Jump to content
omegaxis1

The True Tragedy of Three Houses

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

Rhea preaches things to keep people believing, but she knows that what she says are all lies. SHe's not a TRUE believer. She only wishes to revive her mother, to which she confesses is just her selfish desire to be with her again. It's not some case of how the religion believes that the goddess will return and only left cause of mankind's greed. 

Rhea made the religion up fro the very beginning just to get people to help her get revenge on Nemesis. The purpose of the Church changed since the War of Heroes, sure, but before that, she merely used the religion as a tool for revenge. 

And to express the will of Sothis in her absence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jotari said:

And to express the will of Sothis in her absence.

No, in her death. Sothis was dead. There was no prophecy that she would return. That was all Rhea. The most we can presume is "Sothis" told Rhea to "save humanity", but nothing in that was about how Sothis was return. Rhea wanted Sothis to return, so she experimented on reviving her. 

Which is again, just Rhea acting out of her own selfish desires. Nothing about being a devout believer as opposed to using religion to make people believe what she wants them to believe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to put down that the religion existed before Rhea she just amplified it an ealdguard never called Rhea the false goddess she's talking about sothis cuz every time she says it Rhea is already captured

And are you trying to say that the beast call him King you do know after he dies he says he got liberated right He's literally saying he was liberated from life I think the metaphor is mixed by the game standard and by what we saw Nemesis was a villain in a horrible person and they used the book for anything to try and describe him as a hero is head canon at best and you should get your head checked out

Edited by jawaunw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jawaunw said:

I like to put down that the religion existed before Rhea she just amplified it an ealdguard never called Rhea the false goddess she's talking about sothis cuz every time she says it Rhea is already captured

And are you trying to say that the beast call him King you do know after he dies he says he got liberated right He's literally saying he was liberated from life I think the metaphor is mixed by the game standard and by what we saw Nemesis was a villain in a horrible person and they used the book for anything to try and describe him as a hero is head canon at best and you should get your head checked out

I think that for the most part, the one Edelgard refers to as the false goddess is the immaculate one, which is the being she actually seeks to destroy. I am not sure if Edelgard believes Sothis ever existed at all, just another lie told by Rhea to keep people in line. She also have no knowledge about the true history between Rhea, Nemesis and the Agarthans or the fact that Rhea intends to resurrect her mother. It is also an interesting fact that Edelgard actually tolerates faith in Sothis, she has problems with the institution, which is why she can get people like Mercedes on her side (CF only, I have heard her policies on religion is harsher elsewhere). I do believe that Edelgard herself is an atheist though, she doesn't think that Sothis exists at all, and I don't think Byleth ever told her about the girl in his/her head. 

 

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

And to express the will of Sothis in her absence.

All evidence seem to suggest that Sothis doesn't actually agree with most of Rhea's practices. So if she actually did manage to return her mother, I don't think she would be very pleased. 

About your comment on soft and hard power. I guess what you meant to say is that there is a difference between subtle abuses of power and overt used of power. Nemesis is in the overt category and Rhea is quite subtle. But here's the thing, subtle influences can be far more dangerous than overt ones, they are far more insidious and can more easily infiltrate every aspect of an society where overt uses of power will fail. 

Look, I don't hate every aspect of Rhea, I feel sort of bad for her given the circumstances, but she needs to stop being so controlling and actually trust humanity to make their own destiny again. Her primary problem is that she is living in the past and is unable to let it go. But it does seem to be a possibility for Byleth to talk some sense into her. If there is going to be any hope for this conflict to be resolved without war and all, she needs to stop regarding Edelgard as unforgivable, she should be willing to forgive her past transgressions and actually hear her out. Edelgard needs to do the same, there is simply a lot she doesn't know and Rhea could provide that information, Edelgard could possibly change your mind about a lot of things once she has more knowledge about what truly happened. Forgiveness from both sides here is key,  vengeance, so-called "justice" which some people call it, the principle of eye for an eye, the desire for a transgressor to be punished, it often times does nothing but escalate a situation. As long as one side insist on punishment for the other, there is no hope for peace. Even then, they do need to deal with both a slither in the dark, but if they actually talk to each other. I think they will both find that they both are not very pleased with the nobles abusing the crest system.  But I can only really see this happening in a universe where Byleth is close to both Edelgard and Rhea.

What is your opinion of Edelgard anyway? Surely you don't believe she's an absolute monster with no hope of redemption? I don't believe this about Rhea, even if I do heavily disagree with her ideology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been a fun thread to read.

I get why people always bring up Edelgard. Byleth has close familial ties to the monastery, and she's involved in a conspiracy that leads to the protagonist's father's death. No, she didn't want it that way, but I think in most countries, once you enter into a conspiracy, you share culpability for outcomes.

