My Main Issue with Alm

[Jotari]

7 hours ago, Seazas said:

But my point about what Alm and Celica take is actually from the game. 

So is the Alm needs Celica to balance and vice versa interpretation. Alm literally says it in game. It's not a head cannon, it's a legitimate interpretation of the text.

[Etrurian emperor]

9 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Because Berkut is a fine character but a terrible villain. The thing about Berkut is that he and Alm are supposed to goil each other but I don’t think it really works because Alm isn’t at all like Berkut they don’t have similar flaws or upbringing. There’s very little similarities between the two to highlight their differences which is what a foil relationship is supposed to do. Again I compare it to Joker and Akechi in vanilla P5. There’s just not enough reason for me to believe that these two are supposed to foils/rivals because they really aren’t. It just kinda falls flat if you ask me.

 

Berkut is further hindered by being kind of a loser. He can't be Alm's rival because Alm beats him every single time. Berkut has no accomplishments at all in the story which combined with his rather whiny personality makes him pretty pathetic. 

[Gregster101]

6 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Berkut is further hindered by being kind of a loser. He can't be Alm's rival because Alm beats him every single time. Berkut has no accomplishments at all in the story which combined with his rather whiny personality makes him pretty pathetic. 

That doesn't mean he's bad though. What kills me is when people say Berkut is worse than Iago and Hans, and I fucking hate that so much.

[Ottservia]

3 minutes ago, Gregster101 said:

That doesn't mean he's bad though. What kills me is when people say Berkut is worse than Iago and Hans, and I fucking hate that so much.

Here’s my take my take on that personally. We don’t talk about Hans because fuck him. It’s weird because I find Iago to be the better villain of the two but Berkut is the better character. The n again comparing those two is like comparing apples to oranges. They both serve extremely different roles in their respective stories so comparing them is kind of pointless 

[Gregster101]

7 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Here’s my take my take on that personally. We don’t talk about Hans because fuck him. It’s weird because I find Iago to be the better villain of the two but Berkut is the better character. The n again comparing those two is like comparing apples to oranges. They both serve extremely different roles in their respective stories so comparing them is kind of pointless 

I didn't say I was comparing Iago and Berkut. What I meant was that it really ticks me off when people say Berkut (my favorite Fire Emblem villain) is worse than Iago (my least favorite Fire Emblem villain). And even if I was comparing them, I still think Iago is a far worse villain than Berkut.

[Etrurian emperor]

23 minutes ago, Gregster101 said:

That doesn't mean he's bad though. What kills me is when people say Berkut is worse than Iago and Hans, and I fucking hate that so much.

Well being a loser isn't entirely a bad thing. Every game needs a joke villain from time to time. Narcian is a complete joke and I like him. But with Berkut it seems somewhat unintentional. I'm not sure the game and its writers ever paused to notice that Berket is a loser. The plot treats him with at least a bit of reverence that his performance then fails to back up. 

[Dark Holy Elf]

While neither is a good character, I would agree that Iago is better than Berkut. I could go into why but since this thread is supposed to be about Alm, I will abstain from doing so.

But try not to get really ticked off that people have different opinions on characters than you. That is part of life.

[Gregster101]

5 minutes ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

While neither is a good character, I would agree that Iago is better than Berkut. I could go into why but since this thread is supposed to be about Alm, I will abstain from doing so.

SILENCE! Don't you dare fucking say Iago is better than Berkut!

Edited August 8, 2020 by Gregster101

[Seazas]

49 minutes ago, Jotari said:

So is the Alm needs Celica to balance and vice versa interpretation. Alm literally says it in game. It's not a head cannon, it's a legitimate interpretation of the text.

Well-

Duh.

Alm needing Celica doesn't mean he's supposed to entirely represent Duma's flaws. Same for Celica. Her flaws are her own or she'd be displaying a lot more negative Mila traits than just... "dependent on her god" unless Jedah somehow stands for Mila too since he's ALSO dependent on Duma? The logic just doesn't work. 

[Baldrick]

10 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Because Berkut is a fine character

The upbringing is the key difference between the two. Berkut is literally "what Alm would be if he was raised as Rudolf's heir".

