Creating a Camus

[NekoKnight]

An often-appearing character archetype in the Fire Emblem series is the Camus. This character is honorable and pleasant to be around but because of their sense of patriotism or personal convictions, they stay loyal to the villains. Their loyalty often leads to their death, which the player is supposed to be saddened by. Notable examples include the Reed brothers in FE7, Selena of FE8, and Xander in FE14. This can be a controversial character archetype because sometimes the loyalty of said character seems disproportionate or unfounded (especially considering people defecting from evil factions is a even more common element of the series.)

So, how can we write a "good" Camus, ie a character who is righteous but justifiably loyal to the antagonists? Here is one idea I was musing with:
As a boy, the character was a citizen of a tiny nation conquered by "the Empire". He learned at a young age that power is the only objective "righteousness" and that heroic resistance to tyranny is both selfish and futile. He joins the empire but unlike many of his contemporaries, he is kind to those who submit to his power, treating them as equals. His signature trait is offering opponents before each battle to yield and join him, or die fighting. Eventually he comes across the heroes who stand up to the Empire despite the odds being stacked against them. As the heroes take victory after victory, this only enrages the Camus further because he sees it as a defiance of his entire worldview (making him doubt that he was just obeying the natural order of the world, and was instead just a coward and collaborator) so he makes it his personal mission to prove the heroes wrong by killing them.

What do you think? How would you design a "Camus" character to be both honorable but unfailingly loyal to the antagonists?

Edited February 26, 2017 by NekoKnight

[Refa]

It'd help if the main villain wasn't the embodiment of evil.  If the conflict was a war of idealogies, you can more easily get behind a good person being on the wrong side.

[Thane]

I'm generally not the biggest fan of this archetype, so I hope I won't come across as too cynical here.

To me the most important part would be whether or not they agree with the motives of the villain. Since I love shitting on main story Xander, I'll once again say that he simply doesn't work as a sympathetic character because he willingly goes along with something he knows to be wrong. Then again, one could argue that he's not a Camus because he's actually not portrayed as a bad guy in spite of his atrocities. 

Like, if the Camus is a guy you could see yourself having a drink with, the image sort of gets ruined when he goes back to the evil empire to fight for the glory of a puppy kicker. For this archetype to work, the conflict needs to be a lot more human than normal Fire Emblem stories.

[Jedi]

Give them motivations and reasons for being loyal first of all. Like how Hardin saving Wolf, Sedgar, Vyland and Roshe from slavery made them stick around (for the most part) tragically even after his fall from grace. For one such example.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Jedi

[NekoKnight]

34 minutes ago, Refa said:

It'd help if the main villain wasn't the embodiment of evil.  If the conflict was a war of idealogies, you can more easily get behind a good person being on the wrong side.

That seems like a pretty critical point. Loyalty can only go so far if the person the Camus looks up to is pure evil. It's a shame that Walhart's motives are not discussed in the main campaign of Awakening because Walhart, or someone working under him, could have been an effective Camus. Someone who unites people by force, but with a good cause in mind.

32 minutes ago, Thane said:

To me the most important part would be whether or not they agree with the motives of the villain. Since I love shitting on main story Xander, I'll once again say that he simply doesn't work as a sympathetic character because he willingly goes along with something he knows to be wrong. Then again, one could argue that he's not a Camus because he's actually not portrayed as a bad guy in spite of his atrocities.

That is true. People joke that "Xander is the most Camus Camus who ever Camused" but his treatment as a hero...despite himself, almost disqualifies him from the trope. His Birthright appearance is played closest to the trope because his knowledge of Garon isn't as explored. Nothing justifies his loyalty in Conquest or Revelation.

 

Edited February 26, 2017 by NekoKnight

[Sunwoo]

43 minutes ago, Refa said:

It'd help if the main villain wasn't the embodiment of evil.  If the conflict was a war of idealogies, you can more easily get behind a good person being on the wrong side.

