What makes a good plotline?

[Othin]

Westbrick, I'm thoroughly befuddled by your definition of character development.

[Anouleth]

1) Lundgren is a bit player in the FE7 plot line, and isn't particularly well-developed. Like you said, he's about on the same level as Riev: motivated by some selfish motive (taking the throne versus bringing about the return of demons), and willing to kill those who stand in his way. The difference here is that Riev is a major FE8 villain, whereas Lundgren is a minor antagonist at most.

What about Darin, then? Or Sonia? I can't really think of many other villains that are "major", if apparently Lundgren isn't. And they're pretty absurdly evil too.

2) Ephidel is moderately well-developed given who he is: as a morph, he's void of any real life experience, and has been created for a specific purpose. Still, he has a consistent personality (cool, collected, rational) and a strong presence. He fills his role well. Again, I'm not sure how fair it is to compare him to someone like Vigarde, who is actually an empty puppet with no personality. Limstella is a better character to juxtapose against Vigarde than Ephidel, although even she's incredibly interesting from time to time ("Yes, as is this sorrow" is still one of my favorite lines from that game).

Perhaps then, your problem is the writing, rather than the actual characterisation. Perhaps a better comparison for Ephidel is Tirado or someone, but that's rather a stretch.

You've left out most of the actually well-developed FE7 antagonists other than Nergal, those being (to varying degrees) Lloyd, Linus, Uhai, Sonia, and Desmond. Then you have a number of minor antagonists worth mentioning, like Kishuna, Reed, Ursula, and Darin.

Lloyd and Linus are hardly "well-developed". Or Uhai, for that matter. I might as well call Aias or Hafedd well-developed. Uhai gets all of one chapter, and all we gathered is that he's a dime a dozen honourable Sacaean.

Oh, and I also feel there's also a strong case to be made that FE7's NPC units were more significantly developed as well- looking at Uther, Fargus, Elbert, etc.- but that might be another issue for another day.

Perhaps Elbert, but I don't remember Uther or Fargus having much of anything interesting to say. Still, beating out Hayden and Mansel is hardly an achievement...

[Westbrick]

Westbrick, I'm thoroughly befuddled by your definition of character development.

I haven't provided a definition of "character development," actually; just some examples. A developed character is one that has some or all of the following qualities:

-Consistent, well-developed personality

-Facets and quirks that make the character unique

-Demonstrates some significant personal growth, for better or for worse

-Actions of the character are organic and feel natural; nothing "jarring" or out-of-place

I might add some more as I think of them, but these are relatively non-controversial.

What about Darin, then? Or Sonia? I can't really think of many other villains that are "major", if apparently Lundgren isn't. And they're pretty absurdly evil too.

Perhaps then, your problem is the writing, rather than the actual characterisation. Perhaps a better comparison for Ephidel is Tirado or someone, but that's rather a stretch.

Lloyd and Linus are hardly "well-developed". Or Uhai, for that matter. I might as well call Aias or Hafedd well-developed. Uhai gets all of one chapter, and all we gathered is that he's a dime a dozen honourable Sacaean.

Perhaps Elbert, but I don't remember Uther or Fargus having much of anything interesting to say. Still, beating out Hayden and Mansel is hardly an achievement...

1) Lundgren is the primary antagonist of an entirely separate side-story, so the "minor" title I gave him is appropriate in the context of the larger FE7 plot. The major villains of FE7 are Nergal, Sonia, the Black Fang as an entity (represented primarily through Lloyd, Linus, Reed, and Uhai), and a decent case could be made, despite his limited screen time, for Desmond.

2) I'd consider both FE7 and FE8 relatively well-written, so no, my problem isn't there. Ephidel has clear, consistent character (even if a tad hackneyed) as well as a strong presence; Vigarde is an empty shell, more like Limstella than Ephidel. Tirado is an interesting guy, but just doesn't get enough face time to develop enough.

3) I'm not sure how you could argue Lloyd / Linus / Uhai aren't rather well-developed, but I'm all ears for a more in-depth analysis if you're willing to provide. And all characters can be reduced down to archetypes. Uhai is the noble Sacaean; Nergal is the power-hungry sorcerer; Lyon is the weak and resentful prince; etc. That doesn't mean that's all there is to the characters, and in many cases, being reductive like this does the characters a disservice.

