What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[Slumber]

3 hours ago, eclipse said:

The only offensive thing about this post is the fact that it's really hard to read on Night Forest.

This could be expanded to attractiveness/body types in general.  How many plain/ugly people are recruitable in FE?  What about the bosses? Especially the non-sympathetic ones.  It's something that's annoyed me for the longest time.

Arden, Ralph(Plain), Dorothy(Plain), Gonzales, Merlinus, Meg, and Brom, really. And that's about it. And about half of those aren't treated particularly well.

For Ralph, Gonzales, Dorothy, Meg and Brom, it's basically a part of their character that they're unattractive. Ralph is the epitome of average/normal in his game, Gonzales is treated like a monster because of his face and his size, Dorothy's the one girl who Saul refuses to hit on because she's so plain, Meg is treated like the punchline of a joke when it turns out she's the one Brom wanted Zihark to marry, and Brom's a hearty country boy. Merlinus is basically a walking joke himself, but it's not because of his looks. I'm sure Meg and Brom would have been treated a bit better if(Moreso in Meg's case) their extra size was clearly more muscle than fat.

Arden's the odd one out in that he's pretty hideous, but nobody really ever brings it up. Though I guess every pairing of his does have some conversation where the woman thinks he has more charm and charisma than they expected from looking at him. Then again, his more modern artwork is far easier on the eyes than his old artwork.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Slumber

[Emperor Hardin]

4 hours ago, eclipse said:

The only offensive thing about this post is the fact that it's really hard to read on Night Forest.

This could be expanded to attractiveness/body types in general.  How many plain/ugly people are recruitable in FE?  What about the bosses? Especially the non-sympathetic ones.  It's something that's annoyed me for the longest time.

There's usually a fair amount of plain people.

Ugly people are usually 1 or 2 per game. Of the 3DS games, I can only think of Benoit right now.

Sympathetic bosses are more likely to be ugly if they aren't important.

1 hour ago, Slumber said:

Arden, Ralph(Plain), Dorothy(Plain), Gonzales, Merlinus, Meg, and Brom, really. And that's about it. And about half of those aren't treated particularly well.

For Ralph, Gonzales, Dorothy, Meg and Brom, it's basically a part of their character that they're unattractive. Ralph is the epitome of average/normal in his game, Gonzales is treated like a monster because of his face and his size, Dorothy's the one girl who Saul refuses to hit on because she's so plain, Meg is treated like the punchline of a joke when it turns out she's the one Brom wanted Zihark to marry, and Brom's a hearty country boy. Merlinus is basically a walking joke himself, but it's not because of his looks. I'm sure Meg and Brom would have been treated a bit better if(Moreso in Meg's case) their extra size was clearly more muscle than fat.

Arden's the odd one out in that he's pretty hideous, but nobody really ever brings it up. Though I guess every pairing of his does have some conversation where the woman thinks he has more charm and charisma than they expected from looking at him. Then again, his more modern artwork is far easier on the eyes than his old artwork.

There's definitely more then that, such as Trewd , Marty, and August in Thracia 776, while August isn't playable he's super important. While Marty looks friendly enough, Trewd and August could easily be minor bosses.

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Emperor Hardin

[familyplayer]

28 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Trewd and August could easily be minor bosses.

Trewd technically is if you don't try to recruit him. And considering that he sucks, who would regret it?

[Harvey]

10 hours ago, Slumber said:

Do you actually know what mercenaries are?

Yes and that's just what I said here...

21 hours ago, Harvey said:

I guess my main gripe here is that a mercenary is someone who makes money without any kind of ethics whatsoever.

 

10 hours ago, Slumber said:

Yes, mercenaries IRL fight for money, but that's not the ONLY thing that drives a mercenary. In short, they made fighting a business. And like any good business, they often had discriminatory practices that kept them from serving certain causes for ethical or other potentical financial reasons. There are many accounts of mercenary leaders being killed by their own men because the leaders were making their men do too many unethical atrocities.

Many mercenaries bands also sided with armies that benefited their countries as a whole(IE Welsh mercenaries siding with France against England during the 100 Years War because England was in the middle of annexing Wales) over greater potential personal gain.

Ok...and do we have characters in FE that follow this? 

