I don't think Idunn really qualifies as a true Hardin. From my understanding, most Hardins are possessed by an evil force and are brainwashed to destroy the world. Idunn, however, was just captured by the other dragons to have her soul forcefully destroyed so she could follow their commands. She spends most of FE6 as a soulless husk, until the true ending, where Roy slaying her with the Binding Blade, thus getting her soul back. The only things that makes her somewhat of a Hardin are the fact that she's Forced into Evil because her soul was destroyed, and the Binding Blade causing her to regain her senses as well as her soul. I might be wrong on this, so if anything just correct me.
As for the War Dragons, I think they fit, but I also might be wrong.
Edited by JustanFE6fanIguess
I was wondering something, Zephia could clasiffy as a Dark Wizard? She is the one that does all funky magic and manipulation stuff among the bad guys, she is the main person behind Sombron's revival, and basically the main reason why stuff is even happening in the first place, considering certain someone wouldn't work as an extention of Sombron's will before Zephia made her spell.
While other female villains are behind their male counterparts in their level of importance in how the plot even started in the first place, without Zephia and her machinations, Sombron's revival could have never happened.
Hide / Show Replies
It's kinda fun how the game has a fake Gharnef in the form of Hyacinth, but who is truly doing the Gharnef's play book of manipulation, brainwashing, leading the other Cult-adjecent bad guys, and orchestrating the evil dragon revival is Zephia.
Edited by Troykv
That's an interesting thought. Let's see... A Gharnef is mostly ugly, but we've seen pretty boys like Lyon and Sephiran. Additionally, you mentioned 'leading cult'. This does have some similarities with those who leads their own cult/religion like Jedah, Manfroy, Riev, Validar, Thales... (I forgot if Sephiran actually leads a cult for Ashera)... While the original Gharnef doesn't necessarily lead a cult (he's a lone wolf), the presence of a cult to revive the evil dragon seems like an oft-used elements for Gharnefs.
I think it does have merits for Zephia to be the first female Gharnef (that actually fits, not just a partial one like Rhea). But how does the other think about this?
Edited by ChrisX
Gharnef didn't lead a cult, but he basically turned Khadein into his country.
So yeah, what do you think people?
Zephia is closest to an Eremiah, we don't get explicit confirmation that she was a good person before she turned to evil, but it's implied in her heel realization in death like other Eremiah's. She at least had pure intentions to start even if we don't konw her full personality.
She's definitely somewhere in the Dark Lady archetype. Could she be a "only elements of" example of any, Witch, Eremiah, or Gharnef? Feels extreme to completely remove her from the page when she's clearly a reprise/remix of a lot of previous characters.
I guess a compromise could be to add her as an honorable mention in the three sections, because she is missing some elements from each section, because she is a woman, she is actually someone we're suppose to pity instead of enjoy their death (unlike the other Witches) and her fall to darkness lacks any form of mental or psychological manipulation (unlike the other Eremiya).
Edited by Troykv
It hasn't been mentioned but Zephia is also discarded as a pawn by her own master which fits with an Eremiya.
Also I'm not sure if Rhea really counts as having elements of a Gharnef, all she really has is trying to revive a Dragon, which isn't everything needed to qualify.
Do the corrupted monarchs really fit the deadlord archetype as a whole? These three are never fought together, and also, Corrupted Morion and Corrupted Hyacinth are fought a bit too early compared to Corrupted Lumera, since usually, deadlords are fought a few chapters before the endgame. They do fit the fact that they're undead, but I don't think they fully qualify as deadlords in my opinion.
Hide / Show Replies
They fit more of the Hardin archetype anyway.
MB Pending | MB Drafts | MB Dates
Yeah. I think they should be moved there. However, I'm also considering to move them into the "only has elements of the archetype" part because they still fit the undead aspect of the deadlords.
.....
So, while thinking around, I finally thought this might be some recurring type of background characters, except this time it's for antagonism. Let me know if there are improvements to be done or whether it fits or not.
The Unfought Instigator of Doom
By far, non-hostile Non Playable Character tend to be more or less hapless allies or good Posthumous Character. Not these characters, however: There are some Non Playable Character that was actually despicable from what is told, but for the most part... they're already dead. You don't fight them at all. However, in the past, they did some things that became the catalyst of the events that come to pass in the past because they just can't keep their flaws in check. They tend to be horrible people in general, as one of the attempts to gray out the morality of the setting: Not all those Non Playable Character are innocent victims, but they may even give you and the land trouble post-mortem. In other words, they end up being the Unwitting Instigator of Doom, which makes it very frustrating for the players because they're not given the chance to directly sock them in the face and make them pay for what they have done, possibly making them even surpass all other characters in the directly antagonistic tropes (from the Vile Opportunists to the Evil's Inner Circle) in terms of despicability.
Members of this archetype must be unable to be directly fought, however. Any time they are actually fought and defeated with game mechanics in any of the time span of the series, they are ruled out.
