Tenzen12
-
Posts
1,553 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Tenzen12
-
-
Is that true though? I might missed that piece of lore.
-
Well I admit Edie case in particular could be emotional there was enough reason for that, but personally If I was in Rhea shoes I would have her killed anyway. She has enough allies that could take action. You know cutting head of snake and stuff.
And of course there is good enough chance, Rhea would decide same even if she was calm.
Also I don't think @Tharne is wrong, killing her on spot would very likely prevented her escape XD.
-
You don't have to be completely evil warrant death sentence and armed rebelion is certainly on top of list that earn you that. Lonato also wasn't really "oppressed", it's unfortunate what happened to his son, but there is no evidence it was mistake or that investigation was lacking. Also in both cases motives were clear, even if TWSitD pushing from behind scene was obvious.
If every american dad whose son got death row took weapon and charged on white house, I don't think anyone would approve that.
-
I mean there is no doubt they were guitly, I wouldn't exactly call it "on whim" even if it something she decided on spot. Honestly I think her swiftly dealing with rebels is more requirment of her status as Arci-bishop then her personality or wants anyway. At several points she admit her being decessive and strict is what required of her not what she likes.
So no I don't think it's matter of whims.
-
If law gives Rhea right execute people, then her executing people is in line with law and we certainly saw that there weren't any doubts of their guilt. It's pretty ridiculous assume Edie or Di wouldn't do same. Claude might not because he needs any bargaining chip he can get, but that's about it.
-
Modern justice system is obviously better, but it is not something that was always around, neither was due process. Justice had to be done regardless. Ultimately it is on Rhea as authority make decision and only thing you could argue is there wasn't proper investigation, but it's pretty obvious there were very excessive one.
-
Yeah TWSitD, have still plenty power and time double amount of evil they committed.
-
Technically in first BE route you figh her. Silver Snow route is default.
-
Again just because Ceasar wasn't particularly "justified" for conquest. Revolution might conquest (which is Edelgard case) for sake of conquest is not. Some eras might normalize it and make it matter if fan of glory, but it was never matter of altruism or justice. Because wars were not considered from perspective of morality there was no need for justification.
And yes, Chamberlain did sold whole allied country to Hitler, it's called Munich Agreement. One who declared war was Churchill iirc
And again you equate civil war with conquest. Aliance and Kingdom were suverene countries not part of Adrestisn soviet block and ChoS does not rule Fodlan its own suverene entity that doesn't interfere with others unless things doesn't get really out of hand
-
11 hours ago, matchalatte said:
You have to make distinction between the concept of war pre/post the founding of UN.
One cannot judge historical conquerors (or by extension, El) by the same standard we use today. For people like Julius Caeser, Alexander, and Napoleon, it is within their right to wage war as one mean to achieve political goal. And like it or not, their 'aggresions' have arguably led to human progress and unless you are an extreme pacifist, their characters are not irredeemable (far from it) just because they were aggressors/warmongers.
Make not mistake, conquest can be extremely devastating (e.g. Mongolian invasion) to human civilization but that's not what's depicted in the game. The game does recognize the cost of war to some degree (it's still a game sugar-coats war like 99% of video games) but any reasonable person can tell that El is not a bloodthirsty psychopath (although you can read her this way) nor an expansionist warmonger. She has a clearly defined and realistic political objective to achieve through war, which is legitimate because she has claim on Fodlan by birthright. She is definitely not conquering for conquest sake (pillage, plunder, colonization, genocide) and she is not expanding outside Fodlan. This already rank her in the "moral spectrum" higher than well-known unifier-epansionist such as Hideyoshi in feudal Japan or Nurhaci in great Qing dynasty of China.
Moreover, an extreme pacifist should simply refuse to play FE games completely as it is immoral to take enjoyment out of a simulated war, just or not.I am all for Pacifism but Pacifism does not solve all problems all the You time. By the logic of a pacifist, any war is bad and unjust so Neville Chamberlain is right that Britain shouldn't declare war against Hitler first and just let Hitler do whatever he wants in Europe. I am simplifying a bit but you get the idea.
