Does Crimson Flower... make sense compared to the rest of Three Houses? SPOILERS, obviously.

[Dark Holy Elf]

3 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

I repeat: It's one thing to privately disapprove of someone's actions or motivations, and another thing entirely to wage a war in their name

How on earth is she waging war in their name? Edelgard wages a war for her own reasons (tearing down the Crest System / class divisions / organized religion), and they're reasons the Agarthans don't share (they want revenge on the Children of the Goddess for something that happened in the distant past). This means both are enemies of the Church, which makes them allies for a time, but reluctant allies. Hubert's paralogue is all about how they don't trust each other and each plan to turn on the other (which is why Hubert himself is devoted to making sure that he is well-positioned to win that fight).

3 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

And if Edelgard really does see the Slitherers as a comparatively great evil, then it's a case of 'Woman who made her own bed is Outraged she must now lie in it'.

Yes, she sees them both as great evils. This is why she plans to defeat both, in every timeline, as I've been saying all along. Not sure what you mean with that last quote.

3 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Nothing about her motivations and backstory lines up in siding with her abusers, and that's why CF is so odd to read as a Heroic-Route-Actually.

I'd say her backstory perfectly leads to her siding with her abusers; in fact, it explains why she initially had to. At the start of the game, Thales is the de facto ruler of the Adrestian Empire. He and his allies killed Edelgard's family and turned her father into a puppet they can kill at their leisure, should Edlegard step out of line. The only reason she's still alive is because Thales believes she has the power to stand against the power of Sothis and/or Rhea. Edelgard can't turn against him openly until she builds up an adequate power base of her own. From that point of view, given that she wants to destroy both the Agarthans and the Church, it makes more sense to work with the former while she builds said power base, and turn on them later.

In Hopes, a different set of events surrounding Jeritza and Monica prompt her to change her plans and turn on the Agarthans earlier, but consistently, they're both her enemies, and once you understand this the writing of the game will probably make a lot more sense to you than it appears it does at present.

 

3 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Me speed running through the two other routes of Three Houses grants the impression that I was invested in that story. But really I was just desperate to find something I liked about the new, sixty dollar fire emblem.

Yeah, fair enough, that makes sense. In that case I withdraw my recommendation. I also think I understand better why you (no offence intended) misunderstood these story points; if you're speedrunning something and not very invested in its story, that's gonna happen to the best of us. I've certainly done the same.

33 minutes ago, Jotari said:

A story should be able to stand on its own without requiring supplementary materials to make sense.

I strongly agree with this; but for what it's worth, I don't think Hopes is needed to understand Houses. To be sure, Houses does have some ambiguity in its storytelling (by design), and by nature anything which provides more information about an existing story will end up clarifying some things, but I would not call any of it required, if that makes  sense?

Everything Hopes clarifies had already been presented in Houses. "Edelgard plans to turn on the Agarthans" isn't exactly subtle; it's text that can only be denied by claiming Hubert is a liar. Another not-subtle thing which technically wasn't confirmed in Houses alone is that Thales is Arundel. If you want something more subtle, we can talk about "Edelgard's goal during the prologue was to have Jeritza installed as a house professor", which requires connecting several scattered dots in Houses... nonetheless, the majority of people who deep-dived into the game's plot and lore agreed it was the most likely explanation of the earlygame events well before June 2022 rolled around, and lo and behold, Hopes confirmed it.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

How on earth is she waging war in their name?

It's because:

Quote

I'd say her backstory perfectly leads to her siding with her abusers; in fact, it explains why she initially had to. At the start of the game, Thales is the de facto ruler of the Adrestian Empire. He and his allies killed Edelgard's family and turned her father into a puppet they can kill at their leisure, should Edlegard step out of line.

The Empire = The Agarthans, politically speaking. I am pleased I don't have to prove it since you agree. She knows it better than anyone. And it's been that way since before the events of the game. She doesn't need to launch a world war, she needs to launch a coup. And as the heiress, people would follow her when her only public opposition is her "Uncle". She could solicit the Church for help. She could even solicit The Kingdom for help if she uncovered the truth about Duscur (Dimitri got his hunch by heading to the library) and banked on her relationship with their next in line king. And if she's smart enough to wait until her coronation, then it's not technically a coup. Optics!

Quote

Yeah, fair enough, that makes sense. In that case I withdraw my recommendation. I also think I understand better why you (no offence intended) misunderstood these story points; if you're speedrunning something and not very invested in its story, that's gonna happen to the best of us. I've certainly done the same.

You seem to understand nothing. You can say "no offense intended" but this is dripping with condescension. I already told you I sped past the gameplay of those other routes to experience the story and characters. It wasn't happenstance, it was the whole point of the exercise. And I've been posting links to the game script, so that you don't have to wonder if I'm misconstruing anything. We played the same game. 

1 hour ago, Armchair General said:

Well, the ending to CF implies that Hubert started an unseen war against them.

