Why is Clive so spineless, or, How I learned to stop worrying and hate the Alm

[blah the Prussian]

So, it's chapter three, and Alm has just resolved to rescue Delthea, a commoner. Clive objects to this, saying that the Deliverance shouldn't waste resources. Alm responds by asking what Clive would do if the girl was a noble, saying that the situations are the same. Except, no, they really aren't.

See, from Clive's(who has been set up to be more pragmatic)perspective, a noble girl being a hostage of Rigel could prompt her family to not contribute valuable troops to the war, or worse, actually help Rigel. Thus, she would absolutely be more valuable than any random girl from a purely pragmatic perspective. This could have been an actual good conversation, where Alm's idealism clashes with Clive's pragmatism, and could have driven a character arc where Alm becomes more pragmatic and Clive becomes less cold. Instead, Clive meekly submits and at the end of Chapter Three basically sucks Alm's dick about how wonderful Alm is and what a shitty person he is for actually thinking in terms of the realities of war.

Basically, Alm honestly suffers from similar, albeit orders of magnitude less, problems as Corrin; everyone agrees with him about everything, except one guy who's a villain. He gets too much handed to him which is especially ironic for a story about meritocracy; he is handed leadership of the Deliverance with no strings attached. I would have no problem with this if he was made leader after, say, taking Zofia Castle, but he hasn't been proven a good leader yet.

Frankly, I think this game has the best writing of any FE game, period. The majority of the characters are handled very well, and I really enjoy Celica's story. Unfortunately, Alm's character is extremely uninteresting due to how monolithic support for him and opposition to him is. He has missed many chances for real character development, and I only hope(I just started chapter 4) that it improves in the future.

[Etrurian emperor]

I don't entirely see it as Alm getting things handed to him, its also a matter of Alm being used as a tool. Clive doesn't believe in Alm, its just a crafty PR stunt and Alm is pretty much traveling a path Mycen and Rudolf want him to. Granted, the game should really have made a bigger deal about it.

I also don't think Clive comes off entirely pragmatic either. Luthier does mention both him and Delthea are powerful mages. I'm not entirely sure since its been a while but didn't they know Tatara would be holding up at the place the army was supposed to go anyway?

[Thane]

Just now, Etrurian emperor said:

Granted, the game should really have made a bigger deal about it.

That's an understatement. The Deliverance is all but defeated, and the leader just hands over leadership in that critical time, and directly after that they win a major victory. This is such a bizarre leftover from Gaiden; why expand upon almost everything yet leave this nonsensical gap intact? Why not add more maps, discussions or anything?

Anyway, yes, I agree on Alm. I think the main story in general is very shoddily written, but nowhere is it more apparent than in the flawless God-Emperor.

[Acacia Sgt]

Wait, when was the commoner-noble thing mentioned?

I don't see anything of the sort, after checking a few videos and the script in this site (don't have the game, this is my best way to check).

[blah the Prussian]

7 hours ago, Thane said:

That's an understatement. The Deliverance is all but defeated, and the leader just hands over leadership in that critical time, and directly after that they win a major victory. This is such a bizarre leftover from Gaiden; why expand upon almost everything yet leave this nonsensical gap intact? Why not add more maps, discussions or anything?

Anyway, yes, I agree on Alm. I think the main story in general is very shoddily written, but nowhere is it more apparent than in the flawless God-Emperor.

I think in general the main thing holding the story back was the framework of Gaiden itself. They improved on the main story in several ways that I like, and managed to have IMO the best set of characters overall since Sacred Stones(hell, you even have the male protagonist in that game being an overpowered military genius with no explanation as well). But you can't really erase the parts that don't make sense, such as Rudolf's plan and Alm being handed everything. Still, the main thing I appreciate about Echoes is that they at least tried to subvert some of the FE cliches, which is a step in the right direction.

Edit: IIRC it was mentioned in an optional village conversation.

Edited August 25, 2017 by blah the Prussian

[Thane]

Just now, blah the Prussian said:

I think in general the main thing holding the story back was the framework of Gaiden itself.

