Emmeryn's Sacrifice

[Ϲharlie]

Walhart is simply defending his land? The invasion of Valm was unprovoked? Did you miss the part where Walhart sent an invasion fleet to conquer Ylisse?

[Bloo]

Walhart sent the fleet at Regna Ferox. Chrom attempted no negotiations of any kind before starting a war while standing on the soil of another country.

And apart from the second fleet on the water all the battles are offensives against Walhart's strongholds in the lands of Valm (Mila Tree, Steiger etc.)

[Loki Laufeyson]

Walhart is simply defending his land? The invasion of Valm was unprovoked? Did you miss the part where Walhart sent an invasion fleet to conquer Ylisse?

Walhart's intent, when you get right down to it, was to wipe the Grimleal from the world. Anything that stood in the way of that, was fair game. Ferox was not about to allow that to happen, cuz Walhart seemed rather intent on getting to Plegia.

[Interceptor]

I don't know, but I always have this feeling that the game never links the deaths of many to Emmeryn's idiocy, but to Gangrel's cruelty and war's horrors.

They probably don't draw any links directly, but they also don't establish theory of gravity, either. Reasonable people can look at the events of the game, and come to the conclusion that Emm has blood on her hands. I mean, I'm no scholar of the script, and that was my take-away. The basic point is that you can come to your own conclusions based on all of the events of the game, and not just ride along with whatever cotton candy you are presented with.

Still you continue with your laughable responses. I don't have to repeat examples of her being idolised because others have already done so.

Translation: you still ain't got shit. Perhaps take half the time that you spend conspicuously avoiding uncomfortable responses, and put it towards combing the game script for evidence of your assertions.

And your weak response (which consisted of deliberately ignoring context and altering the meaning, like you did with that pathetic response to the pic OwnagePuffs posted) did nothing to dilute the arguments made.

What context did I ignore, exactly? The part where Chrom also calls her plan "absurd"? Or "madness"? I just cut to the money line: he was completely against her idiocy the entire time.

You need to step it up. Everyone sees through your BS.

Ooooh... "everyone", huh? Do you think me some sort of impressionable teenager, who cares what people think about my opinions? Tell me more about the disdain of my peers; will I be ostracized from the tribe of cool kids?

Oh please, he goes along with the plan within seconds.

Emm pulled rank. She commanded Lissa to stay, and would have done to same to him. Chrom followed orders.

Nevermind [...]

Yes, never mind your point. Let's review:

You: "Anyone who disagrees with her is evil and petty"

Me: <evidence that Chrom, the hero of the story, strongly disagreed with Emm on an important decision>

You:[it doesn't matter what goes here, because the discussion on this point is over]

I think that ought to make this clear; there's no need to go down rabbit holes following points that I never made in the first place. Thanks for playing.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Interceptor

[RJWalker]

What context did I ignore, exactly? The part where Chrom also calls her plan "absurd"? Or "madness"? I just cut to the money line: he was completely against her idiocy the entire time.

What context didn't you ignore?

You'd have a point, except the game uses a visual cue to present the idea to the viewer that Emm is flawless.

Namely, this one (from the same scene in question)

For cryin' out loud the freaking sun is shining on her. This picture, accompanied by Chrom's praise gives the viewer a strong first impression.

Lol, re-watch the scene. The music accompanying Emm's decision to return to the capital implies that the viewer was to feel sympathetic for her oh so selfless decision. The game did not try to show you how stupid her decision was. Rather, it glorified her choice. You've really got to provide some evidence that Awakening is clever enough to subtly present Emmeryn's flaws to the viewer when the rest of the story is a clusterfuck.

He posts this image of Emmeryn. The context here is important. It shows Emmeryn being glorified as the icon of piece. This is before we've actually met her too. The dialogue and context of said dialogue paint her as the ultimate paragon.

Oh but you, being the expert in ignoring context (or outright making shit up) change the meaning behind it to, well this piece of crap:

Just to be clear, is a CG of a pretty girl on a sunny day with nice music the extent of your best evidence?

And you ignore context again since Emmeryn's decision to leave for Ylisstol again is painted as a noble and selfless thing to do. Chrom even urges her to be 'selfish for once.

Chrom

Be selfish for once in your life!

And so what if she pulls rank? IF Chrom felt that strongly about it being a bad decision, he would have stopped her.

[Czar_Yoshi]

Who said Awakening was clever about it? There's no subtlety about Emm's flaws; you can measure the results of her pacifism by counting the bodies.

Then how many are there?

You're saying that, because the only time Emmeryn is ever glorified is by people who are loyal to her, the story gives you no proof that she actually is glorified. But these people make up 100% of the playable cast, and there isn't even a narrator to "objectively confirm" that she's an awesome leader.

But by the same token, you can also say that the game never tells you what a bad job she did. There's no narrator saying, "and thus, because of Emmeryn's pacifism, a war was wrought throughout the land...", and all the people who don't like her are her enemies, so they're biased and their opinions don't count. Where's all this portrayal of her as a bad leader you're seeing under the "false portrayal" of her as good, and where are you getting that the good portrayal is intended as false and the bad as true?

Edited July 18, 2014 by Czar_Yoshi

[Ownagepuffs]

Just to be clear, is a CG of a pretty girl on a sunny day with nice music the extent of your best evidence?

