Understanding the relationship between Garon and his children

[NekoKnight]

Buckle in, this is going to be a long one. tldr at the bottom

Often discussed on Serenes is the plot of Fates, in particular the *ahem* problematic Conquest route. Even though you are allegedly the goods guys, you and your siblings do a lot of horrible things in the name of achieving peace. The central problem of this route is Garon. Even though he is transparently evil, our "heroes" continue to support him. The question is, why? One defense I've heard in favor of Nohrrin and his siblings is they were abused and couldn't see Garon objectively. I wanted to see if these theories carried any weight so I scoured the script and this is what I found.

Let's get something out on the table. Yes, Garon is an abuser.  He is quick to insult his children (mostly Nohrrin) when they don't behave as he would like and he makes it no secret that he'd have them executed if they disobeyed him. In F!Corrin's Gunter support, it even says that he would have had the young Corrin whipped to discipline her for shyness! Child abuse is a complicated topic and it's not uncommon for a victim to either justify the abuse as being deserved, be convinced that the abuser is normally kind or not want any attention brought to the abuser for fear that it will just make the abuse worse. So, does this behavior fit the Nohrian siblings? For the most part no. Not consistently at least.

One common element we see expressed by all siblings is that Garon will have them executed for disobeying him. Leo speaks on Corrin's behalf twice (P2 and C14) in order to divert Garon's rage and spare Corrin a grisly fate. Camilla also confirms (R13 and C14) that disobedience or failure will be met with death. As we can see, the Norhian children have plenty of cause to fear Garon and act in the interest of self preservation. The problem is, it's not fear that Corrin must help his siblings overcome, it's filial piety. I'll say this again, the game wants us to believe that the Nohr sibs are unfailingly loyal because they love him more than they hate his brutality. When Azura tells Corrin about Garon's true form in C15, the dilemma is not presented as "I need to get my siblings to summon their courage to stand up to Garon's evil". He thinks they wouldn't even believe him that Garon is evil without direct evidence.

So, if it's not fear that Garon's abuse created, it must be twisted adoration, right? What do the Nohrian siblings have to say about dear old dad?

Elise: Elise has never experienced Garon when he wasn't cruel and threatening but she seems to have a overall positive interpretation of Garon. Elise is, to put it lightly, an extremely naive child (sorry localization team). This is the same girl who thought "suppressing the ice tribe" meant sitting down and having dinner with them. She says that Garon is merely "rough around the edges", despite being present to 3 massacres he ordered. Her viewpoint isn't the best piece of evidence that Garon is worthy of adoration.

Leo: In Leo's support with Elise he says that he used to be fond of Garon but that he changed after the death of Queen Arete. Leo was very young when this happened however so most of the positive things he has to say about Garon of the past is second hand information. The Garon he does know is quick to order the executions of his siblings and countless other atrocities. In C14, Leo says to Corrin that the siblings subvert Garon behind his back so that they may "survive with their souls intact". Not exactly a positive commentary on Garon's behavior, is it? In Elise's support he tells her that he never loved his own mother, so it's hard to imagine Garon would leave a more favorable impression.

Camilla: Camilla doesn't have a lot to say on Garon but none of it is positive. She says on more than one occasion that Garon wouldn't hesitate to have them killed. In her support with Niles she says that Garon "loved to pit our mothers against each other". This conflict, which the fandom has dubbed "the concubine wars" seems to have been a traumatic event in Camilla's life that she blames in part on Garon.

So we have Leo and Camilla who are frank about Garon's dickery and Elise who is too much of an idiot-child to see things as they are. Which leaves just Xander.

Xander: Xander is the oldest Nohr sib so he has the most memories of Garon before he went bonkers. Garon even praises Xander on occasion when he is successful with a mission. It makes sense that he'd have the greatest cognitive dissonance and think that Garon might change if everyone cooperates with him. Unfortunately this characterization as him being blissfully unaware of Garon's true nature isn't consistent. In C6, Ryoma informs Xander that Garon killed Mikoto and countless others, which Corrin confirms. In C7, Xander overhears Garon cackling insanely that he wants Corrin to suffer and die. In his support with Corrin he expresses that in the past he would frequently argue with his father because he thought he only acted in his self interest. Finally in C27, Xander admits that the whole war was pointless and that he knew his father had changed.

