What is your ideal Lord?

[Truthblade]

I would agree that it kinda feels like Ike pushed Micaiah out the spotlight, as she became almost irrelevant when he showed up, but I hold that against the writers more than Ike (if at all). 

 

Speaking of better female lords (since this is kinda getting off topic) , I would like to see a stand alone female lord. Literally every other Female Lord shares her role with another male protagonist, which, while I don't really hate it, should probably change some time soon in order to avoid any unfortunate implications.

[ChibiToastExplosion]

6 minutes ago, Blade_of_Light said:

Speaking of better female lords (since this is kinda getting off topic) , I would like to see a stand alone female lord. Literally every other Female Lord shares her role with another male protagonist

I apologize for my role in the de-rail.

I would like to second this. Although, Celica splits time evenly with Alm and he only slightly edges her out by being the one to finish Duma. I appreciate when they do a male/female split like Alm/Celica and Ephraim/Erika, although I think Gaiden handled it better by giving each their own half of the game instead of a few exclusive chapters.

[Anacybele]

28 minutes ago, ChibiToastExplosion said:

Because how cool would it have been if his position was flipped with the BK's for the duration of RD as a recurring antagonist? We know Ike isn't a bad guy, and if the intention of RD was to show that overall Dein weren't bad guys, then tell the story from their point of view? Maybe Ike joins up at the very end as an Athos type unit for the last few chapters, but he is harrassing the dawn brigade throughout.

People loved the world building of Tellius (and it is good, but I don't agree that it's the best the series has to offer), so imagine how much more world building and cool things they could have done if it wasn't spent circlejerking around one guy.

And yes, poor Miciah, and poor dawn brigade. I keep trying to play through RD again, and I am in love with how the game plays through part 1. And then part 2 happens. And that's when I completely stop caring.

I don't think many fans would appreciate him being portrayed as an antagonist though. I certainly don't like the idea of fighting against him most of the game. However, I am fine with the idea that he doesn't become playable until late.

I think Tellius has the best world building in the series, personally. But yes, I agree that if RD's story wasn't rushed and was instead split into two games or something, the world building could've been better still.

And the Dawn Brigade being poor characters in general can also be blamed on the lack of real support conversations since only PoR had that luxury.

I agree that we need a female lord that stands on her own and doesn't share any spotlight with or gets overshadowed by a male. For this reason alone my fic's lord is a woman. Two males are major supporting characters with their own arcs, but she is the one and only lord who has a majority of the spotlight.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Anacybele

[Dark Holy Elf]

I do feel that the game always pushed Eirika slightly above Ephraim for importance, though not badassery obviously. Agreed that the series is due for a standalone female main, although the player does have the option of that in Fates, and if avatars are here to stay that's the best we're gonna get (since I don't see the point in gender-locked avatar characters... not that this stops some games from having male-locked ones).

My ideal lord would be one who has clear flaws that he or she must overcome (preference for she since female mains are still underrepresented, but either is fine). If they're a badass, it should be earned badassery... don't have them start off that way! (I like elements of Ephraim but some of his stuff like storming a castle with four people just makes me facepalm.) They should also have real, genune interactions with other characters in a way that doesn't overshadow them; I'd much rather the lord be one of several important characters than way more important than the rest. (Early PoR got this right, Binding Blade did not. etc.)

Gameplaywise I like someone like Corrin: not overwhelming or the best unit, but good with unique properties.

 

1 minute ago, Anacybele said:

I don't think many fans would appreciate him being portrayed as an antagonist though. I certainly don't like the idea of fighting against him most of the game. However, I am fine with the idea that he doesn't become playable until late.

Yeah given that Ike's development was basically complete in PoR (if we're being honest, halfway through PoR) I feel the game would have benefitted with having less of him. He's be great in the Gotoh/Athos/Caineghis role.

