haarhaarhaar
-
Posts
566 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by haarhaarhaar
-
-
Yeah magic build Byleth is underwhelming on Hard, let alone Maddening - even more so when they aren't in a magic-oriented class (Enlightened One doesn't have any magic-relevant skills).
Nosferatu also is quite sucky compared to literally every other spell and most physical weapons - it's pretty difficult to find a balance between fixing white magic, getting enough uses to make a Nos-tank build viable, and surviving an enemy phase where most units will double you and kill if both hit. I wouldn't recommend it outside of Normal or on a challenge run.
EO has good stats, but is only really built for sword users (and Byleth has enough strength to make swords viable in most classes anyway) - it's perfectly fine to use, but I wouldn't consider it optimal for any endgame build.
Player phase dodge isn't super important for Byleth - Windsweep means that Byleth has a guaranteed no-counter player phase, and granted, it doesn't double, but it's likely to do more damage (and has higher crit) than either Nosferatu or Aura. If you want a dodge-based build in general/for enemy phase, then you're better off focusing on swords or fists (with the DLC).
-
@Darkmoon6789 might be referring to his Lorenz supports, where it's suggested (more as a dig in fairness) that Sylvain tends to strike out, and is seen doing so at least twice.
In Petra's case, I think it might just be that she isn't from Fodlan. Not calling Sylvain a racist, but she probably doesn't appreciate the culture around Crests, or the dating game, in the same way as Fodlan women. Similarly a lot of her eventual romantic supports start out with her learning about some cultural difference, and aren't particularly flirtatious until A-rank. From Sylvain's perspective, he has no reason to interact with Petra because (like Edelgard) she falls outside the demographic of women that he feels the need to perform for. That's my take anyway.
-
I mean the fact that Edelgard and Sylvain have no support (and the only other girl amongst the students Sylvain doesn't support with is Petra) might suggest that Sylvain isn't interested - Edelgard is one of the only women in the game actually above him in station, so wouldn't be the type of person his faux-misogyny is directed at.
-
(general spoiler alert)
I'm pretty completionist about games so I tend to recruit whoever I can, but replaying CF reminded me how strange it would be for some characters to stick with the Empire after everything goes south. So I wanted to know what people thought about this, because there are certainly a few cases that could swing different ways (and might be controversial).
For clarity's sake I'm gonna list the characters in each faction below - the list is based on who you fight in which route presuming Byleth was a complete potato in Part 1. The idea behind this is to attempt to remove Byleth as a factor affecting anyone's loyalty.
Adrestia: Edelgard, Hubert, Ferdinand, Dorothea, Petra, Bernadetta, Caspar, Linhardt, Jeritza, Manuela, Hanneman, Constance
Faerghus: Dimitri, Dedue, Felix, Ingrid, Sylvain, Ashe, Annette, Mercedes, Gilbert, Hapi*
Leicester: Claude, Hilda, Lorenz, Raphael, Ignatz, Leonie, Lysithea, Balthus
Church: Seteth, Flayn, Alois, Shamir, Catherine, Cyril
Unaffiliated**: Marianne, Yuri, Anna
*I don't count the Ashen Wolves as their own faction because they don't stick together in Part 2 - I don't know if Hapi actually would join Faerghus though because I'm not sure whether she would be motivated to fight for the Kingdom or anyone.
**I'm pretty sure these three characters feel little to no loyalty to any faction. I haven't included Marianne with Leicester because she only reappears in Part 2 when Byleth chooses the Golden Deer.
(I also haven't included NPCs, but am happy for people to talk about them as well - it's normally clear which faction they align to unless they're bandits)
Do people think all these characters should have sided with their country? If not, where should they have gone, and why?
-
48 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:
The overall point I want to make is that people are quick to point out how "Edelgard started a war" and try to be all righteous, but ignore entirely how RD has the Laguz Alliance start a war and endanger the entire world, but you don't hear people calling that out. Because they feel that the war is entirely justified because the Bengion Senate is evil. Regardless of how evil or what atrocity the Begnion Senate committed, it does not change the matter that the Laguz Alliance started a war while knowing the risks.
Hence why I said that had Ashera's Judgment been a death beam, no one would say that the war was worth it. Though as you are showing, you're still trying to insist that it's the Begnion Senate's fault more than anything. but they didn't know. Zelgius knowing is irrelevant, since he's not doing anything with that information because he's following Sephiran's commands. But he's not the one in power in Begnion, as the Senate decides what to do. Hell, disobeying the Senate is treasonous for Zelgius that he was nearly executed.
But the leaders of the Laguz Alliance did know the dangers, the risks, and they still took it without seeking any alternatives. Regardless of their reasons, understandable it might be, it does not change the literal fact that they started a war with the looming threat of omnicide.
Just so I have it clear, your argument is that people who think Edelgard is wrong for starting a war should also blame the Laguz Alliance by the same logic (and because the latter is ridiculous, so is the former)? If that's true, then I did misunderstand you, because I thought you were talking round in circles.
Zelgius isn't really a main point, because as you say he is basically an extension of Sephiran. But he could have done any number of things with an independent moral compass - all I wanted to say is that he is culpable by the same standards of knowledge as the ones you put forward.
Presumably the point they are making (whoever they are, you're the first person I've seen compare the two) is that the parallel isn't exact: Rhea isn't as unequivocally in the wrong as Lekain/the Senate, Edelgard isn't as unequivocally right as the laguz, and it's debatable both that the laguz started the war and that Edelgard was provoked enough to justify war. I'm not gonna argue for or against any of those here, I'm just gonna say that opinions on both sides of Edelgard remain legit.
-
2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:
No, war is morally wrong, but whether the war is objectively wrong is a different matter. Because there are times where peaceful negotiations are not possible because of the parties, and thus war becomes inevitable, and can be seen as objectively right to do. It depends on the reasons.
But for the laguz, they knew the dangers of the war that could bring with Lehran's Medallion. The Begnion Senate didn't know the dangers, and likely didn't even believe in Ashera really.
What I said is that the laguz are "understandable" for their reasons. That's about as accurate as Rhea being "understandable" in what she did. But being understandable does not mean they are right in what they did or justified.
And people are too quick to defend the Laguz Alliance starting a war by blaming the Begnion Senate alone, when it was the laguz that endangered the entire world
Objectively doesn't mean completely, it means from all perspectives. Which is why it's pretty rare to find objective anythings, ever (and why I used quote marks above and following). If all wars in Tellius are "objectively" wrong, they are so because any and every instance of war is potential cause for Ashera's judgement. It's a circumstance unique to Tellius, and the reason it is objective is because it applies to all wars in Tellius after Ashera's contract, regardless of any other context. Some peoples don't know that this risk comes with war, and that can be a mitigating factor for their own moral culpability, but the risk never disappears. The example of an objectively right war that you give (which is actually an example fo a justifiable war) is pretty much exactly what happens to the laguz in RD Part 3.
Sephiran and Ashnard (and those who work directly for them) are people who actively intend to cause the judgement, and Sephiran is pulling the strings for most of PoR and RD. The laguz never intend anything like what actually happens - the risk they take on is one they believed, and had some proof for, being mitigated (the presence of Reyson). Their flawed knowledge should also count as a mitigating factor, because had they known what the Begnion senate knew (that the senate were acting without approval from Sanaki) then they could have changed approach. And that's putting aside the literal ton of other reasons they had to go to war.
The senators are mostly rats with an agenda of racial bigotry (basically the Agarthans) and they did provoke the laguz repeatedly and awfully. A lot of the blame does go to them, because they wanted an excuse to wipe out the laguz while maintaining the semblance of justice, and incited a race war to do it. Not the first time that's happened in our history, and probably not the last, but history tends to attribute the majority of the blame to the oppressor, for good reason. The senate created a situation that caused a race war, and (even if unintentionally) also risked Ashera's judgement. The laguz are basically manipulated into fighting, made so angry that they fall right into Sephiran's aims. I don't think people are too quick to blame the Begnion Senate, the game all but forces you to acknowledge that they have the lion's share of culpability.
2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:And that is the problem. They think that the war will be fine because they think that they can control it, and that's exactly why the war ended up getting so bad. That's like playing with a nuke like it's a football, and not worrying it'll explode cause the safety is on or something. Nothing is guaranteed, and because of that, they endangered the world. But not once does anyone actually call the laguz out on endangering the world and doing just that, because "everything worked out".
