[Why I cannot fully sympathize with Rhea]

3 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Sure, but I wouldn't blame prevailing society ills on them.

They're parasitic in nature.

Now what I think about it, change that to at least 12 non-individuals as I forgot about Edelgard's 10 siblings (forgive me Edelgard). I think Lysithea also had siblings

But you are completely right, they exploit the issues with the system, but we didn't create all of them.

I wonder if Edelgard remember the faces and names of all her siblings. She has memory problems, but they are very important to her

[Why I cannot fully sympathize with Rhea]

16 minutes ago, Crysta said:

I think religious crusading/discrimination/indoctrination occurs naturally in Fodlan without the moleman interference, but it's mostly limited to asshole Church NPCs or enemies you can easily forget. And people seem to.

That said, the insinuations that the Church is not wholly okay are pretty prevalent throughout White Clouds. I don't think you need Rhea leading the actual Crusades to be frequently side-eyeing her suspiciously, or make the conclusion that the frequently cited world religion has a significant sway over ingrained belief systems of Fodlan's inhabitants. Not the mole people who lurk in the shadows.

Not every problem in Fodlan is the fault of the Agarthans, but they are responsible for the war, and many other wars in the past. As well as the blood reconstruction surgery on at least two known individuals

[Something I came to think about lately, is Kronya alive?]

10 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Depends on whether or not mole people need hearts to live. Until there's something that suggests they don't, I'd probably assume she's dead.

I completely forgot about that fact. It is probably better for her anyway, however bad someone was they still deserve the rest in peace. No one really deserves the horrible fate the forbidden spell inflicts upon its victim.

I kind of wonder why no one else but Solon attempts to use it. You would think that Thales would also know the same spell.

[Something I came to think about lately, is Kronya alive?]

Now that I think about it, it almost appears like she was consumed by the forbidden spell. The obvious conclusion to draw is that she is dead. But I came to think of another alternative, was she perhaps also banished to the void together with Byleth? After all, she appears to be consumed by the very same darkness.

If so, this might be a worse fate than death, but she technically wouldn't be dead. Just stuck in a realm of nothingness.

What would happen to those that are stuck in that realm? Would they eventually starve to death or are they doomed to roam that realm for all eternity? Solon does call it a fate worse than death. 

[Why I cannot fully sympathize with Rhea]

3 minutes ago, Jotari said:

But that's the problem. There's a difference between show and tell and subtly crafting something. Three Houses just does the former. We're just related some bad things while we're shown everything being fine. What we should be shown is everything appearing to be fine but not actually be. Compare it to Final Fantasy X which is also about overthrowing a thousand year old continent spanning manipulative religion. In that we see how the religion has burrowed it's way into the minds of every single character in the world. The idea of not following the rules is basically unthinkable to the average citizen. Someone who is completely out of context is required for them break free from the social brainwashing. Things don't need to be in your face blatant, but they also shouldn't require reading a supplementary novel.

Well the social ills in Part 1 being natural more than Agarthan originated would have helped. You can show the world's bad with rebellions and stuff, but the message is kind of undermined when the lizard people are behind it all.

Lonato probably would have rebelled either way, 

His reasons for doing so had nothing to do with the Agarthans. There are probably others who share his sentiment. But I wish there were more missions like that whether churches send you to suppress rebellions. Who you discover have sympathetic motives. 

But it makes me wonder if things were communicated more clearly, would the hatred Edelgard often receive be greatly reduced? I would think so, as it would be more clear what she is fighting against. But whenever it is subtle or blatant, the corruption in the system is there. But I guess it is possible to argue how much of it is really Rhea's fault. She is more negligent than anything. If I decide to ignore how quick she is to order executions. And she is negligent because she's too busy trying to revive her mother rather than actually running the continent. 

 

1 minute ago, eclipse said:

If your conclusion is "yeah she should just let go of it", then you missed the point.  Letting go is really hard.  It's definitely one of Rhea's character flaws.

That's what you meant.  You're absolutely right.

If the underground dubstep scene wasn't a part of this, I think it would've made a much stronger narrative overall.  Definitely would've put more on Rhea's shoulders, at least!

I never said it was remotely possible. It is not something she can get over any more than Edelgard can get over the death of her siblings in a gruesome fashion as well as being imprisoned and tortured for however long that was (suspect six years, but I could be wrong).

Ultimately Edelgard isn't over her trauma any more than Rhea, her entire reasoning is built upon it. I do think she's accurate in this reasoning, but her hatred of crests and the nobility do stem from the trauma. And it is ultimately what compels her to declare war. Dedicating her life to what she thinks is a noble purpose is the only way she can cope. And she is likely to suffer even more trauma due to the burden the war put on her conscience. 