4) Most people lump his development in with Hector's, but Uther on his own is rather fleshed out. You're right, though, that the competition isn't exactly even.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Westbrick

[Anouleth]

Actually, it seems appropriate, so I guess I'll mention one thing that always really bothered me about FE8: Eirika and Ephraim never mention their father. Ever. It's so weird! Especially since in the script, Ephraim is never directly told about the death of his father.

1) Lundgren is the primary antagonist of an entirely separate side-story, so the "minor" title I gave him is appropriate in the context of the larger FE7 plot. The major villains of FE7 are Nergal, Sonia, the Black Fang as an entity (represented primarily through Lloyd, Linus, Reed, and Uhai), and a decent case could be made, despite his limited screen time, for Desmond.

Uhai and Reed have almost no screen time. Desmond gets more iirc. Lloyd and Linus don't really get much either. A much better representative for the Black Fang is Legault, if anyone.

3) I'm not sure how you could argue Lloyd / Linus / Uhai aren't rather well-developed, but I'm all ears for a more in-depth analysis if you're willing to provide. And all characters can be reduced down to archetypes. Uhai is the noble Sacaean; Nergal is the power-hungry sorcerer; Lyon is the weak and resentful prince; etc. That doesn't mean that's all there is to the characters, and in many cases, being reductive like this does the characters a disservice.

Except there is more to Nergal and Lyon. For example, Lyon is devoted to his father. He sees his father serving his country, and in doing so emulates that devotion to Grado. What more is there to Uhai? What's his relationship to Brendan Reed? Or anyone?

Edited June 20, 2012 by Anouleth

[Westbrick]

Uhai and Reed have almost no screen time. Desmond gets more iirc. Lloyd and Linus don't really get much either. A much better representative for the Black Fang is Legault, if anyone.

Except there is more to Nergal and Lyon. For example, Lyon is devoted to his father. He sees his father serving his country, and in doing so emulates that devotion to Grado. What more is there to Uhai? What's his relationship to Brendan Reed? Or anyone?

1) Screen time isn't the only place a character can receive development. Both Lloyd and Linus, in addition to receiving a fair amount of personal interaction with Eliwood & Co., are talked about in detail by supporting characters like Nino and Legault. This is especially true of Reed (a minor character) who, despite not being on-screen all that much, is still developed through third-party accounts and recollections. If you'd like, by the way, I'd have no problem lumping Uhai into the same category as Reed; it's just that the Fang, as a singular entity, represents the main antagonistic force in FE7 other than Nergal and his army of morphs, and needs to be treated as such.

2) Uhai is a world-weary ex-idealist whose strong will has been castrated by the power and presence of Nergal, as well as the crisis Nergal seeks to bring on. Despite his nihilism, Uhai still shows a deep commitment to his personal code of ethics, and plays a key role in steering Eliwood & Co. to the Dragon's Gate; he also has ties of heritage to Guy and Lyn. It's an intentional irony that the man who does not believe Nergal can be stopped ends up enabling those who eventually stop him.

I don't know, my standards might be low. But that's quite a bit of development for a single chapter. Enough to consider Uhai "major"? Maybe, maybe not, but then I'm content on relegating him to "minor" status anyway.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Westbrick

[Dark Sage]

Personally I like Caellach the best of the villains because he doesn't seem over the top evil and is more of a selfish evil. He's also one of the more developed villains of the game and I liked his relationship between him and Joshua.

Valter and Riev however are among my least favorite villains and I dislike them for the same reason I dislike Manfloy. They're basically examples of the laziest, unoriginal, and worst examples of a villain, basically having no motivation besides being evil. They're basically the kinds of villains that are popular among hack comic book and cartoon writers, which is that they're evil because they're evil. And while there are some villains like that who are still well done (Kefka, Alex, the Joker), most of the time its something you want to avoid.

[Colonel M]

I must be crazy, but I think the main reason I like Valter so much is just because he's a crazed maniac that has no real rhyme or reason to kill other than "satisfaction" for himself.