This, seriously. Or at the very least, there should be something more than "b-b-but muh loyalty!" If the main villain is someone who is kind to their own people, and not some evil mustache-twirling villain, whose actions would actually benefit their country and people then that is good enough for a Camus to get behind them. Maybe they can acknowledge that the war isn't fair to the people who are being invaded, but life in his/her own country isn't fair either and without this war they will not be able to survive would be good enough.

When you have characters like Selena (who say that the king has changed but even if they're not the person who saved them they cannot turn back), Bryce (who only continues to fight for Ashnard because of bloodline and duty and nothing else more), or Xander (who may have more personal ties to the main villain, but is also fucking blind and stupid and is fine with destroying an innocent country just to "make daddy better again") this may at best invoke facepalm-worthy moments and at worse make a character despicable. Just make the Camus smart and give them a good reason to follow the villain and you're good.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Sunwoo

[Thane]

6 minutes ago, Sunwoo said:

Xander (who may have more personal ties to the main villain, but is also fucking blind and stupid and is fine with destroying an innocent country just to "make daddy better again") 

"Father is just under the weather - that's all."

No I'm not making that up, that's an actual Xander quote here: https://youtu.be/IqM-vPACZ3M?list=PLJIAsg8WoieRJSW9uMV7ew_8y8vsjhew4&t=110

Needless to say, a Camus should never have to justify their loyalty like this.

[Sunwoo]

3 minutes ago, Thane said:

"Father is just under the weather - that's all."

No I'm not making that up, that's an actual Xander quote here: https://youtu.be/IqM-vPACZ3M?list=PLJIAsg8WoieRJSW9uMV7ew_8y8vsjhew4&t=110

Needless to say, a Camus should never have to justify their loyalty like this.

Xander has to be one of the worst Camus-like characters in the entirety of FE for me -- because in Conquest we're supposed to believe he's a hero and he essentially gets away with everything. It just doesn't work, a Camus-type character doesn't work as a protagonist unless the writing is very, VERY good (and I think that scope of writing is beyond not just FE, but the majority of video games). Don't we look up to heroes because they are able to stand up and be courageous in the face of things that normal people such as ourselves can never hope to do so? And if our hero is an idiot or spineless and never grows out of it ... what is the point of calling this type of character a hero again?

I think a Camus has to be a character we could root for if we were playing as the other side. Xander was NOT someone that I felt like rooting for at all even when I was playing Conquest.

[Moblin Major General]

I feel bad for Eldigan. He is more loyal to what the monarchy represents, but sadly for him, the throne is occupied by a despot who just happens to hate everything he stands for. He also has his pride as a crusader to uphold. His position is unique, in that he personally knows Sigurd and Quan. All three of them also have extreme hubris, so there is no talking down whatsoever.

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, Refa said:

It'd help if the main villain wasn't the embodiment of evil.  If the conflict was a war of idealogies, you can more easily get behind a good person being on the wrong side.

Yeah, pretty much this. It's really the biggest stickler. Give the evil empire some genuinely redeeming (and not just informed or cursory traits) qualities and it wouldn't feel so forced.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Jotari

[Etrurian emperor]

I think its very important to ensure the lord isn't downright abusive to their Camus. Shagaal imprisons Eldigan and tries to destroy Nodium for no reason. As such we can safely say that Eldigan is a complete idiot for contineuing to work for Shagaal.

And Xander would likely be less controversial if Gooron made even a slight efford to act like Garon is supposed to.

The archetype works better if there is a justified reason for the loyalty the Camus has to their lord. Ishtar is in love and Selena was saved by her emperor. Its understandable that the Camus would fight for someone they love or admire. If the Villain would exploit this bond, the honor of the Camus or their patriotism it would all work alot better.

 

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Hylian Air Force said:

I feel bad for Eldigan. He is more loyal to what the monarchy represents, but sadly for him, the throne is occupied by a despot who just happens to hate everything he stands for. He also has his pride as a crusader to uphold. His position is unique, in that he personally knows Sigurd and Quan. All three of them also have extreme hubris, so there is no talking down whatsoever.

