The True Tragedy of Three Houses

[omegaxis1]

10 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

That is exactly the point of the lies and cover ups. It's to make sure the public didn't know about them, or can potentially discover them.

No one knew period. The info was already lost and almost all Nabateans are already dead. No one was hunting them. 

11 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

In that case, she really didn't need to work with them if she feared them having a grip over the Empire. She could have simply started a civil war in her own country and push her ideals there without affecting the rest of Fodlan. The issue is she believes that only she could fix Fodlan.

With what army? All power she got originally is GIVEN to her. You really didn't pay much attention to the Insurrection of the Seven, did you?

Not to mention that a civil war would make it stupidly impossible to even go against the Church, the one that put the nobles in charge in the first place. Edelgard is fighting the system in an effort to remove corruption at its root. The Agarthans can to dealt with after, which she does. But it's only from defeating the Chruch that Edelgard could even dismantle the nobility system in the first place. 

How have you missed this entirely? Like, it is literally mentioned in the Crimson Flower route. 

13 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

Except the Agarthans have been around just as long as she has been, and thus, have been lying for as long as her. There's a reason that they are the outright villains of the game.

Descendants. Not the actually same people. Rhea is the same person she was over 1200 years ago, and has continued to lie to humanity and makes everyone believe her lies. The Agarthans haven't been lying though. They've been HIDING. You act like they are influential with major political power in every corner of Fodlan, but no, they aren't. The Church has political power in every nation. 

14 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

And, as far as we know, the Agarthans were the ones who started the war against Sothis instead of simply trying to coexist with her.

Okay, and? What are they supposed to do? Revere her and worship her as a god? Abandon their own beliefs? 

You're taking everything from Rhea's mouth as if it's the absolute truth, despite how she's confessed to having lied and deceived people. She lied to the people and made them fight a 66 year long war to get revenge, something that is 100% unjustifiable. 

As I said, and how this entire topic thread is about. 

Everything is based on what people believe is reality, and one's reality is another's illusion. 

Rhea thought and was convinced that things were perfect with Sothis. But to the Agarthans, they feared Sothis as a calamity that would bring extinction to humanity. We don't even know how the original Sothis was. What's to say that she didn't destroy an entire human civilization that crossed the line in an effort to preserve the peace? 

Basically, Sothis could easily have been a Justice Lord/Injustice Superman, a godly being that humanity felt oppressed by.

If everyone just submits to someone's rule, then there would be peace, right?

Yet people try to justify Dimitri for sacrificing so many lives under the pretense of "defending" Faerghus? Could have just let the Empire in. But you would disagree then, right?

But apply this to what the Agarthans feel, then. 

[Rose482]

Reading this thread was actually tiring. 

If you're someone who thinks Edelgard (Or really any other character) should have done things differently, then that's a valid opinion to have.

And if you're someone who thinks everything she's done was justified, that's also a valid opinion to have.

I'm pretty sure IS wanted the story to be morally grey, and with that comes different opinions (Shocking I know). So I wish some people in this thread would just accept that and move on.

[omegaxis1]

9 minutes ago, Rose482 said:

I'm pretty sure IS wanted the story to be morally grey, and with that comes different opinions (Shocking I know). So I wish some people in this thread would just accept that and move on.

That's the point of the thread. And why there's no such thing as a Revelations route. Everyone has their story, their methods, and overall, their own realities. 

[Crysta]

Not all opinions are equally justified or supported. If you're not interested in the debate then I certainly don't recommend going through the entirety of this thread lol

Edited February 24, 2020 by Crysta

[Rose482]

38 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Not all opinions are equally justified or supported. If you're not interested in the debate then I certainly don't recommend going through the entirety of this thread lol

Well, what I said was that any opinion someone might form from playing through such a grey story is valid. "Justified or supported" aren't exactly the same thing here.

And it's always okay to debate such matters with people who are willing to partake in such debates. But more often than not, I can't help but feel like such "Debates" always start when someone says their opinion, and someone else not agreeing with it.  And you could say that how most debates start, but usually the person who made that first post didn't want to start any debates to being with. And I find that to be a problem? I understand a thread like this one were made for such debates, but that hasn't stopped debates from starting in other threads in which weren't made for that kind of talk. So I can't help but feel the need to say that some people need to learn to accept that not everyone will feel the same way as they do about certain things, and that's okay.