[Only My Unit]

I must admit, I wanted to kill Valter and the FE10 senators and the races Begnion army leaders the most. Caellach just kinda busted in and screwed up everything after appearing in some cutscenes of evil council type stuff, so it kinda felt like Valter on a smaller scale for me.

[Anouleth]

1) Screen time isn't the only place a character can receive development. Both Lloyd and Linus, in addition to receiving a fair amount of personal interaction with Eliwood & Co., are talked about in detail by supporting characters like Nino and Legault. This is especially true of Reed (a minor character) who, despite not being on-screen all that much, is still developed through third-party accounts and recollections. If you'd like, by the way, I'd have no problem lumping Uhai into the same category as Reed; it's just that the Fang, as a singular entity, represents the main antagonistic force in FE7 other than Nergal and his army of morphs, and needs to be treated as such.

2) Uhai is a world-weary ex-idealist whose strong will has been castrated by the power and presence of Nergal, as well as the crisis Nergal seeks to bring on. Despite his nihilism, Uhai still shows a deep commitment to his personal code of ethics, and plays a key role in steering Eliwood & Co. to the Dragon's Gate; he also has ties of heritage to Guy and Lyn. It's an intentional irony that the man who does not believe Nergal can be stopped ends up enabling those who eventually stop him.

Please, you can spin out anything into a lot of words, just as it's usually also possible to compress it into one or two. Consider:

Riev is cruel and sadistic. He is slow to forget grudges, causing him to nurture a long standing resentment towards Rausten for throwing him out. When, in Grado, he was raised to a rank of power and standing, he revelled in his new position and took pleasure in bossing around subordinates. He was eager to deal revenge to his enemies. Unlike the apolitical Valter and Caellach, he is devoted to the worship of the Demon King. He takes great pleasure in the chaos and destruction that his subordinates cause, but prefers to order people around rather than actually gets his hands dirty.

And how do we know that Uhai was once an idealist? Or that he's world-weary? Or that he once had a strong will? Which of his seven lines gives you that impression? For all we know, he could be a devoted servant of Nergal, awed by his power. Perhaps his "final gift" is a trap. By sending his enemies and Ninian straight to Nergal (who he believes is invincible), he expedites Nergal's evil plan.

[Westbrick]

Please, you can spin out anything into a lot of words, just as it's usually also possible to compress it into one or two. Consider:

Riev is cruel and sadistic. He is slow to forget grudges, causing him to nurture a long standing resentment towards Rausten for throwing him out. When, in Grado, he was raised to a rank of power and standing, he revelled in his new position and took pleasure in bossing around subordinates. He was eager to deal revenge to his enemies. Unlike the apolitical Valter and Caellach, he is devoted to the worship of the Demon King. He takes great pleasure in the chaos and destruction that his subordinates cause, but prefers to order people around rather than actually gets his hands dirty.

Your point isn't a bad one, and it can be hard to differentiate "spinning up" versus honestly describing a well-developed character. Probably worth mentioning that your description of Riev runs out of original points after about the first line, at which point it sort of spirals into a series of synonyms, but your point is well-taken. I'll do my best to defend my impression of Uhai below.

And how do we know that Uhai was once an idealist? Or that he's world-weary? Or that he once had a strong will? Which of his seven lines gives you that impression? For all we know, he could be a devoted servant of Nergal, awed by his power. Perhaps his "final gift" is a trap. By sending his enemies and Ninian straight to Nergal (who he believes is invincible), he expedites Nergal's evil plan.

Here are some choice lines that help demonstrate the description I gave earlier:

Stands by his ethical code -> "Holding a woman hostage during battle is shameful. You, too, are of Sacae, and I've a mind to show you mercy."

A once-idealistic man -> " ...I sympathize with Brendan Reed's ideology. He wants to help the weak, to break the overly proud... Discussing this philosophy with Brendan and his sons, training together, getting stronger together [...] But it's too late for me to change now."

"There was nothing to be suspicious of then. We believed in our own righteousness." -- Legault/Matthew A, with Legault referring to both himself and Uhai, among others in the Fang.

