What sort of protagonist, villain and possible deuteragonist would you like to see next?

[Dragrath]

Yeah, I'd like to see this too.

This, or a story where the whole cult of revive-the-evil-dragon-or-dark-goddess-or-whatever-Loptyr-is-or-whatever-monster-it-is-this-week plot is wholly or partially unrelated (at most, have the relation as enemy-leader-allows-cult-to-continue-and-encourages-its-growth-to-get-more-soldiers), and got dealt with partway through (complete with the aforementioned this-week's-surprise-monster, the sort of thing you might see as a final boss, as a mid-story fight), and then you deal with the remnants of that cult harass you from time to time (would allow for reinforcements from unexpected positions, which could be annoying but I feel might be interesting) while dealing with whatever the A plot was (my head says antagonist king, with a Genghis Khan-ish unite-my-country-for-maximum-conquest sort of thing going; possibly sympathetic, possibly not, but still someone you'd have to kill in the end).

Hmm the idea about the "monster of the week" not being the final boss is an idea that could be quite interesting. A really interesting case would be one where the cultists go out of their way to summon their god only for them and the player to discover that there has been a misunderstanding. For instance perhaps that evil god is more like Yune in RD (except better implemented) and they might trigger a revelation that say someone else is really the mastermind behind events.

Or they could even turn out to be a pretty level headed "evil dark god". If the cultists were say driven to this diety by say injustices hiding under the surface and are zealous in their leaders predicted change, this could give them an ideological crisis while you would be left to clean up this mess to prepare for the real threat.

For instance the great good god that rules the world might have say risen to power via less than satisfactory means, for not so good reasons and sealed away the others of its kind because it couldn't kill them or something. But now that you know the truth that deity and the powerful religion behind them wouldn't be keen to let any witnesses to the truth live....

...That would be quite interesting, if primarily from a gameplay perspective (the concept of enemies that don't stay dead would be an interesting one, especially if they just auto-revived after a couple of turns and you had to put them back down again; that alone could make for a possibly-interesting chapter gimmick).
As far as story is concerned... Yeah, it also sounds interesting to me there too. Although, I'm dreadfully sorry, but it's been a long time since I played 7, so I think I've forgotten what exactly happened to Elibe... Unless it happened in 6, then I haven't forgotten. Because I never played that one.
Still, I like your idea.

That final boss especially would be a quite interesting one. Though I'd make several copies of that boss and have one in each group of enemies, so you'd have to kill all of them to succeed, but that's just me.

Ah to be honest most on my knowledge comes from reading up on the lore for games I didn't play(only played FE* and up) but that world explicitly linked the event that caused dragons to have to leave or take human forms or degenerate (i.e. Manaketes) to be the creation of magical artifacts (The legendary weapons) powerful enough to affect the magical balance of the world permanently. So far that seems to be the only lore instance in the series that explains why the rest of the games where they are present just assume it as something way long ago.

As for that particular idea I envisioned it as they would have either the warp skill or rewarp staff and possibly a status staff as well. The challenge would come from the enemies that are mostly non generic(all of the enemy bosses and agents hinted at in the story)

As for what I'd like to see in a protagonist...

Honestly, I'd like to see two separate protagonists, with their own armies who you'd control in separate storylines that occasionally intersect (think like Fates, if it were just one game, and Corrin didn't exist (or played a far, far less important role), and your main lords were Ryoma (when you're playing on the Hoshido side) and Xander (when you're controlling Nohr), and you'd switch off between them from time to time, and they had clashes like in Radiant Dawn where the other side would be equipped in the same way they were when you last played as them and might even field different units depending on who you use most frequently, and keep units with support bonuses together to take advantage of that... I know that second-to-last thing didn't happen in Radiant Dawn, and I'm not sure the last one did either, but I think they'd be neat touches).
And then they'd either team up against some third faction (not necessarily a the-real-villain type of thing, maybe just a Walhart-but-with-foreshadowing type of thing, maybe), or you'd be forced to pick a side beyond a certain point and that side would win (and kill off most of the other side, with some unavoidable deaths (bosses, rout maps) and some avoidable ones (like, they're there, and you can kill them, but you don't need to, and maybe one or two of these would be able to join you if you let them live)), and then you'd take the side you picked to beat down the aforementioned third side. Maybe have it as the latter, with the option for the former if you completed some hidden requirements (they'd be hinted at in-story, of course, and some of them would be spelled out after beating one side, so after playing through both sides, you'd know how to get the team-up).

