The True Tragedy of Three Houses

[Crysta]

The lord solo endings are probably the most trustworthy baseline you're gonna get. It's what happens without the dressing.

[Earth Worm Jim]

1 minute ago, Crysta said:

The commoners joining in is irrelevant. We're talking about the nobility, who hold the sway.

You have to make a giant leap in logic to think an entire race is responsible for the death of their monarch. They just don't care. Trash, in other words. Are you arguing that only oppression against their own people counts?

The church influence is more saturated in the kingdom, btw. It isn't called the Holy Kingdom for nothing. Catherine makes it clear the church stepped in and took over law enforcement in the aftermath of that massacre, which included the execution of Cristoph.

Except, the commoners held the same view as well and came to the same conclusion as the nobles, but yeah, yeah sure let's conveniently ignore that fact.

Considering how we are talking about the oppression of people within Fodlan and how the Kingdom treats its own people, yes, it is the only thing that counts. Or are you also arguing that that the doesn't deserve to be a sovereign state because of what it did to Mercedes's and Constantine's families, or to Brigid, or heck what Edelgard's mother did to the Kingdom? Or what the Empire allowed to happen to Hyrm.

Except the execution of Christophe was done by the Kingdom's nobles, to hide the fact that he tried to murder a foreign dignitary. The fact that they lost their stability is why the Kingdom had to rely on the church.

Just now, Darkmoon6789 said:

It is the ending I got however, so screw it. I think it is kind of silly try to figure out some average version of events based on the number of endings, leading to a certain event, in a game with multiple timelines like this, you need to specify a version and stick to it. Crimson flower Edelgard is straight up not the same Edelgard as in Azure Moon. 

I think the fact that so many people have so many different interpretations of events is more than enough proof of how grey this entire conflict really is. Sure, we can all pretend that our interpretation is the only correct one, but that would be dishonest. 

I am only stating my interpretation of events, which is indeed coloured by how strong my feelings are for Edelgard. But affection like this exists at a far deeper level than just attraction, I saw something deep within the soul of this character that is truly beautiful. Even if I did. I agree that Edelgard was entirely the wrong, I still would find the idea of her being hurt as a consequence distasteful. Especially for a barbaric idea of justice. 

What about this for honesty, none of our perspectives is more valid than the other. We asked all happen to believe in our own way of thinking.

.

They're the same Edelgard, the Edelgard that you see in all of the routes is the same. What alters your view of her is the fact that you no longer see things from her perspective. The truth is no longer hidden from you. The differences in characterization come from the difference in their circumstances and Byleth's effect on them. For Dimitri Byleth makes him  look forward towards the future, For Claude Byleth gives him friendship and the truth that even he denied himself, for Edelgard Byleth makes her open up a little bit.

I feel as though if you really like a character then you should like them for who they are, flaws and all. I like Claude and Dimitri but I'm not afraid of admitting that Claude was an arrogant know it all prior to learning the truth who was also way more obtuse than he needed to be. While Dimitri was also an hypocrite who was too afraid to speak out when it was necessary and too afraid of pursuing his own goals.

The sad thing about Edelgard, is that she wouldn't stop wanting to achieve her own ends so long as she was alive, Dimitri has a scene where he begs her to stop and she doesn't. And Byleth isn't really equipped in CF to truly help her

[Darkmoon6789]

6 minutes ago, Crysta said:

The lord solo endings are probably the most trustworthy baseline you're gonna get. It's what happens without the dressing.

So, the one that specifically mentions she succeeded in creating a free and independent society for all. She does eventually retire here, but she was apparently such a good leader that I don't think it really matters. I think the only reason it took so long is that reforming the entire system was a time-consuming process. I have a hard time imagining a better leader than Edelgard anyway.

At the very least, I do view this as absolute confirmation that Edelgard is not a tyrant, she values freedom and independence among her citizens. I guess it is also not very clear what later years is really referring to, could also just be referring to her later years as Emperor. It could possibly has been a better way to reach this result, but when it comes to the result itself. I think it is pretty inarguable that she did well. 

[Earth Worm Jim]

2 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

So, the one that specifically mentions she succeeded in creating a free and independent society for all. She does eventually retire here, but she was apparently such a good leader that I don't think it really matters. I think the only reason it took so long is that reforming the entire system was a time-consuming process. I have a hard time imagining a better leader than Edelgard anyway.