Broken by Nergal's power / presence -> "You know nothing, little lord. Nothing of Nergal's might. Nothing of his terrible power. You are ignorant, and so you hope to oppose him. You are insects railing against the heavens."

We also know that he is a Sacaean, meaning that he is trustworthy by nature. He calls Eliwood & Co. "stronger than [he] expected," and it can be reasonably inferred that he was willing to help them if there was a chance of overthrowing Nergal. Remember, he felt bitter towards how Nergal and Sonia came and infiltrated the Fang, taking its integrity and idealism away.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Westbrick

[-Cynthia-]

Being a series of games where you casually slaughter hordes of human enemies there are quite a few random evil for the sake of it bosses but on a whole most Fire Emblem games tend to have their primary and important villains have some form of reasoning behind their actions. The only real "unexplained or just mustache-twirling evil" characters in the series who aren't random chapter bosses tend to sealed evil in a can characters who are rarely explained in any media that uses that trope.

I think you make a good point here, however I will note that all of your examples are of the "sympathetic villain" variety. They don't actually create moral dilemmas for the protagonists like FE10 does. While we might be somewhat sympathetic towards Zephiel, Nergal, or Lyon, there's little reason to actually agree with them from a moral point of view- making the decisions of the protagonists pretty easy.

[Anouleth]

Your point isn't a bad one, and it can be hard to differentiate "spinning up" versus honestly describing a well-developed character. Probably worth mentioning that your description of Riev runs out of original points after about the first line, at which point it sort of spirals into a series of synonyms, but your point is well-taken. I'll do my best to defend my impression of Uhai below.

Not really. Riev is an evil person, and all he does ties into him being evil: just as Eliwood is a good person, and all his qualities support that. But he still has qualities, which seperate him from the evil of Valter or Caellach. Riev prefers to have his subordinates cause destruction and takes vicarious pleasure in it. Valter has no such interest, and takes pleasure in personally fighting. Caellach does not really take pleasure in either, he fights as a means to an end. Just as people who are good for the sake of goodness can still have personalities beyond that, people who are evil for the sake of evil can still have depth.

A once-idealistic man -> " ...I sympathize with Brendan Reed's ideology. He wants to help the weak, to break the overly proud... Discussing this philosophy with Brendan and his sons, training together, getting stronger together [...] But it's too late for me to change now."

Ok, I didn't see that line.

We also know that he is a Sacaean, meaning that he is trustworthy by nature.

That's... clearly not true since there are plenty of evil Sacaeans.

[Westbrick]

Not really. Riev is an evil person, and all he does ties into him being evil: just as Eliwood is a good person, and all his qualities support that. But he still has qualities, which seperate him from the evil of Valter or Caellach. Riev prefers to have his subordinates cause destruction and takes vicarious pleasure in it. Valter has no such interest, and takes pleasure in personally fighting. Caellach does not really take pleasure in either, he fights as a means to an end. Just as people who are good for the sake of goodness can still have personalities beyond that, people who are evil for the sake of evil can still have depth.

I'm still not following. Riev's entire personality can be summed up, without being needlessly reductive, as follows: he's evil, he wants the Demon King resurrected, and he prefers having his minions fight for him. Someone like an Eliwood or a Sigurd, though beacons of good and righteousness, cannot be reduced down to a handful of traits like this, making them significantly more well-developed characters.

That's... clearly not true since there are plenty of evil Sacaeans.

Poor phrasing on my part. Yes, just because Uhai is a Sacaean doesn't mean he's necessarily trustworthy; Eliwood and company actually spend a moment debating whether or not to trust him after his "final gift." But after the fact, it turned out that he was, indeed, trustworthy. Unless you'd like to imply that he could have been trying to sabotage them, but I see no evidence for this claim.

[Baldrick]

Someone like an Eliwood or a Sigurd, though beacons of good and righteousness, cannot be reduced down to a handful of traits like this, making them significantly more well-developed characters.

- Courageous

- Noble/Chivalrous

- Humble

- Does not enjoy fighting

- Loyal to his friends and allies

I think, if anything, evil for the sake of evil characters actually have a little more variety, and so tend to be less boring than good for the sake of good characters. The evil generals in FE8 are an example of that, I think.

