Does Mark Undermine Lyn, Eliwood, Hector, etc?

[Emperor Hardin]

On 12/6/2017 at 6:12 PM, omegaxis1 said:

That's actually incorrect. Gangrel ruled through fear. The Grimleal is just something he was paying lip service since that is the main religion in Plegia, but everyone feared Gangrel because he is quick to take heads off. However, Emmeryn was far more important in that role that she managed to instill hope to the others. But Gangrel was still able to have many that were still loyal to him. Gangrel even knew that Aversa was using him, hence why he kicked her out by the end of the war. Not only that, but Gangrel was also wanting to perform his own conquest of Ylisse for the sake of being able to match Wallhart's power since he knew that Wallhart would be launching an invasion there to Ylisse. 

The Grimleal are mentioned as Gangrel's primary backers several times, its even said he turned Plegia into a theocracy for them and sent Grimleal inquisitions to silence opposition.

Gangrel figured out Aversa was using him at his last stand when even the Grimleal realized Gangrel was toast.

[Azz]

On 12/7/2017 at 7:13 AM, Zangetsu said:

Mark has done absolutely nothing to undermine the lords & as far I'm concern enhance Lyn's story.

 

For that matter, I'm getting some serious critical backlash regarding how people feel about the avatars in general. People keep saying they're ruining the story in each game they're in, but never once have I felt that. With the exception of Kris (which I plan to read in the near future), I never saw how they did. Awakening's storyline was very generic & straightforward, so I don't see how Robin ruin any of that while Fate's story was just horrible & Corrin themselves were just bad avatars.

 

Another complain I keep hearing about is the shilling they keep getting. I don't see this with Robin other than when there was a time-skip & even then I don't see the problem. The Shepherds keep emerging victorious because of their tactician, why shouldn't someone give credit where credit is due? By that logic does this make Mark a mary sue (the most glorified criticism) as well? Robin's support shown he's not perfect as his criticism makes him out to be since he lost Virion in whatever strategy game they were playing. I won't argue for Corrin since the evidence is actually there.

Then there's complaint about their characterization. What characterization? You're suppose to define it & have interpret how you see fit for the avatars. Did people seriously forget this? If that what makes them a bad character then by that logic so is the protagonist for P4, SW KOTOR series, & Link.

I think the main problem people have with Robin and Corrin is that they are avatars and thus are supposed to represent them and with how both are treated, being worshipped by many characters, it can get grating. Also the fact I can't have Robin and Corrin make decisions that I myself would make. Well at least that's my issue. If they weren't avatars and just their own characters, I myself would have less of a problem with them and I think other people would too.

[Zangetsu]

On 12/14/2017 at 6:35 AM, Azz said:

I think the main problem people have with Robin and Corrin is that they are avatars and thus are supposed to represent them and with how both are treated, being worshipped by many characters, it can get grating. Also the fact I can't have Robin and Corrin make decisions that I myself would make. Well at least that's my issue. If they weren't avatars and just their own characters, I myself would have less of a problem with them and I think other people would too.

But you're just repeating what I said. I already know why people have problem with Corrin because he's an awful avatar, but that doesn't apply to Robin.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Zangetsu

[B.Leu]

It's been said already, but Mark, unlike Kris, Robin and Corrin, is not a walking black hole aspiring good things that exist. They are faceless, only have a few dialogues focused on them. You could take them out, and nothing would really change... and you can actcually do just that. Unlike Robin, they actually seems like actualy tacticians.

That's the reason why I think next Avatars should take a page of Mark. The fact s/he not a mary-sues is just the cream.

[Zangetsu]

5 hours ago, B.Leu said:

It's been said already, but Mark, unlike Kris, Robin and Corrin, is not a walking black hole aspiring good things that exist. They are faceless, only have a few dialogues focused on them. You could take them out, and nothing would really change... and you can actcually do just that. Unlike Robin, they actually seems like actualy tacticians.

That's the reason why I think next Avatars should take a page of Mark. The fact s/he not a mary-sues is just the cream.

Being shilled isn't a Mary Sue. It might go hand to hand but by that logic so is Eliwood.

A Mary Sue is someone who's perfect & then some. Robin on the other hand has plenty of flaws. I would even argue that Corrin isn't one either but I don't like Corrin so I won't.

[RedRob]

36 minutes ago, Zangetsu said:

A Mary Sue is someone who's perfect & then some. Robin on the other hand has plenty of flaws. I would even argue that Corrin isn't one either but I don't like Corrin so I won't.

Christ, people really need to do some reading on the topic. Mary Sues are determined more by the context around them than their actual characters.

For instance, two types of Sue is the Anti-Sue or the Jerk Sue. Both have characters with flaws, but because of how they're treated by the narrative, they count as Sues.

[Zangetsu]

Just now, RedRob said:

Christ, people really need to do some reading on the topic. Mary Sues are determined more by the context around them than their actual characters.

For instance, two types of Sue is the Anti-Sue or the Jerk Sue. Both have characters with flaws, but because of how they're treated by the narrative, they count as Sues.

& Robin doesn't apply to either case regardless.

Robin is a horrible cook, terrible artist, & he still lost Virion in whatever strategy game they're playing.

