Creating a Camus

[Irysa]

travant is a better camus than ishtar

[Augestein]

14 minutes ago, Thane said:

What still doesn't make sense is why you bring that up; it's still a nonsensical argument. Xander has known the entire time that what they did was pointless, a convenient excuse shows up, so he stops and is still praised as a hero at the end of the game.

We were talking about whether or not Xander stood up to Garon, I say no and you say "yeah but he could've went on killing people". I'm trying to wrap my head around what you're even trying to get at. It makes no sense in the context of our conversation. Do you think this somehow proves anything at all?

Because you're refusing to listen. And this is not at all relevant. 

Because Xander starts to oppose "Garon" around Hinoka-- he doesn't do anything, but the game at least makes mention that there's Xander supporters and Garon supporters. And more pressingly, in terms of Camus characters, Xander is at least able to stop carrying out the orders of the villain, Garon, which puts him ahead of characters like Bryce, Hetzel and Levail , Shiraham, Brunya which continue to carry out the orders whether they know the truth or not. So yeah, I know you can't resist bashing Fates at any given moment man, but cool your jets and think about the topic itself. 

 

8 minutes ago, Gruntagen said:

In the same sense that Eye of Argon is still terrible literature even if it doesn't make spelling errors, just because Xander's scenario could be made even more cringeworthy doesn't mean he isn't already an unrelatable and unsympathetic character. I'd be tempted to say he's also unlikable, but then that'd probably get me to come into conflict with people who like him for his looks and gameplay value.

Except again, we're talking about more than 1 character. We're comparing other Camus characters and counting Xander as one. So YES, it's absolutely imperative that we mention that "Xander could be worse," when he could have done what worse characters have done in the series. In a topic about them...?  All I mentioned from the start was that Xander at least has the whole "let's not kill father," going for him. A lot of the Camus characters don't even have that. 

[Thane]

27 minutes ago, Augestein said:

Because you're refusing to listen. And this is not at all relevant. 

I'm merely trying to make sure I understand your arguments, which is a monumental challenge. How is that refusing to listen?

27 minutes ago, Augestein said:

Xander is at least able to stop carrying out the orders of the villain

After he has gone against everthing he believes in, admitted the war had been for naught and daddy dearest has been revealed to be a literal monster as opposed to a figurative one, yes. Which, again, is merely a convenient excuse for him.

Weren't we talking about the believability of Xander's actions? How did we end up with this debate?

27 minutes ago, Augestein said:

think about the topic itself.

I am. In my very first post here I said one could argue that Xander isn't a Camus because of his portrayal as a hero in spite of the atrocities he commits. The fact that you bring up a bunch of names of the archetype really doesn't contribute anything to the discussion at hand. 

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you're trying to get at. It seems like your whole argument boils down to this earlier quote:

Quote

Xander could have easily turned around and been like: "he's still right, we should kill all of Hoshido." He could have been worse. Much worse. 

Which, again, can't even count as an argument. For every new post you write, I'm having a harder time understanding what you're trying to say.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Thane

[Augestein]

Well then I give up, because I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here now. 

[Gruntagen]

I notice that a big line of your argument making is to degrade other Camuses or pseudo-Camuses for the sake of putting Xander above them. 

Yes, Xander is allowed a bit of wiggle room that other Camuses don't get (most notably the fact that he lives), but that's not because he's somehow better written than those other characters. It's because Xander is a playable unit in Conquest and Revelations. Camuses may have a really loose criteria as-is, but the point of them is that are supposed to be antagonistic towards the player because of their morals, not merely tied down into following the plot. 

 

EDIT: Ninja'd. Stopping before this becomes lolcow pinata 

Edited February 26, 2017 by Gruntagen

[Thane]

5 minutes ago, Augestein said:

Well then I give up, because I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here now. 

I'm merely trying to understand you. You're the one who says Xander has a shred of believability, then you said he stood up against Garon, then you said he could've been worse and finally you bring up all the other Camuses as if to prove a point. I'm still trying to grasp what that point is. Don't try to turn this around; you're the one who has been making all of these unorthodox claims, not I.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Thane

[Nobody]

I want to vote Ishtar as the best, but she's lumped with Eltshan, who's the absolutely worst without any doubt, so I voted Selena, who's a pretty good one.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Nobody

[Gruntagen]

May as well switch focuses.

What about characters who explicitly fight because they're being blackmailed or otherwise coerced into fighting for the bad guys? Eagler in FE7, Mustafa and Yen'Fay in FE13, and Flora in FE14? What would you feel they count as relative to Camuses?

