Jump to content
AbsoluteZer0Nova

Why I don't consider the Crimson Flower ending to be the best ending for Fodland

Recommended Posts

The video delves into exactly why I don't consider the Crimson Flower ending to be the best ending aside from Silver Snow for Fodland. As brought up at some point in the future there will be a retaliation at some point as this change that Edelgard as Emperor reaches to giving other territories such as the Leicester Alliance and especially Faerghus was brought through force with her being the aggressor that initiated the war.

I say especially Faerghus due to the fact as mentioned in the ending it's wiped from the people's memory or as how apparently in the original Japanese translation it and the Church are erased from history. Whether this is due to Edelgard mirroring Rhea even more or she had no control over as after her passing those in the Empire wanting for them to not exist because as Edelgard herself states the other territories as offshoots of the Empire in not acknowledging they won their independence is up for debate but regardless the fact this happens is not a great thing to have to hear and would absolutely give to further resentment.

Ashe: Our pride, our people, our king. You've torned them all apart. Haven't you had enough?! What else is there for you to take?!

Me: Sadly enough your very kingdom's history too.

I love Edelgard as a antagonist as she's well written but I just cannot for the life of me root for her as a protagonist hero and Crimson Flower just didn't help things as the things she could have done as brought up in the video where Claude does take to doing in trying to learn the true history of Fodland as opposed to what she's told and just going with it. As much as she can be compared to Lelouch from Code Geass (I have some differing opinions on this as I do view Lelouch far more justified in his overall actions than I do Edelgard but that can be explained another day) in the other endings she is a martyr in them as she is a source of the people who hate her for causing the war and the causalities of loved ones who were affected by it and they would have every right to despise her for it and I think she does willingly accepts that on some level as she tells Byleth to kill her in VW to make it so but does for all intensive purposes would rather be the one to see things through to end for the world she envisions brought up by her own hands hence why she doesn't accept Dimitri's hand reached out to her in AM, but instead throws the dagger right back at him to still fulfill the oath of the dagger to not give in no matter what but also to tell Dimitri to do the same in throwing his words back to him. The dagger being not only her salvation in how she considered herself weak without it and why she thanks Dimitri for giving her a reason to keep on fighting and live, but tragically setting up things between them to go down the way they did when they could have worked together for a path of peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mostly agree. 3H has some downfalls in it's writing and I feel like one of them is that it completely overlooks how humanity really functions. Namely that we're creatures of habit, and forcing huge changes like Edelgard does in such a short time-span is historically going to cause massive problems.

There's a book, the name of which escapes me at the moment, that is about a time traveler being sent back in time to King Arthur's era where he gets in good with Arthur and then goes about changing basically everything about how the kingdom is ran until it's not even really a kingdom anymore, all in the service of helping the commoners have a better life. However, as soon as he's gone on a short trip, everything goes to absolute crap and when he returns the very people he busted his back to help took up arms against him. All because the change he instituted was too severe too fast and they wanted tradition over it.

That's exactly what I feel will happen with Edelgard's ending. Claude's too if it wasn't so vague, which actually helps it in this regard specifically. Basically, although Edelgard's intentions are good, her changes are too extreme and occur over too short a time period to actually stick. One disgruntled noble starting an uprising is all it would take to completely imbalance her and cause the destruction of everything she built up and I promise you that a disgruntled someone would exist due to her massive power and change shifts.

Of course at the same time, I feel like the endings were sort of meant to be "golden, best possible" endings for each respective route, so I usually tend not to delve too deeply into ripping them apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me, but I feel both the video and this post ignores VERY significant things. 

For one thing, commoners have been constantly under oppression from nobles for a very long time. However, the changes aren't immediate. It is gradual through use of education and having long term plans. It was explained by Edelgard in her support with Constance. It's a case where she is siphoning out the nobility by shifting things. It's why the nobles aren't immediately gone, as people love to nag on in regards to Edelgard.

However, let's actually think about some stuff that happened in Crimson Flower.

In regards to the Alliance.

The Alliance, as a nation, was never a unified form of government. Yes, you can consider it a nation and a country, but it's overall working with nobles just doing their own thing without answering to anyone. This is why the Alliance, after the war, just merges into one nation in the end. The people there don't even hold that much pride over the nation or of its unity. It's why in both Azure Moon and Crimson Flower, Claude is able to easily convince the lords to merge with the other nations. 

Now with Faerghus, you have to remember what happened at the very end. Rhea set Fhirdiad on fire. The civilians there, they were overall SAVED by Edelgard. To them, this was the moment when Faerghus basically no longer saw Edelgard as a villain, but a hero. Because to them, Edelgard saved them when Rhea went insane. 

This is not even going into the fact that Edelgard also had been using much diplomacy into the case of how many nobles actually sided with her willingly before and during the war. 

Also:

29 minutes ago, AbsoluteZer0Nova said:

I say especially Faerghus due to the fact as mentioned in the ending it's wiped from the people's memory or as how apparently in the original Japanese translation it and the Church are erased from history.

Dude. The JP version says they met their end in history. They aren't FORGOTTEN. Like, geez, man. You can't erase it from history. Just as Rhea can't erase Nemesis and the Ten Elites as heroes from history. Because the people KNOW about it. So it's impossible for the Church and Kingdom to be erased. This is especially the case since the Church is restored in endings in CF.

Edited by omegaxis1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

I mostly agree. 3H has some downfalls in it's writing and I feel like one of them is that it completely overlooks how humanity really functions. Namely that we're creatures of habit, and forcing huge changes like Edelgard does in such a short time-span is historically going to cause massive problems.