At the very least, I do view this as absolute confirmation that Edelgard is not a tyrant, she values freedom and independence among her citizens. I guess it is also not very clear what later years is really referring to, could also just be referring to her later years as Emperor. It could possibly has been a better way to reach this result, but when it comes to the result itself. I think it is pretty inarguable that she did well. 

I think that the tyrant bit comes from her conquering other nations, and forcing them under her rule, and also some of Hubert's endings doesn't paint a pretty picture. It's kind of like how Dimitri criticized her by pointing out that if she truly wanted to fix the empire then she should have done so and not dragged Fodlan into a war by attempting to conquer it. And that she was just being self righteous in thinking that she knew better than anyone else.

[Crysta]

1 minute ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

Except, the commoners held the same view as well and came to the same conclusion as the nobles, but yeah, yeah sure let's conveniently ignore that fact.

We're not arguing about the commoners. I'm not ignoring it: there is no reason to even bring them up.

2 minutes ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

Considering how we are talking about the oppression of people within Fodlan and how the Kingdom treats its own people, yes, it is the only thing that counts. Or are you also arguing that that the doesn't deserve to be a sovereign state because of what it did to Mercedes's and Constantine's families, or to Brigid, or heck what Edelgard's mother did to the Kingdom? Or what the Empire allowed to happen to Hyrm.

Then that is a very convenient, narrow perspective you have there.

I'm arguing that they're trash, too. Because they are. A social caste which spearheads the genocide of their neighbors is not a social caste I would, in any fashion, want to defend - let alone say they're better than the Empire nobility because Edelgard bad.

You took that tack, and I countered.

7 minutes ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

Except the execution of Christophe was done by the Kingdom's nobles, to hide the fact that he tried to murder a foreign dignitary. The fact that they lost their stability is why the Kingdom had to rely on the church.

No. It wasn't.

Quote

Edelgard: Roughly four years ago, the king of Faerghus was murdered by the people of Duscur. I believe that about sums it up, correct?
Catherine: To put it simply, yes. But there's more to that story. They had accomplices within the Kingdom as well. Lord Lonato's son, Christophe, was one of them, and so he was handed over to the church for execution.
Byleth:
Choice 1: The church executes criminals?
Choice 2: Why was the king targeted?
Catherine:
Choice 1 response: Speaking from the church's perspective, we simply passed judgement according to our doctrine in place of the Kingdom, which was in complete chaos.
Choice 2 response: King Lambert was attempting a major political reform. Needless to say, he had many enemies.
Catherine: Whatever the truth behind that incident may be, Lord Lonato has harbored resentment to the church ever since. Well... To be more specific, his grudge isn't only against the church. It's also against the one who turned Christophe over to them...

 

[Licoriceallsorts]

I thought the Church executed Christophe.  Oh, Crysta, I see you got that covered. 

If the commoners and the nobles are of one mind, that suggests that the commoners don't feel oppressed by their nobles. On the whole, the people of Faerghus seem to love their king(s) and to be satisfied with their system of government. We might not be happy living under such a system, but that doesn't change how they feel. 

AFAIK, we don't know for sure that the Kingdom nobles masterminded the genocide in Duscur. If common people took part - and we don't know whether they did or they didn't - it could as easily have been because they loved their king as because they were forced by oppressive nobles. Thales and the Agarthans created and manipulated that whole situation.  Ingrid clearly believes what she's told, which is understandable because of her grief at losing Glenn. Dimitri and Sylvain don't, however. I don't believe we're meant to assume that Dimitri and Sylvain are the only two nobles who saw through the lies. I think they are intended to be representative of a body of opinion in the Kingdom. 

[Earth Worm Jim]

3 minutes ago, Crysta said:

We're not arguing about the commoners. I'm not ignoring it: there is no reason to even bring them up.

Except they are, since th argument was about how the kingdom sees the situation. You're ignoring it, because it doesn't help your point. But the commoners weren't innocent of this. You're ignoring it but the commoners of the Kingdom love their kings to a ridiculous degree. That is Faerghus's culture, it wasn't just the nobles it was the commoners as well.

4 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Then that is a very convenient, narrow perspective you have there.

