The True Tragedy of Three Houses

[Jotari]

15 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

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. 

Of course there are. Whether written or not, the mere fact that these nations have not been attacking each other for centuries says there are rules here. Saying there's no such thing rules means there's absolutely no morality to what anyone does in the game at all. People did not react to Edelgard's attack on the church as if it was business as usual. It caused ripples. They didn't decide to attack Edelgard on an unrelated whim coincidentally at the same time. It was a response to her actions, and a logical response at that (if it even was a response, taking a glance at Crimson Flower's script the last line before the time skip says "With this single attack, the Adrestian Empire officially launched its offensive against the Holy Kingdom of Faerghus and the Leicester Alliance. The unification of Fódlan has begun". Which is basically the game itself saying Edelgard's intention was to fight everyone and unite the continent). 

2 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

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

No, because we knowing nothing about the context of that situation. But what we can say is that the other nations have been existing as independent entities for centuries now. Taking historical reasons like that as justification means one could argue Italy is well within its rights to invade Britain because it used to be part of the Roman empire.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Jotari

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Jotari said:

Of course there are. Whether written or not, the mere fact that these nations have not been attacking each other for centuries says there are rules here. Saying there's no such thing rules means there's absolutely no morality to what anyone does in the game at all. People did not react to Edelgard's attack on the church as if it was business as usual. It caused ripples. They didn't decide to attack Edelgard on an unrelated whim coincidentally at the same time. It was a response to her actions, and a logical response at that (if it even was a response, taking a glance at Crimson Flower's script the last line before the time skip says "With this single attack, the Adrestian Empire officially launched its offensive against the Holy Kingdom of Faerghus and the Leicester Alliance. The unification of Fódlan has begun"). 

The last line people definitely like to take out of context in thinking that Edelgard did attack the Kingdom and Alliance, when it's been confirmed that the Alliance was never attacked during the five years. 

Either way, you can also argue in regards to the ceding of the territories of the Kingdom and Alliance in the first place, as it was never authorized or permitted by the Empire, but rather through the meddling of others, with Rhea forming the Kingdom, and the Kingdom taking Leicester.

[Yexin]

17 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

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. 

Radiant Dawn, part 2, Prologue

Elincia, not being able to introduce herself as the Queen of Crimea, commands a group of Wyvern Knights from Begnion, who entered Crimean territory without any authorisation, to immediately leave, or else she'd be forced to take their actions as an invasion, and fight them off: her nation, her rules

even now, a nation's army can't just cross another nation for whatever reason because "eh if you feel threatened and attack us, that's your problem"
that's not how negotiations and relationships between nations work

Edited February 25, 2020 by Yexin

[Jotari]

4 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

The last line people definitely like to take out of context in thinking that Edelgard did attack the Kingdom and Alliance, when it's been confirmed that the Alliance was never attacked during the five years. 

Either way, you can also argue in regards to the ceding of the territories of the Kingdom and Alliance in the first place, as it was never authorized or permitted by the Empire, but rather through the meddling of others, with Rhea forming the Kingdom, and the Kingdom taking Leicester.

The context of that line is that the game itself considers Edelgard's actions to equate to her intentionally deciding to fight a war against everyone to unite the continent. If it didn't, then the line wouldn't be in the game. Edelgard not attacking the alliance is less to do with her deciding it's not morally justifiable and entirely more to do with the fact that she didn't have the ability to do it (and win). As far as I can remember the game never even tries to suggest that the Kingdom and the Alliance are the aggressors in the conflict.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Jotari

[omegaxis1]

 

Just now, Jotari said:

The context of that line is that the game itself considers Edelgard's actions to equate to her intentionally deciding to fight a war against everyone to unite the continent. If it didn't, then the line wouldn't be in the game. Edelgard not attacking the alliance is less to do with her deciding it's not morally justifiable and entirely more to do with the fact that she didn't have the ability to do it (and win).

