Crests Did Nothing Wrong

[Stones]

I'm pretty sure Edelgard's goals in regards to Crests and the nobility are to separate them from each other so that the only benefit from having a Crest is the benefit the Crest gives, not political power or anything.

Also, what actually is a Crest? Like is it a birthmark or what?

[AnonymousSpeed]

It's kind of dumb to want a metaphor for something that is very simple to understand, widely known about, and not at all controversial to discuss.

There are three people on the entire planet who still support hereditary rule, so you could directly say whatever rude thing you wanted about it and very few people would get upset. At the same time, saying rude things about it would be weird and stupid because no one supports hereditary rule.

[Jotari]

9 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

crest-bearing families are just superior, right?

Well not entirely given how many powerful families there are that don't have crests, particularly in the empire.

6 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

You aren't understanding something.

Unlike mortals, Rhea is basically immortal. Humans die, and then that's it. You can't do anything more. 

Rhea isn't bound by that. She has longevity. And she's in a position of power that has influence on the entire continent. She's been the archbishop for over 1100 years. So she's been in a position to have intervened the entire time. In the course of 1100 years, she had EVERY chance to try and improve and/or fix things. 

Had Rhea actually tried to improve things much earlier, humans would never have become so dependent on Crests. 

 

18 hours ago, Jotari said:

This is not a thread designed to argue for or against Edelgard/Rhea/Dimitri (though I'm sure it'll devolve into that anyway). It's about the role of crests in society and how they work or don't work as  a narrative device in the way they're presented.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2020 by Jotari

[omegaxis1]

5 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well not entirely given how many powerful families there are that don't have crests, particularly in the empire.

You're ignoring House Bartels, that tried to get Crest babies often, to the point that he was about to forcibly take and marry his adoptive daughter. Dorothea's possible father that dumped her for not bearing a Crest. Edelgard's family being experimented on to get a Major Crest. The Emperor needing to have a Crest. 

Sylvain's support literally states how noble houses with Crests refuse to let non-Crest bearers become heirs. 

It's common practice for Faerghus to disown children without Crests in noble families.

Ingrid was nearly kidnapped to be forcibly wed for her Crest. 

The amount of political influence and power from Crests is astounding. Trying to argue that there are a handful of families and nobles without Crests does not, in any way, remove the case of how there's a HUGE obsession with Crests. 

[Jotari]

52 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

You're ignoring House Bartels, that tried to get Crest babies often, to the point that he was about to forcibly take and marry his adoptive daughter. Dorothea's possible father that dumped her for not bearing a Crest. Edelgard's family being experimented on to get a Major Crest. The Emperor needing to have a Crest. 

Sylvain's support literally states how noble houses with Crests refuse to let non-Crest bearers become heirs. 

It's common practice for Faerghus to disown children without Crests in noble families.

Ingrid was nearly kidnapped to be forcibly wed for her Crest. 

The amount of political influence and power from Crests is astounding. Trying to argue that there are a handful of families and nobles without Crests does not, in any way, remove the case of how there's a HUGE obsession with Crests. 

I don't deny that there's crest obsession. What I'm saying is that people can be powerful without crests (those said people being the ones most supporting the system by trying to get the crests into their blood line). I didn't ignore anything. All those points, forced marriage, inheritance rights, experimentation, I addressed all of them in the OP. You can disagree with my conclusions, but I did address them.

Edited April 8, 2020 by Jotari

[Darkmoon6789]

10 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I don't deny that there's crest obsession. What I'm saying is that people can be powerful without crests (those said people being the ones most supporting the system by trying to get the crests into their blood line). I didn't ignore anything. All those points, forced marriage, inheritance rights, experimentation, I addressed all of them in the OP.

The thing is that Edelgard's focus isn't just on the crests, she seeks to address all of what you mentioned. The idea that the war is simply about the crests isn't actually true.  Lee crests plays a role, they aren't actually the primary cause of Fodlans problems. The are interconnected with it. Due to their association with the nobility and the church. Especially the link between the two. Giving nobles divine authority to rule. 

 

54 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

You're ignoring House Bartels, that tried to get Crest babies often, to the point that he was about to forcibly take and marry his adoptive daughter. Dorothea's possible father that dumped her for not bearing a Crest. Edelgard's family being experimented on to get a Major Crest. The Emperor needing to have a Crest. 

