The True Tragedy of Three Houses

[Darkmoon6789]

5 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

We aren't sure how long she reigns as the emperor. They never really make the time period clear. However, one thing I DO notice is how multiple endings either say "Emperor Edelgard" or just "emperor" which strikes me as odd. In regards to "Emperor Edelgard" ending cards, it tends to indicate that not that much time had passed, but in regards to the "emperor" ones, some time had passed, which generally makes me wonder if the "emperor" cards is the indication of the successor being chosen.

I even asked my friends to take a look at the JP endings and confirm if the same happens there, and they confirm that that is indeed the case, and how the "Emperor Edelgard" texts are longer on its own, which gives the impression that it can't be really a case of simply saving text space. 

All we do know is that Edelgard wipes out the Agarthans, creates a new system that is based off of merits, and then leaves behind a successor. But it can't be done overnight, so yeah, her rule had to have taken some time. We just don't know how long. 

That actually made me understand how much pressure nobles really do face in regards to the Church's religion. Lorenz even remarks in the very beginning of the story that he wasn't much of a believer himself, but it was his duty as a noble to follow the faith. 

It's a subtle indication of how the Church influences people and how dangerous their control is. It's not until someone actually decided to oppose the Church and go to war with them that they finally decided to make their own move once they felt that Edelgard had a chance at winning. 

I think a lot of the latest posts do showcase rather well why I consider Edelgard to be a pretty good ruler. I don't know why people often times don't realise this, but the type of control Rhea has other people is in my opinion extremely dangerous, but also subtle and insidious enough to pass completely over some people's head. This type of organisation often wields power by infiltrating every aspect of society, making them think it is their rightful place to have control over every aspect of people's lives. Rhea might have good intentions, but she is also extremely controlling.  

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I think a lot of the latest posts do showcase rather well why I consider Edelgard to be a pretty good ruler. I don't know why people often times don't realise this, but the type of control Rhea has other people is in my opinion extremely dangerous, but also subtle and insidious enough to pass completely over some people's head. This type of organisation often wields power by infiltrating every aspect of society, making them think it is their rightful place to have control over every aspect of people's lives. Rhea might have good intentions, but she is also extremely controlling.  

Unfortunately, it's TOO subtle. People go from insisting that Edelgard was totally in the wrong, using too much meta knowledge and saying that EVERYONE wanted what she did, which isn't even true, or some even saying that the racism isn't even that bad. Cause apparently genocide is not that bad. 

People don't realize that Rhea backing Loog's independence is proof of meddling into politics, made even more clear in the Tragedy when they took over the investigation. Some justify it, but no one realizes that taking over the investigation to perform a false investigation is proof of corruption.

[Darkmoon6789]

6 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Unfortunately, it's TOO subtle. People go from insisting that Edelgard was totally in the wrong, using too much meta knowledge and saying that EVERYONE wanted what she did, which isn't even true, or some even saying that the racism isn't even that bad. Cause apparently genocide is not that bad. 

People don't realize that Rhea backing Loog's independence is proof of meddling into politics, made even more clear in the Tragedy when they took over the investigation. Some justify it, but no one realizes that taking over the investigation to perform a false investigation is proof of corruption.

Well, basically the entire kingdom of Faerghus only exist because of church meddling in politics, it is known as the holy kingdom of Faerghus for a reason, and this is because the church has massive influence over this state, religious policies, governs it and they pretty much have free reign. The church was also instrumental in its creation to the point that this nation wouldn't exist at all without them. Really looking at it, Edelgard is actually right that Faerghus is essentially Empire territory that was stolen from them in order to create a region where the church has more influence. Also, I really don't think that it should be the job for a group like the Knights of Seiros to put down a local rebellion such as that of Lord Lonato, that should be the job of the kingdom army. I do find it rather disturbing that a religious organisation has a private army they use to put dissenters in their place at all. Just imagine if the Catholic Church still had a private army they still used to intervene in political matters. This is a huge red flag for me.

[Axel987]

Just now, Darkmoon6789 said:

Well, basically the entire kingdom of Faerghus only exist because of church meddling in politics, it is known as the holy kingdom of Faerghus for a reason, and this is because the church has massive influence over this state, religious policies, governs it and they pretty much have free reign. The church was also instrumental in its creation to the point that this nation wouldn't exist at all without them. Really looking at it, Edelgard is actually right that Faerghus is essentially Empire territory that was stolen from them in order to create a region where the church has more influence. Also, I really don't think that it should be the job for a group like the Knights of Seiros to put down a local rebellion such as that of Lord Lonato, that should be the job of the kingdom army. I do find it rather disturbing that a religious organisation has a private army they use to put dissenters in their place at all. Just imagine if the Catholic Church still had a private army they still used to intervene in political matters. This is a huge red flag for me.

While I don't agree with the church interferring with politics;

In terms of the Kingdom being created they had just went to war with the Empire for their independence and won. Their sovereignty was theirs and the church stepping into negotiate between them isn't inherently wrong, especially when the Kingdom was at that point able to conquer just about the entire Empire. By the time the game takes place there has been like 400 odd years insce then so saying it is 'Empire territory' at this point is like saying that America is British territory.