The death of Jeralt is a "loud" thing that makes an impression on first-time players. There's even different monastery music for the month. Continuing to work with her shitty uncle and TWSID was a decision. Maybe necessary to achieve her objectives, but not necessary. It's an end to a means.

Like I said, these choices are all kind of "loud" and invite discussion (perhaps too much, but I think the designers intended this).  I think these events and others make it possible to overlook how flawed Dimitri and Claude are. As the OP states, they cannot escape their pasts or circumstances, not fully. They, like Edelgard, either forgo or bungle diplomacy when tens of thousands (almost certainly more) of lives are at stake. They are all equally flawed and could have spared countless lives if they had been better listeners.

I agree that Three Houses is a tragedy. I get confused by the many posts arguing for which lord is the better person. They all make bad decisions and only succeed because the protagonist chose them.

That isn't to say I don't like the characters, I do. I even have a favorite. But OP did a good job of distilling a lot of my thoughts on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I think that for the most part, the one Edelgard refers to as the false goddess is the immaculate one, which is the being she actually seeks to destroy. I am not sure if Edelgard believes Sothis ever existed at all, just another lie told by Rhea to keep people in line. She also have no knowledge about the true history between Rhea, Nemesis and the Agarthans or the fact that Rhea intends to resurrect her mother. It is also an interesting fact that Edelgard actually tolerates faith in Sothis, she has problems with the institution, which is why she can get people like Mercedes on her side (CF only, I have heard her policies on religion is harsher elsewhere). I do believe that Edelgard herself is an atheist though, she doesn't think that Sothis exists at all, and I don't think Byleth ever told her about the girl in his/her head. 

 

All evidence seem to suggest that Sothis doesn't actually agree with most of Rhea's practices. So if she actually did manage to return her mother, I don't think she would be very pleased. 

About your comment on soft and hard power. I guess what you meant to say is that there is a difference between subtle abuses of power and overt used of power. Nemesis is in the overt category and Rhea is quite subtle. But here's the thing, subtle influences can be far more dangerous than overt ones, they are far more insidious and can more easily infiltrate every aspect of an society where overt uses of power will fail. 

Look, I don't hate every aspect of Rhea, I feel sort of bad for her given the circumstances, but she needs to stop being so controlling and actually trust humanity to make their own destiny again. Her primary problem is that she is living in the past and is unable to let it go. But it does seem to be a possibility for Byleth to talk some sense into her. If there is going to be any hope for this conflict to be resolved without war and all, she needs to stop regarding Edelgard as unforgivable, she should be willing to forgive her past transgressions and actually hear her out. Edelgard needs to do the same, there is simply a lot she doesn't know and Rhea could provide that information, Edelgard could possibly change your mind about a lot of things once she has more knowledge about what truly happened. Forgiveness from both sides here is key,  vengeance, so-called "justice" which some people call it, the principle of eye for an eye, the desire for a transgressor to be punished, it often times does nothing but escalate a situation. As long as one side insist on punishment for the other, there is no hope for peace. Even then, they do need to deal with both a slither in the dark, but if they actually talk to each other. I think they will both find that they both are not very pleased with the nobles abusing the crest system.  But I can only really see this happening in a universe where Byleth is close to both Edelgard and Rhea.

What is your opinion of Edelgard anyway? Surely you don't believe she's an absolute monster with no hope of redemption? I don't believe this about Rhea, even if I do heavily disagree with her ideology. 

I have no opinion on edelgard or Rhea if you look at any other route other than crimson flower you could say a edelgard the complete monster if you look at crimson flower you get the same exact thing for Rhea but in the end every time they have large forces on their side cuz people believe I know good or bad doesn't matter like I said at the very end all of the endings and up achieving the same thing this is why I don't prefer either one over the other cuz in the end it's going to end up being the same do I think the war was necessary hell no edelgard could have talked with people and Rhea should have stop living in the past if one of the two did one of those things at one point in the story The games events would of never happened it would have been US versus those who slither in the dark and that's the tragedy of the game that this is completely 100% avoidable 

 

that's actually another thread about what if a edelgard never attack the church so they all come up with this headcanon of Rhea suddenly attacking a empire her for no reason saying that if they turn their back on crest then she's just going to attack even though everything in the game tells them otherwise in the very end people will have their favorites and they will demonize there enemies edelgard and Rhea especially because they're literally the same person if a edelgard was put in the same situation as Rhea she would end up doing the exact same thing the same thing could be said if rhea switch places with edelgard that's the exact reason why the Black eagle route is split between the two the game is trying to tell us that they're the same 

Edited by jawaunw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favourite lord is always that of whichever route I'm playing at the moment. There isn't a single character I don't love, though some get less development than others. I find the most food for thought in the dynamics of the Blue Lion House, because their relationships are so deep and personal. 