I think fighting him was actually very effective and would certainly keep that; you KNOW it's bad news when the Greil Mercs show up in 3-13 for instance.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Dark Holy Elf

[Troykv]

1 hour ago, Blade_of_Light said:

I would agree that it kinda feels like Ike pushed Micaiah out the spotlight, as she became almost irrelevant when he showed up, but I hold that against the writers more than Ike (if at all). 

 

Speaking of better female lords (since this is kinda getting off topic) , I would like to see a stand alone female lord. Literally every other Female Lord shares her role with another male protagonist, which, while I don't really hate it, should probably change some time soon in order to avoid any unfortunate implications.

Well, at least Eirika has the honor to be the most "main" of the female lords; because her importance in the story is equal or even bigger than Ephraim's (unlike Lyn that is a filler, Celica living pretty much to be a counterpart to Alm and damsel in disaster and Micaiah being severely pushed away for Ike and other things).

[Interdimensional Observer]

49 minutes ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

(I like elements of Ephraim but some of his stuff like storming a castle with four people just makes me facepalm.)

Well it isn't really just four people. Depending on the FE game and chapter, you may have to use your imagination and visualize many more units.

Sigurd didn't conquer Agustria and Verdane with only 23 others. In fact, we know there has to be more, because Ethnia, the mother of the subs Amid and Linda, is mentioned to have joined Sigurd's forces- yet we never see her.

Back to FE8, 5x is one of those chapters where you have to imagine there are invisible player units. How many? That'd require logistical data we don't have. Ephraim says at the end he doesn't have enough to hold the castle in a siege. And it sounds like he's been engaging in guerrilla hit-and-run warfare the entire time since Renais's fall, so I'd guess it's a small but talented and highly mobile force, but still more than just four people.

Also, Ephraim did train under Duessel, we could hypothesize the battle-loving prince spent his time not practicing with his spear on learning military formations and maneuvers with the greatest of teachers. 

[Skynstein]

This question is pointless because it's like asking what would be an ideal protagonist... Any answer could apply to pretty much any work ever made, fantasy or not.

From my limited experience with FE, the lords are quite distinct between each other and it's best kept this way, so there's no ideal Lord because each story will require different things.

IMO the only requirement for any protagonist should be good development, which is purely a technical thing, the rest is subjective and not up to discussion. Chrom's development in Awakening for example isn't particularly great, but at least he's consistent throughout, because he's stubborn, hotheaded and impulsive, and doesn't magically turn into someone else for the sake of cheap development. The problem in FE13 is that the actual character development is in the supports, and these have very limited impact on the actual story, if any, so they just feel like a side thing.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Cerberus87

[Dark Holy Elf]

31 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Well it isn't really just four people. Depending on the FE game and chapter, you may have to use your imagination and visualize many more units.

I agree generally, but 5x does a really bad job of selling me on that if that's the goal. If you want to do that, you gotta make some reference in the text to him having other troops! Heck, there's a perfect excuse to then get rid of those troops from the story thereafter: let him LOSE to Valter and have to run away on the sacrifices of his soldiers, instead of him basically escaping a trap entirely due to being awesome enough to "not pick fights he doesn't win", as I believe he put it. He'd learn something and be a better character. But the game doesn't seem to know how to let Ephraim make mistakes or experience setbacks.

I think I'd really hate Ephraim if not for his relationships with his sister and Lyon, which are quite well-written and round the character out a lot.

[Truthblade]

37 minutes ago, Cerberus87 said:

This question is pointless because it's like asking what would be an ideal protagonist... Any answer could apply to pretty much any work ever made, fantasy or not.

From my limited experience with FE, the lords are quite distinct between each other and it's best kept this way, so there's no ideal Lord because each story will require different things.

IMO the only requirement for any protagonist should be good development, which is purely a technical thing, the rest is subjective and not up to discussion. Chrom's development in Awakening for example isn't particularly great, but at least he's consistent throughout, because he's stubborn, hotheaded and impulsive, and doesn't magically turn into someone else for the sake of cheap development. The problem in FE13 is that the actual character development is in the supports, and these have very limited impact on the actual story, if any, so they just feel like a side thing.

