NekoKnight
-
Posts
5,636 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by NekoKnight
-
-
Just now, Jotari said:
Damnit. Right after they removed knives as a weapon type.
Fist weapons though.
-
Rejoice. Kotomine Kirei is now a Fire Emblem character. -
40 minutes ago, Icelerate said:
This Reddit post should shed light on why the tide of war was turned due to Byleth's intervention. Read the last couple of paragraphs.
Divine Pulse is certainly a strong advantage that could lead to Byleth's superior performance in the war. That said, I'm a little hesitant to cite Divine Pulse as a valid reason because the plot is shaky about when Divine Pulse can be used (like a certain scene in AM where Byleth doesn't use it to save someone).
-
2 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:
How am I bending over backwards? This coming from someone speculating that Dimtiri only killed kids out of self defense, because you think that every kid killed by Dimitri is a Fleche?
That's about as much speculation as anything I said. I'm going by what he admitted to doing, but you're trying to defend Dimitri by arguing that he's justified.
People are not guilty of crimes unless there is proof of them. I didn't say every every child is a Fleche, just that there are situations where killing children is justified contrary to your repeated statements that it's never okay. Dimitri brings up in his Byleth support that other youths have tried to kill him in retaliation for other people he has killed. "Fleches" are probably pretty common in the war. You assume the worst scenario because that suits your hilariously biased narrative. Keep drinking that imperial Kool aid.
It may surprise you that I don't think Dimitri isn't sick or blameless for countless deaths. That's the whole bloody point of AM that killing causes pain regardless of the excuses you want to attach to it.
-
5 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:5 hours ago, Kyn said:
No, I did. I gave one example of Dimitri confessing that he killed children. He used Fleche, who isn't even someone Dimitri killed, as an example. So no, that's not even one example. I did give scenarios, because the point is that Dimitri doesn't look under nuances and deeper reasons. If he views someone in a negative way in his boar state, he kills, simple as that.
I gave Fleche as an example because despite your wailing about "Won't someone please think of the children!" there are reasons why someone would morally kill a child, that reason being that they're armed, dangerous and attacking with killing intent. And all you can respond with is your headcanon about how Dimitri murders innocent 7 year olds. I'm so glad that speculation is now being held with the same weight as evidence.
Dimitri isn't guilty of killing innocents unless the game specifies he did. That you would bend over backwards to defend Edelgard with your imperial apologetics while inventing scenarios for why Dimitri is a monster is extremely intellectually dishonest.
2 hours ago, eclipse said:It flies, until this thing called "context" rears its head.
First, Randolph. There was no way anyone would talk Dimitri out of torturing him. Nor would releasing him back to Edelgard be advised. Though contrived, there's very few options that Byleth has. Killing him was the best compromise IMO. Unless you can think of a better way out of this situation.
Next, Fleche. She'd taken out a weapon, and attacked. Untrained or not, she'd declared her intent by action. So again, what would Byleth do? The equivalent of "shoot for the legs/arms"? There's a reason why cops shoot towards the center of mass, and that's what Byleth did.
I agree with all of this! I think Byleth was morally justified in killing both of them. Rudolph was an enemy commander who attacked Garreg Mach with the intention to kill Dimitri and his men. Killing enemy commanders is the usual rule of battle in Three Houses. Edelgard executes Dimitri who was similarly disabled in CF.
Fleche was an armed and murderous child which makes her killing justified. The point of referring to these plot points is that Dimitri killing POWs or children is treated as irredeemable but Byleth does these exact things for good reason. Dimitri would have tortured Randolph, which certainly is evil, but Byleth stopped it before it happened.
-
Just now, omegaxis1 said:
So all kids have to be not actually kids or are all Fleche? Really? You think war orphans, desperate to survive or feed a starving sibling that they would resort to thievery and even hurting/killing someone just to get something to survive, is something that makes Dimitri have every right to kill them? Dimitri's been like this for five years. He's killing anyone he deems to be a "filthy rat" in his eyes. Trying to insist that context is important in this case is more of an excuse, if anything. Dimitri killing kids is the actual fact of the matter, no matter how you look at it. We don't know the age, but saying kids means that any age is possible, including even 7-10 year olds.
Are we just inventing the context for who he kills because you don't have actual examples? We'll just assume that the people he killed were innocent?
I gave you two examples of young people who are killers, and in the case of Fleche, were rightfully put down because they presented their lethal intentions. Don't invent scenarios to tell me what Dimitri is guilty of. Cite actual lines of dialogue that give the context for his unjust murders. Again, context matters and you don't have it.
