Archetype Fatigue

[mark_asphodel]

Eh.  This post was originally about something else altogether but I think this is a better issue than what I was originally banging on about re: "archetypes" in FE-land.  OK, so we've all seen fans going on about how they like X type of character.  Maybe it's mashing all alleged Devoted Knights[*] together so that Kent equals Seth equals Geoffrey equals whoever the hell, or maybe it's glomping all Angsty Wyvern Riders collectively[**], or all "Navarres" or all the "Julians" or... eh, whatever.  Y'all know what I'm talking about.  

And that, at least in 'fic, leads to the characters in question being blurred and mushed and just not themselves.  I'll never forget the 'fic I read that was allegedly about Navarre wherein the author deliberately used the characterization of FE7!Karel for Navarre because they knew Karel and didn't know anything in-depth about Navarre himself.  OK, we've talked about this phenomenon more than a few times.

But, actually... isn't the opposite kind of the case, if you're actually into the characters and not just the niche they fill?  I think what I've found, personally, is that if I latch onto a particular Pegasus Sister Trio, or a particular Angsty Wyvern-Riding Turncoat, and so on, then the other ones of that type just don't DO it for me.  I mean, I might have some (or a lot) favorable bias toward them, but it's just not the same intensity of feeling.  And the clone characters may be good characters, but they're just a little too similar along Axis X and a yet a little too different along Axis Y when compared to the character I actually love.

It's like the Dick York/Dick Sargent thing in Bewitched, in a sense.  Yeah, superficial resemblance.  Yeah, playing the role and reciting the dialogue.  But I liked Dick York better, dammit, so please bring Original Darrin back and send this impostor packing, stat.  And some people, somewhere, liked Dick Sargent better.  These people are wrong, but whatever.

But I think this gets to the heart of why I just can't work up any enthusiasm for, say, the FE6 Pegasus Trio sisters or other characters who strike me as too much the New Darrin when held up against a character I actually like.  I lovelovelove Palla-Catria-and-Est.  Something about the FE6 girls just feels kind of hollow to me, whereas the FE7 Peggies have moved enough along the "same" and "different" axes that I like them a good deal better[***], and then by FE8 we still have three Peggies but only Syrene's hairstyle hews all that close to the template.  

(And you can argue that green-haired sisters Syrene and Vanessa are evoking Mahnya and Fury instead, but they are most certainly NOT replicants of Mahnya and Fury.  Syrene and Vanessa are, um, Syrene and Vanessa.)

Anyway, I don't know if anyone else gets their hackles up when confronted with the New Darrin phenomenon in Fire Emblem, but I'd sure like to hear it if you do.  Because it does seem to explain why I just can't warm up to some characters even though, working off a characterization/archetype checklist, I "should" be crazy about them.

Note: This is one criticism I cannot level against FE13.  Chrom and Cordelia aside, I don't think there was anyone in FE13 who really set off my New Darrin radar.  And if there was, I've mercifully forgotten it. 

* Usually "all the ones they know about," as in nothing pre-FE7 and nothing from the Archanea reboots.  This is probably a good thing, at least for me.  

** Ditto.  They're not gushing over Dean.  

*** Mostly Farina's doing.

Comments

[kyusil]

I'd say your first one of any of these archetypes hits you the most fondly, but I know that's not entirely true. I know I go on about Bern, but Cormag was the first Angsty Wyvern Rider I actually liked (granted, no credibility because I haven't played most of the early games. which is a disclaimer I should just pop on the front of everything I post, lol). I guess it's the nuances that spin the character at just the right angle for each person?

I think this goes for the games in general, too. If you like one game (or continent) in particular and that's your favorite and you like the way it did certain things, then I think there's a tendency to view the ones before it as not having perfected those elements yet and write off the ones after it as diminishing in quality, or just copying what it did. The games at once recycle more than people think and less than people think; for every time I feel a twinge of disappointment that a character I like was "done before," I'm pleasantly surprised at the degree of love and analysis that goes into characters I'd never considered. It's funny, because I was discussing this article with a friend earlier today and I think it hits on a lot of relevant points (maybe if FE was explicitly about the heroes and scenarios being reincarnated we'd have an easier time of things!). If you think about it, it's kind of tough to define a "standard" FE as well, even when you can tease out fundamental similarities and formulas. It's not a strict-progression series-- elements come and go, similar aspects show different facets each time.

