Jump to content

FE4 Fan Special Roundtable/Interview Translation


garmmy
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Maybe Jamka saying Sigurd is a good person is precisely an indication that Sigurd did attempt to settle things peacefully. Just because we don't see any envoy, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It doesn't mean it did happen either. It's left ambiguous. To say definitively that Sigurd didn't send any envoys, you'd need a line about someone commenting on the fact that none were sent or Sigurd saying there's no point to that. Take Gaiden as an example, the game doesn't mention Alm sending any peace envoys, but in terms of the story, he did, the game just didn't detail that fact until the remake. Assuming Sigurd didn't try to send a peace envoy because we didn't see one, also forces one to assume Jamka didn't try resolve the situation using diplomatic means even though every single one of his lines up to that point revolves around how he wants to end the fighting.

Besides, it's all a moot point as Sigurd pulling back at that point definitely would have been a mistake. It would have left Sandima alive to counter attack and wouldn't have deterred an Agustria assault in the slightest, (they'd already tried to invade Grannvale once already by that point).

Not really. Because it contradicts how Batou is still under the assumption that Granvalle would invade. He has grown to have doubts but had Sigurd sent an envoy and a message, peace talks and how they would pull their forces back, he would not have had any doubts. I honestly wouldn't use Gaiden as an example. It's even older and much less advanced than Genealogy was, hence why I use the remake instead, where Alm DOES send envoys for peace talks, but it fails. Jamke was trying to resolve the conflict by talking to his father, but that failed because they had to defend themselves against Sigurd's invading forces. Hence why it's the case of Sigurd still pressing the attack that gave Sandima leverage to get Batou to still retaliate. 

That's the problem. We're assuming that Sandima WOULD be alive, WOULD be still manipulating things, and there was no stopping it. That's the issue with plot-driven stories. We assume that it WILL happen no matter what, rather than expect that characters making different decisions would actually affect the outcome. 

But the scenario I'm saying is that had Sigurd sent an envoy, promising that they will not invade Verdane and instead will pull their forces back having rescued Adean, they will settle the matter peacefully. That would give Jamke leverage instead for his plea that Sigurd is a good man, which would make Batou doubt Sandima. If Sandima tries to assassinate, this time Jamke would be there and their soldiers would fight back as well.

Doing that, Verdane can try to make peace talks and unify with Granvalle more and that would also prevent Chagall from trying to declare war. 

We're assuming that Sandima would be in control, but what if he isn't? Both are possibly conjectures here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

Not really. Because it contradicts how Batou is still under the assumption that Granvalle would invade. He has grown to have doubts but had Sigurd sent an envoy and a message, peace talks and how they would pull their forces back, he would not have had any doubts. I honestly wouldn't use Gaiden as an example. It's even older and much less advanced than Genealogy was, hence why I use the remake instead, where Alm DOES send envoys for peace talks, but it fails. Jamke was trying to resolve the conflict by talking to his father, but that failed because they had to defend themselves against Sigurd's invading forces. Hence why it's the case of Sigurd still pressing the attack that gave Sandima leverage to get Batou to still retaliate. 

That's the problem. We're assuming that Sandima WOULD be alive, WOULD be still manipulating things, and there was no stopping it. That's the issue with plot-driven stories. We assume that it WILL happen no matter what, rather than expect that characters making different decisions would actually affect the outcome. 

But the scenario I'm saying is that had Sigurd sent an envoy, promising that they will not invade Verdane and instead will pull their forces back having rescued Adean, they will settle the matter peacefully. That would give Jamke leverage instead for his plea that Sigurd is a good man, which would make Batou doubt Sandima. If Sandima tries to assassinate, this time Jamke would be there and their soldiers would fight back as well.

Doing that, Verdane can try to make peace talks and unify with Granvalle more and that would also prevent Chagall from trying to declare war. 

We're assuming that Sandima would be in control, but what if he isn't? Both are possibly conjectures here. 

You're misunderstanding what I'm talking about with Gaiden. I'm bringing it up precisely because it's old, and Genealogy is too.

Regarding Jamka's conversation with Bantou, he asks his father to "withdraw the troops." Meaning Bantou is still on the offensive at this stage. Jamka isn't going to Sigurd and pleading for him to stop invading. He chooses instead to talk to his father, because Verdane has been the aggressor the entire time. Jamka's telling his father to be open to the idea of peace, which he's not. He just keeps sending soldiers to attack Sigurd, Jamka included. Like I said before, the onus isn't on Sigurd alone to sue for peace, Verdane has to show that they want it when they've displayed the complete opposite every step of the way.

Sandima also kills Bantou directly after that conversation. If Sigurd made a retreat before taking Marpha (when Gandolf ie "That bastard who gives all of us savages a bad name" is still alive), then there is a conceivable scenario where Jamka could defeat Sanadima. But really that's going into fact fic territory. What is more certain is that it wouldn't have deterred an Agustrian assault. As Elliot shows, the invasion of Verdane is basically just an excuse on their part. Shagall's whole crusade is based on the fact that Grannvale is momentarily weak because its army is in Isaach. He still would have killed his father and attempted an invasion. Sigurd displaying military incompetence by withdrawing from a winning battle would only fuel that desire.

Once again, if the game wanted to depict Sigurd continuing the fight in Verdane as a mistake, then it would have shown direct consequences for it. Instead it's part of Sigurd's most successful moments in the story as he finds Deirdre (leading to the eventual birth of Seliph who ultimately saves the continent) and finds out about the Lopt Sect. If they want to have Sigurd invading Verdane be his mistake, then they need to remove Imuka from the plot and just have Chagall be the king from the start who's acting purely based on the Verdane invasion instead of because he's an asshole that wants to be king of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

You're misunderstanding what I'm talking about with Gaiden. I'm bringing it up precisely because it's old, and Genealogy is too.

Regarding Jamka's conversation with Bantou, he asks his father to "withdraw the troops." Meaning Bantou is still on the offensive at this stage. Jamka isn't going to Sigurd and pleading for him to stop invading. He chooses instead to talk to his father, because Verdane has been the aggressor the entire time. Jamka's telling his father to be open to the idea of peace, which he's not. He just keeps sending soldiers to attack Sigurd, Jamka included. Like I said before, the onus isn't on Sigurd alone to sue for peace, Verdane has to show that they want it when they've displayed the complete opposite every step of the way.

Sandima also kills Bantou directly after that conversation. If Sigurd made a retreat before taking Marpha (when Gandolf ie "That bastard who gives all of us savages a bad name" is still alive), then there is a conceivable scenario where Jamka could defeat Sanadima. But really that's going into fact fic territory. What is more certain is that it wouldn't have deterred an Agustrian assault. As Elliot shows, the invasion of Verdane is basically just an excuse on their part. Shagall's whole crusade is based on the fact that Grannvale is momentarily weak because its army is in Isaach. He still would have killed his father and attempted an invasion. Sigurd displaying military incompetence by withdrawing from a winning battle would only fuel that desire.

