Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

Fine, the better comparison would be to add the stipulation that the new administration was converting the old Electoral College system to a more popular vote one, while having won both the Electoral College, and Popular vote originally.

 

Lets put aside Rhea's behavior with anyone even slightly associated with the Agarthans here for a moment (as there are definitely messy arguments to be made that this conflict can get into some genocide like territories), I will point out that I specifically mention that I didn't find an "evil ideology" that I was satisfied with being a proper comparison between both modern politics between these two, and Fodlan politics. Also simplifying things to Divine support of feudal hierarchy is missing an import aspect of how it uncomfortably interplays with the self determination of humanity, and how Rhea's ideology would clearly result in violence against Edelgard. Rhea has used her position in the church to ensured that only the humans that have been modified to be more like Nabateans are able to rule over humanity, while being violently paternalistic with Humanity as a Nabatean, in a way that Edelgard accurately predicts would include violence against her once her views and associations were known.

Reha's idealogy only causes violence with Edelgard because Edelgard demands violence. As I've said countless times, Rhea has never made a crusade to convert anyone in the outer her territories to her religion.

5 hours ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

She is waging a far more conventional war, whereas the church was a lot more into military intervention in far flung conflicts that don't directly involve them all across Fodlan, which is the behavior I was comparing.

So fighting bandits and people who have declared war on you is a gross misuse of military intervention, but invading a country, overthrowing their government and forcing your society on them isn't?

7 hours ago, vikingsfan92 said:

You love ignoring Duscar and Remire don't you. Situations like those were bond to continue if the world kept on keeping on exactly as it was. Because spoiler alert Thales, Solon and Kronya were horrible people. War isn't great but it can actually end actively bad situations that can actually be worse than war because you don't have to be at war to commit horrific acts. Also Haneman sister's situation shows that not all horrible acts are direct murder.  She died as a result yes but it wasn't simple murder either.  The larger fodland situation is a damned if you damned if you don't situation not nearly cut and dry.  If you don't do something then Thales and other horrible people continue exploiting church systems to do human atrocities like human experimentation or using people like cattle because of crest status. And no the chruch isn't going to let reforms happen when they break the facade of the narratives that they established to make their religion work. The whole point is to get people to revere Sothis and to do that they needed people to believe Sothis was responsible for the crest system despite not being true and that's where Edelgard wants to reform most. Which directly impedes Rhea wanting her mother to be seen as all powerful and the one true goddess.

 

You are naive if you think any party isn't going to insert their own self interest in it.  Looking for mediators is fine but choosing a mediator who doesn't have a ton to gain from one side winning or losing isn't easy.  The church happened to have more investment/ gain from the kingdom winning so I would say they were not an objective mediator and fall more on the lines of people who used mediation position to their advantage rather than proper ones.

Its more of the church were not the right mediators for the conflict thing rather than they should not have looked for mediation thing.

 

You sure like spouting words. You are trying to make this situation into bigger than it actually is and I am not going to indulge in this. Also you bury your head in the sand about other terrible things happening in the world and tunnel on just one and acting like it exists in a vacuum when it doesn't and just magically accepting that other options wouldn't result in the same conflict when there is Thales and other corrupt nobles who wants bloodshed.

 

You do realize that she was part of the wars for the establishment of the kingdom and Alliance right?  If anything promoted future tragedies it was the dividing up of Fodland to begin with. The church did exactly what Thales and co wanted them to do to make their lives easier to cause mayhem.  Things going differently back then could have prevented multiple conflicts and massacres much more so than anything else.

Rather than go through the rigmaroll of you ignoring and twisting everything I say again, I put to you the same hypothetical to you, if an American leader seized unilateral power from the government and launched a surprise invasion of Saudi Arabia to overthrow their religious backed government and impart their own ideals on the land, would you support it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 224
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

35 minutes ago, Jotari said:

if an American leader seized unilateral power from the government and launched a surprise invasion of Saudi Arabia to overthrow their religious backed government and impart their own ideals on the land, would you support it?

This heavily depends on the context. Sure, it's one thing if it came from several acts of violence from an organization that the government isn't prosecuting for one reason or another. But realistically speaking, most people would either say "no" or just go along with it for an larger paycheck for raiding the local oil barons

 

19 hours ago, Jotari said:

You're wrong about pretty much every one of those points but we've been over them a million times. So let's try another soon on this. If the USA launched a surprise attack on Saudi Arabia in the morning would you celebrate it?

