Jump to content

The True Tragedy of Three Houses


omegaxis1
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

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. 

Once again, if Edelgard ended up telling Rhea the truth, she might end up siding with Edelgard in this case (which in the end, goes back to your original post).

2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

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

Again, she has many followers who would likely side with her. How else do you think Dimitri gained support in the non-CF paths?

2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

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? 

Because there are cases of them doing other things, such as launching a missile that destroyed Aillel. I highly doubt that the Agarthans were sitting around doing nothing for all of these years.

2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

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

Even though the DLC book seems to show that they were just scared of a dragon (for some reason believing she would flood the world), and decided to launch a preemptive strike that resulted in the destruction of their lands (which I assume are old names for Fodlan and whatnot), still believing that Sothis would flood the world with Despair though she just resurrected it.

2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

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

Seeing that the Church is still in power, I don't think this would happen easily like in the non-CF routes.

2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

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

Guess that explains those differences. Definitely seems pretty bad for Rhea to block these.

2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

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

Depends. The first was to fight against someone who has taken over a part of Fodlan through the power of her family (and said person clearly wouldn't be reasoned with), as for the others, wars for seceding are different from wars where you want to take over the entire continent when there were other methods to go about things.

Edited by MrPerson0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

Once again, if Edelgard ended up telling Rhea the truth, she might end up siding with Edelgard in this case (which in the end, goes back to your original post).

Maybe so, but this relies on Rhea actually being willing to hear Edelgard out in the first place, and her actually being willing to forgive Edelgard for her past transgressions against the church. 

Do you think it would be possible to calm Rhea down after the identity of the Flame Emperor is revealed at the holy mausoleum? Do you think she could show mercy to Edelgard and decide to work together with her if she tells her the truth of what is going on and about the Agarthans? If Rhea can't show mercy, then Edelgard has no reason to reach out to her.

It is pretty clear to me that the war could have definitely been avoided with better communication, one of the best ways to do that was to somehow force Edelgard and Rhea to sit down in a room and talk to each other for a few hours.But pretty much no being on the planet has enough influence over both of them to force them to do anything against their will. 

I also think that Dimitri's grudge against Edelgard could be redirected if he was told who was the real culprit behind the tragedy of Duscur. But that is assuming he will be able to accept the truth. Generally, if everyone in this game simply had more knowledge about what was going on. A lot of this conflict could have been avoided, that is why it is a tragedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain to me why mages are so closely associated with the church? People with no crest and no particular religious belief are able to be mages. Literally anyone can be a mage (according to the game dynamics). Magic power doesn't appear to be in the gift of the church; it seems as if it's available to all. I am aware that the library in the Abyss records several instances of the Church standing in the way of scientific progress in order to protect the power of magic (though tbh if we look at our own world, maybe it was bad idea to get so reliant on fossil fuels?) but that just doesn't make any sense to me. Not all mages work for the church. Every single bandit troop has a couple of mages, so being a mage is clearly pretty common. And magic is so incredibly convenient. Why would anyone want or need technology if they had magic? Why would I need a gun if I can shoot Miasma from my fingers? Why would I want oil if I can Fire-ball my enemies? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's Faith magic that's closely associated with the Church for... obvious reasons. That's what I assume they're referring to, primarily; the stuff that heals you and stops you from dying.

EDIT: As for the fireballs, I assume you still need the books to learn the spells, and it may be more reliant on innate talent than the game may suggest. Tech could make the same sort of destruction more accessible to those without access to the knowledge, or the innate talent.

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

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 thing about Dimitri is that even in Part 1, he's already full of anger. He outright tells Byleth that the only reason he's there is for revenge. It's clear to me that "Dimitri" was just a mask hiding the boar.

But let's go step-by-step: first, he (correctly) believes Arundel to be responsible, hence all the research into Arundel's personal history in the library. Then after the Remire incident, when the mask is cracked and fading, he sees Arundel talking to the Flame Emperor, assuming (correctly) that they're working together, but also assuming (incorrectly) that they were always working together, even back then. It never occurred to him that the Flame Emperor would be his age. Then finally comes the reveal of the Flame Emperor's true identity. At that point, the mask is shattered, "Dimitri" is no more and only the boar is left behind. The boar has no rational thoughts, and ALL of the blame is shifted firmly onto Edelgard in his rage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Licoriceallsorts said:

Can anyone explain to me why mages are so closely associated with the church? People with no crest and no particular religious belief are able to be mages. Literally anyone can be a mage (according to the game dynamics). Magic power doesn't appear to be in the gift of the church; it seems as if it's available to all. I am aware that the library in the Abyss records several instances of the Church standing in the way of scientific progress in order to protect the power of magic (though tbh if we look at our own world, maybe it was bad idea to get so reliant on fossil fuels?) but that just doesn't make any sense to me. Not all mages work for the church. Every single bandit troop has a couple of mages, so being a mage is clearly pretty common. And magic is so incredibly convenient. Why would anyone want or need technology if they had magic? Why would I need a gun if I can shoot Miasma from my fingers? Why would I want oil if I can Fire-ball my enemies? 

