The True Tragedy of Three Houses

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Axel987 said:

Honestly I think we should generally stop trying to argue about the intro-chapter's events. It's basically completely ignored past chapter 2 and both fan theories; it being a direct assassination attempt vs an attempt to install Jeritza have some pretty big holes in them. Probably best to go with the meta reason of it just existing as a nice segue into Divine Pulse+ Byleth meeting the lords.

Agreed.

-

I notice how VERY few talk about Claude here.

Can we actually bring up Claude here? Cause frankly, I feel they really didn't do a well job in how they handled him. 

Smaller spoiler for Cindered Shadows:

Spoiler

Yuri is a better Claude. 

Frankly, I feel that they really should have tried to make Claude's moral grey be more pronounced. They instead made any morally grey action he could have done be a case of a stolen thunder with Edelgard starting the war.

[Axel987]

1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

Agreed.

-

I notice how VERY few talk about Claude here.

Can we actually bring up Claude here? Cause frankly, I feel they really didn't do a well job in how they handled him. 

Smaller spoiler for Cindered Shadows:

  Hide contents

Yuri is a better Claude. 

Frankly, I feel that they really should have tried to make Claude's moral grey be more pronounced. They instead made any morally grey action he could have done be a case of a stolen thunder with Edelgard starting the war.

Spoiler

I don't think Yuri is a better Claude in so much as he's what everyone expected Claude to be and what Claude was advertised as tbh.

 

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Axel987 said:

  Hide contents

I don't think Yuri is a better Claude in so much as he's what everyone expected Claude to be and what Claude was advertised as tbh.

 

Yeah, basically. It pisses me off that that's exactly the case. Dammit Claude.

[Crysta]

Claude is more of a political schemer willing to do underhanded things under less, uh, serious conditions.

Don't think he could properly pull off the mob boss kind of schemer. Yuri is pretty in your face about being willing to cut you if you cross him.

[Axel987]

Beyond that, Claude's character and subsequent development is a lot more muted and subtle than Dimitri or even Edelgard. Subtle isn't bad but he leaves less of an impression as a result, granted. Given how this game's community argues about those two and Rhea, it's for the better for those who like Claude haha.

The game also horribly mistranslates his title of "Master Tactician" when in the original versions it's more akin to "Tabletop Demon" from what I hear. He's definitely more of a political beast than some god tier strategist that the English version makes him out to be.

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Crysta said:

Claude is more of a political schemer willing to do underhanded things under less, uh, serious conditions.

Don't think he could properly pull off the mob boss kind of schemer. Yuri is pretty in your face about being willing to cut you if you cross him.

Which is literally what I feel like Claude needed. He needed to actually be someone that would do some really horrible things if it would benefit him.

[Crysta]

13 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Which is literally what I feel like Claude needed. He needed to actually be someone that would do some really horrible things if it would benefit him.

What exactly would you propose adding to the story?

I would be fine with him assassinating Gloucester but honestly that seems pretty justified, but after the TS that gets a bit tricky unless he wants to royally piss off Lorenz and make an enemy out of him instead. In the middle of a war.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Crysta

[Darkmoon6789]

34 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

Fanbases are more likely to accept actual moral ambiguity over the half assing that we usually get. Half of the problem whit Edelgard/Rhea/Dimitri stem from the fact that people have some ground to say "X did nothing wrong". If the game make unambigously clear that they did certain things wrong(things that are not route speciphic), such people won't have much ground to bullshit excuses.

Imo all three did a lot of wrong but i also think the game is trying way too hard to try to excuse, downplay or shift the blame of everything bad they do. 

Hell, instead of a golden route i want an evil route just so i don't have to side whit one of them to kill the others.

Arguing that X did nothing wrong is always somewhat dumb. Of course Edelgard and Rhea aren't perfect, but there this also doesn't mean either is a complete monster. There are other conclusions in between they did nothing wrong and they did everything wrong. I do think it is a mistake to think in absolutes. But I won't blame the game because some people cannot comprehend nuance.

I don't believe in playing the blame game to begin with, to decide who deserves life or death based on simply their crimes is to deny them their basic humanity. What is more important is their intentions and who they are as people. 

