Jump to content
StormyAngel

Rhea is an excellent foil for Edelgard *SPOILERS*

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Ivan Tridelan said:

Except she doesn't want to rule all of Fodlan, and even steps down afterwards. She IS fed misinformation and isn't considering diplomacy as an option.

As for the Kingdom and the Alliance, to be fair they only exist in the first place because the Church legitimized their rebellions. The Kingdom in particular would pretty much inevitably side with the Church in order to prevent the Empire from becoming dominant and she already has at least a third of the Alliance on her side so she might as well take them too. Both nations also embrace the Crest fascination, perhaps even more than the Empire.

Edelgard's main issue is being too certain she is right, too certain her methods are necessary to defeat both the "evil" Church and TWSITD, and too paranoid to even try to reach out to Dmitri and Claude.

Whether she herself wants to rule or not (she's obviously going to have to step down eventually because of the side effect of having two Crests), she wants The Empire to lead the continent as it once did~ That is very clearly one of her end goals, so she was going to invade one way or the other~

I don't disagree with the rest that you've said~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hunter Nightblood said:

I'm going to disagree with the "bringing the Kingdom into the war" part of this, as Rhea took refuge in the Kingdom. While there's a decent debate to be had on whether invading the Alliance was necessary, invading the Kingdom was inevitable the second they allied with Rhea.

To put into simpler terms, if Group A and B are allies and Group C attacks Group A, Group B will come to Group A's aid. Group C did not bring Group B into their war, rather Group B came to the aid of Group A.

She literally tried to murder Claude and Dimitri before the war ever started. She clearly intended to force everything in Fodlan under her rule.

Edited by Seazas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nihilem said:

Do you have any evidence supporting your claim? Support - Talks, Ingame-Scences,  anything?

We know from Support Talks with Shamir and Cyril that Rhea is remarkeble tolerant regarding different opinions (in comparision to real life medieval religious leaders). Even allowing non believers to serve in higher position in the knights, who openly admit beeing atheistic (or having another religion).

We also know from various Sidequest (the first one Seteth gives you) and the pre and after cutscenes from chapter 3-4 that both the western church and Lonato challenged her authority without any kind of repercussion. Only when they were building up armies/ trying to assasinate Rhea, they were mawed down mercilessly.

From the books in the Library and Seteths supports we know that the crest system in its current form is not really supported by the church upper levels. Sure, we dont know exactly Rheas thoughts on it but assuming that the "seiros - bible" was written with her consent, she is no fan of it. That one is a assumption, but in my opionion a justified one. It also makes sense given the circumstances how the system was created and how is behind it.

 

So which support, Cutscenes or other texts in any kind of form succest that she will actually stop Edelgard from reforming the empire when she not calls for the head of Rhea? Because all arguments I heard until now were "maybe", "surely" and "probably"....

What an amazing pro-Rhea argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delayed response here: I was cut off from the internet whilst moving.

On 8/27/2019 at 10:39 AM, Yexin said:

 

if there's an alternative that allows both me and my aggressor to be saved, i'd go for that: no one has the right to take another person's life, no matter the circumstance, and if there's no such alternative, i'd rather die than being guilty of destroying someone else's family

i don't know where you two grew up, but that's what i've been taught, and i strongly believe in it

and no, i am not christian nor anything, i'm just very close to people whose job also has to do with handling these situations, so probably this made me less selfish and more thoughtful about these things

I would also choose any alternative that preserves both lives. But I do believe that if someone invades my home and plans to kill me or any member of my family, I am fully justified in killing them if that is the only way to stop them. I don't know where you grew up, but any standard that would then hold me guilty of murder in those circumstances is ludicrous.

As it happens, I am a christian, so I find it interesting that you think that's a christian standard. If anything, I would say you have a pacifist philosophy, which isn't a bad thing by any means, but is probably more "do no harm" than your average christian believes god expects of anyone.

As for "destroying someone else's family", that is rather moving the goal post here. I never mentioned any family, and to assume that the kind of person who commits unprovoked murder has a family to be "destroyed" by their death is rather a large assumption. Nemesis, to hearken back to the game for a clear cut example, may have had a family, but he was also a genocidal murderer/home invader. If Seiros could have stopped his massacre only by killing him, would she have been wrong to do so?

