Creating a Camus

[RJWalker]

1 hour ago, Rapier said:

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.

I'm one on the people who have presented that theory, though I'm not the first to do so. The theory is not 'more than the game presents us.'

This is the text straight from the game at the start of Chapter 3:

Quote

After losing Agusty, King Shagaal moved his royal court north to Madino. Keeping his word with Eltshan, Sigurd did not pursue him. 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.

What Eldigan says to Sigurd at the end of Chapter 2:

Quote

“Yeah, I managed somehow. Sigurd, what’s going on here? Your army has gained control of the capital city, and I hear that Grandbell has dispatched officials to each of our castles. You’re treating us just like we were a tributary state. Did Grandbell take occupation of Agustria while I was away!? Your answer better be good, Sigurd!”

[...]

“Hmm… Really? Well, I’ll take your word for it. Okay. You’ve got one year. Until then, I’ll be up north at Madino Castle protecting my lord. I’ve also got the Cross Knights stationed up at Fort Silvail. If it came to it, I could take you out in a moment’s notice… Sigurd, you break your promise and you can count on that! You got me!?”

That's all the evidence the theory really needs. We can see that Eldigan clearly recognises Grannvale's true intentions and is willing to threaten his lifelong friend as the future of Agustria has a higher priority.

EDIT: Trying to post from mobile is more problematic than it should be... I don't know what was up with the giant font size.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Ranger Jack Walker

[Rapier]

Ah, you're right, my bad. I didn't remember those quotes.

In light of this, I guess Eltshan really is a good Camus.

[Gruntagen]

You think there could've been a way to show Grandbell's oppression of Agustria wihout detracting from the gameplay?

[RJWalker]

Can I just say that TearRing Saga handles it's Camuses extremely poorly?

From Barbarossa to Ernst to Julius. All of them die pointlessly due to a huge misunderstanding. All of them are convinced that Runan and Sennet will not get along and decide to buy enough time to ensure Sennet is the one who successful retakes Canaan, not Runan. All so that Sennet is in a position to bargain from when forming an alliance, even though Runan and Sennet would have no beef with each other. And so they all die in battle.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Ranger Jack Walker

[Etria]

I like the trope in other games, but I don't think Fire Emblem does it well enough. Camus' work best in a story with a grey-grey morality. Their motives need to be understandable; otherwise the player will just think "What an idiot" (see the Bryce/Xander/etc discussion). And Fire Emblem just doesn't have that kind of storytelling. It's always good against evil. I can't remember any FE game where the villain side has something that makes me stop and reconsider my opinion about them.

Selena is one where I could sympathize, mostly because "doing the wrong thing because of love" is something that is often used in fiction and it works most of the time. Humans do extremely stupid and sometimes self-destructive things in the name of love. So I could see her side (and I like that she knows that loves blinds her, even though she's too weak to do something against it).

I barely remember anything about Linus and Lloyd, but their situation was also generally sympathetic. I didn't choose them because I remember too little about their story.

[Extrasolar]

39 minutes ago, Efina Leonhart said:

I like the trope in other games, but I don't think Fire Emblem does it well enough. Camus' work best in a story with a grey-grey morality. Their motives need to be understandable; otherwise the player will just think "What an idiot" (see the Bryce/Xander/etc discussion). And Fire Emblem just doesn't have that kind of storytelling. It's always good against evil. .

I think boiling all FE conflicts down to "good versus evil" is simplifying a bit. The series has a fair bit of gray morality, even if there is normally an antagonistic country/force that the protagonists fight under (though Fates absolutely mangled their attempts at invoking gray morality, but that's a post for another day...) Tellius in general has a lot of grayer morality, more evident in RD than POR, but still there in POR. Daein was the aggressor, but in some ways was better/more progressive than "good" country Crimea and Begnion. They just had Ashnard there screwing everything up, and RD's Part I flipped everything on its head with Daein as the "good" country.

Speaking of Tellius, I think Zelgius is...sort of a Camus archetype done right. He's an antagonist, but his motivations are understandable and his backstory sympathetic. He's a good guy without malice toward anyone, honestly, but his loyalty to Sephiran and Begnion as a whole keeps him from joining the protagonist's side.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Extrasolar

[NekoKnight]

42 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

Speaking of Tellius, I think Zelgius is...sort of a Camus archetype done right. He's an antagonist, but his motivations are understandable and his backstory sympathetic. He's a good guy without malice toward anyone, honestly, but his loyalty to Sephiran and Begnion as a whole keeps him from joining the protagonist's side.