World building wise magic is not widespread and is connected to/horded by nobility and magical ability can be boosted by crests. Gameplay wise while there are alot of enemy mages and such anyone being able learn some magic and crestless units being able to be trained into/start with a magic specialization is most likely intentional. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MrPerson0 said:

Once again, if Edelgard ended up telling Rhea the truth, she might end up siding with Edelgard in this case (which in the end, goes back to your original post).

Yes, to which it requires Rhea to prove herself trustworthy, which she honestly never did.

7 hours ago, MrPerson0 said:

Again, she has many followers who would likely side with her. How else do you think Dimitri gained support in the non-CF paths?

Except this isn't the same. Cause the problem with that is that Cornelia was a shitty ruler. She literally tormented everyone that made them all willing to support anyone that opposed her. Obviously they would support Dimitri. That's not the same in Adrestia. 

7 hours ago, MrPerson0 said:

Because there are cases of them doing other things, such as launching a missile that destroyed Aillel. I highly doubt that the Agarthans were sitting around doing nothing for all of these years.

The only thing that happened is the destruction of Aillel, but after that, they've been laying low. Trying to pin the blame on them is trying to ignore how the fact still remains that Rhea's been pushing her lies to every person in the continent for over a thousand years. 

7 hours ago, MrPerson0 said:

Even though the DLC book seems to show that they were just scared of a dragon (for some reason believing she would flood the world), and decided to launch a preemptive strike that resulted in the destruction of their lands (which I assume are old names for Fodlan and whatnot), still believing that Sothis would flood the world with Despair though she just resurrected it.

What does her being a dragon mean? It does not change that Sothis is a godlike creature nonetheless with great, immense powers that are comparable to that of a god. The resulting damage caused by them did have Sothis try and revive it after, but again, this is the same story that states that she would only destroy the "humans", while being the salvation for the "birds, beasts, and fish." 

7 hours ago, MrPerson0 said:

Seeing that the Church is still in power, I don't think this would happen easily like in the non-CF routes.

We wouldn't know. The Church hardly really does anything to meddle unless there's danger to their own political standing. The only reason they intervened in Duscur was just to perform a fake investigation to perform false accusations to remove political obstacles. 

7 hours ago, MrPerson0 said:

Guess that explains those differences. Definitely seems pretty bad for Rhea to block these.

Ironically, I'm fine with oil being blocked. Apart from the obvious reasons, this is the only thing that did not require any Church related reason. Everything else had some Church related reasoning for why it was blocked.

7 hours ago, MrPerson0 said:

Depends. The first was to fight against someone who has taken over a part of Fodlan through the power of her family (and said person clearly wouldn't be reasoned with), as for the others, wars for seceding are different from wars where you want to take over the entire continent when there were other methods to go about things.

Except she started a 66 year long, dragging the entire continent of humans into it, to get revenge. Remember, Dimitri's entire redemption is because he was in the war for revenge, which is objectively wrong. Rhea wanting revenge and dragging all of humanity into her problems is her selfish desires that resulted in a horrifically long war.

Yeah, problem with the line of reasoning is that Edelgard never once declared war on the entire continent. She explicitly states that she is at war with the Church. If the other nations get involved and interfere in the case, that's on them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Yeah, problem with the line of reasoning is that Edelgard never once declared war on the entire continent. She explicitly states that she is at war with the Church. If the other nations get involved and interfere in the case, that's on them. 

When you have someone going around violating the sovereignty of your allies, your involved already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

When you have someone going around violating the sovereignty of your allies, your involved already.

If you choose to engage, then you chose. It's still, in the end, a choice. But as proven, Edelgard had left the Alliance alone for the five years before Byleth returned, which was by then at the point of a deadlock. 

Even in non-CF routes, Edelgard still was not the one that attacked other nations first. Rather, Cornelia performed her coup and formed the Dukedom, which spiraled the war into further chaos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, omegaxis1 said:

If you choose to engage, then you chose. It's still, in the end, a choice. But as proven, Edelgard had left the Alliance alone for the five years before Byleth returned, which was by then at the point of a deadlock. 

Yeah. And then she invaded it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jotari said:

Yeah. And then she invaded it.

