Emmeryn's Sacrifice

[Interceptor]

No, that still does exist meeting her walk into a trap.

English, please. I have no idea what this means.

All your post do is she that neither Chrom nor Emmeryn (but her especially) don't deserve to be in charge.

That is neither here nor there: I am not making a judgment about suitability of rule (you're free to, although I'll just ignore you), but rather pointing out that Chrom isn't stopping Emm without fracturing Ylisse. Starting a civil war in the middle of a crisis is a pretty insane thing to do.

You may have suggested the punching idea in jest but it rely is the best course of action.

I mean, it's not like the following cutscene didn't feature a character punching some one with authority that they card about to knock some sense into them. No, that would be stupid, right? Oh wait....

People throw around the phrase "[this] makes it hard to take [so-and-so] seriously" a lot, usually inappropriately, but it definitely applies here. I have no idea why you'd think those two things were comparable. This is like suggesting that there's no difference between shaking a bottle of mustard, and shaking a baby, because they both have shaking in them. Sumia is just knocking Chrom out of a funk; she's not trying to force him to change his mind about something. It was poorly-timed comic relief.

Random thought: the two people here who most get on my case about "context", are routinely ignoring it in their arguments. At what point can we consider the two of you to be thoroughly discredited on this issue? Is there any way to fast-track it? This is getting tiresome.

=-=-=-=-=

If you have that much trouble discerning what I'm talking about, even with me here to inform you when you (deliberately?) misinterpret me, no wonder you don't think it's possible to discern author intentions.

Emphasis mine. This is why you and I don't see eye to eye here, because you're either not bothering to pay attention to what I actually say, or your ability to accurately summarize someone's point is woefully inadequate to the task at hand here. I have never said anything close to "it's not possible to discern author intentions". Considering that you went out of your way to needle me for being "super-literal", I'd think this would clue you in that I am pretty particular about the words that I use.

If it really wasn't, though, why do you think things like this would exist: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnAesop

I guess since there's no way to know what author intentions actually are, all those are just examples of people randomly extrapolating things without any idea of what they're talking about, right?

I was talking about Awakening specifically, not literature in general. It's easy to find tropes in proper stories; they are tropes for a reason. However, there is a huge difference between something like Brave New World or The Watchmen, and the hacked-together contradictory mess of a story from something that's primarily a videogame first. AKA, Awakening. Let's not pretend that this title has rich characterization, or an amazing narrative. There are enough craters in this plot, that one could be forgiven for mistaking it for the surface of the Moon.

In any case, change "belief" to "idea" and answer that again without getting hung up on one word.

I seized it on because you made a good point; it IS like a religion. Look at the breathless responses to my heresy in this thread. It's a good thing that the screams of rage only make me stronger.

It's generally accepted that the game portrays Emmeryn (or at least tries to) as a good ruler/paragon of peace/whatever synonym for good you prefer. If you think it doesn't and are trying to change people's minds, you bear the burden of proof.

A logical fallacy, and I suspect that you know it if you're being honest with yourself. The correctness of something doesn't depend upon how many people believe, because it's not subject to their approval in the first place. Evidence is evidence, and if you don't have any, your castle is built on sand and bluster.

This community is susceptible to hype, front-runnerism, groupthink, etc. I've been here for a very long time (check it, yo), and slain more than my fair share of shitty-but-popular notions along the way. If I walk into a UFO convention, and scoff at the sadly inadequate eyewitness accounts of moonbats, it's not "on me" to prove that aliens aren't abducting people, even if I'm outnumbered 100 to 1.

Sure, you can just keep doing what you're doing now and say "I already proved it, you need to prove she's good", but that's not going to convince anyone and you know it.

Glorious. First, you give me permission to do something that you have no authority to deny me in the first place. Second, you imply that I'm trying to change's someone mind about something, when I am on record as stating that I am not trying to do anything of the sort (because it's a fool's game: notice how nobody on the other side of the argument will concede even the smallest point, like the bit about sunlight). I am here to give my own opinions, and challenge other people on theirs; nothing more. It's entertaining.

Spare me this nonsense, please.

=-=-=-=-=

I decided to stop replying to you (Interceptor) after you blatantly ignored the context of the images you posted.

It is a shame that you didn't go with your gut on this one.

I was pretty done when you likened Walhart's image to Emm's. Do you even context? Do you even associated dialogue? Do you even focal point? What about the events that precede and proceed those images? You ignored all of that and said "they have sunlight so your point is false!" But I have to reply now since you of all people are trying to give me a lecture on ignoring context.

The events that bookend the images don't matter in particular: I was making the simple point that the game uses sunlight in CGs like a toddler uses tomato sauce on her face. It is so heavily and indiscriminately applied (I gave two particularly stark examples, but there are more), that it diminishes the argument that Emmeryn got the treatment for any one particular purpose. The person ignoring context in this case... is you.

The game lacks a narrator. Every message that it tries to convey is through the dialogue of the characters. I believe this has been stated to you multiple times.

I believe that I subverted this point and threw it back into your face. If the dialogue of characters are the messages of "the game", then Chrom's argument with Emmeryn at the end of Chapter 7 is the ultimate refutation of the idea that she is some sort of flawless paragon. He called her plan "terrible", right to her face, and not a single person confronted him on that. And he was later proven to be right about it.

The soldier acted as a microcosm of the Plegian military. The fact that the soldier stayed and fought for Mustafa is irrelevant, what matters here is that he had a drastic and sudden change of heart, regardless of how temporary it was, due to Emmeryn's words. Emm's morality speech and Christ-like sacrifice reached him. The game, through its characters, indirectly glorifies Emmeryn's actions.

It's irrelevant that the outcome of Chapter 10 was exactly the same as it would have been had Emm not made a speech before taking a flying leap? The take-away from the Chapter was the following:

- The penalty for insubordination is death.

- Gangrel is a monster that would retaliate by murdering someone's family.

