I want another villain like Grima*3H spoilers*

[0 Def Cleric]

1 minute ago, Icelerate said:

I agree. I think the elements that make a story good are characters, plot (series of events), themes and world building. How well done each of these categories does and which of these categories is more important for a particular story is inherently subjective. 

Indeed! My particular priorities are worldbuilding, characters, and plot (in that order), but I'm well aware that other people prioritize them in different orders or not at all. Personally, I think it's fascinating seeing different perspectives on story due to disagreements on those priorities.

[Icelerate]

3 minutes ago, 0 Def Cleric said:

Indeed! My particular priorities are worldbuilding, characters, and plot (in that order), but I'm well aware that other people prioritize them in different orders or not at all. Personally, I think it's fascinating seeing different perspectives on story due to disagreements on those priorities.

For me I would say characters, plot, world-building and themes in that order. I barely even think about themes whereas I'm constantly thinking about the characters and plot. I do enjoy world building but it's not something I'm always looking at. 

I got a question for you, what do you think is better gen 2 Geneology or Sacred Stones? I'm guessing you'd say Geneology because it has the better world building which you value the most.

I'd say SS because I think it has a stronger cast of characters and plot wise, they are both pretty generic although not necessarily bad, just straightforward. 

 

[Ottservia]

19 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

Whether a story even has a theme and how strongly it adheres to it is inherently subjective. If you disagree, prove to me objectively speaking, that a theme even matters. 

I have said this before but ask yourself why does a writer write? A story is nothing more than an author’s conveyence of their perception of reality. That’s what art is at the end of the day. Writing like every other form of art is a form of expression. It’s a way to explore ideas and concepts through the lens of a fictional setting and characters. Stories are inherently unrealistic and contrived. It’s through these contrived scenarios that authors are able craft stories and narrative which are then used to explore ideas and themes. Every other element of a story from its characters, world, plot, etc. all usually adhere to some core idea that the narrative wants to explore. Naruto is a story about loneliness and the painful sting of war. How the duality of love and hate creates a viscous cycle born from human hypocrisy. Everything in that story connects back to those core ideas. A story is nothing more than a vehicle to explore different themes and ideas. That’s what a story is. That’s what art is. A story without a consistent theme(like echoes) usually ends up being messy, unfocused, and overall contradictory.  A story that contradicts itself fails to do what a story is meant to do and that is to clearly convey an idea. A story is meant to convey and explore ideas. That’s what art is and that’s what does. 

 

11 minutes ago, 0 Def Cleric said:

It's very simple! 

Nothing makes a story objectively good, because the consumption of a story, from its basic wording down to its themes, is entirely from the reader's own view. There is no truly "good" or "bad" story in this world, because what is important to everyone who consumes stories is different. Some people prioritize characterization, some prioritize themes, and some simply prioritize enjoying the experience! Literary critique is based entirely around the idea of subjectivity in the analysis of stories. 

It's a wonderful thing, really. Since it's something created from human minds, human minds have to interpret it to understand it and enjoy it or despise it or be thoroughly ambivalent towards it. Is including tropes a good thing? A bad thing? It's up to the reader! Just as everything is. And of course, your view of the story and its themes will always depend on you, as a person! 

Finally something you and I can somewhat agree on. The line between objectivity and subjectivity in regards to critical narrative analysis is a fine one. That much I will admit. What matters in a story to you may not matter to me to that I will agree. Criticism in it of itself is subjective cause it’s all based on personal standard. Analysis is objective because it’s clear and does not rely on personal taste or standard. The two can go together however and that’s where critical analysis is formed. It’s a blurry mess of subjectivity and objectivity but y’know it exists. A good story conveys ideas and values to invoke emotion. That’s how I judge a story. Are the ideas conveyed in a way that makes sense and clearly gets across the message the author wants to get across cause once again that’s all a story is at the end of the day.