Told and not shown, I remember. In other routes we actually do the grunt work of waging a war at their doorstep, and it's not easy. The Agarthans are totally unprepared for us and still have a full suite of defenses and a self destruct button in place. Everyone would have died if Rhea wasn't there to intercept the nukes. How did Hubert wage an unseen war and win? How do we know he wasn't defeated and replaced with a body double? Where's Nemesis and the Elites? These are the things worth talking about when we say CF seems at odds with the other routes. If CF were the only route, we would still have questions about this, but not counter-examples from the same video game.

Edited May 28, 2023 by Zapp Branniglenn

[Armchair General]

1 hour ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Told and not shown, I remember.

Yeah, it's my least favorite part about 3H. But hey, Hopes kinda leaves some of the bigger questions answered

[vanguard333]

On 5/26/2023 at 8:52 PM, Fire Emblem Fan said:

Crimson Flower really does make mush less sense than the other routes, yes. I think it's probably because it originally wasn't even supposed to be a route, and once it was they didn't do too great a job of making everything fit together for it.

I'm pretty sure that Crimson Flower was always supposed to be a route, but it was supposed to be a secret bonus route; the default route would be siding with the church, then there would be the option to side with Edelgard if the player fulfilled certain criteria. I think that because it's technically still the case: Crimson Flower is the only route that has to be unlocked by making certain decisions throughout part 1 and not just by picking a specific house, and, if I remember correctly, there was an interview where the developers revealed that the game originally did not have the criteria for unlocking the Crimson Flower route be nearly as obvious. It would also explain why the route is lacking in presentation and number of chapters compared to the other routes, as secret bonus routes/campaigns generally aren't given as much as other routes/campaigns in most games as they're, well, a bonus, and also because they're generally saved for last when developing a game.

My full theory is that the game, early on in development, was far more focused on empire vs church than on the idea of three houses at war, and the Crimson Flower route being a bonus route would reflect that, but then ambitions changed and the development leaned more towards the three houses at war concept, meaning it would make more sense for Crimson Flower to be the default Black Eagles route, but they already made Silver Snow and built Azure Moon and Verdant Wind from it, so they just made it more obvious how to unlock the Crimson Flower route. I could easily be wrong, but going from "Crimson Flower is a secret bonus route" to, "We need to make Crimson Flower more obvious and less of a secret" would suggest a shift in priorities at some point during development.

[Sunwoo]

Not gonna go into a full-depth analysis of my feelings towards CF here, but I just wanted to say that I don't consider knowing the story of Hopes conducive to this topic. 3Hopes is written with the power of hindsight bias, where the developers had awareness of how certain plot beats and characters were received by the fanbase. So they would have the ability to retcon, or "fix", things that were universally hated by players. They weren't starting from point zero the way they were when they created 3H from scratch.

[Acacia Sgt]

44 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I'm pretty sure that Crimson Flower was always supposed to be a route, but it was supposed to be a secret bonus route; the default route would be siding with the church, then there would be the option to side with Edelgard if the player fulfilled certain criteria. I think that because it's technically still the case: Crimson Flower is the only route that has to be unlocked by making certain decisions throughout part 1 and not just by picking a specific house, and, if I remember correctly, there was an interview where the developers revealed that the game originally did not have the criteria for unlocking the Crimson Flower route be nearly as obvious. It would also explain why the route is lacking in presentation and number of chapters compared to the other routes, as secret bonus routes/campaigns generally aren't given as much as other routes/campaigns in most games as they're, well, a bonus, and also because they're generally saved for last when developing a game.

My full theory is that the game, early on in development, was far more focused on empire vs church than on the idea of three houses at war, and the Crimson Flower route being a bonus route would reflect that, but then ambitions changed and the development leaned more towards the three houses at war concept, meaning it would make more sense for Crimson Flower to be the default Black Eagles route, but they already made Silver Snow and built Azure Moon and Verdant Wind from it, so they just made it more obvious how to unlock the Crimson Flower route. I could easily be wrong, but going from "Crimson Flower is a secret bonus route" to, "We need to make Crimson Flower more obvious and less of a secret" would suggest a shift in priorities at some point during development.

Well, there's this:

Fire Emblem: Three Houses devs on inspirations, world-building, approach to Byleth, Dimitri's eyepatch, more (nintendoeverything.com)

From the sound of it, they didn't, because they wanted the twist of losing the House Leader. But then members of the development team wanted to side with Edelgard, so Crimson Flower was made as a consequence. It doesn't sound that it was part of the original plan.

[Jotari]

56 minutes ago, Sunwoo said:

Not gonna go into a full-depth analysis of my feelings towards CF here, but I just wanted to say that I don't consider knowing the story of Hopes conducive to this topic. 3Hopes is written with the power of hindsight bias, where the developers had awareness of how certain plot beats and characters were received by the fanbase. So they would have the ability to retcon, or "fix", things that were universally hated by players. They weren't starting from point zero the way they were when they created 3H from scratch.

