Jump to content
AbsoluteZer0Nova

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

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

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.

I am not entirely sure what you want to state with your comment - there is certainly no hard border between the three countries inside of fodlan so what has the situation on fodlans throat  to do with anything (if you are refering to that)? If its the word "global" I ment that in the sense of "international". To copy the most basic requirements for the "peaceful revolution" only two countries are needed.

Share this post


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

I am not entirely sure what you want to state with your comment - there is certainly no hard border between the three countries inside of fodlan so what has the situation on fodlans throat  to do with anything (if you are refering to that)? If its the word "global" I ment that in the sense of "international". To copy the most basic requirements for the "peaceful revolution" only two countries are needed.

You're ignoring multiple factors.

First, this is medieval times. Not modern society. And in medieval times, religion is VERY influential. You can see it in history books. 

Second, the three nations are all under the influence in politics by the Church. 

Third, Fodlan is xenobphobic as a result of the Seiros tenants, so outsiders won't really get to say anything.

Anything in regards to how modern times have peaceful resolutions, it's ignoring the many factors that come to play and how Fodlan is not like your example.

Share this post


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

You're ignoring multiple factors.

First, this is medieval times. Not modern society. And in medieval times, religion is VERY influential. You can see it in history books. 

Second, the three nations are all under the influence in politics by the Church. 

Third, Fodlan is xenobphobic as a result of the Seiros tenants, so outsiders won't really get to say anything.

Anything in regards to how modern times have peaceful resolutions, it's ignoring the many factors that come to play and how Fodlan is not like your example.

If that is true, getting the church on your side would then solve the problem right? Funnily enough in the "peaceful revolution" the churches were a big supporter of the movement.

And as the discussion started from the question how Dimitri in Azure Moon could reform the system without bloody civil war - with Byleth as Archbishop he has the support of the church. If the major powers in the continent are dead set to oppose you things will of course get difficult.

Edited by Nihilem

Share this post


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

If that is true, getting the church on your side would then solve the problem right? Funnily enough in the "peaceful revolution" the churches were a big supporter of the movement.

And as the discussion started from the question how Dimitri in Azure Moon could reform the system - with Byleth as Archbishop he has the support of the church. If the major powers in the continent are dead set to oppose you things will of course get difficult.

That requires Rhea to CHANGE, which she ONLY does as a result of being imprisoned for 5 years. You missed the original point I made where Rhea is an IMMORTAL dragon. Someone that's actively inhibited humanity's ability to progress, much like how Nabateans inhibited humans after the Agarthan war. 

The thing that Fodlan brings about with Rhea is something that isn't possible in real life, ie. someone that has serious longevity. Rhea has been in control of the Church for over 1,100 years. There's a thing called stagnant leadership, because the longer you rule, the more unlikely you are willing to change how you rule over others. 

So with Rhea in charge, the Church would never change in a peaceful method. 

The other routes are hypocritically riding on the coattails of Edelgard's war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But she puts you in charge of the church in the beginning of chapter 12. That is before her imprisionment. And she clearly states in that cutscene that this was here endgoal to begin with (well to be fair she thinks more of Sothis then Byleth but this is not a discussion about Rheas Morals). But the end result gets the same - Byleth becomes pratically leader of the church.

Edited by Nihilem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the "best ending" not objective? Some people would prefer to live under someone like Claude instead of Dimitri or Edelgard or whatever. You can assert to people that avocado is the best tasting food on the planet, but if someone dislikes avocado, then they won't start believing that avocado is the greatest or best. It's entirely a matter of opinion.

Plus, the whole point of three houses is that theres' no "good guy" or "best route." It's a tragedy.

Share this post


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

But she puts you in charge of the church in the beginning of chapter 12. That is before her imprisionment.

Keep in mind of context. 

Quote

Rhea: …Professor…listen closely. If our enemy invades the monastery, I will have no choice but to stand upon the battlefield. If something happens to me...I am entrusting my sacred duties to you.

This is a case where Rhea is only putting you in charge strictly because something could very well happen to her. 

And then, this decision is still only because Rhea still believed Byleth was Sothis and would become Sothis:

Quote

Rhea: You must have guessed it by now. The truth of who you are. Or perhaps I should say, your lost memories are surely beginning to return. 

