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

[lenticular]

The way I tend to look at it, the big question is, what would have happened if Edelgard had attempted to achieve her goals peacefully? We'll never know the answer to this, of course, but it seems like something we could reasonably speculate on.

I'm imagining that instead of declaring war, she just announced the complete dissolution of the Church of Seiros in Adrestia. All church buildings and land would be seized, all church officials would be given the choice between exile and conversion. Meanwhile, she'd build a new secular school in Enbarr as an alternative to Garreg Mach, she'd implement a meritocratic system of government, and so on. And for good measure, let's also imagine that she has a system of free immigration so that anyone from Faerghus or Leicester who wants out of the church-run system could do so.

Would this work? Well, maybe. Maybe not. She has the political authority to make these sweeping changes and she has the will of the people behind her. That's a really good start. In terms of internal Adrestian issues, she has as good a chance of making things stick as she ever could, I'd say.

The stickier issue would be predicting how Rhea would react. Would she allow it, or would she be willing to declare war to reestablish Church control? Who knows? Both in- and out-of-universe, that's impossible to predict for sure. But let's say it did go to war, would Adrestia be better or worse off? On the one hand, they'd lose the advantages of being able to launch a surprise war and pick the initial engagements (not that this turned out to be particularly important in the prime timeline, where the war quickly descended to quagmire and deadlock). On the other hand, there's a much lower chance that they'd have to fight the Kingdom and (especially) the Alliance this way. It would be harder for Rhea to bring allies on board for an offensive war than a defensive one.

So, overall, purely in terms of success chance, there are arguments to be made either way. I don't think it's clear and obvious that either approach has vastly more chance of succeeding than the other. Because, let's remember, the military approach that she chooses only succeeds in one route out of four, and then only because of something (Byleth's allegiance) that she had deemed highly unlikely and not planned for. And even with the military success, it's still up in the air whether that can translate into the longterm societal reforms that she's hoping for.

So, overall, what I see is a character who, when faced with two possible approaches to achieve her goals, one of which involves starting a continent-spanning war and one of which doesn't, chooses the former.

[Eltosian Kadath]

On 5/30/2023 at 9:09 PM, Jotari said:

The difference is that of the agresser. Rhea would have left Edelgard alone if she just did her own thing in her own country and kept to herself. Zephiel was the one that brought the conflict to Roy and always would have because his goal was to wipe out all humanity.

3 hours ago, Jotari said:

You might be 100% certain Rhea would invade the Empire of they gave her the middle finger, but there is literally no evidence from any of her actions just she would.

This seems extremely silly to me, as the game shows us how Rhea would respond using Lord Lonato's rebellion. She would simply wait til there was an internal conflict in the empire (almost certainly caused by some incompetent crest holder(s) refusing to peacefully give up the power Edelgard's reforms would take from them, perhaps even with the help of church subterfuge), and use the side opposing Edelgard's request for help as an excuse to move the military forces the church controls into the conflict to defend this faction, both framing Edelgard as the "aggressor", and make it a religious conflict that can justify the involvement of pious nations, and nobles into joining the cause. Edelgard would have all the political downsides of being the "aggressor" (attacking her own people even to weaken internal stability), only without any of the military advantages of a surprise attack, and the increased internal stability having an external threat causes in the latter.

Heck, the head of the Ministry of Religion (Bernie's father), who almost certainly would be targeted by Edelgard's reforms, and whose job it is to liase with the Central Church, would make the perfect figure for sparking off this little conflict...

[Zapp Branniglenn]

The average Edelgard defense starts and ends with What About Rhea? Yes what about this genocide survivor who has lived long enough to see several magnitudes more human cruelty than any person? She's a damaged mind propped up by a massive religion. If you've lived long enough to have some great injustice done to you, than you know how hard it is to walk away from that pain so that it doesn't define everything in your life. Now imagine that difficulty stems from a Holocaust-level injustice, AND you're the world's biggest known celebrity with legions of people who would defend your actions to their dying breath. By erasing history, even the history that makes her look like the victim she factually was, she was desperate to seem mortal. It's up for debate whether she was motivated by this, but her own "Kill the memory of God" initiative did more to "abolish the Church" than Edelgard did. Her war sets back the clock a thousand years in re-justifying the Church's existence. Any time there is a revolt against the church, Rhea has to contend with nightmares that Nemesis and his men would come back and finish the job. And in a bizarre cosmic coincidence, they factually do come back to finish the job.

There's also that dragon degeneration stuff, which, is not textualized in Three Houses. More of a "Fire Emblem fans? If you know you know." And I wouldn't bring it up if not for the Silver Snow finale being so inexplicable without it. Rhea does not sleep every other lifetime like Flayn and Seteth do. And if we follow Archanean's canon, hibernation is the only way to stave off the madness. Even in real life the average person can end up with un unrecognizeably cruel personality past 60, no dementia required. Are dragon minds built different? And if they are, are they built different enough where it doesn't have to be inevitable? If we can't answer, then what is the basis for comparison with some tortured, radicalized teenager? 

5 hours ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

This seems extremely silly to me, as the game shows us how Rhea would respond using Lord Lonato's rebellion.