Fodlan nation's living in peace with each other for 3 centuries, only fighting defensive war with outsiders. Edie is different from Ceaser or Alex as she is broking existing treaties and go against Fodlan moral standards that are not that different from our own.
And I certainly take issue with you trying justify war of aggression by equating it to war against aggression. Even more given my country got sold out to nazis by Chamberlain
-
She smuggled Kronya into monastery. They worked together until that very event.
Also I don't think Jeralt dislike Rhea. At least with jap voicing he seems have doubts but still respect her and willing work with her.
-
1 hour ago, Mikethemaster2018 said:
Seem like most people opioion of her are she evil or bias to BL since it the most 'FE' story out of FE Three Houses. I guess it true most people wants to be the hero of the stories instead of the morally grey characters. I guess that why most people sided with Hoshido over Nohr. People say they want grey character but not really. Most folk want black or white stories. Myself personally like grey stories and happy ends but eh cant please everybody.
BE is still most played route in game. It's true that Eldegard is more on black then gray, but people love her regardless. So I don't think your words were warranted.
-
29 minutes ago, matchalatte said:
According to how the game portraits the church, Reah's authoritarian rule is far from benign. It is pretty clear that the church cracks down opposing fractions within the church. By extension, it is plausible to assume there is no freedom of religion in Fodlan. By medieval standard, oppositions or other foreign religions may well view the church as the worshiping the false god, or viewing the church's canon as apocryphal. Since the church heavily censors books (shown by various supports) and garbles Fodlan's history, there is no reliable third party account of how well the church actually rules Fodlan (Byleth is perspective is heavily biased because he/she is most privileged). Given Hubert's conversation just before the naming the black eagle strike group, Hubert explicit mentioned that there are noble houses that supports downing the church and they are joining their causes. Hence there is evidence indicating the church may not be the one and only true faith representing the people of Fodlan.
Also the fact that the Goddess and her descendants (manaketes) actually exist defeats of the nature of faith being transcendental. If God is an actual being and can be killed, then it loses its transcendental status as the one and the absolute. This has profound implications as the manaketes will eventually be seen as merely another species that tries to subjugate mankind. In fact, El's conquest has additional justification because of this. In her rousing speech, she frames Rhea as just a monster that imposes its tyranny on mankind with lies. By this logic, the church (along with saints and holy tombs) may well lose its legitimacy once their true nature are exposed.
I am not saying that the church of Seiros is evil or benevolent. It's probably benevolent but that's irrelevant. What's relevant is once the true nature of the church is exposed, it will face a political crisis which is exactly what El is taking advantage of.
I hate to do this but you can also compare communist countries (say North Korea) with the church and it might surprise you how many parallels you can draw: censorship and ministry of truth, no freedom of religion or speech, deification/absolute power of the leader, myriad of moral paragons (saints), isolated from the outside world, ruling class enjoying much higher degree of freedom etc. I am not saying the church secretly does evil things, I don't know. But the game intentionally sets up the church in a way that is open to a much sinister interpretation. And we know for a fact that the church is built on lies.
Every faction leader show its worse/dark side when he/she is desperate in the opposite route. I don't think reading El as crazy or stupid leads anywhere (unless you really hate her then sure). The hire-bandit-to-kill-self thing may be bad writing (since it is so idiotic it jeopardizes character) or a red herring for the reveal. The monster thing is a little extreme but also show her resolve. I agree that some details are lacking or rather cliche but if you look at 90% of the character building she is definitely more cool and stable than any other leader, scheming, hiding in plain sight, and being an undercover TWSITD member. Also a great conqueror does not necessarily make a great ruler. Judging by the endgame narration, which is the only in-game evidence on how she rules, she is pretty alright.
Again there is lot of mental gymnastics here. Rhea does not suppress opposition Western church was doing own things for years and she did nothing until they tried assassinate her.
As for Eddie's supporters they were most likely all nobles wanting expand their influence, that doesn't say anything about what common folks think. But you can tell what they do id you go around monastery and talk some.
And lastly there are no indication Church rule Fodlan outside of conspiracy theory spread by terroristic group.