Well, if you ignore his scumbag behavior as the BK then maybe.

[Extrasolar]

9 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

Well, if you ignore his scumbag behavior as the BK then maybe.

I mean, he didn't know that Gawain had crippled himself. All he wanted was a nice little duel with his former, estranged mentor...and then some random kid comes stumbling in. I mean, it's not like he directly antagonized Ike after Greil's death or anything...he just...happened to be working for some pretty corrupt people. Not to mention, he let Ike beat him after he found out that he didn't really beat Gawain at full strength. So I wouldn't say it's all that scumbag.

[Azure Sen]

1 hour ago, Extrasolar said:

Speaking of Tellius, I think Zelgius is...sort of a Camus archetype done right. He's an antagonist, but his motivations are understandable and his backstory sympathetic. He's a good guy without malice toward anyone, honestly, but his loyalty to Sephiran and Begnion as a whole keeps him from joining the protagonist's side.

We are talking about the same guy who was fully enjoying scaring the pants off Mist, made it clear that he was going to kill both her and Ike, fought Greil in a fight he knew Greil couldn't win because of the blessed armor, was willingly participating in a scheme to exterminate the world's inhabitants, gladly did all sorts of awful things for Ashnard to further Sephiran's plans, showed that he had no qualms about doing awful things if Sephiran ordered him to, and whose Zelgius personality was pretty clearly fake, right?

Sympathetic and understandable I won't argue because it's very YMMV, but Zelgius being a "good guy without malice towards anyone" is just untrue. 

Edited February 28, 2017 by AzureSen

[Extrasolar]

30 minutes ago, AzureSen said:

We are talking about the same guy who was fully enjoying scaring the pants off Mist, made it clear that he was going to kill both her and Ike, fought Greil in a fight he knew Greil couldn't win because of the blessed armor, was willingly participating in a scheme to exterminate the world's inhabitants, gladly did all sorts of awful things for Ashnard to further Sephiran's plans, showed that he had no qualms about doing awful things if Sephiran ordered him to, and whose Zelgius personality was pretty clearly fake, right?

Sympathetic and understandable I won't argue because it's very YMMV, but calling Zelgius a "good guy without malice towards anyone" is just untrue. 

I wouldn't say he enjoyed scaring Mist. He's not sadistic. Cold? Yes. Pragmatic? Yes. But as a whole, he was never a cackling "I drink your suffering and consider it hilarious" type, especially when compared to Ashnard, whose dickish actions are half the result of "I did it for the lulz."

And Ike challenged him first. Zelgius wasn't going to hold back against him just because he was Greil's son, and if Mist was there attacking him/assisting Ike as well, she was just as much an enemy. If Ike hadn't been out for revenge and embroiled in the conflict between Crimea, Daein and Begnion, their paths would likely never have crossed again.

Sure, maybe he knew Greil wouldn't win, but he wasn't expecting for Greil to die fighting him, since he didn't know about his self-inflicted injuries.

Not to mention, considering Sephiran was literally the only person in the world whom he could turn to or who cared a lick about what happened to him (other than Gawain, who deserted him at one point), his loyalty to Sephiran is understandable. He's not malicious. But he's not compassionate. I think there's a divide between "not malicious" and "sadistic." He didn't particularly have any love lost for the world's inhabitants, since as a Branded, the world would have preferred him dead anyway.

Also, making it clear that he's not a "good" guy. But I don't think calling him sadistic is fair. In other circumstances, he could have been an ally.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Hardin]

Oh yeah, Zelgius is definitely someone who acts without malice. 

Quote

Black Knight:
“So there’s no way for me to get my answers, is that it? The dead keep their secrets, or so it is said. But you, however…You are not dead yet. I wonder…Will watching your son’s face grow pale, his eyes grow dim as his life bleeds away…And then your daughter… Oh, the horrors I will visit upon her. Will that loosen your tongue, perhaps? I suppose we will simply have to see.”

Good guy right there. 

