Eldigan isn't a bad Camus

[Azure Sen]

Is that really any worse than Ike's hate boner for the Black Knight? I mean this group of rebels has slaughtered pretty much her entire family.

Yes, because unlike Greil, her entire family is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the deaths of countless children and their mothers, while her mother and to some extent her father are responsible for the death of Tailto, whose children are helping Seliph's army. Ishtar's the only person in her family who actively opposes the child hunts, and the only indication we get that Bloom and Ishtore supposedly do comes from Thracia 776, which tried and failed to pull a similarly out of nowhere retcon for Travant's motives.

I reckon another reason Ishtar gets more sympathy is because of her age. She's a lot younger than most other enemies in the game (and series). The whole being born on the wrong side is in much greater effect for her than other Camus types who are adults and have realistic opportunities/reasons to defect. Personally I like Ishtar but I can see why some of the sympathy might be undue. Just for the sake of comparison, what has Blume ever really done to anyone? It was Reptor machinations that led to the world's current state. Blume was just the son of the man who was chosen to be put in charge. Said job of being in charged then involved almost two decades of constant rebellion. Thracia also reveals that he's against the child hunts and even Teeny admits he's not all that bad. If anything he's the closest we've had to a politically neutral enemy in the series, doing only what's needed to maintain order and keep his own head of the chopping board. Yet the narrative depicts him as this iron fisted monster. Not sure what the opinion of the fanbase is. I don't see many people mention him. I blame it on Thracia only giving him six lines of dialogue

I mean, if you ignore the fact that in canon Bloom is just as tyrannical as dear old dad, let his sister be tortured to death to avoid political ramifications that by all accounts he was never going to face, does nothing to actually oppose the Child Hunts despite supposedly disliking them and in fact enables his wife in pursuit of them for status and that everyone in Freege hates him because he's so awful then it might be possible to see Bloom as not being that bad.

I'm also not sure why Ishtore and Liza are supposed to be sympathetic. Ishtore is nice to Tinny, but so is Bloom, and he and Liza love each other which is no indication of morality given that there are a ton of villainous couples in the game. The only deeper indication of Ishtore's goodness comes from Thracia 776 and that Seliph says that Ishtore and his men couldn't have been bad people despite having no reason to believe that.

On the topic of the thread: the issue with Eldigan isn't necessarily that he's a bad Camus, per se, and that the Camus archetype itself tends to be badly written and poorly executed and that Eldigan is the former sterling example of how dumb and blindly loyal for no reason Camuses tend to be.

Edited August 26, 2016 by AzureSen

[Jotari]

Yes, because unlike Ike, her entire family is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the deaths of countless children and their mothers, while her mother and to some extent her father are responsible for the death of Tailto, whose children are helping Seliph's army. Ishtar's the only person in her family who actively opposes the child hunts, and the only indication we get that Bloom and Ishtore supposedly do comes from Thracia 776, which tried and failed to pull a similarly out of nowhere retcon for Travant's motives.

I mean, if you ignore the fact that in canon Bloom is just as tyrannical as dear old dad, let his sister be tortured to death to avoid political ramifications that by all accounts he was never going to face, does nothing to actually oppose the Child Hunts despite supposedly disliking them and in fact enables his wife in pursuit of them for status and that everyone in Freege hates him because he's so awful then it might be possible to see Bloom as not being that bad.

I'm also not sure why Ishtore and Liza are supposed to be sympathetic. Ishtore is nice to Tinny, but so is Bloom, and he and Liza love each other which is no indication of morality given that there are a ton of villainous couples in the game. The only deeper indication of Ishtore's goodness comes from Thracia 776 and that Seliph says that Ishtore and his men couldn't have been bad people despite having no reason to believe that.

On the topic of the thread: the issue with Eldigan isn't necessarily that he's a bad Camus, per se, and that the Camus archetype itself tends to be badly written and poorly executed and that Eldigan is the former sterling example of how dumb and blindly loyal for no reason Camuses tend to be.

