What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[Etrurian emperor]

16 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

What I am understanding here though is how you can interpret how anything Clive says or does as him being willing to discard Alm because he never once even remotely implies at least not in the malicious sense that you seem to be implying.

But that's the problem. I'd have respected Clive's writing if the game had implied he's being malicious about it. But he's not while the direct result of that subplot is Clive acting unbelievably malicious and the game just failing to notice. Clive not living up to his ideals and learning to do so is his arc, but he only doesn't live up to his ideals to a certain point, a point his actions overstep when he tries firing Alm at a very particular moment. What I don't like about Clive is how what he does and what the writing thinks he does don't match well together. 

16 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Like yeah she’s a bit mean in Siegbert’s supports but it adds nuance to her character because it shows what sets her off. If she acted nice in that support then she would be one dimensional. Cause your complaints about Ophelia and Clive come off more as “Oh no they were mean to my precious boy Alm/Siegbert therefore they’re poorly written characters” and that’s not how that works. 

I mean sure. Ophelia picking out Siegbert to bully doesn't entirely reflect well on her since he's among the more vulnerable and least able to defend himself. Kinda similar to know Lysithea knowing exactly who to bully tells you something about her. And the reason for doing so is inherently petty since all that sets her off is Siegbert existing intruding on her fantasies. Remember what I said earlier? That nuanced characters can still acquire certain traits that don't sit well with people.  And its kinda inconsistent since Shiro's also a crown prince, Forrest who she likes a lot is also at least somewhere on the line of succession and Corrin's a literal chosen one, all without it setting her off. So there's Ophelia being an unlikable brat who's not even consistent, but also the part where her design philosophy itself is flawed. She's the third Owain in a game that proved having a second Owain was a bad idea. So yeah, if I consider her basic design to already be off putting and she then acts like a little brat then it doesn't endear her to me. And honestly its not about Siegbert. Had she bullied Corrin who I don't like all that much the end result would have been the same. 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Etrurian emperor

[Ottservia]

1 minute ago, Etrurian emperor said:

But that's the problem. I'd have respected Clive's writing if the game had implied he's being malicious about it. But he's not while the direct result of that subplot is Clive acting unbelievably malicious and the game just failing to notice. What I don't like about Clive is how what he does and what the writing thinks he does don't match well together. 

But the game never implies that and if it does please show me evidence. Like I don’t understand where you’re getting these wild conclusions from. 

 

2 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I mean sure. Ophelia seemingly picking out Siegbert doesn't entirely reflect well on her since he's among the more vulnerable and least able to defend himself. Kinda similar to know Lysithea knowing exactly who to bully tells you something about her. And the reason for doing so is inherently petty since all that sets her off is Siegbert existing intruding on her fantasies. Remember what I said earlier? That nuanced characters can still acquire certain traits that don't sit well with people.  And its kinda inconsistent since Shiro's also a crown prince, Forrest who she likes a lot is also at least somewhere on the line of succession and Corrin's a literal chosen one, all without it setting her off. So there's Ophelia being an unlikable brat but also the part where her design philosophy itself is flawed. She's the third Owain in a game that proved having a second Owain was a bad idea. So yeah, if I consider her basic design to already be off putting and she then acts like a little brat then it doesn't endear her to me. And honestly its not about Siegbert. Had she bullied Corrin who I don't like all that much the end result would have been the same. 

Well now you just contradicted yourself. You said Fire Emblem fans like nuanced characters but you yourself are a counter example to your very own point in that you directly said that nuanced characters have characteristics that make them unlikable when it is those very traits that make them nuanced as I have just pointed put with Ophelia. Your argument makes no sense at all.

[Etrurian emperor]

16 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Well now you just contradicted yourself. You said Fire Emblem fans like nuanced characters but you yourself are a counter example to your very own point in that you directly said that nuanced characters have characteristics that make them unlikable when it is those very traits that make them nuanced as I have just pointed put with Ophelia. Your argument makes no sense at all.

No. What I'm saying is that you can dislike one character for being a trainwreck, and another because you find them unlikable. Just as how you can think a character is objectively bad from a writing perspective(Garon) while disliking another character because you just don't like them(Hana). You can hate characters because they don't function, or because they do function but are assholes. There's no contradiction there. You can dislike Felix for being Felix, and dislike Thales because he's a waste of space who only detracts from the story. 

But you can respect characters you don't like. Even many who hate Edelgard might still conclude she's a good or at least interesting character, something few people would ever say about someone like Validar. In the grand scheme of things I prefer disliked characters who I dislike for interesting reasons than ones I don't like because they were a mess. 

16 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

21 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

 

But the game never implies that and if it does please show me evidence. Like I don’t understand where you’re getting these wild conclusions from. 

