My Main Issue with Alm

[Ottservia]

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

 

Doesn't that gives support to my interpretation? That a label shouldn't speak on behalf of their actual self, it what it seems to say there.

Nope because besides that you fail to consider the antithesis to that Claim(i.e. something like Fernand and Berkut who both argue something slightly different that your claim suggests they’re arguing) and you also don’t have any instance of this theme coming to fruition within the narrative. That’s what I mean by evidence in the text. The thematic conflict the theme brings into question is either nonexistent or contradicted therefore there’s really no basis for your argument here.

[eclipse]

1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

I mean, sure, but most of those changes occur after much violence and bloodshed for such a drastic change.

So, um, what happened between Alm's time and Walhart's?  Two thousand years of uninterrupted peace?

[Hawkwing]

5 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Here's the thing you're misunderstanding here. I don't need his recklessness to backfire which would cause him to fail because that wouldn't make sense from a gameplay standpoint. What I DO want is the story to actually make a point of his recklessness/aggressiveness in some way. Like I dunno have a scene of all them looking over a corpse ridden battlefield in some level of disgust. You can have a couple of the other characters question if this truly just to which Alm could reply "Well they deserved it". Or have a scene where an enemy commander begs for his life saying he just wants to see his family again only for Alm to cut him down in cold blood. Those are the scenes we need in this story to showcase Alm's growing lust for vengeance and justice. He slowly grows to lose sight of his original goals and it is only after he accidentally kills his own father that he's able to snap out of it. 

I see where you're coming from. And once again, I point out that Character VS Narrative is one of Shadow of Valentia's main issues. Given what we are shown about his upbringing and friends, there isn't a lot there to explain why he would become a ruthless conqueror or kill in cold blood (not that Rigel would beg for mercy, given their whole shtick is being strong at the cost of kindess. Heck most of the Rigelian opponents don't bear any ill will towards Alm). And even if he did have a hidden bloodthirsty side that started to appear during the war, his friends and colleagues are shown to be supportive, so if this side of him started to appear, then other characters would have taken action.

Far from saying Alm couldn't have turned out more aggressively, but it may have required altering the personalities and actions of other characters and story events in the process. He wouldn't have been taught some of Mila's values despite living in Zofia, his friends and the Deliverance would have to be willing to turn a blind eye to his ruthlessness because it gets them results, and he'd have to irrationally hate Rigel. Yet in doing so, this might contradict how the Deliverance was formed in the first place to fight against a cruel dictator that killed the innocent heirs of the otherwise hated former king, how Rigel invaded Zofia earlier because King Lima IV lied about keeping his end of a bargain (an action which none of the Zofians defend), that Mycen deliberately aimed to raise Alm with the virtues of both philosophies, and so on.

Again, the story could altered the details I just mentioned, but it would require changing more than just Alm.

5 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Like you seem to too focused on the small details that don't matter instead of looking at the bigger picture. You're too concerned with minor contrivances and stuff that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. You gotta look at the bigger picture sometimes and ask why the events of this narrative are happening in the first place. 

I wouldn't say that I'm ignoring the main theme. I've mentioned before that, narratively, I hate the big twist on Alm's heritage, as it knowingly shoots one of its main messages in the foot. I also don't believe that the "Commoner vs Nobility" aspect of the story was handled as well as it should have, in part due to the original game not being written with it in mind. However, it's not the only theme, as the conflicting philosophies between Duma and Mila and how following any path exclusively will lead to ruin is still prevalent throughout the game.

Nor does it mean that the story can no longer go anywhere. Again, I've mentioned that I am interested in a sequel or expansion that shows what happens after the events of the main game because Alm didn't knowingly break the aesop he encouraged, but rather it was wrecked by something outside of his control. I find it extremely intriguing to see how he and other characters react to this twist after the excitement of fighting Duma wears off. It's also not all sunshine and rainbows, as there are several rebellions and brigand attacks after the events of the game, with a plethora of reasons that are far from unreasonable. There are a multitude of other reasons why I would be interested in Echoes story being continued, but that's the one most relevant to the current topic.