-
2 hours ago, Hekselka said:
I still need to complete GD so for now I'll take your word for it (140 hours in and only 2 routes completed, not even reached the GD timeskip, god this game is long). Even then Edelgard still pushes Claude very hard on the war offensive which shows that she's really competent.
I did complete the BE and BL routes. She's definitely better than Dimitri, his breakdown while understandable is something a ruler has no need off, especially not in a time when your country is in great peril.
Well Edelgard broke down long time ago. Dimitri at least got over that eventually, Eldegard did not.
-
That would be pretty difficult narratively though.
-
Why? All her uncle want is destruction of dragon kind and she is very good in that. How good or bad ruler she is, is unrelated to his goals.
-
22 minutes ago, Hekselka said:
1. It's important to note that Jews didn't have the ability to turn into dragons that could kill armies.
The church never told anyone about Rhea's identity and also went out of its way to twist history. Twisting history is never a right thing to do, even if you're twisting it to make things look better. The church have partly themselves to blame if they go out of their way to hide the truth, because without proper history you can't expect people to learn out of the mistakes made from the past. The moment they were manipulating history Edelgard didn't have any reason to believe any of their words.
2. I've always had the impression that Edelgard was a more competent ruler than either Dimitri or Claude because she was "created" to be the best emperor...which is why I also believe that after she gains the power of a unified Fodlan she has enough power to break free of the shackles of TWSITD and strike back at them. This also seems somewhat implied with some of the scenes she has with Byleth, Hubert and her uncle.
So yeah I guess if you want to leave it open you can but I fully believe that she manages to deal with them.
Well they certainly didn't have such ability. That said it's not like being able transform make anyone monster and enemy of mankind.
Regardless whether falsifying history was right or wrong (which is arguable), race is never argument for anything.
-
Yes I said I wouldn't
7 minutes ago, Mikethemaster2018 said:Saying people comparing to real life people like hitler is i dont know the word i am looking. It something though. El is a video game character it a video game it meant for fun not debates. It fun to talk about some fans taking to seriously.
I did said I wouldn't make such comparison myself, didn't I? But it's not like these comparisons are completely wrong.
-
I am pretty sure I never said FE is realistic portrait of middle age though? Sorry, I don't see your point.
Well I do agree she is basically Lelouch and uch at least.
-
Well, Stalin did what he did because he believed in better society just like Eldegard.
And Hitler solved massive poverty in Germany, plus he managed divert all hate on racial minority. Replace jews with dragons...
Edit: Well I personally think Edie is her own kind dictator and wouldn't make such comparison, but I can understand why someone would as there are some parables.
-
She doesn't create democracy though, even in her ending where she abdicate Empire got singular authorative leader and its obvious she didn't stripped nobles working with her position either. Saying that discrimination based on status disappeared only because crests are gone is bull. Already fact that Edie believes removing crests is way to make social change shows she does not understand how to deal with issue in first place .
Her endings basically says,: Edelgard did everything to make disfunction country and despite all her effort and professional approach she failed and everyone were happy....Well until Fire nation attacked and conquered whole Empire because it had no defense against technologicaly advenced foe.
-
As far as I could see Rhea get hated only by association. She only get flak when people defend Edie as they are on opposite side of conflict.
In threads that are about Rhea alone she get much warmer reaction.
-
@Armagon Other thread got locked, so I will put answer here:
That wasn't point. Eldegard was like that before she met Byleth and Byleth can change for better. from that point Thus psychopath Edelgard is default Edelgard. If Rhea never met Byleth or if Byleth joined Dimtri or Claude she wouldn't change a lot, it required painful betrayal trip her over edge. Thus default Rhea isn't city burning Rhea.
Basically default personality for both is without Byleth in equation regardless whether he is ally or enemy. Canon-ity is not really something I took in consideration
-
And what exactly did church wrong?
What are your thoughts on Edelgard? *SPOILERS*
in Fire Emblem: Three Houses
Posted · Edited by Tenzen12
I am actually didn't play GD yet (I will start tomorow), so I might be bit out off line here, but I don't see it to be for justice or goodness of Edie hearth. I mean she have habbit killing not just her oppositon, but even preventivelly trying to kill those who might became oppositon in future (Dimitri/Claude). I would assume she hoped gain something from doing so.