Sunwoo

A Quick Analysis of the Pacifist Queen

Recommended Posts

This was something that came into my mind just now. It might not be the most well thought out, but I am interested in hearing other people's opinions on this. If this sentiment has been repeated elsewhere on this forum, I apologize in advance.

I was reading VincentASM's analysis on the trailer of the new FE game, and when I got to the section where he talks about the queen standing in the middle of the battleground, I couldn't help but laugh when I noticed that the image of the queen is titled "not Emmeryn". But yeah, she seems just like Emmeryn (and Mikoto from Fates). The kind, elegant queen who refuses to fight in the face of a violent, unjust war because she loves peace. That's apparently the character trope that Emmeryn has started, right?

Well, I actually don't think so. Mikoto is very similar to Emmeryn in terms of character and role, and this new queen (?) gives off an "aura" that's very similar to that of Emmeryn. But it wasn't until now that I realized ... maybe they're not trying to recreate Emmeryn. They're trying to recreate Elincia.

Although I've never really seen anyone group Elincia in with Emmeryn or Mikoto, there are some basic similarities. All three of them are peace-loving queens who rule the protagonist's country, which has a reputation of being a peaceful country that is (or was) at war with its more militaristic, violent neighbor. And all three of them perform some brave (or selfless) gesture that either wins the respect of their enemies or has some effect on their allies.

Emmeryn's suicide encourages many Plegians to defect from Gangrel's army while giving Chrom and the Shepherds renewed determination. Mikoto died protecting Corrin, and her death is a major reason as to why the war between Nohr and Hoshido begins anew. But Elincia has her own moment too in part 3, where she lays down her sword in the middle of two heavily armed forces and says that Crimea will not resort to violence but will not allow the laguz army and Begnion to fight in her country. The Gallian forces and the Begnion troops led by Zelgius retreated because of her words.

In a way, Elincia is kind of like a younger version of Emmeryn who had to face her pacifistic ideology and realize that she can't always choose peace, and took part in the battlefield. As far as I can tell, she's the first example of the pacifist queen of the protagonist nation, but she had much more character development due to being an active player in two games and having her growth shown in both. Emmeryn and Mikoto are like the older versions of Elincia who never went through that character development, either because they never fought a war or because the game's story just doesn't want to go through that development. (Also, I haven't played Warriors myself, but I've seen enough of it to know that the protagonist country is ruled by yet another peaceful queen. So ... that counts, maybe?)

So I can't help but wonder if Emmeryn was an attempt at recreating Elincia, but without the things that actually made Elincia's character great, and then they tried to carry it over to Mikoto without really getting it right. And in the new game, it seems the peaceful queen archetype may be coming back ... who knows what that queen will actually be like, though.

Edited by Sunwoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong but I thought the woman on the battlefield was the new goddess. Same flowers in her hair and hair color, etc, but I could be wrong.

Either way, it's interesting the point you bring up about Elincia and I definitely see where you're coming from. I think part of what made Elincia so successful though was how long we were with her. All of PoR and portions of RD gave us ample time to know her character, unlike Emmeryn or Mikoto who die off relatively early (or very early in Mikoto's case) in their games. We care about Elincia and her struggles, her concerns our concerns, her failures our failures, her triumphs our triumphs. If they truly want to make another Elincia they need to make the player actually care about the pacifist queen. That's the only way to succeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind if they tried to emulate Elincia, since she is one of the best characters in the series.  The queen's design definitely seems to be trying to invoke Elincia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They probably don't compare Emmeryn and Mikoto to Elincia because Elincia eventually stops being a pacifist. For like, a whole game and a half, Elincia participates in war, so people have more experience with Elincia the Warrior Queen who hates killing, but will still stab a dude. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that I think Elincia is extremely similar to Emmeryn or Mikoto, but I kind of get the idea that she was what the creators were going for. Elincia definitely succeeded because of her character development, but Awakening expects us to believe Emmeryn as a good, realistic queen just because she's peaceful and kind. Mikoto ... well, we don't really know about her except that she's also peaceful. But they're just sort of there as the regal figure to look up to that we're supposed to feel sad for when they're gone. So I think if the creators were trying to invoke Elincia with Emmeryn and Mikoto, they missed what made Elincia a great character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see Elincia as any bigger a pacifist then most lords in the series. Yeah, she doesn't love war, but she still does it with little hesitation. Only really the whole laying down her arms at the border in Radiant Dawn is Emmerynesque. And in Path of Radiance she barely has any agency of her own, just being led around by other people who fortunately share her broad goals. Which was pretty typical for the Nyna archetype that she was emmulating heavily.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Geek said:

I wouldn't mind if they tried to emulate Elincia, since she is one of the best characters in the series.  The queen's design definitely seems to be trying to invoke Elincia.

Yeah, this. Though for me, it'll be hard to beat her no matter what because she's already so amazing and beautiful. :P She's the best girl in the series imo.

Edited by Anacybele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

Yeah, this. Though for me, it'll be hard to beat her no matter what because she's already so amazing and beautiful. :P She's the best girl in the series imo.

Nah, that's Lucina. XP

Lucina FTW!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Nah, that's Lucina. XP

Lucina FTW!

Dude, you just trying to mess with me here by saying this? XP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

Dude, you just trying to mess with me here by saying this? XP

Duh. XD

I mean, I do think Lucina is the best, but that's just my opinion. Elincia is great, too, but for me, still doesn't come up to Lucina's level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Duh. XD

I mean, I do think Lucina is the best, but that's just my opinion. Elincia is great, too, but for me, still doesn't come up to Lucina's level.

Yeah, I get that now. But you know I'll always disagree, so don't push it, kay? xP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jotari said:

I don't see Elincia as any bigger a pacifist then most lords in the series. Yeah, she doesn't love war, but she still does it with little hesitation. Only really the whole laying down her arms at the border in Radiant Dawn is Emmerynesque. And in Path of Radiance she barely has any agency of her own, just being led around by other people who fortunately share her broad goals. Which was pretty typical for the Nyna archetype that she was emmulating heavily.

Elincia wasn't ever a lord, though, and she wasn't queen in PoR. And that's kind of my point. I feel like the "peace-loving queen" archetype may have started with RD!Elincia, but her pacifism was a lot more realistic and she had to learn that being too idealistic wouldn't do her any good.

Emmeryn, if she really is based on Elincia, failed to emulate what RD!Elincia did because the developers ramped up the pacifism aspect up to 11 without making Emmeryn ever face the limitations or hardship of her views, while keeping only the "dramatic act that changes people" part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sunwoo said:

Elincia wasn't ever a lord, though, and she wasn't queen in PoR. And that's kind of my point. I feel like the "peace-loving queen" archetype may have started with RD!Elincia, but her pacifism was a lot more realistic and she had to learn that being too idealistic wouldn't do her any good.

Emmeryn, if she really is based on Elincia, failed to emulate what RD!Elincia did because the developers ramped up the pacifism aspect up to 11 without making Emmeryn ever face the limitations or hardship of her views, while keeping only the "dramatic act that changes people" part.

Elincia's pacifism or being idealistic has always been something that has existed for many lords. Marth, Eliwood, Eirika, they've all had the case of being idealistic, but learning to understand that they must fight when the time comes. 

Also, Emmeryn's case isn't at all that she's emulating any of these. No, she's taken the idealism of pacifism to the absolute max, but the reasoning is absolutely understandable. This is because Emmeryn's father was basically one of the absolute worst rulers in Fire Emblem, having nearly destroyed Ylisse and Plegia to try and perform a genocidal crusade against the Grimleal.

Emmeryn wasn't even 10 years old when her father died and she was forced to take over. And this crusade has existed for a very long while apparently, so Emmeryn had to have witnessed the atrocities of the war that no doubt traumatized her mind to the point that she would reject the notion of war. 

