Why do some people say the path of radiance is the best in the series story wise?

[geraq]

But native tribes in general, at least historically, held elections for their leader, or the position was hereditary. If a person was to dethrone the chief in a fight, it would be a coup. Native tribes also had at the very least basic buildings, and certainly practiced agriculture.

Yes, that's why I said "how they are depicted in TV and movies", and I was taking about cult of the warrior lifestyle, not about the "you take what you kill" ideology more akin to action movies. Maybe I didn't phrase my reply correctly, but of course they had buildings and agriculture, it's exactly my point that comparing them to wild lions isn't accurate, as they are more human than animals, although it could inspire the strength-based succession.

[CappnRob]

I'm the opposite, I want to know more about the characters I like and one of the things that frustrated me about the Akaneia Saga is just how little so many characters are developed and how the remakes didn't capitalize on expanding on that, especially because what little you do see of them is enough to get me interested in them. Getting all the supports in FE7 was a real treat for me because I loved seeing everyone's little quirks, backstories. Involving more characters in the narrative was only a good thing with PoR imo because it really helped the story not just feel like The Main Character Show. When I played FE6 for the first once after it was patched this was my big problem with it due to having high expectations because I loved FE7 and its story so seeing it boil down to basically "Roy and Merlinus do Elibe with Special Guest Star Gwynevere" i was really let down (didn't help the fact Roy was the most boring uninteresting flatly written lord since FE1 Marth).

[NekoKnight]

Yes, that's why I said "how they are depicted in TV and movies", and I was taking about cult of the warrior lifestyle, not about the "you take what you kill" ideology more akin to action movies. Maybe I didn't phrase my reply correctly, but of course they had buildings and agriculture, it's exactly my point that comparing them to wild lions isn't accurate, as they are more human than animals, although it could inspire the strength-based succession.

This was the point I was trying to make. Obviously as sentient, moral beings, Laguz are going to be more civilized that literal beasts but they take cues from nature. As far as agriculture and construction are concerned, I took away that they generally don't use tools after Lethe said that she only begrudgingly acknowledges the usefulness of Beorc tools. The only buildings we see in Gallia, if I recall correctly, are the castle where the king lives and a run down fort (maybe not even built by them?)

[Magical Glace]

This was the point I was trying to make. Obviously as sentient, moral beings, Laguz are going to be more civilized that literal beasts but they take cues from nature. As far as agriculture and construction are concerned, I took away that they generally don't use tools after Lethe said that she only begrudgingly acknowledges the usefulness of Beorc tools. The only buildings we see in Gallia, if I recall correctly, are the castle where the king lives and a run down fort (maybe not even built by them?)

There was a rather elaborate looking castle in Goldoa (in pretty good looking shape) and those ruins in FE10 Pt 1 (the ones filled with treasure, the chapter where Meg is recruited) supposedly being built by laguz. Edited January 10, 2017 by Glaceon Mage

[geraq]

This was the point I was trying to make. Obviously as sentient, moral beings, Laguz are going to be more civilized that literal beasts but they take cues from nature. As far as agriculture and construction are concerned, I took away that they generally don't use tools after Lethe said that she only begrudgingly acknowledges the usefulness of Beorc tools. The only buildings we see in Gallia, if I recall correctly, are the castle where the king lives and a run down fort (maybe not even built by them?)

I agree with your point, that's why I tried to contributed to it, although I maybe didn't make myself clear. The comparison with wildlife is good enough to justify the strength-based succession without having to take it to the extreme of killing cubs, not building houses or not farming. As for the buildings, yes, the only ones we see are the royals palaces of Gallia, Phoenicis, Kilvas, Goldoa, and the shrine at Serenes Forest, but I doubt they were built by Beorc (I doubt Laguz would use them in such case), and I see no reason to imply that there aren't other Laguz buildings. The images of Laguz mothers and children in civilian clothes in the epilogue somewhat suggest to me that they carry a normal "urban" life instead of living in the wild.

There was a rather elaborate looking castle in Goldoa (in pretty good looking shape) and those ruins in FE10 Pt 1 (the ones filled with treasure, the chapter where Meg is recruited) supposedly being built by laguz.

I didn't know that, I just thougth it was frequented by Laguz bandits.