Edited February 24, 2020 by Rose482

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Rose482 said:

Well, what I said was that any opinion someone might form from playing through such a grey story is valid. "Justified or supported" aren't exactly the same thing here.

And it's always okay to debate such matters with people who are willing to partake in such debates. But more often than not, I can't help but feel like such "Debates" always start when someone says their opinion, and someone else not agreeing with it.  And you could say that how most debates start, but usually the person who made that first post didn't want to start any debates to being with. And I find that to be a problem? I understand a thread like this one were made for such debates, but that hasn't stopped debates from starting in other thread in which weren't made for that kind of talk. So I can't help but feel the need to say that some people need to learn to accept that not everyone will feel the same way as they do about certain things, and that's okay.

... That's how debates actually work. 

One side argues, the other argues back in disagreement, etc.

I get what you're going about, but you're basically just telling people to just stop talking about it, period. There's merit toward having these debates as it gives us the chance to explain viewpoints and give people that might read this a change to understand how each side works.

What's bad is that if it gets stupid and just pointless are toxic arguments like in reddit. 

[Crysta]

6 minutes ago, Rose482 said:

Well, what I said was that any opinion someone might form from playing through such a grey story is valid. "Justified or supported" aren't exactly the same thing here.

And it's always okay to debate such matters with people who are willing to partake in such debates. But more often than not, I can't help but feel like such "Debates" always start when someone says their opinion, and someone else not agreeing with it.  And you could say that how most debates start, but usually the person who made that first post didn't want to start any debates to being with. And I find that to be a problem? I understand a thread like this one were made for such debates, but that hasn't stopped debates from starting in other thread in which weren't made for that kind of talk. So I can't help but feel the need to say that some people need to learn to accept that not everyone will feel the same way as they do about certain things, and that's okay.

Well yes, that's the nature of a debate. One party presents one argument and the other presents a counter argument. And if you're presenting any argument on a forum you are inevitably opening it to scrutiny, otherwise you wouldn't... you know, post it in a public forum.

It's not a bug. It's a feature. Clearly the OP has no problem with debating through 25 pages soooo... why did this ping as a problem to you?

EDIT: I'd see it as more of a problem if this was derailed from the initial topic, but it hasn't? We're still talking about character perspectives here?

Edited February 24, 2020 by Crysta

[Rose482]

1 minute ago, Crysta said:

 Clearly the OP has no problem with debating through 25 pages soooo... why did this ping as a problem to you?

My respond to this is

5 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

What's bad is that if it gets stupid and just pointless are toxic arguments like in reddit. 

this.

A small part of me was worried this is starting to get toxic, but I guess that was just me : )

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Rose482 said:

My respond to this is

this.

A small part of me was worried this is starting to get toxic, but I guess that was just me : )

Well, if that was going to happen, there's a dependable mod that would have intervened had that been the case. 

One of the reasons why this place is far less toxic is due to there being dependable mods. 

[MrPerson0]

 

4 hours ago, Hardric62 said:

 

Civil war a little tiny bitty too much of dirty business to ever be called 'simple' things. And if she began taking the axe to Crest Nobility within Adrestia, what exactly are the odds of Rhea ignoring the leader of half of Foldan taking said axe to the social system she is enforcing by virtue of being the head of the continent's religion, when her track records for reactions to opposition to her rule... is rather blunt and cutting straight to the point? The Refrom's wars started for even less than that in reality.

It's still better than a continental war. Also, if Rhea attacked Edelgard for starting a civil war in Adrestia, in that case, Edelgard would be much more justified seeing that her war (against the church) was retaliatory.

4 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

No one knew period. The info was already lost and almost all Nabateans are already dead. No one was hunting them. 

Except the Agarthans were? Pretty sure that was the entire point of Seteth and Flayn going into hiding.

4 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

With what army? All power she got originally is GIVEN to her. You really didn't pay much attention to the Insurrection of the Seven, did you?

