Jump to content
Icelerate

Which lords are morally grey?

Which lords are morally grey?  

51 members have voted

  1. 1. Which lords are morally grey?



Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, eclipse said:

The issue is how much support there will be if the Alliance fails in the Western Isles.  Open secrets are a thing, but they're useless if someone doesn't do something about it.  Cecilia would, but she has to contend with Perceval/Douglas, who are more willing to back the king than to believe in Lycia.  Since the king isn't in his sound mind, it would basically be Cecilia yelling at him again versus whatever the bad guys are telling him.

Likewise, letters can be intercepted - or it can be explained that Roy knew he was going down, so this was his last-ditch effort to bring down Etruria with him.  Once again puts Lycia in a really awkward spot.

Once again, this hinges on a lot of things happening, and happening right.  If something fails, history will be rewritten as "Lycia decided to break the agreement, and we dealt with them accordingly".

Well, once again, it only matter if Roy fails while actively supporting the rebels, not if he falls against the bandits. The King is not much of an issue. He isn't on the same plane as Arcado and Roartz. Cecilia even says they don't quite do what little King actually bothers to say. Perceval and Douglas only followed the revolutionaries because they managed to capture the King, not because the King supported them, which then they wouldn't have the need to keep him prisoner in the first place. Not to mention, the King didn't even ordered the Lycian Army to head for the isles, Cecilia says Arcado did it without consulting the King. It's that kind of behavior that makes the man not well liked within the Etrurian court. If the King bothers to say anything on the matter, Arcado's detractor have the very known fact he was overstepping his authority in the first place; and so the King is hardly going to side against Lycia in this case.

That still depends on how much it is believed on the nature of Roy's actions. Once again, Roy is not a stranger in Etruria, being once Cecilia's pupil and all.

What is written in the history books is not going to change if the actions were moral or not. Because it's not coming from a non-bias and omnipresent source. Specially if the truth is being withhold as to why exactly they did it.

13 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Before Lycia became its head, Ostia was.  Bern killed the head of Ostia.  As a result, Ostia wound up being Etruria's protectorate.  Thus, a call for help to Bern wouldn't be seen in a good light from Ostia - and this would be right after things began to stabilize.  Thus, Eliwood may very well be faced with a rebellion within a rebellion.  Laus' position would be really interesting - on one hand, Erik wanted to ally with Bern, but on the other, it was Roy who killed off their head.  Araphen/Thria were more-or-less turned into a non-issue (though Thria would most likely side with Eliwood, given its former lord), leaving Pherae, who would most likely follow Eliwood.

I'm sure Roy knows what's going on, but whether or not it's moral to put your own people in that kind of situation, for the sake of an unknown group, heavily depends on your morals.

That's why I said Eliwood wouldn't do it. It's only the possibility that he can that might have Etruria not daring to do anything to Lycia's detriment. Besides, it was a hypothetical action in the case of the hypothetical situation of if Etruria were to start treating Lycia bad. If that happened, how much the people of Lycia would take it? The sentiment would become "We traded a possible tyrant for another"; and would see Eliwood's possible action for what it is: A threat to make Etruria stop. It's not that Eliwood would actually do it, just that he can do it to act as deterrent. The people of Lycia could understand this, that Eliwood might use Etruria's worry of Bern to Lycia's benefit. Besides, if this was a result of Roy failing... well, keep in mind Lycia would know even better of Roy suddenly deciding to betray the pact with Etruria. Few would think Roy turned their backs on them, so more the reason to not doubt of Eliwood's gambit, either. Ultimately, regardless of what would trigger it, instability in Lycia is not what Etruria would want, so they won't do anything that could trigger it.

