Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, SRPG Tryhard said:

I can't imagine someone would be so naive to say that what we read in the game is false even when proof is cited. At this point I don't consider that you are talking about the game at all. You said it yourself, you're making your own interpretations to believe instead. That's probably why so many people are fed up with it.

I made a mistake to argue in the first place.

The thing is that there really isn't an objective source on the history of Fodlan in game, the history in the monastery library we know is severely sanitised and biased towards the church of Seiros. The books from the shadow library go against the church narrative, but still are from dubious sources. 

Edelgard has uncovered some secrets of Fodlan not known by most people, but even the reliability of her sources are hard to prove objectively. What is more important, however, is that she believes in what she is saying. But I doubt she knows the full history of the Agarthans and the Nabateans. In fact, it is very unlikely she would know that is very few people do. The very reason the church coverup up the real origin of the crests and relics makes it very unlikely. Edelgard would fully know what they are. Unless the Agarthans told her, which they wouldn't as it is information that might turn her against them.

I don't think Edelgard even knows that Rhea's people were subject to a genocide by the Agarthans. 

Not that we are not even on opposite sides, I am also an avid supporter of Edelgard. I think everyone should try to be more civil in the future, it is okay that others have different opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Yeah I find this a really interesting question. Dragon people have basically always been a part of FE, but I can't think of a game where we know less about their ways and culture than in 3H. It feels like IS planned to make a lot out of them, but ended up not doing so. 

Flayn mentions that she and Seteth used to live among humankind (in Enbarr 1000 years prior at least, and perhaps after she woke up but before they came to Garreg Mach). Which would suggest that the Nabateans of old were at least acclimatised to human ways of living, and actually lived among humans. At the same time, Macuil has a cult of humans who live in the desert with him in his dragon form. I guess what I'm saying is that the line between race and species might even depend on the form an individual Nabatean takes. 

At the same time, being able to live with humans isn't the same thing as being a human. When you can live for millennia and transform into a dragon (speaking of do we ever learn why only Rhea retains that ability?) I don't know that I consider you human no matter your ability to live among them. They don't seem to consider themselves human and I can't think of a time where any dragon species has in Fire Emblem..

At the same time the Nabateans display more differences in their individual forms than just about any dragon species through FE. I don't really know why that would be? An example of sub species among the overarching Nabatean species?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

The thing is that there really isn't an objective source on the history of Fodlan in game, the history in the monastery library we know is severely sanitised and biased towards the church of Seiros. The books from the shadow library go against the church narrative, but still are from dubious sources. 

Edelgard has uncovered some secrets of Fodlan not known by most people, but even the reliability of her sources are hard to prove objectively. What is more important, however, is that she believes in what she is saying. But I doubt she knows the full history of the Agarthans and the Nabateans. In fact, it is very unlikely she would know that is very few people do. The very reason the church coverup up the real origin of the crests and relics makes it very unlikely. Edelgard would fully know what they are.

Her source is Wilhelm who describes events that he witnessed and everything that she says is confirmed by others. He is not aware of what transpired before the war begun for the simple reason that Wilhelm was not alive to witness it. This is why neither of them know Nemesis's initial motivation.

There is no reason not to believe what Wilhem says for the events that he witnessed, just like Rhea, Macuil, Indech, or even Maurice. All of them may have been biased for participating in those events, but things such as what the origin of relics and crests is, should be an objective fact and Edelgard states the truth. So Rhea lied and this is good enough reason to doubt her Church's dogma.

Edelgard doesn't seem to trust what the Slithers have to say:

http://kagiyama.threebards.com/fire-emblem/1499

Quote

Flame Emperor: The remains of Seiros were not in the tomb.

Flame Emperor: However, something else was. The Sword of the Creator.

???: Ah, the weapon wielded by that thief, the King of Liberation.

???: Thief? Hm. At any rate, it is now in the hands of the academy’s new professor. (JP: ???: Bandit…? Whatever.  The one who obtained it is the newly hired teacher.)

Edelgard doubts Thales calling Nemesis just a "thief/bandit". She understands there may have been more to his motivation to explain Seiros's hate, but does not know what it was. 

http://kagiyama.threebards.com/fire-emblem/1913

Quote

Edelgard: Professor… Do you know the true story behind the legend?

Edelgard: The Relics were created by the hands of mankind. Seiros collected them after killing the 10 Elites.

Edelgard: Seiros manipulated the people of the world and defeated the all-powerful King Nemesis.

Byleth:「I thought he was corrupted by his power?」
Edelgard: That’s the history the Church of Seiros maintains. However, it was little more than a simple dispute. (JP: Edelgard: That is the history the Church of Seiros propagates. The truth is, they were doing nothing more than just quarreling.)

I note the proper JP translation is important here because "simple dispute" implies it was something petty. She recognizes they must have had their reasons, but it was definitely something more important than just him being "corrupted by his power".

This is the extent of the things she *needs* to know to see that the Church is manipulating humanity. I don't see how any of this can be held against her, when she is the only person in Fodlan who is aware of the truth of the Church's lies. 

1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Unless the Agarthans told her, which they wouldn't as it is information that might turn her against them.

True and a very smart observation. They have no reason to say the truth about Nemesis and how they used him as a proxy against Nabateans. They won't say what his actual motivation for "stealing" was and what was the true reason Seiros fought against him, because they were in fact behind this. That would only give her more reasons to turn against them.

