Jump to content
omegaxis1

Dimitri's Government Reforms

Recommended Posts

I've never been the biggest fan of Dimitri, and always had issues with him, particularly with his ending. Now, this isn't about whether he dealt with the Agarthans or not, as that's another separate issue, I've always had an annoyance of never understanding the type of reforms he wanted or made. 

Dimitri's Solo Ending:

Quote

After his coronation, Dimitri spent his life reforming and ruling justly over Fódlan. He focused particularly on improving living situations for orphans and improving foreign relations. He was known for listening intently to the voices of all, and for instituting a new form of government in which the people were free to be active participants. He lived for his people and alongside them, and was thusly dubbed the Savior King.

It's so incredibly vague that it's a wonder what exactly he did. With Edelgard, I knew that it was to abolish the nobility and install a more meritocratic government. With Claude, it was to tear down the borders between races and allow cultural exchange to end racism (even if Claude's story really didn't follow his goal as a theme). 

This makes Dimitri the big question mark. 

A lot of people, mostly on reddit, try to praise Dimitri as the best type of reforms, and think that he created democracy. 

However, I feel that such a thing is impossible, as the ending with Annette makes it clear that this is still a dynasty. And we know that the nobility system still exists. This is cause in all the routes, only one route ever actually works to abolishes nobility as a whole, being Crimson Flower, Edelgard's route. The other routes don't focus on that, nor have the endings that indicate a change that goes with that nature. Hence why I feel it simply can't be a democracy or anything resembling one. 

So then... what does this participatory government mean? What does it do? Does it even actually give commoners any power at all? 

I kept wondering. Kept trying to think deeper into it. What exactly was Dimitri seeking to accomplish? 

In order to better understand, I decided to look at two points in the story where Dimitri ever talks about his own ideals, being after the Miklan incident during Part 1, and the talk with Edelgard near the end of Part 2. I'll break down and talk about the major points Dimitri mentions in the conversation and clarify the meaning behind them and how it connects together to help understand what the reforms he makes. 

Quote

Dimitri: I was just thinking about something. Professor... The possession of Relics and Crests has been highly valued in Faerghus since ancient times. It's far from uncommon for someone to lose their ability to lead their house because they don't bear a Crest. Just like Miklan. It happened to my uncle as well. The eldest child of the king, and yet he never ascended to the throne. All families whose bloodlines carry Crests of the 10 Elites are much the same. But House Gautier takes it a step further, and absolutely requires an heir who possesses a Crest.

-

Dimitri: I believe that Margrave Gautier was wrong to disinherit Miklan because he did not bear a Crest. Still, there is always a reason for why such customs stand the test of time. Imagine what this world would be like if no one placed any stock in Crests... Bloodlines that carry Crests would dwindle. The metaphorical blade used to oppose threats would eventually rust. This same arguments has been made time and time again across the years. Both side are at once right and wrong.

First off, this actually makes it clear that Dimitri is not personally against the concept of Crests or nobility. In fact, he insists that they existed for so long for a reason, and that a world without Crests would lose the "metaphorical blade" that is meant to protect people from threats. 

What he is against is the "extremes" that people take with Crests, thinking that it's wrong for Gautier to disown Miklan for not bearing a Crest. Keep in mind that disowning kids without Crests is stated by Seteth to be common practice in Faerghus. Dimitri is obviously against that, which is good. While he acknowledges that one's ability is not measured through Crest along, he simply doesn't believe that the nobility system or the Crests should just lose their worth and must still continue to hold value in the world.

Why? Well, this goes on to how he explains about House Gautier:

Quote

Dimitri: To that house, the power of Crests is a necessity, not a luxury. House Gautier holds the most northern territory in the Kingdom, and they have fought with the people to the north for many years. The head of that house is responsible for protecting that territory from fearsome invaders, whom they keep at bay with the power of Crests and Relics. In exchange for that responsibility, they are granted special privileges within the Kingdom.

This is very interesting. It's a case of how he speaks of the nobility being "granted" special privileges as a result of their service, where House Gautier protects the northern region of Faerghus from Sreng invaders, which is very much a known threat, as stated by Sylvain, and how the Lance of Ruin is an absolute necessity to holding back said invaders. 

And then comes to Dimitri's personal belief during the time:

Quote

Dimitri: I believe those with Crests and those without should acknowledge the others' strengths and learn to respect each other based on personal merits. And that doesn't apply only to Crests. The same holds true for lineage, race, faith, ideologies... If we could just accept each other and make mutual concessions, one step at a time... Perhaps... Who knows if that's even possible. Everyone has something that is unacceptable within them. I certainly do, and I'd wager you do as well. I wonder which is best, Professor... To cut away that which is unacceptable, or to find a way to accept it anyway...