Consider things from Bloom's perspective. At the end of Generation 1 he finds his father dead and he's suddenly king of a foregin country due to the expansionst policies of his own government. He looks old due to Freege's silvery grey hair but judging by the age of his kids, I'm guessing Blooms only in his early 40s. Maybe even late 30s. Which would make him only a bit older than Sigurd when he first became king. Add to that fact that Alvis brought in a golden age of leadership for a few years before everything hit the fan. During that time the Thracia pennsinula was probably still in open opposition meaning Bloom's domain was a stain on the empire as a whole. He's also married off to an extremly sadistic bitch who I can't imagine he cares much for (or at least she doesn't even seem to notice or care when he's killed). This adds up to years of conflict as the people of Leinster refuse to cooperate and an uneasy alliance with Travant makes southern invasion a constant possibility. He probably has the empire breathing down his neck the entire time and later the lopt sect getting all up in his buisness and inforcing their fanatical policies across the land. Bloom knows full well what will happen to him if he can't keep things under control or if he deviates from the empire's modis operandi. Given all those factors what kind of person do you think would be built up from such circumstances? I think someone who is politically motivated to stop things getting worse for himself would probably be the most common outcome. Either that or someone who commits fully to the regime to further their own influence (as Hilda does). In the end Bloom never actually actively tries to hurt anyone. Yes, he puts down rebellion. Yes, he allows his sister to be abused because stopping it would policially bad for him (not sure whu exactly but it's what the what the game tells us). And yes, he allows the child hunts to happen but actively avoids partaking in them himself. All his actions are actions of self interest but not acts of greed or sadism. All in all what you get is a character like Hetzul who's great sin is inaction instead of outward evil.

Or maybe he's a tyranical dickbag and I'm thinking too much on it. But hey, it's funt to consider alternative perspectives.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Jotari

[Rinehart]

her entire family is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the deaths of countless children and their mothers

Not only is this demonstrably untrue, it's disingenuous to ignore the fact that both sides in war cause death and suffering. This is especially the case in FE4, where the story isn't nearly as black-and-white good vs. evil as in other Fire Emblem games. For examples that have already been discussed in this thread, think about how the locals reacted to Sigurd's excursion in Agustria and Celice's invasion of Thracia.

I'm also not sure why Ishtore and Liza are supposed to be sympathetic

This is explicitly discussed multiple times in FE4. A couple of examples from Chapter 7:

Villager:

“King Blume and Queen Hilda have two children named Ishtor and Ishtar. Blume’s got Ishtar at Manster and Ishtor at Melgen. They’re both decent kids unlike their father. I’m sure you’ll be facing them on the battlefield in due course, so keep your guard up!”

Celice:

“Levin, is this war ever going to end? I have a hard time believing Prince Ishtor or his general were bad people…”

the Camus archetype itself tends to be badly written and poorly executed and that Eldigan is the former sterling example of how dumb and blindly loyal for no reason Camuses tend to be.

If you still think Eldigan is "dumb and blindly loyal", you didn't read this thread.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Rinehart

[Azure Sen]

Not only is this demonstrably untrue, it's disingenuous to ignore the fact that both sides in war cause death and suffering. This is especially the case in FE4, where the story isn't nearly as black-and-white good vs. evil as in other Fire Emblem games. For examples that have already been discussed in this thread, think about Sigurd's excursion in Agustria and Celice's invasion of Thracia.

How is Hilda stealing children for the child hunts and murdering their mothers when they tried to resist untrue? How is Bloom, Ishtore and Liza doing nothing on-screen to stop her or the child hunts untrue? What does Seliph's army explicitly do to cause any suffering besides participating in a war? Gen 1 may have been more morally gray (to an extent, anyway), but Gen 2 is straight black and white morality.

Oh, and Seliph was opposing the invasion of Thracia because he didn't want to fight Altena, not because he was worried about hurting innocents. Here's the whole of the conversation you took only a snip out of:

Lewyn: A battalion of Dragon Knights just left Thracia. Get ready, Seliph. We're going back in.

Seliph: But Lewyn, the empire is our enemy. Is there any reason we should take on Thracia too?

Lewyn: The reasons'll become apparent if you handle this properly. This battle is already well underway, Seliph. There's no going back.

Seliph: But the dragon knight on that mountain top back there... She looked so sad. The thought of having to fight her as well...

Lewyn: Seliph! Get over it!! This is war. If you can't handle the heat, then you belong back at Tilnanogue!

Seliph: Lewyn...

Oifey: Lewyn, his Majesty is a little tired, it’s unnecessary to mention that...

Lewyn: I know. But everyone is doing their best. We don’t have time to stay here doing nothing. We have to return to Grandbell as fast as possible and stop Loptyr’s resurrection. Otherwise, the world will be destroyed.