Question: at what point, if ever, does Edelgard realise that "Lord Arundel" (her uncle) isn't her Uncle but Thales? Is it before the game starts? is it when he attacks Kronya? Is it never?

*

I found it revealing to compare the responses of the three Lords to Lenato's rebellion in the Mutiny in the Mist chapter. 

Edelgard: "The commoners who allied themselves with Lord Lonato believed they were fighting for a just cause. It would be disrespectful to consider them simply victims when they died for what they believed in. Still, we have no choice but to eliminate those who cling to unreasonable ideas of justice. Even if our enemies are the gods themselves...we must never lose sight of our goal... Really, I'm just like Lonato. I, too, will be the sort of ruler who's willing to risk the lives of my citizens in service of a higher cause. It's not possible to change the world without sacrifice. Dying for the greater good is not a death in vain."

Dimitri: "Those in power, no matter the era, always claim they fight for a just cause. That they take life to protect it. But... Is it truly OK to take any life you please, all in service of some implacable "just cause"? Lord Lonato didn't take up arms out of a lust for power. He simply believed his cause to be just. Who's to say it wasn't? Maybe we didn't have to cut him down like that. Maybe we could have reached a mutual understanding...found a path of peace."

Edelgard's vision is absolutely clear-cut. She's already made up her mind and the issue is no longer up for discussion. She has her answers. From her viewpoint, the people she kills are just as much worthy sacrifices as the people who willingly fight and die for her. Dimitri's ultimate death at her hands is not in vain because his death contributes to the greater good. Now, the thing is, Edelgard's "implacable just cause" does actually seem to be just - but what if it wasn't? Her actions would be unforgivable. The righteousness of her goals is the only thing that stops her from being a villain. 

Dimitri is full of doubt. Even if a cause is just, he wonders if it's right to force other people to die for it. He has questions, lots of questions. When he's in his right mind, he is, of the three of them, the one most willing to have an honest exchange of views and search for a compromise. IIRC, he does, literally rather late in the game, parley with Edelgard and seek a negotiated settlement, but she will have none of it.

Claude: "Still...that fight left a foul taste in my mouth. That aside, did you see how Catherine fought?"

Claude briefly acknowledges the horribleness of killing militia, then immediately switches to a topic more congenial to his mind: the mysteries of the Hero's Relics. He isn't allow to dismiss the horror away so easily, though, because Ignatz (the moral compass of this House) insists on bring it up again. Ignatz says, "We won. We should be celebrating. Instead, we're heading back with heavy hearts..."  Claude reponds with, "Whoa there! What's the matter? You look as sad as a kitten without any yarn. If we hadn't done what we did, the rebel army would have followed this road all the way to the monastery. And they would have crushed all the little villages along the way. We stopped that from happening. You should be proud."

On the one hand, it's good of him to want to buck up Ignatz's spirits. On the other hand, one gets the impression that Claude isn't particularly proud of what they've done, which is why he avoids thinking about it. Ignatz has just participated in the killing of civilians, so saying to him, "You look as sad as a kitten without any yarn," seems a bit crass. Maybe he's a schemer because he's naturally cold, or maybe the reason he devotes so much of his headspace for scheming is so that he can keep grief and regret at arm's length?

 

Edited by Licoriceallsorts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kamineko said:

This has been a fun thread to read.

I get why people always bring up Edelgard. Byleth has close familial ties to the monastery, and she's involved in a conspiracy that leads to the protagonist's father's death. No, she didn't want it that way, but I think in most countries, once you enter into a conspiracy, you share culpability for outcomes.

The death of Jeralt is a "loud" thing that makes an impression on first-time players. There's even different monastery music for the month. Continuing to work with her shitty uncle and TWSID was a decision. Maybe necessary to achieve her objectives, but not necessary. It's an end to a means.

Like I said, these choices are all kind of "loud" and invite discussion (perhaps too much, but I think the designers intended this).  I think these events and others make it possible to overlook how flawed Dimitri and Claude are. As the OP states, they cannot escape their pasts or circumstances, not fully. They, like Edelgard, either forgo or bungle diplomacy when tens of thousands (almost certainly more) of lives are at stake. They are all equally flawed and could have spared countless lives if they had been better listeners.

I agree that Three Houses is a tragedy. I get confused by the many posts arguing for which lord is the better person. They all make bad decisions and only succeed because the protagonist chose them.

That isn't to say I don't like the characters, I do. I even have a favorite. But OP did a good job of distilling a lot of my thoughts on the subject.