I don't read Edelgard's advice to Byleth as "get over it". I read it as, "there is no point moping in your room all day, channel your grief into something productive, like hunting down your father's killer. It should give you plenty of motivation for that." 

It is ultimately the same tactic Edelgard herself is using to deal with her trauma. As stated, I don't think Edelgard is over it either and it is unlikely she will ever be. I don't think she intends to be mean, I think she is genuinely trying to help the best way she knows how because she cares for Byleth and she feels guilty for being partwise responsible in their father's death.

But I think I remember you said yourself that despite Rhea's mental state being understandable, he probably shouldn't be in power. Just as however much I like Azula, I don't think she should be Firelord as long as she suffers from paranoid schizophrenia to that extent. It is to the point she is pretty much not responsible for her own actions anymore. So I would still justify removing them from power because their mental state in combination with that power and influence is a threat to other people.

[Why I cannot fully sympathize with Rhea]

19 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

And the devs stated that they never made characters like Holst and such on screen to express that the world is very large or such. And you won't meet every important person. 

 

As @Darkmoon6789 said, that's the trick. You think that the game doesn't show you that things are bad, but that's how you get tricked into thinking that things are fine and everything is peaceful. It's how you are led to buy into the false peace that is there, where you don't realize how messed up society is because Fodlan itself doesn't realize how messed up it is. It's why you, as the ignorant player, has to actually look into the problems, speak to others, learn the history of things. 

In other words, you have do your research. 

I mean, Edelgard didn't know how messed up society was until she was tortured and experimented on alongside her siblings. You don't realize there's something wrong unless you're LOOKING for it. 

It is also a fact that most of the people we follow in the game are rather privileged and wouldn't really be exposed to or aware of the quality of life of regular people (with the exception of a few, like Dorothea and Ashe, who are still rather fortunate in comparison to most commoners.) It is like how people who have it good and associate only with other people or their economic class might be unaware of what life is like being poor or how bad things could be for the lowest in society. 

If Edelgard wasn't screwed over so badly by other people. She likely never would have realised how messed up the system truly was, as she would be part of this people benefiting from it. Her imprisonment was a taste at suffering, but led her to understand how bad life could truly be in Rhea's system. I think that is what she really means when she says that Dimitri couldn't possibly understand the plight of the commoners being highborn.

4 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I think you need to read the first few posts in the topic, because they apply to you too.

To be fair, it would be really hard to show the social nuances given that Byleth isn't really allowed outside of the monastery walls.  It would've been really cool if they were, though.

I thought I did make it clear that I do have sympathy for Rhea and what she's going through. Her, Dimitri and Edelgard are similar in that regard, people losing their family to tragedy and how they respond to said trauma. They are my three favourite characters in the game from a character development standpoint as a result. I assume that is what you meant?

I will make it clear that I am not being dismissive of trauma in any way. I don't even know what how living for 1000 years would affect your mental state. Even without dealing with something like that. 

You know what other character I am also able to sympathise with? Azula from Avatar the Last Airbender. Why? Well, I have also gone through a mental breakdown and I can say one thing, it is worse than anyone who hasn't gone through such a thing could ever imagine. Mental illness are usually quite underestimated by those who doesn't suffer from it. However cruel can be, she is ultimately a product of her abusive upbringing and what appears to be schizophrenia. So I can't feel anything other than pity for her. Also bear in mind that I have stated that I kind of feel sorry for Kronya, it takes quite a lot for me to withdraw empathy completely.

That Rhea somehow managed to make me feel sorry for her and wish things could be different. Despite representing the type of ideology I hate the most in the entire world, says something of the quality of writing this game has.

Dimitri takes pleasure in slaughtering and torturing his enemies, yet he still comes across as sympathetic.

Edelgard starts a war and she is still sympathetic. 

Nearly everyone in this game is sympathetic in my eyes. At least all the students are plus the church personnel. It is part of its charm and the tragedy.

Still, it might be hard to accept, but Edelgard's advice regarding grief I do actually think is helpful. Much better than empty encouragement and empty platitudes

[Why I cannot fully sympathize with Rhea]

16 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Yes, but I don't see how that relates to my point. My point is that we don't see many nobles kicking puppies and eating babies to really show how corrupt the nobility system is. For the most part all we see is a bunch of noble teenagers at a boarding school enjoying choir practice and cooking food. Almost all the issues caused in Part 1 are from an external group to the society manipulating things. The problems of corrupt nobles is largely left to supports and flavor text referring to characters we never even see.