Not really. She easily had the chance to attack if she wanted to. But she didn't. She strongarmed Count Gloucester that resulted in the Alliance being fractured in the other routes, but here, she actively chose not to. Even Lorenz stated that Edelgard wasn't doing anything to Count Gloucester and didn't mind him being neutral. In the end, Edelgard changed how she acted in CF as she does in the other routes.

[Jotari]

1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

 

Not really. She easily had the chance to attack if she wanted to. But she didn't. She strongarmed Count Gloucester that resulted in the Alliance being fractured in the other routes, but here, she actively chose not to. Even Lorenz stated that Edelgard wasn't doing anything to Count Gloucester and didn't mind him being neutral. In the end, Edelgard changed how she acted in CF as she does in the other routes.

Which is probably because Rhea was an active force in the Kingdom and Cornelia didn't manage to pull her coup.

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Jotari said:

Which is probably because Rhea was an active force in the Kingdom and Cornelia didn't manage to pull her coup.

Given that she was able to make an attack on the Alliance in the end, it's kind of clear that she could have attacked the Alliance at any point, so strongarming Count Gloucester was not beyond question. Yet in the end, she didn't. Again, the option was there, but she changed her tactics overall.

[Jotari]

Just now, omegaxis1 said:

Given that she was able to make an attack on the Alliance in the end, it's kind of clear that she could have attacked the Alliance at any point, so strongarming Count Gloucester was not beyond question. Yet in the end, she didn't. Again, the option was there, but she changed her tactics overall.

As soon as she had Byleth back under her control.

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Jotari said:

As soon as she had Byleth back under her control.

If she really wanted to go without Byleth, she would have. She's not dependent entirely on Byleth, given how she spent the last five years fighting the war while Byleth was gone.

There's a strong difference in Edelgard's tactics in CF as opposed to the other routes, precisely because she no longer gives the Agarthans too much influence any longer.

[Sid Starkiller]

I actually thought that Edelgard declaring war on the Church specifically was a political move. It gave the Kingdom and Alliance lords a chance to decide their loyalties before joining the fight, knowing that those who oppose the Church would likely join her, or at least stay neutral.

1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

If she really wanted to go without Byleth, she would have. She's not dependent entirely on Byleth, given how she spent the last five years fighting the war while Byleth was gone.

There's a strong difference in Edelgard's tactics in CF as opposed to the other routes, precisely because she no longer gives the Agarthans too much influence any longer.

It's still Byleth's influence, but without their physical presence. Knowing that the professor, now missing, supported her before allowed her continue on without descending into the darkness.

[Jotari]

4 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

If she really wanted to go without Byleth, she would have. She's not dependent entirely on Byleth, given how she spent the last five years fighting the war while Byleth was gone.

Exactly, she didn't want to do it without Byleth backing her up. 

Edelgard:We've been awaiting an opportunity for our squadron to return to the monastery. With you in the fray, I believe the state of the war will shift immediately. The Church, as well as the Kingdom and the Alliance... The time has come to eliminate them all.

• Choice 1: The Kingdom and the Alliance...
  • Edelgard: Although we were of different houses, we were companions who lived and learned together. Some of our ranks are hesitant to battle against them. However, knowing that you're alive is sure to raise their spirits.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Jotari

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Sid Starkiller said:

I actually thought that Edelgard declaring war on the Church specifically was a political move. It gave the Kingdom and Alliance lords a chance to decide their loyalties before joining the fight, knowing that those who oppose the Church would likely join her, or at least stay neutral.

Exactly. It's a smart move, cause, as I said, if Edelgard declared war on Faerghus or Leicester, they'd simply unite against her. But being on the Church, it gives the other lords the chance to side with her willingly.

Just now, Jotari said:

Exactly, she didn't want to do it without Byleth backing her up.

@Sid Starkiller already pointed this out.

2 minutes ago, Sid Starkiller said:

It's still Byleth's influence, but without their physical presence. Knowing that the professor, now missing, supported her before allowed her continue on without descending into the darkness.