[Augestein]

30 minutes ago, Thane said:

I'm merely trying to understand you. You're the one who says Xander has a shred of believability, then you said he stood up against Garon, then you said he could've been worse and finally you bring up all the other Camuses as if to prove a point. I'm still trying to grasp what that point is. Don't try to turn this around; you're the one who has been making all of these unorthodox claims, not I.

I'm not. But I'm explaining things and your response has been akin to "no" the whole time. Of which I don't understand that. 

 What do you want me to say? All I said was there's at least a shred of something to allow for a somewhat believable behavior. Which it is. I can understand why someone wouldn't want to kill their father. You state "well they didn't go in a backstory about it." Which doesn't matter. Do you or do you not agree that a person under normal circumstances would feel hesitant to side against their father and potentially their kingdom? Botched executions be damned here for a second. You're the one that keeps bringing up the irrelevant stuff here. He does stand up to Garon. The end of Chapter 22. Garon orders the soldiers to be killed at the end of the chapter. Garon and Xander kind of have a stare off-- sure, Xander says "under...Stood." But come around to Chapter 23, and Sakura, the person that was among the group of soldiers being killed, is not dead, nor are her retainers. Plus, Iago and Hans don't kill them on the account that "if Hans and Iago weren't frightened of Xander, they'd be dead right now." And Garon doesn't bring up trying to slaughter the rest of them, Azura even mentions that "Garon's men do not agree with the choice to keep her alive," This literally means that they know she's alive, there's no hiding in the shadows like the Nohrian siblings mentioned in the early game and then it's mentioned by Azura that there is a split in the Nohrian army. Xander supporters and Garon supporters. It's all an exposition dump, and it would have been better to SHOW all of this rather than have Azura talk about it with Corrin afterward, but this is definitely there. Had Xander followed orders completely blindly without any sort of resistance or defiance, Sakura and Hinoka should both be dead. Since they aren't, there's some standing up to him. 

 

33 minutes ago, Gruntagen said:

I notice that a big line of your argument making is to degrade other Camuses or pseudo-Camuses for the sake of putting Xander above them. 

Yes, Xander is allowed a bit of wiggle room that other Camuses don't get (most notably the fact that he lives), but that's not because he's somehow better written than those other characters. It's because Xander is a playable unit in Conquest and Revelations. Camuses may have a really loose criteria as-is, but the point of them is that are supposed to be antagonistic towards the player because of their morals, not merely tied down into following the plot. 

The intent isn't to degrade, but merely state that Xander has something going for him. Which is more than most of this type. I even state that I thought Linus and Lloyd are the best overall because they were at least trying to do the right thing. 

I'm not sure what you're getting at there. 

 

Quote

What about characters who explicitly fight because they're being blackmailed or otherwise coerced into fighting for the bad guys? Eagler in FE7, Mustafa and Yen'Fay in FE13, and Flora in FE14? What would you feel they count as relative to Camuses?

I don't think they should be counted, because they aren't fighting out of loyalty or anything, and despise themselves for doing so. 

Edited February 26, 2017 by Augestein

[Thane]

Just now, Augestein said:

I'm not. But I'm explaining things and your response has been akin to "no" the whole time. Of which I don't understand that. 

 What do you want me to say? All I said was there's at least a shred of something to allow for a somewhat believable behavior. Which it is. I can understand why someone wouldn't want to kill their father. You state "well they didn't go in a backstory about it." Which doesn't matter. Do you or do you not agree that a person under normal circumstances would feel hesitant to side against their father and potentially their kingdom? Botched executions be damned here for a second. You're the one that keeps bringing up the irrelevant stuff here. He does stand up to Garon. The end of Chapter 22. Garon orders the soldiers to be killed at the end of the chapter. Garon and Xander kind of have a stare off-- sure, Xander says "under...Stood." But come around to Chapter 23, and Sakura, the person that was among the group of soldiers being killed, is not dead, nor are her retainers. Plus, Iago and Hans don't kill them on the account that "if Hans and Iago weren't frightened of Xander, they'd be dead right now." And Garon doesn't bring up trying to slaughter the rest of them, Azura even mentions that "Garon's men do not agree with the choice to keep her alive," This literally means that they know she's alive, there's no hiding in the shadows like the Nohrian siblings mentioned in the early game and then it's mentioned by Azura that there is a split in the Nohrian army. Xander supporters and Garon supporters. It's all an exposition dump, and it would have been better to SHOW all of this rather than have Azura talk about it with Corrin afterward, but this is definitely there. Had Xander followed orders completely blindly without any sort of resistance or defiance, Sakura and Hinoka should both be dead. Since they aren't, there's some standing up to him.

I'll respond tomorrow, buddy; my bed is calling me! I don't want to be rude and leave you hanging, but I'll need my strength for a busy day tomorrow. 