[Refa]

Because the writing really is mediocre. My favorite of the plots is Archanea, because the writing works with such an extremely simple premise. The game doesn't try to pretend that everyone is relevant, because it's Marth's story, and even though Marth values his comrades, history writers see it differently. I think Tellius did an okay job of trying to build a world, even if there were parts of the narrative I felt were badly handled (Micaiah and Yune). I think Fire Emblem is at its best when it focuses on the gameplay, not the story.

Then again, my favorite cast is in Shadow Dragon, because I got enough out of most of their personalities in a single death quote. I don't need a backstory on my characters to enjoy them. A little personalization goes a long way, IMO.

I'm curious, what games would you consider to have good writing? I can agree that the earlier games had poorer writing, being limited by their consoles (and not being released in the US heh), but I don't think FE7 - FE12 had particularly poor writing.

[Magical Glace]

I agree with your point, that's why I tried to contributed to it, although I maybe didn't make myself clear. The comparison with wildlife is good enough to justify the strength-based succession without having to take it to the extreme of killing cubs, not building houses or not farming. As for the buildings, yes, the only ones we see are the royals palaces of Gallia, Phoenicis, Kilvas, Goldoa, and the shrine at Serenes Forest, but I doubt they were built by Beorc (I doubt Laguz would use them in such case), and I see no reason to imply that there aren't other Laguz buildings. The images of Laguz mothers and children in civilian clothes in the epilogue somewhat suggest to me that they carry a normal "urban" life instead of living in the wild.

I didn't know that, I just thougth it was frequented by Laguz bandits.

According to Sothe:

Sothe:

“Judging by the size, it must have been the laguz.”

Micaiah:

“What makes you say that?”

Sothe:

“What do you think it would be like, to change into a bird or a dragon, as the laguz can? Being part beast is one thing, but being able to transform into that beast, with more strength than we could ever imagine… I mean, they could build a place like this before breakfast.”

[geraq]

According to Sothe:

I totally forgot about that, or maybe I didn't pay enough attention. Thanks for the info.

[BrightBow]

According to Sothe:

Although if they are anything like the ruins in the desert of PoR, then those ruins were made by the Zunama.

If the Laguz did create them, it must have been a long time before the age of Laguz slavery. The escaped Laguz slaves and their descendants could well have a very different culture then the ones from the age where Laguz were actually in charge of the Begnion Empire.

[NekoKnight]

I agree with your point, that's why I tried to contributed to it, although I maybe didn't make myself clear. The comparison with wildlife is good enough to justify the strength-based succession without having to take it to the extreme of killing cubs, not building houses or not farming. As for the buildings, yes, the only ones we see are the royals palaces of Gallia, Phoenicis, Kilvas, Goldoa, and the shrine at Serenes Forest, but I doubt they were built by Beorc (I doubt Laguz would use them in such case), and I see no reason to imply that there aren't other Laguz buildings. The images of Laguz mothers and children in civilian clothes in the epilogue somewhat suggest to me that they carry a normal "urban" life instead of living in the wild.

According to Sothe:

Good points. Lethe mentions (in a base conversation, maybe) that while she doesn't like Beorc, she acknowledges that some of their tools are useful, like a knife she uses to remove the seeds from a fruit. Does that imply that beast Laguz didn't have knives? Sothe implies that they can construct buildings using their immense strength but there is more to construction than just lifting stones. They must use tools of other kinds, so why does Lethe speak of knives like they are exotic?

[geraq]

Good points. Lethe mentions (in a base conversation, maybe) that while she doesn't like Beorc, she acknowledges that some of their tools are useful, like a knife she uses to remove the seeds from a fruit. Does that imply that beast Laguz didn't have knives? Sothe implies that they can construct buildings using their immense strength but there is more to construction than just lifting stones. They must use tools of other kinds, so why does Lethe speak of knives like they are exotic?

It is exotic to Ike, as Laguz don't carry weapons, to which Lethe replies that it is not a weapon but a tool. She sees it as something normal to use a tool if it is useful. Ike calling them "beorc-crafted tools" could just mean that Beorc invented them, not that Laguz are incapable of manufacturing them.

From a Base Conversation with Lethe in Chapter 10:

Lethe: Weapons of steel are a human weakness. Without them, you cannot fight properly.

Ike: But... Lethe, you're carrying a dagger, aren't you? In the scabbard on your leg?

Lethe: This...is not for fighting.

Ike: Then what's it for?

Lethe: I use it to remove small bones from meat. It can also cut fruit into bite-sized pieces. It has proven quite useful.

Ike: Hmm...