Minor details and the whole picture are both equally important. A story can nail its themes without contradicting itself or forcing the message, but if the moment-to-moment aspects fall apart, events don't make sense, and/or the dialogue and setting do its job but little else, then the lesson can lead to a great bunch of deep discussion, but not much else. Similarly, something can fail to teach the lesson it was attempting to, but still have an interesting setting, characters, and dialogue. The game can still be engaging to go through, but ends up with discussions like this one.

It's a reason I consider Shadow of Valentia's story to be flawed, but can't call the writing itself bad. Characters act according to the details we are provided about them. The game is filled with entertaining dialogue and interactions, and the setting itself, with two nations founded upon opposing philosophies driven to far, is rather interesting. The presentation is often complimented, and not without good reason. It is a great shame that it fails to deliver on the lessons it was aiming to tell, because it does have good messages, but it does not immediately discredit the other aspects about the story.

40 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Because all you have going for you is Tobin. That's ALL you have. But Tobin earned a title and castle, but that doesn't mean that the nobility is gone, because a title only PROVES the nobility remains. Like I said, Tobin is an exception, not the status quo.

Characters like Grey, Lukas, Clair, Clive, Forsyth, Valbar, Leon were all granted knighthoods in the new kingdom, and each of them came from different backgrounds. Python was offered a position, but refuses if Forsyth is alive, and a similar situation happens with Mathilda. Tobin is the only one directly mentioned to become a noble (and his ending also mentions that it was granted to him "eventually"), but that doesn't mean that other characters not directly featured in the story weren't granted titles and positions based on their actions. Alm and Celica are the only ones mentioned to have a dynasty, and we don't know if that is what either of them intended to happen.

Simply put, we don't know if the One Kingdom of Valentia still grants positions based on birth, or if the nobility is made up of people who earned their spot, or if it is a combination of both. Or heck, it may have even fluctuated between the two extremes throughout the course of Valentia's history. The epilogues of Fire Emblem games are rarely concerned with giving us the full history of the aftermath, and Echoes is unfortunately no exception.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Hawkwing

[JubileePhoenix]

Alm's fine.

[Ottservia]

18 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

Given what we are shown about his upbringing and friends, there isn't a lot there to explain why he would become a ruthless conqueror or kill in cold blood (not that Rigel would beg for mercy, given their whole shtick is being strong at the cost of kindess. Heck most of the Rigelian opponents don't bear any ill will towards Alm). And even if he did have a hidden bloodthirsty side that started to appear during the war, his friends and colleagues are shown to be supportive, so if this side of him started to appear, then other characters would have taken action.

Far from saying Alm couldn't have turned out more aggressively, but it may have required altering the personalities and actions of other characters and story events in the process. He wouldn't have been taught some of Mila's values despite living in Zofia, his friends and the Deliverance would have to be willing to turn a blind eye to his ruthlessness because it gets them results, and he'd have to irrationally hate Rigel. Yet in doing so, this might contradict how the Deliverance was formed in the first place to fight against a cruel dictator that killed the innocent heirs of the otherwise hated former king, how Rigel invaded Zofia earlier because King Lima IV lied about keeping his end of a bargain (an action which none of the Zofians defend), that Mycen deliberately aimed to raise Alm with the virtues of both philosophies, and so on.

Y’see this is what I mean when I said you’re too focused on the minor inconsistencies. Not much would need to be changed regarding the narrative. The only character you would need change personality wise is Alm because he needs to be more aggressive. Not necessarily blood thirsty but taking his sense of justice too far. Every other character doesn’t need to change for this to work. The only thing the other characters would need to do is react to it that’s it. Nothing about their personalities change or anything. They just need to react to the changes in Alm’s character. Like the thing is if other characters take action to Alm’s sudden shift in personality. THAT IS GOOD!!! We want that because it generates conflict which can be used to further solidify the themes of the story. Imagine if Alm starts acting more ruthless. His friends take notice and try to talk to him but he’s stubborn and won’t budge so he ends up driving his friends away thereby somewhat punishing him for giving into a character flaw. See what I mean? It’s better that way cause then story remains thematically consistent.
 

