Jump to content

MoralityGames

Member
  • Posts

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Blazing Sword

MoralityGames's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. Call the police so they can take custody of the unknown minor and then start looking for a lawyer on the chance this was some kind of Godfather-esque attempt to frame me for an inappropriate relationship with a minor -- I'd rather give it all to the lawyer then let them shake me down for one penny.
  2. Given that they are having the next iteration of the world's biggest franchise developed by nothing less than the B-Team while the A-Team is busy "working on original properties" (lol, really, they couldn't do that until after Pokemon's first big console debut). probably neither. Still, I'll give the B-Team a chance based on the reception -- new voices aren't necessarily bad ones.
  3. Rhea pros: (a) brought law and order back to a post-apocalyptic Dark Ages world, ushering in nearly a 1000 years of peace and creating a stable society that can defend itself from external invasions of neighboring countries (b) is a generally calm and compassionate person who does everything in her power to help those in trouble, including people who don't actively believe in the Goddess like Shamir (c) doesn't approve of the way the nobility runs over people and wishes the world was a kinder place (d) is pretty merciful toward human beings and understanding of human weaknesses overall considering her crushing, overwhelming power and what humans did to her mother/people Rhea cons: (a) makes up (and enforces via religious doctrine and the armed might of the Knights of Seiros) lies about Crests so that people will respect them more and keep the peace alive; one consequence of this is that Fodlan has become a somewhat stagnant (little change for the better, just sort of getting by) and oppressive society (keeping people who lack Crests or nobility down, foreigners, etc) (b) is tolerant and kind toward people who don't believe in the Goddess or her religion, but fights and kills them if they try to enforce their point of view politically (expanded lore found in books specify she has fought the Empire when they renounced or drove away the Church of Seiros from their lands). She allows non-believers to exist, but not to oppose her orthodoxy or Church's influence in Fodlan. Bear in mind she does even though she knows many of the scriptures of her Church are lies (especially ones that have bad consequences for society) and admits as much during her S-Support in Silver Snow (where she becomes the best possible version of herself). (c) tolerates the nobility despite disliking their actions and doesn't admit she is lying about the Crests being signs of divine favor from the Goddess. She wishes the world was a kinder place, but not enough that she will stop asserting the dogma that encourages other people to make it into an unkind one (rather, she wishes human beings would change, become better people, and make her dogma come true). She doesn't really have a right to do this (ergo, utilize her position of spiritual authority to misinform people about what their values should be and what they should think about the Crests), but she sees it as the best of all possible alternatives. (d) prone to fits of anger that drive her into murderous frenzy, especially when challenged on issues that trigger her (concerning her mother, in particular). This is pretty evident from some of more extreme actions in various Routes, especially Crimson Flower. Again, she doesn't really have a right to do this. ... Rhea is pretty much like every other faction leader in the series in that she is a combination of good and bad traits who becomes the best possible of herself if-and-only-if she gets the MC's support/tutelage. If she doesn't get that support/tutelage, she never seriously realizes her flaws or tries to address the bad consequences of her choices. It is pretty obvious from context that Rhea thinks the bad parts of her reign (the things Edelgard wants to go to war over) are a fair price to pay in exchange for a 1000 years of peace. After all, if human beings can't even use the Crests morally and responsibly, then why would they be up to the freedoms offered to them in Edelgard's world? They would just create another society like THSITD and nuke the world again, only this time without Sothis around to pick things up. Her basic sin is that she is completely unwilling to abandon the system she has created to save the world even if the people enforcing that system are abusing it to enrich themselves to the detriment of others.
  4. At least, I'm pretty sure the simulation aspects are here to stay. They persisted in Persona after 3 changed the formula established in 1 + 2, Three Houses is heavily inspired by Persona, and increasing simulation is just the overall drift of the series and story-driven JRPGs in general.