Seliph: Oifey, Lewyn is right, I was wrong. If we cannot avoid battle, then it is our duty to give sense to this battle. Let’s go, Lewyn, Oifey, I do not want to turn my back away from the path I have chosen anymore!

This is explicitly discussed multiple times in FE4. A couple of examples from Chapter 7:

Villager:

“King Blume and Queen Hilda have two children named Ishtor and Ishtar. Blume’s got Ishtar at Manster and Ishtor at Melgen. They’re both decent kids unlike their father. I’m sure you’ll be facing them on the battlefield in due course, so keep your guard up!”

Celice:

“Levin, is this war ever going to end? I have a hard time believing Prince Ishtor or his general were bad people…”

Thank you for proving my point. We're only told that Ishtore is good; he never does anything to show it. At least Ishtar, for all of my problems with her, does actually go through with helping children escape from the child hunts. And that doesn't do anything for Liza.

If you still think Eldigan is "dumb and blindly loyal", you didn't read this thread.

Or I don't agree with the conclusions you reached in this thread? It's pretty presumptuous of you to assume that someone could only disagree with you if they haven't read your thread.

Or maybe he's a tyranical dickbag and I'm thinking too much on it. But hey, it's funt to consider alternative perspectives.

I like to consider alternate interpritations too, it's just that I take canon first and foremost over them. (I'll also admit that I came off as a bit more aggressive than I hoped to in that post.)

Edited August 26, 2016 by AzureSen

[Rinehart]

Seliph was opposing the invasion of Thracia because he didn't want to fight Altena

The citizens of Thracia viewed the Liberation Army as an invading force regardless of how Celice felt.

We're only told that Ishtore is good; he never does anything to show it.

We are also only told that Julius killed Diadora; we never see it actually happen. Do you doubt that this occurred?

Or I don't agree with the conclusions you reached in this thread? It's pretty presumptuous of you to assume that someone could only disagree with you if they haven't read your thread.

If you disagree with my points regarding Eldigan, by all means feel free to engage in a conversation (as others have done in this thread).

You are simply writing him off in one sentence as "dumb and blindly loyal" without providing any evidence or refuting the points that I and others have made.

I like to consider alternate interpritations too, it's just that I take canon first and foremost over them. (I'll also admit that I came off as a bit more aggressive than I hoped to in that post.)

Speaking of canon, it's canon that Ishtor and Liza are widely considered to be decent people. There is no reason to believe that the game is not telling the truth. Any other interpretation would be, as you say, an alternate one.

I also should have worded the last sentence on my previous post better; it was unnecessarily hostile. Sorry about that.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Rinehart

[Tetragrammaton]

Consider things from Bloom's perspective. At the end of Generation 1 he finds his father dead and he's suddenly king of a foregin country due to the expansionst policies of his own government. He looks old due to Freege's silvery grey hair but judging by the age of his kids, I'm guessing Blooms only in his early 40s. Maybe even late 30s. Which would make him only a bit older than Sigurd when he first became king. Add to that fact that Alvis brought in a golden age of leadership for a few years before everything hit the fan. During that time the Thracia pennsinula was probably still in open opposition meaning Bloom's domain was a stain on the empire as a whole. He's also married off to an extremly sadistic bitch who I can't imagine he cares much for (or at least she doesn't even seem to notice or care when he's killed). This adds up to years of conflict as the people of Leinster refuse to cooperate and an uneasy alliance with Travant makes southern invasion a constant possibility. He probably has the empire breathing down his neck the entire time and later the lopt sect getting all up in his buisness and inforcing their fanatical policies across the land. Bloom knows full well what will happen to him if he can't keep things under control or if he deviates from the empire's modis operandi. Given all those factors what kind of person do you think would be built up from such circumstances? I think someone who is politically motivated to stop things getting worse for himself would probably be the most common outcome. Either that or someone who commits fully to the regime to further their own influence (as Hilda does). In the end Bloom never actually actively tries to hurt anyone. Yes, he puts down rebellion. Yes, he allows his sister to be abused because stopping it would policially bad for him (not sure whu exactly but it's what the what the game tells us). And yes, he allows the child hunts to happen but actively avoids partaking in them himself. All his actions are actions of self interest but not acts of greed or sadism. All in all what you get is a character like Hetzul who's great sin is inaction instead of outward evil.