In doesn't add up that these characters who are able to acknowledge that Garon is a cruel person are later defending him because of abuse. When Corrin informs his Nohrian siblings that Garon is an evil goo monster, all of them react with shock and horror. Gooron attacks them and they are unable to fight back. But it's not because they are afraid, it's because they genuinely care about him. The same man who, before being revealed as goo, would have casually ordered them killed at the smallest slight! Some would say this is typical of abusive relationships but there is no actual evidence this. On the contrary, the script suggests that they DO recognize that Garon is bad news.

Look, I know killing one's parent would never be easy (unless you're Michalis) but the writing does not support the dedication the children have for Garon. Their perception of Garon isn't warped by emotional abuse, it's warped by inept writers who couldn't make a conquest plot work unless the Nohrian siblings were weak-willed and uncooperative.

You know what Zephiel did after his father made two attempts on his life? He fucking put a sword through him! Nohr sibs, I am disappoint.

TLDR; While there are certain traits reminiscent of child abuse cases, there is no conclusive evidence that their loyalty to Garon is based on this.

What are your thoughts on the matter? Do you think there is evidence that child abuse made the Nohr sibs act the way they do?

Edited April 11, 2017 by NekoKnight

[saisymbolic]

I always kinda thought of abuse, more so with Xander than the rest, because of how adamant he was that Groan would return to his "normal" self, almost like he were protecting and justifying his abuser. But, I never mentioned it, because the relationship between Groan and his children is so vague that their indecisiveness and defense of Groan could be explained for any number of reasons really. Plus, I thought it would be in bad taste, to be honest.

So, I don't think it's a justifiable reason. Not without more elaboration about the alleged abuse, which we will never get.

Even if Groan were a human being gradually influenced by Anankos for a portion of the story, I still don't think it would make it justifuable in the current incarnation of the story, considering how the story is structured and how all the characters are portrayed.

Groan being goo really cripples the story.

[Thunderstar]

When Garon ordered Xander to kill Corrin in C7, Xander said that he would want Garon to kill him rather than Corrin, then Garon told him that he would never harm his children.

This dialogue is kinda weird because it makes me wonder why the siblings think that they are going to get executed if they are doing failures.
In BR, the nohrian siblings failed to kill Corrin all the time and Garon never threatened them though he threatens to kill Iago if he failed to kill Corrin in Krakenburg.

Even in RV, Xander failed to kill Corrin and Ryoma and Garon didn't execute him (though it might be because he is the first prince).

Except if Garon told them offscreen or if that's just poor writing, I don't really see him killing them since he saw them as pawns so he rather would want to keep them alive than dead.

I don't particulary see the nohrian siblings being loyal to him because of abuse.
Sure they are scared of him and he doesn't show any love to the siblings but that's not the main reason.

Like you said, it is more likey that they are loyal to him because he is their only parent and Leo and Camilla say at the end of Conquest that even though he is a slime monster, he is still their father.
They even cry at the end of Revelation when it's Anankos' dinner time, so it implies that they still love him (though to be fair they don't even know that he is a slime monster in that route!)

They know that he is a jerk but they don't care because he is their dad. That's kinda sad if you think about it.

[Ertrick36]

This pretty much sums up how I feel about this entire conflict, and it's a shame because it's so crucial to explaining why it is they need to go to war with Hoshido in the first place.

My biggest gripe is, as stated in the OP, the conflict being more presented as loyalty to Garon than it is fear of punishment.  And I think Xander is a critical part as to why the siblings don't try to resist, as Elise is more-or-less a follower and the other two have little love for Garon.  But Xander's feelings are inconsistent, so it's hard to pinpoint what he even feels for Garon.  That might've actually been a bit of good writing if it wasn't for the fact that Garon being a slime monster was the main breaking point and if the narrative actually recognized that his feelings were inconsistent.