[0 Def Cleric]

Just now, Icelerate said:

For me I would say characters, plot, world-building and themes in that order. I barely even think about themes whereas I'm constantly thinking about the characters and plot. I do enjoy world building but it's not something I'm always looking at. 

I got a question for you, what do you think is better gen 2 Geneology or Sacred Stones? I'm guessing you'd say Geneology because it has the better world building which you value the most.

I'd say SS because I think it has a stronger cast of characters and plot wise, they are both pretty generic although not necessarily bad, just straightforward. 

Yeah, I definitely prefer Genealogy gen 2, just personally. Although Sacred Stones is pretty nice too, and it's got some great character conflicts, I just love to bite into the meat of the lore, and the whole Archanea/Jugdral world has so much there! 

...But I bet you can guess what my favorite duo of games besides the Jugdral pair are. After all, Tellius is the second-best developed continent in the series! 

[Interdimensional Observer]

2 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

Interesting how Zephiel is at the very bottom while Sephiran is at the top despite them having the same motive basically. 

Indeed, both are misanthropes- humans who think lowly of humanity and want it gone. Throwing the rest in spoilers just because:

Spoiler

Though @Etrurian emperor has stated a fundamental difference between the two before. Zephiel bases his view of humanity primarily on how his father treated him. Sephiran has hundreds of years of existence wherein he saw the full breadth of human wickedness and suffering.  

Another difference is the post-humanity plan. Zephiel wants dragons to replace them, but the dragons he wants aren't real dragons, only mass-produced, low-intelligence War Dragons. Sephiran doesn't really care about what replaces humanity if anything, but Ashera I believe states she'll create more perfect lifeforms to fill the world. Creating highly intelligent lifeforms on her end sounds more feasible than Idunn doing it, and high intelligence makes killing off the other highly intelligent not as unquestionably evil as it unquestionably is. 

A third is how the two characters carry themselves. Zephiel isn't very nice as I said before. Sephiran dies giving his beloved "daughter" Sanaki a gift to remember him by. Since that comes after Sephiran reveals himself and when he is utterly powerless to fulfill his goals (dying does that to you), you can't call it a grand deception. Sephiran hit me with a charm offensive, and it worked.😆

 

Zeph and Seph prove you can start with the same premise, and go in totally different directions. 

 

It's like how I lumped together a tier I called the "Mad Kings". Although a looser concept, FE has significant diversity amongst its evil human kings. Zephiel and Ashnard for instance are total opposites. Zephiel hates humanity and its base instincts, Ashnard embraces those base instincts. Walhart would agree with Zephiel's call for order over Ashnard's chaos I think. But Walhart would resolutely reject the anti-humanism of Zephiel and insert himself as the leader needed to made an orderly world. Zephiel would call Walhart arrogant just as he would Ashnard a wild beast and demand that both die.

Travant on the other hand doesn't care about humanity and order or chaos, and just wants a unified Thracia to end his people's suffering. And Gangrel is off in a corner passing gas because he feels like it, and laughing at the all the people dying in the Ashnard-Zephiel-Walhart war, which Travant is looking for an employment opportunity in. These two are more down to earth in their wants and goals than Ash, Wind, and Lobster.

-And this is why I NEED them to fight each other in a FEW sequel! Ideals must clash and the Gungnir must flash! Gimme gimme gimme!

[Slumber]

40 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

For me I would say characters, plot, world-building and themes in that order. I barely even think about themes whereas I'm constantly thinking about the characters and plot. I do enjoy world building but it's not something I'm always looking at. 

Plot=Characters>World-building>>>Themes

A story and characters that I can latch onto are the big things that keep me invested in a narrative. World building is a nice backdrop to strengthen the other two, and can even have heightened importance in an on-going narrative. Themes are something I only get invested in when I'm trying to find deeper meaning in a story that I love. It's something I pay attention to after the fact, and it rarely impacts my enjoyment of a story in the moment. And I can love a story that has no real overt themes to comment on. It's also the thing I'll give the least of a shit about when I don't like the other things, and I'm not inclined to find meaning in what I find a pretty bad story, because the most important part to me was already botched.