Sylvain's support literally states how noble houses with Crests refuse to let non-Crest bearers become heirs. 

It's common practice for Faerghus to disown children without Crests in noble families.

Ingrid was nearly kidnapped to be forcibly wed for her Crest. 

The amount of political influence and power from Crests is astounding. Trying to argue that there are a handful of families and nobles without Crests does not, in any way, remove the case of how there's a HUGE obsession with Crests. 

Not to mention that trying to get an heir , with a crest is the reason that Edelgard had such a ridiculous number of siblings to begin with, this also goes for a lot of other noble families.

Apparently all of them were seen as disposable as long as they didn't have a crest.

Edited April 8, 2020 by Darkmoon6789

[Jotari]

1 minute ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

The thing is small, that Edelgard's focus isn't just on the crests, she seeks to address all of what you mentioned. The idea that the war is simply about the crests isn't actually true.  Lee crests plays a role, they aren't actually the primary cause of Fodlans problems. The are interconnected with it. Due to their association with the nobility and the church. Especially the link between the two. Giving nobles divine authority to rule. 

Edelgard's focus is irrelevant. The war might not be about crests, but this thread is.

[omegaxis1]

11 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I don't deny that there's crest obsession. What I'm saying is that people can be powerful without crests (those said people being the ones most supporting the system by trying to get the crests into their blood line). I didn't ignore anything. All those points, forced marriage, inheritance rights, experimentation, I addressed all of them in the OP. You can disagree with my conclusions, but I did address them.

Simply because there are noble families without Crests doesn't mean that Crests are free from blame. It's still something that holds political influence by mere existence. Trying to say that people CAN be powerful without Crests is trying to say that people don't NEED guns to win fights. While both are true, having the latter on each case provides MUCH better chances. 

Crests are powerful, and society is BUILT upon Crests as a foundation. 

Actually THINK about it more.

Adrestia, Faerghus, and the major noble families simply won't take heirs without them bearing a Crest. 

And said people control the nations and livelihood. 

Also consider what Dimitri says. This is a man, that while admits the obsession with Crests is a problem, still considers Crests, and overall the nobility, to be necessary for society to function. 

Traditions. 

Religion.

These are things that are VERY much valued in Fodlan's society. 

[Darkmoon6789]

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Edelgard's focus is irrelevant. The war might not be about crests, but this thread is.

I guess I have just seen quite a few people who has been operating under the misconception that the war is about the crests primarily. There is a reason the phrase "the crests are to blame" is associated with Edelgard, though primarily by people who doesn't really understand her motives. Just trying to clarify this misconception. 

About the nature of crests themselves, other than the origin from a genocide, they are really just superpowers that can be inherited through bloodlines. It is obvious why people would want to have them, the problem isn't as much the crests themselves as the system surrounding them. It is the traditions and religious significance of crests that need to be destroyed, rather than the crests themselves.

Another thing that I can't stop thinking about is how things would change in Fodlan if the Dragon signs from new game+  was a natural thing in the world. Would allow anyone to gain the benefit of any crest without being born into that bloodline. It would be a game changer.
 

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, omegaxis1 said:

Simply because there are noble families without Crests doesn't mean that Crests are free from blame. It's still something that holds political influence by mere existence. Trying to say that people CAN be powerful without Crests is trying to say that people don't NEED guns to win fights. While both are true, having the latter on each case provides MUCH better chances. 

Crests are powerful, and society is BUILT upon Crests as a foundation. 

Actually THINK about it more.

Adrestia, Faerghus, and the major noble families simply won't take heirs without them bearing a Crest. 

And said people control the nations and livelihood. 

Also consider what Dimitri says. This is a man, that while admits the obsession with Crests is a problem, still considers Crests, and overall the nobility, to be necessary for society to function. 

Traditions. 

Religion.

These are things that are VERY much valued in Fodlan's society. 

That's not what my argument is. My argument is that these issues are facets of human societies, especially feudalism, that happen even without crests. My point on families without crests is that crests do not bring about inherent superiority (stress on inherent). They can do one thing better than other people but are no better than other people, in that regards its the same as regular nobility seen in the real world and any kind of medieval inspired fantasy story. In other words, the crests aren't to blame, they're just a visualization of the problems human power structures have.

