Jotari's Three Houses fix

[Dark Holy Elf]

On 2/13/2022 at 3:49 AM, lenticular said:

I think she does come across as an idiot, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I wouldn't characterise it as arrogance so much as naivete. She doesn't realise quite how thoroughly she is being used. By which I mean, she knows that she's being used, but she thinks that she's savvy enough to walk the tightrope and actually be the one who is using the Agarthans. She isn't. They're playing the game at a higher level than she is.

This doesn't really scan as a fair or accurate interpretation of their relationship. Edelgard and the Agarthans are using each other, sure. Early on, the Agarthans surely have the edge in that relationship - after all Arundel is an entrenched figure and Edelgard's father (and hence her own position) is that of a figurehead; she doubtless needs Arundel's support to become emperor. But once she is crowned and (as implied in several scenes) charismatically commanding the loyalty of the army, his support becomes less absolutely necessary; at that point he would need her just as badly as she needs him, if not more. And Edelgard is very much aware of what they're trying to do, and very much trying to do her own thing. They have some overlap in that both dislike the children of the goddess and want to get rid of Rhea (albeit for different reasons), but the desire to reform Fodlan into a meritocracy is all Edelgard, while the Agarthans presumably have their own goals related to ending the suffering of their own people (but because the game doesn't actually care about the Agarthans, we don't get details on this).

As for the idea that the Agarthans are playing the game at a higher level, the game directly contradicts you on that one. Edelgard is the one who emerges victorious in their conflict on CF. Things don't go as well for her on other routes, but she (via Hubert) still pulls one over on the Agarthans by discovering the location of their base so that Byleth and company can defeat them in her place. Only on AM is there even a case for this, and seeing as Thales and Cornelia both die, it's not as if the Agarthans come off as particularly more effective than Edelgard even on that route.

There's plenty of tragedy to Edelgard (e.g. her inability to trust leaves her unable to connect with a like-minded outsider or her dear former childhood friend), but I wouldn't call her a tragically manipulated figure. On routes where she's an antagonist she's very much fighting for her own beliefs, not someone else's, and in fact is ready to move against those you claim are manipulating her as soon as the current war ends... win or loss. And on CF she inscribes her own vision of what she believes is best for Fodlan upon the continent, not that of the Agarthans.

[lenticular]

On 2/14/2022 at 3:28 PM, Dark Holy Elf said:

They have some overlap in that both dislike the children of the goddess and want to get rid of Rhea (albeit for different reasons), but the desire to reform Fodlan into a meritocracy is all Edelgard, while the Agarthans presumably have their own goals related to ending the suffering of their own people (but because the game doesn't actually care about the Agarthans, we don't get details on this).

I'm not sure that we can really say that the desire for meritocracy is entirely Edelgard's idea. It is very much something that would have benefited the Agarthans as well. A complete overthrow of the existing social order and replacing it with something new would create a lot of chaos that the Agarthans could exploit. Furthermore, a meritocracy would make it much easier for them to infiltrate into high office. If the system is explicitly designed so that someone can come out of nowhere and be given a position of power and responsibility based purely on their abilities, then that's fantastic for the Agarthans. It's far easier for them to do that than it is for them to kidnap, kill and replace an existing luminary, and then have to deal with people suspicious of the sudden change of behaviour. Why do that if they can just have some random person come out of nowhere and be promoted purely based on their talent? (It is questionable as to whether they would be able to walk into such positions quite so easily, but they are certainly arrogant enough to believe that they would.)

A meritocracy would also severly blunt the power of the nobility. A society which doesn't have power concentrated in a small number of institutions and individuals (nobility, the church) is one that has few people who can meaningfully resist when the Agarthans either infiltrate the government or launch a full on invasion. This is doubly so in a world where Crests exist. It is absolutely bad for the Agarthans for Crests to persist, and breaking the nobility is the best way to ensure that they don't.

Finally, I'd say that I don't think that Edelgard's implementation of meritocracy was at all successful, and that it shows evidence that she didn't understand the concept particularly well. Based on various different endings, she gives important offices of state to people who are a. nobles and b. her school friends. I mean, Caspar is appointed Minister of Military Affairs, which is a borderline absurdity. He shows no particularly strong grasp of tactics or strategy, is notably rash, and has a weakness in Authority? How could a man like that be put in charge of the entire military in a truly meritocratic society? Edelgard's reforms are not the reforms of someone who has thought deeply about and is utterly committed to the concept of a meritocracy.

Notably, she also doesn't give any sort of position in government or civil service to Dorothea, her one school friend who wasn't a noble. Instead, in most of her endings including her paired ending with Edelgard, Dorothea ends up going back to the opera. Which she was trying to get away from by coming to the Officers Academy in the first place. And this despite the fact that, when given a chance in her paired ending with Petra, she proves to be an extremely competent diplomat. No, overall, I am not at all impressed by Edelgard's meritocracy.

