Should all bosses have the "evil" look?

[Extrasolar]

8 hours ago, Jotari said:

Is that meant to be sarcasm? I'd be pretty hugely surprised if the professional designers aren't aware as to why they're designing characters to look a certain why.

What? No. Generally speaking you're not meant to go out of your way to mark "this character is clearly the evil guy, so I'm going to go out of my way to design him as such." Not that people don't do it as easy visual shorthand, since beautiful = good, ugly = bad is so ingrained in our mindsets, and is used to invoke easy feelings about a character from the audience just based on design alone. Especially in this example, a case of "this guy was a pure antagonist in the previous game, but he's a protagonist now... Time to prettify him up a little so he can join the army of attractive, good people!" I think it's funny in that case, that's all.

Edited March 18, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Jotari]

9 hours ago, Extrasolar said:

What? No. Generally speaking you're not meant to go out of your way to mark "this character is clearly the evil guy, so I'm going to go out of my way to design him as such." Not that people don't do it as easy visual shorthand, since beautiful = good, ugly = bad is so ingrained in our mindsets, and is used to invoke easy feelings about a character from the audience just based on design alone. Especially in this example, a case of "this guy was a pure antagonist in the previous game, but he's a protagonist now... Time to prettify him up a little so he can join the army of attractive, good people!" I think it's funny in that case, that's all.

What so you just think it's subconscious happenstance that the characters look the way they do? I don't think you're giving designers enough credit. They give characters designs that match their personality. It's the whole reason design is a subject. How a character appears is just as much part of the story telling as how they speak or act. I'm pretty sure when they sat down to design Alvis they had a layout that went something along the lines of "This is a powerful individual who appears at first to be an ally but later betrays the hero. He has good intentions but commits evil deeds. So we'll give him long red hair to match his use of fire tomes and to indicate that he's dangerous. Make him relatively handsome but give him an upward slant to his face to make it appear like he's looking down on people. This combination should give him a sense of inherent mistrust from the player despite his positive aligned introduction. Later for his time skip appearance we'll enhance his age by given him sunken features that show how stressed running the kingdom is. However remove the head tilt in such a way that makes him look more kindly the establish the fact that he's now seeking redemption. Make him bulkier however to show he is still an obstacle for the heroes." Now I'm no professional designer but that's traits that match his personality and role in the story that I managed to come up with in five minutes. If the people who designed him didn't put more effort into designing him than that then the reason his design turned out so well would be pretty miraculous.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Jotari

[Extrasolar]

14 minutes ago, Jotari said:

What so you just think it's subconscious happenstance that the characters look the way they do? I don't think you're giving designers enough credit. They give characters designs that match their personality. It's the whole reason design is a subject. How a character appears is just as much part of the story telling as how they speak or act. I'm pretty sure when they sat down to design Alvis they had a layout that went something along the lines of "This is a powerful individual who appears at first to be an ally but later betrays the hero. He has good intentions but commits evil deeds. So we'll give him long red hair to match his use of fire tomes and to indicate that he's dangerous. Make him relatively handsome but give him an upward slant to his face to make it appear like he's looking down on people. This combination should give him a sense of inherent mistrust from the player despite his positive aligned introduction. Later for his time skip appearance we'll enhance his age by given him sunken features that show how stressed running the kingdom is. However remove the head tilt in such a way that makes him look more kindly the establish the fact that he's not seeking redemption. Make him bulkier however to show he is still an obstacle for the heroes." Now I'm no professional designer but that's traits that match his personality and role in the story that I managed to come up with in five minutes. If the people who designed him didn't put more effort into designing him than that then the reason his design turned out so well would be pretty miraculous.

What? I literally never said that no thought goes into the process of creating characters. Hell, I'm going to art school right now and learning character design, because I intend to become a professional animator one day. Trust me, I know about visual cues indicating personality. We're taught all about that in character designing classes. But there's a huge difference between "design characters with indicators of personality" and "always make your villains obviously villain-coded, and your heroes obviously hero-coded."

What we're not directly taught is "Always make sure to draw each and every one of your villain/antagonists ugly/with sharp features/narrow-eyed/darker-complexioned and all of your heroes/protagonists lighter-complexioned/conventionally attractive/large-eyed/with rounded features." There is absolutely no point in which that is praised as "the right way" to go with designing characters.