And unlike Begnion, the laguz saw Lehran's Medallion, where they even witnessed Ashnard using it, and know how dangerous it is. So they definitely know that something terrifying is within there
Zelgius knows. He doesn't have complete control over Begnion's actions, but he does have a fair amount of authority. But even putting that aside, I don't know why you've focused in so much on the laguz being somehow morally more bankrupt than everyone else in RD, especially when they tend to be the aggrieved party. They didn't choose to have their allies, the guys "making sure the nuke doesn't blow" massacred, or their attempts at diplomacy brutally cut off. The risk that they shoulder isn't a risk of the outcome that actually happens, but of a nebulous bad end that they think they have safeguards against.
They stood up to fight despite the risk. If that sounds familiar, it's because it's an argument often used to defend Edelgard. Not saying they are the same in every respect, just in this one. The argument that the laguz shouldn't have gone to war would also justify Dheginsea for isolating himself and dragonkind from humanity the whole time, but this didn't stop any of his children from getting involved and has the opposite effect to his intention of preserving the peace. And again, the argument of not going to war could be used on Edelgard.
I'm not gonna get into another Edelgard debate - the above is just to point out the double standards in going all-in to justify Edelgard, at the expense of shutting down dissenting opinions, but then having the opposite outlook for the laguz and still claiming there isn't room for disagreement.
-
44 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:
You're saying that they have "understandable reasons" but that doesn't make what they did "right" by any means. They knew the dangers. And they still acted on their war. They started a war, and because of that, the chain of events resulted in all life nearly being wiped out.
The fact of the matter is, the laguz were objectively wrong to have started the war. It's only by sheer luck that things worked out. Or to put it bluntly, because the plot demands a happy ending
Only Sephiran and Dheginsea (and by extension the dragons) know that Ashera can be awakened before 1000 years to hand down punishment for breaking the contract between god and man. Tellius didn't get anywhere near that 1000 year mark. What the other laguz know is something like: "the dark god Yune is sealed inside the medallion, and will be awakened and bring punishment on humanity if there is enough chaos in the world" - Ashnard attempts to accomplish exactly that in PoR, and fails in no small part due to Mist recovering the medallion after his death and giving it to the herons. This is the war that happens about 3 years before RD. Zelgius also knows about the Medallion's destructive capability because of being close to Sephiran and, for a while, Ashnard.
The risk of the medallion going berserk is not only in the main exacerbated by Begnion (chaotic violence against the very people safeguarding the medallion) but one that, despite the Serenes Massacre, is still held off by Reyson during the Daein insurrection and the Crimean civil revolt. In other words, the size of the risk that the laguz take is as big as the risk taken in any war in Tellius, but the information that they have suggests that the probability of that risk occurring is small.
You're right that being justified to do something and doing the right thing are two separate things (I spoke of justified because you used the phrase "people insist that the war is entirely justified" in the comment I quoted, and I actually agreed that the war wasn't "perfectly alright" in my comment too). The laguz were justified, on that I think we're happy to agree. You think they do the wrong thing because they come out on the wrong end of that risk. That's a fair criticism, but they aren't situationally different from every other large-scale combatant in Tellius ever. If anything, they are intensely unfortunate (as well as being rash) because the laguz races suffer a ridiculous amount just to be goaded into a war to awaken the Medallion. In Tellius, all wars are "objectively" wrong - you have to either use that logic for everybody (which is basically Ashera's logic anyway) or not at all.
If you want a meta-argument, the reason the Medallion erupted in RD and not PoR is probably because the developers always wanted to make a sequel to PoR.
-
16 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:
There's no "fairness" to them. The point is, people are too quick to defend the laguz and try to think that their war was perfectly alright, but no, it wasn't. They may have started a war for justice for the herons, but they still started a war while knowing the dangers of Lehran's Medallion. They should have thought of another plan, like to get Sanaki and get answers from her. But the laguz immediately went for war, and endangered all life because of that.
And Ike chose to help that side, so he's just as guilty as them on that account. Tatiana warns them of the threat of Lehran's Medallion, but Ranulf insists that they have it under control, which proved to be a failure in the end.
But people certainly don't try and point this out enough for Ike and the laguz, and because the Begnion Senate was so corrupt and evil, people insist that the war is entirely justified
Your alternative probably wouldn't work, because at the beginning of the war the laguz believe they have all the answers they need, and assume Begnion soldiers are acting under orders from the top (and don't yet have reason to suspect Sanaki is not the one responsible). But like you say there might have been another way, though I'm not sure what it would have been.
And any hypothetical on that would also have to include the possibility that Sephiran would have engineered something else (or Lekain would have done something himself without even intending to rouse Ashera) in order to cause the medallion to act up - the 1000-year deadline was coming anyway and a member of every race had already taken part in at least one war since the slumber of the goddess, so Ashera's revival and judgement only needed a few sparks if that. But all of that is secondary, because the laguz did start the war. It wasn't immediate as you claimed (in bold), because they sent a messenger to Begnion first, but they did start it and they risked the continent.
You're right, the laguz war was not 'perfectly alright'. But being fair is important, and very briefly, the laguz side of it is: centuries of discrimination; a culture that commends expression of physical strength in combat and eye-for-an-eye justice, mainly because most beast laguz are instinctively minded to that; racially-motivated genocide of your sworn allies; the opponent killing your messenger when you try diplomacy. There's also an argument that Begnion started the war by killing a Gallian diplomat - it's not the same as an army-scale assault like the laguz do, but if you wanted to claim the laguz were entirely justified then that's where you'd start. All of these seem like mitigating factors in understanding why the laguz do what they do.
Of course you don't have to agree - the threat of Ashera's judgement holds the kind of overwhelming moral weight that makes it seem impossible to allow any war (indeed, petrification is for all intents and purposes death, because Ashera didn't intend anyone except her Chosen to ever not be petrified), but if anyone were merely justified in going to war, then it would probably be the Gallians. Presumably the point that you're making is that war should have been a non-starter for the laguz nations, regardless of any justification they did have.
And it's entirely your right to say that the risk the laguz take is unconscionable (and it is a huge risk they take, but not a certainty given the knowledge the laguz had at the beginning of the war). Yet this is presumably why you understand how people feel the same way about Edelgard plunging Fodlan into war.
The argument for Ike being just as guilty is interesting - in many ways, he is responsible for prolonging the war because Soren (so Ike by extension) is the main reason the Laguz Alliance manage to make so many gains, and it is after they retreat from getting so far into Begnion that Daein gets dragged into the war (which ultimately drags Kurth into the war, and that's the nail in the coffin). Again, Ike couldn't reasonably have known this in advance though, and he, like the laguz, are over-confident in the remaining herons'/Mist's ability to contain it. That's the risk of attempting to predict the future on past trends - Ike ought to have factored in this risk, but he is a mercenary who by profession profits from war, and a bit of a meathead anyway. This war happens to be easier for him to get behind because his friend is asking him for help (and the injustice he feels about what's happened to them) but if he let the Gallian alliance go to war would he have been just as guilty, and would another potential genocide be on his head? I hadn't really considered Ike's moral responsibility before but it's a good point.
-
10 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:
The difference between Begnion and the Laguz Alliance is this. Begnion didn't know about Lehran's Medallion. The Laguz Alliance did. But they thought that they could handle it by having Leanne and Reyson guard it.
But guess what? The war escalated so badly that the spirit of war was going to break the seal.
The Laguz KNEW, and they STILL acted, arrogantly thinking that they would be fine, when no. They weren't.
They were damn well lucky that Ashera's Judgment was not a death beam that killed everyone. Otherwise, the story would be a tragic ending where you realize that the war to get justice for the herons was not even worth it. Not next to the bodies of 99% of all life on Tellius.
The laguz are certainly guilty of being rash, and in some cases (particularly Skrimir) arrogant, regardless of the fact that they had the moral high ground. In fairness to them, hotheadedness is part of both the nature of being laguz and their culture, although that alone doesn't excuse the risk they take. What ought to be remembered, however, is that Sephiran was manipulating Begnion even from the shadows (through orders to Zelgius etc.) - Lekain may have been running the show, but Sephiran was using Lekain's corrupt nature to ensure that war engulfed Tellius. And, obviously, Sephiran knows the truth of his own medallion.
