What is the most developed country in Fire Emblem?

[Icelerate]

I'm going through Thracia 776 and think that Thracia may very well take the cake. It's got a good amount of screen-time in gen 2 Geneology and a full game dedicated to the conflict in the peninsula. I'm thinking for this reason, Thracia is the most developed country in all of FE but I could be wrong. 

My criteria for a developed country is that its characters are fleshed out, its history and lore is fleshed out and its environment/terrain as well. FE5 doesn't have that much characterization but it does have a lot of characters to compensate for this so we get a feel of the various places, politics and factions within the peninsula. Considering how Thracia 776 spends an entire game within the peninsula, we get to see many different places and terrain along with how it influenced military strategy and politics. For example, we see August talk about why the liberation army should engage in a certain action and he justifies it using the attitudes of various factions such as Southern Thracia's opposition to the Empire as well as using the inhospitable forest to launch a surprise attack on Leonster, taking advantage of the ghost stories that arise from that forest which would drop the Empire's guard. For a game that is supposed to have a simple plot, I was amazed at how well Tahra was handled and we saw many factions converge during that siege. 

The three beorc countries in RD are also up there for me. 

If I forgot to mention a country in the poll, feel free to point it out. 

Edited April 27, 2020 by Icelerate

[Koops]

My vote goes to Grannvale.

It's the home country of Sigurd, who you quickly get attached to, but near the end of Gen 1 and for the whole of Gen 2, it becomes enemy territory.

There's more to it than that, of course. Grannavle has multiple territories governed by a handful of lords. Each of these have a specific leitmotif or even their own proficiency among their ranks. Dozel has the Neir Holy Blood, so its army is mostly axe users. Velthomer is Vala Holy Blood, and they have mages who specialize in Fire Magic. Friege is also a prominent housein both Jugdral games, you get playable characters who come from it, and many of the powerful figures of the Grannvale Empire during Arvis's rule are Friege nobles, like Bloom, Ishtore, Ishtar, etc. It's also located smack in the dead center of Jugdral, making it a potential stage for many events. The war against Isaach, the Verdane Campaign, the Battle of Belhalla... Even within FE5, which completely happesns in the Thracian peninsula, Grannvale is still an omnipresent force around the corner, as the main occupation force here. Saias is an imposing figure among the troops, and he's from Velthomer. This is also the time where Bloom is still in power around Manster.

I just think Grannvale really has a lot going for it in both games. That's why I feel it really is the most developed country in the series, but not necessarily my favorite, that title probably goes to Silesse.

[NinjaMonkey]

Begnion, easy.

1 hour ago, Icelerate said:

My criteria for a developed country is that its characters are fleshed out

What does having fleshed out characters have to do with how developed the country is?

[Anacybele]

Crimea. In Tellius nearly all the countries are very well developed and I don't think any other continent can say this. Crimea gets the most attention though, so I have to give it my vote.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Anacybele

[Etrurian emperor]

I'd say Begnion very easily takes the cake. Between the games and the Tellius lore book we know just about everything we need to know. We know of Begnion's history, we know of its relation with other countries, we know how the country is governed, of the extreme political corruption and factionalism and much more. Most of this goes for the other beorc countries too but Crimea is a bit too basic as just another ''good guy country'', albeit with some issues, and Daien only narrowly loses out to Begnion. 

I'd be tempted to go for Lycia as well. Its explored in two games and we visit most of it. Each Elibe game has the Lycians as the main cast and the main ruling houses are reasonably distinct from each other. 

As far as Jugdral goes I always found the countries a little bit shaky. They definitely have some traits and Granvelle's governance is a bit peculiar but it always struck me as a little bare bones. Selisia and Augustria aren't really different from the Archenean country in that they are just ''pegasus/wind mage'' country and ''knight'' country. 

Edited April 27, 2020 by Etrurian emperor

[Icelerate]

1 hour ago, NinjaMonkey said:

Begnion, easy.

What does having fleshed out characters have to do with how developed the country is?

Well Eirika, Caeda and Elincia will explain why they are so important. 

Spoiler

Shiida:
“Ah, but what makes a country?”

Lorenz:
“Pardon?”

Shiida:
“Is it one man- your king? Or is it the countless innocent people who make their home here?”

Lorenz:
“Well, that’s- Hmm…”

Shiida:
“My father has a saying: “A kingless country is a country still; but a king without subjects rules naught but hills.” If you disobey your king to ensure his subjects’ safety, how is that a betrayal? You are protecting his reign.”

 

Spoiler

Elincia:
“Didn’t you say before that you caused a rebellion in order to protect the country? Then let me ask you, what is country? Isn’t it civilians who make a country? Think about it. Throughtout this conflict, do you realise how many lives you’ve simply thrown away?!”

 

Spoiler

Eirika: It is not enough that this war end…that we go home again. It’s not enough that my brother become king. These things aren’t enough to make a good country.
Forde: …
Eirika: People deserve happiness. They are the reason that we rule. Without the people, there can be no Renais.
 