So I recognize that Haar was actually correct in saying the Slithers withheld information. Still my point that Edelgard didn't trust them stands. Saying she got her information from them or that she believes them is completely wrong.

1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I don't think Edelgard even knows that Rhea's people were subject to a genocide by the Agarthans. 

Me too, I never got the impression or remember anything that would suggest this. But the reasons Agarthans and Nabateans had to kill each other are irrelevant thousands of years later when they both have put the people of Fodlan in the middle of their vendetta. 

After all, you could say the "genociding" was a reciprocated endeavor if you consider Sothis's flooding the world, but that is an even more difficult subject to discuss here when people doubt the validity of in-game texts.

  

1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I think everyone should try to be more civil in the future, it is okay that others have different opinions.

I agree like Haar said. I'll filter the kid having an insulting tantrum in the background. It doesn't have anything constructive to say anyway.

Edited by SRPG Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it got lost in translation, but none of my posts (or anyone's posts so far) in this thread have attacked Edelgard, or passed moral judgement on any of the characters (even the Agarthans). I'm not interested in assigning good/bad labels, figuring out which character is the more acceptable by today's standards, or rehashing an Edelgard debate. My current concern is simply in investigating how the concept of race is used in the game. 

1 hour ago, SRPG Tryhard said:

Edelgard doubts Thales calling Nemesis just a "thief/bandit". She understands there may have been more to his motivation to explain Seiros's hate, but does not know what it was. 

1 hour ago, SRPG Tryhard said:

They have no reason to say the truth about Nemesis and how they used him as a proxy against Nabateans. They won't say what his actual motivation for "stealing" was and what was the true reason Seiros fought against him, because they were in fact behind this. That would only give her more reasons to turn against them.

Completely agree. Edelgard hasn't fully thrown in her lot with TWSITD and they know it - their lies are an attempt to keep her under control until Rhea is dead and they no longer need her. For her part, Edelgard knows she's just their tool, so is wary of everything they say anyway. However, the Agarthans are still a valuable source of information, and Edelgard knows that they know more than she and most others do about the truth of the world, which is why she is willing to use their information.

1 hour ago, SRPG Tryhard said:

I agree like Haar said. I'll filter the kid having an insulting tantrum in the background. It doesn't have anything constructive to say anyway.

I'm glad you'll keep things civil from here on, but this is a cheap shot and you know it. Even if you're feeling provoked, this is not necessary - please don't do it again. 

2 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

At the same time, being able to live with humans isn't the same thing as being a human. When you can live for millennia and transform into a dragon (speaking of do we ever learn why only Rhea retains that ability?) I don't know that I consider you human no matter your ability to live among them. They don't seem to consider themselves human and I can't think of a time where any dragon species has in Fire Emblem..

At the same time the Nabateans display more differences in their individual forms than just about any dragon species through FE. I don't really know why that would be? An example of sub species among the overarching Nabatean species?

Yeah, your points here are extremely fair. Extended lifespan alone is a significant enough change to be considered different races/species. And I suppose they don't consider themselves human... maybe? Putting Rhea aside, Seteth and Flayn both have endings with humans, suggesting they could want to live as humans do. It still doesn't make them human, but as for their conceptions of themselves...

My speculation is that Nabateans can change between human and dragon forms freely, but spending too long in one form corrupts that ability. So for Rhea, she's transformed in the last 1,000 years (not sure if there's a reason, maybe just to stretch her wings, but the drawing Claude discovers suggests people have seen her and noted it down) and that's what has allowed her to keep in touch with her dragon form and transform in the present day. In comparison, Seteth and Flayn remained human the whole time (the latter because she was asleep, the former so as not to draw attention to the latter) and now have lost that ability, which is why they don't ever transform. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SRPG Tryhard said:

 

Her source is Wilhelm who describes events that he witnessed and everything that she says is confirmed by others. He is not aware of what transpired before the war begun for the simple reason that Wilhelm was not alive to witness it. This is why neither of them know Nemesis's initial motivation.

There is no reason not to believe what Wilhem says for the events that he witnessed, just like Rhea, Macuil, Indech, or even Maurice. All of them may have been biased for participating in those events, but things such as what the origin of relics and crests is, should be an objective fact and Edelgard states the truth. So Rhea lied and this is good enough reason to doubt her Church's dogma.

Edelgard doesn't seem to trust what the Slithers have to say:

http://kagiyama.threebards.com/fire-emblem/1499

Edelgard doubts Thales calling Nemesis just a "thief/bandit". She understands there may have been more to his motivation to explain Seiros's hate, but does not know what it was. 

http://kagiyama.threebards.com/fire-emblem/1913

I note the proper JP translation is important here because "simple dispute" implies it was something petty. She recognizes they must have had their reasons, but it was definitely something more important than just him being "corrupted by his power".

This is the extent of the things she *needs* to know to see that the Church is manipulating humanity. I don't see how any of this can be held against her, when she is the only person in Fodlan who is aware of the truth of the Church's lies. 

True and a very smart observation. They have no reason to say the truth about Nemesis and how they used him as a proxy against Nabateans. They won't say what his actual motivation for "stealing" was and what was the true reason Seiros fought against him, because they were in fact behind this. That would only give her more reasons to turn against them.

So I recognize that Haar was actually correct in saying the Slithers withheld information. Still my point that Edelgard didn't trust them stands. Saying she got her information from them or that she believes them is completely wrong.

