Sigh... I had questions that were never answered...
Starstream Think Tank
- Thread starter Lyte
- Start date
Frostlich1228 (Alt)
Well-Known Member
Well. Go ahead if you want. I'll try to not be as Hardline in my reasoning. Sorry I came off as not budging at all.
Just... I don't understand why Dimitri and Rhea get slack for their pasts, but Edelgard doesn't. I mean, they both do such horrible things but you didn't give them any flack.
And you mentioned a curse placed on Sothis and Seiros... but I don't remember any curse placed on then. What curse were you talking about?
And you mentioned a curse placed on Sothis and Seiros... but I don't remember any curse placed on then. What curse were you talking about?
Frostlich1228 (Alt)
Well-Known Member
Oh. I give Rhea so much Flak. I don't like Eldegard or her. But Rhea isn't nearly as stubborn as El is, which is why I would side with her. I want to pick the side that causes the least death. In every ending.
SPOILER.
Rhea steps down peacefully and dismantles the crest system. She can see reason. El can't.
Dimitri is actually a good person. He was also manipulated by those who Slither like El and has an understandable desire to see her pay because she allied with them. But above all, Dimitri is very self aware that he's not a good person and he did bad things, and tries to do better by stopping El. Meanwhile El feels bad but keeps doing it because she feels she has no other choice. They are actually very similar. But that's why I give them more credit than her.
And I remember reading something on the wiki that said that Rhea likely belongs ro a race of immortals in the game, can't remember the name, but they kinda get unhinged with age. I... Honestly don't remember where I heard the curse one, I think it was in the GD story. My sources on that is spotty to be fair.
But Rhea... she spends a thousand years manipulating humans. Using them. Experimenting on them. Making Humonculi to serve as vessels. Using crest stones to turn people into monsters. Every one of those creatures you see in the game was a former human turned into a beast by her creast stones, all part pf her experiments. I mean... Edelgard isn't after Rhea when she forst attacks the tomb, she is after the crest stones to take them away from the church. She's been commiting horrible atrocities on mankind for a thousand years... and she is the lesser of two evils? I... just don't understand...
And I didn't see anything about them becoming more unhinged with age. She was always like that. You can see it in the flashback when she kills Nemesis by stabbing him over and over and over again with her mad, possessed, raged fueled eyes. I mean (major spoilers), Seteth and Flayn are just as old as her and they aren't unhinged or insane. Flayn is as innocent as the young woman she looks to be.
Frostlich1228 (Alt)
Well-Known Member
Yeah. Okay. I give that to you. But I still don't know if she is as blood thirsty or malicious enough to warrant death. You don't see any of that in the other stories I think... Only in Eldegard's I think. In Rhea story I think she sacrifices herself to protect everyone.
I think in Rhea's story she is hit with an attack that causes her to lose control, and you are forced to kill her to save everyone. Unless you have a S-rank support with her, in which you are able to calm her down after defeating her.
I think I know where you got the cursed blood thing from. It isn't that the blood of Seiros and her people is cursed. Their blood was used to make the crests, and people like Edelgard and Lysithea see crests as a curse. And in a way they are. The fact that they were a gift from the goddess is something Seiros fabricated. In reality, Nemesis created the crests by slaughtering Sothis' people and using their godly blood to make the crests.
It is also implied that those holy weapons supposedly bestowed on the Ten Elites by goddess? Yeah, those were also made by Nemesis using body parts from Sothis and her children. It's pretty messed up. The entire story is gruesome and sad. I don't know about the other houses, but almost everyone has a sad story in Black Eagles. Dorothea was a street orphan who only made it off the streets because she could sing. Edelgard had those experiments run on her. Caspar gets nothing from his family because he is second born. Petra was brought to Fodlan pretty much to keep her grandfather, king of Brigid, in line.
And Bernadetta? Oh, man. Her father would strap her into a chair for hours to show her the proper way to be a good, quiet wife. When she failed at anything, he'd call her worthless, garbage, unfitting to be anyone's wife. When she made a friend with a commoner against his wishes? The boy disappeared the next day, reappearing a few days later beaten half to death. That's why she is such a paranoid, jumpy, nervous shut in. So sad.
So.much of this game is sad and depressing... why do we all like it?
