What are the major themes of each Fire Emblem story?

[Jotari]

Let's get some proper intellectual discussion going on here. Pour the brandy, whip out the robe and the pipe and tell me what you think each Fire Emblem title is trying to say as a story, and how well they actually say it. They all have themes to some extent, probably, but it feels like the only game we ever actually talk about them is Shadows of Valentia, and only there to say how poorly handled and contradictory they were.

[AzureEmperor]

This sounds like fun! I'll try to start off, although I'm not the best at literary analysis so sorry if this comes off as a childish interpretation. Ever since I played them I noticed a link in the Tellius saga with responsibility/duty. I saw it with a fair bit of both playable characters and antagonists as well such as Shiharam, Zelgius, Elincia, Sanaki, and so on. Admittedly not every character helps contribute to this idea nut most do hold a strong desire to uphold something. The narratives of both games even having several coming of age stories where characters are forced to grow and confront the might of the entire world and still deciding to carry on with what they feel is necessary.

Spoiler

Examples of this are Pelleas, Micaiah, Skrimir, Kurthnaga, and even Naesala to a degree. Also the lynchpin of the entire story of this saga is the promise made to Ashunera and the struggle to keep it across the centuries. (Mostly Dheginsea and Sephiran)

 

[Etrurian emperor]

Theme of the Tellius games: ''Racism is BAD but classism is fine'' 

Theme of Fodlan: I'd say change is the big theme of Three Houses. Byleth(allegedly) changes from a robot into a real person due to their bonds with the students. But more importantly the story is about how the systems of Fodlan has broken down and how to change it. Radically revolutionist the continent like Edelgard wants, or a more conservative evolution like Dimitri wants. 

The theme of Blazing Blade: I think comradery is the big theme. Most obviously in the main three lords in how they support each other, but the Black Fang also used to be a big happy family of comrades, and to some extend that still remains in its corrupted form. In contrast Nergal is a man with no comrades despite subconsciously desperately wanting to his loved ones back.

Engage: I've heard the argument that the theme of the game is Family and I there's enough there that I won't dispute it. But to some extend I also wonder if the theme isn't accidental rather than deliberate. 

Tracia: Adversity is likely the big theme. You play as a not particularly successful rebel leader who needs to strip their enemies of their weapons for cash, spend a lot of the game on the run and ultimately need to get bailed out by your more successful cousin. 

 

 

Edited February 6 by Etrurian emperor

[Jotari]

49 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

The theme of Blazing Blade: I think camradery is the big theme. Most obviously in the main three lords in how they support each other, but the Black Fang also used to be a big happy family of comrades, and to some extend that still remains in its corrupted form. In contrast Nergal is a man with no comrades despite subconsciously desperately wanting to his loved ones back.

Oh I really like this take, especially how it parallels with Nergal, a man who really has no one, as even his underlings are soulless golems he created. Closest person that guy has to a friend is Athos! Maybe he invited Jaffar, Uhai and Darin to the Dragons Gate just to have some more real people around.

[Hrothgar777]

Fates's big theme is the concept of loyalty. MC has two competing groups of people who claim to be his family, and he has to choose one. Furthermore, the family he was raised in is evil, so he has to decide whether or not to join their ranks as a fellow evildoer. This game introduces "retainers", which also ties into loyalty.

Three Houses's would be "poor communication kills" "the victors write history and erase competing perspectives; the pomp, circumstance, and splendor of a given status quo belies a violent and probably illegitimate foundation; an age of chivalry is not romantic but instead a monstrosity with a layer of gloss applied to its exterior".

Edited February 7 by Hrothgar777

[ARMADS!!!]

Ok, pours brandy, whips out my robe and pipe.

 So you see:

 The overall theme of very Fire Emblem is the murder of parents, and the devs always do a secret competition to see who can think of the fastest way of getting rid of the lord's parents. Actually this competition is the main reason for the franchise to have been invented and to keep existing. End of thread, I won.

 Ok, now seriously, I was actually reflecting about this some days ago, I have some notes about the themes of Elibe, FE4, FE8 and Heroes (though my ideas on FE8's are not completely developed right now, as I'm still some chapters away of the end of the game, and I might have to recheck my notes on Heroes' notes too, I didn't develop that idea a lot yet), I'll put just what I have to say about Elibe for now to avoid losing too much time writing the post as today it's sort of a busy day and honestly cause I'm a bit lazy to do it now(I have quite a bit of FE4 notes to transform into a text and I don't wanna do this right now), but I'll come back later for the rest.

