Emmeryn's Sacrifice

[BrightBow]

But what was the point of killing off miss purity of pureness if she was just going to come back? Is Awakening that scared of killing people? Bringing her back was simply not a good move.

I don't think that reviving a character does necessary diminish the meaning that said death has.

Like, take Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan for example. They killed of Spock, one of the greatest TV icons ever. But only temporarily as the movie's sequel would revive him. Yet regardless of that, his death is seen as a meaningful part of a damn well made piece of cinema.

Now whether Emmeryn's particular death has a meaning in the first place is besides the point. You definitely won't see me defending that.

Bu that's all FEA characters. Except Kellam, but nobody even noticed his great personality.

Other Awakening characters like... Kellam? I don't understand what praise you mean but either way, Emmeryn is a main character. You can't compare that to PC's who don't even have a speaking role after they join. Unlike them, the stuff she does is supposed to actually matter.

Edited July 16, 2014 by BrightBow

[Czar_Yoshi]

As a side note for Emmeryn in general, I think she'd be a really good ruler if she only had advisers to keep her naive and emotionally charged decisions in check.

But she has one! Er, had. Remember that nameless Priest who bailed in Cht.7?

[Moira]

But she has one! Er, had. Remember that nameless Priest who bailed in Cht.7?

Sorry. I meant good ones.

[RJWalker]

Getting an odd sense of deja vu...

Well on topic, I suppose her sacrifice didn't do too much for me. Though I was surprised at how underhanded Ylisse leader of pure pureness could be. The fact that she had equipped miracle made this much less of a sacrifice rather it was clearly a calculated move to cripple Gangrel's "blossoming" PR....

You know, I think I'd rather the other thread topic suggested: Leaders worse than Emmeryn.

Here are some worthy contestants....

Chrom: Trusting to a "you should have been shanked already" level....

Erirka: Lets thief take plot device..... Willingly gives evil sorcery plot device.... Gives demon possessed friend the plot device that was the only way to kill him, as well as a nice smack on the bum to send him on his way. You know... Many times I wonder if the game would be possible if Seth wasn't in the dialogue going "Erika stahp!"

Ephraim: He got better.... but much Leeroy in the beginning. Evidently he never read A Lord's Guide: Exiled From Your Throne... And again, thank god for Seth telling team subtext how to rule...

Oh where was I? Ah yes, anyway, this thread prob has a clone on page two.... did we really need this?

Well the difference between bad leaders like Eirika and Ephraim and really bad leaders like Emmeryn is the fact that Eirika and Ephraim get called out on their bullshit. The game makes it clear that their behaviour is unacceptable for that of a ruler. But the game never treats Emmeryn's behvaiour as anything other than ideal when in reality, it's far from ideal in every possible way. She never listens to good advice. The irony is that Chrom is the voice of reason before her sacrifce but after that, he's every bit as reckless and stupid as she was. Yeah, a lot good her 'sacrifice' did.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Ranger Jack Walker

[Interceptor]

Well the difference between bad leaders like Eirika and Ephraim and really bad leaders like Emmeryn is the fact that Eirika and Ephraim get called out on their bullshit. The game makes it clear that their behaviour is unacceptable for that of a ruler.

You know, I remember when stories didn't spoon-feed an audience with precise instructions on how they were supposed to feel about something, and that was considered to be just fine, because people were presumed to possess critical thinking ability.

Yeah, a lot good her 'sacrifice' did.

This is a profoundly silly statement to make. Suppose that Emm doesn't sacrifice herself, and Chrom hands over the Fire Emblem in an attempt to save her life. It doesn't take a lot of creative energy to imagine how that would end poorly.

[RJWalker]

You know, I remember when stories didn't spoon-feed an audience with precise instructions on how they were supposed to feel about something, and that was considered to be just fine, because people were presumed to possess critical thinking ability.

This is a profoundly silly statement to make. Suppose that Emm doesn't sacrifice herself, and Chrom hands over the Fire Emblem in an attempt to save her life. It doesn't take a lot of creative energy to imagine how that would end poorly.

When I said the game makes it 'clear', I mean clear to an intellectual person. The actual dialogue is very subtle with this. So much that many people didn't even catch it. Perhaps too subtle. Maybe you could have that as a flaw with the writing. Don't even try to imply that SS spoon-fed its audience on how to feel. Just don't.