But it's common anyway because, again, it's easy visual shorthand to give the audience feelings about a character without necessarily having to dedicate too much screen time/panel time to fleshing out the character. Someone like, for example, Validar is obvious villain coding - tall, extremely thin, sharp features, darker-complexion than the heroes. You just look at him, without reading a single line of his dialogue or knowing anything about his role in the plot, and you can tell immediately, "Yeah, this is the guy I'm meant to hate." It's the same with most villains in the FE series, and Oliver was one of them in the transition from POR to RD. And of course, this makes it obvious who's the villain and who's not, which can make it bad or undesirable from a narrative standpoint, unless you simply don't give a shit that everyone will be able to spot the villain a mile away.

That's why we're surprised with subversions, or subversions are less common in design. When you get a gentle, sweet or attractively-designed character, you automatically assume they're good-natured until shown otherwise. (The quickest example that comes to mind for me is that small sheep from Zootopia). On the contrary, when you see a "sinister"-designed character, with small eyes or sharp features, you similarly assume they're crooked or bad-natured until shown otherwise.

Speaking purely FE as a counterpoint to Validar's obvious villain coding; meanwhile, you look at someone like Seliph - soft features, large eyes, conventionally attractive - and you immediately know he's meant to be a protagonist/good guy, without reading a shred of his dialogue or knowing his role in the story. You're not "meant" to do that, or design characters that way. There's no reason why villains shouldn't be designed with many of the same conventions as the heroes, and vice versa. But they're not, because it's simply easier to go "ugly = bad, beautiful = good."

Does that make sense?

Edited March 19, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, Extrasolar said:

What? I literally never said that no thought goes into the process of creating characters. Hell, I'm going to art school right now and learning character design, because I intend to become a professional animator one day. Trust me, I know about visual cues indicating personality. We're taught all about that in character designing classes. But there's a huge difference between "design characters with indicators of personality" and "always make your villains obviously villain-coded, and your heroes obviously hero-coded."

What we're not directly taught is "Always make sure to draw each and every one of your villain/antagonists ugly/with sharp features/narrow-eyed/darker-complexioned and all of your heroes/protagonists lighter-complexioned/conventionally attractive/large-eyed/with rounded features." There is absolutely no point in which that is praised as "the right way" to go with designing characters.

But it's common anyway because, again, it's easy visual shorthand to give the audience feelings about a character without necessarily having to dedicate too much screen time/panel time to fleshing out the character. Someone like, for example, Validar is obvious villain coding - tall, extremely thin, sharp features, darker-complexion than the heroes. You just look at him, without reading a single line of his dialogue or knowing anything about his role in the plot, and you can tell immediately, "Yeah, this is the guy I'm meant to hate." It's the same with most villains in the FE series, and Oliver was one of them in the transition from POR to RD. And of course, this makes it obvious who's the villain and who's not, which can make it bad or undesirable from a narrative standpoint, unless you simply don't give a shit that everyone will be able to spot the villain a mile away.

That's why we're surprised with subversions, or subversions are less common in design. When you get a gentle, sweet or attractively-designed character, you automatically assume they're good-natured until shown otherwise. (The quickest example that comes to mind for me is that small sheep from Zootopia). On the contrary, when you see a "sinister"-designed character, with small eyes or sharp features, you similarly assume they're crooked or bad-natured until shown otherwise.

Speaking purely FE as a counterpoint to Validar's obvious villain coding; meanwhile, you look at someone like Seliph - soft features, large eyes, conventionally attractive - and you immediately know he's meant to be a protagonist/good guy, without reading a shred of his dialogue or knowing his role in the story. You're not "meant" to do that, or design characters that way. There's no reason why villains shouldn't be designed with many of the same conventions as the heroes, and vice versa. But they're not, because it's simply easier to go "ugly = bad, beautiful = good."

Does that make sense?

