@2goldensnitches replied: Wait, people called rodrigue a bad dad????
oh people hated Rodrigue for being a “bad dad”. he was accused of all dumb and incorrect shit lol. usually if Felix said something or insisted something, people took that at face value and ran with it. some people even just assumed things about their relationship because of Felix which baffled me all the time because it’s... Felix.
it’s slowed down since Hopes came out, but when Houses was newer I couldn’t go anywhere and admit I liked Rodrigue or people didn’t understand why. tbh it’s probably why Rodrigue fans are so protective of him and always so expressive about loving him. he’s one of those characters who was pretty wrongfully hated.
Whenever I read the Torn Pages of a Story document, I don't get the sense that Tiana and King Daddy's relationship was even all that romantic - she threw away her old life for a more privileged one on a whim, and likely little else. It's kinda like how lowkey unfortunate Jeralt and Sitri's relationship was.
I think it might have been romantic but not like... in a standard way that we understand romance. It seems more like falling in love with the idea of the person and having a mutual respect. I think Tiana may have been in love with the idea of the tough foreign king who was different from what she knew, but she didn't truly know him.
I mean, she couldn't have genuinely known what kind of man he was in his own home and such when they first met, so it seems like if say, two people met at a bar, kept meeting because they had a little crush and always met at that bar, then thought they were in love based on the information they had on each other (and maybe he did love her, and she just didn't know him well yet... but the way she never tries to intervene or help Claude just tells me none of that stuff bothered her and was not enough for her to leave him).
Personally I feel differently on Jeralt and Sitri, because I'd argue if you view their relationship negatively that Tiana and Unnamed King Man were worse. They also had more time together to be worse, but the vibes I get from Tiana's marriage with him is that she just kind of... lets him do what he wants? Almost like she figures it's just Almyran culture or something so it's not important, so she lets it happen.
What I would've preferred, no matter how unfortunately racist Almyra got written to be, is that based on the context of the story we did get that Tiana would've recognized all this and helped Claude in secret. Maybe she'd be scared of the king, maybe not; but maybe she just also felt like she still wanted the king's love and that helping Claude might be something he wouldn't want, and that it could become a relationship ending problem between them.
Now granted, I'd say yeah, it should be. If someone treated my child like that I'd definitely want to walk away. We don't have any indication that the king was abusive to his wife (wives???) unless I'm not remembering everything, so maybe she just wanted to stay with him/it wasn't that she was too afraid to leave? Which just... tells me she chose to stay with him over her child's wellbeing.
For whatever reason, she condoned it, and for whatever reason, she barely gave her child love and attention (he was so desperate for it that any time they spent with him like a normal parent was something he cherished because it was so damn rare). For whatever reason, she didn't step in or tell the king to cut the bullshit and actually love his son. It seems like either she didn't care... or she agreed with it, which both options are very shitty of her.
It could be that she was influenced by the king's ideas of what would make their child strong, because I can't imagine why she wouldn't say anything if she had differing views/morals on that. Either they were actually very in love and held the same beliefs from the get go, or she admired/agreed with his way of raising a child. Based on how she's described by Judith and such, I actually wouldn't doubt that. She doesn't seem like a doting and loving mother type, but more of a get up and brush off the dirt type of person. That would indicate that both of them had similar thoughts to begin with.
Obviously a child doesn't need to be strong if it's that or your child feels loved and cared for, but Tiana seems to lean more on the side of how the king feels about raising a child. I think it's pretty likely they really did fall in love or at least had a marriage based out of respect for each other and wanted a powerful and respected partner. They didn't seem to have conflict regarding how to raise their child, even though for, you know, normal parents, that would be an absolute deal breaker. The king may have been a parent, but imo Tiana was no better for letting it happen.
still thinking about baby claude just wanting to be hugged and loved. sometimes i think of baby claude, still chubby and smol, sitting on the floor and he sees his mom walk over and he raises his lil arms for uppy, but she never picks him up and holds him. he gets sad and pouts but he doesn't cry abt it anymore (as a lil toddler!!!) bc he knows it's not something he usually gets anyway so it's not a new worrying thing that nobody will hold him.
