Emmeryn's Sacrifice

[Integrity]

except my use of "only" is still correct in my assumption. gangrel, the evil tyrant dictator, isn't going to let disloyal subjects into his retinue. the people around him at the end are going to be his final line of defense. he can't have chinks in it. if you're gang-pressing people into service, you put them in the infantry, not the royal-fucking-guard. in lieu of the game's correction, i don't see how it's wrong to assume that gangrel isn't a total moron.

in light of that, the 'take no prisoners' objective is fine because these people will not surrender. this is a thing that happens with real people. how is this even an argument? everything i said, including the word 'only', makes perfect sense.

[BrightBow]

in light of that, the 'take no prisoners' objective is fine because these people will not surrender. this is a thing that happens with real people. how is this even an argument? everything i said, including the word 'only', makes perfect sense.

It is not about realism. It's about the game weakening it's own themes. Of course there would still be some resistance but we don't need to see how they deal with them because it is not important to the story. The bad guy is dead, the climax is over. Time to wrap things up and move to the next arc.

In contrast too that, Radiant Dawn also highlighted this issue. But this was because the remaining rebels and Elincia's mercy biting her in the ass were actually important to the story and it's themes. (More obvious in the extended script when Lundgren calls her directly out on not pursuing the rebels, saying she might have been able to save Lucia that way.) But in Awakening, there is no reason for this. The map simply keeps going when the story should move on.

Edited July 25, 2014 by BrightBow

[Interceptor]

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.

Here's the problem with your "nuh-uh" argument: you are armed with a vague notion of intentionality, while I am armed with facts.

The events of the game belie your claims, because the primary vehicle for highlighting Emm's flaws is Chrom, the co-protagonist. He's the one who confronts her, who makes a prescient observation about her fate, and the one for whom every success against the Big Bads is a further refutation of her naive ideology. The script doesn't even shy away from this idea, since none of the various points he makes are strictly necessary for the story. The game could tell the Tragedy of the Fall of the Flawless Exalt without Chrom channeling Nostradamus or visibly struggling with the conflict between his sister's ideals and what needed to be done. But it did not.

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

What I see is what happened: I am pointing out the facts of events. I've already made the case against the idea that "the game" has intentions that can be deduced with any kind of accuracy. Either respond to said case with an argument of your own, or get used to the sound of crickets.

"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."

This is close to the truth, but fundamentally incompatible with the stances of the hard-liners in this thread. So I hope that you are prepared for hyperbole, backtracking, and/or pregnant silence from the Peanut Gallery.

I'd add it's also blind to deny that she (but mostly, her final act) will be remembered in a good light

Nobody disagrees with this. Making this point is very nearly a straw-man, except that you're not actually arguing with anyone.

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

It's almost like pacifism is a thing that doesn't really work in a Fire Emblem title.

the people around him at the end are going to be his final line of defense. he can't have chinks in it.

TIL: Gangrel is also kinda racist.

Sorry, I like double entendres.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Interceptor

[Ike-Mike]

You kill the main villain at the big climax and the game simply keeps going

What are story arcs?

You played Kid Dickarus, didn't you? Both games have a big villain in the first act, only to be revealed that they were just used by an even bigger villain.

Actually, since we're on that, how come you don't complain about Uprising's story as much, even though both are about as long and are as a whole rather similiar?

And honestly, Awakening has a more coherent narrative structure...

It is not about realism. It's about the game weakening it's own themes. Of course there would still be some resistance but we don't need to see how they deal with them because it is not important to the story. The bad guy is dead, the climax is over. Time to wrap things up and move to the next arc.

In contrast too that, Radiant Dawn also highlighted this issue. But this was because the remaining rebels and Elincia's mercy biting her in the ass were actually important to the story and it's themes. (More obvious in the extended script when Lundgren calls her directly out on not pursuing the rebels, saying she might have been able to save Lucia that way.) But in Awakening, there is no reason for this. The map simply keeps going when the story should move on.

So basically Chrom is consequent where Elincia wasn't? And instead of indulging in a minutes-long cutscene where Chrom deals with the rest the game actually lets you do it yourself.

I don't see how it weakens its own themes. The theme of two two royal families feuding for generations and dragging their countries into it is represented by the most important member of one family sacrificing herself to show the conflict's futility, while the other is not only the last member of his family, he also rallied everyone who thinks it still should go on together in one place for one final battle. So Chrom shatters those remains and give closure to that conflict, so the game can deal with other things for the next act.

TIL: Gangrel is also kinda racist.

Sorry, I like double entendres.

Knowing how Gangrel is, that statement really could be taken both ways.

See, that's how flawless Integ's arguments are!

[CrimeanRoyalKnight]

I don't see how it weakens its own themes.

I believe he meant it weakened the general themes of the game.

[RJWalker]

So basically Chrom is consequent where Elincia wasn't? And instead of indulging in a minutes-long cutscene where Chrom deals with the rest the game actually lets you do it yourself

You realize there doesn't have to be a cutscene either, right?

[Czar_Yoshi]

Gangrel, the evil tyrant dictator, isn't going to let disloyal subjects into his retinue.

Aversa?

Here's the problem with your "nuh-uh" argument: you are armed with a vague notion of intentionality, while I am armed with facts.

You're saying what actually happened in the story, yes. But you've said "nuh-uh" to everything everyone else throws out supporting that the devs tried to portray Emmeryn in a completely positive light, without any proof that the writers are, in fact, competent enough to portray a character in a way that matches up with their actions.