[Anouleth]

I'm still not following. Riev's entire personality can be summed up, without being needlessly reductive, as follows: he's evil, he wants the Demon King resurrected, and he prefers having his minions fight for him.

Except that's not the whole of his personality. Conceivably, you could have a character with those qualities who did not act the same way Riev does. Quite easily, in fact.

Someone like an Eliwood or a Sigurd, though beacons of good and righteousness, cannot be reduced down to a handful of traits like this, making them significantly more well-developed characters.

Eliwood: he's honourable, kind, and fights for his friends. I'm sure I missed nothing more than you did.

[Othin]

Sigurd follows orders, doesn't want his soldiers getting hurt, and is in love with his wife. That's all there is to him. His marriage is particularly notable due to its utter lack of depth.

[Westbrick]

Except that's not the whole of his personality. Conceivably, you could have a character with those qualities who did not act the same way Riev does. Quite easily, in fact.

By all means, feel free to list these other qualities.

Eliwood: he's honourable, kind, and fights for his friends. I'm sure I missed nothing more than you did.

Eliwood is much more complicated than this. He's deeply tormented about how his war games will impact the people; despite his peaceful temperament, he loves competition with close friends; he's a family man, with deep reverence for his mother and father; he is a reflective and idealistic commander; he's incredibly mature for his age, and this often sticks out amongst the rest of the group (and is pointed out by Ninian explicitly); he's deeply loyal and selfless; I could probably go on, but hopefully you're starting to get the picture. You cannot give this kind of description for Riev.

[Jotari]

I think you make a good point here, however I will note that all of your examples are of the "sympathetic villain" variety. They don't actually create moral dilemmas for the protagonists like FE10 does. While we might be somewhat sympathetic towards Zephiel, Nergal, or Lyon, there's little reason to actually agree with them from a moral point of view- making the decisions of the protagonists pretty easy.

That is true the main point I wanted to get across was that the villains have some kind of ideals in mind while the majority of people in the modern world would still disagree with. To a certain extent I would even disagree with you that Fe10 breaks the mold of having clearly defined sides. Miciah is heavily blackmailed into what she does, if she refuses then a lot more people that she feels closer to will die. Sure it is morally traumatic but there is no real choice there. To me the biggest moral ambiguity in Fe10 is whether Ike should have gotten himself involved in the war in the first place instead of trying to press a more peaceful resolution. I'm not forgetting about the killed messenger I'm just saying that starting a war when you know an evil god will wipe out existence if everybody starts fighting you shouldn't be so eager to start a war. But the conversation seems to have moved off our topic onto a somewhat more controversial debate of Fe7 V 9 so I'll leave it at that.

[Anouleth]

By all means, feel free to list these other qualities.

He is obsessed for revenge on Rausten. If Caellach or Valter had been chosen to lead the army, they would have had different dialogue and said different things. He is meddlesome and self-important. He shows up in Chapter 11 to meddle with Caellach. For this reason, he has a poor relationship with the other generals. He speaks in a rather poetic manner and likes metaphors. He takes pleasure in manipulating others, as he shows when he speaks to Orson. His pleasure from subordinating tasks derives from his desire to feel important and powerful. We can see this with Novala. His loyalty to the Demon King is strong (being the last man to continue to serve Lyon).

Eliwood is much more complicated than this. He's deeply tormented about how his war games will impact the people; despite his peaceful temperament, he loves competition with close friends; he's a family man, with deep reverence for his mother and father; he is a reflective and idealistic commander; he's incredibly mature for his age, and this often sticks out amongst the rest of the group (and is pointed out by Ninian explicitly); he's deeply loyal and selfless; I could probably go on, but hopefully you're starting to get the picture. You cannot give this kind of description for Riev.

Except all of this is just "being a really really good guy".

[Westbrick]

He is obsessed for revenge on Rausten. If Caellach or Valter had been chosen to lead the army, they would have had different dialogue and said different things.