But again. The game never implying that is the problem. If the game depicts Clive as someone who doesn't only think about himself, and then makes him act like someone who only thinks about himself then that's a disconnect that reflects badly on the writing process behind him. The moment he fires Alm is the moment Alm freed his wife for him which inherently carries implications regardless of whether the writers intended for it or not. And if they didn't intent for those implications to be there then it means they were very clumsy and that they should have moved that moment to a different point, either before or after Mathilda's saved. Having Clive's doubts come to a head during the rescue of Delthea makes more sense because that's the point where he and Alm actually conflict on strategy and where their backgrounds is the cause of this disagreement, and it removes the implication that its all about Mathilda and how her rescue means Alm fulfilled his use to Clive personally.  

 

Edited September 20, 2021 by Etrurian emperor

[Ottservia]

2 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

No. What I'm saying is that you can dislike one character for being a trainwreck, and another because you find them unlikable. Just as how you can think a character is objectively bad from a writing perspective(Garon) while disliking another character because you just don't like them. You can hate characters because they don't function, or because they do function but are assholes. There's no contradiction there. You can dislike Felix for being Felix, and dislike Thales because he's a waste of space who only detracts from the story. 

But you can respect characters you don't like. Even many who hate Edelgard might still conclude she's a good or at least interesting character, something few people would ever say about someone like Validar. In the grand scheme of things I prefer disliked characters who I dislike for interesting reasons than ones I don't like because they were a mess. 

No it’s still a contradiction. Why? Because the reason you dislike these characters isn’t because they’re objectively poorly written like you claim. It’s because you personally do not like them. Take Ophelia for instance, you don’t like her because she’s just a “third Owain”(which is an untrue statement in it of itself because she’s a second Owain due to Owain and Odin being the same person) when there’s nothing inherently wrong with having 2 chuunibiyo characters in your story. And beyond even that it makes complete sense for Ophelia to be a chuuni like Owain because Owain is her father! Of course any kid of Owain is gonna turn out that way. It just makes sense. So disliking her for being like her father isn’t objective at all like you claim. Like how the fuck else would you write Owain’s daughter?! So her “design” isn’t flawed at all. It makes perfect sense with what her character is supposed to be. Her character isn’t a mess nor is it inconsistent. She’s fine with Forrest likely because he’s not the heir plus she’s technically his retainer. In regards to Shiro well he doesn’t act like a royal anyway. even then, a core aspect of Ophelia’s character is that she’s jealous of other people who she interprets as “chosen ones”. And in her supports with Corrin she says he isn’t one(as to why I have no clue) so it’s likely the same for Forrest and Shiro. I may have to read more of her supports in order to get a better read of her character but there’s at least some consistency there. Again it just comes across as you not liking her because she was mean to your favorite character. Which is entirely personal and subjective. And even the “objective” reasons you do dislike her aren’t objective at all and just based in false readings of her character or just innocuous details that isn’t inherently bad writing. The “objective” reasons for your dislike for Ophelia is what gives her nuance so yes you are contradicting yourself 

 

40 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

But again. The game never implying that is the problem. If the game depicts Clive as someone who doesn't only think about himself, and then makes him act like someone who only thinks about himself then that's a disconnect that reflects badly on the writing process behind him. The moment he fires Alm is the moment Alm freed his wife for him which inherently carries implications regardless of whether the writers intended for it or not. And if they didn't intent for those implications to be there then it means they were very clumsy and that they should have moved that moment to a different point, either before or after that moment. Having Clive's doubts come to a head during the rescue of Delthea makes more sense because that's the point where he and Alm actually conflict on strategy and where their backgrounds is the cause of this disagreement, and it removes the implication that its all about Mathilda and how her rescue means Alm fulfilled his use to Clive personally. 

You completely missed my point. When does Clive ever imply he was gonna fire Alm after they rescue Mathilda? I don’t remember the game or Clive ever implying such at any point in the story. If you’re gonna make such a claim please show me evidence for how you reached such a nonsensical conclusion 

[Anathaco]

44 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

You completely missed my point. When does Clive ever imply he was gonna fire Alm after they rescue Mathilda? I don’t remember the game or Clive ever implying such at any point in the story. If you’re gonna make such a claim please show me evidence for how you reached such a nonsensical conclusion 

Look as someone who actually really likes Clive Etrurian Emperor has a point here. The story intended Clive to be a conflicted character, yes. The story didn’t want him to be malicious, yes. But Etrurian’s point isn’t that Clive was meant to be malicious, it’s that the timing of his actions lead to him being seen as malicious. Accidentally, without the intention of the writers. Clive never implies that he was going to fire Alim after they rescue Mathilda because it’s not something the writers wanted you to think of him, but by timing it like that the thought inevitably comes up. Which is problematic because it creates a contradiction between how Clive is and how the story unintentionally makes him come off.

