86 replies to this topic

[CT075]

well vindictive maybe but he's not shown as being overly cruel in general

[Anouleth]

I'd have to disagree with you there. If you liked the character then I see him as a successful character. Characters don't have to have huge back stories, meaningful development or even a lot of depth. As long as they fit well in the story and are well received then they work as characters. Caellach is such a great character because he is so simple in everything he is about which is quite evidently what they were going for and in my opinion worked quite well. I liked him a lot too.

A good example is Ashnard. Ashnard is not really very complex. He gets little character development. But he still makes for an engaging and effective villain.

I'm also too lazy to double quote but to say Desmound isn't cruel seems kind of contradictory. I haven't played Fe7 (but I have played 6), but isn't Desmond's entire character based around how he abused and ''tried to kill'' his son for no real reason. I reckon trying to kill your own flesh and blood, and a child is inherently cruel.

His reason is well established: he hates his son and will do anything to stop him being king. Of course it's irrational. That's why they're called emotions. But he's not cruel in other senses. Aside from his son, he never does anything to hurt anyone. And he is kind to Guinevere. So it would seem that he doesn't have a cruel nature.

[Merry Sioux]

Cruel:
-Nope. Never does anything really cruel.

He has a baby fox murdered because Zephiel gave it to his daughter as a present

That's not cruel?

[Samias]

Desmond loves his daughter but his inferiority complex to Zephiel is what drives him. It gets to the point where Desmond thinks that Zephiel is going to take his own daughter away from him, so he wants to destroy any relationship between the two of them. So Desmond might not necessarily be a cruel person to everyone, his envy of Zephiel ultimately drives him to be cruel to his own daughter, too. From what he says, I don't get the impression that he's a bad king, but only that he compares himself to Zephiel and finds his own subjects just don't love him like they do the prince.

[Westbrick]

Except they are organically incorporated into Riev, because they affect what he says, how he acts, how he speaks.

Circular reasoning. "Riev's speech pattern is legitimate development because it determines his speech pattern." Okay. The question is why this represents legitimate development. Gonzales' speech pattern serves as a window into part of his personality; what does Riev's speech style tell us about him? [I know you touch on this a bit later, but "intelligence" doesn't do a whole lot.]

Why? Because all his traits are evil? All of Eliwood's traits are good.

Now you're just being difficult. Riev is just evil; Eliwood is good and a number of other things, including competitive, introspective, philosophically inclined, reverent, etc.

Clearly, some people do not agree with you about Eliwood. And quite frankly, if that meager handful of character traits is all Eliwood has to show for having about 50 times as much dialogue as Riev, I'm not convinced that all that dialogue was necessary.

By "some people," I think you mean "me alone," because not a soul in the world would agree with you that Riev and Eliwood are even remotely similar in terms of development. And if we're now going to judge development in terms of "efficiency" (development per line of text), then Uhai, Lloyd, Linus, and even Reed (only like two lines of text!) become the best-developed character in either game. I doubt this is a standard you seriously want to adopt.

It is notable. Using metaphors and more flowery speech reflects higher intelligence and better education. Language is more than just a simple message. The arrangement of words, the use of passive tense or active tense, the use of exclamation marks, can all reveal aspects of a character in a way more subtle than simply telling the player.

So what you're saying is that Riev is smart because he uses flowery language sometimes? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe he just enjoys talking that way, which would go back to the "speech patterns determine speech patterns" circularity I mentioned earlier. Since I've been providing script-based evidence, I'd appreciate if you could do the same.

And being reflective and kind and loyal and devoted to his parents isn't part of the "noble Hero" trope that Eliwood has going on?

No. Plenty of noble heroes lack those qualities, or else manifest those qualities in different ways than does Eliwood.

Calculating:
-Nope. Can't find any places where he calculates.
Manipulative:
-Who does he ever manipulate? Ever? If you don't remember, he was the one being manipulated by Bern.

...He plots his son's assassination in order to retain the throne. He convinces Murdock to leave Zephiel unattended. And how is the King of Bern "being manipulated by Bern"?

Holds Grudges:
-Given what a huge bitch Hellene is, I'd say that Desmond disliking her is as much her fault as his. And I wouldn't call hating your wife a "grudge".

Look at how he treats Hellene. Look at how he treats Zephiel. Consider how he tries to kill his son not once, but twice. This is a man who refuses to let go.

Inferiority Complex regarding Son:
-It's more likely that he dislikes him by association with Hellene.

Desmond:
I have heard that Zephiel is… a gifted student, a stunning fighter, excelling in all he tries. And I've also heard that he is much loved by the people.

Hellene:
Yes! It is true. All of it! He is a worthy son.

Desmond:
I…excelled at neither books nor blades.

Hellene:
What do you--

Desmond:
I cannot say that I command the love of my subjects… Zephiel and I are opposites in every way. It is hard to believe that he is my son.

Intimately Aware of Unpopularity:
-He mentions it once, offhand. He's aware, sure, but you make it sound like he's obsessed with it: which he clearly isn't.

You see the double standard at play here, right? With Riev, made-up claims about "flowery language" are keystones into the depth of his personality, and we have to look at development as it exists per line of text, but with Desmond, it's the exact opposite. Please try and be consistent.

Cruel:
-Nope. Never does anything really cruel.

Like others have mentioned, this one's pretty damn hard to justify. He kills a fox Zephiel gives Guinevere. He tries to kill his son twice. How is he not cruel?

Craves chaos as a means to power. Chaos is a source of quintessence.