- A soldier's loyalty to his commander was greater than Emmeryn's words.

They established a secondary reason for Plegians to desert, and showed the limitations of Emm's powers, but somehow this proves that Emm's sacrifice was glorified? The end result in Chapter 10 was that Chrom's crew still got attacked!

Never mind that the specifics of her sacrifice having an effect were never in dispute: look at my comments on Page 1 of this thread. It obviously had an effect, but the key points here are that 1) there was also another reason for the mass desertion, and 2) her decision was actually a good one for once, and thus worthy of note. Everything else leading up to that? Not so much.

You think the soldier was the only one whose heart changed?

No. See above.

Emm wanted to go back because she's Emmeryn. Chrom wanted to charge into Plegia because they were going to murder his damn sister. If Chrom could be talked out of it, then so could Emm. All it really does is make Emm seem stubborn.

This is terrible logic.

Emm decided to go back to Ylisstol after the facts on the ground changed (Cordelia's news), and after Chrom repeatedly and with much passion argued against the point. Talking Chrom out of charging into Plegia? That just required people pointing out that he needed to act wisely: he readily agreed to let Robin come up with a strategy.

Emm's stubbornness -- if that's what it really is -- is certainly a flaw of hers in this situation.

As I've said before, the crux of the entire scene was Chrom's "Be selfish for once in your life!". That changed the context of the entirety of Emm's decision. Despite how stubborn, stupid, and arguably selfish her decision was, the game, through the dialogue of our only source of reliable narrative (the primary cast), still paints her decision as wise ( "As for the peace I seek... You cannot see who it is for. I have to go. I'm sorryI truly am.)[/size], selfless, and noble.

And stupid. Regardless of how "the game" paints Emm's decision, "the game" then immediately shows that Yisstol fell and that she was captured in the process. You can't tell me that it doesn't mean anything that immediately after a conflict between Chrom and Emm, Chrom was show to be in the right.

Well I guess you could, because it's not against the rules to be wrong, but you get my meaning.

And as I said before, the solution to the problem also goes right back to Chrom. Who ultimately ended Plegia's aggression for good? Was it Emmeryn? No, it was Chrom and his Shepherds, and rather violently at that (and they did it AGAIN in Valm). If "the game" is making the point that Emm is some kind of Christ-figure, and "the game" is also undermining her character and her ideals at the same time, where exactly does that leave her overall?

[spoiler=THE SHOCKING ANSWER]It leaves her as a flawed character in a crappy story.

=-=-=-=-=

Well, if chanting someone's name while abandoning the field isn't being turned into a saint... 9_9

Well, if they said "fuck this shit" (which is way better), the game's rating would have had to change.

[RJWalker]

A civil war would never happen. Even if Chrom straight up punched Emmeryn. If you really think so, then you are quite naive. Emmeryn would stand down in an instant before letting anything happen to Chrom. Let's assume that Chrom does indeed punch her to try and stop her. Let's assume that this does somehow start a civil wat between Chrom and Emmeryn. You really think Emmeryn would let that happen? She would rethink her decision instantly if tensions did escalate further. She would never allow that to happen.

Punching Emmeryn is turning out to be a really good idea.

And the soldiers are not chanting "Gangrel a shit!" as they abandon the battlefield. The primary focus is on Emmeryn. They're chanting her name as they leave. She is quite literally a Messiah archetype who died for everyone's sins. And somehow that's not glorification of her sacrifice?

[CrimeanRoyalKnight]

Hmm... but, well, the game clearly shows us Emmeryn's not perfect, or that, at least, her mindset is not suited for war, but people do end up thinking she is a saint, or a hero; basically someone to be remembered because she did one noble act to save Chrom and the people of Plegia from the catastrophe that would've been brought by Gangrel with the Fire Emblem.

Even Chrom says her act will be remembered for being noble and important; it's the "selfless act" that gives her this status.

In fact, I think Emmeryn' suicide represents one of the game's messages: that you can sacrifice your life for those you love and for the bonds you created. This is also brought up again in the "No" ending where the Avatar kills himself to kill Grima.

Of course, you can also choose the other way around (don't be a selfish asshole, but expect the world to fall apart again in 10000000000000 years).

To be honest, I'm not even sure where the game is going with these suicides and noble acts; in the end, I'm just seeing confused writing and extreme events of super emotion @_@

This community is susceptible to hype, front-runnerism, groupthink, etc. I've been here for a very long time (check it, yo), and slain more than my fair share of shitty-but-popular notions along the way. If I walk into a UFO convention, and scoff at the sadly inadequate eyewitness accounts of moonbats, it's not "on me" to prove that aliens aren't abducting people, even if I'm outnumbered 100 to 1.

OHO, this is actually a very good point... who knows what people will think of this story in 5 years... I remember when people used to rant on FE8' story and thought it was the worst FE ever.

However, there are some people who always disliked this game' story, and didn't need any negative hype or popular opinion to change their mind; I swear, some of us have honest negative opinions that were not dictated by the masses. Not everyone who dislikes this story disliked it after 12 playthroughs, for some it just took one.

I mean, in my case, I even tried to like the story more than one time, but some of the events are just too badly written and just plain... well... stupid for me to be overlooked.

[Interceptor]

A civil war would never happen.

Of course it wouldn't, because Chrom wouldn't be crazy enough to assault his sister and force people to take sides. He's a soldier, and a good one.

If you really think so, then you are quite naive.

... regretting teaching you this word.

Emmeryn would stand down in an instant before letting anything happen to Chrom. Let's assume that Chrom does indeed punch her to try and stop her. Let's assume that this does somehow start a civil wat between Chrom and Emmeryn. You really think Emmeryn would let that happen? She would rethink her decision instantly if tensions did escalate further. She would never allow that to happen.

No way to know if Emm would actually have this reaction, although since this rabbit hole already has you throwing out Chrom's character, maybe we can make up stuff for Emm as well as other characters. I say that Lissa takes the opportunity to shank Chrom in the back, and crown herself queen. Why not? It's no less insane.