-

Rhea: In a sense. Our dear professor is...a vessel. One who carries the power of the progenitor god within. In time, the vessel will become one with the power contained within, and the progenitor god shall return to this world.

In the end, she STILL thought that Byleth was going to turn into Sothis. That's the problem. Rhea believes that the only one that is fit to rule over Fodlan is Sothis. There would be no successor but Sothis for Rhea. 

Rhea was someone that was unable and unwilling to change until she's forced to. It takes five years of being removed from power and imprisoned before she finally got it in her head that she messed up and was wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3H is a video game with idealized endings. None of them make sense if we look at them from a real life perspective.

 

In CF Fearghus would eventually rebel but the same goes for the empire in AM. 
 

In SS the church would get vilified in the same way people are being a lot harsher on religion nowadays and they will lose their power because people don’t like being controlled by religious institutions. Especially because they’re the strongest ruling force, normal people always want to blame someone after all.

In VW... Claude would get shot before he could enact his big plan.

Share this post


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

In VW... Claude would get shot before he could enact his big plan.

Shot?  Probably not.  He'd most likely be laughed out of the room.  Or a whole lot of bureaucratic red tape would conveniently get in the way, thus making fully open borders impossible.

IMO the best ending in 3H is whichever one closed out the story in the most satisfactory way FOR THE VIEWER.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

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.

I think you are referring to a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court by Mark Twain. I did see a review of it recently. 

Edit: Yes, I don't actually think there is an objectively best ending, just once that work best for certain individuals. I do support Edelgard, but I'm also notoriously opposed to religious influence in politics and I do favour a strong government. I do believe that it is the governments role to protect the rights and welfare of their people, especially against powerful organisations like corporations or religious institutions that would exploit them for personal gain. Or in the case of religion, preventing them from enforcing their will on every single citizen whenever they believe in the religion or not. There really isn't any religious freedom one religion controls all, it is the job of the government to make sure that doesn't happen. With this in mind, I think you can understand why Edelgard is the character I support.

 

Edited by Darkmoon6789

Share this post


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

In VW... Claude would get shot before he could enact his big plan.

 

6 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Shot?  Probably not.  He'd most likely be laughed out of the room.  Or a whole lot of bureaucratic red tape would conveniently get in the way, thus making fully open borders impossible.

Claude's story to deal with racism WOULD have been better had the Almyrans been an active helper in the war, rather than show up literally one chapter and leave immediately after. Would have given the players a chance for NPCs and such to comment about how maybe Almyrans aren't so bad or such. 

But nope. No NPC even mentions the Almyrans in VW after chapter 18.

Share this post


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

 

Claude's story to deal with racism WOULD have been better had the Almyrans been an active helper in the war, rather than show up literally one chapter and leave immediately after. Would have given the players a chance for NPCs and such to comment about how maybe Almyrans aren't so bad or such. 

But nope. No NPC even mentions the Almyrans in VW after chapter 18.

A quick look into our own world is enough.  Imagine what would happen if the president of the USA suddenly declared a fully open border with Mexico!  Almyra/Fodlan relations are worse, too.

Share this post


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

 

Claude's story to deal with racism WOULD have been better had the Almyrans been an active helper in the war, rather than show up literally one chapter and leave immediately after. Would have given the players a chance for NPCs and such to comment about how maybe Almyrans aren't so bad or such. 

But nope. No NPC even mentions the Almyrans in VW after chapter 18.

Doesn't Edelgard also succeeded in opening up diplomatic relations with Almyra however? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it matter if Edelgard's ending is the "best" ending for Fodlan?

17 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Claude's story to deal with racism WOULD have been better had the Almyrans been an active helper in the war, rather than show up literally one chapter and leave immediately after. Would have given the players a chance for NPCs and such to comment about how maybe Almyrans aren't so bad or such. 

But nope. No NPC even mentions the Almyrans in VW after chapter 18.

I think it would've been interesting if Almyra had been more involved in every route; not just VW. Not only would it make Claude a greater threat in routes where he's an opponent, but it would also give Dimitri reason to oppose Claude:

All anyone from Fodlan knows about Almyra is that they're a proud warrior culture that keeps attacking Fodlan. Dimitri's philosophy is that he wants to end, "The strong preying on the weak" and he'd probably see Almyra as an example of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Does it matter if Edelgard's ending is the "best" ending for Fodlan?