11 minutes ago, Thunderstar said:

Like you said, it is more likey that they are loyal to him because he is their only parent and Leo and Camilla say at the end of Conquest that even though he is a slime monster, he is still their father.
They even cry at the end of Revelation when it's Anankos' dinner time, so it implies that they still love him (though to be fair they don't even know that he is a slime monster in that route!)

They know that he is a jerk but they don't care because he is their dad. That's kinda sad if you think about it.

I would find it sad if I wasn't so perplexed as to why anyone even loves him.  I mean, I don't know what it's like to have an absolute dick for a father (especially not one like Garon) nor do I have the exact mindset of any of his kids, but I don't think I'd have any qualms with killing him if I could, regardless of if he was my father or not.  The story spends a lot of time making sure you hate him; there's nothing to love about him aside from that goofy-ass grin he makes when he laughs, so it isn't like the writers are making it easy to sympathize with the siblings' hesitance.  It also doesn't help that I only really like one of the siblings.

Actually, given that they made him so damn unlikable, I thought Nohrrin and the siblings were gonna straight up rebel near the beginning of Conquest instead of in the last two chapters.  In fact, ever since the games first started getting advertised I always thought that Conquest was gonna be about rebelling against Garon while also having to fight against misguided/bastard Hoshidan forces who don't care if you're rebels or not.  Yes, even in spite of the title; I thought the "Conquest" implied conquering your foes through questionable and brutal ways, not necessarily conquering a whole nation.

And then again, I was also under the assumption that there wouldn't be BS magical plot devices in the game, so maybe I was just expecting too much from the writers.

[tacticianwhite]

To be completely honest, I can see some signs of child abuse.

Really, the situation the Nohrians are in is why I'm always ready to defend him, especially Xander--while people say he's an idiot for believing in his obviously evil father, I can see why he does so; being the oldest of the four, he remembers a time when Garon was a kind, if still stern, man. So when he started to change, he didn't want to believe it. He didn't want to believe his father was no longer. Personally, I wouldn't consider him being *downright stupid*, but rather in denial. I'm not exactly saying what Xander is doing *smart* or *good*, but at least a little bit understandable.

...of course, there are definitely inconsistencies--especially in Conquest Chapter 7, where Xander realizes that Garon intends to make Corrin suffer. So here, he DOES definitely seem to be aware that Garon's not that great of a person or father.

Then we have how the siblings act--or rather, fail to act. Let's take Conquest Chapter 13 as an example, the Cheve massacre. Hans is killing people left and right, and yet the siblings don't even bother try to stop him. Why? It's as Camilla says--should even his children disobey him, he won't hesitate to kill them.

They're scared. They don't want to die, which is why they don't want to act. Can this be considered selfish? That they refuse to stand up for what's right in order to save their own hide? Well, sure. But again, I can see why they would act in such a way. And this is why they must "act behind the scenes" as Leo said in Chapter 14. While they cannot openly disobey Garon, they can manipulate some situations in such a way that will keep others safe. (And I'm not trying to simply *EXCUSE* their actions, but it's like I said--I can *UNDERSTAND WHY* they act the way they do.)

Of course, I cannot defend EVERYTHING. Garon is still stupidly, ridiculously evil. There's absolutely nothing good about him. There could have been, at least a little, but apparently the writers didn't think that was necessary. They really could have gone into more detail about how Garon was like in the past, and like saisymbolic said,elaborate on the abuse. But we'll never get that. I can see what they were going for, but unfortunately Fates as a whole suffers from bad writing and missed potential.

...well, that's what I have to say. Honestly, I've never been a victim of abuse, so perhaps I don't really have a right to say anything. But I just wanted to give my thoughts. There was a pretty good reddit post I saw a few weeks ago that pretty much said what I wanted to, only it was presented a lot better. But perhaps using that as an example is not something I should be doing?