10 hours ago, Slumber said:

And obviously of the Fire Emblem mercenaries, we tend to get the ones who aren't sociopaths, because otherwise we'd have a hard time rooting for them.

And yet, Raven is the first one of them...

10 hours ago, Slumber said:

We've only ever gotten a handful of characters in the franchise without any clear morals or ethics(Lifis, Oliver).

And I say that we should get more from that side since this is FE which is about characters. The idea that every character should have ethics and morals is pretty odd since FE is by all means about war and having nearly all characters with ethics and morals is just odd. Why can't we get more characters like Lifis?

Besides these points, I can understand the rest of the points you mentioned. But like I said, Raven isn't exactly a mercenary but he comes a bit close to that.

 

[Armagon]

31 minutes ago, Harvey said:

Yes and that's just what I said here...

Except what you said doesn't apply to Raven. Raven never fought for money. His motivation was getting revenge at Ostia and finding his sister. No money involved. By definition, Raven is far from being a Mercenary.

34 minutes ago, Harvey said:

Ok...and do we have characters in FE that follow this? 

Gregor killed his employers once.

35 minutes ago, Harvey said:

And yet, Raven is the first one of them

Raven isn't a sociopath though. Raven's just cold and distant but he isn't a sociopath. The definition of sociopath is "a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience." Sure, Raven is antisocial but not to the extent that the definition of sociopath describes. You can be antisocial without being a sociopath.

39 minutes ago, Harvey said:

The idea that every character should have ethics and morals is pretty odd since FE is by all means about war and having nearly all characters with ethics and morals is just odd.

So is that idea that every character shouldn't have ethics and morals. Honestly, this doesn't just apply to Fire Emblem, this apply to basically every story. Even the most grimdark of stories have some characters with ethics ad morals.

Oh btw, saying characters having ethics and morals during war is odd is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. In real life wars, soldiers and commanders have their ethics and morals. Do you honestly think that soldiers and the like are devoid of emotion, ethics, and morals? 

43 minutes ago, Harvey said:

Why can't we get more characters like Lifis?

Because Lifis isn't exactly the most relatable character. Fire Emblem would likely not have as many fans if most of the characters were unrelatable to the player.

45 minutes ago, Harvey said:

But like I said, Raven isn't exactly a mercenary but he comes a bit close to that.

By definition, he does not. By definition, characters like Hugh, Farina, and Volke are the closest to being actual mercenaries (with Volke himself probably filling that role the best). Especially given that you have to actually pay them to recruit them.

[Harvey]

11 minutes ago, Armagon said:

So is that idea that every character shouldn't have ethics and morals. Honestly, this doesn't just apply to Fire Emblem, this apply to basically every story. Even the most grimdark of stories have some characters with ethics ad morals.

Oh btw, saying characters having ethics and morals during war is odd is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. In real life wars, soldiers and commanders have their ethics and morals. Do you honestly think that soldiers and the like are devoid of emotion, ethics, and morals? 

So every Fire Emblem character should have ethics and morals when the series is suppose to reflect some elements of reality? Also keep in mind that a lot of units you get in FE just join you just for the heck of it and are least bothered with what's happening around them for the most part.

All I'm saying is that FE should have a balance between those with ethics and those that don't and so far, too many characters have ethics and morals and while villians are obviously unethical, That's almost certain for any bad guy.

Btw, Fates gives you units that don't have much of morals or ethics.

16 minutes ago, Armagon said:

By definition, he does not. By definition, characters like Hugh, Farina, and Volke are the closest to being actual mercenaries (with Volke himself probably filling that role the best). Especially given that you have to actually pay them to recruit them.

And by class, they are not mercenaries and that's the point I'm trying to make.

 

[ping]

Honestly, "Mercenary" is somewhat of a misnomer, given how even Ogma himself never really was a Merc. As far as I remember, he was forced to become a gladiator as a youth, rescued by Shiida when he was tortured for saving Samto, and loyal to Shiida from that point on. Not really a sellsword background, imho. Really, the Myrmidon class seems to be more connected to merc work than the merc class itself - Navarablabarb, Samto, Rutger, Guy, Joshua, Marisa, Mia, and Zihark are all actually working as one.