Well you said "it's like they're self aware" with your first statement. Which I questioned wether it was sarcasm because yes, they obviously are self aware of what they're doing when they're designing things. I'd also argue on the whole Fire Emblem doesn't universally subscribe to ugly = bad and beautiful = good mantra. As the OP said, it's mostly random chapter bosses that look generic. That's a reflection of how much effort is put into them as characters over all. It takes time and effort to design a memorable and interesting character and that's not time and effort that (generally) needs to be dedicated to a throw away chapter boss who will never appear again or influence the story. Oliver doesn't look as generic in Radiant Dawn because more effort went into his design not only because he's playable but because the Senators over all are more important characters that require more effort. The same is true for Lekain and Hetzel who had what was basically a cameo in Path of Radiance and had suitably plain designs to reflect that. You can still see the nuances of their character in the design but overall it's much less refined. More important villains still get key villainous features because it's another way of conveying information to the audience (and in a visual medium its a way that should be utilised) but many of them are conventially attractive, going back to the OP again it's usually the expressions they're pulling that signify their place in the story.  To lump another example in with Jarod, Iago from Fates is actually rather well put together with a sculpted face and flowing hair. You just know he's a villain because of his permanent sneer and look of contempt.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Jotari

[Extrasolar]

22 hours ago, Jotari said:

Well you said "it's like they're self aware" with your first statement. Which I questioned wether it was sarcasm because yes, they obviously are self aware of what they're doing when they're designing things. I'd also argue on the whole Fire Emblem doesn't universally subscribe to ugly = bad and beautiful = good mantra. As the OP said, it's mostly random chapter bosses that look generic. That's a reflection of how much effort is put into them as characters over all. It takes time and effort to design a memorable and interesting character and that's not time and effort that (generally) needs to be dedicated to a throw away chapter boss who will never appear again or influence the story. Oliver doesn't look as generic in Radiant Dawn because more effort went into his design not only because he's playable but because the Senators over all are more important characters that require more effort. The same is true for Lekain and Hetzel who had what was basically a cameo in Path of Radiance and had suitably plain designs to reflect that. You can still see the nuances of their character in the design but overall it's much less refined. More important villains still get key villainous features because it's another way of conveying information to the audience (and in a visual medium its a way that should be utilised) but many of them are conventially attractive, going back to the OP again it's usually the expressions they're pulling that signify their place in the story.  To lump another example in with Jarod, Iago from Fates is actually rather well put together with a sculpted face and flowing hair. You just know he's a villain because of his permanent sneer and look of contempt.

I...think you're misunderstanding my point here. Like I said, you're not supposed to think "I'm going to design all of my evil characters to mark them as obviously evil," or vice versa. That's not supposed to be a thing that goes into your head when you're designing a character. But people do it anyway because it's easy. Oliver was in no way "generic" in his first portrait in POR - he was still a clearly non-generic character, designed differently to mark him as important (if you're looking for generic, you need to look at the generic, nameless enemy soldiers with no standout features): he was designed with a deliberately unattractive face - narrowed eyes, very close features, and frowning. And that's because he was another one of the game's pure villains; as soon as he switched to being recruitable to the good guys' side, they edited his face to be even a shred more conventionally attractive: He lost his squint, and his features were spaced apart and his expression became neutral instead of menacing. Clear villain/hero coding at work here.

Again, you're not "supposed" to do that. Oliver's design should have stayed the exact same between games, because, again, you're not supposed to give your villains obvious villain coding and your heroes obviously hero coding. Lekain and Hetzel's designs did not change all that much between games - Lekain keeps his facial features and blond facial hair, just with an update to the quality of the art that everyone in the transition from POR to RD got. And Hetzel has always been a pathetic, frail-looking old man, with, again, another art quality upgrade in RD. Oliver's facial features, however, were changed in the transition because he became an ally.

I said "it's like they're self-aware of their obvious villain coding" because you're not supposed to think that way. You're not supposed to design characters that way. But people do it anyway, because it's easy. The obvious change between Oliver's portraits, to me, is a tendency that they just don't care, and I find that funny.

Now, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, because I can't say they're bad character designers. I have never said that no effort goes into creating the characters, or that they're not well designed. Important FE characters stick out from one another and are well-designed, but this quirk of obvious villain/hero coding pervades the series and is amusing me, who is learning the ins and outs of character design.