I think there is a reason most supporters of Edelgard are the type of player who read all the books in the library and really pays attention to the politics of Fodlan. It is not but clearly communicated in the main story, but becomes very clear. Once you read up on the background. Though to be fair, it feels like the game itself is trying to trick you into believing Edelgard is evil, at least if you don't play Crimson Flower. The truth only becoming apparent once you have gathered more information. 

They may be offscreen. Most of the time, but it seems like the majority of the previous generation of nobles that are not the students at the monastery are kind of a-holes. Especially the parents of the Black Eagle students with a few exceptions. Horrible nobles I can mention on the top of my head are Duke Aegir, Bernadetta's father, Mercedes stepfather, who was going to force her to marry him, which Jeritza killed. Gloucester, Acheron, and of course Arundel (if he counts). There are probably more, but I don't remember if the likes of Marianne's father was truly malevolent or not. There is also the father of Sylvain, what they did to Miklan is bullcrap and I can honestly understand his perspective.

And almost none of these people ever appear on screen

Edit: I guess you can also say that the game is trying to trick you into believing Rhea is evil. There is certain amount of misdirection, I think the truth of the matter is that neither Rhea or Edelgard is truly evil. Though Rhea did screw up pretty badly with the current system and she's just horrible at defusing the situation to avoid a rebellion.

I also forgot the guy that was trying to force Ingrid into an arranged marriage

[Why I cannot fully sympathize with Rhea]

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

To be fair I don't think it does a great job of telling Edelgard's side of the story either. Given all the injustices she wants to combat are largely left out of the spot light in favor of focusing on Hogwarts.

I definitely agree that they could focus more on it as many people apparently don't understand the severity of the situation. One experience I had when playing the game is that my support for him actually increased when playing the other routs thanks to exposure to how other characters got screwed over by the crest system. But you might not know this from Crimson Flower alone. 

The problems of the current system are somewhat obscure in the way they are delivered, but nonetheless the truth. But I will also say that I disapproved of many of the church's methods from the very beginning. I never fully trusted them after Lonato. 

I have said this before, but Edelgard is actually more lenient towards Rhea than she ever is towards her. Just listening to the aftermatch of the Flame Emperor reveal on both routes, one of them clearly comes across as being of a more sound mind. Granted, the dialogue immediately after choosing to side with Rhea is literally the part she looks the worst in the entire game with the exception of the burning of the kingdom capital.

"To flee is futile, wicked girl, the church of Seiros will raise their entire army against you until you have been captured and punished. You have defiled the holy tomb and insulted your brethren, his crimes will never be erased, even if you will burn in the eternal fire and spill all your blood into the goddess's soil"

I don't actually care about her not getting over her trauma at all. This is statement is so much against my principles, that if I did choose this side on my first playthrough it would have left such a bad impression that I would have quit the game and chosen Edelgard. (I can never get behind arguing that eternal punishment is just, in my mind, there is no act more evil)

I understand Rhea is being emotional due to chock. But it is a very extreme reaction, it just looks bad next to Edelgard, saying that she would be satisfied with Rhea just stepping down and staying out of power. Rhea clearly would never just imprison Edelgard.

Rhea does have sympathetic scenes as well, but Jesus Christ did the scenes surrounding the Flame Emperor reveal taint my opinion of her.

[Why I cannot fully sympathize with Rhea]

7 minutes ago, Julian Solo said:

Bolded That is flat out wrong Balthus called it a replica. It’s not a real heroes relic period. 
 

So know you are assuming the slithers couldn’t find a Nabateans grave? Also again multiple real crest stones existing is not provable. If they there people with the same crest you telling me Sothis didn’t even name her children?
 

Do you have any proof Aymra is like the dark sword of the creator at all? Or are you speculating again? 

 Still, does this mean that there was only ever 11 Nabateans? That does kind of take the edge of the tragedy of the Red Canyon. It is more like some a-hole bandit going into someone's house and slaughtering the family that lived in it rather than a large-scale genocide. In which case Rhea's trauma isn't necessarily because most of her people were killed, but rather that she lost some family members. Where does the number 11 come from anyway? Counting each crest in existence, there has to be at least 19 (Seiros, the four Saints, the Dragons killed to have their power stolen by the 10 elites, the four apostles.) Still, 19, isn't all that many either. It is not even comparable to the number of casualties be inflicted on the Agarthans. The only thing I will ever say in defence of the Agarthans is that they are also the victims of genocide.

Looking at how many Nabateans exist at the start of the game. The number is five. If the total number was 11 It is literally 50% of the population they ever had. 

