The Geek Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) Surprised that Arvis had Manfloy order him around when Arvis was alot more powerful than him. Manfloy had major dirt that he could give out to the people about Arvis, namely his Loptyr blood. It's mentioned during Gen 1 that there are major witch hunts for anyone who may have anything to do with the Lopt Sect, and that if people found out that Arvis had actual Lopt (un)holy blood he could well be subject to a fate worse than death. Also, on the actual subject of the thread, I like Sigurd well enough. His story arc is a big send up to the tragedies of Norse heroes (mostly his namesake, Sigurd Voelsung) since he's a decent guy that suffers through no fault of his own. Also, he kicks major ass as a unit. Edited May 9, 2014 by The Geek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cymbalina's Revenge Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 It's not like the game was her idea. And making a scene around Julius probably wouldn't have been smart anyway. As a rule of thumb, nothing that that Ishtar says when she is around Julius can be taken seriously. And even if we assume that her behavior is serious, she behaves no worse about killing enemies then the average Awakening PC. And just because the empire is bad doesn't automatically mean that the rebels are good guys. She had little reason to assume they are to be trusted. But they did kill her brother, his wife, her father and Yune knows how many people that she is close too. They might very well have taken everything from her that she had. The game is ambigious about Ishtar's motivations to the very end but for my part I couldn't hold it against her even if she absolutely loved the opportunity to kill some of the people who murdered them with her own hands. I can agree with all that, but I just don't find her written in a particularly convincing way overall. The pieces are there and something overall doesn't quite work for me. If the game devs were actively trying to put across the idea they had in the back of their own heads that the Seliph-era Crusaders were indeed not automatically "good guys," IMO they stacked the deck a little too unevenly with the "bad guys" being really, really BAD. Let's massacre civilians! Let's play a murder game! Let's have villager NPCs spelling out for us who's good and who's bad! Back to Sigurd: the flaws of Gen1 and the overall mess they caused through a mix of good and bad intentions and misplaced idealism is all communicated very well IMO. Gen2 mostly feels like a "Yay, good peoples winning!" fiesta, and if that wasn't the point, then the writers fumbled it. Didn't help that stuff like Leif's supporters trying to murder Blume in peacetime got relegated to the artbook. That'd be one hell of a reason for Ishtar to never, ever trust these people-- if she's spent her childhood aware they were planning to assassinate her father and she might've grown up under lock and key in some convent or orphanage? Yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Banzai Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 One of the worst FE lords in one of the worst FE games Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJWalker Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) One of the worst FE lords in one of the worst FE games But this thread isn't about Chrom... Edited May 10, 2014 by Ranger Jack Walker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotari Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 I'm late coming to this thread but I just have to ask, why is Quan such an asshole? I've just played through the first generation and I can't remember Thracia getting a mention beyond watch out for those mercenaries. What text am I missing that shows him as a racists judgmental asshole who wants to burn Thracia to the ground? From what I've seen he doesn't really care much about his home conflict and would much rather spend a few years helping his buddy out. Is there a conversation or something I'm missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refa Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 What does that have to do with Sigurd... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotari Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 What does that have to do with Sigurd... If you're referring to my comment, it's something people we're discussing earlier in the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Geek Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 One of the worst FE lords in one of the worst FE games Careful man, you might cut yourself on that edge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cymbalina's Revenge Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 I'm late coming to this thread but I just have to ask, why is Quan such an asshole? I've just played through the first generation and I can't remember Thracia getting a mention beyond watch out for those mercenaries. What text am I missing that shows him as a racists judgmental asshole who wants to burn Thracia to the ground? From what I've seen he doesn't really care much about his home conflict and would much rather spend a few years helping his buddy out. Is there a conversation or something I'm missing? Basically that "Leonster Falls" short story paints him in a surprisingly negative light: selfish, so reckless his own mother expresses the hope Leif won't end up