Your overrated/underrated story framing devices and tropes in FE?

[henrymidfields]

While I haven't played Three Houses yet, I have heard that it broke a number of moulds in terms of basic plot devices. For future FE plots and characters, including Echo remakes of Jugdral, Elibe, and Tellius games with a expanded/modernised story, what archetypes, tropes, or plot devices do you want without? What gets too much praise and needs some tv-trope style deconstruction, or even needs to be taken away altogether in the next game? On the other hand, what plot devices etc do you think were overlooked and needs revisiting?

As for myself, I've previously written this in a number of posts here, so I'm just going to summarize and link here. Basically, I'd like to see more attention given to non-Lord units in the main story, and how I'd like to see more focus in how they contribute to and interact with the army, unlike most FE titles. Worst is, FE Fates Conquest where allies still praise Corrin when he really should be dismissed from the army for his dumb decisions and his lack of moral courage, but the same "over-focus on the hero" writing exists in other FE titles, I believe. Roy was the only one that I didn't mind as much due to some justification - namely, due to how he did his homework on the Elibe version of Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz before the start of the main plot. On the other hand, I like how TMSFE (and Persona 3-4) makes the importance of teamwork more explicit, and we get to see how each individual team member grows (side quests for TMSFE, social links for Persona 3-4, and a deeper integration of characters into the main script for both) and the very fact that Itsuki (and Yu/Minako) needs their team members just as much as the other way around. Details as below:

 

Edited November 20, 2019 by henrymidfields

[Etrurian emperor]

I wonder where the Camus archetype would rank. Its characters are consistently one of the more popular ones out there but recently the Camus archetype also got a lot more criticism for not being nearly as moral as the writing claims they are. Its very common to hear how Eldigan or Xander are idiots. 

[henrymidfields]

13 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I wonder where the Camus archetype would rank. Its characters are consistently one of the more popular ones out there but recently the Camus archetype also got a lot more criticism for not being nearly as moral as the writing claims they are. Its very common to hear how Eldigan or Xander are idiots. 

Well, Xander I can see, due to how obviously black and white Nohr vs Hoshido is. It could be that we want more detailed story-writing or more nuanced characters and nations in general, maybe and explore them a bit more. That would bring the above trope to greater scruitny. I'm surprised about Eldigan, however - he had understandable reasons to distrust the heroes - of all the Camuses out there, his is probably the closest to resembling realpolitik.

Edited November 20, 2019 by henrymidfields

[Etrurian emperor]

2 minutes ago, henrymidfields said:

Well, Xander I can see, due to how obviously black and white Nohr vs Hoshido is. It could be that people want more solid or detailed story-writing, maybe and explore the characters a bit more. That would bring the above trope to greater scruitny. I'm surprised about Eldigan, however - he had understandable reasons to distrust the heroes - of all the Camuses out there, his is probably the closest to resembling realpolitik.

I think the big problems people have with Eldigan is his liege lord who's only barely any less cartoonishly monstrous than Garon and who already made it clear he wasn't above destroying Eldigan's lands and family solely because he found it funny. 

[henrymidfields]

6 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I think the big problems people have with Eldigan is his liege lord who's only barely any less cartoonishly monstrous than Garon and who already made it clear he wasn't above destroying Eldigan's lands and family solely because he found it funny. 

Even that would probably depend on how much actual power would Eldigan perceive himself to have. Mind you, I haven't played either Jugdral games properly, so I can't give my final verdict yet.

Either way, maybe future games should have more nuanced opposing countries. Or at least explore, dissect, deconstruct, and/or justify the villain trope better.

[Alastor15243]

31 minutes ago, henrymidfields said:

I'm surprised about Eldigan, however - he had understandable reasons to distrust the heroes - of all the Camuses out there, his is probably the closest to resembling realpolitik.

He's defending a man who ordered the ransacking of his castle and its people, and let the creep trying to "court" his sister do it. He's defending a man who all but explicitly signed Lachesis's rape warrant, and treating the guy who saved her from that fate with a ludicrous amount of distrust, despite him knowing full well that Chagall was the aggressor in the conflict.

[Eltosian Kadath]

22 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

treating the guy who saved her from that fate with a ludicrous amount of distrust, despite him knowing full well that Chagall was the aggressor in the conflict.