I never said that every single FE antagonist or villain is designed that way,  but the vast majority of them are. That's why the subversions of bad = ugly are more notable than the characters that play them straight. And for villain coding to be at work, the villains in question don't have to be designed butt ugly: like you said, Jarod is an attractive man, but his narrow eyes and severe expression mark him as "bad guy." And yes, I know it's because a lot of the time they don't have a lot of screen time to develop the character. That's what I explained in my previous post. And Iago does have obvious villain coding: He looks slimy, with long, stringy black hair and a sallow face.

Sorry if I overused the bold, but I really want you to understand what I mean.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Extrasolar

[NekoKnight]

5 hours ago, Extrasolar said:

I said "it's like they're self-aware of their obvious villain coding" because you're not supposed to think that way. You're not supposed to design characters that way. But people do it anyway, because it's easy. The obvious change between Oliver's portraits, to me, is a tendency that they just don't care, and I find that funny.

I don't know where you get off saying that "You're not supposed to think that way" as though it were a tenet of the holy Character Design Bible.

[Extrasolar]

31 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

I don't know where you get off saying that "You're not supposed to think that way" as though it were a tenet of the holy Character Design Bible.

Um. I never said there was a Character Designer Bible that you have to follow all rules and letters to the T, or else you're not considered a character designer.

I'm just going off of what we've been taught in character design classes, and "always design your villains and heroes different by giving them obvious villain and hero coding, respectively" is not one of the things we're taught. It still happens because it's easy, and I'm not saying that doing so is an unholy abomination of character design and that anyone who does that should turn in their character design license/artist license and jump into the nearest pit of hell like people seem to think that I am saying.

I'm saying that at no point are we taught that, told to do that, and a lot of the time it's frowned upon as "lazy/easy" (for lack of a better term) character design, since it gives the audience automatic feelings about a character without having to develop them at all.

I'm just saying generally speaking, we're not "meant to/supposed to" design all of our characters with "this guy is evil, so I'm gonna have to design him clearly evil-coded" or vice versa. That is not a thing we're taught. Do people do it anyway, even if simply for convenience or simplicity's sake? Yes. Does it make them bad character designers or bad artists? No.

I have literally never said that I was the be-all end-all authority on character design or good and bad character design in any of this. I just found this tendency amusing because I've learned and am learning about character design (and FE is not the only series/media that does it, I know, I find it amusing in other places as well). The Oliver example just struck me as particularly blatant, that's all.

Was my wording in the original post maybe not the most accurate? Sure, I could have tightened it better, if the wording is the issue. I should have said "Lol, it's like they don't care at all about their obvious hero/villain coding."

Edited March 20, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Augestein]

Not all of them. Some are fine, but I think it's silly when villains look evil. 

[Jotari]

3 hours ago, Extrasolar said:

Um. I never said there was a Character Designer Bible that you have to follow all rules and letters to the T, or else you're not considered a character designer.

I'm just going off of what we've been taught in character design classes, and "always design your villains and heroes different by giving them obvious villain and hero coding, respectively" is not one of the things we're taught. It still happens because its easy, and I'm not saying that doing so is an unholy abomination of character design and that anyone who does that should turn in their character design license/artist license and jump into the nearest pit of hell like people seem to think that I am saying.

I'm saying that at no point are we taught that, told to do that, and a lot of the time it's frowned upon as "lazy/easy" (for lack of a better term) character design, since it gives the audience automatic feelings about a character without having to develop them at all.

I'm just saying generally speaking, we're not "meant to/supposed to" design all of our characters with "this guy is evil, so I'm gonna have to design him clearly evil-coded" or vice versa. That is not a thing we're taught. Do people do it anyway, even if simply for convenience or simplicity's sake? Yes. Does it make them bad character designers or bad artists? No.

I have literally never said that I was the be-all end-all authority on character design or good and bad character design in any of this. I just found this tendency amusing because I've learned and am learning about character design (and FE is not the only series/media that does it, I know, I find it amusing in other places as well). The Oliver example just struck me as particularly blatant, that's all.

Was my wording in the original post maybe not the most accurate? Sure, I could have tightened it better, if the wording is the issue. I should have said "Lol, it's like they don't care at all about their obvious hero/villain coding."