There is no doubt that Echoes suffered tremendously from being overly conservative. This is apparent in both gameplay and story. I also think some of their attempts at expanding upon the plot completely fail to hit the mark, while also not understanding what was needed to properly flesh out the conflict or make it more relatable. 

1 minute ago, blah the Prussian said:

Still, the main thing I appreciate about Echoes is that they at least tried to subvert some of the FE cliches

Oh yeah, like Conquest, the most critically acclaimed of Fire Emblem stories.

[Acacia Sgt]

15 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

Edit: IIRC it was mentioned in an optional village conversation.

Interesting, it seems the site's script needs to be updated (and finally found a video with the conversation).

Anyway, in my opinion, the argument falls flat considering Luthier and Delthea aren't "mere" commoners, being powerful mages descendants of their village's founder, who likewise was a very powerful and famous Zofian mage. Pragmatically, the argument can be brought that it would make Delthea a valuable asset for the Deliverance, thus worth the rescue.

On the other hand, considering Luthier did brought up she was at the Sluice Gate and that killing Tatarrah would save her, Clive's mention of using up resources most like refers to the fact they would need to devote men to distract her while they go kill Tatarrah. Considering how realisticly an actual battle would unfold, no doubt that would mean those men distracting Delthea are men not fighting the Rigelian forces, not to mention Delthea could also kill a number of them.

So yeah, I think Clive had the right argument... for the wrong reason. It wasn't the whole commoner-noble thing, it was that from a realistic point of view, saving Delthea is not really that viable, because Delthea herself is going to hinder her own rescue. Which means that... yeah, they kinda worded that to make Alm and his argument be presented as correct.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Acacia Sgt

[blah the Prussian]

7 hours ago, Thane said:

There is no doubt that Echoes suffered tremendously from being overly conservative. This is apparent in both gameplay and story. I also think some of their attempts at expanding upon the plot completely fail to hit the mark, while also not understanding what was needed to properly flesh out the conflict or make it more relatable. 

Oh yeah, like Conquest, the most critically acclaimed of Fire Emblem stories.

Well no, Conquest didn't do that, really. The only change was you playing as the Camus, but the audience was still expected to forgive said Camus for the atrocities they enable because they're doing it out of loyalty. Garon is stereotypical to the point that he was pegged as the villain from the moment he was shown onscreen. The cliches are as present as ever, just that the player is on the opposite side.

[Thane]

Just now, blah the Prussian said:

Well no, Conquest didn't do that, really. The only change was you playing as the Camus, but the audience was still expected to forgive said Camus for the atrocities they enable because they're doing it out of loyalty. Garon is stereotypical to the point that he was pegged as the villain from the moment he was shown onscreen. The cliches are as present as ever, just that the player is on the opposite side.

It was a jab at how people usually defend Conquest for "trying something different". An attempt is always nice, but if it's a failure, then it's a failure. Naturally, Echoes is no Fates, but the main story is a complete mess - you can blame the framework of Gaiden for that, but it was still the developers' decision to sticking so closely to it.

[Azure Sen]

1 hour ago, blah the Prussian said:

See, from Clive's(who has been set up to be more pragmatic)perspective

Clive's not pragmatic, he's a coward. A pragmatist wouldn't have been deterred by hostages like Clive was when Desaix had Mathilda and Clair; instead, Clive sat on his hands while the Deliverance was losing ground because he was too afraid Desaix would execute them. Alm's 100% right, the only reason Clive considers Delthea expendable is because of her social status, considering that looking beyond social status supposed to be part of Clive's character arc.

1 hour ago, blah the Prussian said:

I would have no problem with this if he was made leader after, say, taking Zofia Castle, but he hasn't been proven a good leader yet.

Aside from tearing through an army of bandits, retaking the Southern Outpost, and driving Desaix's forces out of Southern Zofia, anyway. I'm confused what he'd have to do beyond that to be considered a good leader.