Granted I honestly don’t think it’s much of a big deal and still think Clive works despite it, but it’s a valid point.

[Ottservia]

51 minutes ago, Anathaco said:

Look as someone who actually really likes Clive Etrurian Emperor has a point here. The story intended Clive to be a conflicted character, yes. The story didn’t want him to be malicious, yes. But Etrurian’s point isn’t that Clive was meant to be malicious, it’s that the timing of his actions lead to him being seen as malicious. Accidentally, without the intention of the writers. Clive never implies that he was going to fire Alim after they rescue Mathilda because it’s not something the writers wanted you to think of him, but by timing it like that the thought inevitably comes up. Which is problematic because it creates a contradiction between how Clive is and how the story unintentionally makes him come off.

Granted I honestly don’t think it’s much of a big deal and still think Clive works despite it, but it’s a valid point.

I disagree because I never came to that conclusion and I fail to understand how one does come to that conclusion. SoV is extremely thematically contradictory don’t get me wrong but this is one of the few instances where it actually isn’t. I just don’t see how you could interpret that from anywhere in the story because there’s nothing to suggest something like that was going to happen even if it was unintentional. I don’t see the implication at all is what I’m saying.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Ottservia

[Etrurian emperor]

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

No it’s still a contradiction. Why? Because the reason you dislike these characters isn’t because they’re objectively poorly written like you claim. It’s because you personally do not like them. Take Ophelia for instance, you don’t like her because she’s just a “third Owain”(which is an untrue statement in it of itself because she’s a second Owain due to Owain and Odin being the same person) when there’s nothing inherently wrong with having 2 chuunibiyo characters in your story. And beyond even that it makes complete sense for Ophelia to be a chuuni like Owain because Owain is her father! Of course any kid of Owain is gonna turn out that way. It just makes sense. So disliking her for being like her father isn’t objective at all like you claim. Like how the fuck else would you write Owain’s daughter?! So her “design” isn’t flawed at all. It makes perfect sense with what her character is supposed to be. Her character isn’t a mess nor is it inconsistent. She’s fine with Forrest likely because he’s not the heir plus she’s technically his retainer. In regards to Shiro well he doesn’t act like a royal anyway. even then, a core aspect of Ophelia’s character is that she’s jealous of other people who she interprets as “chosen ones”. And in her supports with Corrin she says he isn’t one(as to why I have no clue) so it’s likely the same for Forrest and Shiro. I may have to read more of her supports in order to get a better read of her character but there’s at least some consistency there. Again it just comes across as you not liking her because she was mean to your favorite character. Which is entirely personal and subjective. And even the “objective” reasons you do dislike her aren’t objective at all and just based in false readings of her character or just innocuous details that isn’t inherently bad writing. The “objective” reasons for your dislike for Ophelia is what gives her nuance so yes you are contradicting yourself 

Sure sure. Owain is Odin but that doesn't change anything. Odin is still our second Owain, the second time we're treated to the whole routine, himdoing and saying all the same wacky things Owain did only now they've become stale and conventional, and then Ophelia doing the whole routine again isn't helping. And how else to write her? As someone annoyed at Owain's antics maybe? The moody teenage girl feeling awkward about her dad goofing off? Someone feeling she needs to babysit her dad? 

And like I said. Its not about Siegbert. Had she bullied Corrin I'd find her equally bratty. Hana's Corrin support practically tanked her character for me despite me not being all that attached to Corrin. I also don't ever recall placing her into the ''objectively bad'' group like Garon for instance.I don't think she's a complete trainwreck. I certainly didn't call her a mess. I just find her thoroughly unlikable and find her design really flawed. Quite frankly I think she(and most units) are too minor in the story to ever be a complete mess. I definitely don't think she's particularly well written both for her inconsistency and for sharing a gimmick with her dad that was already problematic, but ultimately she's more a ''Felix'' that a ''Garon''. 

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

You completely missed my point. When does Clive ever imply he was gonna fire Alm after they rescue Mathilda? I don’t remember the game or Clive ever implying such at any point in the story. If you’re gonna make such a claim please show me evidence for how you reached such a nonsensical conclusion 

Wait what did you think that scene was about? After second guessing his decision for that entire arc of the game, blurting out how he thinks its a terrible mistake he made Alm the leader and the Ram boys very defensively jumping down his throat for it what did you thought was happening? How could that conversation have gone any other way after starting like that? 

 

[Sunwoo]

I think I'd rather just say that while FE has never been the pinnacle of storytelling, and while every FE has had great characters, good characters, and terrible characters, the most recent games being so heavy on self-insert avatars and waifus/husbandos has made the quality of characters and storytelling deteriorate to a noticeable quality. 

