vikingsfan92

Could be but if there was a time for cyl to be more a role in the story it would this time around. Simply because its the story relevant charcter of the book. It is more likely to be some other thing but I an just bringing up options

Brave Gullveig is a thing pretty soon (cyl is not that far off) and this might simply be how IS writes her being a part of the larger story. All cyl heroes in the past have made vauge references to being voted in. This could be the one time it is a main plot device of the story chapter without being a stretch. Also having a second version of Gullveig means we have a way of countering her own shenigans with her own powers. So no matter what there should be a way to make the ending not unbelievable. The big question is if they can make the Brave version of Gullveig entrance to the story good and make sure she doesn't do to much damage.

We all know summer Ivy was happening at some point so I guess they did it now. But yeah suprising that there is no other engage charcters to go with her and make her not feel like an odd inclusion.

I kind of feel like that Thales is kind of like Nidhogg in FF14 in that his war wasn't actually a war but his way of punishing his enemies with never ending problems. Sure he could probably do more damage but in doing so that would end his enemies suffering to quickly to be a punishment in his eyes. Plus he also doesn't seem to be the kind of guy who gets what he wants only to have someone else calling the shots. The schemes he has done show that he favors schemes that weaken the support for the opposition by showing their ugly side which kind of fits the whole he wants the enemy to suffer more mindset.

I will note that I was not the only one who said you comparison is off. I personally think its one of those cases of where you are trying to shorten your point way to much with this scenario and it lacks a lot of your points that really sell it for you personally that we would also debate on and not see eye to eye on just judging from how apart we seem to be. When its really with a lot more thoughts put together we arrive at the points that we are both individually at. But I also don't really have the enthusiasm to continue this so leaving it here is fine with me. Look I think the reason these things continue is a lot of the time people make statements like this and not realize that they are doing the exact same thing they complain about the other side doing. Because it is also a disservice to act like the other side is completely right and without fault or that the situation wasnt already kind of doomed from the start. I am sure we can go back and forth on this for ages with the truth being in between us somewhere. But we both seem to want to move on so lets do that.

Your question is fishing for answers to suit your narrative and trying for a gotcha moment. It is also nowhere close to a fair comparison of the whole situation as tbf I think they added stuff to complicate things. I think any attempts at real world comparisons arent going to work because even popular everyone loves historical stuff is not the best to repeat 1:1 in a game as other games have either already done it or will do it in the future. It kind of the point to make new thing up. So the best I will give you is what I gave. Tbh I think the way you titled the thread and your op kind of leads it this way. Replace Crimson Flower with any other name and you are probaly going to get the same result with the leader of that route justfication discussion because the route and the leader are kind of similar in a lot of people's minds so if I made a thread with Verdant Wind title instead of CF of similar nature the discussion would be dominated by Claude talk as routes aren't dictated by the recruitable students. Heck even Hilda, Dedue and Hubert probably could have done more for their routes. Hubert probably does the most but he still is a follower that doesn't drive the story like the house leaders do. One of my main big points against SS is that Seteth and Co are clearly not as developed as Claude, Dimtri or Edelgard. We are not nearly attached to them as the students. Heck it might even possible to argue that [insert non house leader student here] is more devolped then Seteth is with Byleth ignoring supports. So that goes to show how linked I think the routes are to their main person and it can be tricky not to talk about the leader at all when talking about a route.

Not sure I see a no snake version of Gullveig for the Brave version when that is one thing that I feel got her more votes than people realize. Other alts sure she can lose the snakes for but brave I think it would be losing a big reason people gravitated towards with votes. Now they might not be as in your face but the will show up I feel. As for the summoner I feel like they probably walked back any gender references to the summoner but I do think more people picked the male version.

Probably could have lived without the spoiler tag but it was mainly because the banner just dropped and undsure if I need it or not. Still thinking about it more and don't really have much to add at the moment. Also on a more humorous and less serious note Seior being Gullveig means that the summoner being thirsty in CYL is actually in a way cannon. Considering we have a kid with the CYL winner in a way. Also speaking of CYL does this chapter kind of hint at Brave Gullveig being blue with Story/ future mythic Gullvieg being colorless, Kvasir being red, Seior being Green all that's left is blue.