There's a book, the name of which escapes me at the moment, that is about a time traveler being sent back in time to King Arthur's era where he gets in good with Arthur and then goes about changing basically everything about how the kingdom is ran until it's not even really a kingdom anymore, all in the service of helping the commoners have a better life. However, as soon as he's gone on a short trip, everything goes to absolute crap and when he returns the very people he busted his back to help took up arms against him. All because the change he instituted was too severe too fast and they wanted tradition over it.

That's exactly what I feel will happen with Edelgard's ending. Claude's too if it wasn't so vague, which actually helps it in this regard specifically. Basically, although Edelgard's intentions are good, her changes are too extreme and occur over too short a time period to actually stick. One disgruntled noble starting an uprising is all it would take to completely imbalance her and cause the destruction of everything she built up and I promise you that a disgruntled someone would exist due to her massive power and change shifts.

Of course at the same time, I feel like the endings were sort of meant to be "golden, best possible" endings for each respective route, so I usually tend not to delve too deeply into ripping them apart.

Yeah, you know that saying there's a easy way and a right way? I would say Edelgard's ending is the easy way as you say goes about it too extreme and fast which it does have its fair share of hardships during the course of the story but those hardships that will come back to haunt the Empire in the future for how they brought through force this change. Edelgard is without a doubt a well intention person who wants to give Fodland a brighter tomorrow, but I'm just reminded of Avatar the Last Airbender's Sozin in how he wanted to share his country's time of wealth and prosperity to the other nations through force too and we saw how that went and is in fact echoing back at Zuko as the Fire Lord now in the comics too in having to deal with the scrutiny the Fire Nation has because of their "war" that affected the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I just want to mention the thing about Faerghus and the Church dissapearing from story as, actually erased, was an old mistranslation.

Faerghus and the Church just ended, their story as they were originally known ended, just like the Ottoman Empire ended, but it wasn't erase from history.

I just want to mention that, in fact, I actually helped to make this information being fixed; that translation comes from a Tumblr post, which was a huge Dimitri stan, and had a relatively bad opinion of Edelgard, but at least that person admited it was just a big mess, and she (I think it was a she) just assumed the end of their story as "erasing".

I dislike disinformation, regardless of if it's used against or for characters I like; this needs to be known as it was supposed to be known.

Edited by Troykv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AbsoluteZer0Nova said:

Yeah, you know that saying there's a easy way and a right way? I would say Edelgard's ending is the easy way as you say goes about it too extreme and fast which it does have its fair share of hardships during the course of the story but those hardships that will come back to haunt the Empire in the future for how they brought through force this change. Edelgard is without a doubt a well intention person who wants to give Fodland a brighter tomorrow, but I'm just reminded of Avatar the Last Airbender's Sozin in how he wanted to share his country's time of wealth and prosperity to the other nations through force too and we saw how that went and is in fact echoing back at Zuko as the Fire Lord now in the comics too in having to deal with the scrutiny the Fire Nation has because of their "war" that affected the world.

Trying to say that Edelgard took the easy way and the others took the "right" way is absurd. There's a case where being too slow is just as bad, if not worse. Look how long Fodlan's been in stasis over the course history in the game. Over 1100 years. No progress, in either society's government, or technology for that matter. Commoners were overall oppressed. Don't act like they weren't. In medieval settings, commoners NEVER have an easy life. 

Also, if you wanna argue about Sozin's war, as horrible as it was, it's what ALLOWED actual cultural exchange to happen. Keep in mind that Roku and past Avatars firmly believed that the four nations should ALWAYS remain divided. Just as the first Avatar also believed that the spirits and human world should be separated. Both of these decisions were only overturned after chaos took over.

Ever hear the saying, "From chaos comes order"? That's the natural balance of the world. 

Look at the Tellius series. If there's too much order, you promote a prolonged suffering. If there's too much chaos, it's senseless violence. 

There's a balance here, and Rhea was promoting extreme order. And as a result, things only got better as a result of Edelgard going to extremes with war. Trying to act like that video holds merit ignores a LOT of things. Especially since this video already fails the moment it tries to preach that Rhea is removed from power in all routes, ignoring how she only did so because she changed into a better person and realized her mistakes after being imprisoned by Edelgard. 

Share this post


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

1. For one thing, commoners have been constantly under oppression from nobles for a very long time. However, the changes aren't immediate. It is gradual through use of education and having long term plans. It was explained by Edelgard in her support with Constance. It's a case where she is siphoning out the nobility by shifting things. It's why the nobles aren't immediately gone, as people love to nag on in regards to Edelgard.

However, let's actually think about some stuff that happened in Crimson Flower.

2. Now with Faerghus, you have to remember what happened at the very end. Rhea set Fhirdiad on fire. The civilians there, they were overall SAVED by Edelgard. To them, this was the moment when Faerghus basically no longer saw Edelgard as a villain, but a hero. Because to them, Edelgard saved them when Rhea went insane. 

This is not even going into the fact that Edelgard also had been using much diplomacy into the case of how many nobles actually sided with her willingly before and during the war. 

Also:

Dude. The JP version says they met their end in history. They aren't FORGOTTEN. Like, geez, man. You can't erase it from history. Just as Rhea can't erase Nemesis and the Ten Elites as heroes from history. Because the people KNOW about it. So it's impossible for the Church and Kingdom to be erased. This is especially the case since the Church is restored in endings in CF.

