things. I suppose from that, there would be a sort of hesitance in their actions that makes them somewhat wary to enter battle—or a coward on an extreme spectrum.

On a side note, this main lord would require an older mentor character (who may or may not later betray them) to keep them grounded for a portion of the story.

At the end of the day, any sort of personality can work as long as care, common sense, proper backstory and development are given to the character, in my opinion.

I know it's probably not what you were going for, but after reading this I can't help but think of a gaiden game with Serra as a lord...

[saisymbolic]

6 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I know it's probably not what you were going for, but after reading this I can't help but think of a gaiden game with Serra as a lord...

I actually liked Serra, so I wouldn't mind it.

lol

[JJ48]

Just now, saisymbolic said:

I actually liked Serra, so I wouldn't mind it.

lol

Oh, it'd be absolutely hilarious!  I'm just not sure how long they could keep it up.  It'd probably go something like:

Part 1:  Lady Serra leads commands the heroes to right some wrongs.

Part 2:  The heroes must eventually right the wrong of Lady Serra being in charge.

[Dragonage2ftw]

He should be like Corrin.

 

Strong. Kind. Hates to see blood shed. Knows when to make sacrifices. Is willing to go and make his step sisters into his waifu's.

[Gruntagen]

9 hours ago, Dragonage2ftw said:

He should be like Corrin.

A completely emotionless vessel for the player whose only notable characteristic is whining about how much he doesn't like fighting despite his ability to magically prevent battles from having casualties?

[Dragonage2ftw]

12 hours ago, Gruntagen said:

A completely emotionless vessel for the player whose only notable characteristic is whining about how much he doesn't like fighting despite his ability to magically prevent battles from having casualties?

Read the rest of the post that you quoted, troll.

[Gruntagen]

...Ahem. Allow me to rephrase that:

I've never seen any personality from Corrin.

[NekoKnight]

On 3/9/2017 at 2:16 AM, Nanima said:

Well yes, since the younger sibling doesn't really do anything about the system of courtly decadence and intriuge. They do a decent enough job of not letting the country go entirely to shit, but they are really only staving off the inevitable collapse once a less competent king/queen claims the throne. Because of their bitterness towards their older sibling and the influence of some of the "traditionalist" courtiers, they refuse to implement reforms that would rid the system of it's corruption. Their stance is essentially "It's always been this way, and can only ever work this way.", while refusing to think of other ways out of a personal grudge and being more suceptible to courtly intrigue than they want others to believe.. They also believe their siblings ideas are utopian and naive.

This is a good start, but I think the younger sibling is going to need to be a bit more villainous to make the older sibling's return not seem like a super dick move. The younger sibling is the legal sovereign and kicking him off the throne, even if he's not doing the best job of ruling, would make the protagonist an unsympathetic usurper. 

Perhaps the younger sibling knowingly allows corruption and injustices to continue because his control is tenuous at best and he needs the support of his corrupt nobles. Furthermore, he could already be taking heavy-handed approaches to quashing other political reformers in the country (the disenfranchised that the protagonists can recruit).

Concerning the "abusive parents" idea that some people floated, I don't think it needs to be like they were evil, just had strong favoritism for the older sibling (think Faramir and his father but toned down a bit). It could be a consistent theme of abandonment and loss that drives the younger sibling to villainy. Imagine also if the two siblings had a shared romantic interest that eventually chooses the protagonist, so by the end of the game, the younger sibling feels like his parent's love, the romantic interest and even his country are about to be stolen by his good-for-nothing older sibling.

Apologies if you already considered these ideas, I'm a bit late to the conversation.

EDIT: And because I'm a nerd that is now making fanfiction about a plot pitch, maybe the love interest is the one who seeks out the protagonist to bring him back after seeing the country decline under the younger sibling's ineffectual leadership. While the love interest did this out of genuine concern (and only wants the protagonist to advise the younger sibling, not replace him) for the well-being of the country, the younger sibling sees it as a betrayal.

Edited March 11, 2017 by NekoKnight

[Nanima]

5 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

This is a good start, but I think the younger sibling is going to need to be a bit more villainous to make the older sibling's return not seem like a super dick move. The younger sibling is the legal sovereign and kicking him off the throne, even if he's not doing the best job of ruling, would make the protagonist an unsympathetic usurper. 

