Jump to content

Should IS stop using archetypes?


Ronnie
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I think that's the big weak spot of Camus. He willingly serves a scumbag lord because he values his personal honor so very much. Unlike Vigard or even Garon there's absolutely nothing that suggest to Camus that Ludvik is a man worth serving. He willingly serves a dragon out to subject humanity including Grust and the dialogue of some villages seems to suggest that selling out his kids was Ludviks personal idea.

Not necessarily saying your'e doing this since I'm not sure what angle you're criticizing Camus from, but it reminded me of one issue I have with a lot of criticisms of Camuses. It seems like a lot of times people are criticizing the character of the person rather than the quality of the character, if that phrase makes any sense. I'll focus on Camus because he's the one that this comes up with most, but most of the criticisms I've seen of him come down to it's dumb for him to continue serving Grust because the king is a crappy person. This is a perfectly valid criticism of him as a person, but for him to betray Grust in any significant fashion would be OoC. Everything we're told about Camus is that he doesn't invest any significant worth in his own life, and that he's steadfastly loyal to Grust, not necessarily the king of said country. He helped Nyna escape, but his acting essentially alone made it so Grust and her people didn't face any repercussions for his actions because dick as Medeus can be he's not especially malicious or vengeful in FE1/book 1/SD. Contrast that to his decision to help support Grust under allegiance with Medeus. If he betrays Grust, he's actively fighting against his homeland and its people, violates his loyalty, or if he pushes to oppose Medeus, he propably ends up on Ludwik bad side, which from everything said, Ludwik is more likely to take personal action against Camus in hopes of appeasing Medeus, means Camus potentially can't protect his people. Fighting Marth is literally him invading his homeland from an invading force. Heck, I think that's why he places so much significance on Yumina and Yubello: They're in his, and Lorenz's, view one of the last hopes for Grust to regain some of its respectability.

This consistency carries over to his Zeke persona, where he does betray Rigel, but in this case, his loyalty lies with Rudolf rather than Rigel as a whole, which makes sense. Unlike with Grust, he has no strong connection to Rigel and its people since he's only been there for like a year or so, but he does to Rudolf seeing as Rudolf saved him and treated him almost like a son.

Bryce is another example of this. We know two things about Bryce: He's loyal to Daein's royal family first and foremost and that he's a tired old man. He doesn't like Ashnard nor does he like what Ashnard's doing, but Ashnard is the ruling king, regardless of how he got there. Maybe if Bryce were younger and still more idealistic he might've gone the way Tauroneo did, but he's exhausted. He just wants to be done with the fighting and servitude, but his pride as a knight won't let him forsake his oath.

Say what you want about either as people making dumb decisions, being selfish/shortsighted (they very arguably are), but as far as characters go, they're both pretty internally consistent given all the information we have about them. I can't speak on other Camuses as much because I'm not as familiar with a lot of them, but I would like to remind people to distinguish between the person and the character.

 

As for the actual topic, I'm fine with IS using archetypes, both the characters and the units. There are generally enough gameplay differences that the characters can serve different functions and generally enough variety that even if I am tired of an archetypal unit, I don't have to use them. In terms of characters, archetypes are really just frameworks on which to build your characters; there are a billion and one ways to put a unique twist on archetypes. The issue is when you stop trying to do that and fall back on the easy ways to write the archetype, turning them into a stereotype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't care one way or the other, although I expect IS to keep using them.

On ‎18‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 4:07 PM, Poimagic said:

I would only keep some of the archetypes. Specifically, the Oifey's, the Cain and Abel's, the Camus', and the Pegasus Sisters

According to IS, no such archetype exists.

Edited by NinjaMonkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bottlegnomes said:

Not necessarily saying your'e doing this since I'm not sure what angle you're criticizing Camus from

Well, look at it this way. Xander desperately wants to believe there's still good in Garon and because Garon was once a good king there's a reason for him to believe Garon can return to normal. Same with Selana who, although she knows she's in the wrong can't force herself to oppose a king that used to be very benevolent. Xander and Selena are wrong but there are at least delusions they are able to cling to. Both Vigard and Garon used to have strong positive traits in the past. 

But there's absolutely nothing for Camus to point to in order to convince anyone or even himself that Ludvick isn't a terrible king and that he isn't bringing ruin on Grust. And if that's the case he should be reaching the conclusion that Lorentz does and that's that Grust is in dire need of protection from the king. Stubbornly pushing forward even if you know it means your country will end up ruled by an oppressive dragon tyrant isn't showing a lot of loyalty.  Turning on Medeus isn't just for the common good but for the good of Grust as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Well, look at it this way. Xander desperately wants to believe there's still good in Garon and because Garon was once a good king there's a reason for him to believe Garon can return to normal. Same with Selana who, although she knows she's in the wrong can't force herself to oppose a king that used to be very benevolent. Xander and Selena are wrong but there are at least delusions they are able to cling to. Both Vigard and Garon used to have strong positive traits in the past. 