Hmm The multiple lord thing could be interesting though it would need to be far better balanced than in RD's attempt where Ike's forces end up far overleveled compared to Michiah's forces who are super underleveled. Perhaps you could swap back and forth arc by arc rather than the long unfocused sections in RD. I can't comment much on fates however as I haven't played it yet, however.

It would be good circumstances to bring back stealing and continue using capturing(something FE14 brought back if I am told correctly) both mechanics that could mix things up in interesting ways.

This leads into one of my ideas for a tactically shrewd protagonist who is driven by mixed motives and acts less ideological than most FE protagonists. They effectively would in order to survive have t play multiple sides(acting like actual mercenaries unlike a certain group who fights for his friends and gets giant muscles...) A protagonist that steals and captures(for items new soldiers information and even skills via interrogation type tactics) and chooses sides based on who ever has the best offer until they have the strength to accomplish their real goal. In short a protagonist that likewise follows the ends justify the means though not to the degree of the antagonist.

Maybe even with choices like assault by day and face more opposition that is well prepared, or assault the enemy by night and try and catch them by surprise in a fog of war map. Or say picking a target form the enemy based on either ease of mission or by rewards (i.e. Use an opportunity to surprise attack the enemy barracks to reduce their initial deployments in subsequent chapters, attack their armory to pilfer their gear(at the cost of a harder escape) or aim for their commander (to make them more disorganized/scattered in the subsequent chapters) ect.)

So far FE games have always forced the "tactical" decisions on us while telling us that our tactician is such a great strategist. I would like to actually be able to make some decisions that tactically affect more than dialogue or a single route split(by paying money -_-)...

[AnnetheCatDetective]

Honestly, I like my heroes to be 'goody two shoes'-- I want them to be kind-hearted and constantly in pursuit of virtue. That doesn't mean without flaw-- in fact, depending on the story and villains, or even the deuteragonist and other party members, that can be a flaw-- putting their established allies at risk by taking in strangers who could be lying about their motives, having a quixotic idea of 'good'/'purity' that isn't realistic and leads to soul-searching/internal crisis when they fall short of their own lofty ideals... having to re-examine themselves critically when faced for the first time with the idea that the people they fight are not all bad people... but instead of flipping to 'well then nothing matters', having to carve out a more realistic kind of virtue and accept that there's balance in everyone, and that falling short of the goals they set themselves doesn't make them bad, but they can still aim for that.

I'd also prefer a close relationship between the two main characters... something to build on, instead of just two people who fall into working together. Best friends, or a couple... or a protective older sibling/headstrong younger sibling duo. Maybe having your second character be the more pragmatic older sibling trying to warn their younger brother or sister about letting their big heart and lack of thinking ahead get them into trouble.

I could get behind the idea of having your antagonist be into some sort of eugenics program... I mean, that's pretty high on the list of things that would make me want to take someone down.

[ILikeKirbys]

Hmm the idea about the "monster of the week" not being the final boss is an idea that could be quite interesting. A really interesting case would be one where the cultists go out of their way to summon their god only for them and the player to discover that there has been a misunderstanding. For instance perhaps that evil god is more like Yune in RD (except better implemented) and they might trigger a revelation that say someone else is really the mastermind behind events.

Or they could even turn out to be a pretty level headed "evil dark god". If the cultists were say driven to this diety by say injustices hiding under the surface and are zealous in their leaders predicted change, this could give them an ideological crisis while you would be left to clean up this mess to prepare for the real threat.