1. Edelgard's notion of crests being to blame is by and far the same argument of guns being to blame when no it's people or in this case nobility as it has and always will to an extent in every Fire Emblem game. Also not every place has been affected by nobility in the way that you speak of to warrant any of them wanting a war that jeopardizes their lives the way it has. Dimitri's point of asking Edelgard there had to be a way to change things in her territory without affecting the other territories outside her jurisdiction is a valid criticism. I cannot recall any place being oppressed like how in Radiant Dawn Beginion treats the people of Daein to the extent that they did and look there's no crests (in a ironic way those who are branded being the crests are the ones looked down on) involved hence why Edelgard's point about crests is moot as nobility will find ways to justify themselves as being superior regardless. At least in Code Geass there was plenty of examples of how Britannia treated the Japanese/Elevens as they called them to be full on agreeing with Lelouch's war for Japan's independence because it wasn't just nobility but even other commoners of Britannia who treated the Japanese like trash.

2. I'm sorry but that's conjecture as we never have any showings of civilians perspective nor ever mentioned of them seeing her in such a light. The ending from what is said is that she yes makes Fodland a better place for the people but so do the other things endings but the fact of the matter is that she's the aggressor that entered Faerghus that was defending itself and to say that no one from Faerghus would view her in a negative view is ludicrous especially when the Ashe battle quote I posted is likely thee view point many surviving remnant soldiers and civilians would have and for all they know they would be within reason to logically believe she started the fire. Dragon Rhea doesn't even transform back to human form upon dying so where would she get her evidence of this is Rhea who transformed into the dragon that set the kingdom on fire. I still take issue with the other statement you made in the other thread about blaming Dimitri when he was within his rights to defend Faerghus from the invader and was taking to his responsibility as king unlike in the other paths with AM being the one where he comes back on track in getting his priorities straightened out.

Share this post


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

Okay, I just want to mention the thing about Faerghus and the Church dissapearing from story as, actually erased, was an old mistranslation.

Faerghus and the Church just ended, their story as they were originally known ended, just like the Ottoman Empire ended, but it wasn't erase from history.

I just want to mention that, in fact, I actually helped to make this information being fixed; that translation comes from a Tumblr post, which was a huge Dimitri stan, and had a relatively bad opinion of Edelgard, but at least that person admited it was just a big mess, and she (I think it was a she) just assumed the end of their story as "erasing".

I dislike disinformation, regardless of if it's used against or for characters I like; this needs to be known as it was supposed to be known.

Alright thank you for clearing things up on that. 

@omegaxis1 I'm aware of Roku and past avatars being wrong about certain stuff (in fact the comic has this with Aang putting his foot down against Roku on killing Zuko for the sake of the world and later on reconciling with him) but to say Roku and them were wrong when someone who was still ultimately a tyrant in how they wanted to enforce their vision/changes upon the OTHER places that were doing just fine is why Roku and the past avatars were right to do so. Also just because their divided doesn't equate to they can't be in harmony with one another a point which Iroh himself brings up as a balance and why he deeply regrets almost seizing the Earth Kingdom. But this is precisely why I all the more don't agree with Edelgard's need to seize control of the other territories.

Edited by AbsoluteZer0Nova

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AbsoluteZer0Nova said:

1. Edelgard's notion of crests being to blame is by and far the same argument of guns being to blame when no it's people or in this case nobility as it has and always will to an extent in every Fire Emblem game. Also not every place has been affected by nobility in the way that you speak of to warrant any of them wanting a war that jeopardizes their lives the way it has. Dimitri's point of asking Edelgard there had to be a way to change things in her territory without affecting the other territories outside her jurisdiction is a valid criticism. I cannot recall any place being oppressed like how in Radiant Dawn Beginion treats the people of Daein to the extent that they did and look there's no crests (in a ironic way those who are branded being the crests are the ones looked down on) involved hence why Edelgard's point about crests is moot as nobility will find ways to justify themselves as being superior regardless. At least in Code Geass there was plenty of examples of how Britannia treated the Japanese/Elevens as they called them to be full on agreeing with Lelouch's war for Japan's independence because it wasn't just nobility but even other commoners of Britannia who treated the Japanese like trash.

2. I'm sorry but that's conjecture as we never have any showings of civilians perspective nor ever mentioned of them seeing her in such a light. The ending from what is said is that she yes makes Fodland a better place for the people but so do the other things endings but the fact of the matter is that she's the aggressor that entered Faerghus that was defending itself and to say that no one from Faerghus would view her in a negative view is ludicrous especially when the Ashe battle quote I posted is likely thee view point many surviving remnant soldiers and civilians would have and for all they know they would be within reason to logically believe she started the fire. Dragon Rhea doesn't even transform back to human form upon dying so where would she get her evidence of this is Rhea who transformed into the dragon that set the kingdom on fire. I still take issue with the other statement you made in the other thread about blaming Dimitri when he was within his rights to defend Faerghus from the invader and was taking to his responsibility as king unlike in the other paths with AM being the one where he comes back on track in getting his priorities straightened out.

1) That's a VERY huge misgiving, first off. Crests are what upholds the noble system, literally stated by Hanneman himself. They need to stop being seen as something that gets you political power and influence. It's why Ingrid was nearly kidnapped. It's why Mercedes was forcibly adopted. And trying to blame it on people is incredibly naive. Yeah, humans are dumb, but the problem is that Rhea, the archbishop that promotes the Crests as tokens of the goddess's power, and had to have been aware within the first century or two about how humans developed an obsession. 