What you seem to be misunderstanding is that a character being a hypocrite isn’t necessarily a bad thing so long as the story acknowledges that hypocrisy in some form or another. If there’s a contradiction in the deliverance’s ideals explore that. Show me what hypocrisy drives them to do and have them work to correct it. We want characters to contradict themselves cause that can be used to generate meaningful conflict.

30 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

Minor details and the whole picture are both equally important. A story can nail its themes without contradicting itself or forcing the message, but if the moment-to-moment aspects fall apart, events don't make sense, and/or the dialogue and setting do its job but little else, then the lesson can lead to a great bunch of deep discussion, but not much else. Similarly, something can fail to teach the lesson it was attempting to, but still have an interesting setting, characters, and dialogue. The game can still be engaging to go through, but ends up with discussions like this one.

Thing is minor stuff only matters so much to a narrative. A story is nothing more than a conveyence of ideas and messages through characters facing a series of conflicts. That’s all a story really is at the end of the day. Every aspect of a story should be beholden to its ideas as that’s why they exist in the first place. When you really get right down to it plot contrivance doesn’t really matter as much or at least minor contrivances. Simply because those things are inevitable in stories. So long as everything makes sense and remains consistent. I don’t really see much of an issue to criticize beyond that.

[Benice]

Generally, knights are indeed considered nobility. And I do believe that Acacia is trying to say that Nobility =/= Bloodlines, but is a titular thing; I.E, a system in which the person with the highest GPA in university becomes a professor is still a nobility system, even if it's not the child of the professor becoming the new one, and I agree with that. Really, any system with Ruler>Important nobles>Knights>Peasants is still a feudal system, even if an important noble may become a peasant or vice versa.

[Hawkwing]

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

Y’see this is what I mean when I said you’re too focused on the minor inconsistencies. Not much would need to be changed regarding the narrative. The only character you would need change personality wise is Alm because he needs to be more aggressive. Not necessarily blood thirsty but taking his sense of justice too far. Every other character doesn’t need to change for this to work. The only thing the other characters would need to do is react to it that’s it. Nothing about their personalities change or anything. They just need to react to the changes in Alm’s character. Like the thing is if other characters take action to Alm’s sudden shift in personality. THAT IS GOOD!!! We want that because it generates conflict which can be used to further solidify the themes of the story. Imagine if Alm starts acting more ruthless. His friends take notice and try to talk to him but he’s stubborn and won’t budge so he ends up driving his friends away thereby somewhat punishing him for giving into a character flaw. See what I mean? It’s better that way cause then story remains thematically consistent.

I see what you're getting at. Though trying to argue here could get into a theoretically unwritten story. Depending on how aggressive Alm is or where it appears and so on, then either it makes sense that his friends would catch on to late what is growing in Alm or they would look foolish for not noticing what is happening to their friend. If they decide to speak up, then Alm it would either make sense for him to listen and consider their words or stubbornly ignore them, or it would come off as forced that he doesn't listen or stops being aggressive over a single conversation. Heck, why he starts becoming more ruthless in the first place could either be understandable or forced.

It could work, to be sure, and I can image some versions where this fits in with what you're aiming at, but I also just as easily see versions that have the characters act outside of what was established about them and/or being forced to do certain things just so that the story can continue. I'm not trying to stop a discussion, but something like this relies heavily on the execution of something we don't have.

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

What you seem to be misunderstanding is that a character being a hypocrite isn’t necessarily a bad thing so long as the story acknowledges that hypocrisy in some form or another. If there’s a contradiction in the deliverance’s ideals explore that. Show me what hypocrisy drives them to do and have them work to correct it. We want characters to contradict themselves cause that can be used to generate meaningful conflict.

Where was I stating that the characters were being hypocritical? My concern is more over why a character or faction acts the way they do, and that their actions make sense. If there is a hypocrisy, there should be a reason for it that goes beyond "the story says so".