 

 Prejudice (not only limited to racism), the fact that it usually originates from fear or ignorance, and learning to overcome it, is one very proeminent theme in the Elibe duology (and the theme that stuck the most to me).

Examples (with minor and major spoilers from FE6 and FE7) ahead:

• Spoiler

  • We have people shit on the sacaeans a lot for not being familiar with their culture (which is specially shown in FE7 with Lyn, Rath and Uhai and how people treat them).
  • The hate Lyn has for all pirates and bandits because her clan was slayed by a cowardly bandit group (leading her to chase the wrong bandit crew and then realize that- while they're still pretty bad- she had the wrong idea about them and they were not THAT bad, then later having to deal with boarding on a pirate ship and overcoming her wrong idea about pirates too, and of course, being victim of the same type of ignorance when some people saw her a less simply for being a Sacaean).
  •  Raven, who wants to kill Hector simply because he's the heir to house Ostia but later accepts that Hector has nothing to fo with the fall of his house just because he's the current heir, so much that he even offers himself to rebuild Raven's house after he tells him his story.
  •  How a lot of characters in FE6 hate everyone from Bern simply because they hail from there, and fault them for the war just because their country started. Lugh/Melady and Chad/Ellen supports are notable examples of this (and it's no wonder they're regarded as some of the best supports of the game, they're very good and among my personal favorites too), with the boys's reactions upon learning that their new friends are from Bern and then the dillema that comes with it, because they had decided that a person from Bern had to be bad.
  •  The whole Humans vs Dragons conflict, and how we learn in the end of FE6 that the dragons were not so much of the aggressors in the Scouring as we initially thought they were. The mere existence of Arcadia too (as a place where the two groups learned to put their differences aside and live in harmony, even bearing mixed children like Sophia). And ultimately, Roy choosing to have mercy for Idunn instead of slaying her, as he acknowledges that she wasn't at fault simply for being a dragon, and then sending her to Arcadia for rehabilitation.

   There's probably more examples too, but those are the ones I remember.

 

 EDIT: I forgot to say how well I think the theme was explored: (will put in spoiler tags again, because spoilers):

Spoiler

I think it was very well implemented, the whole theme was done in a very real way, the characters don't just stop being prejudiced after a talk-no-jutsu monologue or anything, some of them are heavily conflicted (like Lugh and Chad on their supports with Melady and Ellen, respectively, I'll recommend you again to watch them) or apply the "you're the only good one of them" mentality and even good people are prejudiced against whatever groups, and for whatever reasons. The fact that they keep Arcadia hidden from people even after the end of the game says it all: It's hard to make everyone stop being prejudiced and there's no such thing as "beating racism (or beating prejudice) because I won the war and didn't kill Idunn" or whatever (I think Roy didn't even made it public that he didn't kill Idunn, as far as I remember). I also loved the fact that people's opinions (even good people's) are very stained because of the war, even after Roy won, some people back in Bern immediately started to question Guinivere as their new queen because she was on Elibe's side during the war. I think it reflects how a lot of people act about war in real life, I have some aquaintances who genuinely started to say stuff such as "fuck russia" or "russians are all bad" back in 2020 with the Russia-Ukraine thing (and I don't even live in either of those countries) and can see the same thing is repeating itself because of the Palestine-Israel conflict (although now on the internet, not real people saying it), so imagine if you live on the affect country? And even worse, in medieval timed where we had no news, no TV or internet? I personally feel like that's exactly how people would act. I also liked how they showed that the winner side writes the history as well, such as when the humans painted the dragons on a way worse light in the story of the Scouring.

 

Edited February 7 by ARMADS!!!

[Jotari]

23 minutes ago, Hrothgar777 said:

Fates's big theme is the concept of loyalty. MC has two competing groups of people who claim to be his family, and he has to choose one. Furthermore, the family he was raised in is evil, so he has to decide whether or not to join their ranks as a fellow evildoer. This game introduces "retainers", which also ties into loyalty.