Keep in mind that Rhea is the one that wrote in the religion that Seiros makes "emperors of man" and "elevates people" which are obviously cases of how she is making it that nobles and Crests are connected because Crests are overall "divine right" for nobles to rule. 

Also, if you wanna criticize it like that, then you should go back to 1100 years ago when Rhea started the War of Heroes. Or Loog rebelling against the Empire. Trying to act like because someone starts a war, they are invalidated, you oughta reconsider history itself. What happens happened. Whether it's right or wrong absolutely is not something you'll ever have the right to consider. 

We are talking about an institution of a major religion that is in medieval times. You need to be aware of the setting here. The timing. This isn't modern day standards. This is medieval times, where other governments haven't been made. Also, Lelouch is still a terrorist that brainwashes people, murders, and even was the one behind the massacre. Accident or not. Hell, he's the biggest reason why the FLEIJA was fired and even created. 

But back on topic, Edelgard was not going just to destroy the Crests. She went after the nobility. Destroying the political influence of Crests just means that it's much easier to destroy the nobility. 

Also, back to the Dimitri argument. No. At this point, its abundantly clear that had Edelgard not tried to forcibly remove Rhea from power and defeat the Church, she could never make changes. The Nabateans try to promote their own beliefs of peace by inhibiting mankind's ability to progress, hence why they prevented tech from advancing constantly. And Edelgard trying to change society, abolishing the notions of Crests in her own nation, would have Rhea and the Church use their political influence to hinder her and protect the nobles. And Edelgard will have died long before. Rhea is immortal. You can do the math from there.

2) I'm sorry, what? 

Because you don't see it, you don't believe it? How about the fact that in the endings, there is peace in the continent, and no forms of rebellion being made. If anything, that's more proof that people side with Edelgard. The mural even depicts the commoners rejoicing over Edelgard. 

Faerghus did not join the war to defend itself. It joined the war by allying itself with the Church, which the Empire was at war with. So no, in CF, the Empire never invaded Faerghus first. They attacked the Church, and the Church went to Faerghus and allied with them. Dimitri did so because he wanted revenge on the Empire for Duscur. So no, if anything, Faerghus was at fault for allying with them and basically making an enemy of the Empire as a result. And that decision resulted in Rhea being in Fhirdiad and her setting it on fire. 

In the end, the civilians that were trapped in Fhirdiad were dying and were only saved because the EMPIRE entered and saved them. Why else would you think Edelgard would enter a city on fire? There's no strategic merit in it. If anything, the logical choice is to let it burn down. Edelgard didn't need to enter. But she did, because the civilians were dying from the flames. 

Edelgard did overall save them, and this is what people logically see as a result. They know that Rhea ordered the city to be set on fire, and Edelgard saved them. 

3 minutes ago, AbsoluteZer0Nova said:

@omegaxis1 I'm aware of Roku and past avatars being wrong (in fact the comic as this with Aang putting his foot down against Roku on killing Zuko for the sake of the world and later on reconciling with him) but to say Roku and them were wrong when someone who was still ultimately a tyrant in how they wanted to enforce their vision/changes upon the OTHER places that were doing just fine is why Roku and the past avatars were right to do so. Also just because their divided doesn't equate to they can't be in harmony with one another a point which Iroh himself brings up as a balance and why he deeply regrets almost seizing the Earth Kingdom.

Stopping Sozin and eventually Ozai was correct, cause Sozin committed genocide on the Air Temples, and Ozai wanted to commit genocide on the Earth Kingdom. Yes, both were very horrible, but remember that Sozin's original belief is that he wanted to spread what his nation had with the others. And you have to remember that this is almost 10,000 years or so of isolation. You have nations made that were isolated from one another, never interacting apart from the Avatar. 

Iroh literally taught Zuko the lesson of how you must be open to all the nations and possibilities, or you'll be too prideful and rigid. 

Roku SHOULD have tried to actually consider Sozin's beliefs and actually tried to compromise, allowing cultural exchange. But he harshly rejected it, and as a result, Sozin decided on doing it by force. Yet it is precisely cause of that that cultural exchange finally became possible. Benders of different origins could be together, and everyone could learn from one another. 

Roku was just as stubborn and overall was unwilling to accept change that resulted in the 100-year war happening. Had he been open to change and tried to believe that the world should change, he and Sozin would never had a fall out and, slow and steady, cultural exchange would have happened. 

Keep in mind that had Unalaq never tried to have the Spirit Portals opened, and Korra realizing that they should remain open, the Airbenders would have never revived unless it spent MANY centuries trying. 

That's the truly meaning of BALANCE.

Chaos and Order. Both are NECESSARY.

And Chaos is not limited to just war or violence. 

Any sort of change is considered chaos. Had Roku and Sozin made peaceful efforts to promote cultural exchange, it's chaos. 

People and society have to always be willing to change and experience it. If you don't, if you remain stagnant for too long... well... something breaks. 

Share this post


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

1) That's a VERY huge misgiving, first off. Crests are what upholds the noble system, literally stated by Hanneman himself. They need to stop being seen as something that gets you political power and influence. It's why Ingrid was nearly kidnapped. It's why Mercedes was forcibly adopted. And trying to blame it on people is incredibly naive. Yeah, humans are dumb, but the problem is that Rhea, the archbishop that promotes the Crests as tokens of the goddess's power, and had to have been aware within the first century or two about how humans developed an obsession. 

Keep in mind that Rhea is the one that wrote in the religion that Seiros makes "emperors of man" and "elevates people" which are obviously cases of how she is making it that nobles and Crests are connected because Crests are overall "divine right" for nobles to rule. 