Just now, omegaxis1 said:It's why in CF, he's way more of a hypocrite even, where he tries to make this moral preach to Edelgard, when he's literally someone that entered this war for revenge and dragged his people into it. Sylvain even notes that he's called the Tempest King cause he literally leaves nothing on the battlefield after winning, meaning that he still follows the "kill every last one of them" mindset. Only this time, he doesn't see himself in the wrong.
"Dragged his people into a war" that Edelgard started. Did you forget she invades Faerghus regardless of the route you play? She always meant to conquer and it was Dimitri's right to defend his nation.
-
Just now, omegaxis1 said:
The image literally has Dimitri state that he killed KIDS. I'm sorry, but there ain't no excuse for that. Saying that "Oh, he doesn't kill non-combatants" means nothing when it comes to kids. Combatant or not, Dimitri killed them. If you're actually saying that Dimitri is justified in killing KIDS, we've got issues, buddy.
Randolph is a soldier. Soldiers fight and kill. They are literally trained and are meant to do that when they are at war. Yeah, killing is bad sure, but the reasons for the kills do matter a lot. Randolph kills because he's a soldier at war. He kills because he's fighting battles and has to do his job.
But Dimitri, he kills not for a sense of duty. Not for a sense of righteousness. And not even for self-defense. No, he kills anyone he deems an enemy because the literal delusions in his head tell him to. And that, by all accounts, is unjustifiable. That's murder. Plain and simple. And thus, he murdered KIDS because they may have just been some desperate orphans that were needing to survive. And Dimitri killed them because they became "filthy rats" in the end.
Byleth pointed out that even thieves might have had reasons, but Dimitri makes it clear he doesn't give a damn about reasoning.
And if anything, that philosophy is just the same twisted version of the boar, but now trying to preach it like its a good thing. Because it changes from "you're a monster just like me because you killed" to "we killed, so we are all to blame" which honestly sounds like Dimitri is just trying to excuse himself morally.
Kids like Fleche? Kids who can and do kill others? All of the students are killers even during the school phase and some of them are as young as 15 years old. Context matters when you're discussing when it's appropriate to kill another. If someone attacks me with lethal intent, at what age am I morally allowed to respond with equal force?
You're right that Dimitri doesn't care much about the personal motivations for the people he slaughters but as far as we know, he does think they deserved to die according to the actions they chose to take, either fighting as a soldier (against his nation) or being a murderous bandit. Everyone in the army kills hostile targets, in every route of the game.Dimitri is nothing but repentant in his later chapters and specifically says that he is to blame for the grief he causes whenever he kills, so you're way off base when you say he's excusing himself.
-
21 hours ago, Axel987 said:
Honestly I don't really think Rodrigue is a particularly bad father, miles and leaps ahead of most others in the game(not that that's much of an accomplishment though.) He said something insensitive when he was likely grieving his own son's death himself and from what we see in the game, any time he even tries to talk to Felix, he snipes back pretty harshly. Hell, he spends years trying to investigate what actually happened that day BECAUSE of said dead son. Not to say he did nothing wrong but parents aren't perfect, they make mistakes too.
Thank you. I'm pretty sure that Rodrigue was trying to give the death of his son some value, to praise him for his honor and duty, as any parent probably would. Rodrigue is also a product of his own culture, so he's conditioned to see sacrifice as a noble and meaningful way to die, and sure enough he does just that to save Dimitri.
10 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:Dimitri murders anyone he deems to be an enemy. Not just Imperials. He even admitted that he killed children. He sees anyone he deems an enemy as "rats" that have to be exterminated, regardless of their own reasoning.
And Dimitri isn't doing this for guerrilla warfare or because they started the war. He does it to fulfill the ghosts in his own head. The delusion he holds. No sense of duty, justice, or any justifiable reason. Randolph does kill, but Dimitri murders. That's the difference.
I don't recall any scene that says Dimitri kills non combatants. Motive doesn't matter when you're fighting in a war, enemy hostiles are fair targets no matter their age or social standing. Dimitri was right to call out Rudolph for acting like following orders to kill was any more acceptable than what Dimitri was doing. People both in and out of story call Dimitri horrible for his actions but no one cares that Byleth killed a prisoner of war and then a teenage girl.
It's actually the conclusion that Byleth agrees with in their A support that they both share blame for the anguish caused by the people they kill, that everyone shares in that responsibility in war. That's Dimitri's whole life philosophy that killing for any reason is immoral.