"Obsessed for revenge" is something that could be worth considering, but he never really reflects on it and it adds nothing to his character. Did you know that Lyn is 18 in the US version? That's about as relevant as "wanting revenge" is for Riev, because neither is explored as a way of fleshing out personality.

Caellach and Valter would've said different things because each fits a different character cliche, namely the ruthless ambitious type and the crazed madman type. Hardly a testament to FE8's character depth. (I happen to rather like Caellach, for the record, but he's not a great character by and large).

He is meddlesome and self-important.

He really isn't either of these things. He enjoys controlling subordinates a little, I guess, but this isn't particularly emphasized, and his interaction with Caellach can be seen as nothing more than a superior dealing with an inferior. Neither trait is particularly noteworthy, and you're emphasizing them when the game does not. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here.

For this reason, he has a poor relationship with the other generals.

He has a poor relationship with the other generals because he's a creepy old man who only wants to bring back the Demon King, and has no concern with political affairs. Which is a quality we've already attributed to him.

He speaks in a rather poetic manner and likes metaphors.

lmao, this is beyond desperate. What, should we start tallying if Eliwood uses more proper nouns than other units? Maybe Hector uses more interjections! And Lyn adjectives! CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT PEOPLE

He takes pleasure in manipulating others, as he shows when he speaks to Orson. His pleasure from subordinating tasks derives from his desire to feel important and powerful.

The first part is true, but something we've attributed to Riev already. The second part is empty conjecture, and empty conjecture can be used to make any character seem artificially deep. For example: Eirika, throughout the campaign, is deeply troubled by her incestuous feelings towards her brother. Eliwood is racked over the course of the game by his jealously towards Hector. Celice never fully overcame feeling like he was in his father's shadow, and subsequently retains a great deal of bitterness.

All of those sound interesting, sure. And all are conjecture.

So to recap, Riev's development can, without being reductive, be summed up as follows: he's evil; he wants to bring back the Demon King; he enjoys controlling subordinates to a degree; he's manipulative. Weak, weak character.

Except all of this is just "being a really really good guy".

No. Let me show you as clearly as I can the difference between providing an accurate, complete character bio and artificially lengthening a short description with synonyms:

A. Henry is a man who lives behind a mask. Having endured a tortured childhood, he now vows to live a life of appreciation and optimism in spite of his inner demons. Despite this, he retains many of his sublimated dark tendencies, which manifest in his cruelty and penchant for enacting curses. Although he tries to put on a good face, he is often oblivious to how others see him.

B. Daniel is a man of honor and virtue. Always known by his comrades for his stout commitment to his personal code of ethics, he continually strives to maintain himself both on and off the battlefield. Far across the land, Daniel is preceded by his reputation for chivalry and knightly excellence. He deeply enjoys serving others and giving back to the needy and wanting.

[Westbrick]

I guess my computer decided to freak out and triple-post for no reason, so to use some of this space more productively, here's a bonus! Let's run down all the qualities I attributed to Eliwood and see if they really do boil down to "being a good guy":

He's deeply tormented about how his war games will impact the people;

Nope. Being inwardly philosophical is a distinct quality from being a good guy. Example: Hector.

despite his peaceful temperament, he loves competition with close friends;

Nope. Loving competition is a distinct quality from being a good guy. Example: Lyn.

he's a family man, with deep reverence for his mother and father;

Nope. Many good guys happen to love their parents, but it's not strictly required for being a good guy. Example: Marth.

he is a reflective and idealistic commander;

Nope. Being reflective is a distinct quality from being a good guy. Example: Ephraim.

he's incredibly mature for his age, and this often sticks out amongst the rest of the group (and is pointed out by Ninian explicitly);

Nope. Being unusually mature, often to a fault, is a distinct quality from being a good guy. Example: Ephraim [again].

he's deeply loyal and selfless;

I'll give you this one.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Westbrick

[Westbrick]

[placeholder]

Edited June 22, 2012 by Westbrick

[Anouleth]

"Obsessed for revenge" is something that could be worth considering, but he never really reflects on it and it adds nothing to his character. Did you know that Lyn is 18 in the US version? That's about as relevant as "wanting revenge" is for Riev, because neither is explored as a way of fleshing out personality.