I too remember when games had subtlety. Awakening most definitely doesn't since it keeps insisting that Emmeryn is oh-so-saintly and in the right when any sane person can she through her stupidity. Awakening does indeed 'spoon-feed' its audience. Don't pretend it doesn't. Awakening doesn't think its audience possess critical thinking ability since it keeps repeating everything including character quirks.

Olivia? She's shy. She's very shy. Are you sure you got that yet? She's very shy. Why don't we repeat it 10 more times just to make sure that you understood that she's shy. Kellam? Oh, people don't tend to notice him. Maybe you didn't catch that. Here, let us repeat that he's not noticed by people in literally almost every single line of dialogue he has when he enters a scene. And then some. And some more. With all the characters. Every last one.

Don't even pretend that this is not true. Awakening has all the subtlety of a punch to the face.

And if her sacrifice was supposed to teach Chrom, then she failed spectacularly since his behviour only gets worse.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Ranger Jack Walker

[BrightBow]

You know, I remember when stories didn't spoon-feed an audience with precise instructions on how they were supposed to feel about something, and that was considered to be just fine, because people were presumed to possess critical thinking ability.

Giving a character nothing but praise, idealization and glorification by everyone but the dastardly, mustache twirling, puppy-kicking excuse of a villain, is giving the audience precise instructions on how they are supposed to feel about them.

Edited July 16, 2014 by BrightBow

[RJWalker]

Giving a character nothing but praise, idealization and glorification by everyone but the dastardly, mustache twirling, puppy-kicking excuse of a villain, is giving the audience precise feelings on how they are supposed to feel about them.

Yeah, this, pretty much. I'm still laughing at the notion that SS spoon-feeds its audience on how to think.

[Dandragon]

I'd like to ask what exactly was the danger if Gangrel got the Fire Emblem?

[BrightBow]

I'd like to ask what exactly was the danger if Gangrel got the Fire Emblem?

Nothing, because as we know Grima can just awaken his counterpart anyway through the power of bullshit.

[RJWalker]

I'd like to ask what exactly was the danger if Gangrel got the Fire Emblem?

None. Since the Emblem didn't do anything that would help Gangrel or Grimleal. And they didn't need it either since they managed Grima's ritual just fine even though Avatar had Basilio switch one of the gems with a fake.

So yeah, completely pointless to the villains. The heroes apparently needed it to summon Naga but awakening Chrom's Falchion was also pointless since sealing Grima away when you can kill him permanently is a stupid thing to do.

[Dandragon]

None. Since the Emblem didn't do anything that would help Gangrel or Grimleal. And they didn't need it either since they managed Grima's ritual just fine even though Avatar had Basilio switch one of the gems with a fake.

So yeah, completely pointless to the villains. The heroes apparently needed it to summon Naga but awakening Chrom's Falchion was also pointless since sealing Grima away when you can kill him permanently is a stupid thing to do.

Then why the FUCK would Emmeryn sacrifice herself over a goddamn plate of gold with holes for pretty jewelry? Gangrel obviously didn't care about Grima whatsoever, he just wanted people to die.

I have to wonder if the story would of been a BIT better if, instead of commiting suicide, Gangrel actually killed her. Like, stabbed her or pushed her off.

[BrightBow]

Then why the FUCK would Emmeryn sacrifice herself over a goddamn plate of gold with holes for pretty jewelry? Gangrel obviously didn't care about Grima whatsoever, he just wanted people to die.

I have to wonder if the story would of been a BIT better if, instead of commiting suicide, Gangrel actually killed her. Like, stabbed her or pushed her off.

She sacrificed herself so that the Plegian's would suck up their rage, vaguely defined suffering and desire for revenge and instead take up arms against their own country. "See now that one selfless act has the power to change the world!" She planned all that. She expected that everyone would just turn against their own nation like it was the most natural thing in the world to do as long as you just give up on revenge.

Edited July 16, 2014 by BrightBow

[Dandragon]

She sacrificed herself so that the Plegian's would suck up their undefined rage, suffering and desire for revenge and instead take up arms against their own country. "See now that one selfless act has the power to change the world!" She planned all that. She expected that everyone would just turn against their own nation like it was the most natural thing in the world even if you have no desire for revenge.