I think a big thing in Eldigan's favour is that they depicted his situation as a lot more limited in options than a lot of other Camus in the series. Sigurd is unwillingly a representative of a nation that is tearing Agustria apart so even with the friendship, Eldigan has a lot less reason to defect than most other Camus. Aside from being a Camus his only other reasonable options are to completely abandon his country and defect to a neutral one or to try and pull off a coup which would only divide his nation even more while Grandbell is sitting there (already occupying half of it) just itching to seize control. And when it comes down to it, he doesn't just blindly fight the heroes without questioning the motives of his superiors. He continues to question Chagall and even gets executed for it (unless you don't want the Earth Sword for some reason). Honestly he's probably the most reasonable Camus in the series by a wide margin.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Jotari

[Party Moth]

I think that generally greyer conflicts would go a long way toward making a number of character archetypes and plot points more interesting, the Camus archetype especially. Xander, for example, would be much easier to get behind if Nohr and its conflict was generally written with a stronger sense of desperation on their end rather than Garon simply being ridiculously war-happy and keeping around a bunch of evil stooges. Fates especially had an excellent opportunity to establish functional Camus characters with its very premise, but as they say the devil is in the details.

Really, though, all you need for a Camus is to present a character who comes across as fairly upstanding and has no sufficiently compelling reason to abandon his/her people greater than their reasons to stay, unlike characters you can recruit. A Camus should have every reason to remain on the enemy side despite the wrongdoings inflicted on the protagonist's people, emphasizing the point that there are good men on both sides of a war. Whether that comes through cultural means (protagonists invading leading to noticeable destruction of their beliefs and way of life), political means (knowledge that their contributions to the current political regime are a major factor keeping other nobles exploiting the people, which could be invoked and last potentially months after surrendering to the heroes), or otherwise doesn't necessarily matter so long as it is compelling and can't be solved by simply defecting to the heroes' side.

[NekoKnight]

I added a poll to see what game people think had the best Camus archtype. Those names are pulled from the wiki so if you think a character does or doesn't belong there, let me know.

While I like the Reed brothers a lot, I think enjoyed Selena had straightest example of the archetype. She understands that Virgarde isn't the man she once knew but she owes him her life and her station so she can't bring herself to betray him as Duessel does (although he is well written too). Honorable mention to Hetzel in FE10. He was a weakling and coward but the game did a good job of discussing how evil can triumph when good men do nothing.

Edited February 26, 2017 by NekoKnight

[maybe]

"Creating a Camus" sounds like some weird spinoff of Making a Murderer

i just wanted to say that but I voted for lloyd and linus because they're the only ones I found even remotely memorable, the rest were all pretty boring to me

[Gruntagen]

3 hours ago, Sunwoo said:

When you have characters like Selena (who say that the king has changed but even if they're not the person who saved them they cannot turn back), Bryce (who only continues to fight for Ashnard because of bloodline and duty and nothing else more), or Xander (who may have more personal ties to the main villain, but is also fucking blind and stupid and is fine with destroying an innocent country just to "make daddy better again") this may at best invoke facepalm-worthy moments and at worse make a character despicable.

Wait, I've never had problems with Selena and Bryce's decisions to stay loyal to their country/master. Why does it make you facepalm?

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I think its very important to ensure the lord isn't downright abusive to their Camus. Shagaal imprisons Eldigan and tries to destroy Nodium for no reason. As such we can safely say that Eldigan is a complete idiot for contineuing to work for Shagaal.

And Xander would likely be less controversial if Gooron made even a slight efford to act like Garon is supposed to.

The archetype works better if there is a justified reason for the loyalty the Camus has to their lord. Ishtar is in love and Selena was saved by her emperor. Its understandable that the Camus would fight for someone they love or admire. If the Villain would exploit this bond, the honor of the Camus or their patriotism it would all work alot better.