And the soldiers are not chanting "Gangrel a shit!" as they abandon the battlefield. The primary focus is on Emmeryn. They're chanting her name as they leave. She is quite literally a Messiah archetype who died for everyone's sins. And somehow that's not glorification of her sacrifice?

I'm sorta getting tired of pointing out that I acknowledged on Page 1 that Emm actually made a legitimate sacrifice here. It's the one correct thing that she did; the problem is that getting there required a comedy of terrible decisions.

[Czar_Yoshi]

Emphasis mine. This is why you and I don't see eye to eye here, because you're either not bothering to pay attention to what I actually say, or your ability to accurately summarize someone's point is woefully inadequate to the task at hand here. I have never said anything close to "it's not possible to discern author intentions". Considering that you went out of your way to needle me for being "super-literal", I'd think this would clue you in that I am pretty particular about the words that I use.

You said it's not possible to verify that your assumptions about author intentions are correct, and are using that to claim that my assumptions about the author's intent on how Emmeryn is portrayed is incorrect. But if your point is so easily summarized, would you mind doing it for us? It might get your argument across clearer.

I was talking about Awakening specifically, not literature in general. It's easy to find tropes in proper stories; they are tropes for a reason. However, there is a huge difference between something like Brave New World or The Watchmen, and the hacked-together contradictory mess of a story from something that's primarily a videogame first. AKA, Awakening. Let's not pretend that this title has rich characterization, or an amazing narrative. There are enough craters in this plot, that one could be forgiven for mistaking it for the surface of the Moon.

Awakening's characters have been described as tropey hundreds of times.

I seized it on because you made a good point; it IS like a religion. Look at the breathless responses to my heresy in this thread. It's a good thing that the screams of rage only make me stronger.

If it's screams of rage you're looking for, try MMORPGs. But, uh, are you saying that claiming that the story portrays a character is good when they're actually incompetent is being treated as a religion?

And not to encourage you to be rude or anything, but I'm pretty sure the amount of flak you're getting right now has more to do with your mannerisms than your point.

A logical fallacy, and I suspect that you know it if you're being honest with yourself. The correctness of something doesn't depend upon how many people believe, because it's not subject to their approval in the first place. Evidence is evidence, and if you don't have any, your castle is built on sand and bluster.

You've presented plenty of evidence that Emmeryn is a bad ruler (and nobody disagrees), but you haven't done anything to show it doesn't portray her as good other than to say examples of her being good don't count. So yeah, you've got no evidence either.

This community is susceptible to hype, front-runnerism, groupthink, etc. I've been here for a very long time (check it, yo), and slain more than my fair share of shitty-but-popular notions along the way. If I walk into a UFO convention, and scoff at the sadly inadequate eyewitness accounts of moonbats, it's not "on me" to prove that aliens aren't abducting people, even if I'm outnumbered 100 to 1.

This isn't a UFO convention filled with fanatics though, it's a handful of people complaining about a game's story. But if you were at such a convention, it would be on you to question why you were there in the first place.

Glorious. First, you give me permission to do something that you have no authority to deny me in the first place. Second, you imply that I'm trying to change's someone mind about something, when I am on record as stating that I am not trying to do anything of the sort (because it's a fool's game: notice how nobody on the other side of the argument will concede even the smallest point, like the bit about sunlight). I am here to give my own opinions, and challenge other people on theirs; nothing more. It's entertaining.

Challenging people's opinions without the intent to change them makes no sense.

Spare me this nonsense, please.

But then you wouldn't have an immobile brick wall to challenge for your entertainment...

Edited July 24, 2014 by Czar_Yoshi

[Moira]

I say that Lissa takes the opportunity to shank Chrom in the back, and crown herself queen.

Oh god this is the best line ever.

RJW you're just wildy assuming that Emmeryn would step down if Chrom threatened her or hit her. What if she just ignored him and flew away on Phila's pegasus? Get Virion to shoot her down? There are so many ways physically hitting Emmeryn could go wrong but you're focusing on one way it could go right, without actually knowing that that would happen.

[Loki Laufeyson]

This was well written. I agree that she's a martyr, but that still does not make her death a sacrifice, much less one that "Has the power to change the world". You mention hindsight, but I think that's irrelevant, as years after her death her sacrifice is still held up as such a noble act:

Walhart

You think that's what you've done? What your sister did before you? No, she shouted some nonsense and leapt off a rock! Such weakness!

Chrom

Wrong. Not weakness—strength. That one act lives on, and WILL live on, longer than all your conquests...

Doing what she did was the right thing to do there, I agree, but was it truly an act that deserves to live on through the ages? My point is that she was dead the moment she got on that rock; calling her death a sacrifice implies she gives up something she no longer had.

The thing is here, Walhart isnt wrong. What Emmeryn did was exceedingly weak since what can a martyr do? Nothing because they are dead and dead men can do nothing. I always found Chrom's rebuttal there to be pretty damn ridiculous because she really did spout nonsense and leapt off a rock. In real life, this would avail nothing. In most fictional universes, this would be seen as an act of cowardice. The game itself tries to tell us that Emmeryn sacrificed...something...and everyone hails her as such a powerful figure because of this. Its right there in Chrom's quote. I fail to see the strength in it seeing how she simply ran away from fixing the problem. The poor writing here is how Walhart delivers his line and the lack of being able to back up Emm's act as strong.

Well, if chanting someone's name while abandoning the field isn't being turned into a saint... 9_9

Indeed. The problem is that it really doesnt make a lot of sense as to why shes turned into a saint to begin with.

[Czar_Yoshi]

In real life, this would avail nothing.

You don't think it would actually throw a region into chaos and inspire fanatical militias to clash with eachother for years, running the land into the ground?

[Loki Laufeyson]

You don't think it would actually throw a region into chaos and inspire fanatical militias to clash with eachother for years, running the land into the ground?