By the time of the Holy Tomb, she had an army of her own already given to her/under her control, especially when she easily overthrew Aegir. She could have easily told them that they have changed plans on who to attack, especially if she chose to tell the truth about who they were working with. If the other nobles were annoyed at that, that's how it would escalate into a civil war.

4 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

The Agarthans haven't been lying though. They've been HIDING. You act like they are influential with major political power in every corner of Fodlan, but no, they aren't. The Church has political power in every nation. 

And overthrowing governments by disguising themselves as others. The is literally lying.

4 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Okay, and? What are they supposed to do? Revere her and worship her as a god? Abandon their own beliefs?

You are assuming that they were forced to follow Sothis even though we do not know that this is the case. All we know is they were apparently warmongers, and that they set their sights on Sothis.

Edited February 25, 2020 by MrPerson0

[Darkmoon6789]

This is actually the least toxic I have ever seen a debate like this get. Seen some real nightmares.

I mainly just reply because I want to and it gives me an excuse to talk about Edelgard which I love doing.

Of course I do think that this games story is quite morally grey and therefore I don't believe there is an objective answer about who is in the right

[omegaxis1]

5 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

It's still better than a continental war. Also, if Rhea attacked Edelgard for starting a civil war in Adrestia, in that case, Edelgard would be much more justified seeing that her war (against the church) was retaliatory.

That's not how it works. All you're saying is for Edelgard to take revenge instead of actually trying to fight the system for the sake of the people. Edelgard isn't bound by revenge. She is looking at the bigger picture. She's not like Dimitri. She is seeing the problem with society that is through the nobility system.

Taking revenge on the Agarthans only means that she cripples the Empire, and the nobility will still remain in place. She cannot remove the nobility so long as the Crest System upholds them in place. That's something that has been stated by even Hanneman, hence why he follows Edelgard.

7 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

Except the Agarthans were? Pretty sure that was the entire point of Seteth and Flayn going into hiding.

No one knew the Agarthans either. Literally Seteth and Rhea stated that there was an investigation that came up with nothing. 

7 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

By the time of the Holy Tomb, she had an army of her own already given to her/under her control, especially when she easily overthrew Aegir. She could have easily told them that they have changed plans on who to attack, especially if she chose to tell the truth about who they were working with. If the other nobles were annoyed at that, that's how it would escalate into a civil war.

Power that was GIVEN to her. The Agarthans were the ones that helped her rise to the Emperor position, along with the help of Count Bergliez and Hevring. She would never have been able to go against them under normal circumstances since they are the ones holding the power. All you are going about is a civil war that cripples the Empire and not change anything as a result. 

9 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

And overthrowing governments by disguising themselves as others. The is literally lying.

Oh, okay? How compare that to a literal constant 1200 year lies that continues gets preached to everyone on the continent. Do you legit think that Agarthans compare? When it comes down to it, Rhea has always been the bigger liar. 

That is fact.

10 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

You are assuming that they were forced to follow Sothis even though we do not know that this is the case. All we know is they were apparently warmongers, and that they set their sights on Sothis.

Sothis is literally called the progenitor god. Like, if ANYONE was the one thinking themselves a god, it was by all accounts Sothis. The Agarthans had their own set of beliefs. They literally called it the land of Thinis of the "old gods" and that Sothis is the "False God" here. 

Sothis and the Nabateans were the ones that came to their home and Sothis is the one being worshipped and revered as a god. The same concept of how one can even argue against the Church. How do you refute the word of "god" here? If Agarthans ever had issues with Sothis, how do you argue against them if they are the "god" here?

Will you tell "God" that they are wrong? No, you wouldn't. 

Because the second anyone calls themselves a god, they have the form of divine command. If you are god, then if you destroy something, who judges you? Who judges "God" if they do something wrong?

The same question is what Batman asks Green Arrow in the Justice League Unlimited: "Who watches the Watchers?"

If you cannot defy, judge, or watch over "God", then guess what? You are at an impasse of submission or retaliation. 

[MrPerson0]

47 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

This is actually the least toxic I have ever seen a debate like this get. Seen some real nightmares.

Reddit is probably one of the worst places for discussion due to how the upvote/downvote system works. Instead of using it properly (whether it contributes to discussion), I've noticed that a lot of people simply downvote or upvote others whether their opinion is similar. GameFAQs, while a cesspool, is better than Reddit in this case at least (though both have huge userbases), and of course, SF doesn't have a vote system and has a very small userbase.