I think there must have been more Dragons than this, humans can  share crest, is it really impossible that Nabateans could as well?. I didn't think the names were established until after the war of heroes when the crests were linked to legendary historical figures

[Why I cannot fully sympathize with Rhea]

8 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

There's the idea that Rhea and Wilhelm were romantically involved. And Apostle Noa is said actually did start a family, and Constance is believed to be a descendant from him. Whether this is true or not is questionable.

So... in other words, you have zero evidence, no forms of arguments, and thus resorted to the last thing: insisting that what I say is purely headcanon. Bravo. 

You literally tried to ignore the fact that Apostle Aubin was alive before the game despite how a Relic made with a Crest Stone of Aubin existed long before then. And then relied on double standards by insisting that Aymr's Crest Stone of Maurice is artificial, ignoring how the Dark Creator Sword works the exact same way. 

Were the apostles even really Nabateans? I understood them to be humans. If they are there is actually more of them when I thought. Still, if the apostles were not dragons, how could there be a Crest Stone of Aubin?

I do definitely like to believe that Seiros was involved with the first Emperor, she was heavily involved in the creation of the Empire and I do believe that house Hresvelg are their descendants. I think this plays into Rhea's extreme reaction to Edelgard turning against her, she never expected the descendant of her long dead lover to turn against her. 
 

[Why I cannot fully sympathize with Rhea]

1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

We are LIKE family.

Not, "We ARE family."

The wording is VERY important. 

We have no idea how Nabatean society actually was like. Did the dragons ever get together or what? You're assuming that they wouldn't, but you base this on the assumption that Nabateans would never get together because they are all related. But can you prove this belief by any means? 

It would make sense for survivors of the almost extinct species, rather close to one another, even if we are into directly related. It could still regard one another as family as they are one of very few of their kind

Granted, if the are related. It would explain why they haven't reproduced with each other. Even if by this point I kind of fleet the survival of the species is more important than avoiding incest. I still think they could have fixed the near extinction a problem in 1000 years.  Just need to figure out which pairing of male and female Nabateans is the least creepy. Probably Rhea and Seteth, even if they are brother and sister, it would still be better than Seteth and Flayn.

I have actually considered if the Saints have offspring among humanity. I think that Linhardt has the same crest as Flayn and Ferdinand the same as Seteth. We have to remember that Flayn is actually a lot older than she looks so maybe she did have a family before she went to sleep for a long time and they grew into Linhardt's family line. I just find it very unlikely that none of the species ever reproduced in 1000 years. It has been shown that they are capable of having offspring with humans. Sothis was also a mother, but there is also evidence she didn't always look the way she does now. Her human form back in those days used to look a lot older 

[Why I cannot fully sympathize with Rhea]

16 minutes ago, Julian Solo said:

So know you think Seteth wife who he met at the church in Enbarr was his sister? Yeah no sorry are you serious? 
 

@Darkmoon6789well it started with something like since the Slithers are still out there hunting Nabateans. It made sense why she stay in the monastery as the pope. Some how we trailed off into there being multiple crest stones. But it’s not 100% confirmed there is @Troykvsaid only IS knows.  

Are they necessarily all that closely related. I heard a suggestion somewhere that only Rhea is a direct offspring of Sothis. I don't fully believe in their creation myth about all being directly made by the goddess. 

Still, Seteth's wife being human has been a theory of mind for quite a while. It is not really disproven. 

I have wondered why none of the surviving Nabateans bothered reproducing to repopulate their almost extinct species in 1000 years. Seems like a problem they could have easily fixed to me. Granted, maybe they did, which is where the Imperial mobility with the crests of the Saints come from

Here are my two cents on Aymr and the artificial relics wielded t by the resurrected Nemesis, and the 10 elites. They are still made from dragon bone and using crest stones, the Agarthans has probably attempted multiple robberies of the holy tomb throughout the centuries and were using this material to create these weapons. They are more newly created relics than fake ones. But I guess this suggests that the bones taken with Aymr needs to be from a dragon with the crest of Seiros. Which cannot be the original.

I guess we could assume that the surviving Nabateans could have different crests and they're still having been more with the same ones in the past with that Seteth and Rhea are interrelated at all and that Flayn inherited her crest from her mother.

But honestly I have no idea. But I think the Agarthans want to plunder the holy tomb for a reason and I don't think sending Edelgard to do. was the first time. It is very much possible that creating Aymr was the goal with this raid.