7 hours ago, Chad Radwell said:

Right!! I specifically only mentioned lady peggos because that's such a common archetype and I was already talking about it, but for sure it covers most of the overall cast. The Lords in particular have it bad, too. They come in three flavors: "Twink", "Hector", and "Girlfriend", and all of them are young, hot, and wholesome. I think a Lord on the older end of things (and I mean actually older, not Sigurd "old" lmao) would be a neat twist, for instance. Sure, they have to be appealing to sell the game, but they can be appealing in lots of different ways. Or, barring that, I would still like for the next avatar, if we get another one, to have a skin tone slider and/or the ability to have a beefier body type than "high school soccer player" (thanks for being a sign of progress once again, Corrin.)

Couldn't help but think about Final Fantasy XII. Looking at the plot, Basch is very clearly the main character, but Squeenix would rather be tarred and feathered than forced to put a scarred (gasp!), 40yo (doublegasp!) man at the center of the cover.

Anyway, I'm also kinda bothered that Fire Emblem plays the "Good = Beautiful" trope straight like 95% of the time, usually with a rather specific beauty standard. I supposed they think they would only confuse the players if they didn't have the visual cue for a character's alignment.

[Armagon]

28 minutes ago, Harvey said:

So every Fire Emblem character should have ethics and morals when the series is suppose to reflect some elements of reality?

Buddy, Fire Emblem isn't exactly accurate to war. And no, i'm not just talking about the fantasy elements.

28 minutes ago, Harvey said:

too many characters have ethics and morals

What's wrong with this though? No seriously, please explain. Don't quote me on any statistics but i'm positive 9 out of 10 people have ethics and morals.

28 minutes ago, Harvey said:

villians are obviously unethical, That's almost certain for any bad guy.

Not all villains commit unethical acts. For example, Medeus was the bad guy but he didn't really go around massacring people for the heck of it. He didn't like humans but he also wasn't the type of guy to rule through fear.

Now naturally, most villains are unethical. It comes with the territory.

28 minutes ago, Harvey said:

Btw, Fates gives you units that don't have much of morals or ethics.

And those units are Peri and.......that's it. I mean, maybe Saizo but Peri's really the only one that comes to mind.

I don't see how this supports your case. Having characters with no morals or ethics isn't a bad thing. It's only a bad thing when there's too much of them, because then the player can't relate to the characters.

28 minutes ago, Harvey said:

And by class, they are not mercenaries and that's the point I'm trying to make.

So basically, only actual mercenaries should be in the Mercenary class. That's incredibly restrictive.

Funny how this works though. With this, i'm able to turn your entire logic against you. You said

On 9/8/2017 at 9:05 AM, Harvey said:

Raven is the best mercenary period.

He is to me, one of the units that fits the mercenary class as he volunteers to help the ones who captured him so he's doing a service to that, his cold personality of not socializing much with others pretty much should be how mercenaries should be unlike some like Gregor.

even though Raven is far from being an actual mercenary. By your logic, Raven shouldn't be in the mercenary class at all. And the funnier thing here is that Gregor is actually closer to being an actual mercenary than Raven because it's stated several times that Gregor was hired to do different things throughout his mercenary career. Raven? He does none of that. Seriously, go look at Raven's Supports. None of them give any indicator that Raven is an actual mercenary.

 

[Chad Radwell]

6 hours ago, Florina's #1 Fan said:

I absolutely and totally agree with you. That's one of the reasons I don't like Celica. The gentle maiden thing is so tired.

Yes! You get me. It's not like we're asking for them to take out gentle maidens entirely, either. They dominate main/major character slots, though, and are almost always portrayed as the most beautiful, most kind, most intelligent, most valuable women in their respective stories. Snore.

14 minutes ago, ping said:

Couldn't help but think about Final Fantasy XII. Looking at the plot, Basch is very clearly the main character, but Squeenix would rather be tarred and feathered than forced to put a scarred (gasp!), 40yo (doublegasp!) man at the center of the cover.

Anyway, I'm also kinda bothered that Fire Emblem plays the "Good = Beautiful" trope straight like 95% of the time, usually with a rather specific beauty standard. I supposed they think they would only confuse the players if they didn't have the visual cue for a character's alignment.

I'm not very familiar with FF, so I had to look up Basch - and dude! Why not?! With zero knowledge of his character, he looks awesome. I especially like the version with the full beard. 