So he basically wants the nobles, commoners, races, Crests, and Crestless to just all learn to get along. However, he concedes that some people cannot accept this. This overall comes to the case of when he clashes against Edelgard during their talk near the endgame.

Most notably is how Dimitri seems to overall perceive Edelgard and what he thinks her goals for the future is, as a result of Edelgard not actually explaining her goals, sadly. 

Quote

Dimitri: Even after seeing the faces of those who have suffered the ravages of war, you would still force them to throw their lives away for the future? You are obsessively devoted to this war and deaf to the screams of its victims. You cannot change the cycle of the strong dominating the weak with a method like that.

-

Dimitri: Yes. Perhaps someone as strong as you are can claim something like that. But you cannot force that belief onto others. People aren't as strong as you think they are. There are those who cannot live without their faith...and those who cannot go on once they have lost their reason for living. Your path will not be able to save them. It is the path of the strong, and so, it could only benefit the strong.

-

Dimitri: And do you intend to become a goddess yourself? Will you steal the power to take action from the broken-hearted masses you claim to defend? The ones who can truly change the way of the world are not the rulers, but the people. Pushing your own sense of justice and your own ideals onto even one other person is no more than self-righteousness.

-

Dimitri: Do you not believe in the power of people to join together and rise up? Humans are weak creatures. But they are also creatures who help each other, support each other, and together, find the right path. I have learned that humans are capable of all that from the professor...and from everyone in my life.

While the Edelgard and Dimitri talk have a lot of issues, I do notice some things that Dimitri is trying to say. 

He's overall speaking his belief that the people are weak and will suffer under Edelgard, due to how she is trying to rely on war to change things, and instead believes that people all have to come together to change. However, this is still the case of how both parties are at a state of mind and belief that neither can accept the other, so they have to destroy one another as a result, which is just as Dimitri mentioned in the Miklan conversation. 

And this all comes together to what Dimitri said way back then in the trailer:

Quote

Dimitri: Someone must put a stop to this cycle of the strong trampling the weak.

The classic strong vs. weak argument. 

Now simply adjust this to the nobles and commoners, with the nobles being the strong, and commoners being the weak, then the strong trampling the weak is overall the problem of corrupt nobility. Corrupt nobility have been one of the one of the biggest sources of problems in Fódlan. Them abusing their power is the very thing that caused many people, nobles and commoners alike, to be harmed as a result. 

So if you take how he views the case of House Gautier, with how they are granted privileges for their service in protecting the land from invaders, or how the Crests are the "metaphorical blade" that protects others from threats, things start to become clear. 

Dimitri believes that nobles exist, born with Crests or just political power, are born for the purpose to use that very power in the service of the people.

The strong should protect the weak.

So how does this translate to his government reforms? 

His ending is that he is known for "listening to the voices of all". Now recall how Dimitri claims Edelgard's war made her "deaf" to the cries of its victims. If that's the case, then commoners being able to be freely participants of the government means that they have a "voice," and thus can be heard to the king and nobles, the ones that hold the power. If the commoners can be heard, then the nobles that have the power to act can surely use their power to help the people.

While yes, there are still flaws in this system, where commoners still don't have any actual powers politically, and relies too much on trusting those in power, let's understand that no reformations in the other routes are entirely perfect and each have their own flaws. However, the reforms here very much follows into what Dimitri believes in, in how the weak can speak and come together, and the nobles can try and use their power to help the people when something happens. It'd be a system that can have the potential to help better combat corrupt nobility that might abuse their powers by being able to rely on those that have power to help. And we know that at the very least, there are plenty of nobles in the current generation that genuinely can help the people if any corrupt nobles try to abuse their power. 

The irony in this is that had Dimitri and Edelgard actually managed to truly work together, had they been actually been able to understand one another, it'd have been a far more powerful system. Combine Edelgard's beliefs where anyone can rise to attain power through their own merit, and Dimitri's beliefs that those with power should protect the weak, and I would daresay that that could possibly be a true path to a democracy. 

Such a shame that there were just too many circumstances surrounding the story, and a lack of development for the major characters that could have helped bridge the gaps between one another. Which only pushes the tragedy of this war more than previous games. 