Perhaps the younger sibling knowingly allows corruption and injustices to continue because his control is tenuous at best and he needs the support of his corrupt nobles. Furthermore, he could already be taking heavy-handed approaches to quashing other political reformers in the country (the disenfranchised that the protagonists can recruit).

Concerning the "abusive parents" idea that some people floated, I don't think it needs to be like they were evil, just had strong favoritism for the older sibling (think Faramir and his father but toned down a bit). It could be a consistent theme of abandonment and loss that drives the younger sibling to villainy. Imagine also if the two siblings had a shared romantic interest that eventually chooses the protagonist, so by the end of the game, the younger sibling feels like his parent's love, the romantic interest and even his country are about to be stolen by his good-for-nothing older sibling.

Apologies if you already considered these ideas, I'm a bit late to the conversation.

EDIT: And because I'm a nerd that is now making fanfiction about a plot pitch, maybe the love interest is the one who seeks out the protagonist to bring him back after seeing the country decline under the younger sibling's ineffectual leadership. While the love interest did this out of genuine concern (and only wants the protagonist to advise the younger sibling, not replace him) for the well-being of the country, the younger sibling sees it as a betrayal.

Like I said, the rule of the younger sibling has enough problematic aspects without outright incompetency. The older sibling  didn't immediately demand the throne on their return. Only after recognizing the huge faults of the system, bringing them up to the younger sibling, getting ignored/snubbed by them, and realizing that they don't have any way of fixing things in their current position. Is it still a morally questionable thing to do? Yes. But they still have some justification and don't want the throne just to satisfy their own ego. It's a desperate last resort attempt they think is the only way to save the country from complete collapse. Feel free to critize them for it, I imagine there are more than enough non-evil people in the setting that would do the same. But I do think some sense of moral ambiguity is better than an outright struggle of definite good vs. definite evil. I still think the older sibling is ultimately in the right, but that doesn't mean their actions are completely ideal, just in-character for someone who has spent the last 5-10 years seeing both how great things can be in a country that is governed well and how horrible the situation can get with a corrupt government. They have learned that sometimes it's best to stay out of a situation, but from their perspective this isn't one of them.

Also if we are talking about a legal situation, the older sibling never officially renounced their claim to the throne. And they weren't erased from the family register by their parents either (the younger sibling later does so, but this isn't universally accepted), so in the eyes of their peers they would be perfectly justified in getting the younger sibling to hand back the throne. So yes, if we are talking medieval legality they would be justified.

I actually think both siblings could face their own form of neglect (while mostly ignorant of the other's treatment). The older sibling, who while accepted as the official heir was also under heavy pressure to become the kind of machievallian prince their parents wanted, and often rebuked for their idealism before they ran off. Meanwhile the younger sibling bend themselves backwards to become exactly that, but was ignored and didn't receive any proper instructions until they got everything dumped on them at once when their older sibling ran away.

About the love thing. I had this little idea of the older sibling already having had an arranged marriage before their escape, and their spouse insisiting on being taken along (because hey would just be shamed and ostracized if they stayed behind). During their travels they would either fall in love for real or grow to be very good friends. The love interest thing could be good, although I have to admit to not being a big fan of love triangles.

I still think the final decision to return should come entirely from the older sibling. They already know that things aren't great in their home country, and once they are prepared to take responsibility, they go back in order to help make things better. Initially they only thought they would do so as an advisor to their younger sibling, but that's not how it turned out in the end..

And wow, you are actually going to write this? That's amazing! I would love to read it.

 

 

 

[NekoKnight]

1 hour ago, Nanima said:

Also if we are talking about a legal situation, the older sibling never officially renounced their claim to the throne. And they weren't erased from the family register by their parents either (the younger sibling later does so, but this isn't universally accepted), so in the eyes of their peers they would be perfectly justified in getting the younger sibling to hand back the throne. So yes, if we are talking medieval legality they would be justified.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the younger sibling has an official coronation, he's the new king legally (unless he's just a steward until the real king returns, but that paints a completely different situation and the older sibling is obviously in the right). Is there some kind of historical precedent for a passed over king candidate being legally entitled to the throne? I would assume that there are no 'take backs' and any change of power would depend the current king voluntarily abdicating. Or more likely, the passed over candidate would just have to take the throne by force. Maybe the legal situation is best left ambiguous and it really being up to the individual (in an out of universe) which claim they think is most valid.

That brings to mind a possible Camus character. One of the little brother's supporters who recognizes that there are a lot of problems in the country but he respects the younger sibling for trying to bring it all together as opposed to the older sibling who fled his responsibilities.