...I'm not sure how to respond to that. Is that ego? Is that thinking that she is so great and kind that everyone, even enemy troops, would be saddened by her death?

[BrightBow]

...I'm not sure how to respond to that. Is that ego? Is that thinking that she is so great and kind that everyone, even enemy troops, would be saddened by her death?

Obviously that's not what they were going for but I would say it sure sounds like it.

Here are her last words in their entirety:

Emmeryn: Plegians! I ask that you hear the truth of my words! War will win you nothing but sadness and pain, both inside your borders and out. Free yourselves from this hatred! From this cycle of pain and vengeance. Do what you must... As I will do. See now that one selfless act has the power to change the world!

Btw, I love that her speech isn't about stuff like whether she actually wants peace herself. About how she feels about the undefined actions of her father. And how the relationship between her people and the Plegians would look like.

As a contrast to that, I would like to remind you of Empress Sanaki. When she faced the survivor of the crimes of her people, she fell on her knees and begged in the name of her people for forgiveness for those actions. Emmeryn just orders them around and then kills herself, expecting that this would move everyone and make people like Mustafa think that she is the greatest person ever. Not that even he could point out what so great about her speech was.

Edited July 16, 2014 by BrightBow

[Interceptor]

When I said the game makes it 'clear', I mean clear to an intellectual person.

And when I was getting nostalgic about stories that weren't written for dummies, I was lampooning your desire to have Awakening explicitly call out Emm's poor leadership. As if the events of the story, and the disaster that was her naive idealism/pacifism, weren't already obvious. The game even gives you the opportunity to see her idiocy play out in real-time, as she makes decisions that seal her fate.

And if her sacrifice was supposed to teach Chrom, then she failed spectacularly since his behviour only gets worse.

I have no patience for your nonsense; this isn't about "teaching" Chrom, or any other goalpost movements that you have queued up. It's about consequences. You can either concede the point, or you admit that you can't possibly see how surrendering the Fire Emblem to a double-crossing madman could be any different from how the events of Chapter 9 actually played out.

Giving a character nothing but praise, idealization and glorification by everyone but the dastardly, mustache twirling, puppy-kicking excuse of a villain, is giving the audience precise instructions on how they are supposed to feel about them.

Nobody said that Awakening wasn't doing this, although certainly some people would object to your hyperbolic summary of the game's events. Were you actually arguing with someone, here?

[BrightBow]

Nobody said that Awakening wasn't doing this, although certainly some people would object to your hyperbolic summary of the game's events. Were you actually arguing with someone, here?

Erm, yes you did. You were literally just writing in the same post that Awakening "gives you the opportunity to see her idiocy play out in real-time, as she makes decisions that seal her fate". What is this but objecting against the claim that the game shoves one viewpoint down your throat?

Edited July 16, 2014 by BrightBow

[Interceptor]

Erm, yes you did. You were literally just writing in the same post that Awakening "gives you the opportunity to see her idiocy play out in real-time, as she makes decisions that seal her fate". What is this but objecting against the claim that the game shoves one viewpoint down your throat?

Uhh, it's an observation that the player is given the opportunity to see Emm being an idiot, which is just a simple matter of fact. There's no argument from me, anywhere, that Awakening isn't attempting to spoon-feed things to the playing audience.

Just to save some aggravation in this thread, here's a list of things that Ain't Nobody Got Time For:

• That
• Your wild inferences

I hope that makes things clear.

[RJWalker]

And when I was getting nostalgic about stories that weren't written for dummies, I was lampooning your desire to have Awakening explicitly call out Emm's poor leadership. As if the events of the story, and the disaster that was her naive idealism/pacifism, weren't already obvious. The game even gives you the opportunity to see her idiocy play out in real-time, as she makes decisions that seal her fate.

Except the game keeps insisting she never did anything wrong. I don't want the game to explicitly tell me that she was wrong. I can see that she's an idiot by myself. I just want it to stop telling me that she's literally perfect when's she far from it.

As for SS, it doesn't force any way of thinking on you. Seth merely states that the people are not cheering for Ephraim but rather, for a better tomorrow. It's up the player to decide how wrong Ephraim was and how much he can or does improve. And opinions will vary on how much he learns from his mistakes. Which is good. That opens up discussion.