If the responses in this thread say anything, it's that more of the fanbase is alienated by this than I originally thought, which is both reassuring and depressing. I would chalk it up to just being a JRPG thing in general and leave it at that, except Pokémon - which is aimed at a much younger/more general audience - has no problem with professors, gym leaders, elite four members, and general "good guy" authority figures being old, ugly, or just nonstandard. 

In some of the newer games, I'm starting to sense something of a rut with these Barbies, too. It feels like they're kind of trying to go self-aware with it, with characters like Charlotte existing and poking fun at the beauty = good ideology. Yet in the same vein, the arguable """""""canon wife""""""" girls in Awakening and Fates are still Sumia and Azura, who have gotten more than enough flack for adding nothing new to the trope from what I've seen. (Again, I wish I could talk about Echoes here too, but oh well. It's not like Awakening and Fates have become obsolete just yet.) 

Spoiler

I almost wanna have a thread in Creative or something for drafting out ideas & characters who break tropes and subvert pet peeves. Would anyone drop in if I made something like that? Like a chill "let's play wish fulfillment and doodle some ideas" thread?

 

[eclipse]

54 minutes ago, Chad Radwell said:

  Reveal hidden contents

I almost wanna have a thread in Creative or something for drafting out ideas & characters who break tropes and subvert pet peeves. Would anyone drop in if I made something like that? Like a chill "let's play wish fulfillment and doodle some ideas" thread?

 

Yep!  If there's one thing I enjoy, it's taking a stereotype and ripping it to bits.  Given the nature of it, I think it would be best in the Creative subforum, since it doesn't quite fall under Written Works criteria (multiple authors with no real end goal).

[Harvey]

2 hours ago, Armagon said:

Buddy, Fire Emblem isn't exactly accurate to war. And no, i'm not just talking about the fantasy elements.

Its still about war. Because otherwise, why else would you get units who want to end it in the first place?

2 hours ago, Armagon said:

What's wrong with this though? No seriously, please explain. Don't quote me on any statistics but i'm positive 9 out of 10 people have ethics and morals.

There's nothing wrong with it. Its just that you can't offer something new to the table and that they are just stuck being typical characters with nearly the same personalities. 

2 hours ago, Armagon said:

Not all villains commit unethical acts. For example, Medeus was the bad guy but he didn't really go around massacring people for the heck of it. He didn't like humans but he also wasn't the type of guy to rule through fear.

If he is justifying cruelty towards humans, its already unethical.

2 hours ago, Armagon said:

So basically, only actual mercenaries should be in the Mercenary class. That's incredibly restrictive.

No its not because you are doing something which makes sense. Why should Hugh be a mercenary if he's a mage? 

2 hours ago, Armagon said:

even though Raven is far from being an actual mercenary. By your logic, Raven shouldn't be in the mercenary class at all. And the funnier thing here is that Gregor is actually closer to being an actual mercenary than Raven because it's stated several times that Gregor was hired to do different things throughout his mercenary career. Raven? He does none of that. Seriously, go look at Raven's Supports. None of them give any indicator that Raven is an actual mercenary.

 

1. I already mentioned that Raven isn't exactly a mercenary but he comes close to it. 

2. Supports aren't always the way to reveal character's backstory. For example, Sophia does not mention about Athos in any of her supports except for the main story. Same goes here and Raven being antisocial just proves that we're not going to get much of his past except his revenge.

3. Raven offered to serve the enemy. How can he ask for a fee if he was already captured by the enemy? Heck we don't even know the reason why they were held captive to begin with they probably did a crime or something in which case to amend it, he had to serve them for free.

4. Raven's ending reveals that he does do some mercenary with a support.

 

[Von Ithipathachai]

If I may express another unpopular opinion, this entire debate illustrates why I think the Mercenary class should probably be done away with, and that we should go back to just having Myrmidons like in the Jugdral games.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Von Ithipathachai

[Florina's #1 Fan]

Unpopular Opinion: I like Peri. A lot. And I am not able to defend myself for it. She's just psycho, adorable, and I married her my first Conquest playthrough and then married Peri!Selkie my second playthrough because I needed Peri's genetics in my child o_o I have a problem.