This probably is not so much of an unpopular opinion, more of a 50-50 split opinion, but I don't think IS understands how to write sympathetic villains anymore. Gone is the nuance, the understanding that while you can sympathize with villains' motivations or what they've been through, it's not a get-out-of-jail-free card to have their actions excused. The IS of today is so afraid that their waifubandos won't be popular if the players think they're horrible people that they try WAY too hard to make the "antagonist/dark path" really another type of "good" ... and fail miserably at it.

[Sasori]

5 minutes ago, Sunwoo said:

The IS of today is so afraid that their waifubandos won't be popular if the players think they're horrible people that they try WAY too hard to make the "antagonist/dark path" really another type of "good" ... and fail miserably at it.

I think fates in general, but Nohr in particular really suffered from this point. I always got the impression that Xander, Leo and Camilla really weren't allowed to have a opinion on Hoshido/Nohr conflict. Because if they offered even the slightest support of invasion, they'd be less likeable/date-able. If you take away Garon and their concern for Corrin, then I don't believe they have anything to say. 

Which is a shame since in theory I believe the Nohr siblings could have both different and interesting motivations. Someone as pragmatic as Leo might not enjoy war, but he might want the recources since Nohr is dirt poor. Xander could be struggling to balance his ideals and his duty. Elise and Camilla too could have ways to connect them to all thats going on.  

I think 3 houses did adress this complaint pretty well though. You can agree or disagree with Edelgard, but they weren't afraid to scare people away from her. Only Claude felt like he was playing it too safe.

 

[Acacia Sgt]

8 minutes ago, Sasori said:

I think 3 houses did adress this complaint pretty well though. You can agree or disagree with Edelgard, but they weren't afraid to scare people away from her. Only Claude felt like he was playing it too safe.

I'd say they did took a step, but only a baby step. Otherwise her relationship with the Agarthans wouldn't skew so heavy on making them the ones to commit the dirtiest of the work so Edelgard's hands remain semi-clean.

[Eltosian Kadath]

On 9/19/2021 at 4:45 PM, Ottservia said:

This isn’t SoV where the story clearly wants to convey a message of birth not mattering to one’s worth only to then turn around and say “except not really because Alm is a royal and was born with a birthmark that makes him the chosen one thus making the circumstances of his birth completely define who he is”

8 hours ago, Ottservia said:

No it does but only with the context of other routes in mind cause the difference in how Edelgard acts between the different routes is how I came to these conclusions. In a game with multiple routes like this you have to take every route into account in regards to analysis because the differences in each and how they contrast and parallel one another is still worth examining. You can’t just analyze the one route and call it a day because then you’re missing out on like 75% of the context and that context does indeed matter because the only thing that really differentiates the routes is the central lord and their perspective which effects how the story plays out. What’s true about things we learn about Foldlan in VW is just as true in CF because it’s the exact same world and circumstances just a different perspective on those things and the differences in those perspectives is important and worth examining. 

The situation is very similar, as many of your assessments of how Alm's character is thematically inconsistent are built around the idea that differing events, like Mathilda or Delthea dying in their join chapter, shouldn't be considered a part of the story. The only way Edelgard is thematically consistent in CF is if you include differing events that simply don't occur in that route. In both cases its only when you look at all possible events in their entirety that the thematic consistency appears.

[Sunwoo]

3 hours ago, Sasori said:

I think 3 houses did adress this complaint pretty well though. You can agree or disagree with Edelgard, but they weren't afraid to scare people away from her. Only Claude felt like he was playing it too safe.

From what I recall from playing 3H, I think they still played Edelgard a bit too safe. On her own path, she's not really confronted with too many of the negative consequences of her actions. Rhea's also kind of portrayed as an inhumane beast that needs to be put down in Crimson Flower while Edelgard's battle against Dimitri has the Kingdom soldiers turning into Demonic Beasts while the player is never shown Edelgard using them in her route. I also think Edelgard's understanding of the Church being a lie, but never being forced to confront that also counts as coddling her. It would've been interesting to see how a character who was so blindly and arrogantly confident that she knew everything would react when presented with hard evidence that she was the one who knew nothing.

Meanwhile, when she's the antagonist, the game goes out of its way to try to have other characters either try to understand Edelgard, want to spare her, express reluctance in having to kill her, and Edelgard herself getting a lot of "soft" scenes with the professor. Edelgard's as big of an offender as the Nohr siblings were, imo.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Sunwoo

[Interdimensional Observer]

2 hours ago, Sasori said:

Which is a shame since in theory I believe the Nohr siblings could have both different and interesting motivations. Someone as pragmatic as Leo might not enjoy war, but he might want the recources since Nohr is dirt poor. Xander could be struggling to balance his ideals and his duty. Elise and Camilla too could have ways to connect them to all thats going on.  