In the end, Edelgard simply chose not to employ harsher tactics. She could have succumbed again, using the Agarthans, Crest Beasts and all, to bolster her power, but she didn't, cause Byleth influenced her to not lose her way and instead remain in touch with her humanity.

[Jotari]

2 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

In the end, Edelgard simply chose not to employ harsher tactics. She could have succumbed again, using the Agarthans, Crest Beasts and all, to bolster her power, but she didn't, cause Byleth influenced her to not lose her way and instead remain in touch with her humanity.

Sure, while still intending to destroy every nation on the continent that's not her own, regardless of what the people actually living there have to say.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Jotari

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Jotari said:

Sure, while still intending to destroy every nation on the continent that's not her own, regardless of what the people actually living there have to say.

Yeah, way to twist things out of proportion. Did she destroy Derdriu? A villager pleaded with her to not to, and she assured she wouldn't. Did she destroy Fhirdiad? No, that was Rhea. 

She had no intention of "destroying" any nation. She attacked the Alliance because at that point, there was no other way. But the attack was just to allow the Alliance lords that supported her nation to join her cause freely. Did she attack Faerghus first? No, Faerghus entered the war of its own volition.

This is the reality of war. 

You're overall trying to make the logic in blaming everything on Edelgard here, which is rather absurd. Everyone had their own choice. They all made it. It's not a case where they are forced absolutely to make the choice they did. Claude could have sided with Edelgard, and Dimitri could have declared neutrality as well. They all have their choices. But in the end, their choices caused what happened to happen in CF. 

[Water Mage]

2 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Yeah, way to twist things out of proportion. Did she destroy Derdriu? A villager pleaded with her to not to, and she assured she wouldn't. Did she destroy Fhirdiad? No, that was Rhea. 

She had no intention of "destroying" any nation. She attacked the Alliance because at that point, there was no other way. But the attack was just to allow the Alliance lords that supported her nation to join her cause freely. Did she attack Faerghus first? No, Faerghus entered the war of its own volition.

This is the reality of war. 

You're overall trying to make the logic in blaming everything on Edelgard here, which is rather absurd. Everyone had their own choice. They all made it. It's not a case where they are forced absolutely to make the choice they did. Claude could have sided with Edelgard, and Dimitri could have declared neutrality as well. They all have their choices. But in the end, their choices caused what happened to happen in CF. 

Everyone had their own choice? Really? Who started the war in the first place? Dimitri, Claude and Rhea didn’t make that choice because they wanted to, they were forced to chose that. Edelgard did not give the chance for them chose not to fight. She gave the choice to either fight or surrender.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Water Mage

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Water Mage said:

Everyone had their own choice? Really? Who started the war in the first place? Dimitri, Claude and Rhea didn’t make that choice because they wanted to, they were forced to chose that. Edelgard did not give the chance for them chose not to fight. She gave the choice to either fight or surrender.

Everyone had a choice. It's a more extreme setting, but choice exists. Rhea could have tried to negotiate, but she's been angered and let loose her trauma, so she would never bother to listen to Edelgard. Dimitri could have rejected helping the Church and instead declared neutrality, but his madness and obsession with the belied that Edelgard was behind the Tragedy of Duscur made him side with Rhea. Claude could have never meddled in the politics and instead just let the Alliance Lords that want to support the Empire go, while he would remain neutral if he wanted to. Or hell, even side with Edelgard. 

Everyone had a choice. 

No matter how extreme the case, a choice exists. 

That's what Crimson Flower is all about. Hence why it's the only route where choices play a much larger effect than any other route. 

[Water Mage]

13 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Everyone had a choice. It's a more extreme setting, but choice exists. Rhea could have tried to negotiate, but she's been angered and let loose her trauma, so she would never bother to listen to Edelgard. Dimitri could have rejected helping the Church and instead declared neutrality, but his madness and obsession with the belied that Edelgard was behind the Tragedy of Duscur made him side with Rhea. Claude could have never meddled in the politics and instead just let the Alliance Lords that want to support the Empire go, while he would remain neutral if he wanted to. Or hell, even side with Edelgard. 