I (really hope that) I'm coming to realize that the characters and titles you like are the ones you devote your time and thoughts to, and vice-versa. Maybe it's a little more cyclical than is entirely open-minded. But that's why one person can look at a character and think "bo-ring" and the next person can look at that same character and write paragraphs about how interesting and compelling they are. Is one person thinking too hard, or is the other person not reading between the lines? I don't know-- who can say? But even when I'm feeling down about my favorites for whatever reason, I can't shake the feeling that if a lot (okay, maybe a handful) of smart people have vastly different favorites among the series, isn't that an indication that these games are doing something well?

[amielleon]

I agree tremendously that spending more time with a game, and in essence developing it in your head, makes you see much more good in it. And oftentimes things with a "basis" have that basis scattered to the four winds, and it takes a certain obsession to bring all the bits together in the first place.

[kyusil]

Yes. This is a 100% more accurate and succinct way of saying what I was trying to.

And I think it's this fostering of individual expertise and preferences that's going to be a lot healthier for fandom. I can say for sure that less-familiar characters grow on me infinitely faster in a lovingly-penned fic or meta treatise than if I were to scour their supports for something that evokes feeling. I love seeing people get excited about characters-- for me, that's fandom.

[mark_asphodel]

granted, no credibility because I haven't played most of the early games. which is a disclaimer I should just pop on the front of everything I post, lol

I don't care what games people have played as long as they're not claiming that their archetype list or whatever is about "The Whole Series" when they mean "FE7-10 plus FE13". I have dealt with so many people, especially one yo-yo on tumblr, who just like to pretend the Marth Remakes never happened and that the games prior to 7 (or prior to 6) somehow have no bearing on what they got in 7 and onward. I've also seen many an FE8 character get slammed for being too close to an FE7 character by fans who don't realize their precious beloved FE7 character is in turn modeled off somebody else. If you're going to take the time to rip Cormag a new one for not being Heath, it might be good to realize Heath didn't pop into existence from nothing.

[And the tumblr yo-yo is indeed doing it on purpose because his arguments don't work if you take earlier games into account. So he's cherry-picking his data and is proud of it.]

I guess it's the nuances that spin the character at just the right angle for each person?

Pretty much. FWIW I think Cormag is my favorite of the AWR type too. Certainly of the AWR guys he's my favorite. Why don't I care about Heath? Well, his nuances don't work for me the way Cormag's do. They're variations on a theme and one for me is <3 while the other is really... I don't hate Heath but I really don't care about him.

If you think about it, it's kind of tough to define a "standard" FE as well, even when you can tease out fundamental similarities and formulas. It's not a strict-progression series-- elements come and go, similar aspects show different facets each time.

Yes. It's not a strict progression at all. It's more like DNA combining and recombining. And one game has my favorite plot, one has my favorite cast of characters, one has the my favorite world/building atmosphere, and a yet another one has IMO the best gameplay so far. I don't think I can presently single out any of them as being Perfect or even The Best. I would have loved to give that to FE12, but I honestly can't.

Is one person thinking too hard, or is the other person not reading between the lines?

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's both. And that goes for the characters I TL;DR over as much as it does everyone else.

[kyusil]

I guess, similar to the uncomfortable feeling of not being able to like later characters in an archetype class, I get an uncomfortable feeling that I'm giving too much credit to knock-off characters-- that by lacking knowledge in early FE, I can't really praise any of the later games because I don't know what's what. In a sense, I feel as though any claim about a character, world, plot, etc. amounts to a claim about the Whole Series-- if not, then you can bet someone will take it that way. Again, it's not a strict progression from Platonic Ideal to dollar-store versions who wish they could be the original-- I get this theoretically. But when it's pointed out my first is not the first (even when it's not a discussion about archetypes), I definitely get a sense like I'm not justified in my preferences. Maybe it goes in the other direction, too? "Why am I obsessed over this 16-bit fool when some other guy came and did this schtick with a lot more text on the Gamecube?" kind of thing? In any case, I agree with wolt in that a constant battle between "first" and "better" is going to yield a lot less fruit than just accepting that nobody picks favorites based on some kind of pure, logical algorithm-- and that would make for just as boring a fandom as the purely-emotion-driven self-insert sector. But I have this gnawing feeling that I really need to just sit down and have the FE equivalent of a classic film marathon before I can really say anything else.