 

Really though, what else could Eldigan have done? His choices were between abandoning his country to let the evil empire conquer it. Help the evil empire conquer it. Or fight for his country and do everything in his power to try and make his king see reason. Those are some pretty shit options no matter what way you look at it. And yes, Granbell was an aggressive military empire even before Alvis was fully put in power. They had already seized half of Agustria and shown absolutely no signs of returning it.

Also re the poll, the wolf guard should probably be added for FE3. In the original only one of them could actually be recruited. In fact I think quite a few characters from Book 1 became unrecruitable enemies in Book 2. But the remake kind of backpedaled that theme by making everyone (except Hardin) recruitable. Hmm...Awakening giving you all the antagonists as playable units in the post game doesn't seem so egregious to me suddenly. Speaking of Awakening you could probably make a case for Mustafa too.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Jotari

[Anacybele]

I voted Bryce and Shiharam, because I'm most familiar with them and I did indeed feel bad for them. :( One of my OCs is Bryce's son too, which resulted in me giving a lot of background to both (Bryce and his son).

A good Camus should have a good reason for being so loyal and not changing sides, honestly. And have some good background and personality traits that make it fitting for them to stay loyal.

And now that I think about it, I'd say Dougal is my fic's Camus, and I didn't even really think about that archtype when I created him. Right now, I haven't done much with Dougal yet, but it will turn out that he was found and rescued by Shigo, one of the main villains, as a very small child. Shigo raised him and protected him and this is why Dougal is loyal to Shigo no matter what and will never turn against him, even though Shigo's done some horrible things in his past (and despite that he becomes more honorable in his older age). Dougal also turns out to not be from the enemy nation, he's actually from the nation he's primarily fighting against. He just never knew that because Shigo didn't tell him (out of fear that Dougal would betray him). In fact, he's related to one of the protagonist army's characters too (first cousins). That relative is also going to be the one who kills him, and he kills him with a heavy heart because he tried and failed to convince Dougal to leave Shigo. However, Dougal is still content with knowing where he really came from, and with his last breath, wishes peace for everyone.

Not bad for a Camus I wrote without realizing, I'd say. :P

Edited February 26, 2017 by Anacybele

[Augestein]

Lloyd and Linus are by far the best version of this. It's not even a contest. Both are on a team that's being fused with a team of evil people, and they aren't actually believing all of the garbage they hear, and actually think that Sonia is bad news. The first time they fight you is more of a test to see what your heroes are about. The second time, they are out for blood because they believed your group killed their brother. They are by far the best version of this. No contest. 

4 hours ago, Thane said:

"Father is just under the weather - that's all."

No I'm not making that up, that's an actual Xander quote here: https://youtu.be/IqM-vPACZ3M?list=PLJIAsg8WoieRJSW9uMV7ew_8y8vsjhew4&t=110

Needless to say, a Camus should never have to justify their loyalty like this.

As much as it pains me to say ... I actually understand Xander's behavior, I'll say that this actually makes sense. Xander's behavior honestly reminds me of my oldest sister towards our father, a man that's done horrible self-destructive things to his own family, but she ultimately forgives because growing up he always favored her (like more than his own wife), and wasn't a dick to her personally. 

It's probably the biggest reason that there's a huge rift between the youngest, me, and the oldest, my sister. Xander's behavior here isn't actually that bad (in terms of believable storytelling) . It's frustrating, but it's actually kinda believable. And don't get me wrong storyline Xander is still kind of a jerk here, but it's a type of insensitivity that can be believed because he's the oldest, the heir to the throne, and he got the most of Garon's good years before he became possessed. Perhaps it's because of my own familial problems, but I can at least forgive Xander because he eventually comes around. At least in Conquest. Hoshido Xander is just dumb.

He "holds back" and let's Corrin kill him because...? Getting stabbed by swords hurts. It'd be easier to just... You know, leave.