Youre missing what Im saying.  Its the villains that don't have as big a role that get less subtle indicators about tgeir alignment.  And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  Maybe "yournot supposed to"  but these are games where they need to design well over a hundred characters so its not surprising at all that they go with the obvious.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Jotari

[Extrasolar]

45 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Youre missing what Im saying.  Its the villains that don't have as big a role that get less subtle indicators about tgeir alignment.  And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  Maybe "yournot supposed to"  but these are games where they need to design well over a hundred characters so its not surprising at all that they go with the obvious.

Not always. Need I bring up Garon, who has "obviously evil" written all over his design?

Or how about Validar? He has a huge role, as the main villain of the third act (barring Grima, who's more of a force of nature than anything), and his design is about the opposite of subtle. I mean, in his case, you see him in the prologue!

Need I even elaborate on Izuka?

Or we could go back even further. How's Gharnef for "obviously evil villain" coding? I mean, you could say that's the guy that started it all.

And again. Never did I say that there was anything "wrong" with that, or that it was bad design.  People seem to be reading "the designs/designers suck" into my statements somehow, and I have no idea how. All I said was how amusing it was to me that they stick so heavily to the binary, to the point of not so subtly redesigning Oliver's face in the transition to "good guy."

Edited March 20, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Sunwoo]

In a perfect world, one wouldn't have to design villains to be "obviously evil" or "unattractive" or have some other visual feature that makes them obviously the villain. Like how all protagonists don't have to be good-looking. But I've seen way too many situations where fans think that an evil or bad character is redeemable or is just a "woobie" of sorts because they are good-looking. Even if they have no redeeming traits whatsoever. So until people can be trusted to realize that bad guys are bad and good-looking people aren't redeemable just because they're good-looking, we may have no choice but to make the bad guys look like bad guys.

[Jotari]

6 hours ago, Extrasolar said:

Not always. Need I bring up Garon, who has "obviously evil" written all over his design?

Or how about Validar? He has a huge role, as the main villain of the third act (barring Grima, who's more of a force of nature than anything), and his design is about the opposite of subtle. I mean, in his case, you see him in the prologue!

Need I even elaborate on Izuka?

Or we could go back even further. How's Gharnef for "obviously evil villain" coding? I mean, you could say that's the guy that started it all.

And again. Never did I say that there was anything "wrong" with that, or that it was bad design.  People seem to be reading "the designs/designers suck" into my statements somehow, and I have no idea how. All I said was how amusing it was to me that they stick so heavily to the binary, to the point of not so subtly redesigning Oliver's face in the transition to "good guy."

Im on my phone so I cant type out a big long reply.  Ill just say that I never claimed Fire Emblem doesnt make any of its  major villians obvious m,  just that the ugly =  bad and beautiful =  good rule isnt as universal as people are assuming and its the expressions that are useually the key factors.  For every example of an ugly major villian you provide,  I could provide a counter example.  Oliver didnt suddenly turn into Muriam between games.  He's  still  designed to be  (and acts like) a fat ugly git and the whole idea of him randomly joining Ike's  side is treated as a huge joke.  Lekain and Hetzel are also far more different in Path of Radiance than you give credit.  Hetzel barely even looks like the same person with the massive chin he sports and the overall lack of any of the kind but  feeble features that make up his character.  He doesnt even look all that old compared to his Radiant Dawn self.  Id probably place him around late forties in the former and early sixties in the latter.  Lekain on the other hand is designed to look more petty and sneering in Path of Radiance while in Radiant he's  supposed to look more grand and proud to reflect the more defined personality he has.  Both are just as major if not more o then the chage in design Oliver received.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Jotari

[NekoKnight]

6 hours ago, Sunwoo said:

In a perfect world, one wouldn't have to design villains to be "obviously evil" or "unattractive" or have some other visual feature that makes them obviously the villain. Like how all protagonists don't have to be good-looking. But I've seen way too many situations where fans think that an evil or bad character is redeemable or is just a "woobie" of sorts because they are good-looking. Even if they have no redeeming traits whatsoever. So until people can be trusted to realize that bad guys are bad and good-looking people aren't redeemable just because they're good-looking, we may have no choice but to make the bad guys look like bad guys.