Everyone had a choice. 

No matter how extreme the case, a choice exists. 

That's what Crimson Flower is all about. Hence why it's the only route where choices play a much larger effect than any other route. 

Tell me how do you except Rhea to negotiate with someone who invaded a sacred place with an army and their soldiers to rob and desecrate the graves there? How did you expect Dimitri to remain neutral when a long time ally was being attacked by an another country? How did you expect Claude to let other Alliance lords ally with Empire when those same lords wanted to take the Alliance from him? How did you expect Claude to ally with Edelgard when she gave him no reason to? The same way she didn’t join him when he asked her to.

The war was that forced them to make those choices. And who the hell forced those choices to be extreme in the first place?

Edited February 25, 2020 by Water Mage

[Jotari]

19 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Yeah, way to twist things out of proportion. Did she destroy Derdriu? A villager pleaded with her to not to, and she assured she wouldn't. Did she destroy Fhirdiad? No, that was Rhea. 

She had no intention of "destroying" any nation. She attacked the Alliance because at that point, there was no other way. But the attack was just to allow the Alliance lords that supported her nation to join her cause freely. Did she attack Faerghus first? No, Faerghus entered the war of its own volition.

This is the reality of war. 

You're overall trying to make the logic in blaming everything on Edelgard here, which is rather absurd. Everyone had their own choice. They all made it. It's not a case where they are forced absolutely to make the choice they did. Claude could have sided with Edelgard, and Dimitri could have declared neutrality as well. They all have their choices. But in the end, their choices caused what happened to happen in CF. 

"Edelgard: We've been awaiting an opportunity for our squadron to return to the monastery. With you in the fray, I believe the state of the war will shift immediately. The Church, as well as the Kingdom and the Alliance... The time has come to eliminate them all."

Edited February 25, 2020 by Jotari

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Water Mage said:

Tell me how do you except Rhea to negotiate with someone who invaded a sacred place with an army and their soldiers to rob and desecrate the graves there? How did you expect Dimitri to remain neutral when a long time ally was being attacked by an another country? How did you expect Claude to let other Alliance lords ally with Empire when those same lords wanted to take the Alliance from him? How did you expect Claude to ally with Edelgard when she gave him no reason to? The same way she didn’t join him when he asked her to.

The war was that forced to make those choices. And who the hell forced those choices to be extreme in the first place?

How? By simply CHOOSING to. 

You have a CHOICE. Dimitri is the King, and therefore, he had the right to declare neutrality. Just as the Church never bothered to help said long time ally during the Crescent Moon War, Dimitri has the right to refuse to aid the Church in this time. 

Claude is smart. Edelgard is opposing the Church's doctrine, and in the end, it's his choice to side wiht her or not. It's why Claude even knows that he can trust Edelgard enough with the secret of his Almyran lineage. 

It is all a matter of choice.

You cannot ever say that there's "no" choice. Choice exists. It matters. 

And in the end, Rhea, Dimitri, and Claude all made their own choices. Just as Edelgard has. 

Just now, Jotari said:

"Edelgard: We've been awaiting an opportunity for our squadron to return to the monastery. With you in the fray, I believe the state of the war will shift immediately. The Church, as well as the Kingdom and the Alliance... The time has come to eliminate them all."

Yeah, but that point, she's already planning to attack the Alliance now that there's a deadlock with the Kingdom. 

But again, if she wanted to, she'd easily have employed the use of the Agarthans. But the entire point of CF is that Byleth influenced her to NOT give them the reigns again, like she does in the other routes. How do you miss that? 

[Jotari]

5 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Yeah, but that point, she's already planning to attack the Alliance now that there's a deadlock with the Kingdom. 