(I will acknowledge that Manuela ends up in important positions in a couple of her paired endings. But these are her paired ending with Ferdinand, where she marries into the nobility, and her paired ending with Edelgard, which is likely due to nepotism since she's basically the Emperor's closest friend there.)

Now, I'm not saying that all this is definitely the case. I don't think there's enough in the text to be able to infer all of this. What I am saying is that I think that this interpretation is at least consistent with what we see in the game: the Agarthans gave Edelgard the idea of a meritocracy because it would benefit them and they believed she would find it an alluring goal, but when she actually achieved the power to implement reform, she really didn't have a firm grasp of exactly what it was she wanted to do.

On 2/14/2022 at 3:28 PM, Dark Holy Elf said:

As for the idea that the Agarthans are playing the game at a higher level, the game directly contradicts you on that one. Edelgard is the one who emerges victorious in their conflict on CF. Things don't go as well for her on other routes, but she (via Hubert) still pulls one over on the Agarthans by discovering the location of their base so that Byleth and company can defeat them in her place. Only on AM is there even a case for this, and seeing as Thales and Cornelia both die, it's not as if the Agarthans come off as particularly more effective than Edelgard even on that route.

Things are very much confused by throwing Byleth into the mix, since the one inviolable fact of the Three Houses story is that Byleth always wins. Of course, it makes sense that Byleth should always win, both from an out-of-universe and in-universe perspective. Out-of-universe, Byleth always wins because Byleth is the player, and being able to win is an important part of the game. In-universe, Byleth always wins because Byleth carries the personality and the power of Sothis, a literal god.

The only route that has Edelgard unambiguously coming out on top of the Agarthans is Crimson Flower, which is the route where Byleth sides with Edelgard. That completely shifts the balance of power. Byleth is the general that can win every single battle due to the ability to see outside of time and know in advance how every tactical decision will play out. Byleth is the soldier who bears the Crest of Flames and can wield the Sword of the Creator. Byleth is the individual who can withstand an assassination attack using extremely powerful dark magic ("the forbidden spell of Zaharas", or however it's spelt). Of course this shifts the balance of power.

I'll also add that even in Crimson Flower, it typically isn't Edelgard who finishes off the Agarthans; it's Byleth. Almost all of Byleth's Crimson Flower endings specifically mention the battle against Those Who Slither In The Dark. Other than her paired ending with Byleth, only one of Edelgard's does (that being her paired ending with Lysithea).

There isn't really enough evidence in the game to say with any certainty how things would have played out if Byleth hadn't been there. If anything, our best evidence is probably what happens during the five years of the time-skip when Byleth is out of action. At which point, we get a quagmire of a stalemate with no side really making significant progress, which benefits the Agarthans more than it benefits anyone else. I'm not going to claim that as strong evidence, though. The game doesn't show us Edelgard beating the Agarthans or the Agarthans beating Edelgard. It shows us Byleth coming in, completely overthrowing all previous balance of power, and beating everyone. To my way of looking at things, that leaves a huge amount of room for interpretation about how things were and would have been without Byleth.

[Jotari]

3 minutes ago, lenticular said:

I'm not sure that we can really say that the desire for meritocracy is entirely Edelgard's idea. It is very much something that would have benefited the Agarthans as well. A complete overthrow of the existing social order and replacing it with something new would create a lot of chaos that the Agarthans could exploit. Furthermore, a meritocracy would make it much easier for them to infiltrate into high office. If the system is explicitly designed so that someone can come out of nowhere and be given a position of power and responsibility based purely on their abilities, then that's fantastic for the Agarthans. It's far easier for them to do that than it is for them to kidnap, kill and replace an existing luminary, and then have to deal with people suspicious of the sudden change of behaviour. Why do that if they can just have some random person come out of nowhere and be promoted purely based on their talent? (It is questionable as to whether they would be able to walk into such positions quite so easily, but they are certainly arrogant enough to believe that they would.)

A meritocracy would also severly blunt the power of the nobility. A society which doesn't have power concentrated in a small number of institutions and individuals (nobility, the church) is one that has few people who can meaningfully resist when the Agarthans either infiltrate the government or launch a full on invasion. This is doubly so in a world where Crests exist. It is absolutely bad for the Agarthans for Crests to persist, and breaking the nobility is the best way to ensure that they don't.

