Three Houses does a lot tell and not show

[omegaxis1]

6 hours ago, Icelerate said:

But I thought Edelgard is good at choosing her subordinates and tasks that fit. Also, isn't her sparing her former allies going against her character. For example, she won't hesitate to cut Byleth down after the time-skip or the rest of the BE in Silver Snow. 

Sarcasm is unbecoming of you. 

And you're talking about Part 2, which is the point of when things are at a point where things are at an ultimatum. You either don't fight against her or you do, and if you do the latter, she'll kill you.

6 hours ago, Jotari said:

Precisely. Claude's plan never is made clear. So assuming if Edelgard did nothing he would basically do the exact same thing as her (and thus she's justified in invading him) is faulty. And I've already outlined one way in which he could have used diplomatic marriage to united the country. Another way could have been secret attacks on the economy of the other two countries to force closer trade deals. Hell he was investigating the immaculate one as well, perhaps he intended to take down Rhea by making her dragon form public knowledge. There's dozens of inventive ways one can come up that someone could try to unite a continent. And success isn't even part of the question. It's about what Claude would try to do to succeed. Claude is a different beast to Edelgard. He's a schemer. So simply saying "He says he wants to be king, therefore he is Whalahart" is disingenuous.

His grand plan aside, whatever the method was, he still tried to use Edelgard's war to still try and enact his own efforts into an invasion in CF. The point of the matter is that he tried to still capitalize on the war for an invasion and conquer the continent himself.

No, there's legit no such thing as conquering in self-defense. Both Dimitri and Claude are just as much conquerers as Edelgard is in their respective routes.

[Flere210]

45 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

No, there's legit no such thing as conquering in self-defense. Both Dimitri and Claude are just as much conquerers as Edelgard is in their respective routes.

And Ike is as much of a conqueror of Ashnard then. 

If you kill Edelgard(or Dimitri) there is no one left on her dynasty anyway. So it's either Dimitri/Claude/Byleth ruling Adrestia, or someone appointed by them that is going to be loyal. All of them have at least as much Right to Rule as someone like Ferdinand or a distant cousin of Edelgard.

[NekoKnight]

10 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

And Ike is as much of a conqueror of Ashnard then. 

If you kill Edelgard(or Dimitri) there is no one left on her dynasty anyway. So it's either Dimitri/Claude/Byleth ruling Adrestia, or someone appointed by them that is going to be loyal. All of them have at least as much Right to Rule as someone like Ferdinand or a distant cousin of Edelgard.

Ike (nor Crimea) doesn't annex Daein though, and presumably, under Sanaki's rule, Begnion would probably eventually appoint someone in Daein to step up and become the monarch.

It doesn't sit well with me that Dimitri takes over all of Fodlan. I think it would be more in character for him to find a legal successor, even if they're not from the direct imperial line. Often in these stories, they oversimplify matters of inheritance and act like a country can only continue with one bloodline but in reality, they'd probably just find someone next in line, no matter how distantly related among the nobility.

Edited January 19, 2020 by NekoKnight

[Flere210]

9 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

Ike (nor Crimea) doesn't annex Daein though, and presumably, under Sanaki's rule, Begnion would probably eventually appoint someone in Daein to step up and become the monarch.

It doesn't sit well with me that Dimitri takes over all of Fodlan. I think it would be more in character for him to find a legal successor, even if they're not from the direct imperial line. Often in these stories, they oversimplify matters of inheritance and act like a country can only continue with one bloodline but in reality, they'd probably just find someone next in line, no matter how distantly related among the nobility.

Yes they can pick a random person whit a minor crest of Seiros, but would it be much different? How can someone like that oppose Faergus after adrestian military has been destroyed and half of the noble houses sided whit Dimitri in the war? Dimitri would rule Adrestia no matter what, either directly or trough a proxy.

Wich is also why the blood pact make no sense in RD. Pelleas was in no position to oppose Begnion with Daein in ruins anyway. 

Edited January 19, 2020 by Flere210

[Timlugia]

Saying Claude was planning to invade Empire was dubious at the best, since Alliance never had a military force to match Empire, let alone invades it.

Alliance was half the size of Empire, and was never known for its military strength or tradition. The game says the most farm land are also located in the empire, suggesting empire also has advantage in population. Most Alliance characters were from merchant backgrounds. It also stated that Alliance doesn’t have Knight of Seiros chapter.  It’s lords were divided in responding to the empire.

