Elibean Nights

[Nayr Farros]

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.

As it is portrayed, Dawson apparently didn't even bother to talk to Hector or even make suggestions as to how he could remedy some of Ostia's problems. He just took up arms and marched to war against a man who would have listened to what he had to say.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Nayr Farros

[AthenaWyrm]

I think Hector should transform into Kamen Rider

[Nayr Farros]

"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.

You're either still deliberately twisting things or you're very misinformed.

My tale idea had nothing to do with Hector becoming a better leader. He was taking a respite from the job, because it's stressful(even Obama takes time to rest from being President) and it goes wrong. Nothing about it suggested that he was a bad leader or needed to become a better one, he was just stressed.

[The Iron Rose]

As it is portrayed, Dawson apparently didn't even bother to talk to Hector or even make suggestions as to how he could remedy some of Ostia's problems. He just took up arms and marched to war against a man who would have listened to what he had to say.

Which changes precisely nothing?

Dawson is a villain. One with good motivations, certainly, and one with the support of the people, but someone we're fighting against nevertheless. His actions are untenable, and any ruler would be obliged to put down the rebellion for the peace of the state.

But Hector isn't some cackling evil lordling oppressing his subjects. He perpetuates the system in which that is possible, yes, but Dawson's reforms come at far too high a price for Hector to accept.

[Miacis]

I think Hector should transform into Kamen Rider

Creative liberties, perhaps? I heard that's where everyone is throwing their random ideas, these days. :-P

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

And? And...?

And what...?

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.

Okay, this is starting to get very boring. Just saying, but it's a common misconception to believe the general public will think more highly of a user if he answers one's random blames with his own random blames in a public forum thread.

Likewise, in my many years of Internet, I've rarely seen anyone's reputation getting ruined because they let a personal attack slide.

I'm not going to ask you guys to settle it by PM, because no one really ever does settle that kinda stuff by PM, let's be honest. But I'd just like to point out that no one gives a crap about that, and all you guys are accomplishing right now is making some people giggle at the drama, as well as making the Mods' life fuller of facepalms. Here, and in other threads where the same kind of disputes happened.

If anyone here wants to duke it out with whoever they have a beef with, I suggest they open a Skype convo with that person, livestream it to the masses, and engage in some fantastic rap battles while playing UMvC3 online.

That would be much more productive than bringing disputes like that into Romhacking/Spriting threads.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Miacis

[Nayr Farros]

But Hector isn't some cackling evil lordling oppressing his subjects. He perpetuates the system in which that is possible, yes, but Dawson's reforms come at far too high a price for Hector to accept.

Democracy is just as seceptable to it.

Look at Iraq. Sadaam Hussein was Iraq's 5th president, not a king or an emperor. He was elected into office every time by vote over a span of 24 years. But he was still a tyrant and a bad leader in many ways.

Look at Libya. Muammar Gaddafi took power from King Idris without a drop of blood spilt and started a democratic system which he called "popular revolution". But it didn't even last five years before he dissolved it and became a bloody dictator.

And Dawson seems more along the lines of those two than George Washington or something.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Nayr Farros

[Nanami Touko]

I'ma try and shed some light on this because these arguments are very silly

Arch isn't trying to paint either Dawson or Hector as the good guy. They both have their pros, they both have their cons.

Dawson is greedy, but he's smart. He has the know how to run Ostia, and has the political backing to do it, but he knows that Hector would never abdocate rule to him, and he doesn't want to share the place that he cares so deeply for with someone he feels would just drag it down further. His methods are extreme, but the result would lead to a prospering Ostia. This is why he feels he is in the right when it comes to dethroning Hector.

Hector, on the other hand, is your everyday justice guy, who "fights for what is right", defeats evildoers, and tries his best to always be morally right. But he doesn't know how to run Ostia. He doesn't have the knowledge, and is still learning how to keep things moving. He's not doing the country wrong, but he's not doing the country right. He's doing nothing, and this is another thing that fuels Dawson's intentions.

Dawson wants to see Ostia move, and so does Hector. Hector doesn't know how to do this though, and Dawson does. Dawson wants to use extreme methods to gain his place of power and then move the country, and Hector, as the Marquess, can't let someone start a war on his land.

Thus the conflict.