It is however quite fair to criticise them for asking for prosyletisation rights, even if according to the DLC it would appear Rhea had actually understandable motives for wanting to do this beyond wanting more power. That was absolutely a power play into politics that shouldn't be tolerated.

The standing army thing is definitely eyebrow raising-worthy. At the same time the Kingdom is also in clear chaos after Lambert's death even now and Lord Lonato was directly marching on the Monastery to try and kill what is effectively the Pope. Generally otherwise the Church tends to be -requested- for help in the game as seen by Margrave Gautier requesting them to retrieve the Lance of Ruin from Miklan.

 

[omegaxis1]

11 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Well, basically the entire kingdom of Faerghus only exist because of church meddling in politics, it is known as the holy kingdom of Faerghus for a reason, and this is because the church has massive influence over this state, religious policies, governs it and they pretty much have free reign. The church was also instrumental in its creation to the point that this nation wouldn't exist at all without them. Really looking at it, Edelgard is actually right that Faerghus is essentially Empire territory that was stolen from them in order to create a region where the church has more influence. Also, I really don't think that it should be the job for a group like the Knights of Seiros to put down a local rebellion such as that of Lord Lonato, that should be the job of the kingdom army. I do find it rather disturbing that a religious organisation has a private army they use to put dissenters in their place at all. Just imagine if the Catholic Church still had a private army they still used to intervene in political matters. This is a huge red flag for me.

Yet people don't get that, or people defend that. People try to think that Loog won the battle against the Empire, so that means that they got their independence, but despite that one guy saying that the Church was forced to accept, that's contradicted by the fact that they bargained with Loog to give the Church proselytizing rights.

Everything about Faerghus is used to push Edelgard's beliefs, really. 

4 minutes ago, Axel987 said:

In terms of the Kingdom being created they had just went to war with the Empire for their independence and won. Their sovereignty was theirs and the church stepping into negotiate between them isn't inherently wrong, especially when the Kingdom was at that point able to conquer just about the entire Empire. By the time the game takes place there has been like 400 odd years insce then so saying it is 'Empire territory' at this point is like saying that America is British territory.

It is however quite fair to criticise them for asking for prosyletisation rights, even if according to the DLC it would appear Rhea had actually understandable motives for wanting to do this beyond wanting more power. That was absolutely a power play into politics that shouldn't be tolerated.

A major problem with that.

The Church is meant to mediate between the Empire and Loog. In other words, it's meant to be a "neutral" party in here. Yet we learn that the Church only backed up Loog's independence in exchange for making the Kingdom follow the Church's religion, and give the Church proselytizing rights. But by doing this, the church violated what it means to be neutral. Being neutral means they bargain and gain NOTHING. But what happened is that they ultimately did. They took advantage of it and gave Loog independence in exchange for helping spread the Church's own influence over the new nation. 

With that, it's incredibly hypocritical of Rhea to get mad at Edelgard, a member of House Hresvelg, to "betray" the Church, when Rhea betrayed the Empire here.

[Axel987]

Just now, omegaxis1 said:

Yet people don't get that, or people defend that. People try to think that Loog won the battle against the Empire, so that means that they got their independence, but despite that one guy saying that the Church was forced to accept, that's contradicted by the fact that they bargained with Loog to give the Church proselytizing rights.

Everything about Faerghus is used to push Edelgard's beliefs, really. 

A major problem with that.

The Church is meant to mediate between the Empire and Loog. In other words, it's meant to be a "neutral" party in here. Yet we learn that the Church only backed up Loog's independence in exchange for making the Kingdom follow the Church's religion, and give the Church proselytizing rights. But by doing this, the church violated what it means to be neutral. Being neutral means they bargain and gain NOTHING. But what happened is that they ultimately did. They took advantage of it and gave Loog independence in exchange for helping spread the Church's own influence over the new nation. 

With that, it's incredibly hypocritical of Rhea to get mad at Edelgard, a member of House Hresvelg, to "betray" the Church, when Rhea betrayed the Empire here.

..yes that's why I said it's worth criticising them for the asking of prosyletising rights. My point was that saying "The Kingdom wouldn't exist at all" is blatantly wrong when the game itself outright states that they won the war for independence and Loog had killed the Emperor of the time at the Tailtean Plains as per Edelgard's own admission.

 

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Axel987 said:

..yes that's why I said it's worth criticising them for the asking of prosyletising rights. My point was that saying "The Kingdom wouldn't exist at all" is blatantly wrong when the game itself outright states that they won the war for independence and Loog had killed the Emperor of the time at the Tailtean Plains as per Edelgard's own admission.

Nothing suggests that the Emperor had been killed, though. We know that Loog won against the Empire, but nothing that Loog had killed the Emperor. Even what Edelgard said doesn't really remark that Loog killed the emperor. 

However, it's clear that if there's a mediation, there's obviously a case that the battle could have continued on had nothing been done. Loog didn't become independent by merely winning over the Empire. It took the Church backing him that he got the independence. Meaning that if there needed to be an exchange, it's clear that Loog wouldn't have gotten his independence had the exchange not happened.

[Darkmoon6789]

14 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Yet people don't get that, or people defend that. People try to think that Loog won the battle against the Empire, so that means that they got their independence, but despite that one guy saying that the Church was forced to accept, that's contradicted by the fact that they bargained with Loog to give the Church proselytizing rights.

