Elibean Nights

[FalconVegeta1986]

Arch, definately do more of those. it's nice having a boss with an actual story and reasonable goal instead of just another guy to kill, and tossing in a nice tidbit about a certain other character was cool too. also, the whole good vs bad issue makes me think about how the roles were reversed between PoR and RD.

[Acacia Sgt]

An interesting read. If I remember correctly, at the end of Binding Blade Lilina turned Lycia into a monarchy (though I don't think Roy was chosen for king, I think the only thing that can point to that is in Lilina's ending if she marries him), but your take on the situation is quite interesting, considering it's quite the change.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Acacia Sgt

[lancerusso]

Politics major who creates hacks in his free time. I like it

It always did bug me that tale 3 is about fighting for monarchy over something that has some semblance to democracy/meritocracy (hector isn't one for have progressive ideas). Interesting thoughts, I'm curious as to how you envision post FE6 Lycia (or any of the other countries for that matter).

ORLY? I'm sure I remember Hector talking about some kind of democratic system he and his brother were trying to introduce. The wanted to abolish the current 'peer system', which was bureaucratic and problematic. It was discussed at the beginning of 31x? Battle Preperations?

[Nayr Farros]

An interesting read. If I remember correctly, at the end of Binding Blade Lilina turned Lycia into a monarchy (though I don't think Roy was chosen for king, I think the only thing that can point to that is in Lilina's ending if she marries him), but your take on the situation is quite interesting, considering it's quite the change.

Yeah I agree, I don't remember anything about Lycia becoming a democracy. It went from a federation of noble territories into a full fledged kingdom, with House Ostia becoming it's royal family. And Roy only becomes king if he marries Lilina. And eventually -- though exact details are not stated -- all the nations in Elibe unite into one big nation. Which altogether is a contrived dream ending. In the real world, the nations would splinter and reform in an endless cycle of peace, oppression, war, and revoluton.

And democracy doesn't work any better than other forms of government. Same as a monarchy, it's okay when you have good leaders who make good decisions, and bad when you don't. Democracy is just a "feel-good" form of government that allows people the illusion of freedom even though at the end of the day, they still have to live by laws and ideals that a hierachy of beaurocrats tell them are the "correct" way to do things.

And when democratic politics become corrupt, it seems to be nearly impossible to reverse. The crooked special interest or partisan poltiics become the standard, and elections become popularity contests based on an endless tug of war between two partisan figureheads who squabble over who has the best image and who can make the best promises that they'll never keep.

But the person who had the most accurate viewpoint in Elibe's universe was actually Zephiel. His methods may have been extremist, but nothing he said about humanity in general was false.

And pardon me if I sound cynical.

[The Iron Rose]

Yeah I agree, I don't remember anything about Lycia becoming a democracy. It went from a federation of noble territories into a full fledged kingdom, with House Ostia becoming it's royal family. And Roy only becomes king if he marries Lilina. And eventually -- though exact details are not stated -- all the nations in Elibe unite into one big nation. Which altogether is a contrived dream ending. In the real world, the nations would splinter and reform in an endless cycle of peace, oppression, war, and revoluton.

And democracy doesn't work any better than other forms of government. Same as a monarchy, it's okay when you have good leaders who make good decisions, and bad when you don't. Democracy is just a "feel-good" form of government that allows people the illusion of freedom even though at the end of the day, they still have to live by laws and ideals that a hierachy of beaurocrats tell them are the "correct" way to do things.

And when democratic politics become corrupt, it seems to be nearly impossible to reverse. The crooked special interest or partisan poltiics become the standard, and elections become popularity contests based on an endless tug of war between two partisan figureheads who squabble over who has the best image and who can make the best promises that they'll never keep.

But the person who had the most accurate viewpoint in Elibe's universe was actually Zephiel. His methods may have been extremist, but nothing he said about humanity in general was false.

And pardon me if I sound cynical.

Darling, you didn't sound cynical. You sounded outright misanthropic.

Which I get is cool for hip young teens these days, but for those of us who live in the real world, I guarantee you that there are significant and substantive differences between (liberal - as a term, not ideology) democracies and non democracies.

About the only thing you said that had a remote semblance of accuracy is your description of the would be international stage. Even then, I recommend reading Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer for a more reasoned and better analysis. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics is a seminal piece, and one that would accurately fit the international stage of a future Elibe. Of future anything for that matter.

Tl;dr:

Don't try that inane "Humanity is inevitably screwed, why bother democracy is pointless" crap against someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

On topic, I think pitting the player against democracy is a fantastic idea and I approve wholeheartedly.