The case of there being a "peace-loving queen" could refer to anyone. You could even say Caeda and Celica are first since they ascend to becoming queen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jotari said:

I don't see Elincia as any bigger a pacifist then most lords in the series. Yeah, she doesn't love war, but she still does it with little hesitation. Only really the whole laying down her arms at the border in Radiant Dawn is Emmerynesque. And in Path of Radiance she barely has any agency of her own, just being led around by other people who fortunately share her broad goals. Which was pretty typical for the Nyna archetype that she was emmulating heavily.

I disagree, elincia was always hesitant to start fighting, the sole reason why ludveck was even able to create an army large enough was due to her being unwilling to just arrest ludveck and stomping out the rebellion at its root, the only reason why she took command in the part 2 endgame was because she saw it as her duty and the only way to prove that she is a capable leader, she refused to take part in the begnion/laguz war until there was absolutely damning evidence on the begnion senate's corruption, even as a senator insulted her and commanded his troops to raid crimean border towns, the only force she responded with was a reasonable counter attack to mitigate the damage, she never declared war outright or acted without good reason. the only times when elencia was on the battlefield was only when absolutely necessary, she went to deter the begnion and laguz alliance forces from engaging with a pacifist act, when sanaki appeared, elencia offered assistance because it was both politically smart because she had all the leverage, and it was the right thing to do, but even then, she never fought on the front lines and remained in crimea until her presence was needed. You can't argue that fighting post judgement means anything, everyone who could, fought, the only reason why kurthnaga refused to fight was due to the previous battles leaving him shaken and incapable of focusing.

Elencia, is a pacifist at base, but she only ever fought when absolutely required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

The case of there being a "peace-loving queen" could refer to anyone. You could even say Caeda and Celica are first since they ascend to becoming queen. 

Unless my memory fails me, I'm almost certain that Caeda and Celica were not actually queen during the course of the game.

I'm speaking specifically about Elincia because she's not a lord (Celica counts) and she was a queen and the actual ruler of her country during the course of one of the Tellius games. Marth, I grant you that he's probably ruling Altea in New Mystery, but he's also not a "queen". Eliwood and Eirika were not ruling during the course of their game (and in Eirika's case she can't ever be ruler of Renais because Ephraim exists).

I'm not speaking only about Elincia's pacifistic ways. It is her being a plot relevant character who is not a lord who is also a pacifistic female ruler of her country. Marth, Eliwood, Eirika, Caeda, and Celica don't fall under these criteria.

And yes, I get that Emmeryn's pacifism in-story is explained through the actions of her father. Obviously I can't prove it, but that doesn't stop me from wondering if they got the idea for having another peaceful pacifistic queen from Elincia, and gave her a different background. Because even if we've had pacifistic lords before, the main ruler of their countries were either not pacifistic, or men. They were usually men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sunwoo said:

I'm not speaking only about Elincia's pacifistic ways. It is her being a plot relevant character who is not a lord who is also a pacifistic female ruler of her country. Marth, Eliwood, Eirika, Caeda, and Celica don't fall under these criteria.

2

Gonna be honest, Elincia was never plot-relevant in RD at all. In fact, Part 2 is nothing more than unnecessary filler. Yeah, she helped and had some moments, but Elincia was never truly tied to the plot. 

Part 2 of RD was just about a civil war, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the overall plot. Part 1 was not only to introduce the new characters but also to establish how corrupt the Begnion Senate is, then after placing Pelleas into the throne, he ends up being forced to side with Begnion. That role doesn't truly change. 

You can actually take out Part 2 of Radiant Dawn out, and the plot honestly would not change that much. But the actions she takes in Part 3 for Heart of Crimea (which I absolutely loved) is overall just minor, because immediately afterward when Sanaki comes in, Elincia immediately has Crimea join the war.