It's more like DNA combining and recombining.

That's a good way of putting it. For some reason there's a lot of like, violent language attributed to this recycling? IS can't loot from its own wares. Again, when you've got something like Zelda there's a certain comfort in the formula-- people accept similar elements as part of the overall world of the series. It sometimes seems like a lot of FE fans have a love/hate relationship with this recombination. But I think that comes back to it being a kind of battle among fans at times. You'll like it when it helps you win your arguments, and hate it when it seems to take your favorites down a peg. And people will react to the archetype system in that way as long as it's used for arguments.

[mark_asphodel]

I get an uncomfortable feeling that I'm giving too much credit to knock-off characters-- that by lacking knowledge in early FE, I can't really praise any of the later games because I don't know what's what.

Well, elsewhere I just compared FE7's Serra to a '13 Ford Focus as held up against Malliesia's '95 Escort. Is one arguably a knockoff? Yeah. Does it bring things to the table not even dreamed of when the original came off the production line? Oh hell yeah.

But archetype debates really are ridiculous when people take FE7 (or 6, since more have played that than, say, FE5) as a starting point and work backward without grokking the actual source material. Original Cain and Abel are so sketchy as characters that people argue about them archetype-wise without even understanding that Noish and Alec from FE4 instituted the straight man/comic dynamic we're accustomed to now and the whole "archetype" look a break for FE2 and arguably FE5. Cain and Abel themselves don't fit into the straight man/comic dude box. Is FE8's Kyle modeled off Abel or Cain? Uh... IDK. Really, I don't know. Are we talking stats or storyline? Armor color or personality? Surface presentation or deeper characterization? Let's just call him Green and be done with it.

[And if you held me at gunpoint I'd say he's the Cain. Kyle stays by Ephraim in his default unpaired ending while Forde goes off to self-actualize via painting. That's my litmus test.]

Maybe it goes in the other direction, too? "Why am I obsessed over this 16-bit fool when some other guy came and did this schtick with a lot more text on the Gamecube?" kind of thing?

Oh, I've definitely felt that way.

And people will react to the archetype system in that way as long as it's used for arguments.

I find the whole archetype debate to be pretty ridiculous, TBH. It's about taking characters and locking them in boxes when many characters-- especially later ones-- are drawing off multiple sources of inspiration. Take Geoffrey. On the one hand, the blue mop of hair and trademark Brave Lance make him an obvious reference to Finn from the Jugdral games. (Obvious and inarguable given they're the only two characters out of 13 games who have that as their personal weapon.) But if anyone's carrying Finn's actual role in the Tellius games, right down to some awfully familiar bits of dialogue in FE9, it's Titania. So you have a really, really popular character (apparently the most popular in FE4 via fan poll and arguably popular enough that he got his own spin-off game in FE5) influencing a couple of different characters several games down the line. That sort of influence doesn't fit on an archetype checklist. Back to Geoffrey. If we have to associate all characters with some FE1 character as certain archetype lists would have it[*], then Geoff being a pre-promote guy on a horse would make him... A Midia. Or An Arran. Wait, isn't Arran a Jeigan? Geoffrey can't be a Jeigan because Titania's the Jeigan. Wait, what were we even talking about?

So I guess Geoffrey's The Midia because he's a prepromote paladin of noble background who's intensely loyal to his queen. Does that explain anything worthwhile about Geoffrey? Not really.

Archetypes exist and over the years IS has both amplified them and subverted them. But trying to shove someone like FE4's Ayra into the "Nyna" box on dubious grounds or sticking Tellius characters into boxes even though they're drawing on multiple sources of inspiration just seems like an exercise in futility to me. Not every character either begins or follows an archetype.