Or maybe he's a tyranical dickbag and I'm thinking too much on it. But hey, it's funt to consider alternative perspectives.

I'm kinda like this, what Blume did in Manster District is pretty much the same thing Sigurd did in Verdane and Agustria, while they may not like what they did, invading and occupying foreign countries, they still keep doing what they were told by the Empire Court, for the sake of people around them.

The only difference is that Celice/Leaf succeed rebelling against Blume while Eltoshan failed to do so.

Edited August 26, 2016 by hanhnn

[FionordeQuester]

The thing with Blume, from what I understand, is that he relied on nothing but violence to secure his position. That, or he was not very good at maintaining his public image.

The first thing you generally want to do with a conquered people is to give them a few benefits. Yes, you'll want to make a public example out of anyone who rebels (like what George Washington did in the Whiskey Rebellion, or the way military generals will shoot anyone who tries to retreat), but you'll generally want to make at least some moves to pacify the people as well. Maybe lower their taxes, maybe help them out with the local banditry, or maybe even arm certain populations of the people.

For example, even Rome made a few concessions to the Jews when they conquered them. They gave power and political influence to the Sadducees and Pharisees (religious leaders and scribes in the kingdom) in return for their compliance. And even Herod Antipas (a guy who was otherwise a violent maniac) rebuilt their temple for them, so that they could worship their God. The Jews still chafed enough under their rule that they often tried to rebel...but then, the rebellions that started still probably wouldn't have been as bad as if there was NO ONE who liked their Roman occupiers.

So instead of antagonizing the Manstrians, he should have instead played upon their fear of Thracia. He should have been promising them protection against the Thracians in exchange for their loyalty. And he especially should not have been trying to take their children...

Yes, yes, yes, the Loptyrians were breathing down their necks. But remember; Ishtar happened to be Julius's girlfriend at the time. There had to have been SOME kind of way that Blume could use her to pull some strings, maybe get Julius to lighten up on things just a little!

But yeah, Blume may not have been quite AS bad as his wife...but he still sounds like he was pretty bad. He tried to rule with nothing but an iron fist, and his people hated him as a result. And as Machiavelli said...

...A prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.

Edited August 26, 2016 by FionordeQuester

[Jotari]

The thing with Blume, from what I understand, is that he relied on nothing but violence to secure his position. That, or he was not very good at maintaining his public image.

The first thing you generally want to do with a conquered people is to give them a few benefits. Yes, you'll want to make a public example out of anyone who rebels (like what George Washington did in the Whiskey Rebellion, or the way military generals will shoot anyone who tries to retreat), but you'll generally want to make at least some moves to pacify the people as well. Maybe lower their taxes, maybe help them out with the local banditry, or maybe even arm certain populations of the people.

For example, even Rome made a few concessions to the Jews when they conquered them. They gave power and political influence to the Sadducees and Pharisees (religious leaders and scribes in the kingdom) in return for their compliance. And even Herod Antipas (a guy who was otherwise a violent maniac) rebuilt their temple for them, so that they could worship their God. The Jews still chafed enough under their rule that they often tried to rebel...but then, the rebellions that started still probably wouldn't have been as bad as if there was NO ONE who liked their Roman occupiers.

So instead of antagonizing the Manstrians, he should have instead played upon their fear of Thracia. He should have been promising them protection against the Thracians in exchange for their loyalty. And he especially should not have been trying to take their children...

Yes, yes, yes, the Loptyrians were breathing down their necks. But remember; Ishtar happened to be Julius's girlfriend at the time. There had to have been SOME kind of way that Blume could use her to pull some strings, maybe get Julius to lighten up on things just a little!

But yeah, Blume may not have been quite AS bad as his wife...but he still sounds like he was pretty bad. He tried to rule with nothing but an iron fist, and his people hated him as a result. And as Machiavelli said...

Maybe he did have keep things pretty peaceful early on. Do we have any solid information as to what Thracia was like during Alvis' alleged golden era of rule before Julius became dragon satan? I'm now envisioning a fanfic where Blume is very like Sigurd in his early years of rule but constant powerlessness and opposition leaves him bitter and jaded as he slowly comes to the realisation that his life has absolutely no good points.

[Azure Sen]

If you disagree with my points regarding Eldigan, by all means feel free to engage in a conversation (as others have done in this thread).