Lethe: What? If you've got something to say, spit it out!

Ike: You despise beorc, but you don't mind beorc-crafted tools?

Lethe: If something's good, it's good. Denying something's obvious worth out of petty spite is foolish. It's not that I... I do not despise everything beorc. If every beorc could get along with us as well as you do, I'm certain...

Ike: Lethe?

Lethe: This is a ridiculous conversation! I'm leaving now.

[NekoKnight]

It is exotic to Ike, as Laguz don't carry weapons, to which Lethe replies that it is not a weapon but a tool. She sees it as something normal to use a tool if it is useful. Ike calling them "beorc-crafted tools" could just mean that Beorc invented them, not that Laguz are incapable of manufacturing them.

From a Base Conversation with Lethe in Chapter 10:

I see, I had forgotten the context of the conversation.

Edited January 11, 2017 by NekoKnight

[eclipse]

I'm curious, what games would you consider to have good writing? I can agree that the earlier games had poorer writing, being limited by their consoles (and not being released in the US heh), but I don't think FE7 - FE12 had particularly poor writing.

FE11, because the writing is extremely limited. I said the writing in Fire Emblem is mediocre, not bad. Bad is when the story is so awful that it completely eclipses any redeeming qualities the gameplay has, making the game unplayable for me. Stella Glow came close to bad, but there were some really nicely-written things in the plot, and the story was never quite so bad that I refused to play the game afterwards. Agarest (the original) has one of the shakiest plots I've seen, but it somehow works. I consider Fire Emblem to be better than that - even Revelation!

[blah the Prussian]

Yes, that's why I said "how they are depicted in TV and movies", and I was taking about cult of the warrior lifestyle, not about the "you take what you kill" ideology more akin to action movies. Maybe I didn't phrase my reply correctly, but of course they had buildings and agriculture, it's exactly my point that comparing them to wild lions isn't accurate, as they are more human than animals, although it could inspire the strength-based succession.

So the military is glorified (which seems to be the case based on Skrimir)? That, again, sounds a lot like Daein. Basically, you are never going to convince me that a system where the leader comes to power due to their strength is effective.

[Jotari]

Radiant Dawn was the first game in the series I played and I didn't get around to Path of Radiance until much later when I'd played almost every other game in the series (I think it might have even been post Awakening). So when I did eventually get to play it I was rather disappointed. It certainly had some good points (I think Jill is the best example of side character in the series) but the core of the plot felt so completely stereotypical and predictable. Once again playing the sequel first almost certainly contributed to that but I don't think it would have been a complete non issue had I went in blind. Playing Radiant Dawn first also gave me the exposure to all the wonderful world building Tellius is known for so, while that is a strong point in Path of Radiance's favour, it was pretty irrelevant for my personal experience. Overall I tend to respect stories that are trying to do something even if they don't manage to pull it off. I like interesting and ambitious projects more than safe once. Hence I really like a lot of Radiant Dawn's plot, even stuff like the Blood Pact that is widely panned appeals to me. Path of Radiance did some new stuff like the multiple races and the low born lord but they were more decoration for the core plot which is as basic as it gets (and the most interesting stuff in it that I wanted to know after playing Radiant Dawn, regarding Ashnard and the dragons is completely pushed to the side and gets a very weak explanation at game's end).

So obviously given all that my opinion was pretty bias going into it first (and some pretty easy gameplay was probably another unfair bias that was affecting things). However even on retrospect a few years later when I think back I just view it as weaker as some of the other stories in the series which are equally as generic (like Shadow Dragon and Sword of Seals) yet I like more. I think it might stem from the fact that the story is a closer telling. It puts you more in the shoes of the characters with all its world building while the earlier games always had more of a detached feel so they felt like historical accounts or something. That can have obvious benefits of world building and getting closer to the characters (which I think it does do in Path of radiance) but it does open it up to more criticism...And now I've just managed to argue that I like stories that have a bigger scope and also stories that are simpler...I guess I just like stories that are trying to focus on one thing and Path of Radiance kind of split its focus on world building and story telling and that was a bit detrimental to the later. (More screen time for the villains would also have really helped. That really helped in FE6's case).

Edited January 11, 2017 by Jotari

[geraq]

So the military is glorified (which seems to be the case based on Skrimir)? That, again, sounds a lot like Daein. Basically, you are never going to convince me that a system where the leader comes to power due to their strength is effective.

