Shikinoyume Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) Allow me to simplify this argument for you: We have the man who is basically the Joker...versus a giant lobster who is killing people to bring around peace. I like how Walhart is portrayed, but Gangrel is just...so...batshit crazy. Because Gangrel is basically the joker is why i felt that Gnome should have joined at point in the game, because he is basically Batman LOL And the avatar's default name is Robin. XD Loooooooooooooooooool Edited March 8, 2013 by Shikihime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLeafeon Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Because Gangrel is basically the joker is why i felt that Gnome should have joined at point in the game, because he is basically Batman LOL And the avatar's default name is Robin. XD Also, looking at Walhart's lines again, he never does say he's a god. He says he conquers them. So ignore my last post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkkfan Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 He is effective, he hits all the right spots to make you hate him, and that essentially makes you care about him (as in "FUCK YOU GANGREL! YOU'RE GOING DOOOOWN, YOU BASTARD!" as opposed to the more diffused "Ooh! a powerful boss! Better go with caution here..." emotion-wise). Right, and they do a good job at making you hate him. I'm pretty sure that's not what the OP is trying to say though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Folt Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Right, and they do a good job at making you hate him. I'm pretty sure that's not what the OP is trying to say though. Most likely not, but I like Gangrel and his complexity as a character as well. The mere fact that you could recruit him sparked my curiosity as to why he could be one of your recruitable units, and his Supports & backstory gave me adequate reason as to why I would recruit him. I'm not saying the same applies to you, but that's what I thought when I heard that he was the first Spotpass character for the first time, and I'm not disappointed in that regard. For the record, I feel the same regarding Walhart as a recruitable character. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gangrel Posted March 8, 2013 Author Share Posted March 8, 2013 Whoa, whoa, hold up. Since when did the game say Walhart was OPPOSED to the gods? Walhart never got/wanted a chance to actually kill one, he just wanted to be a god of man himself. So I still do not see why you would think that's an emotional reason. That may be WALHART'S OPINION, but it's not an emotional reason that corresponds with the others. Also, just to clarify, when I said who is a better villain, I meant who is more interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Party Moth Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Even though I voted for Gangrel, I'm gonna back up Walhart a bit too. It seems clear to me that whether or not Walhart wants to kill/become a god, when it comes right down to it, his opinion is that mankind should forge its own destiny. He's the sort of man that isn't content to say, "Oh, we'll let Naga deal with it" and doesn't trust the Exalt to do the job. Hell, if anything, based on Chrom's father's actions, Walhart has a pretty damn good reason to not trust Chrom with the job of killing Grima. He tasks himself as a savior to humanity and will save it even if it struggles and kicks and screams. If you really want to break the whole argument down, Spotpass supports directly state that Walhart was one of the major reasons Gangrel decided to invade Ylisse. In essence, Walhart contributed to kick starting the plot and his actions weigh down on the first arc of the game as well, even if it isn't visible while playing. Of course, the fact that you have to get the Spotpass to learn this in the first place is the whole reason I chose to vote for Gangrel: Execution in story serves a greater role as a villain as well as providing screen time, and Walhart fell flat there while Gangrel flourished as a strong primary antagonist in his arc. Both men are similar and engaging. It's a shame one had better execution than the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Folt Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 ^^ Part of his speech to Chrom in Ch. 19: Walhart: Look at you! Are you not ashamed? Your mind is filled with nothing but secondhand beliefs. You dance upon the stage of your gods like a mindless puppet! THAT is what I reject: being a slave to tradition, to obligation. The old ways. Damn the gods! Damn their fates and their destinies! I will have true freedom! Any man who offers less is my enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkkfan Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Whoa, whoa, hold up. Since when did the game say Walhart was OPPOSED to the gods? Chapter 20 Walhart: I would end the reign of the gods, and you object on moral grounds?! Blood is spilled in any new birth, Prince. And in many a just cause, as you know... Walhart never got/wanted a chance to actually kill one, he just wanted to be a god of man himself. So I still do not see why you would think that's an emotional reason. That may be WALHART'S OPINION, but it's not an emotional reason that corresponds with the others. Also, just to clarify, when I said who is a better villain, I meant who is more interesting. He doesn't want to become a god himself so much as eliminate man's dependence on the gods. This is also a major part of his motivation for wanting to kill Grima. Also, as for it not being an emotional reason, Walhart doesn't believe in gods or predestination. Think of your religion if you have one (if you don't, my argument probably makes even more sense). Wouldn't you say that your belief/disbelief in God is a significant aspect of your character? It is the same way with Walhart; his independent, anti-predestination sentiments compose an important part of his development that goes beyond a mere "opinion." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Persian Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) Ok... In my opinion, they are both good villains, but Gangrel a better character, which is quite different than being a good villain. Let's start with why Gangrel is interesting for me: He is hinted to have a rather difficult past. At first, his intentions were good. He wanted to unite Ylisse, Plegia and Ferox so they would be able to resist to the Conqueror, Walhart. Unfortunately, he lost himself to the power somewhere along the way, which is pretty common for characters with a difficult past. Of course, with Aversa and Validar working for him, it probably didn't helped much, they might've been influencing him somehow. If his supports with male and female Avatar as well as some of his in-game lines are to believe, he's very much aware that he did bad things and he regret it to the point that he became somewhat depressed, bordering on suicidal. At first, the only reason why he join is because he accept to throw his life at Grima instead of throwing it at Chrom since Chom wouldn't kill him. But as he become closer to the Avatar, he decide to start anew and become a new man and a better king. Also, he's one of the few character to do something somewhat romantic in his A-Rank support with female Avatar (He buy flowers for her!) I also think that Gangrel is funny and cute, but yeah, I'm weird... As what I think of Walhart... Well basically, he wanted to bring peace by doing war... Again, good intentions, but bad way of achieving them. But we don't know as much about Walhart. His past is not really hinted and doesn't seem to have as much remorses as Gangrel for what he did. He join because Chrom beat him again and therefore, he consider that he was "conquered" by Chrom and that he have to follow him. It's only with the Avatar supports that he start to aknowlege that he might have been wrong and that his way to reach the peace might not have been the best... Don't get me wrong, I do think that Walhart is interesting, but not as much as Gangrel... Edited March 9, 2013 by Persian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gangrel Posted March 9, 2013 Author Share Posted March 9, 2013 1. That may be true, but as I said in the first post, Gangrel wanted to unite against Valm, and Walhart wanted to unite against Grima. Those motives cancel out, while Gangrel's revenge-wanting adds more motives than Walhart has 2. I do have a religion 3. If you read the in-game text when they were talking to naga, and other times, it clearly said that Grima is NOT a god. Grima is just a very powerful, dark being. Play the game again and read it if you do not believe me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkkfan Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) 1. That may be true, but as I said in the first post, Gangrel wanted to unite against Valm, and Walhart wanted to unite against Grima. Those motives cancel out, while Gangrel's revenge-wanting adds more motives than Walhart has 2. I do have a religion 3. If you read the in-game text when they were talking to naga, and other times, it clearly said that Grima is NOT a god. Grima is just a very powerful, dark being. Play the game again and read it if you do not believe me. 1. I would say that at the very least Walhart's belief in lack of dependence on gods at least cancels out Gangrel's revenge-mongering. The way I see it it looks something like this: Walhart wanting to kill an evil dragon > Gangrel wanting to fight against a continent Walhart being opposed to everyone being pawns of the gods > Gangrel wanting to kill for revenge. IMO revenge is a shallow motive compared to Walhart's especially considering the lack of development in-game for Gangrel's motives. Also, I think that wanting to do away with the notion of supreme deities is a much more profound motivation than Gangrel's more worldly motivations of wanting to kill men. 2. Ok then, would you say it is a significant part of your character? I know this point is sort of immaterial but hopefully you see where I'm going with this. 3. I know Grima and Naga technically aren't gods but they are the closest you ever get to seeing gods in-game. Besides, they are obviously what Walhart is referring to with his quote about being pawns of gods. Edit: And I've read some of these posts and some people are definitely voting for who is more evil and not more interesting. You should have clarified that sooner. Edited March 9, 2013 by Walhart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faye Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) I voted for Gangrel because a thief-class as a climax boss is just interesting. Walhart was too eh, plus he's a horrible father to Morgan. Gangrel at least wants to redeem himself. Edited March 10, 2013 by Faye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masked_Hunter1825 Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Walhart is a hilarious father. I noticed though in event tile conversations with Morgan, hes more mellowed out. Oh and Gangrel as the better villain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaikeTime Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I voted Gangrel. Walhart is a great villain, don't get me wrong, but he lacks the personal touch that Gangrel had. Gangrel had his country decimated by Ylisse and wanted vengeance...and got it, in a way. The only reason Walhart and Chrom's gang fought in the first place was Walhart invading Ferox. Not quite as personal. Though I will admit Walhart has the better armor. He's like a Lobster riding a horse! :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.