Sigurd's previous actions did him no favors here. The last time Sigurd invaded a nation to rescue a damsel he conquered the whole thing, and reigned over those lands personally despite there being an heir to the kingdom. Sigurd didn't rescue Lachesis and bring her to safety, or defend his castle, instead he continued to conquer Augustria and put his sister into more danger on the front lines to do so. If you look at Eldigan's actions, he is a man that believe in diplomacy. When there is word of Sigurd invading Verdane his first response is to talk to Sigurd, and find out what is going on. When there is word that Chagall is preparing for war his first response is to talk to the king and try to convince him otherwise. When he first "defends" Chagall from Sigurd, it is with his words, and after Sigurd's army has already tried to kill Chagall. When he does take the field of battle is after months of broken promise, and after Sigurd is already marching to conqueror the rest of Augustria, and even then he can still be talked into trying the diplomatic approach. Eldigan doesn't agree with Chagall (literally the first we hear of Chagall its about Eldigan disagreeing with the man), but he does believe that there is a way to deal with him other than regicide.

[Alastor15243]

25 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

Sigurd's previous actions did him no favors here. The last time Sigurd invaded a nation to rescue a damsel he conquered the whole thing, and reigned over those lands personally despite there being an heir to the kingdom. Sigurd didn't rescue Lachesis and bring her to safety, or defend his castle, instead he continued to conquer Augustria and put his sister into more danger on the front lines to do so. If you look at Eldigan's actions, he is a man that believe in diplomacy. When there is word of Sigurd invading Verdane his first response is to talk to Sigurd, and find out what is going on. When there is word that Chagall is preparing for war his first response is to talk to the king and try to convince him otherwise. When he first "defends" Chagall from Sigurd, it is with his words, and after Sigurd's army has already tried to kill Chagall. When he does take the field of battle is after months of broken promise, and after Sigurd is already marching to conqueror the rest of Augustria, and even then he can still be talked into trying the diplomatic approach. Eldigan doesn't agree with Chagall (literally the first we hear of Chagall its about Eldigan disagreeing with the man), but he does believe that there is a way to deal with him other than regicide.

Both Verdane and Augustria were actively trying to invade Grannvale. Do you think Chagall would react positively or in good faith to a party whose response to being actively attacked is to quietly defend themselves and send messages politely asking to talk? Verdane and Augustria would see that as a hilariously pathetic act of weakness. That's the kind of thing Canada does in memes.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Alastor15243

[Etrurian emperor]

1 hour ago, Alastor15243 said:

He's defending a man who ordered the ransacking of his castle and its people, and let the creep trying to "court" his sister do it. He's defending a man who all but explicitly signed Lachesis's rape warrant, and treating the guy who saved her from that fate with a ludicrous amount of distrust, despite him knowing full well that Chagall was the aggressor in the conflict.

The game really needed a scene with Eldigan at the very least making it a point to thank Sigurd from saving his sister from death/rape since they supposedly care so much about each other. 

[Alastor15243]

3 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

The game really needed a scene with Eldigan at the very least making it a point to thank Sigurd from saving his sister from death/rape since they supposedly care so much about each other. 

Yeah. Like I said in my marathon thread, this is a sibling pair who adore each other so much there are rumors of incest spreading throughout the countryside. It's absurd that what Sigurd did for Lachesis isn't even mentioned.

Edit: Does anyone know if Lachesis dying before you save her is a fail state? If it isn't, then that means Chagall can outright kill his sister and Eldigan will still fight to the death to protect the bastard.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Alastor15243

[Eltosian Kadath]

51 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

Both Verdane and Augustria were actively trying to invade Grannvale. Do you think Chagall would react positively or in good faith to a party whose response to being actively attacked is to quietly defend themselves and send messages politely asking to talk? Verdane and Augustria would see that as a hilariously pathetic act of weakness. That's the kind of thing Canada does in memes.

If they have bargaining chips, like castle Nordion/Evans, or hostages like Elliot/Kimbois and/or Gandolf, or even simply defeating their armies on the field of battle. As it turn out defeating armies is generally seen as an act of strength, not weakness. Not all wars are total wars, and being the defender doesn't magically make you the loser of all wars.

Edit:

Quote

The game really needed a scene with Eldigan at the very least making it a point to thank Sigurd from saving his sister from death/rape since they supposedly care so much about each other. 

Fair, enough. Eldigan may have reason to scold Sigurd, but that isn't one of them.

Quote

Does anyone know if Lachesis dying before you save her is a fail state? If it isn't, then that means Chagall can outright kill his sister and Eldigan will still fight to the death to protect the bastard.