Once again, if the game wanted to depict Sigurd continuing the fight in Verdane as a mistake, then it would have shown direct consequences for it. Instead it's part of Sigurd's most successful moments in the story as he finds Deirdre (leading to the eventual birth of Seliph who ultimately saves the continent) and finds out about the Lopt Sect. If they want to have Sigurd invading Verdane be his mistake, then they need to remove Imuka from the plot and just have Chagall be the king from the start who's acting purely based on the Verdane invasion instead of because he's an asshole that wants to be king of the world.

3

It is old, yes. No arguments there. And there are various other flaws too.

Yes, we know that Verdane has been the aggressor, but how does Jamke plead Sigurd's case that allows Batou to be sure that Sigurd is an honest and just man when Batou is still so sure that Granvalle is planning to invade them? He only starts to have doubts because of Jamke, but had an envoy been sent, that would have been more than enough proof that Sigurd means his case.

And because it's after that conversation where Sandima kills Batou, it's only because Batou has doubts, not a certainty. But had he been certain, Sandima would have been in a position where he had to leave because both Batou and Jamke would have turned against him. Also, not quite. Some lords are corrupt, yes. But based on the narration, the conquering of Verdane made the lords be more hostile toward Granvalle. Had Sandima been ousted by Batou and Jamke, then Verdane would have been united with Granvalle that would have deterred Augustria from daring to make a move. The only reason they CAN make a move is that Verdane was defeated and there are only the remaining Granvalle forces there. Chagall is too cowardly to try and invade Verdane or even Granvalle if Verdane still had its strength and was not occupied by Granvalle because of Sigurd. 

Not really. The game also tries to insist that the Loptyrians are persecuted and should be sympathized, but they make no effort to show the unjust persecution they received, but rather a bunch of scumbags that deserve death. This is a case of where the game is trying to tell us something or the theme but doesn't convey it. If Kaga made this game trying to say that Sigurd is an overly naive individual that could have avoided this, then he failed to really convey it, just as he tries to convey the case of persecution, but failed at that. Just because there doesn't get that much of an indication doesn't mean that the thing to consider isn't there.

Also, something else occurred to me.

If Sigurd learned about the dark cult from Batou... why didn't he give any information regarding that to the others or to the king? Did he keep that information to himself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

It is old, yes. No arguments there. And there are various other flaws too.

Yes, we know that Verdane has been the aggressor, but how does Jamke plead Sigurd's case that allows Batou to be sure that Sigurd is an honest and just man when Batou is still so sure that Granvalle is planning to invade them? He only starts to have doubts because of Jamke, but had an envoy been sent, that would have been more than enough proof that Sigurd means his case.

Nothing suggests what Jamke said had any affect on Batou. From the line

Batou:
“Originally, Grandbell was preparing to strike us! That’s why I allowed Gandolf’s raid. I never intended for it to get this out of hand.”

it suggests doubts stem more from the fact that the whole thing has backfired enormously on him.

And this is also working off the assumption that Sigurd didn't try to sue for peace of which there is no evidence. If the game is trying to make it clear that Sigurd is making a critical error here, then it needs to make it clear that he made no attempt at peace.

And because it's after that conversation where Sandima kills Batou, it's only because Batou has doubts, not a certainty. But had he been certain, Sandima would have been in a position where he had to leave because both Batou and Jamke would have turned against him.

Well Manfroy turned up like a second later so if we're getting into fanfic territory about what would have happened we'd need to consider that too.

Also, not quite. Some lords are corrupt, yes. But based on the narration, the conquering of Verdane made the lords be more hostile toward Granvalle.

Not doubt that it did, but Chagall killing his father and Manfroy convincing him to try and take over the world is a much bigger factor. If the game wanted to depict Sigurd as making an error, than this would have to be the biggest factor.

Had Sandima been ousted by Batou and Jamke, then Verdane would have been united with Granvalle that would have deterred Augustria from daring to make a move.

I don't see why. Verdane would have no reason to come running to Grannvale's aid just because Sigurd retreated. That'd make them more humbled towards Grannvale, but it would necessitate they stick their neck out for them. Just look at how Ireland remained neutral in World War II because they didn't want to side with Britain.

The only reason they CAN make a move is that Verdane was defeated and there are only the remaining Granvalle forces there. Chagall is too cowardly to try and invade Verdane or even Granvalle if Verdane still had its strength and was not occupied by Granvalle because of Sigurd. 

Chagall is many things, but he's not a coward. Applying military force is his answer to everything.

Not really. The game also tries to insist that the Loptyrians are persecuted and should be sympathized, but they make no effort to show the unjust persecution they received, but rather a bunch of scumbags that deserve death.

This is actually the opposite of what the game says about the Lopts. Levin lays it out pretty clearly in Chapter 7. You're meant to hate the system, but never the individuals created by it as all of us have the potential for evil given circumstances.

This is a case of where the game is trying to tell us something or the theme but doesn't convey it. If Kaga made this game trying to say that Sigurd is an overly naive individual that could have avoided this, then he failed to really convey it, just as he tries to convey the case of persecution, but failed at that. Just because there doesn't get that much of an indication doesn't mean that the thing to consider isn't there.

Well then that response is just saying the game has shit writing, which could be used to justify anything. And Sigurd continuing to fight in Verdane is is basically the opposite of being naive. To sue for peace and expect the country that just violated a peace treaty to honor it after they made no effort on their part to wave the white flag would be the epitome of naivety. 

Also, something else occurred to me.

If Sigurd learned about the dark cult from Batou... why didn't he give any information regarding that to the others or to the king? Did he keep that information to himself?

Maybe. He mentions the sect when talking to Claude, so he's making no attempt to hide their existence. The important thing is that Seliph grows up knowing who his true enemy is (although one would have to question what Levin would or wouldn't have been able to say or know post Forseti possession).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

 

Which is going by what I'm saying. Had Sigurd sent an envoy, assuring the desire for peace, it could have ended differently in that Batou and Jamke may have ousted Sandima. Now, rather than say fanfic theory, we should consider this as a conjecture of what could have happened. But from my belief, Sandima and Manfroy likely would not have been able to maintain the control over Verdane's forces had Batou and Jamke tried to oust Sandima because of Sigurd's envoy making Batou realize he was being manipulated. 

Actually, in regards to Chagall killing his father and wanting to take over the world, we need to consider the timing of this. The death of the former king by Chagall is because of Manfroy manipulating him, but the manipulations only worked because of Sigurd defeating Verdane's forces. While you are right that maybe it is presumptuous that Verdane and Granvalle would be on the best terms, the peace talks would have kept them as allies, and Verdane would still have a military. And Augustria attacked as an attempt to invade Verdane, but had Verdane still had its forces, it is likely that Granvalle would have sent Sigurd to stop it, and that would basically make it impossible for Chagall to conquer the world.

And Chagall is a coward. His attack was nothing but a great sneak attack. Verdane's military now gone thanks to Sigurd conquering Verdane, and most of Granvalle's forces being at Isaach, that made it so that Chagall was attacking at the time he believed Granvalle was at its weakest. Hence why I say that Verdane still holding its power would have prevented Augustria from making a move. 