- Characters of this archetype: Adrah (Shadow Dragon and Mystery of the Emblem), Lima IV (Gaiden/Shadows of Valentia), Galle and Victor (Genealogy of the Holy War), Desmond (Binding Blade and Blazing Blade), Forneus (Awakening)note , Dukes of Adraestianote , The Agarthans (Three Houses)Characters that has elements of this archetype but does not count: Lekain (Path of Radiance)note , Parents of the Ljósálfr and Dökkálfr (Heroes)note
Tropes associated:
- Asshole Victim: Their heinous deeds often resulted in their actions coming back to bite it hard, and needless to say, it was very well deserved and sometimes, there was much rejoicing. Adrah averts this by the virtue of how he was never a victim of anything (he actually succeeded in his goals) and his general personality outside the theft he did to the Shield of Seals was rather blurry to confirm whether he's an asshole or not. His descendants, however, end up being the victims of his crime by karma.
- Hate Sink: While they're actually non-playable and could technically be 'on your side', the games don't shy away to showcase that they're not to be liked at all. Adrah is the only one that downplays this, due to his minimal characterization making his whole personality and actions feel more ambiguous despite causing trouble for millenium to come. Some of them may be designed to be even more despicable than the actual villains of their games, which may be why they're put in the Antagonistic Archetypes.
- Jerkass: Plain and simple, if their personalities are known to the players, they're assholes with no redeeming qualities, but not to the levels of performing very very heinous acts.
- Posthumous Character: For the most part these characters are already dead before the start of the game. Only the Dukes from Adraestia Empire avert this, as they're still present in-game and their antics was more recent. Desmond plays with this: He counts within the timeline of Binding Blade, but he's alive and well in Blazing Blade, because the game was a prequel and set in a time where he still lived. He still remains The Unfought, though.
- Small Role, Big Impact: Despite their minimum role and dead state by the game started, it's clear that their actions caused a great ripple in present time.
- The Unfought: Much as you wish to, you don't even fight them. They remain either unplayable, unfought or already dead NPC.
- Unwitting Instigator of Doom: They decided to thrive in their flaws and then they die and the world pays the price:
- Adrah's theft of the Shield of Seals that he used to found the Archanea Kingdom and conquer the land caused not only the Earth Dragons to awaken from their slumber and paving way for Medeus to get disillusioned with human's treatment towards his kin and leading to the formation of the Dolhr Empire, not to mention cursing his own generation with tragedy.
- Lima IV's generally prideful, cruel and hedonistic attitude made the otherwise peaceful Zofia became slothful and not only caused trouble for his descendants, it gave justifications for the generally poor Rigel to invade as well as making the otherwise benevolent Mira (that blessed him) suffer draconic degeneration.
- Galle's decision to journey to Archanea for 'personal power' ended up with him making contact with Loptous and kickstarted the dark age of Jugdral that haunts the continent for decades to come.
- Victor is an unrepentant womanizer and abusive father/husband towards his family, with his wife being Cigyun, who held Loptous blood, and had Arvis from her. His abuses led Cigyun to have an affair with Prince Kurth who had Naga blood, giving birth to Deirdre, and then Victor committed suicide out of spite. But because of this, Manfroy found the exact tools he needed to revive Loptous, and it also generally shaped up Arvis to be the ruthless manipulator that ended up killing Sigurd.
- Desmond is basically a really jealous father against his well loved by public, dutiful and talented son Zephiel just because he's born from an Arranged Marriage. He repeatedly refused to treat Zephiel well and repeatedly tried to have him dead, only for Zephiel to eventually snap in the last attempt, kill him in retaliation, and then became a Misanthrope Supreme who judged humanity based how his father treated him and waged war against Elibe to give the rulership to dragons.
- Forneus just wants to create a 'perfect lifeform', but didn't treat it well, and in turn, made the lifeform kill him. While Alm and Celica put a halt on that, the lifeform only went to slumber, and millenials later, the Grimleals capitalized on its awakening, becoming known as Grima and terrorizing Ylisse and its surrounding.
- Duke Aegir, Count Varley, Marquis Vestra and Baron Bartels orchestrated the Insurrection of Seven, all of which left a lasting impression on Edelgard and factored in why she became the Flame Emperor and concocted her destructive plan that threatened Fodlan. (And that is before you account on how they treat their children, especially Count Varley to Bernadetta and Baron Bartels to Mercedes, the latter causing the rise of the Death Knight)
- The Agarthans became Drunk with Power given by them from Sothis, and rebelled in an attempt to prove their superiority, causing Sothis to obliterate them. They then became the first generation of 'Those Who Slithers In The Dark' (not including Thales), manipulated Nemesis and the Ten Elites to slaughter Sothis and the Nabateans as revenge, causing Seiros to snap and eventually locking Fodlan in the medieval ages to prevent such tragedy again.
- Villains Act, Heroes React: They're the ones that acted first, accidentally created the grounds for the chaos that swept their land
What do you guys think?