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Now, while I am a personal fan of Edelgard's reformations more, I believe that there is some actual merit behind Dimitri's efforts in his reformations, and I hope this helps better clarify to what I believe Dimitri's reformations are ultimately meant to be about, and thus give anyone that is a fan of Dimitri and Azure Moon a clearer picture in their head as to what Dimitri's reformations are like, which might help better appreciate his route as a result. 

I know this at least helps me better understand, which I sorely needed.

Of course, feel free to disagree with me, since this is just what I believe is the case from analyzing Dimitri's words, but that doesn't mean I'm exactly right, since again, the game does not make it clear what his reforms are meant to entail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Commoners only accept their conditions as such if they're blissfully ignorant of the possibilities before them. Not letting them be stakeholders and decision-makers is fundamental to their acceptance of the noble class. That way, they believe nobles to be strong and wise in a way commoners could never be, and hence make peace with their own powerlessness. The Church of Seiros, like real-life religions, serves to simultaneously validate the nobility's privileged status (through the Crest system) and keep commoners in ignorance (through control of thought and education). 

The BL ending is normally unworkable in the real world because giving impoverished and uneducated peasant/worker masses sudden power makes them realize how screwed their society is structurally set up, made to privilege a select few and keep the masses in poverty and servitude of the ruling classes. And yet the same masses are not sophisticated and prosperous enough to figure a way out of their own systemic oppression, leading to the oppressed becoming the oppressors - after all, their reference point of success/prosperity is the formerly ruling class.

The most relevant modern example of this is the decolonization of the world post WWII, where the decline of European empires mostly led to failed attempts to suppress independence movements or hasty democratization, followed by bloody civil wars as the newly freed people struggled to fill the power vacuum left by their former conquerors. This was on the backdrop of the Cold War, where the US and the USSR leveraged their massive military and economic power to encourage proxy wars on a global scale, taking advantage of the fragmented new countries. You could also perceive contemporary countries like Iraq and Afghanistan as symptomatic of the same problem - sudden democracy among poorly equipped and deeply divided people leading to easy manipulation and seemingly endless civil war. 

We know Fodlan is very fragmented as a continent - the Empire, Faerghus and the Alliance rely heavily on different noble houses exercising control of their little fiefdoms to maintain the rule of law. Commoners don't seem to have much access to literacy or education at all, with the Church playing a pivotal role in providing whatever access there is - even the cream of the nobility's crop is brought up under the eyes of the Church. So keeping commoners obedient and complacent plays a major role in preventing internal strife. So suddenly empowering them with meaningful decision-making is bound to make them demand major concessions from their rulers, considering the absolutely massive difference in every facet of power (except population count) between commoners and nobles. Either major conflict or re-working of whatever participatory framework Dimitri came up with would be inevitable, and it would be impossible to maintain the nobility structure without chipping away at its privileged hereditary status (which Dimitri appears to perceive as fundamental to maintaining order and fighting threats). And seeing as Fodlan is not alone in the world, these commoner-nobility struggles could easily be exploited by major foreign nations like Almyra - again, forcing a reckoning that undoes the fundamental premise of Azure Moon Fodlan. 

 

That's why I dislike the AM ending strongly - suggesting that Dimitri balanced a "participatory" system in a world where the masses are uneducated peasants, with a hereditary feudal nobility that relies strongly on religious beliefs to maintain its position, without any sort of elaboration just feels incredibly wishy-washy something you'd expect in a Hallmark movie or a bad fantasy novel adaption. And we know Dimitri isn't exactly a smooth operator or outstanding intellectual, either - he's a nice guy, but being nice doesn't solve the fundamental problem of 9 illiterate peasants wanting a lot of things from the one noble from a Crest house. 

Share this post


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

I've never been the biggest fan of Dimitri, and always had issues with him, particularly with his ending. Now, this isn't about whether he dealt with the Agarthans or not, as that's another separate issue, I've always had an annoyance of never understanding the type of reforms he wanted or made. 

Dimitri's Solo Ending:

After his coronation, Dimitri spent his life reforming and ruling justly over Fódlan. He focused particularly on improving living situations for orphans and improving foreign relations. He was known for listening intently to the voices of all, and for instituting a new form of government in which the people were free to be active participants. He lived for his people and alongside them, and was thusly dubbed the Savior King.

It's so incredibly vague that it's a wonder what exactly he did. With Edelgard, I knew that it was to abolish the nobility and install a more meritocratic government. With Claude, it was to tear down the borders between races and allow cultural exchange to end racism (even if Claude's story really didn't follow his goal as a theme). 