[RedRob]

I was just using those to support that context around a character is more important in determining if they are a Sue then the content of that character.

[Zangetsu]

I don't understand, can you clarify if you're saying Robin is a Mary Sue or not?

Edited December 16, 2017 by Zangetsu

[RedRob]

1 minute ago, Zangetsu said:

I don't understand, can you clarify if you're saying Robin is a Mary Sue or not?

I'm saying that arguing Robin isn't a Sue because he has flaws is a poor argument. For instance, that Virion support also plays up Robin by stating the reason he lost is because Robin tried to conserve his forces instead of using them like disposable pawns. In that case, Robin's flaw is less a demerit against him, and more to highlight he's a good tactician in other ways.

Not that I'm using that example to say he's a Sue, but to show that context is more important than content in determining if a character is a Sue.

[Zangetsu]

18 minutes ago, RedRob said:

I'm saying that arguing Robin isn't a Sue because he has flaws is a poor argument. For instance, that Virion support also plays up Robin by stating the reason he lost is because Robin tried to conserve his forces instead of using them like disposable pawns. In that case, Robin's flaw is less a demerit against him, and more to highlight he's a good tactician in other ways.

Not that I'm using that example to say he's a Sue, but to show that context is more important than content in determining if a character is a Sue.

That I can understand, but that doesn't change that he still lost the game because his refusal to adapt to another strategy cause him to lose to Virion. If anything else I can argue that Robin refusal in switching strategy in a board game no less only highlight his shortcomings. Am I supposed believe every successful mission where he doesn't suffer a causality makes him one despite that's actually the player's actions? That's not even including how he couldn't save Emmeryn & the supports shows that he still learning swordsmanship from Frederick & Lon'Qu.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Zangetsu

[omegaxis1]

3 minutes ago, Zangetsu said:

That I can understand, but that doesn't change that he still lost the game because his refusal to adapt to another strategy cause him to lose to Virion. If anything else I can argue that Robin refusal in switching strategy in a board game no less only highlight his shortcomings. Am I supposed believe every successful mission where he doesn't suffer a causality makes him one despite that's actually the player's actions?

Actually, I wouldn't say that Robin is incapable of switching strategies. In fact I believe Robin has said that he has multiple strategies and even says that he needs to change plans on the fly in Warriors supports. And even in Awakening, Robin made a plan on the fly on taking down the Valmese fleet as well as make a way to escape. Robin likely wants to avoid sacrificing people, but he does accept some losses are inevitable. After all, he sent many people to their deaths when Walhart and Yen'fey were about to flank them, with Basilio and Flavia leading the diversion charge. 

[Zangetsu]

5 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Actually, I wouldn't say that Robin is incapable of switching strategies. In fact I believe Robin has said that he has multiple strategies and even says that he needs to change plans on the fly in Warriors supports. And even in Awakening, Robin made a plan on the fly on taking down the Valmese fleet as well as make a way to escape. Robin likely wants to avoid sacrificing people, but he does accept some losses are inevitable. After all, he sent many people to their deaths when Walhart and Yen'fey were about to flank them, with Basilio and Flavia leading the diversion charge. 

That's what I would  argue that's something he learn from his games with Virion, if it wasn't up to interpretation which is the point in a avatar character.

Edited December 16, 2017 by Zangetsu

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Zangetsu said:

That would I argue that something he learn from his games with Virion, if it wasn't up to interpretation which is the point in a avatar character.

Pretty much. 

[Flee Fleet!]

Mark definitely doesn't undermine the lords. In fact, iirc, Mark was only really relevant in Lyn's story where he becomes the tactician for Lyndis's Legions. Even then, the plot centers around Lyn, with Mark being there to help out.

In Eliwood's and Hector's story, he...uh, he's just there. He joins in like the first chapter of Eliwood's story as the tactician, but then remains irrelevant for the rest of the story. So yeah, he definitely doesn't undermine Eliwood and Hector.

So basically, Mark is only there to represent the player. What he does is simply what the player does: playing the game. He's supposed to make it seem like as if the player is actually in the game, and he does an okay job of it for the most part. 

 

In comparison, Kris and Robin undermine the actual protagonist, thanks to avatar worship, and the latter having more relevancy than Chrom.

[Seazas]

On 12/6/2017 at 5:42 PM, Slumber said:

I will give you that Marth not being able to lose allies was poorly done, but that's not undermining Marth as a whole.

Yeah, you could remove Grima and parts of Awakening would still work. But that's not how Awakening is written. The Grimleal are in every major story arc, manipulating the major players. And it's ALL because of Robin/Grima. Chrom's struggles are all manufactured or exacerbated by the Grimleal, who always come back to Robin/Grima. Once the game flat out tells you that it's always been about Robin, shocker, Robin becomes the main character.

Dude.... Elice literally disses Marth the second you meet her in FE12 when she's one of the people who should be praising Marth most. 

Marth was undermined in FE12.

[Slumber]

11 minutes ago, Peaceful_User said:

Dude.... Elice literally disses Marth the second you meet her in FE12 when she's one of the people who should be praising Marth most. 

Marth was undermined in FE12.

I did forget about that...