Edited by ChrisX Hide / Show Replies
Interesting thought. Problem is, I don't know what to think of a better name for it. That being said, some of them could qualify as a Greater-Scope Villain.
Also, would suggest adding this:
- Asshole Victim: Their heinous deeds often resulted in their actions coming back to bite it hard, and needless to say, it was very well deserved. Adrah plays with this in which he completely got off scot-free, but his misdeed of breaking apart the Binding Shield resulted in his kingdom being affected by various calamities.
Also, Baron Bartels could qualify for the list, since he (unintentionally) played a part into creating the Death Knight by intending to marry Mercedes (who, keep in mind, is his step-daughter), which resulted in Jeritza killing not just him, but the rest of the House of Bartels, which had the side-effect of the Death Knight personality emerging from Jeritza.
Edited by Siegfried1337 MB Pending | MB Drafts | MB Dates
Launched as The Unfought Catalyst. Much shorter, I think, and I absolutely just can't pick a name for that. (The Adrah and The Lima were considered, but eventually passed)
Baron Bartels wasn't involved with the Insurrection of the Seven, so his involvement with the trope needs to be swapped with playing a part into the creation of the Death Knight like Siegfried says.
.....
All right. This is in regards of Eitri. Since Fafnir has been around for quite some time, he can be really considered a Hardin. But I wouldn't say that Eitri fit the bill as a Witch yet despite having a Witch getup (and she wasn't someone else's MOM...), and her reveal as the main villain has been rather recent. She's a highly manipulative person, dabbles in dark arts of necromancy (or attempts at it) even if she wasn't directly using dark magic.
Wouldn't that make her actually as an attempt as a female Gharnef? The dark manipulator for an entity (reminder that Sephiran is not only pretty instead of ugly, he's a light magic user)? She seems to be trying to summon something, which is why she had a Breidablik copy. And her caliber seems to be to be the high class trickster/manipulator. Loki would fit more as the manipulative Witch, but Eitri seems to check more on 'if Gharnef is a little girl'.
Let's wait awhile for Eitri to decide about her. There may be more about her.
Hide / Show Replies
Wasn't expecting her to be this powerful and important, it's like the writers pulled a bait and switch with Eitri considering she was initially assumed to be a cute funny sidekick character like Mirabilis
Get Out of Our Home.
Unofficial co-WikiCurator for MagnificentBastard
So. This sound like a good idea?
- The Deadlords: Warriors Reforged into a Minion, they often serve as the last bastion of defense against the Heroes, and some of them may be either dead player units, or antagonists that were killed but brought back to life.
- Examples: Deadlords note (Genealogy of the Holy War, Thracia 776note , Awakening), Nergal's Morphs note (The Blazing Blade), Vallite Servants note (Fates), Ten Elites note (Three Houses)
As long as you can give them a description on their common points this could work
Get Out of Our Home.
Added a draft. How is it?
The Deadlords often serve as the undead soldiers of the villain group. While their origins vary, they all share one thing in common: They were once dead, but were resurrected by the group to serve as either the last line of defense against the Hero's army. Since they're faced together, expect a tough fight against them, especially if they're mandatory.
- Back from the Dead: They were resurrected by the villains to serve them.
- Boss Bonanza: They are often faced in groups.
- Came Back Strong: If they were a former boss that had to be fought during the storyline, it can be this, the most notable example being Raydrik, who gains Wrath as Deadlord Mus, and Nergal's Morphs with the exception of Brendan have notably improved stats compared to when they were fought as bosses.
- Came Back Wrong: That being said, their resurrection came at the cost of most likely their free will, as they are basically moving lifeless husks.
- Gut Punch: If the player-controlled units were among the Deadlords, they're mostly an additional middle finger as a reminder of how they couldn't protect them in a game with Final Death.
- Our Zombies Are Different: The Deadlords and the other members of this archetype are zombies, but how they became one varies depending on game.
- Reforged into a Minion: Thracia 776 and Fates had player units who died were brought back as undead soldiers for the villain groups.
.....
We've been getting an influx of Dark Ladies, so I think it could be split in two:
- The Dark Hilda: A proof that evil can be found even in those with same chromosomes and defying Females Are More Innocent, these ladies are put simply: BITCHES. They are really in for the darker purposes of the antagonist forces and wholeheartedly embracing evil. A great Hate Sink too. Named after the Jugdral Hilda, but we put 'Dark' in it to separate with the sweeter Hilda from Fodlan.
- Examples: Hilda (Genealogy of the Holy War), Sonia (Blazing Blade), Petrine (Path of Radiance), Cornelia, Kronya (Three Houses), Loki (Heroes).
- The Eremiya: There are sometimes a female that has all the makings of a bitch and especially bad moms like the Dark Hilda. Until the end, when it was suddenly revealed that they didn't start out that way, usually moments before they die. They crossed some sort of Despair Event Horizon or became victim of brainwashing, making them a twisted version of their kind selves, this may or may not give them a shred of sympathy or chance of redemption.