Edited May 23, 2013 by The Iron Rose

[Red Dingo]

But the person who had the most accurate viewpoint in Elibe's universe was actually Zephiel. His methods may have been extremist, but nothing he said about humanity in general was false.

And pardon me if I sound cynical.

Yeah no. Zephiel was a whiny brat who decided that his father trying to kill him was a perfectly valid excuse to commit genocide of the human race. I mean he decides that if he can't have a loving father, then everyone has to die rather than trying to, you know, have a family and be a better father than Desmond was.

[12cranei]

Yeah no. Zephiel was a whiny brat who decided that his father trying to kill him was a perfectly valid excuse to commit genocide of the human race. I mean he decides that if he can't have a loving father, then everyone has to die rather than trying to, you know, have a family and be a better father than Desmond was.

I don't believe this is entirely accurate. Zephiel was more of victimized villain. While his actions were by no means justifiable, he was originally a good person that was driven into the depths of madness by both his broken family life and the unreasonable hatred his father, Desmond, had for him. The last assassination attempt his father made against him was the the final push that sent him spirally into insanity and overall losing his faith in humanity.

​On topic: I have to say this hack is beautiful and I'm really looking forward to playing a complete version. Fighting against democracy sounds like an interesting idea and what I've seen of the hack its self is breath taking. Love what's been done with the Elibian lore.

...and on that note. Random lurker out!

Edited May 23, 2013 by 12cranei

[deranger]

ORLY? I'm sure I remember Hector talking about some kind of democratic system he and his brother were trying to introduce. The wanted to abolish the current 'peer system', which was bureaucratic and problematic. It was discussed at the beginning of 31x? Battle Preperations?

"Hector:

For generations, our ancestors dedicated themselves to a sort of frugal militarism. Nobles and commoners alike shunned extravagance. "Corrupt neither the body nor the mind," they cried! Since the time of Roland, this has been the dominant ideology of Ostia.

Marcus:

I heard that when Lord Uther first participated in the Lycian Council as Marquess Ostia, he gave a scathing indictment of the peer system. Now I understand, his philosophy had its roots in the history of Ostia itself.

Hector:

That's right. Yet this thinking... it threatens the lifestyles of many of our aristocrats. So some groups view my brother with enmity. "

What's the peer-system? (without knowing that, it only seems Ostian royalty was frugal.)

There still seems to be a strong enough divide between nobles and commoners.

This is still on topic, right? Now on to how North Korea has as good a government as anywhere else because humans are screwed.

[Nayr Farros]

On topic, I think pitting the player against democracy is a fantastic idea and I approve wholeheartedly.

Dawson forcing his agenda at the end of a sword doesn't seem very pro-democratic. Not unless Hector were an abusive dictator who needed to be unseated for his own good, which he isn't.

Also Arch pretty much threw Hector under the proverbial bus by making him out to be incompetent, and clingly to his title. Neither of which are ever implied in FE6 or FE7.

In FE7, Hector was portrayed as not caring for politics, but still accepted the role of marquess because it was his responsibility(something that is actually a good quality in a leader. No ambition or greed to cloud his judgment.) And nothing said he had no knowledge of governance. And Hector was also the type of person that, if he knew he wasn't a good leader, and someone would be better suited and could do the job the way it should be done, he'd have no problem stepping down and choosing that person to replace him.

Plus if Hector needed help ruling, there are plenty of people he met through the course of Fe7 that could seek advice from to better himself as a leader. Eliwood, Oswin, Merlinus, or even Pent. Rather than just try to rule on wit alone.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Nayr Farros

[deranger]

Dawson forcing his agenda at the end of a sword doesn't seem very pro-democratic. Not unless Hector were an abusive dictator who needed to be unseated for his own good, which he isn't.

Hector was a nondemocratic, and, in Dawson's view, incompetent ruler.

Also Arch pretty much threw Hector under the proverbial bus by making him out to be incompetent, and clingly to his title. Neither of which are ever implied in FE6 or FE7.

What in FE7 indicated Hector would make a good leader? He may have learned in the 20 year span between, but EN's during the early years of his rule.

In FE7, Hector was portrayed as not caring for politics, but still accepted the role of marquess because it was his responsibility(something that is actually a good quality in a leader. No ambition or greed to cloud his judgment.) And nothing said he had no knowledge of governance. And Hector was also the type of person that, if he knew he wasn't a good leader, and someone would be better suited and could do the job the way it should be done, he'd have no problem stepping down and choosing that person to replace him.

Where did hector indicate he thinks merit or popularity outweighs his bloodline claim to the throne?