That would actually be pretty neat.

And yeah... Even if the "dark god, not evil" thing was done before in FE (as you mentioned), they could possibly do it better on a second try.

For instance the great good god that rules the world might have say risen to power via less than satisfactory means, for not so good reasons and sealed away the others of its kind because it couldn't kill them or something. But now that you know the truth that deity and the powerful religion behind them wouldn't be keen to let any witnesses to the truth live....

This too could be neat.

I'd personally not have it as the final boss (evil god last boss has been done to multiple deaths by now, I think), but having this could still be interesting, if it's written well.

Ah to be honest most on my knowledge comes from reading up on the lore for games I didn't play(only played FE* and up) but that world explicitly linked the event that caused dragons to have to leave or take human forms or degenerate (i.e. Manaketes) to be the creation of magical artifacts (The legendary weapons) powerful enough to affect the magical balance of the world permanently. So far that seems to be the only lore instance in the series that explains why the rest of the games where they are present just assume it as something way long ago.

Ah, I think I see. Don't much remember FE7, but I recall the event you're referring to, pretty sure it was mentioned there.

As for that particular idea I envisioned it as they would have either the warp skill or rewarp staff and possibly a status staff as well. The challenge would come from the enemies that are mostly non generic(all of the enemy bosses and agents hinted at in the story)

Ah, I see. Missed that part where the other enemies are all the bosses and stuff (although, if it's ALL the bosses, definitely buff up the first bosses to an appropriate level; not quite up to the later dudes, but not where they were when they were a mild challenge in chapter 3).

Hmm The multiple lord thing could be interesting though it would need to be far better balanced than in RD's attempt where Ike's forces end up far overleveled compared to Michiah's forces who are super underleveled. Perhaps you could swap back and forth arc by arc rather than the long unfocused sections in RD. I can't comment much on fates however as I haven't played it yet, however.

Ah, the Fates references there were just because it's the one I've been playing lately, and that's something I kinda wish Fates had been.

And yeah, it'd have to be better balanced than RD, but then that's a lot easier here, primarily because you don't have to have one side be buffed as hell (since there's no previous game for one side to have appeared in to justify their relative overpoweredness). It'd still take some balancing (after all, both teams are going to be playable, so they have to both be viable choices), but it's got to be doable.

It would be good circumstances to bring back stealing and continue using capturing(something FE14 brought back if I am told correctly) both mechanics that could mix things up in interesting ways.

Well, Fates lets you capture units and have them fight on your side... But they don't come with, or give you, their equipment. I was disappointed when I found that out, I wanted FE5-style capture-to-steal-enemy-stuff.

And I've wanted stealing back since Awakening. Might've actually used Gaius more if he could take cool stuff from enemies.

This leads into one of my ideas for a tactically shrewd protagonist who is driven by mixed motives and acts less ideological than most FE protagonists. They effectively would in order to survive have t play multiple sides(acting like actual mercenaries unlike a certain group who fights for his friends and gets giant muscles...) A protagonist that steals and captures(for items new soldiers information and even skills via interrogation type tactics) and chooses sides based on who ever has the best offer until they have the strength to accomplish their real goal. In short a protagonist that likewise follows the ends justify the means though not to the degree of the antagonist.

I had written out something like this while I was writing my previous post, but it wasn't as well-articulated (or whatever the word I'm thinking of is) and I preferred the dual-protag thing, so I scrapped it.

But I love this.

Maybe even with choices like assault by day and face more opposition that is well prepared, or assault the enemy by night and try and catch them by surprise in a fog of war map. Or say picking a target form the enemy based on either ease of mission or by rewards (i.e. Use an opportunity to surprise attack the enemy barracks to reduce their initial deployments in subsequent chapters, attack their armory to pilfer their gear(at the cost of a harder escape) or aim for their commander (to make them more disorganized/scattered in the subsequent chapters) ect.)