33 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

All you're saying is for Edelgard to take revenge instead of actually trying to fight the system for the sake of the people.

But she would be fixing the system in her country. Nothing even told her (other than her father, who was wrong) that she had the right to fix Fodlan.

33 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

No one knew the Agarthans either. Literally Seteth and Rhea stated that there was an investigation that came up with nothing. 

Doesn't change the fact that they were apparently the ones who forced her to go to sleep for a while back then, and that they were around right now and knew about her blood.

33 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Power that was GIVEN to her.

Yes. Doesn't mean that they will easily take it away, which is why I keep on saying it will lead to a civil war.

33 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Do you legit think that Agarthans compare?

Yes? The Agarthans have committed far more atrocities than Rhea did, and a good amount of it was done through lying/deception.

33 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

If you cannot defy, judge, or watch over "God", then guess what? You are at an impasse of submission or retaliation. 

This is still a pretty big assumption that you are making, especially when everything pointed out by the game shows that the Agarthans were the aggressors and are not to be trusted.

Edited February 25, 2020 by MrPerson0

[omegaxis1]

2 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

But she would be fixing the system in her country. Nothing even told her (other than her father, who was wrong) that she had the right to fix Fodlan.

Except she wouldn't. The nobility would still remain as nobles. Because the Crests are still worshipped. So long as Crests remain worshipped, thanks to the Church, the nobility will always bear political power. 

3 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

Doesn't change the fact that they were apparently the ones who forced her to go to sleep for a while back then, and that they were around right now and knew about her blood.

Flayn went to sleep as a result of expending her power throughout the war. That isn't a case of how she was being hunted. No Nabateans were being hunted. Cause again, Nemesis thought he slaughtered them all, and no one else knew about the Nabateans. 

Hence why I point out that the lie was never intended to protect the Nabateans. 

5 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

Yes. Doesn't mean that they will easily take it away, which is why I keep on saying it will lead to a civil war.

Unfortunately, if she turned on them, the power is easily taken if she tried anything. And again, this civil war of yours ignores how the Crests would still be worshipped and prevent the nobility system from being reformed. 

6 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

Yes? The Agarthans have committed far more atrocities than Rhea did, and a good amount of it was done through lying/deception.

Committing atrocities does not have anything to do with lying, though. They aren't the same. Like, at all. We're talking about who the bigger liars are, and that is objectively Rhea. Because she's been constantly lying to the people for over a thousand years. This is not even debatable. 

The Agarthans have been hiding for the most part. Any lies that they've told, and they have, no doubt, are still miniscule when you combine how Rhea keeps the lie going every waking moment of her life as the archbishop. She lies each and every day, never stopping. 

8 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

This is still a pretty big assumption that you are making, especially when everything pointed out by the game shows that the Agarthans were the aggressors and are not to be trusted.

Except being the aggressors is not the same as how Rhea was trying to describe it. Again, Rhea is merely speaking from her biased perspective.

Because she is biased. She would never believe that a reign under Sothis is bad, so the Agarthans attacking is them turning their backs on the Goddess's teachings, and instead thinking themselves as gods. But the report make it clear that the Agarthans don't share what Rhea felt. That only makes it clear that the Agarthans lived under fear of Sothis. The original Agarthans weren't consumed by hubris, but fear. They did not think themselves as gods, but as the "children of man". The report entirely contradicts everything Rhea said about them. 

Hell, I looked at the JP version of the text. Apparently it even speaks as if it was some prophesied event, where Sothis was going to wake up and bring extinction upon man.

[MrPerson0]

Just now, omegaxis1 said:

Except she wouldn't. The nobility would still remain as nobles. Because the Crests are still worshipped. So long as Crests remain worshipped, thanks to the Church, the nobility will always bear political power. 

But she would be simply forcing her ideals on her country instead of the continent. That means crests wouldn't be worshipped.

4 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Flayn went to sleep as a result of expending her power throughout the war. That isn't a case of how she was being hunted. No Nabateans were being hunted. Cause again, Nemesis thought he slaughtered them all, and no one else knew about the Nabateans. 