Everything about Faerghus is used to push Edelgard's beliefs, really. 

A major problem with that.

The Church is meant to mediate between the Empire and Loog. In other words, it's meant to be a "neutral" party in here. Yet we learn that the Church only backed up Loog's independence in exchange for making the Kingdom follow the Church's religion, and give the Church proselytizing rights. But by doing this, the church violated what it means to be neutral. Being neutral means they bargain and gain NOTHING. But what happened is that they ultimately did. They took advantage of it and gave Loog independence in exchange for helping spread the Church's own influence over the new nation. 

With that, it's incredibly hypocritical of Rhea to get mad at Edelgard, a member of House Hresvelg, to "betray" the Church, when Rhea betrayed the Empire here.

I think you probably meant to say that everything about Faerghus was meant to push Rhea's beliefs, not Edelgard's. That wouldn't make much sense. 

I think another problem with the church is that is that they pretty much in don't allow for religious freedom as they only really allow for one interpretation of their religion, they even go to war against the Western Church for differences in interpretation. Edelgard's system. However, do allow for religious freedom, she has nothing against people worshipping Sothis, just don't like being an institution forcing this on everyone, just imagine what it would be like worshipping the gods of the Almyrans under Rhea compared to under Edelgard. No matter how bloody the war was, it's hard to deny that people don't have more freedom with Edelgard as their leader than previously.

I don't mean to bash Rhea either, but her system was far from flawless and caused a lot of people to suffer.

 

[omegaxis1]

2 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I think you probably meant to say that everything about Faerghus was meant to push Rhea's beliefs, not Edelgard's. That wouldn't make much sense. 

I meant more like highlight Edelgard's issues and why she's fighting against this. 

3 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I think another problem with the church is that is that they pretty much in don't allow for religious freedom as they only really allow for one interpretation of their religion, they even go to war against the Western Church for differences in interpretation. Edelgard's system. However, do allow for religious freedom, she has nothing against people worshipping Sothis, just don't like being an institution forcing this on everyone, just imagine what it would be like worshipping the gods of the Almyrans under Rhea compared to under Edelgard. No matter how bloody the war was, it's hard to deny that people don't have more freedom with Edelgard as their leader than previously.

I don't mean to bash Rhea either, but her system was far from flawless and caused a lot of people to suffer.

It really has. But people thinks that Rhea having suffered genocide and such made people too willing to forgive and just criticize Edelgard for acting on "false" info.

[Axel987]

29 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Nothing suggests that the Emperor had been killed, though. We know that Loog won against the Empire, but nothing that Loog had killed the Emperor. Even what Edelgard said doesn't really remark that Loog killed the emperor. 

However, it's clear that if there's a mediation, there's obviously a case that the battle could have continued on had nothing been done. Loog didn't become independent by merely winning over the Empire. It took the Church backing him that he got the independence. Meaning that if there needed to be an exchange, it's clear that Loog wouldn't have gotten his independence had the exchange not happened.

It was an extrapolation given that Edelgard uses the same wording of "defeated" for Seiros beating Nemesis and we know that Nemesis was killed there. I wonder if the Japanese localisation has any different kind of wording for that?

The same dialogue also implies by "recreating that scene" that it would be the sign of a victor overall. It's also stated that winning the war is what gave the Kingdom it's independence, as per Edelgard's statement again which corroborates the Knight's statement that again, it was winning the battle that got them their independence.

..man now I wish the DLC was on the War of Eagle & Lion or the War of Heroes or the Crescent Moon War again..... Would've been so cool and I wouldn't feel like I'm looking at singular lines of dialogue for this stuff haha. I appreciate that you humour my arguments since I'm trying to get better at debating stuff which these threads tend to help.

23 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

It really has. But people thinks that Rhea having suffered genocide and such made people too willing to forgive and just criticize Edelgard for acting on "false" info.

I feel it's weird to criticise her for acting on half the facts when that's, kind of the point? Characters rarely ever know everything and she felt it was her duty to act given what she knew. At this point my stance on her is that I really like her as a character but prefer the other lords and wish that the game wasn't kind of half-baked in certain places (see Edelgard and Dimitri being done kinda dirty in VW and Claude not even appearing in Silver Snow...)

[Darkmoon6789]

3 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

I meant more like highlight Edelgard's issues and why she's fighting against this. 

It really has. But people thinks that Rhea having suffered genocide and such made people too willing to forgive and just criticize Edelgard for acting on "false" info.

While Edelgard certainly have some false information, it is not like she has a way to know the actual truth because Rhea goes out of her way to hide it. Really, what would you expect someone to think after finding out that the dominant religion in Fodlan is secretly controlled by immortal dragons who has falsified history. Edelgard straight up and don't know about the genocide on Rhea's people, or who the Slitherers actually are. I think that Rhea's main problem is that she refuse to move on from the death of her mother and the war with Nemesis. Her background does make her sympathetic to a degree, which is why I consider her death to be more of a necessary thing rather than something I actually enjoy. It is somewhat sad that Rhea would lose herself to her obsession with Sothis to this degree, but the war simply won't end without the death of a Edelgard or Rhea. Edelgard also has a sympathetic background and I think her political policies makes a lot more sense and is generally better for the world. 