The death of Edelgard or Rhea is always a sad event, I don't consider either a bad person at heart and they deserve better. But it is also the only way to end the war, making it a neccesity. 

As for the whole Edelgard intended to kill the Black Eagle students thing. Yes she would if they stood in the way of her cause. She would hate doing so and would prefer if there was another way, but she is often willing to do things she don't like doing for what she believes to be the greater good. The entire war is in the category of things she hates doing but believe is neccesary in fact.

[omegaxis1]

19 minutes ago, Crysta said:

What exactly would you propose adding to the story.

I would be fine with him assassinating Gloucester but honestly that seems pretty justified, but after the TS that gets a bit tricky unless he wants to royally piss off Lorenz and make an enemy out of him instead. In the middle of a war.

I don't know. Maybe acting on some things that would make his decisions morally questioned. Or maybe at least help us know what his plan was. Like, was he really going to use the Sword of the Creator to force people to submit to him and hear his demands? 

[Crysta]

Just now, omegaxis1 said:

I don't know. Maybe acting on some things that would make his decisions morally questioned. Or maybe at least help us know what his plan was. Like, was he really going to use the Sword of the Creator to force people to submit to him and hear his demands? 

The downside of schemers is they keep their cards close to their chest until the big reveal has to happen. That includes keeping them from you.

Yuri's grand scheme has little on-screen build up, in actuality, but his story is set up in a fashion where it makes sense when paired with his big monologue where he explains everything he did. And he does some quick cryptic scheming right beforehand. I'm not sure if Claude's set-up is really conductive for that kind of long term scheming when he's only just arrived Fodlan at the start of the game and still needs to establish ties to make a similar thing happen.

I think you're much more likely to get that sort of thing from him after he becomes Alliance Leader, but Edelgard has made him have to play tactician and strategist more than cloak-and-dagger rogue to keep the Alliance afloat and to dissuade her from invading.

You could maybe have him sacrifice soldiers for a strategic retreat or something buuuut I don't think either he or Yuri are actually the sort to do that?

 

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Crysta said:

The downside of schemers is they keep their cards close to their chest until the big reveal has to happen. That includes keeping them from you.

Yuri's grand scheme has little on-screen build up, in actuality, but his story is set up in a fashion where it makes sense when paired with his big monologue where he explains everything he did. And he does some quick cryptic scheming right beforehand. I'm not sure if Claude's set-up is really conductive for that kind of long term scheming when he's only just arrived Fodlan at the start of the game and still needs to establish ties to make a similar thing happen.

I think you're much more likely to get that sort of thing from him after he becomes Alliance Leader, but Edelgard has made him have to play tactician and strategist more than cloak-and-dagger rogue to keep the Alliance afloat and to dissuade her from invading.

You could maybe have him sacrifice soldiers for a strategic retreat or something buuuut I don't think either he or Yuri are actually the sort to do that?

You know, Gronder makes sense in VW, but it'd be neat if Claude actually hints that killing Dimitri in the chaos would be beneficial. It'd be a case where Claude wants to try and kill both Edelgard and Dimitri so that he could take over. 

[Crysta]

3 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

You know, Gronder makes sense in VW, but it'd be neat if Claude actually hints that killing Dimitri in the chaos would be beneficial. It'd be a case where Claude wants to try and kill both Edelgard and Dimitri so that he could take over. 

It's not smart, though. Both the Alliance and Kingdom alone can't match the Empire's forces, and Claude murdering Dimitri would make a mutually beneficial alliance far more impossible than a butchered messenger would. They're in the same boat versus the Empire: their long term goals may not align, but their short term of survival certainly do.

EDIT: Oh wait, you mean in VW. It's still pretty iffy, though, since Dimitri is already pretty much powerless politically in that situation. You're better off just having him kill himself, which is what he does.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Crysta

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Crysta said:

It's not smart, though. Both the Alliance and Kingdom alone can't match the Empire's forces, and Claude murdering Dimitri would make a mutually beneficial alliance far more impossible than a butchered messenger would. They're in the same boat versus the Empire: their long term goals may not align, but their short term of survival certainly do.

Like I said, kill him in the chaos. If he could kill both Dimitri and Edelgard, it would benefit him. Simply need an opportunity. Of course, he isn't aware that Dimitri is alive until the end, but he hoped that he wouldn't be alive. 