Not a lot happens with that story event. All that's worthy of mention is that Lonato's Rebellion was expected to be suppressed (as in surrender, not exactly dead) before we got there and that Rhea sends your class there as some dumb Scared Straight program that demonstrates what Knights are out to protect against. The real life version with cops is controversial too. But the fog lets them slip past the Knights' perimeter and suddenly your students are fighting a revolt made mostly of rallied civilians. That is a worst case scenario, not the initial plan. But we know who really caused the revolt with hindsight. And the immediate concern without that hindsight is that assassination note. Nobody believes that this revolt was part of a larger assassination plot, not even the shrewd, over-protective Seteth, but it ends up being part of the conspiracy. We catch them in the act, stealing relics and presumably the crest stones and anything else not nailed down to wage war on the Goddess. Armed with new WMDs, would the Agarthans have made their attempt on Rhea's life during the Rite of Rebirth, or quit and wait for a better opportunity when she's not as guarded? Hard to say, but it would have been a win regardless without Byleth's intervention.

I'm thinking people do tend to conflate Chapter 3's narrative with Chapter 4. That's the one where surviving "Western Church members" (Agarthans) are executed, but those weren't Lonato and his men. Pretty much everybody is shocked at the cruelty of capital punishment though. It doesn't sound like a common thing in Fodlan. It doesn't sound like a common thing in our world either, if you live in a sheltered country like the US that only executes eleven people a year. That's our lowest since 1988 woo! One wonders if they would have faced life imprisonment instead if they hadn't gone after Rhea's "mother" or if more of them surrendered than a small group that could be made an example of. In Chapter 11 when the Empire makes another attempt at the Tomb with Rhea present, and there's no deception this time about it being the Empire, she orders you to kill them. I don't see any alternative order when the new Emperor has shown up in person to declare her war.

I tell you, given recent world events, reading up about fictional insurrections is kind of...annoying. Hearing the same "Wait they didn't say this would happen!" You mean it's Illegal to overthrow the government??? We thought we were saving this country! And we know in real life, even when they've been exposed to the grift, some of these people can't be reformed. Proudly boasting they'd do it again. Another Jan 6 in 2025 feels like it's somewhere between Probably and More than Likely.

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

8 hours ago, lenticular said:

I'm imagining that instead of declaring war, 0) she just announced the complete dissolution of the Church of Seiros in Adrestia. 1) All church buildings and land would be seized, 2) all church officials would be given the choice between exile and conversion. Meanwhile, 3) she'd build a new secular school in Enbarr as an alternative to Garreg Mach, she'd implement a meritocratic system of government, and so on. And for good measure, let's also imagine that she has a system of 4) free immigration so that anyone from Faerghus or Leicester who wants out of the church-run system could do so.

0) What reason would she give the people of her empire? You don´t just disassemble one of the core foundations of your society and say "because I can." Especially if the Sothis faith is both the spiritual guide and a means of welfare.

1) Which begs the question, is the monastery built on three parts of Empire/Kingdom/Alliance? I would assume Adrestia is older than the monastery and it is older than the other two political entities. Or is it it´s own spatial entity, alltogether? Oh the potential for conflict.

2) Conversion to what? A priesthood in the name of Sothis would probably be difficult to establish and doing so, if Rhea as the archbishop is the successor to Seiros as prophetess of Sothis, then that could potentially be used against the Hraesvelg dynasty. After all, if the faith is a mistake, then what of the decisions of it´s members?

3) I imagine this school would have quite the difficult standing, being the new thing on the block, against a well established and seemingly respected institution all the more with the sweeping changes surrounding it. That´s sure to cause anxiety with imperials alone.

4) I imagine Claude would be quite giggly.

9 hours ago, lenticular said:

Would this work? Well, maybe. Maybe not. She has the political authority to make these sweeping changes and she has the will of the people behind her. That's a really good start. In terms of internal Adrestian issues, she has as good a chance of making things stick as she ever could, I'd say.

Does she though? Would the Slitherers, who seem to be the primary power at court, really be interested in any of this?

17 minutes ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

The average Edelgard defense starts and ends with 0) What About Rhea? 1) Yes what about this genocide survivor who has lived long enough to see several magnitudes more human cruelty than any person? She's a damaged mind propped up by a massive religion. 2) If you've lived long enough to have some great injustice done to you, than you know how hard it is to walk away from that pain so that it doesn't define everything in your life. Now imagine that difficulty stems from a Holocaust-level injustice, 3) AND you're the world's biggest known celebrity with legions of people who would defend your actions to their dying breath. By erasing history, even the history that makes her look like the victim she factually was, she was desperate to seem mortal. It's up for debate whether she was motivated by this, but her own "Kill the memory of God" initiative did more to "abolish the Church" than Edelgard did. Her war sets back the clock a thousand years in re-justifying the Church's existence. Any time there is a revolt against the church, Rhea has to contend with nightmares that Nemesis and his men would come back and finish the job. And in a bizarre cosmic coincidence, they factually do come back to finish the job.

There's also that dragon degeneration stuff, which, is not textualized in Three Houses. More of a "Fire Emblem fans? If you know you know." 4) And I wouldn't bring it up if not for the Silver Snow finale being so inexplicable without it. Rhea does not sleep every other lifetime like Flayn and Seteth do. And if we follow Archanean's canon, hibernation is the only way to stave off the madness. Even in real life the average person can end up with un unrecognizeably cruel personality past 60, no dementia required. Are dragon minds built different? And if they are, are they built different enough where it doesn't have to be inevitable? 5) If we can't answer, then what is the basis for comparison with some tortured, radicalized teenager? 