[Interceptor]

You're saying what actually happened in the story, yes. But you've said "nuh-uh" to everything everyone else throws out supporting that the devs tried to portray Emmeryn in a completely positive light, without any proof that the writers are, in fact, competent enough to portray a character in a way that matches up with their actions.

Negative. I've shot holes in the logic that people used in their arguments, which is entirely different from the casual way that you dismiss factual information. To recap:

• People talking about Emm's glorious magnificence -- those people are her siblings, the butler, and Old Man. Not credibly unbiased.
• Emm's introduction CG glorifies her as a paragon of peace -- except the prominently visible armed soldiers destroy that vision, and the rays of sunlight are unexceptional (used liberally elsewhere)
• Nobody calls out Emmeryn on her mistakes -- other than the game's co-protagonist, to her face, and nobody challenged him on it.
• Aversa didn't make fun of Emm -- or anyone else in the scene that wasn't name Maribelle or Ricken.
• Emm has a Barracks description -- that just says she was a good-hearted and kind person, not that she was a saint.
• Emm's speech altered the hearts of the Plegians -- other than the ones who were in Chrom's way. They tried to kill him, choosing loyalty to commander over anything Emm had to say.
• The speech was the sole reason that the Plegians fled the battlefield -- other than, you know, the fact that Gangrel was a murdering crazy person, a fact that was just made really clear in case you missed it.

Feast upon the crummy logic that has been brought to bear in the defense of Emmeryn as a flawless saint. This is not "nuh uh", it's "here's half a dozen reasons why your arguments are defective". It's also not on me to prove that the writers are competent, or any other random bullshit that you feel like outsourcing to this soldier. Do your own work.

Also, FYI, one of the few things we DO know about the dev's intentions, is that that they wanted to have flawed good guys, as well as bad guys with redeeming traits. Emm as a fatally flawed idealist describes that one perfectly (just as Walhart serves as a bad guy with redeeming traits). But it could just be an amazing coincidence, and there's no way to know for sure, even though it fits the facts.

[Moira]

If it counts for anything I'm pretty sure Phila asked Emmeryn to reconsider, so it's not only Chrom telling her she's making a bad choice.

[Czar_Yoshi]

Negative. I've shot holes in the logic that people used in their arguments, which is entirely different from the casual way that you dismiss factual information. To recap:

• People talking about Emm's glorious magnificence -- those people are her siblings, the butler, and Old Man. Not credibly unbiased.
• Emm's introduction CG glorifies her as a paragon of peace -- except the prominently visible armed soldiers destroy that vision, and the rays of sunlight are unexceptional (used liberally elsewhere)
• Nobody calls out Emmeryn on her mistakes -- other than the game's co-protagonist, to her face, and nobody challenged him on it.
• Aversa didn't make fun of Emm -- or anyone else in the scene that wasn't name Maribelle or Ricken.
• Emm has a Barracks description -- that just says she was a good-hearted and kind person, not that she was a saint.
• Emm's speech altered the hearts of the Plegians -- other than the ones who were in Chrom's way. They tried to kill him, choosing loyalty to commander over anything Emm had to say.
• The speech was the sole reason that the Plegians fled the battlefield -- other than, you know, the fact that Gangrel was a murdering crazy person, a fact that was just made really clear in case you missed it.

Feast upon the crummy logic that has been brought to bear in the defense of Emmeryn as a flawless saint. This is not "nuh uh", it's "here's half a dozen reasons why your arguments are defective". It's also not on me to prove that the writers are competent, or any other random bullshit that you feel like outsourcing to this soldier. Do your own work.

Also, FYI, one of the few things we DO know about the dev's intentions, is that that they wanted to have flawed good guys, as well as bad guys with redeeming traits. Emm as a fatally flawed idealist describes that one perfectly (just as Walhart serves as a bad guy with redeeming traits). But it could just be an amazing coincidence, and there's no way to know for sure, even though it fits the facts.

You've also shook your head and repeated yourself every time someone refutes one of your "counter-proofs".

1. Any bias displayed in a fictional story is there intentionally. Bias from guys as good as Chrom (not talking about his leadership actions, talking about his treatment of the Avatar) is there to influence you to see the story the way he sees it. If Chrom were to grow up during the story and realize that Emmeryn wasn't perfect, then this would be exactly what you're saying, but as-is he doesn't; he "grows" from "this is a terrible plan" to "her act will live on longer than your conquest ever will".

2. Emmeryn's guard is mostly ceremonial- not only does she refuse to send them to fight Plegia, but they aren't even around when Validar tries to assassinate her. When they are called on to act, they're useless. My point is, they're probably a remnant of pre-Emmeryn Ylisse that someone like Phila or Chrom persuaded her to keep around, but she's obviously spent no time or resources making sure they can fight. As for that CG, Emmeryn is clearly the focus, not the soldiers. It's a CG of the Exalt with her guard in the background, not of an army with the Exalt in the foreground.