I'm arguing that they're trash, too. Because they are. A social caste which spearheads the genocide of their neighbors is not a social caste I would, in any fashion, want to defend - let alone say they're better than the Empire nobility because Edelgard bad.

You took that tack, and I countered.

Except the point from the start was about how the Kingdom treats it's own people, not about how it treats its enemies. You're trying to include how the Kingdom treats it's enemies into an argument where it's actually irrelevant. Like I said above it wasn't just the nobles who participated in the genocide it was the commoners as well. I'm saying that the Kingdom nobles are better due to the fact that they treat their own people fairly, which is why they inspire loyalty from the commoners, versus the nobles who are cruel to their own people.

You're just moving goal posts, but it's not helping your argument, since the Empire nobles still oppress their own people.

11 minutes ago, Crysta said:

No. It wasn't.

It was, did you even do Asche's and Catherine's paralogue? Edelgard is actually the worst person to quote here, considering how little she actually knows about the Kingdom.

[Crysta]

Just now, Licoriceallsorts said:

If the commoners and the nobles are of one mind, that suggests that the commoners don't feel oppressed by their nobles. On the whole, the people of Faerghus seem to love their king(s) and to be satisfied with their system of government. We might not be happy living under such a system, but that doesn't change how they feel. 

I'm not so sure about this. As is typical with feudal governments, the society is set up in such a way where they're conditioned to defer to the nobility, presumably in exchange for protection and out of tradition. I'd expect the same amount of grousing you find anywhere else when they get drawn into the conflict... unless they're going on a crusade like Lonato was lol. Also I think those Western Church buggers are from the Kingdom.

4 minutes ago, Licoriceallsorts said:

AFAIK, we don't know for sure that the Kingdom nobles masterminded the genocide in Duscur. If common people took part - and we don't know whether they did or they didn't - it could as easily have been because they loved their king as because they were forced by oppressive nobles. Thales and the Agarthans created and manipulated that whole situation.  Ingrid clearly believes what she's told, which is understandable because of her grief at losing Glenn. Dimitri and Sylvain don't, however. I don't believe we're meant to assume that Dimitri and Sylvain are the only two nobles who saw through the lies. I think they are intended to be representative of a body of opinion in the Kingdom. 

The nobility have a greater stake in how governance goes, so I'm far more willing to expect them to be involved in the massacre and in the genocide that followed. King Lambert had enemies, as the game script states, and it was unlikely it was random peasant #14. A noble lord may have used random peasant #14, though.

King Dimitri is gonna have fun having to work with nobles who are pretty okay with a genocide, in any case.

[Crysta]

15 minutes ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

You're ignoring it, because it doesn't help your point. But the commoners weren't innocent of this. You're ignoring it but the commoners of the Kingdom love their kings to a ridiculous degree. That is Faerghus's culture, it wasn't just the nobles it was the commoners as well.

No, you're bringing it up to bolster your own and I'm not caring for it. Sorry.

Commoners are irrelevant. We're talking about the conduct of the nobility. Well, I always was, anyway.

15 minutes ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

Except the point from the start was about how the Kingdom treats it's own people, not about how it treats its enemies. You're trying to include how the Kingdom treats it's enemies into an argument where it's actually irrelevant. Like I said above it wasn't just the nobles who participated in the genocide it was the commoners as well. I'm saying that the Kingdom nobles are better due to the fact that they treat their own people fairly, which is why they inspire loyalty from the commoners, versus the nobles who are cruel to their own people.

You're just moving goal posts, but it's not helping your argument, since the Empire nobles still oppress their own people.

It was, did you even do Asche's and Catherine's paralogue? Edelgard is actually the worst person to quote here, considering how little she actually knows about the Kingdom.

They weren't enemies: Lambert was about to make them allies. That's probably why some of the nobility wasn't so keen on him and plotted with the Slitherers.

Edelgard in that scene doesn't change the dialogue much at all. And yes I have. It isn't even the only time they make it very clear that Cristoph was executed by the Church: Ashe x Catherine's support chain also establishes it was the Church.

Edited February 24, 2020 by Crysta

[Earth Worm Jim]

Just now, Crysta said:

I'm not so sure about this. As is typical with feudal governments, the society is set up in such a way where they're conditioned to defer to the nobility, presumably in exchange for protection and out of tradition. I'd expect the same amount of grousing you find anywhere else when they get drawn into the conflict... unless they're going on a crusade like Lonato was lol. Also I think those Western Church buggers are from the Kingdom.