Except the issue is that you never see how the system ever treated the Lopto Sect. We didn't see the witch hunts, the burning at the stake, how the conditions of the Yeid Ruins are, or really any innocent Lopto Sect people that suffered from the persecution. Persecution is something players oughta see so it can be better understood. Otherwise, it just means we need to make sure that we just kill them all like an infection, not allow them to live. I have the same reason for why I cannot really get behind the entire Branded persecution in Tellius. You tell us that it's horrible, but I have a hard time really believing it when all I get are tells and no shows. 

Like I said, not when it was the Prince of Verdane that saved Adean from them. Verdane violated the peace treaty, but it was the prince of Verdane that tries to make amends and proved to have shown an effort. Adean having been saved by Jamke should have given Sigurd reason to try and negotiate peace talks. It's truly naive if it's 100% guaranteed that it would change nothing, but if it changes everything, then it isn't naive, but the right call. 

Does he actually say it to Claude or to himself? The way the phrase is said indicates that it isn't actually to Claude.

Quote

Sigurd:
“…Evil presence? Maybe… the Dark Sect? Claude! What about my father?”

This gives me a reason to consider that Sigurd was really keeping the info to himself. So wouldn't a lack of trying to inform the others actually mean a huge sign of naivete? He has info, but chose not to do anything with it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Which is going by what I'm saying. Had Sigurd sent an envoy, assuring the desire for peace, it could have ended differently in that Batou and Jamke may have ousted Sandima. Now, rather than say fanfic theory, we should consider this as a conjecture of what could have happened. But from my belief, Sandima and Manfroy likely would not have been able to maintain the control over Verdane's forces had Batou and Jamke tried to oust Sandima because of Sigurd's envoy making Batou realize he was being manipulated. 

Which is equal in kind to my conjecture that they wouldn't have been able to oust Sandima and he would have counter attacked, so it gets us nowhere as the game doesn't weigh in on this what if scenario one way or the other.

Actually, in regards to Chagall killing his father and wanting to take over the world, we need to consider the timing of this. The death of the former king by Chagall is because of Manfroy manipulating him, but the manipulations only worked because of Sigurd defeating Verdane's forces. While you are right that maybe it is presumptuous that Verdane and Granvalle would be on the best terms, the peace talks would have kept them as allies, and Verdane would still have a military. And Augustria attacked as an attempt to invade Verdane, but had Verdane still had its forces, it is likely that Granvalle would have sent Sigurd to stop it, and that would basically make it impossible for Chagall to conquer the world.

This is all speculation within speculation. Manfroy wasn't going to just give up and go  home because Sandima was killed and Verdane was a little more independent. Considering Verdane's long history of aggression with Grannvale and the fact that Grannvale still would have conquered half their country by that stage, I see very little reason for them to weigh in on a subsequent Agustria-Grannvale conflict at all. If not for a scenario where Batou and Jamka are grateful to Sigurd personally I'd put the pendulum the other way and say Verdane would be more likely to side with Agustria. Especially if we're talking about Sigurd retreating before Mapha so Gandolf is still alive.

And Chagall is a coward. His attack was nothing but a great sneak attack. Verdane's military now gone thanks to Sigurd conquering Verdane, and most of Granvalle's forces being at Isaach, that made it so that Chagall was attacking at the time he believed Granvalle was at its weakest. Hence why I say that Verdane still holding its power would have prevented Augustria from making a move. 

Chagall is a pathetic opportunist and an idiot, but it was still a bold action. A coward wouldn't have attacked at all. Doubly so  in Chapter 4 after half his country had been taken and he stood virtually no chance of actually pushing Grannvale out.

Except the issue is that you never see how the system ever treated the Lopto Sect. We didn't see the witch hunts, the burning at the stake, how the conditions of the Yeid Ruins are, or really any innocent Lopto Sect people that suffered from the persecution. Persecution is something players oughta see so it can be better understood. Otherwise, it just means we need to make sure that we just kill them all like an infection, not allow them to live. I have the same reason for why I cannot really get behind the entire Branded persecution in Tellius. You tell us that it's horrible, but I have a hard time really believing it when all I get are tells and no shows. 

Yes, it would have been conveyed better if we saw it directly. That's show, don't tell. But when it comes to Sigurd's flaws, it's neither show nor tell. No character ever mentions Sigurd being naive or foolish. If you don't have show, and you don't have tell, then you don't have the plot point no matter what the creators say.

Like I said, not when it was the Prince of Verdane that saved Adean from them. Verdane violated the peace treaty, but it was the prince of Verdane that tries to make amends and proved to have shown an effort. Adean having been saved by Jamke should have given Sigurd reason to try and negotiate peace talks. It's truly naive if it's 100% guaranteed that it would change nothing, but if it changes everything, then it isn't naive, but the right call. 

After capturing Marpha Sigurd would have been told Jamka was trying to diplomatically put an end to the war. The next troops Sigurd then comes across is an assault by Jamka himself on the offense against him. Once Jamka switches sides Sigurd would have been alerted that an evil wizard dude was behind it all (information that would be collaborated by Deirdre too).

Does he actually say it to Claude or to himself? The way the phrase is said indicates that it isn't actually to Claude.

This gives me a reason to consider that Sigurd was really keeping the info to himself. So wouldn't a lack of trying to inform the others actually mean a huge sign of naivete? He has info, but chose not to do anything with it. 

Well yeah, he's muttering to himself or something, but he's still openly talking about the sect in front of Claude. It's not like Claude's sprite disappears or anything or Sigurd turns away (that I can recall, not going to go hunting for the visual of the scene now). The game doesn't go out of the way to say he's intentionally hiding the information.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jotari said:

 

Well, everything we're saying is ultimately a conjecture in regards to what Kaga meant by saying that the tragedy would not have happened had Sigurd been a more competent person. So if the conjecture is possible, it adds to what Kaga had been intending. Similar to Sigurd never noticing the Brand of Naga on Deirdre's forehead, if Sigurd had known, he may have averted it. We're simply theorizing if it was possible or not. Everything from saying it can or can't work is meant to be speculation using the info that the game has provided and try to see it from the angle Kaga was seeing it from but failed to execute so everyone else could see it as well.

Not quite. The case here is that Verdane was the guilty party and had Sigurd insisted on peace talks, Batou would realize the error of his ways and would have made efforts to make amends to his ties. The case is that Batou being absolved of his doubts by having seen Sigurd's envoy make efforts to negotiate peace, it would prevent Batou's death, or at the very least, make Jamke ascend as the next king, who would try to not make the mistake his family did. So Verdane would not have supported Augustria, and Manfroy wouldn't be able to manipulate Verdane any longer. Also, the timing of when Sigurd makes the peace talks can be after conquering Marpha, insisting on not marching any further now that they have secured Adean, and now just wanting to make peace talks. 

Perhaps. But by saying that he is an opportunist, that makes it even less likely that he would try to launch an invasion of Verdane because Verdane would still have their military remaining had Sandima been ousted by Batou and Jamke. Chagall only thought that if he attacked by Granvalle was weakened and Verdane's military forces were gone, he had the chance to win and take over. But had Verdane not been conquered, then he would have to conquer Verdane and then have to face Granvalle's military might, thus the opportunity would not exist for him.