But you can't exactly compare an fictional conflict with an hypothetical one that isn't slated to happen in real life, though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

This heavily depends on the context. Sure, it's one thing if it came from several acts of violence from an organization that the government isn't prosecuting for one reason or another. But realistically speaking, most people would either say "no" or just go along with it for an larger paycheck for raiding the local oil barons

 

But you can't exactly compare an fictional conflict with an hypothetical one that isn't slated to happen in real life, though

Why not? My point is to drive home some inkling of what it would actually look like if someone like Edelgard did appear in reality. Saudi Arabia is a good parallel as it's also a religiously organized state, with an absolute monarch and an aristocracy. It also has many social stances that I think we would all be in agreement are not good, women as second class citizens, death penalty for gays, death penalty for trying to convert away from the religion, and, worst of all, no alcohol (:p levity). The average life of a Saudi Arabian is better than someone from the medieval era due to technology (and oil wealth), but In terms of what we would view as social liberties Saudi Arabia isn't just far behind the western world, it's far behind Fodlan! It does all of the hierarchy blood line scthick having a privileged noble class and then some. So if Rhea is so evil and must be eliminated because she gives divine seal of approval to a system she didn't even set up and is perpetuated by the nobles themselves, then surely Saudi Arabia is deserving of a swift and decisive elimination so a "superior" social system can be installed in its place. Of course it's not slated to happen in real life because we acknowledge that other countries have the right to their own social values even if we disagree with them, and that invading them and overthrowing their government is a bad thing to do (though it does happen, but rarely if ever for reasons of morality, it's almost always for oil or regional power control).

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Jotari said:

So if Rhea is so evil and must be eliminated because she gives divine seal of approval to a system she didn't even set up and is perpetuated by the nobles themselves, then surely Saudi Arabia is deserving of a swift and decisive elimination so a "superior" social system can be installed in its place

Yeah, but it's coming off as an extremely forced comparison in the sense that nobody wants to fuck with one of the world's largest sources of an valuable resource and the only things that Rhea is bringing to the table is an military academy for teaching the basics of conventional warfare and magic (which the Kingdom actually had, at one point), an religion that's only relevant as long as people are still believing in it, an low-key orphanage, killing off the occasional pack of bandits, and the rare instance of being an mediator that most of the countries are indebted to.

 

Most of these are largely things that can be replaced if one of the other nations actually got their shit together

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

Yeah, but it's coming off as an extremely forced comparison in the sense that nobody wants to fuck with one of the world's largest sources of an valuable resource and the only things that Rhea is bringing to the table is an military academy for teaching the basics of conventional warfare and magic (which the Kingdom actually had, at one point), an religion that's only relevant as long as people are still believing in it, an low-key orphanage, killing off the occasional pack of bandits, and the rare instance of being an mediator that most of the countries are indebted to.

 

Most of these are largely things that can be replaced if one of the other nations actually got their shit together

So economic concerns are the only reason not to invade Saudi Arabia? Once their oil dries up (or preferably we find a viable alternative to oil) the missiles should star launching? It's not because the people there have a right to their own culture, society and general livelihood? We can swap the case study to Iran then, they're less monarchy but more theocracy which is further from the crest parallel but closer to the Rhea parallel.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

So economic concerns are the only reason not to invade Saudi Arabia? Once their oil dries up (or preferably we find a viable alternative to oil) the missiles should star launching? It's not because the people there have a right to their own culture, society and general livelihood? We can swap the case study to Iran then, they're less monarchy but more theocracy which is further from the crest parallel but closer to the Rhea parallel.

Liberating the region's oil has been the conspicuous dream of the western world for at least a century. Although in real life, we tend to back the theocrat over the democrat in vulnerable nations. If anything I think it's an unfair comparison because of the Oil. The Empire doesn't get any equivalent or unique resource from taking over Fodlan. Just a few more holy relics to add to the war vault - assuming any crest bearers still live on their side to wield them. And they're at the point where they're making their own relics (to say nothing of Nukes). Agarthan weapons require no Crest, and they made matching strength weapons for The Zombie Elites. When it's time to turn the conquest beyond Fodlan, Having the Spear of Assal in Ferdinand's hands will hardly be noteworthy. It's like if we went into battle today with a World War 2 era re-commissioned tank. Still dangerous, but outdated.

Edited by Zapp Branniglenn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

So economic concerns are the only reason not to invade Saudi Arabia?

