Why surtr is a good villain that didn't work

[bottlegnomes]

2 minutes ago, Alkaid said:

an evil power-hungry creature

This is Surtr.

[Alkaid]

16 minutes ago, bottlegnomes said:

This is Surtr.

Which is your assumption, since we're given even less context than with Garon.

[Baldrick]

22 minutes ago, Otts486 said:

yes but they also serve the same purpose as a villain which is to generate conflict and move the story forward. I have yet to see Titanic so I can not say much more than that.

Well, on the subject of tornadoes, take the one in the Wizard of Oz. It generated conflict and moved the story forward.

22 minutes ago, Otts486 said:

you see this is why human force of nature villains are weird. If the villain is a god, monster, or hell a literal force of nature, it's easier for us as an audience to just sort of accept them as forces of nature because they're not human so by default we don't try to connect with them on a human level.

A person need not be human; you can connect to gods and monsters on a human level, or like you would with a wild animal.

22 minutes ago, Otts486 said:

If they are human, however, the author is gonna have to put in a little more effort to try to convince us that the character isn't "human" in a sense.

I suppose a better way to put is that force of nature villains are not humans even if they are if that makes sense. They don't need understandable reasons to do the things that they do. They just do because that's their entire reason for existing. There's no 'why' just 'what' and 'how'.

Surtr is never established to be not "human", or that he doesn't have a reason to act the way he does.

[Ottservia]

34 minutes ago, Baldrick said:

A person need not be human; you can connect to gods and monsters on a human level, or like you would with a wild animal.

I’m not saying you can’t connect to those things on a human level because it’s entirely possible. I’m saying it’s easier not to because they’re not human. 

34 minutes ago, Baldrick said:

Surtr is never established to be not "human", or that he doesn't have a reason to act the way he does.

What I mean by “not human” is that he’s not relatable. You can’t really relate to surtr on a personal level because he’s designed that way. He’s not a character in the sense that you can’t understand and relate to him. Neither are other force of nature villains like the joker. You’re not supposed to be able to relate to them. He’s not grounded in reality. Again he’s more a representation than a character. He’s not supposed to have depth, nuance, rational human thinking, natural human emotions or any of that sort. To say otherwise is missing the point. Force of nature villains don’t need a human element to function within the story cause that’s not their purpose. The whole point of a force of nature is to be able to explore different ideas, themes, or aspects of the world and characters. You don’t a need a narrative villain to do this. A plot where a tornado is constantly chasing after our heroes will do that just fine and that’s the whole point behind surtr. It’s a constant  source of conflict and thrusts our characters into situations where they are forced to act differently in order to adapt to these radically shifting scenarios. It moves the plot forward and allows the characters to develop in interesting ways. That is what a force of nature villain does, and when done correctly it can lead to really interesting stories and characters. 

Edited December 3, 2018 by Otts486

[Rafiel's Aria]

Looking at Surtr through a different lens kind of helps his character, but I'm not sure it still makes him a good villain. Even if you were to copy and paste him into a story with characters that receive development as a result of his actions, I'm not sure it'd be enough to make him a good villain. He's just evil. He represents destruction. Cool. We could easily replace him with a magical fire sent by the dragon gods that just burns until the heroes can stop it. No dialogue. No face. No need for motivations (except from the dragon gods maybe). It's very true that I would probably enjoy Surtr as a villain more if the other characters had even an inch of depth to them, but at the same time I think I'd mostly hold fast to the idea that he's not a good villain at least in terms of what I like in a story.

I'll put my little literary rant into spoilers since it's a little off topic. XD But I'll also preface it with: everyone has their own tastes in stories; and that's fine. And reading anything is better than reading nothing imo. (I've got a student who loves Twilight; English isn't her first language, and Twilight's easy for her to read outside of school work, so I'm glad she likes it because it gives us a book to talk about.) So if you like villains like Surtr, cool beans. No disrespect at all. But he's definitely not my cup of tea for my own personal story time.