TL;DR many "archetype" arguments don't even seem to have a basis in any kind of reality to me.

* General Banzai. He's a fool. I don't throw that around as a rule but he's earned it, and for a lot more than just the archetype nonsense.

[amielleon]

Shit, you bring up Serra and suddenly, I just realized where the annoying fake cheeriness thing came from.

[raphiael]

I think it's not necessarily the first, but yeah, it's pretty much impossible to not snap back to what you know best to compare and contrast. Especially in a series that deliberately echoes back and self-cannibalizes elements. Sometimes that can be favorable - I wouldn't have paid much attention to Zelgius and Sephiran if I hadn't heard they were Basically Percival and Elphin, and now I love them on their own. But conversely there are definitely characters that I might have liked had they not felt like Raphi's Favorite 2.0.

But maybe I'm weird because the first one I was really attached to is now one of my least favorites.

[amielleon]

If this is about The Knolls, mostly I take delight in absurd collisions of coincidences that have no particularly logical reason for existing. (Mopey dark mages, sure, predictable. But throw in the silver haired maidens and suddenly Henry's random DLC flirting is 500% more hilarious than it already was.)

As far as archetype attachments go, though, there's no FE-specific trope I go for. Closest we get is genius orphaned mages, and I'm fairly lukewarm about Nino, Ewan, Linde, etc.

Does Cordelia count as a New Darrin of some manner? My knowledge of TV is abysmal and admittedly I'm not totally catching onto this metaphor.

[mark_asphodel]

If this is about The Knolls

No, this is more the result of me wondering why is it I just haven't ever been able to squee <3 <3 <3 over a character like Elphin/Mildain who should, by rights, make me very happy. I'm not super-passionate about any of the Knolls. If anything I probably like Henry the best of the lot, so far.

Jesus H. Christ how could I forget Cordelia. I must've wanted to. Yes, she's the deliberate and lampshaded New Darrin of FE13. And guess what? I only like her if I squint and selectively ignore most of her dialogue.

(Same goes for Libra-- though he's worse on the surface and not as bad underneath. Please don't point out any more; they depress me.)

But yeah, Cordelia is pretty much the present-day poster child of this phenomenon.

[wolt]

Hmm. This is really interesting, because, while some people are quick to group the archetype characters into one category, they're all so very different. You don't like FE6's pegasus trio because they share too many similarities with FE1's, but I would say that I prefer FE6's when drawing the same comparison. Shanna is so bawdy and hilarious; I guess I don't really like middlesister much because she's all over the place and I don't enjoy her personality; Juno is interesting because her drive as a mother is so different from other playable characters in the past. I don't feel the need to compare Est to Shanna, because I know they have different stories surrounding their characters; I know that Palla and Juno are incredibly different, even though they both have that gentle-older-sister vibe – which Sigrun also shares, despite her lack of a relation to Marcia or Tanith.

I think that FE fandom as a whole is terrible about deciding which character of an archetype is “best.” They feel the need to draw comparison between characters of different games, when they wouldn't draw the same comparisons between characters from different franchises. It's the unfortunate truth of many game series; the same thing happens between the Legend of Zelda and Pokémon games. It's oftentimes nonsensical to compare things between completely different series... so why is it that we do it when it comes to different worlds within a franchise?

Kent is dutiful, but he becomes a traitor for Lyn when he'd only known her for a few days. Seth is also dutiful, but he's been in his position for years, and has close bonds with Eirika and Ephraim. Geoffrey is dutiful, because he has been Elincia's peer in hiding for ages and he kind of loves her.

Marth is a prince who grew up in hiding. So are Leif and Seliph. But they're all so vastly different, character-wise. Sigurd and Eliwood both meet ~*mysterious ladies*~ and have that fated-romance thing going on, but I rarely see that line drawn between them. Hector may as well be Quan 2.0, a little rougher around the edges, sure, but they have a remarkably similar role (depending on how bad you think Hector messed Ostia up, and if you're okay with me bringing up a non-“lord” character as an example). Alm and Ike are ~*secret royalty*~ who go around manhandling everybody.