And lol@me shifting goal posts. That Chrom's behaviour worsens after his sacrifice is one of the first points I made.

[Czar_Yoshi]

Well the difference between bad leaders like Eirika and Ephraim and really bad leaders like Emmeryn is the fact that Eirika and Ephraim get called out on their bullshit. The game makes it clear that their behaviour is unacceptable for that of a ruler. But the game never treats Emmeryn's behvaiour as anything other than ideal when in reality, it's far from ideal in every possible way. She never listens to good advice. The irony is that Chrom is the voice of reason before her sacrifce but after that, he's every bit as reckless and stupid as she was. Yeah, a lot good her 'sacrifice' did.

Actually, I'd say the difference between Eirika and Emmeryn is their responses upon having their castle sacked by Validar/Valter. They both start off being dragged off by Seth/Chrom, but after their first battle Eirika picks up a sword and Emmeryn runs off back home.

[Interceptor]

Except the game keeps insisting she never did anything wrong. I don't want the game to explicitly tell me that she was wrong. I can see that she's an idiot by myself. I just want it to stop telling me that she's literally perfect when's she far from it.

You are being too general, here, when you say that "the game [is telling me] that she's literally perfect". Who says that? In what context? Because the game is also telling you that she's a naive dumbass, just by virtue of showing you what her decisions wrought.

As for SS, it doesn't force any way of thinking on you. Seth merely states that the people are not cheering for Ephraim but rather, for a better tomorrow. It's up the player to decide how wrong Ephraim was and how much he can or does improve. And opinions will vary on how much he learns from his mistakes. Which is good. That opens up discussion.

I can't wait until 2020, when people romanticize Awakening's story. That appears to be the general schedule.

And lol@me shifting goal posts.

I agree, it's hilarious. The point was that "a lot good her 'sacrifice' did" is a profoundly silly thing to say, because her sacrifice does actually have an impact. It doesn't particularly matter if you suppose her aim was to change Chrom's behavior, any more that it would matter if her aim was to turn into a rain of strawberry gumdrops right before she hit the ground.

[RJWalker]

Actually, I'd say the difference between Eirika and Emmeryn is their responses upon having their castle sacked by Validar/Valter. They both start off being dragged off by Seth/Chrom, but after their first battle Eirika picks up a sword and Emmeryn runs off back home.

This site needs a 'Like' button.

I can't wait until 2020, when people romanticize Awakening's story. That appears to be the general schedule.

People have been doing that since the game was released.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Ranger Jack Walker

[Interceptor]

People have been doing that since the game was released.

Awakening is too new, still. It's not the same sort of hipster, get off my lawn, this-new-shit-sucks sort of vibe unless there is a newer title to compare it to while sighing wistfully.

[RJWalker]

Awakening is too new, still. It's not the same sort of hipster, get off my lawn, this-new-shit-sucks sort of vibe unless there is a newer title to compare it to while sighing wistfully.

Good thing that hipster attitude doesn't apply to the older games then.

I mean, you say it does. You said it before. But that doesn't make it so.

I doubt Awakening will ever get much praise from me unless the next game is somehow worse but in that case, Awakening will only get praise for not being as bad. Unless the next game is good. But we'll see when it actually becomes a thing.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Ranger Jack Walker

[Ownagepuffs]

You are being too general, here, when you say that "the game [is telling me] that she's literally perfect". Who says that? In what context? Because the game is also telling you that she's a naive dumbass, just by virtue of showing you what her decisions wrought.

When you first see her in town. Chapter 2, I believe? She's glorified as the perfect symbol of peace. The way her leaping off of a cliff suddenly changed the hearts of many kind of glorifies her decision as well. At the drop of a hat, everyone was super upset that she died.

The game was not interested in letting you see how much of a dumbass she was, the game instead tried to make you feel sad that someone as perfect as Emm "took the fall", so to speak, for the sake of Plegia and Ylisse. The presentation of Chapter 10 further supports this. I think you're giving Awakening's (non-existent) narrative more credit than it deserves. The game is not so clever that it attempts to subtly show you Emm's faults. That's a hard claim to make given how much of a clusterfuck the rest of the story is.