- Examples: Eremiya (New Mystery of the Emblem), Aversa (Awakening), Arete (Fates (Revelation)), Nuibaba (Echoes, not Gaiden where she's kind of nondescript), Freyja (Heroes)
- Only Partial Examples: Camilla (Fates (Birthright) — Because she is not at all brainwashed and actually fought more like an Ishtar, despite her more provocative outfit and aggressive approach, not to mention she really strived to be a good mom and inspiring her people with normal manners), Thrasir (Heroes — Unlike most examples here, she stands out for not being a mom or abusive person.)
... Any suggestions?
Hide / Show Replies
Actually, scratch whatever I said: For Eremiya's section, in regards to Black Mage: Make Freyja an exception.
Edited by Siegfried1337 MB Pending | MB Drafts | MB Dates
Brilliant name choice for the Witch. Can't believe I didn't thought of it before.
Get Out of Our Home.
Blazing Larvesta
Does anyone think Rajaion could qualify for Hardin? While he was admittedly drugged instead of possessed, it still caused a similar situation where he was being controlled by an outside force (Ashnard, in his case) against his will and needs to be put down. Because of this, he is technically fought as the final boss alongside Ashnard, not unlike how Loptous is fought alongside Julius. He also returns to his senses when he dies like most other members. Thoughts?
I'm kind of baffled by the inclusion of Nemesis under the "Gazzak" category, which is described in terms of being a "starter villain" and the first boss encountered by the game's Lord. As acknowledged in the entry, Nemesis is the Final Boss of the route in which he appears, and the only connection seems to be that he was a bandit leader at one point in the setting's history.
I'll assume this is another situation that falls under "tighter requirements are forthcoming, sit tight," but I wanted to at least point it out.
Hide / Show Replies
Thanks.
It does give an idea of a section of 'has some elements of it, but not an example' for each archetypes.
Yeah, I was the one who initially added Nemesis as an example of the Gazzak.
My logic was simple: Nemesis doesn’t really fit into any archetype if you take the literal criteria for each of them. Thematically, however, the Verdant Wind route is all about subverting the established archetypes of FE, so Nemesis seems to be an attempt to play with a more dangerous “generic bandit boss.” Thus, I thought him as belonging to this archetype, in a vague sense.
That said, I like the idea of making a section for characters who show multiple traits of each archetype, but don’t strictly belong to any.
Edited by ThursdaysGregor I write Danganronpa fanfiction. Check it out! — http://archiveofourown.org/works/7153799/chapters/16241927
For what it's worth, the focus of the archetype seems to me to be much more on "low-threat starter villain" than "bandit boss," which is why I was confused to see Nemesis included even as a played-with version.
Team Rocket Boss.
So i see my Rhea example has been deleted. Why? Besides not being a dark mage, Rhea does fit the criteria, she seeks to revive dragon, manipulates others to achieve this goal such as Byleth, Jeralt, Seteth, and the rest of the monastary, is an archibishop, sets up significant amounts of the plot to achieve it. May i ask why?
Edited by RedHunter543 I'll teach you a lesson about just how cruel the world can be. That's my job, as an adult. Hide / Show Replies
Ok, yeah example bloat is a problem. I'd also like to add that Rhea has a lot of similarities to the more modern Gharnef examples like Lyon and Sephiran, and not so coincidentally being pretty like them. Like Lyon, she is broken by the death of her parent and seeks to revive them, but is potentially driven insane in her attempts, and their goals are the salvation of their country. Like Sephiran, she is a long lived religious figure with multiple names who attempts to maintain peace for the benefit of a divine deity, is driven to despair after a massacre committed by humans, desires to revive said deity to make things better. Secretly has more power than what their actual jobs would suggest. Three Houses is that game that takes apart a lot of FE conventions, Thales is the classic Gharnef, ugly, dark mage, defeated before final boss, and also a manipulator. He's inspired by guys like Manfroy and such. In contrast to Rhea who's more modern.
Yeah i'd remove her from the Hardin, it's waaaaay too last minute.
Edited by RedHunter543 I'll teach you a lesson about just how cruel the world can be. That's my job, as an adult.
Thanks a lot for that. We are currently experimenting on new requirements for all the archetypes. You can see an example of how it turns out within the Linde archetype in the Heroic archetype pages, with how we now have 'Has elements of it, but not an example of the archetype'. Trust me, the Antagonistic Archetype pages is due for a re-evaluation for it, and we'll start with the parts Rhea used to be.
I just find it interesting of the duality of the lords and Rhea, they both represent both the heroic archetypes and villains, and show different sides to them. In Rhea's case, shes' both a Nyna and Gharnef.
Edited by RedHunter543 I'll teach you a lesson about just how cruel the world can be. That's my job, as an adult.
You can take a look at the page now. I already edited the Gharnef thing. If you are still curious on how things work, drop me a PM.