Hence why I point out that the lie was never intended to protect the Nabateans. 

Ahh, that is true. I do admit I was wrong about this.

4 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Unfortunately, if she turned on them, the power is easily taken if she tried anything. And again, this civil war of yours ignores how the Crests would still be worshipped and prevent the nobility system from being reformed. 

No, because she would still have commanders who placed her trust in her following her (Ladislava, Caspar's uncle, etc.), and she would simply enforce her ideals in the Empire instead of all of Fodlan. Rhea accepting that or getting annoyed is a different story.

6 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

We're talking about who the bigger liars are, and that is objectively Rhea. Because she's been constantly lying to the people for over a thousand years. This is not even debatable. 

It is when you have people taking the form of others to cause havoc throughout the continent, which was also on a daily basis.

7 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Again, Rhea is merely speaking from her biased perspective.

And until there is anything else we have to go off of, that's what we have to accept. Same with Byleth being stillborn, Sitri offering to give her life for theirs, etc.

10 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

The report entirely contradicts everything Rhea said about them. 

Once again, you are saying to not trust Rhea, but it can easily be turned around by saying we shouldn't trust the Agarthans, especially with how much strife they have caused over the years and are the true villains.

[omegaxis1]

Just now, MrPerson0 said:

But she would be simply forcing her ideals on her country instead of the continent. That means crests wouldn't be worshipped.

That's not how that works. The Crests are put as worship because of the Church. Now, unless you are gonna say that she severs all ties with the Church, which would result in conflict with the Church, Edelgard cannot implement her system so long as the Church remains in power. 

That's why no one ever argues that destroying the nobility system means to try and remove the influence of Crests, which is constantly upheld by the Church. 

And if you oppose the Church, then the entire continent will get involved. 

Edelgard knew this. But she knows that it's the only way. Because one cannot happen with the others coming along. 

3 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

No, because she would still have commanders who placed her trust in her following her (Ladislava, Caspar's uncle, etc.), and she would simply enforce her ideals in the Empire instead of all of Fodlan. Rhea accepting that or getting annoyed is a different story.

You are aware of how Linhardt mentions that it is only thanks to the support of Count Bergliez and Hevring that Edelgard has any control over the Empire's military and finances, right? The odds of them willing to help her in a civil war is far less likely than helping her fight the Church. 

5 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

It is when you have people taking the form of others to cause havoc throughout the continent, which was also on a daily basis.

... I'm sorry, but are you going on the assumption that the Agarthans can replace absolutely everybody?

Let's face facts here. If they could, they'd have replaced the nobility ages ago. The Agarthans would not have needed to perform an Insurrection of the Seven or anything of the such. Agarthans might have influenced some events in history, but they are not the ones that have lied and fabricated everything in there. Since again, the Agarthans are not that influential until the recent events got them the chance to make larger moves. 

The game very well presents things as such. 

7 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

And until there is anything else we have to go off of, that's what we have to accept. Same with Byleth being stillborn, Sitri offering to give her life for theirs, etc.

 

8 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

Once again, you are saying to not trust Rhea, but it can easily be turned around by saying we shouldn't trust the Agarthans, especially with how much strife they have caused over the years and are the true villains.

You are asking that there is nothing to prove things, then you are saying that the report is not proof of anything. 

The report very much proves something.

It proves that there are sides to everyone that reveal how difference in perspectives changes everything.

Look at how Edelgard views Rhea. Look at how Dimitri views Edelgard. Look at how Agarthans view Nabateans. 

Everyone has a perspective. Everyone has a story behind them. 

Just as Rhea suffered at the Agarthan hands, the report clearly reveals that the Agarthans suffered through the Nabateans. 

In the end, the resulting Agarthans we do see are just the end result of revenge twisting them beyond recognition. It's the fate of what would have happened to Dimitri had he not gotten his redemption. Where his desire for revenge twisted him into a monster, who would murder and take pleasure at torturing people. 

If there is one thing that 3H made clear what is objectively wrong: it's revenge. 

That's why Dimitri's story is a redemption, since he fought for revenge at first, which was objectively wrong. Hence why his redemption is to no longer fight for revenge. 