[Why I cannot fully sympathize with Rhea]

6 minutes ago, Julian Solo said:

Nothing says that it is a legend dude. Duke Gerth just said An elite might have had it when they escaped to Dagda. He is speculating. That is obvious. Duke gerth wasn’t alive 1200 years ago. If Edelgard didn’t know what the relics where made of there is zero chance a duke of the empire does. 
 

Dude it’s not a heroes relic it’s not made of the same material even. Aymr is fake. All the evidence points to being fake as we know how the real relics are made. 
 
I have no idea why you think there disproving my point there are more stones when. There is no evidence of that but multiple of the slithers made fake ones.  
 

 

 

I don't know what this has to do with Rhea being sympathetic but not. But I have two corroborated this with the fact that the Agarthans does create fake relics for the resurrected Nemesis and the 10 elites in the end of verdant wind. I have no idea how, but they can do it. Are these copies as powerful as the originals? I guess we could compare be in game statistics to see. 

Maybe their technology have advanced over the last thousand years, so they no longer require the bones of dragons or their souls. But still, Aymr really looks like it is made from bone. Maybe they go tomb robbing to get dragon bones for their construction.

I didn't read the entirety of the thread as I don't have time for now, but isn't Maurice alive by the time Aymr is created as he shows up in Marianne's paralogue? How could he be the crest stone?

[Why I cannot fully sympathize with Rhea]

1 minute ago, Julian Solo said:

That says may and we know Aubin was alive after the war of heroes. 
 

Aymr isn’t a heroes relic. It’s not even made from Nabatean bones. 

To my understanding it was made by the Agarthans specifically for Edelgard. What do you think it is made of? It does really look like bone. Maybe something that was taken from the holy tomb Raid? The Agarthans has made such weapons in the past as they created the original relics. I guess they can do it again.

It also seems to move like it was alive, really strange weapon. But it is obvious from its properties. It is some type of dragonslayer.

Is Aymr even attuned to any crest? If it is it must be either the Crest of Seiros or the Crest of Flames. 

My guess would be that crest's among the Nabateans runs in bloodlines like the do with humans. If they have the blood of dragons. Granted, it does seem like Sothis and Rhea have different crests despite being mother and daughter. I think I read somewhere that Seteth is the brother of Rhea, but I am not sure where I saw that. 

I am also not entirely unconvinced that Edelgard and the other Imperial nobles are actually direct descendants of Seiros and the Saints.   

[Why I cannot fully sympathize with Rhea]

This game is all about trauma and how people handle it. It is something that unites Rhea, Dimitri and Edelgard. May all handle it differently, but are all greatly affected by what happened to them. 

I ultimately think that not moving on is unhealthy, I don't necessarily blame for it, but Rhea's inability to let go as driven her closer and closer to the edge of madness as the years gone by. I sympathise with her missing mother, but I also don't think her obsession with bringing her back is healthy, especially not when she's basically resorting to necromancy. I do actually feel sorry for Rhea, but ultimately what has to be done must be done. Even Edelgard expressed that she would prefer if Rhea just gave up and stepped down from power, that is actually the primary issue here. Rhea's unstable mental state is a danger to others because of her position.

However harsh it might sound, Edelgard is ultimately right in what she tells Byleth after Jeralt's death. It is not healthy to obsess with loss and we do need to find the will to move on and live on like usual, for the sake of our own well-being. 

I guess it is also uncertain if Edelgard has truly moved on from her trauma, it is more like she tends to channel it into her dedication to change the world, which does fit her message of turning loss into something productive. But it can also give her tunnel vision at times as it can make her overly focused on her goals. 

I can actually fully sympathise with both Edelgard and Rhea. Even if in a situation where I had to choose one of them. I would pick Edelgard. I think that Rhea needs lots of help. At least I get the impression that Edelgard is more likely to spare Rhea than vice versa. Given their track record. 

I understand it is difficult, but Rhea just need to let go of the past. 

[Someone's trying to ban the Switch in the US (or at least the sales of it)]

This is seriously stupid, if this goes through I would lose faith in humanity. Not that I have much to begin with. 

I do remember the edge case, it is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen in my life

[Why Edelgard von Hresvelg is the most hated girl?]

8 minutes ago, Original Johan Liebert said:

You're probably right, because that is indeed the case in most of the playthroughs I myself have done (my mind is failing me these days). I can't remember how the knife Dimitri gave to Edelgard makes its way into conversation and why he starts blaming Edelgard. Maybe it came up in the tragedy at Duscur?

 

She actually dropped it on the ground where Dimitri overheard the Flame Emperor talking with Kronya and Thales.