I'm not trying to convince you that such system is effective. Ignoring for a moment that Ashnard is, well, evil, I understand your point that Daein's dictatorship and laguz kingdoms are superficially similar while the first is criticized and the latter is not. However, those details like his questionable method for gaining the throne (treachery and murder, not the same thing as laguz strength-based right to rule) and his foreign policy or warfare are what makes it different to me from Laguz kingdoms, as "the strong rules" means something different in both cases. In laguz societies it is stated to be a tradition, regardless of it being effective or right. It is never stated that this system is better, it rather goes mostly unchallenged. I think the only one who questioned it was Soren, because he was baffled to see how someone as dumb as Skrimir could be king. On the other hand, beorc system is questioned by laguz as over-complicated several times, but I think it serves more ot the purpose of establishing laguz as a different culture. I think it is the narrative's way to say "laguz are different from beorc", which makes less necessary to state that "beorc are different from laguz".

I can't remember exactly, but I think even Ike said that the beorc system was unnecesarily complicated. But these are opinions coming from characters with established personalities, it is natural for Ike to say something like that given he is simple-minded and dislikes nobility and such. Even then, Sothe mentioned that many young men saw Ashnard's rule as a chance to have a career in the army and leave poverty, so it was an "effective" system to some people. Ashnard's rule is questioned (mostly by main characters) because Ashnard is evil, and his "strong rules" government implementation is evil.

I also think that we don't have enough laguz villains. If we had some laguz dictator who defeated the previous king and slaughtered beorc for no reason then it could be seen more similar to Ashnard's Daein and more parallelisms could be drawn. But again, everything is heavily character-based. Most laguz kings being noble and wise makes it difficult to criticize their traditions in-game, which might not even be very well established by the writers in the first place.

Honestly, at some point I believed Nailah and Raffiel would become villains, or at least major antagonists. Nailah being overpowered in Part I made me think she wouldn't stay for long, and I believed that Raffiel accused the senators for the Serenes massacre because he hated beorc and wanted revenge but didn't had any proof. Chapter 3-E was the closer I was to this, but it wasn't the case.

[blah the Prussian]

I'm not trying to convince you that such system is effective. Ignoring for a moment that Ashnard is, well, evil, I understand your point that Daein's dictatorship and laguz kingdoms are superficially similar while the first is criticized and the latter is not. However, those details like his questionable method for gaining the throne (treachery and murder, not the same thing as laguz strength-based right to rule) and his foreign policy or warfare are what makes it different to me from Laguz kingdoms, as "the strong rules" means something different in both cases. In laguz societies it is stated to be a tradition, regardless of it being effective or right. It is never stated that this system is better, it rather goes mostly unchallenged. I think the only one who questioned it was Soren, because he was baffled to see how someone as dumb as Skrimir could be king. On the other hand, beorc system is questioned by laguz as over-complicated several times, but I think it serves more ot the purpose of establishing laguz as a different culture. I think it is the narrative's way to say "laguz are different from beorc", which makes less necessary to state that "beorc are different from laguz".

I can't remember exactly, but I think even Ike said that the beorc system was unnecesarily complicated. But these are opinions coming from characters with established personalities, it is natural for Ike to say something like that given he is simple-minded and dislikes nobility and such. Even then, Sothe mentioned that many young men saw Ashnard's rule as a chance to have a career in the army and leave poverty, so it was an "effective" system to some people. Ashnard's rule is questioned (mostly by main characters) because Ashnard is evil, and his "strong rules" government implementation is evil.

I also think that we don't have enough laguz villains. If we had some laguz dictator who defeated the previous king and slaughtered beorc for no reason then it could be seen more similar to Ashnard's Daein and more parallelisms could be drawn. But again, everything is heavily character-based. Most laguz kings being noble and wise makes it difficult to criticize their traditions in-game, which might not even be very well established by the writers in the first place.

Honestly, at some point I believed Nailah and Raffiel would become villains, or at least major antagonists. Nailah being overpowered in Part I made me think she wouldn't stay for long, and I believed that Raffiel accused the senators for the Serenes massacre because he hated beorc and wanted revenge but didn't had any proof. Chapter 3-E was the closer I was to this, but it wasn't the case.