See, Leif and Roy both wound up accepting a role as an army's leader after a few chapters of their respective games. Leif just wanted to save his mother, while Roy just wanted to deliver his militia to Hector. But would you say that Roy is a rehash of Leif? I don't think that's right, because they grew up so differently, and had such different roles... Marth is a prince fated to retake his homeland, and Leif is the same in that regard. Exiled prince does his prince thing and goes on adventure started by badites and gets a pretty princess and whatever. But is Leif a rehash of Marth? Does that make Roy a rehash of Marth by association? And where does this leave Seliph, who reads like he stepped up to the plate and went on his crusade of his own volition? Are Micaiah and Leif the same as him, getting harassed by “imperial” troops until the ball starts rolling on their little adventures?

People are so worried about which game is better, that they compare and contrast and ultimately wind up unable to enjoy the “lesser” game. The elements all combine in such different ways, so how can we really compare one character to another and decide who pulls it off better? Especially when we all love FE for different reasons – the plot, the characters, the literary parallels, the self inserts, the dark political intrigue, the dragons, the cute shota mages, or whatever. Everyone is going to have a different opinion based on what they enjoy the most, and to say that a person is wrong for their personal preferences is just... Well, it feels wrong.

Or maybe I'm just weird because I love all the games equally? And I don't like it when people fight about which is best.

[mark_asphodel]

I guess I don't really like middlesister much because she's all over the place and I don't enjoy her personality

Actually, I think Tate/Thite is what sinks them as a combo pak. If they'd put in just Shanna and Juno, I don't think it'd even hit my radar, but FE6 deliberately gives us the first (playable) set of peggy-riding, triangle-attackin' girls since the original three, and Tate seems to be an intentional bad Xerox of Catria. At any rate, I've never, ever been able to warm up to her. (I find Juno's self-effacement kind of off-putting too.)

It's oftentimes nonsensical to compare things between completely different series... so why is it that we do it when it comes to different worlds within a franchise?

Heh. C'mon, it's the perennial "Could X with Y beat Superman in a fight?" line of thought.

Hector may as well be Quan 2.0

Or a better-developed Lex. Younger brother, irresponsible, red-headed little buddy...

Are Micaiah and Leif the same as him, getting harassed by “imperial” troops until the ball starts rolling on their little adventures?

I laughed when Micaiah got tossed in jail at the beginning of FE10. I stopped laughing when Sothe busted her out one cutscene later. :/

Or maybe I'm just weird because I love all the games equally?

I like all the games for different reasons. If there were a "perfect" FE game it'd likely be drawing on one element of FE3, one from FE5, one from FE8, one from the Tellius saga, one from FE13, and so on.

I mean, most of this is me wondering why I don't find some characters super-exciting even though my friends like them and meta them and 'fic them and I really "ought" to like these characters.

[wolt]

Actually, I think Tate/Thite is what sinks them as a combo pak.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. While she doesn't have the unrequited love thing going on that Catria does, she just... doesn't have any defining traits that sets her apart from others. It feels like she wasn't all that well-thought-out, which is unfortunate.

On Quan/Lex/Hector - Hector does have more of Lex's personality/role at face value, but his shortcomings between FE6 and 7 seem more like Quan's role between the two generations of FE4; he just wasn't a good ruler, and it caused major problems. He's like. Lex and Quan's love child.

most of this is me wondering why I don't find some characters super-exciting even though my friends like them and meta them and 'fic them and I really "ought" to like these characters.

I guess I get what you're saying here, now that I think about it a bit. I'm almost always a fan of the shotamages, because they make me feel the warm fuzzies and I just want to pat them on the head. Ricken, however, makes me want to punch walls. But then again, I understand why I can't stand him; his entire role boils down to "I want to be a grown-up" so much that it's annoying. The other kiddos throughout FE history have had a significant amount of character development, while he seems to not have much of a personality outside of his role. So... I haven't had to question why I don't like him compared to the others.

[raphiael]

While she doesn't have the unrequited love thing going on that Catria does
She does - Klein makes absolutely no sign of returning her affections. I guess at least she openly fesses to it, but it's there. (Which isn't to say Klein is canonically absolutely not into her, but I don't think there's a line where Marth goes "Sorry Catria, but you're not my type" either.)