Funny I think you are doing a much bigger twisting of what I say to even get the "morality" argument to "work" in the first place. But you simply don't supply enough information for me to even attempt to answer your question as again things happening in the world matter a great deal. I also dont feel like said situation us even close to a fair one to one situation with Fodland as their is no direct modern day equivalent of the church and the countries relationships. But I will say that I am highly worry of palaces being exploited by religious organization as even benevolent ones all it takes is one bad apple and big big problems happen. It is said in a shadow library book tilted "Burnt remnants of a report" that Loog enlisted the help of Thales and those who slithered in the dark. I wouldnt be shocked at all if a lot of the " valid reasoning for the rebellion" were created by Thales in the first place. The man loves creating tragedies to encourage larger conflicts. Loog ended up as a puppet for Thales to use and exploit at the end of the day. Also as I said I don't have problem with their being mediation. I just think the church was nowhere close to being the correct mediator given the follow up. Sure a point could be made about hindsight but as I said before expecting a mediator not to choose their own instrests is naive so I think there was arguments to be had at the time for it go a diffrent route with mediation. Thales and co were not the only ones to manipulate the people who rebelled to further their own ends imo.

I don't know what's going on with the teaser trailer tbh. But I am not trusting Njordr that's for sure. Looking forward to the chapter to clear some of this up.

You love ignoring Duscar and Remire don't you. Situations like those were bond to continue if the world kept on keeping on exactly as it was. Because spoiler alert Thales, Solon and Kronya were horrible people. War isn't great but it can actually end actively bad situations that can actually be worse than war because you don't have to be at war to commit horrific acts. Also Haneman sister's situation shows that not all horrible acts are direct murder. She died as a result yes but it wasn't simple murder either. The larger fodland situation is a damned if you damned if you don't situation not nearly cut and dry. If you don't do something then Thales and other horrible people continue exploiting church systems to do human atrocities like human experimentation or using people like cattle because of crest status. And no the chruch isn't going to let reforms happen when they break the facade of the narratives that they established to make their religion work. The whole point is to get people to revere Sothis and to do that they needed people to believe Sothis was responsible for the crest system despite not being true and that's where Edelgard wants to reform most. Which directly impedes Rhea wanting her mother to be seen as all powerful and the one true goddess. You are naive if you think any party isn't going to insert their own self interest in it. Looking for mediators is fine but choosing a mediator who doesn't have a ton to gain from one side winning or losing isn't easy. The church happened to have more investment/ gain from the kingdom winning so I would say they were not an objective mediator and fall more on the lines of people who used mediation position to their advantage rather than proper ones. Its more of the church were not the right mediators for the conflict thing rather than they should not have looked for mediation thing. You sure like spouting words. You are trying to make this situation into bigger than it actually is and I am not going to indulge in this. Also you bury your head in the sand about other terrible things happening in the world and tunnel on just one and acting like it exists in a vacuum when it doesn't and just magically accepting that other options wouldn't result in the same conflict when there is Thales and other corrupt nobles who wants bloodshed. You do realize that she was part of the wars for the establishment of the kingdom and Alliance right? If anything promoted future tragedies it was the dividing up of Fodland to begin with. The church did exactly what Thales and co wanted them to do to make their lives easier to cause mayhem. Things going differently back then could have prevented multiple conflicts and massacres much more so than anything else.

I don't know a single war in history where both sides don't put out their own spin portraying their cause as the "good" or right one. In Three Hopes Rhea pretty much goes right to the put a call out to the faithful strategy to fight the enemy and the only reason she doesn't is Dimiri convinces her of a diffrent plan which is more stealthy so it something that is shown to be in her wheelhouse as a starting strategy. Especially if she is more in control at the start. Also as I noted above the kingdom doesn't exactly have as a much freedom as people say when it's own king says the kingdom doesn't legitimately exist without the central church. It's pointless to continue if you are going to ignore the state of the world as it was and act like the church is far weaker than it actually is. Moral highground arguments are weak when you ignore the fact that the world isn't exactly rosey in the starting spot the story puts us in like the fact Thales and Rhea hate each other's guts and conflict between the two is guaranteed even if the empire didn't exist at all. Also standing army points are mute when you can have as many volunteers as you want as shown by pretty much any other fire emblem game. It's much easier for a multinational religious organization to get volunteers than it is for any nation to.