3. Nobody needs to challenge Chrom on it- he challenges himself later (see point 1). Earlygame Chrom obviously wants to fight- he clashes with Emmeryn over what to do when Gangrel attacks Themis (Chrom: kill Gangrel, Emmeryn: parley), in addition to Cht.7. He talks about how good Emmeryn is too, but he obviously considers her a little too pacifistic. Then, post-sacrifice, he "comes around" and starts talking about how much good her ideals actually did- and tries to follow them. He does openly admit that he can't be as much of a pacifist as her, but he tries- see Gangrel. The first time Chrom and Gangrel talk (Cht.5), Chrom is spouting threats and challenges, and then in Cht.11 his demeanor changes- he still wants to kill Gangrel, but acknowledges that in doing so he's failing to live up to Emmeryn's ideal. Fast forward to Walhart, where he's doing the same thing. The point is that Chrom "grew" from telling Emmeryn that she was wrong, to telling others that she was right. By the end of the game, everyone who's challenged her ideals has either changed their mind, or is dead (Spotpass Paralogues aren't canon).

4. That was a minor side point I made that even some villains can't straightly criticize her, but it doesn't matter.

5. Does it say anything about her mistakes? Does it say anything about any troubles that arose from her pacifism? No, it doesn't. It portrays her in a positive light without any mention of her flaws, and that's why I brought it up.

6/7. FE has loads of examples of characters who stand in your way due to loyalty to their superior even though they have excellent reasons not to- so many that it's considered an a character archetype. You think Camus fought Marth because he was scared that Medeus would kill him if he didn't? How about Eldigan, do you think he fought Sigurd because he was scared that Chagall would kill him if he didn't? Mustafa does fight out of fear (for his family, not himself), but all his soldiers fight out of loyalty, even after he dismisses them. If they were fighting out of fear of Gangrel, they would have bailed the moment Mustafa offered to take responsibility for their actions. I don't deny that Gangrel being a jerk influenced the desires of the soldiers to flee, or even that it was their primary reason, but Emmeryn was the spark that sent them from "this job stinks" to "I'm outta here". And consider what likely would have happened to Mustafa's patrol if they hadn't been ordered to chase Chrom: they likely would have gotten mixed in with the other soldiers, gone along with the mob and deserted. Maybe Mustafa would have deserted too at that point, being a single man in a mob while Gangrel is on the ropes makes his family a lot safer than if the country's still holding together and he jumps ship alone (along with one patrol).

So yeah, answer all those (except 4, I never intended that to be more than an FYI) without simply repeating your original points or saying "nuh-uh".

[Interceptor]

You've also shook your head and repeated yourself every time someone refutes one of your "counter-proofs".

Every time they attempt to, you mean. I can't change the result of "2 + 2" just because someone thinks that the answer is "banana". All I can do is rephrase and try another angle. As for your salad:

1) Intentionality arguments are rejected; you haven't proven author intent in this game (note that it's a game, not a novel). Never mind that it's entirely plausible that a biased description from Chrom & co. is meant is heighten the emotional impact from the failure of her idealism later on. Chrom does grow during the game, and "terrible plan" has nothing to do with "her act will live on", because the act he's referring to is her suicide, not her plans (which remain terrible even in hindsight).

2) Yes, Emmeryn's guard is ceremonial and symbolic. That symbol is not "peace". Welcome to my point. Also, there is no reason whatsoever for them to be in the CG at all, never mind as prominently as they are. Someone had to actually draw them into the CG, you know; it's not like a real-life photo where you can catch random background details. Unlike your nonsense about bias in fiction, we can fairly safely assume that the soldiers are there on purpose. The rest of your take on this is irrelevant/offtopic.

3) It means something that nobody stands up to Chrom when he called out Emm. If someone challenges him, particularly someone in a position of authority, it undermines his argument. As it happened, nobody batted an eyelash. Again, there is a difference between Emmeryrn's decision to return to Ylisstol (bad), and her sacrifice once she was backed into a corner (good). Chrom "comes around" on the latter, not the former. He also never follows her ideals: he respects and admires them, but still solves problems his way (which is, by the way, about as far from her ideals as you can get... if people "want peace", it's clearly not anyone that Chrom runs into). He kills the shit out of people.

4) I only mentioned this for completeness. Naga forbid that someone in this thread throw a fit because I forgot one of their points.

5) It doesn't have to. Emmeryrn's good-heartedness was never in question, so the Barracks conversation just serves as another example of flimsy evidence. If someone offers it up as a retort to "the game doesn't glorify Emm to the extent claimed", they clearly didn't understand the point in the first place. It's basically a non sequitur.

6) It shows a clear limit to Emm's power, that she cannot overcome loyalty to Mustafa, when the story did not require anything of the sort. Cut out that entire sequence, nothing changes. That's the only purpose of bringing it up. Jesus didn't turn water into seltzer.

7) Thanks for agreeing with basic sense. Clearly there was more at play in Emm's miracle than just her words alone. Someone did actually argue against this.

So yeah, answer all those (except 4, I never intended that to be more than an FYI) without simply repeating your original points or saying "nuh-uh".

I ignored your mission creep, and just addressed the things that dealt with points I actually made, instead of going down a rabbit hole of tangents. Now maybe you can acknowledge that the devs have come out and said that they intended to have their good guys "flawed". And possibly that Emm would certainly qualify for that distinction.

EDIT:

If it counts for anything I'm pretty sure Phila asked Emmeryn to reconsider, so it's not only Chrom telling her she's making a bad choice.