@recurringwriter I'M SORRY I tried to add him but I could only put ten options on the poll so I wanted to have the most story relevant dads! he was a little bit of a stretch since we never see him interact with his family, but I wanted to include all the dads and Tumblr wouldn't let me. </3
@sevarix-blogs fr tho lol, Rodrigue has the most votes rn by a landslide. that makes me happy tho bc I know a lot of ppl think he's a terrible father but hopefully me and the other Roddad posters have convinced ppl that he's trying his best!!! and also, I think he's a perfect mix of gentle, good, doing his best, and scolding when necessary (to both Felix and Dimitri)! he's not just all good things, and I voted for him too bc I appreciate the mix of genuine parenting that we see from him on top of all the good things. 🥺
HELLO? and his sign is Leo (the lion zodiac!!) while Dimitri is a Sagittarius?? AND THEY BOTH HAVE MOON AND STAR SYMBOLISM? Oh my god this is too perfect
YES... I love all the little coincidences between them... Everything lines up so perfectly for them aaaaa... My babies...!!!
@megamog tagged: #this is the supposed to be the same Claude who uses poisons to temporarily incapacitate people but is suddenly like murder is okay
After the Lonato battle:
Note how he says, when Leonie and Ignatz walk up looking sad about the battle, that they should proud because they did what they had to do... but that's only when other people are watching. When he's only with their profressor, he admits the battle left a bad taste in his mouth. His "you should be proud" was more of a bravado for the others than how he actually felt, versus in Hopes where that attitude is just the norm when they go invade Faerghus. They "feel bad" for invading, but do it anyway. With Lonato in Houses, he was going to actually attack the monastery and cause any number of innocents to get hurt (as Claude also mentions), so Claude wasn't making the first move against someone but still felt bad for the battle. If they "feel bad" for inavding Faerghus in Hopes, well... they should.
Not only does Claude repeatedly mention in Houses that his poisons aren't harmful, but he's not okay with killing even in self defense. He'll do it if necessary - if absolutely necessary and there are no other options available to him - but he doesn't prefer killing. Also note how he mentions in his support with Byleth about how he grew up that he explains why he makes poisons. He got used to making them in self defense because of assassination attempts... and even despite assassination attempts, he created non-lethal poisons. He fended off his attackers as much as he could with non-lethal methods, even when people were going after him intending to kill him.
Yet in Hopes he's like... time to go invade the Kingdom that did nothing to us. Ever. Place has been fighting their own battles and defending against the Empire just like us, but they've been totally innocent this whole time. Let's go invade and make sure Sreng knows about it! But then, if someone suggests if we directly tell Sreng about Matthias, no no! Can't do that! More people will die! More, as in, more than the ones we just murdered in our invasion that we didn't have to do. Murder is bad! But only when it's not us who do it. :)
For real, Academy Claude in Houses would whack adult Claude in Hopes. Academy Claude always feels the need to defend himself verbally by reminding people, including his professor, that the poisons he makes are not lethal, because his reputation is in the mud with a lot of Alliance nobles (and it sounds like some students/people around him in general don't trust his motivations). He always has to make very certain that people understand he's not trying to actually hurt people.
Also, the people around him were skeptical of him, but he's also aware these are innocent people. He has other student around him and people who just live at the monastery. He doesn't use lethal poisons even on his attackers when he's growing up, so why would he use lethal poisons on people just living their day to day lives? He doesn't. He doesn't use anything that could actually kill someone against innocents; and as far as I'm concerned, Faerghus was innocent and Claude still went to attack them in Hopes.
He just... really doesn't like killing. If he has no other choice he will, but that's if he's literally pushed into a corner or attacked first (and even then will attempt to do things without killing first, before determining if there's no other methods he can use). He wouldn't kill innocent people (and he also would not condone the shit Nader says/does in Hopes. Houses Claude would never tolerate Hopes Nader's love of pillaging.
@recurringwriter tagged: #wait so it's canon that it literally physically silences people? fascinating and good news cheers
It is in the Tellius games, at least! I’d like to say that would imply it’s true across all games, but I’ve never known of an instance where say, a unit could talk to another unit (like recruitment) while also on a map where an enemy could silence them (in the other games).
