Least Favorite FE Character?

[Slumber]

5 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

...And this is why I hope IS never again attempts what they did with Awakenings cast. That is, introduce a character as a one or two dimensional trope, and then have them revealed to be three dimensional characters as one reads more supports. The execution was a double-edged sword, as while this makes unlocking supports of even average quality rewarding because the characters are gaining more depth little by little, it also means that if you don't use a character that often, you're stuck with an intentionally misleading first impression.

Kellam's gimmick isn't that he's forgotten. His "gimmick" that he's extremely difficult to spot. In the majority of his supports, a character in question is trying to look for him. Kellam makes his presence known, often to the shock of his support partner, and once the joke is passed over, they get to the meat of the support. Often times, this joke is either dropped or downplayed in their next supports.

The Shepherd's aren't being assholes and deliberately ignoring him. They know Kellam exists, and often try to talk to him in supports. The joke is that he's ridiculously stealthy despite not trying to be so, and all while wearing a giant suit of armor. Sometimes the support is based around this peculiar habit, sometimes it's about something else entirely.

This is why I believe Kellam's single ending was written before they created his supports and an oversight they didn't bother to fix. For it to take months or years for the Shephards to forget he was no longer there is so ridiculously out of character I don't see any other plausible explanation.

I mean, it can be read that Kellam is hard to spot, but his support with Nowi straight up says that people simply ignore him, starting with his parents, because he was a kid who hated sharing since he was poor. They were aware of his presence and his existence, they would just rather ignore him than deal with him. Then he became a nice guy and... people still ignore him for no explained reason. It's not an innate trait of Kellam's to be ignored. It'd be like explaining that Nowi is a dragon because people thought she was a dragon, and not because she was actually a dragon.

I'm not sure you can say "People get the wrong impression" of a character if they don't use them, since even in his supports, he's explicitly said to be ignored. So now you're playing a character who is introduced as a joke character who is ignored by his friends, you're reading supports that explain that he's ignored and has been ever since he was a child, and then he gets a bunch of endings where he's ignored... but the actual truth is that he's just hard to spot?

And then his official title in the endings is the "Oft Forgotten", in every single ending. I really feel like IS is trying to hammer home a picture of Kellam, and it's not that he's hard to spot.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Slumber

[Hawkwing]

1 hour ago, Slumber said:

I mean, it can be read that Kellam is hard to spot, but his support with Nowi straight up says that people simply ignore him, starting with his parents, because he was a kid who hated sharing since he was poor. They were aware of his presence and his existence, they would just rather ignore him than deal with him. Then he became a nice guy and... people still ignore him for no explained reason. It's not an innate trait of Kellam's to be ignored. It'd be like explaining that Nowi is a dragon because people thought she was a dragon, and not because she was actually a dragon.

I think ignore is the wrong word here. Kellams family ignored him because of his selfishness. They knew that he was present, yet acted as if he wasn't.

I reread several of Kellams supports, and given the general reactions of the Shephards when they find Kellam (usually surprise that he's occupying the same room/area as them, and occasionally with an apology afterwards that they didn't notice), one doesn't get the sense that they deliberately treat him as if he doesn't exist just to spite him. They don't act as if they know Kellam is the same room as them, yet continue on as if he wasn't. Chances are, they genuinely didn't spot Kellam when walking into the room, and thus their lack of acknowledgement of him is a simple accident. Still not a good thing, but they definitely aren't ignoring him.

Being fair, I think "hard to spot" may not be the best description either. As I said, I reread Kellams supports, and while several conversations do have his partner run into him by accident when trying to find him, others simply stumble into him (metaphorically, not literally. Except maybe Maribelle) and a conversation follows. Sometimes both happen in the same chain, with a character being startled by Kellams sudden presence in their first support, but with the rest of the supports having them be looking for Kellam at the start. For the most part, though, unless it's the focus of the support (such as Miriel trying to research this phenomenon, or Cordelia practicing stealth), the gag of him being unintentionally stealthy is usually played once or occasionally twice and then they jump to the main conversation,. If it's even played at all that is (Sully, Panne, Nowi, and Cherche are the only four characters that don't have troubles spotting him). I think "unnoticed" might be a more balanced word.