It isn't, but on the other hand the only way for Chagall to outright kill his sister is if the player intentionally suicides her into him. Chagall may have put her in a dangerous situation, but he never ordered her death, or even intended it (his goal is capture not slaughter), if she dies the blame would fall far more heavily on those that actually killed her.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Eltosian Kadath
commenting on other comments

[Zapp Branniglenn]

The premonition dream has been in need of a takedown for years. It was pretty cool as an opening in Awakening, but they have never missed a chance since to use it as the game's opening. And Echoes had TWO dream sequences, one for each protagonist! Three Houses is only different in how it's not a premonition of the future, but the past and the game is open about that fact by giving you a date. Honestly it seems like the writers were not on board with what is the point of that scene since most of it won't make total sense until the player is loaded with several playthroughs worth of lore.

The core issue with these scenes is simple. They're spoilers! The most egregious being the first of Echoes' premonition dreams, it's depicting something that happens at the very end of the game with no context. That is precisely how people get spoiled negatively on plot points. The game is forfeiting its chance to set up a shocking scene before we're even introduced to these characters.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Glennstavos

[Ottservia]

29 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

The core issue with these scenes is simple. They're spoilers! The most egregious being the first of Echoes' premonition dreams, it's depicting something that happens at the very end of the game with no context. That is precisely how people get spoiled negatively on plot points. The game is forfeiting its chance to set up a shocking scene before we're even introduced to these characters.

No that's not the issue there's a lot that can be done with a story if the audience already knows the way things will turn out. You ever heard of a thing called "dramatic Irony"? It's a fun tool to play around with. Spoilers in it of themselves do not ruin good stories because all they really do is turn a first viewing into a second viewing. If all there was to a plot twist was the shock factor then it's just gonna fall apart upon second viewing which is indicative of bad writing. A good plot twist has more to it than just the surprise factor. No, the real problem with those scenes(echoes in particular) is that they don't do anything with it. The way they did it in awakening was great because it helped emphasize the tension and greater themes of the story when it was called back to later in the story. In SoV, it doesn't really add a whole lot.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

No that's not the issue there's a lot that can be done with a story if the audience already knows the way things will turn out. You ever heard of a thing called "dramatic Irony"? It's a fun tool to play around with. Spoilers in it of themselves do not ruin good stories because all they really do is turn a first viewing into a second viewing. If all there was to a plot twist was the shock factor then it's just gonna fall apart upon second viewing which is indicative of bad writing. A good plot twist has more to it than just the surprise factor. No, the real problem with those scenes(echoes in particular) is that they don't do anything with it. The way they did it in awakening was great because it helped emphasize the tension and greater themes of the story when it was called back to later in the story. In SoV, it doesn't really add a whole lot.

You're telling me I'm wrong but agreeing with everything I'm saying down to the precise examples I used. You say the issue is these dream sequences are pointless in their execution, and I'm calling them "spoilers". But spoilers by their very nature are pointless in my eyes. The writers forfeiting their setup just to blow a surprise early.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Glennstavos

[Ottservia]

2 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

You're telling me I'm wrong but agreeing with everything I'm saying. You say the issue is these dream sequences are pointless in their execution, and I'm calling them "spoilers". But spoilers by their very nature are pointless in my eyes. The writers forfeiting their setup just to blow a surprise early.

you misunderstand my argument. Again, have you ever heard of dramatic irony? A literary term where the audience knows more than the characters which helps build suspense. Spoilers do not forfeit setup in fact it's quite the opposite. Oftentimes a story can be made better upon a second viewing when you already know everything. Like I said all a spoiler really does is turn a first viewing into a second viewing and in a way creates it's own sense of dramatic irony and suspense. Suspense being the key word here which is a thing writers can do all sorts of things with. 

Lemme use a popular example by alfred hitchcock to sort of illustrate what I mean. Let's say you have a scene with a small family sitting at a dinner table. The scene is relatively dull and nothing is really happening but then five minutes later the table explodes. Shocking isn't it but that shock doesn't last very long. Now replay the scene but this time tell the audience that there's a bomb under the table that will explode in five minutes. Now instead of five minutes of boredom and a few seconds of shock, it is now replaced with five minutes of suspense and dread of what's to come. You get my meaning? This is what spoilers essentially do. If you know things are gonna end in tragedy before hand, you begin to view the story a little differently. Instead of that shock from not knowing of the tragedy, you now have suspense. It changes the viewing experience but not necessarily in a bad way. It allows you to notice a lot of the little nuances and stuff that add to the setup. Things you might have missed if you didn't have that fore knowledge. If a spoiler ruins a story that's more indicative of the story's writing quality than anything else. I'm not saying it's okay to spoil stories but spoilers themselves aren't necessarily terrible.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

