Creating a Camus

[Extrasolar]

28 minutes ago, Hardin said:

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.  

Yeah... I guess I can concede this. I definitely prefer the retcon Zelgius to original Black Knight Zelgius. I'll admit that acknowledging his threats against Greil's family strips a lot of what makes him sympathetic away. You sort of...have to excuse it by saying that he's either bluffing or that the designers changed him from being a straight villain to being an anti-villain, but that's an out of universe justification with no confirmation in-universe. The backpedaling is kind of...overt, when you examine Zelgius' journey from the Black Knight to Zelgius in RD.

But if you can ignore his previous behavior as being a retcon, he still comes off as sympathetic imo, just due to his race and status in the world.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Jotari]

8 hours ago, Gruntagen said:

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

As I said in an earlier post, I think the game downplayed Grandbell's evil at that point in the game in order to enhance the shock of Sigurd suddenly getting betrayed and to overall make Sigurd seem more like an intelligent and noble character (though imagine if Grandbell's oppression was played higher there. We could have seen ourselves playing as the Camus in that situation).

2 hours ago, Extrasolar said:

 

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.

Thing that bothers me more about the Mist thing is that it's a bit of a plot hole. At that point in the game the Black Knight has never met Mist, she's been raised in seclusion all her life and it's pretty doubtful Pertrine or any of the soldiers pursuing them would be able to discover she's Greil's daughter (I also think it's possible the Black Knight didn't have any contact witht he other soldiers). Therefore this mysterious stranger should have no idea she even exists. We do of course see in Radiant Dawn that Zelgius encountered Mist and Ike as kids but since neither Greil or Ike remember that, it's still strange that they don't realize how informed the Black Knights information is.

20 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).

Considering Izuka's high position as chief Mengele and Ashnard's appreciation of the Herons as the best singers (albeit in a creepy keep them in a cage sort of way) I think it's likely that excelling at something other than combat would be acknowledged in Ashnard's Daein.

[Gruntagen]

16 minutes ago, Hardin said:

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. 

He invaded Archanea as supplement to Dolhr's invasion, yes, but I don't think BS ever says Camus specifically put the Archanean King to death, though. Or King Cornelius (disputedly), even if he was as much a factor in the battle at Menedy as Gra's betrayal.

By the time of Chapter 20, though, not only has Camus managed to somewhat redeem himself rescuing Nyna from the chopping block, but Grust is pretty much defeated in terms of being the most prominent military force for the antagonists. All Camus is doing there is refusing to or surrender in the face of an army looking to subjugate his homeland.

[NekoKnight]

35 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Thing that bothers me more about the Mist thing is that it's a bit of a plot hole. At that point in the game the Black Knight has never met Mist, she's been raised in seclusion all her life and it's pretty doubtful Pertrine or any of the soldiers pursuing them would be able to discover she's Greil's daughter (I also think it's possible the Black Knight didn't have any contact witht he other soldiers). Therefore this mysterious stranger should have no idea she even exists. We do of course see in Radiant Dawn that Zelgius encountered Mist and Ike as kids but since neither Greil or Ike remember that, it's still strange that they don't realize how informed the Black Knights information is.

Did someone say she was raised in seclusion? I find it doubtful that her existence was a secret. Granted, "young daughter of random mercenary" isn't 'need to know' information but if the BK knew where to find Greil, it's not hard to imagine that he had the group scouted. Either way "Hey, how do you even know I have a daughter" is the last thing on his mind when he's been impaled and bleeding out.

1 hour 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).

I don't think Daein is as primitive as you make it sound. It's not literally the strong ruling the weak (although Ashnard would probably enjoy that if he got his way), it's more additional social mobility for those willing and able to take it. It sounds like it applies to military rank, not general governance (Daein is still a monarchy) so it's not like your local mayor is decided by who can best swing a battle axe.

As for Crimea not being racist, the Laguz had to wear disguises while traveling through the Crimean port town and are reported to the Daein army when discovered. There were also vigilantes who were happy to assist in their capture, just because they were Laguz. Even after Crimea is being rebuilt, and getting assistance from the Beast tribe, people are still getting adjusted to not calling them sub-humans.

Edited February 28, 2017 by NekoKnight

[Hardin]

 

15 minutes ago, Gruntagen said:

He invaded Archanea as supplement to Dolhr's invasion, yes, but I don't think BS ever says Camus specifically put the Archanean King to death, though. Or King Cornelius (disputedly), even if he was as much a factor in the battle at Menedy as Gra's betrayal.

By the time of Chapter 20, though, not only has Camus managed to somewhat redeem himself rescuing Nyna from the chopping block, but Grust is pretty much defeated in terms of being the most prominent military force for the antagonists. All Camus is doing there is refusing to or surrender in the face of an army looking to subjugate his homeland.

Camus led the army which invaded the Archanean Palace, he is absolutely responsible for the kings death. You're also ignoring that if he had stood against Medeus, there never would have been a Menedy battle to begin with, and Cornelius would have been able to defend Archanea. It's simply ludicrous to suggest that Camus was defending his kingdom from hostile invaders, when he's well aware that Medeus is a blood thirsty monster whom he helped into power. A child could understand that Marth and League would be better for Grust than Dolhr. 