[Darkmoon6789]

38 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Except she wouldn't. The nobility would still remain as nobles. Because the Crests are still worshipped. So long as Crests remain worshipped, thanks to the Church, the nobility will always bear political power. 

Flayn went to sleep as a result of expending her power throughout the war. That isn't a case of how she was being hunted. No Nabateans were being hunted. Cause again, Nemesis thought he slaughtered them all, and no one else knew about the Nabateans. 

Hence why I point out that the lie was never intended to protect the Nabateans. 

Unfortunately, if she turned on them, the power is easily taken if she tried anything. And again, this civil war of yours ignores how the Crests would still be worshipped and prevent the nobility system from being reformed. 

Committing atrocities does not have anything to do with lying, though. They aren't the same. Like, at all. We're talking about who the bigger liars are, and that is objectively Rhea. Because she's been constantly lying to the people for over a thousand years. This is not even debatable. 

The Agarthans have been hiding for the most part. Any lies that they've told, and they have, no doubt, are still miniscule when you combine how Rhea keeps the lie going every waking moment of her life as the archbishop. She lies each and every day, never stopping. 

Except being the aggressors is not the same as how Rhea was trying to describe it. Again, Rhea is merely speaking from her biased perspective.

Because she is biased. She would never believe that a reign under Sothis is bad, so the Agarthans attacking is them turning their backs on the Goddess's teachings, and instead thinking themselves as gods. But the report make it clear that the Agarthans don't share what Rhea felt. That only makes it clear that the Agarthans lived under fear of Sothis. The original Agarthans weren't consumed by hubris, but fear. They did not think themselves as gods, but as the "children of man". The report entirely contradicts everything Rhea said about them. 

Hell, I looked at the JP version of the text. Apparently it even speaks as if it was some prophesied event, where Sothis was going to wake up and bring extinction upon man.

I have managed to get through a significant amount of the abyss library now and I have to say I found the evidence in the encyclopedia of Fodlans insects to be quite damning against Rhea. Especially the part of suppressing medical knowledge so that people would be more reliant on white magic and therefore the church for healing illness. 

The one thing I find confusing is that the cruel Sothis depicted in this book seem so much at odds with the version of Sothis we have seen through Byleth

I also think the Edelgard civil war plan is kind of dumb. She is still starting a war, the chance of major change in the world is reduced compared to the continental war and it could be just as bloody. Not to mention that Edelgard wants to help people in more than just her own nation. However hard this is to imagine Edelgard only pushes her beliefs on the rest of Fodlan to help those she believes suffer under the crest system and that applies to more than just the empire

Edited February 25, 2020 by Darkmoon6789

[MrPerson0]

14 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

The Crests are put as worship because of the Church. Now, unless you are gonna say that she severs all ties with the Church, which would result in conflict with the Church, Edelgard cannot implement her system so long as the Church remains in power. 

This is exactly what I am saying. It would be on Rhea on whether or not she would want to start another war, and assuming that Edelgard told Rhea why she was doing this (the Agarthans being behind the nobility in Fodlan), I doubt Rhea would be against Edelgard at this point.

15 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

The odds of them willing to help her in a civil war is far less likely than helping her fight the Church. 

Seeing that she had people who had known her for a very long time, I don't think that this would be the case.

16 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

... I'm sorry, but are you going on the assumption that the Agarthans can replace absolutely everybody?

No, I am on the assumption that they have been causing chaos and strife for thousands of years, and have been in different bodies during those times. For example, they were the ones to help Faerghus to be born.

19 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

The report very much proves something.

It proves that there are sides to everyone that reveal how difference in perspectives changes everything.

That might be true, but I would still argue that there's a huge difference between Rhea who is trying to keep Fodlan afloat as opposed to Agarthans who outright hate her/Fodlan and keeps on trying to cause chaos everywhere.

19 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I have to say I found the evidence in the encyclopedia of Fodlans insects to be quite damning against Rhea. Especially the part of suppressing medical knowledge so that people would be more reliant on white magic and therefore the church for healing illness. 

The thing is, that book is probably outdated. Here's someone's post about it (multiple tweets): https://www.twitter.com/XtremeChrono/status/1228113769714176001

20 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

She is still starting a war, the chance of major change in the world is reduced compared to the continental war and it could be just as bloody.

