storm ily please rant about thropes nonsensical worldbuilding and how they fucked up the noble hierarchy by having too many dukes <3
shyd. shyd.
IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE AND I'M SO MAD. LISTEN. LISTEN.
So, in the irl historical uses of the european terms (since Fire Emblem uses European terms, that's what I'm referring to), there's a hierachy to noble titles which tends to be pretty similar across the board. The words differ slightly depending on the language, (some of which have the same root somewhere, which is neat) so like, marquis (french) and margrave (anglification of German markgraf) are different terms for similar positions.
So, using the terms fe does, USUALLY IT'S LIKE (and this is a simplification. I'm not an expert asfgk):
sovereign (I'm disregarding the differing positions of king vs emperor vs archduke here, bc its not relevent for 3 houses. obvs they're different irl, but it is irrelevant here)
(sovereign heir)
Duke
Marquis/Margrave - usually used for a noble with land on a border, so worth extra distinguishment. That's especially true of 'margrave' from what I can tell, but 'marquis' did originate from the same use (medieval latin "marca", meaning "borderland/frontier") i like language. ANYWAY.
Count
Viscount
Baron
Lord (as in 'of the Manor')
Now. NOW. There can obviously be multiple people in the same rank, barring sovereign and heir, but. Thropes did this funny thing where they were like: what if we added new nobles not mentioned at all in 3 Houses, with very promient titles that would imply they are high ranking.
Faerghus? So you got Duke Fraldarius - tracks, the Fraldariuses are the Blaiddyd's right hands - and Margrave Gautier - also tracks - implying the Gautiers and Fraldariuses are basicially the highest ranking noble families in Faerghus, apart from the royal family. Makes sense.
But what if we added a new Duke? said Koei Tecmo, Just to fuck with Storm, specifically?
So KT dropped not just one duke - IFAN - who up until now was never mentioned, which. A duke is pretty fucking important. Important enough to BE LABELLED ON THE PRE-EXISTING MAP, I'D SAY. Anyway. But not satisfied with this, they ALSO said hey. Why not just put a marquis in Faerghus? For funsies. A marquis. A title of different linguistic origin to margrave, but the same status? Margrave, as in, the established Margrave Gautier? Whatever, we worked out a fun linguistic thing with the Empire, which I actually love, but it's the principal of the thing.
So there I am, screaming into my pillow, trying desperately to make some semblence of sense out of these goddamn retcons, which is, we all know, a hopeless endeavour. But it bugs me. It bugs me SO MUCH.
NOT TO MENTION, they seemed to have made "Duke" Ifan's territory so, incredibly tiny. Like. A duke you say??? Sure.
They also added just. So many viscounts. So many counts. SO MANY. DEMOTE SOME OF THEM. Seven whole viscounts - four new ones - and five counts - two new ones - while there are only two barons. Demote some of these fuckers for the love of god. The political power balance is all outta whack.
Adrestia and Leicester were also not spared this. Leicester was gifted just. Too many viscounts (WHERE are the lesser lords? in the basement??). And while Adrestia has the most reasonable balance of barons there are still so. many. viscounts. Like who the fuck are the von Fenjas? von Fenja the fuck up.
I'm not even gonna talk about how it makes NO SENSE for Arundel to only be a "Lord" - he's the regent??? Obvs this is a Three Houses thing, not a Thropes thing, but are they telling me he didn't get a fancy title to go with that fancy land and fancy crown. intsys I'm gonna need 3 pages double sided of your thought process there. I know I know, they didn't think it through that thoroughly bc it doesn't actually matter, but what about me? will someone please think of me, left out in the rain, behaving very exceedly not neurotypical about this game??? 😔
18 notes
·
View notes
Thinking about the weird camaraderie that exists between demons but not angels in GO.
Have we ever seen two angels who are actually friends? Or even friendly to one another? We have met angels with a capacity to be friendly in general, but I think the closest we've come to two angels actually getting along would be Gabriel making a point to laugh at Sandalphon's terrible "can't have a war without War" line in S1.
Most scenes between the angels actually seem to have an undercurrent of absolute hostility. Teeth-clenched teamwork. No wonder it took them so long to notice that Aziraphale wasn't on the same page as the rest of them! The rest of them are barely on the same page as one another, either! When Gabriel goes against the majority vote, no one bats an eye at demoting him and wiping his memory. Michael and Uriel immediately begin vying for his job. The only times we've seen angels team up is when they're working together to bully someone else, like when they're trying to intimidate Aziraphale in S1 or going to the aftermath of the bookshop raid in S2.
Saraqael's overall neutrality towards Muriel is the closest we get to two angels in Heaven getting along, and it's more a lack of hostility than any kind of friendliness. At least until Gabriel loses his memories and Muriel shows up to spy on Aziraphale, and Aziraphale decides to be kind to both of them.