She started to, but Emm cut her off and she didn't follow through. Very next thing she said was that she'd accompany Emm to Ylisstol.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Interceptor

[Skynstein]

6) It shows a clear limit to Emm's power, that she cannot overcome loyalty to Mustafa, when the story did not require anything of the sort. Cut out that entire sequence, nothing changes. That's the only purpose of bringing it up. Jesus didn't turn water into seltzer.

I heard there was a mechanic in Chapter 10 that makes Mustafa's soldiers less accurate as time went on, which would be proof that Emmeryn's words still had great impact on them, but I could be mistaken.

[Interceptor]

I heard there was a mechanic in Chapter 10 that makes Mustafa's soldiers less accurate as time went on, which would be proof that Emmeryn's words still had great impact on them, but I could be mistaken.

This would have been great if it were true, because I face-tanked a bunch of Riders on a Fort in my Lunatic+ run. I don't recall enemies losing their eyesight, though.

But the point isn't that her words had no impact on them: clearly it did, otherwise they wouldn't have mentioned refusing to fight. The point was that there's a limit, if they are going to say "well that was a great speech, but fuck it, let's kill the crown prince, because Mustafa is a bro".

[Moira]

She started to, but Emm cut her off and she didn't follow through. Very next thing she said was that she'd accompany Emm to Ylisstol.

I think Phila would know better than anyone how pointless arguing with Emmeryn is, not that she shouldn't try harder. She's pretty obedient.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Fluorspar

[Czar_Yoshi]

Every time they attempt to, you mean. I can't change the result of "2 + 2" just because someone thinks that the answer is "banana". All I can do is rephrase and try another angle. As for your salad:

I preferred your old angle better.

1. Her idealism never fails, though- Chrom doesn't do a very good job of sticking to it, but nobody in-game ever says anything to the effect of "Emmeryn was wrong" without providing any evidence of what she did. Go ahead, find me a quote in which someone actually says she was wrong and cites examples of the bad stuff she caused. Walhart? No, he just insults her and gets mashed. Also, "Arguments are rejected" is a big, fancy way of doing what you're accusing me of doing: flat-out denial.

2. If you're saying they're there to show that Emmeryn is a warmonger, read Cht.5's script again. At worst, they're out of place and don't make sense. At best, someone like Phila persuaded Emmeryn to keep some measure of protection around. Most likely, the writers derped and decided to include them to make the setting "more medieval" without considering context.

3. Alright, script time (again). At first, Chrom isn't actually arguing for Emmeryn not to go back- he's arguing that she should take him with her for protection. She says no, and tells Lissa to stay with Chrom, and then lets Phila come with her, and then Chrom tells her flat-out not to go and that it's a terrible plan. So who's going to call him out? Phila is busy arguing with Cordelia.

5. Dunno what your version of "the extent claimed" is, but mine is that the game says she was a good ruler.

6. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm saying Emmeryn's sacrifice is some sort of spell that instantly turns Plegians into cuddly bears, because I'm not. I'm saying that there was a mound of discontent in Plegia due to Gangrel, and Emmeryn was the spark that ignited the blaze. Just like a real fire, that doesn't mean everything will instantly explode- if it did, Gangrel would have fallen in Cht.9. Chrom fought Mustafa's squad just a few hours after Cht.9, and the effect her sacrifice had on the soldiers is pretty obvious- they hadn't had enough time to stew to outright surrender to Chrom, but they're pretty close and it's clear that Mustafa is the only thing holding them together.

7. Then it seems we can drop this point, too.

[Moira]

3. Alright, script time (again). At first, Chrom isn't actually arguing for Emmeryn not to go back- he's arguing that she should take him with her for protection. She says no, and tells Lissa to stay with Chrom, and then lets Phila come with her

Emmeryn

I should never have left. If it's discovered I'm away when this news comes to light... The people could panic. Riot. More Ylisseans could needlessly die. Here, Chrom. I entrust this to you.

Chrom

The Fire Emblem?

Emmeryn

Take it to Ferox—to safety.

Chrom

And leave you? No, Emm.

His line is too open for interpretation. He could mean either that she comes with him and he doesn't leave her behind, or he doesn't leave her and goes to Ylisstol. I'm inclined to believe he wants her to come to Ferox based on the rest of the script.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Fluorspar

[Interceptor]

I preferred your old angle better.

Sure, but can you see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

1) Emm's idealism definitely flops. She believes that all people desire peace, and the way that Chrom is helping this one along is by killing the shit out of the people who don't, which is both perverse and hilarious. Gangrel and Walhart are the ultimate refutations of Emm's ideals.

By the way, your argument for intentionality is rejected for an actual reason, not just as a way for me to say "no you". I gave a run-down of why you can't really make assumptions about author intentions in this game, from a comparison to a real novel, to some actual tidbits about how this story was written. Here was your response:

If you don't see anything there, that's because it doesn't exist. In this world, we don't refute arguments by ignoring them. Again: rejected. I already showed how it was ridiculous, you had no rejoinder, and now I consider it a dead subject.

=-=-=-=-

2) I am not saying that Emm is a warmonger. You could save yourself a lot of trouble by asking yourself "is this person suggesting [ridiculous thing]?", realizing that they are not (because they never actually said that), and saving face by not asking a silly thing in a public forum. All I said was that the presence of armed soldiers undermines the idea that Emm is some kind of Paragon of Peace, which doesn't seem all that controversial of a point.

Again, it's not that she has guards with her that's odd: it's that they are prominently in the CG. As a secondary point, the fact that they are in full parade gear suggests that it's also intended as a visible show of force. There's more to guard duty than being in proximity wearing shiny armor: you still need to protect against an archer on a rooftop, for example.