On 8/27/2019 at 10:22 AM, Nihilem said:

Do you have any evidence supporting your claim? Support - Talks, Ingame-Scences,  anything?

We know from Support Talks with Shamir and Cyril that Rhea is remarkeble tolerant regarding different opinions (in comparision to real life medieval religious leaders). Even allowing non believers to serve in higher position in the knights, who openly admit beeing atheistic (or having another religion).

We also know from various Sidequest (the first one Seteth gives you) and the pre and after cutscenes from chapter 3-4 that both the western church and Lonato challenged her authority without any kind of repercussion. Only when they were building up armies/ trying to assasinate Rhea, they were mawed down mercilessly.

From the books in the Library and Seteths supports we know that the crest system in its current form is not really supported by the church upper levels. Sure, we dont know exactly Rheas thoughts on it but assuming that the "seiros - bible" was written with her consent, she is no fan of it. That one is a assumption, but in my opionion a justified one. It also makes sense given the circumstances how the system was created and how is behind it.

 

So which support, Cutscenes or other texts in any kind of form succest that she will actually stop Edelgard from reforming the empire when she not calls for the head of Rhea? Because all arguments I heard until now were "maybe", "surely" and "probably"....

Well, here's where we get into the grey areas of the game. Too many things are vague in this game for us to settle things definitively. You and I are both doing our best to make justified assumptions, but without more details we can't actually settle which assumptions are correct. Very frustrating.

For example, one of my assumptions is that Edelgard wouldn't start the war with Rhea if there was a path that would have allowed for peaceful reformation. Her pretty much stated reason for aiming to kill Rhea is that reform will be impossible while she is alive. Edelgard's a smart person, and knows more about the world than I do (partially because it's a video game with a finite amount of information that actually exists, whereas she presumably has all sorts of context the writers couldn't be bothered to explain/come up with.)

But you note several reasons to support the idea that Edelgard is wrong, and to be fair, I haven't finished all the routes of the game, so you may be right and I just haven't seen all the data yet.

The main reason I fall on the Edelgard side of things in my assumptions is because Seiros/Rhea did at least 2 things suggestive of the idea that she is clinging to the crest/nobility system:

1.She founded it.

2.She did nothing to change it for over 1000 years.

 

I do want to note though, that whilst you have cast very reasonable doubt on the actual necessity of Edelgard's war, that doesn't change the fact that Seiros launching her war was just as bloody and likewise an evil thing to do. And I still hold that the difference in their motivations and actions afterwards (misinformed or not) indicates Edelgard was a better person.

"Better" being very much a relative term. She's still very much the woman who launched a bloody war, guilty of quite a lot of bad things.

 

On 8/27/2019 at 10:22 AM, Nihilem said:

And that they tried to kill said students while they were "grave robbing" you are going to ignore? But point taken, defiling the holy tomb/seiros grave - which are the most holy places the church of seiros knows - will also get you on Rheas kill list. Therefore i will modify my argument to "Edelgard could make reforms for the crest system as long as she didnt try to kill Rhea or steal the crest stones from the holy tomb." Funnily enough Edelgard tried both. I still disagree with the argument "Rhea kills everyone who challenges her authority" and will continue to do so until i can see some evidence for it.

I was mostly ignoring the fact that the battle was lethal because that's an artifact of the story being told through a video game. The students exercising the citizens arrest were also killing people, after all. I wonder how that chapter would have played out as written in a book.

As for the killing everyone who challenges her authority, I can only point once more to the gray areas. It's very unclear, for example, why Lonato raised his army and what he intended to do with it (assault garreg mach? kill Catherine? invade somewhere?). His son was killed because of "church doctrine" but we're never given the details on what church doctrine, or what he did to contradict it. Lonato's militia was pretty much already being suppressed by the knights of Seiros when we came onto the scene, so it's unclear where the first battle took place or at what point the church said, "oh hey, that guy should be stopped" and got involved.

Like I said, lots of unfortunate grey areas.