Quote

 

That it is only one moment. It needs to happen more before that point if you want it to work because by that point it’s a little late. Better late than never but we could’ve used more of it.

Alm is consistently established throughout the game to be thinking about Celica, and worried about people that are precious to him and to others.

 

12 hours ago, Jotari said:

 he literally says he needs Celica's wisdom by her side to stop him just solving everything by stabbing what's in front of him.

When faced by possessed Delthea, he didn't have Celica by his side. Do you think he solved that problem by "stabbing what's in front of him"?

 

9 hours ago, Seazas said:

She has a dependency on Mila but this isn't a Mila flaw in some overall theme to "showcase Mila's bad" when Zofians and Lima already do that.

Here's a crazy thought: maybe Celica showcases both the good and the bad of Mila's philosophy?

I take Jedah's dependency as "Mankind can't survive without gods", whereas Celica's dependency is "I can't do anything without Mila, despite everything I've achieved without Mila's help".

1 hour ago, Gregster101 said:

That doesn't mean he's bad though. What kills me is when people say Berkut is worse than Iago and Hans, and I fucking hate that so much.

Berkut burned an innocent woman alive because she was kind to him. But being a poorly written villian is a worse crime, right?

Edited August 9, 2020 by Baldrick

[Jotari]

20 minutes ago, Seazas said:

Well-

Duh.

Alm needing Celica doesn't mean he's supposed to entirely represent Duma's flaws. Same for Celica. Her flaws are her own or she'd be displaying a lot more negative Mila traits than just... "dependent on her god" unless Jedah somehow stands for Mila too since he's ALSO dependent on Duma? The logic just doesn't work. 

Sure. You can argue that. But people can argue otherwise. It being your opinion doesn't make it automatically right.

[Jotari]

10 minutes ago, Baldrick said:

 

When faced by possessed Delthea, he didn't have Celica by his side. Do you think he solved that problem by "stabbing what's in front of him"?

 

I am , not arguing about what the themes of the game are, that discussion has been had dozens of times since release, you can find a comment from me on the third page of this thread predicting exactly what every argument and counter argument would be. I have opinions here but I am not arguing my side. So counter arguing by pointing out Delthea or Matilda or Celica fighting pirates is missing my point. What I am saying is the idea that Alm and Celica represent the dualistic flaws is not random headcanon a bunch of people made up. You might not agree with it as an interpretation, but it is not a case where it is baseless fanfiction. There are lines and elements of the plot (and from other games like Garden and Awakening) that give people an reason for believing so. Now of course we can argue over those points, but they do exist and if you're to argue in a reasonable way, you kind of should understand the viewpoint that opposes you.

[Baldrick]

5 minutes ago, Jotari said:

What I am saying is the idea that Alm and Celica represent the dualistic flaws is not random headcanon a bunch of people made up. You might not agree with it as an interpretation, but it is not a case where it is baseless fanfiction.

Multiple times in the thread you have said "Alm literally says that he needs Celica in order to solve problems without mindless violence", which he does say. You are giving off a strong impression that you are actually arguing for that idea, instead of just defending it as an interpretation.

I am offering an example where Alm solves a problem without Celica's help and without mindless violence to show that interpretation is baseless. If a character says "X", but demonstrates through their actions that X is false, it is not reasonable to assume X is true.

[Anathaco]

1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Well being a loser isn't entirely a bad thing. Every game needs a joke villain from time to time. Narcian is a complete joke and I like him. But with Berkut it seems somewhat unintentional. I'm not sure the game and its writers ever paused to notice that Berket is a loser. The plot treats him with at least a bit of reverence that his performance then fails to back up. 

It seemed a bit intentional to me- basically everyone in Rudolf’s court mocks him at some point for his losses. His performance failing to back up the expectations seems more like a gameplay thing to me- we can’t have Alm be the one to lose over and over (well we can, but the writers didn’t want to), but the game does acknowledge Berkut being kinda bad and how that plays into his mounting insecurities.

[Jotari]

40 minutes ago, Baldrick said:

Multiple times in the thread you have said "Alm literally says that he needs Celica in order to solve problems without mindless violence", which he does say. You are giving off a strong impression that you are actually arguing for that idea, instead of just defending it as an interpretation.