Spoiler

 

My absolute LEAST favorite story trope is the omniscient villain. I've read several stories lately where the evil is just ever-present to the point where it practically smothers heroes and no matter what they do to try and defeat it, they either get their butts kicked or they get betrayed because the bad guy is always magically one step ahead. (Unless of course it's the end and the RNG finally works in their favor.) Rebels spend months working on a detailed plan to bring down the government? JK. Bad guys have already hacked your system, so half your party of random NPC dies before you get a chance to use that plan. You finally managed to kill off that evil king treating his people like crap? JK. His spirit's going to stick around, and now he's more powerful...and now that he's back, he's branded you as a traitor so everyone and your mother doesn't trust you. It's one thing if a plan goes south, but it's another if things like this keep happening again and again and again, even when the heroes are portrayed as cautious and intelligent. Susan makes a rash decision and loses an arm? That's on her. It's another if the Evil King knows she's going to lift his arm at exactly 10 AM on Monday to stretch and tears it from her body with a magical arrow so she can't use that magical sword she and her friends spent years crafting after collecting 10 crystals all corners of the globe. Okay. So her twin sister Nancy can take her place, right? Nope. Evil King unleashes a plague and she dies too. 

For me, it's not dramatic to read. It's just plain frustrating, like the author wanted to throw in this plot device to extend the story. Not every villain needs a tragic backstory to be good. I feel like Sauron from LotR is evil for reasons similar to Surtr, and he's practically the personification of evil and powerlust. Same goes for the ring. But there's enough balance in the story outside of character development that between the feelings of hopelessness and hope that I don't have the same issues that I have with Surtr. He just constantly beats the heroes back down and really their only little victory is Alfonse managing to save that village. If the heroes had been able to extinguish Surtr but not stop him entirely for part of the story, I think I'd be a bit happier. That way, the effort and planning they put into the first half of Book II would have felt...less like a complete waste of time.

So maybe Surtr is better in terms of being a force of nature versus a narrative villain...but even if the heroes got some development, the story needs more balance to feel rewarding. If I want to be in a constant state of misery, I'll just go to a party. XD 

 

 

[bottlegnomes]

43 minutes ago, Alkaid said:

Which is your assumption, since we're given even less context than with Garon.

What context are we given for the evil entity that's possessing Garon's actions? Saying he's possessed isn't an answer because Garon the man who fathered Xander and whom Xander remembers fondly doesn't exist anymore. All Surtr being possessed would do is shift blame from Surtr being a bad person to some random entity that's even less of a character being evil for no reason. IIRC (please do correct me if I'm wrong here since it's vague), it's not like Garon is Hardin where his insecurities and shortcomings were exploited and amped up by some evil macguffin to turn someone who had been upright and admirable into a monster. He's literally a completely different character than good Garon was. It's also pretty clear that Surtr is in fact evil and power-hungry using the justification of might makes right to subjugate people and execute those who oppose him. It seems like grasping to say it's an assumption because Surtr doesn't come out and say "I like conquering and hurting people because I'm evil."

For the record, I'm aware Gooron's motivation was basically Anankos told him what to do, but since we're arguing the merits of a possessed character here, I'm leaving that out since it doesn't matter if it's some random, generic, evil monster posing as a person listening or some random, generic, evil person listening.

Possession is literally the handwaviest motivation possible if it's done poorly. It's a way to say this person used to be good but is evil now just because unless you actually delve into the background and character of the entity possessing the person, at which point, the entity becomes the character in focus, not the person they're possessing.

[Jotari]

11 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

That's certainly possible, perhaps even likely. But there were certainly better options to drag the story on. Loki could arrive on the scene, betray the defeated Surtr and take over the main villain role. Or Laegjarn could have succeeded her father for a more honorable villain. 

Oh it's certainly possible they could have made something interesting even under limitations, but my point is they don't really have much motivation to do so, since no one expects the story of a mobile game to be good and the game is almost certain to succeed regardless of how much effort they put in. So phoning in the story and putting the bare minimum effort into it to get your paycheck is a reasonable reaction. At least that's my theory. The writers just don't care because they're not expected nor needed to.

[Icelerate]

Surtr is a lot like Trigon. Teen Titans spoilers inbound. 

Spoiler

Trigon is a powerful demon with invincibility and fire powers. When people talk about him through experience with history books, it frightens them because no one expects him to be defeated. He's abusive to his daughter and wants to use her for conquering different worlds. His motive is that he enjoys reducing worlds to lava and ash. He has no other qualities outside of that. Yet I really like Trigon and think season 4 of Teen Titans has the most compelling plot. 

Surtr is a lesser Trigon in a game with a far worse plot and characters, but as far as FE Heroes characters go, I think he's pretty good. 