Fates fails at plot, characters and world building, so why in the world would I waste energy caring about the themes it's trying to convey?

Edited August 21, 2019 by Slumber

[Troykv]

Obviously evil villains work when they have something going for them

Like being charming (like DIO), being terrifying (like Yoshikage Kira) or both (like some versions of the Joker).

Edited August 21, 2019 by Troykv

[Icelerate]

On 8/20/2019 at 11:15 PM, Ottservia said:

I have said this before but ask yourself why does a writer write? A story is nothing more than an author’s conveyence of their perception of reality. That’s what art is at the end of the day. Writing like every other form of art is a form of expression. It’s a way to explore ideas and concepts through the lens of a fictional setting and characters. Stories are inherently unrealistic and contrived. It’s through these contrived scenarios that authors are able craft stories and narrative which are then used to explore ideas and themes. Every other element of a story from its characters, world, plot, etc. all usually adhere to some core idea that the narrative wants to explore. Naruto is a story about loneliness and the painful sting of war. How the duality of love and hate creates a viscous cycle born from human hypocrisy. Everything in that story connects back to those core ideas. A story is nothing more than a vehicle to explore different themes and ideas. That’s what a story is. That’s what art is. A story without a consistent theme(like echoes) usually ends up being messy, unfocused, and overall contradictory.  A story that contradicts itself fails to do what a story is meant to do and that is to clearly convey an idea. A story is meant to convey and explore ideas. That’s what art is and that’s what does. 

 

Who knows why a writer writes. I don't, you don't. Proof that any of this is an objective fact? You're basically saying a story has a purpose but how exactly is this objectively true and how can you argue that it's theme is this purpose? What if I told you I wrote a story just to make money and not to explore any themes, wouldn't this contradict your assertion that a story is meant to convey and explore ideas is a universal truth?

 

On 8/20/2019 at 11:33 PM, Interdimensional Observer said:

Indeed, both are misanthropes- humans who think lowly of humanity and want it gone. Throwing the rest in spoilers just because:

  Reveal hidden contents

Though @Etrurian emperor has stated a fundamental difference between the two before. Zephiel bases his view of humanity primarily on how his father treated him. Sephiran has hundreds of years of existence wherein he saw the full breadth of human wickedness and suffering.  

Another difference is the post-humanity plan. Zephiel wants dragons to replace them, but the dragons he wants aren't real dragons, only mass-produced, low-intelligence War Dragons. Sephiran doesn't really care about what replaces humanity if anything, but Ashera I believe states she'll create more perfect lifeforms to fill the world. Creating highly intelligent lifeforms on her end sounds more feasible than Idunn doing it, and high intelligence makes killing off the other highly intelligent not as unquestionably evil as it unquestionably is. 

A third is how the two characters carry themselves. Zephiel isn't very nice as I said before. Sephiran dies giving his beloved "daughter" Sanaki a gift to remember him by. Since that comes after Sephiran reveals himself and when he is utterly powerless to fulfill his goals (dying does that to you), you can't call it a grand deception. Sephiran hit me with a charm offensive, and it worked.😆

 

Zeph and Seph prove you can start with the same premise, and go in totally different directions. 

Zephiel is a mad king so he can go in the tier right below Sephiran. I agree Sephiran is better but I don't see how Sephiran's act of kindness at the very end of his life is very touching considering he has nothing to lose by giving the gem to Sanaki. A better example would be Micaiah saving Nico with sacrifice in the face of Begnion occupation forces. Which one would you say is more touching? 

Also Sephiran doesn't have Zephiel's screen time and presence in the story. Zephiel's also shown to be quite a threatening foe considering how easily he defeats Cecilia which makes him a badass something that Sephiran lacks. We only really see Sephiran once in part 3 at the end of chapter 3-12 and then in the tower. Contrast that with Zephiel who is shown trash talking Hector, Cecilia and even talking to his generals all before we see him at Bern's palace. 