So apparently Saizo is a Michalis on the Conquest route. How in blazes does he fit? Is it the part where he teams up with the enemy prince/ss Corrin to rescue Kagero? I don't get it. He's not particularly ambitious, he doesn't commit war crimes or anything, he just defends his nation from you twice, joins his master in an attack on Corrin at Macarath (and if that makes him a Michalis, then Ryoma and Kagero are also Michalises), and the bit at Mokushu.
Hide / Show Replies
We are currently devising a tighter requirement for archetypes. Have patience.
On second thought, it looks like someone added him again. Without explanation too. Is it the same guy? AoGamer? I sent him a PM and he did not listen.
Edited by ChrisX
.....
With Murdock naming his archetype despite Brian coming in first, I think it is kind of safe to just switch the 'Smug Minister' outright into 'The Ephidel'. Does anyone have objections with it (just say that Veld is an Early-Installment Weirdness)?
.....
This here is a potential Edit War, so perhaps for the moment I will have to take this on here.
Some has been debating on where Solon fits in, is he a Gharnef or a Smug Minister/Ephidel. I'm not sure if I could because overall... Solon doesn't manipulate as much as we expected, there is one bigger manipulator overall that seems more like Gharnef... and that's Thales. Without spoiling things... well, his guise is a man who manipulated several tragedies in the world which eventually made Edelgard take the decision on declaring war in the world. This looks more like a grander scale manipulation that a Gharnef would pull. Everyone in Those Who Slithers In The Dark are also deathly pallid, so everyone technically inherited Gharnef's Gonky looks.
However, Thales has ONE big problem: He's a physical fighter, not a mage. We never had a fighter Gharnef. So... really not sure how to solve this. What do you guys think?
Edited by ChrisX Hide / Show Replies
In regards to how gameplay goes, Solon is the Gharnef archetype moreso than Thales. In terms of story though? Solon is a One Shot who is dealt with before the halfway point and Thales fills in the rest.
As for class, Thales is in the Agastya class, which is a mage class that is proficient in Reason and Authority.
Yes.
Who would be the Gharnef of Three Houses? Is it actually Solon? Or can it also be Thales?
Edit: There is an appropriate thread that addresses this already. NVM.
Edited by BZL8
- Distaff Counterpart: In a way, much like the Ishtar-Camus comparison, the Dark Lady is more similar to either a female Jiol or Kempf.
Not really.
Kempfs and Jiols are sleazy Hatesinks who are out for themselves.
Dark Ladies:
- Are almost always sympathy and only two qualify for Hatesink status; Hilda and Sonia, and only three(arguably 4 I suppose) don't get an Alas, Poor Villain or Monster Sob Story.
- Are never out for themselves and are 8 times out of 10, very loyal to another villain, even if due to brainwashing. Even Hilda and Sonia never outright betray their boss or plan to.
They just don't have enough similarities to qualify, the only similarity is Dark Ladies sometimes being a Bad Boss, but that isn't enough as not all of them have that trait.
Hide / Show Replies
.....
So I just realized that someone slipped an archetype that I think is from the FE Wikia/Fandom, Murdock. Because it didn't have 'brief entry' above it... I had to delete it and put it here.
A sub archetype to the Camus archetype, Murdocks are usually a General (or similar type of unit or military rank) who hold a certain amount of respect for and from several player units and NP Cs, but die in the story nevertheless and may even hold some amount of ill will towards the player army.
- An Axe To Grind: Axes are often the archetype's weapon of choice.
- Mighty Glacier: They usually use tanky classes like General and Warrior.
- Undying Loyalty: Many of them such as Orridyon, Murdock and Cervantes are defined by fanatical loyalty to one of the enemy leaders.
- Worthy Opponent: They usually come to see the player as a worthy foe.
Therefore... let us iron this out and see if this archetype can be put on, TV Tropes style. (For instance: How to REALLY differ them with Camus or the 1-shot general)
Edited by ChrisX Hide / Show Replies
Brief entry above it, what do you mean?
Anyhow the distinction is discussed a bit, Murdock's tend to be:
- fanatically loyal to their individual leader; Orridyon to Michalis, Murdock to Zephiel, Cervantes to Walhart.
- Aren't extremely super friendly to the party. Orridyon refuses Marth and Minerva's offer of parley, Murdock is always hostile to Roy, ETC.
- Tend towards Mighty Glacier classes, ETC.
"Brief Entry": Before you get into the folders, there are some brief explanations of what the archetype is like. Like this entry you can find in Bandit Bosses:
- The Gazzak: A Starter Villain and often the very first boss. Likes to prey on the weak. Usually a bandit or a pirate.
- Bandit Twins: An eccentric duo that may be defending their turf from intruders or protecting stolen loot.
The thing is, amongst the 'Noble Enforcers' group, Murdock got none (yet). So we had to build it up after we iron out the archetype.
And now, back to Murdock:
- Fanatically Loyal to their individual leader: Is there a difference between this and Camus?