If there was a real threat Lycia would be in danger for his actions, I'm sure it could qualify as inmoral, as Roy would trade the safety of a group of people for the safety of another. An equivalent exchange is not quite morally right. However, since he knows Etruria has to treat Lycia well or else loose their support, it then becomes inmoral to not help the islanders when there's little fear of Lycia suffering from the fallout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Well, once again, it only matter if Roy fails while actively supporting the rebels, not if he falls against the bandits. The King is not much of an issue. He isn't on the same plane as Arcado and Roartz. Cecilia even says they don't quite do what little King actually bothers to say. Perceval and Douglas only followed the revolutionaries because they managed to capture the King, not because the King supported them, which then they wouldn't have the need to keep him prisoner in the first place. Not to mention, the King didn't even ordered the Lycian Army to head for the isles, Cecilia says Arcado did it without consulting the King. It's that kind of behavior that makes the man not well liked within the Etrurian court. If the King bothers to say anything on the matter, Arcado's detractor have the very known fact he was overstepping his authority in the first place; and so the King is hardly going to side against Lycia in this case.

Think of what it took for the king to side WITH Lycia in the first place.  Though it's unfortunate that Perceval/Douglas will only do what the king says, instead of what's possibly best for the country.

6 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

That still depends on how much it is believed on the nature of Roy's actions. Once again, Roy is not a stranger in Etruria, being once Cecilia's pupil and all.

What is written in the history books is not going to change if the actions were moral or not. Because it's not coming from a non-bias and omnipresent source. Specially if the truth is being withhold as to why exactly they did it.

History is written by the winners.  So if Roy (and subsequently Lycia) had fallen, they'd be painted in a negative light.

7 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

That's why I said Eliwood wouldn't do it. It's only the possibility that he can that might have Etruria not daring to do anything to Lycia's detriment. Besides, it was a hypothetical action in the case of the hypothetical situation of if Etruria were to start treating Lycia bad. If that happened, how much the people of Lycia would take it? The sentiment would become "We traded a possible tyrant for another"; and would see Eliwood's possible action for what it is: A threat to make Etruria stop. It's not that Eliwood would actually do it, just that he can do it to act as deterrent. The people of Lycia could understand this, that Eliwood might use Etruria's worry of Bern to Lycia's benefit. Besides, if this was a result of Roy failing... well, keep in mind Lycia would know even better of Roy suddenly deciding to betray the pact with Etruria. Few would think Roy turned their backs on them, so more the reason to not doubt of Eliwood's gambit, either. Ultimately, regardless of what would trigger it, instability in Lycia is not what Etruria would want, so they won't do anything that could trigger it.

Roy actively screwed up the power balance in Laus, so he'll most likely have some ill will there.  It also relies on people being smart enough to see past their own short-term comfort, and if RL is any indication. . .it's a trait that isn't as common as it seems.  Especially when emotions get involved (and wars on FE's scale are far more impactful than the political posturing most of us deal with).

11 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

If there was a real threat Lycia would be in danger for his actions, I'm sure it could qualify as inmoral, as Roy would trade the safety of a group of people for the safety of another. An equivalent exchange is not quite morally right. However, since he knows Etruria has to treat Lycia well or else loose their support, it then becomes inmoral to not help the islanders when there's little fear of Lycia suffering from the fallout.

Yet it was Etruria that bailed Lycia out of its pickle, so this doesn't quite hold up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Think of what it took for the king to side WITH Lycia in the first place.  Though it's unfortunate that Perceval/Douglas will only do what the king says, instead of what's possibly best for the country.

The chance to put Lycia in their SoI, yes. Thing is, once it's in, they will make sure it won't get out. They have to keep Lycia in their good graces, since even a hostile takeover will be a distraction that Bern can take advantage of.

35 minutes ago, eclipse said:

History is written by the winners.  So if Roy (and subsequently Lycia) had fallen, they'd be painted in a negative light.

It's not that simple. The winners can be liars, after all. A morally right (or wrong) action will not stop being such even if people will want to say otherwise. I have a very good example to give; but I'm unsure if to actually say it. Want me to PM it to you?

35 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Roy actively screwed up the power balance in Laus, so he'll most likely have some ill will there.  It also relies on people being smart enough to see past their own short-term comfort, and if RL is any indication. . .it's a trait that isn't as common as it seems.  Especially when emotions get involved (and wars on FE's scale are far more impactful than the political posturing most of us deal with).