You've lost your right to insult my literary capabilities if you can't understand why context is important. I'll elaborate without insults. You must realize that this is the first image the player is given of Emmeryn. First impressions are very important. While you aren't suppose to blindly judge a book by its cover, Awakening's characters are like books that are defined by their covers, Emm not being an exception to this rule. Anyway, here's the script (credits to Serenes Forest).

Old Villager

Look! The exalt has come to see us!

>Emmeryn CG

Robin

The exalt is your ruler, yes?

Frederick

Yes. Her name is Lady Emmeryn.

Robin

Is it safe for her to walk among commoners like this?

Frederick

The exalt is a symbol of peace—Ylisse's most prized quality. Long ago, at the dawn of our age, the fell dragon tried to destroy the world. But the first exalt joined forces with the divine dragon and laid the beast low. Exalt Emmeryn reminds us all of the peace we fought for then.

Chrom

With Plegia poking at our borders, the people need her. She's a calming presence, when some might otherwise call for war.

Robin

Then the Ylissean people are indeed lucky to have her.

Lissa

She's also the best big sister anyone could ask for!

The game gives the viewer a very strong first impression of Emmeryn with this scene. It laid out the base framework of Emmeryn's character. Considering our only source of reliability is the good hearted people who found our Avatar laying in the ground (and it stays this way until the end of the game), the game already makes it safe to assume that you can trust them. Given that our first enemies were plegian bandits, Chrom's suggestion of "Plegians bad, Ylisse good" is properly substantiated, which adds credibility to his claims about Emmeryn without sibling bias. This scene combines both dialogue from our only trustworthy source (along with the joy of the old man) and a visual cue to present the idea that Emmeryn is a paragon of peace. As Czar_Yoshi states, the game's lack of a narrator which provides extra background information (such as the possibility that not everyone was content with Emmeryn's methods) means that interpretation of Awakening's dialogue is fairly linear (hence the "non existent narrative" remark). Morality is incredibly black and white in this game (even Plegia/Gangrel, who had a bit of grey to their morality is still painted as a very, very dark gray). I think it's pretty safe to say that Awakening didn't expect much from its viewer. This is why I really urge you to substantiate the rather tough claim that Awakening was actually trying to show you how much of a terrible ruler she was if you read in between the lines when the game seems to blatantly do the opposite at every given opportunity, especially since the rest of the plot is not nearly so clever. For you to propose this incredulous view point, and then be the only one who supports it, you've placed the burden of proof upon yourself.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Ownagepuffs

[Czar_Yoshi]

If I may add one more thing, Awakening is a work of fiction. This is an important distinction because an account of real events may very well be just that way: it's told from the point of view of the author/protagonist, and while there's inherent bias coming from that direction it's both possible and likely that things aren't quite how they're described to be. If Awakening were nonfiction, Emmeryn would be a bad leader and the tale could be told exactly how it is, leaving a discerning person to read between the lines and notice that no, she wasn't actually all that good.

Awakening is not nonfiction. It's not an account of the events in Archanea during a certain time period from a potentially biased point of view, it is those events. Since exposition is delivered entirely through characters, their views are going to be exactly how the author intends the world to be seen, unless the character is shown to be untrustworthy (and, since Awakening has clear cut Black and White Morality, it's pretty obvious who is trustworthy and who isn't).

Anyway, if Awakening's version of a narrator isn't enough to convince you that she's portrayed as perfect, check out her nifty character description in the Barracks. That's the dev's own summary of her character, unbiased by potential character viewpoints. Are you going to deny that too?

[Interceptor]

What context didn't you ignore?

This is a non-response. I'll ask again: what "context" did I ignore in this sequence? I gave an example of one of Emm's strongest supporters directly calling her plan "terrible". To her face. Strictly speaking, I could have also could have pointed out where he said "no, Emm", or "this is madness!", or "this is absurd!", but that would have just been overkill. At this point, your argument that no "good" person ever opposes Emm, was smashed on the bottom of a cliff just like she was, and twisting the knife would just be bad form.

He posts this image of Emmeryn. The context here is important. It shows Emmeryn being glorified as the icon of piece. This is before we've actually met her too. The dialogue and context of said dialogue paint her as the ultimate paragon.

There's nothing special about this CG; I examined it pretty closely, but I don't see her curing leprosy or multiplying loaves of bread, although admittedly she could be healing cripples with her offscreen right hand -- there's no way to know. It looks nice, but is otherwise unexceptional. If you want to see a pretty smiling girl with a tattoo taking a walk in the sunlight and waving at people, go to a park on a nice weekend.

Naturally, you'll need to bring your own music along, and it's unlikely that anyone will flanked by generic-looking armored soldiers, both mounted and on foot. If you ask me, the beef sort of detracts from the ideal; what need does an idolized figure have for an armed escort, anyway? Surely a universally admired figure has nothing to fear from her own people, not in her own hometown. And if anything sketchy happened, wouldn't her cult of worshippers rush to her aid?

No, I'm afraid it's just a pretty CG, though that doesn't stop people from seeing things that they are pre-disposed to seeing.

You know, I've got Robin the Amnesiac on my side here. His/her first thought after establishing that the Exalt was the ruler of Ylisse, was to openly wonder if it was safe for her to be walking amongst commoners.