Except Personal opinion is a thing, even if people are brought up to defer to the nobility, if their way of life isn't very good, then they likely will be dissatisfied. The Alliance is a great example, the people are brought up to defer to nobility, but they don't personally like or respect them. The Kingdom commoners though actually like their nobility since unlike the other two countries the nobility of the kingdom considers it not just a tradition but a sworn duty to protect and defend the commoners. If the commoners don't have enough to eat then the nobility will do what they can to make it so that they have enough food. In CF the people were willing to turn into crest beasts just to defend their king, that should tell you how loyal they are to their nobiliity, and the nobility considered it an insult that people didn't put the  people first.

[Darkmoon6789]

20 minutes ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

Except, the commoners held the same view as well and came to the same conclusion as the nobles, but yeah, yeah sure let's conveniently ignore that fact.

Considering how we are talking about the oppression of people within Fodlan and how the Kingdom treats its own people, yes, it is the only thing that counts. Or are you also arguing that that the doesn't deserve to be a sovereign state because of what it did to Mercedes's and Constantine's families, or to Brigid, or heck what Edelgard's mother did to the Kingdom? Or what the Empire allowed to happen to Hyrm.

Except the execution of Christophe was done by the Kingdom's nobles, to hide the fact that he tried to murder a foreign dignitary. The fact that they lost their stability is why the Kingdom had to rely on the church.

They're the same Edelgard, the Edelgard that you see in all of the routes is the same. What alters your view of her is the fact that you no longer see things from her perspective. The truth is no longer hidden from you. The differences in characterization come from the difference in their circumstances and Byleth's effect on them. For Dimitri Byleth makes him  look forward towards the future, For Claude Byleth gives him friendship and the truth that even he denied himself, for Edelgard Byleth makes her open up a little bit.

I feel as though if you really like a character then you should like them for who they are, flaws and all. I like Claude and Dimitri but I'm not afraid of admitting that Claude was an arrogant know it all prior to learning the truth who was also way more obtuse than he needed to be. While Dimitri was also an hypocrite who was too afraid to speak out when it was necessary and too afraid of pursuing his own goals.

The sad thing about Edelgard, is that she wouldn't stop wanting to achieve her own ends so long as she was alive, Dimitri has a scene where he begs her to stop and she doesn't. And Byleth isn't really equipped in CF to truly help her

If Byleth has affected her 

then, that does mean that that Edelgard is different than the one who hasn't been affected by Byleth. They are like alternate timeline versions of themselves, ultimately the same person, but they go in different directions. I just don't think it makes much sense to hold the Edelgard in crimson flowers responsible for actions she only do in azure moon, which, yes, I actually have seen people doing even if I haven't seen that here. 

I don't deny floors at all, I love them as well. But in my view she is if anything overly idealistic and self-sacrificing. Edelgard pretty much never indulges herself in anything even as simple as sweets while she feels that there is still work to be done. She has real trouble opening up to people as she has major trust issues. Which makes her assume diplomacy is doomed before she even tried. While she is willing to sacrifice the lives of others, these are mostly people who also believe in her course and is willing to die for it, and she makes no exception towards herself, for better or worse. It is actually her stubborn belief in the righteousness of dying for a good cause that makes her so insistent on dying in any route she doesn't win. I kind of wish she wouldn't do this, but is still needs to respect her desire to die an honourable death. It does make sense, if you're willing to have others die for your course, you should be willing to do the same.

This is also without even mentioning her huge problems dealing with her past trauma, she has constant nightmares and suffer from several phobias due to her experiences. Primarily her phobia for rats, chains and imprisonment, as well as a loss of control in general. All of this makes Edelgard very human in my eyes, it is just that in my view, most of the "evil" Edelgard does isn't because of malicious intent. But simply a mistake due to her personal flaws. I do think that Edelgard's general good nature should be recognised despite all of this. Her humanity and good intentions makes her very much deserving of mercy and forgiveness. Regardless of her actions.