Me too, I never got the impression or remember anything that would suggest this. But the reasons Agarthans and Nabateans had to kill each other are irrelevant thousands of years later when they both have put the people of Fodlan in the middle of their vendetta. 

After all, you could say the "genociding" was a reciprocated endeavor if you consider Sothis's flooding the world, but that is an even more difficult subject to discuss here when people doubt the validity of in-game texts.

  

I agree like Haar said. I'll filter the kid having an insulting tantrum in the background. It doesn't have anything constructive to say anyway.

I agree with most of what you are saying, Edelgard is only human and sometimes operate out of incomplete information, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have some genuine insight. Some see Edelgard as a villain, I see a good-natured girl who only does what she thinks is right. Even if she is willing to work with the Agarthans, she was never truly part them, it is simply a matter of convenience because they share the same enemy. 

We know very little about Nemesis, but it is not especially hard to imagine why Seiros would hold a grudge against him, considering that he killed his mother. 

In any case, I am actually a close friend of silver-haired maiden. This despite my fanatical devotion to Edelgard, if you are civil with her you will notice that she can be a lot more reasonable than you are probably assuming. 

On the other hand, I do understand why fans of Edelgard are tired of seeing people streaking this flawed, yet good-natured Emperor like she was the devil and that you have to be a psychopath to genuinely agree with her. It is harder to respect other people's opinions and it doesn't feel like our own is being respected. But I have found this forum to be less toxic than other places. I would just not debate anyone who resorts to personal attacks. It isn't worth it and nothing you could say could change such a person's mind. 

If we who like Edelgard can sometimes be harsh towards our opposition, I think it is because we are sick of of having our opinions not being seen as valid. But that goes two ways, being overly harsh in return will only fuel the hatred of her more fanatical detractors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Yeah, your points here are extremely fair. Extended lifespan alone is a significant enough change to be considered different races/species. And I suppose they don't consider themselves human... maybe? Putting Rhea aside, Seteth and Flayn both have endings with humans, suggesting they could want to live as humans do. It still doesn't make them human, but as for their conceptions of themselves...

My speculation is that Nabateans can change between human and dragon forms freely, but spending too long in one form corrupts that ability. So for Rhea, she's transformed in the last 1,000 years (not sure if there's a reason, maybe just to stretch her wings, but the drawing Claude discovers suggests people have seen her and noted it down) and that's what has allowed her to keep in touch with her dragon form and transform in the present day. In comparison, Seteth and Flayn remained human the whole time (the latter because she was asleep, the former so as not to draw attention to the latter) and now have lost that ability, which is why they don't ever transform. 

They certainly seem to like humans for the most part and even understand that humans are a necessary part of the order of the world. If being among humans, beings that at least look like them, is easy enough thanks to their more human forms I don't see why they wouldn't at least for the companionship angle.

Your idea is interesting though. In that case you'd think it would be like exercising a muscle, that if you don't use it you lose it, but if that were the case it would suggest that they'd eventually be able to regain that power. They never seem to, not in either direction when it would absolutely be beneficial. Now one could argue that the Immovable and the Windcaller had no desire to change back but it certainly would've made their lives easier and Flayn and Seteth have no such excuse when those forms would be massively beneficial in battle. The transformation seems to be magical in nature so one would think it has to do with Sothis, but the other two Saints were still in their human forms back then not their Nabatean ones. So honestly I'm just not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest thing about Nabateans and humans is that, there's a PHYSIOLOGICAL line that separates them. 

Nabateans can live for millennia. Centuries to them might be simply years in human terms. And Nabateans still possess great power if they can transform into other creatures. It's why Pent in FE7 theorizes that the Scouring happened out of the fear of the dragons' great and ferocious power. A classic case of "survival of the fittest". 

To be honest, this is kind of why I can actually believe that the original Agarthans were just a bunch of panicky humans that were scared of the Nabateans and Sothis. Rhea claims in her own biased outlook that the world was in true peace and everything was a golden age under Sothis's rule, but then the Agarthans grew arrogant and thought themselves as gods, so they dared to challenge the goddess. 

But was it really as she says? Or were the humans back then actually being oppressed, and humans finally retaliated? 

To the Nabateans, it might have been good, but for humans, it might not. Because a human lives for roughly over half a century. To them, those decades might have been nothing but hell, and to Nabateans, the century itself was glorious and delightful. Sure, the Agarthans might have fought one another, but they never considered themsleves as gods, even in present time. Sure, they call other humans "beasts" or such, but they see the other humans as worshippers or servants of the "beasts", which makes them no better than beasts as well. It's how one develops prejudice. Dehumanizing others in your perception makes it easy to kill them. 

Even though the interview remarks that the Nabateans suppressed technological advances and controlled society to prevent the flames of war, that can be interpreted as them overall oppressing humans very subtly, as religion used to do back then.

Share this post


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

The biggest thing about Nabateans and humans is that, there's a PHYSIOLOGICAL line that separates them. 

Nabateans can live for millennia. Centuries to them might be simply years in human terms. And Nabateans still possess great power if they can transform into other creatures. It's why Pent in FE7 theorizes that the Scouring happened out of the fear of the dragons' great and ferocious power. A classic case of "survival of the fittest". 