You act like FE villains being ugly is an unfortunate necessity to inform dumb players of their alignment rather than a deliberate design choice.

But if you're just speaking of character design in general, you can disregard my comment.

[Extrasolar]

3 hours ago, Jotari said:

Im on my phone so I cant type out a big long reply.  Ill just say that I never claimed Fire Emblem doesnt make any of its  major villians obvious m,  just that the ugly =  bad and beautiful =  good rule isnt as universal as people are assuming and its the expressions that are useually the key factors.  For every example of an ugly major villian you provide,  I could provide a counter example.  Oliver didnt suddenly turn into Muriam between games.  He's  still  designed to be  (and acts like) a fat ugly git and the whole idea of him randomly joining Ike's  side is treated as a huge joke.  Lekain and Hetzel are also far more different in Path of Radiance than you give credit.  Hetzel barely even looks like the same person with the massive chin he sports and the overall lack of any of the kind but  feeble features that make up his character.  He doesnt even look all that old compared to his Radiant Dawn self.  Id probably place him around late forties in the former and early sixties in the latter.  Lekain on the other hand is designed to look more petty and sneering in Path of Radiance while in Radiant he's  supposed to look more grand and proud to reflect the more defined personality he has.  Both are just as major if not more o then the chage in design Oliver received.

I never said it was a completely universal rule in the series. I acknowledged that there are subversions/exceptions, but as a whole, those subversions are rarer than when ugly = bad, beautiful = good is played straight. Sure, most of them are one-off chapter bosses that are promptly forgotten about as soon as the chapter ends, but ugly villain dudes still outnumber the beautiful/attractive ones. (Disclaimer again: Not saying this is bad or bad character design. I understand why they do it, so they don't have to develop a character they're using for a single chapter, but it's still a thing in the series.)

And yeah, Oliver's still fat. Making him more conventionally attractive didn't mean change his character design 100% completely, which making him a buff, built dude would. Like, that wasn't going to change. But the change in his face is a drastic one - his facial design in RD is much less ugly/sinister, to code him as a "good guy" (used in the sense of an ally, since I know Oliver's still a dick and in no way a traditional good guy).

As for Lekain and Hetzel, making them reflect different personality traits isn't the same as changing them to look less villainous/sinister between games. I'd disagree with you claiming that they went through just as dramatic a change as Oliver.

Spoilered below: An analysis of the two between games.
 

Spoiler

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/fireemblem/images/0/07/FE9lekain.png/revision/latest?cb=20091205192226
Lekain in Path of Radiance

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/fireemblem/images/3/30/FE10_Lekain.png/revision/latest?cb=20100507082036
Lekain in Radiant Dawn

Consistencies: Same blond facial hair, same small, narrowed eyes, same facial structure. Still a kind of husky guy. Update in art quality aside, the same design. Stayed a villain in both games.

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/fireemblem/images/7/7a/FE9_Hetzel_Portrait.png/revision/latest?cb=20120427163016
Hetzel in Path of Radiance

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/fireemblem/images/9/9e/Hetzel_Artwork_(FE10).png/revision/latest?cb=20161217070319
Hetzel in Radiant Dawn

Consistencies: Still a thin, old, wrinkled man with prominent lips and small eyes. He's smiling in his Path of Radiance portrait and we can't see his hair, but that's the biggest difference between them. Same facial structure. (And Hetzel's meant to be one of the more sympathetic/less malicious Begnion senators, so he wasn't really villain-coded in the first place.)

If you go back and look at the Oliver portraits, Oliver's face changed almost completely, from a squinty, close-featured scowl to a neutral expression. Still fat, yeah, but they weren't about to make him a totally different character in the change.

 

Edited March 20, 2017 by Extrasolar

[JJ48]

1 hour ago, Extrasolar said:

I never said it was a completely universal rule in the series. I acknowledged that there are subversions/exceptions, but as a whole, those subversions are rarer than when ugly = bad, beautiful = good is played straight. Sure, most of them are one-off chapter bosses that are promptly forgotten about as soon as the chapter ends, but ugly villain dudes still outnumber the beautiful/attractive ones. (Disclaimer again: Not saying this is bad or bad character design. I understand why they do it, so they don't have to develop a character they're using for a single chapter, but it's still a thing in the series.)