[blah the Prussian]

7 hours ago, Thane said:

It was a jab at how people usually defend Conquest for "trying something different". An attempt is always nice, but if it's a failure, then it's a failure. Naturally, Echoes is no Fates, but the main story is a complete mess - you can blame the framework of Gaiden for that, but it was still the developers' decision to sticking so closely to it.

I disagree. Conquest failed at the wrong thing, a Echoes failed at the right thing. The next FE might try that again, but not be constrained by Gaiden's plot. It shows that they at least recognized some of the criticisms of Conquest's plot.

7 hours ago, AzureSen said:

Clive's not pragmatic, he's a coward. A pragmatist wouldn't have been deterred by hostages like Clive was when Desaix had Mathilda and Clair; instead, Clive sat on his hands while the Deliverance was losing ground because he was too afraid Desaix would execute them. Alm's 100% right, the only reason Clive considers Delthea expendable is because of her social status, considering that looking beyond social status supposed to be part of Clive's character arc.

8 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

I am aware this is how Clive acts. However, this is bad from a story perspective, as Clive is this way mainly to make Alm look better. Clive also might be motivated by prejudice but should have brought up the greater strategic value of a noble. Alm doesn't face the better arguments against his philosophy because the narrative wants to push how great Alm is and how great meritocracy is with little to no nuance, which I consider bad.

7 hours ago, AzureSen said:

Aside from tearing through an army of bandits, retaking the Southern Outpost, and driving Desaix's forces out of Southern Zofia, anyway. I'm confused what he'd have to do beyond that to be considered a good leader.

Not just a good leader but one worthy of taking over from Clive. Clive could have easily done what Alm did with his forces; he could also have had Alm lead from the front while making the decisions himself, a kind of Mockingjay situation, and only given Alm actual power at the end of Chapter One. Super easy fix, makes much more sense.

[BrightBow]

Yeah, that conversation was irritating. Alm's reasoning was obviously naive and shortsighted. Meanwhile Clive's objection seemed to be that they were dealing with the situation at all, which of course isn't an option either.

Tartara had to be defeated in order to prevent the country from getting flooded and to secure the path to Rigel. And the best way of dealing with Tartara may not necessarily involve killing Delthea. Considering that Delthea is a powerful mage, if possible it would most certainly preferable to avoid fighting her.

So the question is how far Alm would go in order to save her. Would he be willing to endanger the troops to save just one person?

Edited August 25, 2017 by BrightBow

[Azure Sen]

14 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

I am aware this is how Clive acts. However, this is bad from a story perspective, as Clive is this way mainly to make Alm look better. 

This I don't agree with, but I can understand why people see it that way.

14 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

Clive also might be motivated by prejudice but should have brought up the greater strategic value of a noble.

Clive didn't bring it up because it would be completely out of character for him to do so, which I think is the fundamental issue here. Clive is not motivated by pragmatism, nor is he a particularly competent strategic thinker. If strategic value meant anything to him, then he would have made a lot more progress in the war against Desaix than he did.

14 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

Not just a good leader but one worthy of taking over from Clive. Clive could have easily done what Alm did with his forces; he could also have had Alm lead from the front while making the decisions himself, a kind of Mockingjay situation, and only given Alm actual power at the end of Chapter One. Super easy fix, makes much more sense.

Given that Clive was an interim leader only appointed because the real leader of the Deliverance, Mathilda, got captured, and then promptly spent most of his time as leader losing miserably, trying and failing to keep the Deliverance together because of his own prejudices, and later refusing to make a move because of hostages, I don't think it would take a lot for someone to be more worthy than Clive. And that second thing is pretty much what happened in-story, so...

2 hours ago, Thane said:

The Deliverance is all but defeated, and the leader just hands over leadership in that critical time, and directly after that they win a major victory. 

The game makes it clear that the only thing that the Deliverance is being held back by at that point is Clive's indecisiveness; Clive himself even admits as such. As blah said, Clive himself could have done what Alm did, if not for his own hangups.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

Clive did try to explain the difference. I believe it went:

Clive: That's not the same thing...