I think I know where you got the cursed blood thing from. It isn't that the blood of Seiros and her people is cursed. Their blood was used to make the crests, and people like Edelgard and Lysithea see crests as a curse. And in a way they are. The fact that they were a gift from the goddess is something Seiros fabricated. In reality, Nemesis created the crests by slaughtering Sothis' people and using their godly blood to make the crests.
It is also implied that those holy weapons supposedly bestowed on the Ten Elites by goddess? Yeah, those were also made by Nemesis using body parts from Sothis and her children. It's pretty messed up. The entire story is gruesome and sad. I don't know about the other houses, but almost everyone has a sad story in Black Eagles. Dorothea was a street orphan who only made it off the streets because she could sing. Edelgard had those experiments run on her. Caspar gets nothing from his family because he is second born. Petra was brought to Fodlan pretty much to keep her grandfather, king of Brigid, in line.
And Bernadetta? Oh, man. Her father would strap her into a chair for hours to show her the proper way to be a good, quiet wife. When she failed at anything, he'd call her worthless, garbage, unfitting to be anyone's wife. When she made a friend with a commoner against his wishes? The boy disappeared the next day, reappearing a few days later beaten half to death. That's why she is such a paranoid, jumpy, nervous shut in. So sad.
So.much of this game is sad and depressing... why do we all like it?
Frostlich1228 (Alt)
Well-Known Member
Because we relate.
BMPixy
Well-Known Member
So, I don't want to reignite the argument and all that, but I do want to address a couple points I felt neglected.
Anyways, that's all my points and all my views, just wanted to get 'em out there. They might change, but it'd probably be from playing more 3H than discussion here.
So, first off, one thing I want to point out is that far, far fewer people died in the Fodlan reunification war than you might expect, because medieval military warfare was far smaller in scale than modern, industrialized warfare. For instance, since Fodlan is fairly heavily inspired by the British Isles from my point of view, let's take a look at the War of the Roses and the Scottish Independence War. The former lasted thirty years and killed between 35 and 50,000 people, the latter sixty years and 60-150,000 people. The Fodlan war lasted 5 years and 5 months. Take that into consideration when considering how many people died in the war. (An addendum is that though the war raged for that long, it was ended in those 5 months in a series of decisive battles, and most if not all of them are 'defeat the commander' missions, which means only a few people at the very least have to go down. Also, Edel's strategy mirrored mine in the Battle of the Eagle and the Lion - hold off the Kingdom while blitzing down the Alliance to stop Claude from doing anything tricky, then turn everything to bear on the Kingdom.)
Second, the other thing that was nagging me was the idea that Edelgard was 'acting'. Where did that thought even originate from? I never got any indication that that was the case, everything seemed to be born from that sincere, genuine belief in a world without Crests. Because she suffered like that, she wanted to make sure nobody suffered like that. And the only solution was to destroy the church and Rhea. After all, if Rhea steps down, what's stopping her from waiting a generation or two and then coming back under a new name? In that light, allying with the Slitherers makes sense, since they have the same goal. They had power, resources, connections - everything Edel didn't. But, once she has all those things, away they go, first at Arianrhod and then after the war. It's realpolitik.
My penultimate matter - mercilessness. I'm not going to say anything like 'can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs'. Rather, what I will say is that everyone who chose to stand in Edel's way, well, they chose to stand in her way. At any point, they could have chosen to surrender, to stand down, or even just stand aside. Lysithea certainly did, in my play-through. But everyone else didn't. And that means they had just as much culpability for what happens as Edel did. Dmitri didn't have to shelter the Church, Claude is slightly less to blame as he on paper stayed out of things, but on the other hand that was just on paper. Had Edel shown any sort of weakness, he would have pounced. I will admit though that Edel could have done it a lot better in trying to get them on her side.
Finally, Dmitri. I'll preface this by saying I haven't played the Boy's Lo- I mean, Blue Lion route. But from what I've picked up over this discussion and my experiences on Edel's route, I'll just say that some might say Edel was quick to judge him, but Dmitri did nothing to dispute that view of him Edel had. Hell, his last words are more or less telling her to burn in hell for eternity. And even so, she cries for him.