Very true. Edelgard ousting the Argathans in Chapter 4 feels very much like something out of a fanfic.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Jotari

[Dark Holy Elf]

3 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

The Empire = The Agarthans, politically speaking. I am pleased I don't have to prove it since you agree. She knows it better than anyone. And it's been that way since before the events of the game. She doesn't need to launch a world war, she needs to launch a coup. And as the heiress, people would follow her when her only public opposition is her "Uncle". She could solicit the Church for help. She could even solicit The Kingdom for help if she uncovered the truth about Duscur (Dimitri got his hunch by heading to the library) and banked on her relationship with their next in line king. And if she's smart enough to wait until her coronation, then it's not technically a coup. Optics!

Sure, she could have done some of that. Some of these are things she even did in Hopes. Each path she might consider to reach her goals has its own (large) set of risks. I don't think she's crazy for choosing the path she does in Houses, and I certainly don't think it's evidence of brainwashing.

To circle back to the "in their name", which is what I took issue with: I took you to be saying she did it because the Agarthans wanted her to do it. But... if you listen to anything Edelgard says, she clearly has her own reasons to get rid of the Church! She clearly would still want to remove the Church of Seiros even if the Agarthans all magically vanished (yet another thing which is text in Hopes but still, hopefully you'll agree, is obvious based on Houses alone).

I guess you can argue that Thales, despite his dismissive views of humans and their affairs, somehow managed to manipulate Edelgard into caring about class dynamics, religion as abuse of power, and the myriad of injustice in the name of Crests we see throughout Three Houses. If so, that's just about the most depressing take I've ever seen for this game. The person advocating for radical social change is only that way because she was tricked, what a lovely idea. Fortunately, I don't think the text of the game actually supports this take at all.

 

3 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

I already told you I sped past the gameplay of those other routes to experience the story and characters.

While calling that "a waste of time", unless I misunderstood you? And you certainly didn't seem actually that interested in experiencing them, given that, when Intsys and Koei Tecmo said "hey, we wrote another full game to expand further on these same story and characters", you were so uninterested that you didn't even bother to learn the basic facts about the game's story, which include that Edelgard stages the very coup you advocated (in the demo!). Instead you choose to argue that she had no intention of doing that, and all you have to do to make the argument is say "there's no proof I'm wrong, provided you assume that the lines which contradict me are lies".

I'm trying not to be too condescending, but it's difficult when you're advocating for something which is provably false. I'll give plenty of leeway on moral questions - if you want to argue that Edelgard is a villain and her choices are immoral, feel free! I don't agree but I respect that it's something which lies in the realm of opinion, and in fact addressing one's feelings on that question is arguably the very point of the game. However, her great dislike of both the Church and the Agarthans is an important part of her character, it informs the choices she makes, it is substantiated in the text of Houses, and denying it leaves us all but discussing different games.

1 hour ago, Sunwoo said:

3Hopes is written with the power of hindsight bias, where the developers had awareness of how certain plot beats and characters were received by the fanbase. So they would have the ability to retcon, or "fix", things that were universally hated by players.

Perhaps the same could be said for all sequels, no? That said, usually if a sequel made by the same writer makes a plot point clear, we accept it in discussion of the original work. If you want to argue that Darth Vader has no relation to Luke Skywalker because hey, it's a valid possibility based on Star Wars (1977) alone, that'd come across as a bit weird to me. Maybe fun as a "what if" exercise, but that's about it.

Nothing we are discussing here are things that are even close to universally hated by players, anyway.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

Also on the subject of Hopes, I find "go play Hopes" a poor defense of Houses. A story should be able to stand on its own without requiring supplementary materials to make sense.

Glares in Fates DLC

14 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

You should play it because, if you like Fodlan's storytelling enough to participate in this debate, you would probably like a game that continues that storytelling. I'll grant the gameplay is very different, and some people don't vibe with Warriors gameplay.

Anecdotally, I preordered the game, and then I got the demo. Played three maps of it... and cancelled my pre-order. The gameplay just felt joyless to me. I would like to watch a "let's play" of it at some point, though, to really get the story.

On 5/27/2023 at 8:10 AM, vanguard333 said:

Thank you.

So I was close; instead of, "Are you here to liberate me?", he actually said, "are you the one who can liberate me?"

In any case, it's a very strong hint that Nemesis' title "King of Liberation" was more of a twisted metaphor for his skill at mass-slaughter.

My view is, it was moreso a dry joke. The "liberation" Maurice seeks is of a different sort than that which gave Nemesis his title. But I understand where you are coming from.

On 5/27/2023 at 7:03 AM, Jotari said:

Just reading the OP as I don't want to get waylaid, but those all sounds like issues of tone more than facts. The game is consistent in that Rhea propagandized her victory (but weirdly she also white washed Nemesis calling him the King of Liberation, the Agarthans are the only ones whose view of history have him as anything less than stellar) and Edelgard takes effort with that.