1 hour ago, Slumber said:

I'm not sure you can say "People get the wrong impression" of a character if they don't use them, since even in his supports, he's explicitly said to be ignored. So now you're playing a character who is introduced as a joke character who is ignored by his friends, you're reading supports that explain that he's ignored and has been ever since he was a child, and then he gets a bunch of endings where he's ignored... but the actual truth is that he's just hard to spot?

I meant that more in general. YMMV on whether or not a character actually has more depth than their first impression, would suggest or if they just gain flavor text from supports. But several characters definitely have more to them than what meets the eye.

I hinted at earlier that I consider Awakenings handling of supports to be a double-edged sword because it was reliant on whether or not you used certain units. Going of personal experience: I can get a use out of knights, so I use Kellam. I learned that Kellams "gimmick" isn't that he's forgotten; it's that he's difficult to spot and blends in with the environment, despite wearing a conspicuous suit of armor. I also learn that he's clever, has a stubborn side, and there's a story behind his armor and his family. Similarly, while I always knew that there was more to Libra's character than being mistaken for a woman, it wasn't until I did my first ironman of the game (and lost Maribelle) that I read some of his backstory in person, and his overall calm and gentle character helped elevate him to become among my favorite characters in Awakening (to the point where loosing him near the end game was an especially sore spot of the run). I hold Ricked in higher regard than most people seem to do because I think he has some of the best "war is hell" conversations in the game, Panne supports could either be read as someone who doesn't trust humanity yet or is just antisocial, etc. I could go on, but the point is the more I used a character, the less they come off as a trope.

Meanwhile, I barely use Olivia because I don't really make strategies with dancing in mind, and I quite honestly couldn't tell you anything about her that I couldn't get from a wiki or TV Tropes. Likewise, while I know there's more to Gaius than his candy addiction, I haven't used him as often as some other characters, and thus haven't unlocked many supports that don't mention or focus on candy. I haven't seen Serevas better side yet, or seen Nowi's wiser moments, or know more about Tharja's non-avatar related conversations, and so on, because I haven't used these units that much, and am thus stuck with they're "I'm this trope" introduction, which doesn't help me perspective on them.

It was a nice experiment, but I hope IS never repeats this trick.

1 hour ago, Slumber said:

And then his official title in the endings is the "Oft Forgotten", in every single ending. I really feel like IS is trying to hammer home a picture of Kellam, and it's not that he's hard to spot.

I sincerely wonder if they mixed up "running gag is that they're wearing a conscious suit of armor, yet fails to be spotted" with "He's so stealthy, people forget he exists". Considering the jokes made by fans about Kellam, I can see how easily that could come about. Still, I wonder if his title and and solo ending was an oversight, an exaggerated joke they made early on and didn't bother to change even when his supports showed that the Shepherds wouldn't treat him that way, or the simple result of time constraints and needing to focus on what they could and couldn't do, and that was a low priority on the list of "stuff to change and review".

I don't think Kellam is alone in this. Libra's ending and title also have a focus on him being the "dude looks like a lady" trope, yet the joke is underplayed most of the time, with other aspects of his character getting much more attention in supports. I'm curious just when in the development/writing cycle the endings were made and when the supports were written, because that might answer a few questions.

[Slumber]

18 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

I think ignore is the wrong word here. Kellams family ignored him because of his selfishness. They knew that he was present, yet acted as if he wasn't.

I reread several of Kellams supports, and given the general reactions of the Shephards when they find Kellam (usually surprise that he's occupying the same room/area as them, and occasionally with an apology afterwards that they didn't notice), one doesn't get the sense that they deliberately treat him as if he doesn't exist just to spite him. They don't act as if they know Kellam is the same room as them, yet continue on as if he wasn't. Chances are, they genuinely didn't spot Kellam when walking into the room, and thus their lack of acknowledgement of him is a simple accident. Still not a good thing, but they definitely aren't ignoring him.

Being fair, I think "hard to spot" may not be the best description either. As I said, I reread Kellams supports, and while several conversations do have his partner run into him by accident when trying to find him, others simply stumble into him (metaphorically, not literally. Except maybe Maribelle) and a conversation follows. Sometimes both happen in the same chain, with a character being startled by Kellams sudden presence in their first support, but with the rest of the supports having them be looking for Kellam at the start. For the most part, though, unless it's the focus of the support (such as Miriel trying to research this phenomenon, or Cordelia practicing stealth), the gag of him being unintentionally stealthy is usually played once or occasionally twice and then they jump to the main conversation,. If it's even played at all that is (Sully, Panne, Nowi, and Cherche are the only four characters that don't have troubles spotting him). I think "unnoticed" might be a more balanced word.

