#or trying to at any rate. mortal perception of Her does not necessarily change the truth

[burntears]

Bear with me because idk how to word this exactly, but you know how the fae are frequently depicted with wings? In my head, fqsd does not favor winged forms, but Her favored form when showing Her power has six arms clothed in trailing light. It does have a winglike effect. Thus as mortals altered her myths and images, they turned those arms into six insect-like wings.

[gascon-en-exil]

FE16 Blue Lions Liveblogging

Chapters 19-20. Much ado about Claude, except the one question I wanted answered.

At this point in Normal mode gameplay is mostly just shuffling through some final classes for endgame, plus trying to finish up as many support lines as possible so I’ve got less to do in subsequent Lions runs. Some of the maps have siege weapons or tomes that cause issues thanks to my various low RES units (although it’s ridiculous how Dedue’s massive HP can soak up 20+ damage at once from Bolting or magic siege turrets), but aside from that the challenge seems to be winding down. Interesting to note how many lategame maps have stairs in them, which hinder cavalry movement and actually encourage them to dismount. Something that makes most of the maps feel shorter than they otherwise would be is that most of them end when you kill the boss. Not that I miss Radiant Dawn throwing almost half a dozen rout maps in your way right before endgame, but I finished Chapter 19′s story map in something like four turns without even rushing. That was barely enough time to appreciate the surprisingly competent NPC AI.

Annette finally got Abraxas, though the visual is a bit disappointing for the ultimate light spell. At least Mercedes is now a holy knight and can be useful again; next time I’d just say keep her as a bishop. Similarly, I might keep Felix as a swordmaster rather than try to get him into mortal savant, because Astra and the boosted crit are both too nice to give up for some so-so magic damage.

Dimitri’s Silver Maiden paralogue had the bulk of the deadly siege weaponry, even more than the supposed impregnable Fort Merceus that gets invaded in Chapter 20. Admittedly that’s because most of my party fears magic more than ballistae (and fliers can just dismount to avoid effective damage), but still. Hubert retreats for a third time in this paralogue; not that I have anything against the guy necessarily, but I hope you eventually do get to kill him.

Caspar and Linhardt however do not retreat when fought at Merceus, and die in a battle neither of them seem to have a reason to be in. I take it Caspar’s presence in the battle where you kill the Death Knight is related to how he and Mercedes share a paralogue presumably regarding the DK’s origins.

At my current rate I’m not going to max out Renown on any of the saint statues. It looks like you’re expected to use NG+ to finish those.

Story/Character observations

Not much with supports this time around, but I’ve been enjoying some of the more pertinent NPC chatter and party banter in the monastery. Shamir is great for this, first pointing out a few chapters previously how strange it is that the army would turn around after Gronder and head the other direction to liberate Fhirdiad, and now contemplating the abrupt merger of the Kingdom and the Alliance. A monk reveals that members of the church are being persecuted and exiled from the Empire, and a random knight relays the story of the Alliance gaining its independence from the Kingdom. When House Leicester’s ruler died without an heir several centuries ago some of the lords of Fhirdiad attempted to set up a republic there under their control, which incited House Reigan to start a rebellion. A republic...inside of a monarchy...controlled by a group of nobles.... I’m not even going to try to make sense of that one.

As regards House Reigan in the present, Claude is as shrewd as ever, drawing the Empire in to besiege his capital because he correctly anticipates that Dimitri will not only retake his own capital but then immediately rush in to play the Alliance’s hero. At least he (Claude) owns up to his recklessness as well as his self-interest, which sees him abandon the Alliance (along with his Relic, which surprised me as I thought the house leaders’ were personal weapons...I guess only Byleth is special enough to have one of those) and Fódlan entirely. This is one of the only instances of Dimitri and Claude interacting in the entire game, and, having just watched the Claude/Lorenz supports today on YouTube, it’s sad to say that these two have more chemistry in one conversation than Claude does with his quasi-retainer in an entire support line. It’s nothing compared to all the homoerotic longing going on in the Lions, and I’m aware that Claude asking Dimitri to go easy on him the next time they meet is most likely a sly way of suggesting they’re going to do so on the battlefield after Claude raises an army in Almyra and tries to take over all of Fódlan or something, but it’s something for anyone still into Claumitri. 

The understated threat to fix racism by foreign invasion (which I think is what Claude’s long game is revealed to be on the Deer route?) is a classic case of FE setting up a situation where its apparent happy endings don’t turn out so happy after a while, but on a similar note I was surprised to see Arundel killed off in Chapter 19. I know from spoilers that he’s really Thales, the leader of Those Who Slither in the Dark, so even though the Lions route gets flack for never returning to that larger threat to peace in Fódlan it seems like Dimitri took care of the problem without realizing it. Yay?

