245 replies to this topic

[-Cynthia-]

I think Rutgar does want to be redeemed, or at least not be the person he is now (he wants to hear the wind of Sacae again or whatever hippie stuff). Other Navarres* don't seek redemption, but they seem to end up finding it.

*Well not Volke. He doesn't seem to have anything he want be redeemed for, nor does he have a desire to change. He's stoic and has a nickname, but that seems to be about it.

Edited by -Cynthia-, 07 March 2012 - 08:14 PM.

[General Banzai]

Also, and I don't mean this offensively, though it probably will sound this way, but this reminds me of class when we're workshoping someone's story and someone (Banzai here) comes up with an idea that no one else likes or thinks has any validity. The only difference is, in class, the person will stop trying to defend it after about the third person, at most, disagrees, while Banzai keeps going.

Being the minority doesn't automatically mean I'm wrong, and if we thought like that there would never be any change ever.

[Baldrick]

I'll make my case for Aira.

We first see her working as a mercenary for Verdane, a country both at war with the player's army (like Aless and Rutgar), and comprised of earlygame bandit exp fodder (like Navarre and Shiva). As with Rutgar, her employer notes that she's not very pleasant, but a renowned swordmaster. (Incidentally, she is the first ever unit to have the Myrmidon -> Swordmaster class typically used by Navarres; FE1 and FE3 Navarre was a Mercenary -> Hero). She's seeking revenge against Grandbell rather than redemption, but she does have a clear purpose in protecting her nephew, Prince Shanan, until he's old enough to fend for himself. In her recruitment conversation, she says she'll trust Sigurd because he trusts her, showing she is an honourable warrior.

[dondon151]

Being the minority doesn't automatically mean I'm wrong, and if we thought like that there would never be any change ever.

No, but being wrong does mean that you're wrong.

[Red Fox of Fire]

Being the minority doesn't automatically mean I'm wrong, and if we thought like that there would never be any change ever.

Well, that depends. Short story time: I played in marching band for all four years of high school. For our field positions we had what we call "dots" that represent the spot we need to be standing on the field at any given time. However, more than that, we needed to be in form; since I'm naturally precise, I almost always hit my dot accurately, but others that might be in the same line as me - or were supposed to be - may have all followed one other person, usually in the front of the line (I'm probably at the back and can't be seen in this situation), who was wrong, and so everyone was off their assigned dot by at least a few paces. But then even though I could point to the dot sheets and show that I'm in the right spot, I'd still be wrong because I need to stay in form until one of the marching techs comes by and fixes everyone together. This is necessary because, in a competition, judges won't necessarily know that all but one are off the dot; they'll only see one person out of form and we get marked down for it.

Lesson: sometimes being the only one that's right does, in fact, make you wrong. Now I haven't been following this topic at all, but the nature of it seems like it could be the kind of thing where this lesson may apply (this isn't something like Math with set-in-stone answers, after all). And remember: if you really are right, the truth should come out eventually. Kieran > Ike.

If everyone disagrees with you but you still can't see why, you should at least consider taking a step back and trying to consider the possibility that you're wrong. You may make a new discovery. Knowing how to be wrong has gone a long way to helping me be right.

[Celice]

Lesson: sometimes being the only one that's right does, in fact, make you wrong.

Retaining form and espousing a truth (belief, ideal, virtue, have it) are two completely different examples though. Banzai's grand intent isn't to maintain a crest of arrangement and solidarity. It's to provide a point of view which he felt wasn't particularly prominent, touched upon, in his belief. At least I was under that impression when the thread began. See where it falls now.

Edited by Celice, 08 March 2012 - 05:54 PM.

[dondon151]

Banzai's grand intent isn't to maintain a crest of arrangement and solidarity.

No, that's probably Banzai's sole reason for posting on this forum.

[Merry Sioux]

Will there be a write up for the Shitty Green Archer Archetype and the Shitty Pink Armor Archetype?

[General Banzai]

Will there be a write up for the Shitty Green Archer Archetype and the Shitty Pink Armor Archetype?

Right now I'm doing major archetypes, in which there is a representative for the archetype for almost every game in the series. I'll move on to minor archetypes like the Gordin later.

[Red Fox of Fire]

Retaining form and espousing a truth (belief, ideal, virtue, have it) are two completely different examples though.

Irrelevant. The result is the same.

