+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 54 of 54

Thread: Elahrairah monologues as his water ship goes down...

  1. #41

    Default Re: Elahrairah monologues as his water ship goes down...

    Quote Originally Posted by lr-hr-rh View Post
    Hahaha oh don't worry, I gave Corrin a lot more flack than I included here. That stuff mostly got redacted out though :P.
    I would be remiss if I didn't mention that I pity Corrin somewhat, on the basis that he/she has gathered so much hate but I digress.

    You are suggesting there is less moral culpability when killing happens during war, I am trying to get you to tell me *why* that's the case. Why are you a killer if you break into my house and kill my family but you aren't if you willingly invade my country and kill them as they try and defend their homes? In both instances you could just...you know...not do that
    I alluded to the fact that you ARE more of a "killer" if you're being the aggressor opposed to being the defender. If you want cold hard facts, then yes, any soldier that's shot someone is a killer. But being a "killer" carries a lot of negative connotation. I would certainly love a world where all wars are peaceful, but by very definition, they're often not. But I'm just confused on your stance of moral culpability. Are you saying veterans of a war should be shunned because they possibly have killed someone, even if it's a defensive side?

    Indeed, but Nohr is the one that crosses the sea. The South Koreans are the Hoshidans in this example :P
    You're ignoring chapter 9 and 10 where we're fighting Hoshidans on Nohrian soil. Yes Nohr started it, but to the average joe schmo fighting in the port town of Dia who has no idea what happened, just "war now", in their eyes they're protecting their land.

    Huh? There's time travel shenanigans in Fates too? :O Or by timeline did you just mean BR/CQ/RV? Because I object to the Nohrians in all of them, and I think Mikoto dies in all of them too? I'm not sure about that though. Anyway I don't really think it matters whether or not Garon is possessed. I mean, to me it doesn't. An evil act is an evil act.
    The timeline doesn't split until chapter 6, but in all of them, Mikoto dies.

    That's why I included the pre-amble about Xander's (and by extension, the rest of the royal children's) one-eyed devotion to their father. To be willing to kill people that I believe to be as innocent as any other civilian because your dad told you to is not something I think a good person should do.
    Again, what one-eyed devotion though? I've given you circumstances where they try to defy their father (less so in Xander than in the others, but still). If you *really* want me to split hairs on this, point me to the scene where they're gleefully chopping up Hoshidans in cutscenes???
    From what I understand, the fact that they're choosing to fight in this aggressive war (NOT explicitly kill, just fight) makes them bad people? Or am I reading it incorrectly?

    And to be fair I deliberately didn't include Elise in this discussion :P. Besides, while I do believe that Leo eventually grows into something resembling a human being (sorry if I'm really harsh on him, but I *really* hate the way he treats Forrest), that is after he has been willingly complicit in the murder of Hoshidans, that is to say he has been, without initial reservation, actively involved in the war effort.
    I guess this answers my above question then haha. It's interesting that you mention Forrest, because technically, should that matter in the list of story grievances? The children were shoehorned into the game and they don't affect anything at all. But that's just more semantics I guess.

    And I think that's where you and I are having a lot of differences here: to me, each and every Hoshidan killed by one of the Nohrian royals is the active murder of an innocent. So when you point out that they *eventually* decide to resist, in some ways, to me it reads as; "sure they may have killed, 50+ perfectly innocent people, but they eventually learned the error of the ways."
    What does it mean to be a soldier, then? When you don the uniform, pick up a weapon, and fight, for offense or defense, you're acknowledging that you *might* die, but that's the risk you're going to take. That doesn't mean they should die, mind you, but what war is fought without death, in all media? The scrub soldiers you're lobbing off in early game FE6 are technically soldiers just fighting to follow their command, and yet we're lobbing them off too.

    To which my only response can be that I wouldn't need to wade through the blood of more people than I can count on my hands before I realised that killing innocents is a bad idea :/. And so it confuses me that eventually learning so basic a lesson is held up as a positive in their regard.
    From the get-go, Corrin doesn't try to kill innocents (ice tribe, Notre Sagesse), in those chapters, the unit technically does not die. When we're controlling them in game, when we draw the line and say "okay, HERE Camilla is murdering a dude but HERE Effie isn't???" How can you even tell who's really dying and just being "defeated" anymore?

    But I agree with your point that Corrin and Azura are also to blame, I just use Xander as he's the one who seems to most directly tie his actions to his loyalty to his father, a position that bugs me a lot.
    It's the consequence of being the "Camus", yet I agree it isn't portrayed the best. In supports you can understand that once upon a time, Garon was different - for example, in his support with Sakura, he mentions that he was a shy child that stuttered, yet his father motivated him to be more confident, to look him in the eyes, but in the story, Garon is *too* evil, and so, it makes Xander look dumb. I've always extrapolated that he tries to cling to the idea of what his father was, because he was the first born, and the only Nohrian royal sired by both him and the queen, and I do wish the game had more closure on that front.

    And of course trade is unlikely to be feasible, the point is it is unfeasible *because of the actions of the Nohrians*. There is therefore, to me, no moral justification to be found in appealing to some sort of economic hardship suffered by the Nohrian people as a just cause for war because they might not be suffering so much if their leadership hadn't been so god damn belligerent. That Xander and co are willing to support the man who, by his bone-headed, ridiculously aggressive, foreign policy decisions has made things so much worse for their people does not make me think of them any more positively.
    You're right, things could've went differently from the get-go. But I still have to disagree with the equation that not being the best oppressor equates "well, they're JUST as horrible as Garon", it's a unfair and false equality.

    Being a royal to me means being in a position of influence and authority and, in the world of FE, being a person with great martial power. I fault all of the Nohrian nobles (sans Elise who is, regardless of what the localisation team says, somewhere around 12)
    Dude, she is, the line is not meant to be taken literally, it's metaphorical :P

    or lending their considerable power and influence to the war effort in any regard. They are born into a position of great privilege and using that in active support of their father's war effort is a failing of that position both to their people (who are dragged into a pointless war at the whims of a madman) and as a moral failing more generally. Plus the fact that they are angry and resentful of Corrin (even initially) when he decides *not* to support their obviously ridiculous invasion of a perfectly peaceful nation makes things even worse in my opinion. Blind loyalty, to your family, to your state, to whatever, like that displayed by Leo and Camilla in their resentment is deeply problematic to me. "How dare you not want to kill innocents sibling?" is a deeply problematic attitude for someone to hold, again in my opinion.
    Again, both of them are not blindly loyal, they both give frustrations at their father's character, I don't agree that both are now equal to Xander's own narrative follies.

