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

[Acacia Sgt]

10 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Keeping Rhea detained for half a decade is also pretty questionable. She can turn into a huge freaking dragon, just destroy your capital and fly away. Did Edelgard have some kind of anti dragon magic sealing pentagram or something that we never hear of elsewhere even though dragons are her main enemies? Or did she just keep Rhea drugged and starved for that entire time to stop her transforming? She must have done something drastic, and Rhea certainly looks like she's been through a lot. Which also begs the question...why keep her alive? She's super freaking dangerous to just keep caged away as a pet. Best headcanon I can come up with is that Edelgard is periodically draining her blood to create more Demon Beasts, but even then Azure Moon makes it pretty clear all you need is for some chump to hold a crest stone for a while to actually get one of them (on the other other hand the whole Flayn saga does suggest dragon blood is useful in the process somewhere).

The real reason Edelgard doesn't kill Rhea is, of course, so Rhea can exposition dump the whole Byleth plot when you do rescue her, but there are other ways that could have been explained. And considering how little else she does in Part 2 of the synoptic routes it probably would have been better if she was just killed off.

I'm pretty sure it's stated somewhere Edelgard was hoping to use her against the Slitheres. How, I don't know...

[Dark Holy Elf]

14 hours ago, Jotari said:

Yeah...illegal Crest Experiments unsanctioned by the authority she's rebelling against and performed by the people she is now working with

Well, keep in mind, lots of terrible things are been done in the name of Crests, and Crests are formally backed by the Seiros religion. Rightly or wrongly, Edelgard deals with her trauma by lumping in her own suffering with that of Dorothea and her mother, of Hanneman's sister, of Mercedes/Emile/their mother, of Marianne, of Sylvain, etc. (not their specific cases literally, she wouldn't have known about all of them, but the implication is that such cases are relatively common). If I was going to put on my psychoanalysis hat, I could point out that she is decidedly unable to fight back against Thales at age 12-17, but she is able to begin working towards tearing down an entire system that she feels led to her suffering. And Edelgard explicitly prefers to do something instead of sitting around waiting for a miracle, or placing her fate in the hands of others. It's one of her defining traits.

14 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

I think the lack of attention CF received compared to other routes by the fact that, when it was conceived, it was originally conceived as essentially a hidden bonus route, and hidden bonus campaigns in games generally don't receive as much attention because most players won't see it; it's the same reason final levels in video games often receive less attention than earlier content

Honestly, I don't particularly agree with the thesis that CF received less attention anyway. Sure, it got fewer videos, which makes sense if the videos had to be commissioned early in development. But otherwise, CF gets more unique maps than any other route, a huge number of support conversations and monastery dialog which only exist in that route, etc.

Like, say for sake of argument that one of Silver Snow or Verdant Wind, and all the assets needed for it, was completed entirely before the other (disclaimer: this is not how game dev works, but let's run with this as a thought experiment). How much more effort would be needed to create the other? Far less than was needed than to create CF. If you're like me and play SS last, then the total amount of new content you get on that fourth playthrough consists of one map, zero supports (except one optional S support), two videos, a handful story scenes, and I believe exactly one chapter with unique monastery content.

34 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

The game is frustratingly opaque about how Edelgard managed to take Rhea prisoner, without the Slitherers being aware that she was taken, or where she was going. Presumably, Edelgard (and Imperial Soldiers) would have had to have her surrounded, and escort her, without the Agarthans present. But we know that Thales and friends were at the Battle of Garreg Mach, and that Rhea had not been seen since that battle. So, what gives?

Yeah, the game is definitely super vague about this one, though there are certainly reasonable ways it could unfold. If I had to write it, I would have Edelgard convince her uncle that she wanted to give Rhea a public show trial before handing her over to them, and then instead spirit her away to a secret location known only to Hubert and his most trusted underlings. Of course they would have to keep her secret under the scrutiny of five years of investigations by both the Agarthans and the Knights of Seiros, and keep Rhea herself from breaking free as @Jotari notes, but it's far from the only thing that manages to remarkably remain in stasis for five years during the timeskip.

35 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Which also begs the question...why keep her alive?

I subscribe to the theory that a secretly held Rhea is insurance against the slitherers just having Edelgard assassinated. With Byleth (seemingly) dead and Rhea either dead or in their possession, the Agarthans would have no need for a super soldier who has already stated a desire to kill them. Thales could potentially coup Edelgard and name himself Emperor and do... whatever the hell he plans to do if he wins (speaking of things which are frustratingly vague!). But with Rhea a threat to break free, Thales can't take that chance, at least if you assume that a Crest of Flames super soldier is needed to challenge Rhea. (And Thales certainly seems to believe so.)

This would also explain why the Agarthans are working on a zombie Nemesis; he exists to replace the "insubordinate" Edelgard. Now, why said zombie wakes up on only one route, that I can't answer, beyond invoking the type of Doylist argument you've made yourself: they wanted SS to and VW to have different final bosses.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Well, keep in mind, lots of terrible things are been done in the name of Crests, and Crests are formally backed by the Seiros religion. Rightly or wrongly, Edelgard deals with her trauma by lumping in her own suffering with that of Dorothea and her mother, of Hanneman's sister, of Mercedes/Emile/their mother, of Marianne, of Sylvain, etc. (not their specific cases literally, she wouldn't have known about all of them, but the implication is that such cases are relatively common). If I was going to put on my psychoanalysis hat, I could point out that she is decidedly unable to fight back against Thales at age 12-17, but she is able to begin working towards tearing down an entire system that she feels led to her suffering. And Edelgard explicitly prefers to do something instead of sitting around waiting for a miracle, or placing her fate in the hands of others. It's one of her defining traits.