Three Houses's would be "poor communication kills" "the victors write history and erase competing perspectives; the pomp, circumstance, and splendor of a given status quo belies a violent and probably illegitimate foundation; an age of chivalry is not romantic but instead a monstrosity with a layer of gloss applied to its exterior".

The funny thing about Fates is that the framing, and especially the Japanese name, If, suggests that choice is meant to be a big theme of the story. But I can't recall Corrin ever making a meaningful choice for themselves outside of the branch of fate moment. In the rest of the story it's usually blindly going along with someone else with no real consideration for other options.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

It's not my favorite in the series, but I think Sacred Stones is the game whose theming I'm most clearheaded about.

Spoiler

I think it's about dealing with loss. The game is about Grado invading Renais, and the imminent ressurection of the Demon King. But much more than that, it's about a brother and sister who lose their best friend. Lyon was driven to despair by the loss of his own father. And, in seeking to reverse it, he unwittingly unleashed evil onto the world, and began to lose himself.

Likewise for Orson - an honored knight becomes a traitor to his prince, all to bring back the woman he loved. But she's not really back, and it doesn't save him - his eye circles grow darker, as he continues to live in an illusion.

Cormag loses someone, too - his brother, Glen. This turns him into an antagonist, as he seeks revenge upon Eirika. But he's not all-consumed by it - rather, he's able to reason. It's this hesitation that causes him to realize his presumed enemy isn't all that bad, while his seeming ally is the one truly deserving of his wrath.

Eirika deals with loss early on, at hearing the death of her father. She could remain in the relative safety of Frelia for as long as possible. But instead, she decides to take the future into her own hands. Motivated not by vengeance, or cruelty, but a desire to ensure that her own brother isn't lost to her as well.

Speaking of which, there's Ephraim. He's more subtle, responding to allies-turned-enemies with either anger or cold stoicism. But this, too, can be read as one of the responses to loss. When he sees that Orson and Lyon are truly lost, he mutes his emotions, and turns into a soldier. To fight them as a prince, or a friend... that would break his heart.

Just my thoughts here. I don't believe they're totally original to me, but I can't recall exactly where I may have heard them before. There are more examples I could give, but I think the list above suffices.

[Jotari]

Since no one has mentioned it yet, I'll talk about how Genealogy of the Holy War is about generational conflict. It's a bit obvious, it's right there on the name, but for the sake of completion, in Genration 1 it's actually the Zeroth Generation thati s moving things.Namely Reptor, Langbolt, Byron and all the shit going down in Isaach. That's the real story, Sigurd's journey is the side piece until he takes the fight to Langbolt and Reptor in Chapter 5. In so doing, everyone from that generation is wiped out, except Manfroy. Alvis is the winner and then his generation plays the same role with Bloom and Danann as the cycle continues against Shannan, Oifey, Finn and Levin on the other side. Villain characters like Areone, Ishtar and even Julius, while still villains, are clearly born in to this conflict with little, or in Julius' case, no say at all, in how their lives are to be led. This is also exemplified in the prayer for Lopt's ressurection that Seliph finds that a child in Darna wrote because of the circumstances they were put in. And then in the end we get the grander context that this goes back even further. It didn't start with Manfroy and Reptor, it began with a generation of gods battling each other in the distant past whose conflict continues to abuse people centuries later. It's for these reasons that I like Brian so much despite being such a minor character. He has basically two lines, his battle/sortie quote and his death quote. And it goes like this (paraphrased) "You guys killed my father and grandfather, prepare to die" "I lost? What the fuck was all this even for?" It exemplifies the theme quite well in a singular minor character.

[lenticular]

I'm going to try to write up my takes without reading what anyone else has said, so I'm not unduly influenced by other people's thoughts. This means that I'm probably going to either repeat or contradict what other people have already said.

Skipping over the Japan-only games because I've not played them.

Blazing Blade: I'm honestly not sure. Partly because I'm not super familiar with the game and partly because I don't think the story has that much to say. I guess I'll go with the importance of family?

Sacred Stones: Grief, and how we react to it. Lyon is the big obvious bad reaction to grief, but there's also Orson, Eirika, and Myrrh.

Path of Radiance: Racism. Racism is bad. This one is not subtle.