Sure, they could have "derped". Do you have evidence of that? Of course you don't, just like everything else. So why should we assume that someone actively made a mistake that nobody else on the team found/corrected, instead of just assuming that the soldiers are completely benign because Emm was never intended to be a flawless character in the first place? Doesn't that second option make more sense?

=-=-=-=-

3) Chrom is clearly arguing for Emm to not go back to Ylisstol. Any ambiguity in his words goes out the window when he says that she'd be walking into her own death. Phila is not "busy" arguing with Cordelia; Phila starts to suggest that Emm not return, and before Cordelia even says another word Phila bookends that by saying she and the Pegs will accompany the exalt back to Ylisstol. Frederick (the other person who could argue) acquiesces immediately, as well. Neither of them says one damned word to counter Chrom, and Phila even agrees with him.

Chrom's objection stands alone, unanswered by anyone but Emm. That's as stark a conflict as you're going to get.

=-=-=-=-

5) A good ruler is a flawed ruler (otherwise they'd be great, or legendary). Emm's bio didn't launch into the hyperbole that was used in this thread, which suggests that the hyperbole was wrong. Imagine that.

=-=-=-=-

6) Your opinion doesn't enter into it; I'm not saying anything bout "you", I was simply making the point that Emm's speech had clear and visible limitations, and furthermore those limitations were not necessary for telling the story (Chapter 10 could have been done completely differently without changing anything else). Limits aren't sensical for some kind of demigod, but they sure do make a lot of sense for a flawed human being.

=-=-=-=-

7) If by "drop this point" you mean "concede that I am correct". I don't think you understand that the veracity of my argument doesn't depend on everything being ironclad: if I'm arguing against the silly idea that "the game wants us to believe Emm is a perfect saint", then I don't need to hit on everything, just on one thing. Right? Neo has to dodge all of the bullets, otherwise he gets shot. My position (Emm is flawed) is a much more reasonable one, so it's easy to maintain it.

=-=-=-=-

This is sure getting tiresome. I'm spending more time correcting your misconceptions and dragging the focus off of tangents than I am actually making real arguments, which is a sure sign that you are almost out of shit to say. Are we done yet?

Edited July 27, 2014 by Interceptor

[Ownagepuffs]

Here's some more fun Emmeryn glorification from Chapter 6.

Chrom
Oh, hi, Robin. Just...dueling with some unpleasant thoughts... Tomorrow we march to Regna Ferox to request additional soldiers. But there's something you should know first. ...Not everything Gangrel said was a lie. The last exalt, my father, waged war on Plegia for many years. The violence... It was a brutal campaign, ending only with his death 15 years ago. Plegia rightfully remembers their suffering, but his war was no kinder to his own people. As the fighting dragged on, our army became more and more diminished. Farmers who could barely wield a pitchfork were conscripted and sent to their deaths. Soon there was no food at all, and the kingdom began to collapse. I was young, but I remember those dark times. ...I know how they affected Emmeryn.

Robin
Such an experience would change anyone.

Chrom
Indeed. When our father died before her 10th year, he left her quite the legacy... Plegia's desire for vengeance... Our own people's unbridled rage... My sister became a target for blame from all sides. Her own subjects began to hurl insults—and stones. She still bears the scar from one... But she never let them see her pain. Only Lissa and I understood.

Robin
It must have been so hard...

Chrom
I cannot claim to know how she does it, Robin. I could never greet such hostility with warmth and patience. While our people mocked and vilified her, she reached out and healed them. She brought soldiers home to their families. She ended the war. And when Ylisse's spirit was mended and the people "forgave" her? ...She never resented them for it. She represents the best of the halidom—the part most worth protecting. She IS peace. But some men would take advantage of that. Men like King Gangrel. The day he understands peace will be the day death gives it to him. ...So perhaps I must be death's agent. Emmeryn would never order him killed, nor would I wish her to.

I seriously can't be sold on the "Emm is flawed" point with dialogue like this. You don't think the game was trying to paint any picture about Emm at all? Not one bit?

And about the soldiers in her CG, also from Chapter 6

Marth
The exalt's life is in danger.

Chrom
What, Emmeryn? That's absurd. She's guarded at all hours.

I thought I did address this point. She has guards because Ylisse isn't retarded. I'm sure even the Pope has guards for the same reason. I don't think the guards mattered. You can ask me to prove it, and I will reply that I can't. I can't prove anything I am saying with 100% certainty because I didn't write the game. But by the same token, neither can you unless you happened to be one of the writers for the game. The whole "prove it" retort goes nowhere. "You can't prove that" is the hallmark of a bad argument.

You've mentioned the limits of Emm's power, but the fact that Emm's sacrifice overcame whatever reason the Plegian military didn't desert before means that the limits of Emm's power are above that of Gangrel's. I really don't think you are paying enough attention to the fact that they chanted her name as they marched. Their desertion was a direct result of Emmeryn's sacrfice. This is where Emm's ideals are proven or at least given some degree of correctness. She believes all people want to hold hands in the name of peace over a bonfire with marshmallows. She gives a speech on peace and takes a leap. Plegian military turns on Gangrel. Then Chrom's all "Wouldja look at that, Plegians want peace after all, welp let's go stick a sword in Gangrel and end the war.". If there was general dissatisfaction with Gangrel, why did they not desert sooner?

