Tropes Media Browse Indexes Forums Videos Ask The Tropers Trope Finder Media Finder Trope Launch Pad Tech Wishlist Reviews Tools
Cut List New Edits Edit Reasons Launches Images List Crowner Activity Un-typed Pages Recent Page Type Changes Changelog
Tips
Creating New Redirects Cross Wicking Tips for Editing Text Formatting Rules Glossary Edit Reasons Handling Spoilers Word Cruft Administrivia FAQ
Tropes HQ
About Us Contact Us Advertise DMCA Notice Privacy Policy Report Bug
Go Ad-Free Changelog
  • Show Spoilers
  • Night Vision
  • Sticky Header
  • Highlight Links
 

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion History Characters / FireEmblemAntagonistArchetypes

Go To
[007] ChrisX Current Version
11th Nov '17 at 01:51:18 AM
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
This is the discussion topic about Fernand when it comes to him being Camus, because this was once deleted, but then put on again.
to:
This is the discussion topic about Fernand when it comes to him being Camus, because this was once deleted, but then put on again. This is to prevent Edit War.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I thought Camus characters were someone who personally had no ill-wills against the main Lord and only fought because they are loyal to the country they're from. I don't think Fernand fits in this. Sure, he gets several sympathy and enough to be an AntiVillain, but he fails the Camus test of 'holding no ill-wills to the main Lord'. He CLEARLY had severe 'ill-wills' against Alm whom he thought to be a commoner, Alm being made the leader of the Deliverance was one reason why he defected to Rigel. Sure, he learned the error of his ways when he's near death, but until then, he was very antagonistic to Alm.
to:
I thought Camus characters were someone who personally had no ill-wills against the main Lord and only fought because they are loyal to the country they\'re from. I don\'t think Fernand fits in this. Sure, he gets several sympathy and enough to be an AntiVillain, but he fails the Camus test of \'holding no ill-wills to the main Lord\'. He CLEARLY had severe \'ill-wills\' against Alm whom he thought to be a commoner, Alm being made the leader of the Deliverance was one reason why he defected to Rigel. Sure, he learned the error of his ways when he\'s near death, but until then, he was very antagonistic to Alm.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
If you recall all Camus characters, they had nothing personal against the main hero, it's just that the hero clashed with the country they swore an oath to that they cannot turn back against said country.
to:
If you recall all Camus characters, they had nothing personal against the main hero, it\'s just that the hero clashed with the country they swore an oath to that they cannot turn back against said country.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
If anything, Fernand does not fit in any archetypes so far. He's not a Jiol that while he betrays the good guys, it's clear he's got standards, the same thing also prevents him to become a Kempf. He's an unique breed at this point.
to:
If anything, Fernand does not fit in any archetypes so far. He\'s not a Jiol that while he betrays the good guys, it\'s clear he\'s got standards, the same thing also prevents him to become a Kempf. He\'s an unique breed at this point.
[006] ChrisX
11th Nov '17 at 01:51:02 AM
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I thought Camus characters were someone who personally had no ill-wills against the main Lord and only fought because they are loyal to the country they're from. I don't think Fernand fits in this. Sure, he gets several sympathy and enough to be an AntiVillain, but he fails the Camus test of 'holding no ill-wills to the main Lord'. He CLEARLY had severe 'ill-wills' against Alm whom he thought to be a commoner, Alm being made the leader of the Deliverance was one reason why he defected to Rigel. Sure, he learned the error of his ways when he's near dead, but until then, he was very antagonistic to Alm.
to:
I thought Camus characters were someone who personally had no ill-wills against the main Lord and only fought because they are loyal to the country they\'re from. I don\'t think Fernand fits in this. Sure, he gets several sympathy and enough to be an AntiVillain, but he fails the Camus test of \'holding no ill-wills to the main Lord\'. He CLEARLY had severe \'ill-wills\' against Alm whom he thought to be a commoner, Alm being made the leader of the Deliverance was one reason why he defected to Rigel. Sure, he learned the error of his ways when he\'s near death, but until then, he was very antagonistic to Alm.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
If you recall all Camus characters, they had nothing personal against the main hero, it's just that the hero clashed with the country they swore an oath to that they cannot turn back against said country.
to:
If you recall all Camus characters, they had nothing personal against the main hero, it\'s just that the hero clashed with the country they swore an oath to that they cannot turn back against said country.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