[Augestein]

Just now, Thane said:

I'll respond tomorrow, buddy; my bed is calling me! I don't want to be rude and leave you hanging, but I'll need my strength for a busy day tomorrow. 

It's fine. I was doing stuff too, and I need to finish my work. So I'm fine. 

[NoMommaGarchomp]

Wolf gains suicidal tendences in 12 and outright dies in 3 for Hardin.

And with an actual reason. He was a good emperor, a good friend and the one who saved him from slavery.

He is IMO the one with the best reason to follow the obviously corrupted leader.

[ChibiToastExplosion]

I voted Camus, because even though his kingdom was on the wrong side of the war, Marth's entire army swept through Grust and even the "good guys" were killing his countrymen in the war. If he swore an oath to protect them, then he kept to it. He likely served with members of the (now dead) Sabel Order and felt it would be dishonerable to desert when they gave their lives and looked up to him in the end.

Camus is one of my favorite all time FE characters though, so admitted bias.

[Jotari]

9 hours ago, Extrasolar said:

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.

He doesn't just do whatever Shagall says cuz loyalty though. He continues to question Shagall and try to work his way out of the crazy orders while still staying loyal to crown and country. Don't forget he was eventually executed for insubordination.

[NekoKnight]

Hah, after reading a lot of posts here, I'm inclined to change my vote for Lloyd and Linus. Curse you Serenes, making me like my favorite game again!

I do like Selena for being a foil to the other antagonists in the game. Glen has his doubts but is killed before he can take any action. Duessel immediately sees something wrong and defects when he gets the chance. Selena's recognizes her immorality but cannot change her path because of her feelings of gratitude. Three takes on essentially good people who make different choices. The noble old guard being replaced by a sinister new guard is reminiscent of the Black Fang. Glen is Linus/Lloyd, although we don't get a Duessel or Selena in Blazing Sword. I hope future games can have this diversity of antagonists.

3 hours ago, Augestein said:

Except again, we're talking about more than 1 character. We're comparing other Camus characters and counting Xander as one. So YES, it's absolutely imperative that we mention that "Xander could be worse," when he could have done what worse characters have done in the series. In a topic about them...?  All I mentioned from the start was that Xander at least has the whole "let's not kill father," going for him. A lot of the Camus characters don't even have that. 

I understand the point you are making (in this and other posts), but I disagree. Xander doesn't become a better Camus because he eventually sides with the hero (Corrin in Conquest and Revelation) he just stops being a Camus at all. A Camus is supposed to be noble but has his loyalties misplaced, not a hypocritical villain who finally decides to stand for something. The Darth Vader comparison was apt but unlike Xander, I don't think anyone besides Luke thought Vader redeemed himself. As far as how he measures up to other Camus characters, I think the virtue of the character can be outweighed by the evilness of his master. Bryce, for example, doesn't defect even after learning of Ashnards crimes but by that point, Daein is making its last stand and he feels too set in his ways to change. Compare this to Xander who has seen his father's cackling insanity since the very beginning of the game and still does nothing. i don't think any kind of relationship could make one ignore Garon's threats to destroy the world.

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by NekoKnight

[Jotari]

4 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Didn't Shagaal attack again just as Sigurd and Co were leaving. I recall Sigurd saying almost those exact words ''Just as were were about to leave''

Wouldn't Eldigan be able to take over? Take over the country and strike a deal with Sigurd who is leading the force closest to him. He is a descendant of Hezul too and the one being able to wield the holy weapon to boot. I know its non canon but the manga does adress the subject, the reasonable Augustrian commander(Zeke) wants Eldigan to take the throne and he refuses in favor of Shagaal. 

Sigurd was planning to leave but I highly doubt that means Grandbell was (or that Shagall and Eldigan even knew he was planning on leaving). From chapter opening.

Quote

While the troops rested at Agusty Castle, Sigurd worked to fulfill his promise to Eltshan.
He persisted in negotiations aimed to return administrative control back to Agusty.
However, the directive from Barhara to ‘maintain a presence’, and ‘govern the people’, never changed.

In a half year’s time, the officials dispatched to Agustria became exceedingly reckless, and began to abuse the power they were entrusted with.
The discontent of the Agustrian people slowly began to take root.
Before long, a new conflict arose giving Sigurd great cause for concern

Considering Reptor shows up with an army at the end of the chapter and Granbell had just sized Verdane, Isaac and Agustria's own capital, Agustria's fear of the empire and desire to see half their nation returned to them is entirely reasonable. Especially when you have corrupt officials abusing their power in the conquered territories. And yes, I'm sure Eltshan could have deposed Shagall, but not without causing a civil war which would have given Granbell the perfect excuse to invade and "maintain peace".