An evil Laguz King would definitely go a long way towards resolving the issues I have with the world building, basically because if you're going to have different systems you need to show, rather than tell, in your analysis. Different characters might have different beliefs, but in the narratives the hereditary system is shown to be bad in the cases of Pelleas being unprepared for the throne, Elincia being unprepared for the throne, and how shit Begnion is (though Begnion is more give and take, because while the nobles are evil, the hereditary monarch is the main force for reform, which is actually a very historically accurate depiction of how things went in Monarchies). The Laguz basically only have Skrimir, because Naesala was justified and Tibarn killing innocent sailors was apparently justified because of a massacre perpetrated by different people. Heck, you don't even need to have it be part of the narrative; have, say Caineghis's backstory be that he killed the previous Laguz King, who was a tyrant, anti-Beorc, and overall just an asshat. What we get instead, however, is "The Laguz have no weak Kings".

[geraq]

An evil Laguz King would definitely go a long way towards resolving the issues I have with the world building, basically because if you're going to have different systems you need to show, rather than tell, in your analysis. Different characters might have different beliefs, but in the narratives the hereditary system is shown to be bad in the cases of Pelleas being unprepared for the throne, Elincia being unprepared for the throne, and how shit Begnion is (though Begnion is more give and take, because while the nobles are evil, the hereditary monarch is the main force for reform, which is actually a very historically accurate depiction of how things went in Monarchies). The Laguz basically only have Skrimir, because Naesala was justified and Tibarn killing innocent sailors was apparently justified because of a massacre perpetrated by different people. Heck, you don't even need to have it be part of the narrative; have, say Caineghis's backstory be that he killed the previous Laguz King, who was a tyrant, anti-Beorc, and overall just an asshat. What we get instead, however, is "The Laguz have no weak Kings".

I guess the writers weren't interested in showing us so many shades of each system, in an attempt to make the good guys totally good and the bad guys totally bad. I don't think they were going for realism either, as it would have required a more complex plot and more effort from them. I'm not complaining, though, as the plot is just an excuse to have battles and the writing is good enough to keep me interested, but from time to time I'd like to see an interesting plot twist (not blood pact-like, please). I'd like to see more traitors like Orson in FE8, or to see Camus-like characters as morally ambiguous main antagonists with a little more than "my country, right or wrong". But done right, not like bipolar nutcases like Zelgius.

So if I'm not mistaken you go like this:

Birthright (bad example): Elincia (I don't think she fits in here, at least plot-wise), Pelleas

Birthright (good example): Sanaki (maybe?)

Strength-based (good example): All laguz kings, except maybe Naesala

Strength-based (bad example): Ashnard (I don't think he fits here), (laguz king example missing from here)

Elincia has a nice development arc in RD, and I think the writers consider her an example of the "birthright-good" category, because she grows wiser and stronger, and she is good and good always triumphs. She is only considered an example of "birthright is bad" by her (obviously evil in the plot) opponents. So I don't think the writers tried to go with "birthright is bad, strength is good, but Ashnard is bad" but rather "good/bad guys are good/bad rulers, regardless of the system". In-game, I think the lack of evil laguz kings does not imply that their system is perfect, and the lack of strong and competent beorc kings does not imply that their system is flawed. They weren't going either with "laguz is good, beorc is bad" because the main characters are beorc, and I guess they tried to make the message "intolerance is bad" as clear and simple as possible, and evil laguz characters would make the plot more complex. Maybe an X-men like set-up would have been interesting but I digress.

I used to read about history when I was younger, but it has been a while since I read anything. About hereditary monarchies being a force or reform, I guess you're talking about Reinassance, right? Because the guys from the French Revolution might think otherwise, :D.

[ping]

I agree that there is a missed opportunity. Hell, the backstory even features a Laguz king who made a terrible mistake - Naesala's predecessor - but as far as I know, we get literally no information at all why the old King Kilvas signed the blood contract with Lekain. We do at least have Dheginsea whose decision to side with Ashera no matter what is portraited as rather heartless, but Tibarn, Caineghis and (in retrospective) Naesala are shown as the strongest in their countries who also happen to be phantastic regents. Giving at least a hint that old King Kilvas was a powerful warrior, but also woefully naive could have given the impression that the guy with the most muscle isn't automatically the ideal leader.

Still, I still think that if there's a problem with the portrayal of laguz society, it's less that it's "wrong", but rather too little. It's not unrealistic as such that the current rulers of Gallia and Phoenecis happen to be good at their job. But since none of the laguz kingdoms gets as much focus as the beorc countries and since the writers wanted to present Gallia and Phoenecis as 'good' allies (and Naesala as a tragic character and not a backstabbing bastard), all we get is some display of racism in Gallia that pales in comparison with Daein's laguz hunts, Begnion's slavery and the Serenes massacre, and the pirating of the bird tribes that is justified as revenge for the massacre.