No, that's probably Banzai's sole reason for posting on this forum.

^Plus this.

[Baldrick]

Irrelevant. The result is the same.

But the purpose of a march is to produce synchronised movement. The purpose of this subdiscussion is to determine what characteristics Zealot shares with other characters. If Banzai was of the opinion that Zealot loves his wife, and everyone else wasn't, he would be right.


Seconding the opinion with Zealot is an Astoria.

[dondon151]

If Banzai was of the opinion that Zealot loves his wife, and everyone else wasn't, he would be right.

No shit, Sherlock. The critical difference is that Banzai is making his judgment by conjuring characterizations out of thin air, which is exactly why he's wrong.

[Albino]

I’m going to make my case against Volke being a Navarre. Let’s look at the criteria Banzai posted for being a Navarre:

- Generally quiet and antisocial

Volke's like this by default, though he's willing to talk if it involves money/he's contractually obligated to. But overall, he fits this.

-A swordsman

Volke is certainly not.

-Renown killer

Volke pretty much meets this.

-A foil to the Ogma

Volke never talks to Greil during the events of FE9, only before them, so I don’t see how he can be a foil to the Ogma in FE9. In FE10, the only meaningful interaction (in other words, excluding supports) he has with the Ogma (Ike) is during the 4-E1 base conversation. Volke seemingly gets embarrassed for being thanked by Ike, but this hardly seems like “the Navarre's lockdown of emotion” versus “the Ogma's sociability towards his comrades-in-arms.” If anything, the fact that Volke gets embarrassed shows that he’s feeling emotion. So I don’t see him matching the criteria.

-Lena, and hidden honor

As you mentioned Volke lacks a Lena, so he would fall into the “uncaring and apathetic to his crimes” Navarre. And while Volke lacks honor, he does seem to abide by some personal rules. He has a policy against taking two jobs at once (as stated in his Bastian support), he apparently offers discounts for killing targets he doesn’t like (as seen in his recruitment convo with Bastian), and also apparently gives money back on certain occasions even if he isn’t obligated to (In FE9, if you choose to hire Volke again at the end of Chapter 19, he says he’ll take his payment out of the fifty-thousand gold Ike just gave him, and in FE10, in the base conversation with him, having taken his payment, he gives the rest back to Ike). So I’m not really sure if Volke fits this or not.

-Dark, troubled past

I don’t think that an ambiguous past should be considered the same as a dark and troubled one, even in this context.

-Disappears at the the end of the war

Volke’s character ending from FE10:

Man of Many Mysteries- Volke

After finishing his contract, Volke went back to the shadows he knew so well. He was a man of mystery to the end.

This seems more like he went back to doing his usual line of work rather than completely disappearing.

So, in summary, I think that the only things that Volke and the Navarre archetype have in common is that they’re both silent, renown killers. That doesn’t seem like a close enough match to be considered a Navarre. Honestly, I could probably make a better argument for Rath being a Navarre than Volke.

[General Banzai]

I would argue that Volke does indeed serve as a foil to Greil. When Ike learns Greil hired Volke, he makes a comment along the lines of "My father would hire someone like you?"

[Albino]

The line that I believe you're thinking of is "My father hired you?" I don't see how that line shows that Volke is a foil to Greil.

[General Banzai]

The line that I believe you're thinking of is "My father hired you?" I don't see how that line shows that Volke is a foil to Greil.

Well, one could interpret it as being "My father hired you?" Since there are few ways to show emphasis because of a lack of italics, it could easily go either way.

[Onmi]

These games do have caps though, typically emphasis would be done that way. Or with a !? to show incredulity, given the way Ike oft acts when presented with new information, I take it he would be responding reserved and calm, taking in the information.

[Lord Raven]

Yeah, but it's entirely possible that it's a result of Ike being confused because he's never heard of Volke before.

[Onmi]

that as well, without voices, without varying fonts, it's hard to determine exactly what is being said, it really doesn't help that FE has this thing against expressive portraits.



Int Syst is really kinda lazy with this shit

[Aethereal]

it really doesn't help that FE has this thing against expressive portraits.

I, for one, am incredibly glad for this. Expressive portraits(like the ones you just posted) from most JRPGs have over the top expressions that leave a really childish and cartoon-like feel.

On the topic of Volke: "My father hired you?" does not highlight Greil's love of his comrades. In any way. At all.