What makes these two interesting to me is not their motives but how others react to them. Sometimes, an intimidating and badass foe is more needed than a villain with complex motives. FEH already has more complex villains in Veronica, Bruno and the Muspell generals so Surtr being some morally grey character wouldn't necessarily be better. 

[Alkaid]

1 hour ago, bottlegnomes said:

It seems like grasping to say it's an assumption because Surtr doesn't come out and say "I like conquering and hurting people because I'm evil."

My entire complaint was it seemed like a missed opportunity by IS to not tell us a bit more about him. We don't need to know more about him, but I just wish we did. It's fine to me if his motive is really just burning stuff, as there's more than motive that would have been interesting to know about him.

He may just be evil as he seems, but with how barebones the FEH story it feels like there could have been more there. He's got 2 daughters and supposedly he's nastier than the previous Muspell rulers. It made me wonder if there wasn't some extra backstory we could have gotten, but the Heroes story is so streamlined that they didn't expand on much of anything. I used Garon as a comparison because he also a FE villain that has very little to him, but even he had some things we could learn about. Surtr just shows up with really no character detail at all.

I'm not even that bothered by this, since I still accept and am mostly fine with the simplicity of Heroes' story, but it was just a passing comment that it would have been nice to get a bit more detail in this case.

1 hour ago, bottlegnomes said:

but since we're arguing the merits of a possessed character here

The merits really don't matter, as all I said was we know more about Garon than Surtr. His motive specifically being possession is not an issue, and I merely used that as a possible example when comparing Surtr's level of detail to Garon's.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Alkaid

[Drakhis]

3 hours ago, Alkaid said:

My entire complaint was it seemed like a missed opportunity by IS to not tell us a bit more about him. We don't need to know more about him, but I just wish we did. It's fine to me if his motive is really just burning stuff, as there's more than motive that would have been interesting to know about him.

He may just be evil as he seems, but with how barebones the FEH story it feels like there could have been more there. He's got 2 daughters and supposedly he's nastier than the previous Muspell rulers. It made me wonder if there wasn't some extra backstory we could have gotten, but the Heroes story is so streamlined that they didn't expand on much of anything. I used Garon as a comparison because he also a FE villain that has very little to him, but even he had some things we could learn about. Surtr just shows up with really no character detail at all.

I'm not even that bothered by this, since I still accept and am mostly fine with the simplicity of Heroes' story, but it was just a passing comment that it would have been nice to get a bit more detail in this case.

The merits really don't matter, as all I said was we know more about Garon than Surtr. His motive specifically being possession is not an issue, and I merely used that as a possible example when comparing Surtr's level of detail to Garon's.

3

Hi ! I don't know if someone said it, but Surtr is possessed, just not as much as Garon :

" The flame will devour everything. My enemies. My allies. And me. "

" The soul I once had...vanished in the flames of Múspell. "

He was always someone evil, but not as much as when he lost his soul.

I like him this way (Or I like to hate the way he is), but I really think we will see him in book three. Maybe we will get more detail.

 

[Alkaid]

3 hours ago, Drakhis said:

Hi ! I don't know if someone said it, but Surtr is possessed, just not as much as Garon :

" The flame will devour everything. My enemies. My allies. And me. "

" The soul I once had...vanished in the flames of Múspell. "

He was always someone evil, but not as much as when he lost his soul.

I like him this way (Or I like to hate the way he is), but I really think we will see him in book three. Maybe we will get more detail.

 

You're right, he does make that comment about losing his soul. So I guess maybe it really is the dragon blood that's turned him extra evil (or I assume that's what flames of Muspell is supposed to refer to).

Yeah, he does fine as an unstoppable force that you want to see taken down. I think IS may be done with him, but it'd be nice if we do get to know some more about him still. We did still have Veronica and Bruno appear some in book two, so maybe they won't completely cut out the book 2 characters.