But there's absolutely nothing for Camus to point to in order to convince anyone or even himself that Ludvick isn't a terrible king and that he isn't bringing ruin on Grust. And if that's the case he should be reaching the conclusion that Lorentz does and that's that Grust is in dire need of protection from the king. Stubbornly pushing forward even if you know it means your country will end up ruled by an oppressive dragon tyrant isn't showing a lot of loyalty.  Turning on Medeus isn't just for the common good but for the good of Grust as well. 

Since Camus is a knight he has the mindset of a knight. Which means he is loyal to the royal family and his country and it is his duty to follow his king's order for the sake of his country. That same loyalty is what causes another Camus, Bryce to follow Ashnard. Just because they don't like the king and his orders doesn't mean they will just abandon their country or even fight against it to remove the current king. There is also the fact that Yumina and Yubello, the king's children were kidnapped by Gharnef which is why Ludvik went to war to begin with; the future of the royal line was at stake.

I would also agree with bottlegnomes notion that just because you don't make the best decision at all times means that you are a bad character. How would Camus know that he should have sided with Marth and everything would have been okay. His choice was between gambling on Marth and returning home a hero or killing his countrymen for no reason and dying as a traitor should Marth have failed.

Xander is a bad example of the archetype because we are led to believe that the people would rally behind Xander if he opposed Garon and therefore overthrowing him would be simple. He has the authority to take the throne almost unopposed, but doesn't because he wants to believe that his father who oppresses his own people and on multiple occasions attempts to kill one of his children (albeit, forcefully adopted) even going as far as setting up impossible tasks for them with the threat of execution should they fail is still a good person deep down inside? Hell, he goes about this by hoping the complete domination of the neighboring country will make his dad feel better. Xander's loyalty towards Garon is completely irrational while Camus' towards Ludvik is sensible since he is just a soldier as opposed to being the crown prince.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

But there's absolutely nothing for Camus to point to in order to convince anyone or even himself that Ludvick isn't a terrible king and that he isn't bringing ruin on Grust. And if that's the case he should be reaching the conclusion that Lorentz does and that's that Grust is in dire need of protection from the king. Stubbornly pushing forward even if you know it means your country will end up ruled by an oppressive dragon tyrant isn't showing a lot of loyalty.  Turning on Medeus isn't just for the common good but for the good of Grust as well. 

To add to this, the moment Lorenz betrays is the very last battle Grust fights in the War of the Shadows, barring the SD Gaiden should you go for it. Grust is described in the pre-battle narration as being on its last legs, having drained itself of manpower and morale in prior engagements, including losing part of the Sable Order at Chiasmir.

The battle is in Grust itself, there is nowhere else to flee, reinforcements from "allies" is not explicitly mentioned as possible. Grust is doomed.

The royal children being held hostage? Again, IIRC, this only comes up in Mystery. And Mystery ruins this excuse by that point in SD. Why? 

Spoiler

The late King Grust had two children. Princess Yumina and Prince Yubello. They're still young. Maybe thirteen, or fourteen; cute little twins, both of them. In the last war, Gharnef, the Dark Pontifex, kidnapped the twins to blackmail the king. They were taken to Khadein, the city of magic, and locked away in a pitch-black room. At great personal risk, Pontifex Wendell saved them. He took them to a monastery to protect them. 

Khadein, which Marth had liberated quite some time ago, six chapters to be precise, so presumably the children were no longer being held hostage. The only things that could hold Camus back are his foolish loyalty to Ludvik, and a fear of the strength of Medeus, who Camus had once before daringly opposed with much much slimmer odds.

If he had decided at the moment Nyna intervened on the battlefield to betray, it'd be a one-two-three and in the next hour, Ludvik would be under palace arrest. What could Medeus do to retaliate? At least Bryce had the excuse Ashnard was the last surviving member of the Daein royal family, and therefore irreplaceable and he was personally going to fight to the death.

 

17 hours ago, Icelerate said:

What about Zelgius? I'm pretty sure he isn't a camus because he's firmly loyal to Sephiran and hasn't shown any doubts about his ambitions. A camus needs to have doubts for the cause in order to be considered. I wouldn't say Ashera was manipulated by Sephiran though because she hated humanity on her own ideas. She's pretty stubborn as shown when Sephiran joins the good guys. 

Agreed, Zelgius never wavers from serving Sephiran. He does have his own agenda with Greil and Ike, but Sephiran permits it because it does not conflict with his plans.