Fair enough, I would actually argue that all three lords are actually rather good people, despite the mistakes they make. I know I talk about Edelgard a lot, but I love this character and I enjoy talking about her. 

The thing with Edelgard and her working with her uncle, yes it is technically a decision, but the people ever think about what the consequences would be for her if she rejected those who slither in the dark? Edelgard has been under their thumb, but for most of her existence, Arundel an almost like a abusive stepfather, considering he treated her quite badly while she was still a small powerless child, he has been a presence in her life for a very long time. If she tried to break away from him at this time, it is very much possible she will quickly find herself with a knife in the back from assassins. 

As for the thing with Jeralt, I see it like this: Edelgard might the allied with the slitherers, but they are still a different action and she isn't responsible for all their actions. They do have a common enemy, but they do act independently of one another. The fact that I was actually more attached to Edelgard at this point than Jeralt might play a role, but they simply don't hold Edelgard responsible for this, but Arundel and his followers. In fact, this just makes it so that Byleth and Edelgard both have a strong motivation to hate Arundel. This isn't necessarily everyone's perspective, but it is mine. I am also not saying that Edelgard is completely innocent, she does alot of questionable decisions throughout this game. She should probably break free from her uncle if she can , as I think the main thing that the slitherers managed to accomplish his ruin her reputation by association, and things could have been done a lot cleaner without them. But I am not sure that was a real possibility for her. 

3 minutes ago, jawaunw said:

I have no opinion on edelgard or Rhea if you look at any other route other than crimson flower you could say a edelgard the complete monster if you look at crimson flower you get the same exact thing for Rhea but in the end every time they have large forces on their side cuz people believe I know good or bad doesn't matter like I said at the very end all of the endings and up achieving the same thing this is why I don't prefer either one over the other cuz in the end it's going to end up being the same do I think the war was necessary hell no edelgard could have talked with people Rhea should have stop living in the past if one of the two did one of those things at one point in the story The games events was never happened it would have been US versus those who slither in the dark and that's the tragedy of the game that this is completely 100% avoidable 

 

that's actually another thread about what if a edelgard never attack the church so it all come up with this headcanon of Rhea suddenly attacking a empire her for no reason saying that if they turn their back on crest then she's just going to attack even though everything in the game tells them otherwise in the very end people will have their favorites and they will demonize there enemies edelgard and Rhea especially because they're literally the same person if a edelgard was put in the same situation as Rhea she would end up doing the exact same thing the same thing could be said if rhea switch places with edelgard that's the exact reason why the Black eagle route is split between the two the game is trying to tell us that they're the same 

They are in many ways similar, but with the polar opposite ideology. Both Rhea and Edelgard are people who has entirely traumatised by past events and does what they do because they believe that is what is best for Fodlan. They will also both go to any means necessary to create their ideal society. They are also ultimately both kind people who has an entirely inaccurate view of the other. They are also similar in that Byleth is he to both of them becoming better people and avoiding getting lost in their obsessions. 

If I was present in their world, I would do anything in my power to prevent a war from happening, but if all these efforts fails, I would ultimately choose to side with Edelgard, for two reasons, her ideology is the closest to my own and I do really like her as a person and couldn't bear any harm befalling her. Rhea  wants to harm her. Meaning I would have little choice. If I wanted to protect Edelgard regardless of the cost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Licoriceallsorts Yeah that's one of the few times the game presents a clear cut view of each of the lord's perspectives when it comes to war/death/sacrifice/justice. And that was the scene I was thinking of when I posted the Shrek meme. When you can convince yourself that the cause you're fighting for is 100% just, it's very easy to start making sacrifices without really considering the personal cost it entails (to the people you're sacrificing, not your own).

Dimitri on the whole just internalizes everything a lot more. Which is not necessarily always a great thing, but it provides a snapshot of how he's likely to rule (via reformation and incrementalism), even if we don't get much in the way of concrete plans on his end.

Pretty sure Claude's way of coping with stuff like that is just compartmentalizing it and not dwelling. It's what he does when the party asks why they were hunting down the thieves in the monastery, too. I'm sure he does think about it (his dialogue during that battle suggests as much anyway) but he doesn't really want to have a discussion unless he really has to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

 If she tried to break away from him at this time, it is very much possible she will quickly find herself with a knife in the back from assassins. 

That’s what I’m saying. It was a choice. She lived, others died. 
 

im not looking to knock her and this isn’t the thread for it anyway. My point is just that these events make an impression that Can eclipse the shortcomings of the other characters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. To put it simplistically, Claude has a heart but is ruled by his head; Dimitri isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and is ruled by his heart; Edelgard thinks she's ruled by her head but is actually ruled by her heart. 