Sure, if people are willing to ignore the fact Eric chose to betray Lycia for Berm... and that he was the one who attacked first. In fact, two of the three villages you can visit outright throw their lot with Roy (and the third simply talks about Door Keys). IT's the same situation in places like Thria and Ostia. Wanger killing Orrun, and Leygance and Devias wanteing to sell Lycia to Bern... those are things hard to ignore. It also plays against what Lycia is meant to be, an alliance of nation-states that sticks together. So the idea people would actively ignore, or not being smart enough... that's very unlikely. If anything, their emotions would drive them to support Roy and Eliwood.

35 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Yet it was Etruria that bailed Lycia out of its pickle, so this doesn't quite hold up.

On the contrary, it is because they had to bail them out from Bern that made them better accept the idea of Etrurian protection. If they start to do the very things they declared they'd protect Lycia from, they loose face; and regardless if Lycia starts looking back to Bern, or they start to fight back, it would only serve to weaken Etruria's position. So... they have to play nice. In tying Lycia to them... they tied themselves to Lycia in return.

Edited by Acacia Sgt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Dimitri is plenty morally grey because of how atrocious and horrific his behavior was, where he wanted to slaughter anyone that he viewed as an enemy, and would butcher people and torture them just to prove some sick point. But because he's insane and then regains his sanity in AM, it's almost like people would separate the two people as if they are not the same person. But he's still very much guilty of the things he did and had done. I mean, saying sorry and being pitiful does not change the things he did. Yet for some reason, he's on the morally white side still, with just shades of grey.

Claude, due to not being insane or go off on the deep end, ends up being morally grey only in regards to some of his scheming, but still is morally white due to how he just wanted to end racism, and it's not like he started the war. Apparently people don't realize that capitalizing on war is still pretty messed up and horrible, and the fact that his goals still involved uniting the continent. But since he did not start the war, he's apparently clean. Or cleaner. 

Edelgard is morally grey, but viewed more on the moral black scale, because she started a war and works with the obvious evils. Despite the many legit reasons and the goals she seeks for herself that would help, the fact that she does these two things already have plenty of people hating on her. I don't see anyone ever going on about how Edelgard's done nothing wrong, because even fans of her know that she's not doing the morally right thing. She starts a war.

But I have to wonder. 

If she started a war, and the Church was the obvious evil, would she get called out nearly as much? Or if she was the only route? 

I find the Dimitri bit especially funny since he himself certainly doesn't view himself as such, and thinking of him as purely good is frankly a p big disservice to his character I feel. He's done utterly horrific things and generally doesn't -think- that he can ever make up for those things, nor should he be forgiven, yet he works to atone for them anyways. Putting him in one camp or the other just doesn't work.

For Claude I'd say it's mostly a case of him just having insanely good PR both in and out of universe. He's surprisingly lowkey about his real intentions and most people tend to overlook his indiscretions as a result, especially when his counterparts are Dimitri, who ends up slaughtering and torturing people and Edelgard who starts a continental-scale war. They're a lot more large scale so people end up being more vocal about it, I suppose.

I think Edelgard being viewed on the moral black scale usually largely comes about because while she is a protagonist, she's also -the- antagonist in 3/4 routes as well as the primary antagonist of part 1. It creates a natural bias I feel since perspective wise you're much more often going to see her while she's resorting to the most horrendous means to attain her goal vs CF where she's somewhat mellowed out and tries to keep the use of those methods to a minimum. I definitely think it's a case of first impressions being important and lasting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

It's not that simple. The winners can be liars, after all. A morally right (or wrong) action will not stop being such even if people will want to say otherwise. I have a very good example to give; but I'm unsure if to actually say it. Want me to PM it to you?

OH HELL YES!  It's an interesting what-if scenario, to say the least!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, eclipse said:

How technical do you want to be?  For example, Roy helps out a rebellion, which is a big no-no on the lawful side.

Good question! I would vote based on how the narrative portrays them regardless of people's own opinion on whether someone is justified or not. But if someone else wants to vote another way, than they are free to do so. 

Helping out the rebellion against the tyrannical occupation could be an unwise course of action, which can be debated in depth, but it doesn't mean the action in and of itself is morally ambiguous. In Roy's case, not waiting until Cecilia got the message would be a hasty decision because there is no guarantee that Cecilia gets the message. 