Im not so sure thats what Emmeryn intended since she was a figure of peace and all that. If she was actually aiming to shit disturb on that kind of level and the game acknowledged that in a well written manner, i dont think you'd see so much hatred for her emanating from me. Her intent was obviously trying to get everyone to lay down arms and strive for peace. To turn against Gangrel. That didnt quite work.

[Czar_Yoshi]

It's definitely not what she intended, but it's what probably would have happened as a result in Real Life.

[Moira]

The thing is here, Walhart isnt wrong. What Emmeryn did was exceedingly weak since what can a martyr do? Nothing because they are dead and dead men can do nothing. I always found Chrom's rebuttal there to be pretty damn ridiculous because she really did spout nonsense and leapt off a rock. In real life, this would avail nothing. In most fictional universes, this would be seen as an act of cowardice. The game itself tries to tell us that Emmeryn sacrificed...something...and everyone hails her as such a powerful figure because of this. Its right there in Chrom's quote. I fail to see the strength in it seeing how she simply ran away from fixing the problem. The poor writing here is how Walhart delivers his line and the lack of being able to back up Emm's act as strong.

To call Emmeryn weak because of her suicide is completely wrong. What would you have her do? Fly away? Teleport? Magically smite all the Plegians? She was in a situation that was going to end with her dead no matter what. What she did was absolutely the right decision. In case you haven't read the previous posts by others, she stopped Chrom from making a potentially bad decision, stopped Chrom from feeling he was responsible for her death, and gave many of the plegians a reason to second guess fighting. If anything, it shows her strength to be able to do without without any signs of fear or cowardice by trying to grasp at straws to save herself. To say she was weak for this just doesn't make sense to me. It seems horribly disrespectful that you think someone who is a martyr is exceedingly weak when they willingly laid down their life for something more important. What can a martyr do? A martyr can do a hell of a lot, but that's a different discussion, with plenty of examples showing how martyrs are most certainly not weak.

[Ownagepuffs]

It is a shame that you didn't go with your gut on this one.

But then who would correct you when you are wrong?

The events that bookend the images don't matter in particular: I was making the simple point that the game uses sunlight in CGs like a toddler uses tomato sauce on her face. It is so heavily and indiscriminately applied (I gave two particularly stark examples, but there are more), that it diminishes the argument that Emmeryn got the treatment for any one particular purpose. The person ignoring context in this case... is you.

No, they do. You do realize that context is collective, don't you? The accompanying dialogue and the events which preceded and proceeded those image are exactly what context is about. Every CG in Awakening is meant to give off an impression. It does not do so simply by showing you an image, it does so with the entirety of the scene. Music, dialogue, and the events surrounding the image are important. You are blatantly disregarding these things for the convenience of your argument. Emmeryn's CG and Walhart's CG give entirely different impressions and you know it. Do not warp or ignore context as you see fit.

I believe that I subverted this point and threw it back into your face. If the dialogue of characters are the messages of "the game", then Chrom's argument with Emmeryn at the end of Chapter 7 is the ultimate refutation of the idea that she is some sort of flawless paragon. He called her plan "terrible", right to her face, and not a single person confronted him on that. And he was later proven to be right about it.

Here you go ignoring context. Again. "Be selfish for once in your life!" changes the entire direction of their argument. Chrom wasn't confronting Emm because she had a stupid plan, he was confronting Emm because she was being too selfless. It's obvious by the choice of music in the scene that the game was trying to instill a sense of sorrow or sympathy in the viewer. This is why I stated a simple text reference is not enough. One needs to see the scene in its entirety in order to fully understand it. And her plan ended up working in the end. Chrom and pragmatism? Wrong. Emmeryn and idealism? Right. This was the message of that scene.

It's irrelevant that the outcome of Chapter 10 was exactly the same as it would have been had Emm not made a speech before taking a flying leap? The take-away from the Chapter was the following:

- The penalty for insubordination is death.

- Gangrel is a monster that would retaliate by murdering someone's family.

- A soldier's loyalty to his commander was greater than Emmeryn's words.

They established a secondary reason for Plegians to desert, and showed the limitations of Emm's powers, but somehow this proves that Emm's sacrifice was glorified? The end result in Chapter 10 was that Chrom's crew still got attacked!

No, the take away was that Emmeryn had reached the hearts of the Plegian military. Are you forgetting why Chrom was attacked? It was because they chose to fight.

Mustafa

Ylisseans! I offer you mercy! Surrender to me now and live!

Basilio

Surrender? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the word.

Mustafa

Emmeryn would not have wished for this to come to bloodshed.

Chrom

Don't speak her name!

Mustafa

Your rage is justified, Prince Chrom. But the meaning of your sister's final sacrifice was not lost on me. I suspect many Plegians who heard her final words would say the same. If you lay down your weapons, I vow to protect you as best I can.

Frederick

How can we trust you after what your barbarous king has done? I think we shall take our chance with weapons in hand!

Mustafa

I suspected you would say as much. So be it, Prince Chrom. I shall endeavor to grant you a swift and dignified end.

Must I point out to you the most important line in their little coversation?

Mustafa

Your rage is justified, Prince Chrom. But the meaning of your sister's final sacrifice was not lost on me. I suspect many Plegians who heard her final words would say the same. If you lay down your weapons, I vow to protect you as best I can.

Guess what this is. It's called foreshadowing. And the soldier who was about to turn? A microcosm of the events that would proceed this chapter. You have missed the entire point of that chapter. Emmeryn was the focal point of this chapter, as it was the chapter directly after her sacrifice. The name of the song that plays in the chapter was a reference to Emm.

Never mind that the specifics of her sacrifice having an effect were never in dispute: look at my comments on Page 1 of this thread. It obviously had an effect, but the key points here are that 1) there was also another reason for the mass desertion, and 2) her decision was actually a good one for once, and thus worthy of note. Everything else leading up to that? Not so much.