You are simply writing him off in one sentence as "dumb and blindly loyal" without providing any evidence or refuting the points that I and others have made.

I'm writing him off as "dumb and blindly loyal" because he was purposefully written to be so, and trying to argue otherwise is missing the point of his character. Gen 1 is a deconstruction of FE 1/3, and Eldigan is a deconstruction of the Camus archetype--specifically, showing a more realistic portrayal of such a character, the problems with them, and the consequences such a character would face for their actions. His loyalty (which his king has done nothing to earn, and Eldigan only has out of a misguided sense of duty to his country) causes him to make stupid, short-sighted decisions that hurt rather than help his country, and his dogged insistence on remaining loyal to his cowardly tyrant of a king ends up getting him killed--either by his friend's hand in a pointless fight or by his king's after repeatedly expressing his doubts about his king's plans (and thus, to said king, showing disloyalty and intent to defect/rebel)--majorly screwing over his country in the long run, and helping the main villains advance their plans for the Grannvale Empire and the revival of Loptyr.

I mean, Eldigan is arguably the best Camus because he highlights all of the problems with the archetype, and he's intentionally what he is unlike other Camuses, but being the best of a terrible archetype doesn't mean much.

Thracia viewed the Liberation Army as an invading force regardless of how Celice felt.

What does this have to do with my point?

We are also only told that Julius killed Diadora; we never see it actually happen. Do you doubt that this occurred?

We don't need to be shown Dierdre's death because people who witnessed it talk about it multiple times, it's fully in-character for Julius to do something like that, and her ghost shows up later. Plus there's the fact that Deirdre's death is a major, plot-important event, and Ishtore is a bit character who gets barely any characterization and is completely irrelevant in the long run (and really the short run, too); he's basically a plot device to give Ishtar a reason not to switch sides. (Which begs the question as to why we're even arguing about this.)

Speaking of canon, it's canon that Ishtor and Liza are widely considered to be decent people. There is no reason to believe that the game is not telling the truth. Any other interpretation would be, as you say, an alternate one.

I knew saying that was going to bite me in the ass.

The whole debate aside, if the game was consistent with itself you might have a point, but it's not. When it comes down to what the narration/characters tells me versus the events that transpire, the events that transpire win out, and just because the narrative/characters say it doesn't make it true. For example, Fates's characters tell us that Leo is Nohr's premiere tactician and a strategical prodigy, but the only times his supposed talent comes up all the advice he gives is common sense, and Effie comes up with a good plan that he rejects in their support, hence I don't think he's a good tacician. It's the same principle as that: Seliph and that random villager tell me Ishtore's a good person, but the only thing the events of the game show him doing is, in Lewyn's own words, "supporting a ruthless, tyrannical leader."

And, again, I'm not really sure why we're still arguing about this, because Ishtore's morality (and the man himself) is fairly irrelevant to my main point; Ishtar's grudge against Seliph's army, while understandable, is entirely unsympathetic because she's also trying to get revenge for are one of the worst people in the entire Jugdral saga and a ruthless tyrant, and morality aside Ishtore and Liza were still willingly working for Grannvale.

Edited August 26, 2016 by AzureSen

[Rinehart]

being the best of a terrible archetype doesn't mean much

If you have a strong dislike of the Camus archetype in the first place, then of course you won't be a fan of Eldigan. However, the point of this thread isn't whether you like him as a character, but whether he deserves the reputation of being a bad Camus.

The whole debate aside, if the game was consistent with itself you might have a point, but it's not. When it comes down to what the narration/characters tells me versus the events that transpire, the events that transpire win out, and just because the narrative/characters say it doesn't make it true.

The game isn't inconsistent, your expectations are. We see the story from Celice's point of view, so of course not every single enemy unit and their personal history is going to get major screen time. Let's take a different series, the Elibe games, as an example. You never see the Scouring actually happen; everything you know about it is based on what different characters tell you. Some of these characters have obvious personal agendas. Maybe the Scouring never happened at all, and is actually a made-up story to scare people. Do you have any reason to believe this theory?

Ishtar's grudge against Seliph's army, while understandable, is entirely unsympathetic because she's also trying to get revenge for are one of the worst people in the entire Jugdral saga and a ruthless tyrant, and morality aside Ishtore and Liza were still willingly working for Grannvale.