In both CF and AM, Alliance forces were no match to Imperial war machine and collapsed fairly quickly.  Claude has to conduct fighting retreat to delay empire since he didn’t have the force to fight decisive battles. In VW, Claude could only attack the empire after Blyeth and knights of Seiros joined him, and again only against strategic targets. And the game still mention they were vastly out numbered by the imperials.

Even the narrator states Alliance was in a bad position.

Quote

The Leicester Alliance is on the verge of collapse, fractured by two opposing factions–those who support the Adrestian Empire and its ruler, and those who seek her demise.

Quote

Vastly outnumbered by Imperial forces, it becomes clear that a surprise attack, followed by a short and decisive battle, is the only path to victory. With this in mind, you stealthily approach Enbarr, the Imperial Capital.

 

Claim Claude has mean to invade the empire, is like saying Canada could invade US. Especially Claude never said he planned to lead through military strength, he could easily mean political or diplomatic maneuvers. Since as game shows, he doesn’t nearly has enough military force.

Arguing that simply because Claude says he wanted to be a leader one day, so that he must mean to invade empire, thus empire has justification to conquer whole Alliance, is a long string of slippery slope fallacy and imperial propaganda.

Edited January 19, 2020 by Timlugia

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Flere210 said:

And Ike is as much of a conqueror of Ashnard then. 

If you kill Edelgard(or Dimitri) there is no one left on her dynasty anyway. So it's either Dimitri/Claude/Byleth ruling Adrestia, or someone appointed by them that is going to be loyal. All of them have at least as much Right to Rule as someone like Ferdinand or a distant cousin of Edelgard.

Haha. Love this response. But Ike is a particularly bad example. As Path of Radiance is possibly the only game in the series where the war doesn't result in the protagonist gaining ownership of the country they conquered (maybe Sacred Stones too, hard to remember all endings of all games). Though Daein does get occupied by Begnion and Ike was fighting the war partially on behalf of Begnion.

1 hour ago, Flere210 said:

Yes they can pick a random person whit a minor crest of Seiros, but would it be much different? How can someone like that oppose Faergus after adrestian military has been destroyed and half of the noble houses sided whit Dimitri in the war? Dimitri would rule Adrestia no matter what, either directly or trough a proxy.

Wich is also why the blood pact make no sense in RD. Pelleas was in no position to oppose Begnion with Daein in ruins anyway. 

Funny, the only person we know of alive with a Crest of Seiros (pre the recently announced DLC) is Rhea. So she very well could be seen as the legitimate heir to Adrestia. That would be a massive kick in the face for Edelgard!

Edited January 19, 2020 by Jotari

[Flere210]

Ike was still acting as a general for the Crimea-Begnion alliance. Most people don't conquer land in the name of themselves, but in the name of a country. 

[NekoKnight]

3 hours ago, Flere210 said:

Yes they can pick a random person whit a minor crest of Seiros, but would it be much different? How can someone like that oppose Faergus after adrestian military has been destroyed and half of the noble houses sided whit Dimitri in the war? Dimitri would rule Adrestia no matter what, either directly or trough a proxy.

Wich is also why the blood pact make no sense in RD. Pelleas was in no position to oppose Begnion with Daein in ruins anyway. 

There is a big difference between the new Adrestian government not being able to deny Faerghus' political/military pressure (for some length of time) and the country having its sovereignty forever taken away and the territory annexed into the Kingdom. The former allows the possibility of self governance for Adrestia in the future.

2 hours ago, Flere210 said:

Ike was still acting as a general for the Crimea-Begnion alliance. Most people don't conquer land in the name of themselves, but in the name of a country. 

Crimea is not Begnion, and the game makes a point to describe their conflicting interests. Ike and the Crimean forces are leading the vanguard specifically because they don't want Begnion to take credit for Crimea's liberation and gain more influence after the war is over. It is Begnion that occupies Daein after Ashnard is defeated, and Crimea has no power to affect (in favor or against) their policy.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

6 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

No, there's legit no such thing as conquering in self-defense. Both Dimitri and Claude are just as much conquerers as Edelgard is in their respective routes.