One question I do have about that group though is whether they really are the people they publicly appear to be or whether those people - Monica, Tomas, Arundel, possibly even Cornelia based on some descriptions of her - were quietly killed by the organization and the replaced by impersonators.

But here’s my big unanswered question for Claude on this route: why was he at Gronder? This is never addressed. There’s no way even he could have predicted that Dimitri would have a change of heart and turn around to liberate Fhirdiad after the battle. Was he attacking the Kingdom forces as part of creating an illusion of a united front for the Alliance, to placate the Empire? It obviously didn’t work because the Empire’s next move was to invade the Alliance. While this headcanon does play into Claude’s affinity for deceit and ability to adapt to change it still doesn’t feel quite right.

Oh, and at the very end of Chapter 20 Dimitri is called back to Garreg Mach via messenger, giving some kind of explanation to the increasingly silly practice of your army returning to the monastery after each major victory. It really doesn’t help with the perception that everywhere in Fódlan is at most a few days’ march away from there.

[scripttorture]

(pt 1 of 2) So I've got a character (A) that gets snagged by this group of mercenaries/assassins in the hope of drawing out this other character (B) they've been trying to kill. B is telepathic, so the group is hoping that by torturing A he'll have to come and save her. It doesn't work, and A goes through about three days of torture (beatings, mostly) before she's rescued by another character, C.

(pt 2 of 2) C and A are from different races that are mortal enemies, but C saves A because torture is something he wouldn't wish on his worst enemy. Granted, he does the bare minimum to save her, but could that sort of thing be enough to shake A's firmly held beliefs about C's whole race? Secondly, how do I patch things up between A and B? I've got a lot of people being unreasonable, especially in the short term, but I'm not sure how reconciliation should go, since A is mad and B is ashamed.

Whenit comes to strongly held beliefs I don’t think there are many firmanswers.

Evidencealone generally doesn’tshake our beliefs and we have a marked tendency to pick and choosethe evidence we cite, emphasising and giving more weight to thingsthat support what we believe. We do this even when we’re aware ofthis effect. It seems to be a universally human trait.

Butevidence coupled with emotional appeals canchange people’s minds. People can also gradually change over time.

Thekey word here is ‘can’. It is possible.That doesn’t mean it happens every time.

Thingslike de-radicalisation programs domake a measurable difference in the broad sense. But they don’treach everyone they interact with.

Andthe things which trigger a change of heart are not always fastacting. They can be things that gnaw at a person over a course ofyears, gradually prompting them to shift their stance.

Essentiallyyou could choose to take this either way. You could have A’s viewof C’s people changing, either abruptly or gradually. But you couldalso have A write the incident off as an exception to the rule orotherwise dismiss it. Either response can happen in real life.

Let’sstep back from the success rates of organisations like After Hate fora moment and address this as writers.

Ifyou wantA to have a massive change of heart then however quick the change itcan’t feel like it comes out of nowhere. The readers have tounderstand the process A goes through emotionally.

Whichmeans the reason behind this has to be more than C’s actions: itneeds to be the feelings and thoughts those actions prompt in A.Otherwise the change is going to come across emotionally flat.

ShowA struggling with these thoughts and feelings, swinging betweendoubting what they were taught and what they experienced. Don’t betempted to make this change easy and don’t be afraid to show Afalling back on old, toxic patterns occasionally.

Movingon from these sorts of hateful idea isn’t easy. It means aconcerted choice every day to address your own toxicity and dedicateyourself to being a better person.

Thatsort of introspection, judgement and emotional work is always inprogress. People often slide back a little even if they’re makingprogress over all. That isn’t unusual.

AndI honestly think that this change will read better if it involvessome internal struggle. The best way to present that will vary withhow you write. If it’s from A’s point of view you can show it asis. You might be able to work it in to conversation with C.

Youmight find having B pick up on it works as well, because that thengives you a way to tie these separate sub-plots together. It mightwell be easier for A and B to argue about how A feels about C/C’speople then it is for them to address their problems with each other.

Whichleads us to A and B’s relationship.

HonestlyI think this is something you should be tailoring to the charactersbecause the ‘right’ answer is going to vary with the individualsinvolved. It might be helpful to unpack some ‘logical knowledge’vs ‘emotional assumptions’ on the part of both characters though.

Let’sstart with A.

NowA probably knowsthat rescuing her wasn’t just a question of skill or bravery. Arescue mission is a difficult and risky prospect, highly likely tofail and extremely rare in reality.

She’dknow that B would find it difficult to rescue A. If B doesn’t havean organisation backing them up then a rescue would have been almostimpossible to pull off successfully.