Alm: They're exactly the same :)

And Clive stops there because nobody wants to argue on the side of "some people have more worth than others because of their birth" because it makes him look bad and because he's talking to somebody that directly refutes that theory. Alm is worth more to the Deliverance than Clive, and Clive knows it.

Anyway. The more pressing issue was the sluice gate potentially flooding zofia. The Deliverance isn't wasting resources in stopping that. Clive was chastising Alm for promising Luthier they'd save Delthea. It's an insensitive promise to make since a powerful, brainwashed mage may be an obstacle they can't safely avoid in their mission. 

[Thane]

10 minutes ago, AzureSen said:

The game makes it clear that the only thing that the Deliverance is being held back by at that point is Clive's indecisiveness; Clive himself even admits as such. As blah said, Clive himself could have done what Alm did, if not for his own hangups.

They've got one major hideout that we know of, and the DLC shows us them getting thoroughly rounded and beaten. There needed to be more time dedicated to building up the climax of chapter one, as we not only don't get to know Desaix - the man smart and ruthless enough to essentially make himself king of Zofia - but also because we don't actually get to see the effect the Deliverance's change of leadership has.

[blah the Prussian]

7 hours ago, AzureSen said:

This I don't agree with, but I can understand why people see it that way.

Clive didn't bring it up because it would be completely out of character for him to do so, which I think is the fundamental issue here. Clive is not motivated by pragmatism, nor is he a particularly competent strategic thinker. If strategic value meant anything to him, then he would have made a lot more progress in the war against Desaix than he did.

Given that Clive was an interim leader only appointed because the real leader of the Deliverance, Mathilda, got captured, and then promptly spent most of his time as leader losing miserably, trying and failing to keep the Deliverance together because of his own prejudices, and later refusing to make a move because of hostages, I don't think it would take a lot for someone to be more worthy than Clive. And that second thing is pretty much what happened in-story, so...

The game makes it clear that the only thing that the Deliverance is being held back by at that point is Clive's indecisiveness; Clive himself even admits as such. As blah said, Clive himself could have done what Alm did, if not for his own hangups.

And herein lies the rub. Cleve's primary narrative purpose thus far is a foil to Alm. Clive is also incompetant and a fool. This makes Alm look better and robs him of having himself or his worldview seriously challenged, which also means that tons of potentially interesting dialogue is replaced with seeing how many different ways a single person can be praised. Alm has not had a major failure as a leader. Ike couldn't keep the Greil Mercenaries together, Sigurd got his entire army Walder Frey'd, Marth has to struggle with holding back his emotions and putting his people before his sister, Chrom can't save Emmeryn, Ephraim is too war hungry, Eirika is naive, Roy can't save Hector, Ninian might have turned out okay but not through any actions of Elliwoods, etc. The issue is that Alm's approach of "save everyone I possibly can" is shown to be consistently right. What if the Rigellians took some civilians hostage and lured him into an ambush, and he failed to save the hostages? It doesn't have to be big, just have his flaw(which the narrative doesn't actually admit is a flaw) bite him in the ass.

[Jingle Jangle]

I feel if Clive had the stats to strengthen his words he would be more respected by the fan base. Usually leaders in Fire Emblem have the stats to back their word. Clive is an exception, especially being one of the weakest units in the game, and in the Deliverance. But for every version of Clive, is an inferior Mathilda

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

2 hours ago, Jingle Jangle said:

I feel if Clive had the stats to strengthen his words he would be more respected by the fan base. Usually leaders in Fire Emblem have the stats to back their word. Clive is an exception, especially being one of the weakest units in the game, and in the Deliverance. But for every version of Clive, is an inferior Mathilda

He's like far from being actual one of the weakest unit in the game. The exageration on his gameplay quality is ridiculous

I mean for a character who basically plays the EXACT same role, he's far from the league of Hardin. But he's still a good unit all things considered just from being third gender

Edited August 26, 2017 by JSND

[Jingle Jangle]

21 minutes ago, JSND said:

He's like far from being actual one of the weakest unit in the game. The exageration on his gameplay quality is ridiculous

I mean for a character who basically plays the EXACT same role, he's far from the league of Hardin. But he's still a good unit all things considered just from being third gender

I was basing his worth on my last playthough of the game. Where almost everyone contributed more than he did. The funny thing is that he starts out with the same stats he did in Gaiden. With only a slight increase to his growth rates. Which makes him worse in the long run.