I love your analysis (also just because I was literally just playing the part where he talks about Sylvain and those issues). But I didn't actually find his ending that vague based on what he said. He cared about orphans because he essentially was one. Got it. And for listening to the voices of all, it really just felt like he probably instituted something for the commoners to air their grievances with the nobles/ruling houses.

That way they (those with Crests) could keep taking up the 'metaphorical blade' as he said, and the commoners with marginal access to literacy might be able to have a little bit more of a voice over their homes and lands. And by that I mean ... he just listens. Because listening and acting are two totally different things.

A 'new' form of government is probably just referring to the fact he ruled over all of the continent, versus the split way it was before, but it sounds still like a monarchy. Just one where he let commoners come to court so he could listen to them, so it felt like they were being heard. And when it comes to "people" are free to be active participants, I think this was referring to the fact he said Miklan should not have been disowned. In this case, it just felt like he was saying, rather you're a noble or a commoner, you're free to become a knight, or be head of a house. They have a choice, whereas before the determination of the crest was the FINAL deciding factor. In the world he creates, your skill is more of a defining factor. 

He basically just improved upon a flawed system, without actually really making much difference. Which makes sense. He marginally improved everything, but kept a world in place where the strong protect the weak, which is exactly how he views the people. So to me it was less vague and more—he kept the status quo. To me, that's all Dimitri's route was—a standard FE route with a standard, good-natured hero. It kept the church and faith of the people (cause according to Dimitri, people can't live without their religion), and kept a monarchy and nobility to 'guide' and 'protect' the people. 

All this said, I absolutely adore Dimitri—but his good-natured ideals are really a burden. Haha. I wish they let Byleth have more of a voice, I would have coaxed him into going for Edelgard's plan. XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically, the only timeline where a mass participatory system would actually work is the timeline where Ferdinand's idea of introducing free education for all is implemented. Which is where Edelgard wins. Edelgard alone will not be enough to make this work, she will require good advice from people she trusts to come with ideas she hasn't considered. Ferdinand is one of many people who would be able to grant her valuable insight. (Ironically, Dimitri could have been one of those people if they weren't in open conflict) 

There is a thing, while the notion that the strong should protect the weak is correct, how is this not the case in Edelgard's system? Presumably those who rise to positions of power in the system would still have it as their duty to protect and make decisions for the best of the people as a whole. In fact, the capability of doing so is part of how you determine merit. It is really more of a difference in how you determine who should have a right to protect the weak. Dimitri is assuming that nobles are strong and commoners are weak by nature, Edelgard doesn't divide by class lines , but promotes those who are capable regardless of their birthright. It is a bit ridiculous to assume that no commoner is capable of holding higher office if given proper education and an opportunity to do so.

Some people would still be at the bottom of society, but how is this any different than under the nobility system? Just because you are a noble doesn't mean you won't abuse your power, anyone is capable of doing that. At least if you select office by merit, after that merit is taking care of those below you, it is possible to reject those that you feel would abuse their position. You can't really do that with a birthright system. 

Dimitri holds a fundamental misunderstanding about Edelgard's ideology and the nature of merit. Being the best suited for a job and being strong is not the same thing. It is like with the common misconception with Darwinian evolution, survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily mean survival of the strong. The fittest could also be the most clever, or the ones with the most empathy, if said empathy helps their continued existence and chances of reproduction. As such, in the true meritocracy, it isn't necessarily a rule by the strong, she will require but that those considered most suited to a position would get it, and that suitability is determined by who could perform a role the best, which is partwise determined by the ability to make decisions that makes society as a whole prosper, benefiting everyone, including the people Dimitri calls weak. 

I do feel that the nature of these changes will with time, lead to a more well educated populace that will be harder to control for the elites, which over time, leads to the common people having more of a say in government. Many of the people in charge will naturally have originally descended from poverty and former commoner families. Knowing what it is like to be poor, they would pass legislation to benefit people in their former situation. That I do believe that a victory for Edelgard is the most likely to lead to democracy in the future. It might be several hundred years, but I think it will eventually happen, change like this sometimes takes time, but you also need to sow the seeds that will lead to the change happening. 

I wonder if Dimitri would have changed his mind about Edelgard. If he saw the future she would create with his own eyes. The society Dimitri created is probably fine, just isn't as good as what could have been. Not that I understand how he intends to give the common people of voice when he keeps around the institutions of a successive monarchy and a nobility system where power is inherited by blood. But it is definitely better than it was before. 