Finally, I'd say that I don't think that Edelgard's implementation of meritocracy was at all successful, and that it shows evidence that she didn't understand the concept particularly well. Based on various different endings, she gives important offices of state to people who are a. nobles and b. her school friends. I mean, Caspar is appointed Minister of Military Affairs, which is a borderline absurdity. He shows no particularly strong grasp of tactics or strategy, is notably rash, and has a weakness in Authority? How could a man like that be put in charge of the entire military in a truly meritocratic society? Edelgard's reforms are not the reforms of someone who has thought deeply about and is utterly committed to the concept of a meritocracy.

Notably, she also doesn't give any sort of position in government or civil service to Dorothea, her one school friend who wasn't a noble. Instead, in most of her endings including her paired ending with Edelgard, Dorothea ends up going back to the opera. Which she was trying to get away from by coming to the Officers Academy in the first place. And this despite the fact that, when given a chance in her paired ending with Petra, she proves to be an extremely competent diplomat. No, overall, I am not at all impressed by Edelgard's meritocracy.

(I will acknowledge that Manuela ends up in important positions in a couple of her paired endings. But these are her paired ending with Ferdinand, where she marries into the nobility, and her paired ending with Edelgard, which is likely due to nepotism since she's basically the Emperor's closest friend there.)

Now, I'm not saying that all this is definitely the case. I don't think there's enough in the text to be able to infer all of this. What I am saying is that I think that this interpretation is at least consistent with what we see in the game: the Agarthans gave Edelgard the idea of a meritocracy because it would benefit them and they believed she would find it an alluring goal, but when she actually achieved the power to implement reform, she really didn't have a firm grasp of exactly what it was she wanted to do.

I agree with you, insofar as the inevitable logical result of Edelgard's reforms would be a near immediate collapse or a turn into nepotistic authoritarianism to try and force it through, but I'll also note that "[Playable Character] got important government position" is how basically all Fire Emblem games end. In other words, you're right, but that's most assuredly not what they intended to imply with the story they were telling.

[lenticular]

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

I agree with you, insofar as the inevitable logical result of Edelgard's reforms would be a near immediate collapse or a turn into nepotistic authoritarianism to try and force it through, but I'll also note that "[Playable Character] got important government position" is how basically all Fire Emblem games end. In other words, you're right, but that's most assuredly not what they intended to imply with the story they were telling.

Yeah, I also very much doubt that it was the story they were trying to tell. But on the spectrum from "death of the author" to "word of god", I generally tend to lie much closer to the former.

[Acacia Sgt]

Edelgard sounds like she can end up as Fodlan's Robespierre.

[Dark Holy Elf]

On 2/15/2022 at 2:47 PM, lenticular said:

The only route that has Edelgard unambiguously coming out on top of the Agarthans is Crimson Flower, which is the route where Byleth sides with Edelgard. That completely shifts the balance of power. Byleth is the general that can win every single battle due to the ability to see outside of time and know in advance how every tactical decision will play out. Byleth is the soldier who bears the Crest of Flames and can wield the Sword of the Creator. Byleth is the individual who can withstand an assassination attack using extremely powerful dark magic ("the forbidden spell of Zaharas", or however it's spelt). Of course this shifts the balance of power.

Despite dying I'd say she comes out ahead of them in VW/SS too, since provides the tool that leads to the location and hence destruction of Shambhala. Obviously Byleth lets her come out even further ahead, but there's no evidence to support your previous assertion that the Agarthans are successfully manipulating/pulling one over on her. I'd argue that the game's text rather clearly respects her and Hubert more than them.

On 2/15/2022 at 2:47 PM, lenticular said:

I'm not sure that we can really say that the desire for meritocracy is entirely Edelgard's idea. It is very much something that would have benefited the Agarthans as well. [...]

Interesting theory. I'll grant it's possible, though I'm not particularly convinced; none of the slitherers really ever mention the idea (even in their scenes with Edelgard), whereas it's something Edelgard (as well as Hubert) mention in their private conversations (e.g. the outright majority of Edelgard's support conversations; Hubert's Part 2 classroom question), which seems to me the game is suggesting it's something more personal to them. But I can see where you're coming from.

I'll also add that don't particularly like the theory because the Agarthans are generally portrayed as terribly unsympathetic by the game (even though, IMO, it didn't have to be that way), which would suggest that if you are indeed correct, that the game itself is pushing birthright nobility as a good system which the baddies want to tear down, and that'd be a pretty shitty message for the game to want to send.

On 2/15/2022 at 2:47 PM, lenticular said:

Notably, she also doesn't give any sort of position in government or civil service to Dorothea, her one school friend who wasn't a noble. Instead, in most of her endings including her paired ending with Edelgard, Dorothea ends up going back to the opera. Which she was trying to get away from by coming to the Officers Academy in the first place.

Dorothea loves the opera (see: her unique teatime conversation is "the melody of words", one of her favourite gifts is the book of sheet music). She wanted to escape it because she felt it offered her no financial security, and because of the system of nobles preying on and abusing her (implied by both some of her supports and at least one of Manuela's), which Edelgard helps end.