    Oh I agree that CQ could have been a lot better than it was. Just making the Hoshidans an even approximately equivalent belligerent in the whole war would've fixed loads.
    Exactly!
    Also you wrote a CQ fic?
    Ummm not exactly, more of a fix fic in general? It started off as a silly romp with Anna, but as I've written further and further, I've included elements to repair some of the dodgy elements - Nohr's problem is established from the start, Xander questions his father more, Azura isn't as secretive, etc.

    Btw is there a particular reason you spoilered your comment? I ask because I (obviously) didn't spoiler mine, but if you had a particular reason in mind I should probably edit mine in the future :O
    Oh, I was just worried I'd have this gigantic block of text or something, just to speed up the page loading for others :)

    Anyway, going back to where we started, perhaps separate from FE for a second, I'd like to hear your answer to the question I posed in the OP. In the scenarios of armed robbery I described, when do you think the person who kills is no longer a killer in the same regard as someone who, say, just randomly stabs someone in the street?
    See it feels like you're implying that every death cannot be justified in *some* way, and that self-defense isn't an excuse...?
    I mean, we rationalize these things to make ourselves feel better, even though there might be someone that mourned the robber, criminal or not. If I'm some kind of monster for protecting myself, then I guess the cards fall where they may :(

    To give you an idea, I was once almost mugged. Two people, one of them had a knife. In the front of my mind I was legitimately scared I was going to get steel in my chest, bleed out, and die, and I panicked like crazy and shouted for help. They ran, but my heart wouldn't stop racing. Did I picture some situation where I yank the knife out of their hands and kicked their asses? Yes, but I'm not sure if I would kill them in my panic. I was just focusing on surviving.

  2. #42
    Stranger in a Strange Land lr-hr-rh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Limbo

    Default Re: Elahrairah monologues as his water ship goes down...

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    I would be remiss if I didn't mention that I pity Corrin somewhat, on the basis that he/she has gathered so much hate but I digress.

    I alluded to the fact that you ARE more of a "killer" if you're being the aggressor opposed to being the defender. If you want cold hard facts, then yes, any soldier that's shot someone is a killer. But being a "killer" carries a lot of negative connotation. I would certainly love a world where all wars are peaceful, but by very definition, they're often not. But I'm just confused on your stance of moral culpability. Are you saying veterans of a war should be shunned because they possibly have killed someone, even if it's a defensive side?
    No I'm definitely not saying that Meta :P. I've been deliberately framing my consideration of the morality of the issue from the perspective of whether or not it is *more* justifiable to kill a defending soldier than it is to kill a civilian. I can't really tell if you're framing this more complicatedly than it needs to be because your definitions are consistent with your considerations of morality more generally or just in the context of this discussion of Fates. Because I mean, it seems like you're deliberately avoiding the core concern of mine. I believe the Nohrians to be in the moral wrong because they engaged in the killing of Hoshidan soldiers, with emphasis on the specifics of the unique circumstances of *Hoshidan* soldiers.
    The Nohrians did not *have* to kill them, they could have just not gone to war. There is therefore no argument for their acting in self defence (yes even when the war shifts to their own soil, we don't suddenly consider the Nazis to be the good guys just because their genocidal war of racist conquest eventually lead to the British, American and Russian forces closing in on their homeland) because they were placed into positions where their mortality was imperiled by their very own aggressive actions (hence my use of multiple examples of criminals killing home owners as the latter try to defend themselves against the predations of the former; chances are you wouldn't say the thieves were justifiably acting in self defence).
    There is also, as I pointed out with mention to the nonsense of the argument from famine, no moral justification to be found in some sort of "just war" where the Nohrians are in some sort of moral right because the Hoshidans are deliberately leaving them to starve.
    There is also an absence of the typical moral ambiguity that is found in modern warfare where most all political actors, in our real world, can't really be described as good or bad. This moral ambiguity generally removes concerns of morality for more practical concerns of legality, international relations, political fallout and the like. There *might* not have been anything morally wrong in American troops following orders to depose a dictator in Iraq (looking at this in a *very* simplified way), but that didn't make the invasion good even if I wouldn't necessarily call the soldiers that fought to remove said dictator evil for any killing they had to do.
    Warfare in Fates is decidely *not* like that. It is much more akin to the example I described in my initial post, where people have taken up arms to defend their country, have not behaved belligerently (and it fact have behaved with great restraint in the face of constant provocation) and are then set upon by an aggressive force and made to fight a defensive war to protect their homes. Yes warfare is often messy, but in this case it isn't: Nohr didn't *have* to invade Hoshido. There were no considerations of self-defence and no just cause. In *these particular circumstances* I consider those people who *willingly* engage in this war to be as evil as any other killer. Where those circumstances aren't meant my moral evaluations change accordingly.

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    You're ignoring chapter 9 and 10 where we're fighting Hoshidans on Nohrian soil. Yes Nohr started it, but to the average joe schmo fighting in the port town of Dia who has no idea what happened, just "war now", in their eyes they're protecting their land.
    Hm? I don't need to be ignoring any of that. Nohrians fighting in defense of their homes have different considerations of culpability as they meet different circumstances in their actions. This is different to members of an aggressive army put on the defensive by failures of their offensive operations. I wouldn't consider those Nohrians trying to defend their homes to be any more evil, but again it's disingenous to suggest that most Nohrians fit these descriptions. As I've mentioned repeatedly, Nohr did not *have* to go to war. They could have avoided difficulties like threats to their lands and people by just, you know, not starting a war. There's nothing morally ambiguous about that. If you don't want potentially bad things to happen don't just arbitrarily decide to try and kill people.

