What do you think about Age of Compassion? I think people are exaggerating the negativity, to be honest.It will be a bit strange, but if Miquella were to hold democratic elections, he would probably get a lot of votes.
I have thought about it and I think that it has multiple angles ngl, although a lot of popular interpretation of it I find hinges on the Would and Could of how Miquella becoming like Marika, or how charm = no autonomy whatsoever complete brainwashed = Bad. That interpretation got popularized even when his power and its limitations are never stated to be capable of creating such worst case scenario speculation--even if the charm is very vaguely explained.
TLDR, I think it gonna suck, but it's not gonna be the worst-case scenario suck, and it's not gonna be in the pseudo Griffith-Marika way many people think.
For clarity, I'm not gonna discuss every single possible nuance of a plot point executed very muddily. Because if I go through that, we'll have to address every iteration of who did and didn't do which thing. I'll just go with "multiple unreliable narrators suggest that Radahn and Miquella had unspecified promise in the past. Therefore, both sides that participated in the war in Caelid are responsible for the destruction."
So, here are the things I want to address.
1. Miquella = worst evil because of the destruction of Caelid and using his brothers to further his goal.
So, how do you measure evil? By the number of people hurt? By the severity of his crime? Then why are people who are explicitly obsessed or directly responsible for multiple war and killings, such as Godfrey or Messmer, are not considered as corrupt as a guy who has done many shitty stuff for his goal of peace in one war? Is it really about how evil Miquella actually is, or is it about how he hurts 2 other characters that the fandom tends to like? Is it that we can consider his morality as the most corrupt, so we can assume that both his ideology and goals are completely corrupt?
2. A lot of how his journey parallels Marika, so people assume that he would end up the exact same way as Marika. We just don't really have information on this aside from his track record. Let's lay it down
Played a leading role in a brutal bloody war.
Used his 2 brothers for his own goal in a horrific way.
His resume is different from Marika, and different from people who willingly participate in Marika's culture of violence. With an ability like charm, I think he has the potential to be even worse than her, but we don't know that when tarnished kills him before he even gets to rule, really.
I think it's fair to make assumptions, but I don't think it makes sense to do so based on Marika'a resume, but not his own.
3. I find that the most compelling read of Miquella is more of, being trapped in the cycle of extreme violence, it's impossible for him to break free from it through complete non-violence--and a lot of things had occurred because he had to make brutal and awful decisions in war. Or things have gone wrong on top of that, and pushed him into bloodying his hands even further. Like every leader who participates in war, he isn't innocent regardless of his personal morality. And I doubt that on a meta-level even, he is written just to be a gotcha evil or pure nice guy.
I don't think that the DLC exists to erase the base game's characterization of Miquella. I find that it is similar to what Ymir says, that simply sacrificing things isn't enough. He has to uproot the whole civilization if he wants changes from the fundamental level.
4. Considering that he exists in Marika's golden order/culture as a whole that exercises violence very liberally, I doubt many people in-universe would actually care about peace for everyone regardless of race or religion. To compare to our world, think of many elections lately. How many people have voted for the fascist or the militant? The war-torn Lands Between being even more extreme than our world right now, I don't think Miquella would be very popular. He can't just say "stop" and a culture that loves war and conquest and slavery and genocide will just, stop. Perhaps that's why he has a very powerful army, such as Haligtree led by Malenia, in the first place.
5. Within that universe, especially through the journey of a tarnished during war time, characters often operate on the logic of "we can kill whoever and do whatever when it's required for our goal, because ultimately might makes right". Taking that exact bit of autonomy away from people could be the fastest and least violent way to stop more violence from happening.
6. With Miquella's charm, the game has shown us that charm people still retain most of their autonomy and thought process, including Ansbach who questions Miquella even when charmed. The only thing he really took away from them is the ability to rise against him and/or kill each other. Leda's culling quest doesn't start until his charm breaks. I think this these things are indicative of the capabilities of his charm, and we can assume that him charming more people would be in similar fashiom--most autonomy would remain, but they just can't get up and kill each other all the time.
Though I speculate that he can't realistically charm everyone. He has to be up close with you in the boss fight. Maybe that's why he needs Radahn. An additional threat for people to consider twice before rebelling, and a failsafe for ending wars if he charm can't.
7. And through PoV of the tarnished, aka the exact person who gained power via might-makes-right killing a shit ton of people, of course Miquella is another person to be killed if you want the throne. I find that tarnished is built to be a character with motivation somewhat separate from the player. You barely have decisions to make in this game despite it being an rpg. You're against Miquella no matter what. I think this contributes to how some people, through embodying the tarnished as somewhat of an avatar, take Miquella as the opposition in every front. This, for example, includes how some people see tarnished as justified in the Elden Lord quest because you, the player, are limited by the framework of the game where might-makes-right mass killing is completely unavoidable. Players tend to not think of themselves as the bad guy unless explicitly told so (and there's a lot to talk about games that forces you to be the bad guy and tries to guilt trip, instead of giving you the bad guy options, but that's a long topic). Therefore, characters who operate on the same logic as the player's avatar aren't always recognized as morally grey or a bad guy either. Even when every main character in this game is shitty in their own special way.
On the other hand, most of Miquella's methods are anti-thesis of the tarnished. So, of course, for some people, it's like a knee-jerk reaction of tarnished me good Miquella opposite bad.
This isn't to fault players--games tend to do this--but to explain the phenomenon. The power-grabbing main character isn't wholly good, and a character with the oppsite goal and method to the player's avatar isn't wholly bad.
8. All that considered, I don't think Miquella's Age of Compassion would be the worst case scenario. The charm could possibly stop the most violent perpetrators of war from starting one. Then, the rest of the world are under threat of Miquella's army with Radahn who's very gung-ho about war being the most visible pawn in that game. It might be like a somewhat less-militant version of empires of the past: you trade in some of your autonomy for protection, peace, and resources. It comes with the condition of all conflict suppression. Though, that in itself can be terrifying. You *can't* hold Miquella and his decisions accountable. So pray that he stays kind for eternity. It's a different kind of terrifying promise, really.
It gonna suck. Probably sucks more and more as time passes. But it's probably not gonna be Griffith-Marika cartoonishly evil suck, you're completely braindead suck, or everyone you love being murdered suck--unless you're die-hard about your need to go to war.