Spoiler
Spoiler

Roy:
“I’ll send a messenger to General Cecilia and see what she has to say. We probably shouldn’t do anything too risky right now…”

(A Soldier appears)

Soldier:
“Master Roy! We have received a report that the lord of this area has dispatched troops to attack the villages and hunt down the remnants of the rebels!”

Merlinus:
“What! Master Roy, should we…?”

Roy:
“Well, I guess we don’t have time to wait for General Cecilia’s opinion… I want to help the people here. Even if it means that we’ll be going against Eturia…”

Merlinus:
“Master Roy…”

Roy:
“Let’s fight! So we can be proud when we return to Lycia!”

 

From the conversation here, it seems like Roy did it out of pride and doesn't seem to bother to weigh the pros and cons of the interference. In real life, not properly weighing the pros and cons of foreign intervention can have catastrophic results. 

Edited by Icelerate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On that record, this exists:

The thread is still okay to be posted with without breaking the necroposting rule, so if the conversation here isn't fully on-topic, it can be moved over there. Whatever I had to say, was already stated there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Micaiah is the one that gets called out on more often. 

I actually hven't seen Micaiah protrayed as morally gray anywhere but within RD.

Her choosing to pour oil and set the begnion peeps on fire was her choice to defend her country, not to prevent the blood contract from getting bloody. (I may be misremembering the details of the conflict, but I believe it was the Apostle's army going towards Daein.) Ike is more of a "neutral good/ chaotic good" character. He tries to prevent deaths in the wars and chooses to side with the Laguz alliance because it's the right thing to do, sk he believes. Micaiah acts in a way contrary to what she believes throughout the plot, even before the BC is signed. People generally view her as a pawn as a result of the blood contract. People complain about it a lot, but it would make Micaiah look REALLY bad if she was just setting people on fire when they are trying to avoid fighting and reacha peaceful solution.

Share this post


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

I actually hven't seen Micaiah protrayed as morally gray anywhere but within RD.

Her choosing to pour oil and set the begnion peeps on fire was her choice to defend her country, not to prevent the blood contract from getting bloody. (I may be misremembering the details of the conflict, but I believe it was the Apostle's army going towards Daein.) Ike is more of a "neutral good/ chaotic good" character. He tries to prevent deaths in the wars and chooses to side with the Laguz alliance because it's the right thing to do, sk he believes. Micaiah acts in a way contrary to what she believes throughout the plot, even before the BC is signed. People generally view her as a pawn as a result of the blood contract. People complain about it a lot, but it would make Micaiah look REALLY bad if she was just setting people on fire when they are trying to avoid fighting and reacha peaceful solution.

It's very contradictory, and that's the problem. First she's just seeming to loyally serve Pelleas, but then it gets weird in how she's resorting to extreme tactics for little given reason and how she's just not questioning things. Could have done a thing where Micaiah is literally foreseeing the future where Daein is in ruins if she chose not to fight or something. Of course, personally, I fail to see why oil and fire is so horrific when magic has us setting people on fire on a regular basis, really. 

Ike believing what is the right thing does not change that he's with the group that is starting a war, while fully knowing that war can very well cause Lehran's Medallion to go out of control. But very few ever actually call him out on it. Saying that he tries to prevent as many deaths as possible is actually not that different from Edelgard, who doesn't seek to make the war be as bloody as possible, least in regards to Crimson Flower. But in the end, because the Laguz Alliance started their war, the Senate pulled the Blood Contract onto Daein, and thus got them into the war, and the chaos resulted in needing to sing the Galdr of Release.

It's by literal plot convenience that Ashera's Judgment was petrification and not instant death. Otherwise, it makes the entire war utterly pointless. Then Ike and the Laguz Alliance would be downright condemned forever for starting the war in the first place and causing a massive genocide of all races. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the racial hatred between Dein and Laguz, the tought of an army of laguz invading the country is scary as hell. How many people they will kill in retaliation of what Ashnard did? 

Fighting whit everything she got againist such an invasion would make sense even whitout the Blood Pact, wich is one of the reasons it is such a terrible plot device. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the point of three houses is that none of them are perfect.