Ok, now it's my turn to say that you're full of shit. Sure, the oil is one of the reasons why people avoid fucking with them (mainly because it'll piss off everyone else who's dependent on them) but the "weak will fall to the strongest" wars is something that no sane person would ever want because of attrition and shit. Sure, things might be fun for the first week or two; but the reality is that even half of an  division of well-trained soldiers isn't something that's immediately replaced within an few weeks. Plus, there's nothing stopping from the other nations from forming an coalition to overpower you, as well.

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

We can swap the case study to Iran then, they're less monarchy but more theocracy which is further from the crest parallel but closer to the Rhea parallel.

I can't really say much about Iran, though. It's one of the countries that haven't really caught my attention.

 

12 minutes ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

If anything I think it's an unfair comparison because of the Oil. The Empire doesn't get any equivalent or unique resource from taking over Fodlan. Just a few more holy relics to add to the war vault - assuming any crest bearers still live on their side to wield them.

Yeah, my main point was that the Church's services are largely intangible, temporary, and poorly fitted for an outright war...Aside from the handful relics that certain people are willing to use. 

 

17 minutes ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Having the Spear of Assal in Ferdinand's hands will hardly be noteworthy.

Although, at this point, I doubt if he'll stay completely loyal to the Empire if it conquered all of the continent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Liberating the region's oil has been the conspicuous dream of the western world for at least a century. Although in real life, we tend to back the theocrat over the democrat in vulnerable nations. If anything I think it's an unfair comparison because of the Oil. The Empire doesn't get any equivalent or unique resource from taking over Fodlan. Just a few more holy relics to add to the war vault - assuming any crest bearers still live on their side to wield them. And they're at the point where they're making their own relics (to say nothing of Nukes). Agarthan weapons require no Crest, and they made matching strength weapons for The Zombie Elites. When it's time to turn the conquest beyond Fodlan, Having the Spear of Assal in Ferdinand's hands will hardly be noteworthy. It's like if we went into battle today with a World War 2 era re-commissioned tank. Still dangerous, but outdated.

The question really is simple. If you disagree with the values of a society, does that give you the right to destroy it and replace it with your own? Or rather where should the line be drawn, as I think most people would see stopping an active genocide as worth it. Course there were plenty of African genocides in the last century that no one bothered to stop because ultimately the economy and not morality is definitely what fuels pretty much every modern war (and probably most pre-modern ones too), but Edelgard wasn't exactly invading to boost Adrestia's economic control (if it were a conversation about economics it looks like she'd be screwed there too as I'm sure five years of war weren't great for the grain harvests).

10 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

Ok, now it's my turn to say that you're full of shit. Sure, the oil is one of the reasons why people avoid fucking with them (mainly because it'll piss off everyone else who's dependent on them) but the "weak will fall to the strongest" wars is something that no sane person would ever want because of attrition and shit. Sure, things might be fun for the first week or two; but the reality is that even half of an  division of well-trained soldiers isn't something that's immediately replaced within an few weeks. Plus, there's nothing stopping from the other nations from forming an coalition to overpower you, as well.

I can't really say much about Iran, though. It's one of the countries that haven't really caught my attention.

Yeah, my main point was that the Church's services are largely intangible, temporary, and poorly fitted for an outright war...Aside from the handful relics that certain people are willing to use.

Although, at this point, I doubt if he'll stay completely loyal to the Empire if it conquered all of the continent

Well if a quick war is a-okay to slaughter thousands in a quick war but a war of attrition slowly also killing thousands is horrible then Edelgard still lands herself in hot water, as despite giving her every advantage a war of attrition is what she lands herself in. It only ever ends with divine intervention of the player. Who knows how long they would have slugged it out without Byleth showing up.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Or rather where should the line be drawn, as I think most people would see stopping an active genocide as worth it. Course there were plenty of African genocides in the last century that no one bothered to stop because ultimately the economy and not morality is definitely what fuels pretty much every modern war (and probably most pre-modern ones too),

I think it's somewhat better off to just leave things as they are, unless you're more than capable of fighting off any form of reprisals from their allies. Plus, there's that one incident where we did get involved in an African civil war (might have been Somalia, but I'm not sure) and hardly much of anything changed once we've left.

59 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Who knows how long they would have slugged it out without Byleth showing up.

The kingdom was more or less slated to fall because of infighting and Dimitri going insane without any form of intervention. The alliance would more or less stay neutral, as an whole.

Only real snag is Rhea transforming into an giant dragon... That Thales was easily able to subdue simply by throwing bodies at it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

I think it's somewhat better off to just leave things as they are, unless you're more than capable of fighting off any form of reprisals from their allies.