And yeah, Oliver's still fat. Making him more conventionally attractive didn't mean change his character design 100% completely, which making him a buff, built dude would. Like, that wasn't going to change. But the change in his face is a drastic one - his facial design in RD is much less ugly/sinister, to code him as a "good guy" (used in the sense of an ally, since I know Oliver's still a dick and in no way a traditional good guy).

As for Lekain and Hetzel, making them reflect different personality traits isn't the same as changing them to look less villainous/sinister between games. I'd disagree with you claiming that they went through just as dramatic a change as Oliver.

Spoilered below: An analysis of the two between games.
 

  Reveal hidden contents

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/fireemblem/images/0/07/FE9lekain.png/revision/latest?cb=20091205192226
Lekain in Path of Radiance

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/fireemblem/images/3/30/FE10_Lekain.png/revision/latest?cb=20100507082036
Lekain in Radiant Dawn

Consistencies: Same blond facial hair, same small, narrowed eyes, same facial structure. Still a kind of husky guy. Update in art quality aside, the same design. Stayed a villain in both games.

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/fireemblem/images/7/7a/FE9_Hetzel_Portrait.png/revision/latest?cb=20120427163016
Hetzel in Path of Radiance

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/fireemblem/images/9/9e/Hetzel_Artwork_(FE10).png/revision/latest?cb=20161217070319
Hetzel in Radiant Dawn

Consistencies: Still a thin, old, wrinkled man with prominent lips and small eyes. He's smiling in his Path of Radiance portrait and we can't see his hair, but that's the biggest difference between them. Same facial structure. (And Hetzel's meant to be one of the more sympathetic/less malicious Begnion senators, so he wasn't really villain-coded in the first place.)

If you go back and look at the Oliver portraits, Oliver's face changed almost completely, from a squinty, close-featured scowl to a neutral expression. Still fat, yeah, but they weren't about to make him a totally different character in the change.

 

Personally, I think subversions work better when they work against an established pattern, so you're more surprised when it happens.  You can't make every pitch a curveball, after all.

[Original Alear]

Jarod and the various Begnion bosses in Daien have "good" reason to look suspicious and distrustful, because the population they are ruling over probably hates them with good reason. I'm not saying they should look ugly or not ugly, but I think it kind of makes sense if they look on edge.

Ugliness or beauty aside, I think some people really do wear their moods on their face. How often someone can look genuinely happy and content while being a horrible person is another question I guess.

[JJ48]

On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 5:02 PM, Dragoncat said:

Do you think IS just did this so you can easily tell who's recruitable and who's not? Discuss!

In the GBA titles, at least, it was less, "This person is pretty, so s/he is recruitable!" and more, "This person's portrait shows a recognizable face, and the person isn't a boss, so s/he is recruitable!"

[Topaz Light]

I feel like, as with any character, it depends on the concept for the character themselves. Their personality plus social standing should serve as the basis for their personal grooming standards and style, while facial features can just go in whatever direction works best, since those are genetic and less influenced by personal presentation.

[Extrasolar]

18 hours ago, Sunwoo said:

But I've seen way too many situations where fans think that an evil or bad character is redeemable or is just a "woobie" of sorts because they are good-looking. Even if they have no redeeming traits whatsoever. So until people can be trusted to realize that bad guys are bad and good-looking people aren't redeemable just because they're good-looking, we may have no choice but to make the bad guys look like bad guys.

Yeah, I've definitely seen this before in fandoms... That's also a reason so many villains are designed ugly or clearly villainous, so fans don't get attached to them when they're not "meant to" (not saying there's anything wrong with liking/feeling sorry for/identifying with a villain, but a lot of the time the creators don't intend it to happen). It's always funny when you get those cases where the villains/antagonists are more liked than the heroes, or it gets to the point that fans start making excuses to justify some of their bad behavior... That's always a slippery slope.

It's funny that a lot of the more sympathetic villains in FE are also the best looking - Arvis being the premiere example that sticks out in my mind, but we also have the likes of Zelgius and such. Makes it easier to get attached to them and feel for them.