 

Edited by Darkmoon6789

Share this post


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

Dimitri holds a fundamental misunderstanding about Edelgard's ideology and the nature of merit. Being the best suited for a job and being strong is not the same thing. It is like with the common misconception with Darwinian evolution, survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily mean survival of the strong. The fittest could also be the most clever, or the ones with the most empathy, if said empathy helps their continued existence and chances of reproduction. As such, in the true meritocracy, it isn't necessarily a rule by the strong, she will require but that those considered most suited to a position would get it, and that suitability is determined by who could perform a role the best, which is partwise determined by the ability to make decisions that makes society as a whole prosper, benefiting everyone, including the people Dimitri calls weak. 

It does not help that Edelgard does not bother to really explain anything. Their talk is very poorly written that accomplishes little to explain Edelgard's plans for reforms. So all Dimitri was seeing is someone explaining that war is good or something.

Share this post


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

It does not help that Edelgard does not bother to really explain anything. Their talk is very poorly written that accomplishes little to explain Edelgard's plans for reforms. So all Dimitri was seeing is someone explaining that war is good or something.

Also doesn't help that she is ignorant and just as bad as others without the help of the people around her, whom she just refuses to talk with.  Her beliefs, although flawed and filled with more violence, can be fixed and led down a better path, but nope! They agree with her because of x reason and simply blindly follow her just like the other characters do on their own routes.  It's like the only reason these students give a damn about their house leader is because of their professor.  Just wish we got the characters involved in picking apart her beliefs so that she can realistically accomplish them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Erosword said:

Also doesn't help that she is ignorant and just as bad as others without the help of the people around her, whom she just refuses to talk with.  Her beliefs, although flawed and filled with more violence, can be fixed and led down a better path, but nope! They agree with her because of x reason and simply blindly follow her just like the other characters do on their own routes.  It's like the only reason these students give a damn about their house leader is because of their professor.  Just wish we got the characters involved in picking apart her beliefs so that she can realistically accomplish them.

It isn't a blind following. Let's understand that there are characters that follow them for their own reasons and own sense of loyalty.

In Black Eagles, each character does believe in what Edelgard is doing after getting a look at how Rhea reacts to Byleth. It's not solely cause of Byleth himself or his charisma. What Rhea did made them realize something was up and thus wanted to learn more.

In Blue Lions, because there is already a preexisting relationship, they do care about Dimitri. Hell, Felix even looked for Dimitri in the past five years. Overall being a tsundere for him. And there are others filled with the sense of loyalty to the Church or hatred to the Empire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that IS really put much thought into Dimitri's reform. Throughout Azure Moom Dimitri is the most accepting of Fodlan's presence state even saying ''we must protect the presence for its all that we have''. It makes an interesting contrast with Edelgard and sets up the ground for conflict. However since the status quo is shown to be damaging Dimitri must also move beyond it or else his ending would objectively be the worst. I feel his reforms were meant as a way to both keep his theme of protecting the present while also avoiding the situation where his ending is inferior to the others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

It isn't a blind following. Let's understand that there are characters that follow them for their own reasons and own sense of loyalty.

In Black Eagles, each character does believe in what Edelgard is doing after getting a look at how Rhea reacts to Byleth. It's not solely cause of Byleth himself or his charisma. What Rhea did made them realize something was up and thus wanted to learn more.

In Blue Lions, because there is already a preexisting relationship, they do care about Dimitri. Hell, Felix even looked for Dimitri in the past five years. Overall being a tsundere for him. And there are others filled with the sense of loyalty to the Church or hatred to the Empire. 

Which is basically relying on Rhea to come off as a bit of a dick just to get this to happen.  But still feels weird when in Church route, they just up and joined cuz of professor.

As for BL, I was referring to how little input the cast has outside of tiny bits of the story such as the one you mentioned. 

 

Hell, it sort of feels like the other students are more like side characters only involved to either say something key to their characterization or to agree to the lord and the protagonist.  

I was looking for a bit more agency in the cast.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

It isn't a blind following. Let's understand that there are characters that follow them for their own reasons and own sense of loyalty.

In Black Eagles, each character does believe in what Edelgard is doing after getting a look at how Rhea reacts to Byleth. It's not solely cause of Byleth himself or his charisma. What Rhea did made them realize something was up and thus wanted to learn more.