I think it would've been interesting if Almyra had been more involved in every route; not just VW. Not only would it make Claude a greater threat in routes where he's an opponent, but it would also give Dimitri reason to oppose Claude:

All anyone from Fodlan knows about Almyra is that they're a proud warrior culture that keeps attacking Fodlan. Dimitri's philosophy is that he wants to end, "The strong preying on the weak" and he'd probably see Almyra as an example of that. 

Even if not the best I would say that Edelgard's ending is just as good as any other. In fact, I consider her and Claude's endings to be rather similar where it counts.

About the strong preying on the weak, I am not sure Dimitri understands that Edelgard also seeks to prevent that cycle, they just have different ideas on how to go about it. Dimitri thinks Edelgard's methods will perpetuate it while Edelgard thinks that using force is the only way to truly put a stop to it. That is the tragedy of those two, despite being so different goals their goals are actually quite similar. Despite what Dimitri says, in guard has no intention of creating a world that only benefits the strong, she doesn't see it that way. She sees it as taking action for the behalf of those incapable of defending themselves under the boot of the current system. If the pressing power is removed. She thinks that the people at the bottom will be able to rise up on their own accord.

Share this post


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

Even if not the best I would say that Edelgard's ending is just as good as any other. In fact, I consider her and Claude's endings to be rather similar where it counts.

I wasn't saying it was or wasn't; I was just asking if it really matters in terms of the strength of the route and such. 

 

15 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

About the strong preying on the weak, I am not sure Dimitri understands that Edelgard also seeks to prevent that cycle, they just have different ideas on how to go about it. Dimitri thinks Edelgard's methods will perpetuate it while Edelgard thinks that using force is the only way to truly put a stop to it. That is the tragedy of those two, despite being so different goals their goals are actually quite similar. Despite what Dimitri says, in guard has no intention of creating a world that only benefits the strong, she doesn't see it that way. She sees it as taking action for the behalf of those incapable of defending themselves under the boot of the current system. If the pressing power is removed. She thinks that the people at the bottom will be able to rise up on their own accord.

Oh; he definitely doesn't. He sees the corpse piles created by the war she started and figures that she's perpetuating the cycle through her methods. 

I wouldn't say that Edelgard is trying to break that specific cycle; each of them wants to end a particular problem in Fodlan: Edelgard wants to end the Crest obsession and birthright deciding one's value, Dimitri wants to end "the strong preying on the weak" and Claude wants to end xenophobia.

If their different ideologies had been more explored, there could've been an argument between Edelgard and Dimitri where she points out that the peasantry would be able to rise on their own merits, and Dimitri would ask something like, "What about those left at the bottom (i.e. the "weak")? Would they still be preyed upon, just now by people who would now feel even more justified?" I don't think that would be necessary; I only bring it up to point out how their ideologies, while overlapping, are distinct, and would have different outcomes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I wasn't saying it was or wasn't; I was just asking if it really matters in terms of the strength of the route and such. 

 

Oh; he definitely doesn't. He sees the corpse piles created by the war she started and figures that she's perpetuating the cycle through her methods. 

I wouldn't say that Edelgard is trying to break that specific cycle; each of them wants to end a particular problem in Fodlan: Edelgard wants to end the Crest obsession and birthright deciding one's value, Dimitri wants to end "the strong preying on the weak" and Claude wants to end xenophobia.

If their different ideologies had been more explored, there could've been an argument between Edelgard and Dimitri where she points out that the peasantry would be able to rise on their own merits, and Dimitri would ask something like, "What about those left at the bottom (i.e. the "weak")? Would they still be preyed upon, just now by people who would now feel even more justified?" I don't think that would be necessary; I only bring it up to point out how their ideologies, while overlapping, are distinct, and would have different outcomes. 

I see what you are trying to say, you might be right, but I guess what I am trying to say is that they both ultimately wants an improvement of life quality for the people at the bottom of society. I don't actually think Edelgard's system would perpetuate the exploitation of the weak, at least, that wouldn't be her intent, as how they treat those beneath them is actually a criteria for someone being a capable ruler and kindness is actually a criteria for who she gives a position of power. So the idea is that if the right people are in control of society, they will do what is best for everyone, the weak included.