 

[NinjaMonkey]

1 hour ago, Icelerate said:

Well Eirika, Caeda and Elincia will explain why they are so important. 

The only thing that they state is that a country is nothing without its citizens, which has nothing to do with how fleshed out the characters are.

Also, you're quoting Shiida from Shadow Dragon, a game where everyone has less personality than a brick.

Edited April 27, 2020 by NinjaMonkey

[Icelerate]

22 minutes ago, NinjaMonkey said:

The only thing that they state is that a country is nothing without its citizens, which has nothing to do with how fleshed out the characters are.

Also, you're quoting Shiida from Shadow Dragon, a game where everyone has less personality than a brick.

If a country is nothing without its citizens, then it stands to reason part of what makes a country, what it is is the people that reside in it. To develop something properly, all parts of it should be developed hence developing those in it is important or else you get a situation like Valla. 

I don't see how that is relevant nor does Shiida have less personality than a brick. 

[NinjaMonkey]

3 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

If a country is nothing without its citizens, then it stands to reason part of what makes a country, what it is is the people that reside in it. To develop something properly, all parts of it should be developed hence developing those in it is important or else you get a situation like Valla.

Which still has nothing to do with fleshed out characters.

[Slumber]

Thracia or one of the Tellius countries.

[JimmyBeans]

4 hours ago, NinjaMonkey said:

Begnion, easy.

What does having fleshed out characters have to do with how developed the country is?

A characters actions should reflect their upbringing, which should reflect where they grew up. The way a character acts can feed you information about a country. See Jill. She makes Daein interesting just by herself, not including some other characters.

My vote is also Thracia, something to add is that I was surprised to see that many of the bosses. outside of bandits and Loptous cultists, displayed different traits and personalities (despite mostly reusing the big nose portrait guy). The differences between Thracian and Empire people were very distinct, even for non player characters and bosses, though I don't know how much project Exile is responsible for that.

[Ertrick36]

3 hours ago, NinjaMonkey said:

Which still has nothing to do with fleshed out characters.

I agree, what truly makes a location in fiction appealing often has little to do with having fleshed out characters.  You can have both, and fleshed out characters can result from a well developed world or add to it, but you don't build a world just by throwing in fleshed out characters.  Fates taught us this lesson - for as great as characters like Leo, Takumi, Oboro, and many others might be, they don't make the world of Fates itself better.  Instead, they feel like they exist in a vacuum, and like it's the characters that matter instead of the place they occupy.  It's hard to feel bad about Hoshido effectively being nuked in the beginning of the game or either side being completely decimated when they just feel like sandbox battlefields for struggles to take place between appealing characters.

Some may be foolish enough to think a world is just a place for people to occupy, but that isn't entirely true.  A world has history.  It has leaders that rise and falls.  It has borders that expand and shrink.  It has systems of belief and political struggles.  It has a wealth of tales to tell.  These tales involve people, yes, but in the framework of the story being told it doesn't serve much good for everyone to be a fleshed out character.  Sometimes characters must be one note, one-line characters that add to the world.  Fallout and Mass Effect have some of the best worldbuilding in gaming, and much of it is done through interactions with relatively uninteresting characters (and plenty of more interesting characters as well, but that's beside the point).  In Fallout: New Vegas, you don't fight for one side or the other because you like Boone or Caesar or Veronica or whoever - you pick a side because the wasteland has people and history that matters and which side you pick has huge implications for that land and perhaps lands beyond the Mojave.  You're made to care about the place you occupy because it has history worth caring about, tales worth telling, and beliefs worth fighting for, not because a small collection of people are likable.

Yes, characters are used to bring out elements of the worldbuilding, but a character doesn't need to be fleshed out to do so, and a collection of fleshed out characters won't save a poorly developed world.

 

Anyway, I abstain from voting because I haven't played through the entirety of every FE game.  I'll definitely say no land in Fates would earn my vote, that's for certain.  If I had to pick, it'd probably either be Thracia or Faerghus.  Thracia is actually rather brilliantly constructed - the geography of the land actually matters there, because the people of Thracia are unable to farm their land and due to the Curse of the Gáe Bolg they can't negotiate with the Manster District so they're forced to turn to banditry and aggravation along the border between the two nations to get what they need to survive.  And I just enjoy how each of the noble families in Faerghus are handled - they all have their own problems to contend with, and those problems wash over onto the students who then have their own problems with those problems (Sylvain taking issue with his own birthright due to what it caused for Miklan and himself, Felix despising chivalry and his father for glorifying his brother's death, Ingrid being torn between marrying another family to acquire wealth or pursuing her dream of becoming a knight in service of the King of Faerghus born of the tales of glory with King Loog and his trusted knights).

If there's one thing I'll say, it's that at least the awful worldbuilding of Fates seemed to result in the developers realizing the folly in not giving that element much focus.