I can agree with this. For the record, I don't necessarily believe that Claude/Byleth are justified in forcing the Empire and Kingdom under the same governance as the Alliance. I had recruited Ferdinand on my first VW playthrough, and hoped that he could lead the Empire as the new Prime Minister. Compare to Genealogy, another continent-spanning war, in which Seliph only takes control of Grannvale; other heirs take over their respective countries based on their holy blood and parentage. Wish there was an ending that didn't unite the continent.

But by that same token, Edelgard's conquest of the Alliance is not an act of self-defense. The justification that "Claude and Almyra would've attacked" simply doesn't fly, in an ethical sense.

6 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

His grand plan aside, whatever the method was, he still tried to use Edelgard's war to still try and enact his own efforts into an invasion in CF. The point of the matter is that he tried to still capitalize on the war for an invasion and conquer the continent himself.

The difference, again, is that Claude doesn't act on those objectives, in a way that causes direct harm to the Empire. He attempts to prevent others from helping the Empire, yes, but that's morally different (see - robbing you, versus convincing those who would donate to you that they shouldn't). Edelgard does act, in a way that causes not just harm to the Alliance, but its ultimate dissolution (which Claude, as leader of the Alliance, is compelled to stop - even if the Alliance isn't as firmly united as the other powers). To treat these characters as "they have the same goals, so they're morally the same" ignores the fact that one initiates force against, and violates the territorial integrity of, the other.

For the record, I understand the tactical justification for Edelgard invading the Alliance. It is in keeping with her goals, even if I would say moving resources away from the Kingdom front (as was almost certainly necessary) was questionable at best. But a tactical justification is not a moral one. In waging war on the (non-belligerent) Alliance, Edelgard commits a moral wrong against the country and its people.

[Flere210]

Seliph gived away the crowns because there where a bunch of "rightful heirs" in his army. The rightfull heir that fights whit the good guys is a way fantasy use to sidestep the succession issues when the empire is defeated. In 3H there is no rightfull heir. Things need to be handled differently.

[Jotari]

7 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

Seliph gived away the crowns because there where a bunch of "rightful heirs" in his army. The rightfull heir that fights whit the good guys is a way fantasy use to sidestep the succession issues when the empire is defeated. In 3H there is no rightfull heir. Things need to be handled differently.

Democracy! Seriously, can we just give it a try Fire Emblem? Thirty years and only a single republic in the entire series, and it's depicted as less than positive.

Edited January 19, 2020 by Jotari

[omegaxis1]

7 hours ago, Flere210 said:

And Ike is as much of a conqueror of Ashnard then. 

If you kill Edelgard(or Dimitri) there is no one left on her dynasty anyway. So it's either Dimitri/Claude/Byleth ruling Adrestia, or someone appointed by them that is going to be loyal. All of them have at least as much Right to Rule as someone like Ferdinand or a distant cousin of Edelgard.

I refer to Sacred Stones in this regard. Grado was beaten, but never actually conquered, as the territory was not claimed. In fact, troops were sent just to keep things stable. It's also similar to Daein, in that it was still a nation that was not annexed, but under the authority and control over Begnion, until it broke free of it. 

Dimitri did not need to annex Adrestia. Adrestia could have remained independent. If anything, it makes Dimitri a total hypocrite, talking about how he doesn't want to conquer, but he does just that. 

24 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Democracy! Seriously, can we just give it a try Fire Emblem? Thirty years and only a single republic in the entire series, and it's depicted as less than positive.

LMAO XD

Democracy in a time where the people are generally uneducated? 

This video represents how democracy would be like:

Spoiler

 

 

50 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

But by that same token, Edelgard's conquest of the Alliance is not an act of self-defense. The justification that "Claude and Almyra would've attacked" simply doesn't fly, in an ethical sense.

Not self-defense, no. But I would be hard-pressed to even say that Edelgard was even aiming for conquest there. I mean, if she was intending to conquer the Alliance, she wouldn't say this:

Quote

Edelgard: Yes. We must eliminate the Alliance before moving on to fight the Kingdom and the church. However, that doesn't necessarily mean we must occupy the entirety of the Alliance. House Riegan stands against the Empire... Therefore, our target is Derdriu, the Aquatic Capital.

The point of conquering a nation is that you need to occupy the nation. 

Of course, Claude basically set it up so that the Alliance was gift-wrapped and ready to be merged with the Empire should Claude fail to defeat Edelgard. 