0) Rhea defendors be like "I can fix her"

1) F in the chat for the colonizers 

2) she had 1k years to walk away, instead she delves right back in, no cbrn gear. maybe she has masochistic tendencies?

3) who died and made her archbishop over 1k years?

4) didn´t she get tortured with a quick dip into malnourishment?

5) teenager?

[Eltosian Kadath]

8 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

I'm thinking people do tend to conflate Chapter 3's narrative with Chapter 4.

Funny you mention that, as at first I confused it with the Western Church's Rebellion, but after a bit of double-checking it really was Lonato's Rebellion I was referencing, as while it seems minor, it shows clearly that the Central Church has a history of intervening militarily to punish those "showing hostility to the church", and are perfectly willing to frame the other part as the aggressor while invading their home castle.

[lenticular]

15 hours ago, Imuabicus said:

0) What reason would she give the people of her empire? You don´t just disassemble one of the core foundations of your society and say "because I can." Especially if the Sothis faith is both the spiritual guide and a means of welfare.

She'd give exactly the same reasoning that she did in the prime timeline except without adding "so we're going to war" at the end. She absolutely did just disassemble one of the core foundations, etc. and her people were entirely on board with it.

15 hours ago, Imuabicus said:

Does she though? Would the Slitherers, who seem to be the primary power at court, really be interested in any of this?

OK, sure, I can get behind that as a reasonable interpretation. But this then goes back to the idea that Edelgard is actually being manipulated. If her primary reason for choosing war over other options is that it's what the Agarthans would allow, then she's little more than a puppet ruler.

16 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Even in real life the average person can end up with un unrecognizeably cruel personality past 60, no dementia required.

What on earth are you talking about?

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

32 minutes ago, lenticular said:

She'd give exactly the same reasoning that she did in the prime timeline except without adding "so we're going to war" at the end. She absolutely did just disassemble one of the core foundations, etc. and her people were entirely on board with it.

I assume you mean this?

The leaders of the church have misused its creed to fulfill their true desire—to rule the world. They have fooled the people of Fódlan. Long ago, they divided the Empire to create a Kingdom, and then...divided that Kingdom to create an Alliance. They did all of this to make the masses bicker amongst themselves. They caused instability in order to reinforce their own authority. They gathered gold and lived in extravagance. How? By preying on the devotion of those who wished for the goddess's salvation. Those corrupt hypocrites cannot lead Fódlan to true peace. Their foul belief system must be torn asunder so that true wisdom may finally prevail! And so, I have decided...by order of the Adrestian Emperor, Edelgard von Hresvelg... The Empire hereby declares war on the Church of Seiros!
(The soldiers cheer for Edelgard as the scene fades out.)

The casus belli here, so to say, or the one she presents to her soldiers, would appear to me that the leaders of the church are misusing money (following the creation of artificial separations between the people of Fodlan, to make it easier to do so). Now what´s it look like if you say, these people are thiefs, so lemme take the bag and do my thing with it? And she declared war on the institution (Church of Seiros) not the faith (of Sothis, presumably), but how does that then look if you try to enforce exile or conversion on it´s members?

Let´s not ignore that she is speaking here, primarily to her soldiers, not even the citizens of Enbarr, it´d seem.

48 minutes ago, lenticular said:

OK, sure, I can get behind that as a reasonable interpretation. But this then goes back to the idea that Edelgard is actually being manipulated. If her primary reason for choosing war over other options is that it's what the Agarthans would allow, then she's little more than a puppet ruler.

If the Slitherers intent is revenge and they control the court to the degree that they make deals, influence or replace the ministers at the literal seat of imperial dynastic power, behind even the back of the ruling Prime Minister, why would they take or allow such an indirect way of going about it?

I don´t think Edelgard not having the political weight - her father lost a signifcant power struggle, she hasn´t been to the empire and has been experimented on for some time - to enforce her policies is the same thing as her being manipulated. Her being manipulated would, I think, mean that she entirely buys Thales story about the church, but that is evidently not the case.

Linhardt, I think, expresses distinct surprise just how easily she ascended the throne and gained the military and financial support to start a war of all things. I would expect Arundel/the Slitherers to have had his/their fingers in that soup, because why else would the ministers just lend her the political power they just took from her father a couple of years before?

[Samz707]

1 hour ago, Imuabicus said:

I assume you mean this?

The leaders of the church have misused its creed to fulfill their true desire—to rule the world. They have fooled the people of Fódlan. Long ago, they divided the Empire to create a Kingdom, and then...divided that Kingdom to create an Alliance. They did all of this to make the masses bicker amongst themselves. They caused instability in order to reinforce their own authority. They gathered gold and lived in extravagance. How? By preying on the devotion of those who wished for the goddess's salvation. Those corrupt hypocrites cannot lead Fódlan to true peace. Their foul belief system must be torn asunder so that true wisdom may finally prevail! And so, I have decided...by order of the Adrestian Emperor, Edelgard von Hresvelg... The Empire hereby declares war on the Church of Seiros!
(The soldiers cheer for Edelgard as the scene fades out.)

The casus belli here, so to say, or the one she presents to her soldiers, would appear to me that the leaders of the church are misusing money (following the creation of artificial separations between the people of Fodlan, to make it easier to do so). Now what´s it look like if you say, these people are thiefs, so lemme take the bag and do my thing with it? And she declared war on the institution (Church of Seiros) not the faith (of Sothis, presumably), but how does that then look if you try to enforce exile or conversion on it´s members?