Would you say that how well-written a character/story is is inherently subjective? 

On 8/20/2019 at 11:49 PM, Slumber said:

Plot=Characters>World-building>>>Themes

 A story and characters that I can latch onto are the big things that keep me invested in a narrative. World building is a nice backdrop to strengthen the other two, and can even have heightened importance in an on-going narrative. Themes are something I only get invested in when I'm trying to find deeper meaning in a story that I love. It's something I pay attention to after the fact, and it rarely impacts my enjoyment of a story in the moment. And I can love a story that has no real overt themes to comment on. It's also the thing I'll give the least of a shit about when I don't like the other things, and I'm not inclined to find meaning in what I find a pretty bad story, because the most important part to me was already botched.

 Fates fails at plot, characters and world building, so why in the world would I waste energy caring about the themes it's trying to convey?

I have no experience with Fates but I agree with that. Conversely, if there was a game that excelled at the first three but completely failed theme, I'd say that game has a pretty good story for the most part.

On 8/20/2019 at 11:53 PM, Troykv said:

Obviously evil villains work when they have something going for them

Like being charming (like DIO), being terrifying (like Yoshikage Kira) or both (like some versions of the Joker).

It'd be better if you brought FE examples because I only know about the Joker but not everything about him. 

[Interdimensional Observer]

15 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

Zephiel is a mad king so he can go in the tier right below Sephiran.

My tiering was made to be vertical- in terms of how good I think they regardless of archetype- but in ways it was coincidentally horizontal- that being that most mad kings ended up being lumped together. I just spun the tier titles after I realized this. Zephiel doesn't belong there, due to a significant difference in quality.

16 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

I agree Sephiran is better but I don't see how Sephiran's act of kindness at the very end of his life is very touching considering he has nothing to lose by giving the gem to Sanaki.

True,

16 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

A better example would be Micaiah saving Nico with sacrifice in the face of Begnion occupation forces. Which one would you say is more touching? 

Micaiah and Nico = more qualitatively selfless, a greater good. But Sephiran's death is more dramatic, though drama has nothing to do the goodness of the act. IRL, I want as many qualitatively selfless acts as possible, more drama does not improve/save more lives, it only exaggerates the acts themselves, and not always deservedly so.

The point I was trying to make there was Sephiran is inherently a polite, nice guy. Nothing in his outward personality is "bad", it is only his hidden misanthropic goals that constitute badness. Zephiel doesn't carry himself in the same way, he acts mercilessly to Hector, he acts with discrimination towards Cecilia, when he doesn't have to be so against either.

Sephiran wants the same 0 pop. human world as Zeph, and is indirectly directly responsible for the deaths of thousands or millions of lives, but he does so with a non-psychotic smile on his face. He is quite approachable, I could easily envision him and not King Zephiel as how he would be if he weren't evil, and I like the person I see. If Zephiel had the same demeanor, but no misanthropy, I still wouldn't like him. 

 

29 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

Also Sephiran doesn't have Zephiel's screen time and presence in the story. Zephiel's also shown to be quite a threatening foe considering how easily he defeats Cecilia which makes him a badass something that Sephiran lacks. We only really see Sephiran once in part 3 at the end of chapter 3-12 and then in the tower. Contrast that with Zephiel who is shown trash talking Hector, Cecilia and even talking to his generals all before we see him at Bern's palace. 

Zephiel has more presence, but no more, even less I'd say, than Ashnard. Ashnard might not ORKO anyone, but his colorful "Daein Keep" conversations are rather plentiful whereas Zephiel's are fewer- if my memory serves me right. And Ashy is appropriate here, since like Zeph, neither meets with their sword infantry heroic foe until the final battle. 

Zephiel's additional presence isn't enough over Sephiran's for it to be considered significant. Nergal has a significant lead there, Gangrel would qualify for that too, but Zephiel's lead is so marginal it would only break a tie if the two were otherwise identical in my qualitative judgement.