If anything, Fernand does not fit in any archetypes so far. He's not a Jiol that while he betrays the good guys, it's clear he's got standards, the same thing also prevents him to become a Kempf. He's an unique breed at this point.
to:
If anything, Fernand does not fit in any archetypes so far. He\'s not a Jiol that while he betrays the good guys, it\'s clear he\'s got standards, the same thing also prevents him to become a Kempf. He\'s an unique breed at this point.
[005] ChrisX
11th Nov '17 at 01:50:33 AM
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I thought Camus characters were someone who personally had no ill-wills against the main Lord and only fought because they are loyal to the country they're from. I don't think Fernand fits in this. Sure, he gets several sympathy and enough to be an AntiVillain, but he fails the Camus test of 'holding no ill-wills to the main Lord'. He CLEARLY had severe 'ill-wills' against Alm whom he thought to be a commoner, Alm being made the leader of the Deliverance was one reason why he defected to Rigel. If you recall all Camus characters, they had nothing personal against the main hero, it's just that the hero clashed with the country they swore an oath to that they cannot turn back against said country.
to:
I thought Camus characters were someone who personally had no ill-wills against the main Lord and only fought because they are loyal to the country they\'re from. I don\'t think Fernand fits in this. Sure, he gets several sympathy and enough to be an AntiVillain, but he fails the Camus test of \'holding no ill-wills to the main Lord\'. He CLEARLY had severe \'ill-wills\' against Alm whom he thought to be a commoner, Alm being made the leader of the Deliverance was one reason why he defected to Rigel. Sure, he learned the error of his ways when he\'s near dead, but until then, he was very antagonistic to Alm.
Changed line(s) 4 from:
to:
If you recall all Camus characters, they had nothing personal against the main hero, it\'s just that the hero clashed with the country they swore an oath to that they cannot turn back against said country.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
If anything, Fernand does not fit in any archetypes so far. He's not a Jiol that while he betrays the good guys, it's clear he's got standards, the same thing also prevents him to become a Kempf. He's an unique breed at this point.
to:
If anything, Fernand does not fit in any archetypes so far. He\'s not a Jiol that while he betrays the good guys, it\'s clear he\'s got standards, the same thing also prevents him to become a Kempf. He\'s an unique breed at this point.
[004] SpicyStrawberries
11th Feb '17 at 05:39:39 PM
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
I agree a note should be made about the Instagram image, but with special attention drawn to it being a
to:
I agree a note should be made about the Instagram image, but with special attention drawn to it being a \"possible future.\" Let the reader draw their own conclusion.
If it\'s fair game to reference promotional material and interviews, Instagram should be fair game too.
[003] SpicyStrawberries
11th Feb '17 at 05:06:26 PM
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
I agree a note should be made about the Instagram image, but with special attention drawn to it being a
to:
I agree a note should be made about the Instagram image, but with special attention drawn to it being a \"possible future.\" Let the reader draw their own conclusion.
If it\'s fair game to reference promotional material and interviews, Instagram should be fair game too.
It also seems unfair to nitpick the movie as if it were anime canon when it\'s not. Why are we mentioning Pyramid of Light and Capsule Monsters? Not that criticism shouldn\'t be made, it certainly should, but be fair.
[002] SpicyStrawberries
11th Feb '17 at 05:05:26 PM
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
I agree a note should be made about the Instagram image, but with special attention drawn to it being a
to:
I agree a note should be made about the Instagram image, but with special attention drawn to it being a \"possible future.\" Let the reader draw their own conclusion.
If it\'s fair game to reference promotional material and interviews, Instagram should be fair game too.
It also seems unfair to nitpick the movie as if it were anime canon when it\'s not. Why are we mentioning Pyramid of Light and Capsule Monsters? Not that criticism shouldn\'t be made, it certainly can, but let\'s be fair.
[001] SpicyStrawberries
11th Feb '17 at 05:00:25 PM
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
I agree a note should be made about the Instagram image, but with special attention drawn to it being a
to:
I agree a note should be made about the Instagram image, but with special attention drawn to it being a \"possible future.\" Let the reader draw their own conclusion.
If it\'s fair game to reference promotional material and interviews, Instagram should be fair game too.
It also seems unfair to nitpick the movie as if it were anime canon when it\'s not. Why are we mentioning Pyramid of Light and Capsule Monsters?

Important Links

Ask The Tropers Trope Finder Media Finder Trope Launch Pad Tech Wishlist Reviews Go Ad Free!
Crucial Browsing
Resources
Top