10 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Lemme use a popular example by alfred hitchcock to sort of illustrate what I mean. Let's say you have a scene with a small family sitting at a dinner table. The scene is relatively dull and nothing is really happening but then five minutes later the table explodes. Shocking isn't it but that shock doesn't last very long. Now replay the scene but this time tell the audience that there's a bomb under the table that will explode in five minutes. Now instead of five minutes of boredom and a few seconds of shock, it is now replaced with five minutes of suspense and dread of what's to come. 

There's a feature of these premonition dreams you're forgetting. They're dreams. The audience has no reason to suspect they are showing the truth. Are the avatars, Alm, and Celica soothsayers? Do they even recall their dreams later? Robin does, but when Corrin is making his big choice he doesn't break out into a cold sweat and say "just like that dream...". And how did he know precisely what his Hoshidan siblings look and act like before he ever met them? It's incoherent story telling no matter how you define it.

[Ottservia]

1 minute ago, Glennstavos said:

There's a feature of these premonition dreams you're forgetting. They're dreams. The audience has no reason to suspect they are showing the truth. Are the avatars, Alm, and Celica soothsayers? Do they even recall their dreams later? Robin does, but when Corrin is making his big choice he doesn't break out into a cold sweat and say "just like that dream...". And how did he know precisely what his Hoshidan siblings look and act like before he ever met them? It's incoherent story telling no matter how you define it.

I never forgot that aspect of the prenominations in fact I actually acknowledged that point when I said the main problem is that they don't do anything with them. I was only arguing against your main point of the fact that spoilers ruin stories and that prenominations shouldn't be used for that reason. You never said anything about them being bad for any other reason. If you did I would've acknowledged that but you didn't. The pre-nominations have their problems of which you mentioned here. A problem they don't have is that they "ruin the story by spoiling it" which was my primary argument. You can't just suddenly change arguments like that and say I'm wrong when that was never a topic of discussion to begin with

[Zapp Branniglenn]

6 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I never forgot that aspect of the prenominations in fact I actually acknowledged that point when I said the main problem is that they don't do anything with them. I was only arguing against your main point of the fact that spoilers ruin stories and that prenominations shouldn't be used for that reason. You never said anything about them being bad for any other reason. If you did I would've acknowledged that but you didn't. The pre-nominations have their problems of which you mentioned here. A problem they don't have is that they "ruin the story by spoiling it" which was my primary argument. You can't just suddenly change arguments like that and say I'm wrong when that was never a topic of discussion to begin with

Yeesh, sorry I didn't offer a concise three point thesis statement. I go on Forums to escape professional writing. I could have gone on but I didn't think I needed to when it came to saying "premonition dreams need to end". And my assumption was that you were popping my notifications all this time because you wanted to defend them. You could have added to what I was saying, rather than telling me:

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

No that's not the issue

as if I was wrong in a way beyond mere word choice.

[Espurrhoodie]

Can we stop with the dead parents? Please? Can we, for once, have an FE game where either of the protagonist's parents are alive and have a good relationship with them? The only exceptions I know of are Eliwood and Yelena (you know, from Warriors? The mother of Rin and Len Rowan and Lianna?)

[Ottservia]

Just now, Glennstavos said:

Yeesh, sorry I didn't offer a concise three point thesis statement. I go on Forums to escape professional writing. I could have gone on but I didn't think I needed to when it came to saying "premonition dreams need to end". And my assumption was that you were popping my notifications all this time because you wanted to defend them. You could have added to what I was saying, rather than telling me:

as if I was wrong in a way beyond mere word choice.

Look I'm sorry if I came off as harsh and I'm not asking you to write a three page essay on the matter. I'm just saying this statement:

2 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

The core issue with these scenes is simple. They're spoilers! The most egregious being the first of Echoes' premonition dreams, it's depicting something that happens at the very end of the game with no context. That is precisely how people get spoiled negatively on plot points. The game is forfeiting its chance to set up a shocking scene before we're even introduced to these characters.

is wrong for the aforementioned reasons. The argument you said here is "prenominations are bad because they spoil the story and ruin the setup for the shocking moment" which I disagree with for the reasons I stated earlier. The other points you brought up about them making very little sense in context I agree with because those make sense. All I ask is that you make better claims that aren't completely dismissed by like a single counter-example

[Ertrick36]

Whenever people would suggest that tropes are bad just because they exist/are deconstructed on TV Tropes, I'd refer them to this and this.  Just because a trope has a lengthy explanation about what it is and how it employs other tropes doesn't mean it's a bad trope, and it's impossible to not have tropes, therefore it'd be impossible not to have elements of your medium's story explained by the site.