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    Again, what one-eyed devotion though? I've given you circumstances where they try to defy their father (less so in Xander than in the others, but still). If you *really* want me to split hairs on this, point me to the scene where they're gleefully chopping up Hoshidans in cutscenes???
    From what I understand, the fact that they're choosing to fight in this aggressive war (NOT explicitly kill, just fight) makes them bad people? Or am I reading it incorrectly?
    Meta. I understand that most of this doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of anything. That this is just fiction and so on. But, for the purposes of treating this as *real* for this conversation, it seems really strange to me that you consider the occasional defiance of their father to be enough to prove that they aren't, in general, irrationally and problematically beholden to the will of their father. Because let's get real about this for a second. By their very actions and deeds, there are people all over the world, in Nohr, in Hoshido, everywhere, who have suffered the tragedy of lost loved ones. Spouses brutally and nonsensically ripped out of their loved ones lives for absolutely no reason at all. Children forced into the defence of their homes dying before their grieving parents. The protections of civilisation against the worst excesses of man torn away by a completely unnecessary war, with thousands of innocents lives upturned on the violent whims of a madman (just go and read again through the treatment of civilians during war time, go and read about just how commonplace things like sexual violence in captured cities was during most every period in human history). These are actions, consequences, aided and abetted by the nobles of the Nohrian family. In consideration of the grand scale of that horrific suffering, I honestly do not care if Camilla got angry at daddy a couple of times. I really don't.
    Take that anger and bring back someone's child with it.
    Take Leo's eventual defection and return the innocence to those raped and brutalised in the fallout of the defenders of their homes being swept away.
    You can't. Destruction and sadness and loss and pain on a scale difficult to imagine, facilitated by people like Camilla and Leo and Xander, who donned arms and fought a war they should've known they didn't need to fight.
    And I say "on the violent whims of a madman", but that's not even true is it? Garon didn't murder those people. He probably murdered fewer people in the war than bloody Xander did. His army, his children, his generals, acted as extensions of his will. It was by their actions that this suffering was unleashed on the world. And while, in this simplified sense I can give the everyday soldiers some sort of pass (maybe), the people in positions of authority? The people close to the seat of power? Them not so much.

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    What does it mean to be a soldier, then? When you don the uniform, pick up a weapon, and fight, for offense or defense, you're acknowledging that you *might* die, but that's the risk you're going to take. That doesn't mean they should die, mind you, but what war is fought without death, in all media? The scrub soldiers you're lobbing off in early game FE6 are technically soldiers just fighting to follow their command, and yet we're lobbing them off too.
    I feel like I've already answered this point elsewhere, but again, taking up arms in defence of your home, with knowledge that you might die (and even then you might die anyway, and I'd definitely encourage you to not ignore the civilian casualties that arise as a result of the actions of soldiers and generals) but also the knowledge that, without your intervention, you might lose everything you love, is not the same thing as taking up arms so that you might use them to take from others. Again, because you've ignored it a few times now, the war Nohr fought *did not need to be*. You keep treating the war as a fait accompli, but wars happen when thousands of people are willing to take up arms to murder others. That doesn't just happen as something pulled from the air. It is a result of the deliberate actions of each and every person involved. Those people might have different circumstances that push them into those positions, I am dealing with the people that have the circumstances that make them the most problematic; the Nohrian nobles.

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    From the get-go, Corrin doesn't try to kill innocents (ice tribe, Notre Sagesse), in those chapters, the unit technically does not die. When we're controlling them in game, when we draw the line and say "okay, HERE Camilla is murdering a dude but HERE Effie isn't???" How can you even tell who's really dying and just being "defeated" anymore?
    Unfortunately I don't think Corrin is any less a problematic figure just because they don't kill innocents. The innocents are trying to protect their homes, Corrin is actively, aggressively denying them the right to their own autonomy, to their own possessions and homes, and in some cases in violently disarming them is denying them the ability to defend their loved ones who may be with them and are in the process of being actually killed by someone less "charitable". No there's not a lot positive I have to say about Corrin's reluctance to kill.

    I also never made the claim that the royals killed people but the average soldiers didn't. My objections to the royal family do not depend on them being the only ones doing the killing. Also, I'd say the fact that you're explicitly told when defeat without killing occurs you've probably got a pretty easy way to tell when someone is killed vs. defeated.


    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    It's the consequence of being the "Camus", yet I agree it isn't portrayed the best. In supports you can understand that once upon a time, Garon was different - for example, in his support with Sakura, he mentions that he was a shy child that stuttered, yet his father motivated him to be more confident, to look him in the eyes, but in the story, Garon is *too* evil, and so, it makes Xander look dumb. I've always extrapolated that he tries to cling to the idea of what his father was, because he was the first born, and the only Nohrian royal sired by both him and the queen, and I do wish the game had more closure on that front.
    I honestly don't much care for Xander's daddy issues. I've already come to realise that being unwilling to entertain a character's sob backstory as justification for their evil actions makes me a type of person less common amongst the FE online community. Xander has issues separating who is father is from who is father was. Fine. He didn't need to kill because of it. He made that choice and as a result of that there are children all over the world without parents to love them because Xander couldn't sack up and do what was right, instead deciding to do what was easy. That makes him an evil person, to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    You're right, things could've went differently from the get-go. But I still have to disagree with the equation that not being the best oppressor equates "well, they're JUST as horrible as Garon", it's a unfair and false equality.
    ...Sorry but I'm going to have ask in the interest of respectful conversation that you not assign exaggerated positions to me that I have never taken. I have deliberately avoided mentioning Garon, because Garon is a non-entity. Garon alone cannot kill thousands of Hoshidans, he requires others, thousands of others, to be complicit in his plans. Those people are the ones I am criticising.
    And I don't need them to be the "best" oppressor. Whatever that means. They decided to be the oppressors. Oppressing the freedom of others is evil. That makes them evil. There are no relevant considerations of scale. I don't care if they're "less" evil than Garon. Especially since Garon is not a measure I ever brought up.

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    Dude, she is, the line is not meant to be taken literally, it's metaphorical :P
    Huh? If she's actually 12...why can all these old dudes have sex with her?