Yeah, of course. By then, Edelgard had no other way. Edelgard indicated that she was low on troops, and Dimitri and Rhea were preparing for their own attack. Claude kept preventing any of Edelgard's allies in the Alliance from joining, so by that point, she did what she needed to do. Hence why she targeted Claude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, omegaxis1 said:

Yeah, of course. By then, Edelgard had no other way. Edelgard indicated that she was low on troops, and Dimitri and Rhea were preparing for their own attack. Claude kept preventing any of Edelgard's allies in the Alliance from joining, so by that point, she did what she needed to do. Hence why she targeted Claude. 

Indeed. Hence why she violated the sovereignty of a country even if it wasn't directly opposed to her. Like I said, when someone is going around invading other nations, you're involved. One way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jotari said:

Indeed. Hence why she violated the sovereignty of a country even if it wasn't directly opposed to her. Like I said, when someone is going around invading other nations, you're involved. One way or the other.

In the end, though, it's still a matter where either Edelgard does that, or the tides of the war get worse for her. But just like Claude, Edelgard focused only on getting through things with the least casualty on all sides, hence why she was focusing on targeting Claude. 

But Claude overall took a stance in the war as well, opposing the Empire by leading the anti-Imperial faction overall. He made his own choice as well. Once you take a stance, you accept the consequences that come with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

In the end, though, it's still a matter where either Edelgard does that, or the tides of the war get worse for her. But just like Claude, Edelgard focused only on getting through things with the least casualty on all sides, hence why she was focusing on targeting Claude. 

But Claude overall took a stance in the war as well, opposing the Empire by leading the anti-Imperial faction overall. He made his own choice as well. Once you take a stance, you accept the consequences that come with it.

Yes, he made his own choice, because he was involved in the conflict as soon as she started unprovoked attacks on people. That's my point. When someone is attacking you're neighbors, you are involved in the situation. If you think Edelgard launched an unprovoked surprise attack on the church and expected zero reaction from the Kingdom or the Alliance, then your opinion of her intelligence must be that it's rather low.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jotari said:

Yes, he made his own choice, because he was involved in the conflict as soon as she started unprovoked attacks on people. That's my point. When someone is attacking you're neighbors, you are involved in the situation.

No, he was involved in the conflict the moment he chose to incite internal conflict into the Alliance to feign neutrality, and prevent any Alliance members from siding with Edelgard, as the narration said. He's been involved in the conflict from the beginning by opposing Edelgard by meddling into the political affairs. 

And this is all because he wanted to be Fodlan's supreme ruler himself, as he confessed. It's why he brought the Almyran forces, so that he could make his own attack. Why he shut down Derdriu, overall endangering the civilians. Claude overall didn't want to side with Edelgard and give her the power, but wanted the power himself for his ambitions, despite how his goal is compatible with Edelgard's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

No, he was involved in the conflict the moment he chose to incite internal conflict into the Alliance to feign neutrality, and prevent any Alliance members from siding with Edelgard, as the narration said. He's been involved in the conflict from the beginning by opposing Edelgard by meddling into the political affairs. 

Which he wouldn't need to do if Edelgard hadn't started a war. Alliance members wanting to side with Edelgard or against Edelgard are both examples of being involved in a conflict when your allies have been attacked.

2 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

And this is all because he wanted to be Fodlan's supreme ruler himself, as he confessed. It's why he brought the Almyran forces, so that he could make his own attack. Why he shut down Derdriu, overall endangering the civilians. Claude overall didn't want to side with Edelgard and give her the power, but wanted the power himself for his ambitions, despite how his goal is compatible with Edelgard's.

Irrelevant. Edelgard wasn't invading the Alliance because she feared an Almyrian invasion. She did it because Byleth meant she finally could do it.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jotari said:

Which he wouldn't need to do if Edelgard hadn't started a war.

Irrelevant. Edelgard wasn't invading the Alliance because she feared an Almyrian invasion. She did it because Byleth meant she finally could do it.

Okay, but again, Claude intervened in political matters of the Alliance lords that wanted to support the Empire. They have every right to do that, as House Ordelia incident happened with House Hrym. They have the right to support the Empire if they want, but Claude didn't want to do that, so he prevented them from doing so.

In the end, Claude wanted to be the supreme ruler himself. Therefore, he took a stance, opposing the Empire. 

Edelgard left them alone at first, but five years later, that was it. Claude meddled for too long. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Okay, but again, Claude intervened in political matters of the Alliance lords that wanted to support the Empire. They have every right to do that, as House Ordelia incident happened with House Hrym. They have the right to support the Empire if they want, but Claude didn't want to do that, so he prevented them from doing so.