It's grey. It's supposed to be grey. There is no black and white, right or wrong. Hector is a good man, but a poor leader. Dawson is a terrible person, but a great leader. Hector could learn to lead, Dawson could learn to be more just. You aren't supposed to side with either of them because this is a situation where there is no true answer.

The only reason we side with Hector is because this is EN, and it's about growing the characters. We play on the side of Hector because we want to see what happens if Hector wins, and grows as a person. Dawson could still win, in theory, and Ostia could prosper, but that would defeat the point of the hack.

The DISCONNECT here is that you believe that Hector is already a good enough leader, where as Arch does not. And that's about it, really. It's his fanfiction, and that's how he sees Hector. So that's how he wrote Hector. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to create your own fanfiction.

Now I'm just gonna sit here and let this either get ignored, misconstrued, or misinterpreted.

Woo ~'3'~

Edited May 24, 2013 by Child of the Tenth Month

[The Iron Rose]

Do you know the meaning of the word "liberal democracy"?

Because I don't think that you do. There's a difference in the two terms, and one with significant import.

Moreover, the comparisons are faulty - the Reign of Terror would be a better comparison.

Regardless, Miacis' point was accurate, and I hardly think having serious political discussion is worthwhile in the hacking section.

[-Cynthia-]

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

Does Ludveck rebelling against Elincia and Elincia not abdicating make Elincia selfish or incompetent? Was Ludveck really in the right to force his way into power instead of asking to be elected? Note that neither Ludveck nor Dawson can ask to be elected, that's kind of the point of a monarchy. You usually can't change the leaders of a monarchy without killing them.

These situations are very similar and if you look at FE10 you may find your answers. I disagree that EN Hector is inconsistent with his FE7 self- FE7 Hector is a rash individual who never engages in politics- not the sort of person one would expect to be an effective political leader.

[Nayr Farros]

I'll give Seph some credit for his post. It's clear and well explained, even if I disagree with it.

The part I don't get is why Hector and Dawson are so obstinate in their goals. If Dawson could help straighten Lycia out, he could offer his knowledge to Hector, and I don't see why Hector wouldn't listen to that advice(even the best rulers have advisors). If Dawson were honest about his intentions, seeing that Lycia's situation gets fixed would be more important than who wears the proverbial crown.

It's like Dawson just decided in one moment that "Hector's not doing as good a job as I like, so I'll just kill him and take over without even bothering to parley." And Hector's like "Another rebellion.... Guess I'll go put it down instead of seeing if there's anything I can do to make a truce because traitors deserve only a swift execution." For people who are supposed to be in a gray area, they see things very black and white.

@Cynthia: Ludvek, just like Dawson, could see that his nations problems could be resolved without resorting to violence or usurping thrones. But he never bothered to try. He instantly jumped to rebellion and his actions during(attacking villages, using Lucia as a hostage to try and exploit Elincia's good nature into going his way) belied his intentions. Violence should always be a last resort. But for them, it's the only resort because at the end of the day, it's more powerlust than anything.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Nayr Farros

[Teapot]

Let's put it this way: if there weren't a messy, bloody conflict, we wouldn't have a game. Things don't work out ideally because the world isn't ideal. Get over it, already.

[Party Moth]

@Cynthia: Ludvek, just like Dawson, could see that his nations problems could be resolved without resorting to violence or usurping thrones. But he never bothered to try. He instantly jumped to rebellion and his actions during(attacking villages, using Lucia as a hostage to try and exploit Elincia's good nature into going his way) belied his intentions. Violence should always be a last resort. But for them, it's the only resort because at the end of the day, it's more powerlust than anything.

Cynthia has it spot on. You also have to realize that the rebellion is meant to serve as a test to the ruler: If they are unable to quell those who believe them to be feeble, then they defeat their own purpose and the nation-state will collapse upon itself. In both the cases of Elincia and Hector, they have yet to prove themselves adequate rulers; if they fail to respond to the rebellion properly, the rebels will take their nation and shape it the way they see it. It's why Ludveck in particular constantly sacrifices moral values and pushes Elincia to break; if she's not able to put down his rebellion than she has no hope when war inevitably comes.

Yes, it may be disgusting. Yes, it may be Machiavellian. But if you can't pull yourself together and trudge through the swamp then you'll drown with the weight of thousands on your shoulders sinking with you. Honestly it's a lovely parallel to FE10's Part II that Arch is using to establish Hector as a proper ruler by the time FE6 rolls around.