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    Again, both of them are not blindly loyal, they both give frustrations at their father's character, I don't agree that both are now equal to Xander's own narrative follies.
    They don't need to be equal to Xander to be considered evil. They just need to do what I consider to be evil and be in a position where they could've chosen otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    See it feels like you're implying that every death cannot be justified in *some* way, and that self-defense isn't an excuse...?
    I mean, we rationalize these things to make ourselves feel better, even though there might be someone that mourned the robber, criminal or not. If I'm some kind of monster for protecting myself, then I guess the cards fall where they may :(

    To give you an idea, I was once almost mugged. Two people, one of them had a knife. In the front of my mind I was legitimately scared I was going to get steel in my chest, bleed out, and die, and I panicked like crazy and shouted for help. They ran, but my heart wouldn't stop racing. Did I picture some situation where I yank the knife out of their hands and kicked their asses? Yes, but I'm not sure if I would kill them in my panic. I was just focusing on surviving.
    See I'm definitely not saying self-defense isn't an excuse. But let me try and make it clear with reference to the experience you describe here:

    Say you had tried to yank the knife out of their hands, or had a knife of your own and, in fear for you life (in self defence in other words) you attempted to drive them off, or resist their attempts to mug you, or something along those lines.
    Now imagine as a result of your trying to do so, these two guys stabbed you and ended up killing you.
    Would you say they weren't killers, that they were justified, that they weren't as bad as some other criminal just because you tried to stop them? Because it sounds like you would based on how you've described self-defence in regards to Nohrian soldiers. You were using force to attempt to stop them, they were rightfully worried for their lives (what if you wanted to kill them? what if you didn't but were bad with a knife and accidentally did it anyway?) and they reacted with force in their own defence.
    Self-defence, right?
    Except I wouldn't say it was. I would say you don't get to claim self-defence, and therefore some sort of extra morality, when you *deliberately* put yourself in a situation where people are likely to threaten your life with force because you are using force (or stealth or what have you) to take their possessions. To disenfranchise them in some way.
    You are the Hoshidans in this example, and Xander is the one coming to mug you because his dad is a crime boss now but he still remembers back when dad just worked in waste management and treated him nice.
    The mugger is in the moral wrong from the very start, and that doesn't change just because you used force to try and stop him.
    Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  3. #43

    Default Re: Elahrairah monologues as his water ship goes down...

    Quote Originally Posted by lr-hr-rh View Post
    I've been deliberately framing my consideration of the morality of the issue from the perspective of whether or not it is *more* justifiable to kill a defending soldier than it is to kill a civilian. I can't really tell if you're framing this more complicatedly than it needs to be because your definitions are consistent with your considerations of morality more generally or just in the context of this discussion of Fates. Because I mean, it seems like you're deliberately avoiding the core concern of mine. I believe the Nohrians to be in the moral wrong because they engaged in the killing of Hoshidan soldiers, with emphasis on the specifics of the unique circumstances of *Hoshidan* soldiers.
    I was trying to respond to your question in the general sense, and I felt like I was being baited into an all-wrong answer choice. :X\

    The Nohrians did not *have* to kill them, they could have just not gone to war. There is therefore no argument for their acting in self defence (yes even when the war shifts to their own soil, we don't suddenly consider the Nazis to be the good guys just because their genocidal war of racist conquest eventually lead to the British, American and Russian forces closing in on their homeland) because they were placed into positions where their mortality was imperiled by their very own aggressive actions (hence my use of multiple examples of criminals killing home owners as the latter try to defend themselves against the predations of the former; chances are you wouldn't say the thieves were justifiably acting in self defence).
    Sounds fair to me, fine.
    There is also, as I pointed out with mention to the nonsense of the argument from famine, no moral justification to be found in some sort of "just war" where the Nohrians are in some sort of moral right because the Hoshidans are deliberately leaving them to starve.
    There is also an absence of the typical moral ambiguity that is found in modern warfare where most all political actors, in our real world, can't really be described as good or bad. This moral ambiguity generally removes concerns of morality for more practical concerns of legality, international relations, political fallout and the like. There *might* not have been anything morally wrong in American troops following orders to depose a dictator in Iraq (looking at this in a *very* simplified way), but that didn't make the invasion good even if I wouldn't necessarily call the soldiers that fought to remove said dictator evil for any killing they had to do.
    Warfare in Fates is decidely *not* like that. It is much more akin to the example I described in my initial post, where people have taken up arms to defend their country, have not behaved belligerently (and it fact have behaved with great restraint in the face of constant provocation) and are then set upon by an aggressive force and made to fight a defensive war to protect their homes. Yes warfare is often messy, but in this case it isn't: Nohr didn't *have* to invade Hoshido. There were no considerations of self-defence and no just cause. In *these particular circumstances* I consider those people who *willingly* engage in this war to be as evil as any other killer. Where those circumstances aren't meant my moral evaluations change accordingly.
    Again, I agree with all of this, and that's exactly why you have people lament what could've been and/or write their own take on it.

    Hm? I don't need to be ignoring any of that. Nohrians fighting in defense of their homes have different considerations of culpability as they meet different circumstances in their actions. This is different to members of an aggressive army put on the defensive by failures of their offensive operations. I wouldn't consider those Nohrians trying to defend their homes to be any more evil, but again it's disingenous to suggest that most Nohrians fit these descriptions. As I've mentioned repeatedly, Nohr did not *have* to go to war. They could have avoided difficulties like threats to their lands and people by just, you know, not starting a war. There's nothing morally ambiguous about that. If you don't want potentially bad things to happen don't just arbitrarily decide to try and kill people.
    What do we say of the generic soldier fighting, then? He's not told the nitty gritty of *why* Nohr and Hoshido are fighting, just that there's a squad of pegasus knights coming into Dia to attack. Is *he* evil?