Actually, the problem is that when Sigurd's flaws are attempted to be indicated, players don't really see it as a flaw. When Eldigan asks Sigurd why he took Evans Castle, Sigurd had to save Adean. When Sigurd invaded Augusutria and Eldigan again called him out, players by this point only see Chagall as a scumbag that was played by Manfroy. Because the attempt is that the Loptous cult is behind all the events, they end up making it so that players can only see everyone else as evil, while Sigurd is the good guy. It's a poor way that Kaga handled it that made it so that players cannot see Sigurd doing anything but good. In a way, its the opposite of Corrin. We see Corrin mess up a lot, but very few ever call him out on it.

Except he Sigurd didn't tell Jamke anything. They never spoke. Jamke wasn't with Adean, but Adean must have told Sigurd who rescued her. And like said earlier, no indication that Sigurd had sent any envoys, so Jamke was literally just speaking from secondhanded knowledge from Adean. Hence why I said that had Sigurd sent an envoy, it would reinforce what Jamke had learned. But Sigurd didn't many any indication and instead continued to march to Verdane's capital.

If he's whispering it, then it's a question whether Claude heard it or not, but based on how Claude talks, he makes no indication of hearing it, because Sigurd speaks about his father. And this is the one and only time Sigurd ever mentions the dark cult ever. This really gives the implication that Sigurd never once informed anyone about the dark cult. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Well, everything we're saying is ultimately a conjecture in regards to what Kaga meant by saying that the tragedy would not have happened had Sigurd been a more competent person. So if the conjecture is possible, it adds to what Kaga had been intending. Similar to Sigurd never noticing the Brand of Naga on Deirdre's forehead, if Sigurd had known, he may have averted it. We're simply theorizing if it was possible or not. Everything from saying it can or can't work is meant to be speculation using the info that the game has provided and try to see it from the angle Kaga was seeing it from but failed to execute so everyone else could see it as well.

True.  I might also add that we're possibly over analyzing a single comment Kaga made. He could have waxed about Sigurd and Alvis's position without really giving it much thought. He probably wasn't thinking people would latch onto every word he said (especially foreigners in a different country twenty years later). Because whatever about Sigurd's possible faults, I think it's clear that the game is very aware the Alvis has critical failings as a human being.

To switch sides for a moment, I think the points where Sigurd was actually naive in the story would be when he believed he could sort out the Agustrian mess at the end of Chapter 2. That was very idealistic of him and he was very much unaware that Grannvale was not interested in returning sovereignty. Nevertheless there's not a whole lot he could have done even if he had been more savvy as he was under direct orders to stay. As was discussed earlier with Slumber, the fact that he trusted Alvis could be perceived as naive too, although given the circumstances I personally rate it was "not paranoid" more so than naive. But if someone wants to believe otherwise there's not much grounds to argue.

Not quite. The case here is that Verdane was the guilty party and had Sigurd insisted on peace talks, Batou would realize the error of his ways and would have made efforts to make amends to his ties. The case is that Batou being absolved of his doubts by having seen Sigurd's envoy make efforts to negotiate peace, it would prevent Batou's death, or at the very least, make Jamke ascend as the next king, who would try to not make the mistake his family did. So Verdane would not have supported Augustria, and Manfroy wouldn't be able to manipulate Verdane any longer. Also, the timing of when Sigurd makes the peace talks can be after conquering Marpha, insisting on not marching any further now that they have secured Adean, and now just wanting to make peace talks. 

Well it's fully possible, and even tactically advisable, to not march any further after conquering Marpha so you can engage Jamka and his reinforcements without being hindered by the forest. Although given the fact that all we get from conquering Marpha is the Deirdre scene instead of anything regarding the war, part of me is beginning to suspect Sigurd's reasoning for proceeding further had nothing to do with the war at all and was more about finding himself a fetching wife. I wouldn't argue that Sigurd thinking with his dick is a character flaw (even though it never actually does backfire on him).

Perhaps. But by saying that he is an opportunist, that makes it even less likely that he would try to launch an invasion of Verdane because Verdane would still have their military remaining had Sandima been ousted by Batou and Jamke. Chagall only thought that if he attacked by Granvalle was weakened and Verdane's military forces were gone, he had the chance to win and take over. But had Verdane not been conquered, then he would have to conquer Verdane and then have to face Granvalle's military might, thus the opportunity would not exist for him.

If Verdane is a neutral party (which I'm almost certain they would be in this circumstance) then they'd be irrelevant to Shagall's war. He wouldn't need to conquer Verdane at all as usurping Grannvale as the continent's super power is his aim. Given that Verdane is a disorganized land of barbarians, he probably doesn't even care for it at all beyond the tactical positioning of Evans (which we're assuming Grannvale would keep anyway).

Actually, the problem is that when Sigurd's flaws are attempted to be indicated, players don't really see it as a flaw. When Eldigan asks Sigurd why he took Evans Castle, Sigurd had to save Adean. When Sigurd invaded Augusutria and Eldigan again called him out, players by this point only see Chagall as a scumbag that was played by Manfroy. Because the attempt is that the Loptous cult is behind all the events, they end up making it so that players can only see everyone else as evil, while Sigurd is the good guy. It's a poor way that Kaga handled it that made it so that players cannot see Sigurd doing anything but good. In a way, its the opposite of Corrin. We see Corrin mess up a lot, but very few ever call him out on it.

Eldigan calling Sigurd out is the closest anyone ever gets to criticizing Sigurd, and it doesn't really stick as despite how pissed Eldigan is, Sigurd gives him a satisfying answer and justification.

Except he Sigurd didn't tell Jamke anything. They never spoke. Jamke wasn't with Adean, but Adean must have told Sigurd who rescued her. And like said earlier, no indication that Sigurd had sent any envoys, so Jamke was literally just speaking from secondhanded knowledge from Adean. Hence why I said that had Sigurd sent an envoy, it would reinforce what Jamke had learned. But Sigurd didn't many any indication and instead continued to march to Verdane's capital.

It seems inconsistent to assume Adean told Sigurd who rescued her while simultaneously assuming Sigurd and Jamka never spoke at all after he was recruited.

If he's whispering it, then it's a question whether Claude heard it or not, but based on how Claude talks, he makes no indication of hearing it, because Sigurd speaks about his father. And this is the one and only time Sigurd ever mentions the dark cult ever. This really gives the implication that Sigurd never once informed anyone about the dark cult. 

It's not really relevant if Claude heard it or not, the fact is that Sigurd didn't try to keep it a secret by muttering about it in front of someone else. The scene isn't displayed as if it's Sigurd's inner monologue. If Sigurd thought it was something that others shouldn't be made aware of, then he wouldn't have muttered about it in someone else's presence, he would have thought about it instead. I can't see any reason why Sigurd wouldn't report it though, unless he took Batou's words very seriously and assumed someone in the royal court could be a sect member. Sigurd mentioning the sect a few more times in the story (as a display of a positive or negative character trait) would be welcome though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

True.  I might also add that we're possibly over analyzing a single comment Kaga made. He could have waxed about Sigurd and Alvis's position without really giving it much thought. He probably wasn't thinking people would latch onto every word he said (especially foreigners in a different country twenty years later). Because whatever about Sigurd's possible faults, I think it's clear that the game is very aware the Alvis has critical failings as a human being.