Radiant Dawn: Even good people can end up on the opposite sides of conflicts, but it is important that we are willing to try to put aside our differences and find common ground.

Shadow Dragon: Another one that's hard for me, for the same reasons as BlaBl. Maybe something about nobility and duty? No clue.

Awakening: The bonds of friendship make us stronger. Congratulations, Awakening, on being even less subtle than Path of Radiance.

Fates: Oh boy. I think it's supposed to be about the differences between blood family and chosen family? But if so, then it's fumbled pretty terribly. I guess I'll put it down as being that the person we are is shaped by our upbringing.

Shadows of Valentia: Duality. Yin and yang, masculinity and femininity, strength and compassion. And how neither side alone is enough.

Three Houses: Breaking the cycle of abuse. Specifically, how Rhea and Edelgard are repeating the same pattern: traumatic childhood, good intentions, authoritarianism. But then we alternatively see other characters (especially Dimitri and Claude) trying to not be defined by their trauma. This is probably the game I have most to say about, but also least willingness to do so because of fear of The Edelgard Discourse(TM).

Engage: We are not defined by our blood or our pasts, but by the actions that we take.

As for how well they do at communicating their themes: Awakening and PoR have very clear themes but at the cost of being as subtle as a brick to the head. Three Houses and Sacred Stones both feel as if they have something meaningful to say. Radiant Dawn and Shadows of Valentia at least feel like they have a point they were trying to make even if they don't stick the landing. But the rest are just kind of a confused mess.

[Jotari]

23 minutes ago, lenticular said:

I'm going to try to write up my takes without reading what anyone else has said, so I'm not unduly influenced by other people's thoughts. This means that I'm probably going to either repeat or contradict what other people have already said.

Skipping over the Japan-only games because I've not played them.

Blazing Blade: I'm honestly not sure. Partly because I'm not super familiar with the game and partly because I don't think the story has that much to say. I guess I'll go with the importance of family?

Sacred Stones: Grief, and how we react to it. Lyon is the big obvious bad reaction to grief, but there's also Orson, Eirika, and Myrrh.

Path of Radiance: Racism. Racism is bad. This one is not subtle.

Radiant Dawn: Even good people can end up on the opposite sides of conflicts, but it is important that we are willing to try to put aside our differences and find common ground.

Shadow Dragon: Another one that's hard for me, for the same reasons as BlaBl. Maybe something about nobility and duty? No clue.

Awakening: The bonds of friendship make us stronger. Congratulations, Awakening, on being even less subtle than Path of Radiance.

Fates: Oh boy. I think it's supposed to be about the differences between blood family and chosen family? But if so, then it's fumbled pretty terribly. I guess I'll put it down as being that the person we are is shaped by our upbringing.

Shadows of Valentia: Duality. Yin and yang, masculinity and femininity, strength and compassion. And how neither side alone is enough.

Three Houses: Breaking the cycle of abuse. Specifically, how Rhea and Edelgard are repeating the same pattern: traumatic childhood, good intentions, authoritarianism. But then we alternatively see other characters (especially Dimitri and Claude) trying to not be defined by their trauma. This is probably the game I have most to say about, but also least willingness to do so because of fear of The Edelgard Discourse(TM).

Engage: We are not defined by our blood or our pasts, but by the actions that we take.

As for how well they do at communicating their themes: Awakening and PoR have very clear themes but at the cost of being as subtle as a brick to the head. Three Houses and Sacred Stones both feel as if they have something meaningful to say. Radiant Dawn and Shadows of Valentia at least feel like they have a point they were trying to make even if they don't stick the landing. But the rest are just kind of a confused mess.

I think one of the most confused, while simultaneously also being the most blatant, is Radiant Dawn's Order as Chaos. It's pretty up front with it with the two gods. And the message seems to be "we need some chaos in our lives" Tibarn even says that verbatim. But it doesn't seem to know why outside of just the whole Yin Yang thing. Like obviously a world where everyone has been transformed into a statue and there's effectively no life is ordered and bad. And whatever tidal wave chaos apocalypse Yune was responsible for is bad, but those are such dialectical extremes as to have no tangible relation to real life, or even the story before they have to fight Ashera. Yune's Medallion links chaos and war, but I definitely don't think the story is trying to say we need more war for war's own sake because chaos is good. And it's not like the Senate or any of the other non Ashera villains really show order as good or bad, since they're all kind of hypocrites and into self aggrandization, but not authoritarianism for the sake of order. Idk, maybe one of the writers had just been playing too much Shin Megami Tensei, or someone really liked the idea of "Chaos god bad, psyche! Chaos god actually good!"