This not even mentioning the whole chalice of beginnings fiasco, which is a primary example of what Rhea's obsession with resurrecting her mother can lead to. This is supposed  holy relic is just a straight up evil and doesn't even work for its intended purpose. Rhea should just accept that her mother is dead by this point and try to handle her grief in a more healthy manner, the experiments she is doing is basically necromancy. Even when they are not causing quite a number of deaths when the experiments inevitably fail to work. I am also a bit put off by Rhea's habit of labelling evil as F items as holy. This also applies to the crests and the relics, they are made from the bones of Rhea's people after they were killed in a genocide, considering that the crest stone of the sword of the creator is able to put Sothis mind into Byleth, it is reasonable to assume that the crest stones contains the souls of these slain dragons. This sword of the creator is essentially the equivalent of swinging around the corpse of Sothis and Byleth is blissfully unaware of this. It about it this way, what would we think if someone in this world made weapons out of the bones of the victims of a massacre? These relics aren't holy in the slightest, and are in fact the result of very evil types of magic. Why Rhea allows their use and claims them to be holy is beyond me, she if anyone should be disturbed by their very nature. I guess in this context, it does make sense why Rhea reacts this way to Edelgard wanting to take crest stones in the holy tomb, but there is one major problem with this, Edelgard doesn't actually know the true nature of the crest stones and has no idea that the remains of Rhea's people. So it is silly to act as if Edelgard intended to desecrate their remains (Like Rhea hasn't done that already by allowing relics to be used in war).

[omegaxis1]

2 minutes ago, Axel987 said:

It was an extrapolation given that Edelgard uses the same wording of "defeated" for Seiros beating Nemesis and we know that Nemesis was killed there. I wonder if the Japanese localisation has any different kind of wording for that?

The same dialogue also implies by "recreating that scene" that it would be the sign of a victor overall. It's also stated that winning the war is what gave the Kingdom it's independence, as per Edelgard's statement again which corroborates the Knight's statement that again, it was winning the battle that got them their independence.

..man now I wish the DLC was on the War of Eagle & Lion or the War of Heroes or the Crescent Moon War again..... Would've been so cool and I wouldn't feel like I'm looking at singular lines of dialogue for this stuff haha. I appreciate that you humour my arguments since I'm trying to get better at debating stuff which these threads tend to help.

Well, they also remark that Seiros destroyed Nemesis as well, but it's never given proper context in regards to the emperor. It can be said that the emperor being defeated is simply his army being beaten. I'll have to check if there's anything that was translated differently.

Again, that's what people say, but the actual true matter is that it's the Church that granted the ability to give Loog his independence, since it's stated that the Church backed him up, which got him the independence. If there was ever a case that the Loog was gonna get independence no matter what, there's absolutely no reason to bargain with the church. By accepting the Church's terms, he bound his nation to the Church, which screams the opposite of wanting independence. 

18 minutes ago, Axel987 said:

I feel it's weird to criticise her for acting on half the facts when that's, kind of the point? Characters rarely ever know everything and she felt it was her duty to act given what she knew. At this point my stance on her is that I really like her as a character but prefer the other lords and wish that the game wasn't kind of half-baked in certain places (see Edelgard and Dimitri being done kinda dirty in VW and Claude not even appearing in Silver Snow...)

 

20 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

While Edelgard certainly have some false information, it is not like she has a way to know the actual truth because Rhea goes out of her way to hide it. Really, what would you expect someone to think after finding out that the dominant religion in Fodlan is secretly controlled by immortal dragons who has falsified history. 

Less false information and more simply information that lacks context. But yeah, in the end, there's simply no way that Edlegard would ever have been able to operate on the full truth when Rhea only ever confesses the truth that only happens near the end of the game. By then, it took five years of imprisonment for Rhea's reality to finally change to accepting that her mother was gone.

[Jotari]

22 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Sometimes I wonder if their trauma could be used as a way for Edelgard and Dimitri to bond if they took their turns explaining their experiences. They should be able to relate to eachother to some degree

 

I am not so sure soverignity deserves to be respected if it leads to the oppression. Women are considered second class citizens in many islamic countries, gay people and people who deconvert from the religion are killed, there was even a case a girl being stoned to death for being raped. Not to mention the abuses of the North Korean goverment. This to me is unacceptable. If we have the power to change these systems, then we are culpable for letting these abuses against human rights continue. Many people will continue to suffer if we do nothing. This is not violating the rights of people, we would free them from the violations done against them by their own goverments

In my view it is more important that our leaders are capable and good than what nation we belong to is. To conquer in order to liberate is the Edelgard way.

I relate to Edelgard in many ways, one of them is a flaw we both share. We both have a tendency to shoulder responsibility for the entire world, even if we should not be expected to fix everything wrong with the world just by ourselves. It is a hopeless task that leads to despair over the futility of it all. Yet I can't help to admire her for trying. Something I will never have the power to do

Sorry for the politics, but it is hard to avoid when Edelgard is such a political character.

Well I don't believe we have the right to assert our own moral code upon others using force. That's precisely what the colonialists went about doing and it's generally agreed  upon that colonialism was really, really shitty for the people for the colonized people involved (though I will acknowledge it wasn't purely evil as some would suggest).  If you have the mentality of "I know best and everyone who dares to disagree with me is evil" then you become a menace who believes they're fighting for the ultimate good, and thus anything done in service of that cannot possibly be evil. Even though an invasion and oppression of the middle east would lead to a shit tonne of death of all those women you'd be trying to liberate.