Claude is only willing to go as far as he can get without actually being in mortal danger, if you spare him in Crimson Flower (or just play Azure Moon) he's pretty nonchalant about everybody he allowed to die before he skirts off to Almyra. He tells his friends to retreat but not the normal soldiers? After everything falls apart in both routes he's like "ah shit you got me, oh well see ya". There's definitely some messed up stuff there the game doesn't touch on.

Edelgard and Dimitri have already been discussed in previous posts but you get the point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well it depends on what you mean by "morally grey" because moral ambiguity in fiction is a weird subject because fictional morality is far more simple than any kind of real life morality. Moral grey can mean a number of things. Are you asking morally grey in regards to our social standards? Or the story's social standards? cause there is a difference. Like sometimes a story will portray the protagonists actions as bad and punish them accordingly for it. In the eyes of the narrative they simply did something wrong and are have to learn from that mistake. In that scenario, I wouldn't consider it morally grey because the story considers an act like that "wrong" if that makes sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

It's very contradictory, and that's the problem. First she's just seeming to loyally serve Pelleas, but then it gets weird in how she's resorting to extreme tactics for little given reason and how she's just not questioning things. Could have done a thing where Micaiah is literally foreseeing the future where Daein is in ruins if she chose not to fight or something. Of course, personally, I fail to see why oil and fire is so horrific when magic has us setting people on fire on a regular basis, really. 

I think that's on purpose. The game repeatedly shows us that Micaiah's changed, even at 3-6 or whatever the first DB chapter was in part 3. I do think it's a very extreme change, perhaps even more so than reasonable. (She really should listen to Sothe more often.) You are very correct about most of this. However, oil and fire is considered horrific because a) setting people on fire with spells is bad, but this is an act of mass murder. B) this is also a very dirty trick. I loved Micaiah in part one and despised her in pt. 3 because she was being a stoopy poopy and so on. I still felt bad for her.

 

54 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Ike believing what is the right thing does not change that he's with the group that is starting a war, while fully knowing that war can very well cause Lehran's Medallion to go out of control. But very few ever actually call him out on it. Saying that he tries to prevent as many deaths as possible is actually not that different from Edelgard, who doesn't seek to make the war be as bloody as possible, least in regards to Crimson Flower. But in the end, because the Laguz Alliance started their war, the Senate pulled the Blood Contract onto Daein, and thus got them into the war, and the chaos resulted in needing to sing the Galdr of Release.

To be fair, he was hired by the laguz alliance, (yes it was a choice, but still.)

(Chunky Tellius spoilers.)

Spoiler

And the whole conflict was scripted by Lehran anyways.

 Even though the laguz alliance officially STARTED the conflict, the senate was entirely the instigator in the conflict, both in the past and present. Similar to in WW2, it was the allies who declared war on the axis, despite the fact that the axis started it.

 

58 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

It's by literal plot convenience that Ashera's Judgment was petrification and not instant death. Otherwise, it makes the entire war utterly pointless. Then Ike and the Laguz Alliance would be downright condemned forever for starting the war in the first place and causing a massive genocide of all races. 

Isn't it explained that it wasn't instant death because technically, TECHNICALLY,

Spoiler

Yune was released peacefully? (It's really technical, but still.)

Plus, Daein had no logical reason to join the conflict; Ike would have no idea the conflict would turn into a continent-spanning war.  I do see your point, though.

 

40 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

With all the racial hatred between Dein and Laguz, the tought of an army of laguz invading the country is scary as hell. How many people they will kill in retaliation of what Ashnard did? 

Fighting whit everything she got againist such an invasion would make sense even whitout the Blood Pact, wich is one of the reasons it is such a terrible plot device. 

I think we can agree that the blood contract isn't very good. I don't despise it that much, because it is explained in the lore, (only in the moment, but it's still there.) but it was probably the easiest way to force Daein into the war with no way for them to avoid it. I don't remember the circumstances of that chapter very well, but I seem to recall that the army was trying to find a peaceful way to stop the conflict, but the stupidity on both sides kinda stopped that. I don't even remember why Crimea and the Apostle's army decided it was a good idea to walk into Daein. Perhaps I am incorrect, and feel free to correct me if I am.