[NekoKnight]

6 hours ago, Extrasolar said:

I wouldn't say he enjoyed scaring Mist. He's not sadistic. Cold? Yes. Pragmatic? Yes. But as a whole, he was never a cackling "I drink your suffering and consider it hilarious" type, especially when compared to Ashnard, whose dickish actions are half the result of "I did it for the lulz."

This is what he said after mortally wounding Greil.

Black Knight: Now then, will you give me what I came for?

 Greil: I...don't...have it...... ...I threw...it away...

 Black Knight: Ha. You, who knows better than any what it truly is, threw it 
               away? Surely you can craft a more plausible lie. You're not even
               trying anymore.

 Greil: I'm done talking to you.

 Black Knight: So there's no way for me to get my answers, is that it? The dead
               keep their secrets, or so it is said. But you, however... You 
               are not dead yet. I wonder... Will watching your son's face grow 
               pale, his eyes grow dim as his life bleeds away... And then your
               daughter... Oh, the horrors I will visit upon her. Will that 
               loosen your tongue, perhaps? I suppose we will simply have to 
               see.

I think murdering a man for your own amusement and then threatening to torture and murder his kids if he doesn't hand over an artifact of doom is pretty bad stuff. All through the duel and after it, he is mocking, arrogant and sinister.

Edit: ninja'd

Edited February 28, 2017 by NekoKnight

[Extrasolar]

12 minutes ago, Hardin said:

Oh yeah, Zelgius is definitely someone who acts without malice. 

Good guy right there. 

 

12 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

This is what he said after mortally wounding Greil.

Black Knight: Now then, will you give me what I came for?

 Greil: I...don't...have it...... ...I threw...it away...

 Black Knight: Ha. You, who knows better than any what it truly is, threw it 
               away? Surely you can craft a more plausible lie. You're not even
               trying anymore.

 Greil: I'm done talking to you.

 Black Knight: So there's no way for me to get my answers, is that it? The dead
               keep their secrets, or so it is said. But you, however... You 
               are not dead yet. I wonder... Will watching your son's face grow 
               pale, his eyes grow dim as his life bleeds away... And then your
               daughter... Oh, the horrors I will visit upon her. Will that 
               loosen your tongue, perhaps? I suppose we will simply have to 
               see.

I don't think murdering a man for your own amusement and then threatening to torture and murder his kids if he doesn't hand over an artifact of doom is pretty bad stuff. All through the duel and after it, he is mocking, arrogant and sinister.

Edit: ninja'd

Damn. I guess I forgot about that whole...thing. Yeah, that does come off as kind of unnecessarily dickish in a sense. Though I imagine Zelgius was still pissed off at Gawain abandoning everything they had back in Daein.

Though it's sort of a toss up: One could argue that he's acting in order to intimidate Gawain into giving him the medallion. Considering how he acts in Radiant Dawn and especially in those backstory scenes of him, a lot of it could either be a case of changing characterization, or him putting on that act. He's pretty morose when speaking to Sephiran about everything. Kind of dead to the world emotionally, and just kind of goes through the motions to please Sephiran.

Though...uh, what he says about Mist has a lot of double meanings. That is...kind of uncomfortable to think about.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Extrasolar

[NekoKnight]

12 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

Though it's sort of a toss up: One could argue that he's acting in order to intimidate Gawain into giving him the medallion. Considering how he acts in Radiant Dawn and especially in those backstory scenes of him, a lot of it could either be a case of changing characterization, or him putting on that act. He's pretty morose when speaking to Sephiran about everything. Kind of dead to the world emotionally, and just kind of goes through the motions to please Sephiran.

I think that even if he was merely feigning the intent to "visit horrors" upon Greil's children, it would still disqualify him from Camus status. He is never apologetic or uncomfortable about the hurt he inflicts. You need to be noble to balance out the villainy to be a sympathetic antagonist. Sinister + villainy just equals a straight villain. Parts of the Radiant Dawn story were obviously planned from the beginning, but I think Zelgius/BK had a lot of characterization retconned following the release of the second game.

I like him as a villain in PoR, but they really ignored the man he was when we see him in RD.