Plus if Hector needed help ruling, there are plenty of people he met through the course of Fe7 that could seek advice from to better himself as a leader. Eliwood, Oswin, Merlinus, or even Pent. Rather than just try to rule on wit alone.

Many of whom are far away, the ones close by being not much better suited to lead, as they were not selected by merit or democratic methods.

[Miacis]

What's the peer-system? (without knowing that, it only seems Ostian royalty was frugal.)

It's most likely a reference to the old British House of Lords, where peers were noblemen, whose position was transmitted to their descendants. (Pretty sure it's a bit less easy to get a seat there nowadays, though.)

So from what I can understand of that dialogue, Uther had something against the governing noblemen, related to their excessive lifestyle. In other words, he probably wanted to cut some of the funds they recieved, or similar rights.

It doesn't really have anything to do with democracy, really, as it's not like Uther was suggesting that his heir to the throne should be elected. Nor was it a suggestion to integrate democratic systems in Ostia's legislative branch

Dawson forcing his agenda at the end of a sword doesn't seem very pro-democratic. Not unless Hector were an abusive dictator who needed to be unseated for his own good, which he isn't.

Being militaristic doesn't really have anything to do with democracy at all, though. You could even say that some of the first "democracy pioneers" of their eras looked more like warmongering assholes to other countries than the sunshine-and-rainbows some people expect democracies to be, if you look at the US, post-revolutionnary France, or even antic Greece.

A democratic system is a system where all citizens have equal decisive rights, and that's about it. Dawson could have easily convinced his people that unseating Hector would be best for the country, and it would have been a perfectly democratic decision.

The problem with Dawson's claim to democracy is more the fact that he believes in limited, local democracy, but does not apply that principle on the global scale, wanting to take the Lycian throne to himself, without any consideration of holding a vote for that or anything. Not to mention, he's the one nominating his government, out of the list of elected officials. At the end of the day, he's still the one setting all the rules, and not his citizens.

So you can't really say you're "fighting democracy" in Hector's Tale. You're fighting a monarchy that has some local democratic elections, with your own monarchic system which doesn't.

(By the way, I don't see how you can "unseat a dictator for his own good". It's generally more of a death sentence for said dictator than anything else.)

Edited May 23, 2013 by Miacis

[The Iron Rose]

They don't even need equal decisive rights, all they need is the ability to vote for their leaders.

Equitable treatment of the citizenry is a hallmark of liberal democracies, and any nebulous system in a transitory phase is likely to be more concerned with more pressing matters, such as imminent survival.

Any democratic system in Elibe would like as not be akin to ancient Athens or Rome, though perhaps without the misogyny. Liberal democracies, that is to say democracies actually worth fighting for, are modern inventions that would probably not be reflected in any Elibian political reforms.

n.b. liberal democracy is a term, not an ideology.

[Nayr Farros]

Hector was a nondemocratic, and, in Dawson's view, incompetent ruler.

What in FE7 indicated Hector would make a good leader? He may have learned in the 20 year span between, but EN's during the early years of his rule.

Where did hector indicate he thinks merit or popularity outweighs his bloodline claim to the throne?

Many of whom are far away, the ones close by being not much better suited to lead, as they were not selected by merit or democratic methods

1. Hector never abused his authority, which generally what justifies rebellion. Dawson was just a power hungry jackass, nothing more. Hector wasn't unjustly taxing the poor, he wasn't killing anybody who did nothing but speak against him(Dawson and his ilk attacked him unprovoked), he wasn't passing ridiculous laws.

2&3. Nothing in FE7 indicated he'd be a bad leader. He gets the same results as Eliwood if you play his mode instead. And I didn't say Hector thought either way, I said that if he knew he was a bad leader and people were suffering for it, he wouldn't lead. He, personally, would step down as Marquess and let someone who could do better have the title and the riches and privelige.

Arch is portraying Hector as some selfish bastard and blithering idiot who cares only about keeping what's his to the detriment of everyone else. And that is as out of character as it gets. Hector is remembered as the one lord in Fe7 who actually had personality and depth, and what does he get to show for it?

4. Even if they weren't elected, it doesn't mean they don't know anything about administration or leadership. Eliwood, Pent, and even Hector(being that he's the spare to Uther's heir) would be expected(even forced) to study it and learn how to do it because of the fact that they will eventually have the role.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Nayr Farros

[Agro]

well hector can't abdicate his rule unless you believe in the many-worlds interpretation

[Nayr Farros]

well hector can't abdicate his rule unless you believe in the many-worlds interpretation

Well he doesn't need to because the fact that he's a "bad leader" is nothing but contrived fan fiction.