Why wouldn't Rhea ask for her followers to help her or she would find a reason to involve them that matches their interests? Why would any faction not trump up there message and rally people to their cause over their enemies? Its simply what happens in conflict. It would be easier to do with the kingdom than the alliance but I think you are underestimating her greatly if you don't think she wont be very persuasive in her attempts. Also the literal point of Claude and Dimtri's support in the secret route is Dimtri basically being like Iike my hands are tied with the archbishop and I can't do anything against her. So he pretty much subtlety asks Claude to get him out of the mess he is in for both routes where you don't pick Dimitri. He can only do this because he can make up the excuse of being busy with the empire and cant defend against Claude. Direct quote from Dimitri during Golden Wildfire/Azure gleam into the chasm convo with Claude " Yes, for three reasons, abolishing the church would deny the king right to rule Farghus without one the people would descend into chaos and war. Would you be able to take responsibility for such a thing once it came to pass". He pretty much says right here that his country descends into chaos if the church goes as his throne wouldn't be seen as legitimate without the church and this can happen on his route of all things. Implying that the church is seen as what makes his country legitimate in his peoples view which matters alot as a king title doesn't mean anything if the people don't think the title has worth like what they would if the church gets destroyed. So even if the church acts rash or dumb he kind of has to bail them out at some point with the state of Farghus being what it is which I might add is pretty similar to how it is in houses. You are not getting it and your example is not accurate description of it. Its a situation where the large church organization that is powerful enough to grant legitimacy to two other nations being formed is being asked to adapt in the aftermath of bad situations and they are not doing so. On the contrary they are pretty much giving the hardest no possible by killing the opposition. No organization like the church is going to not need reforms but how they are treating the situations isn't exactly inclusive to having these discussions. Even unproductive dialogue with Lonato is at least a token effort that doesn't kill hope for people wanting to change things. Its not about the talks actually getting somewhere its about actually showing they can happen in the first place in future nuanced situations where the right and wrong are murky. Plus it definitely doesn't help her case that she is obscuring truths from the people for her system to work. So it leads people wanting changes to conclude that they can't really make any headway peacefully solely on the image the church is presenting. Which leads to a pretty much all options are bad situation that Fodland is in during the game which given the existence of Thales and his band of goons I think the only real option is to get it out of it as soon as possible as it wasn't truly peaceful to begin with as Duscar/Remire village tragedies show.

You are acting like Rhea wouldn't put out a call to arms for the kingdom and the alliance to join in. And ignoring the fact that by Dimtri's account his country existence is reliant on the church so he would basically be required to join (sure its three hopes but its not the type of thing I seeing being changed for a sequel/alt game as the kingdom is the same in houses too without this context). But I think you are missing the point of the set up entirely if you think Rhea is always super peacful all the time. Its not about the rebellion in of itself but the reaction towards it and the follow up. Its not so much what the church did but what they didn't do (negotiate or listen to the opposing side). Lonato was going to go all the way sure but it doesn't even look the church even bothered looking at other options to resolve the matter from what we see in game. I don't think anyone actually expects the church to give into the demands but their reaction kind of shows they are just going to keep on keeping on and not take steps to improve other than hey we will execute you if you do this which is not encouraging for other changes to happen. With the Miklan situation immediately after it kind of shows that is there favored tactic is to not negotiate. Plus it kind of shows they are for keeping the status quo as is and not in favor changes or reforms because it would reveal some dirt in the church's methods. I would argue that this a choice done to make the story not black and white and it clearly worked.

I wonder if the engage point is for cyl in some shape or form. Like they know its going to dominate this year cyl so they are not overloading on Engage right now for some reason to get more votes for engage charcters.