And the Cecilia defeat is peculiar. She is the Mage General of Etruria, to be defeated is a sign of Zephiel's strength, in lore. But in gameplay? I can't separate the two emotively within myself. And in gameplay, Cecilia has poor stats for someone who is supposed to be so strong in lore. 11 Mag and 10 Spd on a Valkyrie? From a balance perspective, it is good. Cecilia has a horse and A Anima and C Staffs, the low bases and okay growths balance those advantages. Yet, it means Zephiel in gameplay ripped a wet tissue in two, he did nothing. Killing Douglas or Perceval would have shown actual effort.

 

40 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

Would you say that how well-written a character/story is is inherently subjective? 

Yes and no.

Yes, because with billions of people existing and have/will existed, there is absolutely going to be at least one deviant viewpoint on everything.

No, because shovelware has to be just that, and therefore some objective criterion must exist. I just haven't discovered whatever it is yet, and probably won't bother looking for it.😆

[Ottservia]

1 hour ago, Icelerate said:

Who knows why a writer writes. I don't, you don't. Proof that any of this is an objective fact? You're basically saying a story has a purpose but how exactly is this objectively true and how can you argue that it's theme is this purpose? What if I told you I wrote a story just to make money and not to explore any themes, wouldn't this contradict your assertion that a story is meant to convey and explore ideas is a universal truth?

For something to be objective it needs to be provable. Like for example, it is objective fact that I am typing this out on my computer right now. I can prove that. In regards to critical narrative analysis, the line between objectivity and subjectivity is very much so blurred and while criticism in it of itself is for the most part subjective because what one values in a story varies from person to person, thematic analysis does indeed have a layer of objectivity to it. I can claim a story conveys a specific message so long as I have sufficient evidence from the text to back up my claim whether that message was intended or not. I can make an argumentative claim out of that because it can be proven at least somewhat. Naruto is a story about human hypocrisy and how to overcome one's loneliness. I can prove that claim with evidence from the text. It does rely on personal interpretation but without evidence from the text, I cannot prove any claim I make. Like Naruto is clearly not a story about the horrors of fascism.

Everyone is influenced by the world around them and those influences will inevitably show up in one's art whether they were intended or not. For example, In an interview Kishimoto had stated he knew a lot of kids who grew up with single parents or no parents at all. It's those experiences that he gained from those kids that are reflected in the themes of Naruto. Good Art is a conveyance of ideas. All art conveys values to invoke emotion. What a makes a story understandable and emotional are the ideas behind it. The reason we relate to characters is because we understand them. I like characters like Severa and Sasuke because I can understand what it's like to feel inferior to someone better. That's my own personal taste mind you but my point is a story is not engaging unless it has ideas behind it. What makes Naruto vs Sasuke such a compelling fight is not because it's just two teenage boys punching each other and good animation. It's the conflict born from the lack of understanding of each other's loneliness that highlights the many differences and similarities between them. One who fights to try and not feel the great pain of loss while the other fights on in spite of understanding that very same pain. That is what makes the fight itself so compelling and interesting, the ideas and messages behind it. Ideas and messages pulled from the real world are what what makes stories compelling. This is how we are able to understand media through the reality of which we view it.

Critical narrative analysis is indeed subjective but it is through proving what messages and ideas reside in a piece of art that one can truly bolster their understanding of the world around them. 

Edited August 22, 2019 by Ottservia

[Icelerate]

On 8/22/2019 at 1:49 PM, Interdimensional Observer said:

Yes and no.

Yes, because with billions of people existing and have/will existed, there is absolutely going to be at least one deviant viewpoint on everything.

 No, because shovelware has to be just that, and therefore some objective criterion must exist. I just haven't discovered whatever it is yet, and probably won't bother looking for it.😆

I'm also not certain whether Sephiran is a better villain than Lekain. Sephiran is more unique personality, design and character wise and has more depth. But Sephiran is supposed to sympathetic and he does evoke sympathetic emotions to some extent. However, Lekain is supposed to evoke emotions of rage and I think I get far more angry at Lekain than feel pity for Sephiran so in a certain sense I can see Lekain being the better villain. Overall I'd say Sephiran has more going for him but it truly is subjective IMO.