I think she does want revenge against Agarthans, but had enough foresight to put it on hold to focus on the bigger picture. She saw her revenge as less important than changing the system that led to such awful events happening to her, and her siblings. If she was obsessed vengeance, she would have gone after the Agarthans immediately and probably got herself killed. Anyone would desire vengeance in her case and she isn't as extreme in her belief of redemption as I am. Still, even I find it doubtful that you could redeem the likes of Thales, but maybe it doesn't extend to all Agarthans.  How Solon treats Kronya makes me somewhat suspect that most are brainwashed pawns of their high command.

I guess I am saying that while Edelgard does feel a desire for vengeance. She puts her personal desire second for what she believes to be the greater good. She is very different from Dimitri in this sense, as while she does feel hatred towards those who wronged her, it is not the sole focus of her existence.

[The casualty number of the Fodlan war]

2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

The Dukedom actually raised the bloodshed because now the civilians are killed much more often and suffer. Cornelia's rulership is basically an Agarthan running things. And fighting against the remaining loyalists actually means a full out civil war in the conflict. So it's still very much a war happening. And then you have to wipe out the Dukedom forces in the story, given how you fight against them in Chapter 14 of every non-CF route, along with the violent conflicts made when the civilians begin a rebellion against the Dukedom as well. 

Add in, again, Gronder Field, where if you don't side with Dimitri, you basically wipe out most of the remaining Faerghus loyalists that united under Dimitri. 

In CF, Faerghus isn't actually whole. Hubert even noted that the western portion of Faerghus already joined the Empire, and Faerghus is not actually united in opposing the Empire either.

It's also noted in the narration that Dimitri and Rhea has been working to raise an army to oppose the Empire, but the war has been at a stalemate between the two nations. 

I don't think any region controlled by the Agarthans would be great for the people, I would even hesitate to consider the Dukedom part of the Empire, I guess it is technically part of that other Empire controlled from the shadows by those who slither in the dark. But Cornelia is not truly a friend of Edelgard. Nor would I attribute anything she does to her. Is Edelgard responsible for Remire village just because she was unable to stop it?. 

It is hard to figure out which path leads to least suffering, but Crimson Flower would be my guess. Maybe not everyone wants to accept that, but you do have a good point about it, probably being the least disastrous. This is of course if we make the assumption that the war is inevitable and the only possible outcomes are the endings of the game. But based on the information I have I do think Byleth joining Edelgard is the utilitarian right decision. 

I have wish people could provide me with some actual numbers for probable casualties. If there is a way to calculate probable damages. We can actually determine more easily if the war was worth it or not. But to do that. We also need to know how things would have likely gone. If the war didn't happen and how much suffering that would cause.

[The casualty number of the Fodlan war]

5 minutes ago, Water Mage said:

See, the problem with war is that it not only causes death during battle. There’s also death caused by famine, since people have less food during wars, disease, wars are great way for diseases to spread, death due lack of resources, war may cause people to lose their homes and thus people die from bad weather, war can cause people to lose the member of the family that provided to them, war can cause people to lose their jobs. War also makes bandits attacks more frequent since the soldiers are busy with war. Plus enemy soldiers themselves often pillage and kill. So those death tolls you read aren’t entirely accurate. So it’s entirely possible that that during the five years of war in Fodlan, millions would have died. There’s no such thing as a good war. That’s why people give Edelgard so much shit for starting a war. The deaths caused by her war doesn’t only come from battles. Damages caused by wars can last decades.

I think that is a bit much to blame a single individual for however. Most of it is pretty indirect and whatever actions are done by bandits is on the bandits and not Edelgard (especially as the war does not only belong to Edelgard, but also to be Agarthans). I wouldn't even have conceived of of counting all of that towards the war casualties. But it does make sense that it would have long-term consequences. One problem is that people don't even know what the population of Fodlan actually is. I guess we can assume it is similar to mediaeval Europe, but I am not sure as the continent do seem smaller. 

Maybe there is no such thing as a good war, but sometimes war is unavoidable. But this isn't necessarily what this is about. It might be also good to calculate potential damage for Rhea's negligence and how many lives that might have claimed. Because that is nearly what we are weighing the cost of the war against on a utilitarian level. Which are probably smaller but over a way larger timeframe. (Not to mention that the 66 year long war heroes would have been a complete disaster. If Edelgard's 5 year long war was bad)

It seems like Edelgard or whoever ends up running Fodlan in the future would have to do a lot of reparations to fix the damage from the war. I think it is likely Edelgard would try her best to provide relief to those in need and rebuild society, hopefully better than before. But this would be costly from a monetary standpoint. But with the advancement of technology and medicine (Rhea's bans on certain technology no longer apply.) Wouldn't this also save lives in the long run? What is the value of greater freedom on the moral scale? Number of casualties isn't everything we need to consider here. We also have quality of life being a factor. Edelgard would try their best to minimise the damage caused by the war in the aftermatch, as well as improve society over time. But it is a good question if this would be enough. If it is it is probably over a longer period of time.