20 hours ago, jawaunw said:

yeah but the problem with that type of thinking is once you think about it why not just be God of the world it leads to just pure dictatorship you think you know best for everyone else so they should live the way that you say they should hell her system is all about merit improving themselves to the emperor so they can end up inside of a good position The weak die and the strong live That's the type of world edelgard wants to live in Dimitri creates the world that's closest to a democracy and even then it still sounds horrible if it wasn't for the fact that every ending stated that they all achieved peace then no one will actually believe half of these endings achieved anything The games just sugarcoating it for usClaude is the closest one that gives us any type of society that shows natural progress honestly of course people wouldn't accept him becoming the ruler and he'll leave it to the main character they have influence in the church it's easier for people to trust them and in him after the war is over Claude goes back to his own country and creates diplomatic ties it's a long process but it sounds a lot better than suddenly I won the war in the other side loves me now even though I kill every a bunch of people over there and told them that I'm their new ruler after they're killing their king or queen doesn't work that way

Rather ironically, modern technology is the key reason we can afford to have societies like we currently do. So even though they're a bunch of monstrous bastards, the Agrathans could actually build the best future for Fodlan. Though judging by the fat that the game has nukes (which as I said previously I think is a stupid idea), I guess their whole idea with the Agrathans is fear of taking technology too far. Even the whole artificial body things could possibly be a fantasy reimagning of cybernetics. I actually like the Agathans a lot. It sucks that they suck so much.

Edited February 22, 2020 by Jotari

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

3 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well I don't believe we have the right to assert our own moral code upon others using force. That's precisely what the colonialists went about doing and it's generally agreed  upon that colonialism was really, really shitty for the people for the colonized people involved (though I will acknowledge it wasn't purely evil as some would suggest).  If you have the mentality of "I know best and everyone who dares to disagree with me is evil" then you become a menace who believes they're fighting for the ultimate good, and thus anything done in service of that cannot possibly be evil. Even though an invasion and oppression of the middle east would lead to a shit tonne of death of all those women you'd be trying to liberate.

I think it's always a tricky ethical question without a universal right answer. To go to extremes: suppose another government is committing a genocide, and through forceful intervention, my country can stop that genocide. To act could be interpreted as a wrong against that country, its government, its military, and potentially its voting public. But to refuse to act could be interpreted as a wrong against the minority being killed, and against a sense of shared human rights. I think there are cases wherin using force to impose a moral standard may be necessary to counteract other uses of force.

[Jotari]

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

I think it's always a tricky ethical question without a universal right answer. To go to extremes: suppose another government is committing a genocide, and through forceful intervention, my country can stop that genocide. To act could be interpreted as a wrong against that country, its government, its military, and potentially its voting public. But to refuse to act could be interpreted as a wrong against the minority being killed, and against a sense of shared human rights. I think there are cases wherin using force to impose a moral standard may be necessary to counteract other uses of force.

I agree that an active genocide situation where a group of people are literally being wiped out without any means of defense is a decent justification for war. But for the intention of overthrowing a stable system, even a system as bad North Korea, I don't see it as justified. The people of that region are the ones with the right to decide how it should be governed, even if we don't like it. Imposing our will just because we think our way is superior is arrogant and oppressive. If everyone thinks that way then it only leads to endless chaos.

Edited February 22, 2020 by Jotari

[Darkmoon6789]

16 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well I don't believe we have the right to assert our own moral code upon others using force. That's precisely what the colonialists went about doing and it's generally agreed  upon that colonialism was really, really shitty for the people for the colonized people involved (though I will acknowledge it wasn't purely evil as some would suggest).  If you have the mentality of "I know best and everyone who dares to disagree with me is evil" then you become a menace who believes they're fighting for the ultimate good, and thus anything done in service of that cannot possibly be evil. Even though an invasion and oppression of the middle east would lead to a shit tonne of death of all those women you'd be trying to liberate.

I do think that the problem with colonialism was that the powers behind it never did so for the best interest of those who were colonised, but merely to benefit themselves. No one who's primary objective was to help would take slaves, but it is also possible to use extravagant wealth to enrich the people you conquer, but doing so would mean a loss of wealth for the colonising nation, not a gain that could be the case if the colonised country was exploited instead. So ultimately the problem is selfishness. I would agree with the notion that the mentality anyone who disagrees with me is evil can be extremely dangerous and I am fully aware that the a lot of the people who oppose me and my ideas use the same mindset. It is an argument I have used in the past four why I believe the notion of objective morality can be dangerous, because in my experience most people who believe in objective morality consider their morality to be the objective one. And nearly every person who believe in objective morality has a different definition for what this objective morality is. Which could definitely lead to a case of people trying to force their will on others. But that doesn't mean I don't have strong beliefs of my own. I am uncertain of many things, but when it comes to my belief in basic equality, I am absolutely certain. North Korea is such a complete nightmare to live in that I do think a takeover would be justified if it wasn't for one thing, they have nuclear weapons, it could possibly lead to an extreme number of deaths that simply might not be worth it. 