I think part of what makes people view Eltshan as stupid is the way the game doesn't highlight certain things so reveals will have more impact. They play up Shagall's stupidness (and give him a damn ugly portrait) and downplay Granbell's tyranny in order to make Sigurd look like a more noble character and have his nation's betrayal of him seem like more of a shock.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Jotari

[Gruntagen]

 

56 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Sigurd was planning to leave but I highly doubt that means Grandbell was (or that Shagall and Eldigan even knew he was planning on leaving). From chapter opening.

Considering Reptor shows up with an army at the end of the chapter and Granbell had just sized Verdane, Isaac and Agustria's own capital, Agustria's fear of the empire and desire to see half their nation returned to them is entirely reasonable. Especially when you have corrupt officials abusing their power in the conquered territories. And yes, I'm sure Eltshan could have deposed Shagall, but not without causing a civil war which would have given Granbell the perfect excuse to invade and "maintain peace".

I think part of what makes people view Eltshan as stupid is the way the game doesn't highlight certain things so reveals will have more impact. They play up Shagall's stupidness (and give him a damn ugly portrait) and downplay Granbell's tyranny in order to make Sigurd look like a more noble character and have his nation's betrayal of him seem like more of a shock.

I'd say it's less that the game downplays Grandbell's tyranny than is is the game completely failing to show it until Reptor and Langobalt arrive to kill Sigurd after Chapter 3. Doesn't help that Agustria's also got people like Elliot, Macbeth and the Orgahill pirates to share Shagall's load of justifying Sigurd's actions. 

Edited February 27, 2017 by Gruntagen

[Jotari]

28 minutes ago, Gruntagen said:

 

I'd say it's less that the game downplays Grandbell's tyranny than is is the game completely failing to show it until Reptor and Langobalt arrive to kill Sigurd after Chapter 3. Doesn't help that Agustria's also got people like Elliot, Macbeth and the Orgahill pirates to share Shagall's load of justifying Sigurd's actions. 

Well the game does specifically say Granbell had officials abusing their power in Southern Agustria and didn't help Sigurd in the slightest to liberate the land. There's also the questionable status of the campaign in Isaac and the horrible fate Sigurd spared Shannon and Arya from.

[Augestein]

2 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

I do like Selena for being a foil to the other antagonists in the game. Glen has his doubts but is killed before he can take any action. Duessel immediately sees something wrong and defects when he gets the chance. Selena's recognizes her immorality but cannot change her path because of her feelings of gratitude. Three takes on essentially good people who make different choices. The noble old guard being replaced by a sinister new guard is reminiscent of the Black Fang. Glen is Linus/Lloyd, although we don't get a Duessel or Selena in Blazing Sword. I hope future games can have this diversity of antagonists.

Honestly? Me too. I don't mind characters making different or even poor decisions in games that can lead to their deaths. It makes for a more interesting watch when it comes to plot telling. People make mistakes, some lethal, some not. She's sympathetic in the sense that her actions do make sense (you know, ignoring the whole break the seals for the ancient demon king and what not). And I hope there are diverse antagonist like this again as well. It's why SS is one of my faves. 

 

Quote

I understand the point you are making (in this and other posts), but I disagree. Xander doesn't become a better Camus because he eventually sides with the hero (Corrin in Conquest and Revelation) he just stops being a Camus at all. A Camus is supposed to be noble but has his loyalties misplaced, not a hypocritical villain who finally decides to stand for something. The Darth Vader comparison was apt but unlike Xander, I don't think anyone besides Luke thought Vader redeemed himself. As far as how he measures up to other Camus characters, I think the virtue of the character can be outweighed by the evilness of his master. Bryce, for example, doesn't defect even after learning of Ashnards crimes but by that point, Daein is making its last stand and he feels too set in his ways to change. Compare this to Xander who has seen his father's cackling insanity since the very beginning of the game and still does nothing. i don't think any kind of relationship could make one ignore Garon's threats to destroy the world.

I suppose you  could argue that he just stops being a Camus at that point. And I can agree with you on Luke's opinion of Vader. And I agree that this is done abysmally in Fates, my issue is that ... It's also done sloppy in other games too. That's why I was mentioning it. Like Brunya for instance? What possible reason could someone have to serve a man that ... Wants to destroy the world? Or at least humanity. Yet, she does, and has nothing to offer. And my point about Selena wasn't necessarily to bash the character for instance, as we know that ultimately the villains wants to break the Sacred Stones which releases the demon king which is bad news and yet... My issue is that when you think about it, "destroy the world" really doesn't work as a negative when there's a good deal of villains that want to destroy the world and the Camus is at least partially aware and still doesn't care. Bryce? We can't even feel any real pain from him, and his boss quote with Tauroneo pretty much has him say he sees nothing but disaster. And his response is "I can't change." Like... This character might as well have been a generic enemy at this point. The end result is that we either say Xander is not a Camus or he's simply the only one that was smart enough to defect. It's why Lloyd/Linus or even Elidigan stand out as better versions of this, because they are trying to find out what is going on, and can ultimately suffer from a "bad timing" sort of thing. 