That's the Light Yagami perspective of "I'm only the villain if I lose" (which Edelgard does in the  majority of routes).

26 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

Plus, there's that one incident where we did get involved in an African civil war (might have been Somalia, but I'm not sure) and hardly much of anything changed once we've left.

Probably more than one, but the one that does spring to mind if Biafra, where the US government sided with (though not with troops, I think) the Nigerian government to quash Biafra's independence attempt. What resulted was as close as you can get to genocide without being blatantly so as Nigeria basically starved Biafra to death and created the entire image of starving African children. Course, as said before, morality wasn't what the US was interested in (they even sided with the Soviet Union in this instance), oil was, of course, a prime motivating factor.

EDIT: Actually on further research I see the US was actually officially neutral in that conflict, a lot of people just liked to interpret their neutrality as Nigerian support. The only African war I can see that the US involved itself in was the Suez Canal crisis, a bombing run of Libya in the 80s and two separate attempts to intervene in Somalia.

26 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

The kingdom was more or less slated to fall because of infighting and Dimitri going insane without any form of intervention. The alliance would more or less stay neutral, as an whole.

Only real snag is Rhea transforming into an giant dragon... That Thales was easily able to subdue simply by throwing bodies at it.

 

The Kingdom had been surviving five years without Dimitri at all. And the alliance has no hope of ever being neutral, as we know in Crimson Flower where they are neutral, Edelgard still invades them.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jotari said:

Reha's idealogy only causes violence with Edelgard because Edelgard demands violence. As I've said countless times, Rhea has never made a crusade to convert anyone in the outer her territories to her religion.

So fighting bandits and people who have declared war on you is a gross misuse of military intervention, but invading a country, overthrowing their government and forcing your society on them isn't?

Rather than go through the rigmaroll of you ignoring and twisting everything I say again, I put to you the same hypothetical to you, if an American leader seized unilateral power from the government and launched a surprise invasion of Saudi Arabia to overthrow their religious backed government and impart their own ideals on the land, would you support it?

Funny I think you are doing a much bigger twisting of what I say to even get the "morality" argument to "work" in the first place. But you simply don't supply enough information for me to even attempt to answer your question as again things happening in the world matter a great deal. I also dont feel like said situation us even close to a fair one to one situation with Fodland as their is no direct modern day equivalent of the church and the countries relationships. But I will say that I am highly worry of palaces being exploited by religious organization as even benevolent ones all it takes is one bad apple and big big problems happen.

 

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

This comes across as ahistorical. The Kingdom was formed out of Loog's rebellion, and Seiros negotiated the division between the two countries. Without anyone facilitating this, it's likely that more people would have perished on either side of the conflict.

Dividing up Fódlan meant there were opportunities to experiment with different cultures and styles of governance, rather than the existing "one-size-fits-all" of the Empire. That means less internal struggle, and less need to supress upstart movements.

It is said in a shadow library book tilted "Burnt remnants of a report" that Loog enlisted the help of Thales and those who slithered in the dark. I wouldnt be shocked at all if a lot of the " valid reasoning for the rebellion" were created by Thales in the first place.  The man loves creating tragedies to encourage larger conflicts. Loog ended up as a puppet for Thales to use and exploit at the end of the day.

Also as I said I don't have problem with their being mediation. I just think the church was nowhere close to being the correct mediator given the follow up.  Sure a point could be made about hindsight but  as I said before expecting a mediator not to choose their own instrests is naive so I think there was arguments to be had at the time for it go a diffrent route with mediation. Thales and co were not the only ones to manipulate the people who rebelled to further their own ends imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, vikingsfan92 said:

Funny I think you are doing a much bigger twisting of what I say to even get the "morality" argument to "work" in the first place. But you simply don't supply enough information for me to even attempt to answer your question as again things happening in the world matter a great deal. I also dont feel like said situation us even close to a fair one to one situation with Fodland as their is no direct modern day equivalent of the church and the countries relationships. But I will say that I am highly worry of palaces being exploited by religious organization as even benevolent ones all it takes is one bad apple and big big problems happen.

You're dodging the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2023 at 6:39 AM, Jotari said:

The Kingdom had been surviving five years without Dimitri at all

I'm not sure survive is really an apt description. The whole place essentially fell apart right after the war began. The western and the center roll out the red carpet for Edelgard and Cornelia, and only houses Fraldarius and gautier are really left to oppose her. The Kingdom is pretty much the first of the countries to fall. 