54 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

The difference, again, is that Claude doesn't act on those objectives, in a way that causes direct harm to the Empire. He attempts to prevent others from helping the Empire, yes, but that's morally different (see - robbing you, versus convincing those who would donate to you that they shouldn't). Edelgard does act, in a way that causes not just harm to the Alliance, but its ultimate dissolution (which Claude, as leader of the Alliance, is compelled to stop - even if the Alliance isn't as firmly united as the other powers). To treat these characters as "they have the same goals, so they're morally the same" ignores the fact that one initiates force against, and violates the territorial integrity of, the other.

For the record, I understand the tactical justification for Edelgard invading the Alliance. It is in keeping with her goals, even if I would say moving resources away from the Kingdom front (as was almost certainly necessary) was questionable at best. But a tactical justification is not a moral one. In waging war on the (non-belligerent) Alliance, Edelgard commits a moral wrong against the country and its people.

Honestly, even that isn't completely true. The Alliance is actually mostly left intact, and as I said above, Claude basically gift-wrapped the Alliance for Edelgard to take should she have won, so that the Alliance merges with the Empire. So Edelgard didn't really harm the Alliance in a significant way. In fact, Crimson Flower remains to be the route that holds the least bloodshed in the story.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

27 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Not self-defense, no. But I would be hard-pressed to even say that Edelgard was even aiming for conquest there. I mean, if she was intending to conquer the Alliance, she wouldn't say this:

I think you and I have different standards of "conquest", then. To highlight a different line:

28 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Edelgard: Yes. We must eliminate the Alliance before moving on to fight the Kingdom and the Church. House Riegan stands against the Empire... Therefore, our target is Derdriu, the Aquatic Capital.

Edelgard makes it plain that her goal is to eliminate the Alliance, and fold it into the Empire. She expects to have sovereignty over their lands and their Lords. In my book, that's conquest, even if it's not an especially brutal one. Moreover, she allows for some degree of occupation and administration, as you pointed out before, by Count Bergliez.

31 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Honestly, even that isn't completely true. The Alliance is actually mostly left intact, and as I said above, Claude basically gift-wrapped the Alliance for Edelgard to take should she have won, so that the Alliance merges with the Empire. So Edelgard didn't really harm the Alliance in a significant way. In fact, Crimson Flower remains to be the route that holds the least bloodshed in the story.

Claude's plan was a fall-back, in case of failure, to minimize suffering. Edelgard (and the Imperial army) still kill a lot of soldiers, and effectively kill the Alliance, which no longer exists as a sovereign state. The fact that it could've been more brutal, does not mean the method she took was right or justified. My argument isn't "Edelgard's a monster!", only that it was morally wrong of her to invade the Alliance.

Finally, while Crimson Flower may have the least bloodshed overall (the fact that it's the shortest route helps), let's not lose sight of the fact that, no matter what route you take, Edelgard starts the war. She has her reasons, and she doesn't bear full responsibility for the war (and the resultant deaths), but she still bears principal responsibility. She acknowledges this herself (something like "the path before me is paved with blood", I forget the exact quote) - she knows what she's doing is harming people, maybe even wrong, but she believes it's justified, to correct a greater wrong. That's what I really like about Crimson Flower route (contrary to what it may have sounded like) - she's willing to be the "bad guy", if it's what she believes will save the world in the end.

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

I think you and I have different standards of "conquest", then. To highlight a different line:

Edelgard makes it plain that her goal is to eliminate the Alliance, and fold it into the Empire. She expects to have sovereignty over their lands and their Lords. In my book, that's conquest, even if it's not an especially brutal one. Moreover, she allows for some degree of occupation and administration, as you pointed out before, by Count Bergliez.

Claude's plan was a fall-back, in case of failure, to minimize suffering. Edelgard (and the Imperial army) still kill a lot of soldiers, and effectively kill the Alliance, which no longer exists as a sovereign state. The fact that it could've been more brutal, does not mean the method she took was right or justified. My argument isn't "Edelgard's a monster!", only that it was morally wrong of her to invade the Alliance.

Finally, while Crimson Flower may have the least bloodshed overall (the fact that it's the shortest route helps), let's not lose sight of the fact that, no matter what route you take, Edelgard starts the war. She has her reasons, and she doesn't bear full responsibility for the war (and the resultant deaths), but she still bears principal responsibility. She acknowledges this herself (something like "the path before me is paved with blood", I forget the exact quote) - she knows what she's doing is harming people, maybe even wrong, but she believes it's justified, to correct a greater wrong. That's what I really like about Crimson Flower route (contrary to what it may have sounded like) - she's willing to be the "bad guy", if it's what she believes will save the world in the end.