[NekoKnight]

49 minutes ago, Gruntagen said:

Wait, I've never had problems with Selena and Bryce's decisions to stay loyal to their country/master. Why does it make you facepalm?

Bryce came off as less justified to me. He stays by Ashnard's side even when the latter admits to being a guilty of regicide and patricide. Bryce only has loyalty to the royal line, no matter who sits on the throne.

36 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Speaking of Awakening you could probably make a case for Mustafa too.

I don't consider him a true Camus because he's being coerced to fight instead of siding with the baddies because of his own convictions.

[Extrasolar]

5 hours ago, Thane said:

I'm generally not the biggest fan of this archetype, so I hope I won't come across as too cynical here.

To me the most important part would be whether or not they agree with the motives of the villain. Since I love shitting on main story Xander, I'll once again say that he simply doesn't work as a sympathetic character because he willingly goes along with something he knows to be wrong. Then again, one could argue that he's not a Camus because he's actually not portrayed as a bad guy in spite of his atrocities. 

Like, if the Camus is a guy you could see yourself having a drink with, the image sort of gets ruined when he goes back to the evil empire to fight for the glory of a puppy kicker. For this archetype to work, the conflict needs to be a lot more human than normal Fire Emblem stories.

 

 

 

I think the biggest problem with the archetype is its tendency to fall into "Lawful Stupid" territory. For those unfamiliar with tabletop games, "Lawful Stupid" refers to the actions of an ostensibly "Lawful Good/Neutral" (as all of the Camuses are...Camii? What is even the plural?) character who prioritizes loyalty to their cause over literally everything else, being blind and/or excusing any horrible or questionable actions on the part of the people they serve, and continuing to serve even if it means harming other people.

That's why I've always liked the description of "Lawful Good" in the 3.5 D&D handbook: "A Lawful Good character refuses to serve as an instrument of tyranny." Looking at you, Xander!

4 hours ago, Thane said:

"Father is just under the weather - that's all."

No I'm not making that up, that's an actual Xander quote here: https://youtu.be/IqM-vPACZ3M?list=PLJIAsg8WoieRJSW9uMV7ew_8y8vsjhew4&t=110

Needless to say, a Camus should never have to justify their loyalty like this.

 

 

 

Aaaaand this is the huge, overarching problem with the Conquest path. You and your siblings (who are meant to be morally decent people, if not upstanding, in Xander's case) rampage across an enemy country, slaying hundreds of innocent people, and punishing those that simply want to protect their way of life and their homeland, to the point of essentially forcing Ryoma to commit suicide on our behalf because of some pipe dream that Garon will become the man he hasn't been for years, and the man that the audience never sees him as in the first place?

Just because they're scared to stand up to Garon? Sure, he's their father, but there's a damn line.

Makes every single one of the royals in Conquest a lot more unsympathetic than was intended, that's for sure.

Argh. Conquest, you needed some huge rewrites to work.

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

I think a big thing in Eldigan's favour is that they depicted his situation as a lot more limited in options than a lot of other Camus in the series. Sigurd is unwillingly a representative of a nation that is tearing Agustria apart so even with the friendship, Eldigan has a lot less reason to defect than most other Camus. Aside from being a Camus his only other reasonable options are to completely abandon his country and defect to a neutral one or to try and pull off a coup which would only divide his nation even more while Grandbell is sitting there (already occupying half of it) just itching to seize control. And when it comes down to it, he doesn't just blindly fight the heroes without questioning the motives of his superiors. He continues to question Chagall and even gets executed for it (unless you don't want the Earth Sword for some reason). Honestly he's probably the most reasonable Camus in the series by a wide margin.