-
42 minutes ago, Deathcon said:
Considering that yes Byleth does strategize the War Arc, and most likely the Academy Arc for his house, he should get praised even if it is all the player's doing, because the player IS Byleth. You think they shouldn't be praised after either beating half the game or nearly the whole game especially if they lost no one? This is justified player "worship" and a actual character trait shown through gameplay.
Do they actually though? Most of the cutscenes in the war phase have other characters discussing the battle plans, with Byleth merely agreeing with what they say (and if you get dialogue options for how you want to proceed, the game still railroads the dialogue because there aren't alternate mission paths). It's a lot different than say Robin, who's actively involved in the strategy making outside of gameplay. The point is, while Byleth isn't tactically inept, there is little to say that they're so much better than the other characters in the cast that they're essential to break the stalemate.
47 minutes ago, Deathcon said:Both where he got the jump on him and the one with Jeralt Thales was defending and teleporting away Kronya so wasn't really a fight. He also soloed Nemesis for a minute and, after Claude provided a distraction and pierced his arm, destroyed his sword and killed him. Who I will say is more dangerous than Thales even canonical wise.
Again, it's another presentation issue. Gameplay doesn't provide much evidence in regards to Byleth's overwhelming superiority in combat and out of combat, we see him get thwarted twice. Byleth is good but not "can single-handedly turn the tides of a war" good.
51 minutes ago, Deathcon said:Considering Byleth literally taught them all they know I think he is wise and smart. Even in supports Byleth helps with their student's problems and answers them.
"Teaching them literally everything they know" is a gameplay mechanic, and actually contradicts another mechanic in that Byleth can teach people skills that even Byleth doesn't know. As far as supports go, most of what Byleth says to people is not exactly groundbreaking advice. The supports are largely the other person talking and Byleth giving fairly stock answers.
"I can't follow my dreams because of reasons"
Byleth: You should follow your dreams anyway.
"I have this emotional hang up"
Byleth: That sucks, but I believe in your ability to overcome it.And again, referring to what the game says is Byleth's personality, characters love Byleth even though Byleth has little emotion, personal convictions or even experiences to reference. They are simultaneously a blank slate but also the best friend and mentor to the whole cast.
-
Just now, Icelerate said:
I think it would be good if Byleth can question some of Edelgard's decisions such as keeping the Arianrhod secret from everyone or revealing it just to the BESF. I think instead of killing or sparing Claude, a better option would be to imprison him or let him go because it is OoC for Edelgard and Byleth to just execute Claude when Edelgard had no problem imprisoning Rhea and the coup instigators. So letting Byleth potentially change the outcome depending on player choices would make him better. Same with the other routes but I'm not as familiar with them.
It could go either way for sparing or killing Claude. Remember that Edelgard also believes that a leader shouldn't fight if they were going to surrender eventually anyway because it's a disservice to all those who died fighting for that cause.
Just now, Icelerate said:He wields the Sword of the Creator which is hyped to be strong enough to slice mountains and is made out of Sothis, a goddess. That is a game changer. It's no different to Naruto's intervention in the war arc or Pain arc changing the tide of war single handedly due to sheer power. Byleth is also a huge morale booster, and according to Edelgard, a better strategist than her.
There is a matter of showing and telling that is at fault. While the Sword of the Creator is allegedly super powerful, it doesn't seem like that's actually how well Byleth can use it. It's certainly not true in gameplay that Byleth is soloing armies and in cut scenes, he fails twice while fighting difficult opponents (twice vs Thales (or once vs Rhea) when Byleth can't save Jeralt and gets knocked off a cliff. As for Byleth being a master tactician and motivator, that's kind of a player worship thing justifying more player worship. Byleth motivates people because he's just oozing charisma and wisdom (not really), and he's the smartest person in the army (not really) so of course the war can't go on without him.
-
Byleth has a strong start in the school phase but there are three problems that plague his character:
1. Byleth, in an attempt to let players project themselves onto a blank slate, has (virtually) no personality or experiences to define them. They're 21 years old at the start of the story but they know nothing about the world (highly implausible as a mercenary) and can't pin down basic facts or experiences (he's ambivalent about Jeralt being his father or not, and can't commit to an answer when asked "Have you ever fought pirates" as if that would be destroying someone's fanfic). Byleth SHOULD be a more fleshed out character according to what the game says he is, but they pretend he's an unthinking robot who was activated only a day before. Also, concerning his stoicism, people at the monastery treat Byleth with more warmth and trust than they normally should be considering how different he is from others.