“I have no intention of handing the Imperial throne over to any child I might have. Instead, I’ll choose an outsider who’s brilliant and kind.”

This is something Edelgard says during teatime, it is clear that she considers kindness to be a criteria be worthy of power. So it seems to me that she wouldn't choose to give people who would exploit others, a position of power, instead favouring those who will treat the people beneath them well. 

Edited by Darkmoon6789

Share this post


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

I see what you are trying to say, you might be right, but I guess what I am trying to say is that they both ultimately wants an improvement of life quality for the people at the bottom of society. I don't actually think Edelgard's system would perpetuate the exploitation of the weak, at least, that wouldn't be her intent, as how they treat those beneath them is actually a criteria for someone being a capable ruler and kindness is actually a criteria for who she gives a position of power. So the idea is that if the right people are in control of society, they will do what is best for everyone, the weak included.

“I have no intention of handing the Imperial throne over to any child I might have. Instead, I’ll choose an outsider who’s brilliant and kind.”

This is something Edelgard says during teatime, it is clear that she considers kindness to be a criteria be worthy of power. So it seems to me that she wouldn't choose to give people who would exploit others, a position of power, instead favouring those who will treat the people beneath them well. 

That's true, but that's something she says privately, to Byleth, when she's calm. Imagine her trying to tell angry Dimitri that during a heated argument. 

I'm not sure if Edelgard's system would perpetuate it; I'm saying that I could see Dimitri arguing that it would and having decent points... if the game ever actually wanted either of them to have decent points when they actually argue with each other (seriously, why are the arguments between Dimitri and Edelgard so badly written?)

Does that make sense?

Edited by vanguard333

Share this post


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

In the end, she STILL thought that Byleth was going to turn into Sothis. That's the problem. Rhea believes that the only one that is fit to rule over Fodlan is Sothis. There would be no successor but Sothis for Rhea. 

Rhea was someone that was unable and unwilling to change until she's forced to. It takes five years of being removed from power and imprisoned before she finally got it in her head that she messed up and was wrong. 

Are you assuming that - if the attack didnt happen - she would just keep Byleth as a professor with no influence? I dont think so - even if he doesnt get the position as archbishop he will get something with a lot of influence. Something like Cardinal or personal adviser level. They have given him the most powerful weapon in fodlan on the hunch that he might become the goddess. So if he would ally with Dimitri (or with any other of the leaders) to help improving the situation in the corresponding countries I can hardly imagine that she would stop him. After all Rhea never actively defended the nobles which misused their powers .... she just did nothing to stop it.

Also unfortunately we dont really now what will happen with Byleth after the end of the game. Silver Snow only mentions that his work was "miraculos". So does he actually become the goddess? Then it would be only a question of time until he takes over the church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

That's true, but that's something she says privately, to Byleth, when she's calm. Imagine her trying to tell angry Dimitri that during a heated argument. 

I'm not sure if Edelgard's system would perpetuate it; I'm saying that I could see Dimitri arguing that it would and having decent points... if the game ever actually wanted either of them to have decent points when they actually argue with each other

I do think the both of them are making good points, I asked wish that they would elaborate on them more as right now. I think they are just making the other confused of why they would think that way. I honestly think that they should have just attempted to talk for longer. They kind of give up on trying to understand each other a bit too early. Both are essentially making assumptions

There is also the fact that the Edelgard in crimson flower is more attuned to relying on others than her azure moon counterpart. So she might be less about self-reliance than she is in azure moon. As she says before she kills Rhea:

"When humanity stands strong and people depend on each other. There is no need for gods"

While I do think the Edelgard in azure moon resemble her usual noble self more than I was initially led to believe, I think this is the most important difference between her and her crimson flower counterpart. The crimson flower Edelgard does understand the strength of bonds between people, her counterpart in azure moon is used to relying only on herself as Byleth never joined her. Being willing to rely on others is what makes crimson flower Edelgard a superior emperor to any other version of her. Even if I don't think her azure moon counterpart is all that bad.