 

Thanks for your thoughts everyone! You've given me much to think about!

 

 

Edited by StormyAngel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time buying that Edelgard solely wanted destroy the crest system, because in every route except Crimson Flower, she succesfully captures and imprisons Rhea but doesn't kill her. If she truly wanted to destroy the crest system and nothing more, she would have killed Rhea right there. But she doesn't . She instead orders an attack on Fodlan, probably using the "destroy current nobility system " as a way to gain support as well as justifying action. I'm going to guess the reason she spared Rhea is so that she could potentially use her as a hostage in case that it would prove benefit for her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZeManaphy said:

I have a hard time buying that Edelgard solely wanted destroy the crest system, because in every route except Crimson Flower, she succesfully captures and imprisons Rhea but doesn't kill her. If she truly wanted to destroy the crest system and nothing more, she would have killed Rhea right there. But she doesn't . She instead orders an attack on Fodlan, probably using the "destroy current nobility system " as a way to gain support as well as justifying action. I'm going to guess the reason she spared Rhea is so that she could potentially use her as a hostage in case that it would prove benefit for her. 

Hm. This is an example of knowledge I lack from not playing all routes yet. Still, isn't it TWSitD who capture/imprison Rhea? The two aren't necessarily the same, because their goals were different from Edelgard's and thus they might have kept her alive against Edelgard's wishes. Or maybe Edelgard was happy to simply have her out of the way so she could focus on winning this war that was (because it wasn't crimson flower) going unexpectedly poorly for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhea is ultimately a lazy woman who stalled for time so she could focus on what she put first (retrieving her mother). Rhea is also ultimately naive in her attitude towards humans. Not treating them with the regulation they needed. Dishonoring her kind for glorifying their killers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Eryon said:

Rhea is ultimately a lazy woman who stalled for time so she could focus on what she put first (retrieving her mother). Rhea is also ultimately naive in her attitude towards humans. Not treating them with the regulation they needed. Dishonoring her kind for glorifying their killers.

At least Rhea actually apologizes for her actions, admitting everything she did was wrong and she was very selfish in her goals, assuming you S-Rank  her on Silver Snow. Edelgard never gives an apology to anyone, using the excuse, " its for the greater good" as a way justifying her actions, even when she has lost everything. Spoilers for BLs:

Spoiler

After being defeated as a monster as well as being guilty for her crimes ( especially against Dimitri ), Dimitri offers mercy, but she has the nerve to try to kill him when she has literally lost everything. That sealed my genuine dislike of Edelgard. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ZeManaphy said:

At least Rhea actually apologizes for her actions, admitting everything she did was wrong and she was very selfish in her goals, assuming you S-Rank  her on Silver Snow. Edelgard never gives an apology to anyone, using the excuse, " its for the greater good" as a way justifying her actions, even when she has lost everything. Spoilers for BLs:

  Reveal hidden contents

After being defeated as a monster as well as being guilty for her crimes ( especially against Dimitri ), Dimitri offers mercy, but she has the nerve to try to kill him when she has literally lost everything. That sealed my genuine dislike of Edelgard. 

 

 

That one is partly difference of mentality. For Edelgard, if you take weapons for a cause, you do it with the idea you're ready to do die for achieving what you want, and that surrendering is ultimately wasting lives since if you were to forfeit anyways, why the duck did you waste all of these lifes? Which would also render apologies for the lives lost on both sides kinda meaningless, the only thing to 'apologize' is making something meaningful out of the outcome of that mess.

Which is why when defeated she generally insists for being killed. She lost, she isn't achieving what she wanted, so down she has to go.

Spoiler

And it's more implied than outright stated as it is for Lysithea, but it seems her lifespan is also shafted by this two Crests situation

Before someboody quotes me saying so, yes, it is a toxic viewpoint, but ultimately one Rhea share to some degree bar exceptional circumstances like Silver Snow S-Rank, or some eating of the humble pie and its serving of crow after Shamballa. At her worst (Crimson Flower):

Spoiler

She is like that (no surrender), and she pretty much turn a city full of people as her funeral pyre. Classy.