And you ignore context again since Emmeryn's decision to leave for Ylisstol again is painted as a noble and selfless thing to do. Chrom even urges her to be 'selfish for once.

What does this have to do with anything? Nobody is impugning Emmeryn's selflessness or nobility: you can see from her actions and decisions that she completely buys into her own nonsense. The entire point is that it was a bad decision, and one of the main characters calls her out on it. Chrom is not some faceless generic, and nobody challenges him on it, either.

And so what if she pulls rank? IF Chrom felt that strongly about it being a bad decision, he would have stopped her.

Oh my. Just for shits and giggles, suppose that the crown prince did decide to go down the path of insubordination, defying the commands of his ruler in a time of crisis. How do you propose that Chrom "stops her"? I think it's pretty clear from the dialogue that there's no chance of him talking her down. Is there violence involved? A hunger strike? How do you suppose that Frederick and Phila react to a direct confrontation between Chrom and the Exalt?

I can't wait to hear this. Hey, do you have a newsletter that I can subscribe to?

Then how many are there?

No way to know, from available evidence, but a good starting point is anyone who died as a result of Emm's actions (or inaction). That'll include victims of the "raids", a whole lot of Pegasus Knights, whatever Ylissians and Feroxi died in battle, for starters. Granted, the counter-factual gets messy because of Lucina's interference; in an alternate history, it's even bloodier.

You're saying that, because the only time Emmeryn is ever glorified is by people who are loyal to her, the story gives you no proof that she actually is glorified. But these people make up 100% of the playable cast, and there isn't even a narrator to "objectively confirm" that she's an awesome leader.

That is not what I am saying. There is certainly an element of glorification, but it does not appear to exist to the extent that certain people breathlessly claim that it does. Not only are the examples given thus far pretty flimsy, but any detached third party can see in-game what damage that Emm's decisions cause. It's the foundation of the criticism of her in this thread, and it's not hidden from the players.

Where's all this portrayal of her as a bad leader you're seeing under the "false portrayal" of her as good, and where are you getting that the good portrayal is intended as false and the bad as true?

Intentionality doesn't even enter the equation; I'm talking about the game as it exists, since none of us can read the minds of the writers. Emm's depiction as a flawless saint is not an unbroken circle, and we can say this because it's pretty easy to point to instances where her dogma leads her to make bad decisions. I am not making up the fact that she went back to Ylisstol -- like an idiot -- and got captured: that is an actual thing that happened in the game, and every player sees it.

You've lost your right to insult my literary capabilities if you can't understand why context is important.

This is adorable. What is the governing body that enforces someone's "right" to point out an obvious fact? Does this mean that I am forbidden from correcting you in the future if you should use the word "anti-climax" incorrectly? Just as an example.

Of course this is irrelevant, since I actually DO understand why context is important, but the concept of losing my "right" to say something amuses me to no end.

This scene combines both dialogue from our only trustworthy source (along with the joy of the old man) and a visual cue to present the idea that Emmeryn is a paragon of peace.

For the umpteenth time: you're free to come to this conclusion (I personally do not), but now you have to square it with the fact that Emmeryn makes some verifiably bad decisions, and the game does not hide the negative consequences of said decisions from the player. They are, in fact, some of the basis of the criticism of Emmeryn in this very thread.

For you to propose this incredulous view point

Please stop abusing the English language. A viewpoint cannot be "incredulous", unless you think that a viewpoint is a person.

[...] and then be the only one who supports it, you've placed the burden of proof upon yourself.

A thousand times "nay". This is not a popularity contest, nor is the burden of proof on the person who isn't making wild assertions. Never mind that I'm not actually trying to change anyone's opinion on this, just offering my own viewpoint and challenging other people on theirs. Just like the plot of Awakening, people can come to their own conclusions, and it's no problem of mine if someone makes a poor one.

Awakening is not nonfiction. It's not an account of the events in Archanea during a certain time period from a potentially biased point of view, it is those events.

This is also adorbs. Are you of the opinion that a nonfiction work can't be biased, or that a fiction can't be unbiased? It's a little offtopic, so you don't have to answer, but lulz.

Anyway, if Awakening's version of a narrator isn't enough to convince you that she's portrayed as perfect, check out her nifty character description in the Barracks. That's the dev's own summary of her character, unbiased by potential character viewpoints. Are you going to deny that too?

Sorry, I always ignore her, and she is not in my Barracks on any file. Is it captured somewhere?

[RJWalker]

Anyway, if Awakening's version of a narrator isn't enough to convince you that she's portrayed as perfect, check out her nifty character description in the Barracks. That's the dev's own summary of her character, unbiased by potential character viewpoints. Are you going to deny that too?

His evasive response to this is just the icing. As is the nitpicking on grammar of all things.

This is a non-response. I'll ask again: what "context" did I ignore in this sequence? I gave an example of one of Emm's strongest supporters directly calling her plan "terrible". To her face. Strictly speaking, I could have also could have pointed out where he said "no, Emm", or "this is madness!", or "this is absurd!", but that would have just been overkill. At this point, your argument that no "good" person ever opposes Emm, was smashed on the bottom of a cliff just like she was, and twisting the knife would just be bad form.