[omegaxis1]

4 minutes ago, Jotari said:

That's not what my argument is. My argument is that these issues are facets of human societies, especially feudalism, that happen even without crests. My point on families without crests is that crests do not bring about inherent superiority (stress on inherent). They can do one thing better than other people but are no better than other people, in that regards its the same as regular nobility seen in the real world and any kind of medieval inspired fantasy story. In other words, the crests aren't to blame, they're just a visualization of the problems human power structures have.

This overall goes by how original forms of feudalism works, in which kings and such believed themselves to be descendants of gods, and that's why they are meant to rule over people.

The religion of Fodlan basically cranks this up to 11 with the entire society being founded on religion, and then the fact that Crests not only magically enhance a person's abilities, some to really absurd levels like Dimitri, and they also allow people to wield mystical weapons of awesome destructive power in the form of Relics. 

Put these two together, and basically you have a society that would unquestionably abide by what Crests do.

It's only as society advances, if it's able to, that humans learn that destructive might and bloodlines don't actually define one's station.

But in order for people to become better thinkers, they have to actually become more educated. It's only when they start to become free thinkers, able to consider and process information to believe in other things that people begin to oppose the status quo. But that's not possible due to technology being constantly suppressed, mostly in an effort to continue pushing the Church's beliefs as a primary force for people to follow.

[ciphertul]

7 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

This overall goes by how original forms of feudalism works, in which kings and such believed themselves to be descendants of gods, and that's why they are meant to rule over people.

The religion of Fodlan basically cranks this up to 11 with the entire society being founded on religion, and then the fact that Crests not only magically enhance a person's abilities, some to really absurd levels like Dimitri, and they also allow people to wield mystical weapons of awesome destructive power in the form of Relics. 

Put these two together, and basically you have a society that would unquestionably abide by what Crests do.

It's only as society advances, if it's able to, that humans learn that destructive might and bloodlines don't actually define one's station.

But in order for people to become better thinkers, they have to actually become more educated. It's only when they start to become free thinkers, able to consider and process information to believe in other things that people begin to oppose the status quo. But that's not possible due to technology being constantly suppressed, mostly in an effort to continue pushing the Church's beliefs as a primary force for people to follow.

I don’t know if we have heard Rhea’s reason for stunting the growth of technology. It MAY be to stop people from becoming free thinkers or it MAY be her trying to protect them. The pursuit of knowledge is mostly the pursuit of power. Should they get more advanced then the risk of the blood experiments become more likely. They wouldn’t have to worry about a crest-bearing child kidnapped and for into marriage but kidnapped and experimented on with the chance of being killed. I fully agree with Jotari that this all stems from human nature, the crest are just tools and each person would use them different. You can’t blame the tool for the deeds of the wielder 

Edited April 8, 2020 by ciphertul

[Darkmoon6789]

35 minutes ago, ciphertul said:

I don’t know if we have heard Rhea’s reason for stunting the growth of technology. It MAY be to stop people from becoming free thinkers or it MAY be her trying to protect them. The pursuit of knowledge is mostly the pursuit of power. Should they get more advanced then the risk of the blood experiments become more likely. They wouldn’t have to worry about a crest-bearing child kidnapped and for into marriage but kidnapped and experimented on with the chance of being killed. I fully agree with Jotari that this all stems from human nature, the crest are just tools and each person would use them different. You can’t blame the tool for the deeds of the wielder 

I think she is trying to protect them, but stopping people from becoming freethinkers is a side effect of the censorship of knowledge she is engaging in. It is curtailing human freedom for the sake of protection, but Rhea has a reason for this, considering she has seen just how badly technology can be misused. Something the Agarthans basically embody. To my understanding Sothis originally taught the Agarthans how to create advanced technology, but her disapproval. They used technology for warfare and to kill one another. Sothis wanted to put a stop to this and destroy their civilisation.  The children of the goddess and the remnants the Agarthans has been hostile ever since. But the reason Rhea is so wary of technology is because she has seen the destructive potential of the javalins of light.

While I don't think this makes her actions necessarily right, it does make sense from her perspective. It is just that enlightened humanists like Edelgard do want humanity to stand on their own two feet, and she sees Rhea's curtailing of technology as suppressing human potential, so that they could be more easily ruled by Dragonkind. Which is sort of true in a way, even if Dragonkind only wants to rule humanity because they think they know better and that their guidance will stop humanity from going down a dark path again. 