[Sunwoo]

If the game's intent was to portray the Nohr siblings as abused children, I think it failed. The evidence from the narrative is too inconsistent to really draw any conclusion that is certain, and there is too little backstory as well to understand how the real Garon would've actually behaved.

[Extrasolar]

The opening post is very well-written, and I've been saying this for a while to refute people that try to explain away the Nohrian siblings baffling and frustrating lack of action against Garon during Conquest as "well they were abused" or "well he's their dad so they didn't say anything."

Just...argh. For the record, I'm not saying that the Nohrian siblings standing up to Garon would have been easy for them, and that there wouldn't have been a lot of conflicting feelings about it. I'm saying that their relationship to him doesn't mean that they'd be absolutely incapable of standing up for their beliefs and stopping a madman, father or not. If anything, I'd far prefer if they did, as that would have been a more powerful narrative. Sure, he's your dad, but if he's a crazy ass lunatic far beyond the point of return, he needs to go down before he ruins anyone else's lives, no matter what.

3 hours ago, spiderbrush said:

They're scared. They don't want to die, which is why they don't want to act. Can this be considered selfish? That they refuse to stand up for what's right in order to save their own hide?

But...the problem is that there's 5 Nohrian siblings, and one Garon. Xander, Camilla and Leo are already accomplished fighters before Fates even begins, and Corrin only grows stronger and stronger through the Conquest route, and we've got Elise healing. You can't tell me that they're not enough to bring down Garon if they worked together. Even if they don't know he's a slime monster, they're still more than capable of killing him should the need arise (and during Conquest, it most definitely did). Why be scared when you've got by far the advantage of numbers? Garon was never built up as this godly fighter who was invincible or anything.

3 hours ago, spiderbrush said:

while people say he's an idiot for believing in his obviously evil father, I can see why he does so; being the oldest of the four, he remembers a time when Garon was a kind, if still stern, man. So when he started to change, he didn't want to believe it. He didn't want to believe his father was no longer.

The frustration comes from the fact that there's a line, and at that point, there's no going back. Sure, Xander's perceptions could be colored by the past...but when the guy in front of you is an omnicidal maniac slaughtering innocent people, it doesn't matter how many piggy back rides he gave you as a child. He's plunged off the deep end, and there's no going back.

I don't even think him being slavishly loyal to Garon is understandable. Elsewhere Xander seems to see things clearly, without coloring his perceptions with his own feelings or anything.

He shows that he doesn't make exceptions to his code even for family (threatening to execute Corrin if they're lying about Garon being "not himself" at the end of Conquest, for example), but he's still inexplicably plugging his ears and shutting his eyes when it comes to Garon. And Xander in his support with Corrin says he absolutely can stand up to Garon...but never does.

Not to mention, Xander is far, far closer to his siblings than he is to Garon, and especially Corrin. His whole "determined not to lose any siblings" thing is a huge part of his character. Once Garon started threatening to kill them, all bets should have been off, should he have been behaving in character.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Extrasolar

[NekoKnight]

2 hours ago, spiderbrush said:

They're scared. They don't want to die, which is why they don't want to act. Can this be considered selfish? That they refuse to stand up for what's right in order to save their own hide? Well, sure. But again, I can see why they would act in such a way. And this is why they must "act behind the scenes" as Leo said in Chapter 14. While they cannot openly disobey Garon, they can manipulate some situations in such a way that will keep others safe. (And I'm not trying to simply *EXCUSE* their actions, but it's like I said--I can *UNDERSTAND WHY* they act the way they do.)

I have less of a problem with their behavior when it comes to self-preservation (although even then, they are pretty heartless to the plight of the Hoshidans). Fear is a very understandable reaction to Garon. If the central conflict were based on fear, however, we wouldn't need Valla, the curse, Gooron or even the conquest. I would have appreciated a scene earlier on where Corrin confronts them about stopping Garon and them reacting with genuine terror at even the notion. Although they don't support his actions, we never see any indication that they want Garon removed.