My own little fantasy of things gave each of the Nohr siblings a priority on one thing or another.

• Xander would be a feudal traditionalist, who sees Nohr as the realm which by dragon god-given right his family rules over their royal patrimony. And this patrimony just so happens to come with various responsibilities they owe to their subjects who live in that realm. 
• Leo would be more modernist, emphasizing the interests of the Nohrian state. The Nohrian state is an impersonal non-human entity, and hence he divorces his family from ownership of the country. -However, he also believes it is in the Nohrian state's best interests for his family in its right mind to be the first servants of the state. Thereby justifying a specific royal family for a state that strictly speaking does not require it.
• Camilla, because she is a little mentally unstable, would see no further than her family and friends and their interests. And when I say "her family", I don't mean "her dynasty". She would want what is best for her family, even if it undermines its interests in being the ruling dynasty of Nohr.
• Elise would either be so innocent as to stay out of it. Or, she be somewhat like Camilla, but I'd add a love for the Nohrian people to distinguish her.
  • Xander would view the people of Nohr as subjects and tenants to whom he was obligated by tradition to protect and respect their corporate rights and privileges. This would be in exchange for them paying their feudal dues of labor and money/money-substitute. 
  • Leo would see them as yet more servants of the state, whose best interests would be served by serving the state. A strong state would provide the conditions by which the humans residing therein could be most content.
  • Elise wouldn't be so cold, she would see the people occupying Nohr as individuals with their own lives worth cherishing, protecting, and supporting in themselves. The monarch/dynasty and state alike serve the people first and foremost.

-Except this is political philosophical, and I don't see 95% of players understanding or appreciating these differences in perspective.

[Venger_06]

I like holy blood and holy weapons and would like them to return if there is ever another FE with child mechanics.

2 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

-Except this is political philosophical, and I don't see 95% of players understanding or appreciating these differences in perspective.

I know I appreciate.

[Ottservia]

4 hours ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

The situation is very similar, as many of your assessments of how Alm's character is thematically inconsistent are built around the idea that differing events, like Mathilda or Delthea dying in their join chapter, shouldn't be considered a part of the story. The only way Edelgard is thematically consistent in CF is if you include differing events that simply don't occur in that route. In both cases its only when you look at all possible events in their entirety that the thematic consistency appears.

You see the difference here is that the story doesn’t change regardless of what happens to Delthea or Mathilda only the context and even then barely. Which is somewhat significant but ultimately doesn’t matter because the story doesn’t significantly change in either case and even if we take into account Mathilda and Delthea’s deaths being canon it would still be thematically inconsistent(cause there’s still the noble vs commoner conflict, mysoginy, Celica being more or less worthless, etc. all of which are still contradictory to the overall story). In 3H, the act of Byleth choosing one house over the other drastically changes the story and how it effects specific characters. It creates completely different winners and losers to the conflicts which makes the differences more significant. Alm’s character doesn’t change whether Mathilda/Delthea survive or not. But choosing BL over CF drastically changes the outcome of Edelgard’s character and that is something worth examining.

 

6 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

The situation is very similar, as many of your assessments of how Alm's character is thematically inconsistent are built around the idea that differing events, like Mathilda or Delthea dying in their join chapter, shouldn't be considered a part of the story. The only way Edelgard is thematically consistent in CF is if you include differing events that simply don't occur in that route. In both cases its only when you look at all possible events in their entirety that the thematic consistency appears.

Yeah but that doesn’t make it inherently bad writing. You’re making the assumption that just because Odin’s chuuni antics became stale for you it became stale for everyone else when that’s now how it works. In fact, it’s incredibly arrogant of you to assume such that just because you thought the joke got old that means everyone thought the joke got old. A character doesn’t need to change or develop to be a good character you know. Nor does a character need to be a “cute nice girl chuunibiyo” all the damn time in fact again if Ophelia was just “genki chuuni girl” all the time with no emotional range then she’d actually be one dimensional. Her getting angry like that helps give her depth and fleshes out her characterization. Just because you view her as a brat that doesn’t make it “objectively” bad. That’s just arrogant.

 

6 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Wait what did you think that scene was about? After second guessing his decision for that entire arc of the game, blurting out how he thinks its a terrible mistake he made Alm the leader and the Ram boys very defensively jumping down his throat for it what did you thought was happening? How could that conversation have gone any other way after starting like that? 

 

I took it as Clive thinking about what the old man said at the castle as well as what Desaix said when he died both lines implying that Alm is not Mycen’s grandson in that he really was just a worthless commoner after all and that Fernand was right about Alm. Showing his classist mentality which is supposed to be proven wrong by the time they save Delthea. Like Clive is supposed to be a bit of a dick in this scene but again he’s supposed to be wrong in that mentality. The story is clearly trying to paint him as someone you should be rooting to change and stop being a classist dick. So I see no problem with it.