[FrostyFireMage]

You know that if the Deliverance shows favoritism in who they save they could lose favor from pretty much half their army and suffer from infighting, right?

[Azure Sen]

4 hours ago, Thane said:

They've got one major hideout that we know of, and the DLC shows us them getting thoroughly rounded and beaten. 

I don't see how that disproves my point. Half the maps aren't even about the Deliverance fighting Desaix's forces, and the only reason that the Southern Outpost was lost was because of the bad luck of a desertion just as Lucas and co. were poised to retake it; the point here is undercut by the fact that Lucas is still able to launch a successful raid on the place and save several members of the Deliverance. But I will also admit that the game can be inconsistent on how badly the Deliverance is doing at any give time.

4 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

And herein lies the rub. Cleve's primary narrative purpose thus far is a foil to Alm. Clive is also incompetant and a fool. This makes Alm look better and robs him of having himself or his worldview seriously challenged, which also means that tons of potentially interesting dialogue is replaced with seeing how many different ways a single person can be praised. 

The problem inherent in substantially challenging a worldview like Alm's is that, pragmatism or no, trying to assign higher value to human life based on an arbitrary measure like social class is almost impossible to portray in a way that doesn't make the person espousing such a belief look like a huge ass at best. (Granted, you could have a villain challenge him on it, but it'd still ring hollow because we're generally not supposed to agree with villains.) It can't even be justified with "b-b-b-but medieval times!" because FE has been and probably always will be Medieval Period Lite, and promoting modern values with a medieval coat of paint has always been the series bread and butter. I'll admit that, while I can see why it would be a good idea from the pragmatic side of things, I would lose all sympathy for Clive if he actually suggested it.

Actually, that reminds me of a point I should have made earlier...

7 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

a noble girl being a hostage of Rigel could prompt her family to not contribute valuable troops to the war, or worse, actually help Rigel.

The nobles of Zofia have already thoroughly proven that they have no interest in backing the Deliverance, if most of them are even alive by the end of the story, given that the death of their king, usurpation of their throne by a pretender, widespread killing of their countrymen both noble and commoner and the encroaching invasion of Rigel doesn't spur them into action. I really doubt saving a single noble girl would change any of their minds.

4 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

Alm has not had a major failure as a leader. Ike couldn't keep the Greil Mercenaries together, Sigurd got his entire army Walder Frey'd, Marth has to struggle with holding back his emotions and putting his people before his sister, Chrom can't save Emmeryn, Ephraim is too war hungry, Eirika is naive, Roy can't save Hector, Ninian might have turned out okay but not through any actions of Elliwoods, etc. 

Almost none of those are actual failings on the lords' part or treated as failings, though. Marth's issues never cause him to make a major misstep. Roy was never going to save Hector unless he and the rest of the Lycian army sprouted wings and flew to where Hector was...and that probably would have gotten them killed. Eliwood killing Ninian was the fault of Durandal. Ephraim's flaws are brought up for five seconds after Renais is re-taken and then completely ignored for the rest of the game, even on his route. Shinon and Gatrie leaving the Greil Mercenaries is portrayed as a fault on their part, not on Ike's, and doesn't really mean much when 8/10 of the remaining Greil Mercenaries stick with him for the rest of the game. The only lords who genuinely have a major failure as a leader that is 100% unambiguously their fault and it's portrayed as an actual failure by the game are Sigurd, Chrom and Eirika.

4 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

The issue is that Alm's approach of "save everyone I possibly can" is shown to be consistently right. What if the Rigellians took some civilians hostage and lured him into an ambush, and he failed to save the hostages? It doesn't have to be big, just have his flaw(which the narrative doesn't actually admit is a flaw) bite him in the ass.

