Beowls

My point is if her actions are rational and immoral. Then doing a moral action may not have been a rational action. I'm actually not aware of this individual Seiros trusted. Can you point me to the name/scene that shows this? As to choosing the worst of humans to define all them, its just a safe and logical decision. Why should she embark on a "moral" path that endangers herself and her family? Is it moral to risk her life and her entire race on the moral concept not all humans are bad? Is it evil to come to the conclusion that safety of oneself and their kin goes above all else? Also I'm not aware of this "but I have one friend" approach, could you elaborate on this? My point in explaining her reasoning and actions is to show how its logical and why she did what she did. Now you say that her logical actions are ultimately immoral, but then wouldn't she have had to come to an irrational decision to achieve a moral outcome? What was the path that protected her and her family and was morally right for humans? I'm actually interested in what she could have done differently as secluding themselves didn't seem to work if we believe that Sothis and her children secluded themselves and only for Nemesis to appear. Broken meaning the system is no longer achieving the purpose from which it was conceived . A system being wrong does not mean it is broken. Broken would mean it no longer serves Rhea's goal of keeping humanity under control and keeping herself and her species safe. In that regard the system had been working successfully for hundreds of years and could have gone on for many more. Edelgard is inevitable in the sense that its inevitable any individual would rise one day to overthrow any system for their own or their immediate supporters benefit. In that sense Feudalism is the best system for Rhea to manage that exact scenario. Dispersing power through some form of representative government means she has to manage and exert influence over too many individuals. Conversely having too centralized a government means they could overpower her, which Edelgard implies in her declaration of war speech that Rhea divided the empire into a kingdom and a kingdom into an alliance to rule Fodlan. This divide and conquer strategy works as even though an individual like Edelgard seized power in the most powerful feudal land, she was not ultimately able to achieve her aims by force except with external support from TWSID. As to why i elaborated on the failings of Edelgards system, i wanted to point out that the replacement for Rhea's system is not necessarily better. The main actors of Fodlan have not given a flat out better system to fix the "broken" system, they simply have different advantages and disadvantages for certain groups.

Well its rational and good from her perspective. If we see it from her eyes, why should she view herself or her actions as evil? Humans in her eyes are evil. We form judgments/beliefs based on our experiences and observing the experiences of others. Conceptually and theoretically not all humans think the same and act the same, but if every experience she has had or observed points to them being violent and dangerous should she not take an attitude of treating them as such until she is proven wrong? Morally you would say no, but in terms of self preservation why should she risk her life and those she cares about on a moral concept that humans are more than the product of their violent nature? As to the point about beliefs, I'm not stating that Sothis is what God is to us. Merely stating that Rhea creates such religious constructs for her benefit and to perpetuate the union between Feudalism and religion. As for animal experimentation I was making the point we as humans (not you or I) are able to rationalize it to be moral and just. So its not a stretch for Rhea to also use the same logic and come to the same conclusion to justify her actions. The point about Sothis being fallible and not omnipotent does not discount the point about her still being the best ruler in Rhea's eyes. Time manipulation, immortality and the ability to sunder and refrom the land of Fodlan at will makes her a step above all others, that is she is not the perfect ruler but simply better than all the other alternatives. War and suffering would probably still persist under Sothis but do you believe a ruler with less power or more power would be able to alleviate it the most? Even if your answer is no, I want to reiterate the point about how our judgments/beliefs are formed from our experiences. In her life Rhea has seen the rule of strength take those that she cared about, she has also seen it can be wielded to protect those she cared about and it was also the lack of strength that led her to ally with Wilhelm to avenge her family/species. Omnipotence would be best to protect and propagate her family/species but the next best thing is Sothis, so why is that not an option to strive for? I do not agree that the system was broken. The system is unjust and unfair and perpetuates tyranny and oppression but it does not mean the system is broken in the sense it cannot persist for say another 1000 years. Countless emperors before Edelgard knew about the failings of the system and the lies it was built upon, but as long as they did their part in propping up the system it continued to exist. If your point is its inevitable someone like Edelgard would appear, I would counter that her new world order (best real life analogue is the Roman Imperial system) where power is concentrated in one individual is more likely to fall over than Rhea's Fedualism. When so much power is concentrated in one place and there is nothing that gives that holder of office legitimacy over another (Feudalism has divine right) besides power and ability it merely incentivizes ambitious individuals to follow Edelgards example, that is to enforce their will and ambition by might. This is not mere conjecture but closely mirrors the events of our real life analgoue the Roman Empire where ambitious individuals destroyed the empire in their pursuit of the Imperial throne. Its even more interesting to note the successor state of the Roman Empire eventually adopted a form of Fedualism to provide that level of stability that was missing.

Why do you think that? Long periods spent underground does make their appearance look different but they seem pretty human in their physique. In fact some point to the russian text in Shambahla to imply the Agarthans represent some analogue of modern humanity reduced to bunker life post nuclear war.

Mass culling/extermination is probably the right term, since humanity did survive on the surface meaning she let them live. As if she had genocidal intentions humanity would only survive under ground as all those above ground would be killed.

Evil or rational? Humans in Rhea's eyes are violent animals and their actions speak for it. They experimented on her species and used them as raw materials for weaponry and genetic engineering. They performed an unprovoked extermination/genocide driven by the desire to gain power to combat some unconfirmed reason (either external threat or simply manipulated by TWSID). From a perspective that all humans are capable of committing these acts and bear within them the desire to do so (fear of the other /greed for power) her actions make complete rational sense. After defeating Nemesis she co-opted the remaining elites (taking advantage of their desire for power most likely) into a feudal system that perpetually granted them and their offspring eternal lordship over their subjects. The new church Rhea would create, would spin a story of divine right to justify this noble privilege and in return they would pay lip service to their great benefactor (Sothis) and thus empower Rhea to shape the values and beliefs of Fodlan. The specific beliefs are not detailed greatly but its noted Sothis is an arbiter of souls implying a concept of sin, meaning there are actions the church sanctions against. We are never able to read a bible/koran equivalent of commandments but its logical the religion would preach piety, tolerance, compassion and salvation/forgiveness for those that adhere to and follow the teachings of Seiros. These are not only good qualities that provide Rhea moral authority and legitimacy (taking in orphans - planned possibly) but they rein in some of the tendencies of humans (greed, lust, etc) which would have driven those that committed the Red Canyon Tragedy. That is, the most logical pathway to ensure such a tragedy does not occur is as you put it to create a "lock hold" on all possible perpetrators (namely humanity) that inhabit the "wayward land - Rhea". The religious apparatus controls the thinking of Fodlan whilst the political structure of feudalism limits and controls the actions of Fodlan. As to the human experimentation that you view with disdain, might i say we humans experiment on animals for a variety of reasons both farcical (cosmetics) and beneficial (medicines).We rationalize the harm we cause to them as either they are 'lesser' or in the case of medicine we do it for a greater cause (though only for benefit of humans) Its not a stretch to say Rhea thinks along similar lines, bringing back a divine being that can bend time and reality to her will would surely end all war and suffering, no? As to the fault she bears for the subsequent war, one could argue she could have avoided it by simply killing Edelgard and replacing with a more pliant noble to perpetuate the system. A system that's lasted for 1000 years isn't going anywhere anytime soon if the feudal lords stay true to their devil's bargain with the church.