Second, the other thing that was nagging me was the idea that Edelgard was 'acting'. Where did that thought even originate from? I never got any indication that that was the case, everything seemed to be born from that sincere, genuine belief in a world without Crests. Because she suffered like that, she wanted to make sure nobody suffered like that. And the only solution was to destroy the church and Rhea. After all, if Rhea steps down, what's stopping her from waiting a generation or two and then coming back under a new name? In that light, allying with the Slitherers makes sense, since they have the same goal. They had power, resources, connections - everything Edel didn't. But, once she has all those things, away they go, first at Arianrhod and then after the war. It's realpolitik.
My penultimate matter - mercilessness. I'm not going to say anything like 'can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs'. Rather, what I will say is that everyone who chose to stand in Edel's way, well, they chose to stand in her way. At any point, they could have chosen to surrender, to stand down, or even just stand aside. Lysithea certainly did, in my play-through. But everyone else didn't. And that means they had just as much culpability for what happens as Edel did. Dmitri didn't have to shelter the Church, Claude is slightly less to blame as he on paper stayed out of things, but on the other hand that was just on paper. Had Edel shown any sort of weakness, he would have pounced. I will admit though that Edel could have done it a lot better in trying to get them on her side.
Finally, Dmitri. I'll preface this by saying I haven't played the Boy's Lo- I mean, Blue Lion route. But from what I've picked up over this discussion and my experiences on Edel's route, I'll just say that some might say Edel was quick to judge him, but Dmitri did nothing to dispute that view of him Edel had. Hell, his last words are more or less telling her to burn in hell for eternity. And even so, she cries for him.
Anyways, that's all my points and all my views, just wanted to get 'em out there. They might change, but it'd probably be from playing more 3H than discussion here.
Frostlich1228 (Alt)
Well-Known Member
You didn't have to go so ham on the research my dude, holy shit.
But from the way I see it, Edelgard forced everyone's hand when she refused to listen to reason. Them backing down was the equivalent to signing their own death warrents. She was planning to kill them all.But hey, if you want to work with someone who was willing to use the most evil group in the world to accomplish her goals, manipulating them and others to achieve her goal of brutal murder. Then like... Go ahead. I pretty much laid out every single one of my points above anyway.
Edelgard even admits it in the scene where you kill her with the Church or GD. She'll never stop. Go to any lengths. Kill anyone. To achieve her goal. So the path to Byleth's destiny lies across her grave. And when he kills her, he shows no emotions, ironic, considering that is the same way she kills everyone else. In the End, Eldegard was a good kid. A good kid who was consumed by a pride and an ambition that lead her to do monsterous acts, all further fueled by anger and pain from her past. And the saddest thing is that Claude still loves her. And Dimitri, who tries to spare her. And so many others that she hurt. All for just a stupid... Pointless War.
Last edited:
Not pointless if it leads to change. No war is pointless if it leads to positive changes. I stand by what I say that nothing would have changed if Edelgard didn't initiate her war, being the winner or the loser.You didn't have to go so ham on the research my dude, holy shit.
But hey, if you want to work with someone who was willing to use the most evil group in the world to accomplish her goals, manipulating them and others to achieve her goal of brutal murder. Then like... Go ahead. I pretty much laid out every single one of my points above anyway.
Edelgard even admits it in the scene where you kill her with the Church or GD. She'll never stop. Go to any lengths. Kill anyone. To achieve her goal. So the path to Byleth's destiny lies across her grave. And when he kills her, he shows no emotions, ironic, considering that is the same way she kills everyone else. In the End, Eldegard was a good kid. A good kid who was consumed by a pride and an ambition that lead her to do monsterous acts, all further fueled by anger and pain from her past. And the saddest thing is that Claude still loves her. And Dimitri, who tries to spare her. And so many others that she hurt. All for just a stupid... Pointless War.
And your point would get across if you stopped referring to her acts as murder. She is fighting people in a war. You keep talking about her like she is some killer in the night. This is war. People die in war. She isn't coming after to people in the dark, she is engaging them on a battlefield. And no matter what you insist about her having the choice to back down, the others had a choice to surrender. They chose to fight, and they died for their convictions.
Edelgard had a goal. And she stuck to it. If she hadn't stuck to it, hadn't pushed on, if she had backed down, then nothing would have changed. Absolutely nothing. Dimitri had the same desires, to change the nobility and crest system, bit he thought he could do it from his seat of power. He would have failed. Edelgard would have failed if she had tried to change things wothout war. The church would have stood in the way. The nobels would jave stood in the way. Edelgard's father wanted some change, and those around him conspired and stripped him of his power, turning him into a figure head with the Prime Minister as the one with real power. Edelgard's first act as Emperor wasn't to declare war, it was to start changes in her own government, but she knew that wouldn't be enough.
