Jotari

Going back to this and how I said rewatching isn't quite the same as a perdictable story, as it's based off of the connections you made the first time; I'm wondering if you have any opinion on the slew of Disney Live Action remakes. Because I find them an excellent example of perdictablity in the negative. I'm fine with watching two separate adaptations of the same work as it can lead to two different experiences, but the Disney Live Action Remakes are so similar in style, script, look and, frequently even a shot for shot copy, that they come across as soulless with any changes that are there basically being token changes. But I'm in the (somewhat vocal) minority as they are making bundles of cash each time, so people are definitely watching them (myself included, as my girlfriend loves them). And maybe that's the crux of the issue. Maybe it's not predictability that's the issue but a lack of new experience. Isn't cliche just another word for predictable, in a way? A story or plot beat that you've seen a hundred times before that doesn't offer anything new doesn't create engagement, unless you got so invested in it the first time that it gets a pass for nostalgia.

Kaze's scripted death was stupid to begin with as it has no actual bearing on the plot. It's not like Pelleas where something is made out of his death, he just dies from a random bomb and if you happened to have a support with him it comes out as a completely jarring nothing plot point.

That's the Light Yagami perspective of "I'm only the villain if I lose" (which Edelgard does in the majority of routes). Probably more than one, but the one that does spring to mind if Biafra, where the US government sided with (though not with troops, I think) the Nigerian government to quash Biafra's independence attempt. What resulted was as close as you can get to genocide without being blatantly so as Nigeria basically starved Biafra to death and created the entire image of starving African children. Course, as said before, morality wasn't what the US was interested in (they even sided with the Soviet Union in this instance), oil was, of course, a prime motivating factor. EDIT: Actually on further research I see the US was actually officially neutral in that conflict, a lot of people just liked to interpret their neutrality as Nigerian support. The only African war I can see that the US involved itself in was the Suez Canal crisis, a bombing run of Libya in the 80s and two separate attempts to intervene in Somalia. The Kingdom had been surviving five years without Dimitri at all. And the alliance has no hope of ever being neutral, as we know in Crimson Flower where they are neutral, Edelgard still invades them.

The question really is simple. If you disagree with the values of a society, does that give you the right to destroy it and replace it with your own? Or rather where should the line be drawn, as I think most people would see stopping an active genocide as worth it. Course there were plenty of African genocides in the last century that no one bothered to stop because ultimately the economy and not morality is definitely what fuels pretty much every modern war (and probably most pre-modern ones too), but Edelgard wasn't exactly invading to boost Adrestia's economic control (if it were a conversation about economics it looks like she'd be screwed there too as I'm sure five years of war weren't great for the grain harvests). Well if a quick war is a-okay to slaughter thousands in a quick war but a war of attrition slowly also killing thousands is horrible then Edelgard still lands herself in hot water, as despite giving her every advantage a war of attrition is what she lands herself in. It only ever ends with divine intervention of the player. Who knows how long they would have slugged it out without Byleth showing up.

So economic concerns are the only reason not to invade Saudi Arabia? Once their oil dries up (or preferably we find a viable alternative to oil) the missiles should star launching? It's not because the people there have a right to their own culture, society and general livelihood? We can swap the case study to Iran then, they're less monarchy but more theocracy which is further from the crest parallel but closer to the Rhea parallel.

Why not? My point is to drive home some inkling of what it would actually look like if someone like Edelgard did appear in reality. Saudi Arabia is a good parallel as it's also a religiously organized state, with an absolute monarch and an aristocracy. It also has many social stances that I think we would all be in agreement are not good, women as second class citizens, death penalty for gays, death penalty for trying to convert away from the religion, and, worst of all, no alcohol (:p levity). The average life of a Saudi Arabian is better than someone from the medieval era due to technology (and oil wealth), but In terms of what we would view as social liberties Saudi Arabia isn't just far behind the western world, it's far behind Fodlan! It does all of the hierarchy blood line scthick having a privileged noble class and then some. So if Rhea is so evil and must be eliminated because she gives divine seal of approval to a system she didn't even set up and is perpetuated by the nobles themselves, then surely Saudi Arabia is deserving of a swift and decisive elimination so a "superior" social system can be installed in its place. Of course it's not slated to happen in real life because we acknowledge that other countries have the right to their own social values even if we disagree with them, and that invading them and overthrowing their government is a bad thing to do (though it does happen, but rarely if ever for reasons of morality, it's almost always for oil or regional power control).