[wolt]

Fair enough, I guess. But then again, since FE6 didn't really have "paired endings," we don't know how if Klein returned her feelings or not, while Marth kind of married Caeda, so. I tend to give FE6 pairings the benefit of the doubt?

[raphiael]

FE6 doesn't have paired endings, no, but I can't think of any other outright love confessions. Lots of suggestions and things you can read into, but no explicit loving things outside definite couples. I'm not saying people who ship it are wrong or anything, but given everything else, it feels like it's intended to be a one-sided Catria throwback to me.

[wolt]

Maybe I'd be a little more sold on it if Klein didn't ask Thite/Thito/whatever to drop formalities with him after her confession? It seems like he wants to at least get closer, which is more romantic than all of Roy's marriage options IMO. But we're all allowed to interpret things however we see fit; that's part of what makes fandom fun. So we can agree to disagree!

[mark_asphodel]

And Japanese fanartists seem to like to draw the parallel between the two Middle Sisters on account of it.

Which only goes to show that there's a market for bad Xerox copies of Catria.

Quite a large one, apparently.

[scarletmorning]

I don't know if I would say that a character of my favourite archtype "should" be someone I love. There are enough, let's say "Dutiful Knights" that I don't find interesting. The trope alone is not enough. It's something that pings my radar and tells me "hey, look closer here, you might like him/her". It's a plus, not more and not less.

[mark_asphodel]

That's kind of how I personally feel about it-- I'll look closer, but I might not actually like what's there was much as I hope I will.

[jsnd]

I think it kinda depends on the character itself

For example, Finn and Glade is kind of a throwback to FE3 Kain and Abel(read: A Pair of Veteran Horse rider), and Finn is essentially Jeigan in some parts, but the way Finn and Glade's relationship is put on is the real draw of the pair*

Or Stahl, who basically screams Lowen, but he played out nicely in the end. Or Merlinus + Marcus which is basically the splitting of roles of Jeigan

There are some set of archetype of characters that I usually liked(Jeigans** and Lorenz because Old Man are the best thing ever), I mean they are the type that i liked and then after seeing their conversation and character relationships, they clicked with my taste.

And then there are some that usually tried too hard to be ridiculously simmilar that I kinda disliked them(See: Cordelia being shoved down as "Catria" and having Fiora intro of sorts, or how a lot of convo brings up his Chrom issue. Okay, she like Chrom. Big deal. Valter trying to become "Narshen" while having Trabant's appearance(including the Cursed Lance). Did not work.)


*in fairness I don't think Kain and Abel have an actual dialogue in 3 or anything that shows their relationship for that matter, but they definitely did not have one in 1.
** Speaking of Jeigan i hate how Frederick support is entirely filled with an obsession with training. Otherwise, hes a pretty cool guy in his support with Cherche and Sully IMO

[raphiael]

I feel like Narshen and Valter's forms of malice have really different characters to them, though. Narshen might have laid down the framework for "The Trabant" to go completely batshit, but he's a coward and pretty much played up as pathetic, whereas Valter's sadism and fascination with suffering are off the charts. I think the only thing they've really got in common is the insinuation of sexual violence, but for Narshen it's one pretty Etrurian girl and kind of a footnote amidst his vanity/cowardice/general buttmonkey self. For Valter, it's everybody all the time "have I told you I think killing you sounds hot today".

Can't claim he didn't rip off Trabant's design wholesale, though.

[mark_asphodel]

Honestly Narshen's more like Kempf-- vicious, vain, pathetic. He's Kempf on a wyvern.

[kyusil]

but for Narshen it's one pretty Etrurian girl and kind of a footnote amidst his vanity/cowardice/general buttmonkey self.

Well, Narcian threatens Cecilia too, but to me both times seemed like a weak grasp at some sense of power and dominance. It's not really about the sexual element IMO, which is where I'd differentiate him from Valter (well, that and not being totally batshit).

See, it goes to show that the scripts you know really well are going to be the ones you see the nuances in.