Dimitri's desire to do right by people is so intense it's almost painful. I feel that for him, "people" means individuals, whereas for Edelgard "people" means the collective everyone. 

(Sorry if what I'm posting sounds obvious; I'm still working out my thoughts on this game, and using this thread as a sounding board.)

Edited by Licoriceallsorts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Licoriceallsorts said:

I agree. To put it simplistically, Claude has a heart but is ruled by his head; Dimitri isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and is ruled by his heart; Edelgard thinks she's ruled by her head but is actually ruled by her heart. 

Dimitri's desire to do right by people is so intense it's almost painful. I feel that for him, "people" means individuals, whereas for Edelgard "people" means the collective everyone. 

(Sorry if what I'm posting sounds obvious; I'm still working out my thoughts on this game, and using this thread as a sounding board.)

That is an interesting way of putting it, the way I would describe Edelgard as a person is someone who hides her emotions behind a facade of cold logic. But I don't think this facade of hers is genuine, she has shown to feel very strongly about a lot of things. Regardless of thinking herself as a cold decision-maker who does what is necessary, her actions are ultimately motivated by a strong sense of empathy and a desire to make sure that no one ever has to suffer under the crest system,like she has. She ultimately cannot accept the suffering that exists in the world and will do her best to end it. The result being a person that is capable of rationalising horrible actions as being necessary, while simultaneously feeling awful about everything she does and therefore suppressing her sense of empathy beneath a cold facade of logic, even if her decisions are still based on said empathy, but as you say, it is empathy for the collective rather than the individual. Am I making any sense? 

I do imagine however that once the fervour of the war has died down, because Edelgard has in suppressing her emotional side to get the war over with, I think that her certainty about her actions will shatter once the war is over. Leading to the weight of her decisions hitting her all at once, she will start second guessing decisions she made and wonder if she did the right thing. Edelgard is ultimately a good person who cares about others, I think that ultimately all this bloodshed would affect her and that she would start to develop feelings of guilt and remorse. I actually have a story idea set after the ending of crimson flower dealing with exactly this. Edelgard coping with the war, and her actions in it. Leading to the message that the past is the past, whenever your actions were right or wrong, you cannot take them back now, the only thing you can do is move forward and try your best to be a good person in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Licoriceallsorts said:

I would definitely read that story. Your take sounds psychologically realistic and interesting. 

Thanks, I hope it will be able to pull this story off satisfactorily. It was part of a story concept to cover the time period of Edelgard's shadow war against Thales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Rhea preaches things to keep people believing, but she knows that what she says are all lies. SHe's not a TRUE believer. She only wishes to revive her mother, to which she confesses is just her selfish desire to be with her again. It's not some case of how the religion believes that the goddess will return and only left cause of mankind's greed. 

Rhea made the religion up fro the very beginning just to get people to help her get revenge on Nemesis. The purpose of the Church changed since the War of Heroes, sure, but before that, she merely used the religion as a tool for revenge. 

Yeah no shit Rhea is a self deluded pathological liar. That's really new guys ? XD
Sothis apparently point blank call her out on it.

I agree with you, if Nemesis wanted Fodlan/world domination, he either did a crap job, or he was in a power high. And with the Aguarthans behind, I can't really see the last one. I can see the first one, but what did they have to gain to make Nemesis and his army so powerful ? I guess they went "oh shit" upon seeing what they created ?

There's a fanfic that portray Nemesis as Dimitri 2.0 before Dimitri 1.0, which is hilariously poetic, but would be pretty fitting.

What puzzles me, how the bloody heck did he succeed in, getting to Red Canyon, suceeded in approaching the dead/sleeping Sothis, who's y'know, god, kill said god, genocide all the dragons in said canyon, who are y'know, dragons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

About your comment on soft and hard power. I guess what you meant to say is that there is a difference between subtle abuses of power and overt used of power. Nemesis is in the overt category and Rhea is quite subtle. But here's the thing, subtle influences can be far more dangerous than overt ones, they are far more insidious and can more easily infiltrate every aspect of an society where overt uses of power will fail. 

You keep on responding to me as if you think I am a supporter of Rhea. I'm not. She's a figure of authoritarian control that is manipulating the entire continent and likely strangling any attempts of progress beyond the rigid rules she has defined but doesn't seem fit to follow herself. She, while nicer than the Agarthans about it, has committed numerous horrid human experimentations. When I respond to you I am not saying "Edelgard is wrong and Rhea is right!" I'm saying "I think that perception of events is an inaccurate way of looking at the situation."

8 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Which is again, just Rhea acting out of her own selfish desires. Nothing about being a devout believer as opposed to using religion to make people believe what she wants them to believe. 