[Slyfox]

I think the Nohrian siblings not standing up to Garon makes sense, honestly. Does it make for a good story? Maybe not, but it's a far more realistic one that mirrors what's happened and continues to happen in our world since the beginning of civilization.

So many people stick with family, even when it harms others, such as strangers or friends, or even if it's wrong. I've stuck with family on many occasions, out of loyalty to them or pressure from them, and there are still a few cases that I regret even now. Loyalty to your family is hammered into our brains everywhere in the world, even animals have it ingrained in them.

If people are getting sick of the Nohrian siblings, perhaps it's time to look at our own world as well, ourselves included. As much as I would imagine myself making a difference, as much as it would make a more interesting story, if I were in the same place as the Nohrian siblings I probably would stay in line. And I doubt most of you would do any different.

It would have been nice to have a rebellion story or at least something different, as the Conquest marketing implied, but what we got instead was a messed up but a more or less realistic view on family ties (Garon being ridiculously evil notwithstanding). Welcome to the real world!

 

Also, I actually liked the Gooron reveal. There wasn't really an antagonist for our protagonists (who were kind of antagonists anyway) in Conquest, and I think trying to make an amalgamation of Gangrel, Validar and Walhart sympathetic to be even poorer writing than what we actually received. Garon was the embodiment of stereotypical evil, there was nothing writing could do to save that character. Gooron was the game not trying to even pretend it's complex for once, so it was a breath of fresh air for me. Having a mostly mindless abomination was a better villain than plain old Garon

[Falling Blue]

Made an account to reply to this.

The Nohr siblings can recognize Garon is bad news, but if we want to use real-life abuse cases as an example, recognizing abuse and recognizing they are in a toxic environment DOES NOT MEAN they are capable of leaving/fighting back. Garon is the king as well as their father, which can make taking action even more difficult.

So, I can understand child abuse on the Nohr family's end. I can understand the Nohr family having conflicting feelings about their abuser. I can totally buy them being unable to fight back as a coping mechanism or defend him because they're in denial. It's better their their mental wellbeing if they believe what they're doing is justified and not out of fear, the latter having negative connotations of “strength”/”weakness”.

I can also buy the fact that they need Corrin to rally them against Garon because aside from that period of abuse/starvation after their kidnapping... They actually haven't been exposed to the same kind of environment the Nohr siblings are. The Northern Fortress was isolated, yeah, but Corrin DID have (by all accounts) a parental figure that was able to raise them in a safe/loving environment in Gunter and wasn't brought to court until the events of Fates. Garon is an abusive father, yes, but Corrin did not spend their life abused by him.

(Elise is somewhat similar. I have no doubts that Xander, Camilla and Leo would've tried to protect/shelter her, which would've helped migrate some of the harm she otherwise would've experienced.)

Except... the writing is horribly inconsistent, as you pointed out. And when playing Conquest, I never got the impression that the Nohr siblings' relationships with Garon were framed in such a way.

And...

1 hour ago, NekoKnight said:

I have less of a problem with their behavior when it comes to self-preservation (although even then, they are pretty heartless to the plight of the Hoshidans). Fear is a very understandable reaction to Garon. If the central conflict were based on fear, however, we wouldn't need Valla, the curse, Gooron or even the conquest. I would have appreciated a scene earlier on where Corrin confronts them about stopping Garon and them reacting with genuine terror at even the notion. Although they don't support his actions, we never see any indication that they want Garon removed.

Bolded mine. This has an unfortunate side effect of making it look as though the Nohr siblings think Garon's (fake or no) ways are a problem only when they are being affected by it. 

Out of universe, I'm also getting rather tired of seeing this "they were abused" argument being brought up as a "get of of jail free" card for the Nohrian siblings. I'm not denying it or that the way they were raised shaped them into the kind of people they are. But they are still capable of acting on their own agency/autonomy and, if we believe Leo about "surviving this long with their souls intact", a moral compass. 