On 8/22/2019 at 2:56 PM, Ottservia said:

For something to be objective it needs to be provable. Like for example, it is objective fact that I am typing this out on my computer right now. I can prove that. In regards to critical narrative analysis, the line between objectivity and subjectivity is very much so blurred and while criticism in it of itself is for the most part subjective because what one values in a story varies from person to person, thematic analysis does indeed have a layer of objectivity to it. I can claim a story conveys a specific message so long as I have sufficient evidence from the text to back up my claim whether that message was intended or not. I can make an argumentative claim out of that because it can be proven at least somewhat. Naruto is a story about human hypocrisy and how to overcome one's loneliness. I can prove that claim with evidence from the text. It does rely on personal interpretation but without evidence from the text, I cannot prove any claim I make. Like Naruto is clearly not a story about the horrors of fascism.

Everyone is influenced by the world around them and those influences will inevitably show up in one's art whether they were intended or not. For example, In an interview Kishimoto had stated he knew a lot of kids who grew up with single parents or no parents at all. It's those experiences that he gained from those kids that are reflected in the themes of Naruto. Good Art is a conveyance of ideas. All art conveys values to invoke emotion. What a makes a story understandable and emotional are the ideas behind it. The reason we relate to characters is because we understand them. I like characters like Severa and Sasuke because I can understand what it's like to feel inferior to someone better. That's my own personal taste mind you but my point is a story is not engaging unless it has ideas behind it. What makes Naruto vs Sasuke such a compelling fight is not because it's just two teenage boys punching each other and good animation. It's the conflict born from the lack of understanding of each other's loneliness that highlights the many differences and similarities between them. One who fights to try and not feel the great pain of loss while the other fights on in spite of understanding that very same pain. That is what makes the fight itself so compelling and interesting, the ideas and messages behind it. Ideas and messages pulled from the real world are what what makes stories compelling. This is how we are able to understand media through the reality of which we view it.

Critical narrative analysis is indeed subjective but it is through proving what messages and ideas reside in a piece of art that one can truly bolster their understanding of the world around them. 

I think we should debate this in the thread you just made. It'd make for an interesting discussion but I don't feel like debating this nor have the time to partake in such a debate atm. 

[Hawkwing]

I wouldn't mind another "Grima" per se if it's done in a similar vein to Lord of the Rings or Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction. While there is an obviously evil villain that everyone is opposed to, the "good guy" factions aren't always one united front. Each side has conflicting interests, prejudices, and flaws that add some gray morality into the mix without having to turn everyone against each other. Heck, they don't even need to make every faction equally flawed; it's okay for some sides to have a higher moral ground than others, as long as don't hold it absolutely.

One of the reasons I find the Allied Nations so interesting in Mercenaries is because they're the most morally upright group in the game. They walk the walk, being the faction most dedicated towards defeating the main bad guys, several of their missions are providing humanitarian aid to the war torn country, and they engage in the least amount of backstabbing in the entire game, which is saying something... yet it's also pretty obvious that their entire goal is simply to knock out the big bad guy and go home, and they don't care what happens to the country afterwards (which, depending on what ending you get, means that they don't care if becomes a GTA-esque city, the first step in one man's long term plan to bring democratic values to largely communist area, or another piece of conquered land). It's also pretty obvious that the entire reason they're hiring the titular mercenary in the first place is because they have to keep their hands clean for PR reasons; without that handicap, the conflict would have been over in a week... but it wouldn't have been pretty.