About the tyrant thing as well, maybe some people would view her as that because of the conquests. I don't think that makes it true. In the end life under Edelgard wouldn't be that bad and I hope the people would realise that. They could even be massive improvements in the quality of life of the average citizen under her rule. Which could be argued as a factor that could legitimise the entire conquest as short-term death and bloodshed might save lives in the long run. It is important to look at this from the big picture, rather than just the short term. I will admit actions could be a mistake, but I don't know that for certain given the information I have been given, things do turn out rather fine in the end. 

[Licoriceallsorts]

Random peasants can still be intelligent and informed, have opinions, and choose courses of action. Lord Lenato's peasants fought for him as militia - in the Ambush in the Mist chapter all the students are distressed at having to fight ordinary people, fathers and sons, rather than professional soldiers. It's clear that they fought for him out of love, loyalty, and belief in the justice of his cause.

We don't see a lot of ordinary Faerghus people aside from this militia, and Ashe, and all of them come across as extremely loyal to their lords, which suggests that the lords were on the whole decent rulers rather than oppressive. Unless you want to argue thayt Lenato is somehow an exception? The Faerghus nobility have a very strong ethic of chivalry, sacrifice and service, which might explain their popularity among the people.  Nothing in the game suggests that the nobility were unpopular in Faerghus, and nothing suggests that people born into the nobility think of themselves as somehow a different order of being compared to the people they serve - unlike, say, Lorenz or Ferdinand. 

[Crysta]

Intelligent, yes, being informed is less... certain. Doesn't Ferninand suggest establishing a formal education system, as though it was some novel idea lol?

A big thread in that chapter is also how incensed the noble characters are at the idea of Lonato bringing the citizenry into his crusade against the church, which suggests he is indeed an exception from what is normally expected from noble behavior. You're right that the militia DOES seem to follow him out of devotion, though. Edelgard is alright with it because, well, you know... that's how she leads.

Just not gonna bet that every Kingdom noble is like Lonato. I don't think House Rowe is known for their loyalty or generosity?

[Earth Worm Jim]

1 minute ago, Crysta said:

No, you're bringing it up to bolster your own and I'm not caring for it. Sorry.

Commoners are irrelevant. We're talking about the conduct of the nobility. Well, I always was, anyway.

Just like how you brought up Duscar in an vain attempt to bolster you're own argument, but sorry I'm not buying it. As it was point out to you from another user, the Kingdom commoners and nobility were both of one mind, just because you wish to ignore it, it doesn't make it any less true.

3 minutes ago, Crysta said:

They weren't enemies: Lambert was about to make them allies. That's probably why some of the nobility wasn't so keen on him and plotted with the Slitherers.

Edelgard in that scene doesn't change the dialogue much at all. And yes I have. It isn't even the only time they make it very clear that Cristoph was executed by the Church: Ashe x Catherine's support chain also establishes it was the Church.

Actually , as far as the Kindom was concerned they weren't allies either. Lambert dying in Duscar and the knights finding evidence of Duscar's involvement when they found Dimitri there was a part of the reason for their beliefs. The Western church preached about isolation and xennophobia, which is why they hated Rhea, but how much of this was Slither influence is unknown. Dimitri imprisons those nobles anyway, so we don't know much about them after that.

Actually it doesn't, because the Central Church didn't know about the Western Church being behind the plot to assassinate Rhea. It never mentions who executed Christophe actually. I'm only pointing out that it was likely the Kingdom due to Rhea not making a move against the Western church until they attempt to assassinate her.

[Darkmoon6789]

5 minutes ago, Licoriceallsorts said:

Random peasants can still be intelligent and informed, have opinions, and choose courses of action. Lord Lenato's peasants fought for him as militia - in the Ambush in the Mist chapter all the students are distressed at having to fight ordinary people, fathers and sons, rather than professional soldiers. It's clear that they fought for him out of love, loyalty, and belief in the justice of his cause.

We don't see a lot of ordinary Faerghus people aside from this militia, and Ashe, and all of them come across as extremely loyal to their lords, which suggests that the lords were on the whole decent rulers rather than oppressive. Unless you want to argue thayt Lenato is somehow an exception? The Faerghus nobility have a very strong ethic of chivalry, sacrifice and service, which might explain their popularity among the people.  Nothing in the game suggests that the nobility were unpopular in Faerghus, and nothing suggests that people born into the nobility think of themselves as somehow a different order of being compared to the people they serve - unlike, say, Lorenz or Ferdinand. 

