Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'rhea'.
Found 4 results
The True Tragedy of Three Houses
omegaxis1 posted a topic in Fire Emblem: Three HousesAfter working on trying to de-toxify myself fro the reddit BS, I began to think about the state of the characters in 3H, how they operate, what they believe in, and why things happened the way it did. After a while, it finally hit me. It's something that Itachi says in Naruto: And that's basically it. Edelgard, Dimitri, Claude, and Rhea. They are all bound by their own beliefs and ideals, which became their reality, that they simply could not see what the others saw or felt. To them, the reality of each other was nothing more than an illusion. Consider how each character acted. Rhea: Suffering from a trauma of genocide, Rhea simply could not trust humanity. She couldn't believe in opening up to people and confiding her secrets. Because of that, she simply doesn't accept anyone that would dare to oppose the Church or her way of using her power. She cannot accept the choices that Edelgard makes, and especially the idea that Byleth would join her. Her trauma made her unable to accept it and to her reality, this was Nemsis 2.0. She even censors and hides information, constantly keeping secrets, and it took five years of imprisonment in the non-CF routes for Rhea to finally change and start confessing her secrets, but for someone that's lied for so long, it's hard to tell how much actually true. Dimitri: He's been consumed by his desire for vengeance because of the trauma he suffered from the Tragedy of Duscur. He was so traumatized that his own mind kept thinking about the events and manifested into "ghosts" that told him to seek revenge. It's a delusion, yes, but it's Dimitri's reality. Not only that, but despite Byleth telling Dimitri to try and reconnect with Edelgard, Dimitri refuses to, believing that they both changed too much. And though misguided and false, he believed that Edelgard was responsible for the Tragedy of Duscur. The truth is not so, but the truth is what Dimitri made of it. He saw and ultimately believed what he thought was the truth. And because of that, he refused to listen to anything Edelgard had to say, whether it was the truth or not. Even in CF, Dimitri wasn't going to listen to reason, cause it's still the same insane Dimitri as Part 1, that cannot believe in anything else and refuses to listen to any explanations. Claude: Claude might not be as traumatized emotionally like the other three, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't bear his own trauma. Being persecuted by Almyrans for being half-Fódlan, then going to Fódlan and learning that they view Almyrans as beasts. It made Claude unable to trust people with his true heritage and instead kept trying to use and scheme his way to getting what he desired. Edelgard tried to talk to Claude and even offered to exchange secrets, but Claude basically made an unreasonable demand, making Edelgard drop the matter. In fact, despite how they hold similar ideals, whether it's VW or even CF, Claude refused to ally with her, with VW cause Edelgard went off more on the deep end and made too much violence, and in CF cause he wanted to rule Fódlan himself, as he admitted. He only backs off when he has no way of winning anymore. Edelgard: Poor Edelgard, there is so much about her reality that makes it hard for her to really open up. For one thing, she's the ONLY one that learns that Rhea is a dragon and the alternate history of Fódlan from her father. Just HOW does she tell this to people? No one would believe her. And she's of a family who's political power was stripped by the corrupt nobles. And the Agarthans experimented her thanks to Duke Aegir and his cohorts locking her and her siblings up. She can't tell others. Not to mention, the trauma and environment during it made her forget some memories, so she doesn't remember Dimitri. And going to war against the Church of Seiros is something that none of her friends would have agreed with. And because of that, in the non-CF routes, because her reality was something she was not able to share with others that believed in, so she just became closed off. Regardless of whether Dimitri or Claude tried to talk to her or how badly she was being beaten, she was too set on her path by that point. She lost and sacrificed so much that there was no way that she could give up, else she had wasted lives for nothing. She needed to make the sacrifices mean something or die trying. - Had they all been able to believe in other people, and not be trapped under their own reality due to their personal emotional issues, and actually be able to talk to one another, thus being able to see each other's reality and become more understanding and accepting, then maybe, just maybe, they could have made the war be against the Agarthans, and not each other before the Agarthans. It'd have been a war where Edelgard fought with the others to free the Empire from the Agarthan's control. But that's not how reality works. People can't let go of their issues easily, because their reality is something that shaped them into what they are. Changing oneself is to break yourself and rebuild into something different, and that's not only scary, but even painful for the person. Rhea needed to spend five years imprisoned to finally change. Dimitri needed to have Rodrigue take a blow for him from someone that sought revenge like Dimitri had, and then be told that he doesn't have to listen to what others want and instead do what he wants. And Edelgard and Claude both learn to trust others more often, but for the former, only at the most critical moment when she needed someone to believe in her, while Claude simply had someone that was fighting with him the entire way. Ultimately, this conflict was inevitable. And that is the true tragedy of 3H. Which makes the story that much more beautiful.