[Von Ithipathachai]

3 minutes ago, Florina's #1 Fan said:

Unpopular Opinion: I like Peri. A lot. And I am not able to defend myself for it. She's just psycho, adorable, and I married her my first Conquest playthrough and then married Peri!Selkie my second playthrough because I needed Peri's genetics in my child o_o I have a problem.

...By which I'm hoping you mean cotton candy hair.

[Florina's #1 Fan]

Just now, Von Ithipathachai said:

...By which I'm hoping you mean cotton candy hair.

The hair gets me every time.

I don't want to sound like I'm one of those waifu-creeps though. I'm not. I just know that Peri seems to be a universally hated character, but I really like her, and her lines are so great. She's mentally unstable and it's really funny. Her crying portrait is one of my favorite things in FE, along with Charlotte's rape face.

[Armagon]

5 hours ago, Harvey said:

There's nothing wrong with it. Its just that you can't offer something new to the table and that they are just stuck being typical characters with nearly the same personalities.

When your series has run for 15 games, you're bound to come across a lot of similar characters.

5 hours ago, Harvey said:

No its not because you are doing something which makes sense. Why should Hugh be a mercenary if he's a mage? 

Why can't a mage be a mercenary lore-wise? Not everyone wields a sword in the Fire Emblem world.

5 hours ago, Harvey said:

I already mentioned that Raven isn't exactly a mercenary but he comes close to it. 

Except he doesn't.

5 hours ago, Harvey said:

Supports aren't always the way to reveal character's backstory.

Dude, Supports have revealed backstories for non-important characters since FE6.

5 hours ago, Harvey said:

For example, Sophia does not mention about Athos in any of her supports except for the main story.

This is a terrible example, since at the time, Athos was just a background character. Sophia knowing him personally wasn't established until FE7.

5 hours ago, Harvey said:

Raven offered to serve the enemy. How can he ask for a fee if he was already captured by the enemy? Heck we don't even know the reason why they were held captive to begin with they probably did a crime or something in which case to amend it, he had to serve them for free.

You clearly didn't play FE7 then. Raven was captured (along with Lucius and a couple of other Caelin soldiers) because he was in Caelin castle at the time. He didn't do a crime. It was just a result of war. And the reason he offered to serve the enemy was to get revenge at Hector. He totally could've asked for a fee if he wanted to.

5 hours ago, Harvey said:

Raven's ending reveals that he does do some mercenary with a support.

Yeah, after the story had ended.

[SoulWeaver]

17 hours ago, Chad Radwell said:

Uhhhhh this one might start fights so I'm gonna put it under a spoiler. If you don't wanna see me getting semi-emotional about the portrayal of women then don't open this lmao

  Reveal hidden contents

Okay, I have another one that's like, semi-related to what I said about fragile feminine peggos in the other thread about overused tropes: I think the reason that bothers me so much is because I'm super tired of the fetishization of pure innocent maidens that's so prevalent in JRPG culture, Fire Emblem included. It's alienating, as a girl who's pretty rough around the edges IRL, to be given characters like that time after time and told that women who lean more masculine, or stray away from shy housewaifu traits, or even just have a physically larger frame, are less "pure" and therefore less beautiful/worthy of leading roles. (And it makes me sad to see this reinforced by parts of the fandom, too. I get not liking Camilla as a character; there's a lot you can pick on to dislike about her. I don't get giving her shit for her body type or implying that her boobs are what make her bad, because I look like that, lmao.)

And honestly, this was a totally subconscious thing with me until Awakening, because Sully was the first character I saw in these games who made me actually stop and think about it. Yes, there were obviously characters who weren't all teeny waifs before that point, but Sully was the most accessible and it was super fun to get to know her in game. She's like me! I haven't played Echoes yet, so it's disappointing to look at Fates as the most recent game (in my mind) and see it still doing this shit with Azura, acting like she's the best girl for being graceful and thin and feminine and frail and...not much other than that. 

Let it be known that I'm not pulling a Sarkeesian on you guys or anything; no one is in the wrong for liking these characters, OBVIOUSLLYYYYYYY. I even like a fair amount of them. Personal preference, and the fact that this is an unpopular opinions thread, just makes me RRRREALLY want to see more cool butch women in important roles. (Hinoka is kind of disappointing because she's such a bipolar, volatile disaster with little consistency in characterization between paths, but that's for another day.) 

Please don't crap down my throat for saying this, loool.