Alright, then how about "What is your dream Lord?"

[Skynstein]

18 minutes ago, Blade_of_Light said:

Alright, then how about "What is your dream Lord?"

A honorable leader, I'd say. Doesn't even need charisma, just honor. Someone who gets things done and whom their party believes in.

[vanguard333]

8 hours ago, Cerberus87 said:

A honorable leader, I'd say. Doesn't even need charisma, just honor. Someone who gets things done and whom their party believes in.

I like this idea. Would honour, to this character, be an established code of ideals/morals, or a personal set of values?

For example, I'm currently writing a book that follows two people on opposing sides, both of whom are considered honourable warriors. One of them follows a personal set of values. For instance, on the issue of loyalty, he says something along the lines of, "I don't need or want to make any of the fancy vows knights have to make; I just keep my yes, yes and my no, no." The other follows a written code of honour created by his ancestor.

[Skynstein]

6 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

I like this idea. Would honour, to this character, be an established code of ideals/morals, or a personal set of values?

For example, I'm currently writing a book that follows two people on opposing sides, both of whom are considered honourable warriors. One of them follows a personal set of values. For instance, on the issue of loyalty, he says something along the lines of, "I don't need or want to make any of the fancy vows knights have to make; I just keep my yes, yes and my no, no." The other follows a written code of honour created by his ancestor.

I would lean more towards a personal set of values, but that shouldn't be the only answer. If a strict code works for someone else, that's fine. :)

[Interdimensional Observer]

16 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I agree generally, but 5x does a really bad job of selling me on that if that's the goal. If you want to do that, you gotta make some reference in the text to him having other troops! Heck, there's a perfect excuse to then get rid of those troops from the story thereafter: let him LOSE to Valter and have to run away on the sacrifices of his soldiers, instead of him basically escaping a trap entirely due to being awesome enough to "not pick fights he doesn't win", as I believe he put it. He'd learn something and be a better character. But the game doesn't seem to know how to let Ephraim make mistakes or experience setbacks.

I'd be perfectly fine with this. Even the best of generals in reality, those that get idealized, make mistakes somewhere along the line.

Cao Cao is made out as a badass in Dynasty Warriors, but he always has Chibi/Red Cliffs hanging over his head. Frederick II "the Great" of Prussia nearly lost it all on several occasions. Napoleon has Austerlitz, but it's counterbalanced by the Russia invasion. Peter the Great alternated between terrible losses and excellent victories. Washington lost more battles than he won (but he won the war). Grant is well known for his crude arithmetic and willingness to accept heavy losses to win battles. The Allied landing in WWII after D Day's success got bogged down for a time.

It probably would have done Ephraim's character much better if he had suffered terrible losses at Renvall. It would have been a loss owing to his brashness, the same brashness which later gets the Renais Sacred Stone smashed. His route would then gain something from him trying to control his bad behavior having experienced the trauma of Renvall. Seth would be a bit more vocal and critical of Ephraim's choice of actions.

Rigwald would become him not wanting to besiege the invincible fortress because that'd be too slow, but at the same time trying to be cautious in his attack on it. Bethroen would be him wanting to save his mentor, but trying to at the same time trying to keep his forces from being chewed up in the rush to Duessel (I can't see Seth wholly disapproving of the rescue though- the potential of a defection by a Gemstone General would be invaluable for the war effort). Seth could recommend a land approach to southern Grado instead of going by sea given stories of the Phantom Ship, and the actual fight would be a kind of "told you so". Fluorspar's Oath could be a mini lesson for Ephraim of how it feels when others do things without concern for others (because he feels bad when Myrrh suddenly leaves his side). And then we get to Scorched Sands, where Ephraim must put saving his sister ahead of going after Valter- the man responsible for the Renvall slaughter.

[solrocknroll]

8 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

I'd be perfectly fine with this. Even the best of generals in reality, those that get idealized, make mistakes somewhere along the line.