 

 

But ultimately, in my opinion, there is one big salient point which makes them foil to each other, beyond all the similarities, parallels and the likes:

Rhea is ageless, not Edelgard.

Before the mentions of Humanity Fuck Yeah' are thrown, I want to rise a point:

-There are two recurrent critics in politics against older politicians: 'He will keel over before the end of his term', and 'he's so old he is out of touch with modern society'. And well, an ageless leader couldn't need to fear the first one, but the second one, as decades become centuries (Eh, Soviet gerontocraty in the Cold War was already the reign of immobilism, imagine there)? It becomes a real problem, especially when you rule mortals with normal lifespans, who will think about the situation with a different view from yours because, well, they don't have the time you have to do these things, for instance.

I want to do another post letter, heck probably start a thread about that, describing what I interpret as Rhea's ruling system and how it envetually ended in failure, but here and now, I want to say that:

Both she and Edelgard are the mix of ruthless, scarred by life, and smart to be superb war leaders (as long as the sanity holds), perfect revolutionnaries to end a corrupt old order, and set up something different once everything has been torn apart. But these same points also means that as rulers, they are more ill-adapted to take care of things after that point, precisely because of the issues which led them to fight, and the bigest and most important challenge here for these people is 'find a successor to lead after you'. Edelgard is aware of that at the very least. Rhea too at some level, but she can only see her dead mother as a worthy replacement (not healthiest way of thinking already), and wants to resurrect her to do the job (even worst), and while she is fixating on that, the situation begins to rot, and well, old age isn't getting her out fo office while the situation slowly goes to shit around her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It ended in failure since she built it on denial and glory for sins committed by humans. And once she did that, did little to none to regulate human depravity despite her position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2019 at 12:39 PM, Yexin said:

i don't know where you two grew up, but that's what i've been taught, and i strongly believe in it

When did I ever imply I would kill if there was an alternative? Don't put words in my mouth, please. My post said:

On 8/27/2019 at 11:48 AM, PrincessAlyson said:

Killing in self-defense is sometimes necessary, though. Are you just going to let let someone kill you? No.

I never said anything about not trying to negotiate. I said it was "Sometimes necessary to kill in self-defense". And implying that I grew up in a bad place is completely rude and unnecessary. I live in a comfortable, middle class neighborhood in America, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ZeManaphy said:

I have a hard time buying that Edelgard solely wanted destroy the crest system, because in every route except Crimson Flower, she succesfully captures and imprisons Rhea but doesn't kill her. If she truly wanted to destroy the crest system and nothing more, she would have killed Rhea right there. But she doesn't . She instead orders an attack on Fodlan, probably using the "destroy current nobility system " as a way to gain support as well as justifying action. I'm going to guess the reason she spared Rhea is so that she could potentially use her as a hostage in case that it would prove benefit for her. 

How does killing Rhea solve the crest problem? The crests do nit disappear just because Rhea is dead. The only one which does is yours, probably because Rhea influenced/created it in the first place. And even if it would be the case, there is no way that Edelgard would know that.

 

 

15 hours ago, StormyAngel said:

Well, here's where we get into the grey areas of the game. Too many things are vague in this game for us to settle things definitively. You and I are both doing our best to make justified assumptions, but without more details we can't actually settle which assumptions are correct. Very frustrating.

For example, one of my assumptions is that Edelgard wouldn't start the war with Rhea if there was a path that would have allowed for peaceful reformation. Her pretty much stated reason for aiming to kill Rhea is that reform will be impossible while she is alive. Edelgard's a smart person, and knows more about the world than I do (partially because it's a video game with a finite amount of information that actually exists, whereas she presumably has all sorts of context the writers couldn't be bothered to explain/come up with.)

But you note several reasons to support the idea that Edelgard is wrong, and to be fair, I haven't finished all the routes of the game, so you may be right and I just haven't seen all the data yet.

The main reason I fall on the Edelgard side of things in my assumptions is because Seiros/Rhea did at least 2 things suggestive of the idea that she is clinging to the crest/nobility system:

1.She founded it.

2.She did nothing to change it for over 1000 years.