Let´s not ignore that she is speaking here, primarily to her soldiers, not even the citizens of Enbarr, it´d seem.

If the Slitherers intent is revenge and they control the court to the degree that they make deals, influence or replace the ministers at the literal seat of imperial dynastic power, behind even the back of the ruling Prime Minister, why would they take or allow such an indirect way of going about it?

I don´t think Edelgard not having the political weight - her father lost a signifcant power struggle, she hasn´t been to the empire and has been experimented on for some time - to enforce her policies is the same thing as her being manipulated. Her being manipulated would, I think, mean that she entirely buys Thales story about the church, but that is evidently not the case.

Linhardt, I think, expresses distinct surprise just how easily she ascended the throne and gained the military and financial support to start a war of all things. I would expect Arundel/the Slitherers to have had his/their fingers in that soup, because why else would the ministers just lend her the political power they just took from her father a couple of years before?

Yeah, Edelgard is trying to use the Slithers as much as they're using her.

It's less "she's fully onboard with them" and more "The enemy of my enemy is my friend, especially when the other enemy is way larger."

[vikingsfan92]

On 5/31/2023 at 4:48 PM, Jotari said:

But they are the bad guys because they are doing things immoral like killing people.

You can't just remove bad people by following the law and acting with virtue without the bad guy  messing up and under using their resources.  Sometimes you might get lucky and be able to but smart bad guys and the truly awful ones will make sure you can't get them simply by playing nice when they have excuses to hide behind people and will use them because they are not nice people.

As for the rest I think you vastly underestimate how scary "soft power" actually is. I would also argue that a lot of her power is not actually as soft as you think.  Look at the rise of the empire in star wars which was made entierly possible by giving the chancellor supposedly soft powers. His entire argument for getting the powers was downplaying what he actually could do with said powers while planning to exploit them to their fullest.

  It is actually kind of scary how easy it can be to sell people on things being softer than they actually are.

Something that probably would not happen as easily if the lines that define soft power and other types were not a murky mess in the star wars universe, other franchise and real life.  It is something that has been exploited by many a villain in many a setting including the real world.

Edited June 5, 2023 by vikingsfan92

[Etrurian emperor]

On 6/2/2023 at 2:55 PM, Samz707 said:

Yeah, Edelgard is trying to use the Slithers as much as they're using her.

And she and Thales can't stop reminding each other of it. I'm still not sure whether their passive aggressive back and forth about it is funny or a bit too on the nose. 

Its a nice bit of subversion that its the Emperor who comes out on top of the power struggle. In most other Fire Emblem games the emperors are manipulated and if not outright betrayed than at least abandoned and outlived by the shady cult. To further subvert things the games imply that this is in no way an even struggle and that Edelgard crushing them is just a formality.

[Jotari]

6 hours ago, vikingsfan92 said:

You can't just remove bad people by following the law and acting with virtue without the bad guy  messing up and under using their resources.  Sometimes you might get lucky and be able to but smart bad guys and the truly awful ones will make sure you can't get them simply by playing nice when they have excuses to hide behind people and will use them because they are not nice people.

As for the rest I think you vastly underestimate how scary "soft power" actually is. I would also argue that a lot of her power is not actually as soft as you think.  Look at the rise of the empire in star wars which was made entierly possible by giving the chancellor supposedly soft powers. His entire argument for getting the powers was downplaying what he actually could do with said powers while planning to exploit them to their fullest.

  It is actually kind of scary how easy it can be to sell people on things being softer than they actually are.

Something that probably would not happen as easily if the lines that define soft power and other types were not a murky mess in the star wars universe, other franchise and real life.  It is something that has been exploited by many a villain in many a setting including the real world.

Rhea's power is completely soft. The knights of Serios are highly trained and individually great at taking down small scale opponents, but when it came to fighting her in a direct conflict all her military forces are overwhelmed in a single month. Meanwhile it takes five years for anyone to get the upper hand against the actual fully stocked nations. Rhea is not Sauron.

Edited June 5, 2023 by Jotari

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

3 hours ago, Jotari said:

Rhea's power is completely soft. The knights of Serios are highly trained and individually great at taking down small scale opponents, but when it came to fighting her in a direct conflict all her military forces are overwhelmed in a single month. Meanwhile it takes five years for anyone to get the upper hand against the actual fully stocked nations. Rhea is not Sauron.

What do you mean by "soft power" here? Like, I would agree that Rhea's power is more "soft" than "hard", but to call it completely "soft" is a gross overstatement. Soft power would be to tell other Kingdom Nobles "Hey, Lonato has raised a rebellion against the Church. You need to defeat him, or else I will impose negative consequences on your houses." Instead, she meets him militarily (on Kingdom soil - possibly Gaspard's own territory? Not sure that's ever specified). She defeats him in a clear display of hard power. It's not an overwhelming show of force against a truly formidable foe, but it's still a direct military response nonetheless. Is she wrong in doing so? That's something various characters feel differently on - and indeed, the player can come to any conclusion they want about it. But it's still the Church of Seiros exercising hard power.