Also, if you wanna criticize it like that, then you should go back to 1100 years ago when Rhea started the War of Heroes. Or Loog rebelling against the Empire. Trying to act like because someone starts a war, they are invalidated, you oughta reconsider history itself. What happens happened. Whether it's right or wrong absolutely is not something you'll ever have the right to consider. 

We are talking about an institution of a major religion that is in medieval times. You need to be aware of the setting here. The timing. This isn't modern day standards. This is medieval times, where other governments haven't been made. Also, Lelouch is still a terrorist that brainwashes people, murders, and even was the one behind the massacre. Accident or not. Hell, he's the biggest reason why the FLEIJA was fired and even created. 

But back on topic, Edelgard was not going just to destroy the Crests. She went after the nobility. Destroying the political influence of Crests just means that it's much easier to destroy the nobility. 

Also, back to the Dimitri argument. No. At this point, its abundantly clear that had Edelgard not tried to forcibly remove Rhea from power and defeat the Church, she could never make changes. The Nabateans try to promote their own beliefs of peace by inhibiting mankind's ability to progress, hence why they prevented tech from advancing constantly. And Edelgard trying to change society, abolishing the notions of Crests in her own nation, would have Rhea and the Church use their political influence to hinder her and protect the nobles. And Edelgard will have died long before. Rhea is immortal. You can do the math from there.

2) I'm sorry, what? 

Because you don't see it, you don't believe it? How about the fact that in the endings, there is peace in the continent, and no forms of rebellion being made. If anything, that's more proof that people side with Edelgard. The mural even depicts the commoners rejoicing over Edelgard. 

Faerghus did not join the war to defend itself. It joined the war by allying itself with the Church, which the Empire was at war with. So no, in CF, the Empire never invaded Faerghus first. They attacked the Church, and the Church went to Faerghus and allied with them. Dimitri did so because he wanted revenge on the Empire for Duscur. So no, if anything, Faerghus was at fault for allying with them and basically making an enemy of the Empire as a result. And that decision resulted in Rhea being in Fhirdiad and her setting it on fire. 

In the end, the civilians that were trapped in Fhirdiad were dying and were only saved because the EMPIRE entered and saved them. Why else would you think Edelgard would enter a city on fire? There's no strategic merit in it. If anything, the logical choice is to let it burn down. Edelgard didn't need to enter. But she did, because the civilians were dying from the flames. 

Edelgard did overall save them, and this is what people logically see as a result. They know that Rhea ordered the city to be set on fire, and Edelgard saved them. 

Stopping Sozin and eventually Ozai was correct, cause Sozin committed genocide on the Air Temples, and Ozai wanted to commit genocide on the Earth Kingdom. Yes, both were very horrible, but remember that Sozin's original belief is that he wanted to spread what his nation had with the others. And you have to remember that this is almost 10,000 years or so of isolation. You have nations made that were isolated from one another, never interacting apart from the Avatar. 

Iroh literally taught Zuko the lesson of how you must be open to all the nations and possibilities, or you'll be too prideful and rigid. 

Roku SHOULD have tried to actually consider Sozin's beliefs and actually tried to compromise, allowing cultural exchange. But he harshly rejected it, and as a result, Sozin decided on doing it by force. Yet it is precisely cause of that that cultural exchange finally became possible. Benders of different origins could be together, and everyone could learn from one another. 

Roku was just as stubborn and overall was unwilling to accept change that resulted in the 100-year war happening. Had he been open to change and tried to believe that the world should change, he and Sozin would never had a fall out and, slow and steady, cultural exchange would have happened. 

Keep in mind that had Unalaq never tried to have the Spirit Portals opened, and Korra realizing that they should remain open, the Airbenders would have never revived unless it spent MANY centuries trying. 

That's the truly meaning of BALANCE.

Chaos and Order. Both are NECESSARY.

And Chaos is not limited to just war or violence. 

Any sort of change is considered chaos. Had Roku and Sozin made peaceful efforts to promote cultural exchange, it's chaos. 

People and society have to always be willing to change and experience it. If you don't, if you remain stagnant for too long... well... something breaks. 

The fact that you think that the guy who killed every airbender on the planet social committed actual complete genocide on people who are pacifist questionable

Means there is no point in debating with you about how you feel with edelgard 

And just to say it again your argument of trying to talk to his friend This is the same guy who once again committed absolute genocide against people who don't fight back

Hey Hitler was right to kill the Jews too right come on man Even you know that the argument you're trying to spill is insane

 

Just to say this the fact that he had good beliefs at one point don't mean anything people who are willing to go to such extremes should never be allowed did it take other people's lives

After killing his friend what is the first thing he decides to do genocide That's what happens people who believe they are all right people who think they are a absolute right and good will always never question themselves no matter how far they go

 

Also I'm on my phone sorry to comment look so bad

Edited by jawaunw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jawaunw said:

The fact that you think that the guy who killed every airbender on the planet social committed actual complete genocide on people who are pacifist

Means there is no point in debating with you about how you feel with edelgard 

And just to say it again your argument of trying to talk to his friend This is the same guy who once again committed absolute genocide against people who don't fight back

Hey Hitler was right to kill the Jews too right come on man Even you know that the argument you're trying to spill is insane

 

Just to say this the fact that he had good beliefs at one point don't mean anything people who are willing to go to such extremes should never be allowed did it take other people's lives

After killing his friend what is the first thing he decides to do genocide That's what happens people who believe there are any absolute right and good will always never question themselves no matter how far they go

Did... did you literally miss what I said? I feel you purposefully ignored what I said and took everything out of context. I literally stated that what they did was wrong and they had to be stopped.