[Acacia Sgt]

9 minutes ago, Hardin said:

 

Camus led the army which invaded the Archanean Palace, he is absolutely responsible for the kings death. You're also ignoring that if he had stood against Medeus, there never would have been a Menedy battle to begin with, and Cornelius would have been able to defend Archanea. It's simply ludicrous to suggest that Camus was defending his kingdom from hostile invaders, when he's well aware that Medeus is a blood thirsty monster whom he helped into power. A child could understand that Marth and League would be better for Grust than Dolhr. 

To be fair, Medeus had forced the Grustian King to fight for him. Say Camus had defied that... what is the result, then?

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, NekoKnight said:

Did someone say she was raised in seclusion? I find it doubtful that her existence was a secret. Granted, "young daughter of random mercenary" isn't 'need to know' information but if the BK knew where to find Greil, it's not hard to imagine that he had the group scouted. Either way "Hey, how do you even know I have a daughter" is the last thing on his mind when he's been impaled and bleeding out.

Well Griel was specifically in hiding from Ashnard. The Black Knight only (seemingly) found them due to getting wrapped up in the whole Elincia situation.

[RJWalker]

I don't know if this has been pointed out but the Black Knight's threats towards Mist are a result of localisation and not accurate to what he says in the Japanese version.

[Extrasolar]

7 minutes ago, Ranger Jack Walker said:

I don't know if this has been pointed out but the Black Knight's threats towards Mist are a result of localisation and not accurate to what he says in the Japanese version.

Really? What's he say in the original?

[Thane]

19 hours ago, Augestein said:

I'm not sure why you even want to drag this discussion this far out to prove

You do understand I just think the same thing about what you're doing, right? In my eyes you're the one who's being stubborn, and in your eyes I assume the same holds true for me. Believe it or not, all I wanted was to discuss your opinion, but you get incredibly defensive and start talking about me cooling my jets and the like. We started by talking about whether or not Xander stood up to Garon; the whole "Xander sucks" thing came later, and I don't even remember who brought it up or why, but I doubt it was intentional. 

What our argument boils down to is that we've got two very, very different viewpoints on the matter, and no matter how hard we try, we won't convince each other otherwise. I think it's best that we stop discussing this here, because try as I might I simply cannot understand your point of view, and the more you write the more difficulty I have understanding what you're even trying to say.

[Rapier]

13 hours ago, Extrasolar said:

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.
 

Ok, let me try to phrase it similarly: On Ashnard's Daein, their way was that if you were stronger, you were entitled to being in charge and high positions, and if you were weaker, you were little better than a pawn or peon under control of the mighty. It may look nice that a commoner can rise to general status, but if noble rank is used as a deciding factor to social status and on Daein strength is used as a deciding factor to social status, I can't see the difference. It's basically switching six for half a dozen. If being born weaker/less apt means being treated like dirt just like I'd be if I were of a lesser rank, I can't see the progressivism. It's another type of tyranny cloaked by a false sense of justness because you also cannot control your strength of aptitude, as it is defined by birth just like noble rank. It breaks a decadent social system by replacing it with another opressive, unfair system that follows the same logical structure.

This conversation between Ashnard and Reyson kind of sums my point.

Spoiler

Ashnard: [...] I question the way in which our society is designed. No matter what strength a person has, it is the station he is born into that controls his destiny. And you cannot control where you will be born. Do you believe that a person of low birth should simply endure the curse of his station? I think not. If you are stronger than those around you, you should benefit from your strength. This is why I will use my strength to remake this world. Class and rank will not matter. Human and sub-human will not matter. The strong will possess everything. The weak will submit to their will. Is this not the meaning of peace?

Reyson: Are you saying that the lives of those without strength have no value?

Ashnard: That is the natural order. The only way for the weak to survive is to cling to the strong. Our discussion is over. Tell me, frail little bird who cannot fight; which do you choose? Submission? Or death?

Reyson: …Life proffered to me by your hand is something I would never accept!

Ashnard: Very well… Then I will give you the alternative! You will be a weight around my neck no more!

And yes, you're right, Crimea is racist. I remember the scene where Ranulf is revealed to be a laguz and Crimean citizens scream at him in public and report to passing Daein authorities. Crimea does have plenty of racist quotes from the common folk. On PoR, it's not exactly a bastion of inclusion, but it is the best beorc country by far on that subject, and their attempts on improving relations with Gallia while Daein (Ashnard being the only exception) and Begnion show contempt for that idea does make it the most progressive country on those matters. On RD, the situation improves as laguz start living among beorc near the Crimea-Gallian borders.

 

@Jotari

Being slave singers isn't what I'd call having a good status. Nothing to say about Izuka, though. I think he's one of the rare exceptions because he could drug the laguz into Ashnard's army, who were appreciated for their strength, thus indirectly contributing to his social views of might over weakness despite being a weak individual himself.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Rapier

[Jotari]

10 minutes ago, Rapier said:

Being slave singers isn't what I'd call having a good status. Nothing to say about Izuka, though. I think he's one of the rare exceptions because he could drug the laguz into Ashnard's army, who were appreciated for their strength.