Edited February 28, 2017 by NekoKnight

[Extrasolar]

4 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

I think that even if he was merely feigning the intent to "visit horrors" upon Greil's children, it would still disqualify him from Camus status. He is never apologetic or uncomfortable about the hurt he inflicts. You need to be noble to balance out the villainy to be a sympathetic antagonist. Sinister + villainy just equals a straight villain. Parts of the Radiant Dawn story were obviously planned from the beginning, but I think Zelgius/BK had a lot of characterization retconned following the release of the second game.

I like him as a villain in PoR, but they really ignored the man he was when we see him in RD.

That's fair. I definitely see Zelgius as a villain straight through, but definitely a nuanced one with some...sort of positive qualities. I guess his horrible past doesn't excuse him from a lot of the things he's done. Explains, not excuses. Important distinction that some people forget.

I guess my memories of him from POR are slightly overwritten by my memories of him from RD, where he's fleshed out as sympathetic a lot more. As I recall, that's when I really got invested into his character after finding out why he was loyal to Sephiran and that he was a Branded.

[Azure Sen]

Honestly, I think a big problem with Zelgius is, general dickery as the Black Knight and general lack of redeeming traits aside aside, he's associated with two much more sympathetic and likable characters in RD, which just highlights how bad he is in comparison. 

One one side you have Levail, who is a way better Camus; he's a morally upright and fundamentally good person (to the point where he won't attack Sanaki or Michaiah despite being in the middle of battle, nor will he harm the heron royals because they can't fight back) who has simply invested his loyalty in the wrong person, which makes his death far more tragic than Zelgius's (if you do kill him).

On the other side, you have Sephiran, who lacks a lot of Zelgius's worse behavior despite being responsible for most of his actions and as a result comes off as far more sympathetic. Sephiran does seem to actually regret his actions but feels he can't turn back (most apparent if you get his battle convos with Micaiah and Sanaki in E-4), while Zelgius never expresses any doubts or regrets for his actions. Sephiran's backstory is one long, horrible grinding down of his faith in the inhabitents of the world and his will to live, culminating in an awful tragedy that Tellius still feels the effects of; contrast with Zelgius's backstory, which we see hardly any of. And unlike Zelgius, Sephiran respects his opponents (see also his battle convos with Sothe, Tibarn, Astrid in E-4 and his dialogue when he joins the group at E-5), while in PoR at least Zelgius is dismissive and scornful towards his.

Edited February 28, 2017 by AzureSen

[Extrasolar]

8 minutes ago, AzureSen said:

Honestly, I think a big problem with Zelgius is, general dickery as the Black Knight and general lack of redeeming traits aside aside, he's associated with two much more sympathetic and likable characters in RD, which just highlights how bad he is in comparison. 

One one side you have Levail, who is a way better Camus; he's a morally upright and fundamentally good person (to the point where he won't attack Sanaki or Michaiah despite being in the middle of battle, nor will he harm the heron royals because they can't fight back) who has simply invested his loyalty in the wrong person, which makes his death far more tragic than Zelgius's (if you do kill him).

On the other side, you have Sephiran, who lacks a lot of Zelgius's worse behavior despite being responsible for most of his actions and as a result comes off as far more sympathetic. Sephiran does seem to actually regret his actions but feels he can't turn back (most apparent if you get his battle convos with Micaiah and Sanaki in E-4), while Zelgius never expresses any doubts or regrets for his actions. Sephiran's backstory is one long, horrible grinding down of his faith in the inhabitents of the world and his will to live, culminating in an awful tragedy that Tellius still feels the effects of; contrast with Zelgius's backstory, which we see hardly any of. And unlike Zelgius, Sephiran respects his opponents (see also his battle convos with Sothe, Tibarn, Astrid in E-4 and his dialogue when he joins the group at E-5), while in PoR at least Zelgius is dismissive and scornful towards his.

 I agree with Levail being a fundamentally good person caught on the "wrong" side of the war, but I don't necessarily think that diminishes Zelgius' status as a sympathetic villain/anti-villain. Zelgius is definitely more honorable and knightly than the majority of Begnion knights, and especially the Senate (granted, the Senate are meant to be slimy and underhanded, but still). Not to mention, since Levail was inspired by Zelgius to be the way he is in the first place (as well as people like Shirahim), it goes to show that Zelgius posesses some admirable traits.