It is also totally possible that Edelgard's view of nobility was highly shaped just by how awful much of the Empire nobility was, it is what she would be directly exposed to after all. 

One thing I am getting out of this conversation is that just like real life, politics, the situation is such a mess that it is nearly impossible to point out any objective evidence to anyone being entirely in the right or wrong. Everyone is basically awful and good in some manner or another. Things get really difficult when the people actually like a system I consider oppressive and wouldn't want to live under, so it is very hard to resist the temptation of pushing your will and to others thinking you were helping them in this sort of cases.

But I also think there is peace and evidence that the Empire under Edelgard is quite a lot better than the Empire was before Edelgard, whenever the are talking about the rule of the insurgents or her father and even most of the previous emperors. The Empire conquered territory such as Dagda and Brigid in the past, but Edelgard doesn't seem to have any trouble respecting their independence. 

[Earth Worm Jim]

7 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Intelligent, yes, being informed is less... certain. Doesn't Ferninand suggest establishing a formal education system, as though it was some novel idea lol?

A big thread in that chapter is also how incensed the noble characters are at the idea of Lonato bringing the citizenry into his crusade against the church, which suggests he is indeed an exception from what is normally expected from noble behavior. You're right that the militia DOES seem to follow him out of devotion, though. Edelgard is alright with it because, well, you know... that's how she leads.

Just not gonna bet that every Kingdom noble is like Lonato. I don't think House Rowe is known for their loyalty or generosity?

Except, both Slyvain, Felix and Ingrid, do put their people first. Felix even considered it an insult when his father didn't say that he fought his hardest for the people. And from the way how Slyvain speaks about the territory it's obvious that his own hatred for nobles that shirk their duties to the people, it's clear that it's jsut Fearghus's culture that the nobles care for the people. The Faerghus nobles were only upset that Lonato dragged in the commoners into his campaign.

@Darkmoon6789That's actually a good point, we should keep in mind that when Edelgard speaks of nobility, she's only really talking about the Empire. As they're the only group tht she really has a frame of reference for.

Edited February 24, 2020 by Earth Worm Jim

[Crysta]

2 minutes ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

Lambert dying in Duscar and the knights finding evidence of Duscar's involvement when they found Dimitri there was a part of the reason for their beliefs. The Western church preached about isolation and xennophobia, which is why they hated Rhea, but how much of this was Slither influence is unknown. Dimitri imprisons those nobles anyway, so we don't know much about them after that.

Actually it doesn't, because the Central Church didn't know about the Western Church being behind the plot to assassinate Rhea. It never mentions who executed Christophe actually. I'm only pointing out that it was likely the Kingdom due to Rhea not making a move against the Western church until they attempt to assassinate her.

The evidence doesn't matter if it's so clearly untrue, and it is.

The Western Church was attempting to get rid of Rhea. If they preached isolation and xenophobia somewhere (I don't recall them ever doing so in game), it's not far removed from what Rhea was espousing, anyway.

The dialogue in the cutscene and in the support conversation literally says it was the Church.

[Earth Worm Jim]

1 minute ago, Crysta said:

The evidence doesn't matter if it's so clearly untrue, and it is.

The Western Church was attempting to get rid of Rhea. If they preached isolation and xenophobia somewhere (I don't recall them ever doing so in game), it's not far removed from what Rhea was espousing, anyway.

The dialogue in the cutscene and in the support conversation literally says it was the Church.

You seem to be confusing what the people know from what the player knows. The majority of nobles and commoners who took part in Duscar don't know about why it happened. As far as they knew the Duscanrans killed their king after they extended a hand in friendship.

Rhea actually never preached about isolation, she actually didn't believe in it, it's a part of the reason behind why they hated her and wanted her gone. Also they do mention it a few times as one of their gripes with the Central Church.

Actually it doesn't. It just says that he was executed.

[Crysta]

Okaaaay lets try this again.