I meant that more in general. YMMV on whether or not a character actually has more depth than their first impression, would suggest or if they just gain flavor text from supports. But several characters definitely have more to them than what meets the eye.

I hinted at earlier that I consider Awakenings handling of supports to be a double-edged sword because it was reliant on whether or not you used certain units. Going of personal experience: I can get a use out of knights, so I use Kellam. I learned that Kellams "gimmick" isn't that he's forgotten; it's that he's difficult to spot and blends in with the environment, despite wearing a conspicuous suit of armor. I also learn that he's clever, has a stubborn side, and there's a story behind his armor and his family. Similarly, while I always knew that there was more to Libra's character than being mistaken for a woman, it wasn't until I did my first ironman of the game (and lost Maribelle) that I read some of his backstory in person, and his overall calm and gentle character helped elevate him to become among my favorite characters in Awakening (to the point where loosing him near the end game was an especially sore spot of the run). I hold Ricked in higher regard than most people seem to do because I think he has some of the best "war is hell" conversations in the game, Panne supports could either be read as someone who doesn't trust humanity yet or is just antisocial, etc. I could go on, but the point is the more I used a character, the less they come off as a trope.

Meanwhile, I barely use Olivia because I don't really make strategies with dancing in mind, and I quite honestly couldn't tell you anything about her that I couldn't get from a wiki or TV Tropes. Likewise, while I know there's more to Gaius than his candy addiction, I haven't used him as often as some other characters, and thus haven't unlocked many supports that don't mention or focus on candy. I haven't seen Serevas better side yet, or seen Nowi's wiser moments, or know more about Tharja's non-avatar related conversations, and so on, because I haven't used these units that much, and am thus stuck with they're "I'm this trope" introduction, which doesn't help me perspective on them.

It was a nice experiment, but I hope IS never repeats this trick.

I sincerely wonder if they mixed up "running gag is that they're wearing a conscious suit of armor, yet fails to be spotted" with "He's so stealthy, people forget he exists". Considering the jokes made by fans about Kellam, I can see how easily that could come about. Still, I wonder if his title and and solo ending was an oversight, an exaggerated joke they made early on and didn't bother to change even when his supports showed that the Shepherds wouldn't treat him that way, or the simple result of time constraints and needing to focus on what they could and couldn't do, and that was a low priority on the list of "stuff to change and review".

I don't think Kellam is alone in this. Libra's ending and title also have a focus on him being the "dude looks like a lady" trope, yet the joke is underplayed most of the time, with other aspects of his character getting much more attention in supports. I'm curious just when in the development/writing cycle the endings were made and when the supports were written, because that might answer a few questions.

I believe I agree on the whole. I still feel that the set-up, explanation and overall execution of Kellam's character makes the rest of the Shepherds look bad.

But Kellam's a prime victim of Fateswakening writing, where it seems that the conceptual development of a character was "What's their gag->How are they introduced in the story in a way that exhibits their gag->What endings can they have that play off their gag->How do we stretch this gag over 50+ support conversations". A lot of characters seem lose their focus when you get to the part where you have to actually make them characters. Some, like Kellam, seem hamstrung by their gag. In the grand scheme of things, there's really no reason for a lot of these gags to even exist anymore when all is said and done.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Slumber

[Rapaille]

On 13-11-2018 at 8:41 PM, Erureido said:

I don't care for Subaki all that much, but I'll admit there are four Subaki supports I recommend checking out where he doesn't come across as unpleasant.

 

So I've read the supports that you recommended and  I've got to admit that those are pretty good and put him in a more positive light so I don't hate him anymore (still dislike him, but not with a passion).

But it also highlight why I hardly care about characters in fe13 & 14. Since there  are so many supports with varying degrees of quality when I read a bad support then that will likely be the way how I see that character. And I certainly don't feel motivated to read all supports of said character to see if I can find something positive (which is something I did with many GBA characters since they have  less supports). The reason why the cast of fe4 & fe15 felt more developed to me then the cast of fe13 & fe14 despite these games having less dialogue for their characters is that the information that we got was easier to access and that information was of good quality.

This also shows another problem since because there are so many supports and they are often not involved in the story you can quickly get contradictions between different supports and supports and the story.

