The next Fire Emblem story

[BrightBow]

Secondly, I wish to see more political conflicts. The era in which Fire Emblem takes place lends itself well to manipulation, backstabbing, schemes, plots, family feuds and other such interesting elements. The key here is not only to make it a bit harder to see who is right and who is wrong, but also to not make it needlessly convoluted.

I think I remember you saying that you hadn't played the Jugdral games yet? I mean, no matter what one thinks how well the execution was, this is most certainly what they did.

Putting aside the actual quality of the writing, the direction of the Kaga games was very different from the later FE games. They avoided portraying the average enemy leader as a caricature with only the occasional token good guy. Heck, the antagonists of Thracia 776 have token bad guys. Same thing with Kaga's Tear Ring Saga.

[Taka-kun]

Ugh, that game was also just a waste of time. Professor Layton was essentially Kamui, and the ending literally made me facepalm. That's what I mean with plot twists just for the sake of having plot twists; if writers get too obsessed with surprising the player, consistency and logic are usually sacrificed.

I actually like Layton. To be fair, Kamui is far worse. Layton is at least established as skilled and wise and is acknowledged as such. Phoenix gets his due as well in the game that you hate. But yeah, the ending was botched entirely.

I've got a question for all of you: most of us seem to be in agreement that villains should be more sympathetic, the protagonist less "pure" for the lack of a better word, and the conflicts more complex. However, how would you go about writing something like that? What should such a conflict be about? A common suggestion seems to be "fertile lands vs barren wastes", but that has been done both in the series and outside of it - Windwaker springs to mind immediately, where every single Zelda fan suddenly felt empathy for the previously generic bad guy after a 30 second speech. That's some good writing.

About the Windwaker example, it's less about the setting and just how skilled the author is at writing, with that moment just becoming a really memorable one.

I would prefer a setting where the land is in chaos. Following FE theme, it could set in an age right AFTER an evil dragon has been defeated, after the realm has been devastated and society has collapsed, with remnants of the evil sect still existing. Various warlords would rise and scramble for power, creating different realms and entities. If we follow the "black-vs-white" thing, I would probably have the "lord" character be idealistic and have the most legitimate claim for a realm, possessing the legendary weapon and being son/grandson of the dragonslayer. Since this is still shortly after said dragonslaying, the lord and/or his faction will probably go on crusading against the sect.

Said sect I want to tweak into actually doing something beneficial. They still recruit people to one day ressurect the evil dragon but they do it by healing people and providing food and shelter and give them the solace they want in such a wartorn world. Their goal is still evil, but their means are good, which is why people bother to join the sect.

I would also introduce a "villain" character, who is really a nobody but rises through prominence through sheer skill and might and have extreme ideals of uniting the world by force. And in those times of turmoil, they might actually be right since nobody wants to listen to idealistic nonsense without results. So basically, a man who does not have qualms, but is a man of his own (instead of being chosen by gods), values meritocracy and believes himself as the right man for the job, and IS. Someone like Walhart, but fleshed out.

Grey morality is easy to introduce if the setting itself is not peaceful but already twisted from the start, thus making different methods to gain peace all viable, whether through conquest or through benevolence. Historically (if IntSys would ever bother with such things), end of dynasties tend to have such drama.

EDIT: Might as well add to the lord character that I would make him a strong soldier and brilliant strategist, true to the gameplay of FE, and... nothing else. No experience in adminstration or politicking or pr campaigns. Kind as you are to the people, if you are poor at governing, they will suffer regardless. So ideal for war, terrible for peace, yet fights to bring peace to the land.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Taka-kun

[Shrouded In Myth]

I hear people talking about villains. I hear them talk about grayer motivations. I hear them talk about politics.