No side in war is perfect. I wouldn't be interested in playing a game where the protagonist's side is infallibly good and the enemy side is unquestionably evil. There are good and bad people everywhere.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Rinehart

[Inference]

What's really odd is how quickly other enemy units in the series are to defect as soon as the lord blinks their eyes at them.

Just to play Devil's advocate, I'm committing to memory which enemy units in the series do just that, and while some of them are basically joke characters who join for no reason (Roger), many of the recruits in the DS games intended to join from the start for their own reasons, and get the perfect opportunity when they see Marth marching on their turf.

FE7, however...does have a handful of throwaway characters with no reason to fight for you. "Uh, who's Geitz and why's he on my team? Hello?"

Overall, the early games were actually pretty good about justifying side-switching, while later games basically turned it into a joke.

[FionordeQuester]

If you're too soft or sympathetic towards your enemy, you won't survive. That's what happened to Sigurd.

Actually...I'm not sure I agree with that. IMO, Sigurd actually balanced ruthlesness and compassion perfectly. The only mistakes possible mistakes I can think of were...

1) He wanted to take care of Gandolf's army ALL BY HIMSELF in the Prologue...but that doesn't matter, because he allowed himself to be talked out of it. So no harm, no foul.

2) Harboring Prince Shanan was arguably a bad move, since Alvis used that against him later on. But I'm not sure killing him would have actually mattered in the long run. If anything, it may have just given him a reputation for cruelty...And besides, IT'S A FRICKEN CHILD! The kind of ruthlesness me and Melth described is only helpful for as long as you don't lose your humanity to it. Otherwise, you're going to become the very monster that you're supposed to be fighting!

3) Not taking care of Shagaal when he had the chance. But, that's excusable. He would have had to go through his best friend to accomplish this; and SAID best friend was one of the strongest swordsmen on the continent, thanks to the Misteltein. It's doubtful Sigurd would have won that fight, even if he DID decide to ignore Eltshan's request.

4) Taking down Macbeth might have been a mistake, considering that he was not an imminent threat to his army....But on the other hand, Oifaye himself agreed to take care of the bandits. "That'll help the citizens of Agustria know that we are not the aggressor here", as he said.

5) Not cutting Alvis down when he and the Royal Guard were welcoming him...but, again, that's excusable. From his perspective, he has no reason to doubt what Alvis was saying, ESPECIALLY since Blaggi, apparently, did not feel like mentioning that "hey, Alvis MIGHT be a bit of a threat to you". Blaggi only ever mentions Reptor and Langbart, while completely glossing over Alvis. So if anything, that was Blaggi's fault, not Sigurd's! And even assuming Sigurd DID kill him, he may very well have just gotten him and his army killed by the Royal Guard anyway. This is, of course, not even considering how bad Sigurd's going to look after having just killed Lord Langbart, Lord Andre, Lord Reptor, AND Lord Alvis all at once!

Like, maybe I'm forgetting something...but I'm honestly not sure what Sigurd could have done differently. If anything, his compassion actually helped quite a bit, both for boosting his troop's morale. Plus, Queen Rahna may not have rescued him the way she did if she didn't have such a high opinion of him. So really, Sigurd was kind of doomed regardless :( ...

Edited August 28, 2016 by FionordeQuester

[Rinehart]

I agree that Sigurd's compassion is one of his strongest traits. As Levin says in the Second Generation, Sigurd's kindness brought many good people over to Celice's side.

It's just that during this time in Jugdral, given all the coups and backstabbing going on, Sigurd trusted Aida and Alvis too easily. Considering that Grandbell, led by Alvis, has branded Sigurd a traitor and has been actively hunting him down for the past year, he should have been a lot more careful about leading his army into a situation where they are surrounded by Alvis's troops at Barhara. Moreover, because this was a "celebration in their honor", they were likely not armed, which is why they couldn't fight back (otherwise, there is no way Manfloy would be able to kill Levin).

It's not something you can really blame Sigurd for, because if Alvis was indeed on Sigurd's side, it would have been a diplomatic catastrophe to refuse his offer.

[Jotari]

Just to play Devil's advocate, I'm committing to memory which enemy units in the series do just that, and while some of them are basically joke characters who join for no reason (Roger), many of the recruits in the DS games intended to join from the start for their own reasons, and get the perfect opportunity when they see Marth marching on their turf.

FE7, however...does have a handful of throwaway characters with no reason to fight for you. "Uh, who's Geitz and why's he on my team? Hello?"