Hm…I wanna say you're gonna like Mae once you get to Echoes, but she has a couple moments where she worries if maybe she's doomed to the single life if she doesn't sweeten up, so that might be a problem.

This is not so unpopular, actually - there are a lot of people who dislike the portrayal of women in these games, and it's not even only the feminists so we know it's a real opinion and not them making noise(sorry to any feminists who may be offended. Quick info for those who are: I don't care, don't waste my time telling me I'm sexist or a woman-hater because I'm just going to ignore you).

I think the real reason people hate on Camilla isn't her body type per se, rather it's the fact that here we have a character with a chance to have a really in-depth background explaining her…unique?…personality, and instead they literally just used her to push the sex appeal of the game so we end up with a rather disturbing one-note character with no explanation for why she acts so disturbingly obsessed with her siblings and Corrin. I mean, she isn't wearing pants. If you look you can totally tell she's just wearing some kind of armored leggings and panties for her legs. So no, we don't all hate on her for her body type or breast size, at least some of us are more pissed at her one-note-ness.

16 hours ago, Chad Radwell said:

They come in three flavors: "Twink", "Hector", and "Girlfriend", and all of them are young, hot, and wholesome.

You wanna explain those in greater detail? I'm not sure what any of those mean in this context.

Edited September 11, 2017 by SoulWeaver

[Florina's #1 Fan]

5 minutes ago, SoulWeaver said:

I think the real reason people hate on Camilla isn't her body type per se, rather it's the fact that here we have a character with a chance to have a really in-depth background explaining her…unique?…personality, and instead they literally just used her to push the sex appeal of the game so we end up with a rather disturbing one-note character with no explanation for why she acts so disturbingly obsessed with her siblings and Corrin. I mean, she isn't wearing pants. If you look you can totally tell she's just wearing some kind of armored leggings and panties for her legs. So no, we don't all hate on her for her body type or breast size, at least some of us are more pissed at her one-note-ness.

I don't find Camilla one-note at all. They should have fleshed out her character more, most definitely, but honestly, she was the only royal I really liked, the others were annoying (Takumi, Leo, Elise), jerks (Xander, Ryoma, Takumi, Leo), or just boring (Hinoka, Sakura). She wasn't a total jerk, she wasn't a hypocrite, she was designed costume-wise to be waifu material (gross), but honestly, there is a sort of explanation for her doting behavior.

Basically, she most likely was the only sibling that had to kill other siblings to secure her place for the throne, because she was at the right age when that all went down. In Leo and Elise's translated supports (not treehouse), Leo says that all the women who had children with Garon wanted their kids to climb the ladder to the throne by killing other kids. This explains why Camilla has no quarrel with killing. It also explains why she doesn't look like the other Nohrian siblings (they had different mothers) and why she is so loving towards the siblings that are still alive: she didn't want to kill her half-siblings. She wants to have been able to have relationships with those kids, but her horrible mother (whom Camilla confirmed was a slut and a horrible person) forced her to kill those kids before they killed her, so Camilla cherishes the relationships she can have because she wants those relationships to replace those she didn't get to have.

That alone tells you why she is not only loving toward her siblings, but toward everyone who is kind to her, and even toward some that are cold, but not enemies (like Beruka). It's a shame they cut this valuable info out in the English release, but it's all there in the original script, and there are hints in Niles' supports with her even in the English release.

[SoulWeaver]

58 minutes ago, Florina's #1 Fan said:

I don't find Camilla one-note at all. They should have fleshed out her character more, most definitely, but honestly, she was the only royal I really liked, the others were annoying (Takumi, Leo, Elise), jerks (Xander, Ryoma, Takumi, Leo), or just boring (Hinoka, Sakura). She wasn't a total jerk, she wasn't a hypocrite, she was designed costume-wise to be waifu material (gross), but honestly, there is a sort of explanation for her doting behavior.

Basically, she most likely was the only sibling that had to kill other siblings to secure her place for the throne, because she was at the right age when that all went down. In Leo and Elise's translated supports (not treehouse), Leo says that all the women who had children with Garon wanted their kids to climb the ladder to the throne by killing other kids. This explains why Camilla has no quarrel with killing. It also explains why she doesn't look like the other Nohrian siblings (they had different mothers) and why she is so loving towards the siblings that are still alive: she didn't want to kill her half-siblings. She wants to have been able to have relationships with those kids, but her horrible mother (whom Camilla confirmed was a slut and a horrible person) forced her to kill those kids before they killed her, so Camilla cherishes the relationships she can have because she wants those relationships to replace those she didn't get to have.