37 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well the game does specifically say Granbell had officials abusing their power in Southern Agustria and didn't help Sigurd in the slightest to liberate the land. There's also the questionable status of the campaign in Isaac and the horrible fate Sigurd spared Shannon and Arya from.

It's been awhile, but weren't people basically using Sigurd to do all of their dirty work while they secretly try to off Sigurd's dad in the end and then use their tyrannical abuse on Sigurd by basically stating that he's acted as nothing but a conqueror as Sigurd tries to maintain peace?  It's been awhile since I've played FE4, but I totally remember that being a thing.

[NekoKnight]

5 minutes ago, Augestein said:

Honestly? Me too. I don't mind characters making different or even poor decisions in games that can lead to their deaths. It makes for a more interesting watch when it comes to plot telling. People make mistakes, some lethal, some not. She's sympathetic in the sense that her actions do make sense (you know, ignoring the whole break the seals for the ancient demon king and what not). And I hope there are diverse antagonist like this again as well. It's why SS is one of my faves. 

It's been a while since I played SS but my impression was only a few people (Knoll among others) were really aware of the the Demon King awakening through the destruction of the Sacred Stones. Like, when Duessel questions the emperor, he's genuinely confused about the motives behind the war. Had it been widely known by the non-evil generals what would happen if Virgarde/Lyon succeeded, they probably would have turned on him immediately.

11 minutes ago, Augestein said:

I suppose you  could argue that he just stops being a Camus at that point.

Xander is hard to pin down. He was obviously intended to be a Camus but he is so inconsistent with his values that it's hard to tell if he's a villain or anti-villain. I think his writing is very similar to Nohrrin, someone who speaks to high morals but never acts on them until the end of the game when it's too late to change anything. This wouldn't be terrible writing if the game acknowledged his weakness of character but Fates treats the end of Conquest as his triumph, not his failure to detect Garon's evil or stand by his morals.

[Jotari]

I don't think we should really even consider Xander a Camus outside of Birthright since he violates pretty much the biggest rule of the archetype in that he actively fights alongside the player. Talking about how comparatively good or bad he's written in Conquest is a bit moot since it's not really a parallel.

[Thane]

11 hours ago, Augestein said:

What do you want me to say? All I said was there's at least a shred of something to allow for a somewhat believable behavior. Which it is. I can understand why someone wouldn't want to kill their father. You state "well they didn't go in a backstory about it." Which doesn't matter. 

How can you say that doesn't matter? It's the only thing that matters because paying lip service to it doesn't explain the extent Xander goes to obey the orders of daddy dearest. Because the image of Xander that the game tries to convey and the the man we see in the support conversations clash so completely with how he handles Garon in the main story pretty much just because it's based on a few off-hand comments that Garon used to be a good guy. 

For Garon and Xander's relationship to offer even an iota of credibility in terms of the latter's actions, it needed to be expanded upon heavily. As it stands now, it's utterly unbelievable.

11 hours ago, Augestein said:

Do you or do you not agree that a person under normal circumstances would feel hesitant to side against their father and potentially their kingdom?

This is not an argument, but a basic appeal to emotion. 

As Xander is portrayed, and the way Garon is acting, there is absolutely zero excuse for Xander to have any doubts about what's best for his country. He even flat out admits the war was pontless in Conquest, so he has known the entire time that they have been in the wrong, and for someone who claims to be all about being a good crown prince and the pillar of his family, it doesn't make sense that he would willingly do the wrong thing to try and please one man.

Don't try dismiss the context of this conflict.

11 hours ago, Augestein said:

You're the one that keeps bringing up the irrelevant stuff here. 

I just want to point out that you were the one who started bringing up Camuses as if to prove a point when I had said Xander might not even be one. You seem to forget your own words.

11 hours ago, Augestein said:

He does stand up to Garon. The end of Chapter 22. Garon orders the soldiers to be killed at the end of the chapter. Garon and Xander kind of have a stare off-- sure, Xander says "under...Stood." But come around to Chapter 23, and Sakura, the person that was among the group of soldiers being killed, is not dead, nor are her retainers. 

Is this how revisionist history is made? Xander promised to let the surrendering Hoshidans live in chapter 22, but went back on his word when Garon showed up; how is that standing up to him? 