[vanguard333]

One unpopular Fire Emblem opinion that I have is that I don't consider the evil scheming-&-manipulating hidden wizard villain (the Gharnef) or evil cult that they often have to be inherently bad writing; like with a lot of FE archetypes, there are good examples and bad examples. Gharnef and especially Sephiran are good examples, while Validar is a placid example and Jedah &TWSITD are bad examples.

Here's where I would probably be saying that the problem with more recent examples would be that they undermine the war by making it that the war's actually just a product of an ancient conspiracy (Garon/Anankos, Jedah, TWSITD), but that's clearly not the problem either, as Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn have the wars in those games be revealed to actually be all part of a plan involving Lehran's Medallion, and it's overall well-written and you don't see any complaints that Sephiran's plot detracts from the war plot or anything like that, unlike what is often seen when people complain about Garon of TWSITD. So, clearly, the problem is something more specific. What was different about the good examples like Gharnef and Sephiran (besides just saying that they were better-written)?

[Acacia Sgt]

I'm pretty sure there had been complains about the Blood Pact in RD at least, which was part of the overall plan of his so some of those conflicts could be engineered at all.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Acacia Sgt

[Ottservia]

7 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Here's where I would probably be saying that the problem with more recent examples would be that they undermine the war by making it that the war's actually just a product of an ancient conspiracy (Garon/Anankos, Jedah, TWSITD), but that's clearly not the problem either, as Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn have the wars in those games be revealed to actually be all part of a plan involving Lehran's Medallion, and it's overall well-written and you don't see any complaints that Sephiran's plot detracts from the war plot or anything like that, unlike what is often seen when people complain about Garon of TWSITD. So, clearly, the problem is something more specific. What was different about the good examples like Gharnef and Sephiran (besides just saying that they were better-written)?

Well your first problem was assuming that Anankos was a bad villain. Because he’s not. The same goes for Jedah btw. They each represent the themes of their respective stories well and foil the protagonist in interesting ways. How Anankos was so easily betrayed by the humans he loved and that in turn created distrust in his heart which ultimately festered into a sweltering hate. Jedah foiling Celica in trying to keep the age of gods going. Not believing in humanity’s strength and needing to rely on the gods. The agarthans would be good if you know 3H was a finished story but it’s not a finished story so you know they just end up being blegh

[Anathaco]

9 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I disagree because I never came to that conclusion and I fail to understand how one does come to that conclusion. SoV is extremely thematically contradictory don’t get me wrong but this is one of the few instances where it actually isn’t. I just don’t see how you could interpret that from anywhere in the story because there’s nothing to suggest something like that was going to happen even if it was unintentional. I don’t see the implication at all is what I’m saying.

Well that’s the issue. You can’t find any evidence in the game to support that it was going to happen the way it did… but purely from a timing standpoint Clive did basically fire Alm as soon as he got what he wanted. If the game had made a point of showing that Clive actively was using Alm and was planning on firing him at that point, then there wouldn’t be an issue. If the game had made Clive have his “I fear I have made a terrible mistake” speech at a different point in the story, maybe after the first Berkut fight or something, then there also wouldn’t be an issue. But as it is I can definitely see the point that Clive comes across as poorly realised. He’s sympathetic and conflicted over his beliefs and what he now knows about Alm, yes, and it does come to a natural head after Mathilda joins them. You could even argue that having Mathilda back is a natural catalyst for Clive to reveal his doubts. But it can definitely look pretty malicious.

 

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

Here's where I would probably be saying that the problem with more recent examples would be that they undermine the war by making it that the war's actually just a product of an ancient conspiracy (Garon/Anankos, Jedah, TWSITD), but that's clearly not the problem either, as Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn have the wars in those games be revealed to actually be all part of a plan involving Lehran's Medallion, and it's overall well-written and you don't see any complaints that Sephiran's plot detracts from the war plot or anything like that, unlike what is often seen when people complain about Garon of TWSITD. So, clearly, the problem is something more specific. What was different about the good examples like Gharnef and Sephiran (besides just saying that they were better-written)?

An argument I’ve heard for Gharnef is that he was actually a reasonably competent villain that planned out pretty well, so it’s a lot more engaging to watch him. It’s impossible to feel the presence of a villain like Anankos when his big actions through the story are “send monsters that go down like paper soldiers”, and you kinda dismiss Jedah as a threat after he mocks you for trying so hard while his face is literally in the mud. Even Validar, while he has his moments of success throughout the story, had a terrible first impression on me since he literally had to get resurrected in like chapter 6 lol.