Edited February 7 by Jotari

[SnowFire]

I think @lenticular largely hit the nail on the head for the more recent-ish games.

I don't think FE6 is strongly themed, but I also don't think it's a flaw of the story or anything.  For the most part, it's just a story about a fantasy conflict that takes its world-building somewhat more seriously than some of the sloppy later games.  That's okay sometimes, but it's also got some parts that are rather clearly, er, protagonist-centered morality or the like?  But they need to ship some maps, so fine.  If there's an attempt at a deep theme, it's in the endings, but it's not like forgiveness as an imperative (i.e. Roy / Hartmut's choice vs. Jahn who can't let it go) comes up much elsewhere.  (Arcadia is non-hostile dragons, so that doesn't count, no.)

Agree with others that FE7 is proto-Awakening, being about bonds of friendship and such.

I'd slightly angle FE8 to being about how to deal with impossible situations, as well.  To which sometimes the answer is "pluck" and "magic artifact weapons" which doesn't always apply to real-life all that great, but so it goes (and neither does forbidden resurrection rituals for Lyon's answer, I suppose).

FE9 isn't subtle on its racism aspect.  I do think that while FE9 has a better point than most FEs on the classism aspect, it's better in the sense of being  worthy of the 1800s rather than the 1500s.  Tellius is a world where the royalty Really Are Better Than The Average Joe, but it's also one that explicitly holds out the hope of the commoner joining their ranks, at least, and being acknowledged as just as shiny & special as them, if not more so.  Which is a fair sight better than the many many FEs where there's simply no hope of getting Dragon Blood or whatever without being born into it, and if there's a twist, it's Echoes-style where the twist is that the commoner was really a noble the whole time.

FE10 is kind of a mess once it starts getting themed.  C1 and C2 are good stories but not super-heavily themed.  If there was more space in the script. some of the stuff in C3 could have been interesting to explore thematically, but the game bothers to stop and think so little about the implications of a Gallian invasion of Benignon or what preciesly is going on that it kinda ruins any chance for that to mean stuff.  C4 is about as deep as a Shin Megami Tensei game where we learn a lesson that extremes are bad, which sure, although using insane goddesses is cheating. Good excuse for Tier 3 classes to show off though I guess.

Shadow Dragon...  this has to have been either unintentional, or for there to have been a split in the team, but no other game in the series buys more into a war-is-hell, there will be casualties view.  The game not only forces you to lose a unit, it forces you to PICK the unit that will die.  Along with the whole famous "murder your army to see the new characters" thing.  That said, if we go by what was probably intended, I think it's the standard Japanese conservatives who want to abolish Article 9 type - if there's evil in the world, we gotta go fight it.  A lot of Marth's chats come down to "why are you fighting for evil, when you could be fighting for good."

New Mystery of the Emblem...  this is also probably an accidental message, but it's oddly...  hopeful?  Basically everything bad that happens is due to evil magic, in Medeus / Gharnef getting resurrected for no reason and mind-controlling a shit ton of important people.  The message is that everything would have been totally fine if not for evil magic.  This is a little different from FE11, where there's some baddies who explicitly are just bad 'cuz they're evil and ambitious a la Michalis.

Awakening, our bonds give us strength, etc.  It's not subtle, but it works better than a lot of the above!

Fates is more a character story. What if one person was so ultimate that whichever side they picked won, I guess.  Revelation, in theory, I think may have been intended to have some theme about seeing the truth?  Like the other two are artificial conflicts, and Revelation (as the English title suggests...  although not the JP title, so don't take it too seriously) is about attacking the literally invisible puppets and puppetmaster ruining everything from the shadows, and trusting in your family / comrades to figure out the truth.  I say "intended" because Corrin actually recruits people more by force of personality where everyone decides Corrin is just the goodest person ever, rather than some Phoenix Wright presenting of evidence. 