[raphiael]

Ooh yeah, that's true. I'd forgotten Cecilia. But definitely, when I think of Narshen, I think vanity, cowardice, self-aggrandizement, pathetic attitude. I feel like Valter's treated like a much more serious threat, and a lot of that comes from the sketchy dialogue.

Wouldn't want to have coffee with either of them, though :P

As for nuances, I think it's kind of a cyclical thing? I mean, I definitely know 6 and 8 much more quickly than the others, because I've picked over them for fic/meta, but I also kind of feel like (not that you were insinuating it but others have) it can be offputting to say people just see more to like because they've looked at it longer - there has to be something there to make you like it in the first place, after all, right? And while fandom is at least 20% reading into stuff, sometimes people get snarky like "it's only good if you make stuff up", and I feel like that can be unfair. There's "give this support a look" or "check out this line of script", and then there's "read this meta and that one and then read this fanfic and this obscure bit of interview", you know? Again not saying you were saying that, just something kind of related.

[mark_asphodel]

There's "give this support a look" or "check out this line of script", and then there's "read this meta and that one and then read this fanfic and this obscure bit of interview", you know?

Yeah. No matter how much time and effort I've spent with dippy little Malliesia in FE3, I'll happily admit that Serra is a better, richer, deeper more engaging take on the character. But I will also dig on my heels on the position that Serra is Malliesia 2.0, though Serra is to the original what my '13 Ford Focus is compared to my '95 Ford Escort.

[kyusil]

Well yeah, obviously if you're trying to "convert" people, there has to be an interest there first. I wouldn't try and shove meta and fic down someone's throat for a totally random character, but for characters they're already interested in, then that's fine.

I was just saying that seeing that nuance is something that naturally springs out of to spending time with the material. If you've gone over a script-- especially one of the scanter or more shoddily translated ones-- one time, you're going to miss things. Whereas someone who's gone in trying to figure things about about the characters and they've read or played through it a bunch of times is going to see stuff between the lines a lot more. I like to give analysis the benefit of the doubt; for the most part, it's grounded understandably in the source material, even if it might be taken to conclusions that weren't built into the original game.

I think that gets at what you were saying?

[mark_asphodel]

in fairness I don't think Kain and Abel have an actual dialogue in 3 or anything that shows their relationship for that matter, but they definitely did not have one in 1.

Yeah, they don't talk at all. Sadly. All the relationship development they ever got comes from the manga and the anime. Even FE12 didn't do anything with them in that sense.

and Lorenz because Old Man are the best thing ever

Hands down my favorite archetype. Also one of the most consistent and best-characterized archetypes IMO.

[raphiael]

Sometimes I feel obligated to like a character because they're "my type", and then I feel kind of bad if I don't. Like I'm being unfair or inflexible or something, the way I feel about people who are still whining about Eirika purely because she's not Lyn. Usually I can step back and realize I've got something I like in everything, so it's not that. I can definitely relate to this.

I sort of feel this way most strongly about Heath, I think? I'm not sure why I like him, but I do. Cormag's interesting, but I don't feel super attached to him, and I feel pretty much nothing toward Jill or Haar or Zeiss, etc. When there's an "archetype" that interests me, it's usually not the surface stuff, the stuff people point to for "archetypes" - it's a shared thing that makes me want to look deeper. Like my "shaman bias" is really more of a thing for people playing with forces way beyond their reckoning and being interested in how they deal with that. That kind of thing.

And sometimes the eye-rolling at archetype repetition gets turned on its head. At first I was all "I've killed this guy already before, IS" at Pelleas, but then he surprised me. The similarity to older characters is interesting to pick at, still, but for me it's easier to really get into someone when they're notably different from someone I already know. I expected to like Levin when I got into Jugdral, because I already liked Elphin, but I didn't really get into him until the whole second-gen thing, because it was so not what I'd seen before.

[amielleon]

I think that explains a lot about your fondness for Laurent. If you want the "researcher" in FE13, that's Miriel and Laurent, and Miriel sounds like she's regurgitating a thesaurus. The dark mages, by contrast, have a decidedly shamanic* aura to them.