[AnonymousSpeed]

1 hour ago, Ertrick36 said:

Some may be foolish enough to think a world is just a place for people to occupy, but that isn't entirely true.  A world has history.  It has leaders that rise and falls.  It has borders that expand and shrink.  It has systems of belief and political struggles.  It has a wealth of tales to tell.

Leaders are people.

Borders represent divisions of people.

Religions and political systems are practiced by people.

Tales are told by people.

I mean, you're not wrong, though. You can read a wikipedia article and it lacks characters, but it's very informative about the real world. Landmarks and ruins can be brimming with personality and mystique even if there is no human history attached to them.

However, when talking about the depth of a world, it seems like we're largely talking about cultures and those require people to exist. From a narrative perspective, I find interesting characters to be more important than an interesting setting, and the latter should be crafted in service of the former, generally speaking.

Characters are actually better the less they depend on the quirks of the setting, since it's easier for audiences to understand jokes about stereotypes of the French than stereotypes of the Duscar people. One-note characters should exist in service of the story, rather than the setting, which itself also exists for the story. Sort of. Since Fire Emblem is a video game the setting filled with magic and shapeshifters and ancient talismans actually exists in service of the gameplay, just like the one-note bandit boss in every Chapter 1 map ever.

[Ertrick36]

6 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

However, when talking about the depth of a world, it seems like we're largely talking about cultures and those require people to exist. From a narrative perspective, I find interesting characters to be more important than an interesting setting, and the latter should be crafted in service of the former, generally speaking.

Characters are actually better the less they depend on the quirks of the setting, since it's easier for audiences to understand jokes about stereotypes of the French than stereotypes of the Duscar people. One-note characters should exist in service of the story, rather than the setting, which itself also exists for the story. Sort of. Since Fire Emblem is a video game the setting filled with magic and shapeshifters and ancient talismans actually exists in service of the gameplay, just like the one-note bandit boss in every Chapter 1 map ever.

My point isn't that a setting is the only important thing in a game or that characters aren't relevant at all, my point is that you don't need a character with a long, drawn out story and a character arc to build a world, especially in a game such as a western RPG or any game that lets you explore the far reaches of a world.  Though I could say a lot more about my thoughts on how I think we should try innovating more in storytelling in video games and pursue alternate conventions of storytelling, but I'm tired and want to go to bed and I also don't want to waste a full day formulating an argument (as I'm often inclined to do) so I'm just gonna leave my reply to simply this.

[AnonymousSpeed]

13 hours ago, Ertrick36 said:

My point isn't that a setting is the only important thing in a game or that characters aren't relevant at all, my point is that you don't need a character with a long, drawn out story and a character arc to build a world

Correct, you need a concise character arc of an appropriate length.

World building without characters is like a history book. I like history books, but it's a different sort of thing.

You can't get a sense of cultural values without people, their demeanors, and their actions.

13 hours ago, Ertrick36 said:

Though I could say a lot more about my thoughts on how I think we should try innovating more in storytelling in video games and pursue alternate conventions of storytelling

Or they could just, you know...be games.

[Rapaille]

Probably Granvalle (although Thracia could also contend as one of the best). Mostly because the entirety of the conflict of fe4 & 5 is the caused by a political power struggle in Granvalle which is the entire focus of the game. It's main shortcoming is the fact that it's only seen from one perspective but because of how Fire Emblem is structured it's very limited in how it can develop it's continent when compared to games like the Elder Scrolls and Zelda.  

 

[anikom15]

OP, you need to actually specify what you mean by 'developed'. Because the definition of a developed country is one that has roads, hospitals, waste management, some sense of civilization etc. But it sounds like you mean which one has the most world building. The former sounds like it would be a hell of a lot more interesting than this tired one. We all know it's either Tellius or Jugdral depending on (let's be real here) which game you like better and I question if we really need to get into specifics on each individual country. No need for a huge poll whose choices aren't even in alphabetical order.

Edited April 28, 2020 by anikom15

[Icelerate]

5 hours ago, anikom15 said:

OP, you need to actually specify what you mean by 'developed'. Because the definition of a developed country is one that has roads, hospitals, waste management, some sense of civilization etc. But it sounds like you mean which one has the most world building. The former sounds like it would be a hell of a lot more interesting than this tired one. We all know it's either Tellius or Jugdral depending on (let's be real here) which game you like better and I question if we really need to get into specifics on each individual country. No need for a huge poll whose choices aren't even in alphabetical order.

I already did in the OP. That type of development would be more important in the real world but in the context of discussing writing, that's not what development means. 

Quote

My criteria for a developed country is that its characters are fleshed out, its history and lore is fleshed out and its environment/terrain as well. 

 

[SSbardock84]

I'm thinking Daein, but Begnion is also a good choice. I could also understand Crimea. But to me it's definitely one of the Tellius countries.

[qwernst]

Dubstep City in Three Houses.