I'm not saying any of this to absolve the laguz completely, but given their culture and the information they had when the war began, they aren't as morally damnable as the above quote would have them be. They were manipulated too - sure, they should have been smarter, but none of the beast tribes were in a position to expect either that Sephiran wanted Ashera to return, that Daein would enter the war, or that a dragon would fight at all. All three coming to pass is a threat they ought to have been aware of, but for the laguz, it was a worst-case scenario rather than an expected outcome. It's more accurate to call them shortsighted than straight-up evil, because they didn't intend to bring about Ashera's Judgement either (though yes, they are lucky things didn't end worse for them).
53 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:That is why I defend her, because I don't think she deserves the crap some people give her.
There are definitely some unfair accusations made against Edelgard, and some people just don't like her character etc. So I do get why people defend her so vehemently on these forums.
But I think the flaw of defending any position as strongly as this is that it makes it sound like there can't be room for other opinions. Not accusing you of this personally (I'm just using this quote to refer generally to commenters who go hard defending her), but when people say "I don't like that she's the aggressor" or "I can't stand her methods", it's still a legitimate opinion to hold, even if it's one that you feel justified in disagreeing with. You can explain her actions as much as you like, but for some people she's already crossed a line that makes her unlikable, and trying to justify her all day won't make other people like her, even if they do come to understand your point of view.
Unlike other threads in this forum, this topic is only about her (lack of) likability, rather than whether she was morally right or not. The two go hand in hand a lot in this case, but just as often people will take issue, rightly or wrongly, with her perception as stuck-up or her design as they will with her actions. If Edelgard is the 'most hated' woman in 3H, it's only because people who write about her often do so without nuance, on both sides, which creates the impression that she has lots of detractors. As lots of people have now said, 'most divisive' would be a better descriptor.
Honestly if this thread shows anything it's that more people will come to Edelgard's defence than any other character in 3H lol. Not a bad thing I guess, cause she's one of the best characters.
-
3 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:
Or do like I did and jump into Radiant Dawn at 12 years old as your first FE game and let it beat you over the head with a stick until you figure out how to keep all those assholes alive lol.
Damn this hits hard. To this day I dread any map where I have AI-controlled green units.
A lot of the advice already on here is really sound - especially the stuff about reading around the game and planning builds, which is definitely the most efficient way to get optimal units for the lategame.
4 hours ago, TheLaserSonic said:I remember I missed skills like Speed +2, the various positioning combat arts this first time
The stat boosts are all helpful, though they get outclassed by mid to late game (and their effect can be replicated with the stat boosters you get from gardening so it isn't a big loss). They are a decent use of a skill slot for a while though (and pure mages will probably have Mag +2 for ages).
I still get a little careless about unit position, and sometimes you just want an extra point of movement, so I really like the option that movement CAs give you - Swap is the only one I don't use, but the others I run even on endgame. Except for pure mages, there's plenty of competition for those three slots, and while the first CAs unlocked for every weapon except Brawling are some of the most dependable CAs in the game, the ones immediately following tend to be situation-specific. So movement CAs don't have any opportunity cost until around Lv20, by which point units are beginning to A-rank their primary weapons and/or have a reliably high-rank secondary weapon, and thus wanting to equip two or three weapon CAs.
At that point, you can weigh it up based on the character's performance and your personal preference - for example I've not found a lot of use for the brawling combat arts that change your unit position (and often they do less damage than normal brawling attacks) so tend not to run those in favour of a movement CA, but I quite like Hit and Run, which has a similar effect for lance users (lance users tend to be mounted, so Hit and Run gives them a point more range for Canto).
There's definitely merit in mastering Beginner Tier classes just for the movement CAs - you should be able to do it by Lv 10, and they give you options when in a pinch (even having a couple of units with them in Chapters 5 and 6 is super helpful for dealing with reinforcements/the Death Knight etc.).
4 hours ago, TheLaserSonic said:Also, I heard there was something about cavalry giving a negative speed growth?
Yep, all cavalry, armours, and Mortal Savant do (off the top of my head, there might be more). Cavalier and Paladin are quite good units otherwise, and if you're running someone in armour classes then they probably don't care about speed anyway. When I plan builds, I normally think about what I would want a character to do if they were in my endgame squad and then go backwards from there, taking into account which classes make it easiest to get to that endpoint, the character's weapon preferences, spell lists, abilities and CAs, growths, and what class mastery skills would be both useful and long-lived. Then again I get quite anal about build planning - there's no wrong way to play, and you'll be better off even with a general idea of how the unit is gonna progress.
The Intermediate tier has the most competition for usable skills. A lot of physical units will want to go through Brigand if they can to get Death Blow, and (if you're aiming for optimisation) every magic user, and ideally hybrids too, should go through Mage for Fiendish Blow - these skills add +6 to their attack on Player Phase . You'll have a fighting chance to class into them just by reaching D+ in Axes and Reason respectively, and be able to master those classes by Lv20 even if you aren't subsequently using their recommended weapons - that way you can continue to train whatever weapon types you plan on using for the lategame.
-
2 hours ago, Shadow Mir said:
From where I'm standing, that still fails to justify War Monk, as in general, like was said earlier, most of the units good in brawling have shit spell lists, which makes it a waste to even consider qualifying for; much like Holy Knight, anyone who might be good in it is better elsewhere. About the only thing it's got going for it is Brawl Avoid +20, and that just isn't enough to make it worth it. And I still think you're overselling magic access - I just don't think gaining access to basic healing magic is nearly as much of a game-changer as you're pretending it is. While it is unisex, females have even less reason to go for it, as there are literally only two with a strength in brawling - Coco and Catherine. And I cannot justify it for either, much less any other female unit
This is a completely fair point - unless you've already planned your build around War Monk for personal reasons or really like the idea of Brawl Avo +20, there's no reason to want to class into it, and certainly no reason to end up in it (I agree with @paladin21 that Pneuma Gale is not as crap as advertised, but is also not worth sticking around for). It should also be said that its growths are not good by advanced tier standards (except HP I guess), and the consensus that it's the worst DLC class is the right one. War Cleric Constance with Aura Knuckles is apparently one of those joke builds that kinda works, and Fistfaire Catherine would be quite nice given her CAs, but the class isn't optimal for either of them.
But it isn't the worst midway class for people who want to end up in Grappler or WM and have time to kill. Anyone wanting to end up in Grappler or WM is likely to already be at B or B+ brawling by Lv20, and C-rank Faith isn't especially tough to achieve with a bit of focused teaching (it takes 300 WEXP to get from E to C, assuming Byleth is at E Faith, the character you're training is neutral in Faith, you don't have the renown statue boost, you set goals to Faith alone, you're getting 18 WEXP per teaching point, and spending only one teaching point on this character per month, it won't take longer than 4 months, and the above calculations are quite conservative).
Anecdotally, my Byleth is doing this currently - I stuck a knowledge gem on him and it took him from Lv20 to Lv23 to master War Monk (on Maddening). Not saying that one character hogging a knowledge gem is a sacrifice everyone wants to make, but he performed quite well in the class (Death Blow and Fistfaire helps) and part of the reason he mastered the class so quickly is because he had Heal and Recover. I think this is all @Dark Holy Elf was trying to say - it's quite an easy intermediate class to master because C-rank Faith is, for most units, access to a heal spell that is guaranteed to be better than a Concoction (and a better action than a different unit healing itself). It's not like the aim is to make your frontliners also be okay magic users, but the heal utility isn't wasted because those heals also contribute to getting out of the class quicker than you would otherwise be able to by relying on 1-range-locked gauntlets. It's the same reason that you might get your Mortal Savants or Dark Knights to D Faith - if the class can use magic, it may as well have healing magic that is pretty much always relevant for EXP-grinding, even if it isn't that useful for battle (and occasionally it is useful anyway).
Back to the thread, I pretty much agree with everyone else - Dark Flier > Valkyrie >>> Trickster >>>>>> War Monk.
I would say for Trickster that there are quite a lot of sword users who would want boosts to speed growths as well as dex/luck growths for the magic hit formula (Yuri, Ingrid, Marianne, Ignatz, Dorothea, Byleth, Manuela, Anna, even Catherine). Levin Sword+ occupies a niche amongst swords that begs for someone to take advantage of it, C/C+ Faith (the minimum to class into Trickster) is the optimum Faith level for most phys-oriented units anyway, and Duelist's Blow isn't at all bad (I don't want to stay in Trickster just for Foul Play, despite it being useful). Trickster sees worth for me as a waypoint that I'm happy to spend time in, or as an advanced class that hybrids I'm not gonna use regularly can stay in - I don't think it is the best class for anyone, but it's more worth classing into than War Monk.