- Aren't extremely super friendly to the party: And... neither does Camus? Camus also refused any offers to join. Seemed like they run into "Nothing personal, dude. I just have a duty to do." So what was the difference again?
- Tends towards Mighty Glacier characters: Anything we can symbolize on this? (Maybe an Evil Counterpart to the Lorenz (minus the ridiculous recruitment process)?)
The greatest hurdle of a Murdock archetype is to differentiate with Camus (In case of Ishtar, so far the case was "She's female", while in the past, I proposed that Ishtar is "Absolutely refused to join the good guys because you made it personal against them, despite their general niceness.", but Murdock... not sure if I could say 'heavily armored Camus' could pass. But that's why we're discussing.)
Also the old entry removed Shiraham from the One-Shot General into Murdock. My question: Doesn't Murdocks have appearances outside the battle they're in? Because last I remembered, Murdock did make cutscene appearances beyond the sole battle he's in (alongside Glen).
Edited by ChrisX
- The Murdoch: A high-ranking male commander of a very physical class that is frantically loyal to their superior or organization. Whilst honorable, unlike Camus, Murdoch's remain hostile towards the protagonists and never consider changing sides.
Here's a bullet.
How does Brendan fit into all this? Is he loyal to Nergal?
Get Out of Our Home.
RE: May I Con
Brendan is fanatically loyal to the Black Fang and all its true members.
Please remember that I was just copy-pasting what was on the article before. Eventually, we'll have to change that. Including the one with Shiraham, because I do know that Murdocks appear even in cutscenes BEYOND the one battle he's in.
Also it's weird that the archetype is gonna be named after Murdock whereas there's a Shadow Dragon character preceding him. Early-Installment Weirdness?
Edited by ChrisX
Trope Codifier I guess. I don't recall how or who Orridyon is in FE 1 and 3.
What differentiates them from the One Shot Generals, aside from screentime count?
Get Out of Our Home.
RE: May I Con
Paladin boss in FE 1 and its remake.
The DS remakes gives him more characterization as a vassal for the Macedon royal family. Marth and Minerva try to get him to back down, but he refuses out of his fanatical loyalty to Michalis. RE: Chris X
Orridyon debuted before Murdoch, but his characterization came from the DS remake where there was even a cutscene with him.
I should also add.
- Camus's realize their side is in the "wrong" part of the war, Murdoch's remain convinced their side is the right, the whole way through.
- Camus's always remain friendly and an apologeticAttacker, sometimes helping the protagonists before meeting them in combat, and remorseful in combat. Murdoch's actively dislike the protagonist and due to their loyalty, never consider changing sides at all. Almost all the time, Camus lament not being able to stop fighting due to their loyalty and oaths.
- Yes, you could indeed consider the archetype a counterpart to Lorenz, the enemy general who learns to join the player vs the Murdoch who never considers it at all.
Duly noted. My only thing is that if it comes from a future remake, put them farther to the list and add notes (Shadow Dragon and New Mystery is between Radiant Dawn and Awakening, FYI). We did that to Slayde for Kempf characters.
And... well, One-Shot Generals have a squadron of sympathetic soldiers trying to make best in their situation (being stuck with a Bad Boss, being threatened, etc) that these guys look up to them like A Father to His Men. Defeating them will more likely erect Alas, Poor Villain reaction in and/or out of universe.
A Murdock, while not being a Bad Boss, doesn't inspire such fatherly aura. He's a good and loyal commander, but most likely is being normally strict to his men. Defeating them will more likely feel like defeating a Worthy Opponent. No pity or sadness. Just a good opponent.
Edited by ChrisX
Yes that would fit.
All those characters are respected among their army, but they don't treat their soldiers like a father.
Okay let me see about a new writeup for Murdock. Ahem.
Perhaps the least sympathetic of the Noble Enforcers characters (but still more sympathetic than the more evil characters), the Murdock is a high ranking general in the enemy ranks that might look affable and not being evil about it, but he doesn't share the doubts and conflicts plaguing either the Camus, Ishtar or the One-Shot General. He may be a personable fellow out of battle, but when it comes to fighting the war, he steadfastly held onto the loyalty of his nation/liege and will stand against you who oppose his nation/liege, as an ultimate show of loyalty and the fact that he's a model soldier. Call it Blind Obedience or the likes of it, but he has been raised to value the thing known as loyalty and hold those values high. His men are highly motivated, he might not be A Father to His Men, but he won their loyalty via strict discipline and proper training. He's decked with either powerful muscles or heavy armor that makes him a mighty physical fighter, if you face him, you may not feel pity or sadness, but rather an adrenaline rush of fighting for your life, he is a Worthy Opponent for you to unleash everything you know and prepared so far.
A Murdock is usually encountered rather late game and will probably be the second toughest (or third, if there is a Camus/Ishtar, then they tend to compete for the position) enemy you face before eventually facing the higher level of bad guys, mostly due to the fact that they tend to possess any of the Mighty Glacier class. Their high enough HP and stats might make you be wary in sending your mages, in case they actually tanked the magic and then prepares a counterattack that can kill.