As for Sephiran, my understanding is it’s the backstory that sells it for him- and also again, he does succeed at his plan (his plan was to awaken Ashera and bring her judgement on the continent, right? I still haven’t played tellius), so that probably plays a small part.

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

Well your first problem was assuming that Anankos was a bad villain. Because he’s not. The same goes for Jedah btw. They each represent the themes of their respective stories well and foil the protagonist in interesting ways. How Anankos was so easily betrayed by the humans he loved and that in turn created distrust in his heart which ultimately festered into a sweltering hate. Jedah foiling Celica in trying to keep the age of gods going. Not believing in humanity’s strength and needing to rely on the gods. The agarthans would be good if you know 3H was a finished story but it’s not a finished story so you know they just end up being blegh

Between this and the Clive discussion I think this is the most praise I’ve ever seen you give Echoes.

[Jotari]

7 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

My own little fantasy of things gave each of the Nohr siblings a priority on one thing or another.

• Xander would be a feudal traditionalist, who sees Nohr as the realm which by dragon god-given right his family rules over their royal patrimony. And this patrimony just so happens to come with various responsibilities they owe to their subjects who live in that realm. 
• Leo would be more modernist, emphasizing the interests of the Nohrian state. The Nohrian state is an impersonal non-human entity, and hence he divorces his family from ownership of the country. -However, he also believes it is in the Nohrian state's best interests for his family in its right mind to be the first servants of the state. Thereby justifying a specific royal family for a state that strictly speaking does not require it.
• Camilla, because she is a little mentally unstable, would see no further than her family and friends and their interests. And when I say "her family", I don't mean "her dynasty". She would want what is best for her family, even if it undermines its interests in being the ruling dynasty of Nohr.
• Elise would either be so innocent as to stay out of it. Or, she be somewhat like Camilla, but I'd add a love for the Nohrian people to distinguish her.
  • Xander would view the people of Nohr as subjects and tenants to whom he was obligated by tradition to protect and respect their corporate rights and privileges. This would be in exchange for them paying their feudal dues of labor and money/money-substitute. 
  • Leo would see them as yet more servants of the state, whose best interests would be served by serving the state. A strong state would provide the conditions by which the humans residing therein could be most content.
  • Elise wouldn't be so cold, she would see the people occupying Nohr as individuals with their own lives worth cherishing, protecting, and supporting in themselves. The monarch/dynasty and state alike serve the people first and foremost.

-Except this is political philosophical, and I don't see 95% of players understanding or appreciating these differences in perspective.

I think you overestimate how complicated what you laid out is (don't take that as an insult, it's not a bad thing). Like Leo's point which can be pretty easily expressed with a line saying "The stronger Nohr becomes, the stronger the people within it becomes. They might not like the war now, but victory will bring saftey and security for generations". No need to make it a political lecture on feudal hierarchy. These things can be, well not necessarily dumbed down, but presented palatably. Xander just needs to throw out the word duty a few times and Camilla's position can be espoused pretty directly (especially if the whole putting her family above her dynasty can be made into an actual plot beat where she commits some sort of treason for that {unintentional rhyme} reason).

I think if I were in charge of Conquest I would have made the whole idea of it as a examination and subversion to the Camus trope which Fire Emblem has featured since the start, by really showing the position these people are in, showing how betrayal would be a costly act and against some fundamental principles, only to do it anyway in the end for the things that matter most. Corrin could start with converting Elise to their side and then work their way up through each siblings until reaching Crown Prince Xander.

[Etrurian emperor]

7 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

One unpopular Fire Emblem opinion that I have is that I don't consider the evil scheming-&-manipulating hidden wizard villain (the Gharnef) or evil cult that they often have to be inherently bad writing; like with a lot of FE archetypes, there are good examples and bad examples. Gharnef and especially Sephiran are good examples, while Validar is a placid example and Jedah &TWSITD are bad examples.

Here's where I would probably be saying that the problem with more recent examples would be that they undermine the war by making it that the war's actually just a product of an ancient conspiracy (Garon/Anankos, Jedah, TWSITD), but that's clearly not the problem either, as Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn have the wars in those games be revealed to actually be all part of a plan involving Lehran's Medallion, and it's overall well-written and you don't see any complaints that Sephiran's plot detracts from the war plot or anything like that, unlike what is often seen when people complain about Garon of TWSITD. So, clearly, the problem is something more specific. What was different about the good examples like Gharnef and Sephiran (besides just saying that they were better-written)?