2. Byleth's story arc ends with the school phase. After that, you're more or less along for the ride with whichever lord you picked. There are a few moments when you can contradict this, such as Byleth trying to rein in feral Dimitri or disagreeing with Claude's anti-Rhea stance, but in general, Byleth doesn't really have a motivation or anything unique to contribute beyond supporting whatever the lord is doing.
3. There is a lot of player worship. It's not quite as bad as Alm and Corrin in regards to fake flaws being mentioned (Alm's recklessness) or worse, praised (Corrin's naivete) but they're treated with a lot more trust and reverence than they really deserve. As mentioned before, people should be slow to trust Byleth because he's an inhuman weirdo, but that doesn't happen. Battles and even the success of the war are often attributed to Byleth when you just play a small part. Right at the start of the war phase, Byleth is the reason why the war will tip in favor of one faction, and considering they really offer little that other characters aren't doing already, it comes off as wholly unreasonable.
I would place ranks the avatars Robin >>> Byleth >>>>>>Corrin. He has some growth to start with and his mercenary background gives some credence to his skill in battle and tactics but his lack of agency in the latter half of the game and the narrative erasing his personal experiences and opinions to the point of absurdity really drags down his character, and it wasn't even necessary.
-
Just now, eclipse said:
I felt that Ashnard was practical - the view he had wasn't necessarily evil, just horribly unbalanced. Lekain does a better job of it, but even then, he's understandable. I think Valtome would be closer - we have no idea why he's being so unpleasant, but he is, and we have to deal with it.
"Understandable" is the key word here. All characters need motivations, whether they be things we can agree with morally or not. It's when a character is a petty asshole for no discernible reason (Iago) that we run into trouble. That said, this is only important for more plot significant villains, as such petty meanness can be fun in small doses (like Norris, the lovable shit-eater who happily sends off the people who informed on Elincia to work camps, only to be double crossed by Naesala 2 chapters later).
Just now, Alastor15243 said:The sad thing is that the Slither Bros could very, very easily have been written sympathetically.
There's a wealth of sympathy to be had in the remnants of a lost civilization that predates the dragon who arrived there and started establishing herself as this world's goddess, and is then completely wiped off the face of the earth as the continent becomes ruled by a religion that steals credit for creating the people they now rule. Hell, twist the aggressors around (or the alleged aggressors; for all we know the ancient members of Those Who Slither were completely in the right, Rhea is a liar, and the slitherers we see now are the result of lack of sunlight, isolation, and inbred madness), and Those Who Slither could have easily been not just sympathetic antagonists, but the heroes of the story.
I don't think we need them to be heroes, and their moral repulsiveness is what makes them a good foil to Edelgard. But we do need to see motivations for their actions beyond "because we can".
Just now, Hawkwing said:I usually don't care about graphics, and I don't think Three Houses is a bad looking game. My gripe is how distracting the visual issues are. Battalions popping in and out of existence comes off as unpolished, and the 3DS games rarely, if ever, had a problem with battle animations repeating the same attack despite there being an animation for doubling, units weapons appearing out of thin air after being healed, or arrows traveling slowly, making it extremely glaring when these issues are commonplace in Three Houses. The simplistic dialogue sequences also add to the games slow pace, and cause it to look aged, as I expect those kind of animations from a RPG made during the early to mid 2000's, not 2019.
I can agree with this much. Before the game launched, I was concerned about visual clutter, too many soldier distracting you from your own units, but I think they went a little too far in the other direction with battalion units just not appearing in places they should.
-
1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:
Completely evil characters can be fun but they need a certain charisma or a dominating aura to work properly. Historically Fire Emblem has never really been good at that sort of villains. The recent villains who are pure evil like Garon, Surtr or Thales notably lack any sort of charisma and aside from mister phoenix mode they don't come off as particularly powerful.
When I think of totally evil villains I tend to think of Hades or Metalface. They have such an open glee about being very evil that its hard not to smile when seeing them do their craft. Them being incredibly powerful also ensures they are real threats rather than just goofballs. Metalface might speak with a hilarious British accent and make bad puns but he also repeatedly kicks the party to the curb and knows to hit them where it hurts emotionally.
I think the closest that Fire Emblem has come to that sort of villain is the Heroes version of Julius. He's very clearly having a lot of fun being evil and he's got a bratty teenager persona that ensures he doesn't take things too seriously. Despite that he's still Satan. A very lazy and immature Satan that apparently spends his time burning insects according to Heroes.