Yeah, this would be very nice.

So far FE games have always forced the "tactical" decisions on us while telling us that our tactician is such a great strategist. I would like to actually be able to make some decisions that tactically affect more than dialogue or a single route split(by paying money -_-)...

And this is why.

It'd be super nice to make the tactical decisions we're getting credit for in the story.

Whether that credit is "you're super dupity awesome" or "everyone is dead and it's all your fault" or something in between, it'd still be a nice thing to see enacted.

Honestly, I like my heroes to be 'goody two shoes'-- I want them to be kind-hearted and constantly in pursuit of virtue. That doesn't mean without flaw-- in fact, depending on the story and villains, or even the deuteragonist and other party members, that can be a flaw-- putting their established allies at risk by taking in strangers who could be lying about their motives, having a quixotic idea of 'good'/'purity' that isn't realistic and leads to soul-searching/internal crisis when they fall short of their own lofty ideals... having to re-examine themselves critically when faced for the first time with the idea that the people they fight are not all bad people... but instead of flipping to 'well then nothing matters', having to carve out a more realistic kind of virtue and accept that there's balance in everyone, and that falling short of the goals they set themselves doesn't make them bad, but they can still aim for that.

Also, this.

This would be great.

Edited April 10, 2016 by ILikeKirbys

[blah the Prussian]

Why use the term "goody two-shoes" lol?

It's not difficult to be a good person and honestly idk why terms like that exist to discourage people from being good.

In this scenario, I'd want the better ending and the easier difficulty from being good. I hate hard games and I hate doing bad things in games.

Someone give this man Yggdra Union! It's not discouraging people from being good, it's to discourage writers from writing one dimensionally good characters. Now, it is perfectly possible to write unambiguously good characters who are not one dimensional (both Yang Wenli and Reinhard Von Lohengramm from Legend of the Galactic Heroes come to mind) but those characters generally don't get called goody two shoes. "Good" is also subjective, especially when you're a monarch and have to make snap decisions for which there are no easy answers, like, what must I do about the issue of rioters with legitimate grievances resorting to violence, or, say, should I cause civilian casualties to save the lives of my own soldiers? Yes, it is easy to be good for us plebes, but, well, there hasn't been a Fire Emblem game about us Plebes, because it would suck. Chapter 1: cram for the Math Test! Edited April 9, 2016 by blah the Prussian

[Moblin Major General]

Someone give this man Yggdra Union! It's not discouraging people from being good, it's to discourage writers from writing one dimensionally good characters. Now, it is perfectly possible to write unambiguously good characters who are not one dimensional (both Yang Wenli and Reinhard Von Lohengramm from Legend of the Galactic Heroes come to mind) but those characters generally don't get called goody two shoes. "Good" is also subjective, especially when you're a monarch and have to make snap decisions for which there are no easy answers, like, what must I do about the issue of rioters with legitimate grievances resorting to violence, or, say, should I cause civilian casualties to save the lives of my own soldiers? Yes, it is easy to be good for us plebes, but, well, there hasn't been a Fire Emblem game about us Plebes, because it would suck. Chapter 1: cram for the Math Test!

It could be, given the setting of Fire Emblem. A farmer trying to make his way, having to contend with bandits, a corrupt magistrate, and have the final boss be a lower ranking officer of an invading nation trying to force you off the land. It wouldn't be too exciting, but having such a small scale conflict in contrast to the like of Genealogy and Radiant Dawn, or even Sacred Stones, might be a change of pace. Besides, plebs back then didn't learn beyond basic math.

[Tolvir]

I want a Fire Emblem that takes place on a much smaller scale first off. I am tired of the giant wars between nations, the end of the world situations, huge dragons, demons, deities, all of it. I want something much smaller in scale, like a small kingdom, or even just a large city. Almost like what we had in the beginning of Radiant Dawn with the Dawn Brigade.