To be honest, this is kind of why I can actually believe that the original Agarthans were just a bunch of panicky humans that were scared of the Nabateans and Sothis. Rhea claims in her own biased outlook that the world was in true peace and everything was a golden age under Sothis's rule, but then the Agarthans grew arrogant and thought themselves as gods, so they dared to challenge the goddess. 

But was it really as she says? Or were the humans back then actually being oppressed, and humans finally retaliated? 

To the Nabateans, it might have been good, but for humans, it might not. Because a human lives for roughly over half a century. To them, those decades might have been nothing but hell, and to Nabateans, the century itself was glorious and delightful. Sure, the Agarthans might have fought one another, but they never considered themsleves as gods, even in present time. Sure, they call other humans "beasts" or such, but they see the other humans as worshippers or servants of the "beasts", which makes them no better than beasts as well. It's how one develops prejudice. Dehumanizing others in your perception makes it easy to kill them. 

Even though the interview remarks that the Nabateans suppressed technological advances and controlled society to prevent the flames of war, that can be interpreted as them overall oppressing humans very subtly, as religion used to do back then.

This is the crux of the theme with dragons and humans in FE. Similar to Archanea and Medeus being Rhea, Earth dragons the Nabateans etc. Earth dragons ruled humans because they were stronger, but when they started degenerating humans rebelled. Medeus was supposed to be the most reasonable of them to choose to become a manakete, yet he hates humanity for rebelling against his kind and hunting them down, thousands of years before Marth. This is how manaketes are portrayed in FE and why "degeneration" happens.

Like all FEs before, the game has a stance on immortality in the sense of “immortal” rulers - that people who are in power for indefinite periods of time tend to become corrupt or blind, regardless of their original intentions- which we see with Rhea having to be removed or stepping down in all routes in order to change Fodlan for the better, and how even Edelgard steps down after winning the war in CF and Byleth in CF who doesn’t become the immortal God-Emperor they do in other routes. 

Beings that live for millennia and eventually become dangerous simply aren't compatible with humans. Throughout the FE games, the kind of dragons we see to overcome this to be able to coexist are the ones who choose to live away from humanity, not control them even harder than before. Many of them have their reasons to act as they do, to feel betrayed or whatever, but this doesn't justify oppressing humanity like they do.

I don't know why people only now decided to look into this dynamic after a dozen or so FE games that are about humans rebelling against dragons (or gods). Rhea having a reason to feel betrayed does not excuse her like it didn't excuse Medeus, Duma, Mila, Ashera and Anankos.

Edited by SRPG Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Flayn mentions that she and Seteth used to live among humankind (in Enbarr 1000 years prior at least, and perhaps after she woke up but before they came to Garreg Mach). Which would suggest that the Nabateans of old were at least acclimatised to human ways of living, and actually lived among humans. At the same time, Macuil has a cult of humans who live in the desert with him in his dragon form. I guess what I'm saying is that the line between race and species might even depend on the form an individual Nabatean takes. 

Consider my earlier posts, it's possible that "Nabatean Civilization" in the ancient time included Foldalian, if not the majority of their citizens.

Since the game implied there were only dozens of Nabateans before the war broke out (including those buried in Holy Tombs, and rumored in other lands), I highly doubt they could build massive cities and called a civilization with just dozen people. We saw large number of citizens in Sothis' flashback, most of them were probably Fodlanians

On the other hand, if Nabateans were numbered in tens of thousands, that Agarthan or later Nemesis would stood any chance opposing them.

 

As for lore, maybe InISys has grander plan for future related titles, so they intentionally left out some lore details.

In interview they did mention some lore questions could not be answered yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2020 at 12:18 AM, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

In that case you'd think it would be like exercising a muscle, that if you don't use it you lose it, but if that were the case it would suggest that they'd eventually be able to regain that power. They never seem to, not in either direction when it would absolutely be beneficial. Now one could argue that the Immovable and the Windcaller had no desire to change back but it certainly would've made their lives easier and Flayn and Seteth have no such excuse when those forms would be massively beneficial in battle. The transformation seems to be magical in nature so one would think it has to do with Sothis, but the other two Saints were still in their human forms back then not their Nabatean ones. So honestly I'm just not sure.

I like the muscle analogy, but it probably isn't quite accurate since I believe the form-change can be lost permanently (otherwise, like you say, other Nabateans not transforming doesn't make sense). Maybe it's something more like overwriting a memory-perspective? A little like how you can remember having been a toddler/small child, and you can remember things that you felt and did then, but the memory of 'what it is like to be a toddler' is completely distant and you can't get that back. 

On 9/13/2020 at 1:11 AM, omegaxis1 said:

Even though the interview remarks that the Nabateans suppressed technological advances and controlled society to prevent the flames of war, that can be interpreted as them overall oppressing humans very subtly, as religion used to do back then.

Absolutely. In the beginning it would have made sense for humans to cling to Nabateans - given their magical abilities, rudimentary societies confusing Nabateans with the divine is entirely natural. But post-Nemesis, Rhea realised that both soft and hard power was needed to keep humanity in line. So on the one hand, she established nations, and a church army made of humans who believed in Nabatean divinity, as a form of hard power. And on the other hand, she controlled the efficacy and means of healing, and tied that ability to belief in the godliness of Nabateans and Sothis in particular - a form of soft power. Empires used similar combinations of hard and soft power to maintain control in their colonies, even including a literal combination of military might and controlling the presence of medicine/medical training in some cases. It was in the interest of those empires to control the growth of colonies, otherwise they themselves would lose control over the region.