In Blue Lions, because there is already a preexisting relationship, they do care about Dimitri. Hell, Felix even looked for Dimitri in the past five years. Overall being a tsundere for him. And there are others filled with the sense of loyalty to the Church or hatred to the Empire. 

It's still idiotic that so many charavter can join 4 faction that are very different from each other, including 2 that are poles apart from each other. And yes, it came out as "the professor is so awesome that i will go wherever they are", because that is the only notable difference between CF and SS before the big twist, and yet no character other than Hubert and Flayn will side againist you. Recruitment should have been much more restricted in any route.

17 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I feel his reforms were meant as a way to both keep his theme of protecting the present while also avoiding the situation where his ending is inferior to the others. 

Wich is the problem of any ending. It's always golden age crap instead of something that actually explore political concepts and make the player consider his priorities, such as "progress at the cost of unrest" vs "peace at the cost of stagnation". The game chicken out of such conflict by claiming that every route lead to the same golden path. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Flere210 said:

It's still idiotic that so many charavter can join 4 faction that are very different from each other, including 2 that are poles apart from each other. And yes, it came out as "the professor is so awesome that i will go wherever they are", because that is the only notable difference between CF and SS before the big twist, and yet no character other than Hubert and Flayn will side againist you. Recruitment should have been much more restricted in any route.

 

It's partially why I like CF a lot more, because not EVERYONE will side with you. It makes it a lot more realistic that some loyalties will keep even others from joining you. Which emphasizes the tragedy of war more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm I always thought that his system basically lead to a constitutional monarchy. So the nobility stays but their power over the commoners is checked by a centralized government (which is the listening to all voices part). With the duties and privileges of the nobility over time slowly beeing erased in favor of probably democratic structures. So quite similiar how things went down for the westeuropean kingdoms like england and spain, which still have a nobility and a king (or queen) to this day, but have embraced democracy and equal rights over time.

While Edelgards approach would more mirror the history of france which removed most of their nobility in the french revolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nihilem said:

Hmm I always thought that his system basically lead to a constitutional monarchy. So the nobility stays but their power over the commoners is checked by a centralized government (which is the listening to all voices part). With the duties and privileges of the nobility over time slowly beeing erased in favor of probably democratic structures. So quite similiar how things went down for the westeuropean kingdoms like england and spain, which still have a nobility and a king (or queen) to this day, but have embraced democracy and equal rights over time.

While Edelgards approach would more mirror the history of france which removed most of their nobility in the french revolution.

Honestly, as mentioned above, the one flaw I feel there is here is the lack of education for commoners. Education is basically a vital key toward removing the barriers between commoners and nobility. So whether it will actually be siphoned out that easily is questionable, since this could also be the founding of a parliament, but would also have the issue of how it took more wars before monarchy was overthrown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the risk of war is always there. For some reason humans really like to kill each other. That could happen in Edelgards system, in Claudes System , heck even if Byleth took his rightful place as God(ess)-Emperor of Fodlan and brought the golden age of human expansion and con ...... ok wrong universe... Point is that a system that collects power around one person fill inevitable fail if said person is incompetent. And as all of the endings suggest that political power is quite centralized they all of that problem that the next person in charge could be ruining everything. Or the next one after that.

 

What I wanted to express in is that there is the misconception that there is always a need for a french revolution to make a "system with nobles" to a "just system were commoners are not treated like insects" and that less bloody routes are possible. Probably not entirely unbloody ones because at that time period people liked killing each other even more than today, but as mentioned before war will sooner or later happen with any system ....

Edited by Nihilem

Share this post


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

What I wanted to express in is that there is the misconception that there is always a need for some kind of revolution necessary to bring a system that is not completly unjust. Systems can adapt over time - it just takes a little bit longer.

That might be a major problem in itself. How much "a little bit longer" would it be for the average human or commoners in general? Changes to society is one of the most complex things and wouldn't change overnight. Hell, even Edelgard knows well that winning the war won't immediately remove nobles from power. She needs to use the power attained from the war to make the changes to siphon it all out.

And depending on the length of time for those changes, the suffering humans go through is something that they simply might not be able to endure.

Everyone wants happiness. 

So it demands an incredible amount of self-sacrifice of not just happiness of oneself, but even of their loved ones just for the sake of being patient for the changes. But everyone is different. Some cannot tolerate injustice and would rather take action immediately for the greater good.