Edited by Etrurian emperor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 2:27 PM, Acacia Sgt said:

Then Rhea's actions are not preemtive, they're reactive. It wasn't just a heist, Edelgard brought actual soldiers, with the intention to kill if needed. Also, this is where she outs herself as the Flame Emperor, also outing herself as being in cahoots with the people behind stuff like the Remire Tragedy. Lastly, in Rhea's eyes, she's gonna do the very thing Nemesis did, and it's a personal matter since it's the remains of her people. So just because Edelgard failed means she gets to go unpunished? Rhea certainly doesn't think so.

Yeah, this particular order from Rhea is very black and white in whether it makes sense or not.

On 6/8/2023 at 12:12 AM, Samz707 said:

didn't intend on whatever body hijacking Rhea intended towards Edelgard

Huh?

---

By the way guys, this thread was just meant to be about the possiblity of world building cheats being used to justify Edelgard's route, not a venue for yet another round of "Edelgard did nothing wrong". I suppose it was naive of me to expect things would stay on topic, but if I may indulge for just a moment: the whole point of Edelgard is that she does terrible things (that you've already discussed, like enabling TWSITD and starting a war without trying to negotiate or secede peacefully) for what she considers to be a just cause (getting away from the influence of bloodlines and specifically Crests). She even says as much right before the time skip in Crimson Flower (so just before Fodlan shifts to her affirming worldline).

If anything, those who say she's flawless and a perfect role model/ waifu are doing her just as big a disservice as those who blindly hate her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DefyingFates said:

Yeah, this particular order from Rhea is very black and white in whether it makes sense or not.

Huh?

---

By the way guys, this thread was just meant to be about the possiblity of world building cheats being used to justify Edelgard's route, not a venue for yet another round of "Edelgard did nothing wrong". I suppose it was naive of me to expect things would stay on topic, but if I may indulge for just a moment: the whole point of Edelgard is that she does terrible things (that you've already discussed, like enabling TWSITD and starting a war without trying to negotiate or secede peacefully) for what she considers to be a just cause (getting away from the influence of bloodlines and specifically Crests). She even says as much right before the time skip in Crimson Flower (so just before Fodlan shifts to her affirming worldline).

If anything, those who say she's flawless and a perfect role model/ waifu are doing her just as big a disservice as those who blindly hate her.

I think I typed that up late and mistyped without realizing.

I ment 

Spoiler

Towards Byleth.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DefyingFates said:

By the way guys, this thread was just meant to be about the possiblity of world building cheats being used to justify Edelgard's route, not a venue for yet another round of "Edelgard did nothing wrong".

I think that the two things are inextricably linked, honestly. Why does Edelgard tend to provoke so many arguments? It's because people genuinely, and in good faith, interpret her character and story differently. When the arguments get out of hand, people tend to assume that the person they're arguing with is obstinately refusing to accept what's obviously true, but that is (generally) not what happens. Some people play the game and are left feeling that Edelgard is a hero, some that she's a villain, some that she's a victim.

So the more interesting question is not which of these interpretations is the "correct" one, but "why is it that this game is open to so many interpretations?" And part of that is inevitable for any story. People will always interpret things differently based on their own personalities, opinions and life experiences. And then, beyond that Three Houses is playing with more themes that invite different interpretations. It's supposed to be morally grey. It's supposed to be about the non-reliability of the historical record, how the winners get to be the ones to write the history, about propaganda. With this in mind, I'd say that disagreement over how the story should be interpreted is a sign that it did something right.

But then, as you say, there are also world building cheats, there are little inconsistencies, there are things that don't really make sense when you think about them too much. And for the most part, I think that players who are presented with these things will try to fill in the holes, rationalise and head-canon them to try to make sense of the story being told. But they will fill them in differently. And in so doing they will drive their interpretations even further apart.

So, in short, yes, I would agree with you that there are shortcuts taken in the way that the story of Crimson Flower (and the game as a whole) is told, and I believe that these shortcuts are a part of the reason why Edelgard discussion so inevitably descends into the same arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2023 at 6:45 PM, Jotari said:

You're dodging the question.

Your question is fishing for answers to suit your narrative and trying for a gotcha moment.  It is also nowhere close to a fair comparison of the whole situation as tbf I think they added stuff to complicate things.  I think any attempts at real world comparisons arent going to work because even popular everyone loves historical stuff is not the best to repeat 1:1 in a game as other games have either already done it or will do it in the future. It kind of the point to make new thing up.