However arrogant it may sound, the people in my home country have it better than in the majority of the rest of the world, even nations like the United States, pale in comparison, we simply have a better healthcare system, less crime, less poverty and generally better equality. Sweden does suffer from our own issues, but we are still doing pretty well, even if it is not as well as our neighbours like Norway. Of course, Sweden doesn't have a military power to invade anyone so we really can't conquer anyone alone. In order to help them. While I am not certain that my ideas for the correct course of actions are correct, they are at least well intended, so while they could be a mistake. I don't think that they could be evil. I am in the same position with Edelgard, it is possible she is mistaken, but she isn't deliberately evil. It is hard to know in the end what actions are truly beneficial for the world in the long run

It is true that the Agarthans has a lot of advanced technology that could benefit the world, maybe Edelgard could steal some of their blueprints before they are destroyed and use them to benefit her Empire. 

[omegaxis1]

1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

It is true that the Agarthans has a lot of advanced technology that could benefit the world, maybe Edelgard could steal some of their blueprints before they are destroyed and use them to benefit her Empire. 

Or maybe because Rhea is dead now, Thales WON'T go kamikaze and blow the Shambhala up. I imagine that if Edelgard can actually attain the Shambhala relatively unscathed, she basically has better chances of dissecting the secrets within.

[Darkmoon6789]

34 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Or maybe because Rhea is dead now, Thales WON'T go kamikaze and blow the Shambhala up. I imagine that if Edelgard can actually attain the Shambhala relatively unscathed, she basically has better chances of dissecting the secrets within.

So essentially Edelgard would be able to use that technology to improve her Empire. The question is if technologies like the javalins of light are worth adapting. Or if they are so dangerous they should be buried. I imagine that the Agarthans would have a lot of dangerous technology as well as helpful ones. Given Edelgard's position on crests, there are certain things she probably won't be in favour of. 

[Jotari]

3 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I do think that the problem with colonialism was that the powers behind it never did so for the best interest of those who were colonised, but merely to benefit themselves. No one who's primary objective was to help would take slaves, but it is also possible to use extravagant wealth to enrich the people you conquer, but doing so would mean a loss of wealth for the colonising nation, not a gain that could be the case if the colonised country was exploited instead. So ultimately the problem is selfishness. I would agree with the notion that the mentality anyone who disagrees with me is evil can be extremely dangerous and I am fully aware that the a lot of the people who oppose me and my ideas use the same mindset. It is an argument I have used in the past four why I believe the notion of objective morality can be dangerous, because in my experience most people who believe in objective morality consider their morality to be the objective one. And nearly every person who believe in objective morality has a different definition for what this objective morality is. Which could definitely lead to a case of people trying to force their will on others. But that doesn't mean I don't have strong beliefs of my own. I am uncertain of many things, but when it comes to my belief in basic equality, I am absolutely certain. North Korea is such a complete nightmare to live in that I do think a takeover would be justified if it wasn't for one thing, they have nuclear weapons, it could possibly lead to an extreme number of deaths that simply might not be worth it. 

However arrogant it may sound, the people in my home country have it better than in the majority of the rest of the world, even nations like the United States, pale in comparison, we simply have a better healthcare system, less crime, less poverty and generally better equality. Sweden does suffer from our own issues, but we are still doing pretty well, even if it is not as well as our neighbours like Norway. Of course, Sweden doesn't have a military power to invade anyone so we really can't conquer anyone alone. In order to help them. While I am not certain that my ideas for the correct course of actions are correct, they are at least well intended, so while they could be a mistake. I don't think that they could be evil. I am in the same position with Edelgard, it is possible she is mistaken, but she isn't deliberately evil. It is hard to know in the end what actions are truly beneficial for the world in the long run

It is true that the Agarthans has a lot of advanced technology that could benefit the world, maybe Edelgard could steal some of their blueprints before they are destroyed and use them to benefit her Empire. 

The colonialists believed they were civilizing the rest of the world and, especially for the Spanish, saving the souls of the savages by converting them to Christianity. The brunt of colonialism in Africa actually took place after the abolition of slavery in most European countries.

40 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

So essentially Edelgard would be able to use that technology to improve her Empire. The question is if technologies like the javalins of light are worth adapting. Or if they are so dangerous they should be buried. I imagine that the Agarthans would have a lot of dangerous technology as well as helpful ones. Given Edelgard's position on crests, there are certain things she probably won't be in favour of. 

At the very least the titans could be repurposed to be fantastic machines for construction work.

[Darkmoon6789]

6 minutes ago, Jotari said:

The colonialists believed they were civilizing the rest of the world and, especially for the Spanish, saving the souls of the savages by converting them to Christianity. The brunt of colonialism in Africa actually took place after the abolition of slavery in most European countries.

At the very least the titans could be repurposed to be fantastic machines for construction work.

Forcefully converting people to a religion sounds more like Rhea than Edelgard. Granted, I have heard arguments in the past that the two are actually very similar when it comes to how they go about things, the main difference between the two being their ideology and beliefs as Rhea also believed she did what is necessary to help the world. But at the end of the day I just believe that Edelgard's ideology of meritocracy and freedom is a lot better for the world than Rhea's stability and control through religious dogma. There are actually plenty of people in the world who have ideologies that are very similar to the ones of these two characters, and they frequently consider the other to be evil. Maybe some colonialists did believe they were doing a good thing, maybe others just used it as an excuse to rob people of resources, something done by modern military powers to this day, claim a rightous cause for war and use the opportunity to steal resources from another country. 