What exactly is this secondary reason? They chanted her name and deserted simultaneously. Emmeryn alone was the reason for their change of heart. If there is another reason that is even half as important as Emm's sacrifice, you're going to have to show it to me.

This is terrible logic.

Emm decided to go back to Ylisstol after the facts on the ground changed (Cordelia's news), and after Chrom repeatedly and with much passion argued against the point. Talking Chrom out of charging into Plegia? That just required people pointing out that he needed to act wisely: he readily agreed to let Robin come up with a strategy.

Emm's stubbornness -- if that's what it really is -- is certainly a flaw of hers in this situation.

The point is not that Emmeryn is flawless, but that the game chooses to ignore her flaws and paint her a saint despite her bad decisions.

And stupid. Regardless of how "the game" paints Emm's decision, "the game" then immediately shows that Yisstol fell and that she was captured in the process. You can't tell me that it doesn't mean anything that immediately after a conflict between Chrom and Emm, Chrom was show to be in the right.

Well I guess you could, because it's not against the rules to be wrong, but you get my meaning.

Cute. Ylisse was doomed to fall because it had been overrun by Gangrel long before Emm returned. It would have been taken over regardless of her decision. You are attributing the temporary fall of Ylisse to Emm's return when it was actually a result of Emm's departure. Hell it seems to me that getting kidnapped was actually part of Emmeryn's plan. I don't see what else she thought she was going to accomplish by walking into the military that just roflstomped the capital.

And as I said before, the solution to the problem also goes right back to Chrom. Who ultimately ended Plegia's aggression for good? Was it Emmeryn? No, it was Chrom and his Shepherds, and rather violently at that (and they did it AGAIN in Valm). If "the game" is making the point that Emm is some kind of Christ-figure, and "the game" is also undermining her character and her ideals at the same time, where exactly does that leave her overall?

[spoiler=THE SHOCKING ANSWER]It leaves her as a flawed character in a crappy story.

---> The point

---> Your head

Do you know how victory was made possible against Plegia? Because Gangrel's troops laid down their arms en masse thanks to Emm's sacrifice. The game still glorifies Emm's ideologies because even after her death the bad guys are the guys who don't agree with her. Her death was used to make the bad guys seem even badder. Gangrel laughing at Emm's death? Walhart calling her weak? They must be the bad guys. This goes back to the black and white morality of Awakening. Chrom essentially takes up a crusade to uphold her ideals through violence. It's contradictory, and part of the reason Chrom is considered an asshat (poor guy, a victim of Awakening's terrible writing). Nevermind the third arc where he would rather make the world suffer again somewhere down the line than give up Robin, but that's a different matter.

I'll concede that her sacrifice was the only sensible decision she made but it could have been avoided. The annoying part is that the game expects you to forget all the stupid shit she did leading up to the sacrifice. One is to forget her terrible decisions because it was part of her plan all along and it worked out in the end because she basically said "Stop fighting." and leapt. Her ideologies were immortalized through her Christ-like sacrifice. Maybe there was something stirring up in Plegia with Emmeryn's fall being the last straw, but we'll never know because Awakening doesn't know how to build its own world.

But this all goes back to a very good point someone made earlier in the thread (Crimean I believe). Awakening expects you to feel, not think.

[Loki Laufeyson]

To call Emmeryn weak because of her suicide is completely wrong. What would you have her do? Fly away? Teleport? Magically smite all the Plegians? She was in a situation that was going to end with her dead no matter what. What she did was absolutely the right decision. In case you haven't read the previous posts by others, she stopped Chrom from making a potentially bad decision, stopped Chrom from feeling he was responsible for her death, and gave many of the plegians a reason to second guess fighting. If anything, it shows her strength to be able to do without without any signs of fear or cowardice by trying to grasp at straws to save herself. To say she was weak for this just doesn't make sense to me. It seems horribly disrespectful that you think someone who is a martyr is exceedingly weak when they willingly laid down their life for something more important. What can a martyr do? A martyr can do a hell of a lot, but that's a different discussion, with plenty of examples showing how martyrs are most certainly not weak.

I dont believe in martyrdom because if you give up your life without fighting, you've already failed. I believe in fighting for a cause, not just giving up in hopes people would see me as a sacrificial lamb or "too good for this sinful earth." Because if you've given up, you've given up. If you are dead, you cant fight anymore. So what does that serve? Go down fighting, not shrugging and giving up so others think you saintly and "good". Placing martyrs so high is disrespectful for those who actually fight for a cause.

My heart bleeds panther piss for Emmeryn and her so-called "sacrifice". Something that could have been avoided with careful thought and strength of character, and a willingness to fight for one's country.

[Moira]

I dont believe in martyrdom because if you give up your life without fighting, you've already failed. I believe in fighting for a cause, not just giving up in hopes people would see me as a sacrificial lamb or "too good for this sinful earth." Because if you've given up, you've given up. If you are dead, you cant fight anymore. So what does that serve? Go down fighting, not shrugging and giving up so others think you saintly and "good". Placing martyrs so high is disrespectful for those who actually fight for a cause.

My heart bleeds panther piss for Emmeryn and her so-called "sacrifice". Something that could have been avoided with careful thought and strength of character, and a willingness to fight for one's country.

but sacrificing yourself has nothing to do with giving up. They use their life in a way that is beneficial to what are fighting for. Emmeryn never gave up, she gave what she had. What she had was almost nothing, a life that was about to end. She turned it around and made the most she could with what she had. She went down fighting, she willingly laid down her life to do something helpful.

[Interceptor]

You said it's not possible to verify that your assumptions about author intentions are correct, and are using that to claim that my assumptions about the author's intent on how Emmeryn is portrayed is incorrect. But if your point is so easily summarized, would you mind doing it for us? It might get your argument across clearer.

I never weighed in on whether it was possible/impossible; that would be silly. I am saying that there's no evidence of intention in the case of Awakening (at least not to the extent that people claim to support their arguments), and it'll stay that way until someone pulls off a miracle. There is next to no information, it's very nearly a black box: you are left with reading chicken entrails and making wild suppositions.