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

Thing is minor stuff only matters so much to a narrative. A story is nothing more than a conveyence of ideas and messages through characters facing a series of conflicts. That’s all a story really is at the end of the day. Every aspect of a story should be beholden to its ideas as that’s why they exist in the first place. When you really get right down to it plot contrivance doesn’t really matter as much or at least minor contrivances. Simply because those things are inevitable in stories. So long as everything makes sense and remains consistent. I don’t really see much of an issue to criticize beyond that.

The only two games I can think of that had contrivances that didn't affect the story are Grim Fandango and Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. And that's because the former didn't delve too much on the fact the characters were skeletons and said contrivances didn't affect the story itself (rather they raised questions about the setting, even if some of them were pretty clearly just a joke), and the latter used them deliberately as the story was a very meta and in-depth deconstruction of videogames. Otherwise, they're something a story is better off avoiding, and even if they are inevitable, it should not be obvious that the story proceeds because of them.

It is possible for big picture of a story to hit the nail on the head, but for the aspects inbetween to still be problematic. The Star Wars prequels are a good example of this, as when taken as a whole, it's a powerful story about how a man with great power and high expectations fell to evil and ruin and redeemed themselves at the end. Yet the dialogue is consistently criticized, and the execution of certain scenes ends up making several moments come off as forced or less nuanced than intended. They don't wreck the greater message, but they can still damage it.

Or to give another example, things like Falchion being locked in the vault that is only accessible to the Rigelean royal family may not fit in with the themes of Echoes, but make sense from an in-universe perspective, and would raise questions if changed. If Falchion could only be wielded by those that were strong, then it would only be a matter of time before a Duma Faithful fanatic got the idea that Duma wanted Mila dead, when it is quite clear that Duma never once used Falchion against his sister despite having it in his possession and their fights often resulted in stalemates. Or a mighty foreigner or Zofia that hated being being led by the gods/Duma could also potentially grab the sword and use it against them. Limiting it to a royal family, while not quite in line with Duma's philosophy, at the very least would place it in the hands of people that would have more to loose than to gain from attacking him, as well as being easy to keep a close eye on. It didn't stop someone from the Rigelean royal family from planting it into his forehead, though he was also crazy by that point.

Focusing too much on the big picture or on making sure scene-to-scene elements make sense can damage the other. Both are important, and the best stories succeed in both respects. Stumbling in one however does not invalidate the success in the other (or vice versa).

[Anathaco]

3 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Nope because besides that you fail to consider the antithesis to that Claim(i.e. something like Fernand and Berkut who both argue something slightly different that your claim suggests they’re arguing) and you also don’t have any instance of this theme coming to fruition within the narrative. That’s what I mean by evidence in the text. The thematic conflict the theme brings into question is either nonexistent or contradicted therefore there’s really no basis for your argument here.

In Act 1, Berkut says (something along the lines of) “One is either born commoner or noble. This destiny cannot be changed. Has a sheep any hope of leading wolves? No!“

Unless I misunderstood Acacia’s argument, this seems to be pretty directly opposed to me. He said that Echoes argued that people can make their own opportunities as long as they can earn them, and Berkut’s line spits on that completely.

As for it coming to fruition in terms of the text, Berkut and Fernand spend most of the game avidly opposing social mobility and both meet their ends because of it. One could also argue that the fight against Duma is another example, but rather than commoners and nobles, it’s men and gods who can climb as high or fall as low as their actions dictate- mankind earns their shot at controlling their own world. 

(damn it’s been a while since high school English. Why was that never as fun as this?)

[Jotari]

9 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Honestly, I am curious if that was something that writers/translators wanted to edit, but didn't have the time or budget to bring the voice actor back in to record new lines. While I wouldn't call Echoes rushed, there were several moments throughout the game where I got the impression the developers weren't given a lot of elbow room to alter things. Supports, for instance, are pretty limited, and while there are gameplay reasons behind this (support bonuses can turn a 70% chance to hit into a 100%, which is nothing to scoff at. Having an "everyone supports everyone" system would either break the game or require that support bonuses be minuscule), it can come off that they were added when the developers realized that they had some spare cash to spend in the voice acting budget. It's not the only example, but it is one of the more notable ones.