If he were a bad leader, he wouldn't lead. His portrayal in Fe7 implied that he didn't really want to rule or even be a noble for that matter. He accepted the role of marquess because it was expected of him.

[Miacis]

1. Hector never abused his authority, which generally what justifies rebellion. Dawson was just a power hungry jackass, nothing more. Hector wasn't unjustly taxing the poor, he wasn't killing anybody who did nothing but speak against him(Dawson and his ilk attacked him unprovoked), he wasn't passing ridiculous laws.

You don't have to be a Saturday morning cartoon villain to start rebellions, though. Just be incompetent enough. Are at least not concerned enough to see that some of your subordinates might be doing bad things evil.

Arch is portraying Hector as some selfish bastard and blithering idiot who cares only about keeping what's his to the detriment of everyone else. And that is as out of character as it gets. Hector is remembered as the one lord in Fe7 who actually had personality and depth, and what does he get to show for it?

Are you playing a different version of the game? Because as of V5, the only thing we saw of Hector was that that he wasn't really doing anything, really. Which is something I did rant about quite a bit, because you don't stop riots with "Give me more time, kthxbai".

And the little we know about his government, or can guess from Dawson's profile is just that Hector is a nice guy who just doesn't seem to have much idea what he's doing. He just got catapulted into dealing with politics, something that he himself says he never cared about, which is now making his job harder. He's just ignorant. Not a blithering idiot, but ignorant (it's not an insult): he just hasn't learnt the ropes. And from what I understand, his arc is trying to make him want to learn those.

What he does see is that Dawson is kind of a douche, despite his rather progressive ideas, and is defending the throne because of that, not because of "selfish" motives.

His portrayal in Fe7 implied that he didn't really want to rule or even be a noble for that matter. He accepted the role of marquess because it was expected of him.

Which is exactly why he is not a good leader.

You can be the most awesome guy in the univers, if you've never wanted to draw anything in your whole life, but were forced to draw stuff for a friend, that wouldn't make you less of a terrible artist. It's the same idea, there.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Miacis

[The Blind Archer]

Well he doesn't need to because the fact that he's a "bad leader" is nothing but contrived fan fiction.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't you want Hector's tale to be about him taking a walk and getting mugged by bandits despite the fact that he curbstomps them on a daily basis?

Crap, what was that saying about stones and glass houses...

Edited May 24, 2013 by The Blind Archer

[-Cynthia-]

I would personally find it more implausible if Hector were suddenly an awesome Marquess upon it being sprung on him after Uther's death. It may not be moral for Dawson to launch a rebellion, and there's probably some selfish motive behind it, but rulers being challenged to due to incompetence (or perceived incompetence) does happen.

[Arch]

If I recall correctly, it was something about going on vacation and fighting off bandits or pirates or something. There's a reason all of his stuff's been purged from the hack.

Thanks to everyone who explained why he's wrong. I'm running out of fucks to give.

Nayr: If you're gonna post criticism, at least have the decency to make a valid fucking point.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Arch

[edza90]

To make this hack better, it's necessary full character development, cause the perfect FE hack this needs.
Also Niime in her late 40s-50s is a babe.

[Nayr Farros]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't you want Hector's tale to be about him taking a walk and getting mugged by bandits despite the fact that he curbstomps them on a daily basis?

Crap, what was that saying about stones and glass houses...

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of that glass houses thing.

Hector curbstomping yet another group of bandits. when as you say, he does it on a daily basis, is not at all contrived or out of character for him(which are my accusations of EN's portrayal).

Also my idea was that he was that all the politics and buearocracy of being Marquess was getting to him, so he snuck off to take some time to rest. And it's not a leap of logic that a man who is a wealthy noble, and out alone would be considered easy prey by bandits/pirates/etc, and they would try something.

Dumbing down and twisting around the context of my idea to accuse me of being hypocritical just makes you a liar.

Also Eliwood curbstomps bandits as much as Hector does, yet when you rewrote my version of his tale, you left the bandits in and left him to curbstomp away, yet call me hypocritical for suggesting Hector do the same. Have fun in your own glass house, stone thrower.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Nayr Farros

[Red Dingo]

1. Hector never abused his authority, which generally what justifies rebellion. Dawson was just a power hungry jackass, nothing more. Hector wasn't unjustly taxing the poor, he wasn't killing anybody who did nothing but speak against him(Dawson and his ilk attacked him unprovoked), he wasn't passing ridiculous laws.

That's pretty much why Hector is also in the right of it. Dawson wants a better and more reliable system of government, and he has point when the same system that put Hector in power also allows murderers, potential rapists, and generally unlikable people like Erik, Darin, Marquess Araphen, and Lundgren gain power.