In the end, Claude wanted to be the supreme ruler himself. Therefore, he took a stance, opposing the Empire. 

Edelgard left them alone at first, but five years later, that was it. Claude meddled for too long. 

And he was only meddling because Edelgard attacking other countries meant he was involved in the war. Are you seriously not getting what I'm saying? Do I need to bold it? I'm not talking about the justification of Edelgard's invasion (which it isn't). I'm talking about the fact that when you blatantly violate another state's sovereignty it forces other surrounding states to react in some sort of way. The Alliance, no matter what they do, are involved because of Edelgard's actions in starting a war.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jotari said:

And he was only meddling because Edelgard attacking other countries meant he was involved in the war. Are you seriously not getting what I'm saying? Do I need to bold it? I'm not talking about the justification of Edelgard's invasion. I'm talking about the fact that when you blatantly violate another state's sovereignty it forces other surrounding states to react in some sort of way. The Alliance, no matter what they do, are involved because of Edelgard's actions in starting a war.

Okay, but in the end, that doesn't change that they still have to take their own stance. There are ways of avoiding any bloodshed, or there are ways for things to get very bloody. In the end, everything is a choice. Just as there is a choice to surrender or to fight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

Okay, but in the end, that doesn't change that they still have to take their own stance. There are ways of avoiding any bloodshed, or there are ways for things to get very bloody. In the end, everything is a choice. Just as there is a choice to surrender or to fight. 

Yes, and the choices were forced upon the other nations because Edelgard started a war by launching an unprovoked surprise attack on an independent order that other states supported. For her to not expect it to lead to further conflict would mean she's a colossal idiot. Consider our own most infamous example in history. Do you think the bulk of blame in World War II is on Britain and France for declaring war on Germany after they'd violated the sovereignty of Czechoslovakia and Poland?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jotari said:

Yes, and the choices were forced upon the other nations because Edelgard started a war by launching an unprovoked surprise attack on an independent order that other states supported. For her to not expect it to lead to further conflict would mean she's a colossal idiot. Consider our own most infamous example in history. Do you think the bulk of blame in World War II is on Britain and France for declaring war on Germany after they'd violated the sovereignty of Czechoslovakia and Poland?

Except Edelgard does still expect the others. Hence why in CF, she said that the flames of war would spread across the continent. And why she refers to the Alliance and Kingdom to be under the Church's influence. She's not an optimist in thinking that they wouldn't join. But she still never tries to attack them along with the Church. She attacks the Church and prepares for how the other nations respond, trying to gain supporters from them. 

Had she declared war on the other nations, those nations would unite against her obviously. But attacking the Church only gets to other people dividing to decide for themselves whether to side with the Empire or the Church.

It's why in CF, the manifestos helped immensely in getting many allies, and how the Kingdom was even regarded to not be completely united in opposing the Empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

Except Edelgard does still expect the others. Hence why in CF, she said that the flames of war would spread across the continent. And why she refers to the Alliance and Kingdom to be under the Church's influence. She's not an optimist in thinking that they wouldn't join. But she still never tries to attack them along with the Church. She attacks the Church and prepares for how the other nations respond, trying to gain supporters from them. 

Had she declared war on the other nations, those nations would unite against her obviously. But attacking the Church only gets to other people dividing to decide for themselves whether to side with the Empire or the Church.

It's why in CF, the manifestos helped immensely in getting many allies, and how the Kingdom was even regarded to not be completely united in opposing the Empire.

So yes, Edelgard attacked the church fully expecting it to lead to continental war, and the reaction of the Kingdom and Alliance was fully logical in response to a force that had just violated the Sovereignty of an institution they at least nominal supported and had no guarantee wouldn't invade them next (and in Crimson Flower in fact did do just that unprovoked).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

So yes, Edelgard attacked the church fully expecting it to lead to continental war, and the reaction of the Kingdom and Alliance was fully logical in response to a force that had just violated the Sovereignty of an institution they at least nominal supported and had no guarantee wouldn't invade them next (and in Crimson Flower in fact did do just that unprovoked).

Okay first off. I think the way you are talking about the "violation" of sovereignty is a bit of a weird thing, as if you are talking about there being actual rules. The same reason as to why you cannot really apply war crimes to 3H, rules aren't really established. There are no forms of laws or such placed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, if we want to get into some semantics, the unificiation of Fodlan can even be seen as justified because of how the ceding of those territories were done by the meddling of other parties, with the Church creating Faerghus, and Faerghus taking Leicester, before the latter split from Faerghus.

It's why one guy in CF mentions that Faerghus and Leicester are just traitors. 

Can you say that Loog or Duke Riegan had any right to rebel and secede? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...