We know that Rhea suppressed scientific advancements that would have led to humans learning how to heal themselves better (thus maintaining her soft power), but I think she did something similar with the military might of humanity. Notice how the soldiers of the opening cutscene have extraordinarily similar dress and armament to the average soldier 1,000 years later - we wouldn't expect humanity's military development to have been that slow, and that wasn't the case for our world. In fairness, present day Fodlan uses ballistae and gunpowder, which is probably a development from back then, but if they had full armour 1,000 years ago, why is there no chainmail now? Or crossbows (which appear in other FE games), or clocks? 

21 hours ago, Timlugia said:

Since the game implied there were only dozens of Nabateans before the war broke out (including those buried in Holy Tombs, and rumored in other lands), I highly doubt they could build massive cities and called a civilization with just dozen people. We saw large number of citizens in Sothis' flashback, most of them were probably Fodlanians

Yeah, I had always assumed the first cities in Fodlan were built with humans after the Nabateans showed up. Because only once Sothis showed up did people start to congregate in groups larger than farming households/nomadic tribes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk about Rhea supressing scientific advancements doesn't even make any sense in the game since Nabateans seemed to only have been in Fodlan and for all we know none of the other country around them are more advanced even though they don't have anyone supressing scientific discovery.

Share this post


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

All this talk about Rhea supressing scientific advancements doesn't even make any sense in the game since Nabateans seemed to only have been in Fodlan and for all we know none of the other country around them are more advanced even though they don't have anyone supressing scientific discovery.

Part of our problem is that we simply don't have a good enough frame of reference. You're right in that other nations we see don't appear more technologically advanced than Fodlan - but should we expect them to, given what we know of their organisation?

Sreng is all desert, and has no large civilisation, Duscur has been assimilated into Faerghus (and was already a people of Fodlan anyway so was unlikely to be significantly more advanced), what little we know about Almyra suggests its governmental structure is loose, and the emphasis on warrior culture might imply little to no interest in theoretical disciplines, while Brigid is an island nation that has natural resources to work with but cannot develop naturally due to the looming twin threats of Adrestia and Dagda. Dagda is the only nation that seems like it could rival the nations of Fodlan in technology, but we know almost nothing about it to either support or deny that conclusion.

Actually, Almyra is supposed to have a developed navy, which might mean more advanced shipcraft than Fodlan, and that might include superior knowledge of oceanography, advanced carpentry, cartography, astronomy and other mathematical disciplines. But again, we have no explicit proof for this.

There is also the territory of Morfis - I don't even know where this is supposed to be located, or if it's in Fodlan or not, but knowledge of magic there is supposed to be ahead of other territories, and this might tie into scientific development. And then, of course, there's Shambhala, which is significantly more advanced, but I'm not sure whether that could be called the natural or expected progression of humanity.

In any case, if our suspicions that Fodlan has the most complete systems of government in the known world of 3H turn out to be true, then it should not come as a surprise that opportunities for scientific advancement would be more rife in Fodlan. The monks of the Church of Seiros are taught in white magic, so interest in the study of the human body is not too far a reach - monastery dialogue from Manuela confirms there is a fledgling discipline of medical science. That science is probably what produced vulneraries/concoctions/elixirs, which might mean Fodlan is more scientifically advanced than other nations, despite Rhea getting in the way of progress - although I don't know how medical science could develop further without access to autopsies.

Then again, Almyran enemies also have access to vulneraries/concoctions/elixirs. That could just mean there was Fodlan-Almyra trade, but if those potions are in fact easy to procure or create, then maybe Fodlan is actually in the same or similar technological position as other nations. Basically, the game doesn't give us enough clues to work this out one way or another.

Share this post


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

All this talk about Rhea supressing scientific advancements doesn't even make any sense in the game since Nabateans seemed to only have been in Fodlan and for all we know none of the other country around them are more advanced even though they don't have anyone supressing scientific discovery.

As @haarhaarhaar said, what we know of the other nations are actually small. We don't actually know of the level of technology there. But we do know that from Claude's perspective, Fodlan is a "backwater" place, which actually shows that Claude looks down on Fodlan's technological level. 

Ferdinand and Petra's support also indicate that the weapons of Dagda are a bit more advanced than the weapons of Fodlan, minus the Relics of course.

This only highlights just how closed off Fodlan is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's worth drawing a parallel between Jill and Ingrid. Both start out with racist views due to misinformation and propaganda. Ingrid's are more personal (and actually completely justified) due to the tragic loss inflicted on her (she just has the target group wrong).

 

Both are used as proxies for racism, and both move past it and improve as people (albeit Ingrid does so via supports with Dedue).

 

I also think that reducing Dimitri to a "white savior" is unfair when:

1) He is a victim of the actions allegedly committed by the race he is saving. Ergo, he has every right to be involved in their affairs and, if anything, can't avoid being involved.

2) He is making a conscious choice to defend the innocence of the group he would otherwise have every right to hate.

3) He makes active choices to benefit said race.

4) He does not benefit from his choices.

5) He does not want praise for his actions.

 

 

 

As for the Agarthans, I don't think they are intended to be a proxy for race discussion. They are more of a proxy for religious conflict, if anything, and they are presented with so little nuance that it's pretty clear they aren't meant to be a substantive part of the discussion.