What I want to say with this is that I hope that in future games, Supports are part of the characterization, not the entire characterization (or just make a game that is fun to play with a few funny supports as a distraction).  

[starburst]

17 hours ago, Von Ithipathachai said:

Eh.  At least Charlotte has a decent explanation for her appearance and behavior, as opposed to Camilla.

It is not an explanation, but an excuse. Have you seen other characters (in any media) who dress like her to get a husband? I have not.
I understand the role that she is supposed to play, I simply cannot translate that premise into that outfit.

For example, it is implied that dancers are prostitutes, right? I have no problem with that, I even find it interesting for character development. But Charlotte is a guard and dresses more provocatively than a dancer/ prostitute.

Anyway, it may just be me. If I changed her outfit, I would still dislike her voice, tone and phrases, so...

[Jingle Jangle]

4 minutes ago, starburst said:

It is not an explanation, but an excuse. Have you seen other characters (in any media) who dress like her to get a husband? I have not.
I understand the role that she is supposed to play, I simply cannot translate that premise into that outfit.

For example, it is implied that dancers are prostitutes, right? I have no problem with that, I even find it interesting for character development. But Charlotte is a guard and dresses more provocatively than a dancer/ prostitute.

Are you saying that most if not all the dancers in the series are prostitutes?

[PersonWithTime]

On 11/12/2018 at 1:20 PM, Farina's Pegasus said:

Clarine - A non-charming, annoying Serra. I've only played through FE6 once, though, so I don't remember much about her to begin with. 

I like Clarine but yeah that's basically her character. No one can be Serra.

On 11/12/2018 at 6:14 PM, Jingle Bells said:

Matthis, the dude did nothing but disappoint me.

I wasn't gonna add him but yeah Matthis for me too. I felt like he was unoffensive in SD but the way he talked about Lena in FE12 creeped me out.

Shinon is probably my least favourite. He's such a rude mean person, and I don't even care if he has a soft spot for Rolf. Rolf is okay at best, bootleg Wolt at worst.

Ninian, I don't even know if I hate her because I she constantly annoys the hell out of me, or just because it's fun hating on her. It's weird, she's actually grown on me now, especially because I never pair her with Eliwood so she gets some form of character development. She starts the game being weak and annoying and ends it being more mature and taking some form of responsibility. Instead of her ending with Eliwood where she starts the game being weak and ends up marrying the dude she likes. But yeah, when I play FE7 with my friends, we never pair her with Eliwood and we have such a blast making fun of her. I guess that's endeared her to me a bit.

Shinon is seriously the worst though.

[TheWildestCat]

Are we talking about playable units or non-playable.

[starburst]

2 hours ago, Jingle Bells said:

Are you saying that most if not all the dancers in the series are prostitutes?

Is it not implied in the lore of the games? That has always been my understanding (and why I find Olivia completely out of character, even for comic relief.)
And I am not being judgemental, I actually find it interesting; it adds a human side to those characters and reflects a real situation of the time and customs that the games are based on.

[TheWildestCat]

Playable-Virion why, just why is he a thing in my opinion he makes Gordon look good, not that I'm saying he's bad but in my opinion Gordon is near the bottom of my archer tier list. 

Non-playable-Hans: he can fall in the canyon and get eaten by Anonkos. 

[starburst]

3 minutes ago, TheWildestCat said:

Non-playable-Hans: he can fall in the canyon and get eaten by Anonkos. 

Really?! Do not mess with my mate, Hans.

Joking aside, I think that his role is to generate a contrast between the (ideal of the) former Nohrian army and the corruption and degeneration that has plagued it (supposedly after Garon's possession.) That is why the heir to the throne was surprised and annoyed when Hans was part of the army.
Gee... Conquest's story is silly and incoherent on every way, but if one could rewrite Garon and Iago and make them more compelling, I believe that Hans would reprise his role as is.

[Jingle Jangle]

1 hour ago, starburst said:

Is it not implied in the lore of the games? That has always been my understanding (and why I find Olivia completely out of character, even for comic relief.)
And I am not being judgemental, I actually find it interesting; it adds a human side to those characters and reflects a real situation of the time and customs that the games are based on.

i strongly disagree, being flirty doesn't mean that a person is a prostitute. I also think that the series lack the maturity to tackle topics such as that. 