Here's the relevant script for chapter 22 in its entirety:

Spoiler

Xander: Listen well, Hoshidan army. This fort belongs to Nohr now! To fight back would be futile. Throw down your weapons and surrender! Do as I say, and the lives of all remaining soldiers will be spared!

(The camera closes in on the Hoshidan)

Yukimura: Bah! I'm afraid we've been outmatched. We have no choice... None who remain are in any shape to continue this battle. The wisest path open to us is to surrender and live to fight another day...

Sakura: I'm s-so sorry... I should have... If only I were...

Yukimura: Nonsense, Lady Sakura. You fought bravely, I am quite proud of you. The same goes for you two, Subaki and Hana.

Subaki: Yukimura... This cannot be happening...

Hana: *sniff* We really lost...didn't we?

Yukimura: Yes, I'm afraid so. But we are still alive. As long as we live, so does our cause. Let us lay down our weapons now. It's time to surrender. There's no reason for any more blood to be shed on these stones.

Sakura: *sniff* Y-you're right Yukimura. It's over...

(The camera returns to Xander)

Xander: Hoshidan army! This is the last time I will repeat myself. The Nohrian army has claimed this fort for our own. Surrender now and—

Yukimura: We heard you the first time, Crown Prince of Nohr.

Xander: Then you should have responded sooner, lest I mistake your silence for cowardice. Or do you still intend to fight the inevitable?

(Camera changes back to Yukimura)

Yukimura: No, we do not. You have won. The Hoshidan army surrenders. All remaining soldiers have been instructed to lay down their weapons. We do so in good faith that you will, at the least, spare our princess...

Xander: You have made the right choice. Your fallen queen would be proud. In return, I promise that your princess and your troops will be spared. Soldiers! Bind the prisoners! But under no circumstances are they to be harmed!

(A pair of soldiers walks past Xander)

Nohrian: Yes, milord!

Yukimura: Ugh...

Sakura: ...

(They return and walk past the Avatar, while bringing Sakura and Yukimura with them)

Avatar: Sakura, Yukimura... Please forgive me. I know it seems cruel, but this is the only way to end this awful war once and for all. I know you don't understand now... But perhaps one day...

(A weapon strike is heard in the distance)

Hoshidan: GYAAAAAA!!

Avatar: Huh?!

(Scene transitions)

Hans: HA! Is this really all you Hoshidan rats are capable of? Pathetic!

Avatar: Hans! What are you doing here?!

Yukimura: What is the meaning of this?! You swore to spare our soldiers' lives if we surrendered!

Sakura: No, please! I need to heal them right away or th-they'll... Please untie my hands! I swear I won't try to escape! PLEASE, let me help them!!

Iago: I'm afraid I cannot allow that, princess of Hoshido.

Avatar: Iago!

Iago: Ah, if it isn't Prince/Princess Avatar! My, how easily you seized this fort. What a truly impressive display of brute force! King Garon will certainly shower praise upon you for this grand triumph.

Avatar: I could not care less about praise right now, Iago. What is the meaning of this?!

Iago: We were just SO worried about our young prince/princess! We came to help. Now that we're here, just leave the messy part to us. General Hans here is all too eager to put these sorry Hoshidans out of their misery.

Avatar: No, you monster! Those soldiers already surrendered! The battle is won! I will not allow you to take the lives of unarmed soldiers. Stand down, NOW.

Iago: Oh dear, how awkward. You may wish for us to stand down, but you see...

Hans: Die, die, DIE!!

(Another strike is heard)

Hoshidan: AAAHHHH!!

Hoshidan: GAAAHHHH!!

Sakura: NOOO! Please, stop it! Don't kill anyone else—I beg of you! *sob* Please...

Avatar: That's ENOUGH, Iago! I order you to stop this madness!

Xander: Damn you, insolent fool! Stop with this cruelty now, or so help me, I will kill you myself!

Iago: What?! You can't be serious, Lord Xander!

Xander: I am not known to make light of serious matters, Iago. I refuse to harbor a cruel and spineless general in the proud Nohrian army. As crown prince, I will not hesitate to strike you down for the honor of Nohr.

???: Not today, Xander. Stand down.

Xander: No... It cannot be!

Garon: ...

Xander: Father...

Garon: My orders have been given. I will not allow anyone, even my own child, to disobey.

Avatar: But, Father! Xander was just—

Garon: Did I not make myself clear?! Disobey and die!

Avatar: ... ...Y-yes, Father.

Xander: ...Under...stood.

Garon: Good. Let that be the end of it.

Yukimura: Liars! Cowards! Filthy Nohrian scum! I will never forgive you for this! NEVER! You're all monsters! Demons! DEVILS!!

Sakura: *sob* H-how could this...happen... They were supposed to be safe... This is... It's just too cruel!

Garon: You've done well, my children. Hoshido is as good as conquered. I am proud of you.

Avatar: ... ...

Saying "under...stood" explicitly means not standing up to him since what follows is him letting the atrocities he said he'd prevent happen. The fact that Sakura and her retainers survive is only a result of shoddy writing that happens off screen - and not because Xander opposes Garon, but because he keeps his word to only three people he promised safety. He does so via threatening Iago and Hans, not standing up to Garon. 

However, even if you were to count this as him standing up to Garon for some inexpicable reason, just how do you explain how they found themselves in that situation to begin with? If Xander had defended the guys he promised would keep their lives by arguing against Garon, I would have agreed with you. However, that's just not what happens.

Oh hey, speaking of future chapters, in chapter 24, do you want to know what's funny? Xander wants to starve the Hoshidans in the capital out rather than fighting them, but Garon says kill them all, so he engages in combat. You know what the best part is? He tells Corrin to not let evil men rule over their vision of a peaceful future, even though that's just what happened. 



If you think that's Xander having a spine, then we can stop debating right now because we will never, ever see eye to eye.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Thane

[Augestein]

6 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

It's been a while since I played SS but my impression was only a few people (Knoll among others) were really aware of the the Demon King awakening through the destruction of the Sacred Stones. Like, when Duessel questions the emperor, he's genuinely confused about the motives behind the war. Had it been widely known by the non-evil generals what would happen if Virgarde/Lyon succeeded, they probably would have turned on him immediately.

Well if she doesn't know, this is  be a mistake of the narrative, because the game starts out by describing the stones' abilities in the introduction paragraph. The generic soldiers act like it's bad, Hayden mentions in "New Journey" that it's bad. If she's not supposed to understand that, the game doesn't make us aware that she wouldn't. The part that we found out from Knoll was the Grado earthquake that would destroy Grado. 

 

3 hours ago, Thane said:

How can you say that doesn't matter? It's the only thing that matters because paying lip service to it doesn't explain the extent Xander goes to obey the orders of daddy dearest. Because the image of Xander that the game tries to convey and the the man we see in the support conversations clash so completely with how he handles Garon in the main story pretty much just because it's based on a few off-hand comments that Garon used to be a good guy. 

It doesn't matter in this case in the narrative because in a standard familial relationship one shouldn't have to explain why someone doesn't want to kill their own family. You'd need an explanation for why they would want to kill their family. Or in the case of a narrative, you'd need to explain why someone would need / want to kill someone. The expectation that this is something that needs to be explained is honestly pretty ridiculous. It's something that would be nice, and the lack of explanation is rather bothersome, but that's what stops Fates from being a good narrative. Supports ruin a lot of things in the main story and this, and that's honestly a problem here, there's a dissonance between Ryoma in the story and Ryoma in supports because of S ranking (which turns him from merely ignorant of your heritage to an out and out liar). Even supports with Xander have a problem. Like Peri, why on earth would he want someone like that as his retainer? His other supports lend credence to the fact that he wouldn't have someone like that, heck, Corrin even asks this question in his/her own support with Peri, and we're never given a real answer. So the image of Xander is already inconsistent whether we keep his character separate from story and supports. If it was just something that was limited to story Xander and support Xander I'd be fine, but Fates has this problem in supports too.  

 

3 hours ago, Thane said:

For Garon and Xander's relationship to offer even an iota of credibility in terms of the latter's actions, it needed to be expanded upon heavily. As it stands now, it's utterly unbelievable.

Their explanation IS the "off-hand" comments. It's unrewarding to read, but it's there. 

 

3 hours ago, Thane said:

As Xander is portrayed, and the way Garon is acting, there is absolutely zero excuse for Xander to have any doubts about what's best for his country. He even flat out admits the war was pontless in Conquest, so he has known the entire time that they have been in the wrong, and for someone who claims to be all about being a good crown prince and the pillar of his family, it doesn't make sense that he would willingly do the wrong thing to try and please one man.

He's a good crown prince for Nohr. That's not entirely wrong. He serves Nohr in the end. A guy that does his king's orders without fail would be a good prince. He kills less than Garon does as well, so it makes him "honorable" because he doesn't kill people like traditional Nohr. He's a pillar of support for his family in the sense that he doesn't let them die, and finds ways to circumvent Garon. Story Xander honestly isn't to blame here. It's support Xander that's to blame because support Xander isn't the same character as story Xander. The issue is that support Xander is a better guy than story Xander. I think the story would have been better if they had Xander say he continues to fight because he feels a civil war while on the brink of war with Hoshido is a bad idea, but the game seems to take this strange "minimum dialogue" problem for things that would probably be better to talk about. 