I do agree that Edelgard's meritocracy definitely seems nepotistic (yeah Caspar should not get the post he does), as sadly many systems are. I don't think the system she creates is a perfect one, though I do think it's a step in the right direction. Regardless, she clearly feels passionately about it, to the point where it definitely feels more likely to be an authentic part of her character rather than some subtle Agarthan brainwashing as part of some 4D chess they're playing.

[lenticular]

8 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I don't think the system she creates is a perfect one, though I do think it's a step in the right direction.

I think that this right here is probably the root of our disagreement. I've now written and the deleted multiple continuations to this paragraph, because I'm finding it hard to express my feelings about meritocracy in general and Edelgard's meritocracy in particular without straying further into real world politics than is appropriate for this forum.

So instead, I will just say that I am not convinced that Edelgard's reforms would do anything to meaningfully address Fódlan's inequality problems, and acknowledge that if you are more optimistic about their efficacy then I can certainly see how that would lead to a substantial different interpretation of the story and her character.

(And for the sake of clarity, I also don't think that the status quo nobility system is good or desirable. I think it's pretty terrible. I just don't see Edelgard's system as being better.)

[Dark Holy Elf]

14 hours ago, lenticular said:

I think that this right here is probably the root of our disagreement. I've now written and the deleted multiple continuations to this paragraph, because I'm finding it hard to express my feelings about meritocracy in general and Edelgard's meritocracy in particular without straying further into real world politics than is appropriate for this forum.

So instead, I will just say that I am not convinced that Edelgard's reforms would do anything to meaningfully address Fódlan's inequality problems, and acknowledge that if you are more optimistic about their efficacy then I can certainly see how that would lead to a substantial different interpretation of the story and her character.

(And for the sake of clarity, I also don't think that the status quo nobility system is good or desirable. I think it's pretty terrible. I just don't see Edelgard's system as being better.)

Hm, well, a couple responses:

One, I would argue that even if they don't do anything important for Fodlan's inequality short-term, they're a good first step. The French Revolution and American Revolutions didn't immediately make all inequality go away in those nations, either (I mean slavery was still a thing for crying out loud). But I would argue the ideals they promoted made for more equality in the long term. I feel similarly about Edelgard's reforms. I dunno how much good they'll do right away (although I see more reason to be optimistic than you, considering that e.g. we see the beginnings of public education), but I absolutely think that getting rid of the nobility and crest obsession is a necessary step towards future social progress.

The other is that I think it's fine to disagree, even. Our disagreements lie at the core of the game and the questions it is trying to ask. Fire Emblem: Three Houses is a game about some strong-willed people's beliefs for the future of of a continent, and asking the player what they think about those individuals and their actions. That's pretty cool. This is also why the less the game is about some Evil Cult, the better it is (an almost uniformly-held opinion on the game's story). And I think trying to reduce one of the lords to be a tragic pawn of the Evil Cult is not only incorrect, but does a disservice to the game and the impact it has had.

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

The other is that I think it's fine to disagree, even. Our disagreements lie at the core of the game and the questions it is trying to ask. Fire Emblem: Three Houses is a game about some strong-willed people's beliefs for the future of of a continent, and asking the player what they think about those individuals and their actions. That's pretty cool. This is also why the less the game is about some Evil Cult, the better it is (an almost uniformly-held opinion on the game's story). And I think trying to reduce one of the lords to be a tragic pawn of the Evil Cult is not only incorrect, but does a disservice to the game and the impact it has had.

That's precisely why I'd rather Edelgard didn't have the torture backstory. Because there is some element of tragedy and it does come across as projection for her to fight alongside the Agarthans after that happened to her. She doesn't come across as strong willed for getting over her tragic backstory, because she doesn't actually get over it at all. She just does exactly what her tortures wanted and fights Rhea. I'd find her much stronger willed if she just generally was allying with the Agarthans out of her own beliefs for the future. Or if she is to have a tragic backstory at least make it so Rhea is culpable.

[lenticular]

On 2/19/2022 at 4:30 AM, Dark Holy Elf said:

This is also why the less the game is about some Evil Cult, the better it is (an almost uniformly-held opinion on the game's story). And I think trying to reduce one of the lords to be a tragic pawn of the Evil Cult is not only incorrect, but does a disservice to the game and the impact it has had.

It's not so much that I'm actively trying to reduce Edelgard to being a tragic pawn. I don't have an agenda that I'm twisting the story to try to match. That's just how I see her character. Is that an unusual or minority interpretation? Quite possibly. But if the authorial intent was that I should be focusing on the different ideologies of the three house leaders, then I have to say that the story failed to match that intent, at least for me. Because that's just not what I mostly see.