And yes, the Titans would be very useful for construction work. I am starting to get glimpse on how Edelgard's future would look and it is quite bright. I think Edelgard is at heart a very good person, in fact, the type of good you seldom see in this world, especially in leadership positions. I almost never see a world leader being motivated by anything else, but personal profit and power, any claim to care about the common people, hollow and false and this applies to almost every politician of every party in every country. Edelgard does genuinely care about people and believes in her ideology with all her heart, she is very genuine despite often being flawed and this alone makes her leagues ahead of most politicians. 

[jawaunw]

On 2/21/2020 at 12:07 AM, Darkmoon6789 said:

 

this is the one good thing about the game it creates four individually very charismatic people Rhea edelgard Dimitri and Claude all four of them are right but all of them are wrong at the same exact time they're all good and evil depending on how you look at them look at the behavior some of you all have about them you praise them to high end and you dismiss the others vehemently if any of them go against the person that you're rooting for each one of them are actual leaders that in real life could realistically have a great army on their side or you know get killed it's the one good thing about this game and that's why I think all of the endings being peace seems really stupid since they want them to be so realistically modern in their military tactics and well rule it just seems weird personally I don't like any of the Lord's because if you really look at it all of this could have been ended with talking if edelgard talked to Dimitri or Claude war wouldn't have happened if she talked to Rhea the war wouldn't have happened if Rhea told the truth she probably would have been turned into a weapon or the war wouldn't have happened one is an unmovable object and the other is an unstoppable force and in the end everyone else loses

Edited February 22, 2020 by jawaunw

[Darkmoon6789]

16 minutes ago, jawaunw said:

this is the one good thing about the game it creates four individually very charismatic people Rhea edelgard Dimitri and Claude all four of them are right but all of them are wrong at the same exact time they're all good and evil depending on how you look at them look at the behavior some of you all have about them you praise them to high end and you dismiss the others vehemently if any of them go against the person that you're rooting for each one of them are actual leaders that in real life could realistically have a great army on their side or you know get killed it's the one good thing about this game and that's why I think all of the endings being peace seems really stupid since they want them to be so realistically modern in their military tactics and well rule it just seems weird personally I don't like any of the Lord's because if you really look at it all of this could have been ended with talking if edelgard talked to Dimitri or Claude war wouldn't have happened if she talked to Rhea the war wouldn't have happened if Rhea told the truth she probably would have been turned into a weapon or the war wouldn't have happened or the war wouldn't have happened one isn't in the unmovable object and the other is an unstoppable force and in the end everyone else loses

Rhea did have an uphill climb to begin with when it comes to me, I am a former Christian and theology student who deconverted due to personal reasons and some of the things I discovered during my studies, I am really not in favour of religious organisations holding political power due to being a devoted secularist. Edelgard, however, does reflect many of them beliefs I hold today so I just find her more likeable. Rhea is ultimately well-intentioned, but she is highly unstable and I disagree strongly with her politics. Both Rhea and Dimitri does have a additional disadvantage with me for no other reason than that, I got a really attached to Edelgard and wanting to harm her isn't something that would win them my favour . Dimitri for most of the game also swears by an eye for an eye philosophy to justice, which I highly object to as I deem such an approach to the dangerous, fortunately the Dimitri we see at the end of Azure Moon is a lot more likeable in my opinion. Claude suffers no major disadvantage, I do consider his ideology to be fine, even if he has a tendency not really accomplish much without help, I just prefer Edelgard overall. But this should demonstrate that it is indeed very personal who we relate to the most. Edelgard does also in a way represent my growing frustration with people unwilling to do what is necessary to create a better future. The politicians in my country are known for being doormats and constantly squabbling with each other. It took them over half a year to actually form the government after last election, due to political squabbling, meaning they accomplished literally nothing when it comes to actually ruling the country during this time.. Edelgard is pretty much the exact opposite of that, and someone I would actually vote for if she ran for government (minus starting the war, of course, that wouldn't work so well in the context of real-life Sweden) 

Rhea does however suffer from a few burdens from my view of real-life religion, which is not entirely fair as her religion is different. I don't even really know that many details of what the church of Seiros actullly teaches other than the crests and the relics. Is there any detail about this in game somewhere? 

[Jotari]

5 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Forcefully converting people to a religion sounds more like Rhea than Edelgard.

Let's substitute the world religion here for the phrase "belief system," because they are the same thing. Once we've done that it seems clear that of the two Edelgard is the aggressive expansionist one. In the thousand years Rhea has been in control there have been no known crusades to convert the people of Almyra or the surrounding nations. The only outward expansion has been in response to invasions launched at Fodlan first. From everything I can recall that we've been told about in game, Rhea has no ambitions of extending influence beyond what she already controls. Edelgard could have done the same thing and implemented her belief system in the Empire alone, but instead chose to move outwards and force others to accept her vision of the future.