Share this post


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

I think that's on purpose. The game repeatedly shows us that Micaiah's changed, even at 3-6 or whatever the first DB chapter was in part 3. I do think it's a very extreme change, perhaps even more so than reasonable. (She really should listen to Sothe more often.) You are very correct about most of this. However, oil and fire is considered horrific because a) setting people on fire with spells is bad, but this is an act of mass murder. B) this is also a very dirty trick. I loved Micaiah in part one and despised her in pt. 3 because she was being a stoopy poopy and so on. I still felt bad for her.

This is the major flaw in RD's writing. We get hardly any time with Micaiah following Part 1 and when she is back, she's in the war and just in on the action and just doing everything she can to fight against the Laguz Alliance. Personally, I blame more Part 2 because of how it's filler. It doesn't play any role for the plot since nothing about it is involved with the plot. Least Part 1 establishes how the Blood Contract ultimately happened.

3 minutes ago, Benice said:

To be fair, he was hired by the laguz alliance, (yes it was a choice, but still.)

Keep in mind that Ike makes it a point that the Greil Mercenaries chooses their clients when a Begnion major tries to offer more money to Ike. In the end, Ike chose while knowing the dangers, and that very much makes him part of the problem. 

Spoiler

Lehran's scheme does not change that it was the Laguz Alliance's choice to declare war and Ike's choice to accept working with them.

 

6 minutes ago, Benice said:

 Even though the laguz alliance officially STARTED the conflict, the senate was entirely the instigator in the conflict, both in the past and present. Similar to in WW2, it was the allies who declared war on the axis, despite the fact that the axis started it.

The Laguz Alliance had a choice to not go into war. Hell, Dheginsea CONSTANTLY tells them not to go to war, but the other laguz never bother to actually listen. They just insist on going on their own way. Yes, Begnion Senate were pricks that even killed the messengers, so by all rights, that is starting a war. Along with the genocide of the heron laguz. But the Laguz Alliance still were very well aware of what war would bring about. 

7 minutes ago, Benice said:

Isn't it explained that it wasn't instant death because technically, TECHNICALLY,

Nope.

 
 
 
 
2
Spoiler

Ashera was never meant to use Judgment to begin with because of the Galdr of Release was used. It's used so that Yune and Ashera would discuss it, but Ashera simply decided not to bother talking and decided to use Judgment. Meaning that it was always petrification and not insta-death.

They were damn lucky. Even luckier that conveniently, all the bad guys they were after were there to kill

 

8 minutes ago, Benice said:

Plus, Daein had no logical reason to join the conflict; Ike would have no idea the conflict would turn into a continent-spanning war.  I do see your point, though.

Which separates him from Edelgard. Edelgard isn't naive enough to believe that the other nations would absolutely not join in on the war. She went to war strictly against the Church of Seiros, but is aware that with their influence over the other nations, the other nations would find one reason or another to join the Church and fight against Edelgard. She's not naive enough to believe that her war would not escalate into the worst possible scenario. 

And that's just it. Ike and the Laguz Alliance knew the dangers, but still did it.

But so few ever actually call Ike and the Laguz out on this, because the Begnion Senate were just racist evil pricks that deserved to die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

This is the major flaw in RD's writing. We get hardly any time with Micaiah following Part 1 and when she is back, she's in the war and just in on the action and just doing everything she can to fight against the Laguz Alliance. Personally, I blame more Part 2 because of how it's filler. It doesn't play any role for the plot since nothing about it is involved with the plot. Least Part 1 establishes how the Blood Contract ultimately happened.

Keep in mind that Ike makes it a point that the Greil Mercenaries chooses their clients when a Begnion major tries to offer more money to Ike. In the end, Ike chose while knowing the dangers, and that very much makes him part of the problem. 

  Reveal hidden contents

Lehran's scheme does not change that it was the Laguz Alliance's choice to declare war and Ike's choice to accept working with them.

 

The Laguz Alliance had a choice to not go into war. Hell, Dheginsea CONSTANTLY tells them not to go to war, but the other laguz never bother to actually listen. They just insist on going on their own way. Yes, Begnion Senate were pricks that even killed the messengers, so by all rights, that is starting a war. Along with the genocide of the heron laguz. But the Laguz Alliance still were very well aware of what war would bring about. 

Nope.

