Is It Possible to Write A Gray Class Conflict?

[Interdimensional Observer]

SoV has been criticized by some for its failure to do much with its theme of nobility vs. the masses. Tellius has been criticized for a similar issue, Ike the commoner (technically of noble birth but he never lived as a noble and never knew about it growing up) is always in the moral right. The nobility on the other hand is Ludveck and the Senate and all a bunch of corrupt egotistical people with nothing good about them. Well Geoffrey, Lucia, Bastian, Tauroneo, and it is implied Sigrun, Tanith, and Marcia and hence Makalov are all nobles of some sort as well, but the aristocratic origins of these people are pretty much ignored as part of their good character in the plot/writing.

But here I ask, can one actually make a nobles vs. the rest conflict gray? What is good about nobility? It is IRL an antiquated institution based on principles opposed to those of the modern world. Will anyone sincerely argue that people shouldn't rise above their birth, that lineage should matter, that a hereditary class should be entrusted with the entirety of certain functions vital to politics and society?

I get FE is a fantasy world, and what people want here can obviously be very different from what they want in reality. In reality, we want boring prosperous peace and justice for all, we can love conflict in fiction apart from that. But people do like conflicts aligned with modern issues and modern values to an extent, Tellius is also a light discussion on why racism is bad after all. And does nobility have enough positive traits, or can it be given enough positive traits, to make it something worth finding gray value in?

 

I think one can write a decent gray class conflict, but for FE it might be burghers vs. peasants, Marxist class conflict (with the peasants the proletariat, since factories don't exist in FE), not aristocrats vs. the rest. One can more readily relate to the feudal middle class than an aristocracy, the burghers just need to be given political power. Would Renaissance Italy be at all a place to turn to for this?

And maybe I'm wrong about the aristocrats, the early 19th century in Europe had a dynamic clash between classical Conservatism vs. classical Liberalism, aristocrats vs. the middle class. Moving a few years beyond that, as in 1848, it becomes Aristocratic (not that you have to be one to like it) Conservatives vs. Middle Class Liberalism vs. the Working Class. The destructive nature of the French Revolution gave Liberalism a flawed side to it that made Conservatism in a way appealing, and of course the Working Class's grievances posed a threat to the two higher classes. Is a triple layer cake of conflict what is needed?

Edited May 28, 2018 by Interdimensional Observer

[Sasori]

Not doing it like the Tellius games would be a good start. In there the open minded main cast are pretty quick to assume all nobles are evil until they prove otherwise.

I think the Python/Clive support almost touches on something. In medieval times a noble family probably did provide some amount of form of structure. Their name and bloodline carries weight and perhaps even trust. The nobles could use that to collect taxes and offer protection. With the world being a bit more violent in those times some characters could argue the stability nobility might bring is important, while others could argue that their still is a great amount of unfairness about such a system.

[Modamy]

I think it’s entirely possible to write a gray class conflict the only issue is that Fire Emblem doesn’t try hard enough to really justify the nobility/upper class. They never expand on the role of the nobility and what they do for the people beyond protection. For every good and noble lord we have 20 fat, ugly perverts who are corrupt and abuse their power and the people they rule over. 

Expanding on the role of the nobles and what they do for the commoners is what would really help to give that side of the conflict a leg to stand on. After that we would look at their failings, such as an inability to meet the demands of the people for whatever reason. These reason could range from different nobles being selfish, lacking money to make changes, having something to do with their territory, or even being caused by some personal issues. These failings will have huge consequences on the lives of the commoners and that gives the common people a leg to stand on from their point of view and it would be shown through the losses of a likable and sympathetic commoner. The conflict would just need to properly display a viewpoint from both sides.

In the real and modern world we have something similar in “old money” families (although I don’t know how many families like this are still around) who made their riches long ago and have remained as a part of high society. With money comes power and influence so they are similar in a sense.