[Stercus]

9 hours ago, Rafiel's Aria said:

I'll put my little literary rant into spoilers since it's a little off topic. XD But I'll also preface it with: everyone has their own tastes in stories; and that's fine. And reading anything is better than reading nothing imo. (I've got a student who loves Twilight; English isn't her first language, and Twilight's easy for her to read outside of school work, so I'm glad she likes it because it gives us a book to talk about.) So if you like villains like Surtr, cool beans. No disrespect at all. But he's definitely not my cup of tea for my own personal story time.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

My absolute LEAST favorite story trope is the omniscient villain. I've read several stories lately where the evil is just ever-present to the point where it practically smothers heroes and no matter what they do to try and defeat it, they either get their butts kicked or they get betrayed because the bad guy is always magically one step ahead. (Unless of course it's the end and the RNG finally works in their favor.) Rebels spend months working on a detailed plan to bring down the government? JK. Bad guys have already hacked your system, so half your party of random NPC dies before you get a chance to use that plan. You finally managed to kill off that evil king treating his people like crap? JK. His spirit's going to stick around, and now he's more powerful...and now that he's back, he's branded you as a traitor so everyone and your mother doesn't trust you. It's one thing if a plan goes south, but it's another if things like this keep happening again and again and again, even when the heroes are portrayed as cautious and intelligent. Susan makes a rash decision and loses an arm? That's on her. It's another if the Evil King knows she's going to lift his arm at exactly 10 AM on Monday to stretch and tears it from her body with a magical arrow so she can't use that magical sword she and her friends spent years crafting after collecting 10 crystals all corners of the globe. Okay. So her twin sister Nancy can take her place, right? Nope. Evil King unleashes a plague and she dies too. 

For me, it's not dramatic to read. It's just plain frustrating, like the author wanted to throw in this plot device to extend the story. Not every villain needs a tragic backstory to be good. I feel like Sauron from LotR is evil for reasons similar to Surtr, and he's practically the personification of evil and powerlust. Same goes for the ring. But there's enough balance in the story outside of character development that between the feelings of hopelessness and hope that I don't have the same issues that I have with Surtr. He just constantly beats the heroes back down and really their only little victory is Alfonse managing to save that village. If the heroes had been able to extinguish Surtr but not stop him entirely for part of the story, I think I'd be a bit happier. That way, the effort and planning they put into the first half of Book II would have felt...less like a complete waste of time.

So maybe Surtr is better in terms of being a force of nature versus a narrative villain...but even if the heroes got some development, the story needs more balance to feel rewarding. If I want to be in a constant state of misery, I'll just go to a party. XD 

 

 

I want to bring attention to this rant because I feel like it's a very good deconstruction of the problems that exist with Surtr and a good summation of the point I was trying to make earlier. 

[bottlegnomes]

7 hours ago, Alkaid said:

The merits really don't matter, as all I said was we know more about Garon than Surtr. His motive specifically being possession is not an issue, and I merely used that as a possible example when comparing Surtr's level of detail to Garon's.

I didn't quote the first part of your response because I agree; Surtr is pretty fade value and could've used fleshing out. This part is where my issue with your argument is. Possession is not a motive in the sense that you're using it for Surtr. We don't have any more context for why the creature posing as Garon is evil than we do for Surtr. Arguably less even, as Surtr's pretty obviously a sadistic, power-hungry conqueror. The entity posing as Garon has a grand total motivation of Anankos told me to do it. There's no explanation of why he serves Anankos or is willing to do these things.

Saying Garon's possessed so his actions make sense is a cop-out answer since the person being possessed is not the one doing anything. Possession is no different than brainwashing in that regard. It doesn't matter that they're brainwashed/possessed since they don't have agency, and the whole setup is reliant on how the other characters react or that the motives of the entity behind the brainwashing/possession makes sense.

Compromising the agency of a character does not justify their actions. All it does is shift where the justification has to exist. Well doesn't have to literally, but where it ideally would for a character to have understandable motives.

Edited December 3, 2018 by bottlegnomes

[Ottservia]

10 hours ago, Rafiel's Aria said:

Looking at Surtr through a different lens kind of helps his character, but I'm not sure it still makes him a good villain. Even if you were to copy and paste him into a story with characters that receive development as a result of his actions, I'm not sure it'd be enough to make him a good villain. He's just evil. He represents destruction. Cool. We could easily replace him with a magical fire sent by the dragon gods that just burns until the heroes can stop it. No dialogue. No face. No need for motivations (except from the dragon gods maybe). It's very true that I would probably enjoy Surtr as a villain more if the other characters had even an inch of depth to them, but at the same time I think I'd mostly hold fast to the idea that he's not a good villain at least in terms of what I like in a story.