So the best I will give you is what I gave. 

 

17 hours ago, DefyingFates said:

the way guys, this thread was just meant to be about the possiblity of world building cheats being used to justify Edelgard's route, not a venue for yet another round of "Edelgard did nothing wrong". I suppose it was naive of me to expect things would stay on topic, but if I may indulge for just a moment: the whole point of Edelgard is that she does terrible things (that you've already discussed, like enabling TWSITD and starting a war without trying to negotiate or secede peacefully) for what she considers to be a just cause (getting away from the influence of bloodlines and specifically Crests). She even says as much right before the time skip in Crimson Flower (so just before Fodlan shifts to her affirming worldline).

Tbh I think the way you titled the thread and your op kind of leads it this way.  Replace Crimson Flower with any other name and you are probaly going to get the same result with the leader of that route justfication discussion because the route and the leader are kind of similar in a lot of people's minds so if I made a thread with Verdant Wind title instead of CF of similar nature the discussion would be dominated by Claude talk as routes aren't dictated by the recruitable students.

Heck even Hilda, Dedue and Hubert probably could have done more for their routes. Hubert probably does the most but he still is a follower that doesn't drive the story like the house leaders do.  One of my main big points against SS is that Seteth and Co are clearly not as developed as Claude, Dimtri or Edelgard. We are not nearly attached to them as the students. Heck it might even possible to argue that [insert non house leader student here] is more devolped then Seteth is with Byleth ignoring supports. So that goes to show how linked I think the routes are to their main person and it can be tricky not to talk about the leader at all when talking about a route.

Edited by vikingsfan92
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, vikingsfan92 said:

Your question is fishing for answers to suit your narrative and trying for a gotcha moment.  It is also nowhere close to a fair comparison of the whole situation as tbf I think they added stuff to complicate things.  I think any attempts at real world comparisons arent going to work because even popular everyone loves historical stuff is not the best to repeat 1:1 in a game as other games have either already done it or will do it in the future. It kind of the point to make new thing up.

So the best I will give you is what I gave. 

I don't have the enthusiasm to pursue the conversation that I had a few days ago, so I'm not going to belabor the point. Just say that you don't understand the point I was making. Which is that if someone believes populous dictators have the right to seize the government and enforce their will on any society they don't agree with, then there are a lot of societies in our world right now that are worse than Fodlan in terms of social liberties that one could say deserve a dose of "freedom". The reason you don't feel real world comparisons work is because, thankfully, with a dose of realism injected into the idea of invading a society to reform it, you quickly realize how horrible an idea that is, both practically and ethically.

In truth I think Defying Fates hits the nail on the head of the discussion. Edelgard is clearly a character designed to do bad things and she even admits, though never regrets, that. To try and act as an apologetic for her, or to treat her as if she entirely lacks nuance, does a disservice to her as a character (and a lot of that applies to Rhea too).

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

I don't have the enthusiasm to pursue the conversation that I had a few days ago, so I'm not going to belabor the point. Just say that you don't understand the point I was making. Which is that if someone believes populous dictators have the right to seize the government and enforce their will on any society they don't agree with, then there are a lot of societies in our world right now that are worse than Fodlan in terms of social liberties that one could say deserve a dose of "freedom". The reason you don't feel real world comparisons work is because, thankfully, with a dose of realism injected into the idea of invading a society to reform it, you quickly realize how horrible an idea that is, both practically and ethically.

In truth I think Defying Fates hits the nail on the head of the discussion. Edelgard is clearly a character designed to do bad things and she even admits, though never regrets, that. To try and act as an apologetic for her, or to treat her as if she entirely lacks nuance, does a disservice to her as a character.

 I will note that I was not the only one who said you comparison is off.  I personally think its one of those cases of where you are trying to shorten your point way to much with this scenario and it lacks a lot of your points that really sell it for you personally that we would also debate on and not see eye to eye on just judging from how apart we seem to be.  When its really with a lot more thoughts put together we arrive at the points that we are both individually at. But I also don't really have the enthusiasm to continue this so leaving it here is fine with me.

 

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

In truth I think Defying Fates hits the nail on the head of the discussion. Edelgard is clearly a character designed to do bad things and she even admits, though never regrets, that. To try and act as an apologetic for her, or to treat her as if she entirely lacks nuance, does a disservice to her as a character.