I am a utilitarian so I do believe that if we can calculate more exact numbers over a long period of time, it can be objectively proven who was in the right from a utilitarian perspective. But I guess it is possible such an exact calculation is impossible. Which means that it would fall to guesswork.  

  

[The casualty number of the Fodlan war]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

This is something I wondered for quite a while, how many people likely died during the five years of the war? Some people have claimed millions, but considering the technology level and the short duration I find that unlikely. 

I could be wrong but I would estimate somewhere around a couple of tens of thousands most. But I would like to hear if anyone has a way to figure out what is likely to be the estimated number of casualties. 

If I want to know if the war was worth the do not, I need to calculate more exact numbers. As well as a way to know at what rate the old system would claim a victims. Maybe such an exact calculation is impossible

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

2 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

I didn't say that. I did not say any of that, at all. Please don't misunderstand me. 

What I am saying is that after the war, Edelgard does her best to make sure that the people can live better lives in the new system. There are bound to be resistances, some that hate her for the sake of holding a grudge, but all Edelgard can do is work for the future. The dead are dead. They won't ever come back, and it's a bitter pill to swallow. She's made her choice, and now she has to live with that guilt.

All she can do is make it so that the lives she took were not for nothing. 

That's what I'm saying. 

Agreed, but I would also like to add that if war might be necessary, then the necessary war is the right decision, aggressor or not. Not necessarily morally right or are pure, but the right decision, given the circumstances. It is almost impossible to know if it was the right decision or not, but she is stuck with this decision now regardless of the best she can do is keep moving forward and do as much good as she can.

The real trick here is to not let the violence turn into a cycle, it needs to end with the end of the war. But there will inevitably be some uprisings. It might be a long process, but hopefully eventually the world would be better. The thing is that holding on to grudges and vengeance will inevitably create a cycle. Edelgard needs to prioritise dealing with those who can't let go of the past. One way to do so is to prove to the people of Fodlan that her rule isn't that bad. 

By the way, Fodlan doesn't seem to be that big and the soldiers involved in the battles doesn't seem to be all that many. So I think people usually royally overestimate the casualty. It will be no one near the number of casualties as World War II. Edelgard's reliance on elite strike teams in Crimson Flower also probably royally minimised casualties. She also pretty much never went after civilians. The most major problems are whatever the Agarthans were doing.

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

3 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Hard agree with @Crysta. Edelgard feeling bad for doing something doesn't absolve her of her crimes. It just doesn't. You don't get to murder my mother and then just say "Well I feel really bad about doing it so it's okay", that's not how that works. Is there anything she can do about that? ... No, probably not. It's just something she, and you two, are going to have to live with.

Pretty much, but helping the world even a little bit will help. It doesn't really matter to me if she is absolved or not, as I don't deal in that type of justice. But the concept of a character who is good at heart who has done bad things because she was convinced it was necessary for the greater good and struggle with guilt over it is quite fascinating and in my mind quite sympathetic. 

Still, can you blame me for thinking that sentences like "guilt doesn't absolve her of her crime" is an argument for punitive justice? It really freaking sounds like it. In the eyes of rehabilitative justice. It is pretty unimportant what makes the act okay or not, what is more important is what they will do in the future. The primary reason we lock criminals away in the first place is to prevent them from harming more people and hopefully be reintegrated into society if it is at all possible (it isn't always with unrepentant criminals, but here is where feeling guilty is an important factor, guilt make them a lot more likely to be possible to rehabilitate).

I would actually argue that if in the hypothetical example, your mother's killer was caught and sent to prison, served their sentence and because they felt guilty, was successfully rehabilitated. You would be in the wrong for seeking vengeance against them once they were released. I might not have done any different in this case, it is always tempting to want to inflict suffering on someone who killed one of your loved ones. But I recognise it as the dark impulse it is, and I will never argue what I was doing in getting revenge would be a good action. 

 
 

4 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

I think it's a bit much to compare this to World Wars, which is a MUCH higher level of war than what Edelgard's war is about. However, it's not like designing a new form of government is done overnight. An entrenched system of nobility that's been around for 1200 years isn't easily dismantled. So Edelgard spent years, dedicated to reforming things and improving the lives and livelihood of the people of Fodlan. 