***

On a side note, as much as I agree that Alm's recklessness or stubbornness should have backfired on him at some point, my question is how should it play out in gameplay and story? Every idea I could think of ends up falling into the "You won but not really!" or "Incompetent in a cutscene" traps that most gamers are all too familiar with and are best avoided. Far from saying it can't be done right, but I am curious on how others thought this aspect should have been implemented that manages work in both gameplay and story without pulling any cheap tricks in the process.

This isn't to say the game didn't run into this issue already. I could point to how Alm being granted leadership of the Deliverance is a little too large a leap, but if he was made second in command or a high ranking officer, then it either would have lead to players stating "You're the second-in-command of the army, though in practice Alm may as have have been made the leader given how little that affects things", or it would have added several frivolous gameplay additions to give the impression that Alm isn't the head honcho. Or how in first fight with Berkut is considered a tough opponent by several characters when in gameplay the level is laughably easy. And I've pointed out earlier how Act 4 on Celica's side can come off as forced so that Celica and Alm's armies can be in the same location for the final battle.

It should be noted that Echoes isn't alone here. I could point out how Awakening pulls the "we have to retreat from Walharts million strong offscreen army!" regardless of how strong your units currently are, as well as "We have to get help from the rebel army, despite the fact that they only physically appear once or twice!". Or how in Three Houses, crests are vital to the story, but in gameplay their usefulness ranges wildly, and even the most powerful ones aren't quite the gamechanger the story makes them out to be. Point being, problems likes these are nothing new to the series.

While Ottservia is right in saying you don't really need it to result in an actual mistake or set back, you could still make for a mistake or set back in the plot while maintaining victory in the gameplay. Namely by achieving a short term goal by completing the chapter, but it resulting in a loss elsewhere. Like say in the plot people aren't sure if it's a good idea to charge a fort or something an Alm is confident they can win, only for them to win but not realize the enemy was luring Alm away to launch a counter attack on Sofia castle.

8 hours ago, Solvaij said:

Spot on, though not nearly as clear nor as concise.

On topic, just wanted to add my two-cents: basically, I agree with the OP, although I want to throw in that I don't think Alm necessarily should have been ruthless or have a bloodlust. As long as he's scrappy and reckless I think that would have been enough, and as people have said, he is in some spots, it's just not enough to make it feel cohesive.

I didn't manage to predict the off topic discussion on Alm's noble linage though. Curses.

[Ottservia]

17 minutes ago, Anathaco said:

n Act 1, Berkut says (something along the lines of) “One is either born commoner or noble. This destiny cannot be changed. Has a sheep any hope of leading wolves? No!“

Unless I misunderstood Acacia’s argument, this seems to be pretty directly opposed to me. He said that Echoes argued that people can make their own opportunities as long as they can earn them, and Berkut’s line spits on that completely.

Let’s break down Berkut’s statement first off here. He says “one is either born commoner or noble. This destiny cannot be changed” this line is very straightforward and to the point. It means exactly as he says. A commoner is ill suited to lead anyone for it is a noble’s duty to lead by right of birth. Nobles are a cut above commoners cause they were born better. That is Berkut’s philosophy and as a villain he needs to be proven wrong on that. But when you look at the overall narrative he’s not technically wrong because the man who does end up leading the deliverance to victory is a man of royal birth. The one to oppose Berkut’s ideology is Alm who says the opposite that a commoner is just as worthy of being a leader as a nobleman using himself as an example and there in lies the problem. The narrative makes it a point numerous times to say Alm is “different” from his villager buddies. That he’s a cut above them if you will. He’s a natural born leader unlike them who are commoners. The “difference” between Alm and the other ram village kids is revealed to be the fact that he is in fact royalty which by virtue of implication suggests that’s where his leadership skills come from so in the end it can be reasonably concluded that Berkut was right, no?