 

 

 

I'd agree that Eldigan is probably the best case of this...but Eldigan is still blinded by Lawful Stupid, to an extent. He was completely locked to his family's oath to Shagall, even when it's clear that Shagall is a douche at the best with no good motives whatsoever. I mean, there's family honor, and then there's being the tool of a madman.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Gruntagen]

Hey, now that I think about it, you could probably put Micaiah down as an example of a Lawful Stupid Camus, too. Fighting for the sake of upholding a spineless prince and a nation filled with racists who see her as a god when bound by curse to fight for an evil aristocracy. Heck, she didn't even know about the curse in 3-6, yet she was still willing to approve of a "sub-human hunt" under cover of darkness. And when she does learn of it, she SETS A RIGHTEOUS ARMY AFLAME.

[saisymbolic]

I can't really comment on the earlier games, but I felt particularly emphatic for Shiraham. There is nothing more tragic than resignation in the face of an unavoidable death. Even more heartbreaking when you make Jill fight her own father; I probably would have defected back as well if I met my Dad on the battlefield under those same circumstances. Bryce, on the other hand, I wasn't feeling too much—I honestly just write him off as some random General in my damn way.

[RedEyedDrake]

One of the things that really stuck with me about Camus' actions in the War of Shadows is how he actually IS this seemingly ideal paragon of the "for king and country" sort of chivalry and honor. And not just 'ideal' but 'idealistic' too, in the sense that he genuinely believes in this way of life and holds it above all.

...And that is the problem and why he is an antagonist. Meanwhile, to quote: "A kingless country is a country still; but a king without subjects rules naught but hills.” What I got from it is that while he did see 'the people' as precious he also saw them as sort of an extension of 'the country'. As if 'the country' is inherently its own thing and 'the people' are complementary to it. Meanwhile, Marth and Caeda are much more humanist and also much more pragmatic (but are undoubtedly also benevolent about it) on the subjects of "what makes a kingdom" and proper conduct. By contrast, Camus, when the choice came down to it, chose 'the country' and the integrity of his own honor over 'the people' and stuck to his sense of chivalry. This becomes especially prominent when that same chapter has a person of similar standing to Camus be willing to make the opposite choice. And no, as cruel as it may sound, Jubello and Yuliya are not an actual factor here. I do not believe that a kingdom's worth of people should be made to pay the price for the twins' lives (not when such a choice becomes completely unavoidable, anyway).

In other words, this is sort of like Pokemon Black where the protagonist sees the truth of the situation for all of said situation's facets while the antagonist is willing to have innocents pay the price for what he believes in and can be said to be blinded by his own ideals.

And don't get me wrong here. I understand how some people can end up with such values and stick to such behavior. But I most definitely do not approve of such behavior due to what it actually entails. In a "word", there's a reason as to why Camus' battle theme is named "Clash of Two Virtues".

@Refa:

You can have a Medeus archetype be something beyond some force of nature-esque evil force. Heck, Medeus himself is an example of being something more like that.

Edited March 10, 2017 by RedEyedDrake

[Thane]

2 hours ago, Augestein said:

Xander's behavior here isn't actually that bad (in terms of believable storytelling) . 

It's believable because of assumptions, you mean. We know very, very little about Garon and Xander's relationship other than Xander finding his father scary and tough but fair as a kid. We don't know how Garon acted towards Xander before or after the transformation, how old he was at the time or anything of the sort. 

However, no matter how believable it is, it doesn't change the fact that it's horribly, horribly written. If we never get to experience Garon and Xander's relationship, and if it's never the forefront of Xander's behavior or personality which is explored in depth, then that excuse simply doesn't work. Xander's supports reveal that his primary motivations are his family and his country, not obeying Garon which comes at the expense of both. In Corrin's A support, he even says he's now strong enough to stand up to him, yet we don't see that in the main game. The simple truth is that in the context of what the game wants us to think of Xander and how he acts in his supports, his main story portrayal makes absolutely zero sense, and no anecdote will change that.

And no, Xander doesn't "come around" in Conquest; he stands face to face with an evil monster and he flat out admits everything he has done up until that point has been pointless. That's not heroic, that's not a personal victory, it's a scumbag getting a convenient excuse to finally do the right thing.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Thane