Reha's idealogy only causes violence with Edelgard because Edelgard demands violence. As I've said countless times, Rhea has never made a crusade to convert anyone in the outer her territories to her religion. So fighting bandits and people who have declared war on you is a gross misuse of military intervention, but invading a country, overthrowing their government and forcing your society on them isn't? Rather than go through the rigmaroll of you ignoring and twisting everything I say again, I put to you the same hypothetical to you, if an American leader seized unilateral power from the government and launched a surprise invasion of Saudi Arabia to overthrow their religious backed government and impart their own ideals on the land, would you support it?

Well I guess that depends on how much you view it as a partnership of equals vs a master pawn situation. But Balthus also knows people turn into black beasts, if I recall. Monica's father would be in the same boat as Miklan where it would be in character to do it anyway knowing the risk. Linhardt also mentions it in a support and even cautious about handling a weapon even though he does have a crest. Finally Marianne is suggested to have outright suffered discrimination for having the Crest of the Beast, so people must be at least somewhat aware that Inappropriate Crest+Relic use = giant monsters.

Oh yeah, that makes sense, I said something to similar effect. I was thinking even meme wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.

I'd find it weird for her not to tell him. Like, they were meant to be pretty close allies, right? You don't think she'd confide in him her trauma and give him a clearer idea as to exactly why she's fighting? They definitely made it for her, as in Three Hopes she doesn't canonically ever get Aymr as a result of betraying the Agarthans early on (the player can still get it, but it's more via a late game chapter prize disconnected from the narrative). People turning into crest beasts does seem to be common knowledge. At least among the nobility. I think they do explain it to Byleth for the sake of the player eve though Byleth as a traveling mercenary should know these things, so perhaps it's not something a commoner would have any cause to discover but anyone actually around people with crests are duefully informed.

Oh wow. Someone finally saw this XD Isn't that the equivalent of rolling over to 1? If it's 6+8 rolling over would be 5, but 6+8=14; 4+1=5. But it's a reference so it's still better.

I'm mostly going Devil's Advocate here, but one could argue that rewatching a story isn't the same as a predictable story. As rewatching ties into nostalgia and how it made you feel the first time you experienced it. In other words, knowing it inside out isn't the same as having the capacity to be predictable as you're ability to predict isn't based on the story's creativity, uniqueness or level of formula, but from a metaphorical psychic ability to know what's going on via having experienced it before....maybe I'm rambling a bit there. As I said, Devi's Advocate.

Edelgard as the Flame Emperor does have a strange reaction to Thales calling Nemesis a thief. It's hard to describe. The line is "Thief? Hm" which makes it seem inquisitive, but the voice action is more like "Huh" as if she doesn't believe him or just finds it a strange turn of phrase. Either way it suggests that the information Edelgard got from her father doesn't include any information on what Nemesis did to Sothis. On the other hand, she must know where the relic weapons comes from. She raids the holy tomb for that reason and manages to create Aymr. So why would she be surprised that the guy who literally stole the bones from people's flesh and ripped out their hearts would be called a thief?

But Edelgard's entire policy is to dismantle the hereditary heirarchy. She doesn't gain her leigitimacy from the monarchy. She gains it from "the most capable leader is the one who should lead, and that just happens to be me." But Rhea hasn't committed any genocides. As far as her evil goes it's just backing up feudal hierarchy with divine support (which Saudi Arabia is doing itself with an absolute monarch and an aristocracy). So Edelgard isn't policing Fodlan by invading and then annexing the places that don't agree with her ideal society?

Memo chapter? Do you mean meme chapter?