What I also stated was that Roku should not have rejected what Sozin said, but instead took that as an opportunity to make peaceful cultural exchange. 

Suddenly, had that been the case, no war, no genocide, but peaceful change. But Roku was adamant about keeping the four nations divided, which caused Sozin to try to force change. There is a cause and effect to everything. Every action you make has consequences. Hence why it's utterly stupid to act like doing nothing is a righteous act when it's very much evil. 

Read Einstein's quote:

Quote

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.

Doing nothing, allowing things to stay as they are, it's what causes others to act. 

Roku choosing to do nothing and instead rejecting Sozin's noble beliefs that they should try to spread their culture around made is what caused Sozin to harbor hatred and anger, making him grow resentful, prideful, and arrogant, believing that he should do it. 

Roku COULD have actually accepted what Sozin did, and allowed it to be a peaceful cultural exchange. Could have opened up things. 

Next time, pay attention to the context of what I said before you start making up bullshit, okay? 

Share this post


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

Did... did you literally miss what I said? I feel you purposefully ignored what I said and took everything out of context. I literally stated that what they did was wrong and they had to be stopped.

What I also stated was that Roku should not have rejected what Sozin said, but instead took that as an opportunity to make peaceful cultural exchange. 

Suddenly, had that been the case, no war, no genocide, but peaceful change. But Roku was adamant about keeping the four nations divided, which caused Sozin to try to force change. There is a cause and effect to everything. Every action you make has consequences. Hence why it's utterly stupid to act like doing nothing is a righteous act when it's very much evil. 

Read Einstein's quote:

Doing nothing, allowing things to stay as they are, it's what causes others to act. 

Roku choosing to do nothing and instead rejecting Sozin's noble beliefs that they should try to spread their culture around made is what caused Sozin to harbor hatred and anger, making him grow resentful, prideful, and arrogant, believing that he should do it. 

Roku COULD have actually accepted what Sozin did, and allowed it to be a peaceful cultural exchange. Could have opened up things. 

Next time, pay attention to the context of what I said before you start making up bullshit, okay? 

but this is the main thing why should he listen to him why should he believe that his friend has the right to tell everyone else how to be good

Sozin was a sheep someone completely impossible of truly being a leader he followed his beliefs to the point that he could never change

Alex Alexander the great said once I am not afraid of sheep leading an army of lions I'm afraid of a Lion leading an army of sheep

That that is the problem someone that truly has no vision other than that my place is good and yours is evil is the true definition of ignorance

The The greatest catastrophes of the world have come from that in that alone Good people doing evil things supposedly to make the world better

Cuz cuz the greatest evil is in the hands of those who truly believe they are right not those who are able to question themselves as being wrong

That I do believe that Roku should have possibly helped his friend he as the avatar had no choice but the remain neutral he could not allow something like that and this is actual job to keep balance in the world

 

Edited by jawaunw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did we just bring Hilter into this discussion?

Don't do that.

Share this post


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

but this is the main thing why should he listen to him why should he believe that his friend has the right to tell everyone else how to be good

Sozin was a sheep someone completely impossible of truly being a leader he followed his beliefs to the point that he could never change

Alex Alexander the great said once I am not afraid of sheep leading an army of lions I'm afraid of a Lion leading an army of sheep

That that is the problem someone that truly has no vision other than that my place is good and yours is evil is the true definition of ignorance

The The greatest catastrophes of the world have come from that in that alone Good people doing evil things supposedly to make the world better

Cuz cuz the greatest evil is in the hands of those who truly believe they are right not those who are able to question themselves as being wrong

Dude, are you for real?

Sozin proposed an idea to Roku. Roku adamantly rejected it. Sozin wanted Roku to at the very least consider the possibilities, and still Roku was being stubborn about it.

And you are quick to ignore how even as a spirit, Roku was STILL stubborn that he would insist that Aang had to kill Zuko and separate the four nations, to the point that Aang severed his connection to Roku as a result at realizing how wrong Roku's thinking was. 

Roku refused to believe that the peace could exist if the four nations connected with one another. He believed they HAD to remain apart. 

But this is a VERY wrong way of thinking. By keeping the nations separate, you promote isolation, make people closed off on seeing opportunities to learn. The Avatar has to learn the four elements, and therefore has to explore the world and learn the culture of the world so that he can keep balance. This is literally why cultural exchange should have been considered. 

Sozin's original ideals WERE right, but Roku stubbornly and adamantly refused to believe in it, but Roku was WRONG to believe that.

And yeah, I can never forgive Sozin for committing genocide, much like how I can never forgive Faerghus for committing genocide on Duscur, but guess what? Roku is very much part of the reason why Sozin decided to resort to war for the sake of his ideals. 

Share this post


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

Dude, are you for real?

Sozin proposed an idea to Roku. Roku adamantly rejected it. Sozin wanted Roku to at the very least consider the possibilities, and still Roku was being stubborn about it.

And you are quick to ignore how even as a spirit, Roku was STILL stubborn that he would insist that Aang had to kill Zuko and separate the four nations, to the point that Aang severed his connection to Roku as a result at realizing how wrong Roku's thinking was. 

Roku refused to believe that the peace could exist if the four nations connected with one another. He believed they HAD to remain apart. 

But this is a VERY wrong way of thinking. By keeping the nations separate, you promote isolation, make people closed off on seeing opportunities to learn. The Avatar has to learn the four elements, and therefore has to explore the world and learn the culture of the world so that he can keep balance. This is literally why cultural exchange should have been considered. 