like Quan, and so keen on making war on Travant that he keeps upsetting his own political allies who would rather he didn't stir up trouble. FE5 also has some unflattering things to say about Quan and the entire ruling class of the Manster District. So, take "Leonster Falls" + the negative things August discloses in FE5 + a couple of more subtle things in FE4 that may or may not be intended as sketchy and the overall picture of Quan becomes someone who was personally brave and behaved honorably toward the people who really cared about but who kind of sucked at being a Crown Prince and really wasn't putting the best interests of his own future subjects first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotari Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Basically that "Leonster Falls" short story paints him in a surprisingly negative light: selfish, so reckless his own mother expresses the hope Leif won't end up like Quan, and so keen on making war on Travant that he keeps upsetting his own political allies who would rather he didn't stir up trouble. FE5 also has some unflattering things to say about Quan and the entire ruling class of the Manster District. So, take "Leonster Falls" + the negative things August discloses in FE5 + a couple of more subtle things in FE4 that may or may not be intended as sketchy and the overall picture of Quan becomes someone who was personally brave and behaved honorably toward the people who really cared about but who kind of sucked at being a Crown Prince and really wasn't putting the best interests of his own future subjects first. What is the Lenoster Falls short story? Is it a manga chapter or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cymbalina's Revenge Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 What is the Lenoster Falls short story? Is it a manga chapter or something? Right here. It was written as the basis for the setting of FE5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotari Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Right here. It was written as the basis for the setting of FE5. Interesting. Though I still think it depicts Quan as more involved with his friend and not showing enough concern for the Thracia situation rather than being over zealous against Trabant. Anway that was just me dredging up an derailment. I don't want to derail the thread again by discussing it. I was just interested to know where it all came from (I am playing Thracia now so I'll get to say what it says about him in that game soon enough). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ϲharlie Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Sigurd is okay. I hold him at approximately the same level of esteem as most other Fire Emblem lords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirmola Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 What i like about sigurd is that he is much closer to a classical Greek tragic hero then most "tragic characters" in modern literature. The classical Greeks felt that the ideal tragic hero was a good man with a flaw which brought about his downfall. Sigurd fits this bill to a tee, with "too naive" being the flaw in question. An ideal tragedy also contains a reversal. Everything is going swimmingly until it starts going horribly. THis is accompanied with a recognition. The hero realizes this, and the audience watches his mental facade crumble to dust before there eyes. This is then followed by the scene of suffering, in which some kind of bodily harm comes to the hero. To quote chapter 11 of aristotle's "poetics", the classic word on the subject Reversal of the Situation is a change by which the action veers round to its opposite, subject always to our rule of probability or necessity. Thus in the Oedipus, the messenger comes to cheer Oedipus and free him from his alarms about his mother, but by revealing who he is, he produces the opposite effect. Again in the Lynceus, Lynceus is being led away to his death, and Danaus goes with him, meaning, to slay him; but the outcome of the preceding incidents is that Danaus is killed and Lynceus saved. Recognition, as the name indicates, is a change from ignorance to knowledge, producing love or hate between the persons destined by the poet for good or bad fortune. The best form of recognition is coincident with a Reversal of the Situation, as in the Oedipus. There are indeed other forms. Even inanimate things of the most trivial kind may in a sense be objects of recognition. Again, we may recognise or discover whether a person has done a thing or not. But the recognition which is most intimately connected with the plot and action is, as we have said, the recognition of persons. This recognition, combined, with Reversal, will produce either pity or fear; and actions producing these effects are those which, by our definition, Tragedy represents. Moreover, it is upon such situations that the issues of good or bad fortune will depend. Recognition, then, being between persons, it may happen that one person only is recognised by the other-when the latter is already known—or it may be necessary that the recognition should be on both sides. Thus Iphigenia is revealed to Orestes by the sending of the letter; but another act of recognition is required to make Orestes known to Iphigenia. Two parts, then, of the Plot—Reversal of the Situation and Recognition—turn upon surprises. A third part is the Scene