-
On 5/9/2020 at 8:34 AM, Jierda said:
Ennemies should also benefit from linked attacks/gambit boosts
Am I the only one who's experienced an enemy gambit boost? I definitely remember it happening on Maddening with two common enemies adjacent to my Byleth, in Hanneman/Manuela's paralogue. It's the only instance I can remember off the top of my head because it happened fairly recently, but I'm pretty sure it's happened before as well. I agree enemies should get linked attack boosts as well though.
I quite like Linked Attacks from the perspective of rewarding supports, but I also don't see why the boosts are limited to those who can have supports (on any team). Monsters probably shouldn't, cause it doesn't make sense in-game, but every other unit should at least be giving a hit boost to allied units engaging enemies in their shared range.
-
1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:
I have heard of these blood pacts and they sound absolutely horrifying. To my understanding if someone breach a contract signed as a blood act, it will lead to every single citizen in their country dying. Because we are talking about casualties on such a massive scale, I would say that it is clearly the moral thing to do to sacrifice the life of one in order to save countless others. It is so destructive that nearly anything is better than to allow a blood pact to trigger. But this is assuming that a blood pact actually ends with the death of the person who signed it
33 minutes ago, NicolaTesla&you said:Correct me if I’m wrong but, could the javelins of light work in a similar way as the blood pact? Thales: “If you dare to oppose me i will blow up your entire army with my ICBMs” like precisely what happened to arianrhod (and her troops established on there after its capture).
Lots of people had issues with the blood pact in RD because it was a huge story contrivance to get team Micaiah to fight team Ike (and I think it's used to retroactively explain Ashnard coming to power and Naesala's multiple betrayals), and had the added disadvantage of excusing moral ambiguity on the parts of Micaiah, Pelleas (and Naesala but he's more of a rogue anyway). The exact mechanism is technically unconfirmed (because they don't risk it during RD), but the story Pelleas tells is that one citizen of a given country dies the first day the pact is invoked upon the country's ruler, two on the second day and so on. I don't think any invoked blood pact got far enough to kill an entire country, but it probably could.
If you were being purely utilitarian about it, then the casualties from obeying the pact terms and continuing the war (in Pelleas/Micaiah's blood pact anyway) start off as more than disobeying the pact. But there's no guarantee Begnion (the empire in RD) wouldn't send a punitive military force to kill Daein citizens, or that Micaiah could break the pact before the casualties from disobeying snowballed too much anyway.
As I remember, killing Pelleas (the person who signed the blood pact as the subject) wasn't enough to break the pact anyway - the sacrifice of one person I was referring to was at a slightly earlier point, where Micaiah nearly succeeds in killing the apostle of Begnion (her fairly blameless little sister Sanaki), but is prevented by an enemy king (Tibarn) taking Sothe, her boyfriend/son captive. Oedipal stuff included, Micaiah couldn't bear to let him die, so lets Sanaki escape. Killing Sanaki wouldn't have broken the blood pact and it probably wouldn't have ended the war, so it's lucky that Micaiah didn't, but Sanaki might have been able to overrule the blood pact as a representative of Begnion, so Micaiah did miss a trick there.
For some reason, Arundel/Thales never threatens to use the javelins of light in the same way as leverage. I guess because no one would have believed him before he demonstrated their use, and/or because it would have irrevocably tipped the hand of TWSITD? Edelgard and Claude might have figured out that he was telling the truth about their destructive potential (both work out that the javelins of light are what actually destroyed Ailell permanently) but they both had to see it happen to believe it. The javelins of light also aren't quite as surefire as the blood pact (the Golden Deer/Resistance Army and the Death Knight manage to survive it even though they escape to only a few seconds' horse ride away from the strike zone, Rhea blocks several without dying, and some Agarthans escape Shambala). In SS/VW, the javelins of light are what give away Shambala's position and allow Thales to be defeated, and in CF we get told Hubert roots TWSITD out (since Hubert is the one who figures out Shambala's position, it's not a big leap to think he did the same thing in CF, although we don't see it). So ultimately, it's a double-edged sword for TWSITD, unlike the blood pact which is a one-way punishment for the subject ruler/nation.
-
38 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:
Well she does clearly fight for the wrong side and while she regrets the situation she constantly defends her actions that become increasingly less moral. She's very clearly in the wrong which can make her behavior somewhat frustrating.
At the time many people also insisted she was a ''marry sue'' which I never really agreed with
(Spoilers for RD lol)
I hadn't really thought of the parallels between Micaiah and Edelgard, but they're definitely there. It's true that she doesn't have an especially clear vision for society at large (which makes sense because she never wanted power) and was happy accomplishing relatively small feats of good. Edelgard never got that opportunity (although some of her dialogue indicates she would have preferred a smaller life than fate gave her). But the life experiences of both and their compassion for the downtrodden directly motivate their desires for the world (no racism/no Crest-based class system respectively) and their unwilling shouldering of responsibility. Micaiah refuses to fight in Part I after Izuka attempts to turn Muarim feral, and shuts down any possibility of that, (unlike Edelgard with crest beasts) but the power dynamics are also more in her favour at that point than Edelgard's are with TWSITD.
Her relative incompetence as a general in Part 3 of RD is slightly excused by her trust in and sympathy for Pelleas, and she is similar to Edelgard in that both publicly support their regime even though they privately dislike aspects of it. Her calculations are also fairly utilitarian - she attempts to kill Sanaki as soon as she can because the only other apparent alternative is the blood pact murder of her entire country, and gets foiled because she lets her emotions get in the way. Edelgard probably would have sacrificed a loved one in order to save her country though (idk? Byleth in CF is the only person she's close enough to for that, but Byleth never gets put in Sothe's position). After that chapter in RD, Micaiah is just getting shat on, but that's simply the logical move for the Gallian Alliance against someone they have to treat as a genuine enemy. Basically, Micaiah's half-resolve saves Sothe but as a result kills Pelleas needlessly (on your first playthrough) and inevitably loses a lot of Daein lives anyway. I doubt it was more lives lost than would have been lost if Micaiah let the blood pact activate, but there's also the race factor going on, so I don't really know how to weigh that decision morally. Long story short, their situations and characters have some similarities, but Edelgard is more resolved (and thus more divisive) than Micaiah.
And yeah I agree Micaiah was never a Mary Sue character either
-
The point you make about it being a terrible idea to hold back any of the three lords is a fair one - if CF had been held back lots of people would have claimed that IS mis-sold the game by putting so much into Edelgard, although it could also have been interpreted as a marketing tactic to make her betrayal less obvious/more surprising to the gamer. Still, if IS were to make a route with a main lord and then pay-lock it (as opposed to free DLC) it would be its own outrage, except for the people who were always going to buy the pass I guess.
I would also echo the sentiment that a lot of commenters have had that VW was just more fun than SS - you have a bigger class to play with, an interesting lord etc etc, but I think its advantages are all problems of execution rather than concept. AM and SS are the more traditional-style routes for FE games, and an imaginable alternate SS, where Byleth goes to rescue Rhea early in Part 2, gets playable Rhea, and helps Dimitri and Claude on the way to beating Edelgard/TWSITD/Nemesis, would have various parallels in a ton of other FE titles. More could be done with the SS story than my above unoriginal take, but my point is just that the FE makers already had a decent blueprint for SS and so they could have innovated more for the other routes. In my opinion, if the story of SS was planned to be exactly as it was in the game then SS was already screwed, independent of everything else. The ideas behind SS, which were motivating its inclusion, still work though.
SS had the largest gap between what it was and what it should have been, and it definitely needed to be much more different from VW, and AM too. But I think it does make sense conceptually, at least enough to want it done properly and in the game from day 1.
-
I originally figured that if the choice were between the game as-is and DLC-locking VW to improve the other routes, then I'd go with the latter. But now I wonder if the route that should have been DLC-locked (if a route had to be delayed to improve quality) was CF. If CF had been released in a slightly more complete form, with Jeritza fully integrated into the game, and a couple of TWSITD chapters after Rhea, then that would be amazing value - a bit longer than CS, while being a main story route with a new perspective. It would have been an extremely ballsy switch to pull given the insane hype for Edelgard, but having your lord unavoidably become your enemy in the Black Eagles route (before DLC) is the kind of formula-breaking twist that would have made SS genuinely emotionally heavy. Delaying CF would have also made the dichotomy of Edelgard/Rhea (and the Edelgard/Dimitri conflict) much more powerful, as well as preventing many players from playing CF first (which is a bit of a head-scratcher plot wise on your first playthrough).