Why I cannot fully sympathize with Rhea
omegaxis1 posted a topic in Fire Emblem: Three HousesI'm sure most that know me is aware that I'm a major fan of Edelgard. That generally means I would oppose Rhea, whom Edelgard opposes. Now that doesn't mean I hate Rhea, as I genuinely do sympathize with the tragedy she suffered. However, I want to express that despite how I get that she's been through something horrific, I'm not entirely sympathetic with her. Yes, she has suffered incredible pain from being a survivor of a literal genocide, and had to endure her own kin and mother being turned in weapons of war. The last time something like that happened, it was in Yu-Gi-Oh, where it was revealed that the Millennium Items were created by slaughtering an entire village of people. Having experienced that, no matter what the reason, even if Nemesis was someone that wanted to just help his people and homeland, what he did is something that cannot ever be forgiven. It is pure evil, and he NEEDED to go down. Nothing would ever justify genocide. And Rhea deserved to seek justice for what happened to her. But that's just it. She deserved justice, but what she sought was revenge. I feel people are TOO easily influenced to mix "justice" and "revenge" and forget that there's a serious difference between the two. Ironically, one of Arthur's room quotes is him actually wanting to lecture Corrin about what the difference is: Yes, there IS a difference. But people are so much into the belief that those that made someone else suffer should ALSO suffer the same or worse treatment, or would seek to kill them regardless of how it affects others. And the biggest difference is what happens when one attains justice and how one is when one attains revenge. To better help convey my point, I bring about Lyn and Wallace's B support from FE7: Notice that at the end, Lyn says that so long as the bandits are alive, she can never move on. So take this with Rhea, who spent decades plotting and preparing to wage war against Nemesis and the Elites, planning on killing them all. Rhea must have felt that she could never move on unless her family's murderer paid the price, right? However, it's at Lyn's A support with Wallace that perfectly demonstrates how distinct this difference between justice and revenge. This is genuinely important. Lyn here is outraged angered that Wallace destroyed the bandits that she wanted revenge on. She's upset that she couldn't do it. But she's not even happy and hasn't actually moved on yet. She's not even showing signs that she has moved on after learning this. Wallace also mentioned that hatred can be useful as a strength cause it allows you to cling to her will to survive. But clinging to that hatred for too long can consume you. And that's exactly what happens to Rhea. She was consumed by hatred, consumed by her lust for vengeance. And when she finally killed Nemesis and then hunted down the remaining Elites, killing them one by one, what happened? Did Rhea move on? Keep in mind that Rhea had CENTURIES worth of peace after the War of Heroes. She had something that many humans don't have: time. Nemesis was killed in the Imperial Year 91, with the war ending in the Year 98, and the game starts off at the Year 1179. That means Rhea has had over a millennium to try and move on. Rhea had so much time to push past her sorrows and grief, and to let go of that hatred. To let go of her suffering and try to find happiness in her life towards the future. But... she didn't. Rhea never moved on. She clung to her sorrow, her grief, and used that as her reason for her actions toward everything. You know how people go on and on about how Edelgard could have just "talked" to people or tried to change things peacefully? How about using that on Rhea? Rhea had over an entire millennium to just fix things. She was the archbishop of the Church. She had the power, resources, and most of all, time to address the issues of Fodlan. Why couldn't she spend a few decades preaching to the people and telling them that they should not worship Crests to the point of obsession or judge people's worth based on Crests. Sure, maybe people wouldn't listen immediately, but that's the beauty of her longevity. She doesn't NEED to be quick. She can keep pushing and attempting to guide humanity for years and years, and slowly, people WOULD begin to listen and try to put into practice the belief that Crests aren't necessary. And then little by little, the rest of the people would start to follow suit. It's a matter of taking it slow and steady. The possibility exists. But when DID she actually start to move on? When she got captured by Edelgard and imprisoned for five whole years after Edelgard declared war on the Church of Seiros. Five years of being removed from power, lamenting over her failures, did Rhea finally realize how she messed up. - In the end, yeah, Rhea's a tragic character, and I sympathize with her, but only to an extent. She should have moved on past her grief throughout the years. But she didn't. She clung to them and that worsened things for her and everyone else around her. Her having a redemption only after being imprisoned for five years during a war is too little, too late. This is why I can't ever support Rhea. Feel free to disagree with me, but the point of this thread is just my stance on why I can't support her or side with her.