(Apologies for the messed up format)
Members of this Archetype: Murdock (Binding Blade), Brendan Reed (Blazing Blade), Orridyonnote (Shadow Dragon), Cervantes (Awakening)
- An Axe To Grind: For some reason, Murdocks prefer axes more than a spear.
- Evil Counterpart: In two ways:
- Murdocks are Evil Counterpart to the good Lorenz, a high ranking general that eventually realizes the error of their way and turn the other leaf late game. If that is a Murdock, however, he will refuse to turn a new leaf, because he already set his loyalty to his liege/nation.
- On the other hand, Murdocks are actually either a Good Counterpart or A Lighter Shade of Black towards Jiols. Sure, both of them can look imposing with their armors, but a Murdock knows some genuine decency off battle and does not indulge in either politics or corrupt scheming, they knows their position as a soldier. A Jiol, on the other hand, ends up being slimy jerks despite their size and high rank.
- Four-Star Badass: Their ranks are amongst the highest in the enemy army and they are more than capable in delivering a mighty fight.
- Mighty Glacier: That size of them isn't just for show, it also showcases their Authority Equals Asskicking
- Undying Loyalty: This is a Murdock's greatest calling card, a counterpart for Camus' Honor Before Reason.
- Worthy Opponent: He may view the player as this, nothing more, nothing less. Meta-wise, he'll be a very tough boss that requires better yet fair effort to defeat.
Of course, Shiraham is removed from the list because he IS a One-Shot General and clearly has doubts about the side he's on.
On the other hand, despite being one-shot, I think Brian from Genealogy may also fit in this; he's loyal to his house of Dozel despite the crimes of his father and brother and his battle was more or less his way to restore the honor of the house, and only in death's door that he pondered if he was on the right side or not. He's more similar to Orridyon.
But then, because he appeared before Murdock, it might have the side-effect of taking over the name of the archetype. This is where I doubt, I don't think the archetype could end up being called 'The Brian'...
Edited by ChrisX
Looks fine.
Changing the name is a possibility, as it may have existed before FE 6. Brian does get a bit of mention in FE 4, so he's not quite a minor boss either. So it could be named Brian.
Notably Tear Ring Saga has a Paladin Camus known as "the sword" his kingdom and a General, known as the shield of the same kingdom, who fits nearly every requisite for Murdoch. The only thing he missed was wielding an axe as Generals couldn't use them in that game.
Not so sure about Shiharam being a oneshot general, he seemed pretty important to me, but its not something I'm going to change.
Before Hardin became his own archetype, we did refer the Rudolf Archetype as Hardin (despite knowing that Rudolf came first), so I think the name can stay (I did put Brian as the Trope Maker, whereas Murdock is the codifier)
While Shiraham has a bigger 'importance', the thing is, he only made an on-screen appearance in the only chapter he's fought and died. So that was how it is.
.....
I want to discuss one thing. At this point, the difference between Camus and Ishtar could somewhat be concluded with "This one is male, the other one is female". However, I'd like to propose a more 'concrete' difference between Camus and Ishtar beyond their gender... in a way that even Ishtars can be male as well.
Camus absolutely has no beef against your Lord or party. He just had to follow orders and had a case of Honor Before Reason. Ishtar, on the other hand, doesn't have that: The original Ishtar absolutely had no desire to join your army because... well, because you have done a number against her: You killed her brother, turned her cousin against her, killed her father, killed her mother. After all that's done with, even if Ishtar is still a sympathetic background and personality, she still has personal reasons to not join you. You either did a number on her family. Or in other cases, you betrayed them.
I think this will make a distinct difference between the Ishtar and the Camus beyond gender. Aside of the original Ishtar, there's actually a few more examples like this, and gender restriction is not considered:
- Lloyd & Linus. The one who fought you first is a Camus, but after they're killed and then you got framed for it, the other one becomes an Ishtar. In another time, they could've been good allies, but after that killing, any hopes of them turning over is gone.
- Micaiah. Her being antagonistic over Ike is rooted on how Ike outed Ashnard, who, while monstrous, still made Daein a better place than when Begnion ran the place. So Micaiah did have a reason to antagonize Ike, he indirectly ruined her home.
- Ryoma & Xander. The side that didn't get picked by Corrin will turn into an Ishtar, because as shown in the side where they got picked, they were perfectly personable and honorable. While they might retain that honor, after Corrin's betrayal, they became blinded with that that they refuse to listen to any other reasons. Doesn't help that afterwards Corrin launched an assault to their nations. Aside of Ryoma and Xander, you can also include the likes of Hinoka, Takumi, Sakura, Camilla and Leo. In a way, this might pull Camilla from the Dark Lady archetype and Leo from the Michalis archetype (the last might overlap, however). Xander in Heroes, on the other hand, is more Camus; the Order of Heroes didn't hit a personal issue unlike Corrin in Fates.