A fair argument. In the end, yes. Edelgard is declaring war and doing things that can be viewed as wrong by people, as she does it to achieve the necessary results. Maybe attacking Claude to eliminate him from the Alliance interference is morally wrong and perhaps even unjustified, but if it prevented what might very well have been catastrophic with Claude's plans of becoming the supreme king, or Dimitri and Rhea being able to launch a counteroffensive, then it very well can be considered the right move to make. 

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

18 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

A fair argument. In the end, yes. Edelgard is declaring war and doing things that can be viewed as wrong by people, as she does it to achieve the necessary results. Maybe attacking Claude to eliminate him from the Alliance interference is morally wrong and perhaps even unjustified, but if it prevented what might very well have been catastrophic with Claude's plans of becoming the supreme king, or Dimitri and Rhea being able to launch a counteroffensive, then it very well can be considered the right move to make. 

Well, wonders never cease! I had not expected that we would come to a near-convergence on the ethics of the situation. And yet, here we are.

I can definitely see how, from a utilitarian perspective, one could see Edelgard's actions as justified. "Even if her actions cause suffering in the moment, she is ultimately working for a better world for the people of Fódlan, the Alliance included, so she is justified" - something like that. I was arguing more from a deontological (full disclosure, I had to look this word up, haha) perspective - "Regardless of the consequences, intended or actual, Edelgard's invasion of the Alliance must be judged on its own merits, so she is not justified." Again, I think this is a strength to Crimson Flower, and a testament to Three Houses' writing as a whole - a character's (even a protagonist's) actions can be seen as right or wrong, depending on the player's own ethical standards.

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Well, wonders never cease! I had not expected that we would come to a near-convergence on the ethics of the situation. And yet, here we are.

I can definitely see how, from a utilitarian perspective, one could see Edelgard's actions as justified. "Even if her actions cause suffering in the moment, she is ultimately working for a better world for the people of Fódlan, the Alliance included, so she is justified" - something like that. I was arguing more from a deontological (full disclosure, I had to look this word up, haha) perspective - "Regardless of the consequences, intended or actual, Edelgard's invasion of the Alliance must be judged on its own merits, so she is not justified." Again, I think this is a strength to Crimson Flower, and a testament to Three Houses' writing as a whole - a character's (even a protagonist's) actions can be seen as right or wrong, depending on the player's own ethical standards.

Both sides have a point in the end. I shouldn't get too caught up in defending El and forgetting that she is still doing harm and causing some wrongdoings. She's not a morally white character, she's a morally grey character. So I have to remember that she's someone that will do what can be considered the wrong thing to achieve the right result. It worked out for her, but it could have just as easily backfired. Same for allying with the Agarthans. 

 

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

17 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Both sides have a point in the end. I shouldn't get too caught up in defending El and forgetting that she is still doing harm and causing some wrongdoings. She's not a morally white character, she's a morally grey character. So I have to remember that she's someone that will do what can be considered the wrong thing to achieve the right result. It worked out for her, but it could have just as easily backfired. Same for allying with the Agarthans. 

Yeah, I think that's a reasonable perspective. At times, I may have fallen too far into the "blame Edelgard" camp. Again, Three Houses is a game where no major character is entirely in the right. Even Claude, whom I've heard criticized for not having the same "dark side" as Dimitri or Edelgard - you have a point, that he probably stepped outside his bounds (at times) as leader of the Alliance.

As for the potential for failure, if I do see one flaw in CF's story , it's that Edelgard's "contingency" efforts are either hidden, or just not there. How does she make sure that invading the Alliance won't wind up uniting the Lords against her, giving her a much tougher road than she actually faces? How does she make sure the Kingdom is held at bay, during the invasion of the Alliance? The prior two could be "solved" by saying that Those Who Slither were given leeway in dealing with it, but not the last and biggest - how can she be sure, even with Hubert's knowledge base, that she can beat the Agarthans? It's possible there are distinct answers to each of these, but it's also possible that her victory came through a combination of luck, and ignorance/stupidity among her enemies.