That is what is so amazing with this game, it is not all that black and white, no one except the Agarthans really do what they do because they are malevolent. They pretty much all have good intentions. I guess even the Agarthans really are just vengeance taken too far. 

[ciphertul]

24 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I think she is trying to protect them, but stopping people from becoming freethinkers is a side effect of the censorship of knowledge she is engaging in. It is curtailing human freedom for the sake of protection, but Rhea has a reason for this, considering she has seen just how badly technology can be misused. Something the Agarthans basically embody. To my understanding Sothis originally taught the Agarthans how to create advanced technology, but her disapproval. They used technology for warfare and to kill one another. Sothis wanted to put a stop to this and destroy their civilisation.  The children of the goddess and the remnants the Agarthans has been hostile ever since. But the reason Rhea is so wary of technology is because she has seen the destructive potential of the javalins of light.

While I don't think this makes her actions necessarily right, it does make sense from her perspective. It is just that enlightened humanists like Edelgard do want humanity to stand on their own two feet, and she sees Rhea's curtailing of technology as suppressing human potential, so that they could be more easily ruled by Dragonkind. Which is sort of true in a way, even if Dragonkind only wants to rule humanity because they think they know better and that their guidance will stop humanity from going down a dark path again. 

That is what is so amazing with this game, it is not all that black and white, no one except the Agarthans really do what they do because they are malevolent. They pretty much all have good intentions. I guess even the Agarthans really are just vengeance taken too far. 

Well the quote might be from a bad movie, but it still hold much truth “Some of the worst things have happened while under the thought of best intentions”. A savior to one is villain to many. 

[Darkmoon6789]

4 minutes ago, ciphertul said:

Well the quote might be from a bad movie, but it still hold much truth “Some of the worst things have happened while under the thought of best intentions”. A savior to one is villain to many. 

That is definitely the truth of things, a lot of the time, who is the hero and who is the villain is in the eye of the beholder. This holds true for both Edelgard and Rhea. But I don't think either of them are bad people at heart, even if Rhea goes completely insane in crimson flower. This is however is an outlier and for the most part she does become a better person before the end. Edelgard however I don't think is significantly more evil in any route. I don't actually think Hegemon counts as she is only really hurting herself. 

Both Edelgard and the Rhea causes suffering with the best of intentions, both with the hope that this suffering will be worth it in the long run. I ultimately favour Edelgard because the suffering of the war is short term, Rhea's system is causing suffering every day and would continue to do so for a very long time. It is less egregious in the short term than the war, but more so in the long term.

[omegaxis1]

2 hours ago, ciphertul said:

I don’t know if we have heard Rhea’s reason for stunting the growth of technology. It MAY be to stop people from becoming free thinkers or it MAY be her trying to protect them. The pursuit of knowledge is mostly the pursuit of power. Should they get more advanced then the risk of the blood experiments become more likely. They wouldn’t have to worry about a crest-bearing child kidnapped and for into marriage but kidnapped and experimented on with the chance of being killed. I fully agree with Jotari that this all stems from human nature, the crest are just tools and each person would use them different. You can’t blame the tool for the deeds of the wielder 

Rhea isn't the one that started the suppression of technology. All Nabateans did. 

The problem is that by doing this, it caused many other forms of problems that she's been seeing over the course of a thousand years. 

She had chances, opportunities, and ability to actually help improve things. But she was willingly allowing humans to abuse Crests, and even protected the corrupt nobility overall all for the sake of her own belief that this was better. So it's basically a case where Rhea let people be sacrificed for her beliefs that this was the most peaceful solution. 

But what is peace is not what others would consider peace. Consider what Hapi says.

There wasn't any real peace here. People were suffering and oppressed overall, when Rhea, the leader of the religion, should be taking more action. 

That's the thing. What is the best of intentions doesn't work when your form of peace genuinely isn't working out. 

[Darkmoon6789]

14 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Rhea isn't the one that started the suppression of technology. All Nabateans did. 

The problem is that by doing this, it caused many other forms of problems that she's been seeing over the course of a thousand years. 

She had chances, opportunities, and ability to actually help improve things. But she was willingly allowing humans to abuse Crests, and even protected the corrupt nobility overall all for the sake of her own belief that this was better. So it's basically a case where Rhea let people be sacrificed for her beliefs that this was the most peaceful solution. 

But what is peace is not what others would consider peace. Consider what Hapi says.