    Meta. I understand that most of this doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of anything. That this is just fiction and so on. But, for the purposes of treating this as *real* for this conversation, it seems really strange to me that you consider the occasional defiance of their father to be enough to prove that they aren't, in general, irrationally and problematically beholden to the will of their father. Because let's get real about this for a second. By their very actions and deeds, there are people all over the world, in Nohr, in Hoshido, everywhere, who have suffered the tragedy of lost loved ones. Spouses brutally and nonsensically ripped out of their loved ones lives for absolutely no reason at all. Children forced into the defence of their homes dying before their grieving parents. The protections of civilisation against the worst excesses of man torn away by a completely unnecessary war, with thousands of innocents lives upturned on the violent whims of a madman (just go and read again through the treatment of civilians during war time, go and read about just how commonplace things like sexual violence in captured cities was during most every period in human history). These are actions, consequences, aided and abetted by the nobles of the Nohrian family. In consideration of the grand scale of that horrific suffering, I honestly do not care if Camilla got angry at daddy a couple of times. I really don't.
    Take that anger and bring back someone's child with it.
    Take Leo's eventual defection and return the innocence to those raped and brutalised in the fallout of the defenders of their homes being swept away.
    You can't. Destruction and sadness and loss and pain on a scale difficult to imagine, facilitated by people like Camilla and Leo and Xander, who donned arms and fought a war they should've known they didn't need to fight.
    And I say "on the violent whims of a madman", but that's not even true is it? Garon didn't murder those people. He probably murdered fewer people in the war than bloody Xander did. His army, his children, his generals, acted as extensions of his will. It was by their actions that this suffering was unleashed on the world. And while, in this simplified sense I can give the everyday soldiers some sort of pass (maybe), the people in positions of authority? The people close to the seat of power? Them not so much.
    You really like to tell it blunt, don't ya? I'm sorry if I'm trying to apply too much Freud or something to this whole thing, but I've been in this argument before. Don't take my position as me blindly agreeing with Nohr in the same way that your Xander is blindly agreeing with Garon, I'm just offering a wiggle room of defense. I am aware there's far more against my position than there is to support it. I can only extrapolate and head-canon so much before it gets ridiculous.

    I feel like I've already answered this point elsewhere, but again, taking up arms in defence of your home, with knowledge that you might die (and even then you might die anyway, and I'd definitely encourage you to not ignore the civilian casualties that arise as a result of the actions of soldiers and generals) but also the knowledge that, without your intervention, you might lose everything you love, is not the same thing as taking up arms so that you might use them to take from others. Again, because you've ignored it a few times now, the war Nohr fought *did not need to be*. You keep treating the war as a fait accompli, but wars happen when thousands of people are willing to take up arms to murder others. That doesn't just happen as something pulled from the air. It is a result of the deliberate actions of each and every person involved. Those people might have different circumstances that push them into those positions, I am dealing with the people that have the circumstances that make them the most problematic; the Nohrian nobles.
    I didn't ignore it, I'm pretty sure I mentioned that the Nohrians started this whole thing in the first place, with the death of Sumeragi.

    Unfortunately I don't think Corrin is any less a problematic figure just because they don't kill innocents. The innocents are trying to protect their homes, Corrin is actively, aggressively denying them the right to their own autonomy, to their own possessions and homes, and in some cases in violently disarming them is denying them the ability to defend their loved ones who may be with them and are in the process of being actually killed by someone less "charitable". No there's not a lot positive I have to say about Corrin's reluctance to kill.
    I suppose this applies more to the Ice Tribe thing?

    I also never made the claim that the royals killed people but the average soldiers didn't. My objections to the royal family do not depend on them being the only ones doing the killing. Also, I'd say the fact that you're explicitly told when defeat without killing occurs you've probably got a pretty easy way to tell when someone is killed vs. defeated.
    In those chapters yes, but what about when it's *not* explicitly mentioned? Do we assume standard Fire Emblem fare (strengthing your point) or an attempt to follow the logic of....as I'm typing I already know the answer.

    I honestly don't much care for Xander's daddy issues. I've already come to realise that being unwilling to entertain a character's sob backstory as justification for their evil actions makes me a type of person less common amongst the FE online community. Xander has issues separating who is father is from who is father was. Fine. He didn't need to kill because of it. He made that choice and as a result of that there are children all over the world without parents to love them because Xander couldn't sack up and do what was right, instead deciding to do what was easy. That makes him an evil person, to me.
    My defense isn't trying to be Draco in Leather Pants level of denial or something, but I still think you're being a little too vitriolic. But I recognize that I'm somewhat biased and acknowledge that Xander is pretty polarizing.

    ...Sorry but I'm going to have ask in the interest of respectful conversation that you not assign exaggerated positions to me that I have never taken. I have deliberately avoided mentioning Garon, because Garon is a non-entity. Garon alone cannot kill thousands of Hoshidans, he requires others, thousands of others, to be complicit in his plans. Those people are the ones I am criticising.
    And I don't need them to be the "best" oppressor. Whatever that means. They decided to be the oppressors. Oppressing the freedom of others is evil. That makes them evil. There are no relevant considerations of scale. I don't care if they're "less" evil than Garon. Especially since Garon is not a measure I ever brought up.
    Apologizes for the exaggeration, then. I meant oppressor in oppressing him, not freedom. And sure, we should focus on the characters in question, but this entire conflict doesn't happen if we magically pretend Garon doesn't matter. He killed Sumeragi, he used Corrin to bring the Ganglari to Hoshido to kill Mikoto, and *that* started the war where the invasion would later become a factor. Be it that you think he's too cartoony evil or there's no defined line to when Garon ends and the slime monster begins, fine, but I don't see why he gets a pass and yet, his children don't.

    Huh? If she's actually 12...why can all these old dudes have sex with her?
    Because Japan markets loli appeal? Ah ha....Elise is too pure. Keep her single. :P

    They don't need to be equal to Xander to be considered evil. They just need to do what I consider to be evil and be in a position where they could've chosen otherwise.
    I've said I don't exactly agree, but that is your opinion to have, and I shall respect it as such.

    Say you had tried to yank the knife out of their hands, or had a knife of your own and, in fear for you life (in self defence in other words) you attempted to drive them off, or resist their attempts to mug you, or something along those lines.
    Now imagine as a result of your trying to do so, these two guys stabbed you and ended up killing you.
    Would you say they weren't killers, that they were justified, that they weren't as bad as some other criminal just because you tried to stop them?
    No, they were still trying to mug me, and bringing the knife means they were prepared to possibly attack me with it - which could be lethal. In a more fitting example, if someone tries to fight off the crazy escaped serial killer, I'm rooting for the person just trying to survive.

    Because it sounds like you would based on how you've described self-defence in regards to Nohrian soldiers. You were using force to attempt to stop them, they were rightfully worried for their lives (what if you wanted to kill them? what if you didn't but were bad with a knife and accidentally did it anyway?) and they reacted with force in their own defence.
    Self-defence, right?
    Except I wouldn't say it was. I would say you don't get to claim self-defence, and therefore some sort of extra morality, when you *deliberately* put yourself in a situation where people are likely to threaten your life with force because you are using force (or stealth or what have you) to take their possessions. To disenfranchise them in some way.
    You are the Hoshidans in this example, and Xander is the one coming to mug you because his dad is a crime boss now but he still remembers back when dad just worked in waste management and treated him nice.
    The mugger is in the moral wrong from the very start, and that doesn't change just because you used force to try and stop him.
    Excellent analogy.