21 hours ago, Jotari said:

That's precisely why I'd rather Edelgard didn't have the torture backstory. Because there is some element of tragedy and it does come across as projection for her to fight alongside the Agarthans after that happened to her. She doesn't come across as strong willed for getting over her tragic backstory, because she doesn't actually get over it at all. She just does exactly what her tortures wanted and fights Rhea. I'd find her much stronger willed if she just generally was allying with the Agarthans out of her own beliefs for the future. Or if she is to have a tragic backstory at least make it so Rhea is culpable.

I would largely agree with this. There's just too much piled onto Edelgard as a character. She's the evil villain bent on conquest. She's the glorious hero ushering the continent into a new age. She's the tragic figure with the sad bckstory. She's the schoolgirl with a crush on teacher. And so on. And while I generally think that it's good for characters to be multifaceted, I think that it's hard to properly reconcile all the different sides to Edelgard. She just doesn't quite come together as a coherent whole for me. No matter how I try to make sense of her, there's always some piece of her that just doesn't quite fit properly. I'll readily admit that my own prefered "naive victim" interpretation misses out on parts of her character, but I don't think there's any other interpretation that is completely satisfying.

Although. Thinking about this further, one thing that I do like about Edelgard's tragic backstory is the parallel that it creates between her and Rhea. You have these two women, each of whom had a traumatic childhood, and each of whom responds by trying to fix the world, but does so in a way that can brook no opposition, each becoming autocrats. I find this compelling, and wouldn't want to lose it.

So overall: I don't know. Writing good stories is hard.

[Jotari]

27 minutes ago, lenticular said:

Although. Thinking about this further, one thing that I do like about Edelgard's tragic backstory is the parallel that it creates between her and Rhea. You have these two women, each of whom had a traumatic childhood, and each of whom responds by trying to fix the world, but does so in a way that can brook no opposition, each becoming autocrats. I find this compelling, and wouldn't want to lose it.

So overall: I don't know. Writing good stories is hard.

That's a fair thematic reason to want it. In which case, like I said, if she has to have the tragic backstory, make it so Rhea is the one responsible. Make Edelgard another attempt at Byleth. Then at least she's venting in the right direction. It also gives Byleth and Edelgard a stronger parallel.

[ZeManaphy]

1 hour ago, lenticular said:

Although. Thinking about this further, one thing that I do like about Edelgard's tragic backstory is the parallel that it creates between her and Rhea. You have these two women, each of whom had a traumatic childhood, and each of whom responds by trying to fix the world, but does so in a way that can brook no opposition, each becoming autocrats. I find this compelling, and wouldn't want to lose it.

Its funny you bring up the Rhea-Edelgard paralell, because there is a great video about it: 

 

 

[Dark Holy Elf]

9 hours ago, lenticular said:

Although. Thinking about this further, one thing that I do like about Edelgard's tragic backstory is the parallel that it creates between her and Rhea. You have these two women, each of whom had a traumatic childhood, and each of whom responds by trying to fix the world, but does so in a way that can brook no opposition, each becoming autocrats. I find this compelling, and wouldn't want to lose it.

As much as we come at this from different viewpoints in other ways, I very much do agree with this. The parallels between Rhea and Edelgard are compelling and can certainly be counted as one of the game's story successes.

(There are, of course, also differences... the biggest one being that Rhea became the de facto ruler of the continent for centuries, while Edelgard not only explicitly has no intention of that, but doesn't even want her own child to succeed her.)

9 hours ago, Jotari said:

That's a fair thematic reason to want it. In which case, like I said, if she has to have the tragic backstory, make it so Rhea is the one responsible. Make Edelgard another attempt at Byleth. Then at least she's venting in the right direction. It also gives Byleth and Edelgard a stronger parallel.

Making Rhea directly responsible for Edelgard's trauma would be an interesting change. On the whole I dunno if I like it... it would make Edelgard's goals feel much more about revenge (at the moment, they're not). We already have one of the lords who examines that. But of course they could still examine it in different ways... parallels and contrasts are fun.

[lenticular]

12 hours ago, Jotari said:

That's a fair thematic reason to want it. In which case, like I said, if she has to have the tragic backstory, make it so Rhea is the one responsible. Make Edelgard another attempt at Byleth. Then at least she's venting in the right direction. It also gives Byleth and Edelgard a stronger parallel.