Which is what she believes Sothis wants for the world.

6 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

What is your opinion of Edelgard anyway? Surely you don't believe she's an absolute monster with no hope of redemption? I don't believe this about Rhea, even if I do heavily disagree with her ideology. 

Honestly I think Edelgard is a bit of an idiot who is being massively manipulated by the Agarthans. Her train of logic is "I was tortured by the North Korean Government. Therefore all Governments are evil. Therefore I should ally myself with the North Koreans to take down the American Government." The fact that we're meant to believe she manages to beat the Agrathans in the proceeding secret war I find incredulous when every move she's made has been to their benefit and they've been playing this game of espionage far longer than her (and have freaking nukes and murder machine Nemesis to back them up). And even if she manages to succeed her meritocracy would likely become very corrupt very quickly because that's generally how meritocracies go (especially when they're founded on the premise of one individual seizing absolute political power #inssurectionOfTheSevenDidNothingWrong). But that's just Three Houses for you. Claude solving all racism in a month is massively unrealistic too and Dimitri's ending is so vague and disconnected from the main thrust of his narrative that I don't even bloody know what it means politically. Honestly I have a lot of issues with Three Houses just in general. It's a massive step up from Awakening and Fates in terms of plot and writing, but it's also massively more ambitious than those two games so it's flaws become much more glaring.

TL;DR: I think Edelgard isn't an overtly evil person (well not super anyway, continuing to permit the use of Crest Monsters after what she went through is super shady and this happens even in Crimson Flower), but she is very naive and misguided. I also reckon she gets a lot of undue sympathy by being female (and attractive). If she literally looked like Ashnard (whom she is identical to politically) more people would view her as an outright villain.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jotari said:

Which is what she believes Sothis wants for the world.

Yeah, in her reality, Sothis should be the one to rule and everything she does is under the goddess's justification. But the problem is that she THINKS that she's working under Sothis's will, and anyone that would say that she's wrong are completely heretical. It's when the Western Church paralogue happened and when they accuse Rhea of being the apostate and that the goddess with them, Rhea immediately snaps at them, saying that the goddess is with her. It's a case of where she believes that she is 100% right because she's deluded herself into believing that all her actions are under the will of Sothis.

This is why in the JP version, Rhea constantly says the goddess in practically every sentence she's in. 

6 hours ago, Jotari said:

Honestly I think Edelgard is a bit of an idiot who is being massively manipulated by the Agarthans. Her train of logic is "I was tortured by the North Korean Government. Therefore all Governments are evil. Therefore I should ally myself with the North Koreans to take down the American Government." The fact that we're meant to believe she manages to beat the Agrathans in the proceeding secret war I find incredulous when every move she's made has been to their benefit and they've been playing this game of espionage far longer than her (and have freaking nukes and murder machine Nemesis to back them up). And even if she manages to succeed her meritocracy would likely become very corrupt very quickly because that's generally how meritocracies go (especially when they're founded on the premise of one individual seizing absolute political power #inssurectionOfTheSevenDidNothingWrong). But that's just Three Houses for you. Claude solving all racism in a month is massively unrealistic too and Dimitri's ending is so vague and disconnected from the main thrust of his narrative that I don't even bloody know what it means politically. Honestly I have a lot of issues with Three Houses just in general. It's a massive step up from Awakening and Fates in terms of plot and writing, but it's also massively more ambitious than those two games so it's flaws become much more glaring.

TL;DR: I think Edelgard isn't an overtly evil person (well not super anyway, continuing to permit the use of Crest Monsters after what she went through is super shady and this happens even in Crimson Flower), but she is very naive and misguided. I also reckon she gets a lot of undue sympathy by being female (and attractive). If she literally looked like Ashnard (whom she is identical to politically) more people would view her as an outright villain.

The thing that makes me admire Edelgard is how she doesn't see the the people in charge as the main source of the problem, but looks at the system. She's looking at the bigger picture. Hence why she realizes that even if she gets rid of these nobles, that won't stop future generations from suffering the exact same thing she had suffered. 

Hence why she wants to destroy the current system. 

Which is very much true. The system is inherently corrupt, running by worth being determined by blood or Crest, when someone's worth should be determined by far more than that. 

Yeah, though she wants to vomit at how she's got to work with her tormenters, she's putting aside her issues with them because, again, she's focusing on the big picture. With her short life and Rhea's eternal life, Edelgard sees a huge problem with how the world will continue to remain stagnant if things don't change. She needs to have to world change, else the sacrifices made by the people before will have been for nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Yeah, in her reality, Sothis should be the one to rule and everything she does is under the goddess's justification. But the problem is that she THINKS that she's working under Sothis's will, and anyone that would say that she's wrong are completely heretical. It's when the Western Church paralogue happened and when they accuse Rhea of being the apostate and that the goddess with them, Rhea immediately snaps at them, saying that the goddess is with her. It's a case of where she believes that she is 100% right because she's deluded herself into believing that all her actions are under the will of Sothis.