Edited by Fabulously Olivier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

I think it's worth drawing a parallel between Jill and Ingrid. Both start out with racist views due to misinformation and propaganda. Ingrid's are more personal (and actually completely justified) due to the tragic loss inflicted on her (she just has the target group wrong).

Both are used as proxies for racism, and both move past it and improve as people (albeit Ingrid does so via supports with Dedue).

Yeah, Jill and Ingrid both seem to occupy that same role, of the character whose personal interactions overwrite the propaganda fed to them. Speaking of Tellius parallels, the Serenes Massacre matches the Tragedy of Duscur in quite a lot of ways. I can't really think of a Begnion national who corresponds to Ingrid from that point of view though - indeed, I'm not even sure there's a meaningful interaction between a heron and an allied unit from Begnion (Oliver does not count). 

1 hour ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

I also think that reducing Dimitri to a "white savior" is unfair when:

1) He is a victim of the actions allegedly committed by the race he is saving. Ergo, he has every right to be involved in their affairs and, if anything, can't avoid being involved.

2) He is making a conscious choice to defend the innocence of the group he would otherwise have every right to hate.

3) He makes active choices to benefit said race.

4) He does not benefit from his choices.

5) He does not want praise for his actions.

I don't feel strongly about this one way or another, and I don't think I know enough to judge, but I am interested in hearing more. The way I had heard it interpreted was that Dimitri's saving of Dedue significantly fed his own self-esteem, and Dedue continuously treating him like a saviour basically serves as an emotional crutch for Dimitri. I highly doubt that child Dimitri was acting on anything more complicated than instinct when he saved Dedue tbh, but I imagine the charge of 'white saviour' is more a complaint about how the Dimitri-Dedue dynamic in the present day is unhealthy. 

Share this post


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

Yeah, Jill and Ingrid both seem to occupy that same role, of the character whose personal interactions overwrite the propaganda fed to them. Speaking of Tellius parallels, the Serenes Massacre matches the Tragedy of Duscur in quite a lot of ways. I can't really think of a Begnion national who corresponds to Ingrid from that point of view though - indeed, I'm not even sure there's a meaningful interaction between a heron and an allied unit from Begnion (Oliver does not count). 

I don't feel strongly about this one way or another, and I don't think I know enough to judge, but I am interested in hearing more. The way I had heard it interpreted was that Dimitri's saving of Dedue significantly fed his own self-esteem, and Dedue continuously treating him like a saviour basically serves as an emotional crutch for Dimitri. I highly doubt that child Dimitri was acting on anything more complicated than instinct when he saved Dedue tbh, but I imagine the charge of 'white saviour' is more a complaint about how the Dimitri-Dedue dynamic in the present day is unhealthy. 

It's fair and accurate to say that the Dimitri-Dedue dynamic is unhealthy. Everything about Dimitri is unhealthy. And the tragic thing about that is that it isn't his fault. Dimitri is a victim. He is a mental and emotional trainwreck, and none of his interpersonal relationships really help matters. You've got Dedue putting himself into an unwanted servant role. You've got Ingrid trying to stoke racist tensions and obsessing over the tragedy that crippled them all. You've got Sylvain being a terrible role model. And you've got Felix being an asshole.

 

As far as meaningful interactions between Begnion and herons, there is Sanaki. Her apology was.... beautiful and heart wrenching. She's a poor child thrust onto the thrown with the knowledge of what was done so recently by her forefathers. And it's hard not to feel empathy for her.

Edited by Fabulously Olivier

Share this post


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

It's fair and accurate to say that the Dimitri-Dedue dynamic is unhealthy. Everything about Dimitri is unhealthy. And the tragic thing about that is that it isn't his fault. Dimitri is a victim. 

 

As far as meaningful interactions between Begnion and herons, there is Sanaki. Her apology was.... beautiful and heart wrenching. She's a poor child thrust onto the thrown with the knowledge of what was done so recently by her forefathers. And it's hard not to feel empathy for her.

The reason why it works with Sanaki and Reyson is cause Reyson was actually deeply traumatized by the massacre and hated humans for it. But Reyson wasn't justice for what happened in Serenes and wants amends to be made. 

Dedue... doesn't have that. Like, more often than not, he shows more care for Dimitri than his own people. Dimitri dies in VW/SS, and Dedue is more interested in avenging Dimitri and fine with dying for it. Even though that means his people will still be oppressed basically and his land will never be brought back. 

And despite Dimitri and Dedue having this promsie in their A support about restoring Duscur, it feels rather out of nowhere, since Dimitri wasn't at all acting for Duscur's best interests or making amends. He was just trying to get a senseless revenge that wouldn't help anyone. 

So why was Dedue even working or helping this man at all?

This is a worse case of Xander serving Garon.

Share this post


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

The reason why it works with Sanaki and Reyson is cause Reyson was actually deeply traumatized by the massacre and hated humans for it. But Reyson wasn't justice for what happened in Serenes and wants amends to be made. 

Dedue... doesn't have that. Like, more often than not, he shows more care for Dimitri than his own people. Dimitri dies in VW/SS, and Dedue is more interested in avenging Dimitri and fine with dying for it. Even though that means his people will still be oppressed basically and his land will never be brought back. 

And despite Dimitri and Dedue having this promsie in their A support about restoring Duscur, it feels rather out of nowhere, since Dimitri wasn't at all acting for Duscur's best interests or making amends. He was just trying to get a senseless revenge that wouldn't help anyone. 