Spoiler
 
 
 
 
2
  Reveal hidden contents

Ashera was never meant to use Judgment to begin with because of the Galdr of Release was used. It's used so that Yune and Ashera would discuss it, but Ashera simply decided not to bother talking and decided to use Judgment. Meaning that it was always petrification and not insta-death.

They were damn lucky. Even luckier that conveniently, all the bad guys they were after were there to kill

 

Which separates him from Edelgard. Edelgard isn't naive enough to believe that the other nations would absolutely not join in on the war. She went to war strictly against the Church of Seiros, but is aware that with their influence over the other nations, the other nations would find one reason or another to join the Church and fight against Edelgard. She's not naive enough to believe that her war would not escalate into the worst possible scenario. 

And that's just it. Ike and the Laguz Alliance knew the dangers, but still did it.

But so few ever actually call Ike and the Laguz out on this, because the Begnion Senate were just racist evil pricks that deserved to die.

I feel like we're just not going to agree on this, so I'll just leave it for now because this isn't really a good reason to start a multi-page debate since it's largely beside the point anyways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Benice said:

I feel like we're just not going to agree on this, so I'll just leave it for now because this isn't really a good reason to start a multi-page debate since it's largely beside the point anyways. 

Sorry about that. I get into it. Overall, RD just has quite a lot of issues in regards to the story because it tries to tell 1 story in multiple view points that overall converge.

But personally, I find this to possible be the strongest form of storytelling for Fire Emblem, and should be something that future FE games should try to really hone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

Sorry about that. I get into it. Overall, RD just has quite a lot of issues in regards to the story because it tries to tell 1 story in multiple view points that overall converge.

But personally, I find this to possible be the strongest form of storytelling for Fire Emblem, and should be something that future FE games should try to really hone. 

That I can agree on.

It was mostly me trying to avoid my arguments degrading into NO U! territory.

I feel like part 2 could have acrually been important. In the future if RD gets a remake, perhaps we can see the Dawn brigade showing up after signing a treaty with Crimea? That could make things interesting; I'm getting off topic again, though. This will be my last comment on this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Lopto Sect suffered persecution? Well, they worship an evil god that likes to perform child hunts. No moral grey, but just moral black there, so anyone that would kill them all is the morally white side. Hence why Seliph can just slaughter them all and get away with it, cause they are the obvious evil.

It also doesn't help the Lopt's case that the moment someone frees them from persecution they immediately turn on their benefactor and turn his kid into Satan. Arvis gave them mercy and they ruined his life while Seliph presumably wiping them all out saves the world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

I was surprised to see Hector get votes, but then I remembered how he iced a guy on his way to Eliwood. So I get it.

Yup. Killing that border guard would for sure cause an incident, but Hector did it without a second thought when he noticed it was his friend's life in danger. Meanwhile, if you remember the Lyn mode chapter where you're trying to rescue Ninian, Hector is just chilling in a cabin,  wondering why Eliwood is late for their sparring session. There's a big fight going on outside between civilians and assassins, and he's not about to get involved. Eliwood later shows up and proves that he or Hector could potentially have done something about it when he shows up with Ninian in his arms.

Share this post


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

Yup. Killing that border guard would for sure cause an incident, but Hector did it without a second thought when he noticed it was his friend's life in danger. Meanwhile, if you remember the Lyn mode chapter where you're trying to rescue Ninian, Hector is just chilling in a cabin,  wondering why Eliwood is late for their sparring session. There's a big fight going on outside between civilians and assassins, and he's not about to get involved. Eliwood later shows up and proves that he or Hector could potentially have done something about it when he shows up with Ninian in his arms.

While the exact consequences are ambiguous due to Blazing Sword's limited presentation, I must leap to the defense of this fictional character and point out that the reaction of Serra/Mathew/Oswin indicated to me that Hector didn't just kill a random guard who was bothering him.
 

Spoiler

Hector:
“Hey! What’s going on over there? Looks like some rough business. You! Soldier! Are you just going to stand there and watch?”

Soldier:
“Who do you think you are? This is Santaruz. What occurs here is no affair of any foreign lordling!”

Hector:
“I believe I’m going to have to disagree with you. You see, the man they’re attacking happens to be a friend of mine.”