The main protagonist wouldn't be a lord at all. I would actually base this main character off of the idea of Jarod Shadowsong in the Warcraft series. Pretty much the main protagonist is a basic soldier that has to step up to power due to unforeseen circumstances. The character would not be an avatar, and would have multiple cut-scenes with them actually present and speaking. The main idea to the story would be the multiple choices the player would have to make throughout as the game progresses. Almost like Mass Effects Renegade/Paragon system. Based off of each choice the player gains points in either Warlord, Strategist, or Knight-Commander. Warlord being the more evil aligned, Strategist being neutral, and Knight-Commander being good aligned. Based off of which of these "stats" are higher, you will gain units, items, and bonuses. The larger effects will be that some units will leave you based on your decisions. For example an honorable knight is not likely to follow someone who decides to slaughter the enemy resistance even after they surrendered. It would also effect the progression of the story, deciding where the player goes, what happens to the surrounding area, and what happens in the end. The last effect is what the last promotion for the character will be.

The story wouldn't really be based around a main villain. It is centered mainly around the protagonist and the choices he makes, so there would be a few different villains that the player deals with throughout the story, with the end "villain" being once again decided by what alignment the player ends up with based upon the choices. Like I said before, if the player decides to become more evil, the honorable knight would leave the player. Building off of this more, the character who leaves you based upon your decisions, is the main villain. This lets the player build an emotional connection to the main villain, and allows for the "villain" to not exactly be evil or good, but opposed to the player.

I will use the Warlord path as the example to explain this more. As the player goes along the path, they start making more "evil" choices. Not sparing those who have surrendered, using deaths as an example, carelessly causing the death of innocent lives, etc. As the story plays along, the typical Cavalier/Paladin character that you have in most Fire Emblem games starts voicing their opposition to your choices, and once it starts getting to the point that you are sacrificing innocent lives to get to where you need to go, the Knight will leave. Towards the last third of the game, the Knight will start showing up again, but this time on the opposite side of the battlefield. He is now here to stop you before it gets worst, and the rest of the story is resolving the two characters stories.

[blah the Prussian]

It could be, given the setting of Fire Emblem. A farmer trying to make his way, having to contend with bandits, a corrupt magistrate, and have the final boss be a lower ranking officer of an invading nation trying to force you off the land. It wouldn't be too exciting, but having such a small scale conflict in contrast to the like of Genealogy and Radiant Dawn, or even Sacred Stones, might be a change of pace. Besides, plebs back then didn't learn beyond basic math.

I don't know, I'd say that would work as DLC, but not as a main game.

[Jayvee94]

I don't know about villains, but I'd like next game to go back to having a sort of "Ahab and Ishmael" dynamic with the main lord and avatar, like in Awakening (Sans the endgame reveal that Robin was the Grimas). It's the main lord's story first and foremost, but told through the perspective of the avatar.

Imagine this:

The game begins with your player avatar being ushered through the halls of the royal palace, an applicant to apprenticing under the royal army's current tactician, who is looking to retire soon. Since your avatar is totally new to the place, it serves as a good chance to introduce player and avatar alike to the main lord, Jeigan, early healer, Cain and Abel, ect.

Prologue fight would be a mock battle to test the avatar's current tactical abilities, then the first few chapters would have your usual early-game stuff dealing with brigands and other easy threats. Come chapter 5 or so, war breaks out with whatever enemy nation we're facing this game, and tragedy strikes; the army tactician is assassinated (One day before retirement, damn), leaving the royals with no choice but to put you in charge of strategy despite your inexperience.

I think that strikes a good middle point between the avatar being a total non-entity with no bearing on the plot, and being a metaphorical black hole warping the plot around themselves (Like in Fates). Also no need for the player to have amnesia or any other backstory-concealing element; they could just have lived a relatively nondescript life until being thrust into this war.

The tactician went to get revenge on the assassin. The former is defeated and learned that the latter is his/her father.