I'd say Ashnard fits the "completely evil" trope just right. There is nothing morally justified about that man but he has a purpose and a view of the world he wants to enforce. Lekain fits as well. In general though, I think the best stories have a mix of the completely unsympathetic and the antagonistic but not without reason kind of villains. To bring up Tellius one again, it's nice having Lekain balanced with the likes of Sephiran. Or Edelgard and the Slither bros.
-
On 1/29/2020 at 12:16 AM, Harvey said:
I however don't understand the criticism of its technical aspects. Yes it doesn't push any boundaries and whatnot but the graphics here are far better than what they have tried for PoR and RD imo.
On 1/29/2020 at 1:05 AM, Ottservia said:But when you compare 3H to stuff like BoTW and Mario odyssey or hell even pokemon then you can clearly tell that there’s a drastic difference in quality. When pokemon is better on a technical level then you have a problem.
I don't understand why people care about what other games look like when discussing the game they're playing unless the models are legit garbage. Three Houses looked great to me. Prerendered cut scenes could be smoother but most of the game was quite lovely. Does it really affect your enjoyment that much that other games in the same gen have "objectively better" graphics? I've heard people say that BotW looks like shit too.
-
1 hour ago, Gordin said:
In the end I gave all of my vote to "Crimean Royal Knight, Fifth Platoon Captain Kieran! See him and tremble!"
Now to hope he gets in the game soon as 5* exclusive and I can finally use my 3000+ orbs saved up for him. Please for the love of everything holy don't make him a 3*, demote or even worse, GHB IS 😂
Happy, Sad, Happy, Happy, Sad, Sad, Sad.
It's been an emotional roller coaster. -
Hoping for that TH sweep but I sent some votes to some underdogs as well.
-
6 hours ago, Thane said:
That does beg the question, what would the Three Houses lords actually get? I had always assumed their post timeskip selves would be Legendary versions. I guess they could go the parent/loved ones route again, though if Lysithea or Bernadetta win, it might be hard to stick to that theme.
Lysithea could be a gremlin Gremory and Bernadetta a Bow Knight. Those outfits are pretty fancy.
-
I wonder if there will be some serious upsets this time. The "midterms" came out about 2.5 days after voting started. While I don't think the current leads aren't extremely popular, there are still some 4-5 votes left per person since the midterms. There is room for a huge wave of support coming to the runner up characters.
I know I shouldn't care that much about this competition but I'm still really hoping the ranks won't changeunless Rhea swoops in to take 100% of the vote. It could happen guys. -
Just now, Glennstavos said:
They killed a dozen assassins on their way there. And are about to kill another dozen in a moment. I see no reason to expect this to be different. Fire Emblem always implies killing, until it doesn't with Corrin, the hero who allegedly defeated all of Hoshido without killing a single person. Explicit killing of people isn't something so easily slipped into the narrative of an E rated game, so forgive the lack of visual indicating how he took the guard out. All we know is that the guard had a vocal response to whatever plunged into his gut. I also question why Serra would respond with "Ewww!" if all he did was lay him out with a punch. Too clean. Not enough blood
The difference is who's the target of the hostile response, a guard standing there vs assassins actively trying to kill them. Killing isn't always the consequence of a fight even in gameplay, let alone interactions in cut-scenes. Take for example Erik surviving the battle where his unit is defeated. I'm not trying to say we should second-guess every single altercation unless the result is explicit, but context should still be observed.
But as I said, I think the presentation is ambiguous. I lean more towards the non-lethal interpretation.
-
1 hour ago, Glennstavos said:
Yup. Killing that border guard would for sure cause an incident, but Hector did it without a second thought when he noticed it was his friend's life in danger. Meanwhile, if you remember the Lyn mode chapter where you're trying to rescue Ninian, Hector is just chilling in a cabin, wondering why Eliwood is late for their sparring session. There's a big fight going on outside between civilians and assassins, and he's not about to get involved. Eliwood later shows up and proves that he or Hector could potentially have done something about it when he shows up with Ninian in his arms.
While the exact consequences are ambiguous due to Blazing Sword's limited presentation, I must leap to the defense of this fictional character and point out that the reaction of Serra/Mathew/Oswin indicated to me that Hector didn't just kill a random guard who was bothering him.