Fates Birthright could have been a story about choosing what's right over what you're brought up to believe, but the existence of Conquest kind of negates Birthright's effectiveness, alas.  Conquest...  gets me angry.

Echoes has been over a thousand times before.

Same with Three Houses, although for better reasons, thankfully.

I'm less certain I agree Engage was actually meant to be about choices over blood.  Or, if that was the intent, they really sent some mixed messages in parts.  Alear is still an incredibly important focus of everything basically solely by being a dragon.  Hell, even before the C20 twist, the Emblems talk about using the miracle on Lumera, because...  was she really the bestest person to pick?  She's just a long-lived dragon is all.  But the plot lets it stand unquestioned.  Nah, blood is incredibly important in Engage and clearly DOES define people, just more about "Greatness" or some such nonsense rather than morality.  I don't want to read too much into optional support conversations, but Veyle's lines really don't help here.  I think the game "likes" innocent Veyle and thinks she's cool, and she makes very clear that what she wants is Alear the sibling, not necessarily Alear the savior.  They don't bond over shared morality and how dad is a monster; they bond because they're family.  Sombron is a problem because of all the death & destruction, sure, but he's also an asshole because he explicitly seems very blase about his own kids dying.  I've mentioned before it'd have been more interesting if Sombron was an evil family values type, a Darth Vader "Join me and we'll rule the galaxy together as father and son", which would allow Alear / Veyle to "prove" they're in it for the morality.  As is, eh, it's still a story about how most families are good and wonderful and get along great and Sombron is the only exception and his friends are All Alone and will have to make a big long death speech about being alone.

[lenticular]

30 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I think one of the most confused, while simultaneously also being the most blatant, is Radiant Dawn's Order as Chaos. It's pretty up front with it with the two gods. And the message seems to be "we need some chaos in our lives" Tibarn even says that verbatim. But it doesn't seem to know why outside of just the whole Yin Yang thing. Like obviously a world where everyone has been transformed into a statue and there's effectively no life is ordered and bad. And whatever tidal wave chaos apocalypse Yune was responsible for is bad, but those are such dialectical extremes as to have no tangible relation to real life, or even the story before they have to fight Ashera. Yune's Medallion links chaos and war, but I definitely don't think the story is trying to say we need more war for war's own sake because chaos is good. And it's not like the Senate or any of the other non Ashera villains really show order as good or bad, since they're all kind of hypocrites and into self aggrandization, but not authoritarianism for the sake of order. Idk, maybe one of the writers had just been playing too much Shin Megami Tensei, or someone really liked the idea of "Chaos god bad, psyche! Chaos god actually good!"

Radiant Dawn just has a whole lot going on. Too much, really. There's the order/chaos/balance thing, there's the thing about how conflict can have good people on both sides who fight because of circumstances, the thing about how winning the war wasn't enough and now you have to win the peace, the ongoing racism discussion that's carried over from PoR, the idea of corruption, and so on and so forth. It's one of those cases where it probably would have ended up as a better story overall if it had just chosen one or two themes and leaned into them harder than it did.

For instance, if it really wanted to push the order/chaos thing, then it could have done more to portray Micaiah as the positive aspects of chaos (choice, freedom, etc.) and Elincia as the more positive aspects of order (stability, the rule of law, etc.), had them clash, but then come to a compromise at the end. It would be a pretty different story, but it would probably do a better job of getting the one theme across coherently and consistently.

Actually, I'll say that Radiant Dawn falls into a similar trap to Three Houses, in that it tries to have a story about conflicting ideologies and moral shades of grey, but doesn't really land it properly because of the existence of The Evil Faction. Moustache-twirling politicians are slightly more subtle than mole people I guess. But the conclusion of Radiant Dawn isn't "both extremes are bad and we need to find a middle ground" but "actually, it's order that was bad all along".

[Jotari]

6 minutes ago, lenticular said:

Radiant Dawn just has a whole lot going on. Too much, really. There's the order/chaos/balance thing, there's the thing about how conflict can have good people on both sides who fight because of circumstances, the thing about how winning the war wasn't enough and now you have to win the peace, the ongoing racism discussion that's carried over from PoR, the idea of corruption, and so on and so forth. It's one of those cases where it probably would have ended up as a better story overall if it had just chosen one or two themes and leaned into them harder than it did.