I'm with @Dark Holy Elf here. I think this is an interesting idea and would have had definite advantages, but I'm not sure that I like it. In my case, I think I'm mostly concerned with the implications that it would have for Rhea's character. Rhea certainly has some moments that are fairly morally indefensible, but I think that for the most part, she still manages to come across as at least moderately sympathetic. Her worst moments (eg, burning down Fhirdiad) happen in times of great stress when she is driven to the edge of madness, if not over the edge. If you add "literally tortures children, in cold blood, for her own personal gains" to her crimes, then that removes any sense of moral ambiguity from her character and just makes her an unambiguous villain.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

14 hours ago, Jotari said:

That's a fair thematic reason to want it. In which case, like I said, if she has to have the tragic backstory, make it so Rhea is the one responsible. Make Edelgard another attempt at Byleth. Then at least she's venting in the right direction. It also gives Byleth and Edelgard a stronger parallel.

 

53 minutes ago, lenticular said:

I'm with @Dark Holy Elf here. I think this is an interesting idea and would have had definite advantages, but I'm not sure that I like it. In my case, I think I'm mostly concerned with the implications that it would have for Rhea's character. Rhea certainly has some moments that are fairly morally indefensible, but I think that for the most part, she still manages to come across as at least moderately sympathetic. Her worst moments (eg, burning down Fhirdiad) happen in times of great stress when she is driven to the edge of madness, if not over the edge. If you add "literally tortures children, in cold blood, for her own personal gains" to her crimes, then that removes any sense of moral ambiguity from her character and just makes her an unambiguous villain.

There may be a middle ground here - make it so that Rhea isn't directly responsible for Edelgard's suffering, but that she instead enabled it. We know that the Empire used to have a "Southern Church", before it disbanded. Suppose that the Emperor was responsible for disbanding the Church. In that case, Rhea would have her own grudge against the Imperial Throne. She could've given her blessing, or maybe even resources, to promote the "Insurrection of the Seven". In exchange, Rhea would be allowed to re-establish the Southern Church. In so doing, Rhea increases the Church's sway in the Empire - while unwittingly allowing those who despise her the most to put their plans into motion. So Edelgard has a personal reason to oppose Rhea's rule, alongside her disagreement with the Crest system.

That said, her route should avoid leaning too far into any "revenge" tropes. That's a defining aspect of Dimitri's character arc, and it would likely either feel watered-down or redundant on Edelgard. Hm... maybe Edelgard can wonder if she's even the right person for the job, as she tries to temper her passions and act out of cold reason? That could be an interesting insecurity. Then again, the ferocity of Edelgard's convictions is one of her current draws, so adding that trait may be seen as "backsliding", in a sense.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, lenticular said:

I'm with @Dark Holy Elf here. I think this is an interesting idea and would have had definite advantages, but I'm not sure that I like it. In my case, I think I'm mostly concerned with the implications that it would have for Rhea's character. Rhea certainly has some moments that are fairly morally indefensible, but I think that for the most part, she still manages to come across as at least moderately sympathetic. Her worst moments (eg, burning down Fhirdiad) happen in times of great stress when she is driven to the edge of madness, if not over the edge. If you add "literally tortures children, in cold blood, for her own personal gains" to her crimes, then that removes any sense of moral ambiguity from her character and just makes her an unambiguous villain.

Well my preferred fix would be to just remove the torture entirely and have her motivated purely by her own politics.

[drattakbowser]

I would like the Annette paralogue, her relic (Crusher) and her canon gambit available in Silver Snow/Verdant Wind without Gilbert, same with Felix Sacred Weapons (Sword of Moralta) and Tathlum Bow.

 

If possible, change crest for this "Axe of Ukonvasara" to Crest of Flame.

 

Maybe we can create "Shield of the Creator" for Byleth.

[lenticular]

1 hour ago, drattakbowser said:

If possible, change crest for this "Axe of Ukonvasara" to Crest of Flame.

Why this in particular? I don't see the motivation for it, either in terms of gameplay or story.

[ThePrimeOne]

On 2/12/2022 at 11:41 AM, Jotari said:

*Claude bringing in forces from Almyria actually shift the course of the war, forcing Rhea to retreat first to the monastery and then to Grondor (in all the routes Claude brings in his Almyrian forces around the time of Grondor, which, due to racism, helps to encourage Dimitri to fight him).

Idk Dimitri fighting Claude and his Almyran forces because of racism sounds way too out of character to me. 

[wissenschaft]

On 3/3/2022 at 5:44 PM, ThePrimeOne said:

Idk Dimitri fighting Claude and his Almyran forces because of racism sounds way too out of character to me. 

And yet if this was how the game was then it would makes the battle of Eagle and Lion SO MUCH BETTER. The kingdom once rule the lands of the Leicester Alliance. It would have made a lot of sense if there was bad blood between the two factions. A three way fight happening because the Leicester Alliance refused to back either the empire or kingdom because of their history would make the battle make far more sense. An unstable Dimitri doesn't even have to racist, he can just straight up say during the mission "your either with me or against me". Then Claude refuses to summit the alliance to Dimitri's clearly unstable command, and bam, 3 way fight.