Quote

Edelgard: Roughly four years ago, the king of Faerghus was murdered by the people of Duscur. I believe that about sums it up, correct?
Catherine: To put it simply, yes. But there's more to that story. They had accomplices within the Kingdom as well. Lord Lonato's son, Christophe, was one of them, and so he was handed over to the church for execution.
Byleth:
Choice 1: The church executes criminals?
Choice 2: Why was the king targeted?
Catherine:
Choice 1 response: Speaking from the church's perspective, we simply passed judgement according to our doctrine in place of the Kingdom, which was in complete chaos.
Choice 2 response: King Lambert was attempting a major political reform. Needless to say, he had many enemies.
Catherine: Whatever the truth behind that incident may be, Lord Lonato has harbored resentment to the church ever since. Well... To be more specific, his grudge isn't only against the church. It's also against the one who turned Christophe over to them...

I bolded the important parts that include "church" and "executes" and "execution". The tragedy happened, chaos ensued and the Kingdom couldn't get it's shit together in the aftermath of having their king killed, and the church stepped in to maintain order. You find out later that Cristoph wasn't even executed for the reason they provided - but details, details...

Rhea surpressing Fodlan culturally and technologically via isolationism and presumably hindering research is supported by the new DLC lore, last time I checked. So yes, she does. It's why Claude isn't a fan. Do you think he's ill-informed or being deceitful?

[Darkmoon6789]

3 minutes ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

You seem to be confusing what the people know from what the player knows. The majority of nobles and commoners who took part in Duscar don't know about why it happened. As far as they knew the Duscanrans killed their king after they extended a hand in friendship.

Rhea actually never preached about isolation, she actually didn't believe in it, it's a part of the reason behind why they hated her and wanted her gone. Also they do mention it a few times as one of their gripes with the Central Church.

Actually it doesn't. It just says that he was executed.

I think we all know that the Western church is probably under the influence of Cornelia considering that their base of operation is Arianrhod. I do have this idea that the Agarthans deliberately spread discontent throughout the continent as their objective was to start a war against the church, the more people they could manipulate into attacking Rhea the better. It could be argued that Edelgard is just another victim of their machinations. I would actually argue that the reason they assassinated King Lambert was because his reforms would counteract their plan of starting a continental war by spreading discontent against the church.

If you really think about it, looking at Edelgard's life. It is pretty obvious why she has the opinion she has about the nobility. Her father was ousted from power very early on in her life, she was basically forced to flee to a different country. While Edelgard did stay for a time in Faerghus . It doesn't seem that the current Edelgard remembers much from this time as I think what happened after must have overshadowed it. Unless I am mistaken, she was held captive by Thales for about six years, but that is an interpretation I made from her in game biography that states that the gap between her return to the Empire from Faerghus and are showing up at the monastery was six years. 

Edelgard quite literally spent the majority of her life, witnessing the subjugation and murder of her family by corrupted nobles, and she was imprisoned and essentially tortured for several years, it's six years is correct a significant portion of her life. The nobles of the Empire has essentially always been a presence in ruining her life, so there is little wonder she has such hatred for the whole nobility system. Who wouldn't after going through all of this?

I guess it is possible to view Edelgard as a well-meaning puppet who thinks she is doing the right thing, but is doing exactly what Thales wants to do that with Byleth's help somehow managed to break free of her strings and establishing herself as a quite decent ruler of the whole continent. I consider Thales the real villain, not Edelgard or Rhea. Even if I do have significant problems with Rhea, she like Edelgard have good intentions. Rhea also makes most of their mistakes due to past trauma.

[Licoriceallsorts]

I agree with what you say about Edelgard, DarkMoon.

I'd go further and say that even Thales and the Agarthans have some justified grievances. However, their chosen methods of seeking redress put them beyond the pale. 

If the Agarthans of Seiro's time had no problems with human experimentation and large scale sacrifice of lives for questionable ends, then it seems Seiros/Rhea were and are right to oppose them with everything she's got. Unfortunately, her methods turn out to be questionable too. 

If we judge them only by their motives and objectives, each lord's cause is a good one - except Dimitri while he's in insane mode. If we judge them by their methods, all of them are in the wrong to some extent. Do the ends justify the means? Kant would say no. 

[Darkmoon6789]

14 minutes ago, Licoriceallsorts said:

I agree with what you say about Edelgard, DarkMoon.

I'd go further and say that even Thales and the Agarthans have some justified grievances. However, their chosen methods of seeking redress put them beyond the pale. 