6 hours ago, JJ48 said:

Personally, I think subversions work better when they work against an established pattern, so you're more surprised when it happens.  You can't make every pitch a curveball, after all.

Oh, I'll agree with you that they can provide some good twists when a good-looking/coded character is revealed to be a jackass (the Zootopia twist, and one that I remember fondly back from my anime-watching days was the Aizen twist in Bleach)...but the problem is, when that sort of thing is used too much, it becomes predictable and stale. It's like, "Oh...another innocent-looking character is actually evil? What a surprise..."

That sort of thing would get stale just as fast as "obviously evil-looking villain" is if it's done too much, imo.

5 hours ago, Help said:

Ugliness or beauty aside, I think some people really do wear their moods on their face. How often someone can look genuinely happy and content while being a horrible person is another question I guess.

Precisely because they're horrible people, and just don't give a shit about others or others' feelings and well-being. Or even that they enjoy the suffering of others.

Edited March 21, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Jotari]

7 hours ago, Extrasolar said:

Oh, I'll agree with you that they can provide some good twists when a good-looking/coded character is revealed to be a jackass (the Zootopia twist, and one that I remember fondly back from my anime-watching days was the Aizen twist in Bleach)...but the problem is, when that sort of thing is used too much, it becomes predictable and stale. It's like, "Oh...another innocent-looking character is actually evil? What a surprise..."

On that very point, I had a friend play through Radiant Dawn (without having played Path of Radiance first) and as soon as the CG of Sephiran appeared in Part 1, he called Sephiran as being evil based purely on the design.

[Extrasolar]

4 hours ago, Jotari said:

On that very point, I had a friend play through Radiant Dawn (without having played Path of Radiance first) and as soon as the CG of Sephiran appeared in Part 1, he called Sephiran as being evil based purely on the design.

Yeah, exceptions to the morality coding will always exist. People who call plot twists will always exist. But as a whole, innocent-looking or benevolent-looking characters are assumed to be good people until proven otherwise...and also, Sephiran is definitely one of the more sympathetic antagonists in the game, so he had that whole attractive design going for him to make it get easier to attach to him.

 Going off of that, though, if that friend of yours is familiar with anime and/or other JRPGs, I can definitely see them equating Sephiran's design with villain. Tall, long-haired,serene-looking, wears mostly white, etc. Villains like that are already pretty common, and getting increasingly common. If anything, beautiful and ethereal-looking villains are the most common villains in JRPGs in my experience, other than demons, or other similar monstrous forces of nature.
 

17 hours ago, JJ48 said:

In the GBA titles, at least, it was less, "This person is pretty, so s/he is recruitable!" and more, "This person's portrait shows a recognizable face, and the person isn't a boss, so s/he is recruitable!"

Nah, it's much of the same everywhere in the series, especially when you have the one non-generic face in a horde of enemies. Pretty or not, they're gonna be recruitable.

[Junkhead]

Naw, it's funny as hell. Makes it harder to truly hate them if they feel more like fucking Eggman. Like, do you hate Eggman? Fuck no. Who the hell hates Eggman.

[Emperor Hardin]

The art book for Tellius said they designed the bosses with a fearsome look.

Ironically Radiant Dawn probably has the most normal bosses in the series.

Not only does Oliver's portrait look much less evil, but Lekain too. In the original, his squinting expression made it obvious he was mean at least, his sequel portrait has a normal expression.

I actually don't mind Jarod's portrait, he's not bishonen but he looks normal, as does Ludveck.

Off the top of my head, the games with the least over the top boss designs are Berwick Saga, Tearring Saga, and Fates. Then again, the fact that some of the bosses in Fates can be recruited could explain why Tarba has a less over the top design then Hans. Gazak though is more threatening then his inspiration, however.

Awakening probably has the most cartoonishly evil looking villains from my recollection.

Anyhow I think bandits should look disheveled but not cartoonishly ugly. Player criminals should share that look. Most other villains should look normal.

More characters who seem like they'd be a throwaway ugly bandit but turn out to be sympathetic or even playable would be nice, like this dude.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Emperor Hardin