You keep villifying her without presenting an alternative. What was the alternative to her war? In the stories where she loses, Rhea stands down (for now) or promises changes (for now). Can you honestly say things would have changed without the war?
This isn't a rhetorical question, I am truly asking you this question. Do you think the oppressive system of nobility and Crests and the iron fist control of the church, a church that makes people thar oppose it disappear with publically known executions so people knows what happens to to those that oppose them, and experiments on people using crest stones to turn them into beasts, would have changed without a shake up and someone challenging the status quo? Do you think, if Edelgard had stayed complacent, hating the nobility and crests but not actually doing anything, that Rhea would have changed? That the system that controlled Fodlan for a thousand years would have changed? And if the answer is yes, please explain.
Because all signs point to it being no, and if nothing would have changed... then I'm sorry if it makes me look bad on your eyes, but that makes Edelgard evil perhaps... but a necessary evil.
Last edited:
I think it is important to point out too that the reformation of Fodaln and the Church of Seiros likely wouldn't have happened unless the entirety of Fodlan was unified under one power, and power that could change nobility everywhere, not just a third of the continent, and stand as a large enough entity that the Church of Seiros couldn't control them. And what happens at the end of every story? All of Fodlan is united under either Edelgard or Dimitri (or Byleth him/herself in one of the Golden Deer endings I think).
Frostlich1228 (Alt)
Well-Known Member
I just don't think anything good can come from War. That's my stance. I honestly believe if she hadn't started her war things could've been discussed and working through, but that's not how things happened, and now well never know.
I believe there is an apt song for this...
Mmnm. WAR, HUHN, YOU TELL ME, WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN!
That's a very optimistic and I envy you for it, I really do. But I'm sorry... Sometimes war is inevitable. Sometimes talking won't work. Talking was attempted before the revolutionary war. Ideas. Plees. "No taxation without representation". Peaceful protest that turned into massacres of British soldiers shooting into crowds of unarmed men.
You really think things would have changed if Edelgard had walked up to the others and said, "Hey, I don't like how things are and want to upheave the entire no ility system, even though it will put a target on my head and any who support me? You guys in? Oh, and Rhea? I'm gonna need you to step down as Archbishop and let me reform the entire corrupt church system. Okay? You're willing to give up the position you've held for a thousand years and give up on the goal you've been working on for just as long, right?"
You made the Hitler analogy so it is only fair I get to as well? Should America have not wntered WWII because you think they would have been able to walk up to the Nazi's and say, "Can you just... knock it off?"
Frostlich1228 (Alt)
Well-Known Member
America didn't shoot first in your analogy.
Eldegard shot first. She is the Germany. She didn't even try to find a peaceful solution. I can't support that. Ever.
But seriously though, we should stop. :/
Eldegard shot first. She is the Germany. She didn't even try to find a peaceful solution. I can't support that. Ever.
But seriously though, we should stop. :/
Sigh..
"Right amd Wrong are not what seperate us from our enemies.It's our perspectives that seperate us. Both sides Blame one another. There's no good or bad side. Just two sides holding different views."
"Right amd Wrong are not what seperate us from our enemies.It's our perspectives that seperate us. Both sides Blame one another. There's no good or bad side. Just two sides holding different views."
One issue I think there is in this game which is causing so much butting of the heads and arguments is the fact that we too often play games that are purely black and white, even games involving war. One side, usually the side you are playing, is white, is the good side, and the other aide is black. No matter what you do wrong, you are always comfortable in the knowledge that you are the good guy and thus morally you are free from prosecution. This very Tolkien idea of clear right and clear wrong, where you can easily point at one side, such as the side made up of souless monsters born of hate and ruled by a sinister looking eyeball that wishes for death and destruction, and say "Bad Guys! They are obviously the Bad Guys!" (No offense to Lord of the Rings fans, there is plenty of complexities to the stories, there are just some facettes that are very cut and dry).
But if you look past the black and white, you can see some grey that makes you question yourself and your actions in games. Do I think the ends always justify the means? No... but sometimes yes? Sometimes it depends on what the situation is. I could point to some real world example, though I'd like to avoid dropping that bomb (or two... on innocent civilians in order to stop a war...) and use some videogame examples.