Sozin's original ideals WERE right, but Roku stubbornly and adamantly refused to believe in it, but Roku was WRONG to believe that.

And yeah, I can never forgive Sozin for committing genocide, much like how I can never forgive Faerghus for committing genocide on Duscur, but guess what? Roku is very much part of the reason why Sozin decided to resort to war for the sake of his ideals. 

I can't believe I'm about to say this phrase but just because you're right doesn't mean you're correct

Both of them are wrong in a way

Roku is wrong for just completely denying his friends vision and you know talking about it realizing that as the avatar he has actual swing that creates something

Sozin what's wrong for immediately not listening to his friend and just talking about it more instead he went straight to the Earth kingdom and try occupying land Both stubborn extremes

but realistically what would Roku think what would any normal person think if their friend all of a suddenly said I will spread the goodness of my kingdom everywhere

it's supposed to be short here I'm not taking Roku out of debate here He's just as much of the problem I understand that

14 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Did we just bring Hilter into this discussion?

Don't do that.

Sorry about that That's the history buff in me talking two wasted years of my life

Edited by jawaunw

Share this post


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

Sorry about that That's the history buff in me talking two wasted years of my life

Yeah, things get ugly when you try to mix FE and actual history.

Also, is this a discussion or a "no you're wrong" slapfest?  Because one of these is grounds for closing the topic, and I really don't want to do that.

Share this post


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

Yeah, things get ugly when you try to mix FE and actual history.

Also, is this a discussion or a "no you're wrong" slapfest?  Because one of these is grounds for closing the topic, and I really don't want to do that.

Nah I don't think it's a slap fast honestly by the looks of these comments we both think each other's right and we're just explaining it the wrong way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jawaunw said:

I can't believe I'm about to say this phrase but just because you're right doesn't mean you're correct

Both of them are wrong in a way

Roku is wrong for just completely denying his friends vision and you know talking about it realizing that as the avatar he has actual swing that creates something

Sozin what's wrong for immediately not listening to his friend and just talking about it more instead he went straight to the Earth kingdom and try occupying land Both stubborn extremes

but realistically what would Roku think what would any normal person think if their friend all of a suddenly said I will spread the goodness of my kingdom everywhere

Roku, being the Avatar, actually going around the world, learning the culture and befriending his masters, where he learns the other bending arts and understanding the culture, became a stronger person.

But he was stubborn. 

He should have actually considered it.

Had he done that, he could have gotten Sozin and worked with him to try and bring about PEACEFUL cultural exchange. Actually promote trade between nations, and learning what the others nations had. 

And you have to realize that doing nothing or being too stubborn to accept change is an evil that people love to overlook. 

"I did nothing, so I am innocent." 

If a kid is abandoned, left alone, and you do nothing to help, and let it be someone else's problem, and as a result, that kid grows up to be a serial killer. Had you chosen to act and help him, he'd have become a great person. But by choosing to do nothing, he became a killer. 

Hence why I bring up Einstein's quote. 

Roku had the power and ability, the choice even, to help bring Sozin's vision and beliefs to fruition through peaceful means. 

But because Roku chose to be stubborn and reject the possibility of change, it made Sozin walk a darker and more evil path. 

Share this post


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

But because Roku chose to be stubborn and reject the possibility of change, it made Sozin walk a darker and more evil path. 

Okay, that's enough of a tangent, back to Three Houses.

Share this post


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

Okay, that's enough of a tangent, back to Three Houses.

Agreed. This is Fire Emblem, not Avatar.

In 3H's case, Rhea was someone that does NOT compromise when it comes to the Church or her beliefs. Just as this video tries to act like Edelgard had other options, they honestly try and ignore or overlook the many complex structure of the issues. Rhea was someone that kept Fodlan in stasis for over a thousand years. She impeded and inhibited humans from progressing, both on a technological and societal level. 

The recent Dream interview only confirms more about how dragons, after the Agarthan war, ruled over humanity and kept them from progressing, acting on their beliefs that this was the best way to prevent war. 

Thing is, suppressing something only makes something become worse later. 

This video immediately ignores context and tries to act out on meta knowledge, not realistic knowledge in the context of the story, cause it overlooks how Rhea only changed in non-CF routes because she had been imprisoned for five years, and had time to think about how badly she screwed up. It's not surprising for someone to be taken out of power and imprisoned to finally learn humility. 

And the fact that it tries to refer to the "Rhea did (Mostly) Nothing Wrong" vid that once more, people just try to insist Edelgard is objectively wrong, and ignores many forms of context. I'd love if someone could make debunk videos about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone in the game was really intended to be objectively wrong, the game is designed to be unclear on the point of who is right on purpose. It is part of what makes it so interesting. I favour Edelgard but that is a reflection of who I am as a person and what I believe in. Even if Edelgard was mistaken, even if her attempt at a better future wouldn't work, I still think it is better to try to do something than do nothing and let people continue to suffer. 

That is really my primary problem with everyone who isn't Edelgard, the object to her methods, but they don't really come up with any reasonable alternative to how to fix things. If anyone was to make an actual suggestion, maybe Edelgard would be open to listening to that idea. But no one can really provide any other solution.