SS has plenty of other weaknesses anyway, and my criticism about VW needing to have been significantly different from SS still stands, but if a route needed to be delayed as DLC to make the others better, CF seems like a better choice than the rest.
-
2 hours ago, Hardric62 said:
Welp, I mean, since Fire Emblem looks like a western 'verse, you compare it to Europe, and well the shoe can fit, with Adrestia as the HRE or Byzantine Empire, Leicester as Renaissance Italy as a mess of multiple political identities, and a touch of Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania both as an example of a country controlled by its nobility with a nominal at best king, and one wasting away without a central authority, or Faerghus as France for the parallels to chivalry, 'eldest daughter of the Church', the assemblies instuted by Dimitri in the AM eilogues which could be tied to the first medieval communes, or the names of the countries, towns, characters... Just how many possible references to Asian situations, or heck, anywhere else in the world, if that's to be found, get missed by people playing the games?
This is a really interesting point! On the one hand, Japanese (and to a slightly lesser extent Chinese) mythological references are much closer to hand for domestic audiences for FE titles. So from a domestic perspective (I'm not Japanese and this is just speculation) references to Western mythology might appear slightly more exotic, which is why they get used. Although if pop culture fantasy is anything to go by, there are tons of modern works which are recognisably in a generic medieval European setting both internationally and in Japan, perhaps even more than the quite large categories catering to East Asian history (Three Kingdoms, 'feudal' Japan etc.) And from the perspective of Western hemisphere audiences, European references feel slightly more familiar, so it's just easier for those to shine through. There's also still an abject lack of games that touch significantly on mythologies/cultures from most places outside of Western Europe and Eastern Asia (though this is hardly the place to talk about that).
FE has done games filled with Asian references (Birthright immediately comes to mind), even though 3H doesn't feel like one of them. It doesn't mean they aren't there, but I wonder if that's on purpose too. There are occasional bits in the game, like the Wo Dao (which isn't a sword unique to 3H though), but the relatively isolationist policy of the continent of Fodlan generally means that its peoples are quite ignorant of foreign customs, and so the vast majority of references aren't Asian to reflect this homogeneity. I have no idea how many other Asian references there are though, so that might just be completely the wrong thread to follow.
-
25 minutes ago, Shadow Mir said:
Don't they have their own weapons anyway during their tenure as enemies (Ashe has a Killer Bow that is dropped, while Lorenz has a Silver Lance that isn't dropped when he's defeated)?
I haven't faced Lorenz as an enemy post-timeskip yet, and I coincidentally gave Ashe a Killer Bow for Chapter 12 anyway, so I can't confirm that you can get a Killer Bow independently of whatever you give him pre-timeskip when you recruit him back. I do remember, however, that I only had the one Killer Bow in my inventory pre-timeskip, which I gave to Ashe (VW), and I didn't have any Killer Bows in the convoy post-timeskip to give to Claude for Chapter 13, so you definitely don't get back whatever weapons you give them unless you recruit (they show up in the character's inventory when you face them as an enemy so you can confirm).
-
Am absolutely happy to let the Edelgard stuff go, I've spent way too long writing about her lol.
I don't think a Fodlan with humans in charge inherently means better outcomes than Rhea's Fodlan. I only think humans have a right to be in charge of areas where humans make up the vast majority of the population - the fact that Rhea's Fodlan also fossilised some negative customs and stereotypes helps the case of humanity, rather than simply being the case for humanity (for me, at least). With that being said, I think if we could choose leaders that had a thousand years worth of experience leading, we probably would.
I do think there is still something attractive about an existence more powerful than humanity's own being in charge, looking out for them. The fact that she is ridiculously resistant to change, lied to humanity about like everything, and made a surprising number of mistakes for someone who has been (intermittently at least) in charge of a continent-wide religion for a millenium, screams that she's bad at her job, but you can still read her motivations being good, even if her course got twisted.
-
4 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:
So in my view, if Rhea is worse than the Edelgard, that does make Edelgard in the right, even if she isn't perfect. It just has to be better than the alternatives. Honestly, I don't think Edelgard ever had any good options, she was born right into a complete mess of a political situation and have strings attached to her ever since she was a child. People like to say this is Edelgard's war, but that is ignoring that the Agarthans has planned this for far longer than Edelgard has even existed. Also point out that Loog is rather similar to Edelgard, both start a war, both get aid from the Agarthans. Yet Loog is remembered as a hero king (ironically, even Pan is remembered like a hero and they were very likely one of the Agarthans).
Completely fair viewpoint. For what it's worth, I personally believe that Edelgard goes to war for the right reasons, and I would have said that even if there weren't internal pressure from the Agarthans, because I too prefer Edelgard's vision for humanity to Rhea's.
4 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:The end of the day. I don't believe it matters who started it, it is only the final result that matters. Fodlan is united regardless, so that mission will always be accomplished, even if it wasn't what Dimitri set out to do. It is ultimately how they gather and that determines if someone is a tyrant, not how they got into power.
Fair enough, though this is probably quite controversial.
4 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:By the way, what do you think would happen if Rhea was successful in bringing back Sothis, would she be able to fix things? Would she even have an interest in being the goddess and ruling over the world? I generally get the impression that Sothis is more kind than Rhea (on the other hand, she did supposedly flood the world, so I can't be sure.)
Assuming Sothis took over Byleth's body and will, the possibilities are endless. She might be able to create new Nabateans, her dragon form probably has unparalleled power, but she also has magic on a level unlike anyone else in Fodlan. There's any number of things she could do, but in many ways I don't think the world would be fixed. Because Rhea would want to stay by Sothis' side, more so than she does with Byleth, and Sothis' very presence might cement the Church of Seiros in its very flawed state. It's a cool thing to wonder about, though.
3 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:I'm just saying this now, politically, if a major defection like this happens, it is entirely within grounds to declare war. The Empire has rights to demand for Arianrhod's return and even compensation. This is also why House Hrym and House Ordelia suffered when House Hrym attempted to defect and Ordelia attempted to help.
At the time, they could have started a war. But the Empire made their decision not to declare war, not because they couldn't, but for whatever reason because they thought it was more politically prudent. EDIT: I deleted a comment here which came off harsher than I intended. What I wanted to say was if the Empire were to use these grounds, it would be for political convenience rather than resolving injustice, because otherwise they would have done so much sooner. (They don't, though).
3 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:Except what you aren't really taking into account is that these injustices that the Empire faced without any recompense is what led to the prideful and corrupt nobles of Adrestia to actually seek to weaponize Edelgard and use her to reunite Fodlan. This is explicitly why Ferdinand states that nobles of Adrestia dream of reuniting Fodlan under the Empire
They are allowed to have that dream, and to feel injustice from past wrongs. It doesn't constitute a justification for war in the present day. I am beginning to suspect we may just disagree on when it is acceptable to use violence.
3 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:I think you may have misinterpreted Chapter 17. Dimitri LIED to Rhea about her flanking and he would take the defensive. He told her that he intended to meet Edelgard's army, and Rhea to flank, but intended for Rhea's army to actually be the bait.
QuoteDimitri: No need to worry yourself. Even if I am defeated, the Blaiddyd bloodline will live on. And the Kingdom's territory has never been rich in resources. If the castle falls under siege, our loss is inevitable. I will deploy my army onto the plains and wait for the enemy. Please position your forces so that they can flank the Imperial army.
Rhea: Yes, given the present situation, making the plains our battlefield is a logical choice. I have no objection. However...
Dimitri: There is only one person I am after. I have no interest in any other prey.
-
Dimitri: I was hoping they would strike the church first... We must have miscalculated the rate of their advance. Reorganize the formation. We have no choice but to buy time until the church arrives. It will be a long battle... Are you afraid, Dedue?
Yeah, Edelgard declares war and attacks the Church. But keep in mind that Edelgard had already sent manifestos to every noble house across Fodlan, acquiring the support of many nobles in both the Alliance and Kingdom. Dimitri knows why Edelgard is opposing the Church, and had a choice. Rather than try any forms of negotiation or remain neutral, Dimitri actually joined with Rhea, cause he wanted revenge for Duscur.