This is why in the JP version, Rhea constantly says the goddess in practically every sentence she's in. 

The thing that makes me admire Edelgard is how she doesn't see the the people in charge as the main source of the problem, but looks at the system. She's looking at the bigger picture. Hence why she realizes that even if she gets rid of these nobles, that won't stop future generations from suffering the exact same thing she had suffered. 

Hence why she wants to destroy the current system. 

Which is very much true. The system is inherently corrupt, running by worth being determined by blood or Crest, when someone's worth should be determined by far more than that. 

Yeah, though she wants to vomit at how she's got to work with her tormenters, she's putting aside her issues with them because, again, she's focusing on the big picture. With her short life and Rhea's eternal life, Edelgard sees a huge problem with how the world will continue to remain stagnant if things don't change. She needs to have to world change, else the sacrifices made by the people before will have been for nothing. 

And that is one of many things I think is very admirable with Edelgard. 

Another thing worth mentioning is that most of the people who die for her cause want to do that, she usually allows those who want to leave her service to do so as was the case with the garreg mach students. She just inspires alot of loyalty from people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

And that is one of many things I think is very admirable with Edelgard. 

Another thing worth mentioning is that most of the people who die for her cause want to do that, she usually allows those who want to leave her service to do so as was the case with the garreg mach students. She just inspires alot of loyalty from people

Though in the other routes, when she's more alone, Edelgard ultimately is not able to perform the type of admirable actions as she does in CF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, omegaxis1 said:

Though in the other routes, when she's more alone, Edelgard ultimately is not able to perform the type of admirable actions as she does in CF.

Maybe so, but CF Edelgard is my girl and this is even more reasonI feel like Byleth needs to join her. Byleth is key to making her a great person

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Maybe so, but CF Edelgard is my girl and this is even more reasonI feel like Byleth needs to join her. Byleth is key to making her a great person

Well, remember how I said that she's focused on the bigger picture? Well, that's also a weakness. Spend too much time focusing on the big picture, you might lose yourself in it. Byleth's influence I think helps keep her down more and be aware of the situation right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Jotari said:

 

Honestly I think Edelgard is a bit of an idiot who is being massively manipulated by the Agarthans. Her train of logic is "I was tortured by the North Korean Government. Therefore all Governments are evil. Therefore I should ally myself with the North Koreans to take down the American Government." Claude solving all racism in a month is massively unrealistic too and Dimitri's ending is so vague and disconnected from the main thrust of his narrative that I don't even bloody know what it means politically. 

TL;DR: I think Edelgard isn't an overtly evil person (well not super anyway, continuing to permit the use of Crest Monsters after what she went through is super shady and this happens even in Crimson Flower), but she is very naive and misguided. I also reckon she gets a lot of undue sympathy by being female (and attractive). If she literally looked like Ashnard (whom she is identical to politically) more people would view her as an outright villain.

Agree so much here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jotari said:

You keep on responding to me as if you think I am a supporter of Rhea. I'm not. She's a figure of authoritarian control that is manipulating the entire continent and likely strangling any attempts of progress beyond the rigid rules she has defined but doesn't seem fit to follow herself. She, while nicer than the Agarthans about it, has committed numerous horrid human experimentations. When I respond to you I am not saying "Edelgard is wrong and Rhea is right!" I'm saying "I think that perception of events is an inaccurate way of looking at the situation

TL;DR: I think Edelgard isn't an overtly evil person (well not super anyway, continuing to permit the use of Crest Monsters after what she went through is super shady and this happens even in Crimson Flower), but she is very naive and misguided. I also reckon she gets a lot of undue sympathy by being female (and attractive). If she literally looked like Ashnard (whom she is identical to politically) more people would view her as an outright villain.

Sorry if I am coming across that way. 

I have participated in way too many Edelgard versus Rhea topics on Gamefaqs, you can easily get into a sort of pattern. Some people are really unfair to Edelgard, which might have resulted in the habit of mine to defend Edelgard every chance I get. I find great entertainment in that, it kind of feels like sticking up for someone you have a strong attachment to. 

We don't actually view Edelgard all that differently, not everything she does is necessarily perfect, or even all that good, but everything she does is ultimately towards a noble purpose. I wouldn't consider her an idiot, but she is definitely a bit of a Agarthan puppet, poor girl, they basically made her to serve a particular role which she has trouble breaking out of since. I have two dominant emotions about Edelgard, the first is admiration for her drive and goals, the second is sympathy for going through so many awful things. 