Sure. Even Kaga hasn't actually thought everything through. Like, despite saying there must be hundreds of soldiers and mooks we don't see in there, the game dialogue indicates that it really is just the characters we see, like Quan saying that he only brought Finn, when he really brought hundreds. This could actually be a translation thing, so who knows. ANd Kaga HAS contradicted himself in his own game. He wrote in Mystery of the Emblem that Gotoh taught humans magic centuries ago. This is impossible before Gotoh taught magic the same time he established Khadein, which actually happened around half a century before the game. 

But at the same time, it's fun to speculate precisely because Kaga intended for players to make their own interpretations. I mean, fans ALWAYS look very deeply into the word of god and try to see what they intended.

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

To switch sides for a moment, I think the points where Sigurd was actually naive in the story would be when he believed he could sort out the Agustrian mess at the end of Chapter 2. That was very idealistic of him and he was very much unaware that Grannvale was not interested in returning sovereignty. Nevertheless there's not a whole lot he could have done even if he had been more savvy as he was under direct orders to stay. As was discussed earlier with Slumber, the fact that he trusted Alvis could be perceived as naive too, although given the circumstances I personally rate it was "not paranoid" more so than naive. But if someone wants to believe otherwise there's not much grounds to argue.

3

You know, I never understood why I never once indicated that. That is a VERY bold and naive thing to state. Saying that he'll sort the entire mess out in a year. Perhaps he said it at the heat of the moment, but he really didn't think ahead about how defeating Augustria would mean to Eldigan. 

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

Well it's fully possible, and even tactically advisable, to not march any further after conquering Marpha so you can engage Jamka and his reinforcements without being hindered by the forest. Although given the fact that all we get from conquering Marpha is the Deirdre scene instead of anything regarding the war, part of me is beginning to suspect Sigurd's reasoning for proceeding further had nothing to do with the war at all and was more about finding himself a fetching wife. I wouldn't argue that Sigurd thinking with his dick is a character flaw (even though it never actually does backfire on him).

2

I was SO happy when someone actually called Kaga out on how fast Sigurd and Deirdre's relationship was. Glad that Kaga admitted he intended there to be more. You think it's possible that it was a combination of Deirdre's Loptous and Naga blood that made her so "alluring" to Sigurd? In all honesty, the fact that blood bearers actually bear a "presence" kind of makes it tough to understand the deal at times. Are the emotions you feel for a person with Holy Blood truly because of that, or the blood's aura they exude? If anything, this actually makes me question every relationship in Genealogy. 

No, not even Genealogy, but any Holy Blood bearers like Alm, Celica, and the Exalted bloodline. 

Holy shit! If Alm has Duma's blood, and Celica has Mila's blood, and Duma and Mila are siblings, isn't Alm and Celica basically incest?

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

If Verdane is a neutral party (which I'm almost certain they would be in this circumstance) then they'd be irrelevant to Shagall's war. He wouldn't need to conquer Verdane at all as usurping Grannvale as the continent's super power is his aim. Given that Verdane is a disorganized land of barbarians, he probably doesn't even care for it at all beyond the tactical positioning of Evans (which we're assuming Grannvale would keep anyway).

3

Looking at some of the gameplay and the world map, the best tactical way of attack Granvalle is to go through Evans, which stands at the border between Granvalle and Verdane, as Granvalle and Aughaveria has a huge mountain between them. So it makes sense why they have to go through Verdane first before attacking Granvalle. But in such a case, doing so means that they must go through Verdane, and that would provoke an attack. Even if they are barbarians, fighting their forces and then Granvalle's forces with Sigurd may actually be risky depending on how long it takes to defeat Verdane. 

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

Eldigan calling Sigurd out is the closest anyone ever gets to criticizing Sigurd, and it doesn't really stick as despite how pissed Eldigan is, Sigurd gives him a satisfying answer and justification.

 

Exactly. From the perspective of the player, Eldigan is being a whiny idiot that is trying to help a man that literally imprisoned him and tried to attack Verdane and beat Sigurd. Any attempts to criticize Sigurd feels silly because the player doesn't really see themselves doing anything wrong. The very and most common excuse is easily used, "They started it." Just further expanded.

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

It seems inconsistent to assume Adean told Sigurd who rescued her while simultaneously assuming Sigurd and Jamka never spoke at all after he was recruited.

 

You may be misinterpreting the timing of events. Adean is saved before conquering Marpha. Jamke had gone back to the capital of Verdane after setting Adean free. So Jamke wouldn't have personally met Sigurd, but rather it would happen after Sigurd continues his attack. 

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

It's not really relevant if Claude heard it or not, the fact is that Sigurd didn't try to keep it a secret by muttering about it in front of someone else. The scene isn't displayed as if it's Sigurd's inner monologue. If Sigurd thought it was something that others shouldn't be made aware of, then he wouldn't have muttered about it in someone else's presence, he would have thought about it instead. I can't see any reason why Sigurd wouldn't report it though, unless he took Batou's words very seriously and assumed someone in the royal court could be a sect member. Sigurd mentioning the sect a few more times in the story (as a display of a positive or negative character trait) would be welcome though.

He doesn't really try to hide it, but it could be viewed as another way to indicate his naivete. He gets told this, but despite having this information, he simply isn't able to understand it or really know what to do with it. Having information, but having no idea how to make use of that information is a trait of naivete. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Sure. Even Kaga hasn't actually thought everything through. Like, despite saying there must be hundreds of soldiers and mooks we don't see in there, the game dialogue indicates that it really is just the characters we see, like Quan saying that he only brought Finn, when he really brought hundreds. This could actually be a translation thing, so who knows. ANd Kaga HAS contradicted himself in his own game. He wrote in Mystery of the Emblem that Gotoh taught humans magic centuries ago. This is impossible before Gotoh taught magic the same time he established Khadein, which actually happened around half a century before the game. 

But at the same time, it's fun to speculate precisely because Kaga intended for players to make their own interpretations. I mean, fans ALWAYS look very deeply into the word of god and try to see what they intended.

It is possible Gotoh taught humans magic twice and the art was lost. Thabes at least was meant to be a haven for magic. Magic only having existed in Archanea for a few decades always seemed weird to me.

And on the unit number thing, the short story the fall of Leinster indicates the numbers are exactly what we see with everyone loosing their shit over Thracia sending 20 dragon knights or something. On the other hand, Thracia completely destroys the idea of what we see is what is happening as we view the exact same battles in Thraca where there's more troops fielded on both sides.

You know, I never understood why I never once indicated that. That is a VERY bold and naive thing to state. Saying that he'll sort the entire mess out in a year. Perhaps he said it at the heat of the moment, but he really didn't think ahead about how defeating Augustria would mean to Eldigan. 

I was SO happy when someone actually called Kaga out on how fast Sigurd and Deirdre's relationship was. Glad that Kaga admitted he intended there to be more. You think it's possible that it was a combination of Deirdre's Loptous and Naga blood that made her so "alluring" to Sigurd? In all honesty, the fact that blood bearers actually bear a "presence" kind of makes it tough to understand the deal at times. Are the emotions you feel for a person with Holy Blood truly because of that, or the blood's aura they exude? If anything, this actually makes me question every relationship in Genealogy. 