3 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Rhea does however suffer from a few burdens from my view of real-life religion, which is not entirely fair as her religion is different. I don't even really know that many details of what the church of Seiros actullly teaches other than the crests and the relics. Is there any detail about this in game somewhere? 

The main tenants are laid out in the library.

The Book of Seiros, Part V

The Five Eternal Commandments

• Dare not doubt or deny the power or existence of the goddess.
• Dare not speak the goddess's name in vain.
• Dare not disrespect your father, mother, or any who serve the goddess.
• Dare not abuse the power gifted to you by the goddess.
• Dare not kill, harm, lie, or steal, unless such acts are committed by the will of the goddess.

The goddess cares for and protects all that is beautiful in this world.
The goddess will never deny the splendors of love, affection, joy,
peace, faith, kindness, temperance, modesty, or patience.
Follow her example and, in doing so, abide her laws.

So pretty generic stuff, mostly ripped from Christianity. Be good and worship god (though note the little exception on the bad stuff there that basically says "Unless Rhea says so"). I'd also add that the fact that the church is willing to accept commoners as students seems quite tolerant for the society.

Edited February 22, 2020 by Jotari

[Darkmoon6789]

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Let's substitute the world religion here for the phrase "belief system," because they are the same thing. Once we've done that it seems clear that of the two Edelgard is the aggressive expansionist one. In the thousand years Rhea has been in control there have been no known crusades to convert the people of Almyra or the surrounding nations. The only outward expansion has been in response to invasions launched at Fodlan first. From everything I can recall that we've been told about in game, Rhea has no ambitions of extending influence beyond what she already controls. Edelgard could have done the same thing and implemented her belief system in the Empire alone, but instead chose to move outwards and force others to accept her vision of the future.

Let's not forget that Rhea basically conquered the very same region during her war with Nemesis, she was instrumental in the very forming of the Adrestian Empire, many heirs to the Imperial royal line have the crest of Seiros, including Edelgard. So she basically did the exact same thing as Edelgard did once upon a time, uniting the continent under one rule, yes, you could argue she's justified in doing this, due to Nemesis and the Agarthans , but I can make the same argument for Edelgard. Let's not forget that Seiros was originally a warrior and a conqueror. I don't know what happened with Rhea and Almyra, but she obviously did something to make them angry as they do constantly invade and Edelgard does imply it is for religious reasons, citing lack of respect for cultural differences as the reason. Here is the thing with Edelgard though, she has no plans to expand any further than just the main continent of Fodlan. She has shown willingness to make peace with Almyra through cultural understanding, she did give Brigid back their independence. She obviously doesn't care to maintain control of colonies like Brigid and Dagda. Edelgard's expansionist policies pretty much ended with her war against Rhea. Is it weird for me to say that I think that both Seiros were justified with their war of conquest? Nemesis needed to be stopped and Seiros brought a necessary order by reuniting the continent after that war by establishing her religion. But circumstances changed, Rhea lost control over the continent with time and power was often abused by corrupt nobles , relying on the authority their crests gave them. Rhea refused to do anything about this rampant abuse so Edelgard took action to reform this now-defunct system. The problem with Rhea is that she doesn't seem to realise things have changed after 1000 years, she still sees Edelgard as just another Nemesis. Rhea brought this on herself by ignoring all the social unrest throughout the continent and not addressing the problems, revolts happen when people get sufficiently discontent. 

Also, why do you assume that I will automatically consider the aggressive and expansionist one to be a automatically wrong? I think the actual beliefs of said belief system is far more important. The truth is that the only thing Edelgard is forcing on anyone is the removal of inherited social hierarchies and the establishment of a merit-based one. She isn't opressing anyone, she is simply giving the people far more freedom than before by allowing the commoners to reach positions they were previously gated out of. She might have removed the institution of the church, but faith in Sothis and personal spirituality is still perfectly legal, I would argue that religious freedom is actually greater under Edelgard than ever before, as now no one will execute you for having the wrong beliefs.  I should also point out that most of the Western world today is technically defined as a meritocracy, as this is what capitalism is classified under. Does it work? Not really, a lot of incompetent people still managed to get into power(mostly because people are dumb enough to vote them in) but it is a heck of a lot better than theocratic feudalism, which is exactly what Rhea's system is. Ironically, the only thing forced upon the people is freedom.

[Moltz23]

38 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Let's substitute the world religion here for the phrase "belief system," because they are the same thing. Once we've done that it seems clear that of the two Edelgard is the aggressive expansionist one. In the thousand years Rhea has been in control there have been no known crusades to convert the people of Almyra or the surrounding nations. The only outward expansion has been in response to invasions launched at Fodlan first. From everything I can recall that we've been told about in game, Rhea has no ambitions of extending influence beyond what she already controls. Edelgard could have done the same thing and implemented her belief system in the Empire alone, but instead chose to move outwards and force others to accept her vision of the future.

Edelgard's plans are also similar to Rhea in that sense, as she has no interest in conquering lands outside of Fodlan, and in her eyes, her goal is less expansionism and more trying to reclaim lost imperial territory. At the end of CF Arundel is like "Hey Edelgard. What of you tried to conquer the world after the war?" and she's like "Nah. I'm fine with Fodlan", and in non-CF routes she gives up pretty quickly about Brigid once Hubert is kicked out by Byleth and co.

Edited February 22, 2020 by Moltz23