Which is something I would have liked to see as well. I just don't think the game is necessarily worse for not having that.

29 minutes ago, FrostyFireMage said:

You know that if the Deliverance shows favoritism in who they save they could lose favor from pretty much half their army and suffer from infighting, right?

This too. As Clive points out, by the time Alm's become leader, the Deliverance is made up almost entirely of commoners. Showing the bulk of your forces that you consider them expendable is a good way to end up with a widespread desertion.

Edited August 26, 2017 by AzureSen

[Medeus]

3 hours ago, AzureSen said:

The problem inherent in substantially challenging a worldview like Alm's is that, pragmatism or no, trying to assign higher value to human life based on an arbitrary measure like social class is almost impossible to portray in a way that doesn't make the person espousing such a belief look like a huge ass at best. (Granted, you could have a villain challenge him on it, but it'd still ring hollow because we're generally not supposed to agree with villains.) It can't even be justified with "b-b-b-but medieval times!" because FE has been and probably always will be Medieval Period Lite, and promoting modern values with a medieval coat of paint has always been the series bread and butter. I'll admit that, while I can see why it would be a good idea from the pragmatic side of things, I would lose all sympathy for Clive if he actually suggested it.

Why can't he look like an ass though? Pragmatism isn't something that makes you look like a good person, it's something you do because it nets you the best result without needlessly sacrificing resources or lives. There's a reason why tacticians like August say things to the main characters that would be considered callous, they do have a point in their bluntness and their job is to make sure that their leaders make the most informed decisions without giving into naivety and costing them half the army. Hell, Echoes itself doesn't shy away from that mentality as Clive agrees to Lukas' stunt in the DLC that would be considered abhorrent by most lords in the franchise, but it's still considered a good decision as they end up living another day. So why can't Clive bring up that point so that it can be debated and broken down through his and Alm's conflicting views? it may not make Clive look likeable at the moment, but at least the other side of the argument is being given its fair shake before it's talked down or meet a point where they can equally agree.

Additionally, in Clive's and Python's A support Clive takes a viewpoint that could be considered unpopular both in and out of universe, so him taking a similarly controversial stance that would also be debated over wouldn't be hurting his character in that regard.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Medeus

[blah the Prussian]

13 hours ago, FrostyFireMage said:

You know that if the Deliverance shows favoritism in who they save they could lose favor from pretty much half their army and suffer from infighting, right?

Well in this case they're talking specifically about Delthea, who is brainwashed, and who saving would mean possibly a lot of casualties. If I was a soldier I wouldn't want to save her regardless of her birth, frankly, but honestly I would see the greater strategic value in a noble.

13 hours ago, AzureSen said:

The problem inherent in substantially challenging a worldview like Alm's is that, pragmatism or no, trying to assign higher value to human life based on an arbitrary measure like social class is almost impossible to portray in a way that doesn't make the person espousing such a belief look like a huge ass at best. (Granted, you could have a villain challenge him on it, but it'd still ring hollow because we're generally not supposed to agree with villains.) It can't even be justified with "b-b-b-but medieval times!" because FE has been and probably always will be Medieval Period Lite, and promoting modern values with a medieval coat of paint has always been the series bread and butter. I'll admit that, while I can see why it would be a good idea from the pragmatic side of things, I would lose all sympathy for Clive if he actually suggested it.

Actually, that reminds me of a point I should have made earlier...

20 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

No, not based on their birth, based on the power of those that care about them. If she was the daughter of a wealthy commoner merchant it would be important all the same. I'll be honest here, if I was Alm and didn't know she was such a good Mage, I would not expend men saving her, and even knowing she was a good Mage I'd cut her down if a threat. Would I do the same for a noble? No, especially not if she was in Delthea's situation, but I would consider her more strategically important. It's why Obama's daughters got secret service agents when the majority of Americans didn't.