If the Agarthans of Seiro's time had no problems with human experimentation and large scale sacrifice of lives for questionable ends, then it seems Seiros/Rhea were and are right to oppose them with everything she's got. Unfortunately, her methods turn out to be questionable too. 

If we judge them only by their motives and objectives, each lord's cause is a good one - except Dimitri while he's in insane mode. If we judge them by their methods, all of them are in the wrong to some extent. Do the ends justify the means? Kant would say no. 

And utilitarianism would say maybe... It depends. The debate between Kantian moral philosophy and utilitarian moral philosophy is quite interesting and I can see some valid points in both camps, even if I do know where I stand. 

I think it is quite telling with the Agarthans that even someone willing to go as far as Edelgard think we are going too far. The wiki on Edelgard actually states that her primary problem with them is their disregard for civilian casualties. They do in a way represent a level of by any means necessary that even Edelgard wouldn't stoop to. So they are a clear line where Edelgard is moral limit is. She might be allied with them, but she is still going to make it clear that she isn't approving of their actions, it is kind of interesting that Edelgard went as far as actually showing up after Remire village to try and clarify things for Byleth and Jeralt. Quite a bit of risk, but apparently it was really important to her for them to know that the Flame Emperor didn't approve of his course of action.

The Agarthans to my understanding is all about revenge at any cost, I am not even certain if they have any plans of rebuilding society at all. And I think I've made myself clear what I think about revenge as a motivation, I think it is a destructive principle that leads to a cycle of violence and is pretty much never justified. 

This game really made me think when it comes to the contrast between motivations and actions when it comes to morality and made me reach some personal conclusions. One of them being that you can't judge a person by their actions alone, motivation is quite important and even a person responsible for terrible atrocities might not be a monster. I think it is ultimately important to recognise that people like Edelgard, Dimitri and Rhea are ultimately flawed human beings with good intentions (mostly), and neither in my opinion really deserves to be crucified for their supposed crimes. Nobody is perfect and nobody really deserves to be defined by their past when they can contribute to a better future. Basically, I don't care what Edelgard did during the war, it is who she becomes afterwards that really matters. 

To embrace the mentality that people need to suffer because their misdeeds is to embrace sadism and prioritise selfish satisfaction at the cost of even more bloodshed. This is after all what motivates the Agarthans. Vengeance is a satisfying primal instinct, but it is ultimately primal, uncivilized and selfish.

[Etrurian emperor]

Whatever her flaws Edelgard is definitely not a tyrant. Even the families that tortured her family to death get away with their existence. Some people get killed or locked up but Ferdinand still becomes her prime minister if he doesn't defect and despite him being in on the plot Edelgard seems to foster very good relations with count Bergliez. Not exactly the acts of a tyrant.

As a whole Edelgard seems to be pretty benevolent for a conquering emperor. The widespread atrocities that other conquering nations such as Bern, Daein and Dohlr engage in are noticeably absent in the Adrestian empire. Even if you don't side with the empire we don't get word on them sacking towns or engaging in other war crimes. The war seems pretty clean aside from the crazy mole people. 

Edited February 24, 2020 by Etrurian emperor

[Jotari]

16 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.

Yep, and that's precisely what makes her a believer.

[Earth Worm Jim]

1 hour ago, Licoriceallsorts said:

I agree with what you say about Edelgard, DarkMoon.

I'd go further and say that even Thales and the Agarthans have some justified grievances. However, their chosen methods of seeking redress put them beyond the pale. 

If the Agarthans of Seiro's time had no problems with human experimentation and large scale sacrifice of lives for questionable ends, then it seems Seiros/Rhea were and are right to oppose them with everything she's got. Unfortunately, her methods turn out to be questionable too. 

If we judge them only by their motives and objectives, each lord's cause is a good one - except Dimitri while he's in insane mode. If we judge them by their methods, all of them are in the wrong to some extent. Do the ends justify the means? Kant would say no. 

Actually one of the books in CS reveals that Sothis was the one who destroyed the Agarthans, and why she did it.

Spoiler

Sothis annihilated the Agarthans did so to protect the rest of humanity from the Agarthans. The Agarthans thought of themselves as gods and so actually destroyed other continents for not worshiping them. In order to stop them Sothis had to destroy them. They had zero problems will murdering entire continents of innocent people, but Sothis couldn't stand for it.

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by Earth Worm Jim