* Which is ironic considering that this isn't the game in which they're actually called shamans.

[raphiael]

Huhh, it might be that. I can't deny liking nerds. But I also kind of have a thing for the sort of organic-feeling "shamanic" magic -- it's something I really dig in Saleh, for example, and Pelleas isn't exactly getting his magic from research and nerdery from what we see.

I guess I feel like where FE13 talks about dark magic, it's often magic willingly doing things that skeeve me out, rather than that whole sense of ancient beyond-human-comprehension supernatural force. (Henry's talks with Ricken kind of hit on that scary-force thing, which is why I like them). I like Henry well enough, probably a bit more than Lleu now that I've put thought into him and definitely more than Salem or Niime or Sophia, but I feel like it's for reasons outside what makes me usually like dark magic characters. If I were to write something with Henry, it probably wouldn't be my usual ethical/moral/emotional picking at dark magic; it'd be completely elsewhere.

Thinking about it, the few times I've felt surges of interest around Erk, it's when I remember the Pent support where Pent's like "hey this stuff can and will kill you so don't be dumb".

[samuraiter]

I look at the 'archetype' characters as a challenge. How is each one different from the other? Writing each one then becomes an exercise in learning and differentiation. I have my favorites, yes, but there are very few characters in this entire franchise that I actively dislike, and it's not because any one of them is a feebs version of another, I think.

[wolt]

You have the healthiest view of this, I think. Hahah!

[blankspectrum]

I'm not usually bothered by the sort of thing you described, but I think it's largely just because I'm having trouble coming up with any character who falls into that category that I have particularly strong feelings for (although it's entirely possible that I'm overlooking someone, given FE's huge casts). There are very few (if any) obvious rehashes where I was especially fond of the original flavor in the first place, and I think that probably goes a long way in my feelings on this.

It might also help a little that I have yet to play every FE game. For one example, I actually like Cordelia, but since I've never played the games that Catria is part of, I have much less reason to be bothered by Cordelia playing on the Catria trope. Plus I've never cared much either way for later Catria-esque characters either (I guess Fury, who I like a lot, might qualify, but her situation feels different enough to be distinct from both Cordelia and what I know of Catria).

I guess the exceptions for me are certain types of FE villains: Excellus in FE13 seemed to be a pretty obvious take on Valtome and Co. from FE10 (who I didn't like much in the first place), and he kind of got under my skin. Same goes for characters like Izuka/Riev/etc. who all seem to play off of Gharnef. Even though I'm not personally familiar with Gharnef himself, the trope has been used so many times now in numerous FE universes that every "new" incarnation is slightly grating to me. Maybe recycled FE villain tropes just feel more egregious to me than allied character tropes? Or maybe I'm less inclined to forgive tropey villains than, say, comparatively more dull and less in-your-face pegasus trio variants. I don't know. :-P

(Tangentially, I was just talking to Ammie a couple of days ago about how my #1 favorite character in every Fire Emblem universe I've played is some variant on a Serious Business Angsty Magic User - or at least up until FE13, but FE13 turns so much about FE weirdly on its head anyway. Not that that's definitive enough to qualify as a FE series trope (or at least not nearly as much as, say, jeigans or pegasus trios), and I think they're all distinct enough that it doesn't bother me in the least… but I guess it's still kind of funny to consider in that way.)

[the_geek]

I always thought that Archetypes were more of a gameplay thing with minor story attachments. This is how I see things like Erk being a Merric. He acts absolutely nothing like Merric does, but he is a mage that comes early game like Merric is. That's how I see archetypes.

[mark_asphodel]

But "a mage that comes in early game" is just so... vague. Merric and Asvel come in with unique and powerful tomes. So does Linde in Book II. Erk and Lute aren't just low-level mages that come in early, they come in with bottom-grade Fire tomes. Yubello is an early-joining little mage with a Fire tome. Why aren't Erk and Lute looked upon as descendants of him rather than stuck in the role of "Hi, we're little kids with nuclear weapons!" like Merric and Asvel?

I mention Asvel because he is absolutely, positively, 100% intended as New Merric. The others, not so much.