The rationale is never explained, but I interpret it as something of a "compromise" history. Assuming the 10 Elites and their followers still have some political power, Seiros didn't want to inflame them any further. So, she gives Nemesis a charitable backstory (to validate their own idolization of him), while also giving him a "corruption arc" (to justify her confrontation, and victory, over him). In that way, there can be peace with her former foes - even if it is built upon a lie.

On 5/26/2023 at 2:13 PM, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Every noble wants a child with a crest, and could be persuaded to give up their child tragically to make them a multicrest political golden goose. Nobody would admit that they gave up their daughter in a bid for more power.

I don't believe either House Ordelia or House Hresvelg let their children be experimented upon willingly. Rather, it was imposed upon them, after their respective losses of political power. "Let most of your well-educated and invested kids die for a chance at one with slightly more strength and marriageability" is... certainly a trade-off.

On 5/26/2023 at 9:06 PM, Dark Holy Elf said:

That's the point and I think it's a pretty neat one. “If you think of people as simply enemies or allies, it may be impossible to grasp the truth" is one of my favourite lines in the game.

Eh... this line always rubbed me the wrong way, in the context of when it was delivered. It felt more like a "cop-out", or a "hand-wave", by an Edelgard who was uncomfortable answering Teach's questions. The sentiment is true enough, but it doesn't actually answer the question of "wait, why are we working with them again?"

I dunno, I guess I just wish Teach gave a little more pushback on Edelgard in CF. Having the option to reprimand her for lying to her classmates about the missiles, for instance. And holy moly I'm getting dragged into Edeldiscourse again, time to jump ship-

[SnowFire]

I will try to avoid the Edelgard discourse, aside from to note that allies in wartime very much don't have to correspond with true long-term beliefs.  At risk of committing a Godwin's Law violation, I will reluctantly cite the shifting alliances of World War II, that saw commies first cooperating with fascists, and then after that didn't work out commies cooperating with "imperialists", both of whom they earlier denounced and would go back to denouncing afterward.  Or Western anti-communists stuck working with the USSR.  Or for an even darker example, Finland, a democracy, joining the Nazis in fighting the Allies.  No reason to think that the alliances were anything more than alliances of convenience, as indeed the Cold War would soon prove afterward.

Anyway, Slitherer plot is a dumpster fire, but I'd argue that the whole Arianrhod thing doesn't really make tons of sense (since it was brought up obliquely).  I get that it's a way to take out Cornelia "accidentally" from Edelgard's perspective and maybe loot some cool secret Agarthan weapons, just..  it really does seem like the Javelins of Light should be an act of war, right?  And kind of a dumb one since it seems to have been used as a threat to keep Edelgard in line, but seems more likely to ensure it's just a war, in the same way that burning down a third of your neighbor's house is less a threat and more a "time for us to fight" challenge.    I can only assume that the devs ran out of time and had intended to maybe throw a CF version of Shamballa in afterward, but the whole plot point doesn't really make sense.  Either keep it to the level of skulldruggery and tense alliance of convenience, or else just say "yeah the Slitherers have withdrawn their support from us, we're fighting both them and the Kingdom now."

Edited May 29, 2023 by SnowFire

[Sunwoo]

6 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Perhaps the same could be said for all sequels, no? That said, usually if a sequel made by the same writer makes a plot point clear, we accept it in discussion of the original work. If you want to argue that Darth Vader has no relation to Luke Skywalker because hey, it's a valid possibility based on Star Wars (1977) alone, that'd come across as a bit weird to me. Maybe fun as a "what if" exercise, but that's about it.

3Hopes isn't a sequel, it's a what-if. It doesn't build on the events that occur in 3H after the game is over. It places you back at the beginning and adds three more "what if the story went in this direction instead" options.

[Jotari]

7 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Perhaps the same could be said for all sequels, no? That said, usually if a sequel made by the same writer makes a plot point clear, we accept it in discussion of the original work. If you want to argue that Darth Vader has no relation to Luke Skywalker because hey, it's a valid possibility based on Star Wars (1977) alone, that'd come across as a bit weird to me. Maybe fun as a "what if" exercise, but that's about it.

Nothing we are discussing here are things that are even close to universally hated by players, anyway.

That depends very much on the nature of the sequel, and wether it even is a sequel. As Three Hopes isn't. It's meant to be covering the same events just in an alternate timeline. Per the Star Wars example, Luke and Vader don't have any relation if you're looking at New Hope as a stand alone movie. It's nice to go back and recontextualize their (almost) scenes together, but the truth is that in the narrative of A New Hope as a stand alone story, and in the minds of the movie makers when the story was created (George Lukas will lie and say it was always planned, but it wasn't). And A New Hope can be watched completely without that later context and works fine as a story.