I'll put my little literary rant into spoilers since it's a little off topic. XD But I'll also preface it with: everyone has their own tastes in stories; and that's fine. And reading anything is better than reading nothing imo. (I've got a student who loves Twilight; English isn't her first language, and Twilight's easy for her to read outside of school work, so I'm glad she likes it because it gives us a book to talk about.) So if you like villains like Surtr, cool beans. No disrespect at all. But he's definitely not my cup of tea for my own personal story time.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

My absolute LEAST favorite story trope is the omniscient villain. I've read several stories lately where the evil is just ever-present to the point where it practically smothers heroes and no matter what they do to try and defeat it, they either get their butts kicked or they get betrayed because the bad guy is always magically one step ahead. (Unless of course it's the end and the RNG finally works in their favor.) Rebels spend months working on a detailed plan to bring down the government? JK. Bad guys have already hacked your system, so half your party of random NPC dies before you get a chance to use that plan. You finally managed to kill off that evil king treating his people like crap? JK. His spirit's going to stick around, and now he's more powerful...and now that he's back, he's branded you as a traitor so everyone and your mother doesn't trust you. It's one thing if a plan goes south, but it's another if things like this keep happening again and again and again, even when the heroes are portrayed as cautious and intelligent. Susan makes a rash decision and loses an arm? That's on her. It's another if the Evil King knows she's going to lift his arm at exactly 10 AM on Monday to stretch and tears it from her body with a magical arrow so she can't use that magical sword she and her friends spent years crafting after collecting 10 crystals all corners of the globe. Okay. So her twin sister Nancy can take her place, right? Nope. Evil King unleashes a plague and she dies too. 

For me, it's not dramatic to read. It's just plain frustrating, like the author wanted to throw in this plot device to extend the story. Not every villain needs a tragic backstory to be good. I feel like Sauron from LotR is evil for reasons similar to Surtr, and he's practically the personification of evil and powerlust. Same goes for the ring. But there's enough balance in the story outside of character development that between the feelings of hopelessness and hope that I don't have the same issues that I have with Surtr. He just constantly beats the heroes back down and really their only little victory is Alfonse managing to save that village. If the heroes had been able to extinguish Surtr but not stop him entirely for part of the story, I think I'd be a bit happier. That way, the effort and planning they put into the first half of Book II would have felt...less like a complete waste of time.

So maybe Surtr is better in terms of being a force of nature versus a narrative villain...but even if the heroes got some development, the story needs more balance to feel rewarding. If I want to be in a constant state of misery, I'll just go to a party. XD 

 

 

Yeah I mostly agree with what’s said here. Really the main issue with surtr I find is not so much surtr himself but rather the story he’s a part of. If the story and characters of book 2 had more depth and nuance, then Surtr could’ve been more effective. However as it stands that isn’t the case because the writers just don’t seem to care all too much. Really the story needs better pacing and more nuance. As @bottlegnomes said, book 2 feels more like an outline of a full narrative. That is the reason I feel Surtr doesn’t work, he can’t work in a story with little to no depth or nuance because the whole point of a FoN is to explore those nuances so if there are none what is there to explore. Again Surtr on his own has the makings for a fantastic villain but with the story as shallow as it is, he can’t be utilized to his full potential.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Otts486

[Alkaid]

2 hours ago, bottlegnomes said:

I didn't quote the first part of your response because I agree; Surtr is pretty fade value and could've used fleshing out. This part is where my issue with your argument is. Possession is not a motive in the sense that you're using it for Surtr. We don't have any more context for why the creature posing as Garon is evil than we do for Surtr. Arguably less even, as Surtr's pretty obviously a sadistic, power-hungry conqueror. The entity posing as Garon has a grand total motivation of Anankos told me to do it. There's no explanation of why he serves Anankos or is willing to do these things.

Saying Garon's possessed so his actions make sense is a cop-out answer since the person being possessed is not the one doing anything. Possession is no different than brainwashing in that regard. It doesn't matter that they're brainwashed/possessed since they don't have agency, and the whole setup is reliant on how the other characters react or that the motives of the entity behind the brainwashing/possession makes sense.

Compromising the agency of a character does not justify their actions. All it does is shift where the justification has to exist. Well doesn't have to literally, but where it ideally would for a character to have understandable motives.