I don't think what you've quoted actually disagrees with what I've said. Dimitri's intentions for how the battle was supposed to turn out are besides the point, and I don't make any claims about his intentions for Rhea's army anyway.
Dimitri also, for better or worse, believes in the Church. It isn't simply about revenge - he is opposed to Edelgard ideologically as well as personally. Edelgard has no room for those who disagree with her that strongly anyway, and Dimitri could never have lived under her because of his own shit. I think that's the point of the writing - there is no world in which Edelgard accomplishes what she wants without stepping on a pile of bodies, at the head of which is Rhea and those loyal to her. Joining with Rhea is as legitimate a choice as remaining neutral or entering negotiations, not less legitimate. It is the aggressor who broke the peace, and they hold the greatest share of responsibility for whatever follows. That remains true in every route.
-
7 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:
That's not a protectorate. That's Faerghus taking an opportunity and occupied Leicester. The Leicester region didn't defect to Faerghus, but Faerghus barged in and took Leicester when the Empire couldn't suppress the rebellion.
Faerghus can very much be blamed for this because Faerghus actually ACCEPTED House Rowe. Saying that Faerghus isn't involved when they took House Rowe in and giving them the fortress built using the Empire's resources is a bit silly.
Our interpretations differ for the above. Note that I actually don't care whether or not you consider Faerghus to be less just or worse than the Empire - I only presented the facts like someone who isn't a diehard Edelgard fan. The territory of Leicester was violent and unstable, Faerghus stepped in. Their motivations are frankly secondary, the point is they haven't invaded the Empire. Similarly, it is in Faerghus' interests to accept House Rowe, but they did not instigate it. There's no rule or code that says Faerghus has to do everything the Empire wants, and two nations can be on less than cordial terms without being entitled to invade one another. The Empire doesn't have to like any of its neighbours, but that still doesn't become a justification for invasion. With the exception of Dagda, I suppose, because they invaded first.
7 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:There's a reason why in CF, it's noted by an NPC that to the Empire, Faerghus and Leicester are basically traitors.
Trying to say that the Empire should just "get over it" because it's been a long time is not the case. Because the Empire was wronged countless times, and had power taken from them.
And I didn't say 'get over it' as if this were your argument about Rhea's trauma, I said that, over two hundred and four hundred years respectively passed where the Alliance and the Kingdom were independent and their borders respected. The Empire agreed to that. So no, they don't get to suddenly summon up those earlier grievances as excuses to reabsorb those territories. And, once more, this makes no explicit feature in why either the Alliance or the Kingdom are invaded. Respecting another country's borders is one of the bare minimum conditions of a peaceful society, and it's a big deal not to.
NPCs are welcome to say the Empire thinks the other nations are traitors. They are stating an opinion, and there exists more than one valid opinion.
7 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:No, Dimitri wanted to kill Edelgard, the emperor, and to do that, he needs an army. So he raised an army alongside Rhea to get the chance to kill Edelgard. I mean, he even tried to use Rhea's army as bait in Chapter 17 by claiming he wants her to flank Edelgard's army, when in reality he wanted to flank Edelgard himself.
Dimitri in CF seems sane, but he's still as obsessed with revenge, and that obsession made him much more deceptive and cunning.
You're trying to say it that Edelgard attacked Faerghus first, and Dimitri is just defending his nation, but no. Edelgard attacked the Church, and Faerghus took arms and joined the Church to oppose the Empire. They declared war on her
Dimitri did not act on any desire to murder Edelgard until after the war begins. Once Edelgard starts a war, he moves to oppose her. Chapter 17 has Dimitri take a defensive position on the plains (this is what Hubert calls shrewd) in wait for Rhea to flank Edelgard. Rhea doesn't show on time, because of the rain but also because she wants the Kingdom to take the majority of the casualties. Remember that Chapter 17 does just as much to show that the alliance between Dimitri and the Church is flawed. Revenge or not, by the way, killing Edelgard is ending the war - by your original logic about ends justifying all, Dimitri and Rhea's motivations are secondary.
If you do want to include their motivations, then Dimitri has personal and political motivations for doing what he does, and you can't forget that. Dimitri being cunning or deceptive is besides the point. The declaration of war also happens after the attack on Garreg Mach, which is the start of the war. He is making a stand, as you said previously, which is more justifiable than invasion. He is also allowed to hate Edelgard, rightly or wrongly. But don't dress it up as him finally getting to gather up an army to go get revenge - Edelgard started this war, and you can't escape that.
7 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:And the noble houses from the Alliance announced their support for the Empire, but Claude meddled in and blocked them from aiding the Empire. I'm not gonna act like a political expert, but that's something that can be considered a provocation. Keep in mind that Edelgard had left the Alliance alone for the entire five years of the war until now, when the situation was in a state that something needed to change.
The Alliance is explicitly not provoking the Empire thanks to Claude. House Gloucester left unchecked could have allowed the Empire to enter the Alliance and invade the houses that didn't want Empire control, but Claude prevents it. Dimitri is the more significant threat than Claude, but the war and the western front especially is at a stalemate when Byleth returns which is why they target the bridge of Myrddin.
5 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:If you're going to be technical, the President of the United States is also the highest official in their military.
Still, consider who Byleth would likely be after the war, very likely the highest ranking general in the Empire, if not actually the spouse of Edelgard like in my playthrough. Being such a influential factor in winning the war would mean that they do essentially have the final say on all the military matters, as Edelgard would trust them completely. Not a mention the authority that is implied by being married to the emperor (but I guess this is not every version of the ending). Doesn't that make Edelgard and Byleth pretty much equal when it comes to authority? The Empire is ruled by a duo in this case, not Edelgard alone, and one is clearly more focused on military matters.
The first bit is really irrelevant - the military are not governors of individual territories within America. America is not a military dictatorship. It is just that its head of state is also the head of the military. It also can't be a dictatorship because it's a fixed-term democracy?
Good for you for getting Byleth and Edelgard together, I did too. There is still no ending in CF where Edelgard isn't the emperor. Byleth's position is informal, so even if he has a lot of say he is not the highest-ranking member of the Imperial army because he doesn't really exist within the Imperial army structure (and if he does, it is as a member of the Strike Force).
5 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:Aren't Faerghus also technically a military dictatorship through its upper class of knights, who also answers to the king? I think this is a pretty normal arrangement for the times. Edelgard is hardly unique as it is the norm in Fodlan and most probably be other nations outside of it as well to have an absolute monarch, the Leicester alliance being the one exception I can think of, which is probably an oligarchy. It feels pretty weird for people to give Edelgard crap for what basically amounts to the emperor being an emperor. She is not going to be able to turn a feudal society into a democracy in the time span of a few years, so I don't know why that is the standard we hold to her
Okay dude you clearly didn't read me describing Faerghus as a feudalist state. The king awards land and titles to nobles, who in turn lend military support. The nobles are tasked with protecting the peoples on their land, and in return the people farm the land and pay taxes. In contrast, Edelgard's system starts out with her army taking effective control of the entire continent. That's where the big difference lies. What you say about other nations has no proof (again, read my point from earlier, where I say Edelgard's system post-CF is the only one like it that we know of).
No one is asking for a democracy either, you just introduced this (and I don't think anyone expected it in the first place). That doesn't mean one can't ideologically oppose the system Edelgard has. For reference, I personally do not. That doesn't mean that everyone doesn't.
5 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:But as you can tell my primary issue here isn't with the idea that Edelgard is an absolute monarch, she is, but with the automatic assumption that this is automatically bad. The truth of the matter is that this is actually a great system as long as the ruler is benevolent and competent, the problem in real life is that such people are very rare, and that dictators are more frequently absolute douchebags. But Edelgard are one of very rare people in such a position who are benevolent towards their people and actually have their best interests at heart rather than personal power. Her intentions alone makes her infinitely better than the likes of Stalin was really just a criminal and a thug before he became a dictator (much like Nemesis), he never had any intention of improving the lives of his people.
I find it kind of strange that King Dimitri, as well as God King Byleth are both absolute monarchs in the other routes. Yet Edelgard is the only one who gets called a dictator. They are all absolute monarchs (assuming that is synonymous with dictator, which I think it is). Which is the norm in this sort of world. We shouldn't hold any of these societies to modern standard, just as it isn't fair to judge people in the past for not having established a democracy. Edelgard is trying to bring freedom to the people, but it won't be a fast process.