Edited March 18, 2022 by wissenschaft

[ThePrimeOne]

20 hours ago, wissenschaft said:

And yet if this was how the game was then it would makes the battle of Eagle and Lion SO MUCH BETTER.

No. Not if racism was the basis for the three-way fight. Dimitri's attitude toward Dedue, Duscur, and how its people are treated should be obvious why this isn't a good idea if there's to be character consistency.

20 hours ago, wissenschaft said:

The kingdom once rule the lands of the Leicester Alliance. It would have made a lot of sense if there was bad blood between the two factions.

No? Why would there be? The Crescent Moon War ended almost 290 years ago by the time the post-timeskip happens. That status quo has been set for so long that hardly anyone should give af by now, especially Dimitri.

20 hours ago, wissenschaft said:

A three way fight happening because the Leicester Alliance refused to back either the empire or kingdom because of their history would make the battle make far more sense. An unstable Dimitri doesn't even have to racist, he can just straight up say during the mission "your either with me or against me". Then Claude refuses to summit the alliance to Dimitri's clearly unstable command, and bam, 3 way fight.

Even at his most unstable, Dimitri was hardly interested in Claude and the alliance army in FE3H, so I don't see why that needs to be changed. If anything, the Claude making the Alliance army hang back to let the Empire and Kingdom destroy themselves, then swooping in to take Edelgard's head when they're at their weakest would make far more sense with the way his character is framed.

Edited March 19, 2022 by ThePrimeOne

[wissenschaft]

2 hours ago, ThePrimeOne said:

No. Not if racism was the basis for the three-way fight. Dimitri's attitude toward Dedue, Duscur, and how its people are treated should be obvious why this isn't a good idea if there's to be character consistency.

A character can be generous to one group of people and bigoted to another. Rather than Racist, just being prejudice against the Leicester Alliance would have worked fine.

  2 hours ago, ThePrimeOne said:

No? Why would there be? The Crescent Moon War ended almost 290 years ago by the time the post-timeskip happens. That status quo has been set for so long that hardly anyone should give af by now, especially Dimitri.

*Looks at IRL history. Yeah 290 years is nothing compared to a grudge between nations. Also, fixing the story to make it more compelling means changing characters in the game. So while it might not make sense with how the game is now it just means that changes need to be made to the characters. Right now, Dimitri and Claude get along so well that the 3 way battle makes zero sense. But the idea of the 3 way battle is very cool there just needed to be proper set up for it. One idea is to make either DImitri or Claude less goodie toe shoe towards each other. I'd been happy if Claude revealed he was going to back stab the Kingdom just to ensure the Leicester Alliance's independence. That would require proper set up since it wouldn't work right now with how good guy Claude is in the game as is.

@lenticular

 I think this argument that Caspar is an example of Nepotism is very unfair to Caspar and ignores what his CF ending tells us. Yes, Caspar has a weakness in Authority but through out his school years and the war he has grown up and learned how to command an army. Theres nothing stopping any character with a weakness in Authority from reaching C rank where there are plenty of good Battalions to use on them. Are we going to argue characters like Hilda and Felix would be equally incompetent in such a high level Minister Position? Edelgard has seen first hand how much Caspar has grown as a soldier and commander so she is fully aware of what hes capable of achieving. Caspar's own ending says while hes a bit of a reckless General he went on to bring many victories to the empire. So her faith in his abilities were not missplaced. 

Yeah I get that a lot of people dislike Caspar for being a meathead but I find it really misleading to think Caspar being appointed Minister is somehow Nepotism. Caspar earned his apppointment through both hard work at the academy and successful campaigns in war. Thats the definition of Meritocracy.

Edited March 19, 2022 by wissenschaft

[wissenschaft]

2 hours ago, ThePrimeOne said:

No? Why would there be? The Crescent Moon War ended almost 290 years ago by the time the post-timeskip happens. That status quo has been set for so long that hardly anyone should give af by now, especially Dimitri.

Edit: How do I remove a double post?

Edited March 19, 2022 by wissenschaft

[lenticular]

9 hours ago, wissenschaft said:

I think this argument that Caspar is an example of Nepotism is very unfair to Caspar and ignores what his CF ending tells us. Yes, Caspar has a weakness in Authority but through out his school years and the war he has grown up and learned how to command an army. Theres nothing stopping any character with a weakness in Authority from reaching C rank where there are plenty of good Battalions to use on them. Are we going to argue characters like Hilda and Felix would be equally incompetent in such a high level Minister Position? Edelgard has seen first hand how much Caspar has grown as a soldier and commander so she is fully aware of what hes capable of achieving. Caspar's own ending says while hes a bit of a reckless General he went on to bring many victories to the empire. So her faith in his abilities were not missplaced. 