That alone tells you why she is not only loving toward her siblings, but toward everyone who is kind to her, and even toward some that are cold, but not enemies (like Beruka). It's a shame they cut this valuable info out in the English release, but it's all there in the original script, and there are hints in Niles' supports with her even in the English release.

Ah, that helps a lot. I've never got the non-LOLcalized version of any of Fates except the Rhajat/Caeldori Support that was referencing the Cordelia/Tharja Summer Scramble conversation, so I missed anything exclusive to the JP version. While this helps me not be mad at IS because they tried to explain it, it does make me more ticked off at Treehouse for yet another part of Fates they screwed up because we have to shelter the innocent Americans or whatever their reasoning was. Also, that makes Pray to the Dark even more emotionally moving.

And yeah, despite needing more background in the US version, she's still my favorite Nohr sibling because she was the closest one to actually breaking the whole other-country-is-evil thing - in Birthright she almost joins you after you beat her because you tell her about Garon, Mikoto and the Exploding Sword(Patent Pending) and she about goes ballistic("How dare he lay a hand on your precious head! I'll make him pay for this myself!" are the exact words if I remember right), the only reason she doesn't join you is because Leo has awful timing and is stubborn as crap.

Edited September 11, 2017 by SoulWeaver

[Azure Sen]

58 minutes ago, Florina's #1 Fan said:

Basically, she most likely was the only sibling that had to kill other siblings to secure her place for the throne

Camilla having to kill her siblings is purely fanon.

58 minutes ago, Florina's #1 Fan said:

In Leo and Elise's translated supports (not treehouse), Leo says that all the women who had children with Garon wanted their kids to climb the ladder to the throne by killing other kids. 

Leo's claims are based off hearsay no matter the translation, but that just goes into the larger problem of how completely inconsistent the timeline of the Nohr siblings' lives and Fates in general are. I made a post about it here, but to put it succinctly Leo would have been four at most based on all the information given about Fates' pre-game timeline and thus should not be taken as a reliable source. He even says "I heard stories about the children of concubines on bad terms killing each other," which is pretty far from definitive proof.

[Florina's #1 Fan]

23 minutes ago, AzureSen said:

Camilla having to kill her siblings is purely fanon.

Leo's claims are based off hearsay no matter the translation, but that just goes into the larger problem of how completely inconsistent the timeline of the Nohr siblings' lives and Fates in general are. I made a post about it here, but to put it succinctly Leo would have been four at most based on all the information given about Fates' pre-game timeline and thus should not be taken as a reliable source. He even says "I heard stories about the children of concubines on bad terms killing each other," which is pretty far from definitive proof.

But all of that makes sense. And I don't think the writers would just toss in a fun story about children murdering each other. I'm not saying Leo heard the exact truth, but really, it would never be any more than just gossip, because that sort of thing is covered up. And this is an excerpt from Camilla's support with Niles:

Camilla: Oh. Didn't you know? Xander is the only one of my siblings born to the queen. The rest of us--Leo, Elise, and I--we're all children of King Garon's mistresses. Different mistresses, I might add. He loved to pit our mothers against each other.

Niles: I had no idea.

Camilla: Our mothers were the lowest of the low, trying to claw their way to a better status. Naturally, they used us as bait in all of their conflicts.

Niles: Lady Camilla, I'm-

Camilla: You said I was pathetic, and you were right! My mother loved me, but only as a pawn. Do I dote on Avatar? Yes, I do! I remember what it feels like to be alone!

Honestly, it wouldn't make sense if this wasn't the case. Garon is a king that Leo said had a thing for women. So why would there only be four kids? And Camilla is so comfortable with killing, it would be completely logical if it was because she had done it for many years. It would tell you why they had to be so much stronger, they were in fear of being killed and had to learn how to defend themselves, because both Camilla and Leo you get promoted even though they are younger siblings, unlike the Hoshidan siblings, of which only one is promoted, who is the eldest. Additionally, Camilla says in the excerpt that Garon had all of those women at the same time, "pitting them against each other", which implies that he had probably had sex with each of them a few times and produced children, and that the children were forced against each other as bait. If that wasn't the case, then Garon just neatly had one kid with each concubine, which considering again his penchant for women, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Xander also wouldn't have talked about this because as the first heir and the child of the actual queen, he most likely didn't have to worry about it, the concubines wouldn't have dared go after the true heir to the throne.