I present Sacred Stones and brush my hands of this denuded landscape

The people will one day see the hero dead and unsung beneath a thousand cries of "too easy"

Maybe just maybe people will see the light when you post that Sacred Stones analysis you promised in the "Quintessence? I don't understand." thread. Edited November 3, 2015 by Shrouded In Myth

[Rapier]

I hear people talking about villains. I hear them talk about grayer motivations. I hear them talk about politics.

I present Sacred Stones and brush my hands of this denuded landscape

The people will one day see the hero dead and unsung beneath a thousand cries of "too easy"

The King was a zombie and Lyon was possessed by an Evil Demon-God-Whatever Of Evil Evilness who wants to destroy the world for the evil, because he is evil. So much for good villains. Even Nergal was better, because he at least was a human who drove himself insane from his own ambition.

And the protagonists are boring. Ephraim is not the tactical genius that everyone gives him praise for, that move he did in the starting chapters is NOT a sign of tactical knowledge and intelligence. Eirika, as far as I remember, never grows and continues to be in the shadow of her brother forever.

I think a villain like Alvis would be much appreciated. I'd really like to see someone like that in a next game. As for protagonists, surprise, I wouldn't mind someone like PoR!Ike or Eliwood. I do think they are examples of characters who took many hardships to grow into the respected badasses they become later in the game. I'm tired of static or sueish Lords and avatars.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Rapier

[Alazen]

I think I remember you saying that you hadn't played the Jugdral games yet? I mean, no matter what one thinks how well the execution was, this is most certainly what they did.

Putting aside the actual quality of the writing, the direction of the Kaga games was very different from the later FE games. They avoided portraying the average enemy leader as a caricature with only the occasional token good guy. Heck, the antagonists of Thracia 776 have token bad guys. Same thing with Kaga's Tear Ring Saga.

They also had no issue from Gaiden onward portraying the Lord's motherland in a shady manner. Rigel was brutal and Sofiya was decadent. Grannvale was on a conquest spree while having serious infighting. The Manster District had nobles abusing the tariff system, Quan's belligerence, and Reidrik's treachery. Later pre-Awakening FEs had at least some shades of that, but I'd say it wasn't until Awakening we got the current approach that was cemented in Fates. Edited November 4, 2015 by Alazen

[OakTree]

The King was a zombie and Lyon was possessed by an Evil Demon-God-Whatever Of Evil Evilness who wants to destroy the world for the evil, because he is evil. So much for good villains. Even Nergal was better, because he at least was a human who drove himself insane from his own ambition.

And the protagonists are boring. Ephraim is not the tactical genius that everyone gives him praise for, that move he did in the starting chapters is NOT a sign of tactical knowledge and intelligence. Eirika, as far as I remember, never grows and continues to be in the shadow of her brother forever.

I think a villain like Alvis would be much appreciated. I'd really like to see someone like that in a next game. As for protagonists, surprise, I wouldn't mind someone like PoR!Ike or Eliwood. I do think they are examples of characters who took many hardships to grow into the respected badasses they become later in the game. I'm tired of static or sueish Lords and avatars.

Fomortiis, while a weak character on himself, is a villain whose existence benefits the plot, im going to sleep so i can't give all of the reasons, but basically, he exists not to only to control Lyon, but also to enhance Lyon's own flaws and hidden depths and to use Lyon to break the will of the twins. Edited November 4, 2015 by OakTree

[Radiant head]

I disagree villains need to be sympathetic. I don't mind if a game goes all out so that no side is good or evil, and the world doesn't revolve around you (I'll point to Final Fantasy Tactics again). But otherwise, I would rather a villain be fascinating, but despicable.

For example, the Black Knight was way better in Path of Radiance than in Radiant Dawn. He went from an enigmatic nightmare to just some lame wishy washy character who tries to get the player's sympathy, and it doesn't work at all.