5 minutes ago, Sunwoo said:

And yes, I get that Emmeryn's pacifism in-story is explained through the actions of her father. Obviously I can't prove it, but that doesn't stop me from wondering if they got the idea for having another peaceful pacifistic queen from Elincia, and gave her a different background. Because even if we've had pacifistic lords before, the main ruler of their countries were either not pacifistic, or men. They were usually men.

Going by the first point, in terms of plot relevance, I would actually argue that Emmeryn had more than Elincia did, even if she wasn't personally involved. Arc 1 results in her "death", but it ultimately is what allows the war with Plegia to end, because many of Plegian troops deserted en masse, allowing the war to end that much quicker. Arc 2 with Valm ultimately has us going against another kingdom, but Chrom is ultimately struggling with holding up Emmeryn's ideals, something that both Walhart and Pheros speaks of.

This also goes with theory, but Yen'fay's defeat can even be interpreted to be inspired by Emmeryn. The death of a major figure leads to a quicker end to the war. And can even be a case of what can potentially be what makes Robin make his sacrifice, his death to save billions more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elincia still has some presence in the plot, even if it's not a whole lot. Even if you take out part 2, she along with Tibarn are responsible for leading the third group in part 4 and her presence never truly disappears from the story. Also, Elincia's actions in part 3 felt more like she didn't want Begnion and Gallia fighting in her territory and getting her people dragged into it more than anything else. It's been years since I played RD and the script the middle chapters of part 3 isn't on SF, but I'm pretty sure Elincia's stand against both armies was mostly to get them out of her country and not so much saying that Crimea was going to be neutral now and forevermore in their conflict.

Also, I'm not really sure what the second part has to do with anything I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, omegaxis1 said:

Also, Emmeryn's case isn't at all that she's emulating any of these. No, she's taken the idealism of pacifism to the absolute max, but the reasoning is absolutely understandable. This is because Emmeryn's father was basically one of the absolute worst rulers in Fire Emblem, having nearly destroyed Ylisse and Plegia to try and perform a genocidal crusade against the Grimleal.

Not even close to one of the worst rulers, even in Awakening Gangrel and Validar are far worse.

Anyone notice that Emmeryn never directly apologizes for the crusade, but does for the Taguel despite Ylisse not being involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Not even close to one of the worst rulers, even in Awakening Gangrel and Validar are far worse.

Anyone notice that Emmeryn never directly apologizes for the crusade, but does for the Taguel despite Ylisse not being involved?

I would argue that the former Exalt is. At least Gangrel's case is that his own nation wasn't actually gonna self-destruct in all honesty, since he had enough funds to acquire resources thanks to the intercontinental trade. And Gangrel does explain his motivations. Misguided and likely to fail, but he had far more likelihood of not destroying his own nation in the process. And Validar wasn't a true ruler per se, but rather a substitute as he calls himself king regent, and he was part of the evil cult. 

The former Exalt might have had a reason to commit genocide, but he was destroying and would have destroyed his nation LONG before Plegia was destroyed. So yeah, the former Exalt is still one of the worst rulers ever.

Given that 15 years have passed and Emmeryn has constantly tried to maintain peace between the two nations, I think it's obvious that she already said her apologies, and he met Panne for the very first time. 

42 minutes ago, Sunwoo said:

Elincia still has some presence in the plot, even if it's not a whole lot. Even if you take out part 2, she along with Tibarn are responsible for leading the third group in part 4 and her presence never truly disappears from the story. Also, Elincia's actions in part 3 felt more like she didn't want Begnion and Gallia fighting in her territory and getting her people dragged into it more than anything else. It's been years since I played RD and the script the middle chapters of part 3 isn't on SF, but I'm pretty sure Elincia's stand against both armies was mostly to get them out of her country and not so much saying that Crimea was going to be neutral now and forevermore in their conflict.

Also, I'm not really sure what the second part has to do with anything I said.

Presence at best. But she wasn't by any means a driving force. She was just there for the sake of some loose ends to be tied, but no means was she ever truly relevant. So the argument that she has more plot relevance as the "peace-loving queen" is not completely accurate given that she only at best has screen time, but was never that relevant. 