Oh I wouldn't argue that it's a good thing. Just that Ashnard's definition of strength might be more about a person's ability more so than how much they can bench press. I reckon if someone's proved themselves to be a keen tactician or an excellent medic he'd give them a respectable position even if they are a bit lacking on the strength growth. Though the negative aspect of that would be him forcing people to do what they're good at even if they don't want to work for him (because ultimately he's stills stronger than them and should decide their fate). Or maybe I'm extrapolating a bit too much. It's just the sort of impression I get from him. He let Ena play around as a tactician at least rather than turning her into a second Rajaion.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Jotari

[Rapier]

11 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Oh I wouldn't argue that it's a good thing. Just that Ashnard's definition of strength might be more about a person's ability more so than how much they can bench press. I reckon if someone's proved themselves to be a keen tactician or an excellent medic he'd give them a respectable position even if they are a bit lacking on the strength growth. Though the negative aspect of that would be him forcing people to do what they're good at even if they don't want to work for him (because ultimately he's stills stronger than them and should decide their fate). Or maybe I'm extrapolating a bit too much. It's just the sort of impression I get from him. He let Ena play around as a tactician at least rather than turning her into a second Rajaion.

Ashnard literally asks Reyson if he prefers submission or death because he is weak. Ena was a dragon and the script shows that Ashnard knew that:

Spoiler

Kasatai
N-now then, it's time for the final measure you spoke of earlier. Will you show us what His Majesty left for us? What could possibly allow us to destroy an army in one fell swoop...provided we can herd them here?

Ena
General Kasatai...No matter what I show you, do not be shocked. You must continue to trust me without question.

Kasatai
I swear it. On my name as a royal knight of Daein, I will not betray you, General Ena.

Ena
Thank you...
...

Kasatai
Ge-General Ena! You're...

Ena
...

Kasatai
Aaaaaaah!

Ena
General Kasatai! Have you forgotten your vow? No matter what happens, we will protect the capital, yes?

Kasatai
Ah... Ah... Yes, of course...I...understand. This is His Majesty's--Why he left you here...

Ena
Yes.

Kasatai
We will win this battle! A legendary dragon of Goldoa is on our side! It is a powerful omen! Daein cannot lose! The Daein army is indestructible! We will crush the dogs of Crimea and use their skulls as goblets!

edit: Nevermind, I missed the point, but Ashnard made use of her as a tactician and also as strength-of-arms in case of need, such as in the situation above. If he would honor her in case she wasn't a dragon, we can't know.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Rapier

[Jotari]

51 minutes ago, Rapier said:

Ashnard literally asks Reyson if he prefers submission or death because he is weak. Ena was a dragon and the script shows that Ashnard knew that:

  Reveal hidden contents

Kasatai
N-now then, it's time for the final measure you spoke of earlier. Will you show us what His Majesty left for us? What could possibly allow us to destroy an army in one fell swoop...provided we can herd them here?

Ena
General Kasatai...No matter what I show you, do not be shocked. You must continue to trust me without question.

Kasatai
I swear it. On my name as a royal knight of Daein, I will not betray you, General Ena.

Ena
Thank you...
...

Kasatai
Ge-General Ena! You're...

Ena
...

Kasatai
Aaaaaaah!

Ena
General Kasatai! Have you forgotten your vow? No matter what happens, we will protect the capital, yes?

Kasatai
Ah... Ah... Yes, of course...I...understand. This is His Majesty's--Why he left you here...

Ena
Yes.

Kasatai
We will win this battle! A legendary dragon of Goldoa is on our side! It is a powerful omen! Daein cannot lose! The Daein army is indestructible! We will crush the dogs of Crimea and use their skulls as goblets!

edit: Nevermind, I missed the point, but Ashnard made use of her as a tactician and also as strength-of-arms in case of need, such as in the situation above. If he would honor her in case she wasn't a dragon, we can't know.

Yeah, my point was that he made use of her for traits other than her strength. If strength was the only thing that mattered then he would have poisoned her and turned her into a battle slave like Rajion. Meritocracy probably better describes .Ashnard's kingdom more than Monarchy. He might have achieved his position of power via his birth but it's clear that he didn't give a toss about his own heir. It does make one wonder what his plans for succession were. Would he have chosen someone to replace him or would he have been more pleased to see all the strongest duke it out for the position. What about when he himself grows old and feeble? Would he willingly step down in favour of a stronger replacement? I guess such questions are too difficult to answer. Better to try and use a mystic amulet to destroy the world in order to avoid them.

Regardless this has sort of been a pretty big derail. The Black Knight might be classed as a Camus but Ashnard and his progressiveness or lack thereof certainly isn't.

[Extrasolar]

1 hour ago, Rapier said:

Ok, let me try to phrase it similarly: On Ashnard's Daein, their way was that if you were stronger, you were entitled to being in charge and high positions, and if you were weaker, you were little better than a pawn or peon under control of the mighty. It may look nice that a commoner can rise to general status, but if noble rank is used as a deciding factor to social status and on Daein strength is used as a deciding factor to social status, I can't see the difference. It's basically switching six for half a dozen. If being born weaker/less apt means being treated like dirt just like I'd be if I were of a lesser rank, I can't see the progressivism. It's another type of tyranny cloaked by a false sense of justness because you also cannot control your strength of aptitude, as it is defined by birth just like noble rank. It breaks a decadent social system by replacing it with another opressive, unfair system that follows the same logical structure.