On 6/1/2023 at 1:35 PM, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Yes what about this genocide survivor who has lived long enough to see several magnitudes more human cruelty than any person? She's a damaged mind propped up by a massive religion. If you've lived long enough to have some great injustice done to you, than you know how hard it is to walk away from that pain so that it doesn't define everything in your life.

I'm... kinda confused by this general argument. Certainly, Rhea has been through a lot of trauma - the degree of which none of the other major players in the story can truly recognize. But I don't think that, in its own right, means that her position of authority is totally deserved and rightful. On CF, her traumatic backstory, combined with an untimely betrayal, lead her into making decisions by her base impulses, rather than what's good for the Church or the continent. On AM, Edelgard finds herself following a similarly dark path, for not-too-dissimilar reasons - while it's only through overcoming these struggles that Dimitri becomes a fit ruler. It's a bit of a sidebar, but while I'd say that Three Houses does give us a ton of flawed characters with challenging pasts, it's only facing and overcoming these issues that they're able to make the positive fixes that they want in the world. 

On 6/2/2023 at 5:42 AM, lenticular said:

OK, sure, I can get behind that as a reasonable interpretation. But this then goes back to the idea that Edelgard is actually being manipulated. If her primary reason for choosing war over other options is that it's what the Agarthans would allow, then she's little more than a puppet ruler.

On 6/1/2023 at 1:35 PM, Zapp Branniglenn said:

I think "puppet" is an overstatement, but I think there is a case to be made that the Agarthans lit something of a fire underneath the throne. If Edelgard is not behaving in a way that's satisfactory to them, they could just arrange an "accident" ending her life. From there, there'd be two possibilities: as Regent, Arundel succeeds Edelgard as ruler, and goes to war against the Church to "avenge" their fallen ruler. Or, some random Agarthan uses their body-snatching powers to imitate Edelgard, and provides whatever support Thales asks for.

On 6/1/2023 at 4:16 AM, lenticular said:

I'm imagining that instead of declaring war, she just announced the complete dissolution of the Church of Seiros in Adrestia. All church buildings and land would be seized, all church officials would be given the choice between exile and conversion. Meanwhile, she'd build a new secular school in Enbarr as an alternative to Garreg Mach, she'd implement a meritocratic system of government, and so on. And for good measure, let's also imagine that she has a system of free immigration so that anyone from Faerghus or Leicester who wants out of the church-run system could do so.

I haven't really thought it over, but an Edelgard who bans an entire religion in her country might be even less sympathetic than the one who started a continent-wide war. The war, at least, seemed to be about fighting against the perceived prevailing system that supposedly controlled everyone. This kind of ban seems much more like it's coming after freedom of conscience on an individual level.

On the point of meritocracy, it's worth keeping in mind that Edelgard mostly proposes it as a future reform, and it comes up in a few paired endings. In the short-term, her power is propped up by well-connected nobles, like Counts Bergliez and Hevring. A proposal to open their jobs up to a better-qualified commoner might just be enough to get the nascent Emperor counter-counter-coup'd. Whereas, in the canon CF ending, her standing to do as much is bolstered by the fact that she just conquered the continent and displaced most feasible threats to her power.

[vikingsfan92]

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

What do you mean by "soft power" here? Like, I would agree that Rhea's power is more "soft" than "hard", but to call it completely "soft" is a gross overstatement. Soft power would be to tell other Kingdom Nobles "Hey, Lonato has raised a rebellion against the Church. You need to defeat him, or else I will impose negative consequences on your houses." Instead, she meets him militarily (on Kingdom soil - possibly Gaspard's own territory? Not sure that's ever specified). She defeats him in a clear display of hard power. It's not an overwhelming show of force against a truly formidable foe, but it's still a direct military response nonetheless. Is she wrong in doing so? That's something various characters feel differently on - and indeed, the player can come to any conclusion they want about it. But it's still the Church of Seiros exercising hard power.

Its also worth noting that its basically expected that any territories in between her and Lonato let her troops pass.  If say another Lonato was on the coast that could be a lot of territories just expected to let the church march right through. So its not just the offending territory expected to comply but the one between the church and offenders that get power wielded against in some shape or form. Sure its not directed towards them primarily but its still a march through their land which I don't think they really appreciate.

5 hours ago, Jotari said:

Rhea's power is completely soft. The knights of Serios are highly trained and individually great at taking down small scale opponents, but when it came to fighting her in a direct conflict all her military forces are overwhelmed in a single month. Meanwhile it takes five years for anyone to get the upper hand against the actual fully stocked nations. Rhea is not Sauron.

Also I kind of feel like "soft power" is an incredibly nebulous term so it tough to actually use in an argument productively.  Hence why I don't like it as an argument because people can be twisted to mean different things when its on a person to person basis. 

 

[Jotari]

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

What do you mean by "soft power" here? Like, I would agree that Rhea's power is more "soft" than "hard", but to call it completely "soft" is a gross overstatement. Soft power would be to tell other Kingdom Nobles "Hey, Lonato has raised a rebellion against the Church. You need to defeat him, or else I will impose negative consequences on your houses." Instead, she meets him militarily (on Kingdom soil - possibly Gaspard's own territory? Not sure that's ever specified). She defeats him in a clear display of hard power. It's not an overwhelming show of force against a truly formidable foe, but it's still a direct military response nonetheless. Is she wrong in doing so? That's something various characters feel differently on - and indeed, the player can come to any conclusion they want about it. But it's still the Church of Seiros exercising hard power.