 

Here we have to differentiate between us as the player and the knowledge Edelgard possesses. From Edelgards perspective it is quite clear that the churchs influence needs to be removed by force. After all she thinks that Sothis created the system, the church will defend it to the last breath and Rhea secretly controlls the entire continent. The first one we know is a lie, the second I dont believe and the third is highly exaggerated. So from her perspective the reasoning is sound. Just when try to justify her action from the perspective of the players who (more or less) know the full truth it falls apart.

Which is why I want a golden route where the house leaders get their stuff together and dont act like little marionettes in the TWSITD schemes. And I dont care if the need time travel hocus pocus to pull it off. We have a time shifting god on our side after all ......

 

Quote

I was mostly ignoring the fact that the battle was lethal because that's an artifact of the story being told through a video game. The students exercising the citizens arrest were also killing people, after all. I wonder how that chapter would have played out as written in a book.

Well one of the first lines their leader was saying is "Death Knight prove your strength and scatter these fools" Considering that everyone in the tomb is armed to the tooth I would consider all actions from the students afterwards self defense. Sure you could have played in a way that you already have killed half a dozend guys until then. But you dont need to, the line will come anyway even if you have defeated noone.

 

Quote

As for the killing everyone who challenges her authority, I can only point once more to the gray areas. It's very unclear, for example, why Lonato raised his army and what he intended to do with it (assault garreg mach? kill Catherine? invade somewhere?). His son was killed because of "church doctrine" but we're never given the details on what church doctrine, or what he did to contradict it. Lonato's militia was pretty much already being suppressed by the knights of Seiros when we came onto the scene, so it's unclear where the first battle took place or at what point the church said, "oh hey, that guy should be stopped" and got involved.

Like I said, lots of unfortunate grey areas.

Well actually we know a lot about this.

 

From Ashes Support with Catherine and their paralogue we know that their was another assissanation attempt on Rhea which was carried out/planned by Lonatos son years back. The western church was behind it but the middle church never had enough proof for it so they lied and claimed Christophe (Lonatos son) was in league with the duscur assassines.  Unfortunately I am currently only in their c support so I dont know the full story......

Why the western church hates the middle church so much that they want to kill their leader we only know of a bit of evidence but two reasons are hinted at:

- Power: The western church bishops dislike that the archbishop is considered head of the whole church

- Racism: The church of the middle is open to nonbeliever and people from outside fodlan (cyril, shamir etc...) The western church seems to be not so tolerant about this. (But to be fair we only have one side quest mentioning that....)

There might be other reasons hidden somewhere in the supports, cutscenes etc. Unfortunately such small details you can just learn when you are with the right characters in the right missions .....

 

Edited by Nihilem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Nihilem said:

Why the western church hates the middle church so much that they want to kill their leader we only know of a bit of evidence but two reasons are hinted at:

- Power: The western church bishops dislike that the archbishop is considered head of the whole church

- Racism: The church of the middle is open to nonbeliever and people from outside fodlan (cyril, shamir etc...) The western church seems to be not so tolerant about this. (But to be fair we only have one side quest mentioning that....)

There might be other reasons hidden somewhere in the supports, cutscenes etc. Unfortunately such small details you can just learn when you are with the right characters in the right missions .....

 

TWSITD, it's as simple as that. When you see the dudes in chapter 4 getting judged they say : "No, this isn't what we were told would happen! We've been deceived!" So yeah, TWSITD. Majority of bad events in the game (and probably throughout Fodlan's history) can probably be linked to TWSITD manipulating people.

Edited by Tharne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tharne said:

TWSITD, it's as simple as that. When you see the dudes in chapter 4 getting judged they say : "No, this isn't what we were told would happen! We've been deceived!" So yeah, TWSITD. Majority of bad events in the game (and probably throughout Fodlan's history) can probably be linked to TWSITD manipulating people.

Well they ofc also play a role in it. But normally they take weaknesses that already exist and use them to push the people to do their bitting. Or twisting prejudices in a way that fits to their purposes. Thats why I wanted to point out the things the western church had problems with without TWSITD interfering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Western Church is but a symptom of the disease.