Sephiran did keep Ashera from talking to Yune upon awakening, which she was supposed to do because the awakening came from the Galdrar of Release, which Sephiran conceals from her. But to fair, the Medallion was about to break anyhow, so really it was a chaos break, and as Yune describes, Ashera had grown increasingly detached from the Laguz and Beorc as she slept. Furthermore, she had already wanted to destroy Yune and chaos with her, the thousand year covenant was a way of trying to persuade her otherwise. Ashera needed little convincing for her to follow through on her choice of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2018 at 3:40 PM, Interdimensional Observer said:

 

A good Camus needs either a good personal connection reason for loyalty, ala Selena, or a good connection related to the country they serve as a whole. I guess they might have tried to do this with Eldigan and the Hezul-Nordion-Royal Family of Agustria divide mess, but it does not appear to have worked out.

I'd argue Selena is just as bad as Eldigan. 

Eldigan dies for really stupid reasons, but there are centuries of history behind his position. His family served as vassals to Chagall's. As dumb as it is for Eldigan to serve Chagall after Chagall basically just plainly states that he'll kill Eldigan the first chance he gets, to Eldigan's face, it's something that at least has precedence with other Camuses, even if Eldigan pushes it to the absolute extreme. 

Selena, on the flipside, fucks up just about everything else a Camus is supposed to be. She serves a lord she is deathly loyal to, despite also acknowledging that she should leave because the Vigarde she currently serves is literally a different Vigarde than the one who saved her, and Valter basically threatens her into staying in Vigarde's service. Then, despite doing actions she knows are wrong, steals Myrrh's Dragonstone and dies an incredibly undignified death, having never really shown any sort of regret for the actions that got her there. 

Beyond the semi-justified loyalty, a Camus is supposed to be a morally virtuous and noble figure to the end. Eldigan fucks up the first part, being loyal to a fault for bad reasons. Selena fucks up the second part, as she essentially dies a flaky coward whose final actions could have easily lead to the death of a little girl. 

No matter how many people(Myrrh included) say Selena is a good, noble person, she definitely does not die that way. Glen would have been way closer to a proper Camus, but Valter kills him before he can turn into that. 

Edited by Slumber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Well, look at it this way. Xander desperately wants to believe there's still good in Garon and because Garon was once a good king there's a reason for him to believe Garon can return to normal. Same with Selana who, although she knows she's in the wrong can't force herself to oppose a king that used to be very benevolent. Xander and Selena are wrong but there are at least delusions they are able to cling to. Both Vigard and Garon used to have strong positive traits in the past. 

But there's absolutely nothing for Camus to point to in order to convince anyone or even himself that Ludvick isn't a terrible king and that he isn't bringing ruin on Grust. And if that's the case he should be reaching the conclusion that Lorentz does and that's that Grust is in dire need of protection from the king. Stubbornly pushing forward even if you know it means your country will end up ruled by an oppressive dragon tyrant isn't showing a lot of loyalty.  Turning on Medeus isn't just for the common good but for the good of Grust as well. 

This is going to sound a lot snarkier than I mean for it to, so please bear that in mind when reading it. I find it kind of humorous that people criticize characters like Alm and Ephraim for being essentially flawless and always making the right decision, but then also criticize character like Camus and Bryce for their flaws and acting as befitting of said flaws. I don't mean to be insulting if it comes across that way; I just find it an interesting juxtaposition.

Anyway, @Modamy covered pretty much all of my points very well. Only two things I can think of to add are:

  1. Are you familiar with the poem "Charge of the Light Brigade" and its background?
  2. How would you personally feel about committing treason even if you thought it was for a good cause?

For 1, if you are, think of Camus as a fantasy version of them: "Theirs not to make reply,/Theirs not to reason why,/Theirs but to do and die." Were they/was he dumb? Sure. Is it in character? Yes. Or look at the Starks in GoT. Same deal. Their honor just continuously screws them over, but they refuse to give up on it. Again: Dumb? Arguably. But it is in character.

For 2, I feel like people take things in these games much more lightly because they're fantasy, even on top of all the Monday-morning QBing that people do with anything they haven't personally experienced. Taking that down a notch from treason, say your friend instigates a fight at a party or bar or something. Are you going to let the friend get the crap beaten out of them because they're in the wrong? Hell, are you going to help the person in the right beat the crap out of your friend? I would hope not. I'd hope you'd try to stop the fight if possible, and if not, maybe you do have to value your own safety, but Camus is in a position where it's literally his job to protect his friend in this scenario.

