I am going to start with some easier points and work my way down
The Black Eagles theme is a lot more coherent than you're making it out to be. It focuses on the deconstruction of imperialism and nobility. Edelgard is fixated on reforming the nobility and calling out its failings as a system. She calls Caspar's brother lazy and greedy, She chastises Lindhardt for his laziness, She wishes to see Brigid as a country that is able to stand shoulder to shoulder with Adrestia rather than just a vassal state, she reassures to Dorothea that she wishes to reform the nobility with (dubious)meritocracy, and she is assisted by Ferdinand's intellect in evening the playing field. Granted, her supports leave a bit to be desired and the execution is very muddy, but they all connect to a unifying theme.
You may think that the Black Eagles should revolve around people challenging Edelgard. But because Edelgard's end goal is to reform the nobility, a system that most of the cast is a victim too, she ends up being much more compatible with the other members of her house and further amplifies the theme above. If anything, Ferdinand challenging Edelgard is much more appropriate than say Dorothea or Bernadetta.
Within what I wrote, I actually said the same things as you here. I specifically stated that Bernadetta and Dorothea should be used to provide more evidence for Edelgard’s stance. My main issue with them was the general lack of discussion about their actual grievances that relate to Edelgard’s goal when speaking to her. Most of Dorothea’s run is spent talking about a play and her singing for Edie, this does nothing to really advance El or her position. If I remember correctly (It has been awhile) Bernadetta also does not bring up her father in El’s support or Hubert’s. My point was that these two are complete missed opportunities and provide nothing for El to respond to, positively or negatively when it comes to her end game.
Ferdinand is great in the A support as he provides challenge to her ideals. This is important to the route because as much as the route is about El’s reform, one must also take into account that there is a split. This route needs to stand on its own and provide evidence both for and against Edelgard if it wants to pull a choose your side. I understand that there are other routes, but they should not bear that responsibility. If the division route cannot adequately provide evidence to both arguments than it fails as a route. Ferdinand being the only opposition is a major problem as it creates a lack of any real reasoning to go against El within the house itself, and seeing as El’s route is more a secret, it can not afford to tell you El is completely right then strip you of the opportunity to side with her.
I guess I wished the cast was more equal. Lindhardt should have probably been more on the Ferdinand side seeing as he is a crest scholar who sees the value in them. He should have chastised Edelgard on how she is not looking at the full picture and how most of Fodland’s defense and magic runs on crests and how devaluing them may be a terrible decision.
Petra and Caspar could probably act as neutral parties. Neither seem particularly opposed to anything, showing that El’s change might just do nothing for others. Caspar holds no ill will towards his brother so if things continue the same he seems completely fine, and if El wins, it does not seem like he will take up the leader role if his brother is dethroned. Petra talks as though Brigid will gain independence regardless of their stance in the war, so what is the point. Either the Empire will fall and relinquish the vassal state, or El will bring it up and practically do the same.
The problem with the Black Eagles is the split. The supports do not do a good job of providing any sort of debate. It takes outsiders like Manuela do push any sort possible wrongness in El’s ways, which is a detriment to the narrative. If the path was straight, go against the church as an ‘antagonist’ I would not mind the writing so much, but as is, the game does not explain the two sides well in the route that really needs it explained.
With that said, now to fix some mistakes and try to explain a point I was getting at, but definitely got side tracked.
all men are trash on Twitter while promoting her OnlyFans for men.
I am going to [Redact] this as this was unprofessional and bad on my part. I used an extreme example that did not fit anything. I wanted to point out some hypocrisy, but this was too far and I rightly got called out on it.
So on one hand most characters are static and Dorothea changing is bizarre but on the other hand, Dorothea, or the writers, putting an artificial halt on the A support hurts the support? You realize these two statements kind of contradict each other, right? Either she's allowed to progress to some capacity or she must remain static for some consistency sake.
To explain this, I seperate supports and Monestary. The doomer Dorothea seems to rarely affect the actual supports and seeing as there was little build up in my eyes to the shift, it did not sit well with me. I understand that some lines brought up her sadness when civilians are killed, but it did not leave enough for her monestary self to feel properly transitioned into all doom and gloom with occasional glimpses of happiness. To me the change feels weird as it only really affected the non-support part of the game, the part where she gets little characterization, so I just cannot see any reason for it. No other characters change in the Monestary, all characters have the same personality both before and after time skip, baring Dimitri. That does not negate that they change, but main gameplay sees them as untouched. It is just a weird and rarely explained change that acts as the odd exception of the group.
Supports have characters grow even if not shown through the game-play segments. It is not as though Marianne starts smiling after learning it in Sylvain’s supports. The game and supports are different beasts and should be treated as such. Each support is its own individual story and should be judged on how the character develops solely in that support. Characters rarely if ever bring up other supports in other supports or bring supports into gameplay (only exception I can think of being Marianne & Ashe mentioning Marianne & Sylvain) otherwise supports are relegated to just that support. That is why I find myself wanting more from Dorothea and Ferdinand. As a support, there is no growth. It feels like 3 conversations of build up. It does not function like other supports of its nature, and thus doe not have the same satisfying conclusion. In supports like Lorenz and Lysthia, information is held from one party, causing them to unintentionally offend, in the B support the information is given and the offender gets to be surprised, in the A, the offender has the chance to redeem and make up for the mistake. D&F’s support does not allow time for amendment. What is even more bad is that Dorothea could have broken the formula as she was the one in the wrong, she let her generalizations hurt Ferdinand, so while the beginning has Ferdinand in the wrong, the ending would be different having the offended party need to change. The support as is ends abruptly, a story that seems like it should have continued to really have a moment of reflection like others of the same nature, ends on a reveal. Maybe some appreciate it, but I cannot find myself interested.