[ChefGuevara]

Seems questionable to put characters as your least favorite just because they're blank slates, especially when fire emblem's bar for quality is wayyyyyyy lower than that

In any case, ephraim has always bothered me because he essentially kneecaps eirika's whole character arc, and cuts her back down to "the protag's little sister" while he goes and faces near-zero resistance from everything and doesn't develop at all, but then the ending still goes and says "ye Im definitely wiser now or whatever"

its dumb 

[Slumber]

1 hour ago, ChefGuevara said:

Seems questionable to put characters as your least favorite just because they're blank slates, especially when fire emblem's bar for quality is wayyyyyyy lower than that

In any case, ephraim has always bothered me because he essentially kneecaps eirika's whole character arc, and cuts her back down to "the protag's little sister" while he goes and faces near-zero resistance from everything and doesn't develop at all, but then the ending still goes and says "ye Im definitely wiser now or whatever"

its dumb 

My brother.

Ephraim's on par with Corrin in my head.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Slumber

[Etrurian emperor]

1 hour ago, ChefGuevara said:

Seems questionable to put characters as your least favorite just because they're blank slates, especially when fire emblem's bar for quality is wayyyyyyy lower than that

Not really. Not having any qualities at all can be a very damning thing. I may not like  Clive for example but at least I'm capable of having some sort of feelings towards him which would be impossible for me to have for characters like Bars or Robert. Being extremely boring can just just as bad for a character as being immoral or problematic. Being a blank slates means that the characters cannot do or say even the smallest thing of note or interest which is a legitimate criticism. 

Edited November 15, 2018 by Etrurian emperor

[Ottservia]

Can I just ask what is wrong with an immoral character? Like I don’t see the problem with them so long as they’re well written. I mean what about villains? They’re designed to be immoral does that make them “bad” characters? I mean I can understand why people would dislike them but I don’t see what that has to do with poor writing. No seriously could someone please explain this to me because I am legit curious.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Otts486

[indigoasis]

1 hour ago, Otts486 said:

Can I just ask what is wrong with an immoral character? Like I don’t see the problem with them so long as they’re well written. I mean what about villains? They’re designed to be immoral does that make them “bad” characters? I mean I can understand why people would dislike them but I don’t see what that has to do with poor writing. No seriously could someone please explain this to me because I am legit curious.

There's nothing inherently wrong with immoral characters in fiction. I find that they serve as reminders that not everyone in the world is going to be sunshine and rainbows. If they're well written, then there should be no problems (other than a person's dislike for that character due to clashing morals or general distaste). 

Also, not all villains are totally immoral. They might do a bad thing here or there, but their intentions might be for the betterment of others, like Funny Valentine from Part 7 of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure. He's even a better person than the protagonist most of the time.

Anyway, immoral characters aren't necessarily "bad" characters, but if an immoral character's (or any character's) entire focus is on a single trait and that's all they focus on (more or less making them one-dimensional), then there's seriously something wrong, especially if they're one of the more prominent characters.

Someone else can probably explain it WAY better than I can, but I hope that gives you a general answer to your question for right now.

[Ottservia]

11 minutes ago, indigospace said:

There's nothing inherently wrong with immoral characters in fiction. I find that they serve as reminders that not everyone in the world is going to be sunshine and rainbows. If they're well written, then there should be no problems (other than a person's dislike for that character due to clashing morals or general distaste). 

Also, not all villains are totally immoral. They might do a bad thing here or there, but their intentions might be for the betterment of others, like Funny Valentine from Part 7 of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure. He's even a better person than the protagonist most of the time.

Anyway, immoral characters aren't necessarily "bad" characters, but if an immoral character's (or any character's) entire focus is on a single trait and that's all they focus on (more or less making them one-dimensional), then there's seriously something wrong, especially if they're one of the more prominent characters.

Someone else can probably explain it WAY better than I can, but I hope that gives you a general answer to your question for right now.

Yeah I get that because it makes sense. What confuses me is when people say immorality in general is indicative of a "bad" character. Like I know peri has been mentioned a lot but I do not believe the fact that she's a psychopath is what makes her a "bad" character. It's really her integration into the story that's the problem to me cause you know her xander supports are probably some of the worst. But I don't think she's a "bad" character in it of her self.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Otts486

[Hawkwing]

19 hours ago, Slumber said:

I believe I agree on the whole. I still feel that the set-up, explanation and overall execution of Kellam's character makes the rest of the Shepherds look bad.