But it DOES add something to his character. How do character traits not add to character? Of course it fleshes out his personality.

Caellach and Valter would've said different things because each fits a different character cliche, namely the ruthless ambitious type and the crazed madman type. Hardly a testament to FE8's character depth. (I happen to rather like Caellach, for the record, but he's not a great character by and large).

And Nergal is just the "crazed with power due to personal tragedy" type. Yes, Riev fits into a trope, and yes, it's something that's been seen before, just as Eliwood is the "noble, caring lord" type

He really isn't either of these things. He enjoys controlling subordinates a little, I guess, but this isn't particularly emphasized, and his interaction with Caellach can be seen as nothing more than a superior dealing with an inferior.

It's facetious to just assume that all of his conversations don't actually mean anything in terms of his personality. Riev could have sent a messenger: but he didn't, because he wanted to mess with Caellach. Simple.

Neither trait is particularly noteworthy, and you're emphasizing them when the game does not. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here.

The game does not because Riev does not get that many lines in the first place.

lmao, this is beyond desperate. What, should we start tallying if Eliwood uses more proper nouns than other units? Maybe Hector uses more interjections! And Lyn adjectives! CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT PEOPLE

So you're saying that the way that people talk doesn't show anything about them? So if Gonzales talked the same way as Bastian, that wouldn't actually affect anything?

lmao

The first part is true, but something we've attributed to Riev already. The second part is empty conjecture, and empty conjecture can be used to make any character seem artificially deep.

As opposed to all that conjecture with Uhai, like "he once had a strong will" and "he's world weary". I mean, what on earth gave you the impression that Uhai is bored with life?

For example: Eirika, throughout the campaign, is deeply troubled by her incestuous feelings towards her brother. Eliwood is racked over the course of the game by his jealously towards Hector. Celice never fully overcame feeling like he was in his father's shadow, and subsequently retains a great deal of bitterness.

Riev:

Unlike two other layabouts I know, I do not have such time to waste. I have much to do for our master. A mountain of tasks awaits me. My time is far too precious to waste on the likes of that royal whelp. Trifles such at these are best left in the hands of servants...such as you.

Riev thinks he's hot shit. And he loves it.

So to recap, Riev's development can, without being reductive, be summed up as follows: he's evil; he wants to bring back the Demon King; he enjoys controlling subordinates to a degree; he's manipulative. Weak, weak character.

Tell me what I missed:

Desmond cares for his daughter and her mother, despises his son and wife. Anything else is conjecture. Or Nergal: He seeks power and will do anything to get it, because of the trauma of his wife dying, and he looks down on those without power.

B. Daniel is a man of honor and virtue. Always known by his comrades for his stout commitment to his personal code of ethics, he continually strives to maintain himself both on and off the battlefield. Far across the land, Daniel is preceded by his reputation for chivalry and knightly excellence. He deeply enjoys serving others and giving back to the needy and wanting.

So:

Being honourable and having a code of ethics and being chivalrous and enjoying serving others are all the same thing: but being reflective, and worrying about the effects of your actions, and being idealistic, and being selfless; these are all very different things?

lmao

[Baldrick]

As opposed to all that conjecture with Uhai, like "he once had a strong will" and "he's world weary". I mean, what on earth gave you the impression that Uhai is bored with life?

There's different levels of conjecture. It's unreasonable to assume Eirika is troubled by incestuous feelings because there's no evidence or dialogue that supports it. It's reasonable to assume Uhai was once a passionate man, since he joined the Black Fang, but was driven to despair by Nergal, because he believes fighting Nergal is pointless.

[Anouleth]

There's different levels of conjecture. It's unreasonable to assume Eirika is troubled by incestuous feelings because there's no evidence or dialogue that supports it. It's reasonable to assume Uhai was once a passionate man, since he joined the Black Fang, but was driven to despair by Nergal, because he believes fighting Nergal is pointless.

By that token, is it reasonable to assume that Riev was once a good man, since he was a clergyman of Rausten?

(also, I somehow doubt that literally everyone in the old Black Fang had a strong will. In their own words, there were many wastrels and misfits.)

Edited June 22, 2012 by Anouleth