But again, if she wanted to, she'd easily have employed the use of the Agarthans. But the entire point of CF is that Byleth influenced her to NOT give them the reigns again, like she does in the other routes. How do you miss that? 

I'm not missing that, it's just not at all relevant to the fact that she's embroiling the entire continent in war. Not using monstrous human experiments is of course preferable (although for the sake of not making Edelgard a massive hypocrite who condoned people to undergo the same tortures as she did, I like to at least imagine the beasts she used, at least in the tome chapter, were willing participants), but the whole massive war thing is the issue here. It's not about how she conducts it, it's about the fact that she's waging the war to begin with.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Jotari

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

I'm not missing that, it's just not at all relevant to the fact that she's embroiling the entire continent in war. Not using monstrous human experiments is of course preferable, but the whole massive war thing is the issue here. It's not about how she conducts it, it's about the fact that she's waging the war to begin with.

I'm sorry, but I feel like that's the issue here. Yeah, she started the war. No one is denying that. But she'd never have needed to attack the Alliance in the first place had Claude not made the stance to meddle into the affairs. But he did cause he wanted to rule Fodlan himself. 

And yeah, she is waging the war, cause it's the only way to actually change things and remove Rhea from power. She's been in power at the helm of the Church for over 1200 years. She needed to go. 

[Water Mage]

3 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

How? By simply CHOOSING to. 

You have a CHOICE. Dimitri is the King, and therefore, he had the right to declare neutrality. Just as the Church never bothered to help said long time ally during the Crescent Moon War, Dimitri has the right to refuse to aid the Church in this time. 

Claude is smart. Edelgard is opposing the Church's doctrine, and in the end, it's his choice to side wiht her or not. It's why Claude even knows that he can trust Edelgard enough with the secret of his Almyran lineage. 

It is all a matter of choice.

You cannot ever say that there's "no" choice. Choice exists. It matters. 

And in the end, Rhea, Dimitri, and Claude all made their own choices. Just as Edelgard has. 

Let me get this straight, did you seriously expect Rhea to negotiate peacefully with Edelgard after she invaded the Holy Tomb, desecrated graves and lied in speech about how the church divided the continent? And of course the church didn’t help the Kingdom didn’t help in tue Crescent Moon war, as it was a rebellion inside the Kingdom, but on the other case, Dimitri chose the help a long time ally. And if you say Claude is smart enough to realize Edelgard’s true intentions are you saying Edelgard isn’t smart enough to realize Claude’s intentions? She had the slitheres and Hubert on her side, so she could have him investigated. Did you simply expect Dimitri, Claude and Rhea to just let Edelgard be?

[Jotari]

11 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

I'm sorry, but I feel like that's the issue here. Yeah, she started the war. No one is denying that. But she'd never have needed to attack the Alliance in the first place had Claude not made the stance to meddle into the affairs. But he did cause he wanted to rule Fodlan himself. 

You define him trying to maintain unity and prevent his country being further damaged by warfare by describing it as meddling in her affairs as a conqueror. The thing about your arguments is that they are the kind of things people have been using to try and justify war since the beginning of time. Edelgard wanted to unite Fodlan under her vision. Whether that vision is worth going to war over is one argument (one in which we are not having currently). But saying she was perfectly fine to just leave everyone alone but they decided to attack her is disingenuous. Edelgard says she wants to eliminate every ruling system in Fodlan. The game says her attack on the monastery was her first step in uniting the continent. The narrative never at all tries to disguise the fact that Edelgard's aim is to put the Kingdom and Alliance under imperial control. That is her motivation for attacking the alliance and that was her expectation with the initial attack on the church.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Jotari

[omegaxis1]

7 minutes ago, Water Mage said:

Let me get this straight, did you seriously expect Rhea to negotiate peacefully with Edelgard after she invaded the Holy Tomb, desecrated graves and lied in speech about how the church divided the continent? And of course the church didn’t help the Kingdom didn’t help in tue Crescent Moon war, as it was a rebellion inside the Kingdom, but on the other case, Dimitri chose the help a long time ally. And if you say Claude is smart enough to realize Edelgard’s true intentions are you saying Edelgard isn’t smart enough to realize Claude’s intentions? She had the slitheres and Hubert on her side, so she could have him investigated. Did you simply expect Dimitri, Claude and Rhea to just let Edelgard be?