War games: You are brutally killing men and women (mostly men) to win your side of the war.
Days Gone: You're the good guy... but you kill people outside your camp who are trying to survive but just so happen to be surviving in a way that opposes the faction or camp you're supporting.
Metal Gear Solid 3: Those Russians you have little problem snapping the necks of, kicking off of cliffs, or knocking out and leaving precariously at the edge of crocdile filled waters have family and friends that will miss them when they are gone. But you have a higher mission to stop a nuclear war, so all the people who die are justified. (Sorta. There is the river scene with the Sorrow to make you feel kinda bad for all you've killed). And the less said about the bad things The Boss does but is still technically a hero who, yes, I might have had to fight a tear back for in the end, the better.
Final Fantasy: Whoa, boy... Final Fantasy... one of my favorite series, and yet so many examples. In 10, you dismantle the church and destroy the ability to call the final Aeon. They were corrupt systems but they had led Spira and given its people hope for a thousand years, and you destroy them without knowing for sure you can defeat Sin.
In 13, you kill dozens, maybe hundreds, of Cacoon soldiers who are afraid of you and just trying to do their jobs.
In 2, 4, and 6, you oppose a world dominating force that is evil... but not everyone in their employ is evil.
And 7? 7 is my favorite game, and yet you commit some of the most evil acts in that game in the name of stopping a greater evil. Are you the good guys? Is Shinra the bad guys? Because you just blew up two giant energy reactors that probably cost the lives of hundreds of innocent soldiers and workers, hundreds from the explosion and debris outside the reactor, and hundreds more from the sudden blackouts. Nothing sucks more then when you're trying to perform heart surgery and all the power goes out.
But you're the good guys, right? Because Shinra are the bad guys and stopping them will save the planet right?
Problem here is FF7 doesn't leave any moral ambiguity by making Shinra mustache twirling baddies who know they are hurting the planet and don't care, have an organization in the Turks which is made for covert ops and assassinations, and drop an entire sector of the city, likely populated by thousands of innocents, on top of another sector of the city in an attempt to literally crush you (we'll ignore the arguement that they wouldn't have done that if not for you). The problem? You're not really given the chance to question the moral implications of your actions when the other guys are so obviously evil.
Fire Emblem: Three Houses, however, is very morally grey. Maybe even too morally grey, as you are always presented as being on the good side no matter who you pick, with Edelgard or Rhea's crazy being turned up to eleven if you don't side with them for example. It leads to arguements about which side is right and which is wrong when all sides can be right and wrong depending on the view. That's why I like to focus on things that happen before the split in the story and remember the central theme presented often in the story, the idea that history is written by the victors. This happens at least once in Three Houses, with it being made very clear that after defeating Nemesis, Serios made history say that he went mad with power, that the Ten Elites were on her side, and that the ten weapons and the crests were gifts from the goddess. Thus, I see the way your allies are always painted in a positive light as this being the true history, so of course the history books will paint them as good. So maybe no one is as bad as they are presented.
Hell, maybe all of them are just as bad as they are presented regardless of the 'canon' story. So why don't we all assume, no matter which story we are playing, Rhea is always a vindictive she-demon who will stop at nothing to get her mother back no matter what tries to stop her, Dimitri is always a half-crazed loon of a king driven blindly by vengeance and willing to work with the church even after they start turning his men into monsters, Edelgard is always a vindictive back stabber who will pursue her goal no matter how many widows, trampled flowers, and dead puppies she leaves in her wake, and Claude will always be a coward who is willing to let his Alliance tetter on civil war in order to feign neutrality until one side or the other looks like their winning, either siding with them or ditching the Alliance and leaving it to them because "Fuck Fodlan, I have my own Kingdom I can go be king of... with blackjack... and hookers...".
But if you look past the black and white, you can see some grey that makes you question yourself and your actions in games. Do I think the ends always justify the means? No... but sometimes yes? Sometimes it depends on what the situation is. I could point to some real world example, though I'd like to avoid dropping that bomb (or two... on innocent civilians in order to stop a war...) and use some videogame examples.
War games: You are brutally killing men and women (mostly men) to win your side of the war.