I'm... kinda confused by this general argument. Certainly, Rhea has been through a lot of trauma - the degree of which none of the other major players in the story can truly recognize. But I don't think that, in its own right, means that her position of authority is totally deserved and rightful. On CF, her traumatic backstory, combined with an untimely betrayal, lead her into making decisions by her base impulses, rather than what's good for the Church or the continent. On AM, Edelgard finds herself following a similarly dark path, for not-too-dissimilar reasons - while it's only through overcoming these struggles that Dimitri becomes a fit ruler. It's a bit of a sidebar, but while I'd say that Three Houses does give us a ton of flawed characters with challenging pasts, it's only facing and overcoming these issues that they're able to make the positive fixes that they want in the world. 

I think "puppet" is an overstatement, but I think there is a case to be made that the Agarthans lit something of a fire underneath the throne. If Edelgard is not behaving in a way that's satisfactory to them, they could just arrange an "accident" ending her life. From there, there'd be two possibilities: as Regent, Arundel succeeds Edelgard as ruler, and goes to war against the Church to "avenge" their fallen ruler. Or, some random Agarthan uses their body-snatching powers to imitate Edelgard, and provides whatever support Thales asks for.

I haven't really thought it over, but an Edelgard who bans an entire religion in her country might be even less sympathetic than the one who started a continent-wide war. The war, at least, seemed to be about fighting against the perceived prevailing system that supposedly controlled everyone. This kind of ban seems much more like it's coming after freedom of conscience on an individual level.

On the point of meritocracy, it's worth keeping in mind that Edelgard mostly proposes it as a future reform, and it comes up in a few paired endings. In the short-term, her power is propped up by well-connected nobles, like Counts Bergliez and Hevring. A proposal to open their jobs up to a better-qualified commoner might just be enough to get the nascent Emperor counter-counter-coup'd. Whereas, in the canon CF ending, her standing to do as much is bolstered by the fact that she just conquered the continent and displaced most feasible threats to her power.

 

1 hour ago, vikingsfan92 said:

Its also worth noting that its basically expected that any territories in between her and Lonato let her troops pass.  If say another Lonato was on the coast that could be a lot of territories just expected to let the church march right through. So its not just the offending territory expected to comply but the one between the church and offenders that get power wielded against in some shape or form. Sure its not directed towards them primarily but its still a march through their land which I don't think they really appreciate.

Also I kind of feel like "soft power" is an incredibly nebulous term so it tough to actually use in an argument productively.  Hence why I don't like it as an argument because people can be twisted to mean different things when its on a person to person basis. 

 

I'm not saying she doesn't have soldiers as she obvious does. Even the Pope in our own reality in the modern day as soldiers. I'm saying her control over the continent is not from the threat of military invasion. He power comes from her ideas, and if you want to fight an idea you do so by discrediting it, not by killing everyone who disagrees with you. That doesn't prove your way is right. It just proves you have a bigger army. The idea of Rhea invading Adrestia because she doesn't like Edelgard's reforms is frankly laughable.

Edited June 6, 2023 by Jotari

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

He power comes from her ideas, and if you want to fight an idea you do so by discrediting it, not by killing everyone who disagrees with you.

We, Edelgard of Hraesvelg, Emperor of Adrestia, declare and make public that Archbishop Rhea, erronous leader of the Church of Seiros, could not defend her view regarding the duties, obligations and rights of the members of the Faith of the Goddess Sothis on the field of battle. Q.e.d., she sucks, I don´t, hail Sothis, peace out ✌️Signed, m.p. Edelgard

8 hours ago, Jotari said:

He power comes from her ideas,

Ideas that are, at the point of the story we engage with, probably not considered to be hers anymore with the amount of time that passed. Additionally the fact that the major and minor houses and even succesful commoners (Ignatz and Raphael?) send their kids to a school where they are guarded only by an apparently standing military order of knights, whose leader wields one of the few relic weapons... let´s not forget that the one lord seen rebelling does not have a blood-related heir at the school.

8 hours ago, Jotari said:

That doesn't prove your way is right.

How do you prove your interpretation of god and what they demand of their clergy is right? 

[vikingsfan92]

13 hours ago, Jotari said:

 

I'm not saying she doesn't have soldiers as she obvious does. Even the Pope in our own reality in the modern day as soldiers. I'm saying her control over the continent is not from the threat of military invasion. He power comes from her ideas, and if you want to fight an idea you do so by discrediting it, not by killing everyone who disagrees with you. That doesn't prove your way is right. It just proves you have a bigger army. The idea of Rhea invading Adrestia because she doesn't like Edelgard's reforms is frankly laughable.

Rhea wasn't exactly open to discussion with Lonato or Miklan. There is an argument that those wouldn't have worked but by appearance the church went straight passed the negotiation phase.  And from countless supports between students of all houses (note I am not talking about the ones with Byleth in them more so the ones between the classmates) the church's systems has caused ongoing issues in all three nations.  Plus both the Empire and the Kingdom have examples of the church letting things happen to benefit the church. Letting the Alliance exist was the church choosing what benefitted it and not the kingdom or the empire. Which probably has to especially sting the kingdom as it was supposed to be the favorite child. 