For instance, if it really wanted to push the order/chaos thing, then it could have done more to portray Micaiah as the positive aspects of chaos (choice, freedom, etc.) and Elincia as the more positive aspects of order (stability, the rule of law, etc.), had them clash, but then come to a compromise at the end. It would be a pretty different story, but it would probably do a better job of getting the one theme across coherently and consistently.

Actually, I'll say that Radiant Dawn falls into a similar trap to Three Houses, in that it tries to have a story about conflicting ideologies and moral shades of grey, but doesn't really land it properly because of the existence of The Evil Faction. Moustache-twirling politicians are slightly more subtle than mole people I guess. But the conclusion of Radiant Dawn isn't "both extremes are bad and we need to find a middle ground" but "actually, it's order that was bad all along".

Ike and Yune also have some really nice lines about the benefits of a god that I really like, but also seems to come completely out of nowhere. Basically, as I remember it, gods are an imperfect idea to begin with but believing in spirituality and a divine existence gives humanity something to strive for to better themselves. It's a cool anthropological approach to religion but it seems to have absolutely nothing to do with Ike, the story or even Yune as a character.  It's a little related to how people viewed Micaiah as a saviour figure though.

[lenticular]

3 hours ago, SnowFire said:

I'm less certain I agree Engage was actually meant to be about choices over blood.  Or, if that was the intent, they really sent some mixed messages in parts.  Alear is still an incredibly important focus of everything basically solely by being a dragon.  Hell, even before the C20 twist, the Emblems talk about using the miracle on Lumera, because...  was she really the bestest person to pick?  She's just a long-lived dragon is all.  But the plot lets it stand unquestioned.  Nah, blood is incredibly important in Engage and clearly DOES define people, just more about "Greatness" or some such nonsense rather than morality.  I don't want to read too much into optional support conversations, but Veyle's lines really don't help here.  I think the game "likes" innocent Veyle and thinks she's cool, and she makes very clear that what she wants is Alear the sibling, not necessarily Alear the savior.  They don't bond over shared morality and how dad is a monster; they bond because they're family.  Sombron is a problem because of all the death & destruction, sure, but he's also an asshole because he explicitly seems very blase about his own kids dying.  I've mentioned before it'd have been more interesting if Sombron was an evil family values type, a Darth Vader "Join me and we'll rule the galaxy together as father and son", which would allow Alear / Veyle to "prove" they're in it for the morality.  As is, eh, it's still a story about how most families are good and wonderful and get along great and Sombron is the only exception and his friends are All Alone and will have to make a big long death speech about being alone.

That's all very fair, and I don't disagree with any of it. I'm certainly not wed to my interpretation. Rather, I was trying to come up with a theme for every game (that I've played) and that was about the best I could come up with for the mess that is Engage. But I do think there are several points where blood is shown not to matter. Alear and Veyle, obviously. Lumera initially choosing to save Alear. Ivy and Hortensia defecting to join the people who killed their father. Zephia wanting a blood family so badly that she didn't notice that she already had a found family. This all feels like the general area that Engage is trying to talk about, but what it's trying to say is so garbled and inconsistent that it's hard to draw out a single coherent theme.

[Jotari]

3 hours ago, lenticular said:

That's all very fair, and I don't disagree with any of it. I'm certainly not wed to my interpretation. Rather, I was trying to come up with a theme for every game (that I've played) and that was about the best I could come up with for the mess that is Engage. But I do think there are several points where blood is shown not to matter. Alear and Veyle, obviously. Lumera initially choosing to save Alear. Ivy and Hortensia defecting to join the people who killed their father. Zephia wanting a blood family so badly that she didn't notice that she already had a found family. This all feels like the general area that Engage is trying to talk about, but what it's trying to say is so garbled and inconsistent that it's hard to draw out a single coherent theme.

Blood doesn't matter...but being a bad ass dragon still does.

To be serious, Feel Xenologue plays with this idea too. With Rafal so desperate to be accepted by Sombron/Fear of being rejected Nel that he literally sacrifices what family he has just to belong somewhere without seeing that Nel would have loved him all along regardless even though he isn't her twin.