Rhea wasn't exactly open to discussion with Lonato or Miklan. There is an argument that those wouldn't have worked but by appearance the church went straight passed the negotiation phase. And from countless supports between students of all houses (note I am not talking about the ones with Byleth in them more so the ones between the classmates) the church's systems has caused ongoing issues in all three nations. Plus both the Empire and the Kingdom have examples of the church letting things happen to benefit the church. Letting the Alliance exist was the church choosing what benefitted it and not the kingdom or the empire. Which probably has to especially sting the kingdom as it was supposed to be the favorite child. Why should anyone outside of her immediate followers (Seteth) pbelive that she would be open to changes when their are examples of her being hostile to not the church's view in the first place. Rhea also tells her students/Byleth that those situations are to be messages "to those foolish enough to turn against the goddess". And it isn't very hard to deduce that there would be concern that any reform could possibly be seen as just that from the church's view point as it's not the status quo. Even if Rhea is willing to reform she is not really sending a message that she will receive that discussion without hostility. Also I know this is using three hopes but Dimtri's view even in cutscenes for other routes pretty much paint the picture of his country ceases to exist as a legitimate country without the church with how its set up. He has no choice but to back the church.

Its also worth noting that its basically expected that any territories in between her and Lonato let her troops pass. If say another Lonato was on the coast that could be a lot of territories just expected to let the church march right through. So its not just the offending territory expected to comply but the one between the church and offenders that get power wielded against in some shape or form. Sure its not directed towards them primarily but its still a march through their land which I don't think they really appreciate. Also I kind of feel like "soft power" is an incredibly nebulous term so it tough to actually use in an argument productively. Hence why I don't like it as an argument because people can be twisted to mean different things when its on a person to person basis.

You can't just remove bad people by following the law and acting with virtue without the bad guy messing up and under using their resources. Sometimes you might get lucky and be able to but smart bad guys and the truly awful ones will make sure you can't get them simply by playing nice when they have excuses to hide behind people and will use them because they are not nice people. As for the rest I think you vastly underestimate how scary "soft power" actually is. I would also argue that a lot of her power is not actually as soft as you think. Look at the rise of the empire in star wars which was made entierly possible by giving the chancellor supposedly soft powers. His entire argument for getting the powers was downplaying what he actually could do with said powers while planning to exploit them to their fullest. It is actually kind of scary how easy it can be to sell people on things being softer than they actually are. Something that probably would not happen as easily if the lines that define soft power and other types were not a murky mess in the star wars universe, other franchise and real life. It is something that has been exploited by many a villain in many a setting including the real world.

Let me put it this way: I think moral highground arguments miss the point. Because even if you find them it doesn't mean that it actually does anything other than get people killed because spoiler alert bad guys aren't going to just let you take the "ideal route". None of the charcters in three houses exists alone and I find alot of "Edelgard should do this...." arguments have to act like Thales and Rhea dont exist. A "compromise" between someone who wants mass death and a good person still might result in large tragedy just maybe not as large as the person who is bad wanted originally. It's naive of multiple parties existing and wanting diffrent things and the bad people wanting bad things to happen compared to good people wanting good things to happen. I also think it's foolish because you are putting unrealistic expecting of perfection on people but I don't really know if it something I can really elaborate on clearly.

I think a big problem with the point you are arguing is expecting that a moral highground actually exists. In reality both doing nothing while Thales and the church do bad is not exactly a high point either. Duscar was not the first tragedy done by Thales and if nothing happened there is going to be another Duscar/Ramirez Village at some point with Solon and Thales alive. Both options suck and there is no high road you can take that is morally just that is not naive of the fact people want to keep the power they have. Its one commonality between Rhea and Thales that ensures conflict regardless of the kingdom, empire or alliance. They are definitely motived by different things and between the two Rhea is far more noble but still leads to not wanting others to risk her mother return thus having a ton of power not always for the people but to get her mom back. Also with the church influence and how much it has a say in matters is easily viewable as a problem in of itself. You can argue that all it has done is mediate but who is to say that outcome benefits either party? Mediatiors is a very problematic spot in a lot of arguments because they often insert their own gain into the decesion. Heck one of the plot points of historical contention of fodland is the church approved of the kingdom existing because they also gained from it. And did the same when the Alliance came to be while being able to strong arm against descent with the choice. That I feel is what people have issue with the church doing and their is no realistic way to change it with reforms sadly. As for the crest system I think I will just say it's a topic we won't see eye to eye on judging by previous comments. But suffice it to say I am against how the church handled it.