There wasn't any real peace here. People were suffering and oppressed overall, when Rhea, the leader of the religion, should be taking more action. 

That's the thing. What is the best of intentions doesn't work when your form of peace genuinely isn't working out. 

A reason why I don't value Rhea's so-called peace on that much. What good is peace if the current system causes quite a number of people to suffer every day due to the awful living conditions?

As I mentioned earlier, I believe that while Edelgard's war caused more casualties in the short term, in the long term Rhea's society was causing the suffering and deaths of far more people. I put it like this, while less people would die in five years under Rhea's peace, after those five years are over, things would be significantly better under Edelgard than under Rhea. But people require quite a bit of foresight to see that and you need to look at things long term. Dimitri seems to have only really looked at the short term and objected to all the casualties. This is of course ignoring entirely that Rhea also was responsible for a massive war to create her society. Once upon a time. One significantly higher in casualties than Edelgard's. But here's the thing, Rhea never did intend to cause harm to the world, it mostly comes from her being blind to Fodlan's problems and overly focused on resurrecting her mother. As a consequence, neither she or Edelgard are absolute monsters. 

I guess this discussion was supposed to be about crests, but that's exactly the thing, they aren't exactly all that important a factor of the conflict, I consider the technological suppression and the system of nobility itself to be far more important reasons. It is just that crests are inherently tied to the nobility system under Rhea. Get rid of the nobility and the church backing of that system and an hierarchy that is dependent on crests falls with it. 

[omegaxis1]

10 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

A reason why I don't value Rhea's so-called peace on that much. What good is peace if the current system causes quite a number of people to suffer every day due to the awful living conditions?

As I mentioned earlier, I believe that while Edelgard's war caused more casualties in the short term, in the long term Rhea's society was causing the suffering and deaths of far more people. I put it like this, while less people would die in five years under Rhea's peace, after those five years are over, things would be significantly better under Edelgard than under Rhea. But people require quite a bit of foresight to see that and you need to look at things long term. Dimitri seems to have only really looked at the short term and objected to all the casualties. This is of course ignoring entirely that Rhea also was responsible for a massive war to create her society. Once upon a time. One significantly higher in casualties than Edelgard's. But here's the thing, Rhea never did intend to cause harm to the world, it mostly comes from her being blind to Fodlan's problems and overly focused on resurrecting her mother. As a consequence, neither she or Edelgard are absolute monsters. 

I guess this discussion was supposed to be about crests, but that's exactly the thing, they aren't exactly all that important a factor of the conflict, I consider the technological suppression and the system of nobility itself to be far more important reasons. It is just that crests are inherently tied to the nobility system under Rhea. Get rid of the nobility and the church backing of that system and an hierarchy that is dependent on crests falls with it. 

Trying to say that Crests are blameless and it's the people at fault is already a fruitless endeavor. Human nature is human nature. You aren't going to get rid of that unless you want total brainwashing or mass genocide here. 

Crests are a tool, but it's a tool that defines how society functions. 

Where human nature will always struggle and battle it out with good and evil, the tool's influence can always be changed for how it is perceived by the human nature. 

You can make humans perceive it as a political tool to gain influence. Or you can make it be a handy tool, at best, but nothing too special in the long run. Edelgard wanted the latter, wanting people to stop worshipping the Crests like they were the end all, be all of things. 

[Darkmoon6789]

1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

Trying to say that Crests are blameless and it's the people at fault is already a fruitless endeavor. Human nature is human nature. You aren't going to get rid of that unless you want total brainwashing or mass genocide here. 

Crests are a tool, but it's a tool that defines how society functions. 

Where human nature will always struggle and battle it out with good and evil, the tool's influence can always be changed for how it is perceived by the human nature. 

You can make humans perceive it as a political tool to gain influence. Or you can make it be a handy tool, at best, but nothing too special in the long run. Edelgard wanted the latter, wanting people to stop worshipping the Crests like they were the end all, be all of things. 

Another reason I favour Edelgard. Whenever crests are responsible for people suffering or not isn't really important, the old society needed to change anyway, which is why call it irrelevant. I don't usually play the blame game anyway, I straight up don't believe in retribution is right, which is part of why I don't think Edelgard "deserves" any "punishment" for her actions.