Take a little thing in regards to Tales of Vesperia:

 
 
 
2
 Advanced issues found
 
2
Spoiler

You have the Empire have corrupt people in the Imperial Knights and the Council, with one person in the Council named Ragou abusing his power and authority to oppress and terrorize the commoners. Like, literally taking children and willing to feed them to monsters. And when he was stopped, he used his own power and influence to get a light punishment. And the best friend of the MC, Flynn, tries to abide by the system and not become a vigilante, and instead rise through the system so that real change can be made. But Ragou was angered by Flynn's actions and thus intended to do harm to him. 

But the MC, Yuri, decides to become a vigilante and kill Ragou. 

It's not that people like killing each other. It's that they all have something they love or want to protect. 

Protect their own life.

Protecting the lives of their family. 

Protecting loved ones. 

Protecting their livelihood. 

Everyone has something or someone they want to protect. It might mean everything to them.

Reminds me of a quote from Katekyo Hitman Reborn.

Quote

"It is not because of my pride that I won't give it up. But rather because I can't give it up that it is my pride."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nihilem said:

Well the risk of war is always there. For some reason humans really like to kill each other. That could happen in Edelgards system, in Claudes System , heck even if Byleth took his rightful place as God(ess)-Emperor of Fodlan and brought the golden age of human expansion and con ...... ok wrong universe... Point is that a system that collects power around one person fill inevitable fail if said person is incompetent. And as all of the endings suggest that political power is quite centralized they all of that problem that the next person in charge could be ruining everything. Or the next one after that.

 

What I wanted to express in is that there is the misconception that there is always a need for a french revolution to make a "system with nobles" to a "just system were commoners are not treated like insects" and that less bloody routes are possible. Probably not entirely unbloody ones because at that time period people liked killing each other even more than today, but as mentioned before war will sooner or later happen with any system ....

Well, my primary worry for the future of Edelgard's system in crimson flower is simply that there might not be anyone who can fill Edelgard's shoes. She might have her fair share of faults, but she is noble and self-sacrificing to the extreme, not many people can retain this level of integrity while in possession of absolute power. However controversial, every decision she has ever made has been in their pursuit of the greater good, rather than a desire for personal power and that is the way it she will continue to rule until she abdicates. What is the likelihood of her finding another person like this? On the other hand, what is the likelihood of any offspring of Dimitri being as benevolent as him?

The thing is, while change would still happen with or without an revolution, sometimes change doesn't happen fast enough for the good of the people so revolution is a quicker option to enable some changes, but it comes at a cost. Honestly, one reason I am unconcerned about Edelgard starting a war is because there seem to be constant wars anyway.

Am I the only one who has noticed that most endings end up in very similar places? In pretty much every case, there will be a golden age for a time until another inevitable conflict, probably after Edelgard, Dimitri, Claude or Byleth are dead. I can swear at the endings for crimson flower and verdant wind are practically identical when it comes to the final state of the continent as Claude and Edelgard really wanted very similar things, in the ending I got Claude left for Almyra anyway, leaving Byleth in charge of the continent. Practically the same world state as crimson flower minus Edelgard (of course minus Edelgard is a big deal for me, is it just me or does verdant wind has the highest number of dead house leaders out of any route?). Out of all the endings Dimitri's is the most unique, but I also think it is less ideal than the others, is a lot of reforms that needed to happen simply didn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:
Spoiler
 
 
 
2
 Advanced issues found
 
2
  Reveal hidden contents

You have the Empire have corrupt people in the Imperial Knights and the Council, with one person in the Council named Ragou abusing his power and authority to oppress and terrorize the commoners. Like, literally taking children and willing to feed them to monsters. And when he was stopped, he used his own power and influence to get a light punishment. And the best friend of the MC, Flynn, tries to abide by the system and not become a vigilante, and instead rise through the system so that real change can be made. But Ragou was angered by Flynn's actions and thus intended to do harm to him. 

But the MC, Yuri, decides to become a vigilante and kill Ragou. 

It's not that people like killing each other. It's that they all have something they love or want to protect. 

Protect their own life.

Protecting the lives of their family. 

Protecting loved ones. 

Protecting their livelihood. 

Everyone has something or someone they want to protect. It might mean everything to them.

That is probably true for the unlucky fools who are sent to actually fight the war. For the ones that start it on the other side there are plentyful of other reasons - most have to do with power.

 

4 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Well, my primary worry for the future of Edelgard's system in crimson flower is simply that there might not be anyone who can fill Edelgard's shoes. She might have her fair share of faults, but she is noble and self-sacrificing to the extreme, not many people can retain this level of integrity while in possession of absolute power. However controversial, every decision she has ever made has been in their pursuit of the greater good, rather than a desire for personal power and that is the way it she will continue to rule until she abdicates. What is the likelihood of her finding another person like this? On the other hand, what is the likelihood of any offspring of Dimitri being as benevolent as him?