13 hours ago, AzureSen said:

20 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

 

The nobles of Zofia have already thoroughly proven that they have no interest in backing the Deliverance, if most of them are even alive by the end of the story, given that the death of their king, usurpation of their throne by a pretender, widespread killing of their countrymen both noble and commoner and the encroaching invasion of Rigel doesn't spur them into action. I really doubt saving a single noble girl would change any of their minds.

Something Alm should have brought up to counter Clive's point. The problem is that the game refuses to recognize the more valid argument in Clive's favor here. I'm not saying that argument is completely right, just that it should have been focused on.

13 hours ago, AzureSen said:

Which is something I would have liked to see as well. I just don't think the game is necessarily worse for not having that.

I disagree. Not having the protagonist fail is bad writing and makes them look like the G word.

[NekoKnight]

On 8/25/2017 at 0:44 PM, AzureSen said:

Aside from tearing through an army of bandits, retaking the Southern Outpost, and driving Desaix's forces out of Southern Zofia, anyway. I'm confused what he'd have to do beyond that to be considered a good leader.

Alm may have proven himself a competent soldier by that point but it was under the leadership of Lukas, who really should have become the head of the Deliverance after Clive stepped down. 

[Azure Sen]

On 8/26/2017 at 11:48 PM, NekoKnight said:

Alm may have proven himself a competent soldier by that point but it was under the leadership of Lukas, who really should have become the head of the Deliverance after Clive stepped down. 

Lukas taking over doesn't solve the underlying problems regarding the class divisions in the Deliverance; he may not be as high-ranking as Clive or Fernand, but Lukas is still a noble at the end of the day. And while I like Lukas a lot as a character, I feel that him taking over the Deliverance would be akin to Virion taking over as tactician of the Shepherds. Yes, theoretically he could get better results than Alm, but the cost in lives would outweigh the benefits. 

Actually, and this is only tangentially related, but I wanted to ask about this because what I've seen you write elsewhere: outside of his parentage, what makes Ike worthy of being leader of the Greil Mercenaries and later the Crimean Liberation Force that Alm lacks? 

On 8/25/2017 at 11:33 PM, Medeus said:

Why can't he look like an ass though? Pragmatism isn't something that makes you look like a good person, it's something you do because it nets you the best result without needlessly sacrificing resources or lives. There's a reason why tacticians like August say things to the main characters that would be considered callous, they do have a point in their bluntness and their job is to make sure that their leaders make the most informed decisions without giving into naivety and costing them half the army. Hell, Echoes itself doesn't shy away from that mentality as Clive agrees to Lukas' stunt in the DLC that would be considered abhorrent by most lords in the franchise, but it's still considered a good decision as they end up living another day.

I should have been more clear on this, my apologies. The issue here is not pragmatism. You generally cannot have a character express the idea that one person's life is more valuable than another's because of their social status, even if it's just from a vaguely pragmatic viewpoint, and still have them be sympathetic in the eyes of the audience. Fernand is an excellent example of this, and to use an example of it outside of FE, Algus/Argath from Final Fantasy Tactics is still one of the most hated characters from that game if not from FF as a whole for expressing such a viewpoint. If Clive had expressed that sort of mindset at any point while the game was still trying to portray him as sympathetic, he'd be just as hated as those two if not more so, regardless of whether he grew out of it or not.

On 8/25/2017 at 11:33 PM, Medeus said:

So why can't Clive bring up that point so that it can be debated and broken down through his and Alm's conflicting views? it may not make Clive look likeable at the moment, but at least the other side of the argument is being given its fair shake before it's talked down or meet a point where they can equally agree.

The issues with how likable it makes Clive aside, Clive can't and shouldn't bring it up because it's not in-character for him to do so. I've already discussed how Clive isn't a pragmatist prior in the thread, so having him suddenly bring this up apropos of nothing would be completely out of place.

Since you mentioned it, I feel like this whole thing is also an extension of the misconception that one of Echoes' themes is "two opposing sides coming together to meet in the middle," but that's another can of worms for another time.

I'm going to split this into two parts, so I apologize preemptively for the incoming double post.