Edited May 17, 2020 by Ottservia

[Hawkwing]

6 minutes ago, Jotari said:

While Ottservia is right in saying you don't really need it to result in an actual mistake or set back, you could still make for a mistake or set back in the plot while maintaining victory in the gameplay. Namely by achieving a short term goal by completing the chapter, but it resulting in a loss elsewhere. Like say in the plot people aren't sure if it's a good idea to charge a fort or something an Alm is confident they can win, only for them to win but not realize the enemy was luring Alm away to launch a counter attack on Sofia castle.

I see what you're getting at. My concern is that several videogames have pulled similar tricks, and it doesn't have the greatest of track records. Given how Echoes map system works, I can see the idea being either really interesting or really annoying, or both.

[Acacia Sgt]

I quoted your statement about Clive, not Berkut, by the way.

Quote

Clive even states that a man’s worth is determined by his actions and ideals. Not exactly word for word but that’s essentially what he says.

 

[Ottservia]

4 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

I quoted your statement about Clive, not Berkut, by the way.

 

Yeah I know but you need to prove that Berkut’s statements means what you say it means and that Clive’s statement means what you say it means in regards to how those statements relate to your overall claim on the themes are because those two statements are in direct opposition to one another. You just can’t claim a theme exists without putting forth the proper evidence

[Jotari]

9 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

I see what you're getting at. My concern is that several videogames have pulled similar tricks, and it doesn't have the greatest of track records. Given how Echoes map system works, I can see the idea being either really interesting or really annoying, or both.

Unfortunately a more dynamic use of the map system is something they never would have went for because they were too loyal to Gaiden when it came to Echoes. I have long thought it was a shame that once you progress to the next chapter there is virtually zero reason to ever back track, by design. Paralogue battles similar to Three Houses is another way they could have implemented the map more. It would be especially cool if new areas behind you opened up as well in some scenarios so it's not always just revisiting a map.

[Acacia Sgt]

8 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Yeah I know but you need to prove that Berkut’s statements means what you say it means and that Clive’s statement means what you say it means in regards to how those statements relate to your overall claim on the themes are because those two statements are in direct opposition to one another. You just can’t claim a theme exists without putting forth the proper evidence

I would say the evidence lies in the endings. As I quoted some and it has been pointed out. Tobin became a noble, several characters (Tobin included) joined the Knighthood all coming from varied backgrounds, Saber and the boys founded a nation of its own right. All was through their merits, and it should not be dismissed, or as omega states, be declared as exceptions. So Clive gets proven right, and Berkut and Ferdinand wrong.

[Hawkwing]

6 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Unfortunately a more dynamic use of the map system is something they never would have went for because they were too loyal to Gaiden when it came to Echoes. I have long thought it was a shame that once you progress to the next chapter there is virtually zero reason to ever back track, by design. Paralogue battles similar to Three Houses is another way they could have implemented the map more. It would be especially cool if new areas behind you opened up as well in some scenarios so it's not always just revisiting a map.

Remember how I mentioned that I would love for Shadows of Valentia to have a sequel? It isn't just for the story potential!

But seriously, I would love to see another Fire Emblem game take advantage of Gaiden's map system. It has a lot of potential of being able to lead several different armies at the same time in a non-linear fashion, even if it would require a few tweaks.

[Ottservia]

10 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

I would say the evidence lies in the endings. As I quoted some and it has been pointed out. Tobin became a noble, several characters (Tobin included) joined the Knighthood all coming from varied backgrounds, Saber and the boys founded a nation of its own right. All was through their merits, and it should not be dismissed, or as omega states, be declared as exceptions. So Clive gets proven right, and Berkut and Ferdinand wrong.

No no. Berkut and Fernand are still correct because guess who appointed them those positions. Alm who contradicts that entire thematic through line so the theme is still contradicted. Like that still doesn’t change the fact that story explicitly says numerous times that Alm is better than everyone by the station of his birth.