1 hour ago, Nanima said:

I actually think both siblings could face their own form of neglect (while mostly ignorant of the other's treatment). The older sibling, who while accepted as the official heir was also under heavy pressure to become the kind of machievallian prince their parents wanted, and often rebuked for their idealism before they ran off. Meanwhile the younger sibling bend themselves backwards to become exactly that, but was ignored and didn't receive any proper instructions until they got everything dumped on them at once when their older sibling ran away.

About the love thing. I had this little idea of the older sibling already having had an arranged marriage before their escape, and their spouse insisiting on being taken along (because hey would just be shamed and ostracized if they stayed behind). During their travels they would either fall in love for real or grow to be very good friends. The love interest thing could be good, although I have to admit to not being a big fan of love triangles.

That's one way to frame it. The version I was suggesting was pushing a lot of misfortune and unhappiness on the younger sibling to justify his villainous actions (unlike Zephiel whose misfortune is probably disproportionate with the level of destruction he desired) and the older brother comparatively well off which just escalates the younger sibling's anger. The feeling I want to evoke is "This is one bad dude, but boy do I feel sorry for the guy". Your telling makes the siblings more even in the ups and downs of life, which I can respect.

1 hour ago, Nanima said:

I still think the final decision to return should come entirely from the older sibling. They already know that things aren't great in their home country, and once they are prepared to take responsibility, they go back in order to help make things better. Initially they only thought they would do so as an advisor to their younger sibling, but that's not how it turned out in the end..

Good call. It's actually better character development for him to come back on his own volition than have someone summon him.

1 hour ago, Nanima said:

And wow, you are actually going to write this? That's amazing! I would love to read it.

Give me the time and talent and I'll make it happen. I'll let you know when your royalties are due.

Edited March 11, 2017 by NekoKnight

[Nanima]

16 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the younger sibling has an official coronation, he's the new king legally (unless he's just a steward until the real king returns, but that paints a completely different situation and the older sibling is obviously in the right). Is there some kind of historical precedent for a passed over king candidate being legally entitled to the throne? I would assume that there are no 'take backs' and any change of power would depend the current king voluntarily abdicating. Or more likely, the passed over candidate would just have to take the throne by force. Maybe the legal situation is best left ambiguous and it really being up to the individual (in an out of universe) which claim they think is most valid.

Legal situations were rarely clear cut back in medieval times. However, someone ascending the throne doesn't erase the claims of their rivals, especially when they have a better claim (which an older sibling of a viable gender would have). Just look at how the Wars of the Roses even started. The House of Lancaster was widely contested not only for having gained the throne by force, but also because they only descended from a third son of Edward III, while there were still living descendands of a second son (the situation is more complex than that, but this was one of the most accepted arguments made by the Yorkist faction). A king's position was always potentially threatened by the existence of rival claimants. In the end, it mostly came down to who managed to convince the most people that their claim was more valid, not neccessarily who got to the throne first.

[NekoKnight]

1 minute ago, Nanima said:

Legal situations were rarely clear cut back in medieval times. However, someone ascending the throne doesn't erase the claims of their rivals, especially when they have a better claim (which an older sibling of a viable gender would have). Just look at how the Wars of the Roses even started. The House of Lancaster was widely contested not only for having gained the throne by force, but also because they only descended from a third son of Edward III, while there were still living descendands of a second son (the situation is more complex than that, but this was one of the most accepted arguments made by the Yorkist faction). A king's position was always potentially threatened by the existence of rival claimants. In the end, it mostly came down to who managed to convince the most people that their claim was more valid, not neccessarily who got to the throne first.

Indeed, "lawful succession" is just a mechanism for peaceful continuation of the government but what is "legal" or who is "right" really comes down to who has the biggest army backing them. Which is why I think a more ambiguous legal situation is better for a morally grey story. If the narrative clearly paints the older sibling as having the right to the throne, then you've already undermined the moral conflict.

[Nanima]

7 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

Indeed, "lawful succession" is just a mechanism for peaceful continuation of the government but what is "legal" or who is "right" really comes down to who has the biggest army backing them. Which is why I think a more ambiguous legal situation is better for a morally grey story. If the narrative clearly paints the older sibling as having the right to the throne, then you've already undermined the moral conflict.