Honestly, I see Kellams solo ending as an in-universe "historians exaggerated the story" sort of thing. It doesn't excuse the quality of the ending, or how only a few changes would have improved it, but it's the only thing I can think of that doesn't make the Shepherds act so out of character.

19 hours ago, Slumber said:

But Kellam's a prime victim of Fateswakening writing, where it seems that the conceptual development of a character was "What's their gag->How are they introduced in the story in a way that exhibits their gag->What endings can they have that play off their gag->How do we stretch this gag over 50+ support conversations". A lot of characters seem lose their focus when you get to the part where you have to actually make them characters. Some, like Kellam, seem hamstrung by their gag. In the grand scheme of things, there's really no reason for a lot of these gags to even exist anymore when all is said and done.

That development chain does make a good deal of sense. It also would explain changes occur while writing the supports, as the original joke is either dropped or underplayed in favor of focusing on another aspect of the character, or the "gimmick" changes into something else that's easier, more entertaining, or more convenient to write several conversations about. And since every character won't undergo a drastic change in this process, they can leave most of the endings and titles be.

As I said before, I really hope IS never does the "characters are introduced as gags or tropes, only to be deeper than they initially seem" trick again. While it was satisfying to learn that there was much more to a character than their initial impression gave off, and thus made it rewarding to unlock supports of even average quality as it furthered this process, it also meant that someone was stuck with that questionable first impression until they started using the unit and unlocking their supports. And as you said, these gimmicks and tropes don't even need to be present in the first place to get the player interested in learning more about the characters and unlocking supports.

1 hour ago, Otts486 said:

Can I just ask what is wrong with an immoral character? Like I don’t see the problem with them so long as they’re well written. I mean what about villains? They’re designed to be immoral does that make them “bad” characters? I mean I can understand why people would dislike them but I don’t see what that has to do with poor writing. No seriously could someone please explain this to me because I am legit curious.

Being "well-written" does not excuse a characters actions. It can help explain the reasoning behind it, yes, but a "well-written" despicable person is still a despicable person. While it can be interesting to see a story through the eyes of a character that lacks typical heroic or noble traits to gain a different perspective on things, it can also result in the audience seeing the "heroes" as only marginally better than the villains, making it hard for them to root for someone.

This is far from saying that immoral characters are bad to have in a story. Indeed, they can often fulfill the roles of the protagonist were a traditional hero would be unfitting, or they could serve as a nice narrative contrast to the hero or even the villain. However, even if they're well written, sympathetic, and likable, an immoral character can still commit atrocious actions, and that alone can repel someone from fully supporting or even liking them.

9 minutes ago, Otts486 said:

Yeah I get that because it makes sense. What confuses me is when people say immorality in general is indicative of a "bad" character. Like I know peri has been mentioned a lot but I do not believe the fact that she's a psychopath is what makes her a "bad" character. It's really her integration into the story that's the problem to me cause you know her xander supports are probably some of the worst. But I don't think she's a "bad" in it of her self.

You do realize that when some people say "bad", they aren't talking about how well or badly the character was written, but about that characters morality?

People can still hate a immoral character, even if (or sometimes especially if) they're well written.

[Ottservia]

40 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

You do realize that when some people say "bad", they aren't talking about how well or badly the character was written, but about that characters morality?

People can still hate a immoral character, even if (or sometimes especially if) they're well written.

 

You see this is why I hate the phrase “bad character” it’s so damn vague. What does that mean? Does it mean bad person? Or poorly written? Or what? You have to specify.

also I never said a person can’t dislike these characters cause that’s totally fine. I said as much in my initial post. Just don’t come to me saying that is indicative of poor writing.

 

43 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

Being "well-written" does not excuse a characters actions. It can help explain the reasoning behind it, yes, but a "well-written" despicable person is still a despicable person.

I agree it doesn’t excuse a character’s actions but it does explain them and that’s the most important part to me. It humanizes them for me(well depending on the character anyway) and that’s why I personally like characters like that. Not saying everyone has to agree with me cause opinions will be opinions. However to me an unlikable yet well written character is better than a boring nice guy if that makes sense. 

 

47 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

it can also result in the audience seeing the "heroes" as only marginally better than the villains, making it hard for them to root for someone.