None of them protest or express doubts about the invasion. Elise even talks about "going to Hoshido" like it's a vacation in Chapter 16. I don't recall them ever empathizing with and being truly affected by the plights of others, Hoshidan or no.

A backstory of abuse only goes so far to making someone sympathetic. 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Falling Blue

[Thane]

Ever since I started hearing the abuse argument, my reaction has always been "but what does it matter?". Regardless of whether or not there is any truth to it - and as NekoKnight points out, it's inconsistent writing at the best of times - it doesn't change the fact that the Nohrian siblings do some really appalling shit while simultaneously being portrayed as good people. Hell, they're even supposed to be seen as heroes, especially Xander, so having them be at the beck and call of Garon makes absolutely no sense. 

A lot of this could've been avoided had Garon just been better written, but that's usually people's first or second quick fix to Fates' plot, so I don't think I need to delve into it further.

[Sunwoo]

Something I forgot to mention in my previous post. Regardless of whether the Nohrian siblings are abused children or not, I don't find them to be likable protagonists. Would it be "realistic" to have them be afraid of Garon? Maybe. But the problem with this for me is the narrative of Conquest itself. The game wants me to believe that Corrin and the Nohr sibling are heroes. It doesn't want me to believe they're villains or cowards or anything negative.

If you want me to believe that they're heroes, the game needs to convince me that they are. And I don't see the Nohr siblings doing anything heroic at all. They're just ... kind of ducking their heads and being cowardly. Which is fine, if they weren't being portrayed as heroes. But because they are, I see it as a problem. Maybe it's more realistic to have them keep their heads down, but heroes in stories aren't always "realistic" either. They do things that ordinary people don't have the strength to do, because they're meant to be heroes. So if you're going to make the Nohr siblings unheroic, don't expect us to believe they're heroes.

[NekoKnight]

7 hours ago, Slyfox said:

I think the Nohrian siblings not standing up to Garon makes sense, honestly. Does it make for a good story? Maybe not, but it's a far more realistic one that mirrors what's happened and continues to happen in our world since the beginning of civilization.

If people are getting sick of the Nohrian siblings, perhaps it's time to look at our own world as well, ourselves included. As much as I would imagine myself making a difference, as much as it would make a more interesting story, if I were in the same place as the Nohrian siblings I probably would stay in line. And I doubt most of you would do any different.

There is a reason why you don't tell the stories of the average person who would fail utterly in dire situations. We follow the man who defeats 100 men, not the guy who shat himself and then fled the field when the battle grew intense. This isn't to say all protagonists should be flawless supermen but if the characters aren't competant enough, it's not a story worth telling. Even looking at this through a "real people with realistic flaws" lens, those flaws need to actually be addressed in the plot. No where in Conquest do the siblings show repentance or self-introspection for their failures.  There is no scene at the end of the game where Xander says "Because of my cowardice and weakness I allowed evil to triumph." Quite the opposite, Xander says "Yeah, I was always against the war. Peace, now THAT'S what I'm all about!" all while "Sunshine, Lolipops and Rainbows" plays in the background. If the game wanted us to treat their flaws (particularly in the case of child abuse) seriously, it would have talked about them in some way. 

7 hours ago, Falling Blue said:

So, I can understand child abuse on the Nohr family's end. I can understand the Nohr family having conflicting feelings about their abuser. I can totally buy them being unable to fight back as a coping mechanism or defend him because they're in denial. It's better their their mental wellbeing if they believe what they're doing is justified and not out of fear, the latter having negative connotations of “strength”/”weakness”.

Now THAT would be a great personal flaw to explore. Everyone wants to be "right" in the way they do things, and characters who redefine what "rightness" means to them. Leo already shows shades of this with him considering his secret subversion of Garon adequate rightness (but he still supports in him in the conquest) but no one calls him out for his other conflicts of morals.