If anyone familiar with the Dungeons & Dragons alignments. What character do you think belongs to what alignment? http://easydamus.com/alignment.html Personally, this is my reading. Edelgard: chaotic good The girl has a good heart and the best of intentions, but she is very much against traditions, and the oppressive effect such traditions can have on people. Edelgard follows her own moral compass and will do what she thinks is right, regardless of what other people or society as a whole thinks. To achieve what she considers her ideal society. She is willing to plunge the world into chaos to rebuild it anew. Saw her listed as lawful evil on another site, but I don't think this is accurate. Mainly that, because according to the alignment system, the evil alignment usually points to selfish motivations. Hubert: lawful evil/lawful neutral This is a tricky one, Hubert is incredibly loyal to Edelgard, but is willing to go pretty far to serve his mistress, further than even Edelgard. And unlike Edelgard he doesn't do so, as much for the greater good. As much as to protect and serve a single person, he cares about. His loyalty definitely makes him lawful, but I am uncertain of is if his casual murder and assassination makes him of the evil alignment, even if it usually requires selfish motivations, but Hubert doesn't do it to benefit himself as much as to benefit Edelgard. Dimitri: lawful good Dimitri have the best of intentions, and believe in preserving life, order and peace. He is often unwilling to accept that sacrifices is sometimes necessary, and will do anything to protect those he think is getting trampled on by the strong. Even his dark side is ultimately lawful good as this side of him is overly focused on justice and the punishment of evildoers, which are usually associated with this alignment, regardless of how destructive. Dimitri is basically a retribution Paladin and represents really well both the bad and the good of this alignment. Good in that he protects the innocent and promotes order and stability, bad in that it can get overly sadistic in punishing those he sees as evil. Rhea: lawful good She believes order stability and peace needs to be prioritised by any cost, as she has seen just how bad things can get when things get out of hand. While she is kind to those who obey the laws. She is incredibly uncompromising towards those who break her laws and traditions. But she isn't evil as she doesn't do this to promote her own power as much as she generally believes this is what is best for the world. Claude: neutral good Claude is a good guy, he desires for everyone to be treated equally regardless of where they are from and wants to unite all people under one banner of tolerance. His primary fault is just that he is often unwilling to go to extreme measures to achieve his goals. Which often means that without help. He is often times not successful. Thales: chaotic evil he wants revenge against the church and is willing to raise the world to the ground to do it. Unlike Edelgard he doesn't have a greater good in mind while spreading destruction across Fodlan. He is also responsible for genocide, causing multiple wars and torturing innocent children all to destabilise the region to make it easier to fulfil his plans.
Possibly unpopular or unconventional ships
Darkmoon6789 posted a topic in Fire Emblem: Three HousesNot going to lie, I really love pairing Edelgard and Dimitri, probably my favourite ship with Edelgard after both versions of Byleth. I don't know if this is a controversial opinion or not, but given their role in the game, I would have expected Dimitri and Edelgard romantic art to be more prevalent. I think what makes this pairing appealing to me is because I know it could never be in any of the established timelines. But it is something the both of them might have wanted by one point or another. They are likely Romeo and Juliet type of tragedy if Romeo became convinced that Juliet killed his father and his love turn into absolute hatred, and if Juliet started a war because she got sick of the family feud. Dimitri and Edelgard, the pair that could never be. I have also seen it mentioned in another topic that Byleth and Flayn is controversial for whatever reason, don't really understand why, it isn't really that much different from Byleth and Lysithea except Flayn is likely much older than any non-green haired character in the game. I also wonder if there is anyone who is shipping Edelgard and Rhea, because that is the most insane pairing I could think of and would be neat just because it is so ironic. So does anyone else support any pairings of characters that are unconventional or unpopular?