If it's about as much of a motive as IS is going to give, than that's what we have to work with. I don't really have a problem with that. In Fates' case it's enough to understand why the war is happening. (Anankos planting the creature to drive Nohr to war so both sides get wiped out) For Surtr, we assume that he's just attacking Nifl on a whim and that's that. Or as Drakhis has reminded, he mentions his soul's been burned away. So it's possible he may have still been bad to begin with while the Muspell dragon blood further influences him to just start torching things. The fact that it's kind of ambiguous is why I wish we knew some more about him, even if it still doesn't spell out his motives.

[bottlegnomes]

1 hour ago, Alkaid said:

If it's about as much of a motive as IS is going to give, than that's what we have to work with. I don't really have a problem with that. In Fates' case it's enough to understand why the war is happening. (Anankos planting the creature to drive Nohr to war so both sides get wiped out) For Surtr, we assume that he's just attacking Nifl on a whim and that's that. Or as Drakhis has reminded, he mentions his soul's been burned away. So it's possible he may have still been bad to begin with while the Muspell dragon blood further influences him to just start torching things. The fact that it's kind of ambiguous is why I wish we knew some more about him, even if it still doesn't spell out his motives.

The thing is, the possession isn't the motive. Serving Anankos is.

As for Surtr, I don't really see how it's ambiguous. He constantly talks about how the weak should serve the strong, clearly takes pleasure in causing pain, and constantly refers to the other characters as weaklings. It's pretty easy to tell that he thinks he's strong and so everyone else should serve him. If anything, it's a case of showing instead of telling. I don't mean to sound condescending with that, but they do a pretty good job of showing what his motives and personality are. They don't go into why he's that way, but neither does Fates go into why the entity posing as Garon serves Anankos as far as Birthright and Conquest are concerned (didn't finish Revelation so can't speak on that). Honestly, I'm fine with both of those. They're not particularly deep or thought-provoking, but some people are just assholes, and some people are just loyal servants of their superiors. I have a lot of problems with both stories but the motivations of those two antagonists weren't ever particularly high on that list.

[Alkaid]

1 hour ago, bottlegnomes said:

The thing is, the possession isn't the motive. Serving Anankos is.

As for Surtr, I don't really see how it's ambiguous. He constantly talks about how the weak should serve the strong, clearly takes pleasure in causing pain, and constantly refers to the other characters as weaklings. It's pretty easy to tell that he thinks he's strong and so everyone else should serve him. If anything, it's a case of showing instead of telling. I don't mean to sound condescending with that, but they do a pretty good job of showing what his motives and personality are. They don't go into why he's that way, but neither does Fates go into why the entity posing as Garon serves Anankos as far as Birthright and Conquest are concerned (didn't finish Revelation so can't speak on that). Honestly, I'm fine with both of those. They're not particularly deep or thought-provoking, but some people are just assholes, and some people are just loyal servants of their superiors. I have a lot of problems with both stories but the motivations of those two antagonists weren't ever particularly high on that list.

Yes, and I said that was enough for me. It still explained why the war was happening. I don't really have a beef with possession being lazy or not. Not knowing Gooron's personal motive for serving Anankos really didn't matter to me, since he was just Anankos' tool anyway and carried out his function.

The Heroes story is barebones to keep things in brief bit-sized pieces, so that's why I'm unsure. You could even say if his dragon blood is part of what's driving him that it still just counts as himself, but it can't be said either way. You can say it's showing instead of telling, but in the context of Heroes' story we barely get to know anything about the OCs due to the constraints on these little chapters. So it always feels like it's up for debate if there's more there, which is all I'm saying.

 

 

[bottlegnomes]

3 hours ago, Alkaid said:

Not knowing Gooron's personal motive for serving Anankos really didn't matter to me, since he was just Anankos' tool anyway and carried out his function.

I know I'm being unnecessarily pedantic at this point, and so I'll stop after this. Saying Garon has an explanation in being loyal to Anankos is different than Garon has an explanation in that an evil entity is controlling him. The latter is what I had an issue with since there's no intrinsic reason for the controlling entity to be evil and thus all it does is distract from the lack of motivation by saying "the devil made me." The former isn't an especially deep explanation, but it is an explanation, and so I have no beef with it in and of itself.

That said, I don't actually have an issue with either. I just feel they serve different purposes. Possession is a narrative tool to create situations to explore. Loyalty is a character trait that can serve as motivation.