Yeah I get that a lot of people dislike Caspar for being a meathead but I find it really misleading to think Caspar being appointed Minister is somehow Nepotism. Caspar earned his apppointment through both hard work at the academy and successful campaigns in war. Thats the definition of Meritocracy.

I don't see anything during the war itself that would qualify Caspar for a ministerial position. He doesn't contribute much to overall strategy or logistics. Those are mostly handled by a combination of Byleth, Hubert and Edelgard. Caspar is a soldier and the leader of his battalion, nothing more. We don't know exactly how many people make up a battalion in Fódlan, but I would guess that it is unlikely to be more than a few hundred at most, and could easily be far fewer. Commanding a few hundred men does not qualify someone to lead the entire army of a continent-spanning empire.

If we're assuming that he reaches C rank authority, then I would take that to mean that he was a competent commander of his battalion, but little beyond that. A or S rank might imply some degree of expertise or mastery, but not C rank.

I also don't read a lot into his endings stating that he achieved many victories. That doesn't say much about the quality of his command if we don't what sort of opposition he was facing. The most likely conflicts  he'd have seen would be a. dealing with any minor rebellions or insurrections, b. border skirmishes with Sreng or Almyra, and c. battles against the Agarthans. These are all fights that the Fódlan-spanning Adrestian Empire absolutely should be winning. The only one of these who wouldn't be hopelessly outnumbered by Adrestia are the Almyrans, and the Almyran border is both mountainous and extremely well-fortified.

Indeed, if you'll forgive the quoting of Sun Tzu, "to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting". That he is winning many battles (or "guiding his troops to overcome countless obstacles", to quote his ending) need not imply that he is commanding well and might actually imply the opposite. Why do they have these obstacles in the first place? Is Caspar creating themby his recklessness? As Minister of Military Affairs, why is he not working with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Domestic Affairs to help ensure that these so-called obstacles don't arise in the first place?

None of this should be seen as implying that Caspar couldn't potentially become a competent Minister of Military Affairs. I don't see why he couldn't. But the point of a meritocracy is that top positions should be filled by the absolute best person for the job, not just someone who can perform it at the minimum level of competence. Asking me to believe that Caspar deserves the job is akin to asking me to believe that he is the single person in all of Fódlan who is best suited for the job. That he has the best military mind on the continent. And I absolutely do not believe that, even for a second.

And this isn't even a knock on Caspar. He's not one of my personal favourites, but I don't dislike him. He has many qualities, but none of them make him well suited for a ministerial position. Rather, he should be doing something he is suited for. You mentioned Hilda and Felix, and if you look at their endings, they mostly do walk away from politics, command, and high society. Hilda "set politics aside and focused on what she enjoyed most: crafting fashionable accessories" and Felix "abandoned his title, jumping at the opportunity to wield a sword again" (quotes from their respective default single endings). And yes, both of them have some endings where they are more politically involved, but I believe that in each case, this is something that they grow into over time, rather than something we are supposed to believe that they are immediately talented at.

[wissenschaft]

1 hour ago, lenticular said:

And this isn't even a knock on Caspar. He's not one of my personal favourites, but I don't dislike him. He has many qualities, but none of them make him well suited for a ministerial position. Rather, he should be doing something he is suited for. You mentioned Hilda and Felix, and if you look at their endings, they mostly do walk away from politics, command, and high society. Hilda "set politics aside and focused on what she enjoyed most: crafting fashionable accessories" and Felix "abandoned his title, jumping at the opportunity to wield a sword again" (quotes from their respective default single endings). And yes, both of them have some endings where they are more politically involved, but I believe that in each case, this is something that they grow into over time, rather than something we are supposed to believe that they are immediately talented at.

You can't give a minister position to people who refuse to take the position and leave politics all together. Caspar likely got the position because 1) Eldelgard knows first hand his combat and command ability and so knows hes qualified. 2) hes actually willing to take the job when many of her classmates seem to just retire right after the war or have personal business to take care of. 3) Edelgard would not have personal experience with anyone outside her classmates and therefore she wouldn't be able to check her merit based tests on them do to lack of knowledge.

It just feels like a big strech to say that Caspar is unqualified and I don't buy that his ending should be ignored because he wasn't fighting any really worthy opponents. Thats just negative speculation with a bias looking to confirm the premise that Caspar didn't earn the job. Is Caspar perfect for the Job? No. Is he worthy of the job, yes. Caspar not being perfect for the Job doesn't mean hes not qualified or that this is nepotism. His ending implies he grows into the position just fine and does an excellent job. I'm willing to take that ending at face value. 

Edited March 19, 2022 by wissenschaft