 

Anyway,Camus trope is overrated.  They're characters you're supposed to feel sorry for killing, but often times they're made to support such unreasonable causes that loyalty to them just feels too empty to give the Camus characters any reason to elicit sympathy.  I just end up thinking "wow, you're stupid for supporting this warmongering piece of shit".

A device I think is underrated is the gossip/narrative veil device.  This is where most of the things you "know" about the villain are merely things you hear from second-hand or third-hand accounts, and you don't actually see a lot of things happen on-screen because the protagonist wasn't there.  This lends itself well to throwing us great twists or otherwise subverting our expectations for shock.  We see this in work with the Jugdral conspiracy, leaving the player frustrated and helpless that they didn't have enough information to prevent the tragedies that would transpire, and with Emperor Hardin, where up until his actual appearance in Book 2 you clung to this idea that the use of Lang to conquer Grust and the notion to execute Grust's royalty were all just misunderstandings and miscommunications, but as soon as you saw him talking about destroying "this disgusting world" you finally knew that he had truly changed.

[Alastor15243]

Getting off the topic of Camuses, I'm thinking one thing I'm kind of tired of seeing is learning that in the distant past of humans and dragons being in conflict, the humans were the ones in the wrong. By this point it's happened a lot, and they haven't really tackled the one thing I'd find interesting to fully explore with this: the idea of a long-lived member of a species who was deeply wronged by long-dead members of the human race, and who can't let go of their hatred for the bloodline of the ones who wronged them because the crimes are still fresh and deep due to being in the living memory of these long-lived creatures, causing them to lash out at people who have done nothing to them. They kind of do this in some cases, but they don't really explore the ethics/philosophy of this concept all that much from what I've seen. And that's really the only thing I'd be interested in seeing from this premise being done more.

I really would like to see a story told where dragons and humans get into a fight and it was the dragons' fault for once.

[NekoKnight]

I'd like to see an end to the "all loving hero" trope. Granted, it's not super common (Alm is the biggest example) but it always grinds my gears when I see it. I hate that, well, hating things is considered a villainous trait and conversely, that forgiving truly horrible people is a heroic trait. Sympathy for one's enemies can work depending on the writing (such as Tanjiro in Kimetsu no Yaiba. In that series, his sympathy for the demons is valid as they're ultimately victims themselves of a corrupting influence) but if the enemy really has no redeaming qualities, forgiving them just makes the hero seem inhuman. Rudolf and Berkut were shitty people and Alm forgiving them just makes Alm more impossibly perfect than he already is.

Just for a change of pace, I'd like a hero with some realistic distrust/distaste for another person/faction. Things like Ingrid being prejudiced towards the people of Duscur speaks to the strength of Three Houses' writing.

---

Another uncommon but still obnoxious trope is prophesies. They're always used to forward information to the player that the writers are too lazy to include organically. Who tells these prophesies? How do they have this power? If it's a god telling these mysterious seers, why do they do it?

It's incredibly lazy story telling and there is also the byproduct of fate being on rails. You already know what will happen in the story, the game told you, and unless they do a clever subversion, like a certain Tales of game, there is nothing left to explore. When the prophesy includes a chosen one, it elevates those people above ordinary humans and makes their achievements less their own and more "because fate decided you win".

 

12 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I wonder where the Camus archetype would rank. Its characters are consistently one of the more popular ones out there but recently the Camus archetype also got a lot more criticism for not being nearly as moral as the writing claims they are. Its very common to hear how Eldigan or Xander are idiots. 

I think Camus' remain popular despite their often flawed execution because it contributes to moral greyness that we don't get enough of in the series. Noble people trapped by their own principles or loyalties is more interesting than all enemies being mustache twirlers. It's a shame Xander and Fates faceplanted on their execution because that seems to be the first game where a Camus was given a large roll as an antagonist. Had they just toned down on Garon and better justified Xander's personal biases, you'd have a tragic character instead of the go-to example for "terrible Camus archetypes".