Take a proper story, like the one I mentioned earlier: Brave New World. It has a consistent narrative, it doesn't undermine itself with an infinite series of funhouse mirror plot holes, it's strictly a novel (and not playing double-duty as vidya), there is a single author, and Aldous Huxley gave interviews that we can read/watch where he talked about his novel and expressed personal opinions. It's very easy to figure out author intent in this case.

Awakening? The story is a mess of spaghetti, it contradicts itself, plot holes abound, tons of people had writing input, and they didn't even plan out every plot twist in advance. Literally, they were adding shit to the story in the middle of development. It's no wonder that the game turned out the way that it did, with that kind of process.

So pardon my incredulity when people claim to be able to deduce the intentions of the writers.

Awakening's characters have been described as tropey hundreds of times.

My cat's breath smells like cat food. What do those things have in common? They are irrelevant nonsense. See above. Not all tropes are created equally.

(full disclosure, I don't actually own a cat)

But, uh, are you saying that claiming that the story portrays a character is good when they're actually incompetent is being treated as a religion?

No, I am not. The religion here, is just the attachment to something that can't be proven to be true, and the violent response to anything contrary to that idea.

And not to encourage you to be rude or anything, but I'm pretty sure the amount of flak you're getting right now has more to do with your mannerisms than your point.

Don't worry, your encouragement or discouragement wouldn't have any effect on my behavior. This is not a restaurant, and I don't take orders.

It would be better if someone's reactions were based on my points, rather than on my tone. One of those things is evidence-based, the other isn't. But as I've stated before, I don't care either way.

You've presented plenty of evidence that Emmeryn is a bad ruler (and nobody disagrees), but you haven't done anything to show it doesn't portray her as good other than to say examples of her being good don't count. So yeah, you've got no evidence either.

This supposes that the point of my argument was to show that Emm is a bad ruler. Of course, that's wrong, and furthermore you should know better, since this entire throw-down took place in one thread. I am going to say this to you one more time, and that's it. If you manage to whiff the point: dead to me. Got no time for your nonsense.

My argument is that people are going too far. The hyperbole machine is cranked to 11. The first couple pages of this thread found people saying things like this:

"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."

"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."

"[Emm is] glorified as the perfect symbol of peace."

I am just pushing back against these silly things, and others like them.

This isn't a UFO convention filled with fanatics though, it's a handful of people complaining about a game's story. But if you were at such a convention, it would be on you to question why you were there in the first place.

It was just an example to illustrate the essential point: evidence is not a democracy. People do that in arguments, showing the extreme in order to put a floor under the basic idea, and then circling back to something less asinine. UFO-heads have their dicks so far into the jar of peanut butter (AKA, "fucking nuts"), that it's a useful example of the phenomenon.

Challenging people's opinions without the intent to change them makes no sense to me.

Fixed that for you, my edit in bold. I already told you why I do it: it's fun. This thread is a ripe environment for me to make all kinds of colorful metaphors, which is a favorite pastime of mine.

I don't care if someone has a wrong opinion, except to the extent that their ignorance lends itself to entertaining me for a few minutes.

But then you wouldn't have an immobile brick wall to challenge for your entertainment...

I'd call you more of a glacier. You're gliding down the hill at one meter per day, slowly going about your business regardless of what people have to say to you.

=-=-=-=-=-=

But then who would correct you when you are wrong?

Generally it's me. I have this crazy thing I do where I actually take a half a minute to proofread and/or verify things before I post them. It's kinda weird, but I'm hoping that it will eventually catch on around this forum.

No, they do. You do realize that context is collective, don't you? The accompanying dialogue and the events which preceded and proceeded those image are exactly what context is about. Every CG in Awakening is meant to give off an impression. It does not do so simply by showing you an image, it does so with the entirety of the scene. Music, dialogue, and the events surrounding the image are important. You are blatantly disregarding these things for the convenience of your argument. Emmeryn's CG and Walhart's CG give entirely different impressions and you know it. Do not warp or ignore context as you see fit.

The "collective context" when it comes to this particular point is that sunlight is so over-used as an effect that it loses its impact. The artist in this game has a photon fetish. The CGs are full of sunlight porn. Go look at some of them. When you use a particular effect to this extent, it ceases to convey special meaning. The CG of random d-bags in the streets being bathed in cosmic cancer-rays is enough just on its own, mind you, but the others make it even more obvious, just in case there was any ambiguity left.

Oh, and speaking of blatantly disregarding things for the convenience of argument, let's hear your explanation as to why heavily-armed soldiers are featured prominently in Emm's "peace paragon" CG. Don't think that I forgot that you haven't addressed that particular point at all. At this juncture, failure to even acknowledge the point is tantamount to conceding it, given how much effort you've put into railing about "context".

Here you go ignoring context. Again. "Be selfish for once in your life!" changes the entire direction of their argument. Chrom wasn't confronting Emm because she had a stupid plan, he was confronting Emm because she was being too selfless. It's obvious by the choice of music in the scene that the game was trying to instill a sense of sorrow or sympathy in the viewer. This is why I stated a simple text reference is not enough. One needs to see the scene in its entirety in order to fully understand it. And her plan ended up working in the end. Chrom and pragmatism? Wrong. Emmeryn and idealism? Right. This was the message of that scene.

Three things, here. First of all, the "be selfish" changes nothing about their argument, since 1) he still has yet to call it a "terrible" plan, and 2) Emm doesn't even acknowledge it (she responds to "we need you" with "ILU"). Oh Emm, you could fill in for Ralph Wiggum in a heartbeat.

Secondly, Chrom absolutely was confronting her because her plan was stupid. He called out exactly what would happen: that she'd be walking into her own death.