Half of that stuff was committed by the Agarthans too, but even putting aside the specific cases, they're really common at all. How many people in Fodlan are actually directly impacted by the Crests? We don't know the actual population of any country, but given we know there are only about two dozen crests and somewhere in the order of millions of people, or even just hundreds of thousands, the number of people impacted by the crests is probably somewhere in the range of 0.001% of the population. Course, the argument would that those people are at the top of the social hierarchy and what they do impacts the people below them. But a bunch of dysfunctional elitist oligarchs running society for their own benefit isn't just feudalism, it's literally every gathering of humans that can be called a society ever (and there is 0% chance Edelgard's changes won't result in the same).

[Armchair General]

11 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Now, why said zombie wakes up on only one route, that I can't answer,

Because, the Blue Lions unintentionally killed off Team Slither and it was probably because it wouldn't do much of anything against Byleth and Rhea (Verdant Wind takes place around an month later, if I'm right)

 

9 hours ago, Jotari said:

How many people in Fodlan are actually directly impacted by the Crests?

I'd say roughly the 18 or so noble families who have them in their bloodlines, plus some of their really distant relatives. For some reason, it's not unheard of to have an Minor Crest of the Four Saints within the Empire.

[Samz707]

On 5/26/2023 at 1:53 PM, DefyingFates said:

I've been mulling over this since Three Houses came out but I've been meaning to talk about it more strongly over the past few months and a topic on the Engage forum prompted me to give this a go.

When you start CF, Edelgard tells you the "true" history of Fodlan, that Rhea is a control freak who's evil to the core and Nemesis and the other Elites were essentially freedom fighters. The rest of the route seems to support this. People have already pointed out that Edelgard is much nicer than in other routes (even if she still lies to her own allies) but Rhea is much more malicious too.

But then you look at the other routes and... none of the above makes sense. Nemesis et al. are clearly painted as power-hungry maniacs, Rhea is shown to be someone who meant well but chose poorly and Edelgard goes full war criminal (RIP Bernie). And to top it all off, these (and other details) remain consistent among all three of the other routes.

There's still some evidence for Edelgard's claims in them: for example, the library in the Abyss shows the Church tried to stop technology progressing too far, Manuela states in Part 1 how odd it is that Garreg Mach is connected to all three regions despite the original Empire splintering after it was built and Rhea flat out admits to faking history (but only in an attempt to prevent another war), but despite these three routes remaining consistent it feels like Crimson Flower pulled a Fates by changing reality to make itself make more sense.

Either that, or Edelgard pulled a Celica and decided the obviously evil people she knew were liars and manipulators were telling the truth over more reliable sources for some reason.

What do you think?

While we don't know how much Edelgard believes it, she clearly doesn't trust Rhea's history, so even if she doesn't believe all of it, she probably thinks what Rhea's saying is bunk.

 

On 5/27/2023 at 4:18 AM, Zapp Branniglenn said:

 

The Drop of Joy line is...well Edelgard says it best in response: Pretty words, but it doesn't make a difference. She may not like her body-snatched uncle personally, but his death is clearly devastating enough for her to decide on her last option a moment later - foreshadowing that she's about to complete her uncle's experiments and become the giant crest monster. If you had given her a choice to let Arundel die in battle or save his life, I can't imagine her choosing the former, especially in this route when pushed into a corner.

I recall it clearly being less sad about Arundel for her transformation and more how her only options realistically right now or death or imprisonment since the forces that killed Arundel are coming for her, she hates Thales but needs him alive since she needs the resources of TWISTD to fight the Church. (Hopes makes it messy but Hopes already has blatant large retcons like Sothis' power doing completely different things so I don't think we can fully assume stuff is 1-1 between it and Houses, especially since from what I've heard, AG has things go even worse for Edelgard than the Houses Blue Lions route so clearly trying to backstab TWSITD early can come back to bite her.)

Realistically, there's no way Dimitri can just let her go and considering what happened to her, I believe Edelgard would choose death over any more imprisonment. 

Plus the endings I recall make it clear that we fight TWISTD offscreen, it's awful it's offscreen (Whenever due to a mistaken belief that ending with Rhea only is better or due to time/budget iissues), but it's still there, Jeritza and Byleth's S-Support is even mid-them fighting TWSITD in Shambala. 

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Samz707

[Dark Holy Elf]

17 hours ago, Jotari said:

Half of that stuff was committed by the Agarthans too, but even putting aside the specific cases, they're really common at all. How many people in Fodlan are actually directly impacted by the Crests? We don't know the actual population of any country, but given we know there are only about two dozen crests and somewhere in the order of millions of people, or even just hundreds of thousands, the number of people impacted by the crests is probably somewhere in the range of 0.001% of the population. Course, the argument would that those people are at the top of the social hierarchy and what they do impacts the people below them. But a bunch of dysfunctional elitist oligarchs running society for their own benefit isn't just feudalism, it's literally every gathering of humans that can be called a society ever (and there is 0% chance Edelgard's changes won't result in the same).

The Agarthans are responsible for none of the examples I cited. I'll also specifically circle back to the example of Hanneman's sister, where he says in his support that knows his sister is "far from the only victim" of similar circumstances. So even just confining this to noble-on-noble abuse (and not the presumably more common noble-on-commoner), there's a lot of rot for Edlegard to see and use as motivation. Hanneman, of course, basically has the same motivation as Edelgard, so if you're going to argue one of them is delusional about the state of the world, you'll have to argue both are (and others besides).