8 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

The premonition dream has been in need of a takedown for years. It was pretty cool as an opening in Awakening, but they have never missed a chance since to use it as the game's opening. And Echoes had TWO dream sequences, one for each protagonist! Three Houses is only different in how it's not a premonition of the future, but the past and the game is open about that fact by giving you a date. Honestly it seems like the writers were not on board with what is the point of that scene since most of it won't make total sense until the player is loaded with several playthroughs worth of lore.

The core issue with these scenes is simple. They're spoilers! The most egregious being the first of Echoes' premonition dreams, it's depicting something that happens at the very end of the game with no context. That is precisely how people get spoiled negatively on plot points. The game is forfeiting its chance to set up a shocking scene before we're even introduced to these characters.

I agree that it should be given a rest but I think these visions are sometimes valid. In Awakening and Three Houses, there are reasons the player/character can see these things. For the player, it's to forward information that increases the hype for a critical event in the plot (or relevant lore in the case of TH). For the characters, it's their connection to a plot relevant something, which justifies its inclusion in the story itself.

Fates and Echoes is where things don't really work. The "hype" device is still present but it's never explained how the characters have these visions. They just... do, and you're asked to stop caring about why after the scene you see them. Celica's vision is especially problematic because she sees things that she couldn't possibly know (like what Rudolf and teenage Alm look like) but none of the things she sees come to pass or are averted by things she does, so it's a fake prophetic dream.

[Ottservia]

3 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

Getting off the topic of Camuses, I'm thinking one thing I'm kind of tired of seeing is learning that in the distant past of humans and dragons being in conflict, the humans were the ones in the wrong. By this point it's happened a lot, and they haven't really tackled the one thing I'd find interesting to fully explore with this: the idea of a long-lived member of a species who was deeply wronged by long-dead members of the human race, and who can't let go of their hatred for the bloodline of the ones who wronged them because the crimes are still fresh and deep due to being in the living memory of these long-lived creatures, causing them to lash out at people who have done nothing to them. They kind of do this in some cases, but they don't really explore the ethics/philosophy of this concept all that much from what I've seen. And that's really the only thing I'd be interested in seeing from this premise being done more.

I really would like to see a story told where dragons and humans get into a fight and it was the dragons' fault for once.

Isn’t this just medeus though? Anankos kinda falls into this category too now that I think about it and Anankos is arguably the better of the two actually. Kind of a shame FE doesn’t develop these villains beyond the bare minimum cause there’s just a sea of potential there.

Edit: also if you wanna stretch it Rhea can also fall into this category and that’s fun.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Ottservia

[henrymidfields]

Actually, you know what? Another thing that I'd like to see gone for one game is the dragon, or any other supernatural as the ultimate big bad responsible for the war and the whole plot. Instead, the final major battle before the main enemy surrenders and the war ends is a remnant army - which still has much charisma to mount their last effective opposition. Gameplay-wise, the difficulty should instead come from secondary objectives that don't rely on overpowering the enemy. For example, you need to convince enemy factions to surrender with either specified non-lord units, or lords with sufficient charisma to convince the antagonists that their cause is now lost. Or, you need to protect specified units and/or items (such as the ambassador or a king relaying the surrender message) before they get overwhelmed, like the Kyujo Incident that nearly derailed Japan's surrender process in the very last day of World War II. And failing in those objectives won't give you a game over, but will lead you into a sad/cynical ending, where, say, war flares up again, or a series of revolts happen against the now victorious heroes, with the protagonist assasinated not long after. And the story shows how humans are capable of screwing up society.

The closest example would probably be Zephiel in Binding Blade, who was responsible for starting the entire war, and did so with his economic-military complex that is also known as Bern. And how can my preferred plot device work in this Echoes remake? Well, Chapter 22a (immediately after the real Chapter 22) has Roy and Guinevere surrounded by remnant soldiers who came to assassinate Princess Guinevere. If Guinevere is killed, then Brenya would declare herself as Queen, lead the citizens and remaining soldiers to revolt against the occupation army, and this would eventually force the Etrurian Army to pull out. Much of the blame would be shifted onto Lycia now, with Roy as the scapegoat, when Etruria itself washes its hands from the alliance to save its hide, and when Bern manages to conceal its real perpetrators via propaganda. Roy's campaign would end on a very cynical note then and there.

If successful, then the whole story would end up framing Chapter 22 and 22a as the climax of the series, with Chapter 23 onwards being a glorified denouement to correspond with the relative lack of difficulty in those chapters.

Edited November 21, 2019 by henrymidfields