To contrast, some  stories are very much designed as installments in one narrative. Take for example, The Fellowship of the Ring, which has several scenes of Gollum stalking the party, yet the character doesn't really appear until Two Towers. It would be totally unfair to criticize the The Fellowship of the Ring for having unnecessary scenes of Gollum observing the party or Frodo noticing him. It's true those scenes could be cut from The Fellowship entirely and Fellowship would still make sense, but those scenes are there for the purpose of the longer narrative and can't really be cut as it would hurt the sequels.

And then we have sequels that aren't designed to be installments in one narrative, but still do intend to be followed up on. Path of Radiance would be a good example of that as it lays the ground work for Radiant Dawn in it. Path of Radiance is still very much a stand alone story and you could walk away from it without ever playing Radiant Dawn and none of the foreshadowing it has would be incongruous. Indeed, if not for the ending where Sephiran shows up to go  "Oh well that issss mysterious," you might not even realize the sequel was planned and that stuff like Lehran's medallion and Zelguis or Lekain's existence are foreshadowing.

In that regard Hopes to Houses is a lot more like Star Wars than Lord of the Rings or Tellius. Of course the thing is a spectrum, but there is definitely going to be a marked difference between a planned sequel, and unplanned sequel and a story that is told in multiple installments where the nature of wether a sequel or not comes mostly down to production and publication.

5 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Glares in Fates DLC

I actually think Fates is a lot closer to Tellius than my other two above examples. While Conquest is a dumsterfire of a story and Birthright is burnt milktoast, I don't feel like Revalation is ultimately necessary to understand either of them and they can exist as independent narratives. The bit of Valla and Anankos stuff they put into Conquest feels more like foreshadowing than missing context, which are probably the best terms to use (that being said the Valla stuff is horrible for Conquest as Conquest's own story for a whole bunch of different reasons and probably wouldn't exist if not for Revelation, so, *shrug* Fates' production was bloody weird).

Oh shit maybe you were talking about Hidden Truths and not Revealtion. In which case I entirely agree with you. It was stupid to include a bunch of Awakening characters in the game, hint at a reason they were there and then just never even bother to half explain it or actually make the Awakening characters relevant to the story at all. That is absolutely "Buy this other thing for the story to make sense" at its finest.

7 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I guess you can argue that Thales, despite his dismissive views of humans and their affairs, somehow managed to manipulate Edelgard into caring about class dynamics, religion as abuse of power, and the myriad of injustice in the name of Crests we see throughout Three Houses. If so, that's just about the most depressing take I've ever seen for this game. The person advocating for radical social change is only that way because she was tricked, what a lovely idea. Fortunately, I don't think the text of the game actually supports this take at all.

That's precisely why I say Edelgard would be a better character without the torture backstory. Because really, if it's not meant to be informing her world view...then why is it there? Why torture her and then have her work with her tortures if the torture wasn't meant to be impactful? Well, I know the answer, it was a cheap ploy to gain audience sympathy and it worked. But it'd be better if she just wasn't tortured and thought these things on her own. That would also make her alliance far less incongruous.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Jotari

[vanguard333]

10 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Well, there's this:

Fire Emblem: Three Houses devs on inspirations, world-building, approach to Byleth, Dimitri's eyepatch, more (nintendoeverything.com)

From the sound of it, they didn't, because they wanted the twist of losing the House Leader. But then members of the development team wanted to side with Edelgard, so Crimson Flower was made as a consequence. It doesn't sound that it was part of the original plan.

Interesting. Funny enough, I think that's the interview I was thinking of when I mentioned an interview where they stated that they originally wanted the Crimson Flower route to be harder to unlock, as that's exactly what Kusakihara says in that interview.

I agree that it does sound like Crimson Flower wasn't originally part of the game, but it also sounds like the decision to include it was made in the very early planning stages, with most of the decision-making regarding it afterwards being how hard it would be to unlock it, and it sounds like the dev team still disagrees about how difficult it should've been to unlock. Yokota does say in that interview that he felt that Kusakihara's original vision was carried out "from the early planning stages all the way to the end", so Crimson Flower either was always intended or was added in the early planning stages.

Incidentally, I have to disagree with Kusakihara about one thing: he talks about a story being "too predictable" as if it would be a bad thing; his exact words being, "I don't think there's much value to a story you can easily predict", and I strongly disagree; predictability is not inherently a bad thing. If it were, there would be zero value in prequels or in second reading/viewing/playthroughs of a story.

 

7 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

My view is, it was moreso a dry joke. The "liberation" Maurice seeks is of a different sort than that which gave Nemesis his title. But I understand where you are coming from.

That's definitely a fair interpretation.

[Acacia Sgt]

52 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I agree that it does sound like Crimson Flower wasn't originally part of the game, but it also sounds like the decision to include it was made in the very early planning stages, with most of the decision-making regarding it afterwards being how hard it would be to unlock it, and it sounds like the dev team still disagrees about how difficult it should've been to unlock. Yokota does say in that interview that he felt that Kusakihara's original vision was carried out "from the early planning stages all the way to the end", so Crimson Flower either was always intended or was added in the early planning stages.