Assuming that the Kingdom, Alliance, and Church sit this out, I do not thing it would be as bloody as a continental war.

21 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Not to mention that Edelgard wants to help people in more than just her own nation

Issue is, who gives her the right to do this? If this she was elected to do so, that would be one thing, but doing it through brute force just isn't the way to go.

[omegaxis1]

2 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

This is exactly what I am saying. It would be on Rhea on whether or not she would want to start another war, and assuming that Edelgard told Rhea why she was doing this (the Agarthans being behind the nobility in Fodlan), I doubt Rhea would be against Edelgard at this point.

Again, that won't change anything. Rhea is the one that set the doctrine that Crests are worshipped. Rhea opposing Edelgard when the Empire is crippled means that Edelgard has nothing to fight back in the end. So all you're proposing is a crippled Empire still being forced to follow the will of the Church, but now one that is entirely lacking the military might to oppose the Church. 

4 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

Seeing that she had people who had known her for a very long time, I don't think that this would be the case.

Again. Bergliez controls the military and Edeglard only gains the military strength though his support. 

4 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

No, I am on the assumption that they have been causing chaos and strife for thousands of years, and have been in different bodies during those times. For example, they were the ones to help Faerghus to be born.

What chaos and strife for a thousand years? Like, the entire Loog rebellion might have been caused by their help, but that happened roughly 400 years before the game started. That's the farthest back event that can be traced to be their influence after the War of Heroes. Are you gonna say that they brought Dagda to invade now? 

Also, Loog was able to beat the Empire with the Agarthans' help, but Faerghus was granted independence by the Church meddling into the politics. Overall, the Church just fell into the Agarthans' trap in the Chruch's efforts to gain more influence. 

So this is still a case of 1200 years of lying vs. at best 400, which isn't even really the case. 

8 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

That might be true, but I would still argue that there's a huge difference between Rhea who is trying to keep Fodlan afloat as opposed to Agarthans who outright hate her/Fodlan and keeps on trying to cause chaos everywhere.

Once again. Consumed by hatred. Look what Rhea did when she was consumed by hatred. She burned Fhirdiad down in a way that had no tactical merit if Edelgard chose not to enter. Hatred, revenge, these are things that consume and destroy people that they will cause harm to everyone around them. 

The Agarthans are that. They are consumed by hatred and the desire for revenge that it twisted them. 

10 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

The thing is, that book is probably outdated. Here's someone's post about it (multiple tweets): https://www.twitter.com/XtremeChrono/status/1228113769714176001

Oh hey, I remember that twitter post. It's so blatantly false that it's not even funny. 

1) It tries to say that Manuela performed an autopsy, but that is false. Manuela examined Jeralt's wound, not perform an autopsy. 

2) The book mentions that white magic performs some of the actions of autopsies. 

3) Gunpowder and oil are hardly comparable. Trying to act like there are cannons and such does not mean that it's using oil like that at all. Also, what? There was no oil being used on that firebomb thing in Gronder. They have literal mages here that fired in that cutscene. 

4) Printing press is referring to a Metal-Mold printer, which is superior to the woodblock printer. In other words, books exist, printing exists, but it's the primitive and weak version that is time consuming. In other words, a printing press that cannot spread knowledge as far as a metal molding printer would have done. 

Yeah, in the end, that twitter post is just false that is trying to defend using fallacies. 

17 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

Assuming that the Kingdom, Alliance, and Church sit this out, I do not thing it would be as bloody as a continental war.

Would it not? Cornelia was in Faerghus. Coup could still happen easily. Then Edelgard has the Empire and Dukedom to go about. 

19 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

Issue is, who gives her the right to do this? If this she was elected to do so, that would be one thing, but doing it through brute force just isn't the way to go.

What gave Rhea the right to start a 66 year long war?

What gave Loog the right to rebel? What gave Duke Riegan the right to rebel as well? 

Who gave rights to do anything to anyone? The answer is no one. 

Edelgard started a war because she saw it as the right thing to do. She could not stand the idea of people having to suffer under the oppressive Crest Nobility System any longer. 