As for Surtr's motivations being vague, I would very strongly disagree—I'd go so far as to say they were a little overdone if anything—but different strokes for different folks.

[Rafiel's Aria]

10 hours ago, Otts486 said:

Yeah I mostly agree with what’s said here. Really the main issue with surtr I find is not so much surtr himself but rather the story he’s a part of. If the story and characters of book 2 had more depth and nuance, then Surtr could’ve been more effective. However as it stands that isn’t the case because the writers just don’t seem to care all too much. Really the story needs better pacing and more nuance. As @bottlegnomes said, book 2 feels more like an outline of a full narrative. That is the reason I feel Surtr doesn’t work, he can’t work in a story with little to no depth or nuance because the whole point of a FoN is to explore those nuances so if there are none what is there to explore. Again Surtr on his own has the makings for a fantastic villain but with the story as shallow as it is, he can’t be utilized to his full potential.

Yes. A lot of the problems come with the writing of the story; I definitely believe that. And honestly, it's completely possible for a mobile game to have an adequate story. The ones I've played definitely have their own issues, but I can at least end a chapter feeling satisfied. Several games even have extensive side stories. Another game I played had a different story mode for each level of difficulty. Some release story events that give more depth for characters. I do think these things are more important for a game that doesn't rely on an already established franchise, but I don't think this simply excuses FEH since it does have OCs. But that's a whole other can of worms. But yeah...this thing does feel like an outline for sure. 

But at the same time, I don't think you could cut Surtr out of FEH, paste him into a "good" story, and have him suddenly become a fantastic villain. He's definitely attached to the narrative in way that makes everyone's reactions to his evil develop him more, but in my head, what he represents (fire, warlust, power, human desire, the search for immortality) etc, aren't really unique concepts. Not every villain needs to be "new" and "edgy," but at the end of the day, he's the stereotypical "big, ugly, old man" villain with the world's greatest RNG until the final battle. He's evil because he sets fires and kills off random characters. I'm pretty sure Sid from Toy Story does the same thing, and he's 100 times more terrifying that Surtr imo. I think if I were to see this villain in any sort of story, I'd be...pretty disengaged even with interesting protagonists. But then again, that's just the sort of thing I enjoy reading. There are a few FoN villains I can get behind, but most of the time, I feel like I see them in horror stories. 

I really hope I don't come across as hostile with my walls of text. This is a super interesting conversation, and I'm very engaged. 

 

[Shoblongoo]

My first impression when I saw Surtr at the beginning of Book II was oh--its ganondorf with a fire motif. neat. 

My final impression of  Surtr at the end of Book II was oh--its ganondorf with a fire motif. neat. 

He's fine for what he is and doesn't need to be anything more--the generic "big bad."

I'd expect something more from an actual plot-driven entry into the franchise. But for a goofy, collectible mobile game he serves his purpose.   

(SIDENOTE--The fact that Sutr draws inevitable comparisons to Garon in the lexicon of main-entry Fire Emblem villains is nothing if not an illustration of how completely the writing of Fates failed to deliver the characterization and storytelling players of older installments have come to expect from the franchise)

Edited December 4, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Ottservia]

On 12/3/2018 at 8:19 PM, Rafiel's Aria said:

Yes. A lot of the problems come with the writing of the story; I definitely believe that. And honestly, it's completely possible for a mobile game to have an adequate story. The ones I've played definitely have their own issues, but I can at least end a chapter feeling satisfied. Several games even have extensive side stories. Another game I played had a different story mode for each level of difficulty. Some release story events that give more depth for characters. I do think these things are more important for a game that doesn't rely on an already established franchise, but I don't think this simply excuses FEH since it does have OCs. But that's a whole other can of worms. But yeah...this thing does feel like an outline for sure. 

But at the same time, I don't think you could cut Surtr out of FEH, paste him into a "good" story, and have him suddenly become a fantastic villain. He's definitely attached to the narrative in way that makes everyone's reactions to his evil develop him more, but in my head, what he represents (fire, warlust, power, human desire, the search for immortality) etc, aren't really unique concepts. Not every villain needs to be "new" and "edgy," but at the end of the day, he's the stereotypical "big, ugly, old man" villain with the world's greatest RNG until the final battle. He's evil because he sets fires and kills off random characters. I'm pretty sure Sid from Toy Story does the same thing, and he's 100 times more terrifying that Surtr imo. I think if I were to see this villain in any sort of story, I'd be...pretty disengaged even with interesting protagonists. But then again, that's just the sort of thing I enjoy reading. There are a few FoN villains I can get behind, but most of the time, I feel like I see them in horror stories. 