With Gangrel and Walhart, the issue wasn't that they weren't sympathetic, it's that they weren't developed at all. In general, the problem with Awakening is that the game just keeps throwing half-baked villains at you as the plot progresses, and as a result it's incoherent as fuck.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Radiant head

[NekoKnight]

For example, the Black Knight was way better in Path of Radiance than in Radiant Dawn. He went from an enigmatic nightmare to just some lame wishy washy character who tries to get the player's sympathy, and it doesn't work at all.

I don't know why some people liked Radiant Dawn!Black Knight so much. He kills the protagonists dad for petty reasons and then he serves the bad guys out of loyalty and nothing else. The game acts like we should feel sympathetic for him when he dies but ... why?

[maybe]

I don't know why some people liked Radiant Dawn!Black Knight so much. He kills the protagonists dad for petty reasons and then he serves the bad guys out of loyalty and nothing else. The game acts like we should feel sympathetic for him when he dies but ... why?

I think you mean Path of Radiance, but I agree.

[secondworld]

I always felt that the core problem with Awakening's plot was how rushed everything felt. I noticed on my first playthrough how fast everything seemed to be going, and nothing was getting the time and development that previous games did. The game's entire first arc is only one chapter longer than Lyn's story, which had barely any plot advancement in it. It feels to me like a Radiant Dawn-sized plot squeezed into around 25 chapters.

[NekoKnight]

I think you mean Path of Radiance, but I agree.

He kills Ike's dad in PoR and then propagates a world war because his BFF Sephiran wants to end the world in Radiant Dawn. A character needs more than loyalty to be interesting.

[CrimeanRoyalKnight]

He kills Ike's dad in PoR and then propagates a world war because his BFF Sephiran wants to end the world in Radiant Dawn. A character needs more than loyalty to be interesting.

Well, I find loyal to death characters interesting, and that's why I enjoyed Zelgius. People generally love Soren for the same reasons, and nobody questions his loyalty or how far his loyalty could go :/ Now, the fact that Zelgius killed Gawain, it was not well explained at all. Was it an accident? Did he do it because he knew the world was going to end? We may never know.

As much as I love it, Radiant Dawn's plot is a mixed bag, but I like the moral situations it forces the player to play, and I'll defend those until the end, even if they're small.

Let's all remember happily the time when Micaiah sent down a valley burning hot lava (or whathever it was) for the Crimean Royal Knights. Or when in part 3 you have to slaughter weak, injured laguz as the Dawn Brigade.

Those things I think RD did well, and those are other points IS could expand upon if they want a story that actually makes us think about our actions, with protagonists that are not saints and paragons of justice and righteousness.

Edited November 4, 2015 by CrimeanRoyalKnight

[Alazen]

Your examples from RD Part 3 could be stronger if Micaiah and Co. weren't being blackmailed using genocide paper.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Alazen

[The DanMan]

I feel like something generally smaller scale, with a smaller tighter-knit cast and a villain who is either an all-out absolutely brutal no-holds barred psychopath or a sympathetic character who is making sacrifices for a greater cause (preferably both as two different antagonists). Travant from Thracia 776 appears to be the later.

Also, Taka-kun's ideas sound very interesting.

[NekoKnight]

Well, I find loyal to death characters interesting, and that's why I enjoyed Zelgius. People generally love Soren for the same reasons, and nobody questions his loyalty or how far his loyalty could go :/ Now, the fact that Zelgius killed Gawain, it was not well explained at all. Was it an accident? Did he do it because he knew the world was going to end? We may never know.

As much as I love it, Radiant Dawn's plot is a mixed bag, but I like the moral situations it forces the player to play, and I'll defend those until the end, even if they're small.

Let's all remember happily the time when Micaiah sent down a valley burning hot lava (or whathever it was) for the Crimean Royal Knights. Or when in part 3 you have to slaughter weak, injured laguz as the Dawn Brigade.

Those things I think RD did well, and those are other points IS could expand upon if they want a story that actually makes us think about our actions, with protagonists that are not saints and paragons of justice and righteousness.