You bring up a good point about Gangrel and Walhart being the refutation of Emm's ideals, and I don't disagree. But that's the point, the refutation of her ideals are personified by the bad guys. Against Emm = bad, with Emm = good. Can you dig it?

About chapter 7. No one joins Chrom in challenging Emm because they knew Emm wouldn't budge. Whenever it comes to morality, the game lets us know she doesn't falter.

From chapter 4

Emmeryn
So either we choose to march to war or leave Lady Maribelle to die? No. I will not accept that.

Phila
...Forgive me, Your Grace. I spoke out of turn. I know you will stand always by your own principles. Pray, allow the pegasus knights to accompany you, though.

Chrom calls Emm out in what I imagine to be an emotional frenzy. It was an appeal to the feels, not an appeal to logic. Emm placed the responsibility primarily on Chrom so it's natural he would be the most vocal about it.

Hell at this point we are seeing two entirely different interpretations of the same set of events so I don't think we're going to agree anytime soon since neither of us are budging. You're free to counter this, but I'm just going to agree to disagree here.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Ownagepuffs

[UnknownUber]

I don't why there's such a big deal over this, because she turns up alive later pretty much destroying any emotional value in her sacrifice because she just turned up alive anyway....

All though it sucks the way Emm turned out though...

[Czar_Yoshi]

=-=-=-=-

2) Sure, they could have "derped". Do you have evidence of that? Of course you don't, just like everything else. So why should we assume that someone actively made a mistake that nobody else on the team found/corrected, instead of just assuming that the soldiers are completely benign because Emm was never intended to be a flawless character in the first place? Doesn't that second option make more sense?

Yeah, I do. It's a precedent called "all of Awakening's story". There are so many holes and flaws laying around that it's a perfectly reasonable explanation for anything that doesn't make sense, especially if it's something that only makes no sense if you pay close attention to it.

=-=-=-=-

3) Chrom's objection stands alone, unanswered by anyone but Emm. That's as stark a conflict as you're going to get.

Is it a problem that Chrom is answered by the person he's arguing with and not by someone else?

=-=-=-=-

5) A good ruler is a flawed ruler (otherwise they'd be great, or legendary). Emm's bio didn't launch into the hyperbole that was used in this thread, which suggests that the hyperbole was wrong. Imagine that.

Or it could mean that the game assumes you think good = good, and not good = flawed like you seem to here. Imagine that.

=-=-=-=-

6) Your opinion doesn't enter into it; I'm not saying anything bout "you", I was simply making the point that Emm's speech had clear and visible limitations, and furthermore those limitations were not necessary for telling the story (Chapter 10 could have been done completely differently without changing anything else). Limits aren't sensical for some kind of demigod, but they sure do make a lot of sense for a flawed human being.

Well, of course they weren't necessary for telling the story, but telling a story at all also isn't necessary. In Cht.10's case, it's there because the Devs wanted to include a Camus and some cool music. Anyway, don't try to change the subject. You keep going on and on about these "limits" of Emmeryn's, which have nothing to do with the subject at hand: the point is, the Plegians wouldn't have abandoned Gangrel when they did if Emmeryn hadn't done what she did. It's not about how quickly she managed to make them desert.

=-=-=-=-

7) If by "drop this point" you mean "concede that I am correct". I don't think you understand that the veracity of my argument doesn't depend on everything being ironclad: if I'm arguing against the silly idea that "the game wants us to believe Emm is a perfect saint", then I don't need to hit on everything, just on one thing. Right? Neo has to dodge all of the bullets, otherwise he gets shot. My position (Emm is flawed) is a much more reasonable one, so it's easy to maintain it.

I meant, "It seems we agree on this one, so there's no point in arguing about it anymore."

=-=-=-=-

[Interceptor]

I seriously can't be sold on the "Emm is flawed" point with dialogue like this.

Maybe you'd benefit from reading it again:

"But some men would take advantage of that. Men like King Gangrel. The day he understands peace will be the day death gives it to him. ...So perhaps I must be death's agent. Emmeryn would never order him killed, nor would I wish her to."

This is Chrom pointing out that 1) people take advantage of her, and 2) not everyone "understands" peace, and 3) he will do what she will not. I have no idea why you even brought up this conversation; the bookend on it is that Emm is a flawed figure. It supports my argument.

You don't think the game was trying to paint any picture about Emm at all? Not one bit?

"The game" doesn't want to be anthropomorphized. Our ability to deduce the intention of the designers is limited, but one thing that we know for sure is that they wanted to have flawed good guys as well as baddies with redeeming qualities (because they said it). In front of us, there's a game where Emm (one of the "good guys") has a huge blind spot, something that Chrom points out on several occasions.

This is a connect-the-dots puzzle that only has two dots on the page.

I thought I did address this point.

But you didn't. I correctly pointed out that while Emm has a use for guards, there is no need for them to be mugging her CG, or dressed like they are riding into battle. Your response to that is essentially to either ignore it, or to change the subject.

If "the game" is intending to show Emmeryn as some sort of Paragon of Peace in her intro scene, then why did they undermine it? Yoshi's explanation ("they derped") is a poor one, but at least it's not a f'n non sequitur.

"You can't prove that" is the hallmark of a bad argument.