[Nanami Touko]

The part I don't get is why Hector and Dawson are so obstinate in their goals. If Dawson could help straighten Lycia out, he could offer his knowledge to Hector, and I don't see why Hector wouldn't listen to that advice(even the best rulers have advisors). If Dawson were honest about his intentions, seeing that Lycia's situation gets fixed would be more important than who wears the proverbial crown.

Because Dawson is greedy. People aren't perfect, they have flaws. He wants to rule, and he wants Hector out of the way because being an advisor isn't something that he wants. He wants the power, the influence, and the adoration of the Ostian people. If he just tells Hector how to fix things, even if he gets mentioned as a trusted advisor, and as a person who helped save the place, he'll never be in the limelight. He'll always be Hector's right hand man.

It's like Dawson just decided in one moment that "Hector's not doing as good a job as I like, so I'll just kill him and take over without even bothering to parley." And Hector's like "Another rebellion.... Guess I'll go put it down instead of seeing if there's anything I can do to make a truce because traitors deserve only a swift execution." For people who are supposed to be in a gray area, they see things very black and white.

Dawson decided the most efficient and quick way to get himself to the throne would be to remove Hector from the picture. Hector didn't have time to even offer a truce, because Dawson was on his doorstep with an army. Even if he wanted to (because I think a truce would be out of character for Hector, he's never been one to step down from a challenge and has always protected the things he holds dear), there would be no way he could get himself or a messenger through Dawson's army to even speak to the man.

The characters see themselves with only one option, yes. That doesn't mean the storytelling is black and white. Again, you aren't supposed to agree with either of their actions. They seem selfish, they seem rash, and that's because they are. Dawson, being a flawed character, being greedy, forces Hector's hand. Hector, being stubborn, being rash, and being young, meets Dawson's hand with his own.

Thus the conflict.

I'm not sure I can break this down for you any other way. The characters are flawed and an ideal resolution to this scenario would be out of character for both of them. Arch created Dawson the way he wanted to, and is having Hector respond in character to this story.

Jealousy's right. If there wasn't a conflict for the player to play through, people wouldn't enjoy the tale. No one sits down with a Fire Emblem hack just to read through politics. They sit down to play through strategic maps, and defeat enemies/complete goals. If Arch wanted to write an ideal situation where everything is worked out through truce and parley, then he wouldn't have made a hack, he would've made a blog entry or a topic in the written works section. Hell, if Arch wanted that, then he wouldn't have written Dawson the way he has. He would've written a character whose ideals were less extreme and everything would've been puppies and rainbows.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Child of the Tenth Month

[Miacis]

Not to mention Dawson's supposed to have quite a bit of a grudge against Uther and Hector, if you've read Arch's blog post carefully. He believes his father should have suceeded Ulric. He was kinda okay with Uther because he grew well into his role, but Hector hasn't yet. So there is also a matter of personal grudge on top of just "he's greedy, he wants the throne to himself and no one else".

When you've got someone with some grudges at the head of a militaristic territory, you can't really expect him to solve things by begging for a position as counselor, after all.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Miacis

[Tamanoir]

After reading this Idea, No one wished for a EN Version of FE8 ? Carcino is theclosest thing we have ro democracy if I'm not mistaken...

And I won't say Dawson is greedy, more extremely ambitious. He still think that he is the best placed to direct the country.
I don't think that he winning will lead to prosperity. He want more some kind of autoritary governmnt than a true democraty, and do believe in the importance of a true leader. Just my two cents...

[Klokinator]

Arch has stated multiple times that he has no time or interest for a Magvel Nights hack because it would be a lot of work and time put in for little reward. Someone else could feasibly do it tho :O

[Arch]

Oh boy, here we go. I gotta respond to this damn debacle. Had a nice vacation, too. Left my laptop at home, tried to stay away from this place for a few days.

First of all, thanks to everybody who responded to the situation. I greatly appreciate people taking the time to engage Nayr's points, since I was off enjoying southern California and helping my cousin line up his college education (I'm the first person on our side of the family to actually go, so they wanted me along to help with things). I'd like say "I'm sorry" to all of you for the situation. None of this would've happened had I not thrown the first stone, so to speak, so for that, I apologize. This whole fiasco's just Nayr's retaliation, trying to give me a "taste of my own medicine" since his response to criticism is so often portrayed negatively (by myself and others). I'm sorry you guys had to waste your time with this bullshit internet drama. I provoked him, and I'm partially responsible for all of this nonsense.