This conversation between Ashnard and Reyson kind of sums my point.

  Reveal hidden contents

Ashnard: [...] I question the way in which our society is designed. No matter what strength a person has, it is the station he is born into that controls his destiny. And you cannot control where you will be born. Do you believe that a person of low birth should simply endure the curse of his station? I think not. If you are stronger than those around you, you should benefit from your strength. This is why I will use my strength to remake this world. Class and rank will not matter. Human and sub-human will not matter. The strong will possess everything. The weak will submit to their will. Is this not the meaning of peace?

Reyson: Are you saying that the lives of those without strength have no value?

Ashnard: That is the natural order. The only way for the weak to survive is to cling to the strong. Our discussion is over. Tell me, frail little bird who cannot fight; which do you choose? Submission? Or death?

Reyson: …Life proffered to me by your hand is something I would never accept!

Ashnard: Very well… Then I will give you the alternative! You will be a weight around my neck no more!

 

Hmm, I don't really see it as equivalent, since "the weak rule the strong" has been a thing in society from day one, since people were hunter-gatherers. Ashnard's philosophy is extreme, yes, but it's not anything that hasn't been happening before. Is it unfair? Yes. But that's kind of just how the world operates.

Now, society may have shifted straight from physical might ruling to mental might or experience, what have you, but it's still the same principle, whereas the idea of your birth not deciding your station in life is much fresher and newer, especially considering the feudal system that the European medieval world operated off of for centuries. No matter how intelligent or experienced you were, if you were common, you weren't going anywhere. You were lucky if you could even leave the farm of your birth.

So in the context of the world, I see it as progressive. Not to mention, even Branded like Petrine could become something in Ashnard's Daein.

EDIT: @Jotari Ashnard would likely step down - or probably more accurately, would be killed by said stronger successor, and I don't think he'd hold any rancor over it. I remember him saying something to the effect of "If I'm not strong enough to defeat you here, then I deserve death" to Ike and company back in Path of Radiance. As crazy as he was, he practiced what he preached.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Original Alear]

I recognize this is a long post, so if no one reads it that's fine. If you just want to read responses to what has been said, go down to the first quote block and then it's all direct replies (oldest posts first). Also, please read what I said about Murdock towards the start. I'm not trying to get the poll revised but I think it is worth thinking about.

Tragedy and regret seem to be a hallmark of a Camus. My understanding is that Camus at times bends the rules (saving Nyna), even if that's out of romantic interest. In addition, he ends up joining the allies in a sequel.

I don't think Murdock should be considered one. He seems to be honorable and at least a decent man, and impressive, but the game seems to give no real reason to think he suffers from any regret in serving Zephiel. It's not that I would be shocked if it turned out there's evidence he does, but as far as I can tell his loyalty is unquestioned. When considering his dialogue with Zeiss and Miledy, he feels some sympathy for them and doesn't want to kill them, but he sees his duty to king and country as clearly superseding personal loyalties. Moreover, based on Murdock's actions related to King Desmond, it seems likely that on some level he sees only a righteous king as worthy of loyalty (i.e., he is more loyal to Zephiel than Desmond).

The fact that he continues to serve Zephiel makes it likely he is at peace with this decision - Murdock is the kind of man who will do things his nominal king against the interests of his nominal king, such as protect said king's son from the king. So I say Murdock is no Camus archetype, based on what I know.

Linus and Lloyd are pretty loyal to the fang but they seem more torn than Murdock. For instance, the first Reed sibling to die is willing to distrust what the fang has told them and considers Eliwood's group as possibly not an enemy. The next Reed to die seems genuinely torn at the thought of attacking Nino, their adopted sister. Murdock, by contrast, is not happy to fight former allies (Miledy, Zeiss), but seems not even remotely conflicted.

That being said, I don't really know Camus himself (RedEyedDrake helped with this). I'd appreciate an outline of Camus/Sirius/Zeke and what people think he establishes the trope to be a bit more fully than the FE wiki, if possible. Is Camus doing his duty to his country, rather than to a particular king/lord? That is how the wiki makes it sound, and I'm interested in confirming.

I think the big thing that makes me like "a Camus" is that "the Camus" isn't merely loyal to a leader (misguided like Zephiel, brutal like Ashnard or otherwise), but to some sort of actual ideals and values independent of a leader. Shiharam might betray his highest ideals (he followed the orders to flood Talrega), but there's still plenty of evidence he actually tried to do good.

Bryce is a good example of someone who takes his loyalty to a misguided leader past anything worthwhile (protecting Ashnard because he has royal blood - when Ashnard cares so little for royalty that he pretty much spits on Bryce as the relevant scene ends). By the time Ike fights him, it seems like an honorable fight/death is all he wants. I don't necessarily feel no pity for him, but there's no reason to think his suicide/martyrdom is actually going to do anything virtuous. I think this is true for Brunya as well.

So (what I want to suggest as a possibility) is Alvis a Camus? Obviously Alvis is already something like a Hardin, and the kind of leader to whom a Camus is normally loyal. But due to Julius taking control in gen 2, you might be able to say Alvis is practically an underling, or practically a displaced/dowager emperor (forgive the misuse of the term).