I think it'd have been neat if he tried to use Dimitri being dead, along with having Byleth rally the Knights of Seiros, and then use that to get the remnants of the Kingdom at his side.

[Crysta]

I don't see Claude offing Dimitri if the guy is perfectly willing to do the job for him. He is risk averse, even if he'll gamble and shoot for a hail mary if he has to. Which arguably is what happens in AM, I guess.

In VW he's probably pretty confused about WTF is actually happening with the Kingdom, so I'm not sure if he'd immediately seize on the opportunity to off Dimitri even if that was clearly beneficial for him. It'd still seem out of place, in a map already full of things that don't make a whole lot of sense. 

 

[omegaxis1]

11 minutes ago, Crysta said:

I don't see Claude offing Dimitri if the guy is perfectly willing to do the job for him. He is risk averse, even if he'll gamble and shoot for a hail mary if he has to. Which arguably is what happens in AM, I guess.

In VW he's probably pretty confused about WTF is actually happening with the Kingdom, so I'm not sure if he'd immediately seize on the opportunity to off Dimitri even if that was clearly beneficial for him. It'd still seem out of place, in a map already full of things that don't make a whole lot of sense. 

I'm just throwing out ideas, here. The problem is simply that Claude isn't presented as morally grey as he oughta be. Frankly, Claude should have gone a bit more on the deep end in the other routes when he didn't have Byleth, but even there, he doens't do that much, other than in CF, when he endangers citizens of Derdriu by shutting the city down, ironically doing what Claude criticizes Edelgard for in Chapter 19 of VW, with using the civilians as shields.

[Crysta]

3 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

when he endangers citizens of Derdriu by shutting the city down, ironically doing what Claude criticizes Edelgard for in Chapter 19 of VW, with using the civilians as shields.

Isn't that him being morally gray to further a scheme of his?

I guess you could make him like Rhea and light it on fire if it isn't enough lol

Edited February 18, 2020 by Crysta

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Crysta said:

Isn't that him being morally gray to further a scheme of his?

It doesn't help that his "schemes" aren't even depicted as morally grey often. Like, what exactly did he DO to be morally grey? Dimitri, Edelgard, and Rhea all did some horrible things. What did Claude do so much that gives credence that he's morally grey? 

What schemes were morally grey? 

[Darkmoon6789]

4 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

It doesn't help that his "schemes" aren't even depicted as morally grey often. Like, what exactly did he DO to be morally grey? Dimitri, Edelgard, and Rhea all did some horrible things. What did Claude do so much that gives credence that he's morally grey? 

What schemes were morally grey? 

He's not. Claude is a good guy, his primary weakness is lacking the neccesary ruthlessness to succeed without help. I can sympathise with his status as an outcast. But his lack of flaws makes him less intresting than Dimitri or Edelgard in my opinion. In fact I believe all three house leaders are ultimately good people, the other two just have more extreme flaws.

I do have a theory that it is really a characters flaws that makes them relatable

[Crysta]

1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

It doesn't help that his "schemes" aren't even depicted as morally grey often. Like, what exactly did he DO to be morally grey? Dimitri, Edelgard, and Rhea all did some horrible things. What did Claude do so much that gives credence that he's morally grey? 

What schemes were morally grey? 

I mean you just gave us an example and I didn't even try to refute it. Using civilians for distraction because you're losing is pretty morally suspect, but yes, it's not actually unique to him.

Most of his schemes have never really needed to be morally gray in the context of the story. It's not like the other three don't make it hard for him to compete, either, in between revenge-fueled death marches, lighting cities aflame, and working with an evil cult and using their demonic beasts. Revenge and trauma-induced anger issues have already been well covered. You could attach similar motivations to him, I guess, but it wouldn't be anything monumentally unique... and I think he may still be overshadowed.

A paralogue where he sets up Gloucester's downfall would play well into his story, because it will inevitably need to happen, but I don't think that would be so morally gray that you can add him to the "occasionally evil" basket because the guy has been actively plotting against his family for awhile now. It's still far more justified than what the other three do lol.