Her story would not justify that very well.
But like I said these issues only exist in a contrived comparison to Dorothea. I don't think they pose real problems with Sylvain's character because his fuckboy antics are clearly depicted as wrong despite his reasoning.
Pretty much....
I went in wanting to defend Sylvain as an individual character, but came out being apart of the battle. I do not hate either character, both have their moments, I just prefer Sylvain. My reasoning is just that the personalities are different. Like I said at the end of the last post, both of them may have similarities and it can be argued which is more morally character, but the overall personality and house dynamic is completely different to a point where you can like one over another. I do not find it strange how people can like Sylvain and not Dorothea, or vice-versa.
You nailed it on why I believe people like Sylvain. His antics are overall humorous and he is depicted in the wrong when need be. I also think he falls in line with other Blue Lions in being more than the worse aspect. He is shown multiple times to be kind towards others that it leaves gaping contradictions that may work in his favor. This is not to dissimilar to their leader as Dimitri is all over the place in terms of morality. Point is, the Blue Lions are the therapy house, full of destroyed and overall destructive characters, there is good in all of them, but you have to be ready to put up with tons of issues if you want to see that. The other houses are a lot more straight forward in their character moralities, which make them a bit less interesting to me personally.
I can see what you mean about the supports but that's a common problem too, the timeskip particularly. Particulaly in CF where they were not separated by the war (SS was such a lost opportunity for BE). I also think people wildly overstate Dorothea's "hate" for him. She's pretty much just direct in her dislike of him. I don't know what she should have done. If she was less direct and maybe just feigning politeness while avoiding him people would say she's "passive aggressive." I think it's more important to her character to just say she's not interested in being his prize. The idea she genuinely ever wished ill on him is blatantly untrue obviously.
This is a hard one, but I think there are a few solutions. Like I stated above, maybe shortening the build up or adding another support to Ferdinand would help. Maybe her jabs could have been more comedic, giving the audience something so she does not seem so cold. Claude and Hilda talk bad about each other, but it is decently entertaining as to not give a hateful impression. I think Dorothea is just to straight-man in the game, hence why I compared her to Ingrid. She lacks a charm to really aid her in getting away with things, she is not a cute character (cute as in adorable could not hurt a fly, not attractive) and she lacks the humor necessary to pull things off.
The reason why Sylvain works along with other jerk characters like Lysthia is just the fact that they have more to entertain an audience when doing things. Sylvain is humorous, his antics are so out there that it adds a level of charm to overlook things. Lysthia is adorable and looks like a child (I know disrespectful) When she is mean to others, it comes off better as there is an adorable nature to it that can make it humorous. I personally feel Dorothea just lacks that element. With her I feel either bored or just sort of annoyed as there is not a gripping aspect of the character. She does kind things, but other characters do the same and have more defined elements. Dimitri has a similar take care of kids story and I think they go more in-depth with him on it. Manuela is also a singer, the difference being that her drinking issue and attention seeking add more overall. Manuela is so irresponsible and childish that it makes the character stand out more to me in comparison to Dorothea. Sylvain has the flirting thing down as well, but he goes so extreme that it is overall more humorous and engaging than Dorothea. Heck, Dorothea and Hilda even have a similar Caspar support where he is fully aware of their charming of men, not able to see their interest or desire, and they both have him help clean. I honestly just find Hilda better as it is funnier.
I think the thing to explain the preferences is simple. One can find the other more entertaining. I cannot get into Dorothea as there is no hook for me. She has many characteristics of others, but others have that special element that makes them more stand out.
We can agree to disagree on the preference of characters or writing. But I take issue in how you interpret or rationalize certain characters. It's your prerogative to dismiss Byleth because of their awkward, and perhaps needless, insertion into the game. But does that make it any less valid when analyzing Sylvain as a whole because it inconveniences your view of him? You can pick and choose what you like and don't like about Dorothea and Sylvain. You can judge them within the frame of, 'what sort of impression did this character leave me with?' rather than how they function. But I can't help but see your arguments as, I don't know, shallow?
It does not dismiss criticism. I am sorry for not getting that point across. The point being that it was a one-off thing, a problem most characters seem to have with Byleth. I find it hard to fully hate a character for that reason. I used to hate Leonie, but honestly, stacking up her other supports it really places a new perspective as she is really only awful in Byleth’s. I detest Sylvain in Byleth’s support, but in comparison to the rest, it does not sway me. Sylvain has plenty of good supports to make up the bad one.
I thought Dorothea had a bad support. But that is not the full reason I dislike her more than Sylvain. The fact is, most of her supports do nothing for me. There is no great support, all are just kind of average at best. She feels very neutral. I have no feelings towards her supports. The only one to really get me was the Bernedetta B support. She just comes off as uninteresting or ’passive-aggressive’ as said by
@Berrakh.
I hope this explained a bit better than my 10pm ramblinags.