Alvis actually does put his safety on the line to save the kiddies (and the Tyrfing, and that bishop), and even though Julius seems to value him enough as a guard (or values humiliating him) to post him at Chalphy and leave him unharmed, I think Alvis might make something out of his death, as compared to the other Camuses listed in the poll whom I know.

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.

I agree that Eldigan is a complete idiot in the end - especially if you accept the Lachesis convo in Ch 3, where he goes back without any of his army to try and talk Shagaal down after Shagaal has thrown him in prison for questioning him once.

It's worth keeping in mind that his loyalty to his king is (misguided or not) advised by his loyalty to the ideal taken from Hezul, whose major-blood daughter married into the house of Nodion, splitting the holy weapon from the line of kingship. Idiotic or not, Eldigan was keeping to an ideal that deeply informed him about who he was supposed to be as the wielder of Misteltainn. I just think ultimately he was wrong to dedicate so much loyalty to the ideal of loyalty to his king when his king seems to be rather transparently abusing all the requirements he should be meeting to be worthy of that loyalty. But unlike Bryce, Eldigan isn't dedicated to death because his king is the only thing he lives for. Though they say "you can only serve one master," for the world it is perhaps better that this knight was compromised.

He was a weakling and coward but the game did a good job of discussing how evil can triumph when good men do nothing.

Though really we have good reason to think he did more good than any begnion senator than Sephiran. And if you compare Hetzel to Oliver, I kind of think Oliver did more damage before turning to the cause of good than Hetzel did by saving Rafiel from (quite likely) Oliver. I'm not sure we really have reason to think that Hetzel is a good (in this case, strong-willed) enough man to actually have kept evil from triumphing. Finally, in doing almost nothing during the chapter he fights us in, he does more good (or less bad) than Lekain, who admittedly ain't that rough to take on, but at least bears a weapon and tries to AOE status attack us IIRC.

The only possible asset I can think of that Hetzel might add to the Begnion senators is a veneer of something like respectability. If he fooled people into thinking the senators weren't all bad, he would have or did do some real harm.

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).

I respect the idea of Bryce having a positive legacy, and see him as maybe being a good role model for a son, but I think Bryce would not have been in such despair if he had a son he cared for in addition to just a king he probably kind of hated/despised at the end.

I haven't read anything regarding Xander because I think Fates is that bad.

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.

Micaiah doesn't die. I think Camus himself survives through ret-conish stuff, but pretty much every other Camus dies.

Ishtar is a terrible Camus. She literally shares her bed with the embodiment of evil and plays a game to see who can kill the fastest for fun. She's a complete shithead.

Damn, most FE players on here probably play games to see who can kill enemy troops the fastest for fun...(I know FE enemies are not real people)

He's a good guy without malice toward anyone, honestly,

I kind of wanna challenge this, even though I think Zelgius is a decent candidate for Camus. As the BK I think he has a genuine desire to kill and harm, though maybe as an extension of wanting to beat people in combat and show his prowess. Some people say he's sadistic - I think not that, but he does seem to use physical force as a way of confirming he's in power in a situation. There's a practical side to that, but given his background, I think him being a loner who's hiding his activities reinforces that on an emotional level.

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.

If he was going to kill Greil for the medallion, scaring the shit out of him along with it is pretty minor.

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).

Levail seems so divorced from policy and grand plans that he doesn't (IMO) have the "grandeur" that most Camus's do. He's a tough guy, but I never got the feeling that without him, the enemy cause would be crucially disadvantaged...

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.

I'm not sure if you're saying this explicitly, but the other side of this tragedy is that the "good side" of Begnion, and Tellius generally, doesn't seem to scorn him at all. The only real time I can think of someone "scorning" Zelgius is when Ike chooses to defer aid from Zelgius when they're retaking Crimea - and there's not much reason to think Zelgius minded that. Zelgius seems to be committed to Sephiran over Tellius generally, but Zelgius - and Sephiran for that matter - often seem to choose to undertake good actions when they're not going to slow down armageddon.

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.

This is true, but look at the mindset of the Daien generals (Petrine stands out) to realize how harmful Ashnard's version was. I think you can make the case that a lot of Daien generals are operating off of fear of failure, not just desire for success. I'm happy to elaborate on this. This is somewhat typical for FE, but I actually think Daien generals might be a bit less generic evil and a bit more desperate to some extent...

[Jotari]

17 minutes ago, Help said:

I recognize this is a long post, so if no one reads it that's fine. If you just want to read responses to what has been said, go down to the first quote block and then it's all direct replies (oldest posts first). Also, please read what I said about Murdock towards the start. I'm not trying to get the poll revised but I think it is worth thinking about.

Tragedy and regret seem to be a hallmark of a Camus. My understanding is that Camus at times bends the rules (saving Nyna), even if that's out of romantic interest. In addition, he ends up joining the allies in a sequel.

I don't think Murdock should be considered one. He seems to be honorable and at least a decent man, and impressive, but the game seems to give no real reason to think he suffers from any regret in serving Zephiel. It's not that I would be shocked if it turned out there's evidence he does, but as far as I can tell his loyalty is unquestioned. When considering his dialogue with Zeiss and Miledy, he feels some sympathy for them and doesn't want to kill them, but he sees his duty to king and country as clearly superseding personal loyalties. Moreover, based on Murdock's actions related to King Desmond, it seems likely that on some level he sees only a righteous king as worthy of loyalty (i.e., he is more loyal to Zephiel than Desmond).