Sephiran's backstory is undoubtedly sadder than Zelgius', but he's also been around a lot longer than Zelgius. A lot of Zelgius' backstory is hinged just on the fact that he's a Branded - we get from Soren that the rest of the world despises them and wants them dead. If anything, I see Zelgius as similarly losing the will to live/exist, and he became something of a nihilist after Gawain flew the coop; he figures, "fuck it, the world hates me anyway, why should I care what happens to it or the people that inhabit it?"

Zelgius respects his opponents in RD. I do think that a lot of the Black Knight's dickery was Zelgius putting on an act (or just plain inconsistent writing, if we're going that route).

I think the tragedy of Zelgius is that in a world that welcomed him instead of scorning him, his contemplative and loyal nature could have been in the service of good rather than evil.
 

[Rapier]

3 hours ago, Extrasolar said:

Tellius in general has a lot of grayer morality, more evident in RD than POR, but still there in POR. Daein was the aggressor, but in some ways was better/more progressive than "good" country Crimea and Begnion. They just had Ashnard there screwing everything up, and RD's Part I flipped everything on its head with Daein as the "good" country.

I disagree that Daein was progressive. A heavily racist country (even before Ashnard) with a social darwinist policy (during Ashnard's reign) is anything but progressive. Ashnard took down noble ranks, yet his system is just as opressive. And Daein isn't treated as a good country in RD Part 1, what we see is Micaiah and other people from Daein's perspectives, which... obviously paint Daein in a better light.

[Extrasolar]

1 minute ago, Rapier said:

I disagree that Daein was progressive. A heavily racist country (even before Ashnard) with a social darwinist policy (during Ashnard's reign) is anything but progressive. Ashnard took down noble ranks, yet his system is just as opressive. And Daein isn't treated as a good country in RD Part 1, what we see is Micaiah and other people from Daein's perspectives, which... obviously paint Daein in a better light.

It wasn't a utopia, to be sure, but a system in which one can climb the ranks of the social ladder without being nobility is a pretty progressive notion. A society can be behind the times in certain ways (we see it all the time with our real-world societies), but be remarkably progressive in another. The thought that if you were ambitious enough you could rise to the top despite being as common as dirt was pretty new and fresh, especially if we're going by pseudo-medieval customs like FE does.

Not to mention, Crimea and Begnion are just as racist as Daein, if not moreso in Begnion's case (they still have laguz slaves, for crying out loud). And Daein in RD Part I is treated as the sympathetic power being unlawfully oppressed and bullied by corrupt Begnion senators, which is what I mean by the "good" country.

[Augestein]

6 minutes ago, Rapier said:

I disagree that Daein was progressive. A heavily racist country (even before Ashnard) with a social darwinist policy (during Ashnard's reign) is anything but progressive. Ashnard took down noble ranks, yet his system is just as opressive. And Daein isn't treated as a good country in RD Part 1, what we see is Micaiah and other people from Daein's perspectives, which... obviously paint Daein in a better light.

It's more progressive than other places where your stuck in the same place that you're born into though. There's always some hope to get better. 

[Hardin]

I think a big problem the franchise has, is that the devs get too attached to their characters, so they start walk them back to try and make them more appealing to the fans. But this doesn't work because they can't have it both ways. You can't have Zelgius murder Greil, threaten to torture Ike and rape Mist, but then try to act like he's a noble and tragic figure. You can't have Camus defend a murderous regime hellbent on seeing mankind eliminated, but act like he's a victim of circumstance. These are characters that when faced with a choice, choose to stand with evil. They're not sympathetic characters, they're pitiful.  

[Rapier]

50 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

It wasn't a utopia, to be sure, but a system in which one can climb the ranks of the social ladder without being nobility is a pretty progressive notion. A society can be behind the times in certain ways (we see it all the time with our real-world societies), but be remarkably progressive in another. The thought that if you were ambitious enough you could rise to the top despite being as common as dirt was pretty new and fresh, especially if we're going by pseudo-medieval customs like FE does.

Not to mention, Crimea and Begnion are just as racist as Daein, if not moreso in Begnion's case (they still have laguz slaves, for crying out loud). And Daein in RD Part I is treated as the sympathetic power being unlawfully oppressed and bullied by corrupt Begnion senators, which is what I mean by the "good" country.