You see that’s the disconnect here. I personally don’t mind when stories do this. It creates moral grey where we don’t know who to root for and it’s up to us as an audience to come to our own conclusions which I love. Again it can create great contrast in stories and add a great deal of nuance to the overall themes of the narrative.

[Slumber]

7 minutes ago, Otts486 said:

I agree it doesn’t excuse a character’s actions but it does explain them and that’s the most important part to me. It humanizes them for me(well depending on the character anyway) and that’s why I personally like characters like that. Not saying everyone has to agree with me cause opinions will be opinions. However to me an unlikable yet well written character is better than a boring nice guy if that makes sense. 

It's all going to come down to personal preference.

Peri is poorly written(Sorry, I'm not going to take the "Her parents never taught her that MURDER was wrong" explanation as something that fully rounds out her character and makes her well written) and an immoral character. Tharja is... I'm not going to say she's well written, but she's definitely got more going on than Peri. 

Ultimately, I still think Peri is marginally worse than Tharja is as a character, because the degree to which they're both just bad, unlikable people outpaces the degree to which they can feasibly be well written.

At the end of the day, Peri and Tharja make me upset that they exist as characters. Somebody like, say Oujay, doesn't make me upset that he exists, even though he's just generic nice guy.

To me, the closest thing the series has to a well written, unlikable character is Shinon. But there's a huge chasm between Shinon just being an asshole, and Peri/Tharja being violent and/or abusive people to the people around them.

Maybe IS will someday make a well written player unit who hurts innocent people and allies for fun, but I really doubt they will. We'll probably get more Tharjas and Peris, and it'll make me more upset. Meanwhile, I continue to be mildly nonplussed by the droves of boring nice guy characters they'll surely write.

[Etrurian emperor]

9 hours ago, Otts486 said:

Can I just ask what is wrong with an immoral character? Like I don’t see the problem with them so long as they’re well written. I mean what about villains? They’re designed to be immoral does that make them “bad” characters? I mean I can understand why people would dislike them but I don’t see what that has to do with poor writing. No seriously could someone please explain this to me because I am legit curious.

In fact a villain being SO immoral that he's incredibly unlikable can actually be a sign of really strong writing and a really strong villain. No one likes Joffrey Baratheon but most people loves him as a villain. Hilda and Sonia are absolutely despicable but that's exactly why they work so well as villains which in turn is a reason to like them.

But there are also villains who have nothing aside from being immoral. Garon and Surtr are widely critized for just being immoral, that they don't express this in interesting ways and that being immoral is pretty much their only trait. Then things suddenly start being a problem. That they were supposed to be like this doesn't make the final result any less bad.

I think being immoral is totally fine if that's what the plot needs people to be. Garon's main problem is that being so obviously evil was exactly what Fates required him NOT to be and to some extend this goes for Zelgius too. Him being such a scumbag and the plot insisting he's so noble don't go well together and create a disconnect that weakens the character.

Personal preference may also play a role. There's nothing objectively wrong with Shinon being such an asshole but a petty, spiteful racist drunk can easily get on people's nerve. I get why Shinon the way he is and acknowledge he works as a character but I still don't enjoy him because he's such a jerk.

[Hawkwing]

11 hours ago, Otts486 said:

I agree it doesn’t excuse a character’s actions but it does explain them and that’s the most important part to me. It humanizes them for me(well depending on the character anyway) and that’s why I personally like characters like that. Not saying everyone has to agree with me cause opinions will be opinions. However to me an unlikable yet well written character is better than a boring nice guy if that makes sense.

A well-written unlikable character is still unlikable. I can praise them for how well written they are, as well as how the reasoning behind their actions make sense, yet still hate the character. Granted, this doesn't need to be a bad thing. It can be enjoyable to hate a character that you're supposed to hate, and it's satisfying to see (and in videogames, occasionally deliver) their comeuppance.

It's possible for a persons least favorite character to also be their favorite villain. They can hate how damaging and despicable their actions were, how many people they (potentially pointlessly) killed, and how they made the world/universe a living hellhole. Yet that same person can praise how well written the villain is as a whole is, how their backstory helps explain (but not excuse) their actions, and how the satisfaction of seeing them brought down was worth the journey.

11 hours ago, Otts486 said:

You see that’s the disconnect here. I personally don’t mind when stories do this. It creates moral grey where we don’t know who to root for and it’s up to us as an audience to come to our own conclusions which I love. Again it can create great contrast in stories and add a great deal of nuance to the overall themes of the narrative.