Days Gone: You're the good guy... but you kill people outside your camp who are trying to survive but just so happen to be surviving in a way that opposes the faction or camp you're supporting.
Metal Gear Solid 3: Those Russians you have little problem snapping the necks of, kicking off of cliffs, or knocking out and leaving precariously at the edge of crocdile filled waters have family and friends that will miss them when they are gone. But you have a higher mission to stop a nuclear war, so all the people who die are justified. (Sorta. There is the river scene with the Sorrow to make you feel kinda bad for all you've killed). And the less said about the bad things The Boss does but is still technically a hero who, yes, I might have had to fight a tear back for in the end, the better.
Final Fantasy: Whoa, boy... Final Fantasy... one of my favorite series, and yet so many examples. In 10, you dismantle the church and destroy the ability to call the final Aeon. They were corrupt systems but they had led Spira and given its people hope for a thousand years, and you destroy them without knowing for sure you can defeat Sin.
In 13, you kill dozens, maybe hundreds, of Cacoon soldiers who are afraid of you and just trying to do their jobs.
In 2, 4, and 6, you oppose a world dominating force that is evil... but not everyone in their employ is evil.
And 7? 7 is my favorite game, and yet you commit some of the most evil acts in that game in the name of stopping a greater evil. Are you the good guys? Is Shinra the bad guys? Because you just blew up two giant energy reactors that probably cost the lives of hundreds of innocent soldiers and workers, hundreds from the explosion and debris outside the reactor, and hundreds more from the sudden blackouts. Nothing sucks more then when you're trying to perform heart surgery and all the power goes out.
But you're the good guys, right? Because Shinra are the bad guys and stopping them will save the planet right?
Problem here is FF7 doesn't leave any moral ambiguity by making Shinra mustache twirling baddies who know they are hurting the planet and don't care, have an organization in the Turks which is made for covert ops and assassinations, and drop an entire sector of the city, likely populated by thousands of innocents, on top of another sector of the city in an attempt to literally crush you (we'll ignore the arguement that they wouldn't have done that if not for you). The problem? You're not really given the chance to question the moral implications of your actions when the other guys are so obviously evil.
Fire Emblem: Three Houses, however, is very morally grey. Maybe even too morally grey, as you are always presented as being on the good side no matter who you pick, with Edelgard or Rhea's crazy being turned up to eleven if you don't side with them for example. It leads to arguements about which side is right and which is wrong when all sides can be right and wrong depending on the view. That's why I like to focus on things that happen before the split in the story and remember the central theme presented often in the story, the idea that history is written by the victors. This happens at least once in Three Houses, with it being made very clear that after defeating Nemesis, Serios made history say that he went mad with power, that the Ten Elites were on her side, and that the ten weapons and the crests were gifts from the goddess. Thus, I see the way your allies are always painted in a positive light as this being the true history, so of course the history books will paint them as good. So maybe no one is as bad as they are presented.
Hell, maybe all of them are just as bad as they are presented regardless of the 'canon' story. So why don't we all assume, no matter which story we are playing, Rhea is always a vindictive she-demon who will stop at nothing to get her mother back no matter what tries to stop her, Dimitri is always a half-crazed loon of a king driven blindly by vengeance and willing to work with the church even after they start turning his men into monsters, Edelgard is always a vindictive back stabber who will pursue her goal no matter how many widows, trampled flowers, and dead puppies she leaves in her wake, and Claude will always be a coward who is willing to let his Alliance tetter on civil war in order to feign neutrality until one side or the other looks like their winning, either siding with them or ditching the Alliance and leaving it to them because "Fuck Fodlan, I have my own Kingdom I can go be king of... with blackjack... and hookers...".
Last edited:
Frostlich1228 (Alt)
Well-Known Member
My final remark is that in this game you get to know all of them. They are all your students. You've seen them grow, love, lose, and change. But you still love them all.
That's why in Byleth's shoes, I think the best past is the one that hurts the least people, and that's not the Empire.
And I think the best path is the one that actually attempts to change the corrupt status quo, and that is the Empire.
BMPixy
Well-Known Member
One thing I do like about 3H is that, unlike a bunch of other games with branching routes, there is no true, perfect ending where everyone gets what they want. Every victory comes at the cost of sacrifice, every change has opposition. It makes you mourn for those who couldn't join you, and closer to those who did. It's refreshing to me.