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

And? And...? Sorry Miacis, had to steal your joke.

Now to deal with you. Nayr, if you were giving me valid criticisms, I would have responded with the same care as I do to all other critiques. You can ask Miacis, whose commentaries on Elibian Nights have been quite extensive (his own criticisms on the same tale, even, were met with script changes and a responsive ear from me), or anybody else who's given me legitimate feedback on the project. Plenty of examples in this very topic, even. I pride myself on being responsive to my critics. You, however, I know that this is just your personal butthurt vendetta against me. You aren't making legitimate criticisms; hell, from what others have pointed out, you apparently haven't even read the article all that well, and I'm unsure if you've even played the tale you're critiquing. Nevermind your sophomoric understanding democracy and politics.

So, Nayr, I'd like to politely request that you leave this topic alone. I won't fuck with you, you stay away from me, and I'm sure everybody (especially eCut) will be happier for it. My apologies for provoking you, I didn't realize it'd become quite the debacle that it did. All I did was mock your responses to criticism and that Carlin censorship nonsense you were doing; although I knew you'd probably take this little spat to a bitter personal level, I didn't think it'd go this far. I'll admit that I stooped to your level by responding to your "Arch is a villain" bullshit, and that was wrong of me to do. I should've left well enough alone; some guy on the internet ain't worth this kinda trouble.

If you've still got something to say to me, send it in a PM. I won't be replying to your posts anymore.

To eCut, I'd like to offer my apologies once again for making you deal with this nonsense. You're a wonderful person, a fair moderator, and you deserve more respect than that. Hell, she puts up with all of our nonsense, I'm sure it's quite a job. Thanks for all of your work, and I promise that I'll be better in the future and avoid these pointless internet dramas. Life's too short for that shit.

As for the rest of you: move along, there's nothing else to see here. I'll have an update on Tale 2xb as soon as I'm finished, and maybe I'll whip up another boss profile in the near future. Hopefully it won't be nearly as controversial.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Arch

[Myke]

I wanted to say over on the blog that this is my favourite EN plot so far (but it wouldn't let me sign in :<). The agents involved have clearly defined motives, and the reasons for which are complex and meaningful. There's good reason to root for either side of the conflict and this creates conflict within the player themself, adding to the engagement in a powerful way.

I mean this is more-or-less true of the other tales, too, but feudal political drama gives me a raging boner

[FalconVegeta1986]

How about playing as dawsons army in creative liberties?

[Arch]

How about playing as dawsons army in creative liberties?

Vegeta, you sunk my battleship!

I've actually had this planned for quite a while. I think it'd be fun to play a "turned tables" map like that, gives me more of a chance to explore Dawson in the hack as well.

I wanted to say over on the blog that this is my favourite EN plot so far (but it wouldn't let me sign in :<). The agents involved have clearly defined motives, and the reasons for which are complex and meaningful. There's good reason to root for either side of the conflict and this creates conflict within the player themself, adding to the engagement in a powerful way.

I mean this is more-or-less true of the other tales, too, but feudal political drama gives me a raging boner

That's bonerific to hear, Myke. Glad you enjoyed the story .

[Arch]

Double post, but I went ahead and wrote up another blog post this evening. Another entry in the "Abandoned Tales Archive" series; this time it focuses on a concept for a tale revolving around a certain Archsage...

No, not me. The other guy. Give it a read if you're interested.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Arch

[Shugey]

Pretty interesting read, but I can see how that concept wouldn't fit in with the rest of the game. However, it wouldn't be crazy to have a tale before FE7, as even the BSFEs had tales set before the original game.

[Cerbuirus]

The post was really interesting, but im glad that the tale was shelved as it seems a bit dull and done to death by fans, so good job with making the decisions on tales

[Haku]

You could have told Athos' tale from Fae's perspective or maybe Sophia's.

The tale could have taken place after Sophia returned from the Dread Isle looking for Athos, and having discovered that he passed away, asks Fae (since she is several centuries old) how Athos arrived in Arcadia in the first place. Then Fae narrates the story talking in a 3rd person, childish way and tells Sophia about how he met Nergal.

But its only a concept so it not really worth putting much thought into :)

Edited May 30, 2013 by KoopaTroopa

[Klokinator]

^That's actually a pretty cool idea man.

/makes a note