  5. (a) It would be an admission they sold the game in a rushed and unfinished state. (b) it would tie up resources they would rather devote to other projects (c) it could use up ideas they might want to reserve for a Three Houses sequel 2-3 years from now, which would be a lot easier than people probably suspect it is because: (1) they have the engine, systems, and assets ready (2) they can start not too far in the future, before faction leaders can make any of the big changes they plan and you have to make the future version of Fodlan a radically different place from what it was when Three Houses ended (ergo, Fodlan is basically the same place with the same problems 1 year after the end of the war regardless of which faction unites the continent). (3) you can have any of the 4 faction leaders in the same location for all 20 chapters (probably Enbarr, with the Imperial Palace taking the place of the Monastery as the simulationist hub) (4) you can make TWSITD the enemy (they aren't genocided in any route and could regroup under new leaders even in the GD route) The game would be more linear and focused overall (sort of like a remake of FE7, with Hector/Eliwood/Lyn fighting the Black Fang, but instead Byleth and a small army fighting TWSITD). (5) can be argued a sequel like this has been foreshadowed. (6) they spent a lot of time world building Fodlan to just abandon it after one game (7) the cast of units was kept intentionally small, leaving it ripe for expanding upon in the next game (faction leader and their lieutenant would be the only ones sure to return in the next game, other characters could be added in order of popularity, along with new units). Point is, I think IS and Nintendo might want to reserve a lot of ideas that could be used in DLC for a potential sequel.
  6. It's not really imaginable that it doesn't affect them because we're talking about the order of society in totality. If I as a commoner have to petition my local lord or king for a charter to conduct my trade and get denied because the lord has decided to grant a monopoly to his third son's wife's brother from the local leading gentry family (and I'm from a poorer lineage of commoners), then the feudal system affects me. Odds are, I'll be aware enough of local politics and the social standing of various families to not even bother to try to apply for the charter. This overall lacks of competitiveness and favoritism from on high is part of where the stagnant and non-progressive nature of feudal, medieval society comes from -- why we get new phone models every year in 2019 but technology stays unchanged in feudal England for hundreds of years. If you mean most people are comfortable with unequal and unfair status and don't actively rock the boat (like the commoner boy who befriended Bernadetta tried to do) because they don't want to get on the bad sides of nobles or people with Crests, you'd probably be right. Most of them would probably say the status quo is preferable to war, too. I'm pretty sure Dmitri bases most of his ideology on the idea that people in Fodlan are basically comfortable with the status quo and that an improved version of the status quo would resolve most active grievances. Point is that the worst effect of the Crest system is that it doesn't give ordinary people an opportunity to grow or live up to their potential; the right to grow or live up to a greater destiny is generally reserved for the nobility and for people with Crests, which a modernist like Edelgard sees less as signs of divine favor from the Goddess and more as examples of macabre science/technology being used by cavemen to oppress each other. This doesn't seem like a problem to someone like Rhea (because humans living up to their potential = Nemesis and TWSITD), but does Rhea have a right to decide that for everyone, forever?
  7. Fair enough, but I'm arguing more against the sentiment than the poster.
  8. War is literally as bad as it gets, so essentially you are saying that you should put up with any injustice as long as it helps you avoid a war (so, forever). End result of that is a peaceful world, but one run by bullies and murderers (such as the bullies and murderers who used Edelgard and her siblings as human sacrifices in their question for power). The price of peace will be paid by the likes of Bernadetta being tortured by her father and the commoner boy who tried to befriend her, by Edelgard and her siblings, by Dorothea, etc.
  9. Like saying the North is bad because they invaded the South. Never mind that the South was revolting against the outcome of a democratic election they participated in and where it would be expected the North would honor the result if a Southern preferred candidate had won (not to mention slavery). The problem with a status quo that enforces social distinctions between Haves and Have-Nots is that you don't have a right to complain if the Have-Nots revolt, or if some third-party intervenes on behalf of the Have-Nots. After all, you are maintaining an unjust society under the threat of violence, so there is no right to complain if some third party comes and uses violence (war )to enforce their vision on your society.