Loyalty to the death is a fine trait but I feel it should have some contrast with their own opinions on the matter. Maybe the character knows their lord is in the wrong (Bryce to Ashnard) but continues to serve them out of honor, or maybe they don't want to fight the protagonists but their loyalty to their lord compels them to. In my opinion, it was Soren's ruthless pragmatism in combination to his devotion to Ike that made him likable.

I liked Radiant Dawn's story to a point, and I may be in a smaller part of the fanbase that likes Micaiah. It would have been great had Micaiah's character not been derailed by the blood contract; the most contrived plot element in Fire Emblem history (although Fates "magic throne" deserves a dishonorable mention).

[CrimeanRoyalKnight]

Your examples from RD Part 3 could be stronger if Micaiah and Co. weren't being blackmailed using genocide paper.

Then we can dismiss anything RD tried to do because "genocide paper".

I can't

At least the Tellius duology tried to do something different with its morality, unlike the other non-Kaga FE games. There are interesting ideas even if the quality of the execution is not always good. When you go slaughter the laguz, it's all your doing; even if you are forced to do it, it's you who is doing it, it's shown through your gameplay, through your units, not a cutscene or something.

As I said, if they want to give us different plots, plots that make us question our actions, they should expand upon those ideas instead of taking the Fates route and keeping on half-hassing it.

Neko Knight sez:

I liked Radiant Dawn's story to a point, and I may be in a smaller part of the fanbase that likes Micaiah. It would have been great had Micaiah's character not been derailed by the blood contract; the most contrived plot element in Fire Emblem history (although Fates "magic throne" deserves a dishonorable mention).

I feel like the blood pact was one of the many things that RD wanted to explain but couldn't due to time restraints/money, whathever stopped them from cutting content. It's clear the basics for a decent explanations are there (blood pacts work with the eerie spirits of Tellius' mythology, which also are what makes magic work in Tellius' universe), but as like other huge things in that game, all we got was a job half done.

But please, let's not talk about the blood pact, or I feel like a huge derail will come.

[Radiant head]

The blood pact just inherently takes away a lot of depth from the game. Where interesting conflicts are usually because of different points of view and relativism, RD Part 3 is just good guys vs black mailed good guys. Yawn.

[Alazen]

The Blood Pact's primary use in RD is to get Ike and Micaiah's armies to fight with both parties getting off the hook.

[Loki Laufeyson]

I don't know why some people liked Radiant Dawn!Black Knight so much. He kills the protagonists dad for petty reasons and then he serves the bad guys out of loyalty and nothing else. The game acts like we should feel sympathetic for him when he dies but ... why?

I think its because of the true identity of the BK. We know he killed Greil for petty reasons, and i think the important part is, he kinda owns up to it. He wanted to fight Greil to prove something only to himself. The thing that makes him sympathetic, is that Ike seems to understand this about Zelgius. When Ike asks him "Did you see my father in my sword?" and he answers "Yes i did" it created a great deal of understanding between the two characters. He serves ONE 'bad guy' out of loyalty. BK isnt supposed to be "oh hes just simply misunderstood" exactly. We are supposed to feel ambivalence regarding him. And thats why people find him to be a pretty great antagonist.

Good characters dont always have to be justified in their actions by the player/reader/viewer. It is interesting to see a character in a story like in FE, who acts in a truly human and flawed way. Thats whats missing in the latter two games, i suppose. Everyone is more or less a caricature and acts not out of their own humanity, but because of text on a screen.

[Radiant head]

Well that's the most convincing explanation I've heard. I made a thread about my ambivalence on Zelgius, and people were saying stuff like "he killed him on accident" which makes no sense.