Hmm, it's hard to say. I would think that things had to have been advanced enough for the developers to want the option. Not to mention, if it had been that early, then CF would've been more on par with the other routes. Like, Jeritza would've been playable right off the bat instead of being patched in post-release, for example. Also, the quote doesn't really suggest that on its own. Since if the original vision was "you lose the House Leader", then Silver Snow still fulfills that whether CF exists or not, so it can still count as his original vision being carried out. So I doubt it's evidence that CF was planned early.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Acacia Sgt

[Dark Holy Elf]

7 hours ago, SnowFire said:

Anyway, Slitherer plot is a dumpster fire, but I'd argue that the whole Arianrhod thing doesn't really make tons of sense (since it was brought up obliquely).  I get that it's a way to take out Cornelia "accidentally" from Edelgard's perspective and maybe loot some cool secret Agarthan weapons, just..  it really does seem like the Javelins of Light should be an act of war, right?  And kind of a dumb one since it seems to have been used as a threat to keep Edelgard in line, but seems more likely to ensure it's just a war, in the same way that burning down a third of your neighbor's house is less a threat and more a "time for us to fight" challenge.    I can only assume that the devs ran out of time and had intended to maybe throw a CF version of Shamballa in afterward, but the whole plot point doesn't really make sense.  Either keep it to the level of skulldruggery and tense alliance of convenience, or else just say "yeah the Slitherers have withdrawn their support from us, we're fighting both them and the Kingdom now."

Yeah, I definitely agree with this. To be honest I have some issues with the javelins of light in general; they are supposedly very powerful but the slitherers never use them to accomplish anything useful. In fact, the only purpose they end up serving in the game's plot is they're (at least arguably) how the location of Shambhala is discovered.

If we want to talk about Hopes retconning away things that are unpopular... it basically just never acknowledges the javelins of light exist at all, and to be frank the story is better for it.

37 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Incidentally, I have to disagree with Kusakihara about one thing: he talks about a story being "too predictable" as if it would be a bad thing; his exact words being, "I don't think there's much value to a story you can easily predict", and I strongly disagree; predictability is not inherently a bad thing. If it were, there would be zero value in prequels or in second reading/viewing/playthroughs of a story.

This is a bit of a tangent but I strongly agree with you on this one. Most of us go to watch a Shakespeare play knowing how it ends (and some of the plays even tell you how they end at the beginning of the text, e.g. Romeo and Juliet) but that doesn't devalue them one bit.

3 hours ago, Sunwoo said:

3Hopes isn't a sequel, it's a what-if. It doesn't build on the events that occur in 3H after the game is over. It places you back at the beginning and adds three more "what if the story went in this direction instead" options.

For sure, but this particular point that we're discussing comes up before the "What if" parts really start taking shape. The question is "did Edelgard intend to betray the Agarthans on non-CF timelines, if given the chance". I think the answer is clearly yes within the text of Houses anyway. But I brought up Hopes because when you see her planning to do just that in literally her first "private" scene in Hopes, you either have to argue that the same writers are retconning their own character, or you accept that this is the what Edelgard always would have done if given a chance (just as when she gets the chance in CF). 

(And why would the writers retcon Edelgard in the sequel, of all people? She was massively popular already.)

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

That's precisely why I say Edelgard would be a better character without the torture backstory. Because really, if it's not meant to be informing her world view...then why is it there? Why torture her and then have her work with her tortures if the torture wasn't meant to be impactful? Well, I know the answer, it was a cheap ploy to gain audience sympathy and it worked. But it'd be better if she just wasn't tortured and thought these things on her own.

That's fair. I'm not sure I fully agree, though. I do think the torture does inform her worldview; it means Edelgard has personally suffered from the Crest system she so despises, so gives her a personal stake in things; characters are more compelling when you can trace reasons for their views, instead of the writers just saying "this character thinks X". I do think you're right that it's also partly to gain player sympathy, too, though.

[Jotari]

7 minutes ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

That's fair. I'm not sure I fully agree, though. I do think the torture does inform her worldview; it means Edelgard has personally suffered from the Crest system she so despises, so gives her a personal stake in things; characters are more compelling when you can trace reasons for their views, instead of the writers just saying "this character thinks X". I do think you're right that it's also partly to gain player sympathy, too, though.

Yeah...illegal Crest Experiments unsanctioned by the authority she's rebelling against and performed by the people she is now working with. I don't think she even discovers in any of the routes in either of the games that Rhea was also performing her own shady Crest Experiments coincidentally at the same time. It makes about as much sense as getting tortured by North Korea and coming to the conclusion that all government is evil, and then working with the North Korean government to take down the US government. It is more compelling when you can trace reasons for views, but if Edelgard's reason for her views is her torture and not just because she's meant to have a legitimate point then Thales has manipulated her into caring about class struggle and religious overreach.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Jotari

[vanguard333]

46 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Hmm, it's hard to say. I would think that things had to have been advanced enough for the developers to want the option. Not to mention, if it had been that early, then CF would've been more on par with the other routes. Like, Jeritza would've been playable right off the bat instead of being patched in post-release, for example. Also, the quote doesn't really suggest that on its own. Since if the original vision was "you lose the House Leader", then Silver Snow still fulfills that whether CF exists or not, so it can still count as his original vision being carried out. So I doubt it's evidence that CF was planned early.