Thats why most modern countries have divided power onto multiple people. A lot of people actually. So that war would not be declared because one leader feels like it. In this context the political situation at the start of the game might even have some advantages over the unified continent at the end. Because regardless who wins if his or her sucessor is an incompetent or malicious the whole continent is screwed. If there would be three countries (Four if you thread Gareg Mach as indepentend city state) and in one country people get screwed hardly the might leave fo another one. Similiar to how things happened between west and east europe in the cold war.

Actually there is a presedent of this actually in game - being mercedes fleeing to the kingdom because she was threaded badly by the empire. With technologies advancing which increase the spread of information and require more and more skilled people at some point mistreated commoners might just say "well mr. noble if you thread my like waste I will move to a territory that does not". Competition stimulates buisness is what the merchants would say.

But I admit there is a lot of when and if in this kind of thinking. Things depend on events like the industralization to happen so that the countries have to adapt and change their feudal systems ... but I found it an interesting thought that crossed my mind.

Quote

Am I the only one who has noticed that most endings end up in very similar places? In pretty much every case, there will be a golden age for a time until another inevitable conflict, probably after Edelgard, Dimitri, Claude or Byleth are dead. I can swear at the endings for crimson flower and verdant wind are practically identical when it comes to the final state of the continent as Claude and Edelgard really wanted very similar things, in the ending I got Claude left for Almyra anyway, leaving Byleth in charge of the continent. Practically the same world state as crimson flower minus Edelgard (of course minus Edelgard is a big deal for me, is it just me or does verdant wind has the highest number of dead house leaders out of any route?). Out of all the endings Dimitri's is the most unique, but I also think it is less ideal than the others, is a lot of reforms that needed to happen simply didn't

I think that is intentional. They didnt wanted one ending beeing better than another one.

Edited by Nihilem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Nihilem said:

That is probably true for the unlucky fools who are sent to actually fight the war. For the ones that start it on the other side there are plentyful of other reasons - most have to do with power.

 

Thats why most modern countries have divided power onto multiple people. A lot of people actually. So that war would not be declared because one leader feels like it. In this context the political situation at the start of the game might even have some advantages over the unified continent at the end. Because regardless who wins if his or her sucessor is an incompetent or malicious the whole continent is screwed. If there would be three countries (Four if you thread Gareg Mach as indepentend city state) and in one country people get screwed hardly the might leave fo another one. Similiar to how things happened between west and east europe in the cold war.

Actually there is a presedent of this actually in game - being mercedes fleeing to the kingdom because she was threaded badly by the empire. With technologies advancing which increase the spread of information and require more and more skilled people at some point mistreated commoners might just say "well mr. noble if you thread my like waste I will move to a territory that does not". Competition stimulates buisness is what the merchants would say.

But I admit there is a lot of when and if in this kind of thinking. Things depend on events like the industralization to happen so that the countries have to adapt and change their feudal systems ... but I found it an interesting thought that crossed my mind.

I think that is intentional. They didnt wanted one ending beeing better than another one.

I do think that crimson flower is the most likely route to lead to drastic changes like industrialisation at the quicker pace than the others, Edelgards entire system promotes innovation because of the way that people are promoted and there is precedent set for future leaders making large sweeping changes to society. The feudal system is likely going to be quickly thrown out the window, as former commoners are encouraged to make their way in life by starting enterprises and businesses rather than just toll the fields all day. With no stagnant societal role. People will try to aim for the stars and that will reward clever thinking and innovation.

Dimitri's system and the church route will probably be the slowest to accept sweeping changes, so I think things like industrialisation will happen later than otherwise.

So, in general, I think that Edelgard's society will be more progressive, but also more unstable due to rapid changes in the system of government, for better or for worse. Dimitri's system will be more stable but less prone to change and will remain the same for longer

Share this post


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

That is probably true for the unlucky fools who are sent to actually fight the war. For the ones that start it on the other side there are plentyful of other reasons - most have to do with power.

Yeah, but not in this case. We know why Edelgard started this war, and it most definitely was not for the sake of power. And her soldiers fight for her because they believe in her and her cause to the point that they are willing to lay down their lives for her to the bitter end. 

Not all wars are started for the sake of power. Some are started for the sake of gaining resources so that your nation doesn't continue to suffer.

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...