Cao Cao is made out as a badass in Dynasty Warriors, but he always has Chibi/Red Cliffs hanging over his head. Frederick II "the Great" of Prussia nearly lost it all on several occasions. Napoleon has Austerlitz, but it's counterbalanced by the Russia invasion. Peter the Great alternated between terrible losses and excellent victories. Washington lost more battles than he won (but he won the war). Grant is well known for his crude arithmetic and willingness to accept heavy losses to win battles. The Allied landing in WWII after D Day's success got bogged down for a time.

It probably would have done Ephraim's character much better if he had suffered terrible losses at Renvall. It would have been a loss owing to his brashness, the same brashness which later gets the Renais Sacred Stone smashed. His route would then gain something from him trying to control his bad behavior having experienced the trauma of Renvall. Seth would be a bit more vocal and critical of Ephraim's choice of actions.

Rigwald would become him not wanting to besiege the invincible fortress because that'd be too slow, but at the same time trying to be cautious in his attack on it. Bethroen would be him wanting to save his mentor, but trying to at the same time trying to keep his forces from being chewed up in the rush to Duessel (I can't see Seth wholly disapproving of the rescue though- the potential of a defection by a Gemstone General would be invaluable for the war effort). Seth could recommend a land approach to southern Grado instead of going by sea given stories of the Phantom Ship, and the actual fight would be a kind of "told you so". Fluorspar's Oath could be a mini lesson for Ephraim of how it feels when others do things without concern for others (because he feels bad when Myrrh suddenly leaves his side). And then we get to Scorched Sands, where Ephraim must put saving his sister ahead of going after Valter- the man responsible for the Renvall slaughter.

Sounds to me like you don't want the main character to succeed ever.

There's a difference between making a few mistakes, like Marth, Roy, or Seliph do, and literally making nothing but mistakes likes you're suggesting.

People love Thracia even though Leif's journey never amounts to anything. It's basically just an endless cycle of him failing. How could anyone really find that interesting?

[Xanaxian]

I like my lords to err on the arcane side of things. A dark-magic wielding one would undoubtedly encourage some intriguing backstory, especially if that particular brand of magic was as rare as it was on Tellius. That being said, light and anima would prove to be fairly redundant in my opinion - I'm looking at you, Micaiah - but a lord with a foundation in dark magic shrouded in mystery would interest me. One caveat, though: no edgelords. 

[The_antithesis]

I'd like to see a lord who does the right thing for the wrong reasons. Maybe (s)he is fighting on the side of justice and saving villages, but only for the glory and reputation. The lord would bond with their army not for friendship, but to know who to put where in tactics. Heck, (s)he may even have fun slaughtering bandits!

This type of lord could work very well for putting the player into the story with immediate questions of "am I on the good side here?" and leaves a lot of room for character development, without making a shitty antihero. The closest we've gotten to this is F!Robin. If (s)he does come up, I would squeal in delight.

As for their class, am I the only one who wants a healer (who may also use tomes) as the main character? That would REALLY amplify the 'this army is a team' aspect, and it would mean the player will never lose their healer.

As for race and gender etc. I honestly don't care, as long as they have a decent personality.

[Interdimensional Observer]

6 hours ago, Freyjadour said:

Sounds to me like you don't want the main character to succeed ever.

 

I probably went a little too far with integrating the Phantom Ship into things in my spur-of-the-moment rewrite. But still, you can't say Ephraim just keeps on losing. He does conquer Rigwald, he does conquer Grado, he does rescue Eirika and defeat Valter, liberate his kingdom and defeat the Demon King, I think those ultimately outweigh any losses. And I'm not saying he does suffer massive losses at Rigwald or Bethroen, he is simply aware of having to make sure his actions don't lead to such things because the potential is there.

[Slasher7709]

A bow knight/ranger with identical stats to a Sigurd/Raven mix-up. I prefer units with high strength, skill, speed, and decent constitution. I also love that Sigurd, gameplay wise, is a direct opposite of Leif; where Sigurd is essentially a rape train whereas Leif is god-awful early game.