I think the lack of attention CF received compared to other routes by the fact that, when it was conceived, it was originally conceived as essentially a hidden bonus route, and hidden bonus campaigns in games generally don't receive as much attention because most players won't see it; it's the same reason final levels in video games often receive less attention than earlier content. Then the decision was made to make unlocking Crimson Flower a lot more obvious.

I suppose; I guess we will never truly know for certain until someone on the dev team actually outright says how early on in development Crimson Flower was included in the game.

 

43 minutes ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

This is a bit of a tangent but I strongly agree with you on this one. Most of us go to watch a Shakespeare play knowing how it ends (and some of the plays even tell you how they end at the beginning of the text, e.g. Romeo and Juliet) but that doesn't devalue them one bit.

Thank you. And it's not just Shakespeare plays; any prequel may as well have the tagline, "From the beginning, you know how it ends"; in fact, that was literally Halo Reach's tagline, and that game received widespread acclaim.

[vikingsfan92]

If any route doesn't make sense it would be Verdent Wind imo. It's painted as the "neutral route" yet it's just another vs the empire route.  Claude also has his own issues with Rhea but he pretty much does exactly what she wants him to.  Which is why I have always said the route split should have been in Claude's route not Edelgards. Which is why I am glad three hopes exists personally as it let's Claude be his own person more.

As for the history of Fodland aspect of Crimson Flower I have always felt people in the fandom are putting to much stock in their sides recollection of the past events regarding nemesis and such being accurate from both sides tbh.   I also dont think Edelgard herself belives it to be 100% accurate. If anything I think the argument she uses it to gain support is just proof she doesnt belive in it blindly and knows what she is doing is the same.  

What I do think however is people under value just how much of the problems other events that don't deal with nemesis directly happened because of the church and the church alone.  Even if twsid did have a hand the response given by the church can certainly make the situation worse. There are also examples of situations that are bad because of the church not twsid imo. Sure crests being a thing is twsid doing but people being absolutely awful to each other over crests I see as the church's fault more so because it was their message that justified the actions of awful people.

[Kirby1up]

Just had a thought, how on earth is the this the only route in three houses where Rhea doesn't get caught (or worse) by the empire & slithers combined efforts? .

I can assume its because those who slither don't seem to be involved in the invasion chapter in the CF route but... why wouldn't they? we know thanks to the other 3 routes that they can capture Rhea easily with a couple of Demonic Beasts and a blast of magic from Thales. We already know Cornelia was working on putting the holy kingdom of faerghus under her thumb and nemesis was likely on standby. story would've gone in a different direction all together but I don't see why they wouldn't just take the risk and go for the kill regardless if edelgard was intending to capture Rhea alive or not.

[Etrurian emperor]

38 minutes ago, vikingsfan92 said:

If any route doesn't make sense it would be Verdent Wind imo. It's painted as the "neutral route" yet it's just another vs the empire route.  Claude also has his own issues with Rhea but he pretty much does exactly what she wants him to.  Which is why I have always said the route split should have been in Claude's route not Edelgards. Which is why I am glad three hopes exists personally as it let's Claude be his own person more.

Indeed. That's why I found the TH route such a gigantic improvement for Claude. Rhea seems a far more fitting opponent for him than Edelgard who he's closer in ideals with.

[Acacia Sgt]

27 minutes ago, Kirby1up said:

Just had a thought, how on earth is the this the only route in three houses where Rhea doesn't get caught (or worse) by the empire & slithers combined efforts? .

I can assume its because those who slither don't seem to be involved in the invasion chapter in the CF route but... why wouldn't they? we know thanks to the other 3 routes that they can capture Rhea easily with a couple of Demonic Beasts and a blast of magic from Thales. We already know Cornelia was working on putting the holy kingdom of faerghus under her thumb and nemesis was likely on standby. story would've gone in a different direction all together but I don't see why they wouldn't just take the risk and go for the kill regardless if edelgard was intending to capture Rhea alive or not.

Perhaps Byleth siding with her made Edelgard bold/confident enough to not ask for Slitherer support. Not to mention, Rhea got captured because Byleth falling off the ravine distracted/distressed her enough for one of the Demonic Beasts to pin her down from the back, which isn't something that happens in CF.

Considering the other routes, I don't think the Slitherers were that adamant to kill Rhea at that moment. Else Edelgard wouldn't have been able to take her prisoner. So perhaps the Slitherers were fine sitting out on the battle for CF. Alternatively, the Slitherers were present, but as we see in the other routes, they were on the town area, while the battle with Rhea happened right before the front entrance of the monastery. In the other routes, Rhea goes to the town area itself to fight after the frontal assault got repelled. So perhaps that is also a key difference.