Why should anyone outside of her immediate followers (Seteth) pbelive that she would be open  to changes when their are examples of her being hostile to not the church's view in the first place.  Rhea also tells her students/Byleth that those situations are to be messages "to those foolish enough to turn against the goddess". And it isn't very hard to deduce that there would be concern that any reform could possibly be seen as just that from the church's view point as it's not the status quo. 

Even if Rhea is willing to reform she is not really sending a message that she will receive that discussion without hostility. 

Also I know this is using three hopes but Dimtri's view  even in cutscenes for other routes pretty much paint the picture of his country ceases to exist as a legitimate country without the church with how its set up.  He has no choice but to back the church.

Edited June 6, 2023 by vikingsfan92

[Jotari]

4 hours ago, vikingsfan92 said:

Rhea wasn't exactly open to discussion with Lonato or Miklan. There is an argument that those wouldn't have worked but by appearance the church went straight passed the negotiation phase.  And from countless supports between students of all houses (note I am not talking about the ones with Byleth in them more so the ones between the classmates) the church's systems has caused ongoing issues in all three nations.  Plus both the Empire and the Kingdom have examples of the church letting things happen to benefit the church. Letting the Alliance exist was the church choosing what benefitted it and not the kingdom or the empire. Which probably has to especially sting the kingdom as it was supposed to be the favorite child. 

Why should anyone outside of her immediate followers (Seteth) pbelive that she would be open  to changes when their are examples of her being hostile to not the church's view in the first place.  Rhea also tells her students/Byleth that those situations are to be messages "to those foolish enough to turn against the goddess". And it isn't very hard to deduce that there would be concern that any reform could possibly be seen as just that from the church's view point as it's not the status quo. 

Even if Rhea is willing to reform she is not really sending a message that she will receive that discussion without hostility. 

Also I know this is using three hopes but Dimtri's view  even in cutscenes for other routes pretty much paint the picture of his country ceases to exist as a legitimate country without the church with how its set up.  He has no choice but to back the church.

As I said, even if Rhea 100% wanted to invade Adrestia, she quite literally can't. Her trying to do it with the Knights of Serios would end quicker than the weekend it took Edelgard to take Garrek Mach.

[Sunwoo]

Clearly I'm not up-to-date with what the fandom thinks about 3H stuff, but can someone tell me why putting down a hostile rebellion that's aimed towards you is a bad thing?

Last time I checked, the Tellius games wanted Elincia to be less merciful and put down Ludveck and criticized her for not taking action soon enough? Now 3H wants us to view Rhea with suspicion (possibly as a tyrant) for taking action against people who threaten her?

Protagonist-centered morality indeed ...

[Eltosian Kadath]

19 hours ago, Jotari said:

I'm not saying she doesn't have soldiers as she obvious does. Even the Pope in our own reality in the modern day as soldiers. I'm saying her control over the continent is not from the threat of military invasion. He power comes from her ideas, and if you want to fight an idea you do so by discrediting it, not by killing everyone who disagrees with you. That doesn't prove your way is right. It just proves you have a bigger army. The idea of Rhea invading Adrestia because she doesn't like Edelgard's reforms is frankly laughable.

The idea that Rhea wouldn't invade is ridiculous, as we see her do it to others in game, and just like that time, she would do it with the Kingdom's aid, and given a bit of time probably help from members of the Alliance, and rebellious (or puppet) vassals of Edelgard as well. You keep talking about Rhea's soft power, and then pretend she is incapable of leveraging that soft power when she needs to.

 

1 hour ago, Sunwoo said:

Clearly I'm not up-to-date with what the fandom thinks about 3H stuff, but can someone tell me why putting down a hostile rebellion that's aimed towards you is a bad thing?

Last time I checked, the Tellius games wanted Elincia to be less merciful and put down Ludveck and criticized her for not taking action soon enough? Now 3H wants us to view Rhea with suspicion (possibly as a tyrant) for taking action against people who threaten her?

Protagonist-centered morality indeed ...

"Rebellions" taking place in a different sovereign nation. Rhea may be portraying it to us like Elincia taking on Ludveck, but she is acting more like Jarod punishing Daein citizens for rebelling against Begnion's occupation in Lonato's case, or like the slaughter of Serenes Forest in the Western Church case with executions over an assassination plot that everyone finds suspect.

Also a lot of this is in response to @Jotari's ludicrous claims that Rhea is so eternally peaceful that she would have just ignored Edelgard threatening Rhea's control of Fodland with her reforms if she just kept them within the empire, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Armchair General]

2 hours ago, Sunwoo said:

but can someone tell me why putting down a hostile rebellion that's aimed towards you is a bad thing?

Because she chose the sword over trying to negotiate with Lonato and wound up sentencing the leadership of the Western Church to death (although, it's heavily implied that they're just ran by fanatics who took an literal view of the religion).

There's also the very dark secret surrounding the Lance of Ruin.

Her absolutist approach in regards with handling external conflict.

The fact that she has her hands in nearly everyone's pie, in general

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Armchair General

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

The idea that Rhea wouldn't invade is ridiculous, as we see her do it to others in game, and just like that time, she would do it with the Kingdom's aid, and given a bit of time probably help from members of the Alliance, and rebellious (or puppet) vassals of Edelgard as well. You keep talking about Rhea's soft power, and then pretend she is incapable of leveraging that soft power when she needs to.

 

"Rebellions" taking place in a different sovereign nation. Rhea may be portraying it to us like Elincia taking on Ludveck, but she is acting more like Jarod punishing Daein citizens for rebelling against Begnion's occupation in Lonato's case, or like the slaughter of Serenes Forest in the Western Church case with executions over an assassination plot that everyone finds suspect.