[Flere210]

42 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Well, wonders never cease! I had not expected that we would come to a near-convergence on the ethics of the situation. And yet, here we are.

I can definitely see how, from a utilitarian perspective, one could see Edelgard's actions as justified. "Even if her actions cause suffering in the moment, she is ultimately working for a better world for the people of Fódlan, the Alliance included, so she is justified" - something like that. I was arguing more from a deontological (full disclosure, I had to look this word up, haha) perspective - "Regardless of the consequences, intended or actual, Edelgard's invasion of the Alliance must be judged on its own merits, so she is not justified." 

The future is unpredictable, therefore is the worst possible utilitarian argument. Edelgard is not a prophet and can not say that eliminating the church does not pave way for a greater tyrant 50 years after her death.

The future has an unlimited amount of lives, so pretty much anything short of genociding the human race can be justfied as "yes, i am killing people now, but i am going to build an Utopia that will totally never collapse, so more people will be saved in the end."

Not tonsay the future has to be disregarded entirely, but you should aknowled, but killing people now so that people will not be killed 100 years from now, after many even you could not predict happened, seems morally dubious at best.

[omegaxis1]

2 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Yeah, I think that's a reasonable perspective. At times, I may have fallen too far into the "blame Edelgard" camp. Again, Three Houses is a game where no major character is entirely in the right. Even Claude, whom I've heard criticized for not having the same "dark side" as Dimitri or Edelgard - you have a point, that he probably stepped outside his bounds (at times) as leader of the Alliance.

As for the potential for failure, if I do see one flaw in CF's story , it's that Edelgard's "contingency" efforts are either hidden, or just not there. How does she make sure that invading the Alliance won't wind up uniting the Lords against her, giving her a much tougher road than she actually faces? How does she make sure the Kingdom is held at bay, during the invasion of the Alliance? The prior two could be "solved" by saying that Those Who Slither were given leeway in dealing with it, but not the last and biggest - how can she be sure, even with Hubert's knowledge base, that she can beat the Agarthans? It's possible there are distinct answers to each of these, but it's also possible that her victory came through a combination of luck, and ignorance/stupidity among her enemies.

I think it MIGHT be due to how Edelgard is working both diplomatic negotiations and warfare to try and win others over. Before the war even officially begins, Edelgard distributes manifestos across to every noble in Fodlan. 

During Part 2, it's noted that many nobles are choosing to ally with Edelgard, mentioned by both Hubert and Ferdinand, and even Edelgard mentions the idea of trying to avoid conflict and instead convince the enemy to join them.

Quote

Edelgard: What about House Rowe in Arianrhod, the Fortress City? Will they not side with us?

-

Ferdinand: This was certainly a momentous victory. We lost a lot, but we also gained a lot. Certain lords in the Kingdom have examined the situation again and decided to join our cause. Changing their fealty based on just one battle... They are all a disgrace to the nobility!

-

Hubert: Understood. As for the Kingdom... As we theorized, it is not entirely united. If we defeat the royal family of House Blaiddyd and a handful of other notable houses, it should fall under our control quite easily. Those we must target include the houses Fraldarius, Galatea, Gautier, and Charon.

I do wish that some of the preparations of the battle against the Agarthans were brought up just a bit more often. 

[Jotari]

14 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

 

LMAO XD

Democracy in a time where the people are generally uneducated? 

This video represents how democracy would be like:

  Hide contents

 

 

Worked for the Holy Roman Empire.

(and if you want examples of democracy in an uneducated populace, then Africa has you covered better than Star Wars).

Edited January 20, 2020 by Jotari

[Crysta]

16 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

As for the potential for failure, if I do see one flaw in CF's story , it's that Edelgard's "contingency" efforts are either hidden, or just not there. How does she make sure that invading the Alliance won't wind up uniting the Lords against her, giving her a much tougher road than she actually faces? How does she make sure the Kingdom is held at bay, during the invasion of the Alliance? The prior two could be "solved" by saying that Those Who Slither were given leeway in dealing with it, but not the last and biggest - how can she be sure, even with Hubert's knowledge base, that she can beat the Agarthans? It's possible there are distinct answers to each of these, but it's also possible that her victory came through a combination of luck, and ignorance/stupidity among her enemies.

Overconfidence is one of her biggest flaws, tbh.