[Rapier]

Not with the Jedi

Yes, I think it's possible, but I also think the writing will have to compensate by having characters on each class be relatable while others fit in an obvious villain role. If you have a conflict where everyone lies in Grey x Grey territory, it simply doesn't matter who wins as they have no redeeming quality for the audience to care about or both sides have far too many faults to just pick one and cheer for it (similarly to Skyrim's Stormcloaks x Imperials). Basically, yes, but someone will have to be the "heroic scapegoat" while another will have to be the "villainous scapegoat" for the audience to identify.

[eclipse]

Is it possible?  Yes.

Will it be good?  That heavily depends on how the world is built, and why there's a conflict in the first place.

[Dandy Druid]

It's possible- the nobility may be seen as incompetent, but in reality there's a feud among nobles. So there will be both "good" and "bad" nobles.

Meanwhile the masses can be led by a charismatic individual who starts off with good intentions, but becomes gradually more brutal as time goes on (think French Revolutionists).

[giselle]

scattered thoughts:

being nobility/royalty is inherently bad, but you can still have people in those positions who the audience can relate to in some way in order to create some kind of grey area or emotional connectivity

and like dandy druid said revolutionaries can get more and more "brutal" as time goes on but you should be careful because that kind of view (generally propagated by the ruling class to delegitimize resistance) is often something seated in or fueled by the kind of classism that makes people side with the ruling class in the first place

and the classic fe writing of nobles (but only the bad ones!) as ugly indolent pigs is in a sense correct but usually goes on to ignore all of the reasons people of privilege -- moderates, liberals, so on -- side with them to this day

that is, as long as the (relatively) important classes receive protection and the suffering of the lower ones is ignored, treated as unsolvable, or given an outside cause, there's no reason (in their own minds) for the "decent" classes to resist/pursue major forms of change

and due to the inherent foundations of nobility/royal classes there is no such thing as  "good nobility" or "good royalty", only some kind of spectrum of relative humanity. like eliwood is a "very nice person" but he's still assured a life of luxury at the expense of everyone below him in the social order, and at no cost to him

a noble antagonist in the kind of story you describe would ideally be somebody like eliwood, who is easy to see as a morally upright person and who easily earns the support of middle and upper classes due to a kind of privilege-blindness

this kind of conflict is going to be black and white from certain perspectives (like mine) but will still involve the suffering of people who strictly speaking have very little idea of who they're hurting by virtue of their own existence

look at the cuban revolution for an example, where people of severe privilege who could through a certain lens be seen as average or "everymen" -- liberals, moderates -- had the benefits of a fascist government stripped away from them and chose to flee instead and contributed through their privilege-blinded viewpoints to the surviving perception of cuba's new government as a totalitarian state

Edited May 28, 2018 by giselle
empty space

[thecrimsonflash]

It can be done, but it is difficult, you can look at it from any number of perspectives, the nobles themselves need to be something more than just "the guy on top", instead really give the people a reason to follow them outside plain old tradition, or make that the reason to question the ruler, asking why and then justifying why is far more profound than asking why, getting an answer, and then doing nothing with it, could make for an interesting decision. 

Look at the ruling classes offering protection from common bandits and prevents neighboring countries from invading possibly killing people or raiding the homes of those on the borders to feed and satisfy their armies, then ask if this is really necessary, are the taxes sufficient for protection, would the realm fall into chaos if there is no one to govern, or are such fears unwarranted.

Of course this may be looked at in a feudal system where most are uneducated and scared of their own shadows, one can understand why people would so blindly follow a leader, offering security and order in exchange for resources, I mean the peasants aren't educated enough to really question their rulers, so it is already kind of grey to begin with, maybe the rulers aren't quite so benevolent, though they still must protect those beneath them to get their loyalty and even then a few generations in and any stories from before they swore fealty would no longer exist, of course this is the only way a feudal system works without eventually collapsing.

though I don't think that IS is capable of having the nuance to look at more complex concepts like anarchism or class warfare, the typical way that fire emblem looks at everything in a grey manner requires the use of some scapegoat. Even garon is a victim.

So I guess that the conclusion is yes but... keep IS away from it.