I also need to point out that I don't think Edelgard will always lose, quite the opposite. Even in the timelines she looses she always wins in a way. The only reason the world changes at all is because of Edelgard's actions, she is always the catalyst of change. The war provides the necessary context for the other leaders to enforce their ideal society as well. Not to mention that Edelgard is also directly responsible for Rhea changing. Edelgard is a catalyst for change, and the world really needed that. In most routes she makes herself a martyr in order to bring about change. While the missions of the other house leaders aren't exactly what she wanted, they do mostly address her primary concerns and Fodlan is always a better place after the war than before. 

I think that it is made clear in the conversation Dimitri has with Edelgard before the final battle in Azure Moon that Dimitri doesn't really understand what Edelgard wants to do at all. He also says some really questionable things that makes me wonder if even understand what is the job is as a leader. The quote: "it isn't the rulers that change history, but the people", while standing good at first glance, has quite a few problems.

The most obvious one being that it is literally his job as a monarch to make decisions that benefit his people, is he really suggesting that he should stand back and do nothing and wait for the people to rise up on her own accord? I don't think the people could overthrow the oppressive structures on their own, it is the job of the rulers to do so because they are the only ones who can oppose such powerful forces as the nobility or the church. Not to say that the ruler should act without the approval of their people, but it isn't like Edelgard is making this against everyone's wishes. She has plenty of supporters and people who see things her way, she is just spearheading the war because she is the one who has the means to actually enact this change to help the people. 

Share this post


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

I don't think the people could overthrow the oppressive structures on their own, it is the job of the rulers to do so because they are the only ones who can oppose such powerful forces as the nobility or the church.

Coming from a country were the people had overthrown the oppressive government (even peacefully with almost no violence used) I would not agree with this satement. Sure there were global situations benefitting the cause, but saying that it is impossible is not true. If you remove the peaceful part, there are even more examples in history were exactly that happened. Well basically every revolution that ever happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, AbsoluteZer0Nova said:

1. Edelgard's notion of crests being to blame is by and far the same argument of guns being to blame when no it's people or in this case nobility as it has and always will to an extent in every Fire Emblem game. Also not every place has been affected by nobility in the way that you speak of to warrant any of them wanting a war that jeopardizes their lives the way it has. Dimitri's point of asking Edelgard there had to be a way to change things in her territory without affecting the other territories outside her jurisdiction is a valid criticism. I cannot recall any place being oppressed like how in Radiant Dawn Beginion treats the people of Daein to the extent that they did and look there's no crests (in a ironic way those who are branded being the crests are the ones looked down on) involved hence why Edelgard's point about crests is moot as nobility will find ways to justify themselves as being superior regardless. At least in Code Geass there was plenty of examples of how Britannia treated the Japanese/Elevens as they called them to be full on agreeing with Lelouch's war for Japan's independence because it wasn't just nobility but even other commoners of Britannia who treated the Japanese like trash.

I wondered how long it would take before someone referenced Code Geass. The answer: not long at all. I'm honestly just glad that there was no equivalent to the Euphemia Incident in Three Houses. 

You're correct in that Code Geass showed Brittania being systematically oppressive. But Three Houses does show the nobility system in Fodlan being oppressive as well; see the backstories of Jeritza & Mercedes, Hanneman, Sylvain & Miklan, etc. It also shows that the nobility system is being propped up by the Crests, with noble families using Hero's Relics to maintain control of their lands. 

The thing that you're missing: Edelgard isn't out to remove Crests from Fodlan; she wants to remove the nobility system itself. Yes, she blames the Crests for propping up the system, but her goal is to get rid of the system. 

Edited by vanguard333

Share this post


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

Coming from a country were the people had overthrown the oppressive government (even peacefully with almost no violence used) I would not agree with this satement. Sure there were global situations benefitting the cause, but saying that it is impossible is not true. If you remove the peaceful part, there are even more examples in history were exactly that happened. Well basically every revolution that ever happened.

Well there you go. Has GLOBAL situations that benefitted it. But you're forgetting that Fodlan is a continent that is isolated from the rest of the world. Just like that, you're in two completely different scenarios. Fodlan can't be changed peacefully, especially when you remember that society is also being controlled by an immortal dragon, something real life lacks. 

And keep in mind that many revolutions were not purely peaceful. More often than not, war still came from it. Hell, even peaceful changes was STILL built from the blood and sacrifice of many people. 

3 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

That is really my primary problem with everyone who isn't Edelgard, the object to her methods, but they don't really come up with any reasonable alternative to how to fix things. If anyone was to make an actual suggestion, maybe Edelgard would be open to listening to that idea. But no one can really provide any other solution.

THANK YOU! This is why I cannot truly side with the other lords. Dimitri's talk with Edelgard in Blue Lions is him saying that "surely" there was a way, but never once was this "way" ever expressed or explained. No one made any comments about what Edelgard COULD do, but throw this moral card about and acting like she's at fault for choosing to go through with it, but never once bother to bring about an actual alternative of how to change things peacefully.

Share this post


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

THANK YOU! This is why I cannot truly side with the other lords. Dimitri's talk with Edelgard in Blue Lions is him saying that "surely" there was a way, but never once was this "way" ever expressed or explained. No one made any comments about what Edelgard COULD do, but throw this moral card about and acting like she's at fault for choosing to go through with it, but never once bother to bring about an actual alternative of how to change things peacefully.

I have yet to play Blue Lions, but that seems to be a trend: every argument between Edelgard and Dimitri is just terrible. Just look at the boss conversation in Crimson Flower:

Dimitri: Must you continue to conquer? Continue to kill?
Edelgard: Must you continue to reconquer? Continue to kill in retaliation?

Dimitri raises a point (not necessarily a good or bad point; just a point) and Edelgard's response is, "No, you!" …What?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...