    Look, I knew this wasn't going to be a winning argument from the mere topic title; it's been a loaded topic in the fandom for *ages*. But me, being the Conquest fan and masochist that I am, wanted to read your stance and see what I could counter. Nothing I haven't seen before, although I will admit your easy going nature betrays how biting and firm you can be in your points, caught me off guard :P

  4. #44
    Stranger in a Strange Land lr-hr-rh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Limbo

    Default Re: Elahrairah monologues as his water ship goes down...

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    I was trying to respond to your question in the general sense, and I felt like I was being baited into an all-wrong answer choice. :X\
    Ahh fair enough. Sorry about that, it definitely wasn't my intention if that counts for anything :/

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    What do we say of the generic soldier fighting, then? He's not told the nitty gritty of *why* Nohr and Hoshido are fighting, just that there's a squad of pegasus knights coming into Dia to attack. Is *he* evil?
    Nah I wouldn't say so. This is just a case of language use sometimes tripping us up. All Nohrians are people from Nohr. An army of people from Nohr attacks Hoshido (and is therefore a Nohrian army). It's easier to refer to any army of Nohrians as a Nohrian army, but not all people in a Nohrian army are under the same circumstances, even though they are casually referred to the same way.

    Part of the reason I've been trying to stick so close to the nobles is because things become way more complicated when you expand out of that. Even in real world circumstances in the most cut and dry examples. If you're a Russian Jewish soldier fighting desperately to stop the Nazi invasion and the inflicting of all the horrors of the holocaust upon you and and everyone you love, you might still in doing so end up shooting a German soldier who was newly conscripted to the field, is deeply conflicted about fighting at all (in fact there are some crazy stats out there about the general terrible accuracy of soldiers in warfare involving guns that suggests a lot of soldiers were terribly reluctant to fire upon and deliberately kill another human being) and might even be a Jewish sympathiser who actively helped Jews being smuggled out of Germany. Said soldier is probably a good person but how are you (the Russian Jew in this instance) supposed to know that? In any other circumstance it might be considered evil to kill such a person (i.e. an innocent drafted into a really difficult situation and unable to yet figure out how to deal with it) but in the general haze and madness of war we're usually more understanding of that sort of "collateral".

    And getting back to Fates none of this considers the roles played by the problematic writing. You are a far bigger Fates fan than I, is it ever acknowledged by Inigo and co (hah!) that Garon's plans are strangely similar to those of Gangrel/Validar? Up to and including deliberately attempting to kill the peaceful, saintly mother figure of a (currently) peaceful nation?

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    You really like to tell it blunt, don't ya? I'm sorry if I'm trying to apply too much Freud or something to this whole thing, but I've been in this argument before. Don't take my position as me blindly agreeing with Nohr in the same way that your Xander is blindly agreeing with Garon, I'm just offering a wiggle room of defense. I am aware there's far more against my position than there is to support it. I can only extrapolate and head-canon so much before it gets ridiculous.
    Err yeah. Sorry about that. I usually take more time to consider what I'm going to say and reign in the more...drammatic tendencies of my writing.

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    I suppose this applies more to the Ice Tribe thing?
    Yeah essentially. I was under the impression that Corrin's "thou shalt not kill" approach extended into the war effort in Hoshido proper so I was also applying it to those affected by that. I'm not sure if that's actually stated though.

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    My defense isn't trying to be Draco in Leather Pants level of denial or something, but I still think you're being a little too vitriolic. But I recognize that I'm somewhat biased and acknowledge that Xander is pretty polarizing.
    Yeah I probably am. I object more to the type of real world person I see in Xander, I don't mean to come across as thinking poorly of anyone who likes him. So I'm sorry if that's been the case

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    Apologizes for the exaggeration, then. I meant oppressor in oppressing him, not freedom. And sure, we should focus on the characters in question, but this entire conflict doesn't happen if we magically pretend Garon doesn't matter. He killed Sumeragi, he used Corrin to bring the Ganglari to Hoshido to kill Mikoto, and *that* started the war where the invasion would later become a factor. Be it that you think he's too cartoony evil or there's no defined line to when Garon ends and the slime monster begins, fine, but I don't see why he gets a pass and yet, his children don't.
    Oh it's not that Garon isn't evil. I just thought that he was slime monster from back when he killed Sumeragi. Am I wrong on that one? I definitely don't give him a pass, but he's also to me, in and outside the text, blatantly evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    Because Japan markets loli appeal? Ah ha....Elise is too pure. Keep her single. :P
    ...

    But her support with Arthur is sooo cute. I didn't realise that she was actually supposed to be 12 in all possible canons

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    Excellent analogy.

    Look, I knew this wasn't going to be a winning argument from the mere topic title; it's been a loaded topic in the fandom for *ages*. But me, being the Conquest fan and masochist that I am, wanted to read your stance and see what I could counter. Nothing I haven't seen before, although I will admit your easy going nature betrays how biting and firm you can be in your points, caught me off guard :P
    Ehe. Yeah, sorry about that. I tend to try and keep it chill as we're just people chatting on the internet about video games (and it's why I don't write about the things I'm really passionate about on here :P) but sometimes I get carried away in my own rhetoric.

    ...Just as a random aside. I've been writing their names so much and... it's Garon and Nohr? Right? Not Ganon and Norh? I've been becoming increasingly paranoid that I'm spelling them wrong the more I've had to write them.
    Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  5. #45

    Default Re: Elahrairah monologues as his water ship goes down...

    Quote Originally Posted by lr-hr-rh View Post
    Ahh fair enough. Sorry about that, it definitely wasn't my intention if that counts for anything :/
    Oh it's quite alright. Your opinion on morality, self-defense, etc. gave me a lot of think about.

    And getting back to Fates none of this considers the roles played by the problematic writing. You are a far bigger Fates fan than I, is it ever acknowledged by Inigo and co (hah!) that Garon's plans are strangely similar to those of Gangrel/Validar? Up to and including deliberately attempting to kill the peaceful, saintly mother figure of a (currently) peaceful nation?
    Shiit, that kinda sounds like another plothole to me. Inigo, Owain, and Severa have all suffered through war before, with Plegia being the aggressor each time. It's a consequence of them not being allowed to be more story-revelant, most likely because the devs included them out of popularity but realized people would complain if the Awakening characters mattered again, but *their* inclusion brings more cans of worms.