The conflict here isn't me being dismissive, but rather, acknowledging that there's some inconsistencies with supports and the story. Remove supports, and Xander simply just isn't nearly as strong of a person as the supports claim. We see this in Revelations, Birthright and Conquest. Rather than moan about Xander being weak, I acknowledge that Xander supports are messed up, or even things that mention Xander. Elise x Arthur for instance? Why is this even a thing? Let's make Xander smile, and he's not even there. If that's not a sign that supports are in their own void, I don't know what is. 

 

3 hours ago, Thane said:

I just want to point out that you were the one who started bringing up Camuses as if to prove a point when I had said Xander might not even be one. You seem to forget your own words.

Except I'm fine with Xander from Conquest not being one. I never tried to prove he was. And Xander!Birthright would be one, of which I already said "he's awful." So no, I didn't forget anything. Especially jarring that you'd say that when you were claiming that you were confused by what I said earlier. So you'd be the last person that could even say what I was trying to do or if I seem to have forgotten my own words.

 

And as for Chaper 22, then how do you explain Sakura not dying? Did she just kinda warp away into Xander's camp and that's the end of that? Why even mention that there's a divide between Garon supporters and Xander? It's off screen that it happens-- which is honestly one of the most lousy things I've seen in a plot in a long time, but it's definitely there. The last time we saw something like this with Cheve, Xander wasn't there, and Cheve got destroyed. This time, prisoners are mentioned at the start of 23, which they weren't beforehand. The difference here is that Xander is there. That's not  revisionist history, but me accepting that something was actually done about it. So unless you can explain the magical warping Sakura and company, this is kinda garbage that you're saying to fit your own argument. 

 

Quote

However, even if you were to count this as him standing up to Garon for some inexpicable reason, just how do you explain how they found themselves in that situation to begin with? If Xander had defended the guys he promised would keep their lives by arguing against Garon, I would have agreed with you. However, that's just not what happens.
 

So Sakura died? 

3 hours ago, Thane said:

Oh hey, speaking of future chapters, in chapter 24, do you want to know what's funny? Xander wants to starve the Hoshidans in the capital out rather than fighting them, but Garon says kill them all, so he engages in combat. You know what the best part is? He tells Corrin to not let evil men rule over their vision of a peaceful future, even though that's just what happened. 

And then Garon is killed at the end. Granted he's a slime monster, but ... Evil men didn't rule. So yeah, the plot didn't have Xander lie. It's just done in the most idiotic way a person could realistically achieve. 

I'm not sure why you even want to drag this discussion this far out to prove... What now? Xander sucks? Okay, he does, but I'm not sure what's the point of dragging this so far from an off-hand comment of "I can understand why a person wouldn't want to kill their father." 

I'd see eye-to-eye with you if we're talking about Conquest Xander being a Camus. I can agree that Camus normally have to die for their beliefs for them to count as one. I don't agree with the fact that there's no reason to not want to kill your father or that there should be an explanation needed. There should be an explanation needed for why a person would kill their father. "He's evil" isn't a very good one, because the narrative has Xander say stupid stuff like "he's under the weather" to explain why he doesn't. Unfulfilling does not mean that it wasn't there. Which seems to be the large part that you're missing-- or a lot people that talk about Fates for that matter. 

[Rapier]

It depends where their loyalties lie. I think a Camus who followed someone like Trabant could've worked much better. Unfortunately, since Fire Emblem tends to pick the extremes of good vs evil morality instead of sticking with a lighter grey x darker grey morality, it's very hard to sympathize with the Camus archetype.

I mean, I think I can see a way where a Camus can be sympathized even in an extreme good vs evil morality standards story. Suppose Bryce fought for Ashnard because he foresaw Daein becoming a puppet country under a superpower that was as bad as or worse than their king. I'd understand his motivations better and give him more credit if it were the case (well, let's forget that Ashnard wants to bring the end of the world for a moment...). I remember a topic about Eltshan where a member argued on his favor through the premise that the Grandbell nobility was as corrupt as Shagaal and that listening to Sigurd would only subdue Agustria to worse rulers, thus he fought not only for his liege but for the good of his country. This is more than the game presents us and might be considered a bit of a stretch, but it's an interesting theory nonetheless.

The formula is a bit like this: In a grey x grey morality setting*, have the Camus archetype character fight for what good is on his side as a foil for his motives. In a good x evil setting, have the Camus archetype character fight for his side to prevent an evil that affects stuff he holds dear as a foil for his motives.

*It doesn't need to look further than Yggdra Union, which is a simple example that stands as a standard good x evil morality setting but becomes more nuanced as the game progresses. It's not necessary to be more complex than that.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Rapier

[Tuvy]

Lloyd and Linus for the win!

I feel for them because I'm a twin as well.