I'm not saying that Fire Emblem should copy-paste from those media, but it would be a good base to have. We haven't really had a conflict in Fire Emblem that focused upon the "good guys" agreeing that the bad guy must be stopped, but disagreeing on how to go about things, or who should be including or excluded in the alliance, or occasionally having two groups oppose each other as much as they do the villain. This style of story works both linearly, so if they don't have time to write several different stories, they can go that route, and based upon player choice, so that the events that transpire can be in the players hands, depending on what decision they made and/or how they completed objectives in gameplay. Either one would be interesting, so it really depends on if they have the time and resources to do one or the other.

And in all of this, make the villain themselves entertainingly dangerous. A joy to watch and a being to fear, someone you can laugh at one moment and be terrified of another. Have them be clever, not having gained their authority and realm overnight but through planning, backstabbing, strategy and tactics, and be a powerful and imposing figure in their own right so they aren't a pushover in a fight. Basically, have it make sense why the big bad guy needs to be stopped and why everyone in-universe wants them gone, but in such a way that it entertains the audience the whole way through.

[Eryon]

For a villain like Grima to work one needs the following:

A. Is suitably menacing enough.

B. Has dependable minions to serve as agents who demonstrate just how dangerous the villain is.

C. Even with no redeeming qualities one should be able to buy what if anything could sell loyalty to that being's followers.

Grima had none of the approve besides the first (and that's being nice). Validar is a joke. There's really nothing about Grima that would appeal as a creed that binds Plegian society.

[Fire Brand]

I agree with both sides of this argument.

In my opinion, Three Houses was sorely lacking in the villain department. Edelgard and Rhea were inconsistent at best, and confusingly written. It felt like a failed attempt at grey morality which honestly bored me to tears. Just because you have a character constantly go on about how "ruthless" they are, doesn't mean it's grey morality. Likewise, giving faces to the enemies you face does not make their actions any worse. It would be as if Archanea saga had a prologue showing all the generic bosses at school together being happy school friends. It's unlikely that these people were born generic evil villains, is it not? But now with this prologue, would Marth's actions be considered "wrong" or "morally grey"? For another example, take Thracia 776. Many of the bosses there are reluctant to fight and only forced to do what they do by House Friege and the Empire. But does that make Leif "morally grey"? 

And then you have the generic evil villains, Nemesis and TWSITD, who honestly had so little story presence you wonder why they were even there to begin with. Not to mention TWSITD feeling completely out of place for... other reasons. Grima and even Garon at least had presence. TWSITD only seemed to exist to shove more FE4 references down your throat and to give Byleth some reason to stick with Rhea.

I've seen many compare Edelgard to Arvis, and this comparison doesn't really make sense to me. See, unlike Edelgard, Arvis isn't pushed as a main villain at all. In Generation 2 he isn't really even an antagonist at all. He has actual reason to team up with the generic evil cult (being blackmailed by Manfroy, who threatens to reveal his Loptyr bloodline if he doesn't cooperate). Edelgard has an entire empire already at her command (whereas Arvis gets his later and even then is hardly in control), so why would she need this assistance? Comparing her to Rudolf I suppose is a more apt comparison, since both are quite nonsensical in their methods. Still, neither Arvis nor Rudolf are the main villains of their stories, and would not work on their own without being just evil characters with no moral grey.

Anyway, back to the point at hand. Three Houses, in my opinion, would have been a much better narrative if they instead had a larger villain behind the schemes. I'm thinking a Sephiran, Manfroy, or Gharnef. Someone secretly manipulating things behind the scenes. That way, the story could have focused, as it was mentioned earlier, on a divided front of antiheroes having to team up to fight a big bad. This, to me, would have been a much more compelling narrative than what we ended up with. 

So, to conclude, I think Fire Emblem stories need both kind of villain. The morally grey type, such as Naesala, Michalis etc. but also the big bads, like Loptyr, Grima, Ashnard etc. Morally grey big bads are difficult to pull off, and Fire Emblem has shown time and time again that it's strength are main villains who are just some ancient evil lurking in the background, scheming. Does this make them a bad character? Not necessarily. It's merely a narrative role, hardly character-defining.

Balance is key.