She’dknow that a rescue attempt could result in B being captured andtortured too. She’d know that an unsuccessful rescue attempt couldeasily lead to A herself being killed.

AdditionallyA would also be aware that torture was warping her perception of theworld. A would probably not always be awareof where She was being held or many of the details of herimprisonment.

Ifall B has to go on for a rescue mission is A’s thoughts then A mustknow that B would have had trouble finding her.

Awould also know that the more B connected with A’s mind the moreimpaired B would be. Because B would also be experiencing thedisorientation, confusion and delirium the pain of torture causes.This sort of confused thinking would leak through and create animpairment even if B couldn’t experience A’s pain.

Bwould also know, logically, all the reasons they couldn’tpractically have rescued A.

Bwould be in the unfortunate position of having a second-handexperience of A’s trauma throughout. The threat of torture is veryreal here. It’s immediate. B’s fear of that is legitimate andshouldn’t be dismissed.

Butthat logic doesn’t trump the emotional side of all this.

Andthe emotional side is that B probably feels like they let A down. Aprobably feel betrayed and hurt and abandoned. They bothprobably feel isolated from each other and like it’s harder totalk.

Neitherof these sets of feelings are logical or rational. But there’s anextent to which that doesn’t matter.

Ithink the best way to address it is directly. Which doesn’t providean easy resolution.

Thething is- most torture victims don’texpect to be rescued. They are not in a position to…. think there’sany possibility of rescue. A’s position here is unusual and thatcomes in part from her being privileged enough to know powerfulpeople. Contact with other survivors might help A realise this andprocess a little of how she feels emotionally. It might help heremotionally accept that the expectations she had of B wereunreasonable.

Havingthem talk about it, the reasons why A expected something and thereasons B couldn’t provide it is an important first step. But thisisn’t something that’s going to resolve overnight. Oneconversation, even if they do listen and understand each other, isn’tgoing to resolve everything.

OnA’s side it’s a case of rebuilding trust. I think that’s ofteneasier to write because we see so many examples of it in literature:trust lost and rebuilt. It’s something that’s best built upslowly over time with a lot of actions on B’s part rather than withsome kind of ‘Big Damn Heroes’ moment.

Agood starting point would probably be helping A with her recovery.Consistent help with the little things she’s struggling with (whichinitially may include eating, getting dressed and moving about) wouldgo a long way.

Shemight not forgive B quickly or at all. She may stop relying on B toprotect her. But care is important too. It’s possible to trustsomeone with some things, some aspects of life and not others.

Partof this depends on how deep you want their reconciliation to go. It’sperfectly possible for them to completely rebuild their relationshipso it’s just as strong as before, but it would take more work thenrebuilding something shallower.

Ithink in some ways B’s side of this emotional problem is harder. Acan meet other torture or trauma survivors and learn that theexpectation of rescue is a fantasy out of most people’s reach. Shecan gradually come to trust B again if they both communicate honestlyand B takes the time to try and care for her, to try and build thatfriendship back.

ButI get the impression B has lost their trust in themselves and that’sa lot harder to regain.

Angerruns out of steam eventually. And sick angry people still need to eator help getting out of bed.

Shamecan eat at someone for the rest of their life.  

Myhonest instinct is that if these were real people they’d both needtherapy. A lot of therapy.  And while that’s not something that wecan work in to every setting emotional support definitely is.

Bis going to have to forgive themselves for what happened. A big partof that means accepting their own powerlessness in this situation,which is a terrifying thing. It create a sort of emotional push-pulleffect, forgiving themselves means accepting something incrediblyfrightening so it’s easier to avoid those feelings and hold on toarrogance.

Itcan sometimes be easier to tell ourselves we’re cowards or badpeople then it is to accept our own limits.

EarningA’s trust again may not necessarily combat these feelings, B mightcontinue to feel unworthy of that trust.

Thereare a lot of ways to write a set up like this convincingly and well.I think you’ll get the best results by trying to tie thecharacters’ progress to both the overall story and the charactersas individuals.

They’reprobably going to go mess up a few times. They’re probably going toheal at different rates and be ready for different things atdifferent times. Try to be aware of how other things that arehappening in the narrative might effect the characters emotionally.Because the other things going on in their lives could be useful toprompt this kind of emotional growth.

WhenI’m trying to reconcile characters I often try to think about whatthe root of the problem is. It’s often not what the characters areexpressing or consciously aware of as the ‘problem’.

Inthis case I’d guess that it’s ideas of safety and security on A’spart and ideas of duty and bravery on B’s. Those ideas are thingsall of us can understand but the ways they’re expressed areparticular to your characters.

Ihope that helps. :)

Availableon Wordpress.

Disclaimer