That wasn't my intent at all. I just wanted to say that in the eyes of their peers, the older sibling does have a very strong claim in their favour, although not all accept it (and not just evil guys, like I already said). The older siblings would still have detractors who would be valid in their criticism that they left and abandoned their duties and are now starting a civil war against their own flesh and blood. Both sides have things that make them valid and things that make it dubious. It's really a matter of who gets more support in the end, but we shouldn't ignore the way people would argue about it in medieval times. Our modern view is a different one anyway, and the narrative can paint things right and wrong without the characters and setting having to behold to our standards (depiction =/= endorsement). Otherwise we'd have a modern story with medieval paint over it.

[CycleDone]

I'd like to see a "lord" who is a peasant conning his way into becoming a grieving king's son.

So a con man looking out for his own gain but by the end has to fulfill the duties of a lord.   

[IMCasual]

I want a silence MU protagonist like the persona series and allow us through dialogue choices to mold his/her character ourself. Robin and Corrin are only avatar in name only, they never really reflect our choices in the game when they already have a default personality. They already have a silence Robin in Awakening, now just give us dialogue choices. 

[Oricorio]

I'd like the lord to start out as a leader of thieves, and be sort of a Robin Hood/Zorro type of character. He enters a war accidentally by fighting a corrupt politician from Nation A, so he escapes to Nation B, an enemy of Nation A. Things go well for a while, and he will have some character development. However, soon Nation B will find out about his background and will want nothing to do with him, forcing them to be on the run from both nations.

[blah the Prussian]

13 hours ago, CycleDone said:

I'd like to see a "lord" who is a peasant conning his way into becoming a grieving king's son.

So a con man looking out for his own gain but by the end has to fulfill the duties of a lord.   

Hey, I actually ran a DnD character like that once. That also reminds me of Michael Kain's character in Dirty Ritten Scoundrels, although it's not a perfect fit. That could work!

[smash-brethren]

Definitely in agreement that we gotta drop the whole naive aspect of the lord character. It's incredibly easy for the writer to slip down from "naive" to outright stupid, in a way that makes the audience roll their eyes. Especially since it seems that majority, or at least a large chunk, of FE fans are at least in their teens and tend to lose taste for pure, naive, protags like this. Moving on, if the protag is a lord, I definitely want to see them as a product of their upbringing. Here are my takes on how that could go.

1. they're a bit of brat, maybe not completely spoiled rotten, but obviously never experienced true hardship. This could be a good source of character development throughout the story, since they'll not only learn about "the real world", but being a child of noble lineage they can also learn of using their position in a way to benefit those less fortunate than themselves.

2. Noble lineage almost always leads to courtly intrigue! Give us a protagonist who's wary of the world and the people in it. A bit cynical, but not an edgelord. A protagonist with a silver tongue who knows how to get what they want without fighting, whether through pleasant conversation or blackmail (although given this is an fe game they'll have to resort to violence sooner or later). It'd be an interesting experience to see them learn to open up and gain faith in others as they fight with people from different walks of life. Plus seeing them actively engage in politics could be nice, a lord like this would definitely be charismatic and a figure who could actually convince enemies to join their side.

Of course I'm very open to non royal/noble protags, while I have yet to play por/rd Ike's popularity should be testament to how refreshing/interesting a non-royal protagonist is for the FE series. Seeing a person who lives under an oppressive rule and starts an uprising appeal to his or her fellow citizens would be a nice touch. Although should the main character be another self insert like corrin here's hoping they at least have a semi customize-able personality or dialogue options.....Also down for a game fully centered on a female lord instead of a sort of partner ship between m/f lords for once. Also should that be the case, while I loved Eirika dearly, I don't want another pacifistic female lord, definitely wanna see a girl with a really standout personality and traits other than "kind and gentle girl who hates violence and sees it as a last resort."

[Gnous]

I basically want a Daenerys Targarien character. A lord who had to flee from her kingdom  (or any other territory Her family ruled) as a child because of a coup d'état and has learned life the hard way since. And so is not naive.  

But she want her kingdom back and revenge and so start a war years later, she can start with an army of mercenaries and gain partisan and people who are still loyal to her family through the game. 

I really think Game of thrones plot will make a great FE.

[Yula]

What I want is irrelevant.

 

What we'll get is the same lord character in the series in yet a different costume.

[CatManThree]

I just hope we don't get something along the lines of Chrom. I mean he wasn't exactly that bad but he felt like a sort of weird amaglamation of different lords from previous games and it came off as a little bit strange to me.