Lol, you didn't examine it closely at all. You completely misrepresented it and, I repeat, ignored context. The image shows Emmeryn greeting her people and the context pretty much spills out that she's a paragon of piece. Once again, you cannot separate what the characters say from what the game is trying to imply. The characters are the medium through which the game tells its message. Nevermind that a completely unbiased viewpoint is impossible in any medium of storytelling or even nonfiction.But you, ignored the context and completely changed the meaning of the image. Hell, you even ignored the contents of the image of itself. You ignored the soldiers around her and the people in the background watching her and said that's just "pretty girl on a sunny day with nice music". That requires some incredible ignorance.

I tried to take you seriously but your evasive responses make that impossible

[Interceptor]

I'm a little disappointed that you didn't detail how Chrom was going to slug Emmeryn in the face at the end of chapter 7, right in front of Phila. A real missed opportunity for some quality fanfic, right there.

His evasive response to this is just the icing. As is the nitpicking on grammar of all things.

I can't comment on it if I can't see it, so I just asked if it was recorded somewhere. I don't have Emm recruited in any current file available. What's your preferred response? That I just make something up?

Hell, you even ignored the contents of the image of itself. You ignored the soldiers around her [...]

Yes, I ignored the soldiers so hard that I talked about them for an entire paragraph in a post that hasn't been edited.

Naturally, you'll need to bring your own music along, and it's unlikely that anyone will flanked by generic-looking armored soldiers, both mounted and on foot. If you ask me, the beef sort of detracts from the ideal; what need does an idolized figure have for an armed escort, anyway? Surely a universally admired figure has nothing to fear from her own people, not in her own hometown. And if anything sketchy happened, wouldn't her cult of worshippers rush to her aid?

You can't see my face right now, but I am shocked, simply shocked that you replied to a post without reading it properly.

Got anything else?

[RJWalker]

I'm a little disappointed that you didn't detail how Chrom was going to slug Emmeryn in the face at the end of chapter 7, right in front of Phila. A real missed opportunity for some quality fanfic, right there.

I can't comment on it if I can't see it, so I just asked if it was recorded somewhere. I don't have Emm recruited in any current file available. What's your preferred response? That I just make something up?

Yes, I ignored the soldiers so hard that I talked about them for an entire paragraph in a post that hasn't been edited.

Naturally, you'll need to bring your own music along, and it's unlikely that anyone will flanked by generic-looking armored soldiers, both mounted and on foot. If you ask me, the beef sort of detracts from the ideal; what need does an idolized figure have for an armed escort, anyway? Surely a universally admired figure has nothing to fear from her own people, not in her own hometown. And if anything sketchy happened, wouldn't her cult of worshippers rush to her aid?

You can't see my face right now, but I am shocked, simply shocked that you replied to a post without reading it properly.

Got anything else?

I was talking about your initial response which was evasive and ignored context. Also, she's universally by her own people. Plegia apparently hates her. Not that we see the viewpoint of average plegians non-combatants. Your explanation falls flat when assassins break into her palace. The same palace that is also in her own hometown populated by her followers. Assassins that seek to kill her because she's such a paragon of piece.

Only when called out on it did you actually put up a proper reply, even if that was ignorant of other context too. Like the above mentioned assassins.

Like I said, hard to take you seriously when your responses are that laughable.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Ranger Jack Walker

[Interceptor]

I was talking about your initial response

Of course you were; and I'm not responding to you, I'm replying to the you from a week ago Thursday. Meanwhile, it's a matter of record that you blew right past a paragraph-long explanation about something you accused me of ignoring, and I threw it back in your face like a banana cream pie.

Your explanation falls flat when assassins break into her palace. The same palace that is also in her own hometown populated by her followers.

There's plenty of reason for her to have guards, but not in the way that they are depicted. Why is her escort armored and mounted? It's broad daylight in a bustling city, there isn't going to be a battle in the streets with heavies. And why soldiers conspicuously in the CG, anyway? If the purpose of the scene is to convey the point that Emm is some paragon of peace (PEACE not "piece", FFS), having the soldiers there significantly undermines the effect, and at the very least serves as a stark contrast to what the characters are saying.

It's almost like that wasn't the point of the CG, and that the soldiers are just parade theater to convey the fact that Emm is the Exalt, and she's in charge. I mean, if that was the case, surely that explains "The exalt is your ruler, yes?", as the first substantive comment from a character following the CG.

But no, it couldn't be. Otherwise you'd be wrong, and Naga forbid that.

Like I said, hard to take you seriously when your responses are that laughable.

This is in fact that third time you've said that; how many more do I need before I get a free 6" sub? Could you maybe mix up your obvious deflections? Just for variety.

[CrimeanRoyalKnight]

RJW, you are starting to get silly by always calling Interceptor's words laughable, at least give more sauce to your arguments instead of insulting right away. While I don't agree with him and think Awakening is far from being a game that lets the player think (as a I said, Awakening has a story of heart and not of brain), he still makes valid points and they should be replied to in valid ways too.

And Interceptor, you shouldn't be rude towards people too, just because you try to intimidate others by saying they're adorable, that doesn't make your arguments stronger.

Can't we keep this conversation at least CLEAN from snarky insults and remarks?? That's not how you enrich your words; only kids want to scare people by calling eachother illiterate, ridiculous doofuses. I usally don't say this around because it doesn't get THIS bad, the last two pages are a snarky remark after another.