Finally, Emm's plan failed utterly, since what was supposed to happen was that Chrom would show up in Ylisstol with Feroxi reinforcements. I don't know why people have the impression that her original idea was to sacrifice herself: that only happened because she was boxed-in by previous terrible decisions that went horribly wrong.

I understand that the story is confusing, but make some cursory attempt to follow along if you're going to argue with me about it.

No, the take away was that Emmeryn had reached the hearts of the Plegian military. Are you forgetting why Chrom was attacked? It was because they chose to fight.

Only in this thread can "fighting to keep from being captured/killed" be spun as "Chrom chose to fight". I don't even have to add anything to this; it's absurd enough on its own.

Guess what this is. It's called foreshadowing. And the soldier who was about to turn? A microcosm of the events that would proceed this chapter. You have missed the entire point of that chapter. Emmeryn was the focal point of this chapter, as it was the chapter directly after her sacrifice. The name of the song that plays in the chapter was a reference to Emm.

I didn't "miss the point" of the chapter; I noted that the dialogue goes out of its way to point out two important things:

1) there is a reason for Plegians to desert that has nothing to do with Emm, and

2) Emm's influence was not enough to allow Chrom and the Shepherds to be allowed to escape.

Both of those things undermine the impact of Emm's sacrifice. This is notable because they didn't have to do either of them; neither are strictly important to the story. Since I am a curious person rather than a dogmatic one, I find it pretty interesting. I'm sorry that it doesn't even tickle your brain cells.

What exactly is this secondary reason?

Gangrel is a huge asshole that will indiscriminately murder people. When you are one of those people subject to being murdered on a whim, that sort of counts as a reason to pack your shit and leave.

They chanted her name and deserted simultaneously. Emmeryn alone was the reason for their change of heart.

People have all sorts of justifications for doing things, not all of which are directly stated. "Alone" is a silly choice of word, since it's a nakedly ridiculous idea that the Plegians would desert for just a single reason. Surely you aren't implying that they were Kool and the Gang with everything until Emm took a dive.

The point is not that Emmeryn is flawless, but that the game chooses to ignore her flaws and paint her a saint despite her bad decisions.

"The game" does no such thing. "The game" shows you the immediate consequence of Emm's decision: Ylisstol falls, and she is captured. You can't separate those two things. The fall of Ylisstol was a thing that happened, and there is no ambiguity when it comes to who is to blame for the decision to return there. It was all on Emm, and it was in direct contrast with Chrom.

Done. Fin. Enough of this already.

Cute. Ylisse was doomed to fall because it had been overrun by Gangrel long before Emm returned.

Ylisse is the country, Ylisstol is the capital city. Gangrel broke through the border, and the Plegians were half a day behind the exalt. Emm left to return to Ylisstol, which fell. She's not getting captured if she stays with the group and goes to Feroxi.

"Let us embrace again in Ylisstol when you arrive with Feroxi reinforcements. I know you will come."

It would have been taken over regardless of her decision. You are attributing the temporary fall of Ylisse to Emm's return when it was actually a result of Emm's departure.

No, I'm pointing out that she doesn't get captured if she doesn't turn around and walk right into Gangrel's arms.

---> The point

---> Your head

Do you have any sort of retort that's not a copy/paste comeback that's older than the Internet?

Do you know how victory was made possible against Plegia? Because Gangrel's troops laid down their arms en masse thanks to Emm's sacrifice.

Victory was secured because the Shepherds stabbed Gangrel until he stopped moving. Emm didn't peace him to death. Don't forget that Ylisse still wins the war against Plegia in the alternate history where the Exalt gets assassinated, Chrom gets jacked, and the Fire Emblem is stolen.

The game still glorifies Emm's ideologies because even after her death the bad guys are the guys who don't agree with her. Her death was used to make the bad guys seem even badder. Gangrel laughing at Emm's death? Walhart calling her weak? They must be the bad guys. This goes back to the black and white morality of Awakening. Chrom essentially takes up a crusade to uphold her ideals through violence. It's contradictory, and part of the reason Chrom is considered an asshat (poor guy, a victim of Awakening's terrible writing). Nevermind the third arc where he would rather make the world suffer again somewhere down the line than give up Robin, but that's a different matter.

Chrom doesn't agree with her, either. The fact that Chrom goes on to completely pervert Emm's ideals -- in full recognition of that fact, mind you -- just goes to show how naive she really was. Even though he is proving Walhart to be correct, he gets results and saves the world. Sort of.

Call the story shitty (and it IS shitty), but this is the story that we're given to work with.

I'll concede that her sacrifice was the only sensible decision she made but it could have been avoided. The annoying part is that the game expects you to forget all the stupid shit she did leading up to the sacrifice. One is to forget her terrible decisions because it was part of her plan all along and it worked out in the end because she basically said "Stop fighting." and leapt. Her ideologies were immortalized through her Christ-like sacrifice. Maybe there was something stirring up in Plegia with Emmeryn's fall being the last straw, but we'll never know because Awakening doesn't know how to build its own world.

"The game" isn't expecting you to forget it. As mentioned, they throw it right back into your face in the Valm arc.

You are over-thinking it. There is a very simple explanation for this: Emm was intended to be a flawed character. If you keep that little idea in mind, everything else falls neatly into place, and you don't need these ridiculous constructs that explain away the numerous points where she is shown to be less than perfect.

[Czar_Yoshi]

My argument is that people are going too far. The hyperbole machine is cranked to 11. The first couple pages of this thread found people saying things like this:

"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."

"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."

"[Emm is] glorified as the perfect symbol of peace."

I am just pushing back against these silly things, and others like them.

I'm glad you agree. It is pretty silly that the game glorifies an obviously bad ruler.

So, uh, why are you arguing with the people who are on your side?

[Interceptor]

I'm glad you agree. It is pretty silly that the game glorifies an obviously bad ruler.

"Agree" must mean something different in your country than it does in mine. Here in America, we use the term to mean that we share the same opinion on the subject being discussed. For example, I don't "agree" with the idea that "the game" is glorifying a bad ruler, since while Emmeryn is indeed a bad ruler, "the game" does avail itself of multiple opportunities to point out the flaws in both her personality and her ideals.