Yes, but he also seems to take joy from chaos for its own sake. In this way, he's your archetypical Chaotic Evil type. Although power is pretty clearly the primary motive.

Not really sure where you got this from. I might as well say that the excommunication from Rausten makes Riev view friendship as a sign of weakness.

I "got it" from the game script.

Nergal:
Look at this wound! The wound I took from your magic!! It was a mistake. The only person who understood… The man I thought my truest friend… It was a mistake to try and destroy me. Heh heh heh heh… It confirmed some things for me. That trust brings betrayal. That friends bring weakness!

Nergal might have been that way, but Nergal as he appears in FE7 is none of those things. Would you say that Riev is as deep as Nergal if we had gotten a single flashback scene showing the man he used to be in Rausten?

...And the double-standard rears it head again. Either we're going to evaluate characters based on how well-developed they are in total, or on how compact and efficient their development is. Either way, Nergal having flashback scenes to his former self is a clear-cut case of character development. Here's some dialogue for you to chew on:

Nergal:
Some bad men took her away. They can't have gone very far, though. I have to go after them and save Mommy. You wait ten days… If Daddy's not back by then, take your brother and go to the other side. You're a clever girl. You know the way, right?

Athos:
Like me, his only drive was the search for truth in this world. We were equals in power and knowledge, and we became fast friends. We believed we could solve the mysteries of the world. We truly believed [...] The dragons' libraries were a dream come true to us. We studied their language and history with unbridled passion.

The only thing he's missing vs Nergal is backstory: as to be expected from a secondary/tertiary antagonist as opposed to a primary antagonist. I don't recall Sonia or Darin getting any flashback sequences.

Except that Sonia and Darin are both more complex, developed characters than Riev. And that Riev is a major antagonist. We can dive into this if you'd like. And I don't see why you're discounting flashbacks, which are a very common literary tool for development.

"peaceful" is covered by his concern for how war affects others. I can hardly imagine a individual who loves war yet is tormented by it and hates it. At the same time, I can't imagine someone being tormented by war, without reflecting on it or having high ideals (since a pragmatist would gladly accept casualties as the price of victory). He engages in competition with Hector. And... nobody else. So clearly this isn't something that he's "about".

You're confused. I used the word "peaceful" only as a way of contrasting his love of competition. What I posted:


"despite his peaceful temperament, he loves competition with close friends"

As for your second point, the double standard shows itself yet again. Eliwood is man who, among close friends, loves a good dose of competition. Why is this is any less relevant than Riev "speaking poetically" or the one line he mentions about Rausten?

What I get from all of this is two things:

1) You're using contradictory standards to evaluate different characters. You want to say that Riev's development is "better" because it's compact, but also want to discount certain development scenes from FE7- Eliwood sparring with Hector, Desmond's irreverence towards his son- as "not being emphasized." You need to pick one standard and stick with it.

2) You're not giving due weight to places where characters are fleshed-out, and part of me wonders whether or not your position, consistently applied, leads us to a path of character-development anarchy, where no character ever grows beyond their archetype. Eliwood loves to spar and is inwardly reflective? Irrelevant; he's just an example of the Good Guy trope. Nergal has a complex backstory and motivation? Irrelevant; he's just an example of the Bad Guy trope. And consequently, deeper characters like Eliwood and Nergal become, according to this line of thinking, no more or less developed than characters like Beowulf and Grendel. Everyone's an empty archetype, so why bother fleshing them out?

I'd have to disagree with you there. If you liked the character then I see him as a successful character. Characters don't have to have huge back stories, meaningful development or even a lot of depth. As long as they fit well in the story and are well received then they work as characters. Caellach is such a great character because he is so simple in everything he is about which is quite evidently what they were going for and in my opinion worked quite well. I liked him a lot too.

I feel it's important to distinguish between characters liked and characters felt to be well-developed. I like Crono from Chrono Trigger, but wouldn't dare argue he's well-developed; similarly, I don't particularly like Lucca, but would be glad to admit she receives substantially more fleshing-out than Crono does.

Edited by Westbrick, 23 June 2012 - 03:44 PM.

[Jotari]

I feel it's important to distinguish between characters liked and characters felt to be well-developed. I like Crono from Chrono Trigger, but wouldn't dare argue he's well-developed; similarly, I don't particularly like Lucca, but would be glad to admit she receives substantially more fleshing-out than Crono does.

Oh I agree entirely I just don't want it to be taken that a character who isn't well developed is an inherently bad character.

[Paper Jam]

From what he says, I don't get the impression that he's a bad king, but only that he compares himself to Zephiel and finds his own subjects just don't love him like they do the prince.

Maybe not, but the Ostia is clearly worried in chapter 15 that Desmond is going to invade (Hector: It's Bern. We've received disturbing reports over the past few months. King Desmond is behaving oddly. If he sees even the slightest crack in Lycia's defenses, we believe he'll invade with all of Bern's might behind him.)

Many of Heath's support conversations suggest mismanagement in Bern's upper echelons, though that doesn't necessarily mean that Desmond is at fault.

And there is that conversation in one of the houses in "Four-Fanged Offense":

Soldier: I will repeat it as often as necessary, Lord Murdock! If we let the king's tyranny continue, Bern will--

Murdock: Hold your tongue.

Soldier: But--

Murdock: Be still. Is someone there?

Character: Oh!

Not only is Desmond not as well loved as Zephiel; some of his own soldiers consider him a tyrant. And Murdock only silences them in order not to be overheard, not because he disagrees.

Edited by Paper Jam, 02 July 2012 - 06:55 PM.