Nice development and story, but irrelevant.

Edited by omegaxis1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

I would argue that the former Exalt is. At least Gangrel's case is that his own nation wasn't actually gonna self-destruct in all honesty, since he had enough funds to acquire resources thanks to the intercontinental trade. And Gangrel does explain his motivations. Misguided and likely to fail, but he had far more likelihood of not destroying his own nation in the process. And Validar wasn't a true ruler per se, but rather a substitute as he calls himself king regent, and he was part of the evil cult. 

The former Exalt might have had a reason to commit genocide, but he was destroying and would have destroyed his nation LONG before Plegia was destroyed. So yeah, the former Exalt is still one of the worst rulers ever.

Given that 15 years have passed and Emmeryn has constantly tried to maintain peace between the two nations, I think it's obvious that she already said her apologies, and he met Panne for the very first time. 

Gangrel was literally running his nation into the ground into the ground and laughed at the death of his men. Validar had even more claim to ruler then Gangrel as he possessed Holy Blood.

That doesn't make him the worst ruler ever in a game filled with bad rulers in a franchise filled with bad rulers. Again he is an abandoned plot point, saying he is the worst ruler is massive hyperbole.

Then how come she didn't do it again?

Edited by Emperor Hardin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Gangrel was literally running his nation into the ground into the ground and laughed at the death of his men. Validar had even more claim to ruler then Gangrel as he possessed Holy Blood.

That doesn't make him the worst ruler ever in a game filled with bad rulers in a franchise filled with bad rulers. Again he is an abandoned plot point, not the worst ruler.

Then how come she didn't do it again?

There is no system installed that the cult leader would be the king. Genealogy and Echoes had that, but Plegia clearly doesn't indicate that. So saying that Validar has more claim is dubious at best. And was Gangrel running his nation to the ground? Yeah, Gangrel was a tyrant and was oppressing his own people, but given his strong military strength and great funds, Plegia was by no means about to run itself through the ground anytime soon. 

Not to mention, his war with Ylisse was something that many Plegians wanted until Emmeryn's sacrifice was made. Every enemy general apart from Mustafa and his soldiers, the Plegians all wanted blood. 

Yeah, it does. Even if he's a plot point, he was still a ruler, like Lima IV. And Lima is just as much a terrible ruler, if not worse, but being a plot point by no means makes them less of a bad ruler. The former Exalt launched a war to commit genocide. And his war crippled Ylisse's military strength and economy and is the likely reason that the original timeline even happened, since otherwise, Plegia would not have had enough hatred to desire the war and Ylisse's military strength would have avoided assassination attempts better. So it still stands that the former Exalt is one of the worst rulers in Fire Emblem still. 

You have a guy that literally calls you a hypocrite and is trying to declare war in a parley. Given how fast things had run, Emmeryn didn't get a single moment of making any conversation to even land an apology. Panne was at least willing to let her talk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

There is no system installed that the cult leader would be the king. Genealogy and Echoes had that, but Plegia clearly doesn't indicate that. So saying that Validar has more claim is dubious at best. And was Gangrel running his nation to the ground? Yeah, Gangrel was a tyrant and was oppressing his own people, but given his strong military strength and great funds, Plegia was by no means about to run itself through the ground anytime soon. 

Not to mention, his war with Ylisse was something that many Plegians wanted until Emmeryn's sacrifice was made. Every enemy general apart from Mustafa and his soldiers, the Plegians all wanted blood. 

Yeah, it does. Even if he's a plot point, he was still a ruler, like Lima IV. And Lima is just as much a terrible ruler, if not worse, but being a plot point by no means makes them less of a bad ruler. The former Exalt launched a war to commit genocide. And his war crippled Ylisse's military strength and economy and is the likely reason that the original timeline even happened, since otherwise, Plegia would not have had enough hatred to desire the war and Ylisse's military strength would have avoided assassination attempts better. So it still stands that the former Exalt is one of the worst rulers in Fire Emblem still. 