So why was Dedue even working or helping this man at all?

This is a worse case of Xander serving Garon.

One can only explain such as personal respect. Dedue's attachment to Dimitri is personal. 

 

I think this is a problem with Dedue. Because he does think his people guilty, he's never able to move himself from the role of "atoning servant" to the role of friend. Dedue is one to feel sorry for as well.

 

And no, I don't think Xander/Garon comparisons are reasonable or fair. Dedue could potentially be the Xander (and Dedue is certainly the closest thing 3H has to a Camus), but Dimitri is no Garon. That said, I also can't really think of a better parallel.

Share this post


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

One can only explain such as personal respect. Dedue's attachment to Dimitri is personal. 

 

I think this is a problem with Dedue. Because he does think his people guilty, he's never able to move himself from the role of "atoning servant" to the role of friend. Dedue is one to feel sorry for as well.

 

And no, I don't think Xander/Garon comparisons are reasonable or fair. Dedue could potentially be the Xander (and Dedue is certainly the closest thing 3H has to a Camus), but Dimitri is no Garon. That said, I also can't really think of a better parallel.

No, the thing is, Xander was raised by his father, has good memories of his father, and for the most part, thought his father was going through a horrible phase, brought on by the horrible concubine wars and the loss of many siblings in the long run. 

Dedue admits that he would kill anyone, be they women or children, if Dimitri so much as ordered it. And Dedue even admits that Dimitri's insane self is the true Dimitri that Dedue always knew, so how Dimitri is acting post redemption is apparently new.

And all Dedue has is that Dimitri saved his life.

I do not support people insisting that Dimitri and Dedue is this most beautiful work of art. There's nothing artistic or beautiful about it. 

To put it bluntly, the writing of Dedue is basically being Dimtiri's "black friend". 

Share this post


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

Yeah, Jill and Ingrid both seem to occupy that same role, of the character whose personal interactions overwrite the propaganda fed to them. Speaking of Tellius parallels, the Serenes Massacre matches the Tragedy of Duscur in quite a lot of ways. I can't really think of a Begnion national who corresponds to Ingrid from that point of view though - indeed, I'm not even sure there's a meaningful interaction between a heron and an allied unit from Begnion (Oliver does not count). 

As well as Sanaki, there's also the support chain between Tanith and Reyson in Path of Radiance. It's definitely not even a little bit the same as the Ingrid role, though. That would probably be someone who actually believed the herons were responsible for killing the previous Apostle, and I don't recall any major characters believing that. It's still an interesting interaction, though, with Tanith initially displaying and eventually overcoming a more subtle and insidious form of racism in which she sees only what the herons can't do rather than what they can.

(On the larger topic of the thread as a whole, I've been staying quiet since I consider myself wholly unqualified to talk about this, but I have been reading with interest.)

Share this post


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

As far as meaningful interactions between Begnion and herons, there is Sanaki. Her apology was.... beautiful and heart wrenching. She's a poor child thrust onto the thrown with the knowledge of what was done so recently by her forefathers. And it's hard not to feel empathy for her.

Yes good point hehe, that's a big one. I should have specified that I was thinking in a more informal capacity - Sanaki doesn't really have a relationship with Reyson per se, and the apology, heartfelt and personal though it is, is an interaction between sovereigns (and Sanaki always knew the herons weren't responsible, so doesn't have the anti-heron prejudice I was looking for either). What I was trying to think of was an interaction where a Begnion native, possessing the same kind of misguided hatred towards herons as Ingrid has for Duscurians, is disabused of those prejudices by talking normally to a heron, which I don't think we get. 

EDIT: @lenticular, just caught your comment, that Reyson-Tanith support is the sort of thing I was looking for. It doesn't explicitly deal with the massacre and Tanith knows the truth, but it is still heron-specific bias. Still a surprisingly rare example given how much of the game is framed around the Serenes Massacre

2 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

I think this is a problem with Dedue. Because he does think his people guilty, he's never able to move himself from the role of "atoning servant" to the role of friend. Dedue is one to feel sorry for as well.

2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

To put it bluntly, the writing of Dedue is basically being Dimtiri's "black friend". 

In my original post I asked whether Dedue could be considered as believing in a form of 'internalised racism'. Given that in his supports he is often the first person to relay negative stereotypes about Duscurians and has to be encouraged to consider the possibility of reviving Duscur as a nation, combined with the way you've both noted of his self-conception as someone worthy of service and no more, that charge looks increasingly likely.

As for Dedue being Dimitri's 'black friend', you're right that Dedue's relationship with him actually makes it more difficult to analyse how Dimitri understands and talks about race. But in their support Dimitri seems to evolve from someone who isn't remotely conscious about how race affects their relationship, to someone who is trying to react positively to and uplift his heritage. I don't know if Dimitri gets it right, or that the writing succeeds in capturing the complexity of such a relationship, but perhaps it's a point in Dimitri's favour.

 

Edited by haarhaarhaar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Yes good point hehe, that's a big one. I should have specified that I was thinking in a more informal capacity - Sanaki doesn't really have a relationship with Reyson per se, and the apology, heartfelt and personal though it is, is an interaction between sovereigns (and Sanaki always knew the herons weren't responsible, so doesn't have the anti-heron prejudice I was looking for either). What I was trying to think of was an interaction where a Begnion native, possessing the same kind of misguided hatred towards herons as Ingrid has for Duscurians, is disabused of those prejudices by talking normally to a heron, which I don't think we get. 