This is gonna keep coming up so I'm gonna bold and capitalise this. I HAVE NOT CALLED EDELGARD BAD. All I have pointed out is that attempting to establish dictatorial rule and succeeding is, to some people, inherently morally wrong. Regardless of extenuating factors, like the goodness of her intentions. Byleth and Dimitri never set out to gain power or unite Fodlan, they are what's left after the war. For what it's worth, Dimitri also establishes a participatory government. And that's without intending to start a war to unite Fodlan.
And once again, no one's talking about democracy, but that doesn't make Edelgard's political system indisputably good.
6 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:Wasn't the thread supposed to be about Rhea? You mentioned, but some people will just not like Edelgard because of her system of government (even if most endings aren't really that different.when it comes to being a dictatorship). I feel that way about theocracy. I simply do not believe it is ever right for a single religion to hold complete power over a nation, not to mention an entire continent or world. The ultimate authority in a nation belongs to the government, they are supposed to act as representatives of the people as a whole. Not serve the interest of a single religion or the interest of private corporations. Rhea's system is exactly that, a system serving the interest of the church of Seiros above all, promoting unity through religious dogma and a lack of religious freedom.
Yep this was the inevitable tangent to a loyal Edelgard supporter starting a Rhea thread. Interesting that you can't accept a theocracy, but can accept a dictatorship, especially one that at first is not representative of its people. One could say (and indeed other people on this forum like @twilitfalchion have said) that Edelgard in her drive towards freedom, creates political dogma and a lack of political freedom, just like Rhea does with religion.
53 minutes ago, Blackstarskywalker said:The definitions are there. But if we use your logic, then every King or emperor of the past must be called a military dictator, as Darkmoon told you
The concept of dictator if it is old, since it is handled from ancient Rome. This was a special magistrate who had special powers defined in a certain period of time. It didn't even have a negative connotation.
Well, going back to my example of Aegon, I remind you that it was a guy who went with his 2 sisters, 3 dragons and a small army to conquer a continent of which he had no relationship or link (either by language, culture or religion ). His motives? Because he had the power to do it, and because he wanted to.
At least Edelgard has more valid reasons to regain territory. It was never for the ambition of power. Nor is it that she has given coup d'etats to a republic or a democracy. She won a war.
For your first point see my reply to @Darkmoon6789. I also, and hasten to add this, never called a military dictatorship inherently bad. People just assumed I was insulting Edelgard. All I have said, and all I will continue to say, is that some people object to such a system as being morally bad on principle. That doesn't mean that it is, but their opinion is equally valid.
I mean, the fact that Edelgard has better motivations than a guy from a completely different franchise is cool beans. Edelgard won the war, true. She started it, too. Her reasons are not what I'm grumbling at, I'm only saying that there is an entirely acceptable view that she had no just reason to start a war. You're welcome to disagree, but one view doesn't have primacy over the other because both are subjective opinions.
@Darkmoon6789 has also flagged that the current discussion is pretty far from Rhea. I'm not sure that there is an argument that defends Edelgard that also shows that Rhea is unjustifiable. Unless people genuinely believe that proving Edelgard is good beyond all doubt must show that Rhea is not just evil, but inexplicably so? That'd definitely be a flawed argument. My two cents are that neither Edelgard nor Rhea are unjustifiable. I like to hold off on the terms 'good' and 'bad' in a moral sense because people get in a huff over things that are obviously subjective. I think both are flawed, but neither are evil. I'd rather live in Edelgard's post-CF society than Dimitri's, and if I had to choose who to fight for, I'd choose Edelgard's cause. That comes with the recognition that Edelgard's society does not appeal to everyone, nor the costs paid to achieve it. Rhea does some awful things, and is revealed to have done things that are dubious at best on every route (I'm mainly referring to the Byleth stuff here). Her stepping down, one way or another, happens on every route, and that's a good thing. But any account of Rhea ought to recognise the good that she did, and accept that her character flaws are justifiable too.
-
3 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:
Actually, no. For multiple reasons.
Because later on, Kingdom actually invaded during the Leicester Rebellion, taking Leicester for itself.
And there was also the case of how Arianrhod was built by House Rowe, only for said house to betray the Empire and defect to Faerghus afterward, making a fortress that was meant for the Empire to now belong to Faerghus. The Empire's been betrayed countless times and been attacked without any mentioned reason countless times.
All without being paid due recompense.
This resulted in many Imperials actually having a lot of issues with the other nations. Ferdinand even remarked how many nobles in Adrestia dream of reuniting Fodlan under the Empire. And this is precisely why the six great noble families of Adrestia allowed Edelgard and her siblings to be experimented on by the Agarthans. To create a peerless emperor to be used to help them reunite Fodlan.
When you look at the history of Fodlan, the Empire has been on the side that suffers injustice more than anyone.
The Kingdom annexed Leicester as a protectorate after Leicester rebelled, successfully, against the Empire. Not an invasion of Empire territory, because the Empire had already lost control.
House Rowe betrayed the Empire, and joined Faerghus. It may have always been House Rowe's intention to do that, but that can't be blamed on Faerghus.
Also, the bold-marked section - what? The Empire covers the biggest part of Fodlan even after Leicester and Faerghus secede. Before that happened, there was obviously going to be even more tension between all these different peoples with competing interests for power. Add to that Dagda, Almyra, and Sreng and yeah, the Empire has a lot of enemies. It's not some grand conspiracy, though. This is the fate of a political power that large. After Faerghus secedes it takes on the brunt of dealing with Sreng. The Alliance ask for help from the Empire and the Kingdom to construct Fodlan's Locket, but it is their forces that defend it for the next eighty years or so. The Empire was hardly one cohesive whole before, as you'd expect from a territory that covers so many different groups of people.
And, most importantly, none of the above constitutes a valid reason for the Empire to take over the continent. Even if the Empire 'suffers more injustice than anyone'. This doesn't even deal with the part of my comment that you highlighted originally, because none of the events you cite above are examples of the Empire disputing Faerghus' independence.
3 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:Except the flaw in that is that Dimitri actually allies with the Church and was raising an army to oppose the Empire. That very much IS a declaration of war.
And we know why Dimitri does this. He blames Edelgard for Duscur, thinking that she was behind this, and thus brings war to his people.
I'm not denying that Edelgard started a war. And she's not stupid enough to think that the other nations weren't going to get involved either. But it is true that in the war, everyone made a stance and overall caused the war to escalate as long as it had.
I'm not disputing that Dimitri has a reason to fight, or that he wants to. But he doesn't intend to start a war, and he hasn't been sowing the seeds of war in other countries like TWSITD did. It's a really weird argument to say: Edelgard starts a war in order to make her vision of the world come true, but everyone who opposes her is just as much at fault for the war because they don't agree with that vision and fight the violence she employs to make that happen. It just doesn't seem reasonable. Do you blame Poland as much as Germany for starting WWII?
3 hours ago, Blackstarskywalker said:It is difficult for me to apply it in a fictional world similar to the medieval age. I imagine I will have to call Aegon (a song of ice and fire) a military dictator and not a conqueror
2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:Doesn't seem to work with what we know of Edelgard's regime, especially as the highest millitary officer is not Edelgard, but Byleth. She defers to them in all millitary matters and obeys their orders in battle.
Sorry dude the GoT reference flies over my head, I read the books ages ago but remember very little.
But using your definition:
The Empire take control over both the Alliance and the Kingdom through military force, deposing their former rulers and those among their higher-ups who refuse to toe the line (Rowe, Rodrigue, etc.) by force.
Edelgard is the highest-ranking officer in the Imperial army (sorry @Darkmoon6789, Byleth taking charge in battles with the Strike Force is a personal request of Edelgard, because she trusts them and enjoys fighting under them, as much as one can do. His official military ranking is not above hers, his command is unofficial, and Edelgard makes it clear that very few people are to know about it because it would undermine her authority).
The people she puts in charge are people who fought under her (Count Bergliez, the other Black Eagles), and who are thus part of the military. They take over some (not all) affairs and territories. They do leave some old blood in charge (for example Holst), and these tend to be people who they are happy will fall in line.
I cite a process observed in military dictatorships called civilianisation, where martial law is not imposed, overt military force is not deployed or displayed etc. This seems to be especially likely to be the case during the post-credits destruction of TWSITD, and the inevitable rooting out of such dissidents.
I don't imagine military rule is a permanent thing - that seems to be against Edelgard's intentions to create social mobility through equal education, at least. But it is the state of affairs when Edelgard takes over the continent. And my original point was that some may find this morally abhorrent. You don't have to, but you are entitled to.