Although the memory scene where he sees Ike and Mist as kids makes killing Greil more messed up and unsympathetic.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Radiant head

[NekoKnight]

I think its because of the true identity of the BK. We know he killed Greil for petty reasons, and i think the important part is, he kinda owns up to it. He wanted to fight Greil to prove something only to himself. The thing that makes him sympathetic, is that Ike seems to understand this about Zelgius. When Ike asks him "Did you see my father in my sword?" and he answers "Yes i did" it created a great deal of understanding between the two characters. He serves ONE 'bad guy' out of loyalty. BK isnt supposed to be "oh hes just simply misunderstood" exactly. We are supposed to feel ambivalence regarding him. And thats why people find him to be a pretty great antagonist.

Good characters dont always have to be justified in their actions by the player/reader/viewer. It is interesting to see a character in a story like in FE, who acts in a truly human and flawed way. Thats whats missing in the latter two games, i suppose. Everyone is more or less a caricature and acts not out of their own humanity, but because of text on a screen.

I guess I didn't feel any ambivalence, and Ike's seemingly forgiving attitude of the man who murdered his father was off-putting.

During and after BK's fight with Greil, he's mocking and sinister. Here are his lines:

"I wonder... Will watching your son's face grow pale, his eyes grow dim and his life bleeds away... And then your daughter...Oh the horrors I will visit upon her. Will that loosen your tongue?"

Yikes, threatening the murder (and possibly implying rape) of children. I can see why Ike finds him so sympathetic. /endsarcasm

Edited November 7, 2015 by NekoKnight

[Loki Laufeyson]

I guess I didn't feel any ambivalence, and Ike's seemingly forgiving attitude of the man who murdered his father was outputting.

During and after BK's fight with Greil, he's mocking and sinister. Here are his lines:

"I wonder... Will watching your son's face grow pale, his eyes grow dim and his life bleeds away... And then your daughter...Oh the horrors I will visit upon her. Will that loosen your tongue?"

Yikes, threatening the murder (and possibly implying rape) of children. I can see why Ike finds him so sympathetic. /endsarcasm

I think yer kinda missing the point of what i was trying to say. While you personally, may not find BK all that layered or sympathetic, that doesnt mean the intent of the writers wasnt for the general audience to feel a bit conflicted about how they feel about the character in the end.

"I didnt feel that way, so thats not the intention of the creator(s)!" Ummm...you know, its kinda like how Harry Potter feels about Snape at the end of the Harry Potter series. The audience has seen how Snape treats Harry throughout the series, and a bunch of dodgy shit he did. But after all is said and done, Harry says hes "the bravest man i ever knew." The reader may or may not entirely agree with Harry, but Rowling's intent was for us to really think about the character of Snape in the end. You dont have to agree with or like a character to understand this. Harry sympathizes with Snape, therefore we find ourselves a bit conflicted on how to feel about that character. (Generally speaking)

Ike's bittersweet feelings about besting the BK at long last is actually a decent bit of writing. Its also interesting in that he even levels quite a bit of shit on Sephiran for all of it too. Ike calls out Sanaki and Micaiah's sympathy for him. Yet, didnt he just come to understand the man who killed his own father? This is where our characters appear very human. For all the flaws RD has in plot, this is one area they got right imo, characterization.

Although the memory scene where he sees Ike and Mist as kids makes killing Greil more messed up and unsympathetic.

I actually agree with that. I reckon that was actually trying to make Sephiran more sympathetic, due to his memory spell. One could make the argument that Zelgius may not have intended to actually murder Ike and Mist (despite threatening it), but who knows. It does make his motives for going after Greil feel very petty indeed. Ike seems to shrug it off though as consequence.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Loki Laufeyson

[secondworld]

Another bad part about the memory scene is that Zelgius knew that Mist had the medallion which makes him confronting Greil and questioning him about it not make too much scene when he already knew where it was.

[NekoKnight]

I think yer kinda missing the point of what i was trying to say. While you personally, may not find BK all that layered or sympathetic, that doesnt mean the intent of the writers wasnt for the general audience to feel a bit conflicted about how they feel about the character in the end.