€: Hadn't seen geraq's latest post yet.

Edited January 11, 2017 by ping

[Jotari]

When I see people complaining about there not being many Laguz villains in the series (I agree but) I usually do feel obligated to bring up the point that the orchestrator of like 90% of the conflict was a Laguz. Albeit a rather sympathetic one in the end but nonetheless I don't think it's a point that should be overlooked. It also makes a nice segway to bring up the point that Dehegensea does say Lehran's memory that Laguz enslaved Beorc in the past and that the two societies basically go through cycles of who's on top and who's on bottom. I would have liked to see more mention of that era of history with beorc citing it as a justification of their mistreatment of Laguz. (They're just filthy beasts. They'd do the exact same thing to us given half the chance! That castle over there was made by Asshole Laguz VI using Beorc slaves!)

[geraq]

When I see people complaining about there not being many Laguz villains in the series (I agree but) I usually do feel obligated to bring up the point that the orchestrator of like 90% of the conflict was a Laguz. Albeit a rather sympathetic one in the end but nonetheless I don't think it's a point that should be overlooked. It also makes a nice segway to bring up the point that Dehegensea does say Lehran's memory that Laguz enslaved Beorc in the past and that the two societies basically go through cycles of who's on top and who's on bottom. I would have liked to see more mention of that era of history with beorc citing it as a justification of their mistreatment of Laguz. (They're just filthy beasts. They'd do the exact same thing to us given half the chance! That castle over there was made by Asshole Laguz VI using Beorc slaves!)

Yes, but we don't know about it until the very end, and he never takes an active role as antagonist until that point. And he wasn't a member of the laguz society at the time, so he is not the laguz villain I had in mind. Also, the hidden villain that says "it was my plan all along" is not the kind of plot-twist I like to see, but that is just my personal opinion.

I wasn't complaining, I just said I'd like to see an evil laguz king that could contrast to the good laguz kings, as we already see between the evil beorc kings and good beorc kings. For example, I would have liked Naesala to have a larger role in the story, as he is morally ambiguous already. I think he would have been a good secondary major antagonist.

I totally agree with the last point, characters keep referring to it as old history that happened too long ago and few seem to remember or care about it. It would definitely have made things more interesting if it would have been cited more often.

Edited January 11, 2017 by geraq

[CappnRob]

lol, Ashnard's meritocratic take on Daein basically makes him Fire Emblem Napoleon, if albeit a psychotically insane one who wants to burn the world down because its funny to him. The same thing happened in post-Revolution France where a lot of commoners and peasants got out of poverty simply by serving as soldiers and securing fortunes on battlefield merit.

[blah the Prussian]

lol, Ashnard's meritocratic take on Daein basically makes him Fire Emblem Napoleon, if albeit a psychotically insane one who wants to burn the world down because its funny to him. The same thing happened in post-Revolution France where a lot of commoners and peasants got out of poverty simply by serving as soldiers and securing fortunes on battlefield merit.

Well, yeah, but that's on command, not on physical strength. Plus, Napoleon kept that in the army, with the civil service largely based on appointment.

So if I'm not mistaken you go like this:

Birthright (bad example): Elincia (I don't think she fits in here, at least plot-wise), Pelleas

Birthright (good example): Sanaki (maybe?)

Strength-based (good example): All laguz kings, except maybe Naesala

Strength-based (bad example): Ashnard (I don't think he fits here), (laguz king example missing from here)

Elincia has a nice development arc in RD, and I think the writers consider her an example of the "birthright-good" category, because she grows wiser and stronger, and she is good and good always triumphs. She is only considered an example of "birthright is bad" by her (obviously evil in the plot) opponents. So I don't think the writers tried to go with "birthright is bad, strength is good, but Ashnard is bad" but rather "good/bad guys are good/bad rulers, regardless of the system". In-game, I think the lack of evil laguz kings does not imply that their system is perfect, and the lack of strong and competent beorc kings does not imply that their system is flawed. They weren't going either with "laguz is good, beorc is bad" because the main characters are beorc, and I guess they tried to make the message "intolerance is bad" as clear and simple as possible, and evil laguz characters would make the plot more complex. Maybe an X-men like set-up would have been interesting but I digress.