The fact that he continues to serve Zephiel makes it likely he is at peace with this decision - Murdock is the kind of man who will do things his nominal king against the interests of his nominal king, such as protect said king's son from the king. So I say Murdock is no Camus archetype, based on what I know.

Linus and Lloyd are pretty loyal to the fang but they seem more torn than Murdock. For instance, the first Reed sibling to die is willing to distrust what the fang has told them and considers Eliwood's group as possibly not an enemy. The next Reed to die seems genuinely torn at the thought of attacking Nino, their adopted sister. Murdock, by contrast, is not happy to fight former allies (Miledy, Zeiss), but seems not even remotely conflicted.

That being said, I don't really know Camus himself (RedEyedDrake helped with this). I'd appreciate an outline of Camus/Sirius/Zeke and what people think he establishes the trope to be a bit more fully than the FE wiki, if possible. Is Camus doing his duty to his country, rather than to a particular king/lord? That is how the wiki makes it sound, and I'm interested in confirming.

I think the big thing that makes me like "a Camus" is that "the Camus" isn't merely loyal to a leader (misguided like Zephiel, brutal like Ashnard or otherwise), but to some sort of actual ideals and values independent of a leader. Shiharam might betray his highest ideals (he followed the orders to flood Talrega), but there's still plenty of evidence he actually tried to do good.

Bryce is a good example of someone who takes his loyalty to a misguided leader past anything worthwhile (protecting Ashnard because he has royal blood - when Ashnard cares so little for royalty that he pretty much spits on Bryce as the relevant scene ends). By the time Ike fights him, it seems like an honorable fight/death is all he wants. I don't necessarily feel no pity for him, but there's no reason to think his suicide/martyrdom is actually going to do anything virtuous. I think this is true for Brunya as well.

So (what I want to suggest as a possibility) is Alvis a Camus? Obviously Alvis is already something like a Hardin, and the kind of leader to whom a Camus is normally loyal. But due to Julius taking control in gen 2, you might be able to say Alvis is practically an underling, or practically a displaced/dowager emperor (forgive the misuse of the term).

Alvis actually does put his safety on the line to save the kiddies (and the Tyrfing, and that bishop), and even though Julius seems to value him enough as a guard (or values humiliating him) to post him at Chalphy and leave him unharmed, I think Alvis might make something out of his death, as compared to the other Camuses listed in the poll whom I know.

I agree with you completely about Murdock. His loyalty to Zephiel is absolute. Vague as it might be one of the criteria for Camus is that they must have be depicted with the potential willingness to join the protagonist. That's probably why alvis wouldn't generally be considered a Camus (though it is interesting to see him as one). The narrative depicts him in a good light during Gen II but the characters themselves despise him so much that they likely wouldn't let him join them if he offered (and Alvis basically plays on that hatred to get himself killed).

[Extrasolar]

27 minutes ago, Help said:

I kind of wanna challenge this, even though I think Zelgius is a decent candidate for Camus. As the BK I think he has a genuine desire to kill and harm, though maybe as an extension of wanting to beat people in combat and show his prowess. Some people say he's sadistic - I think not that, but he does seem to use physical force as a way of confirming he's in power in a situation. There's a practical side to that, but given his background, I think him being a loner who's hiding his activities reinforces that on an emotional level.

[snip]

I'm not sure if you're saying this explicitly, but the other side of this tragedy is that the "good side" of Begnion, and Tellius generally, doesn't seem to scorn him at all. The only real time I can think of someone "scorning" Zelgius is when Ike chooses to defer aid from Zelgius when they're retaking Crimea - and there's not much reason to think Zelgius minded that. Zelgius seems to be committed to Sephiran over Tellius generally, but Zelgius - and Sephiran for that matter - often seem to choose to undertake good actions when they're not going to slow down armageddon.
 

This is true, but look at the mindset of the Daien generals (Petrine stands out) to realize how harmful Ashnard's version was. I think you can make the case that a lot of Daien generals are operating off of fear of failure, not just desire for success. I'm happy to elaborate on this. This is somewhat typical for FE, but I actually think Daien generals might be a bit less generic evil and a bit more desperate to some extent...

Yeah, I conceded on that first point. I don't think it's accurate to say that he isn't malicious toward anyone, but I think it is accurate to say that he's not sadistic in that he doesn't threaten or indulge in violence just for suffering's sake. As the Black Knight, he is more than willing to taunt, demean and attempt to intimidate his enemies with violence, but it always serves an end to him rather than just because he enjoys others in pain.

And by "scorning him," I mean that just by his status as a Branded, the world automatically hates him the same way they hated Soren and Stefan. He's lucky that he was around when Ashnard came to power, or else he'd likely never have advanced himself at all just due to his status. Sephiran was pretty much the only person he could turn to, aside from Gawain, who took off after a time.

I'm definitely not saying that Ashnard's Daein was perfect, but I think it gave far more people opportunities that wouldn't have had them otherwise (Petrine and Zelgius, first and foremost). It was definitely a dog-eat-dog world, to say the least.