Anyway, here's Emmeryn's barracks description from Serenes Forest's website:

Exalt of Ylisse; Chrom and Lissa's older sister. She's known as a peace-loving and kind queen. After leaping off a Plegian cliff, she lost all memories of her time as queen and now has trouble speaking. Yet her caring heart remains unchanged. The most resilient.

[RJWalker]

Of course you were; and I'm not responding to you, I'm replying to the you from a week ago Thursday. Meanwhile, it's a matter of record that you blew right past a paragraph-long explanation about something you accused me of ignoring, and I threw it back in your face like a banana cream pie.

There's plenty of reason for her to have guards, but not in the way that they are depicted. Why is her escort armored and mounted? It's broad daylight in a bustling city, there isn't going to be a battle in the streets with heavies. And why soldiers conspicuously in the CG, anyway? If the purpose of the scene is to convey the point that Emm is some paragon of peace (PEACE not "piece", FFS), having the soldiers there significantly undermines the effect, and at the very least serves as a stark contrast to what the characters are saying.

It's almost like that wasn't the point of the CG, and that the soldiers are just parade theater to convey the fact that Emm is the Exalt, and she's in charge. I mean, if that was the case, surely that explains "The exalt is your ruler, yes?", as the first substantive comment from a character following the CG.

But no, it couldn't be. Otherwise you'd be wrong, and Naga forbid that.

This is in fact that third time you've said that; how many more do I need before I get a free 6" sub? Could you maybe mix up your obvious deflections? Just for variety.

The fact remains that the game still wants the audience to see Emmeryn as a perfect icon of peace. Yes, the people who say this about her are usually her relatives or close followers but when everyone including normal citizens and soldiers (ie not some cult) seems to do that, any person should see that the game is trying to say something. When the two most prominent people who disagree with her idealogy (Walhart and Gangrel) are the villains of the game and are proven wrong by Chrom defeating them, this point is only reinforced. The game conveys ideas through the characters using them as its mouthpiece. There is no in-game narrator to provide a less biased viewpoint so the writers use the characters. This is not a case of 'maybe that's what they intended or maybe not'. That's what always happens. Ideas, some ideas (whether they be the ones the writers intended or something else entirely due to a fault in the writing) is always being conveyed through the characters or narration or, in some cases, through gameplay. And there is too much evidence pointing to Emmeryn being put up as a perfect paragon of peace to ignore. Individually, the evidence may not seem like much and may be up to interpretation but it all adds up. Be it the dialogue, in-game descriptions or even the way scenes are framed.

[Czar_Yoshi]

No way to know, from available evidence, but a good starting point is anyone who died as a result of Emm's actions (or inaction). That'll include victims of the "raids", a whole lot of Pegasus Knights, whatever Ylissians and Feroxi died in battle, for starters. Granted, the counter-factual gets messy because of Lucina's interference; in an alternate history, it's even bloodier.

This is also adorbs. Are you of the opinion that a nonfiction work can't be biased, or that a fiction can't be unbiased? It's a little offtopic, so you don't have to answer, but lulz.

I'm pretty sure you said "you can count the bodies." If you get to take everything super-literally, take yourself the same way and prove it.

And those soldiers would have died anyway if they had been ordered to march off to war.

Please don't call me adorbs. I haven't insulted you yet in this thread, and I'll thank you not to take the first shot.

I actually said the exact opposite, that nonfiction is inherently biased in some form, while all bias in fiction is intentional and used to portray the world the way the author wants you to see it. In Awakening's case, the bias is obviously pro-Emmeryn. Do you really think the devs would have spent the resources to include that CGI if it's really as meaningless as you say it is?

[Interceptor]

And Interceptor, you shouldn't be rude towards people too, just because you try to intimidate others by saying they're adorable, that doesn't make your arguments stronger.

I have no idea why people always feel the need to give me unsolicited advice about my posting style. What makes you think I'm trying to enhance the strength of my arguments? Consider this as a possibility: there's no way that I can summon sufficient Give-a-Shit to talk to some people unless I'm amusing myself in the process.

Anyway, here's Emmeryn's barracks description from Serenes Forest's website: Exalt of Ylisse; Chrom and Lissa's older sister. She's known as a peace-loving and kind queen. After leaping off a Plegian cliff, she lost all memories of her time as queen and now has trouble speaking. Yet her caring heart remains unchanged. The most resilient.

Thanks. I don't see what the purpose of citing this was. I'm not sure that it was ever disputed that Emm was "peace-loving and kind"; that's an entirely uncontroversial observation.

The fact remains that the game still wants the audience to see Emmeryn as a perfect icon of peace.

Where I come from, something isn't a "fact" unless it's proven first. Emmeryn is shown to be imperfect just through the natural course of the game.

When the two most prominent people who disagree with her idealogy (Walhart and Gangrel) are the villains of the game and are proven wrong by Chrom defeating them, this point is only reinforced.

This is almost the worst possible example you could have given: Gangrel and Walhart both fell to the same kind of violence that Emmeryn stood against. It's a complete subversion of her ideology, and was a major part of the main story. Chrom didn't prove them wrong; he proved them right.

This is not a case of 'maybe that's what they intended or maybe not'.