I am offering an example where Alm solves a problem without Celica's help and without mindless violence to show that interpretation is baseless. If a character says "X", but demonstrates through their actions that X is false, it is not reasonable to assume X is true.

If you read me saying "The reason people believe X because Alm says X" as "I think X is true because Alm says X" then you're really just not reading what I'm saying correctly. What I've said in full in every post has mentioned interpretation to some degree.

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

So is the Alm needs Celica to balance and vice versa interpretation. Alm literally says it in game. It's not a head cannon, it's a legitimate interpretation of the text.

 

[Baldrick]

30 minutes ago, Jotari said:

If you read me saying "The reason people believe X because Alm says X" as "I think X is true because Alm says X" then you're really just not reading what I'm saying correctly. What I've said in full in every post has mentioned interpretation to some degree.

 

The post you quoted is essentially "Alm says X, so X is a legitimate interpretation of the text". Even though you're not saying X is true, you're playing devil's advocate for X.

[Jotari]

9 minutes ago, Baldrick said:

The post you quoted is essentially "Alm says X, so X is a legitimate interpretation of the text". Even though you're not saying X is true, you're playing devil's advocate for X.

Because someone said X is a headcanon with no actual basis in the text was what was brought up.

[Ottservia]

2 hours ago, Baldrick said:

Alm is consistently established throughout the game to be thinking about Celica, and worried about people that are precious to him and to others.

 

That’s not exactly what I mean. I mean there needs to more instances of him struggling to uphold his ideals without her as in showcase that without her he’s a bit lost. They do that Celica a lot. Without Alm, she’s a little lost. We don’t get a whole lot of that Alm though.

 

2 hours ago, Baldrick said:

When faced by possessed Delthea, he didn't have Celica by his side. Do you think he solved that problem by "stabbing what's in front of him"?

I’m not denying that you’re right in that regard but your argument here only proves my point in the end in that’s thematically inconsistent. Both interpretations exist within the text because you can read it both ways. There’s enough evidence to kinda support both sides. Whichever the ones the writers intended is very unclear as both interpretations are anti-thetical to one another. Did they want Alm to be a static paragon hero that which embodies the two ideals from the get go and change the world around him or a dynamic protagonist who eventually turns into a static protagonist. Cause it kinda feels like they went halfway in both directions and it just kinda falls flat as a result. I mean based on other factors like the way Celica’s character is handled, the opening narration, Alm’s characterization from other sources like awakening, Gaiden, and the manga I’d argue they were trying to go for the ladder. There’s also Celica’s ending where she is called “mila’s reincarnation” not to mention the duel protagonist setup and their argument at the end of act 2 where they basically fight over the themes of the story. 
 

honestly this story is just kind of a mess

[Baldrick]

33 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

That’s not exactly what I mean. I mean there needs to more instances of him struggling to uphold his ideals without her as in showcase that without her he’s a bit lost. 

Alm doesn't need Celica's help to uphold his ideals, that's not the emotional support he needs from her.

33 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I’m not denying that you’re right in that regard but your argument here only proves my point in the end in that’s thematically inconsistent. Both interpretations exist within the text because you can read it both ways. There’s enough evidence to kinda support both sides. 

You've just said there isn't enough instances to support taking that line of Alm's literally. Your interpretation fits the text of that one line, but not the context of the rest of the game.

---

Celica: Come on! There’s no secret princess! The Zofian royal family is dead!

If you take that line literally, then Celica is not actually princess Anthiese. But this does not mean the game is inconsistent as to Celica's true identity.

 

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Because someone said X is a headcanon with no actual basis in the text was what was brought up.

If an interpretation has a basis in the text, does it make it inherently a legitimate interpretation? Would you say "Celica is not princess Anthiese" is a legitimate interpretation?

[Ottservia]

1 hour ago, Baldrick said:

You've just said there isn't enough instances to support taking that line of Alm's literally. Your interpretation fits the text of that one line, but not the context of the rest of the game.

---

Celica: Come on! There’s no secret princess! The Zofian royal family is dead!

If you take that line literally, then Celica is not actually princess Anthiese. But this does not mean the game is inconsistent as to Celica's true identity.