Look I think the reason these things continue is a lot of the time people make statements like this and not realize that they are doing the exact same thing they complain about the other side doing.  Because it is also a disservice to act like the other side is completely right and without fault or that the situation wasnt already kind of doomed from the start. I am sure we can go back and forth on this for ages with the truth being in between us somewhere.  But we both seem to want to move on so lets do that.

Edited by vikingsfan92
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, lenticular said:

So, in short, yes, I would agree with you that there are shortcuts taken in the way that the story of Crimson Flower (and the game as a whole) is told, and I believe that these shortcuts are a part of the reason why Edelgard discussion so inevitably descends into the same arguments.

Hmm... and even if it's not the case here, I'm sure there's a portion of those starting fights in other places on her behalf are those who have only played Crimson Flower because they liked Edelgard to begin with too, which adds a whole new layer of bias.

2 hours ago, vikingsfan92 said:

Tbh I think the way you titled the thread and your op kind of leads it this way.

I thought I managed to leave the whole "morality" thing out of both of those things, but I can see how my OP could be seen as a criticism of her and not just the writing of Crimson Flower as was intended. Thanks for pointing that out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vikingsfan92 said:

 I will note that I was not the only one who said you comparison is off.  I personally think its one of those cases of where you are trying to shorten your point way to much with this scenario and it lacks a lot of your points that really sell it for you personally that we would also debate on and not see eye to eye on just judging from how apart we seem to be.  When its really with a lot more thoughts put together we arrive at the points that we are both individually at. But I also don't really have the enthusiasm to continue this so leaving it here is fine with me.

We'll leave it there, I only ask you to reflect on why that is so. Is it because deep down you truly believe strongman leaders do have the right to crush societies they don't like so long as such leaders share your own values? Or is it because you acknowledge that real world cultures and societies have a right to exist and value the things they choose too, while the same charity is not granted to fictional societies? I'm not asking you to respond here, just to sincerely think what destroying a nation to replace it with the things that you view as superior actually entails.

1 hour ago, vikingsfan92 said:

Look I think the reason these things continue is a lot of the time people make statements like this and not realize that they are doing the exact same thing they complain about the other side doing.  Because it is also a disservice to act like the other side is completely right and without fault or that the situation wasnt already kind of doomed from the start. I am sure we can go back and forth on this for ages with the truth being in between us somewhere.  But we both seem to want to move on so lets do that.

Yeah, but I've said in this very discussion that I'm fine with Edelgard's actions as a narrative character and that my only issue is with fans who try to justify her actions as indisputably right and justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2023 at 6:02 AM, DefyingFates said:

By the way guys, this thread was just meant to be about the possiblity of world building cheats being used to justify Edelgard's route, not a venue for yet another round of "Edelgard did nothing wrong".

I think lenticular already did a good job of addressing this. But I'll add that the core question of Three Houses is whether Edelgard's actions are justified, so it's not surprising that discussions tend in that direction. In this case, your initial question centred on whether or not Crimson Flower (the most Edelgard-centred route) change the facts of the game, which is a stone's throw away from "do you think Edelgard is justified on CF but not on AM/VW/SS".

On 6/16/2023 at 6:02 AM, DefyingFates said:

If anything, those who say she's flawless and a perfect role model/ waifu are doing her just as big a disservice as those who blindly hate her.

I don't think this is at all a fair characterization of anyone participating in this thread. I will happily describe Edelgard as a morally grey character whose actions deserve to be scrutinized, even if, at the end of the day, I feel she was overall correct. As someone who has been involved in the Edelgard / Black Eagles fandom, I think the characterization you're describing is quite rare. Edelgard isn't supposed to be a perfect paragon the way someone like Marth is, and that's actually a large part of why she is so popular.

That said, while I wouldn't say Edelgard did nothing wrong, I will speak out strongly when wrong things are attributed to Edelgard which she, provably, did not do (e.g. the claim that she lit Bernadetta on fire, or that she trusted the Agarthans for history knowledge).

3 hours ago, DefyingFates said:

Hmm... and even if it's not the case here, I'm sure there's a portion of those starting fights in other places on her behalf are those who have only played Crimson Flower because they liked Edelgard to begin with too, which adds a whole new layer of bias.

And there are at least as many starting fights who have not played Crimson Flower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't entirely agree that Three Houses was set up for multiple interpretations or "morally grey" story telling. I think they had a vision for the story, that vision was altered after the planning phase according to developer interviews, and then the existing drafts needed to be tweaked to not contradict each other. Critiquing how well they did that third step is both a fair and interesting avenue for art criticism. But we can't have those discussions if it's constantly derailed by fandom. My favorite characters in Three Houses are Manuela and Lorenz. They're perfect, but I'm not going to bat over anyone else. 