Oh don't get me wrong. I love a good morally gray story (even if I tend to prefer ones that are deconstructions and/or have a "character strives to do the right thing, even while the world tries to tear them down" element to them). They tend to be down to earth, show that any side of a conflict can have both good and bad people in it, and that blindly doing the "right" thing has consequences.

Thing is, if it's of the darker variety of grey vs gray, it can possibly lead to the audience just seeing most of the character as unrootable bad guys, who's differences boil down to their methods and if one is slightly better or worse than another A reason I've often heard for people not being interested in well praised shows such as Game of Thrones (besides the presence of gore and rape) is "everyone is immoral, and it's pretty much an 'evil people do evil things' kind of story. The few characters with a hint of goodness will be lucky to last to the next scene, and no matter who wins in the end, the world will still remain a crappy place. Why should I waste my time?"

[Erureido]

On 11/14/2018 at 5:50 AM, DragonFlames said:

(especially Takumi, who thinks it's a privilege to call him by name)

Takumi only ever did that name-privilege thing with Zola, and that's because he still distrusted Zola and viewed him as a good-for-nothing villain that was pointlessly dragged along until Zola protected him from the hooded man. Takumi didn't bark at Leo or Elise in their supports for them calling him by his name despite him initially being hostile to them, nor did he call out Camilla, Jakob, or Felica on that when they initially talked to him in their supports.

On 11/15/2018 at 6:45 AM, LJwalhout said:

So I've read the supports that you recommended and  I've got to admit that those are pretty good and put him in a more positive light so I don't hate him anymore (still dislike him, but not with a passion).

But it also highlight why I hardly care about characters in fe13 & 14. Since there  are so many supports with varying degrees of quality when I read a bad support then that will likely be the way how I see that character. And I certainly don't feel motivated to read all supports of said character to see if I can find something positive (which is something I did with many GBA characters since they have  less supports). The reason why the cast of fe4 & fe15 felt more developed to me then the cast of fe13 & fe14 despite these games having less dialogue for their characters is that the information that we got was easier to access and that information was of good quality.

This also shows another problem since because there are so many supports and they are often not involved in the story you can quickly get contradictions between different supports and supports and the story.

What I want to say with this is that I hope that in future games, Supports are part of the characterization, not the entire characterization (or just make a game that is fun to play with a few funny supports as a distraction).  

Very true. FE13 & FE14 felt like a case of "quantity over quality" when it came to supports, especially in Fates where it seemed like the writers wanted to a character to have support conversations with everyone of the opposite sex along with a few of the same sex. With the writers' need to go for as many supports as possible while saving time and not wanting to make the extra effort, it leads to many supports coming down to "here's what happens when person A's most defining characteristic meets person B's most defining characteristic," basically flanderization. It ultimately leads to most supports turning out that way with only a small handful turning out to be good for exploring something else about the characters in a meaningful. 

Meanwhile, with FE15 and arguably even the GBA games (I can't speak for FE4 since I haven't played it, but I've heard lots of good things about its cast), there are a lot less supports, but with those less supports, it really felt like the writers wanted to make the most out of those few supports to help characterize them (basically "quality over quantity"). Those games also had the added benefit of making more members of its casts have some sort of moment of relevance to the plot, unlike FE13 & FE14 where most of its cast showed up and made an impression with just their introduction and that's it, and so we learned something else about them from their spotlight in the story (i.e. one of Clair's traits is her curiosity and interest in learning more about commoners, and that's something we learn when she first meets Alm and not something brought up in supports).

Edited November 17, 2018 by Erureido

[Hecatia]

8 hours ago, Erureido said:

The reason why the cast of fe4 & fe15 felt more developed to me then the cast of fe13 & fe14 despite these games having less dialogue for their characters is that the information that we got was easier to access and that information was of good quality.

This is my point everytime someone defends the idea of Fates characters have more personality and when I first played Fates, I felt that the other characters were introduced like in the NES games, a sentence of why they exist and that's it. Supports shouldn't need to be all the source of the character! Imagine that Oboro goes to Nohr with Corrin, and she starts to ramble about how much she hates Nohrians (or hesitates to go), then she explains why, there, instead of suddenly in the middle of the night because of a support that you could easily ignore.