You're overall trying to act like there is no choice, but there is. 

Everyone has a choice. 

I'm not sure why you think that there was absolutely no choice.

If Rhea didn't want war to happen, she, as the archbishop, could have tried to parley. But she wouldn't. Even if you can say that's far more understandable, that doesn't chance that it was her choice. Also, Edelgard never made that speech in CF, so you can't even use that. Not to mention, it's not even a lie. The Church DID divide the Empire in the end, cause they are the ones that backed Loog's independence. 

And once again, Dimitri could have declared neutrality. It doesn't matter how you wanna say that the Crescent Moon War was just some "rebellion". The Kingdom was embroiled in war for two decades, as a result of assassination, and the Church didn't bother to help aid it, despite how the Church meddled during Loog's rebellion. Rhea could have intervened and have done something, but she abandoned Faerghus in that war. In the end, Dimitri had the choice to also decline helping the Church. It was HIS choice. 

And no one knew Claude's lineage. He was a mystery through and through. There's no record or info about him, so yeah. But just because their roles are compatible and Edelgard could suspect what Claude's lineage was before that, it doesn't change that Claude is actively choosing to oppose Edelgard by meddling into the political affairs of the other Alliance lords that want to support Edelgard.

So please realize that in the end:

EVERYONE HAD A CHOICE.

Everything about CF has been about choices mattering. 

Just as Edelgard gave Rhea a choice at the end of the war t surrender, Rhea chose to burn Fhirdiad down.

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

You define him trying to maintain unity and prevent his country being further damaged by warfare by describing it as meddling in her affairs as a conqueror. The thing about your arguments is that they are the kind of things people have been using to try and justify war since the beginning of time. Edelgard wanted to unite Fodlan under her vision. Whether that vision is worth going to war over is one argument (one in which we are not having currently). But saying she was perfectly fine to just leave everyone alone but they decided to attack her is disingenuous. Edelgard says she wants to eliminate every ruling system in Fodlan. The game says her attack on the monastery was her first step in uniting the continent. The narrative never at all tries to disguise the fact that Edelgard's aim is to put the Kingdom and Alliance under imperial control. That is her motivation for attacking the alliance and that was her expectation with the initial attack on the church.

You say that, but you know that is entirely false.

Claude admitted that he wanted to be Fodlan's supreme ruler himself. It isn't a case that he wanted to simply maintain unity and prevent damage from warfare. He confessed to wanting to conquer Fodlan for himself. 

Claude isn't morally white. He's not as morally grey, but he's still got morally grey features in him. 

In the end, Claude chose to oppose Edelgard simply because he didn't want her to rule. But Claude is the type that will give up once he's been beaten. 

[Jotari]

6 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

You say that, but you know that is entirely false.

Claude admitted that he wanted to be Fodlan's supreme ruler himself. It isn't a case that he wanted to simply maintain unity and prevent damage from warfare. He confessed to wanting to conquer Fodlan for himself. 

Claude isn't morally white. He's not as morally grey, but he's still got morally grey features in him. 

In the end, Claude chose to oppose Edelgard simply because he didn't want her to rule. But Claude is the type that will give up once he's been beaten. 

And if Claude was the one that started a continental war, we'd be talking about him now. But he didn't. I refer back again to the point that your logic is the same that people have used to try and justify war since the beginning of time. Any conflict, really any, you can attempt to justify by saying "they were meddling in our affairs and would have attacked us eventually." Does Edelgard ever once suggest she's attacking the alliance because she fears Claude is going to take over the continent?

Edited February 25, 2020 by Jotari