[a bear]

On 5/5/2017 at 0:54 PM, Extrasolar said:

I'll admit I'm a a bit overtired of the fact that most of the time, the main lord of the game is a much less interesting character than a lot of the supporting cast, as the lords need to be generally palatable to anyone and everyone playing the game, as well as the general "charismatic leader" who could believably recruit and command an army made up of a variety of personalities. As a result, the majority of them stick to the Marth archetype -- that is, polite, well-spoken, humble and friendly. Of course we have exceptions, but they're just that -- exceptions.

For a bit of a change of pace, I'd like an Ares-type lord, as his character is expanded on in the various FE4 manga. That is, blunt, deadpan and somewhat sarcastic, and a little antagonistic at times, but underneath a generally good guy who can be surprisingly affectionate to the people he likes. Having him be a bit more battle hungry and aggressive is a plus. And just like people were talking fatal flaws, having his assholery come back to bite him a few times, and through the game having his rough edges somewhat softened in that he has to learn that being a dick isn't exactly conducive to leading a large group of people toward a goal, and that control by fear is less effective than. But at the same time, they know that idealism and blind trust isn't the answer to everything. It's all about a balanced perspective.

Best post of the thread for me. Leaders are respected, not necessarily liked. Even then, it's great to see dissent amongst the ranks like with Shinon rather than blind obedience from <Fates character>. It's a shame IS tends to reuse the same concepts for a decade or so, I'm going ape for that Ares idea.

Anyway, my own perfect lord? As a teenager around 2001, anytime I could make a custom dude in a fantasy setting, I'd usually make a rugged, handsome, blue-haired dude with either a gold greatsword or a silver blade polearm, usually in full plate armor. Speaks his mind, jumps into fights balls first, heart of gold, etc. Needless to say, IS has me covered already.

So at this point, I think what I want to see more than anything else is simply a female lord who doesn't share the spotlight with a male, preferably with a different personality and design from what we typically get. Sharena from Heroes would be a perfect example: white and gold color scheme! Lances! Loves to par-tay! Assuming of course that they wouldn't botch it by focusing on Alfonse (they would). Micaiah was a decent attempt at least, so I'm optimistic about the future (I shouldn't be).

[Emeraldfox]

I just have to like them a lot.

[NekoKnight]

Re: "The lord should fail sometimes" conversation, I think that for a game like this, you're going to need to have the victories more slanted in favor of the lord rather than against him. A tragic failing is good for character development but constant failures (like Conquest) makes me want to play a different game.

[Slumber]

40 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

Re: "The lord should fail sometimes" conversation, I think that for a game like this, you're going to need to have the victories more slanted in favor of the lord rather than against him. A tragic failing is good for character development but constant failures (like Conquest) makes me want to play a different game.

They're only bad in Fates because the writing in Fates is bad. Corrin, and anybody with Garon's blood flowing through them is a complete mental deficient, and seeing them fail time and time again feels like beating your head against a wall. 

Compare Leif in FE5, or even Micaiah after part 1 in FE10. Leif is constantly on the run, always being hit with major setbacks, he sees people he loves in trouble and has to abandon them several times, and his army is rarely ever properly equipped to fight against Thracia or the Lopto Sect. The only people Leif and his crew really ever have consistent success against are common bandits. It build's Leif's character a lot, since he goes from an eager teen who wants nothing more than to liberate Manster, and he has a murder boner for Raydrik when Leif finds out who he is. August basically has to reign in Leif's unbridled rage, and reassure him that his constant failures will have a payoff once he liberates Manster. Even if you want to say his story "amounts to nothing" because FE4 minimizes this impact, the whole point of FE5's story is that it's a personal journey for Leif. The story's not concerned with saving the world, defeating the Lopto Sect, or even beating a kinda strong dragon. It's about Leif's growth until he's able to take back his mother and father's kingdom, fulfill his father's dream, and free his people from tyranny. All of his failures build to this. 