No, not even Genealogy, but any Holy Blood bearers like Alm, Celica, and the Exalted bloodline. 

Holy shit! If Alm has Duma's blood, and Celica has Mila's blood, and Duma and Mila are siblings, isn't Alm and Celica basically incest?

Eh, they have a bunch of blood from other people, so pretty distantly related. At least no worse than Holyn and Ayra.

Looking at some of the gameplay and the world map, the best tactical way of attack Granvalle is to go through Evans, which stands at the border between Granvalle and Verdane, as Granvalle and Aughaveria has a huge mountain between them. So it makes sense why they have to go through Verdane first before attacking Granvalle. But in such a case, doing so means that they must go through Verdane, and that would provoke an attack. Even if they are barbarians, fighting their forces and then Granvalle's forces with Sigurd may actually be risky depending on how long it takes to defeat Verdane. 

I thought we were working under the assumption that Grannvale was keeping Evans due to its tactical usefulness. If Sigurd returns Evans as well then it would just make Grannvale look that much more incompetent at war.

Exactly. From the perspective of the player, Eldigan is being a whiny idiot that is trying to help a man that literally imprisoned him and tried to attack Verdane and beat Sigurd. Any attempts to criticize Sigurd feels silly because the player doesn't really see themselves doing anything wrong. The very and most common excuse is easily used, "They started it." Just further expanded.

You may be misinterpreting the timing of events. Adean is saved before conquering Marpha. Jamke had gone back to the capital of Verdane after setting Adean free. So Jamke wouldn't have personally met Sigurd, but rather it would happen after Sigurd continues his attack. 

You're saying after Marpha is conquered and before Jamka reappears this would happen, but if that's the case, then Adean has told Sigurd Jamka is sorting the issue out, so they need only wait for him to do so. And then he shows up ready to attack them.

He doesn't really try to hide it, but it could be viewed as another way to indicate his naivete. He gets told this, but despite having this information, he simply isn't able to understand it or really know what to do with it. Having information, but having no idea how to make use of that information is a trait of naivete. 

I disagree. If someone gave me the plans to build a nuclear sub and a crew to carry out my orders, I'd be completely clueless as to what to do, but I wouldn't consider myself naive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Jotari said:

 

Thabes was something that all dragons taught to the humans, rather than just Gotoh. It is weird, and more than likely a plothole. Similar to how some novelization mentions that Lifis founded the Kingdom of Archanea, making Lifis Adrah makes no sense because that's 400 years away.

Thracia at least mentions there are more people around. Like when Leif meets Seliph, it's mentioned that Seliph commands an army 10x Leif's size. 

Or Claude and Sylvia

Getting to Evans Castle requires them to cross into Verdane territory, even if Granvalle controls Evans, so the act of crossing that would prompt Verdane to act. 

But it would then be wise to send an envoy all the more. If Jamke is trying to stop things peacefully, and Sigurd makes his intentions known that he means peace, then it would benefit them all the more. 

I'm not sure that's the right comparison, really. Sigurd knowing that the dark cult is up to something. But never mentioned it means he really isn't giving it much thought. Hell, when Deirdre went missing, Sigurd didn't even note the dark cult there either, instead, he just wondered where Deirdre went. It really gives the impression that Sigurd isn't trying to make an effort to piece together the information. 

No wonder Seliph is not as naive. Seliph didn't need to piece any info, because the bad guys exposed themselves. And Lewyn pieced the remaining info together for Seliph to learn. So it isn't that Seliph is less naive than Sigurd. But Seliph didn't have as much of a mystery or as much thinking to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 24-2-2019 at 7:02 PM, omegaxis1 said:

Also, both Arvis and Azelle loved one another. But it wasn't that he kept them at arm's length. Kaga himself went off to explain that Azelle felt pressured in Arvis's presence, because he felt out of reach, and even the case that being in Arvis's presence felt suffocating, perhaps due to Loptous's blood. 

I don't think Arvis blood had anything to do with Azelle's complex feelings towards him. Its more a case that their personalities don't match. Arvis is cold and strict while Azelle is sensitive, meek and unlikely to stand up for himself. Arvis doesn't seem the type Azelle could have gone to if he ever wanted to talk about his emotions. But Azelle also isn't just afraid of Arvis but specifically by the feeling he's a burden on Arvis. Azelle's status as a bastard probably plays some factor in this. Bastards don't seem terribly common in Jugdral and he's a permanent reminder of the whole affair with his father. 

But the bro's definitely love each other. Arvis says as much to Sigurd and Azelle agrees with Lex that Arvis has always been good to them, and calls him his father figure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I don't think Arvis blood had anything to do with Azelle's complex feelings towards him. Its more a case that their personalities don't match. Arvis is cold and strict while Azelle is sensitive, meek and unlikely to stand up for himself. Arvis doesn't seem the type Azelle could have gone to if he ever wanted to talk about his emotions. But Azelle also isn't just afraid of Arvis but specifically by the feeling he's a burden on Arvis. Azelle's status as a bastard probably plays some factor in this. Bastards don't seem terribly common in Jugdral and he's a permanent reminder of the whole affair with his father. 

But the bro's definitely love each other. Arvis says as much to Sigurd and Azelle agrees with Lex that Arvis has always been good to them, and calls him his father figure. 

I try to consider that the perception of how one views someone is enhanced by the Holy Blood or can warp someone's perception. it is mentioned in Genealogy that Julius somehow has this aura around him that attracts others and make them act oddly. 

So Azelle's existing perception of Arvis only gets magnified by the Loptous Blood in Arvis. I don't think Kaga would have left this Loptous blood thing in unless it is what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

I try to consider that the perception of how one views someone is enhanced by the Holy Blood or can warp someone's perception. it is mentioned in Genealogy that Julius somehow has this aura around him that attracts others and make them act oddly. 

So Azelle's existing perception of Arvis only gets magnified by the Loptous Blood in Arvis. I don't think Kaga would have left this Loptous blood thing in unless it is what happened.

Julius is exception because he is Anti Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hanhnn said:

Julius is exception because he is Anti Christ.

Do remember Azmur first sensed something from Deirdre before they saw her mark. At the very least, a mayor blood can give off something. Nothing yet if a minor can or can't, but Kaga's statement leans that yes, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I don't think Arvis blood had anything to do with Azelle's complex feelings towards him. Its more a case that their personalities don't match. Arvis is cold and strict while Azelle is sensitive, meek and unlikely to stand up for himself. Arvis doesn't seem the type Azelle could have gone to if he ever wanted to talk about his emotions. But Azelle also isn't just afraid of Arvis but specifically by the feeling he's a burden on Arvis. Azelle's status as a bastard probably plays some factor in this. Bastards don't seem terribly common in Jugdral and he's a permanent reminder of the whole affair with his father. 

But the bro's definitely love each other. Arvis says as much to Sigurd and Azelle agrees with Lex that Arvis has always been good to them, and calls him his father figure. 