Yes, the Fates timeline is a hot mess. I am not complimenting the game by making sense of a past conflict. I am saying that an intelligent writer would never put that sort of information in dialogue without it either holding some truth or being a trick of some sort, but Fates doesn't acknowledge the idea of concubine children killing each other or acknowledge that it is a falsehood, meaning what you find is most likely true, because the information is there and it is not contradicted. There is no confirmation, but the player should be able to figure something like that out without the game directly telling them that Camilla has children's blood on her hands.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Florina's #1 Fan

[L9999]

Unpopular opinion: 

Myrmidon is a more worthless class than archer.

[Florina's #1 Fan]

1 minute ago, L9999 said:

Unpopular opinion: 

Myrmidon is a more worthless class than archer.

I'd like to hear your justification. As an archer lover.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Florina's #1 Fan

[Lau]

I just love the Nohrian siblings in general. Are they well written? Uh, no. But do they have a shit ton of potential? Yes, and that's why I love them. You can read into them and find some really interesting tidbits, it's great. Camilla gets a lot of flak for her design, and while I agree with it, it's not the worst. Charlotte's battle panties are worse, they seem to go right...up there, if you know what I mean, and she doesn't have armour infront of her crotch, only on the sides. You can't deny that Camilla is gorgeous though.

I also like Peri. Her design is fantastic, and her supports with Laslow, and surprisingly male Corrin, are great.

People need to stfu about the whole 'thot' thing. I even saw a couple of videos about Caeda being the original FE thot and I wanted to...it just didn't feel good. I saw the rage during the CYL voting gauntlet when Camilla beat Lyn, and it was honestly disgusting the way people bashed Camilla. She doesn't do anything remotely sexual, she's just overly affectionate towards her siblings and retainers. Is she violent? Yes, but this can be traced back towards her past. But to me, when she says that she'll chop Selena's legs off to make sure she stays by her side, it comes across as a joke. People let Henry get away with saying that stuff, so why can't Camilla?

 

Shadow Dragon gets more flak than it deserves. It's not that bad of a game, and the artstyle...strangely works for a place like Archanea. The muted colours, the realistic look...A++

[L9999]

23 minutes ago, Florina's #1 Fan said:

I'd like to hear your justification. As an archer lover.

Don't get me wrong, most archers suck, but the same goes for myrmidons. Their design is not good in the player's hand. They have good speed, but they have horrid defenses and they hit like a wet noodle. "But L, myrmidons dodge and crit a lot" Those two things are not reliable. With Thracia and FE6 I can kinda understand the crit argument, but after that the crit has been continously nerfed and nerfed, while still retaining the awful qualities of the class. Speaking of qualities, what do myrms offer anyways? They only offer combat, that's it. Since their defenses are pathetic their combat is bad, so their only use is worthless. Why would you bother deploying myrms when the only thing they can offer you is worthless? Why not running an extra cavalier, pegasus knight or staff user? They have a wide variety of useful qualities besides combat, like rescuing, reach far places, or breaking the game by clicking a button. They also don't rely on the RNG to do their best. As to why archers are better, at least they can offer safe chip damage and heavily damage pegasus knights for a while until you bench them. FE also has good archers, like Book 2 Gordin, Book 1 Castor, Shin, Midayle, Astrid, FE12 Luke, Niles, etc. While this guys are benefitted by the environment of their respective games (ranged weapons REALLY suck in FE3 and FE6) they do what they are intended and on the grand scheme of things they are kinda average. Meanwhile the best myrmidons have to be handed broken stuff to be good. Ryoma with Raijinto and Rutger being the only good unit in earlygame. And its not even about the stats either like archers, myrmidon flat out sucks. In Sacred Stones Joshua has basically the same bases at Rutger, but because not every other unit except him is worthless he is easily outclassed and there is no point to use him and cope with his weaknesses.

Edited September 11, 2017 by L9999