Actually, that's exactly what it is. Unless you have some sort of mind-reading device, you have no idea what was intended.

Individually, the evidence may not seem like much and may be up to interpretation but it all adds up.

It adds up to a nothingburger. Let's do the arithmetic:

1) Emm is idolized by her younger siblings, her trusted butler-protector, and Old Man.

2) There's a CG with some pretty music and visual effects. Pay no attention to the armored soldiers that are photobombing.

3) Aversa made fun of Ricken and Maribelle. I don't understand this one either, but for completion's sake.

4) Barracks conversation says that she's "peace-loving and kind".

What am I missing? When does this pile of toothpicks add up to a Log Cabin of Justice? I haven't even made the subtractions yet.

I'm pretty sure you said "you can count the bodies." If you get to take everything super-literally, take yourself the same way and prove it.

Nope; it was nothing but a way to describe a point, and therefore I have no problem discarding it as not useful.

Old line: "Who said Awakening was clever about it? There's no subtlety about Emm's flaws; you can measure the results of her pacifism by counting the bodies."

New line: "Who said Awakening was clever about it? There's no subtlety about Emm's flaws; her pacifism has serious negative consequences during the story.

And those soldiers would have died anyway if they had been ordered to march off to war.

Why is marching off to war the alternative to pacifism? I'm no Duke Wellington, but I'm pretty sure that something like "taking out Gangrel" would be a pretty good idea for starters.

Please don't call me adorbs. I haven't insulted you yet in this thread, and I'll thank you not to take the first shot.

I'd have apologized for this, but instead I'm putting you on notice for the pedantry. Don't waste my time.

I actually said the exact opposite, that nonfiction is inherently biased in some form, while all bias in fiction is intentional and used to portray the world the way the author wants you to see it. In Awakening's case, the bias is obviously pro-Emmeryn. Do you really think the devs would have spent the resources to include that CGI if it's really as meaningless as you say it is?

I didn't say it was meaningless; I said that it was unexceptional. The game would be worse without it, since it's it's a pretty CG, and it fits into the flow of the Japanese-style story dump. But that's it.

When did this turn into "pro-Emmeryn"? The game is obviously pro-Emmeryn on the whole (FFS, Chrom is one of the principal characters), the question was whether she was viewed as some sort of deity-saint, or whatever crazy title it was that the Hyperbole Patrol attached to her.

[Czar_Yoshi]

Why is marching off to war the alternative to pacifism? I'm no Duke Wellington, but I'm pretty sure that something like "taking out Gangrel" would be a pretty good idea for starters.

When did this turn into "pro-Emmeryn"? The game is obviously pro-Emmeryn on the whole (FFS, Chrom is one of the principal characters), the question was whether she was viewed as some sort of deity-saint, or whatever crazy title it was that the Hyperbole Patrol attached to her.

If this was real life, taking him down might work. Unfortunately this is a story, and it makes a pretty uninteresting story if the villain dies right at the start (not to mention that FE is a game about epic battles, and there needs to be a source of battles). Sure, there could be another source, but it would change the story enough that it might as well be about something else entirely.

It's not about whether we think Emmeryn is a good leader (I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that she made a huge mess), it's about whether the game acknowledges that she made a mess, or claims that the bad stuff she did was actually good while ignoring realistic consequences (basically whether or not the game is poorly written).

[Interceptor]

If this was real life, taking him down might work. Unfortunately this is a story, and it makes a pretty uninteresting story if the villain dies right at the start (not to mention that FE is a game about epic battles, and there needs to be a source of battles). Sure, there could be another source, but it would change the story enough that it might as well be about something else entirely.

Fire Emblem is also about surgical strikes with small teams, and presumably I don't need to elaborate on what that might mean.

Anyway, Gangrel is small-time. In the canon he's dead by Chapter 11, and there are several chapters prior to that (Risen fights, Feroxi) where Plegia isn't really playing a direct role anyway. There are other ways to create conflict and move things along. Your "epic" battles come in the Valm arc, and there's plenty of time in the intervening years for Emm to die from cancer or get run over by a herd of wild elephants.

It's not about whether we think Emmeryn is a good leader (I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that she made a huge mess), it's about whether the game acknowledges that she made a mess, or claims that the bad stuff she did was actually good while ignoring realistic consequences (basically whether or not the game is poorly written).

You can't really square the idea that "the game" doesn't acknowledge the mess that Emm made, with the fact that you are a witness to the direct cause-and-effect of her idiocy.

I feel like a broken record, here. Chapter 7 is the perfect example of this phenomenon. If "the game" was trying to hide Emm's flaws, they did a piss-poor job of it. Chrom points out that Emm is walking into her own death. A main character confronts her directly, isn't challenged by anyone else, and turns out to be correct.

Why is this even still a discussion?

[Baldrick]

It certainly can't be because everyone keeps putting in effort to respond...

On the topic, I'd call it a sacrifice. She did it of her own free will and could conceivably have survived (for however short a time).

[Ownagepuffs]

This is a non-response. I'll ask again: what "context" did I ignore in this sequence? I gave an example of one of Emm's strongest supporters directly calling her plan "terrible". To her face. Strictly speaking, I could have also could have pointed out where he said "no, Emm", or "this is madness!", or "this is absurd!", but that would have just been overkill. At this point, your argument that no "good" person ever opposes Emm, was smashed on the bottom of a cliff just like she was, and twisting the knife would just be bad form.