[AnonymousSpeed]

I am not overly convinced there is inherent conflict between "special blood lets you turn into a dragon" and "people of different lineages are not inherently better or worse" so long as your metric of quality is not the combat advantage of turning into a dragon. However, it has been very long since I've played a Tellius game, so maybe it does imply patricianhood makes you good or evil or whatever.

Binding Blade does have some interesting themes. I'm not sure I could articulate them very well, so I'll list out some points I find illustrative.

Zephiel is a character trapped by the past, he's thrown away all his potential because of his trauma. While he's the literal descendant of Hartmut, Roy's mercy on Idunn makes him the spiritual descendant. Both have one of his swords, but Roy gets the greater of the two (I don't think he has anything else to qualify him for this besides his strength of character). Idunn herself isn't trying to be evil, it's something she was forced into against her will because of her "potential" as a divine dragon. This may be more of an FE7 thing, but Zephiel's father hated him because he resented that potential rather than seeking to exploit it. Why does Jahn use Idunn? He, too, cannot let go of the past. He cannot accept the new and long-established world. Something something intersection of our past and our potential.

I think Binding Blade also has a very mature way of handling its factions and disagreements. There are no purely good or evil factions in the entire game. Every country (as well as the Elimineans) produces heroes and villains. Gayle handles being snubbed for promotion remarkably well, acknowledging he's got a lot to be thankful for. I think this is meant to contrast with how Narcian is pettier, more jealous, weaker, and ultimately less competent. Narcian also dies no matter what while you can choose to spare Gayle.

You can read an expansion of the themes in FE6 by reading my hit fanfiction piece, the Scourer.

On 2/6/2024 at 8:04 PM, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

I think it's about dealing with loss. The game is about Grado invading Renais, and the imminent ressurection of the Demon King. But much more than that, it's about a brother and sister who lose their best friend. Lyon was driven to despair by the loss of his own father. And, in seeking to reverse it, he unwittingly unleashed evil onto the world, and began to lose himself.

Wait. Are you tell me...is this...?!

Edited February 8 by AnonymousSpeed

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

I am not overly convinced there is inherent conflict between "special blood lets you turn into a dragon" and "people of different lineages are not inherently better or worse" so long as your metric of quality is not the combat advantage of turning into a dragon. However, it has been very long since I've played a Tellius game, so maybe it does imply patricianhood makes you good or evil or whatever.

Binding Blade does have some interesting themes. I'm not sure I could articulate them very well, so I'll list out some points I find illustrative.

Zephiel is a character trapped by the past, he's thrown away all his potential because of his trauma. While he's the literal descendant of Hartmut, Roy's mercy on Idunn makes him the spiritual descendant. Both have one of his swords, but Roy gets the greater of the two (I don't think he has anything else to qualify him for this besides his strength of character). Idunn herself isn't trying to be evil, it's something she was forced into against her will because of her "potential" as a divine dragon. This may be more of an FE7 thing, but Zephiel's father hated him because he resented that potential rather than seeking to exploit it. Why does Jahn use Idunn? He, too, cannot let go of the past. He cannot accept the new and long-established world. Something something intersection of our past and our potential.

This view makes a lot of sense of how young Roy is compared to the other lords. He's only 15, which feels a decent amount younger and more childlike than the vaguely 17-19 range most lords are during the course of their game (I specify because of prologue Alm and Marth). But if the idea is about potential and being chained to the past, then an inordinately young lord (but not that inordinately for the people of such an era, though obviously still not super common either) plays into that by representing the future to come and the potential a young person can grow into.

[Etrurian emperor]

On 2/8/2024 at 5:38 AM, Jotari said:

This view makes a lot of sense of how young Roy is compared to the other lords. He's only 15, which feels a decent amount younger and more childlike than the vaguely 17-19 range most lords are during the course of their game (I specify because of prologue Alm and Marth). But if the idea is about potential and being chained to the past, then an inordinately young lord (but not that inordinately for the people of such an era, though obviously still not super common either) plays into that by representing the future to come and the potential a young person can grow into.

Roy stands out as the youngest lord but I think its more a piece of trivia than something the game actually does a lot with. In his personality he's far more mature then the dorky and kinda childish Alm, and he's certainly wiser then the likes of Corrin and Alear.