RD doesn’t have that problem as strongly, because as long as you’re on a map with an enemy that can use Silence, you just need to have a unit fielded who has a support that they haven’t used their converse feature for yet. If they get in range of a Silence user and it works, there’s that way, or in the case of Endgame 1, the good majority of your units will all get silenced at the same time.
Ironically though it’s a good piece of lore drop for Tellius lol. They can’t just stop magic itself so they have to silence the users from being able to speak the spells themselves (which Soren actually says/implies in PoR that spells are spoken iirc? Basically magic isn’t something they can just throw around without speaking). That would mean they can’t speak at all, so they can’t talk to allies either.
I don’t know that it’s the case in all the FE games, but it sure is for Tellius!
#also Lambert wanted to try radical reforms and got beheaded for it so like#maybe just maybe Dimitri is trying to be a little more careful about his approach to things#because he knows the changes he wants to implement won't be liked by the corrupt lords who are a bit too comfortable#and he's not some tyrant who will crush anyone who disagrees with him and actually bothers to try and reason with people beforehand#Dimitri: tries a careful nuanced approach to change that doesn't involve sacrificing his own innocent citizens#stans: is this an idiot?? is this a centrist?? is this me projecting a bunch of fanon into a character i feel I'm supposed to hate??
I've mentioned the Lambert thing as well before, because I feel like Dimitri likely understood what his father was trying to do and that he was killed because of it. In this route especially, as compared to AM, he learns a whole lot more about what happened in Duscur and why, and in SB we also learn Cornelia was defeated (meaning her role in SB was the same, just offscreen). That means in SB, he learned all the same things, etc, and the post's screenshot happens in SB.
Considering Lambert tried to do the same things as Dimitri presently does but was trying to do it more openly and "loudly", it makes sense that others would become aware of it and those who disliked it would act. Dimitri has likely learned from that, because he and Lambert have one very key difference to their approach, and that's how bold Lambert is about it. He's upfront about what he's aiming to do. Dimitri finds political ways to explain it to people and can find other ways of saying why he's doing things like protecting or not protecting the Church, depending on the route. He knows how to placate everyone and keeps things leveled. If he announced similar intentions as Lambert, he could explain it in a way that would satisfy even the whiny politicians who don't agree with his morals.
Lambert was so certain of his path that he just went for it, but Dimitri is aware of how being so bold can cause discourse within the upper circles. By being rational about it in a way that people can't argue with, he can get what he wants and bring about change without truly angering anyone. I'm sure there would be someone here and there who would be unhappy with it, but I doubt Dimitri would have incurred enough wrath from any groups of people that they'd be able to be manipulated the way the last group of Cornelia's pawns were. There wouldn't be enough manpower to stage something as devastating as what happened at Duscur. He saw what Lambert tried to do and how he failed, and I believe Dimitri understands why he failed. Dimtiri is very smart and he knows how to bring about change without inciting any kind of violence, including indirectly via people unhappy about his changes. If other people became violent because they didn't like what he was doing, that would be an example of violence caused indirectly from the changes, but he does everything he can politically to also keep that from happening. He avoids doing things the violent way himself, but also avoids causing violence through politics.
Based on what we see of Lambert in the AM flashback and what we know of him from Rodrigue in AG, it's safe to say once he made up his mind that he was going to go through with whatever it was and had a very direct way of confronting problems. It's not necessarily a bad quality, but it is what got people against him and labeled his changes "radical". It sounds like he wanted to things quickly and push in changes as soon as possible, but people can't ease into it like that and so took issue with his changes. Dimitri brings about the same changes, but he does it slowly and carefully.
I agree though that all the people I've ever seen hate Dimitri never use actual facts to justify hating him. It's always some excuse and a warped version of things he's actually said and done. If people didn't like him for legit reasons then whatever, sure, but it's wild to me how people will twist and destroy very clear concepts to try to justify their hate. Usually, it's really just that they hate him for being the opposite of Edelgard story-wise and character-wise. I've yet to ever see an actual, legitimate, detailed, factual argument against what he does. Usually it's whiny retorts from people who think they understand politics and throw words around that they apparently don't know the meanings of considering the context they use them in.