"I didnt feel that way, so thats not the intention of the creator(s)!" Ummm...you know, its kinda like how Harry Potter feels about Snape at the end of the Harry Potter series. The audience has seen how Snape treats Harry throughout the series, and a bunch of dodgy shit he did. But after all is said and done, Harry says hes "the bravest man i ever knew." The reader may or may not entirely agree with Harry, but Rowling's intent was for us to really think about the character of Snape in the end. You dont have to agree with or like a character to understand this. Harry sympathizes with Snape, therefore we find ourselves a bit conflicted on how to feel about that character. (Generally speaking)

Ike's bittersweet feelings about besting the BK at long last is actually a decent bit of writing. Its also interesting in that he even levels quite a bit of shit on Sephiran for all of it too. Ike calls out Sanaki and Micaiah's sympathy for him. Yet, didnt he just come to understand the man who killed his own father? This is where our characters appear very human. For all the flaws RD has in plot, this is one area they got right imo, characterization.

I actually agree with that. I reckon that was actually trying to make Sephiran more sympathetic, due to his memory spell. One could make the argument that Zelgius may not have intended to actually murder Ike and Mist (despite threatening it), but who knows. It does make his motives for going after Greil feel very petty indeed. Ike seems to shrug it off though as consequence.

My original question wasn't the intention of the writers, that much is obvious. I was questioning how their intention contrasts to what is delivered in game. The Black Knight was sinister, cruel and selfish... but Ike comes to respect him. This isn't a logical conclusion unless Ike is so emotionally detached that he isn't bothered by his father's murder and all the other shit Zelgius did.

With a character like Snape, there are at least enough possible redeeming qualities and actions that his place on the morality scale is ambiguous, but an analysis of Zelgius' actions will reveal that he is overwhelmingly villainous (except to certain people like Micaiah who is obviously biased). This "ambivalence" you speak of only exists because the game tries to frame Zelgius as morally ambiguous when he actually isn't. It's not clever writing, it's contradictory.

Would you feel the same way if Ike, for some reason, had respect for Ashnard despite everything he was?

Edited November 7, 2015 by NekoKnight

[Loki Laufeyson]

Another bad part about the memory scene is that Zelgius knew that Mist had the medallion which makes him confronting Greil and questioning him about it not make too much scene when he already knew where it was.

Not really. Its obvious why he did that. He wanted to challenge Greil, straight up. It makes perfect sense why he would go to Greil and ask for it.

My original question wasn't the intention of the writers, that much is obvious. I was questioning how their intention contrasts to what is delivered in game. The Black Knight was sinister, cruel and selfish... but Ike comes to respect him. This isn't a logical conclusion unless Ike is so emotionally detached that he isn't bothered by his father's murder and all the other shit Zelgius did.

With a character like Snape, there are at least enough possible redeeming qualities and actions that his place on the morality scale is ambiguous, but an analysis of Zelgius' actions will reveal that he is overwhelmingly villainous (except to certain people like Micaiah who is obviously biased). This "ambivalence" you speak of only exists because the game tries to frame Zelgius as morally ambiguous when he actually isn't. It's not clever writing, it's contradictory.

Would you feel the same way if Ike, for some reason, had respect for Ashnard despite everything he was?

Zelgius did have redeeming qualities as the player well knows. He actively tried to defy the Begnion senators and he could have murdered Skrimir (and Elincia) and just won the damn war. Ike isnt emotionally detached and uncaring or unfeeling about his father's death. He does not respect Zelgius because of why, as much as simply understand why. Because of how goddamn determined Ike was to defeat the BK once and for all. Ike understood that drive to best that rival, but he was even more determined to end the BK. I dont think Ike was at all sad that Zelgius died. But its not "emotionally detached" to have a protagonist have some bittersweet feelings about finally defeating one of their antagonists, once a lot was out in the open.

The game definitely attempts to frame Zelgius as morally ambiguous. Im not even sure how you missed that.