So, uh, why are you arguing with the people who are on your side?

On my side of what? The food chain? We certainly don't have the same viewpoint on this topic, for example. As for the why, as I said, it's because they "go too far".

[Czar_Yoshi]

"Agree" must mean something different in your country than it does in mine. Here in America, we use the term to mean that we share the same opinion on the subject being discussed. For example, I don't "agree" with the idea that "the game" is glorifying a bad ruler, since while Emmeryn is indeed a bad ruler, "the game" does avail itself of multiple opportunities to point out the flaws in both her personality and her ideals.

No it doesn't. The game doesn't draw any negative attention to her shortcomings, and any time it does draw attention to them they're portrayed as nobility, etc (but not flaws) and the people drawing attention to them are portrayed as in the wrong.

What you see =/= what the game is trying to show you.

[Moira]

What you see =/= what the game is trying to show you.

Would anyone be surprised if what the writers attempted to show us is actually pretty different than what we saw when playing the game?

[CrimeanRoyalKnight]

TBH, after 8 pages of arguing, I'm seeing it like this:

"Emmeryn is flawed, because her pacifism and extremely peaceful ideas weren't suited for war; but she had a pure heart, her sacrifice was a good thing to definitively change the hearts of people, Plegians and Yilisseans alike, and to stop Gangrel' slimy hands from getting the Emblem. Thus, she will be remembered as a hero."

I mean, I'd say it's a bit blind to not see that Emmeryn wouldn't have survived anyway, with her extremely idealistic acts (war killed her and her pacifism); it's clear she is a flawed leader, not suited for the world around her, but still, she is shown in a good light because, other than being on the good guys' side, having good intentions and all, she did "teh act" to change the tides of war and bring it closer to its end.

I'd add it's also blind to deny that she (but mostly, her final act) will be remembered in a good light; at by least Chrom, who still acts as a narrator of sorts in some chapters (and also as a voice of truth for the game, sometimes... sometimes...). It's said multiple times it will go down to history, and facts show it was a crucial event to end the war (not counting what happens after it or what happened before it). We don't know how many years the war took in the other timeline.

And yeah, I guess after Emmeryn's words, Gangrel must have had very few men at his side (many went away, as said by the game), and thus it was easier and less bloody for Yilisse to kill him. Curiously enough, the mission where you have to kill him is a rout mission...

[Integrity]

Curiously enough, the mission where you have to kill him is a rout mission...

well if his dudes deserted him en masse then by the time you ran him down he'd be surrounded by only the dudes who really believed in him, yeah?

[BrightBow]

well if his dudes deserted him en masse then by the time you ran him down he'd be surrounded by only the dudes who really believed in him, yeah?

No. Considering that even Mustafa never deserted, it can not automatically be assumed that they had much of a choice.

But more importanly, a "kill them all" mission clashes with the whole "everyone desires peace" realisation of Chrom. It's not good for the drama either. Gangrel is the main villain. Once he is defeated, the climax should be over.

Edited July 25, 2014 by BrightBow

[Integrity]

lmao

except that you're actually wrong. gangrel isn't going to make his retinue people he's coercing into staying with him because they will turn on and fuck him the instant he shows weakness. "chrom is about to eat me" is showing weakness. the only people in the army that you CAN assume are actually loyal to gangrel are the praetorian guard*, who are the guys who are going to be around him at the end.

* using the term generally rather than to reflect the real-life praetorian guard who became hilariously not-this

EDIT: i will expound on this while i am poopin because i literally cannot believe you'd call me on this out of all things

if gangrel is coercing people into staying in his army that means he HAS to have a loyal core of supporters, or you're going to argue that he's totally unrealistically playing a whole nation of people who hate him against each other. logically, then, he uses these people to keep his mustafas in line. logically, when people desert en masse, the only people left are going to be these people.

seriously, man. i'm not saying the game's story is amazing but don't challenge me on trivial shit that makes perfect sense.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Integrity

[CrimeanRoyalKnight]

well if his dudes deserted him en masse then by the time you ran him down he'd be surrounded by only the dudes who really believed in him, yeah?

It's what I guessed; another show of Emmeryn's imperfection.

[BrightBow]

lmao

except that you're actually wrong. gangrel isn't going to make his retinue people he's coercing into staying with him because they will turn on and fuck him the instant he shows weakness. "chrom is about to eat me" is showing weakness. the only people in the army that you CAN assume are actually loyal to gangrel are the praetorian guard*, who are the guys who are going to be around him at the end.

* using the term generally rather than to reflect the real-life praetorian guard who became hilariously not-this

EDIT: i will expound on this while i am poopin because i literally cannot believe you'd call me on this out of all things

if gangrel is coercing people into staying in his army that means he HAS to have a loyal core of supporters, or you're going to argue that he's totally unrealistically playing a whole nation of people who hate him against each other. logically, then, he uses these people to keep his mustafas in line. logically, when people desert en masse, the only people left are going to be these people.

seriously, man. i'm not saying the game's story is amazing but don't challenge me on trivial shit that makes perfect sense.

I am not challenging you on anything but your usage of the word "only". It can not be assumed from everyone that they are loyal because deserting is difficult when you find yourself surrounded by people who are genuine loyal. In general your assumption is of course right, so I am surprised by your strong reaction there. Maybe my writing style is more rude then I realize.

But like you say, it is trivial. Way more importantly is the clash with the drama and the themes. You kill the main villain at the big climax and the game simply keeps going like he was just some 8/15 officer with nothing but a unique mug. That has not a good feel to it.

And thematically it's not all that good to follow all this peace talk with a "take no prisoners" objective. And given how this guy mocks bonds, it would be appropriate if no one is willing to fight for him anymore once he is no longer able to "let the boot fall".

Edited July 25, 2014 by BrightBow