[goodperson707]

Even if the list was outdated that's supposed to mean what exactly? That because your suppression of technology for dubious reasons failed that means you get a free pass? 

 

[omegaxis1]

1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I have managed to get through a significant amount of the abyss library now and I have to say I found the evidence in the encyclopedia of Fodlans insects to be quite damning against Rhea. Especially the part of suppressing medical knowledge so that people would be more reliant on white magic and therefore the church for healing illness. 

The one thing I find confusing is that the cruel Sothis depicted in this book seem so much at odds with the version of Sothis we have seen through Byleth

The funny thing is that the ONLY thing I legit agree with the Church banning is oil, and ironically, it's the ONLY thing that doesn't have some Church-related reason to why it's banned. 

Also, we aren't sure how Sothis was originally. No memory, after all. 

[Crysta]

It being outdated is only relevant if the tech was once deemed blasphemous but clearly is no longer.

But that thread is kind of lol

Edited February 25, 2020 by Crysta

[Darkmoon6789]

26 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

The funny thing is that the ONLY thing I legit agree with the Church banning is oil, and ironically, it's the ONLY thing that doesn't have some Church-related reason to why it's banned. 

Also, we aren't sure how Sothis was originally. No memory, after all. 

There is also one other thing I found rather interesting, the implication that Loog was assisted by those who slither in the dark. This would mean that the ones behind the division of Fodlan was not the church like Edelgard seem to think, but the Agarthans. (Not that Edelgard has any way of knowing this). 

Do anyone know the original reason why Loog wanted to separate from the Empire? Is probably covered in the main library somewhere. I wonder if the entire thing could have been a ploy. Unless there is a really good reason. I kind of think that Faerghus would have been better off not splitting from the Empire in the first place. I do generally think that unification is beneficial for everyone, the more splintered people are between smaller nations and cultures, the greater the risk for a conflict is. A coalition of smaller nations is also less effective in defending their territory against outside threats, compared to one united larger nation. 

[omegaxis1]

6 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

There is also one other thing I found rather interesting, the implication that Loog was assisted by those who slither in the dark. This would mean that the ones behind the division of Fodlan was not the church like Edelgard seem to think, but the Agarthans. (Not that Edelgard has any way of knowing this). 

Do anyone know the original reason why Loog wanted to separate from the Empire? Is probably covered in the main library somewhere. I wonder if the entire thing could have been a ploy. Unless there is a really good reason. I kind of think that Faerghus would have been better off not splitting from the Empire in the first place. I do generally think that unification is beneficial for everyone, the more splintered people are between smaller nations and cultures, the greater the risk for a conflict is. A coalition of smaller nations is also less effective in defending their territory against outside threats, compared to one united larger nation. 

Except the Agarthans only helped perform the rebellion. They didn't actually divide the nation. That was still the Church, who meddled into the political affairs. The argument has always been that the Church meddled into the political affairs, struck a deal with Loog, and thus divided the Empire. The Church did divide the Empire, but they just fell for the Agarthans' trap. 

Also, the library also reveals that the Western Church believes that the Central Church was behind the Tragedy of Duscur. Suddenly making the conflict in 3H they had far more tragic. 

[Darkmoon6789]

5 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Except the Agarthans only helped perform the rebellion. They didn't actually divide the nation. That was still the Church, who meddled into the political affairs. The argument has always been that the Church meddled into the political affairs, struck a deal with Loog, and thus divided the Empire. The Church did divide the Empire, but they just fell for the Agarthans' trap. 

Also, the library also reveals that the Western Church believes that the Central Church was behind the Tragedy of Duscur. Suddenly making the conflict in 3H they had far more tragic. 

It seems like everyone and their mother has been blamed for the Tragedy of Duscur by one point or another by someone. I don't think I ever seen an incident with this many different scapegoats. To this day I don't understand why Dimitri is under the impression that Edelgard killed her own mother at the age of 12, what exactly is even remotely suggesting that this would have been the case? But maybe that is just another sign of Dimitri being quite irrational about this. 

The people of Duscur were themselves a scapegoat and Christophe was another. So many people has been falsely accused of being behind this incident that it is basically a tragedy in its own right. 

So is there really no information on why Loog and his followers were dissatisfied with Imperial rule?