All the arguments contending that she's being controlled by the Slitherers and she can't act against them or else everything's ruined may be accurate in reality but I don't think she genuinely believes that lol

[Jotari]

17 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Yeah, I think that's a reasonable perspective. At times, I may have fallen too far into the "blame Edelgard" camp. Again, Three Houses is a game where no major character is entirely in the right. Even Claude, whom I've heard criticized for not having the same "dark side" as Dimitri or Edelgard - you have a point, that he probably stepped outside his bounds (at times) as leader of the Alliance.

As for the potential for failure, if I do see one flaw in CF's story , it's that Edelgard's "contingency" efforts are either hidden, or just not there. How does she make sure that invading the Alliance won't wind up uniting the Lords against her, giving her a much tougher road than she actually faces? How does she make sure the Kingdom is held at bay, during the invasion of the Alliance? The prior two could be "solved" by saying that Those Who Slither were given leeway in dealing with it, but not the last and biggest - how can she be sure, even with Hubert's knowledge base, that she can beat the Agarthans? It's possible there are distinct answers to each of these, but it's also possible that her victory came through a combination of luck, and ignorance/stupidity among her enemies.

This is one of my biggest issues with Crimson Flowers. Given the way things play out, I'm highly incredulous Edelgard can actually beat the Agarthans. Hubert says it's their arrogance that will cause those who slither to lose, but to me it's Edelgard and Hubert are coming across as extremely arrogant. And the Agrathans look like they're playing Edelgard like a fiddle, getting her to do exactly what they want to do almost every step of the way. The only real victory Edelgard get is killing Cornelia, which imo is a massive mistake as it tips her hand way too much and the Agarthans clearly catch on. The realistic scenario to me seems to be that the moment Rhea is dead and the Agarthans have no explicit need for Edelgard, a nuke should hit Enbarr, Nemesis should be unleashed and half of Edelgard's high command should turn out to be infiltrators. The Agarthans have been doing this for over a thousand years without the church ever catching on. Any arrogance they have seems justified. Them ultimately losing in Crimson Flower, when they've manipulated the entire situation thus far just makes them look like blatant and inexplicable idiots rather than blind in arrogance and pride.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

44 minutes ago, Jotari said:

This is one of my biggest issues with Crimson Flowers. Given the way things play out, I'm highly incredulous Edelgard can actually beat the Agarthans. Hubert says it's their arrogance that will cause those who slither to lose, but to me it's Edelgard and Hubert are coming across as extremely arrogant. And the Agrathans look like they're playing Edelgard like a fiddle, getting her to do exactly what they want to do almost every step of the way. The only real victory Edelgard get is killing Cornelia, which imo is a massive mistake as it tips her hand way too much and the Agarthans clearly catch on. The realistic scenario to me seems to be that the moment Rhea is dead and the Agarthans have no explicit need for Edelgard, a nuke should hit Enbarr, Nemesis should be unleashed and half of Edelgard's high command should turn out to be infiltrators. The Agarthans have been doing this for over a thousand years without the church ever catching on. Any arrogance they have seems justified. Them ultimately losing in Crimson Flower, when they've manipulated the entire situation thus far just makes them look like blatant and inexplicable idiots rather than blind in arrogance and pride.

Re: Cornelia, Edelgard is between a rock and a hard place. She needs to keep the Agarthans in check, but she also needs to keep their support during the war. One thing we don't know is what their losses are doing the war - lots of Imperial soldiers die (Ladislava, Randolph, countless unseen), but it's possible Those Who Slither suffer losses on the Kingdom front (before Byleth and Edelgard actually go there).

As for arrogance, yeah both sides here have an arrogance issue. We see prior instances of Those Who Slither carrying the idiot ball (Solon revealing his whole plan unprompted, Thales not minding when Dimitri/Byleth overhear them, Kronja... wearing high heels so she trips? IDK), so it's possible that Thales (despite seeming the most competent among them) just carries the idiot ball into his own grave. I don't recall seeing that kind of incompetence from Edelgard and Hubert, even if a few of their tactics are questionable. Keep in mind - while the Agarthans have survived, they haven't beaten the Church by any measure. And Rhea, and the Church as a whole, have their own blind spots.

Edited January 20, 2020 by Shanty Pete's 1st Mate
Incomplete

[Jotari]

9 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Re: Cornelia, Edel

Think you could expand a bit more?

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Think you could expand a bit more?

Just did haha, my finger slipped and I submitted an incomplete comment.