Overall, the early games were actually pretty good about justifying side-switching, while later games basically turned it into a joke.

The way I remember Shadow Dragon, pretty much all of the enemy recruits are obtained by throwing Shiida at the enemy and having her flirt with the pretty ones.

I agree that Sigurd's compassion is one of his strongest traits. As Levin says in the Second Generation, Sigurd's kindness brought many good people over to Celice's side.

It's just that during this time in Jugdral, given all the coups and backstabbing going on, Sigurd trusted Aida and Alvis too easily. Considering that Grandbell, led by Alvis, has branded Sigurd a traitor and has been actively hunting him down for the past year, he should have been a lot more careful about leading his army into a situation where they are surrounded by Alvis's troops at Barhara. Moreover, because this was a "celebration in their honor", they were likely not armed, which is why they couldn't fight back (otherwise, there is no way Manfloy would be able to kill Levin).

It's not something you can really blame Sigurd for, because if Alvis was indeed on Sigurd's side, it would have been a diplomatic catastrophe to refuse his offer.

Well Levin got resurrected thanks to the power of his Holsety Tome. That makes me at least believe he had it on him at the time. It was either that or Holstey magically flew from whoever he left it and resurrected his corpse which....I guess is possible but seems kind...Harry Potterish.

As for Sigurd's decisions, I'm in agreement that his compassion was way more of a boon than a flaw. Sigurd's tale is a tragedy and the way I view there are two types of tragedies. One that is completely avoidable but due to a build up of innoculus minor decisions leads to a destruction that could easily have been avoidable (so the case in Hamlet). The other is a tragedy that is completely unavoidable where the one suffering has absolutely no power to change their fate and nothing they could have done would have changed the outcome. Any decision they made was completely rational at the time and they had no reason to believe it would end in suffering because forces outside of their knowledge were influencing things (my go to example here is the Hunchback of Notre Dame though Esmerelda did have a chance to change things at the very, very end that she stupidly squandered). Sigurd's story falls much more into the latter than the former. As soon as he left home he was pretty much doomed. He was always going to be the fall guy and get killed by Alvis. None of the decisions he made had obvious long term consequences (except sparing Shannon but I'm pretty okay with my protagonist not murdering children. Though simply letting Arya and Shannon go on their merry way might have been a much more prudent action. And even without Shanon Alvis still probably would have killed Sigurd. They didn't have any dirt on Byron like that and still managed to axe him with no ill effects). His only real mistake was to leave home and thus become the perfect scapegoat for a conspiracy he knew nothing about. Killing Shanon of Shagall or any other person that his compassion saved would not have changed things in the slightest.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Jotari

[Rinehart]

Well Levin got resurrected thanks to the power of his Holsety Tome. That makes me at least believe he had it on him at the time. It was either that or Holstey magically flew from whoever he left it and resurrected his corpse which....I guess is possible but seems kind...Harry Potterish.

From the designers' notes:

Q: Is the Levin in the 2nd half of the game the same person as Holsety?

A: I already mentioned previously how the Holsety tome would have a strong effect on the the user’s will. As soon as Levin obtained the Holsety tome from his mother, Queen Rahna, his body already contained another person’s persona. The question of who Levin from the 2nd half is doesn’t have a clear answer, but compared to the previous Levin his personality has undergone an obvious change. Even whether Levin’s own persona is alive or not is unclear.

And also, take this excerpt taken from Kaga's comments on the game:

In Fury and Levin’s case, after some time passes, they are brought back to life by the power of Holsety.

I remember reading (can't find the source atm) that because Holsety felt closer to the humans than the other dragons did, his tome contained not only his power but also his spirit. Basically, Holsety was already a part of Levin when he was killed by Manfloy, and decided to revive him later on in order to aid Celice and the other children in their journey.