There's nothing special about this CG; I examined it pretty closely, but I don't see her curing leprosy or multiplying loaves of bread, although admittedly she could be healing cripples with her offscreen right hand -- there's no way to know. It looks nice, but is otherwise unexceptional. If you want to see a pretty smiling girl with a tattoo taking a walk in the sunlight and waving at people, go to a park on a nice weekend.

Naturally, you'll need to bring your own music along, and it's unlikely that anyone will flanked by generic-looking armored soldiers, both mounted and on foot. If you ask me, the beef sort of detracts from the ideal; what need does an idolized figure have for an armed escort, anyway? Surely a universally admired figure has nothing to fear from her own people, not in her own hometown. And if anything sketchy happened, wouldn't her cult of worshippers rush to her aid?

No, I'm afraid it's just a pretty CG, though that doesn't stop people from seeing things that they are pre-disposed to seeing.

... You're not seriously denying the context here, are you? Of course she has guards, things are still turbulent and there is a neighboring nation that wants to see her head on a stick (y'know, the bad guys?). Ylisse is not stupid enough to entirely ditch a concept as basic as security against unforeseen measures, which is what the guards exist for in the first place. If this is your point then I hate to tell you this but you're dumb as fuck, cuz.

This is adorable. What is the governing body that enforces someone's "right" to point out an obvious fact? Does this mean that I am forbidden from correcting you in the future if you should use the word "anti-climax" incorrectly? Just as an example.

Of course this is irrelevant, since I actually DO understand why context is important, but the concept of losing my "right" to say something amuses me to no end.

Actually you're right. You just look like a dumbass if you insult someone's literary capabilities while not understanding something as basic as context. I truly have a hard time believing you understand context if you can't see how the game tried to present Emmeryn to the player using both a picture of Emm with the sun shining on her (strong connotations) and her being glorified by our only source of reliable narrative. The game is clearly trying to tell something to the player.

For the umpteenth time: you're free to come to this conclusion (I personally do not), but now you have to square it with the fact that Emmeryn makes some verifiably bad decisions, and the game does not hide the negative consequences of said decisions from the player. They are, in fact, some of the basis of the criticism of Emmeryn in this very thread.

The game never actively calls her out on her bad decisions. Each of the consequences of her bad decisions are blamed entirely on our established villain, Plegia. This is precisely the problem. The game is dead set on making Emm look like a saint and everything bad is all Gangrel's fault. Each of Emm's bad decisions are painted in a noble, selfless and positive light. Even Chrom telling Emm to "be selfish for once" is an indirect glorification of her idiotic decision. Are you just being stubborn and argumentative for the hell of it?

Please stop abusing the English language. A viewpoint cannot be "incredulous", unless you think that a viewpoint is a person.

http://wordsinasentence.com/incredulous-in-a-sentence/

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incredulous (example sentences)

Remember what I just said about you looking like an ass? It's one thing to be arrogant, then it's another thing entirely to be arrogant and incorrect. I'd expect an apology, but heaven forbid you realize that you're wrong.

A thousand times "nay". This is not a popularity contest, nor is the burden of proof on the person who isn't making wild assertions. Never mind that I'm not actually trying to change anyone's opinion on this, just offering my own viewpoint and challenging other people on theirs. Just like the plot of Awakening, people can come to their own conclusions, and it's no problem of mine if someone makes a poor one.

It's up to you to back those claims up. You chose to challenge common belief, so you've got to prove your point. You cannot simply refute, you have to present counter evidence. You've done a poor job. Every example you used just further supports the common assertion that the game is simply too busy glorifying Emm to paint her in any sort of negative light. Her chapter 7 decision? That accompanying music (AKA audible cue to set the tone) speaks otherwise of her decision. The chapter after her leap is her miraculously changing the hearts of many a soldier because she was oh so selfless. She fuckin' died for Ylisse's sins. The game props her up as a figurative messiah. The fact that she has guards means the game doesn't idealize her? No, she has guards because all rulers have guards in order to prevent unforeseen circumstances. You say that the game lets you see that Emm is a bad ruler through natural progression. Where? How? Don't sit there and say it is my responsibility to read in between the lines. You've got to show me, clearly, how the game lets you see that each negative consequence of her actions is tied directly or indirectly to her. The game would rather blame it on Plegia than criticize Emm. From the moment we meet her to the moment she dies (a whopping 7 chapters), Emm is not shown to have any flaws.

You can't really square the idea that "the game" doesn't acknowledge the mess that Emm made, with the fact that you are a witness to the direct cause-and-effect of her idiocy.

I feel like a broken record, here. Chapter 7 is the perfect example of this phenomenon. If "the game" was trying to hide Emm's flaws, they did a piss-poor job of it. Chrom points out that Emm is walking into her own death. A main character confronts her directly, isn't challenged by anyone else, and turns out to be correct.

Why is this even still a discussion?

Here's the kicker of that entire scene.

Chrom

Walking to your own death will not bring peace to anyone! Ylisse needs you. WE need you! Be selfish for once in your life!

"Be selfish for once in your life!"