  10. I think most of are uninteresting and were drained of all dramatic conflict and tension, like the rest of the writing in those games, which became evident to me after the entire Chrom x Sumia tree was 100% about the merits and difficulties of making rhubarb pie (in a war that is about murdered sisters/rulers) . My favorite was the Robin x Lucina one because there's some genuine conflict of interest there (Lucina is an alternate timeline's version of Robin's best friend's daughter and Robin is the guy who is going to kill Lucina's father and doom the timeline she is trying to save, so any platonic or romantic relationship between them is going to be tense. Other than that, they're mostly running jokes (Serena's father is gullible and indulgent, etc). They also depict a basically classless society where there are no meaningful political or metaphysical differences between commoners and nobles, between clergy and lay people, or between humans and otherworldly beings, which runs contrary to the series' core themes. Fates promised tension and conflict but didn't deliver on it in anyway, Supports or otherwise. A classic Fire Emblem support is about a bond forged in war between two people that usually conflict with each other in some way (two people who never wouldn't meet or interact with each other in any other situation), and the bond is just as often a source of mystery and tragedy as resolution and happiness. There are some Support endings in classic Fire Emblem where you aren't really sure what happened to two characters (but suspect the worst) and others where you know for certain their bond caused them great and lasting suffering.
  11. Nobility is a broad concept. For real world examples, the nobility still exists in most European countries (even in cases where they overthrew and executed their kings in violent revolutions, such as France) but doesn't enjoy many of its historic privileges. Modern nobles are still generally successful and important because of inherited real estate + investments and social connections, but most of the power elite in any given European country are commoners who have no titles or ancestral lands. I'm sure IS dealt vaguely with how exactly Edelgard dealt with the nobility because they didn't want to detract from the dramatic thrust of her arc with a bunch of obscure, analytical details and also because they don't want to commit to a continuity in case Three Houses is popular enough to justify a slamdunk sequel -- point is she did *something* to make them less important and powerful than they were before, don't think too much about the details. But to give a practical example, you're probably going from a world where the justice system is a local lord or his steward taking a short break from managing his estate to summarily pass judgment on a peasant after an hour or so of deliberations to a professional magistrate whose entire life and career is organized around managing a court room -- a magistrate who can devote days, weeks, or even months hearing all sides of the argument and seeing all of the evidence collected and presented. However, while she may not have the ability to run a court room in Edelgard's world, a noble like Bernadetta probably still has a lot of influence over the appointment and behavior of magistrates in her territory because she is a mammoth-sized property owner/employer who can easily get in the way of him doing his job if he makes her angry.
  12. He doesn't commit any notable atrocities like the other three, but he does become the worst possible version of himself (ineffective, shifty/unwilling to commit, stuck with no way forward, unable to realize his ambitions).
  13. The lords (including Rhea) in Three Houses are all a combination of good and bad traits. Having Byleth as a teacher/adviser/friend is what makes the difference; whoever Byleth supports will become the noblest and best possible version of themselves in any route, the rest will give into their worse nature and become fallen version of themselves. Thus in Edelgard's route, Edelgard becomes the hero who overthrows an oppressive and stagnant society based on feudalism and superstition and the other routes a dangerous and misguided radical who goes to insane lengths to enforce her viewpoint on a world that didn't want it.
  14. Evil dragons are an aesthetic motif that dates back to the first game. They are part of the fabric of Fire Emblem. Like the good dragon, they represent primeval, natural forces that predate and supersede humans -- but whereas Tiki and her kind are generative forces that allow life to flourish, the evil dragons, like the giants in Norse mythology, are entropic forces of destruction. Defeating them signifies that humans have grown (or the world has shrank down to their size) and come into their own as heroes. Demons aren't as naturally part of Fire Emblem, but whereas dragons are a force external to humans (although they may represent humanity's destructive actions bouncing back to hurt us), demons come more from the inside and basically represent our fears about madness and our lowest impulses overtaking and overwhelming our best conscious intentions (ergo, demons are about what is hidden on the inside). Neither are really inherently dumb plot elements, it's just that Fire Emblem plots have often been dumb and demons and evil dragons happen to be in them
  15. Edelgard gives Rhea multiple chances to surrender in Crimson Flower and she seems to be sincere about it. Extrapolating from real world examples where secular rulers fought against spiritual authorities, Rhea is probably more useful as a political puppet who defers to Edelgard than as a martyr who will inspire generations of Sothis worshipers to resist Edelgard to the bitter end. Stripped of her political power, Rhea could also be a useful ally against TWSITD. If nothing else, most of Edelgard's subjects and supporters probably believe in the Church to some extent. Letting the archbishop live (albeit with vastly reduced political power) might be one of the conditions of their continued support.
×
×
  • Create New...