List of known bastards in Jugdral

*Azelle

*Deirdre

*Julius (counting the first marriage as legitimate, otherwise Seliph's the bastard)

*Julia (counting the first marriage as legitimate, otherwise Seliph's the bastard)

*Saias

Oh wow, they're all from Velthomer, way to give yourself a reputation guys.

 

Unconfirmed but possible bastards

*Lex

*Andrei

*Lachesis

*All those random bosses with Sety blood that don't seem to be related to the royal family at all.

The reason for the first three is that they're said to have different parents to their siblings in out of game sources. Which either means bastards, or possible that polygamy is a-ok-ay in Jugdral society. Which if that's the case it kind of loosens Seliph's claim to the throne over Julius as it comes purely down to "I'm elder" rather than "I'm elder and you were born from brain washing rape."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe for those cases the fathers just remarried after their first wives died or something. Besides, if polyamory was allowed, I doubt Victor would have the reputation he had as a womanizer.

You know, part of me thinks some of the minor bosses who have Holy Blood are there just for gameplay. Like, Musar's Minor Forseti seems to be more for him to use Tornado rather than actually being a descendant of the crusader. Same goes for the Dreadlords with Holy Blood. It's not a coincidence they're in classes that only have up to B in their weapons ranks, so the Holy Bloods give them that rank bumpb to A. The alternative would be giving them the classes that do have A in ranks, but considering they're stuff like Master Knights and Barons, perhaps the minor blood was an alternative to that?

About the only thing this wouldn't explain are the Pegasus Knight trio in the Final Chapter. All minor Forseti blood, but their class don't use Wind magic. The only gameplay explanation I can think of is the boost to Speed growth. Seriously, the trio are one of the few bosses that cap the stat. Only Arvis and Ishtar's last two appearances cap Speed, but the thing about them is they're at max level, while the PK trio are five levels under but already reached max speed. Considering their Leg Rings and Earth Swords, it looks like the minor Forseti was so they could max speed and abuse it with their weapons and absurd move range. Then again, I don't think boss stats work like that. Still, their speed is still a bit abnormal, and it's too much a coincidence they have one of the two holy bloods that give a 30% increase to speed growth. 

Though again, that's my speculation. It could still be possible their minor bloods can also apply in-story. Though it would be hard to say. Only Musar has any background info, which is being the son of someone a Silessian Knight in the Liberation Army killed. Though that barely helps, considering Lewyn's uncles had no holy blood (among the main candidates for this, then again, only the killer is identified as Silessian, so...). Though... well, it's hard to say if that's intended, or they should have minor blood and isn't presented in-game.

Edited by Acacia Sgt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Or maybe for those cases the fathers just remarried after their first wives died or something. Besides, if polyamory was allowed, I doubt Victor would have the reputation he had as a womanizer.

You know, part of me thinks some of the minor bosses who have Holy Blood are there just for gameplay. Like, Musar's Minor Forseti seems to be more for him to use Tornado rather than actually being a descendant of the crusader. Same goes for the Dreadlords with Holy Blood. It's not a coincidence they're in classes that only have up to B in their weapons ranks, so the Holy Bloods give them that rank bumpb to A. The alternative would be giving them the classes that do have A in ranks, but considering they're stuff like Master Knights and Barons, perhaps the minor blood was an alternative to that?

About the only thing this wouldn't explain are the Pegasus Knight trio in the Final Chapter. All minor Forseti blood, but their class don't use Wind magic. The only gameplay explanation I can think of is the boost to Speed growth. Seriously, the trio are one of the few bosses that cap the stat. Only Arvis and Ishtar's last two appearances cap Speed, but the thing about them is they're at max level, while the PK trio are five levels under but already reached max speed. Considering their Leg Rings and Earth Swords, it looks like the minor Forseti was so they could max speed and abuse it with their weapons and absurd move range. Then again, I don't think boss stats work like that. Still, their speed is still a bit abnormal, and it's too much a coincidence they have one of the two holy bloods that give a 30% increase to speed growth. 

Though again, that's my speculation. It could still be possible their minor bloods can also apply in-story. Though it would be hard to say. Only Musar has any background info, which is being the son of someone a Silessian Knight in the Liberation Army killed. Though that barely helps, considering Lewyn's uncles had no holy blood (among the main candidates for this, then again, only the killer is identified as Silessian, so...). Though... well, it's hard to say if that's intended, or they should have minor blood and isn't presented in-game.

Polyamory and womanizing aren't the same thing. Victor easily still could have had multiple affairs and been frowned on. For it to be polyamory he'd need to be marrying the multiple women he's having affairs with (which judging by the fact that his first reaction was to banish Azelle's mother when he found out she was pregnant, he clearly wouldn't have been on board with).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/7/2019 at 9:24 PM, Jotari said:

List of known bastards in Jugdral

*Azelle

*Deirdre

*Julius (counting the first marriage as legitimate, otherwise Seliph's the bastard)

*Julia (counting the first marriage as legitimate, otherwise Seliph's the bastard)

*Saias

Oh wow, they're all from Velthomer, way to give yourself a reputation guys.

 

Unconfirmed but possible bastards

*Lex

*Andrei

*Lachesis

*All those random bosses with Sety blood that don't seem to be related to the royal family at all.

The reason for the first three is that they're said to have different parents to their siblings in out of game sources. Which either means bastards, or possible that polygamy is a-ok-ay in Jugdral society. Which if that's the case it kind of loosens Seliph's claim to the throne over Julius as it comes purely down to "I'm elder" rather than "I'm elder and you were born from brain washing rape."

Actually, in the the case of Arvis and Deirdre's marriage you could argue that it wasn't legitimate since Sigurd was still alive and well when Arvis made her his fiance and because they're half siblings. Any child from that union is therefore considered to be not just a bastard child but also a child of incest.

If Seliph didn't exist then they'd probably would be accepted as legitimate but since he exists they aren't. Seliph's claim to the throne is that he's older, male, from a legitimate marriage from two able minded and consenting adults who weren't siblings.

Edited by Earth Worm Jim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

Actually, in the the case of Arvis and Deirdre's marriage you could argue that it wasn't legitimate since Sigurd was still alive and well when Arvis made her his fiance and because they're half siblings. Any child from that union is therefore considered to be not just a bastard child but also a child of incest.

If Seliph didn't exist then they'd probably would be accepted as legitimate but since he exists they aren't. Seliph's claim to the throne is that he's older, male, from a legitimate marriage from two able minded and consenting adults who weren't siblings.

I dunno. For one thing, Azmur himself is the one that recognized their marriage and even insisted on them having children. Yes, he is missing information, but in the end, his recognition of their marriage justifies their marriage as legitimate. That makes both Julius and Julia legitimate children. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

Actually, in the the case of Arvis and Deirdre's marriage you could argue that it wasn't legitimate since Sigurd was still alive and well when Arvis made her his fiance and because they're half siblings. Any child from that union is therefore considered to be not just a bastard child but also a child of incest.

If Seliph didn't exist then they'd probably would be accepted as legitimate but since he exists they aren't. Seliph's claim to the throne is that he's older, male, from a legitimate marriage from two able minded and consenting adults who weren't siblings.