Soldier:
“A friend? What? …Urrrgh!!”

Hector:
“Sorry, but I’m in a hurry.”

Serra:
“Ewww! That’s terrible! I loathe violence!”

Matthew:
“Nicely done, my lord! You’re a fighter born.”

Oswin:
“I cannot condone resorting to force so quickly…”

Hector:
“Chastise me later, Oswin. First, we deal with these brigands! Come! We must help Eliwood!”

It sounds like Hector just decked the guy. Otherwise, Mathew congratulating Hector for a murder well done would be a bit...questionable.

For your other points, Santaruz is cooperating with the Black Fang, so they already have an 'incident' with the rest of Lycia. Furthermore, Hector not being involved in the incident with Ninian isn't proof that he knew about it and didn't care to get involved. His conversation with Mathew (the most informative bit of dialogue you can get of all the possible options) shows he's vaguely aware of Caelin's succession dispute, but again nothing about his awareness of what's happening on that specific map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

It sounds like Hector just decked the guy. Otherwise, Mathew congratulating Hector for a murder well done would be a bit...questionable.

They killed a dozen assassins on their way there. And are about to kill another dozen in a moment. I see no reason to expect this to be different. Fire Emblem always implies killing, until it doesn't with Corrin, the hero who allegedly defeated all of Hoshido without killing a single person. Explicit killing of people isn't something so easily slipped into the narrative of an E rated game, so forgive the lack of visual indicating how he took the guard out. All we know is that the guard had a vocal response to whatever plunged into his gut. I also question why Serra would respond with "Ewww!" if all he did was lay him out with a punch. Too clean. Not enough blood

Edited by Glennstavos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Glennstavos said:

They killed a dozen assassins on their way there. And are about to kill another dozen in a moment. I see no reason to expect this to be different. Fire Emblem always implies killing, until it doesn't with Corrin, the hero who allegedly defeated all of Hoshido without killing a single person. Explicit killing of people isn't something so easily slipped into the narrative of an E rated game, so forgive the lack of visual indicating how he took the guard out. All we know is that the guard had a vocal response to whatever plunged into his gut. I also question why Serra would respond with "Ewww!" if all he did was lay him out with a punch. Too clean. Not enough blood

The difference is who's the target of the hostile response, a guard standing there vs assassins actively trying to kill them. Killing isn't always the consequence of a fight even in gameplay, let alone interactions in cut-scenes. Take for example Erik surviving the battle where his unit is defeated. I'm not trying to say we should second-guess every single altercation unless the result is explicit, but context should still be observed.

But as I said, I think the presentation is ambiguous. I lean more towards the non-lethal interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't think Hector kills a guy just doing his job, completely uninvolved with his affairs. He has no reason to, and never does anything like that anywhere else in the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to spin all of the lord's as morally grey. Here we go.

Marth: Launches a campaign to retake his homeland that reignites a war that was winding down creating far more casualties than was necessary. He also never treats with Medeus so everything he decides about the world under Doluna rule is based on hearsay and Racism.

Alm: Actively desires battle more than any other lord in the series (sans Dimitri).

Celica: Hypocrite.

Sigurd: "We come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill."

Seliph: Blood inheritance in bollock, Julius is the rightful prince because he appears to be. Also has children in his army below acceptable fighting age.

Leif: His recklessness born from hate gets everyone killed.

Roy: Child soldiers.

Eliwood: Abandons his poor mother.

Hector: That soldier in Chapter 12 did nothing wrong!

Lyn: Carries massive hatred for honest privateers.

Erika: Outright sells the world out to demons for her waifu.

Ephraim: Has no value for the life of his soldiers. That three man's assault was a miracle.

Ike: Blood knight. Also child soldiers. And he launched a war of aggression when he knew the entire safety of the world was at risk.

Chrom: Takes way too much vacation time off when he's meant to be saving the world.

Robin: Is a literal incarnation of evil.

Corrin: Inconsistent loyalties.

Byleth: More inconsistent loyalties. I'll throw in a complete absence of any philosophy too. Basically a psychopath.

Claude, Dimitri and Edelgard. Don't even need to say anything about them.

Edited by Jotari

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...