I heard it suggested that a possible reason for Edelgard wanting to die in the most routes is that she can't handle the guilt of all of those sacrifices being for nothing. She is a good girl at heart, which is what makes all of this bloodshed so painful to her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jotari said:

Honestly I think Edelgard is a bit of an idiot who is being massively manipulated by the Agarthans. Her train of logic is "I was tortured by the North Korean Government. Therefore all Governments are evil. Therefore I should ally myself with the North Koreans to take down the American Government." The fact that we're meant to believe she manages to beat the Agrathans in the proceeding secret war I find incredulous when every move she's made has been to their benefit and they've been playing this game of espionage far longer than her (and have freaking nukes and murder machine Nemesis to back them up). And even if she manages to succeed her meritocracy would likely become very corrupt very quickly because that's generally how meritocracies go (especially when they're founded on the premise of one individual seizing absolute political power #inssurectionOfTheSevenDidNothingWrong). But that's just Three Houses for you. Claude solving all racism in a month is massively unrealistic too and Dimitri's ending is so vague and disconnected from the main thrust of his narrative that I don't even bloody know what it means politically. Honestly I have a lot of issues with Three Houses just in general. It's a massive step up from Awakening and Fates in terms of plot and writing, but it's also massively more ambitious than those two games so it's flaws become much more glaring.

TL;DR: I think Edelgard isn't an overtly evil person (well not super anyway, continuing to permit the use of Crest Monsters after what she went through is super shady and this happens even in Crimson Flower), but she is very naive and misguided. I also reckon she gets a lot of undue sympathy by being female (and attractive). If she literally looked like Ashnard (whom she is identical to politically) more people would view her as an outright villain.

Honestly Edelgard's problem comes from a combination of ignorance, selfishness, and also the fact that she was never meant to be a leader. She had many siblings before her and was already unlikely to take the throne, and  the Insurrection of Seven guaranteed that she'd just be a figurehead leading in name only. So they never bothered to teach her how to be a leader. She grew up looking at her father being a shadow of his former self because of him losing power but then not realizing that it was a result of his tyranny. She grew up being told that the Leicaster Alliance and the Kingdom of Faerghus aren't real countries and that the church is responsible for separating them from the Empire and she believed it, having no way of knowing differently and no interest in other perspectives. So she never realizes that the Agarthans are far more dangerous than the church could ever be, because she wasn't really taught to think that way, nor is she surrounded with people who she is completely open with from the start that will give her constructive criticism, or is brutally honest with her, as even Byleth can't criticize her, nor is Byleth given any information to realize that Edelgard needs to be criticized.

Though Claude and Dimitri though I disagree that they solve everything in their routes, as in the case of Dimitri he points out that change needs to happen gradually in order for it to truly be effective and also in order to not leave society vulnerable. So Dimitri only introduces a small change that will allow for bigger reforms down the line. Yeah he does solve a lot of problems but it takes him dedicating his life to it for it to really start. A part of Claude development is him realizing that change can't happen overnight, that rushing in and doing things just doesn't work and that forcing change when the world isn't ready for it can cause more harm than good. Just like Dimitri he spends the rest of his life working for change. He makes progress but things don't change overnight. But both men do get rid of the Slithers which was standing in the way of reforms.

On 2/22/2020 at 10:16 PM, omegaxis1 said:

No, in her death. Sothis was dead. There was no prophecy that she would return. That was all Rhea. The most we can presume is "Sothis" told Rhea to "save humanity", but nothing in that was about how Sothis was return. Rhea wanted Sothis to return, so she experimented on reviving her. 

Which is again, just Rhea acting out of her own selfish desires. Nothing about being a devout believer as opposed to using religion to make people believe what she wants them to believe. 

Actually it's mentioned a few times by different characters that Sothis was very much capable of reviving and has done so in the past. That's why they recognize Byleth as her incarnation despite not knowing that Rhea implanted Sothis's crest stone in Byleth. And also there is unused data for a playable Sothis that mentions her new body. So it seems that she was originally meant to revive.

As for your second point, consider Rhea's siblings and how they helped out humanity without expecting anything in return even after humanity killed their brethren, and how they did so until they eventually lost faith in humanity. In addition Cindered Shadows offered some credence to Rhea's statement and also gave the additional context to it since timeline wise

Spoiler

Sothis would have said this before or after she flooded the world to save humanity from the Agarthans who had nuked the other continents because they wanted people to worship as gods. And they would have therefore have been Sothis's last words to Rhea and her children.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...