You have a guy that literally calls you a hypocrite and is trying to declare war in a parley. Given how fast things had run, Emmeryn didn't get a single moment of making any conversation to even land an apology. Panne was at least willing to let her talk. 

Grimleal founded Plegia, Gangrel was just a pauper who got into power due to being a pawn of the Grimleal.

None of the Generals mention the war, nor do the Plegian villagers we meet, who instead support Ylisse.

He's an abandoned plot point that never gets mentioned again. Every Plegian's backstory in the game has no mention of his crusade. Even Validar has nothing to say about it.

Spoiler

 

Here's Gangrel literally laughing about the deaths of his  soldiers, yes he is easily worse then an abandoned plot point that is only mentioned a few times by Emmeryn before being forgotten by the script.

Edited by Emperor Hardin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Grimleal founded Plegia, Gangrel was just a pauper who got into power due to being a pawn of the Grimleal.

None of the Generals mention the war, nor do the Plegian villagers we meet, who instead support Ylisse.

He's an abandoned plot point that never gets mentioned again. Every Plegian's backstory in the game has no mention of his crusade. Even Validar has nothing to say about it.

  Hide contents

 

Here's Gangrel literally laughing about the deaths of his  soldiers, yes he is easily worse then an abandoned plot point that is only mentioned a few times by Emmeryn before being forgotten by the script.

Yet even then, that doesn't mean anything, as there isn't a Holy Blood system applied here like it was in Echoes and Genealogy. Being Holy Blood doesn't give claim to the throne, or at least not to the knowledge we are aware of. Maybe it does, but based on how things are, nothing suggests it.

Did you miss Vasto and Campari? Both absolutely hated Ylisse, with Vasto calling Ylisseans cowards, and Campari mentioning the rage of Plegia. And the Drama CDs also show how there are plenty of Plegians that do hold hatred for Ylisse, but through Emmeryn's sacrifice and by some actions Chrom and his forces did in said CD, they were willing to put aside that hatred and look for sympathizers. 

Even if it's not mentioned, it's the entire basis on why Gangrel pushed that war. In fact, though you say it's abandoned, need I remind you that the entire basis on how Ylisse and Emmeryn turned out to be is because of the former Exalt. Everyone would be happier to forget the terrible king they had and believe in the new ruler that supported peace. But before that, they hated Emmeryn thinking she was just like her father. And no matter how much you try to say that he's an abandoned plot point, the fact remains that he was trying to commit genocide and nearly destroyed his own nation in the process. He forced a major factor of his economy into the war and kept trying to push forward. You think his own nation didn't try to warn him far earlier about the damages he had done? He had to have known, but he pressed on. Any halfway decent ruler would have known to pull out, but this guy pushed on and got nothing from it. Hell, even if he beat Plegia, the Grimleal had ties to Valm. So the cult would have survived and they were no closer to ending Grima. 

Gangrel confesses that he lost his way in his conversation with Emmeryn:

Quote

Gangrel: Even a dog like me knows the pangs of remorse. I laid legions of dead at my feet. But when I climbed that mountain of corpses... I found the vantage empty of any meaning. I failed to change anything.
Emmeryn: ......
Gangrel: I was supposed to be the one to...to fix everything... But these hands that I dreamed would shape the future... They reek of blood. And the blood won't come off... My hands were clean once, I swear! ...Weren't they? Or did I just never stop to notice? Gods, I only want to get away from this carnage that has become my brand... Is there no way out? Must this be my final mark?!

I'm not actually defending Gangrel since I don't deny that he's still a terrible ruler. 

However, you are arguing that the forme Exalt was not at all one of the worst rulers. I do say that is just, just not saying that he's THE worst anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Arc 2 with Valm ultimately has us going against another kingdom, but Chrom is ultimately struggling with holding up Emmeryn's ideals, something that both Walhart and Pheros speaks of.