Oh I agree, and in this case it's a sign that your argument is the bad one. You can't support your assertion, whereas I came up with a half dozen things that all imply that the scenario is unlikely. How many times has someone thrown the "but everyone else believes!" fallacy at me in this thread?

You've mentioned the limits of Emm's power, but the fact that Emm's sacrifice overcame whatever reason the Plegian military didn't desert before means that the limits of Emm's power are above that of Gangrel's.

Talk about a low bar to clear. Gangrel is a scumbag, and nobody was comparing her to him. The point of mentioning the limits to her powers, is that "limits" are the domain of mere mortals, and she's one of them.

She believes all people want to hold hands in the name of peace over a bonfire with marshmallows.

And she's wrong. Anyone who thinks otherwise, are people who perhaps turned off their handhelds right after Frederick said that the Plegians were scattered, because pretty much everything after that all the way up to the end of the game is pooping all over this naive ideal of hers.

If there was general dissatisfaction with Gangrel, why did they not desert sooner?

Who knows? Maybe they lacked a good excuse. The fact that Emm was the catalyst doesn't imply that it was the only reason.

You bring up a good point about Gangrel and Walhart being the refutation of Emm's ideals, and I don't disagree. But that's the point, the refutation of her ideals are personified by the bad guys. Against Emm = bad, with Emm = good. Can you dig it?

The character who does the refuting is Chrom. Look at his boss conversations. Chrom is clearly not a bad guy, so how do we square this? Oh wait, I know. We notice that Emm is a flawed character with naive ideals, and then everything suddenly fits into place.

About chapter 7. No one joins Chrom in challenging Emm because they knew Emm wouldn't budge. Whenever it comes to morality, the game lets us know she doesn't falter.

You can't deny that they missed an excellent opportunity to paint Chrom as a pariah here, by having someone -- anyone -- agree with Emm's decision and stand against him; either of Frederick or Phila had the standing to do so. But Frederick said nothing, and Phila even agreed with Chrom.

Emm's morality isn't in question; note how you don't doubt it even though the co-protagonist visibly and emotionally stood against her. That's a nonsense point on your part.

Chrom calls Emm out in what I imagine to be an emotional frenzy. It was an appeal to the feels, not an appeal to logic. Emm placed the responsibility primarily on Chrom so it's natural he would be the most vocal about it.

Please. He predicted that she'd be walking into her own death, and that's exactly what happened. Emm was the illogical one, here, by putting herself in a position to be captured by a madman. Chrom was making an emotional appeal at the end (as a last resort), but the logic of his position can be seen at the end of the last chapter:

Chrom

But if something happens to you? What then?

Frederick

Your Grace, perhaps you might relocate to the eastern palace for the time being? The other kingdoms know nothing of it. You would be safer.

Chrom

Yes, please. At least that. I can't leave for Ferox with you right in harm's way.

Emmeryn

...Hmm. Very well.

Chrom

Thanks, Emm. I mean it. We'll escort you to the palace before we head north to the border.

Hell at this point we are seeing two entirely different interpretations of the same set of events so I don't think we're going to agree anytime soon since neither of us are budging. You're free to counter this, but I'm just going to agree to disagree here.

The nature of our positions aren't comparable; you are claiming something that you can't prove, where I am pointing out all of the flaws and alternative explanations that are fatal your position. This isn't some sort of doctrinal standoff.

Again with the tacit permission to respond to you, as if I needed your blessing to point out that your stance is wrong.

=-=-=-=-

Yeah, I do. It's a precedent called "all of Awakening's story". There are so many holes and flaws laying around that it's a perfectly reasonable explanation for anything that doesn't make sense, especially if it's something that only makes no sense if you pay close attention to it.

You can use "derp" to explain away one or a couple of things, but taken in totality the argument loses its reasonableness. The presence of guards in the CG could be written off if it were the only thing that undermined the idea of Emmeryrn as a perfect figure, but in reality it's just one rock in a whole basket of them.

Never mind that drawing attention to the notion that Awakening story is full of plot holes, also detracts from your argument that the writers intended to do any one specific thing.

Is it a problem that Chrom is answered by the person he's arguing with and not by someone else?

It is. "The game" missed a golden opportunity to marginalize Chrom and build up Emm with this scene, if that was actually their intention in the first place. Since they didn't, that lends credence to the idea that Chrom exists as the practical answer to Emmeryn's flaws.

Or it could mean that the game assumes you think good = good, and not good = flawed like you seem to here. Imagine that.

You can't safely make this assumption. We know that the writers intended to have good characters be flawed in this game, so calling someone "good" doesn't erase that potential, it only highlights it. And as I said, the people in this thread are not making the "good" argument, which is uncontroversial: we're getting things like "Christ-like", and "paragon", and "flawless", etc. Huge difference, and the Barracks description doesn't support any of that nonsense.

Well, of course they weren't necessary for telling the story, but telling a story at all also isn't necessary.

Yes, but why include this specific bit? It's not that it's JUST unnecessary, it's also that it undermines Emmeryn's sacrifice by diminishing it. They could have easily written Ch. 10 to include both the Camus figure as well as highlight the power of Emmeryrn's words, but they did not.

Anyway, don't try to change the subject. You keep going on and on about these "limits" of Emmeryn's, which have nothing to do with the subject at hand: the point is, the Plegians wouldn't have abandoned Gangrel when they did if Emmeryn hadn't done what she did. It's not about how quickly she managed to make them desert.