This here this is a strawman because that is not at all what I’m arguing. That Celica line is meant to be interpreted as her lying. I’m not so much of a dumbass to take away context from a scene like you just did. Context is important. That line in the context of it being said is meant to be interpreted as Celica lying because she worries about Alm and doesn’t want him to hurt himself so she makes up excuses for why he shouldn’t go through with his little war. The context of the line we’ve been discussing is very clearly them after the two have gone through significant character development and they are confessing to each other. They’re being open and realizing their own faults. The line is meant to be taken literally because of the context of which it is said. There’s no other way to interpret it based on the context of which it is said. It’s a scene of the two realizing their own faults and openly apologizing each other and realizing they need each other for that reason. It’s supposed to be taken literally. The two lines are not comparable because they have completely different contexts surrounding them. Like come on guys these stories aren’t exactly known for being subtle

Edited August 9, 2020 by Ottservia

[Baldrick]

11 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

 I’m not so much of a dumbass to take away context from a scene like you just did.

Yet you did for the "stabbing what's in front of him" line. Also note that's not a direct quote, you've taken Jotari's paraphrasing to make Alm sound more violent.

Quote

The line is meant to be taken literally because of the context of which it is said. There’s no other way to interpret it based on the context of which it is said.

When faced by possessed Delthea, he didn't have Celica by his side. Do you think he solved that problem by "stabbing what's in front of him"?

 

Edited August 9, 2020 by Baldrick

[Ottservia]

Just now, Baldrick said:

Yet you did for the "stabbing what's in front of him" line.

No I didn’t, what context am I taking away from the scene. Did you read the rest of my post? The context of that scene is supposed to be of them apologizing and being open with one another. Everything they said to each other there is supposed to be taken at face value. 

 

2 minutes ago, Baldrick said:

When faced by possessed Delthea, he didn't have Celica by his side. Do you think he solved that problem by "stabbing what's in front of him"?

He didn’t and that’s the fucking problem. That line he says about himself is completely inconsistent with what he did here. He didn’t just attack what was in front of him which is why that line makes no sense. It’s inconsistent with the rest of the story and that is the problem because it shouldn’t be

[Baldrick]

1 minute ago, Ottservia said:

No I didn’t, what context am I taking away from the scene.

The context of the rest of the game.

1 minute ago, Ottservia said:

He didn’t and that’s the fucking problem. That line he says about himself is completely inconsistent with what he did here. He didn’t just attack what was in front of him which is why that line makes no sense.

It makes sense because it's not meant to be taken literally. Despite you wrongly insisting that there's "no other way to interpret it".

 

[Ottservia]

2 minutes ago, Baldrick said:

Quote

 

It makes sense because it's not meant to be taken literally. Despite you wrongly insisting that there's "no other way to interpret it".

Well then how the fuck else are you supposed to interpret it. What am I missing here? How does that line connect with every other thematic plot point of his character arc? As it is very clear that the intention of that line is basically supposed to summarize the flaws in his character up to that point and that he’s finally realized that he was wrong. So you tell me? What other flaw in Alm’s character could he possibly be referring to there? If that interpretation is wrong then you tell me how I’m supposed to interpret it. I am all ears.

 

2 minutes ago, Baldrick said:

The context of the rest of the game.

Again this is is a strawman as it has nothing to do with what I’m arguing here. In fact it helps my point.

[Baldrick]

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

Well then how the fuck else are you supposed to interpret it.

Here are some options.

- Alm thinks Celica is better than him at finding peaceful solutions to conflict.

- Alm thinks his feelings for Celica is that motivates him to find peaceful solutions to conflict.

- Alm thinks Celica taught him how to find peaceful solutions to conflict.

- Alm thinks Celica is inclined to argue for finding peaceful solutions to conflict.

- Alm is using hyperbole to reinforce his previous line, that he couldn't be happy without Celica.

 

There's no singular way you're supposed to interpret it. But there's a way you're not supposed to interpret it, and that's literally (Alm thinks he cannot find peaceful solutions to conflict without Celica), the main reason being that he did not kill Delthea when she was possessed.

Quote

Again this is is a strawman as it has nothing to do with what I’m arguing here. In fact it helps my point.

You claim that line has to "connect with every other thematic plot point of his character arc", when it apparently has nothing to do with it?

Edited August 9, 2020 by Baldrick