This also goes with theory, but Yen'fay's defeat can even be interpreted to be inspired by Emmeryn. The death of a major figure leads to a quicker end to the war.

Killing a powerful enemy general who happens to be the one and only thing keeping some dynasts loyal to Walhart is perfectly understandable military strategy. No need to involve Emmeryn. 

I don't see Emmeryn's ideals anywhere in the Valm Arc. How would Chrom's actions differed at all had he not Emmeryn's ideals? What was at all pacifistic in how he operated in Valm? Siding with Say'ri was natural- find Valmese allies against Walhart. Any offer of the olive branch, if made at all, was quickly followed up without hesitation with the sword.

The only influence she had was bringing the Plegia War to a close sooner, giving Chrom a year to rebuild and then Validar the chance to take over Plegia and then bankroll and ship out Chrom and the Khans so he can inconspicuously get to Grima restoration. But, this is not Chrom taking Emmeryn's ideals and using them in Valm.

Chrom might fight for the peaceful world Emmeryn wanted, and Walhart may spit on Emmeryn, but her ideals aren't really relevant to the Valm Arc. Walhart's policy of uniting via force might be wrong, but Emmeryn's ideals didn't unite Plegia and Ylisse, all it did was convince Plegia to surrender, not exactly unification. Peaceful coexistence as separate countries? Well any bit of this is undermined by Validar taking command of Plegia. And us not really knowing its fate after Awakening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Killing a powerful enemy general who happens to be the one and only thing keeping some dynasts loyal to Walhart is perfectly understandable military strategy. No need to involve Emmeryn. 

I don't see Emmeryn's ideals anywhere in the Valm Arc. How would Chrom's actions differed at all had he not Emmeryn's ideals? What was at all pacifistic in how he operated in Valm? Siding with Say'ri was natural- find Valmese allies against Walhart. Any offer of the olive branch, if made at all, was quickly followed up without hesitation with the sword.

The only influence she had was bringing the Plegia War to a close sooner, giving Chrom a year to rebuild and then Validar the chance to take over Plegia and then bankroll and ship out Chrom and the Khans so he can inconspicuously get to Grima restoration. But, this is not Chrom taking Emmeryn's ideals and using them in Valm.

Chrom might fight for the peaceful world Emmeryn wanted, and Walhart may spit on Emmeryn, but her ideals aren't really relevant to the Valm Arc. Walhart's policy of uniting via force might be wrong, but Emmeryn's ideals didn't unite Plegia and Ylisse, all it did was convince Plegia to surrender, not exactly unification. Peaceful coexistence as separate countries? Well any bit of this is undermined by Validar taking command of Plegia. And us not really knowing its fate after Awakening.

The reason I involve Emmeryn is that I feel it could be entirely possible. The original timeline had the war against Plegia last longer. If that had been the case, and Valm conquered the continent, and they entered, Ylisse wouldn't have possibly won, or even reached Valm in the first place. Then we also have some key factors, being the case of Say'ri and the Yen'fay we get in SpotPass. Yen'fay indicates that in his world, he didn't side with Walhart and Say'ri died.

For Awakening, Walhart was only able to conquer the continent as fast as he did because Yen'fay joined him, meaning that not joining him results in Walhart taking a longer time to unite the continent, and not being as powerful. That would indicate that Yen'fay actually comes from the original timeline, which would explain why Say'ri is Robin-sexual and can only have Morgan, cause in the original timeline, she's dead, and Yen'fay never joins because he mourned her death and left.

So how did Yen'fay even get the idea to protect Say'ri in this new timeline? Nothing in Valm changed, but in Ylisse, it did. And everyone in Valm knows what happened with Emmeryn, as both Pheros and Walhart indicate. 

Also, a lot of Chrom's actions and choices are a result of Emmeryn's actions and sacrifice. The desire to the protect the world, the desire to not allow sacrifices to be made, especially when Robin is considering sacrificing himself to save the world from Grima, Chrom is not wanting Robin to go by the same path his sister went through. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.