You could also actually use the Nyna thing as an argument for his loyalty. He did violate it once, though in a way that shouldn't really have drawn his kingdom much flak. IIRC, Medeus doesn't really hold it against Grust so much as Camus personally. Anyway, that was something more immediate and in Camus's mind justifiable—I'm going to let this girl I'm in love with get killed versus I'm going to actively commit treason against my homeland—but the guilt or whatever ramifications from that much more minor betrayal helped influence his decision to remain loyal to literally a fault. I don't remember if any of the games addressed it, but it could be something interesting to bring in if that storyline gets the Echoes treatment.

 

53 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

The royal children being held hostage? Again, IIRC, this only comes up in Mystery. And Mystery ruins this excuse by that point in SD. Why? 

  Hide contents

The late King Grust had two children. Princess Yumina and Prince Yubello. They're still young. Maybe thirteen, or fourteen; cute little twins, both of them. In the last war, Gharnef, the Dark Pontifex, kidnapped the twins to blackmail the king. They were taken to Khadein, the city of magic, and locked away in a pitch-black room. At great personal risk, Pontifex Wendell saved them. He took them to a monastery to protect them. 

Khadein, which Marth had liberated quite some time ago, six chapters to be precise, so presumably the children were no longer being held hostage. The only things that could hold Camus back are his foolish loyalty to Ludvik, and a fear of the strength of Medeus, who Camus had once before daringly opposed with much much slimmer odds.

Wow, did not remember that. You're right. That's some real dumb logic on the game's part. I mean I doubt Camus knew, but Wendell very easily could've been like "Hey, dingus, Yumina and Yubello are safe now." I still stand by my views on Camus's decision being arguably dumb, but in character, but if they were trying to make things more justifiable, they bungled it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

For me I feel like some of the archetypes are musts, Jagen/Oifeys as well as the late game Ests are usually two sides of one coin that I like to have in the game. Other archetypes it really depends, for me the Cain & Abel archetype is generally a must but more in the sense that I like getting 2 cavaliers towards the start rather than two friendly rival horsemen one of whom is serious the other not so.

So it's sort of a mixed bag for me. Some archetypes are just TOO Japan. Looking at you Tiki, Fae, Myrrh, Nowi, any other mythical creature with the body of a 10 year old that I can marry off to myself or another character. (I'm also kinda bored of the Catria Archetype, like stop giving me a character pining after the main lord who has no shot of being with them due to Support limitations, it causes me too much pain. Cordelia's romantic supports for the most part literally gave me cancer what with everyone kinda being a sort of 2nd prize compared to Chrom.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fine with archetypes, though I'd like to keep seeing variations on them and them being approached from different angles. The ninja brothers from Fates being the Cain and Abel and  Ephraim being a blue-haired lance lord, for example. There're also Laegearn and Helbindi - antagonists with honor or have some sympathetic reason for fighting- I'm finding I like. I'm don't think they fit the Camus archetype much, but I'd like to see more sympathetic antagonists in future titles.

Also as others have said, I would like to see in later games Manaketes of different age-gender combinations than the standard "young girl" for the sake of differentiating something that doesn't really need to be the same from title to title.

Edited by Arcphoenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Class ones like Jagen, Christmas Knights, Est's I think should stay but characters ones like Lorenz and Camus, I think need to go. After playing through a TON of fire emblem in the last month the amount of Lorenz characters is much bigger than  I thought. (Lorenz, Dugless, Dussel, Tauroneo) and the Gharnef one is just lazy to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2018 at 5:55 PM, RookofSpades said:

For me I feel like some of the archetypes are musts, Jagen/Oifeys as well as the late game Ests are usually two sides of one coin that I like to have in the game. Other archetypes it really depends, for me the Cain & Abel archetype is generally a must but more in the sense that I like getting 2 cavaliers towards the start rather than two friendly rival horsemen one of whom is serious the other not so.

Well, Est as an archetype is long dead and buried. People these days have bastardized it into a buzzword for underleveled units in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fine with archetypes but instead of a character being based off of _________ character from X game. I would like to see them design the character around the class they are in and their respective strengths. For instance maybe have a Merc who compared to some of the other mercs in the game has a higher speed and hp growth as well as bases who is kind of a go getter. And on that note while I think classes should retain their typical strengths i.e. myrms and thieves are fast, archers have high accuracy, knights are really durable, mercs fighters and pirates have a lot of str and hp, etc. I would like to see clever twists and variations on these classes, if possible about 3 or more per class type, such as a speedy one, a balanced one, tanky one, a strong one that kind of thing. Rather than we only getting one or two of each one (barring a few exceptions) try to get creative with the types of these classes we get and not stick rigidly to the status quo of each class. Myrms are fast but lack strength, fighters and pirates have strength but lack skill and sometimes speed as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...