of Suffering. The Scene of Suffering is a destructive or painful action, such as death on the stage, bodily agony, wounds and the like. This sounds a lot like what happens at the end of chapter 5. Note that the although having well written characters helps, it is not necessary for a decent tragedy. To quote chapter 6 of poetics: The Plot, then, is the first principle, and, as it were, the soul of a tragedy: Character holds the second place. A similar fact is seen in painting. The most beautiful colours, laid on confusedly, will not give as much pleasure as the chalk outline of a portrait. Note that Aristotle would have issues pretty much with the entire rest of the game, but Sigurd gets a pass in my book just for being done in a way that is very rare nowadays. I honestly don't especially like how the story is told or how the characters are portrayed, but the story that is being told (the "chalk outline" if you will) is better then most other stories, and that is close enough to be good in my view. (oh, and awakening is the poster child for "The most beautiful colours, laid on confusedly") "Poetics" can be found here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1974/1974-h/1974-h.htm To see another example of tragedy, read "Oedipus the king", although that play assumes that you know the outlines of the myth of Oedipus, so read the wikipedea article or something first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_the_King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Geek Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 What i like about sigurd is that he is much closer to a classical Greek tragic hero then most "tragic characters" in modern literature. The classical Greeks felt that the ideal tragic hero was a good man with a flaw which brought about his downfall. Sigurd fits this bill to a tee, with "too naive" being the flaw in question. An ideal tragedy also contains a reversal. Everything is going swimmingly until it starts going horribly. THis is accompanied with a recognition. The hero realizes this, and the audience watches his mental facade crumble to dust before there eyes. This is then followed by the scene of suffering, in which some kind of bodily harm comes to the hero. To quote chapter 11 of aristotle's "poetics", the classic word on the subject This sounds a lot like what happens at the end of chapter 5. Eh, I'd argue again that he's more based upon Norse or Celtic tragic heroes since those two mythologies are where the Jugdral saga take the majority of their inspiration. In fact, the dynamic between Sigurd, Deirdre, and Arvis parallels the story of the characters of Sigurd, Brynhildr, and Gudrun in the Norse "Voelsung Saga" In the Voelsung Saga, Sigurd comes across the warrior maiden Brynhildr placed into an enchanted sleep. He frees her and they fall in love, but they cannot marry until Sigurd claims his throne as the heir of the house of Voelsung. On his journey, he comes across a powerful noble family led by the matriarch Grimhildr who is also a powerful witch. She hypnotizes Sigurd so that he forgets about Brynhildr and instead falls in love with her daughter Gudrun. Brynhildr is later wed to Gudrun's brother Gunnar, but she goes crazy when she finds out that Sigurd married Gudrun and kills him. This parallels the story of Sigurd, Deirdre, and Arvis because Sigurd finds Deirdre, they fall in love, then Deirdre is hypnotized to forget Sigurd and fall in love with Arvis, and Sigurd later goes on a rampage when he finds out that Arvis married Deirdre, and is killed. Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirmola Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 (edited) Eh, I'd argue again that he's more based upon Norse or Celtic tragic heroes since those two mythologies are where the Jugdral saga take the majority of their inspiration. In fact, the dynamic between Sigurd, Deirdre, and Arvis parallels the story of the characters of Sigurd, Brynhildr, and Gudrun in the Norse "Voelsung Saga" In the Voelsung Saga, Sigurd comes across the warrior maiden Brynhildr placed into an enchanted sleep. He frees her and they fall in love, but they cannot marry until Sigurd claims his throne as the heir of the house of Voelsung. On his journey, he comes across a powerful noble family led by the matriarch Grimhildr who is also a powerful witch. She hypnotizes Sigurd so that he forgets about Brynhildr and instead falls in love with her daughter Gudrun. Brynhildr is later wed to Gudrun's brother Gunnar, but she goes crazy when she finds out that Sigurd married Gudrun and kills him. This parallels the story of Sigurd, Deirdre, and Arvis because Sigurd finds Deirdre, they fall in love, then Deirdre is hypnotized to forget Sigurd and fall in love with Arvis, and Sigurd later goes on a rampage when he finds out that Arvis married Deirdre, and is killed. Just a thought. I think so too, but greek tragedy as a genre does not care what mythology a hero comes from(note that nowhere in poetics is this a condition). A writer can easaly write a story so that the general framework of plot is based on greek tragedy, while the actual events are based on any tragic story. Note for example that sigurd had no flaw that caused his demise in the story above. (although actual ancient greeks probably would have counted being brainwashed. They weren't very picky.) Also, does the Veolsung have the reversal, the recognition, and