ghostanon2206 - Tumblr blog

ghostanon2206 · 2 years ago

Text

Hi, honestly it's nice to see more nuanced about people who are critical of CF ( and acknowledging the sexism towards Edelgard! )! With that says, after reading your post I have quite different views and I disagreed with multiple point, so I worded it in the list bellows since you seemed open to discussion ( though if you didn't want that kind of format, I'm really sorry ^^" )

I really try to be as cordial but I struggle with it due to langage barrier and neurodivergency so if you ever think I'm rude don't hesitate to say it or not respond!

- For me it's not about Byleth having more impact but rather about Edelgard being different than the other lord. All other three route are about going against the Empire while CF is being with the Empire so in my opinion it's more logical than CF is different rather than similar.

- CF being the only one with a choice ( since you can easily get blocked in SS whereas it's always a choice to be in CF ) is for me because choice is a theme of CF. In CF, you have Edelgard asking multiple times if you're sure of the choice you're making, you have Byleth who isn't pushed to become archbishop because of the crest stone that was never their choice, you have all the recruit who more different choice to join than in other route and radically opposing the camp they were in by default, you have multiple opportunity to choose to spare people or not

- Edelgard do change, psychologically. Because of her trauma, she can't trust other people... But Byleth help her get through that, she start to have real ally: not only Byleth but the BESF as well. This is why, even if they can be criticized, there's multiple silly Edelgard moment post timeskip: she's opening up, showing her true self because she finally has allies she now realize she can trust with that. That's why she doesn't do what she did in Faerghus: since now she has allies, she doesn't need to rely on TWSITD.

- Claude does less stuff that are "questionable" ( And for me that's not because of his morals, at least not only. He's very much capable of doing questionable things, but due to the fragility of his position he can't afford the risk it can have regarding how people view him ) but for me he remains just as flawed as the other in his own way, for me he needs a "psychological" arc just as much which I would argue he get. ( can expand on that if needed )

Also questionable is a question of point of view: if you take someone who believe Edelgard action are fully justified, that she is a hero, that she unequivocally lead to the best changes in Fodlan, how is Claude less questionable than her?

- To me, you have 3 routes all about "showing flaws" of Edelgard path and in CF you have White Cloud with the Flame Emperor as well as Edelgard herself who tell you about the cost of her choice, you also have like in all paths the multiple characters showing you some of the horrors of the war... Why would you need to point it out even more in the route where people have come to term with those flaws and agree with her? Especially since, by choosing CF, it's most likely that the player don't think it's exactly "flaws" but rather awful necessary actions... By that too, why would you explore the supposed flaws of Edelgard path and not say Claude path?

- For me "fighting beside her" is far from deserving of a "just", this is massive for Edelgard who believe she's going to be hated by everyone and who heavily struggle to trust due to her trauma and implied PTSD.

- Why would Edelgard has "to realize she can't just back lords or nobles that are willing to go with her for more power"? By choosing her path, that mean you believe that associating with bad people can be justified ( you spend the whole white cloud with the Flame Emperor and TWSITD! ) or that Edelgard don't have much of a choice in associating with bad people. You're kinda pushing your own morals here?

- Are you saying that Edelgard doesn't understand the importance of a ruler with a noble soul? That she empower people arbitrarily? Her whole goal is to dismantle the system because it empowers people arbitrarily. She says and insist multiple times that she want to put actually talented people in power instead of people just here because of birth, and that's what she does in her ending. She also speak about how she has to associate with people she doesn't want too, and that she will fight once the situation is more stable.

- Your proposition would call her method in question since her method involve doing morally questionable things, including associating with bad people. But here, the "lesson she should learn" is that she can't do morally questionable things because it's bad?

- Epowering those who are good is a fundamental part of Edelgard ideal. Look at the difference between Ferdinand/Manuela in CF and in other route, look at Linhardt support, look at Caspar support, look at Ferdinand support, look at Manuela support, look at Constance support, look at Petra support, look at Edelgard explicitly letting Petra make her own path in route outside of CF ( I have link to the dialogs if necessary )

- Byleth as purpose outside of Edelgard in CF: they have a whole arc around making choice for themselves, choosing their own path. It's especially showed by how different Byleth is without the green hair or the archbishop role

- Edelgard is taking an active roles in not making the mistakes Rhea is doing? I don't understand what you mean here?

- Rhea has never shown neutrality in the war?

- For me Rhea behavior isn't something new to CF, you see the same things in the first cutscene of the whole game or during multiple event of white clouds

- You talk about nuanced uncomfortable choice but you never complain about Claude that you view as doing less nuanced uncomfortable choice?

- You're talking about Byleth influence, interesting implications and even of making change to CF where you directly oppose one element of Edelgard ideology. So from my point of view you kinda do want to directly undermine Edelgard sense of morality, just not the war aspect? And technically it somewhat result in wanting the game to have across all route a quite similar sense of morality? Like, Edelgard more unique ideology, without a lot of nuances and very simplified is basically "the end justify the means", but you want her to realize that the end don't exactly justify the means? In this route, simplified once again, we agree that the end justify the mean while in other like Dimitri's we disagree... But if we criticize the end justify the mean also in Edelgard route, then the game just pretty much show the same idea of morality to different extent of intensity?

- You can't compare Edelgard not making a certain minor choice relating her method to totally altering change like Claude having Almyra support and Dimitri being stopped? How does that hold same weight be it for the character of narratively?

- Arundel is on "Edelgard side" but for me it's a pretty important part of the route that she rely much less on them and even directly oppose them. I would say it's showed multiple times.

- Killing a mind controlled enemy is deeply unsatisfying ( ask Dimitri fans what they think of Azure Gleam antagonist :( ), at least in SS you can do something for Rhea ( though as the side note she deserved so much better, I very much disagree with her personally but she should get her actual own route! )

- But we are confronted with the role TWSITD played in her life ( like with the Arundel cutscenes or the Flame Emperor ) and we do get to "rectify" it in the ending of CF where TWSITD is said to be beaten?

- TWSITD not being killed as a final enemies is for me very important. TWSITD is horrific, but they're not the one behind the system and Edelgard main goal is before all to dismantle the system: the system and thus Rhea needs to be the true last symbolic antagonist in the narrative in my opinion. Edelgard unlike Dimitri or Rhea isn't about revenge, if anything she even go against the cycle of revenge: instead of killing those who hurt her she use them as much as it's difficult for her to destroy the real root of the problem, instead of putting Duc Aegir to death sentence she give him a fair trial and good jail condition, she show and says that she'd rather not kill Rhea if she could, she spare enemies and give them times to surrender... I think Edelgard killing TWISTD in a playable last fight would dismiss this trait which I find important to her character if you get me.

- This is really a nitpick but Edelgard is an abuse victim, it's kinda showed multiple times that TWSITD are not letting her much of a choice ( with the Flame Emperor, what she says in CF, how Arundel behave, etc ). So saying she need to rectify it like she's the one who did an error is kinda dismissing the role TWSITD played in Edelgard life? But honestly that's not a big point so you can ignore that ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

In any case, have a good day, it's always interesting to read ( polite ) analysis on fe3h :]

I want to talk about Crimson Flower and 3H as a narrative

So... after FE3H discourse makes the round every other week, I end up thinking about it for a bit until I realize, hey maybe its better to not focus on a 4 year old game at this point and occupy your time with something else. Everything has basically been said about it at this point and you know where you land.

But this time my thoughts were just getting too strong for me to ignore, so that's why I'm writing this both get it out of my system and maybe just be another voice in the crowd that some people might want to listen to on the divisive topic that is Crimson Flower route.

Now I really hate that I have to put this disclaimer up front, but I feel like the well of this discussion has become so poisoned that I have to before I make my piece. I want to say that if you enjoy Crimson Flower, if you love Edelgard and believe she did nothing wrong and this is the right route, if you are a Black Eagles stan and you genuinely do not have any issues with Crimson Flower route as a whole-that is perfectly fine.

This will be a somewhat critical examination of the narrative choices about the execution of CF, which I feel like whenever 3H, specifically Edelgard is discussed, there is often very disingenuous arguments people make. Which I believe can create more defensive fans of a particular aspect of a story that we should be able to criticize freely. Which perpetuates this never ending cycle of discourse of legit criticism and defense against that criticism becomes drowned out by trying to decouple these very disingenuous claims from legitimate flaws. So I at least want to make it known that I am going to try my best to be in good faith with this post about this tricky subject.

I also want to just say, this is also going to be mostly an examination of narrative. The thing that I personally enjoy the most in an FE game, but we need to genuinely acknowledge that narrative isn't the only reason why people may like Fire Emblem. The ability to form parasocial relationships with fictional characters and being able to experience something the genuinely brings you emotional fulfillment is not invalid. Being able to enjoy fighting against establishments or ideologies you in the real world disagree with through the experience of a video game is not invalid. The same way someone who plays this game for the experience of gameplay isn't invalid when their primary enjoyment stems from the actual mechanics rather than the "logistics" of the story. The point I'm trying to make is that everyone will engage in media in different ways and will enjoy it other ways and that you don't want to invalidate those feelings someone had with their personal experience. So this is going to be about me and my experience as someone who primarily enjoys narrative.

I am just one guy with opinions who is going to layout what I had an issue with and how I think for me that could've been improved upon. You don't have to agree with me on that, and I'm not saying my way is legitimately better. This is all opinionated.

Buckle this is a long one

First things first Im gonna say Im not going to be using any information given in Three Hopes that may contradict what Im about to say. As in my opinion Three Houses came first and does not include the content from Three Hopes so I should think that Three Houses can stand on its own merits and the content that was provided.

Next thing is I want to catch people up on what in my opinion are the points I think CF did for me that ultimately left me unsatisfied

The post time skip Fodlan was too different and felt contradictory to Byleth's role

Edelgard's Characterization in CF in comparison to the other lord's in their respected routes

The role of Rhea

The role of Those who Slither in the Dark

SO the first thing is probably the thing I'm mostly going to have to defend if I haven't lost you already, but Fire Emblem Three Houses as a narrative provides us with a five year time skip in the game that depending on the route will change who is control of the monastery at this point in the war, with each route providing a lord the chance the forge their campaign. However, something I don't think is brought up enough is talking about the liberties that CF takes with their time skip vs the other three routes. Azure Moon, Verdant Wind, and Silver snow all paint a post five years Fodlan as one where the monastery territory has been abandoned, Rhea has been captured, the Alliance territory is split between an imperialist faction and an anti imperialism faction, and the Kingdom has been split with Cornelia making an alliance with the Empire to create the Dukedom of Faerghus as the houses of Gautier and Faldarius hold up the Kingdom.

There are obviously minor changes like Dimitri camping out in the monastery in Azure Moon rather than in the care of Kingdom Allies, but for the most part there is a consistently defined world between the three routes. However, Crimson Flower's post Fodlan is much different. With a grid locked Fodlan after five years with just the church territory falling under the control of Adrestia, Rhea wasn't captured and instead made it to Faerghus, The Alliance is still feuding amongst itself, but most importantly than all, Faerghus is a complete kingdom with Dimitri as King and no Cornelia's Dukedom.

So there are two main reasons why this bothers me.

The first is that Three Houses as a game wants to present you with three options at first, with the idea that your choices will effect the outcome of the war when Byleth returns, however there's enough consistency to imply that this is what Fodlan would be like regardless of whose House you would join, with the primary effect being your class making it to the church for the festival which in turn will make the monastery your new territory for which route. However, Crimson Flower decides to do away with the consistency, implying that the effect Byleth had on the situation is far greater than that of any other route resulting in a drastically shifted Fodlan. So this is more of a problem with FE3H as a whole with the consistency of choice. Fire Emblem has never really had a BioWare style choose your own adventure type of game. There's only one real choice you're given in the case of 3H and that's which house you side with, which you are essentially locked into. Black Eagles is really the only route that offers a choice beyond that with choosing to side with Edelgard or Rhea which will effect who the class sides with in the time skip. The reason I bring this up is that it essentially means that you the player are for the most part on rails for a predetermined plot where all the choices for the series have already been made. So the Fodlan post five years being consistent makes some sense as essentially mostly everything that happened in White Clouds was the same with the acceptation of the class. However, the Crimson Flower one not being consistent and being so radically different based on a game with so minimal choice feels more like an act of narrative convenience. That this is what happened because of a writer fully independent from me the player had decided that this is how Fodlan shall be for this story because it fits what they want to tell.

Somewhere I had once read that FE3H shouldn't be treated as one story, but since its a bunch of routes they're all a different universe. Everything might look the same but everything is fundamentally altered that you should accept it as an independent universe. And I can't necessarily say that's wrong as the concept of multiverses is to create a world/scenario that allows to explore familiar characters in unfamiliar settings and you could say that Byleth effect on Edelgard in picking this universe was just so much greater that it would result in such a different universe.

I personally disagree with that which brings me to my second point as I believe this one is going to be a more philosophical point on game design. But I feel like the effort to make three routes so consistent with each other with one so different seems to deliberately undercut the core themes of the game. Offering you a choice that this is who you get to spend your happy schools days with and it is what is going to result in them returning to the monastery one the day of your return. That is the true effect of Byleth on the characters. But as you play through white clouds you can't change what happens to other characters which will result in a brand new scenario. Byleth's presence can never stop Dimitri from going blood mad, Byleth's presence can't stop Claude from discovering the Immaculate One research, and Byleths presence can't stop Edelgard from declaring war. And that is a good thing for this type of on rails route story. Byleth while a player insert who can help their lord in the future, right now everyone is on a path that Byleth can only lightly change. With the characters acting independently of what Byleth and the player desire. And the post time skip Fodlan is a sign of that. Its Five Years without Byleth. This is what these characters would do, that they were always capable of doing and that is why Byleth's return and effect on them is important. This also gives us the ability to observe what a lord is like now after the war, and Byleth's effect on them but also see what a character could be like without that Byleth effect on them. Without Byleth Dimitri stays mad, without Byleth Claude always flees Fodlan, without Byeth Edelgard... well lets put a pin in that.

The only other true choice the player can make beyond the initial one is the side with Edelgard or Rhea which radically alters her. Which honestly feels kinda defeating in a game that has locked Byleth so much on a path and the one time it can deviate actively alters everything. It just feels very hollow as there are parts that make you realize how great the effect Byleth could have on people's lives could be if the game actively wanted to integrate choice with the plot. But it didn't. It wants to make one early choice then lock you in that route for several chapters then remove Byleth and then have their return effect real change on the future of Fodlan. Except for this one route. Its why Crimson Flower feels so much like an asterisk compared to the other route. And I don't just mean the lack of chapters, but this feels like a route that can only exist because it was the one that the developers bothered to create something overly deviating from everything else.

Which brings us to Edelgard's role in Crimson Flower as a whole. Now lets just get this out of the way. Im not going to be talking at all on the morality/realistic implications of what Edelgard is doing. I feel like the "Is she a fascist/authoritarian" conversation is not really helpful to talking about FE3H as a work of narrative and mostly exists to create a bunch of petty beef. This is also not going to be a deconstruction of ever minute detail of Edelgard as a character. This is an examination of her as a character in the narrative that we are presented. This will also involve comparison's to Edelgard and other series lords and I want it to be known that this is not a talking down to the only female lord in the game as being something "lesser" than her male contemporaries. I believe there is genuinely sexism when discussing Edelgard as a character, so I want to say that I am approaching Crimson Flower and Three Houses as a whole in a good conscious that there is not a "right route." That this is a game that where all choices have their pros and their cons. Because that's why we like this entry, right? That 3H would provide us some genuinely complex lords who were all capable of doing great and terrible things regardless of gender?

That's why I had such a long winded discussion about why the change in the post time skip Fodlan is so important both for narrative consistency, but also just generally keeping with the tone, but also it reinforced that Fodlan and its lords while all righteous in their own way can be dangers in their own way. Well that's when I return to the pin about Edelgard. So first I want to go through how the lords are characterized in non devoted routes.

Dimitri in non AZ routes is portrayed as someone so damaged by loss that his who response is to avenge and fight. To never stop making those pay for the damage it has brought on his kingdom as well as any lives lost during the tragedies in places like Duscar and Remire.

Claude in non VW routes is portrayed as a brilliant individual with a lot of charm but seems to be hiding something from everyone. He's a lot smarter than one could assume and that he has some mysterious tie to the kingdom of Almyra that he departs after leaving his land to the stronger kingdom that has come so far, be it Dimitri or Edelgard or the Church.

Edelgard in non CF routes is portrayed as a conspirator to overthrow not only the church but all rule in Fodlan as she believes the Crest based system is flawed and that the only way to enact systemic change is through a single rule. And while she is aware her ideals have costs, she believes that those costs are worth it when weighed against perpetuity of the crest system.

Now I want to talk about what happens to those lords as you play them in their routes.

Dimitri in AZ is portrayed as someone burdened by loss and his quest for vengeance has led to a neglect for his own health and his own actions. That his kill everyone attitude will perpetuate more loss of those he loves and that he needs to learn to rely upon others. That is his true responsibility as king.

Claude in VW is portrayed as an individual who is outside of Fodlan's system who has observed it more as a third party and believes it can be a great place if people work through diplomatically. He too is not a fan of inequality and racism and wishes to make a Fodlan that is more accepting and able to work through negotiation. While he still leaves Fodlan at the end, this time he has been able to implement real systemic change and make one that is sustainable beyond that of a ruler.

In CF we find out that Edelgard is a traumatized girl who was experimented on for the purposes of Crest Research. This makes her a conspirator to overthrow not only the church but all rule in Fodlan as she believes the Crest based system is flawed and that the only way to enact systemic change is through a single rule. And while she is aware her ideals have costs, she believes that those costs are worth it when weighed against perpetuity of the crest system.

Hey wait a minute, that's the same?

So this is where I get to the most glaring flaw for me in this case of narrative and why I think altering the post time skip so much did a lot of damage. Edelgard is a good character and a fascinating one, but in the practice of her narrative, her character journey in her own route isn't like the other lords. Rather she is "right" from the start of the time skip and with the world altering in ways to justify why she is that way.

Now look, I know right now someone could be saying I can't read, that its clearly stated in the text that Edelgard says without Byleth she may have turned into a complete monster to see her goals through to the end. This is referring to how in non CF routes she is on the backfoot getting beaten back and forced to take more drastic measures as whoever Byleth comes closer to ending her ideals. Unlike Dimitri or Claude there's not really a psychological arc she is working through with her sociological arc. Dimitri's arc is almost entirely hinged on him as a character changing in his route. And while Claude the character is also mostly the same, you get an understanding of how his continued participation in Fodlan's politics is so important as he effects sociological change. Claude also does the less stuff that could be considered questionable in Fodlan. He neither initiates the war nor does he intimate greater conflict that is tied into a character arc like Dimitri. Claude action's through the war are mostly to keep the Alliance fighting against each other with avoids giving one side a greater advantage. The truth is Claude real "flaw" is that by being an Almyra he is from a race outside of Fodlan that is inherently untrustworthy in society so his continued prescience in his expanded campaign is done with changing that mentality.

Now one could look at everything I said about Claude and say "well isn't that Edelgard though? She's not the one who needs to change but rather society needs to and this is you making it a fruition?" And I would agree however, then why did post time skip need to change and not Edelgard? So going back to the altered Fodlan, the Fodlan post time skip we see in non CF routes has what can be argued Edelgard's biggest moment of political conquest, making an alliance with Cornelia inside of Faerghus using her authority and influence to expand and bring over a chunk of the kingdom underneath Edelgard's wing. And this makes sense with what has been proposed before us-Edelgard had released a manifesto to lords that would side with her and become her allies in the war to come. This act of subversion is something that benefits her goals for conquering all of Fodlan. However, this is one of the key alterations in CF's time skip. Faerghus is not broken in half, with Edelgard having not empowered Cornelia over the five years. In fact, you do battle with Cornelia with her as a kingdom general.

So if Edelgard isn't a character who is subject to change, why did the world change? Well there is speculation in universe that perhaps Rhea fleeing to Faerghus didn't give her the ability. But I do believe the most likely reason is that narratively the writers of 3H wanted to avoid a scenario where while Byleth was gone Edlegard may have empowered and individual like Cornelia. One of the most objectively evil characters in the game. Now I won't go into to detail if I believe Edelgard knew Cornelia was a TWSITD or not, but as it is presented to us, she seems unaware. Instead I'll focus on the primary point is where they don't want to discuss that while in her route Edelgard was capable of doing something that would potentially cast her in such a negative light. After all, the point of her campaign is the while the bloodshed is worth it to make a new Fodlan free of crests, she's willing to show lenency to those who bend the knee. Again, an action not unreasonable for her character. However, I feel like this not happening in CF genuinely robs us from exploring the flaws of Edelgard's path/showing us what Byleth's effect on her truly is.

This is compounded by my issues with how CF is the only route in which you have an active choice beyond class. That by choosing to side with Edelgard when given the option in the tomb would result in this much radical history alteration. But also all of Byleth's effect on her not being as much conqueror over the last 5 years was all done pre time skip. That all that change was done at that moment rather than being something that prompted her to return to Garreg Mach where they'd remeet Byleth and then that would get them to claim it as a base of oppositions in their future war. In CF, Garreg Mach is already claimed rather than the formation of the Dukedom with no real progress. So it makes it seem as though Byleth's real effect on altering this lord's path was always possible in the short time they knew them before disappearing over five years. Of course this is again a bit miffling given that CF is the only route this is a possibility. We can't Change how Dimitri will act in the pre time skip. That he will make choices without Byleth even if they feel urged to remeet at Garreg Mach. But in the case of CF, Edelgard has apparently been changed despite the only real difference in white clouds fighting beside her in the tomb and against the church pre timeskip. But that has sociologically altered so much of Fodlan.

And maybe you genuinely believe that one extra change is enough. Perhaps that one extra choice is enough justification for such a radically new scenario. For me personally, I find that unsatisfying and feels more like the writers traded in a level of consistency for this new scenario that greater justified being on the side of someone who is portrayed as a more active antagonistic force in other routes (Reminder this not me saying the Empire route is an antagonist route. All routes are antagonistic relative to which side you are on).

This is where we get my first what I would've done to make it more narratively satisfying for me. Keep the same post time skip Fodlan as the other routes. Keep Edelgard having brokered a deal with Cornelia to establish the Dukedom and have Byleth find out about it. Be some that either Byleth or another character close to Edelgard questions the extremity of. Then have Cornelia do something evil like she's experimenting on people for TWSITD or maybe she's just abusing the power. Then have Edelgard clean it up. Have Edelgard realize that while she still wants to make her dream of a crestless Fodlan a reality she can't just back lords or nobles that are willing to go along with her for more power. She can still keep the Dukedom territory, but instead she'd be now more understanding what it means for there to be a ruler with a noble soul. So she continues her campaign of conquest but has realized that if she's going to be emperor, she can't just empower people arbitrarily.

In my opinion this not only would tie together some more TWSITD plot while also paralleling it to Edelgard's past and how there was no authority figure to step in and help her all those years ago. But now she is that authority figure. And while it doesn't call her method in question and like Dimitri and Claude she can continue her expanded influence over Fodlan, but now we actively see that Byleth has helped show her that her allies aren't just those pledging loyalty, she actually needs to empower those who are good. She gets to have her fight with Cornelia level and this won't stop her from killing Dimitri in the future.

Like I said, this is what I'd do. And in my opinion it would give Byleth's presence in CF more purpose beyond the bond with Edelgard is nice and fun. But also stay consistent with each route. Showing that there are flaws in Edelgard's sociological plan, but not undercutting what her actual goal is. You can still believe her quest is just and the only right one with her taking an active role in not making the mistakes she perceives Rhea as doing.

And if you are still with me up to my third point, lets talk about Rhea.

So Rhea as a character can best be described as a neutral evil throughout White Clouds. She doesn't really do anything but there is a lot of ominous foreshowing and presentation that Rhea may be up to something or at the very least complicit with many of her policies and tendencies. And when I say "evil" I don't mean she's bad (please don't skewer me Rhea fans). I mean that if the crest system is flawed and the church is emblematic of the systems maintenance of that flawed system. Then Rhea as the face/founder/head of that church bares some responsibility even if all she does is passive.

In all other routes, Rhea is captured by the Empire. Imprisoned in their capital. Anytime she is seen after she is characterized as somewhat docile or defeated, having been imprisoned for so long. VW goes a step farther to reveal what she did as Seiros and all of her actions leading to this point presumably all thanks to be imprisoned and rethinking her life over. CF is the only one Rhea is allowed to be an active player, she is now portrayed a ranting self righteous warrior priest who swears vengeance upon Byleth for being the reincarnation of her mother but not being a proper vessel as she intended and fighting against her. Naturally, if Byleth being the potential for the reincarnation of Sothis siding against her is what her drives her mad, that is believable, however much like the altered Fodlan Rhea in this version is not captured. This is now for Rhea to serve as Edelgard's true climatic opponent. With her symbolically killing the representation of the church and the power of crests being slain by Byleth and Edelgard. Its very poetic. But once again we reach my issue of the time skip altering so much in CF.

As stated before, Rhea was presented as a neutral evil, in doing so she's not really a direct antagonist in any route. Except of course Silver Snow. Where she is deployed as a weapon against Byleth. In this case killing the immaculate one symbolically is cleansing the church of Rhea and allowing it to pass into the hands of the new archbishop. However, Rhea in that fight is under control. Rather than be conscious as an opponent, they make her more of a beast without choice. Thus making this less a flawed character meeting their end and rather a forced confrontation by the evil cult of evil. Now Rhea I think being kept a neutral party was ultimately a good choice. We are given enough about her to understand she has done things questionable and should possibly not hold the authority she has. But she also has not instigated any open any hostility. As such Rhea is more a symbolic player. By making her an active player, CF has to make Rhea more domino and more a threat. She can't portray constant neutrality in a war. But by making her the active antagonist, it makes her less of a symbol and more if just a rotten character who Edelgard is justified in wanting dead. And much like Cornelia and the Dukedom, this alteration comes off as an attempt by the writers to never truly challenge Edelgard's plans for Fodlan. That Edelgard has no flaws in her plan and the bloodshed is beyond justified more than just philosophically. Had Edelgard captured Rhea in CF this would lead to some genuinely uncomfortable questions of keeping her a prisoner. And to 3H's credit they were actually willing to make the player uncomfortable already in Dimitri's route showing him as a mass murderer. Once again, I want to express this isn't me saying Edelgard's quest or goals are wrong and the plot should undermine it. This is me saying that for a game that wants to genuinely have nuanced and uncomfortable political choices made by their character, this is the route where they opt to alter the scenario so that Edelgard is the most justified and does less things that one could find objectionable. Flattening a lot of interesting implications this would raise and what Byleth as a force in this route could possibly able to influence.

Now one could again say, well the reason Rhea wasn't captured because Edelgard didn't use crest beasts this time. Edelgard not using crest beasts is a sign Byleth is changing her and thus that greatly alters the future. Once again, I can see that as understandable justification, but again, my issue off only ever being able to effect this lord pre time skip comes in again. If it was possible to get Edelgard to not use crest beasts, then how come it wasn't possible for me to get Claude to have Almyra support? How come I couldn't stop Dimitri before the war? The answer is again as a game the only other narrative choice that could possibly alter the story happens in CF which is the side with Edelgard in tombs choice. And while I'm not against the idea of angry pope Rhea, but I feel making her CF's full on antagonist was almost making a straw man antagonist for your opposition.

As an aside we also know Arundel is still on Edelgard's side and he is Thales so while she might not know his entire deal, I hesitate to imagine he'd stop using crest beasts in the war over the two years Byleth was gone.

If I was going to once again alter CF to be something I would personally find more satisfying. Have Rhea captured and then have Arundel use the same rage stuff he uses on her Silver Snow. This way you can facilitate an Edelgard vs TWSITD conflict AND you still get your symbolic victory of Edelgard and Byleth killing the symbol of the crests and church. Again, Edelgard is able to do what she wanted to originally, but now we are also confronted with the role TWSITD did play in her life and allowing her to rectify it as well as truly killing the old world by getting rid of Rhea and Thales.

And final point TWSITD. TWSITD are bad. They've always been bad. And they genuinely damage the overall story of CF because this is beyond just a narrative choice, its very clear CF as a story wasn't complete. I feel confident in saying that given the numerous chapters missing compared to the other routes, but also the epilogue needs to say "Oh yeah there was totally a bunch of war against them. Totally." I know this point is probably the least controversial when talking about CF, but I still think its a glaring flaw.

So what's the tl;dr?

This is not an "I hate Crimson Flower or Edelgard post" I genuinely have no interest in debating people about characters that like or enjoy. Nor did I want to turn this into a moral argument about the implication CF. I feel like these topics do real damage to any real criticisms one can have for CF as a narrative.

Which for me, CF as a route fails to really mesh with the rest of 3H as a whole. It feels like it takes a lot of narrative ways out to avoid potentially making their lord seem objectionable, despite much of this game wanting to be about how tragically flawed everyone is. Im not saying Edelgard needed a come to Jesus moment of "Are we the bad guys?" No absolutely not. In my opinion we just lack seeing Edelgard change the same way post time skip as others have due to creating an entirely brand new setting that keeping her as a mostly the same character is not questionable. Nor does she have to do anything that could truly be seen as flawed. Things that Byleth's influence may overcome.

Edelgard is a good character and her goals are understandable. I just personally find the narrative bending to accommodate her in ways so different from the other time skips genuinely make it a weaker narrative for me.

If you enjoy CF as it it. More power to you. Please keep loving CF. This isn't supposed to be a dissuading post. This is merely me as one guy who likes a lot of FE because of the stories it can tell sharing why he personally didn't enjoy this one. Maybe I helped put it words for some who might feel similar. But this is just my opinion

If you have something you'd like to add or reply in the replies or tags please flee free, but for the love god, please be cordial about it. There is so much toxicity and disingenuous takes around Fire Emblem Crimson Flower and Edelgard and Rhea in general, that I would like for us to please be able to talk about this in good faith.

40 notes · View notes

ghostanon2206 · 3 years ago

Text

« he encourages all of edelgard's ego driven tendencies and ideas of grandeur like that she's special and chosen and fated to bring revolution to the world and be its Great Just Benevolent ruler. nevermind that the agarthans are likely encouraged some of those ideas as well. that she's the only one that can do this which drives her to never back down, never listen to anyone else opinion. because of course she is always 100% right and can never be wrong. »

She don't think that : she thinks someone needs to take actions, so she does it. But otherwise, Edelgard don't think she's the only one.

Edelgard is very stubborn, but here that seems quite overblown. She often comes with strong opinion, but she do realize when she is wrong, change and listen to the other to do so like in Caspar and Linhardt support. She also is directly seeking for other opinion ( unlike Claude or Dimitri ) with how she says she needs someone like Ferdinand : « I'll always need people like you by my side. People with strong principles who will argue with me and force me to consider ideas that are contrary to my own. », how she seeks to understand Manuela : « I have to admit that I don't quite understand what you meant by that... Can you please explain? », « Ah, I see I was wrong about something. [...] But you've proven me wrong, Professor Manuela. » or even how Hubert acting aside and sometimes against her order is something she knows and let be.

Edelgard mentality is believing in people strength, ability hence why her goal of a meritocracy. She might be prideful and stubborn, but understanding other and believing that they can bring something is a whole part of her character. It's just that because of the nature of her goal, the actions necessary to achieve it and the importance of the opposition, she needs to be firm in her belief. Her only thinking « she is 100% right and can never be wrong » would be fundamentally against the society she is trying to create.

Not only that, but she can be quite critical of herself, self-depreciating like what she says in her support with Dorothea « The revolutionary who guided the Empire to a new dawn...or the foolish ruler who took her revolution too far../The emperor who brought everlasting peace to Fódlan...or the tyrant who shed the blood of her people... », in the lyrics from the Edge of Dawn :

« My blackened heart

Scorched by flames, a force I can't run from »., in her support with Byleth « If I were alone, I might have lost perspective and become a harsh leader with a heart of ice. » or how she often ask if they're sure they want to stand with her. She doesn't think herself as "its Great Just Benevolent ruler", but a necessary step for a new societies. Hence why for exemple, she is the only lord to abdicate in many of her endings and not give the power to her children : « I have no intention of handing the Imperial throne over to any child I might have. Instead, I'll choose an outsider who's brilliant and kind. » from tea time. ».

I might even say Edelgard is the lord who listen and care the most about other critism. Well to be fair, the bar is quite low between Dimitri who everyone either directly agree, end up agreeing with him ( Ingrid ) or go nowhere ( Felix ) and Claude who hides what he thinks and rather use people ( Byleth, Lorenz ) go beyond people boundaries ( Marianne, Jeralt journal, Edelgard fear of rats ) and only ever has Lorenz to really disagree with him politically.

( I really enjoyed your post, and agreed with most part, so I really don't want to come off as rude or aggressive. If I am then I'm sorry, don't hesitate to ignore this. )

fe3h claude and edelgard talks adapted from discord (discussion was before three hopes' release)

claude and edelgard have complimentary personalities, they cover each other's weaknesses and enhance their strengths, a friendship between them would help them both grow as people. I have rambled extensively on the subject if anyone wants to hear about it. also you know if they teamed up they'd be too powerful. they had to be nerfed for the sake of having a game to play.

it hard to imagine them ever teaming up in three houses exactly because those trust issues run so deep. edelgard has control issues shes very much my way or the highway although claude isn't the type to be controlled which forms an unstoppable force v. immovable wall paradox. it would sure take them some character development to become friends in the canon timelines. so i actually made up a whole college au a few years back because it'd be easier if those two didn't have quite as much baggage.

in fe3h its implied that the revelations with byleth were what pushed her to speed up her plans from the recovery of the sword of the creator and byleth's crest to rhea allowing people into the holy tomb and in few3h we do see that with edelgard starting her plans 2 years later.

i don't think dimitri would have made things better, if anything he's make things worse. for one he's so caught up in his own head that he can't see anyone else's problems. he would have just put the two on edge. dimitri's obsession with edelgard is also very one sided because he's projected all his complicated feelings about patricia/anselma and the tragedy of duscar on to her. ex: on yeah the 12 year old locked in a dungeon and tortured totally orchestrated the assassination and coverup of a foreign monarch. dimitri also very much runs on emotions while edelgard and claude run on logic with an idealistic core. while claude and edelgard are easily on the same wavelength, there's an inherent communication gap between them and dimitri which claude would be willing to cross because he's rather friendly and sociable but edelgard would not. they would both be so bad at it. you remember how it went with bernadetta and marianne? sure they got there but i was a very very rocky road. they're both so clumsy and dimitri is very sensitive (and murder-y)

I do think there is some limited potential for edelgard and claude in the fe3h like they both like boardgames. there's the questions of whether edelgard would be able to overcome her initial wall of seeing claude as a threat and instead see him as a potential asset and ally. you see this in most of her supports where she's evaluating her classmates as potential allies in her dream. a proactive approach if you will. while claude is always playing defensive trying to interact with other while deflecting about himself. a reactive approach. this is the base foiling aspect of their dynamic where edelgard is proactive and direct but bullheadedly stubborn and one she decides on something she will continue to pursue it to the end even when situations change and that original plan is no longer the ideal one. where as claude is constantly changing his plans in reaction to new information which makes him incredibly flexible and unpredictable but because he holds his cards so close to his chest theres a good chance that all his scheming will fall through and amount to nothing because he dosen't allow any of the work behind the scenes to be shown. Edelgard and Claude are at their cores very similar! its what makes them very compatible! different approaches but same heart.

as we see in edelgard's supports with manuela and others she doesn't necessarily hate all religion. at the beginning of their support she doesn't really get religion but her goal isn't to destroy all religion. she just hates how the central church has enabled and supported various injustices in fodlan and the unlimited power it and rhea wield. coupled with her buying into some agarthan propaganda about how monsters (nabateans) are secretly controlling the continent with no care for actual humans. Claude similarly is like agnostic, he doesn't really care about the personal beliefs of people, actively encourages a diversity in belief systems but he hates the central church for how it has enabled and supported various injustices in fodlan. Both don't really mind religion but want the central church gone and rhea dead. i read someone else's analysis a while back about how cf and vw are similar in that in both edelgard and claude must ally with a force they would rather be rid of (central church/agarthans) because they require their power for a greater purpose.

at heart claude and edelgard really are similar. both of them are dreamers and idealists who wish for a better more just and equitable world. which is the tragedy of it all, if only they'd talked they'd find that their dreams are quite compatible with each other. I think they'd even get along too since both are rather appreciative of both intellectual and cultural pursuits. In each others lives as friends edelgard wouldn't tunnel vision as much, claude brings a wider perspective to edelgard's drive and ambitions. edelgard brings a conviction and determinination, and while claude isn't necessarily lacking those i do think sometimes it'd do him good to pick a direction and stick with it openly. they compliment each other!

when it comes to trust edelgard has one big wall and claude has many smaller walls in layers like an onion. with edelgard its pretty cut and dry you're in or you're out. you see this in her byleth supports where after some initial distrust, after she left byleth in she relies on them quite a bit. oh and then there's her lapdog hubert. with claude its like he'll let you get a glimpse to deflect from something else. claude's actually very insecure. i think tina has brought it up before but if you saw claude among a normal group of people you be like wow what he went through was messed up and you'd see that he's hurting. its just that edelgard and dimitri are both so.... yeah... that claude looks well adjusted in comparison. they're ... mmm not loud... but more obvious with their trauma so its not quite as easily to see claude's insecurity and how many of his actions can be explained by it. its like edelgard with block an attack head on and claude will keep evading forever. neither know how to be open and emotionally intimate so they're clumsy as hell about it.

while claude isn't dead outside of his route like dimitri and edelgard are, he doesn't get off as scott free as a lot of people think. he more or less lost everything he had spent the last ~7 years building. and as i said he does all his scheming behind the scenes unlike edelgard who does more in the open, when he fails like this he has nothing to show. claude tried just as hard a edelgard he bet it all in the end and lost it all. (claude's habit of making increasingly risky bets the more dire it is another discussion). he lost most if not all his potential allies between gronder, myrdin, and derdriu, he lost his chance to be the head of change in fodlan, and he returns to a home that hates him with nothing to show for his efforts. that's crushing, he staked everything he had on his dream and he failed. because that wasn't just a literal battle for claude it was a test of his ideals, could a world free of hate like he dreamed really exist? and in addition in those 7 years he was in fodlan, he enemies have been amassing their power basses and expanding their connections and he comes back without any of that. claude outside of vw might have his life but he doesn't have much else, he's back to square 1. and can you imagine the strength it takes to keep smiling through that pain to get up again and not give up

oh yeah hubert is totally a bad influence and enabler in my (informed) opinion. he encourages all of edelgard's ego driven tendencies and ideas of grandeur like that she's special and chosen and fated to bring revolution to the world and be its Great Just Benevolent ruler. nevermind that the agarthans are likely encouraged some of those ideas as well. that she's the only one that can do this which drives her to never back down, never listen to anyone else opinion. because of course she is always 100% right and can never be wrong. not to mention all the stuff he does behind her back in her name. "he gave in completely to the idea of being her protector and hidden hand. ". hubert wants what's best for her but he too is only human and can only see things from his perspective

claude only knows how to interact with people in terms of exchanges so he feels that he has to give something. or like in marianne's support he offers up a secret of his in apology for prodding too much and oversteppingahh the long hard road of communication and mutual understanding~! claude's very well intentioned it says something that so many of his supports are about him trying to help people. even if he does it in a roundabout or clumsy way or like leonie's supports where he tries to help washing dishes even though he doesn't know how (one of the first signs he's someone important. i initially though he was from a hidden border town like balthus, but why does some commoner not know how to do dishes? and why would he have a personal battle instructor?). he's both scared of being vulnerable and yet also really wants to connect with people i think this part of him is interesting. "Hilda shatters that belief [that people only interact because they want thing out of him or to harm him] by sacrificing herself for him, since death is the ultimate end of anything being 'helpful' to you." yup and that claude failed to grasp that is very painful and very good. that he didn't realize how much he meant to others until it was too late. since judith and potentially others do the same. "if you think about how he sees 'connection' as asymmetric: he needs others to put trust in him while (as he thinks) they cannot really love him, while he can love but not trust. Vulnerability is something you'd be willing to show people that truly care for you, and he's worried about whenther anyone really cares"

6 notes · View notes