Cause the thing is, that's all she CAN do. She can't bring the dead back to life. All she can do is work for the future she made the sacrifices for. People had suffered, and they'll need to learn to heal from this. That's how people have been. They experience war, and sometimes wonder if it was ever worth it, and then just cope with the losses because that's all anyone can do. 

The end justify the means or not has been a contested debate done by philosophers across history. We STILL have not yet reached a conclusive answer. Cause history has proven on both sides to have a point in matters regarding it. 

The simple reason is that there's a time where the ends do justify the means, and other times that they do not. Cause just as taking violent action can make people suffer, taking a morally righteous action can still make people suffer. 

Cause at times, results DO matter. If the morally righteous actions don't get results, then the morally righteous actions isn't so morally righteous. It's just as bad. 

You talk about the victims of war, but what about the victims that suffered under the oppressive system that didn't get reformed for them? They would do the same thing in regards to what you said. Just spit at the morally righteous action because they would develop their own hatred. 

I think you are speaking sense, it is the more pragmatic way of looking at it. Which is essentially what I am saying, thinking in terms of crimes, guilt and vengeance will not actually help anyone. 

Because of this awful situation, people will die no matter what, it is essentially about picking your poison. But I do think that to focus only on your own personal moral purity while people suffer is not necessarily good at all. Edelgard uses to take responsibility and actually tries to fix things while sacrificing her own moral perfection to do so. I do believe that this is more or less required of a ruler. It is your job to make tough decisions like this and remaining pure is often impossible during times like these

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

4 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Where am I suggesting that she should suffer? All I got was insistence that she was indeed suffering for doing harmful things and I didn't actually disagree with that, let alone suggest she should suffer or deserves greater punishment.

I just said it didn't matter much. Because it doesn't.

At the end of the day. The only thing that really matters is the end result. Who is guilty of what and if it is justified or not is kind of unimportant. Either Edelgard dies by her own choice or she achieves victory and will live the rest of her life dealing with the burden of the casualties of the war and trying to make up for it in the process. 

I sometimes wonder if I underestimate how common my views on justice and redemption is. I am generally under the impression that most people supported punitive justice and that they are wrong for doing so. 

I think Edelgard is more than well aware that she has caused a lot of suffering. She is just hoping that it would be less than the suffering. The old system would have caused to the world if she did nothing. It might be, it is impossible to know for sure.

I guess one issue is that I do essentially treat Edelgard as if she was a real person. She is so complex and well written that she does actually feel real to me. 

 

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

47 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Not really. Making good changes does not miraculously absolve you of the actions you took to get to that point. It's the whole "do the ends justify the means?" debate all over again.

I feel you're essentially saying "she did something good in the end, so it's okay". There's still plenty there to criticize, and it should be.

As he was saying, the problem is that you seem to be interpreting

"she doesn't take responsibility" as "she should suffer. I have already told you what I think of that type of justice. I don't believe in moral responsibility. In that way, it is nothing more than glorified vengeance.

It is okay to criticise her, she isn't perfect and she has made mistakes.

But killing Edelgard or making her suffer for what she has done wouldn't make anything better for anyone other than in a sense of sick and sadistic satisfaction. The only way she could truly make up for anything is if she spends the rest of her life trying to make the world a better place. If someone has done wrong in the past. There's nothing better they can do them to dedicate their lives doing good. Her suffering will never improve anything for anyone.

I should make it clear that I don't deal in the eye for an eye philosophy of justice, redemption and rehabilitation is all that matters to me as well as the greater good. No one will ever benefit from the notion that someone should suffer just because they inflicted suffering. This kind of equivalence does nothing but add more suffering to the world. Is nothing more than glorified sadism and I think it is wrong. 

I am not saying she's perfect, I am saying I am opposed to the idea that she deserves to have something horrible happened to her because of what she has done. In the end it is just an excuse to not feel empathy. I wouldn't even justify this crap with Thales, he needs to die for the sake of the world, but death will be it. I will not justify this whole "paying for your crimes" garbage.

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

1 hour ago, Crysta said:

Okay? There's a multitude of ways I can reach my goals more efficiently that would still rightfully draw the ire of whomever I screw over along the way, and I don't think going "it's nothing personal, man" would change their thoughts regarding the issue, nor my responsibility in being a callous asshole.

It's a small relief that she doesn't derive great personal pleasure from the suffering she inflicts, I guess.

For you it might be small, for me it makes all the difference in the world. She not only does not derive pleasure from suffering, but it actually hurts her mentally. Says alot about her true character and would make rehabilitation way easier.

Edelgard struggling with guilt over her actions while simultaniously seeing no other way is part of hat makes her tragic.