Also a lot of this is in response to @Jotari's ludicrous claims that Rhea is so eternally peaceful that she would have just ignored Edelgard threatening Rhea's control of Fodland with her reforms if she just kept them within the empire, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

 

No, we never once seen Rhea invade a territory for turning away from the Church. She makes no crusades into Sreng, Dagda or Almyra to spread her religion (once again I draw the parallel to our own European medieval history where crusading against Muslims was a summer pastime). Lonato didn't just say "I don't like Sothis and I'm not going to worship crests anymore", in fact, he had no issues with the religion at all, he militarized and initiated an open rebellion because he was out for blood. If Rhea was so intolerant of people just not believing in her religion then she wouldn't have an open atheist working in her inner circle. And that Rhea could convince anyone to go on an offensive war for her is pure conjecture. You don't get to claim the moral high ground by surprise attacking someone and claiming they would have attacked you first. That can be used to justify literally anything.

Edited June 7, 2023 by Jotari

[vikingsfan92]

5 hours ago, Jotari said:

As I said, even if Rhea 100% wanted to invade Adrestia, she quite literally can't. Her trying to do it with the Knights of Serios would end quicker than the weekend it took Edelgard to take Garrek Mach.

You are acting like Rhea wouldn't put out a call to arms for the kingdom and the alliance to join in.  And ignoring the fact that by Dimtri's account his country existence is reliant on the church so he would basically be required to join (sure its three hopes but its not the type of thing I seeing being changed for a sequel/alt game as the kingdom is the same in houses too without this context).  But I think you are missing the point of the set up entirely if you think Rhea is always super peacful all the time.

 

4 hours ago, Sunwoo said:

Clearly I'm not up-to-date with what the fandom thinks about 3H stuff, but can someone tell me why putting down a hostile rebellion that's aimed towards you is a bad thing?

Its not about the rebellion in of itself but the reaction towards it and the follow up.  Its not so much what the church did but what they didn't do (negotiate or listen to the opposing side).  Lonato was going to go all the way sure but it doesn't even look the church even bothered looking at other options to resolve the matter from what we see in game.  I don't think anyone actually expects the church to give into the demands but their reaction kind of shows they are just going to keep on keeping on and not take steps to improve other than hey we will execute you if you do this which is not encouraging for other changes to happen.

With the Miklan situation immediately after it kind of shows that is there favored tactic is to not negotiate. Plus it kind of shows they are for keeping the status quo as is and not in favor changes or reforms because it would reveal some dirt in the church's methods.  I would argue that this a choice done to make the story not black and white and it clearly worked.

[Jotari]

5 minutes ago, vikingsfan92 said:

You are acting like Rhea wouldn't put out a call to arms for the kingdom and the alliance to join in.  And ignoring the fact that by Dimtri's account his country existence is reliant on the church so he would basically be required to join (sure its three hopes but its not the type of thing I seeing being changed for a sequel/alt game as the kingdom is the same in houses too without this context).  But I think you are missing the point of the set up entirely if you think Rhea is always super peacful all the time.

No he wouldn't. Dimitri is a sovereign leader and he can choose to help or not help on his own choice. As we see in Three Hopes he's conflicted about even sheltering Rhea. Again it's entirely your conjecture and not fact that Rhea would both ask the Kingdom and Alliance to embark on an offensive war against their interests and that they would actually do it. You're building conjecture upon conjecture that it's basically fanfic.

5 minutes ago, vikingsfan92 said:

Its not about the rebellion in of itself but the reaction towards it and the follow up.  Its not so much what the church did but what they didn't do (negotiate or listen to the opposing side).  Lonato was going to go all the way sure but it doesn't even look the church even bothered looking at other options to resolve the matter from what we see in game.  I don't think anyone actually expects the church to give into the demands but their reaction kind of shows they are just going to keep on keeping on and not take steps to improve other than hey we will execute you if you do this which is not encouraging for other changes to happen.

With the Miklan situation immediately after it kind of shows that is there favored tactic is to not negotiate. Plus it kind of shows they are for keeping the status quo as is and not in favor changes or reforms because it would reveal some dirt in the church's methods.  I would argue that this a choice done to make the story not black and white and it clearly worked.

But that's just a whataboutism. In truth we don't know how much the church tried to handle things diplomatically because the story doesn't give us the details, but even if the church responded to extreme prejudice without diplomacy...so what? The church did something bad so Edelgard is justified in doing the exact same thing? Only it's not even the same thing because Lonato was the one who started it by organizing an army to attack the church in the first place making it self defense. Like, do you think Ukraine should be acting more diplomatically with Russia? Or should their priority be in defending themself from an agressor?

[Acacia Sgt]

Having just playing through that part of CF... well, Claude certainly cared more to keep the Alliance neutral. If Rhea asked him for help... he sure didn't complied.

[Armchair General]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Only it's not even the same thing because Lonato was the one who started it by organizing an army to attack the church in the first place making it self defense

In all fairness, Catherine was his son's executioner for an crime that might have involved with him siding with either Team Slither or just the Western Zealots and he barely had any recourse but to turn his militia against the church. While it has been barely touched on what Christoph did, I'm kind of convinced that making an example of him is an little too extreme.