Share this post


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

I do think the both of them are making good points, I asked wish that they would elaborate on them more as right now. I think they are just making the other confused of why they would think that way. I honestly think that they should have just attempted to talk for longer. They kind of give up on trying to understand each other a bit too early. Both are essentially making assumptions

There is also the fact that the Edelgard in crimson flower is more attuned to relying on others than her azure moon counterpart. So she might be less about self-reliance than she is in azure moon. As she says before she kills Rhea:

"When humanity stands strong and people depend on each other. There is no need for gods"

While I do think the Edelgard in azure moon resemble her usual noble self more than I was initially led to believe, I think this is the most important difference between her and her crimson flower counterpart. The crimson flower Edelgard does understand the strength of bonds between people, her counterpart in azure moon is used to relying only on herself as Byleth never joined her. Being willing to rely on others is what makes crimson flower Edelgard a superior emperor to any other version of her. Even if I don't think her azure moon counterpart is all that bad.

I have yet to play Azure Moon, so I wouldn't know. I agree about them jumping to assumptions too early. 

By the way, this is beside the point, but what did you think of my idea for a way to have conflict (or at least disagreement) between Dimitri and Claude beyond just fog and Dimitri going mad (in Verdant Wind)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I have yet to play Azure Moon, so I wouldn't know. I agree about them jumping to assumptions too early. 

By the way, this is beside the point, but what did you think of my idea for a way to have conflict (or at least disagreement) between Dimitri and Claude beyond just fog and Dimitri going mad (in Verdant Wind)?

A lot better than what we currently have, as currently the kingdom and alliance essentially fight for no reason. Making the almyrans more important to the story is a good way to create this rift between Dimitri and Claude. 

Anyway, I don't know where I originally saw this, but I think I saw it suggested somewhere that in crimson flower if you spare Claude he will eventually end up as the ruler of Almyra. Is there a source for this? In any case, I like the idea of Claude and Edelgard being the rulers of separate nations in the future and are on good enough terms to create strong diplomatic relations between the two nations so much that I think this is my personal headcanon

I am almost finished with Azure Moon now, so that is almost 3 out of four routes finished. I will have to say that I do think Azure Moon is one of the best stories in the game, even if I do have trouble supporting Dimitri for most of it, he is a really compelling character for the exact same reasons that makes him a flawed character. I would definitely recommend it, Azure Moon is probably my favourite after Crimson Flower. I like Claude, but he doesn't hold a candle to the other two, when it comes to being interesting. I actually think Claude doesn't have enough flaws, and only a tenuous connection to the overall conflict. While Dimitri and Edelgard are at the centre of the conflict. For Dimitri the entire thing is even personal, which makes his route really impactful.

Share this post


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

A lot better than what we currently have, as currently the kingdom and alliance essentially fight for no reason. Making the almyrans more important to the story is a good way to create this rift between Dimitri and Claude.

Do you think that AM Dimitri would really mind if the Alliance and Almyra get along better? He doesnt seem to be the "Outsiders Out" guy from my point of view as his personal assisstent Dedue is also considered by many an outsider (even if technically his homeland is part of fodlan) and strongly opposed when persons were treading him bad for it.

Edited by Nihilem

Share this post


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

Do you think that AM Dimitri would really mind if the Alliance and Almyra get along better? He doesnt seem to be the "Outsiders Out" guy from my point of view as his personal assisstent Dedue is also considered by many an outsider (even if technically his homeland is part of fodlan) and strongly opposed when persons were treading him bad for it.

True, but he might consider the Almyrans just another case of the strong trampling on the weak as all exposure he would really have too those people is that they constantly invade.

I am glad that Dimitri doesn't actually seem to support the genocide in Duscur, in general, I get the impression that most people in Faerghus doesn't seem to understand that they did anything wrong considering how they still treat the people of Duscur. In fact, I will argue that even if they did kill the king, a response is still way over the line and way worse than the original crime. This is the reason I am not too overly fond of Faerghus in general and couldn't care less if it would be reabsorbed into the Empire. But at least Dimitri could lead this nation out of its violent and genocidal tendencies. 

Share this post


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

True, but he might consider the Almyrans just another case of the strong trampling on the weak as all exposure he would really have too those people is that they constantly invade.

To be fair considering what we know from Cyril and Claude about Almyra that statement wouldnt be too far fetched ....

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...