You have produced no evidence that this is true. The alternate history has Emm assassinated and Chrom badly wounded in the attack that takes place in Chapter 6; the timeline of the game's narrative has Emm using her newfound lease on life to last one extra chapter before allowing herself to be captured like a goddamned idiot. Who's to say what would have happened otherwise?

The lesson of Awakening is that not even time-traveling teenagers can stop stupid people from doing dumb things.

I meant, "It seems we agree on this one, so there's no point in arguing about it anymore."

Which doesn't at all imply that the subject should be dropped.

[RJWalker]

You have produced no evidence that this is true. The alternate history has Emm assassinated and Chrom badly wounded in the attack that takes place in Chapter 6; the timeline of the game's narrative has Emm using her newfound lease on life to last one extra chapter before allowing herself to be captured like a goddamned idiot. Who's to say what would have happened otherwise?

No evidence to what exactly? That it is because of Emmeryn's words that the vast majority of Gangrel's army has deserted him? Because this literally stated in the game. As for the alternate timeline, without Emmeryn's words, the war was implied to be a long one that lasted years instead of what seems like a couple of days in this timeline.

[Czar_Yoshi]

"The game" doesn't want to be anthropomorphized. Our ability to deduce the intention of the designers is limited, but one thing that we know for sure is that they wanted to have flawed good guys as well as baddies with redeeming qualities (because they said it). In front of us, there's a game where Emm (one of the "good guys") has a huge blind spot, something that Chrom points out on several occasions.

Where exactly did they say so? If you can link me to an interview where they said that specifically, I'll concede. But not if it's somewhere in the game, because you can twist the game's dialogue to mean whatever you want it to.

=-=-=-=-

You can use "derp" to explain away one or a couple of things, but taken in totality the argument loses its reasonableness. The presence of guards in the CG could be written off if it were the only thing that undermined the idea of Emmeryrn as a perfect figure, but in reality it's just one rock in a whole basket of them.

I'm aware of that.

Never mind that drawing attention to the notion that Awakening story is full of plot holes, also detracts from your argument that the writers intended to do any one specific thing.

Actually it supports it, because a poorly written story is more likely to ignore all the holes present in whatever it's trying to do. Awakening's story isn't aimless, it has a path. It's just not very good at staying on that path.

It is. "The game" missed a golden opportunity to marginalize Chrom and build up Emm with this scene, if that was actually their intention in the first place. Since they didn't, that lends credence to the idea that Chrom exists as the practical answer to Emmeryn's flaws.

Any possibility it's trying to marginalize everyone but Emmeryn?

You can't safely make this assumption. We know that the writers intended to have good characters be flawed in this game, so calling someone "good" doesn't erase that potential, it only highlights it. And as I said, the people in this thread are not making the "good" argument, which is uncontroversial: we're getting things like "Christ-like", and "paragon", and "flawless", etc. Huge difference, and the Barracks description doesn't support any of that nonsense.

I can make the assumption that good = good a lot more safely than good = bad.

Yes, but why include this specific bit? It's not that it's JUST unnecessary, it's also that it undermines Emmeryn's sacrifice by diminishing it. They could have easily written Ch. 10 to include both the Camus figure as well as highlight the power of Emmeryrn's words, but they did not.

It shows the effect of Emmeryn's sacrifice building up. Instead of going from Sacrifice -> Plegians Desert, it goes from Sacrifice -> Plegians Question their Cause -> Plegians Desert. If anything, I'd argue that makes the story stronger.

You have produced no evidence that this is true. The alternate history has Emm assassinated and Chrom badly wounded in the attack that takes place in Chapter 6; the timeline of the game's narrative has Emm using her newfound lease on life to last one extra chapter before allowing herself to be captured like a goddamned idiot. Who's to say what would have happened otherwise?

The alternate timeline also has the Plegia/Ylisse war dragging on for 10+ years. That's plenty of evidence, the game flat-out states what would have happened otherwise. You can't get more evidence than that.

A little more text from the game relating to the portrayal of Emmeryn:

Validar

Master Grima, Exalt Emmeryn is to be put to death on the morrow. Events will soon be back on course.

Lucina

No! No... I'm too late... Our bleak future is written once more... And darkness awaits us all.

Both of them seem to agree that Emmeryn is pretty important, even though Chrom is the one with both Falchion and the Fire Emblem. Why do you think that is?

[Ownagepuffs]

Like I said, we're seeing two totally different things from the same set of events, so we're not going to agree. I'd rather not go in circles with you since that's what we've been doing. Buuuuuuttttt....

Who knows? Maybe they lacked a good excuse. The fact that Emm was the catalyst doesn't imply that it was the only reason.

Hold on now, back the fuck up. You will have to do better than that. We are given a clear reason the soldiers deserted that is literally stated in the game. They chanted her name as they marched, it really does not get any clearer than that. Mustafa implied that her words reached the soldiers in the previous chapter. You're bootstrapping with this statement. You're not going to just toss in this idea to support your argument and then back it up with "who knows?" Especially since you've been so liberal with "lol you have no evidence so you are wrong". Give me a clear secondary reason that is directly stated in the dialogue as bluntly as the chanting of her name.

[Czar_Yoshi]

Give me a clear secondary reason that is directly stated in the dialogue as bluntly as the chanting of her name.

In addition to the chanting, there's also "Her words, and her sacrifice, have made her a folk hero of sorts."