Does this mean I am saying that the people who want her dead because the war cost them a loved one? Yes, exactly, want someone else to suffer just because they did something to you to cause you to suffer is inherently selfish and perpetuates a cycle of violence. Especially in a case like Edelgard when she didn't kill that person out of malice and is probably mourning the death as well. How does it benefit anyone to introduce more death and suffering into the world just out of a need for petty revenge? What the entire point of the Blue Lion's route was for Dimitri to realise that revenge isn't right. 

Likewise, Rhea doesn't "deserve" to die, she needs to die to lead to a better future. Or at least change, but that isn't always possible. If you're going to kill someone, it is important to do it for the right reasons. Edelgard just isn't a vengeful, this is not about her and her personal desire for revenge, it is about what needs to be done. Rhea  however was motivated to kill Edelgard and Byleth out of revenge, or at least the false morality that eye for an eye = justice.

[ciphertul]

1 hour ago, omegaxis1 said:

Rhea isn't the one that started the suppression of technology. All Nabateans did. 

The problem is that by doing this, it caused many other forms of problems that she's been seeing over the course of a thousand years. 

She had chances, opportunities, and ability to actually help improve things. But she was willingly allowing humans to abuse Crests, and even protected the corrupt nobility overall all for the sake of her own belief that this was better. So it's basically a case where Rhea let people be sacrificed for her beliefs that this was the most peaceful solution. 

But what is peace is not what others would consider peace. Consider what Hapi says.

There wasn't any real peace here. People were suffering and oppressed overall, when Rhea, the leader of the religion, should be taking more action. 

That's the thing. What is the best of intentions doesn't work when your form of peace genuinely isn't working out. 

Not trying to be Rhea vs Edel but the Edel’s war won’t change the deaths. Bandits will still pillage and mug. People will still clash and fight over land, be it over “right”(crest) or desire. Something you are ignoring is Rhea didn’t care how people used the crests but over those thousand year the people also didn’t change. Don’t just push the blame on her alone. That is why human nature is called out on this. As it is human nature to blame others and point fingers.

Also “True Peace” is unattainable, so hoisting false expectations on someone will only lead to disappointment.

Edited April 8, 2020 by ciphertul

[omegaxis1]

6 minutes ago, ciphertul said:

Not trying to be Rhea vs Edel but the Edel’s war won’t change the deaths. Bandits will still pillage and mug. People will still clash and fight over land, be it over “right”(crest) or desire. Something you are ignoring is Rhea didn’t care how people used the crests but over those thousand year the people also didn’t change. Don’t just push the blame on her alone. That is why human nature is called out on this. As it is human nature to blame others and point fingers.

Also “True Peace” is unattainable, so hoisting false expectations on someone will only lead to disappointment.

Yeah, but nothing changed at all. If society doesn't change, then humans cannot learn new things. It's overall a case of how Rhea denied society from learning. 

It's the case of how Rhea overall lied and fabricated history that now there's so much animosity around against her. People call Edelgard a racist, but even if this can be said to be true, is it really Edelgard's fault? Rhea is only sympathized strictly cause the whole truth has been covered up for ages. If all you do is build society out of lies, then the truth is someone that becomes lost. 

Edelgard winning her war resulted in what really happened in the past to remain a mystery. 

And I am not saying that Rhea is STRICTLY to blame. But the problem is that Rhea is the person that had the most chances to help fix this.

With great power comes great responsibility. As the archbishop, she had a job and responsibility to do. 

Let's consider what happens in the Abyss. Why did Alfreic lose his mind and develop an obsession to revive Sitri?

Because not only did Rhea not bury Sitri properly, but put her in the Abyss, but never told and refused to tell Alfreic the truth of her death. 

The choice to deny people the knowledge and information that is needed is very much what drives people to make choices that can be worse off in the long run. 

And not once did I even mention "true" peace. 

[ciphertul]

2 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Yeah, but nothing changed at all. If society doesn't change, then humans cannot learn new things. It's overall a case of how Rhea denied society from learning. 

It's the case of how Rhea overall lied and fabricated history that now there's so much animosity around against her. People call Edelgard a racist, but even if this can be said to be true, is it really Edelgard's fault? Rhea is only sympathized strictly cause the whole truth has been covered up for ages. If all you do is build society out of lies, then the truth is someone that becomes lost. 

Edelgard winning her war resulted in what really happened in the past to remain a mystery. 