As for Sigurd's decisions, I'm in agreement that his compassion was way more of a boon than a flaw. Sigurd's tale is a tragedy and the way I view there are two types of tragedies. One that is completely avoidable but due to a build up of innoculus minor decisions leads to a destruction that could easily have been avoidable (so the case in Hamlet). The other is a tragedy that is completely unavoidable where the one suffering has absolutely no power to change their fate and nothing they could have done would have changed the outcome. Any decision they made was completely rational at the time and they had no reason to believe it would end in suffering because forces outside of their knowledge were influencing things (my go to example here is the Hunchback of Notre Dame though Esmerelda did have a chance to change things at the very, very end that she stupidly squandered). Sigurd's story falls much more into the latter than the former. As soon as he leave home he was pretty much doomed. He was always going to be the fall guy and get killed by Alvis. None of the decisions he made had obvious long term consequences (except sparing Shannon but I'm pretty okay with my protagonist not murdering children. Though simply letting Arya and Shannon go on their merry way might have been a much more prudent action. And even without Shanon Alvis still probably would have killed Sigurd. They didn't have any dirt on Byron like that and still managed to axe him with no ill effects). His only real mistake was to leave home and thus become the perfect scapegoat for a conspiracy he knew nothing about. Killing Shanon of Shagall or any other person that his compassion saved would not have changed things in the slightest.

I really like your breakdown of the tragic genre.

The fact that he rescued Shanan was simply used an excuse by Leptor and Langobalt to pursue him; I don't think anything would have changed if he left Ayra and Shanan alone. I agree that Sigurd couldn't have done anything to prevent his fate, because even if he somehow saw through Alvis's scheme and fled, he would have eventually been hunted down as a traitor during Alvis's golden years of rule.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Rinehart

[Tetragrammaton]

We are also only told that Julius killed Diadora; we never see it actually happen. Do you doubt that this occurred?

Actually, this scene is already in the game.

You guys can stop arguing about this.

[Jotari]

Actually, this scene is already in the game.

You guys can stop arguing about this.

That's form the intro yeah? I didn't realise it had been translated. Is there a video anywhere that has the entire thing? I know there's a lot of cool stuff in it but I've never seen with dialogue i can understand.

[Tetragrammaton]

That's form the intro yeah? I didn't realise it had been translated. Is there a video anywhere that has the entire thing? I know there's a lot of cool stuff in it but I've never seen with dialogue i can understand.

Yeah, it's from the intro.

And this too, so you can say it is canon.

[spoiler=Levin killed by Manfroy and resurrected by Holsety]

[Jotari]

Haha. Didn't know Holstey somehow managed to use the Valkyrie Staff to revive Levin.

[Moblin Major General]

Haha. Didn't know Holstey somehow managed to use the Valkyrie Staff to revive Levin.

Maybe Claude gave it to him... oh, wait.

[Emperor Hardin]

Agreed that Grannevale was just as corrupt as Chagall. While Sigurd didn't intend to, he did kill non corrupt Lords, and Generals when fighting Chagall as well.

As for Chagall, really the best thing I imagine Eldigan could do was somehow keep Chagall under house arrest, and convince the deluded King that it was for his protection, and his orders still mattered. Meanwhile Eldigan would try to get Chagall to produce an heir, which would continue the royal line, and be groomed for leadership by Eldigan.

[Jotari]

Agreed that Grannevale was just as corrupt as Chagall. While Sigurd didn't intend to, he did kill non corrupt Lords, and Generals when fighting Chagall as well.

As for Chagall, really the best thing I imagine Eldigan could do was somehow keep Chagall under house arrest, and convince the deluded King that it was for his protection, and his orders still mattered. Meanwhile Eldigan would try to get Chagall to produce an heir, which would continue the royal line, and be groomed for leadership by Eldigan.

On retrospect it's actually kind of weird Chagall didn't have an heir doing something in the story.

[Emperor Hardin]

On retrospect it's actually kind of weird Chagall didn't have an heir doing something in the story.

Its also strange how much Chagall puts his life directly in danger when as stated before, he was the very last descendant of the Hezul Royal family. I mean the whole point of having the Nordion branch is so the Royal branch can play it safe, and keep the line going so to say.

[Mekkah]

Eldigan is a consistent character, but not a realistic one. That's why I personally dislike him. Chagall treats him like dirt at every opportunity and Eldigan rides against his friend for him.

[Tetragrammaton]

Eldigan is a consistent character, but not a realistic one. That's why I personally dislike him. Chagall treats him like dirt at every opportunity and Eldigan rides against his friend for him.

The kind of friend that invades your country, slaughter most of your countrymen, and you want to betray your country to support your friendly friend?

In that case, you can't stop people from calling you by many nasty things or treating you like dirt.

A soldier, a brave man will never do that, he will fight until the end against that friend, even if it costs his life.

That's a very realistic one, it happened so many times in the past in our real world.

Edited September 26, 2016 by hanhnn