- Fernand. (Finally, an archetype for him!) Fernand was shown to be really personable back in the days, but when tragedy struck he became bitter. But as long as Clive leads the Deliverance, he'd be OK with that. But then came Alm, someone who doesn't click well with Fernand considering his past, and Clive was handing over leadership to him. Fernand got pissed and turned enemy, while still retaining some of his honor. While Alm might not have any grudge to Fernand, he DOES, based on his status and how the commoners ruined him in the past.
So basically, this will put the new formation into this:
- Camus: Camus, Wolf, Eldigan, Arion, Reinhardt, Murdock, Galle, Brunnya, Lloyd & Linus (before one of them dies), Selena, Glen, Bryce, Black Knight/Zelgius, Levail, Yen'fay, Heroes!Xander
- Ishtar: Ishtar, Lloyd & Linus (after one of them dies), Micaiah, Ryoma, Hinoka, Takumi, Sakura, Xander, Camilla, Leo, Fernand
The old entries of Ishtar that didn't make it (Altenna, Ena, Rinea, Laegjarn)... well either they could simply not get included or we could find another definition to fit them in. (Laegjarn is not a definitive one because we haven't known how she would react in cases of the death of Surtr. We're not sure if it's Laegjarn who'd fit this trope too, it could've been Laevatein)
(Also I didn't include Flora because if we take out the 'sympathetic female', she felt more like a One-Shot General in Birthright since she was threatened that her tribe would get destroyed, only not fitting because she wasn't exactly a one shot character. Helbindi might also fit this, but... we might want to modify the 'One Shot' part)
What do you guys think?
Hide / Show Replies
i dunno, i kinda like the archetypes being more intuitive than that. where appearance/gameplay/as well as story specifics kind of contribute to whether a character feels like a certain archetype.
hard rules like they must "have done x in the story" trumping everything else just make for a lot of arguing and deep cut hard line trivia over something that's already arbitrary.
.....
Much like Fernand, there's another entry I'd like to content.
In what way is Ursula an Ishtar? While she was antagonistic, she wasn't portrayed as sympathetic. In fact, she was a lot more aggressive and definitely not the most innocent member of the Black Fang (you can compare with Lloyd and Linus). Ursula is sounding more similar to a Dark Lady like Sonia did.
So yeah... how?
Hide / Show Replies
just to counterpoint,
Storywise she's somewhat more sympathetic as you can visit her in a house in one chapter and she gives you an item. She also is more in line with Brendan Reeds Black Fang than Nergals.
From a gameplay perspective its likely just that she's a mounted mage. Like her direct successor Selene in Sacred Stones.
Zeralyos
Thoughts on adding Laegjarn (from Heroes) to the Camus archetype? She seems a pretty good fit to me.
Edited by kellbyb Hide / Show Replies
.....
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.
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 Anti-Villain, 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.
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.
So why is Fernand a Camus again?
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.
Edited by ChrisX Hide / Show Replies
It's kind of a weird spot for Fernand. I'd say he really fit as a Michalis,but he has traits that really not a lot of villains have. He reminds me a bit of Orson, who really is a weird example anyway.
A former playable character/ally of the heroes who defects to the enemies for personal reasons and is a semi major antagonist.
Thats what I kinda get from Fernand and Orson.
Muramasa got.
if Fernand is anything he's just a Jr. Michalis, with Berkut being the real Michalis. But that's pretty weak too.
Maybe he's just his own thing? Not every character needs to be shoehorned into an archetype. Every now and then the series is allowed to have some originality.
That's about it. He's one of the more unique breed of antagonists that he doesn't fit into any archetypes.
Update: On the other hand, Orson kind of fits on Jiol, because while he started out as a knight that betrayed Renais, he DID end up ruling it badly before Ephraim took over.
Edited by ChrisX
No.
Probably count as classes, though.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
The thinking is that monster classes are definitely a thing (like gargoyles, mogalls, revenants etc) but the monster faction as a whole is an archetype (Risen, Faceless, Terrors)
So as not to cause an Edit War. Veronica is either Gharnef or she isn't really an archetype at all.
She's definitely not Hardin, outside of being a figurehead for the enemy army. But she lacks almost every other trait associated with the archetype.
As far as being a Gharnef, note that she's a dark magic user, and master manipulator (she literally manipulates each of the Heroes she has into joining her) and is essentially their evil summoner.
She's much more of a twist of the evil wizard than the metal emperor. Or she might just be her own thing. For the time being I'm just going to remove her wholesale.
Edited by acrobox Hide / Show Replies
That's fine with me.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
I was wondering whether Idunn could be considered a Hardin (or posessing elements of Hardin) in addition to Medeus, given that she was essentialy lobotomized and turned into a living weapon with no free will, serving Zephiel because he somehow made her recognize him as a master rather than due to any personal agenda.
I also think that her War Dragons qualify for Monster Corps, being basically mass-produced draconic golems created only for war and with very limited capacity for thinking or making decisions.
Hide / Show Replies