As for the bolded part, well, two things:

1. You basically seem to be suggesting that changes to social structure are pointless, when that's clearly not the case in our own world? We have made a ton of progress socially in the last few centuries and at every turn, it is people actively pushing for social change that made it happen. Kings and lords didn't just give up the great power they once held in our world because they felt guilty.
2. Even if you personally adopt such a defeatist attitude, it shouldn't be hard to accept that many people do not, and in particular that Edelgard does not. Even if she were 100% wrong that her reforms will improve society, it's entirely reasonable that she believes she is right.

I might be misunderstanding you, though, so if you feel I have, do clarify what you meant in the bolded section.

7 hours ago, Armchair General said:

Because, the Blue Lions unintentionally killed off Team Slither and it was probably because it wouldn't do much of anything against Byleth and Rhea (Verdant Wind takes place around an month later, if I'm right)

Silver Snow skips a month in the calendar (the month corresponding to Gronder in AM/VW), to VW and SS's final chapters take place at the same time. Obviously Azure Moon has reasons to be different, yeah.

[Jotari]

Just now, Dark Holy Elf said:

The Agarthans are responsible for none of the examples I cited. I'll also specifically circle back to the example of Hanneman's sister, where he says in his support that knows his sister is "far from the only victim" of similar circumstances. So even just confining this to noble-on-noble abuse (and not the presumably more common noble-on-commoner), there's a lot of rot for Edlegard to see and use as motivation. Hanneman, of course, basically has the same motivation as Edelgard, so if you're going to argue one of them is delusional about the state of the world, you'll have to argue both are (and others besides).

As for the bolded part, well, two things:

1. You basically seem to be suggesting that changes to social structure are pointless, when that's clearly not the case in our own world? We have made a ton of progress socially in the last few centuries and at every turn, it is people actively pushing for social change that made it happen. Kings and lords didn't just give up the great power they once held in our world because they felt guilty.
2. Even if you personally adopt such a defeatist attitude, it shouldn't be hard to accept that many people do not, and in particular that Edelgard does not. Even if she were 100% wrong that her reforms will improve society, it's entirely reasonable that she believes she is right.

I might be misunderstanding you, though, so if you feel I have, do clarify what you meant in the bolded section.

Silver Snow skips a month in the calendar (the month corresponding to Gronder in AM/VW), to VW and SS's final chapters take place at the same time. Obviously Azure Moon has reasons to be different, yeah.

Oh no, there's definitely merit to changing social structures. I just don't think starting a war, killing a bunch of people and trying to implement your vision via violence and authoritarian will is a remotely productive way to achieve anything other than a pile of corpses.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Just now, Jotari said:

Oh no, there's definitely merit to changing social structures. I just don't think starting a war, killing a bunch of people and trying to implement your vision via violence and authoritarian will is a remotely productive way to achieve anything other than a pile of corpses.

I mean... how do you think social structures change? Pretty much every major change to social structure in history is either the result of a violent conflict, or the threat of one. Privileged classes historically do not cede power just because the underclasses defeat them in a debate with facts and logic.

Even if you want to argue that I'm understating the amount of social change that can be achieved peacefully... this is a Fire Emblem game. It is a game about violent conflict. It might be nice to write a version of the story where Edelgard and Claude discuss their ideas at Garreg Mach's philosophy club and then co-author a manifesto which wins over so many nobles that any violence is unnecessary, turning Fodlan into a socialist utopia. But then people would probably complain about the shocking lack of gameplay in the Switch Fire Emblem game.

[Acacia Sgt]

Edelgard always gave me Robespierre vibes, that's for sure.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I mean... how do you think social structures change? Pretty much every major change to social structure in history is either the result of a violent conflict, or the threat of one. Privileged classes historically do not cede power just because the underclasses defeat them in a debate with facts and logic.

Even if you want to argue that I'm understating the amount of social change that can be achieved peacefully... this is a Fire Emblem game. It is a game about violent conflict. It might be nice to write a version of the story where Edelgard and Claude discuss their ideas at Garreg Mach's philosophy club and then co-author a manifesto which wins over so many nobles that any violence is unnecessary, turning Fodlan into a socialist utopia. But then people would probably complain about the shocking lack of gameplay in the Switch Fire Emblem game.

I would say the opposite. Violent social uprising have a near unilateral history of resulting in horrible failures. We've seen it time and time again with the French revolution, the various communist revolutions, even the most morally justifiable revolution imaginable, the Hatian revolution has resulted in it being on of the poorest countries in the world (and before you cite the US as a social revolution, no, it wasn't. They didn't want to pay taxes and thought the British weren't stealing enough land from the natives. The revolution wasn't the result of republicanism but republicanism was a result of the revolution). When you use violence to over throw a situation it always, every single time, results in things going back to the way they were bit with different people in charge.

And that's what really, legitimately scares me about Edelgard. I don't know if it was the intention of the writers but they've made a master class of propaganda and the way certain fans have lapped it up is like some kind of social experiment. My point is that the things she is rebelling against are completely normal aspects of society, the magical crests don't make a difference. Normal, not good or even tolerable, but normal. Rhea's society is way better than actual medieval history, no way someone like Ignatz would get anywhere close to a prince of even a small medieval kingdom and you'll find few popes who had atheists working in their inner circle. But they push the right buttons, give the right information in the right way with the right evil face on Rhea at the right time and people lap it up as if Rhea is pure evil. And if a charismatic fictional character can convince a bunch of people that killing a bunch of fictional characters is the only solution to achieving a better world, than how small a step is it for a real charismatic individual to convince a bunch of people that killing real people is the only way to improve things? Our modern world is by no means perfect, there is a lot you can point to that needs to be fixed about it, I am terrified of seeing how easily it is to manipulate people into thinking murdering anyone with a dissenting opinion is the best way of fixing things. Almost every villain in history is working under that exact logic, "these are the problems with society, this is how to fix them and if you disagree then you don't deserve to live". It's either that or "these people are savages and need our superior society (plus I want their stuff)"

Edited May 31, 2023 by Jotari

[Acacia Sgt]

Come to think of it, does Edelgard even has a plan to deal with the fact that Crests will still exist?

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Violent social uprising have a near unilateral history of resulting in horrible failures. We've seen it time and time again with the French revolution, the various communist revolutions, even the most morally justifiable revolution imaginable, the Hatian revolution has resulted in it being on of the poorest countries in the world

One question to ask is, how are we defining "success" or "failure"? The French Revolution was a "Reign of Terror" under the guillotine's blade... but it also spread political power and opportunity to the masses, and set the stage for a leader who would conquer half of Europe. The Bolshevik Revolution created a state where freedoms were severely curtailed, repression and even genocide not outside the norm... but a state also larger than any in history, and at the forefront of technological innovation. Conversely, the Romanian Revolution displaced a dictator, and paved the way to a democratic state with high HDI and regional impact.

Again, though, whether certain revolutions are "good" or "bad" is a subjective point. I think of very few as totally one way, or the other way.

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

And if a charismatic fictional character can convince a bunch of people that killing a bunch of fictional characters is the only solution to achieving a better world, than how small a step is it for a real charismatic individual to convince a bunch of people that killing real people is the only way to improve things?

This seems like quite a leap. Edelgard's essential goal was to displace Rhea from her position of power, and to undo the perceived harms she committed. This is as Roy sought to do with Zephiel, or Micaiah with Jarod, or Alm with Desaix. In all of these cases, that meant our hero killed our villain. But killing was not their motivation - rather, it was the only feasible means to their end. I believe the same applies to Edelgard (who, on three of four routes, does not kill Rhea).

Moreover, this gets into the "video games vs. reality" argument. Like, the "violent video games cause shootings" bit is so overdone at this point. That's not to say the art is totally divorced from having any impact into the culture. But, rather, that viewing the discourse about in-game phenomena, as something that people are gonna map one-to-one on real-world conflicts... some people, sure, but most folks aren't terminally online like we are. They're out there, touching grass, while we're locked here in our virtual forest.

3 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Even if you want to argue that I'm understating the amount of social change that can be achieved peacefully... this is a Fire Emblem game. It is a game about violent conflict. It might be nice to write a version of the story where Edelgard and Claude discuss their ideas at Garreg Mach's philosophy club and then co-author a manifesto which wins over so many nobles that any violence is unnecessary, turning Fodlan into a socialist utopia. But then people would probably complain about the shocking lack of gameplay in the Switch Fire Emblem game.

To be fair, 29 of the 30 days each month would stay exactly the same. No battles is only like a 3% change in gameplay. Uwee hee hee.

11 hours ago, Armchair General said:

I'd say roughly the 18 or so noble families who have them in their bloodlines, plus some of their really distant relatives. For some reason, it's not unheard of to have an Minor Crest of the Four Saints within the Empire.

I believe that "some reason" was blood transfusions. Seiros gave Wilhelm this blood, so that the Imperial descendants would have her Crest (somehow this is heritable, because we Lamarckian). Cichol and Cethleann likely did the same, for Houses Aegir and Hevring, as did Indech for Hanneman's family. No bearers of the Crest of Macuil are known, though - so, he could be an exception, or they could just all be offscreen.

[Jotari]

3 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

This seems like quite a leap. Edelgard's essential goal was to displace Rhea from her position of power, and to undo the perceived harms she committed. This is as Roy sought to do with Zephiel, or Micaiah with Jarod, or Alm with Desaix. In all of these cases, that meant our hero killed our villain. But killing was not their motivation - rather, it was the only feasible means to their end. I believe the same applies to Edelgard (who, on three of four routes, does not kill Rhea).

The difference is that of the agresser. Rhea would have left Edelgard alone if she just did her own thing in her own country and kept to herself. Zephiel was the one that brought the conflict to Roy and always would have because his goal was to wipe out all humanity.

3 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Moreover, this gets into the "video games vs. reality" argument. Like, the "violent video games cause shootings" bit is so overdone at this point. That's not to say the art is totally divorced from having any impact into the culture. But, rather, that viewing the discourse about in-game phenomena, as something that people are gonna map one-to-one on real-world conflicts... some people, sure, but most folks aren't terminally online like we are. They're out there, touching grass, while we're locked here in our virtual forest.

I certainly hope you're right. Like, I'm not advocating we don't tell stories like this, as the video games cause violence crowd does. I think it's great we tell stories like this and I'm fine with Edelgard as a narrative character (eh, well, mostly fine, it's still Three Houses so there's a bunch of structural issues). It's the dogmatic way in which people defend her and try to twist even her shadiest aspects (such as literally trying to kill her classmates in the Holy Tomb) that disturbs me. To a lot of people she isn't some nuanced antihero or villain, she's a straight up saint.

 

[Dark Holy Elf]

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

 

Fair enough. I'm not sure further discussion on this specific topic between the two of is gonna be useful, because we obviously have very different views on the subject which go far beyond what is relevant to the topic at hand (I have a pretty different view on revolutions than you, and in particular what history might have been like if there had never been any). I appreciate your thoughts and the conversation, so I say this with no ill will, but I think we're remarkably far apart here.

2 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

This seems like quite a leap. Edelgard's essential goal was to displace Rhea from her position of power, and to undo the perceived harms she committed. This is as Roy sought to do with Zephiel, or Micaiah with Jarod, or Alm with Desaix. In all of these cases, that meant our hero killed our villain. But killing was not their motivation - rather, it was the only feasible means to their end. I believe the same applies to Edelgard (who, on three of four routes, does not kill Rhea).

To add onto this, Edelgard also expresses an unequivocal desire to not kill Rhea if possible, in both games. Now obviously she puts Rhea in a pretty shitty situation where she might reasonably choose to die rather than surrender, but that's an awful lot like what Roy did to Zephiel, Micaiah to Jarod (she explicitly spares him once, even!) or Dimitri/Claude/Byleth do to Edelgard, for that matter.

6 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

To be fair, 29 of the 30 days each month would stay exactly the same. No battles is only like a 3% change in gameplay. Uwee hee hee.

True. Just replace all the weapon skills with things like Rhetoric, Writing, Economics, Public Speaking, Philosophy, Politics, etc., and you could even keep the same skill system! Can't believe I failed my Orator exam on a 93% chance, what a waste of a Master Seal.

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

I believe that "some reason" was blood transfusions. Seiros gave Wilhelm this blood, so that the Imperial descendants would have her Crest (somehow this is heritable, because we Lamarckian). Cichol and Cethleann likely did the same, for Houses Aegir and Hevring, as did Indech for Hanneman's family. No bearers of the Crest of Macuil are known, though - so, he could be an exception, or they could just all be offscreen.

Hopes establishes that the Crest of Macuil has bearers, yep. Caspar's father is also established to have one, unshockingly, and I've always felt it was strongly implied that Caspar's brother did too, though it's never stated outright.

Keep in mind that realistically, Crests would have to be spread out, and certainly aren't tied to one family (e.g. Bernadetta and Hanneman aren't closely related, Linhardt does not consider Flayn a possible cousin, etc.). We don't knew who received Crests exactly, but even if each Saint only gave their Crest once (highly unlikely, as Rhea does it multiple times, and doing so would certainly be an advantage in the war), that person could easily have thousands of descendants by the time 1200 years pass. That's a lot of people who at least have a chance to bear a Crest, and we know Crests skip generations. So I'd assume there's a quite a significant number offscreen. Certainly, assholes like Emile's father, Dorothea's father, and Hanneman's brother-in-law seem to think they have a non-negligible chance of having Crest children if they choose the right partner, and Emile's father ends up being right.

[Acacia Sgt]

22 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

No bearers of the Crest of Macuil are known, though - so, he could be an exception, or they could just all be offscreen.

Monica has a Minor Crest of Macuil, as seen in Three Hopes.

[vikingsfan92]

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Come to think of it, does Edelgard even has a plan to deal with the fact that Crests will still exist?

If you have Haneman recruited it is pretty easy as their support  with each other shows that they are going the opposite routes to get to the same endpoint.  So she would just let Haneman handle it after talking to him and finding out what she does in their A support. 

Considering Haneman is fron the empire originally I think it's likely he goes with Edelgard without Byleth and Three Hopes puts him in the empire by default so its likely Haneman just does it.

Without Haneman her support with Lindhart shows that she will probably do what he and other researchers recommend. 

 

4 hours ago, Jotari said:

Oh no, there's definitely merit to changing social structures. I just don't think starting a war, killing a bunch of people and trying to implement your vision via violence and authoritarian will is a remotely productive way to achieve anything other than a pile of corpses.

There are some situations where I personally feel avoiding war leads to greater tragedy.  It's not a common situation and definitely is a double edged issue but I think people being to scared to fight allows for avoidable tragedies that may in fact be worse in scale than a war.  

This mostly is with people in charge who do bad things because no one is stopping them.  To use a non fire emblem fictional example of this a lord in the anime twelve kingdoms did corrupt things until the series  gods punished him. Basically using the logic that if the gods are not stopping him it's OK.  There pretty much no peaceful way to remove someone like that from power when they have a bunch of lackeys.

I kind of see Thales the same way  as this guy and Thales wants war. Even if Edelgard was never born the war was happening. If anything I think it be declared sooner is the best thing that could have happened.

Edited May 31, 2023 by vikingsfan92

[Jotari]

21 minutes ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Fair enough. I'm not sure further discussion on this specific topic between the two of is gonna be useful, because we obviously have very different views on the subject which go far beyond what is relevant to the topic at hand (I have a pretty different view on revolutions than you, and in particular what history might have been like if there had never been any). I appreciate your thoughts and the conversation, so I say this with no ill will, but I think we're remarkably far apart here.

And that's great, I'll never try to kill you for having a different opinion. And while I'm not suggesting you personally would, there definitely are people in this world who would, and someone like Edelgard uniting them, for whatever reason, is what I don't want to see.

Though I will say this on the history of revolution as a form of social progress, I don't think the world was trapped in several thousand years of dynastic oligarchs ruling uneducated masses (and a lot of slaves) because people simply weren't fighting hard enough for their rights.

10 minutes ago, vikingsfan92 said:

If you have Haneman recruited it is pretty easy as their support  with eavh other shows that they are going the opposite routes to get to the same endpoint.  So she would just let Haneman handle it after talking to him and finding out what she does in their A support. 

Considering Haneman is fron the empire originally I think it's likely he goes with Edelgard without Byleth and Three Hopes puts him in the empire by default so its likely Haneman just does it.

Without Haneman her support with Lindhart shows that she will probably do what he and other researchers recommend. 

 

There are some situations where I personally feel avoiding war leads to greater tragedy.  It's not a common situation and definitely is a double edged issue but I think people being to scared to fight allows for avoidable tragedies that may in fact be worse in scale than a war.  

This mostly is with people in charge who do bad things because no one is stopping them.  To use a non fire emblem fictional example of this a lord in the anime twelve kingdoms did corrupt things until the series  gods punished him. Basically using the logic that if the gods are not stopping him it's OK.  There pretty much no peaceful way to remove someone like that from power when they have a bunch of lackeys.

I kind of see Thales the same way  as this guy and Thales wants war. Even if Edelgard was never born the war was happening. If anything I think it be declared sooner is the best thing that could have happened.

She could just not fight Rhea and try her radical new social steps within the confines of her own kingdom. My point isn't "Edelgard's reforms are pointless and thus she shouldn't do them", it's that trying to push your world view onto people who aren't interested by killing them if they resist is just plain wrong. And I see zero evidence that if Edelgard did just limit herself to Adrestia that Rhea would have been so offended by this that she would have organized an invasion. In Three Hopes Rhea literally doesn't know why Edelgard is attacking her.

 

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by Jotari

[vikingsfan92]

32 minutes ago, Jotari said:

And that's great, I'll never try to kill you for having a different opinion. And while I'm not suggesting you personally would, there definitely are people in this world who would, and someone like Edelgard uniting them, for whatever reason, is what I don't want to see.

Though I will say this on the history of revolution as a form of social progress, I don't think the world was trapped in several thousand years of dynastic oligarchs ruling uneducated masses (and a lot of slaves) because people simply weren't fighting hard enough for their rights.

She could just not fight Rhea and try her radical new social steps within the confines of her own kingdom. My point isn't "Edelgard's reforms are pointless and thus she shouldn't do them", it's that trying to push your world view onto people who aren't interested by killing them if they resist is just plain wrong. And I see zero evidence that if Edelgard did just limit herself to Adrestia that Rhea would have been so offended by this that she would have organized an invasion. In Three Hopes Rhea literally doesn't know why Edelgard is attacking her.

 

 

I think you are ignoring the fact Thales and twsid still wants Rhea and the church obliterated. Again Edelgard could not be born at all and war with the church is 100%  happening.  Maybe he would have manipulated the kingdom instead or used the alliance but some shape or form he was getting the church vs [insert puppet faction] here at some point. 

As for the isolated within her own kingdom argument I think alot of those arguments are way too optimistic to be valid. Because they are assuming that the church won't take issue with essentially saying she can do better.  Even if it doesn't lead to outright war it's just dooming any alternative to fail with the amount of propaganda and other sabotage meathods the church has as a large organization that spans multiple countries. 

Plus I think it's naive to think that her changes wouldn't just be undone by an organization like the church who has a leader who outlives everyone naturally the second they have the chance.   Especially when they probably will just see the changes as spiteful and misguided while ignoring any merit and could easily just call for an uprising by calling her a hertic.

Tldr: she basically has no reason to believe a massive organization like the church to go against its own interests and let her be in peace.

Edited May 31, 2023 by vikingsfan92

[Jotari]

17 minutes ago, vikingsfan92 said:

I think you are ignoring the fact Thales and twsid still wants Rhea and the church obliterated. Again Edelgard could not be born at all and war with the church is 100%  happening.  Maybe he would have manipulated the kingdom instead or used the alliance but some shape or form he was getting the church vs [insert puppet faction] here at some point. 

That's on the Agarthans then and not Edelgard. Obviously the Agarmhans aren't morally justified in doing evil things either. It's a baseless argument to say the war was inevitable because the people who wanted the war went to war. The war isn't justified or inevitable because the people who wanted the war shouldn't have went to war.

17 minutes ago, vikingsfan92 said:

As for the isolated within her own kingdom argument I think alot of those arguments are way too optimistic to be valid. Because they are assuming that the church won't take issue with essentially saying she can do better.  Even if it doesn't lead to outright war it's just dooming any alternative to fail with the amount of propaganda and other sabotage meathods the church has as a large organization that spans multiple countries. 

Plus I think it's naive to think that her changes wouldn't just be undone by an organization like the church who has a leader who outlives everyone naturally the second they have the chance.   Especially when they probably will just see the changes as spiteful and misguided while ignoring any merit and could easily just call for an uprising by calling her a hertic.

Tldr: she basically has no reason to believe a massive organization like the church to go against its own interests and let her be in peace.

Rhea has done very little to actually re-establish the Southern Church. Nor has she ever been seen to be doing anything about the infidels outside of Fodlan. We hear of no missionaries going to Almyra or Sreng trying to spread the word of Sothis. In fact, Rhea has done very little as a soft power dictator. All she's done is mediate on conflicts. The crest system is self sustaining as it's the nobles themselves who want it (exactly like blue blood nobles of our own reality who believed they have divine right to rule). If you actually look at Rhea's actions the only thing she actually seems to care about is reviving Sothis. She's so passive she somehow never even discovered the Agarthans exist.

And even if you are 100% right and Rhea would have organized an invasion immediately, that doesn't justify invading the rest of the continent. You don't get the moral high ground by preemptive strike, as you can use the logic "he would have done it given the chance" to justify anything.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Jotari

[vikingsfan92]

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

And even if you are 100% right and Rhea would have organized an invasion immediately, that doesn't justify invading the rest of the continent. You don't get the moral high ground by preemptive strike.

I think a big problem with the point you are arguing is expecting that a moral highground actually exists.  In reality both doing nothing while Thales and the church do bad is not exactly a high point either.  Duscar was not the first tragedy done by Thales and if nothing happened there is going to be another Duscar/Ramirez Village at some point with Solon and Thales alive.  Both options suck and there is no high road you can take that is morally just that is not naive of the fact people want to keep the power they have. Its one commonality between Rhea and Thales that ensures conflict regardless of the kingdom, empire or alliance.

They are definitely motived by different things and between the two Rhea is far more noble but still leads to not wanting others to risk her mother return thus having a ton of power not always for the people but to get her mom back.

Also with the church influence and how much it has a say in matters is easily viewable as a problem in of itself. You can argue that all it has done is mediate but who is to say that outcome benefits either party?  Mediatiors is a very problematic spot in a lot of arguments because they often insert their own gain into the decesion.  Heck one of the plot points of historical contention of fodland is the church approved of the kingdom existing because they also gained from it. And did the same when the Alliance came to be while being able to strong arm against descent with the choice. That I feel is what people have issue with the church doing and their is no realistic way to change it with reforms sadly.

As for the crest system I think I will just say it's a topic we won't see eye to eye on judging by previous comments. But suffice it to say I am against how the church handled it.

[Jotari]

13 minutes ago, vikingsfan92 said:

I think a big problem with the point you are arguing is expecting that a moral highground actually exists.  In reality both doing nothing while Thales and the church do bad is not exactly a high point either.  Duscar was not the first tragedy done by Thales and if nothing happened there is going to be another Duscar/Ramirez Village at some point with Solon and Thales alive.  Both options suck and there is no high road you can take that is morally just that is not naive of the fact people want to keep the power they have. Its one commonality between Rhea and Thales that ensures conflict regardless of the kingdom, empire or alliance.

They are definitely motived by different things and between the two Rhea is far more noble but still leads to not wanting others to risk her mother return thus having a ton of power not always for the people but to get her mom back.

Also with the church influence and how much it has a say in matters is easily viewable as a problem in of itself. You can argue that all it has done is mediate but who is to say that outcome benefits either party?  Mediatiors is a very problematic spot in a lot of arguments because they often insert their own gain into the decesion.  Heck one of the plot points of historical contention of fodland is the church approved of the kingdom existing because they also gained from it. And did the same when the Alliance came to be while being able to strong arm against descent with the choice. That I feel is what people have issue with the church doing and their is no realistic way to change it with reforms sadly.

As for the crest system I think I will just say it's a topic we won't see eye to eye on judging by previous comments. But suffice it to say I am against how the church handled it.

If you don't think moral high ground exist then your basically saying morality doesn't exist and that the only thing that matters is how big your army is. Which realpolitik is true, but let's try to be a bit better than that 

[vikingsfan92]

11 hours ago, Jotari said:

If you don't think moral high ground exist then your basically saying morality doesn't exist and that the only thing that matters is how big your army is. Which realpolitik is true, but let's try to be a bit better than that 

Let me put it this way: I think moral highground arguments miss the point.  Because even if you find them it doesn't mean that it actually does anything other than get people killed because spoiler alert bad guys aren't going to just let you take the "ideal route".  None of the charcters in three houses exists alone and I find alot of "Edelgard should do this...." arguments have to act like Thales and Rhea dont exist.  A "compromise" between someone who wants mass death and a good person still might result in large tragedy just maybe not as large as the person who is bad wanted originally.   

It's naive of multiple parties existing and wanting diffrent things and the bad people wanting bad things to happen compared to good people wanting good things to happen. 

I also think it's foolish because you are putting unrealistic expecting of perfection on people but I don't really know if it something I can really elaborate on clearly.

[Jotari]

4 hours ago, vikingsfan92 said:

Let me put it this way: I think moral highground arguments miss the point.  Because even if you find them it doesn't mean that it actually does anything other than get people killed because spoiler alert bad guys aren't going to just let you take the "ideal route".  None of the charcters in three houses exists alone and I find alot of "Edelgard should do this...." arguments have to act like Thales and Rhea dont exist.  A "compromise" between someone who wants mass death and a good person still might result in large tragedy just maybe not as large as the person who is bad wanted originally.   

It's naive of multiple parties existing and wanting diffrent things and the bad people wanting bad things to happen compared to good people wanting good things to happen. 

I also think it's foolish because you are putting unrealistic expecting of perfection on people but I don't really know if it something I can really elaborate on clearly.

But they are the bad guys because they are doing things immoral like killing people.

[Dark Holy Elf]

12 minutes ago, Jotari said:

And while I'm not suggesting you personally would, there definitely are people in this world who would, and someone like Edelgard uniting them, for whatever reason, is what I don't want to see.

Ah well, there are those differences in politics again.

For what it's worth, I know who I personally consider the most frightening people in the world right now, and Edelgard is not the 3H character who reminds me of them. I acknowledge you feel differently then me; I offered my view not as an attempt to get the last word or call you wrong but just so you understand my position.

That said, I'd really prefer to keep the discussion away from this side of things because I don't think we'll convince each other of anything on this front. As such I'd like to agree to disagree on this aspect of the discussion.

23 hours ago, Jotari said:

Rhea has done very little to actually re-establish the Southern Church.

Why would she need to? She already has church presence (clergy, churches) in Adrestia, is earning significant donations from their nobles (note that Arundel stopping them is unusual), and is a legally required witness to Imperial coronations. For goodness' sake all the most powerful people of the land willingly put their heirs in her charge for a full year, and they can be assigned on missions to fight the Church's enemies at Rhea's say-so. It's clear she still has significant power in Adrestia in the present day, at least among the nobles, who derive spiritual justification for their power from Seiros's teachings.

17 minutes ago, Jotari said:

And I see zero evidence that if Edelgard did just limit herself to Adrestia that Rhea would have been so offended by this that she would have organized an invasion.

Rhea kills people who threaten her authority on multiple occasions (sometimes while framing them for other crimes, as a treat). I believe that if Edelgard had started calling her and her religion a pack of lies designed to maintain Rhea's own power, that yes there's a very good chance Rhea would have brought war to her (and don't think she doesn't have the troops to do it. The Empire is successfully invaded by the Knights of Seiros and their allies in multiple timelines, once even without the help of Byleth). There's a reason that there's a veritable parade of people, most of them some degree of sympathetic, who raise arms against her over the course of the two games. Either you think every one of them is stupid, wicked, or manipulated, or you conclude that they have reasons to believe that less violent measures to get the Church to cede power won't work. And I'm never going to buy a claim of "everyone who opposes [ruler] is stupid, wicked, or manipulated", even for rulers I have a high opinion of.

Keep in mind that merely setting up the Southern Church earns Rhea's ire, earning "relentless censure" and an assassination attempt on the new bishop even before the war. I don't think this is an stupid or over-the-top reaction on Rhea's part either, to be clear! She's held onto power for centuries and I highly doubt Edelgard is the first secular ruler who has tried rebelling against the Church's authority in some way, given what actually happened in the real life history this game is referencing; we can conclude she that however uninterested she may or may not be in wielding the power she has, that she is good at holding onto it.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Ah well, there are those differences in politics again.

For what it's worth, I know who I personally consider the most frightening people in the world right now, and Edelgard is not the 3H character who reminds me of them. I acknowledge you feel differently then me; I offered my view not as an attempt to get the last word or call you wrong but just so you understand my position.

Well you've brought it up now, so go ahead, say who you think is to be feared. Because they probably are like Edelgard and you just don't see it. As Edelgard is the template for every realistic historical villain there is.

1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

That said, I'd really prefer to keep the discussion away from this side of things because I don't think we'll convince each other of anything on this front. As such I'd like to agree to disagree on this aspect of the discussion.

Why would she need to? She already has church presence (clergy, churches) in Adrestia, is earning significant donations from their nobles (note that Arundel stopping them is unusual), and is a legally required witness to Imperial coronations. For goodness' sake all the most powerful people of the land willingly put their heirs in her charge for a full year, and they can be assigned on missions to fight the Church's enemies at Rhea's say-so. It's clear she still has significant power in Adrestia in the present day, at least among the nobles, who derive spiritual justification for their power from Seiros's teachings.

Rhea kills people who threaten her authority on multiple occasions (sometimes while framing them for other crimes, as a treat). I believe that if Edelgard had started calling her and her religion a pack of lies designed to maintain Rhea's own power, that yes there's a very good chance Rhea would have brought war to her (and don't think she doesn't have the troops to do it. The Empire is successfully invaded by the Knights of Seiros and their allies in multiple timelines, once even without the help of Byleth). There's a reason that there's a veritable parade of people, most of them some degree of sympathetic, who raise arms against her over the course of the two games. Either you think every one of them is stupid, wicked, or manipulated, or you conclude that they have reasons to believe that less violent measures to get the Church to cede power won't work. And I'm never going to buy a claim of "everyone who opposes [ruler] is stupid, wicked, or manipulated", even for rulers I have a high opinion of.

Keep in mind that merely setting up the Southern Church earns Rhea's ire, earning "relentless censure" and an assassination attempt on the new bishop even before the war. I don't think this is an stupid or over-the-top reaction on Rhea's part either, to be clear! She's held onto power for centuries and I highly doubt Edelgard is the first secular ruler who has tried rebelling against the Church's authority in some way, given what actually happened in the real life history this game is referencing; we can conclude she that however uninterested she may or may not be in wielding the power she has, that she is good at holding onto it.

Rhea's power is soft power. We never see her organize a sortie to invade lands outside of her sphere of influence. If she is to be fought then her soft power is to be fought. You might be 100% certain Rhea would invade the Empire of they gave her the middle finger, but there is literally no evidence from any of her actions just she would. She would be upset, she would brand them infidels and traitors, but she wouldn't convince the Kingdom and Alliance to attack (and even she wanted to they probably wouldn't, yes, even Dimitri if manipulated, he'd be more likely to change off on his own). And if Rhea does somehow find a way to muster enough hard power to be any kind of threat to the largest individual empire on the continent then Edelgard is entitled to defend herself. But assuming the worst action about everyone else and nuking them before they nuke you is not a healthy, wise or moral way of looking at the world.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Jotari