    Err yeah. Sorry about that. I usually take more time to consider what I'm going to say and reign in the more...drammatic tendencies of my writing.
    No worries!

    Yeah essentially. I was under the impression that Corrin's "thou shalt not kill" approach extended into the war effort in Hoshido proper so I was also applying it to those affected by that. I'm not sure if that's actually stated though.
    It's more or less stated, yeah, and for reference, Hinoka, Setsuna, Azama, Sakura, Subaki, and Hana are some of the few characters that technically don't die. Oboro, Hinata, Saizo, and Kagero are, even though you can beat the chapters without fighting them.

    Yeah I probably am. I object more to the type of real world person I see in Xander, I don't mean to come across as thinking poorly of anyone who likes him. So I'm sorry if that's been the case
    Of course, it's no problem. It's very easy to ignore real-world logic and politik in Fire Emblem just to go "well it's a video game lol", but sometimes one thinks more critically about these things.

    A good chunk of the reason why I like Xander boils more down to support self than his story self, that and I really like his design. [just for reference]

    Oh it's not that Garon isn't evil. I just thought that he was slime monster from back when he killed Sumeragi. Am I wrong on that one? I definitely don't give him a pass, but he's also to me, in and outside the text, blatantly evil.
    It's never made clear *when* Garon was possessed but I choose to interpret it as before killing Sumeragi, that being the monster's doing.
    But her support with Arthur is sooo cute. I didn't realise that she was actually supposed to be 12 in all possible canons
    You thought she was 18 or something? :P Assets for the game don't give her an exact age, but I always felt Leo/Takumi were 16-17, Corrin barely older than that, Camilla and Hinoka in late teens/early 20s, and the crown princes both 25 or so. Those are just my headcanons so :3

    I really like that support btw.

    Ehe. Yeah, sorry about that. I tend to try and keep it chill as we're just people chatting on the internet about video games (and it's why I don't write about the things I'm really passionate about on here :P) but sometimes I get carried away in my own rhetoric.
    As I, mine. No worries :)

    ...Just as a random aside. I've been writing their names so much and... it's Garon and Nohr? Right? Not Ganon and Norh? I've been becoming increasingly paranoid that I'm spelling them wrong the more I've had to write them.
    It is Nohr and Garon.

  6. #46
    Stranger in a Strange Land lr-hr-rh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Limbo

    Default Re: Elahrairah monologues as his water ship goes down...

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    Shiit, that kinda sounds like another plothole to me. Inigo, Owain, and Severa have all suffered through war before, with Plegia being the aggressor each time. It's a consequence of them not being allowed to be more story-revelant, most likely because the devs included them out of popularity but realized people would complain if the Awakening characters mattered again, but *their* inclusion brings more cans of worms.
    Yeah their inclusion always bugged me a lot because of the compromises the devs needed to deal with in order to get the Awakening trio in there.
    I mean, not too much. I *love* Soleil (and will forever mourn that I couldn't marry her to my F!Corrin) and she is pretty much (to me) a much improved version of Inigo and therefore probably wouldn't have been put in the game without him.

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    It's more or less stated, yeah, and for reference, Hinoka, Setsuna, Azama, Sakura, Subaki, and Hana are some of the few characters that technically don't die. Oboro, Hinata, Saizo, and Kagero are, even though you can beat the chapters without fighting them.
    Good to hear Hana, Azama and Hinoka don't die, all things considered. They're probably my favourite Hoshidans.

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    A good chunk of the reason why I like Xander boils more down to support self than his story self, that and I really like his design. [just for reference]
    That's understandable. Whenever I finally unlocked him and Leo and so on in RV I did run through a few of his supports, sometimes just for the novelty (I wanted to see how he got on with Sakura for example) and sometimes because I wanted to give Siegbert a chance. I didn't mind him in his supports (I think Perri is really the only character I can't stand in any form...although I still marry her off to someone I don't like (usually Leo :P) for her awesome hair colour) actually so I can see what you'd see in him there.

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    It's never made clear *when* Garon was possessed but I choose to interpret it as before killing Sumeragi, that being the monster's doing.
    Ahh ok. What a strange thing to leave open-ended like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    You thought she was 18 or something? :P Assets for the game don't give her an exact age, but I always felt Leo/Takumi were 16-17, Corrin barely older than that, Camilla and Hinoka in late teens/early 20s, and the crown princes both 25 or so. Those are just my headcanons so :3
    I...don't know what I thought really. I probably never really gave it much thought and just implicitly assumed she was "supposed to be" 16 or something similar. Your age ranges make much more sense though...although I'm going to pretend I didn't read them so I don't have to be haunted by the idea of 40 year old Arthur sleeping with a child

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    It is Nohr and Garon.
    Ok good, I was a bit worried I was going mad there...
    Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  7. #47

    Default Re: Elahrairah monologues as his water ship goes down...

    Quote Originally Posted by lr-hr-rh View Post
    Yeah their inclusion always bugged me a lot because of the compromises the devs needed to deal with in order to get the Awakening trio in there.
    I mean, not too much. I *love* Soleil (and will forever mourn that I couldn't marry her to my F!Corrin) and she is pretty much (to me) a much improved version of Inigo and therefore probably wouldn't have been put in the game without him.
    Yeah that'd make more sense than Rhajat if you ask me.

    That's understandable. Whenever I finally unlocked him and Leo and so on in RV I did run through a few of his supports, sometimes just for the novelty (I wanted to see how he got on with Sakura for example) and sometimes because I wanted to give Siegbert a chance. I didn't mind him in his supports (I think Perri is really the only character I can't stand in any form...although I still marry her off to someone I don't like (usually Leo :P) for her awesome hair colour) actually so I can see what you'd see in him there.
    He and Laslow (Inigo) have a pretty great support at that. As for Peri, well that's another can of worms, and I can definitely say she's not very liked at all in the fanbase. I mean, I really like her voice if I can admit that, at least the VA in Fates

    I...don't know what I thought really. I probably never really gave it much thought and just implicitly assumed she was "supposed to be" 16 or something similar. Your age ranges make much more sense though...although I'm going to pretend I didn't read them so I don't have to be haunted by the idea of 40 year old Arthur sleeping with a child
    40?! I know Arthur looks a little rugged but he's not *that* old! XD
    For what it's worth, Arthur and Azura's support paints them as being at or close to the same age, but if we're being a little more realistic, he can't be that much older than Xander imo.