 

[Jotari]

8 hours ago, NobodiePichu said:

 

id say the problem there is that even with the slitherers around edelgards kind of a dick, and instead of leaning into her as a sympathetic villain the likes of zephiel or her inspiration arvis the game bends over backwards to maker her more cutesy marketable. it would be one thing if it was framed as a tragic battle between two deeply flawed individuals with trust issues, but instead its framed as this weird yas queen thing that feels incredibly disingenuous especially when taken in conjunction with the other routes.

Does make me wonder how differently people's opinions would be if Edelgard had been a man.

5 hours ago, Crysta said:

I mean you just gave us an example and I didn't even try to refute it. Using civilians for distraction because you're losing is pretty morally suspect, but yes, it's not actually unique to him.

Most of his schemes have never really needed to be morally gray in the context of the story. It's not like the other three don't make it hard for him to compete, either, in between revenge-fueled death marches, lighting cities aflame, and working with an evil cult and using their demonic beasts. Revenge and trauma-induced anger issues have already been well covered. You could attach similar motivations to him, I guess, but it wouldn't be anything monumentally unique... and I think he may still be overshadowed.

A paralogue where he sets up Gloucester's downfall would play well into his story, because it will inevitably need to happen, but I don't think that would be so morally gray that you can add him to the "occasionally evil" basket because the guy has been actively plotting against his family for awhile now. It's still far more justified than what the other three do lol.

 

I think Claude definitely could have been depicted a lot more mercenary. Gronder is such an excuse plot mainly because the Alliance and the Kingdom have so little reason to fight each other. If Claude basically had a fuck everyone but the alliance approach to the conflict then it would have been more reasonable (and maybe set Gronder in Alliance Territory for his imputes to fight at all). Basically what I think narrative what would have been most fitting would be for him to have been somehting akin to Franco's Spain in World War II. Pointedly working with both sides without giving a toss about who actually wins. That actually would be rather a unique for the setting. Though it would kind of involve throwing out everything that already exists with Claude's whole racism thing which I kind of like. Maybe make the Almayrians way more relevant by basically having Claude be an outright traitor to Fodlan by unleashing the Almayrians into the war on all routes (as a serious present faction and not just a throw away paralogue or FMV). Have him actually put his ideals before the well being of others, like Edelgard.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Jotari

[Crysta]

14 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Basically what I think narrative what would have been most fitting would be for him to have been somehting akin to Franco's Spain in World War II. Pointedly working with both sides without giving a toss about who actually wins.

It's not just the Empire versus the Kingdom and they're both neutral to the Alliance, though. It's the Empire versus the Kingdom and Alliance, with the latter being the weaker entities. Edelgard has no reason to accept or want Claude's help in defeating a nation already in shambles in VW, and still not much better in AM (which is why they proposed a Kingdom-Alliance partnership), and to Claude the Empire should be the much bigger threat anyway.

I'm fine with him being more ruthless and cutthroat, but it doesn't seem to really make much sense in that situation. It's like making him more morally dark just for the sake of it.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Crysta

[Darkmoon6789]

12 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Does make me wonder how differently people's opinions would be if Edelgard had been a man.

For me the only factor it would change would be attraction, I am not into guys that way.  While I have a slight bias of often showing more sympathy towards women, this doesn't actually change anything in regards to Edelgard's ideology, actions or political platform, nor does it change the nature of her core character. I feel that a lot of assumptions are often made by Edelgard detractors that I will consider certain concepts objectively evil when I often don't, for example, I don't share the view that starting a war is always evil, this does depend highly on context and why that war is started. I also have a personal history of liking characters who leads a resistance against oppressive institutions, even if they use questionable methods, an example being Lelouch from Code Geass, Edelgard also fitting very clearly into this category. 