I think you are ignoring the fact Thales and twsid still wants Rhea and the church obliterated. Again Edelgard could not be born at all and war with the church is 100% happening. Maybe he would have manipulated the kingdom instead or used the alliance but some shape or form he was getting the church vs [insert puppet faction] here at some point. As for the isolated within her own kingdom argument I think alot of those arguments are way too optimistic to be valid. Because they are assuming that the church won't take issue with essentially saying she can do better. Even if it doesn't lead to outright war it's just dooming any alternative to fail with the amount of propaganda and other sabotage meathods the church has as a large organization that spans multiple countries. Plus I think it's naive to think that her changes wouldn't just be undone by an organization like the church who has a leader who outlives everyone naturally the second they have the chance. Especially when they probably will just see the changes as spiteful and misguided while ignoring any merit and could easily just call for an uprising by calling her a hertic. Tldr: she basically has no reason to believe a massive organization like the church to go against its own interests and let her be in peace.

If you have Haneman recruited it is pretty easy as their support with each other shows that they are going the opposite routes to get to the same endpoint. So she would just let Haneman handle it after talking to him and finding out what she does in their A support. Considering Haneman is fron the empire originally I think it's likely he goes with Edelgard without Byleth and Three Hopes puts him in the empire by default so its likely Haneman just does it. Without Haneman her support with Lindhart shows that she will probably do what he and other researchers recommend. There are some situations where I personally feel avoiding war leads to greater tragedy. It's not a common situation and definitely is a double edged issue but I think people being to scared to fight allows for avoidable tragedies that may in fact be worse in scale than a war. This mostly is with people in charge who do bad things because no one is stopping them. To use a non fire emblem fictional example of this a lord in the anime twelve kingdoms did corrupt things until the series gods punished him. Basically using the logic that if the gods are not stopping him it's OK. There pretty much no peaceful way to remove someone like that from power when they have a bunch of lackeys. I kind of see Thales the same way as this guy and Thales wants war. Even if Edelgard was never born the war was happening. If anything I think it be declared sooner is the best thing that could have happened.

If any route doesn't make sense it would be Verdent Wind imo. It's painted as the "neutral route" yet it's just another vs the empire route. Claude also has his own issues with Rhea but he pretty much does exactly what she wants him to. Which is why I have always said the route split should have been in Claude's route not Edelgards. Which is why I am glad three hopes exists personally as it let's Claude be his own person more. As for the history of Fodland aspect of Crimson Flower I have always felt people in the fandom are putting to much stock in their sides recollection of the past events regarding nemesis and such being accurate from both sides tbh. I also dont think Edelgard herself belives it to be 100% accurate. If anything I think the argument she uses it to gain support is just proof she doesnt belive in it blindly and knows what she is doing is the same. What I do think however is people under value just how much of the problems other events that don't deal with nemesis directly happened because of the church and the church alone. Even if twsid did have a hand the response given by the church can certainly make the situation worse. There are also examples of situations that are bad because of the church not twsid imo. Sure crests being a thing is twsid doing but people being absolutely awful to each other over crests I see as the church's fault more so because it was their message that justified the actions of awful people.

I think the biggest obstacle by far is not in heroes itself but the real world. In any medium gender swapping is an extremely mixed bag of people with some pretty strong feelings on both side. Not sure IS really wants to open the potential can of worms atm. Especially since Nintendo doesn't really have a great mobile track record in general and this is one of the few hits they have had. Nintendo might not have an active hand in development but their name is still viewable when you boot the game up so they probably have some amount of say on stuff that might be seen as rocking the boat. Plus with things like Bowsette existing I could see Nintendo being off any gender swap stuff in general for certain franchises where they more directly develop/ fund.