In my original post I asked whether Dedue could be considered as believing in a form of 'internalised racism'. Given that in his supports he is often the first person to relay negative stereotypes about Duscurians and has to be encouraged to consider the possibility of reviving Duscur as a nation, combined with the way you've both noted of his self-conception as someone worthy of service and no more, that charge looks increasingly likely.

As for Dedue being Dimitri's 'black friend', you're right that Dedue's relationship with him actually makes it more difficult to analyse how Dimitri understands and talks about race. But in their support Dimitri seems to evolve from someone who isn't remotely conscious about how race affects their relationship, to someone who is trying to react positively to and uplift his heritage. I don't know if Dimitri gets it right, or that the writing succeeds in capturing the complexity of such a relationship, but perhaps it's a point in Dimitri's favour.

 

TBH, Begnion is probably the least interesting, least fleshed out country in Tellius. It's pretty clear that it's the country most responsible for Tellius' turmoil and racial tensions, but it's also a country with few playable characters and fewer interesting ones. Most of those playable characters from Begnion even relocate to Crimea.

Share this post


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

And all Dedue has is that Dimitri saved his life

It’s worth noting that this is completely literal- Dedue has nothing else. Literally nothing to resemble any reason to live but the child who stepped in front of vengeful Kingdom soldiers and shielded him. Given that, it makes sense he’d devote himself so wholly to Dimitri. If we’re still doing the Xander comparison, Xander has his people and the rest of his family to think about, and we know from supports that he does think about them. Hence, his disregard of that to protect his father is out of character and idiotic, which is why so many people hate it.

As for Dedue in VW and SS, that’s something I can’t really understand. He risks his life to take Edelgard’s head, sure, he still struggles with his self-concept as anything other than Dimitri’s sword and shield. But that Dimitri seemingly reunited with Dedue after he broke him out of prison, so I’m wondering why Dedue got the tearful “don’t ever throw your life away again” speech in AM (leading him to recognise that Dimitri legitimately cares about him more than he realised), but then seemingly didn’t get that speech in the other two routes.

 

Share this post


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

It’s worth noting that this is completely literal- Dedue has nothing else. Literally nothing to resemble any reason to live but the child who stepped in front of vengeful Kingdom soldiers and shielded him. Given that, it makes sense he’d devote himself so wholly to Dimitri. If we’re still doing the Xander comparison, Xander has his people and the rest of his family to think about, and we know from supports that he does think about them. Hence, his disregard of that to protect his father is out of character and idiotic, which is why so many people hate it.

As for Dedue in VW and SS, that’s something I can’t really understand. He risks his life to take Edelgard’s head, sure, he still struggles with his self-concept as anything other than Dimitri’s sword and shield. But that Dimitri seemingly reunited with Dedue after he broke him out of prison, so I’m wondering why Dedue got the tearful “don’t ever throw your life away again” speech in AM (leading him to recognise that Dimitri legitimately cares about him more than he realised), but then seemingly didn’t get that speech in the other two routes.

Thing is, saying that Dedue has nothing left isn't even true. The fact is, Dedue DOES care for his people, which is why that paralogue is important, as Dedue wanted to help save his people from being massacred again. So already, there is something to live for. He should live for his people, and could have written him to be like Miles from Full Metal Alchemist, seeking to help bridge the gap between Faerghus and Duscur. Hell, he could have also sought to investigate the incident of Lambert's death, wanting to prove his people's innocence. 

There were multiple ways of writing Dedue's character for his people. But Dedue only shows only the minimum amount of care and concern for Duscur and its people, while everything else is about Dimitri. 

So I very much disagree that Xander is written worse. Xander defending his father isn't him defending him for him. It's Xander still clinging to the MEMORY of the father he knew. He believes that HIS father, the man he loved and respected, was still there, and believed that after everything was settled, his father would surely return. I can easily make a case of how Xander SHOULD protect his father simply cause its his father. His family. The man that Xander shared years of memories with back when Garon was kind. Doesn't matter how one dimensionally evil his father was being now. What matters is that Xander had a solid bond with his father in the past, forged from years of being with him. 

Dedue being saved by Dimitri is just that. There are many other things to live for, but Dedue lives FOR Dimtiri. Exists for him, and doesn't care what Dimitri does. And there's no end goal for Dedue in this even. He isn't serving Dimitri in hopes of saving Duscur, else he would not be serving Dimitri when he is a crazed lunatic going on a suicidal run for revenge.

Hot take, Dedue is way worse than Xander.

Share this post


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

So I very much disagree that Xander is written worse. Xander defending his father isn't him defending him for him. It's Xander still clinging to the MEMORY of the father he knew. He believes that HIS father, the man he loved and respected, was still there, and believed that after everything was settled, his father would surely return. I can easily make a case of how Xander SHOULD protect his father simply cause its his father. His family. The man that Xander shared years of memories with back when Garon was kind. Doesn't matter how one dimensionally evil his father was being now. What matters is that Xander had a solid bond with his father in the past, forged from years of being with him. 

 

FINALLY SOMEONE ELSE WHO FUCKING GETS IT!!!!

*ahem* anyway as for the topic at hand, I feel like 3H touches on racism and it definitely wants to say something about it but it never actually does because 3H just has a fetish for building up plot points only to never deliver on them.

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...