All this is in contrast to the feudal structure of Faerghus, and the roundtable oligarchy of the Alliance (which actually resembles feudalism as well, just without some higher authority above key nobles). We don't know a ton about nations apart from these three, but it at least appears that Almyra and Sreng are not military dictatorships. The former has some kind of loose, tribal, might-makes-right structure, whereas Sreng is a disorganised collection of nomadic bandits, mountain dwellers etc. So in the context of the game, the only military dictatorship we can confirm existing is the one at the end of CF, and other forms of government exist.
2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:This should give little doubt for Edelgard's intentions with her goverment
And, yet again, I remind people I don't have any issues with Edelgard's intentions. Hell, I personally don't even have an issue with her character or her decisions. It just remains perplexing how people refuse to see that there is more than one take on Edelgard, and that it isn't less valid.
-
1 hour ago, Blackstarskywalker said:
Well the monopoly of force always has the state (be it a monarchy, empire or a republic). Byleth and Dimitri are also the only authorities on their routes (be they an Archbishop or a King, they are the ones who rule in Fodlan). But here we are not talking about "military dictatorships". It seems that it only applies to Edelgard (for the reason that she started the war). The same in the end of her speaks more than all of freedoms, merit, development and science. Nothing indicates that it was a totalitarian and oppressive system.
What would that ideology of Edelgard be?
Edelgard was the only one of the lords who intended to unite Fodlan by violent methods. In CF, that's what she does. She planned to use military might to make a dictatorship and that's what she did. I don't know what else to say. I have never said that that precludes freedom, merit, development or science, and I have never once said totalitarian or oppressive - that's all you. Although to be fair Edelgard inevitably is trampling on the freedoms of those who liked the old system and didn't want to be in a war, or part of the Empire. All I actually said, however, was the very notion of a military dictatorship is morally abhorrent to some. That fact remains unchanged, and Edelgard remains divisive.
53 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:My point is that the Church shouldn't have tried to make a bargain where they get something in return. I wouldn't have complaints on this, because the Church maintained its neutral stance, but it's because the Church DIDN'T maintain a neutral stance that I have issues with it.
Also, The Empire HAD to back off. Because they lost the Battle of Eagle and Lion, and the Church gave their support to Loog. The Empire no longer has enough power to resist Loog in him separating and becoming independent.
I mean, in CF, Edelgard didn't go to war against Faerghus until after Dimitri allied with Rhea, thus making Faerghus join the war.Edelgard didn't invade nor was Dimitri really trying to defend his nation, bur rather he took a stance and forced made himself the Empire's enemy. And despite how there's been declaration of support for the Empire from Alliance lords like Ordelia and Gloucester, Claude has prevented said Alliance lords from actively aiding the Empire.
Okay I'm not really sure what's being said here now. The Empire got the worst of a political exchange over four hundred years prior to the events of 3H, and that's the fault of the Church, fine. But even if that were justification for the Empire to invade, 400 years later, when they felt like it, that's not why Edelgard does it. And again, the Empire should have made peace with that by now, because that was the deal that was made, and there is no proof that they have been disputing the independence of Faerghus since. The original point I was making is that the Empire ought to be respecting the independence of other nations, especially since they agreed to ratify said independence. They lost the war 'unfairly', sure, but I don't see how that changes the fact that they signed or the reality now, that Faerghus is an independent country and does not belong to the Empire.
The order of events in CF is: Edelgard attacks Rhea/Garreg Mach, Rhea & co. flee to Faerghus, who provide them with political asylum. Edelgard attacks Faerghus to get to Rhea. You're right, Dimitri could have refused to shelter or aid Rhea, although I don't think Edelgard would have failed to take over Faerghus as a result. But Dimitri harbouring the political enemies of the Empire does not immediately have to equal war. And the presence of Cornelia etc. shows that TWSITD (who are working under the banner of the Empire in this instance) are waiting to destabilise Faerghus the moment war starts up anyway. If you want to blame Dimitri for not opposing Edelgard, and think he somehow brought the events of CF on himself, go ahead. It seems uncharitable. But the above is at least an accurate interpretation of the events of CF, demonstrating Edelgard to be the aggressor. I'm not even sure how you escape that fact - Chapter 12 is the same map in every route (obviously played from the relevant perspective) and that's the start of the war.
It's completely fine to want to defend Edelgard to the bitter end - she's ideologically very appealing, sympathetic, intelligent and compassionate. But completely throwing Rhea under the bus isn't the right way to do it. I've always thought that Edelgard is like a young Seiros - in this analogy the murder of her family by TWSITD is like the Nabatean genocide, both try to shoulder that pain and turn it into the good of society, they are both heirs to a power/authority that sometimes overwhelms them, and their innate desire to want to show humanity the right path is the same in nature, if not in specifics. The fact that they find themselves on opposite sides is a tragic twist of fate, as is the truth that both cannot survive to the end of their route. Edelgard, however, was doomed to a preternaturally short life, Rhea to a long one. They're not nearly as different as people seem to think in the things that matter, and I don't understand why people are so willing to see one point of view but not the other.
-
26 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:
Um... not sure how you can say that the Empire actually agreed to it. Keep in mind that it was the Church that divided the Empire by backing Loog's claim for independence. This was done in a pretty bad way. The Church was meant to be mediating, thus acting as a neutral 3rd party. But the Church made a bargain with Loog in which he must allow the Church to gain proselytizing rights in Faerghus, as well as make Faerghus mainly follow the Church's religion. This breaks the conduct of neutrality, as the Church shouldn't gain anything.
So the Empire lost territory, people, Relics, and other things, and nothing is known to have been returned back. If anything, the Church betrayed the Empire
It's true that the church overstepped, although of course a different story is that Loog impressed the church with his heroism. Not saying this account supersedes the other, btw. I think you're right and the Empire lost out because of Church scheming. The Church definitely has its own vision for humanity that is bound to involve strengthening itself, and rightly or wrongly they decided to split power away from the Empire in order to follow that through. Neutrality doesn't have to equate to maintaining the status quo, but I take your point that it also means they shouldn't have desired to benefit from the situation. Separately, I'm not sure we know enough to declare Loog was in the wrong for wanting to break away. But none of that is the point - the Empire agreed to the result of the mediation, even if it was unfairly tilted against them. I'm not claiming the Church is in the right, merely that the Empire made a legal contract honouring the independence of Faerghus, and all such contracts ought to be honoured. Political betrayals are a dime a dozen - they are underhanded, sure, and they reflect badly on their purveyors, but they aren't a basis to undermine contract law.
It's pretty true to medieval history to cite moments like the above as justification for invading a territory, but Edelgard never does. Make of that what you will.
42 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:Also, given how Loog's Rebellion was something that was indicated to have had the backing of the Agarthans, I don't get why Rhea didn't investigate into this either, especially given how Loog had attained weapons that were similar to Relics, which oughta have been more red flags.
Agreed, Rhea's had plenty of oversights when it comes to the Agarthans, and this seems like another one.
Golden Deer Maddening Help
in Fire Emblem: Three Houses
Posted · Edited by haarhaarhaar
Claude may as well focus on Bows because Sword of Begalta doesn't give him anything special - honestly Mini Bow+ is a slightly better choice for him for close combat IMO because it has better crit and the chance to reply from 2 spaces
Sylvain does well in wyvern, and that's a solid build for him. Paladin is also a good shout because of Lancefaire + Swift Strikes and it matches up with his boons. Whichever you go for, run him through Death Blow because you wanna ensure Swift Strikes gets the kill.
Have been trying to get Raphael to GK on my current CF run and have given up a little because of his Riding disadvantage - he will get there, but he requires a lot of work and teaching, and may still want an adjutant to help him out. Alternatively he could be one of your guard adjutants.
Ignatz does really great in Sniper (his Hunter's Volley crits most of the time) and Death Blow would be perfect for that, but honestly he can do a lot of things - be your rally bot instead of Annette, a dancer instead of Marianne (who could be a Frozen Lance paladin) or even a hybrid Mortal Savant/Trickster.
It does seem like you have a lot of squishy units as well - you may want to make Byleth into a class that can regularly take to the frontlines.
Alois is a pretty easy adjutant, and gives a Mt boost to Leonie (he does have a flying weakness but only needs C to get into wyverns)
Good luck with it!