In the same breath of criticism, Chrom is indirectly glorifying her selflessness. This is precisely the issue. Despite how obviously stupid her decision to return to Ylisse is, the game still tries to prop it up as an act of selflessness.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Ownagepuffs

[Czar_Yoshi]

Fire Emblem is also about surgical strikes with small teams, and presumably I don't need to elaborate on what that might mean.

Anyway, Gangrel is small-time. In the canon he's dead by Chapter 11, and there are several chapters prior to that (Risen fights, Feroxi) where Plegia isn't really playing a direct role anyway. There are other ways to create conflict and move things along. Your "epic" battles come in the Valm arc, and there's plenty of time in the intervening years for Emm to die from cancer or get run over by a herd of wild elephants.

You can't really square the idea that "the game" doesn't acknowledge the mess that Emm made, with the fact that you are a witness to the direct cause-and-effect of her idiocy.

I feel like a broken record, here. Chapter 7 is the perfect example of this phenomenon. If "the game" was trying to hide Emm's flaws, they did a piss-poor job of it. Chrom points out that Emm is walking into her own death. A main character confronts her directly, isn't challenged by anyone else, and turns out to be correct.

How many battles happened as a result of Plegia's aggression? Cht.5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. That's six fights. A surgical strike would probably take two or three. When I said FE was about battles, I meant that in a "the more the merrier" sense- killing Gangrel off early just robs potential for more gameplay. And Cht.11 is almost halfway through the game, by the way.

Yes, I can. Being intentionally shown something and noticing it anyway are different things. The game wants me to think that Emm is perfect, and even though it's obvious that she isn't it still tries. They did a terrible job of hiding her flaws, but the fact that they tried at all is what people are mad about.

[CrimeanRoyalKnight]

I have no idea why people always feel the need to give me unsolicited advice about my posting style. What makes you think I'm trying to enhance the strength of my arguments? Consider this as a possibility: there's no way that I can summon sufficient Give-a-Shit to talk to some people unless I'm amusing myself in the process.

Well then, at this point I don't see why people keep replying to you. If you only cared about expressing your opinion then you wouldn't go against 3/4 people at once; I feel like you only want to anger others now.

Thanks. I don't see what the purpose of citing this was. I'm not sure that it was ever disputed that Emm was "peace-loving and kind"; that's an entirely uncontroversial observation.

I thought you might've wanted to read it, since you said you didn't.

[Interceptor]

How many battles happened as a result of Plegia's aggression? Cht.5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. That's six fights. A surgical strike would probably take two or three. When I said FE was about battles, I meant that in a "the more the merrier" sense- killing Gangrel off early just robs potential for more gameplay. And Cht.11 is almost halfway through the game, by the way.

"Almost" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. There are ~26 proper Chapters, plus whatever Paralogues you run into along the way. Plegia's aggression ends up being less than a fifth of the entire game. Shortening the Gangrel sequence and replacing the lost battles with something else (Risen, Grimleal, Feroxi, whatever) would be as difficult as falling out of bed if you had planned to do it from the start. Maybe in this alternate universe, they could have the desert chapter feel less awkward and tacked-on.

Yes, I can. Being intentionally shown something and noticing it anyway are different things. The game wants me to think that Emm is perfect, and even though it's obvious that she isn't it still tries. They did a terrible job of hiding her flaws, but the fact that they tried at all is what people are mad about.

You are reading tea leaves the moment that you start talking about "intentions", because you don't actually know what they were. This game's plot isn't some tightly-controlled narrative; with the way that it undermines itself, it reads like the product of a committee of ferrets in a room with a disco ball. In the end, your argument hinges on making assertions and hoping that nobody looks behind the curtain.

Nope. That's not acceptable.

Well then, at this point I don't see why people keep replying to you. If you only cared about expressing your opinion then you wouldn't go against 3/4 people at once; I feel like you only want to anger others now.

As I said before: I am not only expressing my opinion, I'm also challenging other people on theirs.

I thought you might've wanted to read it, since you said you didn't.

I did want to read it, that's why I asked. When I said that I didn't see the purpose of citing it, I meant that I don't know why Yoshi even brought it up, since it doesn't at all support his point.

stuff

I'll get to you later.

[Czar_Yoshi]

"Almost" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. There are ~26 proper Chapters, plus whatever Paralogues you run into along the way. Plegia's aggression ends up being less than a fifth of the entire game. Shortening the Gangrel sequence and replacing the lost battles with something else (Risen, Grimleal, Feroxi, whatever) would be as difficult as falling out of bed if you had planned to do it from the start. Maybe in this alternate universe, they could have the desert chapter feel less awkward and tacked-on.

You are reading tea leaves the moment that you start talking about "intentions", because you don't actually know what they were. This game's plot isn't some tightly-controlled narrative; with the way that it undermines itself, it reads like the product of a committee of ferrets in a room with a disco ball. In the end, your argument hinges on making assertions and hoping that nobody looks behind the curtain.

Nope. That's not acceptable.

As I said before: I am not only expressing my opinion, I'm also challenging other people on theirs.

No, my argument isn't about me hoping nobody looks behind the curtain, it's about Awakening hoping nobody looks behind the curtain. And yes, it is possible to determine intentions when looking at how things are portrayed.

As was said earlier, if you want to challenge established beliefs, the burden of proof falls on you. Ignoring it makes it impossible to take your argument seriously.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Czar_Yoshi