Rhea did not rule properly and arranged a system that divided power in the continent rather than keeping it undivided. Frankly, if Rhea insisted on humans having a major say combined with crest usage then she should not have a church, but rather a priest-king ala the caliphates among a crest wielding lineage who'd be the center of it all. His rule codified by her Bible.

Edited by Eryon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Eryon said:

It ended in failure since she built it on denial and glory for sins committed by humans. And once she did that, did little to none to regulate human depravity despite her position.

Do you actually listen to yourself speak or are you intentionally this edgy? Either way its kind of hilarious but you sound like a teen outcast tbh.

4 hours ago, Nihilem said:

The first one we know is a lie, the second I dont believe and the third is highly exaggerated. So from her perspective the reasoning is sound. Just when try to justify her action from the perspective of the players who (more or less) know the full truth it falls apart.

TBF we don't really know much of what Sothis actually was like sans amnesia barring the very brief moment we had with her before the soul merge, afterwards the amount of memories we actually received from her was left intentionally vague. From the perspective of the character Sothis certainly doesn't seem the Tyrant type (disliking seeing child soldiers, for one) but on the other hand this is effectively an "innocent" goddess rather than one who dealt with the Agarthan war (of which we would be unaware) and we only have Edelgard's story. By the time we hear it, we're with Edelgard regardless anyways. It's why I interpret the action as a personal alignment rather than an ideological one. "My student, right or wrong" as it were.

3 hours ago, Tharne said:

Majority of bad events in the game (and probably throughout Fodlan's history) can probably be linked to TWSITD manipulating people.

I assumed it was TWSITD or Edelgard getting the western church as the bandit's replacements, the latter more since Edelgard is the one giving her Uncle the report and the DeathKnight is the one with the group before he is loaned to TWSITD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nihilem said:

Here we have to differentiate between us as the player and the knowledge Edelgard possesses. From Edelgards perspective it is quite clear that the churchs influence needs to be removed by force. After all she thinks that Sothis created the system, the church will defend it to the last breath and Rhea secretly controlls the entire continent. The first one we know is a lie, the second I dont believe and the third is highly exaggerated. So from her perspective the reasoning is sound. Just when try to justify her action from the perspective of the players who (more or less) know the full truth it falls apart.

I don't think Edelgard believes in the goddess of the church of seiros at all, actually. The crimson flower route seems to indicate that she sees herself as throwing off the yoke of what amount to alien invader/puppeteers, who use their fantastic powers to imitate miracles and maintain the crest system.

At the very least she is clearly aware that Rhea is Seiros, knowledge that was passed down through the hresvelg imperial line. So Edelgard knows that Seiros was the one to set up the crest/nobility system and not the goddess, even if she doesn't know whether or not sothis was real/existed.

But you are correct in that Edelgard appears to believe those other 2 things. I think the church resisting change may be more of a consequence of Rhea controlling the church, but since it's rather difficult to kill a dragon...well, she wasn't going to change that situation easily. And exaggeration or not, Rhea was in a position of power across the entire continent. It's just unclear to what extent she would have exercised that power had Edelgard made different choices. Hopefully this will become more clear to me in the other routes...

 

4 hours ago, Nihilem said:

Well actually we know a lot about this.

 

From Ashes Support with Catherine and their paralogue we know that their was another assissanation attempt on Rhea which was carried out/planned by Lonatos son years back. The western church was behind it but the middle church never had enough proof for it so they lied and claimed Christophe (Lonatos son) was in league with the duscur assassines.  Unfortunately I am currently only in their c support so I dont know the full story......

Why the western church hates the middle church so much that they want to kill their leader we only know of a bit of evidence but two reasons are hinted at:

- Power: The western church bishops dislike that the archbishop is considered head of the whole church

- Racism: The church of the middle is open to nonbeliever and people from outside fodlan (cyril, shamir etc...) The western church seems to be not so tolerant about this. (But to be fair we only have one side quest mentioning that....)

There might be other reasons hidden somewhere in the supports, cutscenes etc. Unfortunately such small details you can just learn when you are with the right characters in the right missions .....

 

Thank you for pointing me in this direction! I'm in the middle of my BL run-through so I'll explore those supports as soon as I can. Is the paralogue pre- or post- time skip?