I really hope I don't come across as hostile with my walls of text. This is a super interesting conversation, and I'm very engaged. 

 

sorry for the late reply(haven't had a ton of time until this week). I'm not saying that if you cut Surtr out of the story and put him into a more interesting one that it it would automatically make him a better villain because as you said he is tied to the narrative he is in. My argument is that Surtr is a good villain that isn't utilized as he should be. A FoN is very closely tied to the themes of the stories they're a part of and are used in a way to explore those themes in a sense. The focus of a story with these kinds of villains is how other characters react to them and what conflicts can arise from that. It's one of the reasons why these types of villains work in horror stories(don't really read/watch horror just trying to make a connection based on what I know about them) because the whole point of a horror story is to get a reaction and to see how different characters react to things they can't understand or are beyond their control. You don't need to understand or relate to a horror villain because that's not the point. The whole point is that you don't understand them and thereby are afraid of them which allows you to better relate to the characters of the story. As I said earlier, these villains strangulate the status quo and force the characters of the story to act in ways they otherwise wouldn't in order to adapt to the constantly shifting status quo.

This is the kind of villain Surtr is because the whole story of book two is revolved around trying to answer the question of "how do we beat this hulking monstrocity of a man?". Surtr's mere presence generates conflict for both the plot and characters. We see this with characters like laegjarn whose entire arch revolves around her and her sister's relationship with their father. She knows how horrible of a man her father is and desperately wants to escape but she doesn't out of fear. She knows full well that if she or her sister were to disobey/runaway from him, then they would most certainly be killed which of course she doesn't want(at least for her sister). So really the best she can do is obey him and try to protect her sister to the best of her abilities. To laegjarn, laevetain is a light. The one thing keeping her from just giving up no matter how much suffering she is made to endure at the hands of Surtr. This is why she is so desperate to keep her sister safe. Without Surtr, you would not have this conflict and it's where his role in the story can truly shine. The problem is that there isn't enough of this. We had some interesting development with alfonse early on but we don't get anymore after that. After having both her mother AND older sister killed by the man, you'd expect Fjorm to be a bit more bitter and angry but nope. She has literally no meaningful development or screentime at all throughout the rest of the story.

Also no worries you didn't come off as hostile, I too am  greatly enjoying this discussion.

[Tenzen12]

Honestly I don't have problem with Sutr. Is he complex multi-layered character? Hell no. Is he terrifying powerful and challenging big bad? Definitely. 

With him on helm both main characters as well as other "villains" had to give their all. Risk everything and go against all stakes. 

Veronica might be more complex and relatable, but in the end she and Xander are  nothing then FEH version of Team Rocket and honestly even book three villains are hardly even closely as intimidating as Muspel and it's leader and no amount of black make-up can fix it. 

[Interdimensional Observer]

On 12/2/2018 at 10:22 PM, Rafiel's Aria said:

We could easily replace him with a magical fire sent by the dragon gods that just burns until the heroes can stop it.

 

On 12/4/2018 at 12:00 PM, Shoblongoo said:

My first impression when I saw Surtr at the beginning of Book II was oh--its ganondorf with a fire motif. neat. 

These two statements remind me:

Spoiler

Actually, a giant fire for a villain would work very well for an invincible foe. Because it is magical, you can't suffocate it with mud or water or starve it of oxygen to kill it. Because it is pure energy and immaterial, you can't kill it with physical weapons. You'd need a special solution to destroy it.

 

I am reminded of King Onyx of Odin Sphere, a Fire King who does end up being invincible at the end, but is only very powerful beforehand. The cause of his invincibility is bathing in the Origin of Fire (IIRC), and when not killed by prophecy, in the bad endings, it is implied the further he gets from the Origin of Fire, the weaker he gets, to the point he fails to conquer the apocalypse and dies with the rest of the world.

[Tenzen12]

Thing is actual fire is not capable of cruelty, can't be resented and most importantly can't have two cute daughters.