suffering? The way that these occur at the end of chapter 5 scene is a little to precise to be coincidence, imo. Edited May 11, 2014 by sirmola Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Banzai Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 auuuuuuugh are we talking about the aristotelian definition of tragedy no lets not do that aristotle didnt know jack dick about tragedy he was a philosopher not a literary theorist whats antigones tragic flaw? whats the colonus oedipus's tragic flaw? whats the tragic flaw of anything in euripides? whats the tragic flaw of orestes? of agamemnon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Geek Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 I think so too, but greek tragedy as a genre does not care what mythology a hero comes from(note that nowhere in poetics is this a condition). A writer can easaly write a story so that the general framework of plot is based on greek tragedy, while the actual events are based on any tragic story. Note for example that sigurd had no flaw that caused his demise in the story above. (although actual ancient greeks probably would have counted being brainwashed. They weren't very picky.) Also, does the Veolsung have the reversal, the recognition, and suffering? The way that these occur at the end of chapter 5 scene is a little to precise to be coincidence, imo. Uh. Let me think. After killing Sigurd, Brynhildr goes absolutely nuts and kills herself by throwing herself on his funeral pyre. Does that count? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotari Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 auuuuuuugh are we talking about the aristotelian definition of tragedy no lets not do that aristotle didnt know jack dick about tragedy he was a philosopher not a literary theorist whats antigones tragic flaw? whats the colonus oedipus's tragic flaw? whats the tragic flaw of anything in euripides? whats the tragic flaw of orestes? of agamemnon? I'd say Agamemnon's flaw was being an arrogant dick who thought it was cool to sacrifice children and steal women without thinking of the consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirmola Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Uh. Let me think. After killing Sigurd, Brynhildr goes absolutely nuts and kills herself by throwing herself on his funeral pyre. Does that count? Possibly. Like i said, it depends on the telling more than the events. It's also possible (if in my estimation unlikely) that these elements are all already there and the the resemblance to Greek tragedy is coincidental. In that case, too bad, but being good at something on accident is better then not being good at at it all. auuuuuuugh are we talking about the aristotelian definition of tragedy no lets not do that aristotle didnt know jack dick about tragedy he was a philosopher not a literary theorist whats antigones tragic flaw? whats the colonus oedipus's tragic flaw? whats the tragic flaw of anything in euripides? whats the tragic flaw of orestes? of agamemnon? It is defenatly true that far from all greek tradgeties follow the aristotelian mold(life would be boring if all stories followed the same pattern), but that dousn't mean that it isn't a mold worth following. My point is that it isn't followed nearly enough nowadays. Some good old pity and fear is nice for a change. And before you point out that it does not do that, i find when i play it that it does a decent job (not an excellent job, but a decent one), which is more than can be said for most "tragic" media nowadays, which simply shock more often than not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Banzai Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 modern society does not work like greek society nobody reads tragedy as a cautionary tale unless drugs are involved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirmola Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 modern society does not work like greek society nobody reads tragedy as a cautionary tale unless drugs are involved They should. Also, that structure is at least nice for a change even if not reading as a cautionary tale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Banzai Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 They should. Also, that structure is at least nice for a change even if not reading as a cautionary tale. People should not be required to consume entertainment in ways that are in line with a philosophical outline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirmola Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 People should not be required to consume entertainment in ways that are in line with a philosophical outline Required? no. recommended, yes. I could argue that learning about the world from fiction is of the most important points of it. Teaching us about the world and making us think is one of the things that makes good literature great and decent literature good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bookofholsety Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 whats antigones tragic flaw? [2:37:36 AM] <a friend>: whats antigones tragic flaw? [2:37:37 AM] <a friend>: uh [2:37:40 AM] <a friend>: antigone was not the point of her self-named story. creon was. and creon's tragic flaw was pride [2:37:43 AM] <a friend>: man this idiot didn't even READ antigone 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.