17 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

And there are at least as many starting fights who have not played Crimson Flower.

And what can we make of people accusing you of 'not paying attention' while having played this or that route? Speaking as someone that has done all the homework, I think there's more merit in having some self-awareness and respect for others, wouldn't you agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Looks like I'm late to the party, but I wanna chime in on something regardless :

Quote

When you start CF, Edelgard tells you the "true" history of Fodlan, that Rhea is a control freak who's evil to the core and Nemesis and the other Elites were essentially freedom fighters. The rest of the route seems to support this. [...] But then you look at the other routes and... none of the above makes sense. Nemesis et al. are clearly painted as power-hungry maniacs, Rhea is shown to be someone who meant well but chose poorly and Edelgard goes full war criminal (RIP Bernie). And to top it all off, these (and other details) remain consistent among all three of the other routes.

There are heavy implications that the Nabateans were at best (or at the very least, became in due time) unpopular with humanity. Besides the whole episode Sothis had with Agartha in the distant past, it's noteworthy how Nemesis and co. became so beloved by fellow humans for performing what was straight up dragon genocide that Rhea/Seiros to get allies had to, not only use propaganda (through her own church and the empire she co-founded) to paint them as fallen heroes, but also removed all evidence that dragons ever existed in Fodlan (with her fellow dragons becoming "saintly beasts" of sorts instead) just to protect the survivors from further attacks. Developer interviews even chime on this detail:

Quote

Why did Nemesis attack Zanado?

Kusakihara: In that world, the Nabateans were a race of people who could transform into dragons, and ruled as gods over each territory across Fódlan. However, they were hated by the Agarthans, the so-called Those Who Slither in the Dark, and the Agarthans conspired to overthrow the Nabateans. They planned to teach humanity their skills of crafting powerful weapons from the bodies of Nabateans, and that plan was carried out by the human, Nemesis. As for how things resulted for the humans who received said power… They yearned for more power, killed dragons larger than themselves to use their bones as materials to create even more powerful weapons, and so on—that’s how the Ten Elites came to be. From there, Seiros raised an army to defeat Nemesis and the Ten Elites to suppress their efforts. Seiros went on to victory, and afterward she rewrote history to what is currently known as the history of the Church of Seiros. What this says in short is: history is nothing more than what the victor chooses it to be. There are many who have lied about history throughout the stories found in the game, and you can’t believe everything you read, even the historical accounts found in the books in the library.

Why did Seiros (Lady Rhea) appropriate Nemesis and the Ten Elites as heroes in her history?

Kusakihara: Because from humanity’s perspective, Nemesis and the Ten Elites were thought of as heroes. She can’t create a history that completely ignores the feelings of humans upon ruling over humanity. So while preserving them as heroes, she was able to rewrite other parts of history to her advantage. It goes without saying, however the reason for Seiros tampering with history was not so she could rule over humanity—it was to minimize war and preserve peace across the land. And as it says in the Shadow Library, she even restricted the growth of civilization when it began progressing too quickly for her. There’s an answer as to why… but that’s a secret for now. (Laughs)

As for why Edelgard's secret history (the only surviving records of how things were before the church imposed its version of history) is so different compared to what every other route tells you, it's because of this:

796974806_kingofliberation.png.1762176329767db34e638abeecd19147.png

(The War of Heroes is the name of the war between the Empire & Nemesis seen in the first animated movie btw).

Given everything Verdant Wind tells you before the final battle, what this description confirms is that Nemesis' response to Rhea's own propaganda was something among the lines of:

Quote

Which incidentally explains why to Wilhelm the First (Edelgard's great-great-grand daddy, Adrestia's 1st emperor, and the person who left the secret records to his descendants), the whole war was just a conflict of interests rather than a standard good vs evil fight.

Nemesis' rule represented humanity being ruled by humans. Meanwhile, Seiros' efforts to tarnish Nemesis and co.'s reputation, while also salvaging her living kin, were the opposite (more so given the role her Church assumed in the Empire).

And this is the knowledge Edelgard operates upon that no one else knows.

... Also it goes without saying, but 3H's stories run on storytelling bias. So the church being ultimately portrayed as a positive thing in the routes where it's one of the player's biggest allies, is par for the course really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...