Or Micaiah, who after finding great success during the liberation of Daein, basically just constantly gets manipulated for the rest of the game until the final chapter. She's mostly unaware of this for most of the game, but even then, she is usually being undermined or is blindly turned against Elincia/Ike, who we know are in the right. Then, she's forced to MURDER Palleas, and when she does, is basically taunted for it by the people responsible for the situation in the first place(Though I know the blood pact plots really rub a lot of people the wrong way). 

Neither Micaiah or Leif ever look as bad as Corrin, simply because the writing in Radiant Dawn and Thracia 776 isn't dogshit(Well, RD's writing is up in the air, but I think even most ardent critics of RD's writing would still put it above Fates'). Lords overcoming constant tragedy CAN have a good payoff and be a very engrossing story if done right. Or at least, not done wrong. 

Edited May 9, 2017 by Slumber

[NekoKnight]

3 minutes ago, Slumber said:

They're only bad in Fates because the writing in Fates is bad. Corrin, and anybody with Garon's blood flowing through them is a complete mental deficient, and seeing them fail time and time again feels like beating your head against a wall. 

Compare Leif in FE5, or even Micaiah after part 1 in FE10. Leif is constantly on the run, always being hit with major setbacks, he sees people he loves in trouble and has to abandon them several times, and his army is rarely ever properly equipped to fight against Thracia or the Lopto Sect. The only people Leif and his crew really ever have consistent success against are common bandits. It build's Leif's character a lot, since he goes from an eager teen who wants nothing more than to liberate Manster, and he has a murder boner for Raydrik when Leif finds out who he is. August basically has to reign in Leif's unbridled rage, and reassure him that his constant failures will have a payoff once he liberates Manster. 

Or Micaiah, who after finding great success during the liberation of Daein, basically just constantly gets manipulated for the rest of the game until the final chapter. She's mostly unaware of this for most of the game, but even then, she is usually being undermined or is blindly turned against Elincia/Ike, who we know are in the right. Then, she's forced to MURDER Palleas, and when she does, is basically taunted for it by the people responsible for the situation in the first place(Though I know the blood pact plots really rub a lot of people the wrong way). 

Neither Micaiah or Leif ever look as bad as Corrin, simply because the writing in Radiant Dawn and Thracia 776 isn't dogshit(Well, RD's writing is up in the air, but I think even most ardent critics of RD's writing would still put it above Fates'). Lords overcoming constant tragedy CAN have a good payoff and be a very engrossing story if done right. Or at least, not done wrong. 

I suppose you're right, but I think the contrast between Fates and FE5&10 really demonstrates how carefully the writing must be handled. Struggling with adversity is one thing (and a potentially interesting arc) but failing constantly because the protagonist can't make intelligent or reasonable choices needs to be avoided.

I think agency is a really critical element to a good lord. Even Micaiah who got roped into the Bloodpact was trying to undo it the moment she discovered it. Contrast Corrin who decided to sit on his hands when faced with a similar dilemma.

[Thane]

3 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

A tragic failing is good for character development but constant failures (like Conquest) makes me want to play a different game.

While I agree that a balance is important, like Slumber said, it all boils down to the writing. If you ask me, Corrin's victory in Conquest is arguably worse than their many failings simply because of how undeserved and nonsensical it is. What proof did they or Azura have that Garon would go to Hoshido and sit on the throne? None. What are the odds that Sakura and Hinoka would forgive them for tearing their lives apart? Also none, yet both of those things happened.

[Sentacotus]

I'm a bit biased but I'm gonna go with Ike.  Unlike lords previous he was just a commoner, sure he had some talent with a sword and some strength but by in large he had a long way to go.  Not only that he had alot to learn leadership wise with some poor tactical decisions and so on.  But he learns gets stronger and becomes a leader worthy of succeeding his father.  Its pretty simple and clear cut but it works and its far more compelling than the tactician found in the middle of nowhere given instant trust and makes the right decision every time.