Edited May 17, 2020 by Ottservia

[Acacia Sgt]

Just now, Ottservia said:

No no. Berkut and Fernand are still correct because guess who appointed them those positions. Alm who contradicts that entire thematic through line so the theme is still contradicted

No? Alm didn't gave the title to Tobin just because they were friends, or gave the other characters their knighthoods for similar reasons. Tobin even spent some time in the knights before receiving the title, so it's clear he still earned it through his merit in the knighthood. By Berkut and Fernand (pft, I can't believe I mixed it up with the TH character) beliefs, Tobin wouldn't have even made the knighthood. So no, they are still wrong.

[Ottservia]

9 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

No? Alm didn't gave the title to Tobin just because they were friends, or gave the other characters their knighthoods for similar reasons. Tobin even spent some time in the knights before receiving the title, so it's clear he still earned it through his merit in the knighthood. By Berkut and Fernand (pft, I can't believe I mixed it up with the TH character) beliefs, Tobin wouldn't have even made the knighthood. So no, they are still wrong.

True but that still doesn’t change the fact that Alm contradicts that entire thematic through line and he’s the goddamn main character. Y’know the one person who should embody all the themes of their narrative. Again the story states numerous times that he is better than everyone because he was born a royal. The game makes a very big point of that meaning he contradicts what he preaches thereby making Berkut out to be right because he states a commoner cannot lead which is proven true by the story because the only leaders we ever see in this story are well nobles or those of noble/royal birth. Not once do we ever see a commoner take a leadership role in this story meaning Berkut’s claim go uncontested

Edited May 17, 2020 by Ottservia

[Acacia Sgt]

Just now, Ottservia said:

True but that still doesn’t change the fact that Alm contradicts that entire thematic through line and he’s the goddamn main character. Y’know the one person who should embody all the themes of their narrative. Again the story states numerous times that he is better than everyone because he was born a royal. The game makes a very big point of that meaning he contradicts what he preaches thereby making Berkut out to be right

So? That should still not negate the fact other people do can rise, or even fall, from their stations of birth from their merit or lack of. Alm could've fallen from his position. He could've failed, making anything he got handed to him due to his status meaningless. Lima IV shows how even being born with privileges means nothing if you don't put the effort to keep them. Also, it wasn't due to being a royal, it was due to the blood-bind. Which was earned by Rigel himself through his merit, which made Duma choose him. Then he used that to earn the merit to establish the nation that carried his name. However, his descendants now have the burden of proving their own merit, or else they follow the path of Lima IV, who having the bloodline of Zofia herself, proved he had no merit to deserve it. Hence why Desaix had it easy in deposing him.

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Acacia Sgt said:

So? That should still not negate the fact other people do can rise, or even fall, from their stations of birth from their merit or lack of. Alm could've fallen from his position. He could've failed, making anything he got handed to him due to his status meaningless. Lima IV shows how even being born with privileges means nothing if you don't put the effort to keep them. Also, it wasn't due to being a royal, it was due to the blood-bind. Which was earned by Rigel himself through his merit, which made Duma choose him. Then he used that to earn the merit to establish the nation that carried his name. However, his descendants now have the burden of proving their own merit, or else they follow the path of Lima IV, who having the bloodline of Zofia herself, proved he had no merit to deserve it. Hence why Desaix had it easy in deposing him.

We already had mentioned this, but Alm CAN fail in saving both Delthea and Mathilda, the latter who is a prominent Deliverance figure. And yet he still keeps his position, despite how it can easily be grounds to remove him from power, especially since he was only given his position due to his connection to Mycen. Clive opts to not reveal the truth of this even to the others. 

Berkut states that you cannot change who you are because your birth determines where you are at life. Alm is the leader, and he was destined to be the leader and savior of Valentia. Alm ends up proving Berkut right because that's exactly what Alm does. He was born into greatness. 