Rhea going to the town area after winning the battle and watching Byleth fall into the ravine leaves her open to capture. In CF, she's forced to retreat instead since she loses the battle instead.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Acacia Sgt

[Jotari]

6 hours ago, vikingsfan92 said:

  What I do think however is people under value just how much of the problems other events that don't deal with nemesis directly happened because of the church and the church alone.  Even if twsid did have a hand the response given by the church can certainly make the situation worse. There are also examples of situations that are bad because of the church not twsid imo. Sure crests being a thing is twsid doing but people being absolutely awful to each other over crests I see as the church's fault more so because it was their message that justified the actions of awful people.

People would be awful to each other over crests even without crests. As all they are is a visual representation of feudalism (and a DNA test), the social structure upheld in every Fire Emblem game.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Jotari

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

17 hours ago, Jotari said:

Oh shit maybe you were talking about Hidden Truths and not Revealtion. In which case I entirely agree with you.

Yeah, I was referring to "Hidden Truths". I don't think of Revelation as DLC - rather, it's a download-only game. Like, if I buy the Birthright cartridge, and pay $20 for Conquest digitally, that doesn't make CQ DLC for BR, does it? Eh, that's its own discussion. 

But yeah, the notion of "you need to pay more money to get the villain's true backstory, and to explain the presence of these inexplicably incongruous characters". Not here for it.

11 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Considering the other routes, I don't think the Slitherers were that adamant to kill Rhea at that moment. Else Edelgard wouldn't have been able to take her prisoner.

The game is frustratingly opaque about how Edelgard managed to take Rhea prisoner, without the Slitherers being aware that she was taken, or where she was going. Presumably, Edelgard (and Imperial Soldiers) would have had to have her surrounded, and escort her, without the Agarthans present. But we know that Thales and friends were at the Battle of Garreg Mach, and that Rhea had not been seen since that battle. So, what gives?

14 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Yeah, I definitely agree with this. To be honest I have some issues with the javelins of light in general; they are supposedly very powerful but the slitherers never use them to accomplish anything useful. In fact, the only purpose they end up serving in the game's plot is they're (at least arguably) how the location of Shambhala is discovered.

The tiniest bone I could throw is, the Javelins of Light do lead to Rhea's death in Verdant Wind. And... maybe her going berserk, and possibly dying, on Silver Snow. Since Rhea defending Teach from the attacks leaves her in a substantially weakened state. Of course, it didn't need to be the ICBMs - Thales could've just set another Zaharas-style trap that would leave Rhea deathly ill. Still, the Agarthans finally achieved their lifelong goals, and all it took was nuking their whole civilization. 

[Acacia Sgt]

2 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

The game is frustratingly opaque about how Edelgard managed to take Rhea prisoner, without the Slitherers being aware that she was taken, or where she was going. Presumably, Edelgard (and Imperial Soldiers) would have had to have her surrounded, and escort her, without the Agarthans present. But we know that Thales and friends were at the Battle of Garreg Mach, and that Rhea had not been seen since that battle. So, what gives?

I mean, maybe Thales found appealing the idea of subjecting Rhea to torture rather than killing outright? Since that would be just too fast to relish on it.

But yeah, considering he was right in view of Rhea and Byleth before pushing the latter with magic, it'd be practically impossible for him to not see her being taken down.

[Jotari]

9 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

The game is frustratingly opaque about how Edelgard managed to take Rhea prisoner, without the Slitherers being aware that she was taken, or where she was going. Presumably, Edelgard (and Imperial Soldiers) would have had to have her surrounded, and escort her, without the Agarthans present. But we know that Thales and friends were at the Battle of Garreg Mach, and that Rhea had not been seen since that battle. So, what gives?

Keeping Rhea detained for half a decade is also pretty questionable. She can turn into a huge freaking dragon, just destroy your capital and fly away. Did Edelgard have some kind of anti dragon magic sealing pentagram or something that we never hear of elsewhere even though dragons are her main enemies? Or did she just keep Rhea drugged and starved for that entire time to stop her transforming? She must have done something drastic, and Rhea certainly looks like she's been through a lot. Which also begs the question...why keep her alive? She's super freaking dangerous to just keep caged away as a pet. Best headcanon I can come up with is that Edelgard is periodically draining her blood to create more Demon Beasts, but even then Azure Moon makes it pretty clear all you need is for some chump to hold a crest stone for a while to actually get one of them (on the other other hand the whole Flayn saga does suggest dragon blood is useful in the process somewhere).

The real reason Edelgard doesn't kill Rhea is, of course, so Rhea can exposition dump the whole Byleth plot when you do rescue her, but there are other ways that could have been explained. And considering how little else she does in Part 2 of the synoptic routes it probably would have been better if she was just killed off.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Jotari