Gharnef has an easy time not negatively affecting the plot because like most Shadow Dragon villains he's barely part of it. He only shows up three times in Shadow Dragon if I recall correctly. I find this mostly a problem but it leaves Gharnef with very little room to screw things up. ''Less is more'' is a more positive spin you could put on Gharnef. He does what he needs to for the plot and mostly does it competently. I also think it speaks well of Gharnef and Sephiran that while they are the cause of everything collapsing they are not strictly the cause of everything. Many of the problems in Archenea and Tellius already existed without them, and many villains are independent actors who can exist without their respective Gharnef. Garon and the slitherers exist with the clear purpose of reducing the potential of other characters but Sephiran doesn't really take away anything from Lekain, or Gharnef from Michalis. Gharnef and Sephiran make good use of the world and characters around them rather than stifling those things like the Slitherers do. 

Though I actually rather like Jedah. He fixes the problem of most Gharnefs being really boring. Jedah's pretty boastful and expressive rather than the typical generic evil cackling. He's notable that he's among the few Gharnefs who can actually have a real conversation with a lord. And while he's really evil he's not just really evil with his dependency of Duma helping to place his actions in proper context. Its a nice touch he actually seems scared of a world without the gods which makes him a good thematic foil to Alm. Where he stumbles is that the story needed him to be a little bit less evil than he is, and that the story at a very weird point doubles down on how evil Jedah is supposed to be.

[ping]

Jedah is great fun. My only gripe (but it's a big one) is that the game pretends that he's also very good at deception.

[Interdimensional Observer]

4 hours ago, Jotari said:

I think you overestimate how complicated what you laid out is (don't take that as an insult, it's not a bad thing).

What can be said? I might be a bit elitist thinking the majority of players would find it boring, and I'm also dousing my own hopes of games ever trying to integrate stuff like this and my aforementioned list of religious points of contention. I'm also not good at taking the intelligentsia lingo out of my explanations, hence I do not teach.😅

 

19 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Gharnef has an easy time not negatively affecting the plot because like most Shadow Dragon villains he's barely part of it.

In part, because the Dolhr Empire is sclerotic at very best. Outside of the end text to the one port Warren chapter, Marth decides the entire military campaign. Villains need to do stuff in order to be present. Marth saves Aurelis, they do nothing, he frees the Kingdom of Archanea, they still show no proactivity. Marth takes Gra and Altea, and the next time he encounters Grust, they've been forced to deploy the Sable Order, which might not have been necessary if they had taken Marth more seriously sooner. Dark Emperor Hardin did take the initiative by forcing Marth to flee to Khadein and then on to Anri's Way (they never explain why Astram doesn't attack them in Chapter 10, despite doggedly coming after them in C9 right outside however), but that's Book 2.

To bring in Jugdral for some contrast, Julius does practically nothing onscreen, and his entire Grannvale Empire sits around letting Seliph liberate Thracia and Miletos, not for a good villain makes. Manfroy is oddly as do-nothing as Julius in Gen 2, but his Gen 1 self was pretty active. Travant makes his actions -the major ones being the massacre and his suicide charge- count. (Sigurd, to bring in the Gen 1 protagonist's side of things, finds himself unlike Marth and his son a rather reactive lord. He reacts in the Prologue, takes the offensive in C1, reacts and also takes the offensive in C2, reacts in C3, reacts in C4, and mostly takes the offensive in C5.)

[Ottservia]

7 hours ago, Anathaco said:

Well that’s the issue. You can’t find any evidence in the game to support that it was going to happen the way it did… but purely from a timing standpoint Clive did basically fire Alm as soon as he got what he wanted. If the game had made a point of showing that Clive actively was using Alm and was planning on firing him at that point, then there wouldn’t be an issue. If the game had made Clive have his “I fear I have made a terrible mistake” speech at a different point in the story, maybe after the first Berkut fight or something, then there also wouldn’t be an issue. But as it is I can definitely see the point that Clive comes across as poorly realised. He’s sympathetic and conflicted over his beliefs and what he now knows about Alm, yes, and it does come to a natural head after Mathilda joins them. You could even argue that having Mathilda back is a natural catalyst for Clive to reveal his doubts. But it can definitely look pretty malicious.

 

 

Even if it does come off that way it still plays into his character arc pretty well. Like the whole point of Clive’s character is that he needs to realize that his decision to make Alm the leader of the deliverance was not a mistake because the value of such a position should not be determined by the circumstances of one’s birth but rather their ideals and convictions(again something that’s completely thrown out with the whole Alm is royal thing but we can ignore that for now) and him coming off as a bit of a dick here only really serves to reinforce that point if you ask me so I still don’t see the problem with it. I cannot see how it is contradictory.

 

7 hours ago, Anathaco said:

Between this and the Clive discussion I think this is the most praise I’ve ever seen you give Echoes.

I am a harsh on SoV but I like to think I’m at least fair. I’ll give credit where it is due and Jedah is handled pretty well all things considered. Clive not as much but credit where it’s due

[Jotari]

Jeddah is handled awfully and he's more to blame for the idiocy that is the Celica sacrifice than Celica is.