[Acacia Sgt]

58 minutes ago, Help said:

That being said, I don't really know Camus himself (RedEyedDrake helped with this). I'd appreciate an outline of Camus/Sirius/Zeke and what people think he establishes the trope to be a bit more fully than the FE wiki, if possible. Is Camus doing his duty to his country, rather than to a particular king/lord? That is how the wiki makes it sound, and I'm interested in confirming.

Well, there's much to say about Camus. And there's lots of stuff that came after the first game, so whether you want to count them as retroactively adding to his "Archetype" or not is a matter of debate.

Spoiler

Anyway, first of all, the reason Grust joined Dohl was because Medeus forced the Grustian King to do so. There is evidence Camus didn't like it, and one of the Satellaview chapters outright confirms it from the man himself, but he considers it his duty to serve Grust, even if Grust is serving Dohl. Not that it stops him from trying to do stuff about it. Again, from the Satellaview chapters, you have him refusing to kill Nyna when the Archanean palace was taken, sparing Rickard and Lena after their thievery adventure into said palace, and then delivering Nyna to Aurelis out of Medeus's grasp; though it helps it isn't exactly Grust he's disobeying in those times.

So then, why he places his duty to Grust above all else, then, even after aknowleding he doesn't particuarly like what his duty is currently making him do? I don't know if there's an explanation. It could be due to his image. It could be for Grust's sake (being forced to fight for Medeus is definitely not a good thing to go through). Maybe something in his past and why he became the leader of the Sable Order. Could be for something else. But I will point that first thing we see him as Sirius is him searching for the kids of the late Grust King, and then help leading them to safety. You could just say he was tying a loose end (he definitely didn't came back to stay, after all), but it was still an extension of his once-duty. But it's hard to say, since you could also see it as him tying loose ends from his previous life (he did stayed all the way to Hardin's, and later Medeus's, defeats), before returning for good to Valentia. At the same time, you could say that could be a duty of its own.

And then you have his time as Zeke during Gaiden/SoV, where even without his memories, his dedication to duty shines. He fights for Rigel as he feels indebted to it, having washed upon its shores without memories, with Teeta/Tatiana nursing him back to health, and King Rudolf taking him into his service. He's willing to betray Rudolf, but on Rudolf's own orders, and since it's still not exactly betraying Rigel. Since his orders were to follow the one with the birthmark, who would still be part of Rigel's royal family. At the same time, you could also say his tendency to rebel when he can also shows up, since he had opposed the war against Zofia and voiced it, but then they took Teeta/Tatiana hostage, forcing him to fight. And then later on he can outright switch sides even before joining Alm (when he confirms he's the one with the birthmark) once he sees she is safe.

So I'd say, Camus is a person who certainly gives importance to duty, but can and will voice his opinion on the matter if he doesn't find it completely agreeable, and trying to act independently from it, even if to the point of subversion. Though he does not do it enough to make him resign from what he would consider his duty. It's still more important to him.

Might be missing stuff, but well, it's a good start as any, I'd say.

[The DanMan]

Something that I'd been thinking about for a while when it came to Camus archetypes... Japan had some of its own during WWII. The general charged with holding Iwo Jima had been an ambassador to the US and had dined with the celebrities of the time. During the war, int a letter home to his wife he said that "the Americans are the last people we should be fighting". And yet he took his orders to heart and had Iwo Jima held virtually to the last man, dying in the process. The Camus archetype itself hinges heavily on a sense of honor, something us in the West kinda have a hard time grasping-- meanwhile, Japan still has its share of traditionalism within its culture. Not that it excuses bad writing; just thought it was an interesting perspective that I haven't really seen brought up before.

Edited March 2, 2017 by The DanMan

[Jotari]

6 hours ago, The DanMan said:

Something that I'd been thinking about for a while when it came to Camus archetypes... Japan had some of its own during WWII. The general charged with holding Iwo Jima had been an ambassador to the US and had dined with the celebrities of the time. During the war, int a letter home to his wife he said that "the Americans are the last people we should be fighting". And yet he took his orders to heart and had Iwo Jima held virtually to the last man, dying in the process. The Camus archetype itself hinges heavily on a sense of honor, something us in the West kinda have a hard time grasping-- meanwhile, Japan still has its share of traditionalism within its culture. Not that it excuses bad writing; just thought it was an interesting perspective that I haven't really seen brought up before.

Yeah, I've said something like that in the past. It's less odd that people are unwilling to betray their king and country for the protagonist and more odd that so many of them are just by having the lord (or Shiida) walk up and talk to them. Brings to mind this image.

[Original Alear]

19 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Well, there's much to say about Camus. And there's lots of stuff that came after the first game, so whether you want to count them as retroactively adding to his "Archetype" or not is a matter of debate.

  Reveal hidden contents

Anyway, first of all, the reason Grust joined Dohl was because Medeus forced the Grustian King to do so. There is evidence Camus didn't like it, and one of the Satellaview chapters outright confirms it from the man himself, but he considers it his duty to serve Grust, even if Grust is serving Dohl. Not that it stops him from trying to do stuff about it. Again, from the Satellaview chapters, you have him refusing to kill Nyna when the Archanean palace was taken, sparing Rickard and Lena after their thievery adventure into said palace, and then delivering Nyna to Aurelis out of Medeus's grasp; though it helps it isn't exactly Grust he's disobeying in those times.