[Acacia Sgt]

4 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

We already had mentioned this, but Alm CAN fail in saving both Delthea and Mathilda, the latter who is a prominent Deliverance figure. And yet he still keeps his position, despite how it can easily be grounds to remove him from power, especially since he was only given his position due to his connection to Mycen. Clive opts to not reveal the truth of this even to the others. 

Berkut states that you cannot change who you are because your birth determines where you are at life. Alm is the leader, and he was destined to be the leader and savior of Valentia. Alm ends up proving Berkut right because that's exactly what Alm does. He was born into greatness. 

Likewise, I mentioned that Alm still drives the Rigelians out of Zofia, even if he fails to save Delthea and Mathilda. It's like getting mistakes on a test but still get a passing grade. Alm still proves he was up to the task through merit allow, even if he could've still done better. Which then proves even someone like Alm has to achieve his max.

Oh, sorry, but Alm is simply the exception, not the status quo. Everybody else, except maybe Celica, are able to achieve greatness, without having their status of birth determine it.

Edited May 17, 2020 by Acacia Sgt

[Ottservia]

18 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

So? That should still not negate the fact other people do can rise, or even fall, from their stations of birth from their merit or lack of. Alm could've fallen from his position. He could've failed, making anything he got handed to him due to his status meaningless. Lima IV shows how even being born with privileges means nothing if you don't put the effort to keep them. Also, it wasn't due to being a royal, it was due to the blood-bind. Which was earned by Rigel himself through his merit, which made Duma choose him. Then he used that to earn the merit to establish the nation that carried his name. However, his descendants now have the burden of proving their own merit, or else they follow the path of Lima IV, who having the bloodline of Zofia herself, proved he had no merit to deserve it. Hence why Desaix had it easy in deposing him.

Do I really need to repeat myself here? No it doesn’t negate the fact that Tobin did work hard. The problem with your argument is that Tobin is never made a central focus therefore he is mostly irrelevant. The story pushes Alm as proof of that theme as he is the main character. He is appointed as leader of the deliverance BECAUSE of his LACK of royal blood so the common people could rally behind him. Fernand leaves because he will not bow to a commoner. Here’s the thing though Alm is not a commoner and it is irrefutable fact that the story makes a point of heavily implying that his innate leadership skills and being better than everyone comes from his royal descent. Berkut says Commoners are unfit to lead which is true. He’s never proven wrong. Not once in this entire story do we see a commoner take any kind of leadership role ever. That was supposed to be what Alm’s appointment as leader of the deliverence was supposed to represent but uhhh nope he’s a royal so Berkut’s claims go completely uncontested. 

Edited May 17, 2020 by Ottservia

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Likewise, I mentioned that Alm still drives the Rigelians out of Zofia, even if he fails to save Delthea and Mathilda. It's like getting mistakes on a test but still get a passing grade. Alm still proves he was up to the task through merit allow, even if he could've still done better.

Oh, sorry, but Alm is simply the exception, not the status quo. Everybody else, except maybe Celica, are able to achieve greatness, without having their status of birth determine it.

The Rigelians were driven off when Zofia Castle was liberated, not after Desaix was killed. And again, him even leading the army is a result of being GIVEN the position through connection, not because he earned it. Clive only allowed Alm to lead because he thought that Alm was Mycen's grandson by blood. Even after Alm helped liberate Zofia, the moment that Clive learned that Alm was not related to Mycen, Clive immediately doubted Alm and his leadership.

Not to mention that from the very beginning, the two commoner friends, Tobin and Gray, saw Alm as someone "different" from them, and how even Mycen regarded Alm's determination to be of "blood". 

You don't seem to get it. The game contradicts Alm's own words. Alm insists that the station of birth matters not, but that's everything that got him everything. Even defeating Rigel is because Rudolf literally handed the kingdom to him by letting Alm kill him, and not because Alm actually was stronger than Rudolf. 

No, they don't "achieve" greatness, but because they have someone that was on the top of the monarchy that was their friend more than anything. 

[Ottservia]

SoV is the perfect example of a story where what the author wanted to convey vs what they actually conveyed can be two very different things