And I am not saying that Rhea is STRICTLY to blame. But the problem is that Rhea is the person that had the most chances to help fix this.

With great power comes great responsibility. As the archbishop, she had a job and responsibility to do. 

Let's consider what happens in the Abyss. Why did Alfreic lose his mind and develop an obsession to revive Sitri?

Because not only did Rhea not bury Sitri properly, but put her in the Abyss, but never told and refused to tell Alfreic the truth of her death. 

The choice to deny people the knowledge and information that is needed is very much what drives people to make choices that can be worse off in the long run. 

And not once did I even mention "true" peace. 

Real peace, true peace, semantics. So you would rather have Rhea tell everyone those powerful relics wielded by heroes were actually the bodies and bones of her species wielded by murders? The those crest that they were blessed with actually the blood and lives of her people? What would knowing that changed? As a commoner I would rather live in the illusion of peace then the war Edel started. But I’ll withdraw there, too Edel vs Rhea.

I still think that it isn’t the crest’s fault and the fault of human nature 

[omegaxis1]

4 minutes ago, ciphertul said:

Real peace, true peace, semantics. So you would rather have Rhea tell everyone those powerful relics wielded by heroes were actually the bodies and bones of her species wielded by murders? The those crest that they were blessed with actually the blood and lives of her people? What would knowing that changed? As a commoner I would rather live in the illusion of peace then the war Edel started. But I’ll withdraw there, too Edel vs Rhea.

I still think that it isn’t the crest’s fault and the fault of human nature 

Yeah, if you are a commoner that lives an illusion of peace, then you never want to change. That means you will never believe that you can do more than what is in front of you. And thus, commoners will always be commoners. 

And in a medieval setting, commoners never have a decent life. Because they are commoners. 

And forgive me, but living a blissful lie and denying the truth also means you deny the horrible things happened. And that just risks making people repeat the mistakes. In fact, it's hysterical that Rhea shouts at Edelgard for trying to steal the Crest Stones, asking if she even knows what they are, but no one knows what they are. They just know that they are sources of power. 

There's a reason history is written. It's a record of the past so that you never forget what the past is. The past is what affects the present and helps one build to the future. 

So yeah. Had the truth actually been out, had people actually LEARNED that the Nabateans were wronged, then that opened the possibility for the mistakes to not be repeated.

But once you make the choice that prevents people from remembering the truth, then guess what? You take away the possibility of a more peaceful approach. 

Because Edelgard was never able to learn the complete truth, but only know the watered down truth that her ancestors gave, she only acts based on her interpretation. 

[Darkmoon6789]

7 minutes ago, ciphertul said:

Real peace, true peace, semantics. So you would rather have Rhea tell everyone those powerful relics wielded by heroes were actually the bodies and bones of her species wielded by murders? The those crest that they were blessed with actually the blood and lives of her people? What would knowing that changed? As a commoner I would rather live in the illusion of peace then the war Edel started. But I’ll withdraw there, too Edel vs Rhea.

I still think that it isn’t the crest’s fault and the fault of human nature 

I would have actually preferred if Rhea told people the truth, primarily because I think she actually looks better in the actual history than in her fabricated one. When you learn that history was fabricated you would assume something much worse than was the actual case. Something like Nemesis not being the villain he was remembered as, but nope, he was even worse in reality than in the fabricated history. 

Like I mentioned earlier, I cannot understand why Rhea doesn't despise the very idea of crests and relics given their nature. As a dragon I would. If she does I cannot possibly imagine why she'd defends the crest system

[omegaxis1]

48 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I would have actually preferred if Rhea told people the truth, primarily because I think she actually looks better in the actual history than in her fabricated one. When you learn that history was fabricated you would assume something much worse than was the actual case. Something like Nemesis not being the villain he was remembered as, but nope, he was even worse in reality than in the fabricated history. 

Like I mentioned earlier, I cannot understand why Rhea doesn't despise the very idea of crests and relics given their nature. As a dragon I would. If she does I cannot possibly imagine why she'd defends the crest system

To others, they insist it was to protect the other Nabateans. Maybe to an extent, this could be true. But Rhea overall didn't trust society. She didn't believe in humans, despite how there are people like Wilhelm, whom she seemed to care a lot for, to the point that there might even be a possible romantic air between the two.

It's why in my thread, the true tragedy of 3H is how people simply refuse to trust others, which is what leads to the tragedies that follows.