2&3. Nothing in FE7 indicated he'd be a bad leader. He gets the same results as Eliwood if you play his mode instead. And I didn't say Hector thought either way, I said that if he knew he was a bad leader and people were suffering for it, he wouldn't lead. He, personally, would step down as Marquess and let someone who could do better have the title and the riches and privelige.

There's nothing to suggest he would be a good leader during periods of peace either. Hector is a capable military leader, but good warriors do not always make good politicians. Hector's personality is not exactly suited for the domestic given his brash nature. Hector wouldn't just step down unless it was plain as day that he could never fit the role no matter how much he tried.

Arch is portraying Hector as some selfish bastard and blithering idiot who cares only about keeping what's his to the detriment of everyone else. And that is as out of character as it gets. Hector is remembered as the one lord in Fe7 who actually had personality and depth, and what does he get to show for it?

No actually, Arch is portraying Hector as someone other than a typical strawconservative. Hector is not opposing Dawson out of jealousy of his power, he's fighting Dawson because the man is disturbing the peace of the realm. Above all else, a lord is expected to defend himself and the people he governs on the field of battle. Dawson challenged him with an armed rebellion, it does not matter if Hector agrees with Dawson's goals because the means will probably end with Hector's head on the chopping block.

4. Even if they weren't elected, it doesn't mean they don't know anything about administration or leadership. Eliwood, Pent, and even Hector(being that he's the spare to Uther's heir) would be expected(even forced) to study it and learn how to do it because of the fact that they will eventually have the role.

Just because they were forced to study good leadership does not mean they will always have the knack for being good leaders. That's not to say that Hector is a bad leader, it's just that his transition Marquess will probably be more turbulent than someone to whom the role comes naturally.

The fact is that even if Hector becomes a great leader, a bad egg is bound to take the reigns somewhere down the line because the political system has neither a democratic nor meritocratic check on the transition of power. Dawson could not wait until someone more corrupt took the lead, because by then, his ideas would likely be seen as the passing fancies of an eccentric noble recorded in the footnotes of a history book.

[Nayr Farros]

Nayr: If you're gonna post criticism, at least have the decency to make a valid fucking point.

Now THAT's hypocrisy. Since practically everyone throws harsh and vague criticisms at my work, and don't bother with any form of elaboration. Yet when it happens to them, they get mad and go off on me and tell me to be more clear or make a point they understand. But when I ask for the same courtesy, I just get bashed more.

And to be fair, I was pretty clear in my criticisms. You're writing Hector out of character by making him out to be selfish and incompetent. You're trying to say that Dawson the Darin Clone is really right when you're having him try to force his way into power instead of asking to be elected. And

Edited May 24, 2013 by Nayr Farros

[The Iron Rose]

Yes.

Because you can totally have democratic elections in a feudal system.

Absolutely. That's exactly why whenever people want democracy, all they have to do is ask for it.

[The Blind Archer]

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of that glass houses thing.

Hector curbstomping yet another group of bandits. when as you say, he does it on a daily basis, is not at all contrived or out of character for him(which are my accusations of EN's portrayal).

Also my idea was that he was that all the politics and buearocracy of being Marquess was getting to him, so he snuck off to take some time to rest. And it's not a leap of logic that a man who is a wealthy noble, and out alone would be considered easy prey by bandits/pirates/etc, and they would try something.

Dumbing down and twisting around my idea to accuse me of being hypocritical just makes you into a liar.

So have fun in your own glass house.

"Bah I'm bored, Imma go take a nap. Oh no, bandits, time to fight them. Oh, better be a better marquess now."

Yeah, that really does a lot to show Hector growing as a character, what in a fangame where practically every returning character is given something of growth. Eliwood finds the resolve he needs to protect his wife and homeland after grieving the death mother. Pent puts aside his research in order to help bring stability to an unstable Etruria. Karel's transition from an arrogant swordsman to a simple protector is shown at length. Zealot's manages to keep his idealism even after seeing what happens when his fellow soldiers jump off the slippery slope.

And your idea is somehow Hector killing bandits makes him realize he needs to get his act together? As opposed to being confronted head-on by some of his very angry subordinates? He finds out the hard way that is constituents are NOT happy with how he does his job. He's not being selfish. He's being incompetent. He's out of his element. And moreover, he winds up REALIZING that, and strives to better himself.

Hector wandering off and killing bandits? That's no different from the Hector we knew in FE7, and does little, if anything, to show his transition from a brash and aggressive lordling into a stalwart leader.

But, keep throwing stones, I suppose.

Edited May 24, 2013 by The Blind Archer