It's not progress because rule of might, a tribal concept, outdates rule of rank, a feudal concept, thus, from that perspective, the other beorc countries are more progressive. What is the difference between someone stronger (not necessarily smarter or more ambitious, which breaks the notion of it being fair) opressing the weak and someone with rank opressing those below? Ok, we have strong people in power, but since when is it a good thing, or even a better thing? Even if we were to have a good Ashnard, rule of strength simply substitutes "noble blood" for "might". Also, the policies you claim to be progressist all came from Ashnard, so he wasn't "screwing everything up [on their progressist country]" if he was the one to come out with it on first place.

Besides, Crimea is definitely not an example of racism. They're the only in-game beorc country that acts favorably toward the laguz, even working harder to develop relations between Crimea and Galia. They even have a city where beorc and laguz coexist. Begnion is also far from being portrayed as a good country, and the first thing we see about it is that it is full of corrupt aristocrats and that only Sephiran and Sanaki count among the decent nobles. In any case, on PoR we have good Crimea x evil Daein (Begnion stands as grey because of Sanaki and Sephiran), and on RD we have good Laguz Alliance x evil Begnion (with Daein being unwilling pawns).

Edited February 28, 2017 by Rapier

[Extrasolar]

8 minutes ago, Rapier said:

It's not progress because rule of might, a tribal concept, outdates rule of rank, a feudal concept, thus, from that perspective, the other beorc countries are more progressive. What is the difference between someone stronger (not necessarily smarter or more ambitious, which breaks the notion of it being fair) opressing the weak and someone with rank opressing those below? Ok, we have strong people in power, but since when is it a good thing, or even a better thing? Even if we were to have a good Ashnard, rule of strength simply substitutes "noble blood" for "might". Also, the policies you claim to be progressist all came from Ashnard, so he wasn't "screwing everything up [on their progressist country]" if he was the one to come out with it on first place.

Besides, Crimea is definitely not an example of racism. They're the only in-game beorc country that acts favorably toward the laguz, even working harder to develop relations between Crimea and Galia. They even have a city where beorc and laguz coexist. Begnion is also far from being portrayed as a good country, and the first thing we see about it is that it is full of corrupt aristocrats and that only Sephiran and Sanaki count among the decent nobles. In any case, on PoR we have good Crimea x evil Daein (Begnion stands as grey because of Sanaki and Sephiran), and on RD we have good Laguz Alliance x evil Begnion (with Daein being unwilling pawns).

You're judging it from a modern point of view, which is a flawed way to judge it. Way back when, the way of the world was that if you were a noble, you were "entitled" to being in charge and high positions, and if you were a commoner, you were little better than a pawn or peon under control of your social betters. Looking at it from a pseudo-medieval notion, it's progressive as hell that a commoner can be a grand general possibly ordering around nobles if he's ambitious enough. Sure, it's not as progressive nowadays in our modern world, but we're not talking about our modern world. And I mean that Ashnard took the ruthless/the strong should make their own place too far. Not that his ideas were necessarily bad to start with.

Crimea is definitely racist. Now, there may be certain characters that act favorable toward laguz, but don't forget about random maid woman casually saying something about "subhumans," as well as Rolf's mother being terrified that a "subhuman" was coming into her house to attack her, only for Rolf to explain that laguz aren't all that bad. Elincia tries to change it, but it's clear that the populace of Crimea as a whole holds a lot of racist sentiments toward laguz. Shinon is Crimean too, after all.
 

[Gruntagen]

19 minutes ago, Hardin said:

You can't have Camus defend a murderous regime hellbent on seeing mankind eliminated, but act like he's a victim of circumstance.

He is? I thought he was defending his country from being subjugated by an invasion by the Archanean League, and that it was King Ludwik who supported Dolhr only because his kids were kidnapped by Gharnef.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Gruntagen

[Hardin]

Just now, Gruntagen said:

But he's not. He's defending his country from being subjugated by an invasion by the Archanean League.

Camus invaded Archanea, had the Archanean king put to death and defeated Cornelius at the Menedy River. All of those events helped Medeus and Dolhr become the dominant force on the continent. Camus is not some poor patriot defending his kingdom from invasion.