Edelgard isn't perfect, she would be a rather boring character if she was, but she also isn't an absolute monster. In my mind she is an interesting dichotomy because she is a person with a good heart and the best of intentions, but she also believes that any methods are justifiable if it means making the world a better place in the end. She really makes you ask yourself the question of what good and evil really means to you, is it someone's intentions, their deeds or the eventual result of your deeds? I ultimately follow utilitarian moral philosophy which determines actions as good or evil. Depending on if the result of said actions are ultimately beneficial or detrimental to society.  This is hard to determine, in the case of Edelgard, but I think my estimation leans towards yes in crimson flower and no anywhere else. Primarily for the reason that for Edelgard's sacrifices to do more good than harm in the future. It is absolutely imperative that she achieves victory in this war, otherwise the entire war and the casualties in it was entirely pointless. But this is only judging if Edelgard deeds were good or evil, I think it is still totally possible for a good person to do bad things, and vice versa, especially if they are misguided or mistaken. At a personal level, I think good and evil are determined by intention, good people are motivated by helping other people, while evil people are motivated purely by self-interest. Edelgard starts her war because she considers it to the right thing to do as she wants to free people from what she considers to be an oppressive organisation supporting corrupt nobles who abuse the commoners beneath them, not because she seeks to rule the world for the sake of personal power and glory. I think I support Edelgard because in the end she has a very similar philosophy to mine and it is nice to see that worldview represented. One particular quote from her really spoke to me

"No matter how much blood flows at my feet, I will not relent. We must break the bonds the depraved church has placed on Fodlan. These sacrifices will allow us to create a future where we will never need sacrifice again, it may seem contradictory, but it is the only way,"

_ Edelgard

I feel this is the core of her philosophy, while the war is costly, she ultimately believes that less people will suffer if she takes down the church in the long run than if she just leave things be. She believes that by creating short-term suffering (5 years). She will be able to create a much better society that will last the ages. I cannot help but to find this very admirable,

I hope this helps shed some light on why I see Edelgard the way I do, being a man or woman has nothing to do with it. Sorry for the long post, but when it comes to Edelgard. I just have a lot to say and I like sharing with other people why I like her character

[Licoriceallsorts]

I think I agree with what you say about Edelgard, Darkmoon. (I'm still figuring a lot of stuff out). She strikes me as someone who in her personal relationships is shy, generous, thoughtful, non-instrusive, and really tries to let people have and do what they want. She strives to be strong alone and not burden others. Yet when she's dealing with humanity en masse, she is willing to take the decision that masses of people must die in order than other people further down the line can have a better life. In other words, she sees the people who are close to her as real individual human beings whose integrity must be respected, whereas humanity en masse is a more abstract concept for her. This isn't unusual, I think. Probably normal, if anything. 

[SuperNova125]

@Darkmoon6789The reasons you mentioned are pretty similar to the reasons why I like Edelgard so much as a character.

Deep down she is kind hearted and wants to help people by freeing them from a system she thinks is responsible for the suffering of her and many people, and she does believe in those ideas and when explaining her vision to people (CF supports) she does seem to trully believe it. However, she also thinks that it's fine to use any possible methods to achieve her goal whether she likes those methods or not, or whether they are serious crimes or not. Attacking her classmates and siding with the argathans that put her through all of her suffering (despite her blaming the crests) , start a war, lie about their actions (when they nuked Arhianold). She isn't concerned how many lives are claimed in the name of her dream or how many lies she tells as when her better world arrives all of that won't matter.

That's my look into her character and why I like her so much. A flawed individual that starts with good intentions. 

[Jotari]

5 hours ago, Crysta said:

It's not just the Empire versus the Kingdom and they're both neutral to the Alliance, though. It's the Empire versus the Kingdom and Alliance, with the latter being the weaker entities. Edelgard has no reason to accept or want Claude's help in defeating a nation already in shambles in VW, and still not much better in AM (which is why they proposed a Kingdom-Alliance partnership), and to Claude the Empire should be the much bigger threat anyway.

I'm fine with him being more ruthless and cutthroat, but it doesn't seem to really make much sense in that situation. It's like making him more morally dark just for the sake of it.

See that's where my issue lies. Having it be a 2 on 1 war narratively (or rather a split with some degree of decimals as half the alliance is pro Empire and Cornelia is saboutaging parts of the Kingdom, but I digress) sacrifices the three way theming of the story. The reasons Claude isn't playable in 3/4 routes are either kind of forced or outright nonexistent. Dimitri has a bit more justification because madness, but even then that people like Gilbert and Rodrigue aren't taking control of the Kingdom forces and joining with the alliance for the likes of Gronder seems unnatural. Their reasons to justify it are pretty weak. Why even have it be three houses if it's a two sided conflict with paltry excuses for one side to be divided.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Jotari