Eh, yeah...That's precisely why I listed Julia and Julius as bastards. I'm not sure how you missed that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, omegaxis1 said:

I dunno. For one thing, Azmur himself is the one that recognized their marriage and even insisted on them having children. Yes, he is missing information, but in the end, his recognition of their marriage justifies their marriage as legitimate. That makes both Julius and Julia legitimate children. 

If anything Azmur acknowledging it delegitimizes it even more because it was done under false pretenses. It works against Arvis as all it means is that he misrepresented the truth to the king. Whether or not Azmur found out about it doesn't matter, all that matters is the truth. Julius and Julia aren't legitimate children, it isn't surprising as the relationship wasn't ever meant to be seen as a good thing. 

It's strange to accept but kings aren't all powerful his words are tentative law. Case in point Elizabeth I's brother Edward had intended for his cousin to take the throne after his death signed it as law, usurping his sister's natural position as the one who stood to rule upon his death. But that didn't last long because Edward didn't have the power to decide on things like that. A king's words aren't the be all end all especially after their death and in light of new information.

29 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Eh, yeah...That's precisely why I listed Julia and Julius as bastards. I'm not sure how you missed that.

What I was trying to point out is that Seliph's claim is more than just he's the oldest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

If anything Azmur acknowledging it delegitimizes it even more because it was done under false pretenses. It works against Arvis as all it means is that he misrepresented the truth to the king. Whether or not Azmur found out about it doesn't matter, all that matters is the truth. Julius and Julia aren't legitimate children, it isn't surprising as the relationship wasn't ever meant to be seen as a good thing. 

It's strange to accept but kings aren't all powerful his words are tentative law. Case in point Elizabeth I's brother Edward had intended for his cousin to take the throne after his death signed it as law, usurping his sister's natural position as the one who stood to rule upon his death. But that didn't last long because Edward didn't have the power to decide on things like that. A king's words aren't the be all end all especially after their death and in light of new information.

 

Not quite. Azmur recognizing the marriage is perfectly legal. If anything, Seliph's claim on the throne is entirely because he's the older male. Had he been female, as intended, Julius has all the claim to the throne over Seliph, simply because he was male. 

The relationship between Arvis and Deirdre isn't depicted as a good thing because of the circumstances of how it was and what became of it. Deirdre had to be kidnapped and mindwiped so that she met with Arvis. But had they met under legit terms, where Arvis was the one that helped Deirdre out in Sigurd's place, Deirdre would have fallen in love with Arvis automatically. 

And in regards to the case of creating the anti-Christ, let's take an understanding of Linoan. In a scenario where Julius won, and Linoan had had two children, one with her betrothed, and the other with his guard that protected her and she fell for. Then the children are two Naga Minor bloods. Then to save the world, the two Minor Bloods are forced apart from their loved ones, forced to hook up, and ultimately die horrible deaths in the end, but their child is the Major Naga Blood that defeats Julius, and thus saves the world.

Or the two Minor Bloods did love each other and did hook up.

Ultimately, how the story portrays events can paint things in different ways. 

Because of how Arvis and Deirdre's marriage happened, it feels incest is bad, especially cause it creates the anti-Christ. But the same thing can happen to create the Christ child. 

Just as Arvis and Deirdre could have legitimately fallen for one another depending on circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

If anything Azmur acknowledging it delegitimizes it even more because it was done under false pretenses. It works against Arvis as all it means is that he misrepresented the truth to the king. Whether or not Azmur found out about it doesn't matter, all that matters is the truth. Julius and Julia aren't legitimate children, it isn't surprising as the relationship wasn't ever meant to be seen as a good thing. 

It's strange to accept but kings aren't all powerful his words are tentative law. Case in point Elizabeth I's brother Edward had intended for his cousin to take the throne after his death signed it as law, usurping his sister's natural position as the one who stood to rule upon his death. But that didn't last long because Edward didn't have the power to decide on things like that. A king's words aren't the be all end all especially after their death and in light of new information.

What I was trying to point out is that Seliph's claim is more than just he's the oldest. 

I know. I said that's his only claim if polygamy is accepted in Jugdral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, omegaxis1 said:

Not quite. Azmur recognizing the marriage is perfectly legal. If anything, Seliph's claim on the throne is entirely because he's the older male. Had he been female, as intended, Julius has all the claim to the throne over Seliph, simply because he was male. 

The relationship between Arvis and Deirdre isn't depicted as a good thing because of the circumstances of how it was and what became of it. Deirdre had to be kidnapped and mindwiped so that she met with Arvis. But had they met under legit terms, where Arvis was the one that helped Deirdre out in Sigurd's place, Deirdre would have fallen in love with Arvis automatically. 

And in regards to the case of creating the anti-Christ, let's take an understanding of Linoan. In a scenario where Julius won, and Linoan had had two children, one with her betrothed, and the other with his guard that protected her and she fell for. Then the children are two Naga Minor bloods. Then to save the world, the two Minor Bloods are forced apart from their loved ones, forced to hook up, and ultimately die horrible deaths in the end, but their child is the Major Naga Blood that defeats Julius, and thus saves the world.

Or the two Minor Bloods did love each other and did hook up.

Ultimately, how the story portrays events can paint things in different ways. 

Because of how Arvis and Deirdre's marriage happened, it feels incest is bad, especially cause it creates the anti-Christ. But the same thing can happen to create the Christ child. 

Just as Arvis and Deirdre could have legitimately fallen for one another depending on circumstances.

No it is not because it was under false pretenses, Azmur  blessed the marriage based on the pretense that Deirdre was unmarried (she wasn't), that she was his only direct descendant (she wasn't), that Arvis and Deirdre weren't incestuous (that were). Because of that Azmur blessing the marriage is moot,  because if Azmur had the full knowledge he wouldn't have allowed Arvis to marry Deirdre.

If you marry someone under false pretenses depending on what that pretense is (such as that person being your sibling ) that marriage is void. It doesn't matter who blessed the marriage, because they were lied to anyway.

Children born from an incestuous union are considered to be bastard children. Arvis and Deirdre being siblings voids their marriage, it doesn't matter that the king blessed the union because it was under false pretenses. Arvis's feelings for Deirdre don't matter. 

 

The reason why Arvis and Deirdre are shown in a bad light is because they're siblings, Arvis only loves her because he  has an Oedipus complex, Deirdre was brainwashed, she was kidnapped from her happy marriage,  she was torn away from her child,  and they're only together because of an evil cult set out to bringing back their evil god. There's a laundry list of reasons for why they're shown in a negative light. 

You could even make the argument that Arvis never truly loved Deirdre, he was just projecting his love and abandonment issues onto her. Because Arvis "love" was more akin to posession, he didn't put Deirdre's feelings and well being first instead he focused more on himself. 

Even arguing the way how they met is moot because even if you got rid of the Manfroy and his planning then Arvis and Deirdre wouldn't have ended up together anyway because Deirdre would have no reason to have been hidden. And neither would the secret of her existence and relation to Arvis. In fact that'd more likely to be the thing that people would have found out first. Arvis would have been soundly rejected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...