  8. #48
    Stranger in a Strange Land lr-hr-rh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Limbo

    Default Re: Elahrairah monologues as his water ship goes down...

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    Yeah that'd make more sense than Rhajat if you ask me.
    Hahaha that's not setting the bar very high to be fair :P

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    He and Laslow (Inigo) have a pretty great support at that. As for Peri, well that's another can of worms, and I can definitely say she's not very liked at all in the fanbase. I mean, I really like her voice if I can admit that, at least the VA in Fates
    I mean. I'm putting together an Inquisition to hunt down any who speaks positively of Peri as we speak so I can't exactly guarantee your safety after sharing that

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    40?! I know Arthur looks a little rugged but he's not *that* old! XD
    For what it's worth, Arthur and Azura's support paints them as being at or close to the same age, but if we're being a little more realistic, he can't be that much older than Xander imo.
    What?? Arthur definitely does not look Azura's age (I don't know what it says about her character that whenever I think of the royal families in Fates I *always* forget her).
    But nevertheless, I have heard your arguments and will accept a compromise that Arthur is probably closer to 39 than 40
    Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  9. #49

    Default Re: Elahrairah monologues as his water ship goes down...

    Quote Originally Posted by lr-hr-rh View Post
    I mean. I'm putting together an Inquisition to hunt down any who speaks positively of Peri as we speak so I can't exactly guarantee your safety after sharing that
    Before burning the witch, what does makes her worse than let's say....Henry?

  10. #50
    Stranger in a Strange Land lr-hr-rh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Limbo

    Default Re: Elahrairah monologues as his water ship goes down...

    Quote Originally Posted by KageKageKing View Post
    Before burning the witch, what does makes her worse than let's say....Henry?
    Unless I'm remembering incorrectly Henry isn't confirmed as having murdered innocents in cold blood right? If he has then he goes right on to the "I don't like evil characters" pile, if he hasn't well...I never really liked his shtick anyway :P

    Btw is the witch Peri or Meta in this situation?
    Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  11. #51

    Default Re: Elahrairah monologues as his water ship goes down...

    Quote Originally Posted by lr-hr-rh View Post
    Unless I'm remembering incorrectly Henry isn't confirmed as having murdered innocents in cold blood right? If he has then he goes right on to the "I don't like evil characters" pile, if he hasn't well...I never really liked his shtick anyway :P
    He did slaughtered an entire village because of his dead wolf friend. And he also almost kill a dog in his Olivia support.
    Btw is the witch Peri or Meta in this situation?
    Both.

  12. #52
    Stranger in a Strange Land lr-hr-rh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Limbo

    Default Re: Elahrairah monologues as his water ship goes down...

    Quote Originally Posted by KageKageKing View Post
    He did slaughtered an entire village because of his dead wolf friend. And he also almost kill a dog in his Olivia support.

    Both.
    Oh yeah. That sounds vaguely familiar. Well onto the pile he goes, never used him in Awakening anyway.

    And cool. Hey Meta, if/when you read this just a heads up that I'm preparing a nice bonfire for you, Henry and Peri so make sure you wear your nicest witch hat for the occasion! :D
    Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  13. #53

    Default Re: Elahrairah monologues as his water ship goes down...

    Quote Originally Posted by lr-hr-rh View Post
    Hahaha that's not setting the bar very high to be fair :P
    I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on Soleil then. The fanbase views her mainly as yuri bait.

    I mean. I'm putting together an Inquisition to hunt down any who speaks positively of Peri as we speak so I can't exactly guarantee your safety after sharing that
    Hey, it's E.G Daily, aka the voice of Tommy Pickles and Buttercup. How she even got that role in the first place, let alone a video game role, is something I'm extremely interested in finding out.

    What?? Arthur definitely does not look Azura's age (I don't know what it says about her character that whenever I think of the royal families in Fates I *always* forget her).
    But nevertheless, I have heard your arguments and will accept a compromise that Arthur is probably closer to 39 than 40
    pfft XD

    Quote Originally Posted by KageKageKing View Post
    Before burning the witch, what does makes her worse than let's say....Henry?
    I assume we're talking more about the localized/more popular version of Henry. While he has a blood fascination and is pretty cheery in morbid affairs, he doesn't attack innocents, and he doesn't cross the line Peri does, with the murdering servants thing.

  14. #54
    Stranger in a Strange Land lr-hr-rh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Limbo

    Default Re: Elahrairah monologues as his water ship goes down...

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on Soleil then. The fanbase views her mainly as yuri bait.
    Oh yeah. That sounds vaguely familiar. I mean, I'm a big fan of hers cause she's so dopily lovable, like Inigo but without Olivia's shyness (although Inigo's kicked-puppy bashfulness can be it's own adorable on the very rare occasion -like his support with Lucina for example). I can see why the "constantly flirting with girls but can't date girls" angle would annoy people, especially those looking for representation of their sexuality (or just more diverse sexuality) in their FE games. It's not a personal concern of mine so it doesn't really effect my evaluations of her but if someone didn't like her for that I wouldn't object overmuch.

    ...if they disliked her for any other reason though

    Although I will say I think short hair suits her better:



    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    Hey, it's E.G Daily, aka the voice of Tommy Pickles and Buttercup. How she even got that role in the first place, let alone a video game role, is something I'm extremely interested in finding out.
    Hahahaha yeah but you could much more easily direct that curiosity towards Hinoka :P. I mean, she's cooler and prettier *and* she sounds almost exactly like Buttercup!

    Quote Originally Posted by MetaMario View Post
    I assume we're talking more about the localized/more popular version of Henry. While he has a blood fascination and is pretty cheery in morbid affairs, he doesn't attack innocents, and he doesn't cross the line Peri does, with the murdering servants thing.
    Man can you guys just get this sorted please? I've got already got the bonfire going here with Peri on the slow roast and I'd like to know how much more wood imma need...
    Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts