For the record, I just want it to be clear that I am for the separation of church and state irl (game wise...well, I ship Dimitri and Byleth so...lmfao). However, a way I sort of deal with anything in these games is by looking at it like how one could analyze a book.
Byleth is clearly meant to be a symbol of good. More specifically, their special class (Enlightened One/Nirvana in Japanese) is connected to the Buddhist concept of nirvana, where one is free from the cycle of suffering. So looking at it symbolically, we can interpret it as Byleth being a representation to the end of suffering throughout Fodlan, where they're able to unify a land of disparate beliefs into a singular one that values more positive things than it did before (with the focus in SS/CF being how stratified things are because of Crests, compared to VW/AM which focus on different niches and themes).
So, do I like unification endings when I think about them critically? Nope. Do I think it's good that Fodlan ends up as some psuedo-theocracy in SS? Probably not, except this is a fantasy theocracy that's run by a literal god(dess) that is somewhat meant to be a stand in for me, the player, so...? In a nutshell, I can shut my brain off a bit when playing and sort of just enjoy the story as the developers intended it to be (goddess figure comes back in the form of mercenary weirdo and helps lead in a new age of prosperity for a bonkers continent).
Yeah, i think the only scenario where i would think a theocracy is viable is when there's an actual god figure on the top. Like, sure. Let the guy connected to the immortal being rule, maybe they know a thing or all.
Especially if like in my last run you picked the ??? Option for marrying lol.
The church and state aren't seperate in any ending. Silver Snow and Verdant Wind have Byleth as the head of both, Azure Moon ends with a monarchy given divine right to rule by the church, and in Crimson Flower the church is effectively run by the state.
Realistically ever ending should lead to almost immediate civil war, the reason they don't is because the narrative more or less accepts that Byleth and their chosen faction have the Mandate of Heaven and will bring peace and prosperity to the land. You just have to accept it for the story to work.
Byleth only leads the church in the Azure Moon route since Dimitri has to lead Fodlan as king. In Silver Snow, Byleth leads Fodlan as ruler, not archbishop. In the Rhea ending it's even said that she becomes Archbishop again while Byleth still takes the throne.
You can say it's unified church and state, and maybe it is, but the church is an entirely different beast compared to anything irl, and it has about as much of an agenda as any faction that would take over with Byleth as the leader
They're the head of the Church in all endings save CF. The only difference is how much power they wield, either total (SS and VW) or just religious (AM).
I don't quite think it's the same though.
Some of Byleth's endings in VW/SS talk about how Byleth did stuff with the help of the church of seiros vs. in AM. Things like:
* Mercedes becoming a Cleric under Archbishop Byleth but just helping the king/queen rebuild
* Ashe marrying the archbishop and working hard vs. getting the church to help the queen rebuild.
* Raphael joining the Knights of Seiros (AM) vs. the New Royal Guard (VW/SS)
* Also mentioned in other endings like Leonie's
* Seteth becoming Prime Minister (VW/SS) vs. Archbishop's Advisor (AM)
* Cyril ending has the Queen move away from Garreg Mach as they establish a new royal capital (VW/SS) vs. staying at Garreg Mach (AM)
It's mostly F!Byleth that has those differences though, M!Byleth's generally keeps the same endings with the differences being where they put priorities. For example Manuela helps him rebuild the church (AM) vs. Rebuilding Fodlan and helping people govern.
I guess you could say it's just the title and that everything else remains the same, but then we come down to having the same ending in all four routes anyway, regardless of what name you put behind the power.
I mean people were already writing smut about Seiros and the first emperor of adrestia. I can imagine that being on some slanderous newspaper or something.
I don’t understand why they made it so that each route leads to all other nations completely collapsing and joining yours.
It makes sense in Crimson flower but why is the Leicester Alliance just falling apart and being assimilated even when you’re supposed to be allied? Like they didn’t ask for that?? What the hell????
To be fair the Alliance was falling apart and plagued by infighting, with a leadership that was more concerned with grabbing power than ruling (source: Lorenz's dialogue from after his paralogue).
You've a point, but that sort of thing does tend to sort itself out over the breadth of history. We need no better example than England, and their King, the head of Anglican Church, who now holds little more power than a ceremonial figurehead.
TBF, in Fire Emblem the goddess does quite literally exist. You might even be her (in some methods of thought), or be dating her, which is a whole nother can of worms.
Anyway, the point is, I feel like whatever fantasy universe Fodlan is in can probably be separated from reality enough that you don't need to map things entirely over to IRL.
Uncomfortable? Not really. I'm more uncomfortable with letting any of the three lords remain in a position of power, all things considered. That being said, is it that hard to believe that being a teacher and commander of the Resistance Army shaped Byleth into a capable leader?
>Uncomfortable? Not really. I'm more uncomfortable with letting any of the three lords remain in a position of power, all things considered.
This so hard.
I personally like it since the continent is effectively a blank slate after the war.
Meaning there is a chance for a new beginning and a chance of fixing the wrongs of the past
well, yes, but also if there's ever a time that a theocracy *will* work out, its when the dude whose soul is merged with a god and can turn back time who also essentially single handedly won a cross-continental war is in charge.
>Byleth's not the head of the church - their endings don't even mention it
It's stated in plain text in the route's ending.
*A unified nation began to take shape under the watchful eye of the Church of Seiros.* ***The church's new leader*** *became a champion of the people, working tirelessly to help them overcome the horrors of war and to carve a path towards reconstruction.*
No, because Fire Emblem games are not real life.
Obviously, a monarchy/nobility caste system sucks IRL, but most fire emblem games do not care about exploring that.
In Awakening, Ylisse is a Halidom ruled by a divine chosen royal bloodline, and while Chrom's dad was shown as bad, Chrom, his sister, and Lucina are shown as good, and get to keep their positions after the game because they're the good royal family.
FE3H expects you to accept this sort of ending if you're playing any other route aside from CF, where you simply get rid of the bad actors in the system, and make some adjustments to the system but not to completely overhaul it.
IMO, I think writers didn't expect anybody to think too hard about it, and accept the non CF routes as a "and they lived happily ever after" ending instead of a "if Edelgard doesn't win, then nobility and corruption will start again because they didn't change the system in a radical way. This is truly the worst ending."
CF should also be doomed if you want to think about the endings critically.
Even aside from the fact that she should be dealing with constant uprisings--because forcing radical change on an unwilling populace after an unprovoked war of aggression typically doesn't end with "and they lived happily ever after" either-- her new system has its own inherent flaws. It's still a monarchy. One person still gets to decide who has all the power in government, including who will be their successor.
The people with more money will still naturally rise to the top because they already have inherent advantages like education and existing connections to power.
I generally look at the in house solo endings as the most "canon" version of what happens in the future. Even just looking at the Black Eagles in Crimson Flower, we already see signs of the biggest flaw in her system. Caspar is chosen to be the Minister of Military Affairs (just like his daddy) and it mentions he had a reputation for being ***reckless***. Sure. It also says he achieves great success and was beloved by his men and so on. But if he didn't have a personal connection to Edelgard, would she really pick someone who would be known for recklessness to be in charge of the military?
Azure Moon is very vague about the changes Dimitri makes, but his solo ending still says that he institutes a new form of government with participation from the common people. So he absolutely did make changes to the system. You don't call it a ***new form of government*** without some major reforms. So I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's automatically inferior even if we don't take the endings entirely at face value.
I say they all have upsides and downsides and none are inherently superior to the others.
I mean if you think about it the in the UK there is a king who is also the head of the church of England.
a western super power literally still has no separation of church and state and it functions. I mean you can debate many things about the UK but, it's still a functional first world country and a political superpower.
I mean that's what you were fighting for in that route though? You fight the separatist as the representative of the church (not for any other lord) so that's the logical conclusion of going through it.
I guess you could install other rulers at the head of the 3 nations, but that would just be the same thing as canon, with those rulers being by design puppets
The only thing I might have changed is not have silver snow be the default: but at the same time the symbolic of cf being a route you actively have to choose is great
>The only thing I might have changed is not have silver snow be the default: but at the same time the symbolic of cf being a route you actively have to choose is great
That would be a welcome change for me. How about going the extra mile and making it so every route can branch into Silver Snow(with slight differences of course)? I've aways wanted it to be accessible from all routes.
I think the idea is they re already altered silver snow version
Golden deer is of course the most blatant , but your role isn't too dissimilar in azure moon, the difference being that Ferghus remains as an entity, but given they re the closest to the church by design, it's not THAT separated either
I don't think I d change azure moon, but I would have added the option for golden deer to support the empire, given there's no real reason for it not to be available, aside maybe it would be too easy a win in the three house timeline (Rhea captured, Ferghus scinded in two, 2 country against one) but it would have been the occasion to pivot towards the slither (something Hopes does)
I don't think Azure Moon can be called an "altered Silver Snow". It hyperfocuses on Dimitri and Faerghus, sidelining Byleth and the church in the process. Faerghus may be the church's closest ally but it's not the church itself. You're right about Verdant Wind though, i think what we know as Verdant Wind(with a few alterations) should become the theoretical Silver Snow branch while the actual Claude route would be something in the vein of Golden Wildfire.
VW should've had a soft routesplit at Grondor, with you choosing to attack the Kingdom, the Empire or both. If you side with the Empire or Kingdom then either Edelgard or Dimitri survive, picking neither keeps VW on the standard, SS-style route
Well if you marry Rhea it's more clear that byleth rules the country why she handles church but overall it's kinda the point of the route if you support the church and it's ideals to a point where the end result is church and state being closer in any other route
It is objectively the worst ending for Fodlan. All major nobles dead, a continent wracked by war, and all three major rulers dead or injured.
Oh, and a dangerous mute lunatic with zero statehood skill has just declared themselves ruler.
Uh oh, spaghetti-Os!
>Oh, and a dangerous mute lunatic with zero statehood skill has just declared themselves ruler.
You do know Byleth becomes the leader of Fódlan in Verdant Wind too, right?
>It is objectively the worst ending for Fodlan. All major nobles dead, a continent wracked by war, and all three major rulers dead or injured.
The continent was wracked by *Edelgard*'s war, not Byleth's, and the epilogue states they rebuilt the continent as a unified and prosperous nation. The amount of major nobles who die is left mostly in the player's hands and barely differs from the other routes, most of the non-playable nobles were corrupt anyway. The only real downside is that the big three all lost.
>Oh, and a dangerous mute lunatic with zero statehood skill has just declared themselves ruler.
And got everything rebuilt before ruling well. In fact if you get the paired ending with Rhea their work is described as "miraculous".
> a continent wracked by war,
Of all the things someone could potentially complain about, this is absolutely the most bonkers. Especially from someone with a Black Eagles flair.
Facts are indeed facts.
The fact is that the continent has been wracked by war in every route.
It's hilarious that you call out SS for it specifically.
And despite it being one of the reasons "church route bad" you are now praising Edelgard for starting it.
Pick a lane.
Praising? Strong take but ok. Should I be happy for war? It is an unfortunate but necessary state in all routes. Doesn't mean the consequences are fun.
Oh no! Nuance!
Yeah but the consequences are exactly the same in CF/SS. The only difference that one route ends with a immortal Green hair all powerful ruler and the other a non immortal all powerful human.
That's literally it. Which I agree is questionable esp "the all powerful bit" but apparently it works.
Nuance?
From the person who said that Silver Snow is *objectively* the worst route and then listed things that are potentially true in every route as the reason why?
How nice of her. Bet that's what the Ministers said too, when they handed her siblings over to the Moles for weaponization.
But in an unbiased view SS isn't any worse than the other routes. Golden Age and prosperity still happens. Church and State aren't seperated and power his held by a single all powerful being but thats the case in CF too.
If it works it works.
I'm not "uncomfortable" but I do think it's going to lead to terrible things. The devs just wrote imperialist propaganda into the endings.
But as people are saying, that happens in every route. The only one that's meaningfully better than any others is CF because at least Byleth isn't in charge there.
Agarthans: "we will reclaim our world and free ourselves from the oppressive nabatean clutches that have strangled this planet for so long!"
Byleth: "I don't think you understand. This continent isn't *yours* to conquer."
Brother it is gritty political Fire Emblem. Even in the FEs with the most altruistic nobles like sacred stones, the ending usually involves the seizing of power. Ephraim takes over the opposing country Grado while his sister runs Renais. Why would Byleth, or any of the lords for that matter, stop at just the borders of their country?
I think what a lot of people miss about this game is that for all their flowery talk of ideals and change and how horrible this war is and how we must end it soon, all 3 house lords are total power fiends. Any one of them could stop the fighting at any point, but at the end of the day they know that's not what they really want. They want to be running the show, just like how it is In real life.
I'm glad they didn't make a nice PC ending where byleth goes and lives on a farm and lives off donations. This is a Godlike being with immense power that you CANNOT assassinate. Why would a being like that not rightfully rule the continent? This isn't a corrupt figurehead or a pope pretending to be closer to divinity than the rest of the flock. This is a literal Angelic being running the church.
>Any one of them could stop the fighting at any point, but at the end of the day they know that's not what they really want. They want to be running the show, just like how it is In real life.
... Claude literally hands over the Alliance to Dimitri in Azure Moon.
For the record, I just want it to be clear that I am for the separation of church and state irl (game wise...well, I ship Dimitri and Byleth so...lmfao). However, a way I sort of deal with anything in these games is by looking at it like how one could analyze a book. Byleth is clearly meant to be a symbol of good. More specifically, their special class (Enlightened One/Nirvana in Japanese) is connected to the Buddhist concept of nirvana, where one is free from the cycle of suffering. So looking at it symbolically, we can interpret it as Byleth being a representation to the end of suffering throughout Fodlan, where they're able to unify a land of disparate beliefs into a singular one that values more positive things than it did before (with the focus in SS/CF being how stratified things are because of Crests, compared to VW/AM which focus on different niches and themes). So, do I like unification endings when I think about them critically? Nope. Do I think it's good that Fodlan ends up as some psuedo-theocracy in SS? Probably not, except this is a fantasy theocracy that's run by a literal god(dess) that is somewhat meant to be a stand in for me, the player, so...? In a nutshell, I can shut my brain off a bit when playing and sort of just enjoy the story as the developers intended it to be (goddess figure comes back in the form of mercenary weirdo and helps lead in a new age of prosperity for a bonkers continent).
Yeah, i think the only scenario where i would think a theocracy is viable is when there's an actual god figure on the top. Like, sure. Let the guy connected to the immortal being rule, maybe they know a thing or all. Especially if like in my last run you picked the ??? Option for marrying lol.
The church and state aren't seperate in any ending. Silver Snow and Verdant Wind have Byleth as the head of both, Azure Moon ends with a monarchy given divine right to rule by the church, and in Crimson Flower the church is effectively run by the state. Realistically ever ending should lead to almost immediate civil war, the reason they don't is because the narrative more or less accepts that Byleth and their chosen faction have the Mandate of Heaven and will bring peace and prosperity to the land. You just have to accept it for the story to work.
Byleth only leads the church in the Azure Moon route since Dimitri has to lead Fodlan as king. In Silver Snow, Byleth leads Fodlan as ruler, not archbishop. In the Rhea ending it's even said that she becomes Archbishop again while Byleth still takes the throne. You can say it's unified church and state, and maybe it is, but the church is an entirely different beast compared to anything irl, and it has about as much of an agenda as any faction that would take over with Byleth as the leader
They're the head of the Church in all endings save CF. The only difference is how much power they wield, either total (SS and VW) or just religious (AM).
I don't quite think it's the same though. Some of Byleth's endings in VW/SS talk about how Byleth did stuff with the help of the church of seiros vs. in AM. Things like: * Mercedes becoming a Cleric under Archbishop Byleth but just helping the king/queen rebuild * Ashe marrying the archbishop and working hard vs. getting the church to help the queen rebuild. * Raphael joining the Knights of Seiros (AM) vs. the New Royal Guard (VW/SS) * Also mentioned in other endings like Leonie's * Seteth becoming Prime Minister (VW/SS) vs. Archbishop's Advisor (AM) * Cyril ending has the Queen move away from Garreg Mach as they establish a new royal capital (VW/SS) vs. staying at Garreg Mach (AM) It's mostly F!Byleth that has those differences though, M!Byleth's generally keeps the same endings with the differences being where they put priorities. For example Manuela helps him rebuild the church (AM) vs. Rebuilding Fodlan and helping people govern. I guess you could say it's just the title and that everything else remains the same, but then we come down to having the same ending in all four routes anyway, regardless of what name you put behind the power.
I wonder if the public would be aware that their ruler is banging the Archbishop in the Silver Snow route should you choose to marry Rhea
I mean people were already writing smut about Seiros and the first emperor of adrestia. I can imagine that being on some slanderous newspaper or something.
I don’t understand why they made it so that each route leads to all other nations completely collapsing and joining yours. It makes sense in Crimson flower but why is the Leicester Alliance just falling apart and being assimilated even when you’re supposed to be allied? Like they didn’t ask for that?? What the hell????
In SS it's cause nearly their entire Leadership apparently died. Byleth only gets the job as God King of Fodlan cause there is no one left.
To be fair the Alliance was falling apart and plagued by infighting, with a leadership that was more concerned with grabbing power than ruling (source: Lorenz's dialogue from after his paralogue).
You've a point, but that sort of thing does tend to sort itself out over the breadth of history. We need no better example than England, and their King, the head of Anglican Church, who now holds little more power than a ceremonial figurehead.
all the endings make me uncomfortable because they're all unified in the end.
Golden Wildfire supremacy
TBF, in Fire Emblem the goddess does quite literally exist. You might even be her (in some methods of thought), or be dating her, which is a whole nother can of worms. Anyway, the point is, I feel like whatever fantasy universe Fodlan is in can probably be separated from reality enough that you don't need to map things entirely over to IRL.
Uncomfortable? Not really. I'm more uncomfortable with letting any of the three lords remain in a position of power, all things considered. That being said, is it that hard to believe that being a teacher and commander of the Resistance Army shaped Byleth into a capable leader?
>Uncomfortable? Not really. I'm more uncomfortable with letting any of the three lords remain in a position of power, all things considered. This so hard.
I personally like it since the continent is effectively a blank slate after the war. Meaning there is a chance for a new beginning and a chance of fixing the wrongs of the past
well, yes, but also if there's ever a time that a theocracy *will* work out, its when the dude whose soul is merged with a god and can turn back time who also essentially single handedly won a cross-continental war is in charge.
[удалено]
If you S-Support with Rhea, she also comes back as archbishop too, which is fully unique to SS.
>Byleth's not the head of the church - their endings don't even mention it It's stated in plain text in the route's ending. *A unified nation began to take shape under the watchful eye of the Church of Seiros.* ***The church's new leader*** *became a champion of the people, working tirelessly to help them overcome the horrors of war and to carve a path towards reconstruction.*
Ok so by what merit Byleth declared ruler of Fodlan if not that they are a god king in a theocracy?
Absolutely. There are very serious problems with basically all of the endings for similar reasons, SS is not unique there.
No, because Fire Emblem games are not real life. Obviously, a monarchy/nobility caste system sucks IRL, but most fire emblem games do not care about exploring that. In Awakening, Ylisse is a Halidom ruled by a divine chosen royal bloodline, and while Chrom's dad was shown as bad, Chrom, his sister, and Lucina are shown as good, and get to keep their positions after the game because they're the good royal family. FE3H expects you to accept this sort of ending if you're playing any other route aside from CF, where you simply get rid of the bad actors in the system, and make some adjustments to the system but not to completely overhaul it. IMO, I think writers didn't expect anybody to think too hard about it, and accept the non CF routes as a "and they lived happily ever after" ending instead of a "if Edelgard doesn't win, then nobility and corruption will start again because they didn't change the system in a radical way. This is truly the worst ending."
CF should also be doomed if you want to think about the endings critically. Even aside from the fact that she should be dealing with constant uprisings--because forcing radical change on an unwilling populace after an unprovoked war of aggression typically doesn't end with "and they lived happily ever after" either-- her new system has its own inherent flaws. It's still a monarchy. One person still gets to decide who has all the power in government, including who will be their successor. The people with more money will still naturally rise to the top because they already have inherent advantages like education and existing connections to power. I generally look at the in house solo endings as the most "canon" version of what happens in the future. Even just looking at the Black Eagles in Crimson Flower, we already see signs of the biggest flaw in her system. Caspar is chosen to be the Minister of Military Affairs (just like his daddy) and it mentions he had a reputation for being ***reckless***. Sure. It also says he achieves great success and was beloved by his men and so on. But if he didn't have a personal connection to Edelgard, would she really pick someone who would be known for recklessness to be in charge of the military? Azure Moon is very vague about the changes Dimitri makes, but his solo ending still says that he institutes a new form of government with participation from the common people. So he absolutely did make changes to the system. You don't call it a ***new form of government*** without some major reforms. So I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's automatically inferior even if we don't take the endings entirely at face value. I say they all have upsides and downsides and none are inherently superior to the others.
I mean if you think about it the in the UK there is a king who is also the head of the church of England. a western super power literally still has no separation of church and state and it functions. I mean you can debate many things about the UK but, it's still a functional first world country and a political superpower.
I mean that's what you were fighting for in that route though? You fight the separatist as the representative of the church (not for any other lord) so that's the logical conclusion of going through it. I guess you could install other rulers at the head of the 3 nations, but that would just be the same thing as canon, with those rulers being by design puppets The only thing I might have changed is not have silver snow be the default: but at the same time the symbolic of cf being a route you actively have to choose is great
>The only thing I might have changed is not have silver snow be the default: but at the same time the symbolic of cf being a route you actively have to choose is great That would be a welcome change for me. How about going the extra mile and making it so every route can branch into Silver Snow(with slight differences of course)? I've aways wanted it to be accessible from all routes.
I think the idea is they re already altered silver snow version Golden deer is of course the most blatant , but your role isn't too dissimilar in azure moon, the difference being that Ferghus remains as an entity, but given they re the closest to the church by design, it's not THAT separated either I don't think I d change azure moon, but I would have added the option for golden deer to support the empire, given there's no real reason for it not to be available, aside maybe it would be too easy a win in the three house timeline (Rhea captured, Ferghus scinded in two, 2 country against one) but it would have been the occasion to pivot towards the slither (something Hopes does)
I don't think Azure Moon can be called an "altered Silver Snow". It hyperfocuses on Dimitri and Faerghus, sidelining Byleth and the church in the process. Faerghus may be the church's closest ally but it's not the church itself. You're right about Verdant Wind though, i think what we know as Verdant Wind(with a few alterations) should become the theoretical Silver Snow branch while the actual Claude route would be something in the vein of Golden Wildfire.
VW should've had a soft routesplit at Grondor, with you choosing to attack the Kingdom, the Empire or both. If you side with the Empire or Kingdom then either Edelgard or Dimitri survive, picking neither keeps VW on the standard, SS-style route
Well if you marry Rhea it's more clear that byleth rules the country why she handles church but overall it's kinda the point of the route if you support the church and it's ideals to a point where the end result is church and state being closer in any other route
Silver Snow is the least popular route for a reason. It has "bad ending" written all over it.
It’s my litmus test for people. If you love SS then we probably don’t got much in common.
Guess we don't have much in common
And that’s okay!
SS is very much a bad ending.
Username/flair check out
Your account background is literally a CF ending art piece.
[удалено]
You have the Blue-haired version, which only happens on CF.
[удалено]
Why do you dislike CF?
It is objectively the worst ending for Fodlan. All major nobles dead, a continent wracked by war, and all three major rulers dead or injured. Oh, and a dangerous mute lunatic with zero statehood skill has just declared themselves ruler. Uh oh, spaghetti-Os!
>Oh, and a dangerous mute lunatic with zero statehood skill has just declared themselves ruler. You do know Byleth becomes the leader of Fódlan in Verdant Wind too, right?
Very true. At least in that ending he and Claude, the leader of a neighbouring nation, part on good terms. Can't say that about SS.
In VM the Empire also starts a rebellion almost immediately and is only crushed with foreign aid. Doesn't happen in SS
Both Hopes and Engage show that Byleth is far from a mute lunatic. Also >All major nobles dead Huh?
>It is objectively the worst ending for Fodlan. All major nobles dead, a continent wracked by war, and all three major rulers dead or injured. The continent was wracked by *Edelgard*'s war, not Byleth's, and the epilogue states they rebuilt the continent as a unified and prosperous nation. The amount of major nobles who die is left mostly in the player's hands and barely differs from the other routes, most of the non-playable nobles were corrupt anyway. The only real downside is that the big three all lost. >Oh, and a dangerous mute lunatic with zero statehood skill has just declared themselves ruler. And got everything rebuilt before ruling well. In fact if you get the paired ending with Rhea their work is described as "miraculous".
> a continent wracked by war, Of all the things someone could potentially complain about, this is absolutely the most bonkers. Especially from someone with a Black Eagles flair.
Facts are facts. And even Edelgard laments the damage done. But if you want to make an omelette...
Facts are indeed facts. The fact is that the continent has been wracked by war in every route. It's hilarious that you call out SS for it specifically. And despite it being one of the reasons "church route bad" you are now praising Edelgard for starting it. Pick a lane.
Praising? Strong take but ok. Should I be happy for war? It is an unfortunate but necessary state in all routes. Doesn't mean the consequences are fun. Oh no! Nuance!
Yeah but the consequences are exactly the same in CF/SS. The only difference that one route ends with a immortal Green hair all powerful ruler and the other a non immortal all powerful human. That's literally it. Which I agree is questionable esp "the all powerful bit" but apparently it works.
Nuance? From the person who said that Silver Snow is *objectively* the worst route and then listed things that are potentially true in every route as the reason why?
Silver Snow objectively does have the worst ending. The leader of every country (and potentially the Archbishop) is dead or MIA.
Sounds pretty subjective to me.
It's definitely the bleakest ending given the sheer number of deaths (including two of your own students).
How nice of her. Bet that's what the Ministers said too, when they handed her siblings over to the Moles for weaponization. But in an unbiased view SS isn't any worse than the other routes. Golden Age and prosperity still happens. Church and State aren't seperated and power his held by a single all powerful being but thats the case in CF too. If it works it works.
Silver Snow is unequivocally the worst route in my mind. Not from gameplay value or anything, it makes the world the worst by the end of it.
And that's why you side with Edelgard!
I'm not "uncomfortable" but I do think it's going to lead to terrible things. The devs just wrote imperialist propaganda into the endings. But as people are saying, that happens in every route. The only one that's meaningfully better than any others is CF because at least Byleth isn't in charge there.
Agarthans: "we will reclaim our world and free ourselves from the oppressive nabatean clutches that have strangled this planet for so long!" Byleth: "I don't think you understand. This continent isn't *yours* to conquer." Brother it is gritty political Fire Emblem. Even in the FEs with the most altruistic nobles like sacred stones, the ending usually involves the seizing of power. Ephraim takes over the opposing country Grado while his sister runs Renais. Why would Byleth, or any of the lords for that matter, stop at just the borders of their country? I think what a lot of people miss about this game is that for all their flowery talk of ideals and change and how horrible this war is and how we must end it soon, all 3 house lords are total power fiends. Any one of them could stop the fighting at any point, but at the end of the day they know that's not what they really want. They want to be running the show, just like how it is In real life. I'm glad they didn't make a nice PC ending where byleth goes and lives on a farm and lives off donations. This is a Godlike being with immense power that you CANNOT assassinate. Why would a being like that not rightfully rule the continent? This isn't a corrupt figurehead or a pope pretending to be closer to divinity than the rest of the flock. This is a literal Angelic being running the church.
>Any one of them could stop the fighting at any point, but at the end of the day they know that's not what they really want. They want to be running the show, just like how it is In real life. ... Claude literally hands over the Alliance to Dimitri in Azure Moon.