Demons, on the other hand, actually seem to form alliances and even friendships among one another. Hastur and Ligur are awful, but Hastur seems genuinely distraught over Ligur's death, not just fearful of suffering the same fate. Shax and Furfur conspire together and even though the 1940's investigation into Crowley's fraternizing doesn't work out for Furfur, it's not due to any double-crossing on Shax's part. Unlike the angels, who stick almost exclusively to making threats until the Metatron decides to try dangling a carrot at the end of the season, demons actually offer rewards to other demons when trying to work together. Beelzebub offers Crowley a promotion if he can bring them Gabriel, Furfur offers to back Shax up politically if she goes for the Duke position opening, and Crowley successfully stalls Hastur in S1 by pretending everything was a test and he's going to be put in charge of a legion as a reward for passing. They're still not great at socializing, but they're significantly ahead of the angels.
Of course, it's a fact that demons are awful to one another (Eric's treatment is really bad, they throw that random demon into holy water just to test it, "it'd be a funny world if demons went around trusting one another", etc) but they still seem more capable of forming friendships than the angels do.
I think that's because Hell cramps and crowds everyone together to try and increase their suffering and hostility, whereas Heaven isolates angels to decrease the odds of questioning or rebellion. Hell's methods are unpleasant, but it still ends up putting demons together, and some of those demons inevitably forge alliances and make friendships. Because as Crowley and Beelzebub demonstrate, demons are still social creatures with the capacity for love and affection, even if it's strongly discouraged and buried under nine million layers of trauma and a cultural mandate against kindness.
Angels are the same, but isolation makes is harder to form connections than overcrowding. Muriel and Jimbriel are both so eager to make friends, but Muriel's spent the past millennia shut in an empty office, and Gabriel has been distanced from his peers both through his position and also through Heaven's culture of fear and surveillance. He only breaks away from it when he finds something that's stronger than "choosing sides" (stronger than the fear of being rejected by Heaven and Falling, in fact strong enough that Falling seems worth it if he gets to be with someone he loves). Both Muriel and Gabriel are only able to start forming connections when they're away from Heaven.
I just think it's interesting that demons, despite being supposedly devoid of love, have an advantage in forming relationships compared to angels. Angels are supposed to love, but have far fewer opportunities to actually do so. Demons aren't supposed to love, but they make connections anyway.
568 notes
·
View notes
has the huggable twee irritation always been a Thing or did it evolve in response to like, "you're not ugly. i'd fuck you" type comments? like in your personal experience
god, I'm not well spoken enough to describe it exactly the way it Registers In My Brain... but like. It's not the "you're not ugly, I'd fuck you" genre, and that type of comment is so easy to immediately dismiss because it always comes from a certain type of man, and it's like yeah yeah, I could throw a sandwich and you'd fuck it before it hit the floor. But also, that one's so specific, it's a bottom-of-the-barrel "compliment" that dudes will give when a woman has actively said something about feeling like she's unattractive.
The HUGGABLE THING. The oooh squishy marshmallow somft huggable mom shaped 🥺🥰 She looks like she gives GREAT HUGS. Those comments are UNPROMPTED. I'm immediately like. Every keyword you say, I kill another hostage. I will blow up this whole building and everyone in it.
Because it is SO FUCKING WEIRD. And I have heard it one million times. And I see it on every drawing of a character who's even remotely plus sized. These comments would not fly for a thinner person, they'd be rightfully received as weird. People aren't gonna comment on a picture of Ariana Grande going omg she's sooo huggable mom friend shaped. WHAT.
Simultaneously are desexualized and sanitized to a weird degree in that uwu language way, WHILE also being creepy. Like, why are you describing what you think I'd feel like if you hugged me? Like the only positive thing you can think of to say is that I look like I have some give. As strangers. I'm not going to hug you, I think you're a creep and I think you're giving yourself a big pat on the back for complimenting a fat person. What are we doing I'm arguing at the air. Where am I
And you're just supposed to go oh thank you that's so nice, because as a fat person, you gotta take whatever compliment you get, even if it is actually not a compliment. And that's the thing, there are SO MANY ACTUAL COMPLIMENTS TO PICK FROM. But people settle on huggable and somft. Was this person pretty? Were they hot? You could say gorgeous? Handsome, beautiful? Elegant? Stunning? Sharp? Sexy? Stylish? Are you trying to say that you're attracted to this person's body? Are we being horny? Do you think they just look nice in general? Can't we think of anything else to say? Or are we just gonna sit here and say they fuckin look like Santa Claus. Huggable like a pillow. Girl what the fuck
196 notes
·
View notes