SpoilerHector:
“Hey! What’s going on over there? Looks like some rough business. You! Soldier! Are you just going to stand there and watch?”Soldier:
“Who do you think you are? This is Santaruz. What occurs here is no affair of any foreign lordling!”Hector:
“I believe I’m going to have to disagree with you. You see, the man they’re attacking happens to be a friend of mine.”Soldier:
“A friend? What? …Urrrgh!!”Hector:
“Sorry, but I’m in a hurry.”Serra:
“Ewww! That’s terrible! I loathe violence!”Matthew:
“Nicely done, my lord! You’re a fighter born.”Oswin:
“I cannot condone resorting to force so quickly…”Hector:
“Chastise me later, Oswin. First, we deal with these brigands! Come! We must help Eliwood!”It sounds like Hector just decked the guy. Otherwise, Mathew congratulating Hector for a murder well done would be a bit...questionable.
For your other points, Santaruz is cooperating with the Black Fang, so they already have an 'incident' with the rest of Lycia. Furthermore, Hector not being involved in the incident with Ninian isn't proof that he knew about it and didn't care to get involved. His conversation with Mathew (the most informative bit of dialogue you can get of all the possible options) shows he's vaguely aware of Caelin's succession dispute, but again nothing about his awareness of what's happening on that specific map. -
Just now, Jotari said:
Or Lon'Qu.
Not sure why you're even talking about them when I haven't made any reference to them at all.
Lon'Qu doesn't show contempt to women, only that he's uncomfortable.
Because it's relevant to the conversation. The original comment was a guy saying that we won't get good LGBT characters in a game with avatars. You said that Heather is a good LGBT character and that her moral standing doesn't matter. I compared her with other LGBT characters (in a game with an avatar) to point out that she's just as problematic (or none of them are problematic, depending on your stance).Do you have a stance on the Fates LGBT characters? Do you feel they are good representatives contrary to what the X-Naut's comment implied?
-
53 minutes ago, Jotari said:
You've just repeated yourself there. I'll repeat myself too. Being rude to Brom does not immediately make her a misandrist and even if she is it did it wouldn't matter.
Okay, let me explain myself further then. If she's contemptuous to every man she interacts with, and only helps out when it lets her be closer with women, that's evidence for misandry. Seriously, swap the genders and there would be no doubt about the character being a misogynist.
And you didn't answer my second point. Why is Heather's negative behavior a good representative for LGBT but people are critical of Niles/Soleil/Rhajat because they're not morally upstanding people?
-
4 hours ago, Jotari said:
Wouldn't really equate rudeness to misandry. In fact Heather is quite explicit that she hates a certain type of man, namely the ones like Ludvick who think they can go around flaunting authority. Others she sees as easy marks as she is a thief at heart. But even if she was a misandrist I wouldn't say that makes her a bad character. Believable and well rounded is what I look for more so than morally upright.
Her hating Ludvik especially doesn't mean she isn't mean-spirited towards men in general. Like I said, in her recruitment dialogue with Brom, she shit talks him from start to finish when he's nothing but polite to her.
Isn't that the issue people took with characters like Niles, Soleil, and Rhajat? That they're morally bad or gross people (more the first two)? If you like Heather regardless, I'm not telling you that you can't, but I don't see her as being a character LGBT fans want representing them.
-
21 hours ago, Jotari said:
We had good LGBT representation over ten years ago. It was called Heather. No one made a big deal of it. Which is exactly how things should be.
I'm not sure being a misandrist is considered good representation. She was extremely rude to Brom.
Three Houses has pretty good bisexual characters in Dorothea and Shamir (I'm assuming that one of the metrics of 'good' is a character being able to express their sexual interest to the same gender beyond the avatar character).
Choose Your Legends Round 4 Official Discussion Thread!
in Fire Emblem Heroes
Posted · Edited by NekoKnight
I pretty happy with the results. I'm be jumping on my bed with joy if Rhea made it instead of Lysithea but I'll content myself with her being in the top 20 for females.
For the people saying "TH is probably already getting alts this year! What a waste!" You should keep in mind that even Camilla, the queen of alts herself, has not gotten more than 2 alts per year so it wouldn't be unusual for say Edelgard to get more than one. Lyn, Hector and Eliwood have also had years where they got 2 alts. Lastly, even if the TH characters got 2 alts this year, guess what, they're still behind characters like Marth and Eirika. Those two will get their chance next year, but in the meantime, they're well represented in the game already.
And on a different note, my boy Lyon has maintained his overall rank of 87! Hurrah! Now give him an alt already, you silly bastards.
I would expect Rhea and/or Seiros to be Mythics. We already have Lif, Hel is probably coming and I wouldn't be surprised if there were a Book 4 OC coming this year as well. That would leave 3 more Mythic slots for her to show up.