It is entirely possible that all of the things I assumed aren't explained are just tucked away in support conversations somewhere, but this game is just SO LARGE that it's going to take me a while to collect them all. Thank goodness for NG+, or the task would be virtually hopeless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CyberNinja said:

TBF we don't really know much of what Sothis actually was like sans amnesia barring the very brief moment we had with her before the soul merge, afterwards the amount of memories we actually received from her was left intentionally vague. From the perspective of the character Sothis certainly doesn't seem the Tyrant type (disliking seeing child soldiers, for one) but on the other hand this is effectively an "innocent" goddess rather than one who dealt with the Agarthan war (of which we would be unaware) and we only have Edelgard's story. By the time we hear it, we're with Edelgard regardless anyways. It's why I interpret the action as a personal alignment rather than an ideological one. "My student, right or wrong" as it were. 

My Quote refered to "Sothis created the Crest System". Which is definetly a lie since she hardly pulled out her own heart to give it the Nemesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nihilem said:

My Quote refered to "Sothis created the Crest System". Which is definetly a lie since she hardly pulled out her own heart to give it the Nemesis.

And, again, we don't know that in that route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a long post here noting a bunch of random thoughts, but the general deal is Rhea is really terrible as a religious leader. 

I guess much of that comes from her building the church on a series of lies, but her actions and inaction over the church just oozes indifference. I guess I’m just baffled by a society built upon a religion that doesn’t preach, or try to spread itself, or learn more about itself or its own figures. It’s a huge hole that feels very deliberate. Take it at face value, or not, who cares. Just don’t be mean to me or I’ll fucking kill you💙

She really only pulls it off because the crests and the holy weapons are tangible and powerful and she wrote them in as gifts from the goddess. I also saw no major doctrine about any sort of afterlife or heaven, which could be why so much inhumane action follows the crests around. 

Honestly I can’t tell if that’s a plot hole or by deliberate design for the player to notice. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine Rhea being to Fodlan to what a charismatic human might do if they managed to convince a tribe of goblins or kobolds or such to follow them. Use them as your personal muscle, keep them content so they don't rebel, and don't tell them anything more than what's needed to keep them compliant.

Thing is, once you've decided to control them that way, they in turn gain more power and influence through prosperity, and it likely becomes progressively harder to keep a grip on power. Maintaining the appearance of unchallenged authority is absolutely critical, as Scar learned the hard way with the hyenas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Humanoid said:

I imagine Rhea being to Fodlan to what a charismatic human might do if they managed to convince a tribe of goblins or kobolds or such to follow them. Use them as your personal muscle, keep them content so they don't rebel, and don't tell them anything more than what's needed to keep them compliant.

Thing is, once you've decided to control them that way, they in turn gain more power and influence through prosperity, and it likely becomes progressively harder to keep a grip on power. Maintaining the appearance of unchallenged authority is absolutely critical, as Scar learned the hard way with the hyenas.

 

tee.heee. 
and don't sell them out. as Scar also learned with the hyenas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About war against Nemesis, did she really "started" it. I have hard time believe Nemesis created multiple WMD for cost decimating whole nation, then just retired and used them to pick up girls on beach with his pals. 

I think scripture itself imply he plunged continent into war after Zanado. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Nemesis didn't start either, he was just a pawn under TWISTD.

The two versions regarding ancient war were followed:

- Sothis was an evil goddess, jealous at human civilization, launched war to wipe out humans.

- Sothis was a beloved goddess who shared her knowledge to help human develop advanced civilization, later human started war fist against each other, then at dragons when they intervened. War between different human factions and dragons wiped out most humans, with survivors went to underground shelters, some of them became TWISTD and vow for vengeance against dragons. They sent Nemesis to assassinated Sothis, then turned her remains into weapon to massacre citizens of Zanado.

 

Personally I believe the later story being closer to truth. The game certainly depicted Sothis as benevolent despite arrogant somewhat. But she's willing to "sacrifice" herself to save Byleth and their students. On the other hand, both Nemesis and TWISTD are completely unredeemable villains, making their versions far less credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...