So then, why he places his duty to Grust above all else, then, even after aknowleding he doesn't particuarly like what his duty is currently making him do? I don't know if there's an explanation. It could be due to his image. It could be for Grust's sake (being forced to fight for Medeus is definitely not a good thing to go through). Maybe something in his past and why he became the leader of the Sable Order. Could be for something else. But I will point that first thing we see him as Sirius is him searching for the kids of the late Grust King, and then help leading them to safety. You could just say he was tying a loose end (he definitely didn't came back to stay, after all), but it was still an extension of his once-duty. But it's hard to say, since you could also see it as him tying loose ends from his previous life (he did stayed all the way to Hardin's, and later Medeus's, defeats), before returning for good to Valentia. At the same time, you could say that could be a duty of its own.

And then you have his time as Zeke during Gaiden/SoV, where even without his memories, his dedication to duty shines. He fights for Rigel as he feels indebted to it, having washed upon its shores without memories, with Teeta/Tatiana nursing him back to health, and King Rudolf taking him into his service. He's willing to betray Rudolf, but on Rudolf's own orders, and since it's still not exactly betraying Rigel. Since his orders were to follow the one with the birthmark, who would still be part of Rigel's royal family. At the same time, you could also say his tendency to rebel when he can also shows up, since he had opposed the war against Zofia and voiced it, but then they took Teeta/Tatiana hostage, forcing him to fight. And then later on he can outright switch sides even before joining Alm (when he confirms he's the one with the birthmark) once he sees she is safe.

So I'd say, Camus is a person who certainly gives importance to duty, but can and will voice his opinion on the matter if he doesn't find it completely agreeable, and trying to act independently from it, even if to the point of subversion. Though he does not do it enough to make him resign from what he would consider his duty. It's still more important to him.

Might be missing stuff, but well, it's a good start as any, I'd say.

Thanks for this!

Something that I'd been thinking about for a while when it came to Camus archetypes... Japan had some of its own during WWII. The general charged with holding Iwo Jima had been an ambassador to the US and had dined with the celebrities of the time. During the war, int a letter home to his wife he said that "the Americans are the last people we should be fighting". And yet he took his orders to heart and had Iwo Jima held virtually to the last man, dying in the process. The Camus archetype itself hinges heavily on a sense of honor, something us in the West kinda have a hard time grasping-- meanwhile, Japan still has its share of traditionalism within its culture. Not that it excuses bad writing; just thought it was an interesting perspective that I haven't really seen brought up before.

It's not entirely alien to the West. I'm not sure to what extent the depiction is genuine or not (what I mean is I've heard people I trust say it is not), but I believe Robert E Lee is sometimes talked about as a dude who didn't want to uphold slavery, but still fought for the south. I think that some of the heroes of stories like the Iliad and the Odyssey also show this kind of dedication to duty (may not be people who actually existed, but they are ideals we hold up to some extent).

There's definitely many classical Japanese generals I can think of for whom duty was a very serious ideal (or they are described as such). And I think the case of general kobayashi can be seen as an instance of an officer whom the west held as accountable for the crimes of men under his command, even though his defense team argued he himself had no way of stopping them or interfering with them (don't feel like outlining all the details since I'm not really an expert on it, I've just read one book on the subject).

[Jotari]

1 minute ago, Help said:

Thanks for this!

 

 

It's not entirely alien to the West. I'm not sure to what extent the depiction is genuine or not (what I mean is I've heard people I trust say it is not), but I believe Robert E Lee is sometimes talked about as a dude who didn't want to uphold slavery, but still fought for the south. I think that some of the heroes of stories like the Iliad and the Odyssey also show this kind of dedication to duty (may not be people who actually existed, but they are ideals we hold up to some extent).

There's definitely many classical Japanese generals I can think of for whom duty was a very serious ideal (or they are described as such). And I think the case of general kobayashi can be seen as an instance of an officer whom the west held as accountable for the crimes of men under his command, even though his defense team argued he himself had no way of stopping them or interfering with them (don't feel like outlining all the details since I'm not really an expert on it, I've just read one book on the subject).

Honor was certainly something the west hold dearly in the past (such as the time these games were set in) but the point is that in modern times it's not valued in any particularly high regard over here while in east Asia it is still something people are concerned about.

[Original Alear]

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

Honor was certainly something the west hold dearly in the past (such as the time these games were set in) but the point is that in modern times it's not valued in any particularly high regard over here while in east Asia it is still something people are concerned about.

I'll take your word for it on both counts, at least for the purposes of discussing why it's a thing a japanese game series focuses on so much.

[Jotari]

7 minutes ago, Help said:

I'll take your word for it on both counts, at least for the purposes of discussing why it's a thing a japanese game series focuses on so much.

You probably shouldn't take me at my word. Half the time I'm spouting nonsense :p But seriously I live in China at the moment and they have a culture built about maintaining face. Of course in the west having a respectable position in society is important in the west but in China it's taken to a crazy degree where every single social interaction has dozens of rules about how one should behave and act in order to maintain face. Parents also have a lot more sway over who their children are and aren't allowed to marry. I assume a lot of similar concepts still maintain themselves in Japan too.