I used to read about history when I was younger, but it has been a while since I read anything. About hereditary monarchies being a force or reform, I guess you're talking about Reinassance, right? Because the guys from the French Revolution might think otherwise, :D.

Elincia is a gray area, but my reasoning is that she starts out her reign inexperienced as she was never meant to be Queen to begin with, she just inherited because Renning was given psycho drugs. As such, she is unwilling to use proper force to discipline her people, and is unable to control her nobility. Why I think it's a grey area is because her character arc is focused on her improving as a Queen, and I love it, but, well, Renning would have kicked Ludveck's ass easier. And yet, I still would have wanted the throne to go to Elincia, because a merit based system in practice becomes either corrupt or tyrannical much faster than a stable succession system where leaders don't need to prove anything.

Again, the issue isn't that the Laguz have good government, but that the Laguz system has good government at all. I do not think that a system where leaders need strength to win is good, because any intelligence would be merely a coincidence. I also think that evil Laguz would have made the plot better, and a much more nuanced examination of racial tensions and conflicts. If you look at history, with the exception of American slavery, it was NEVER the case that one side was in power for all of history. You have Serbs killing Turks when Turks killed Serbs 100 years ago. You have the Germans killing Poles and Czechs, and then those ethnically cleansing Germans. A feature of basically any conflict is that both sides are guilty to an extent, and we don't get that with the Laguz.

Throughout the enlightenment, most monarchs tried, and some succeeded, to emancipate the Serfs, secularizing society, and institute a more merit based military and civil service. The two most successful examples of this were Frederick the Great and Joseph II. The French Monarchy tried this, specifically by raising taxes on the rich and lowering them on the poor, but failed because the nobility was more powerful than it was in the rest of Europe, largely because France's previous King had been the moronic Louis XV. Louis XVI also initially supported the Revolution, before an angry mob almost murdered his wife based on a rumor, and the army did nothing. Slow and steady reform, which is what almost all monarchs of the enlightenment supported, has demonstrably killed less people and been more stable than rapid reform. To put this in FE terms, Sanaki doesn't break the power of the entire Begnion nobility at once, because if she did there would be no one to run the country. Instead, she tried for a policy of slow reconciliation, before the Senate coup stopped her, but, come on, that was practically divine intervention from Lehran, it doesn't count. Micaiah, meanwhile, kicked the Imperial Army out of Daein, but relied on a bunch of terrible, terrible people, like Izuka, to do it, and now she has an army full of racists. Note that the Daein army seems thrilled to hunt subhumans again; blame Micaiah's rapid, uncompromising revolution for that. When you destroy the old order completely, you can no longer use it to shape your new order, and thus you get less control over what that new order will be.

[Etrurian emperor]

When I see people complaining about there not being many Laguz villains in the series (I agree but) I usually do feel obligated to bring up the point that the orchestrator of like 90% of the conflict was a Laguz. Albeit a rather sympathetic one in the end but nonetheless I don't think it's a point that should be overlooked. It also makes a nice segway to bring up the point that Dehegensea does say Lehran's memory that Laguz enslaved Beorc in the past and that the two societies basically go through cycles of who's on top and who's on bottom. I would have liked to see more mention of that era of history with beorc citing it as a justification of their mistreatment of Laguz. (They're just filthy beasts. They'd do the exact same thing to us given half the chance! That castle over there was made by Asshole Laguz VI using Beorc slaves!)

I don't think Lehran entirely counts as a Laguz anymore. He can no longer transform which is something Dheginsea scoffs at, lives and works in a beorc world and he doesn't feel anymore kinship to Laguz either at the time the games take place.

Even if we were to view Lehran as a Laguz rather then something in between the races I think him being the Laguz mastermind is lessened by it still being a beorc who drives him into evil and its still the beorc he manipulates into the role of aggressor.

I think its Nasir who says the Laguz once were the ones on top. Dheginsea just talked about the risks of intervening. So far the only thing that talked about the Laguz less then flattering roll was the Tellius databook where it says that prior to toe Begnion civil war the Laguz thought themselves so superior that they defied the principle that the rulers should alternate between the two races and that this partly drove the senators in their motivation for war.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Etrurian emperor

[Parrhesia]

PoR is capable but unambitious. By FE's pretty low standards (generally capable but even less ambitious (FE8) or ambitious and handled terribly (FE4 and, from what I've heard, 13) it's a clear frontrunner, but it's good enough in its own right.