Noone care law during War . Everyone want to survive.It’s human nuture. Every human is not saint.
There are some PIPING HOT takes going around the forums at the moment.
11 Likes
I agree. That’s the reason I actually question Sobik’s decision regarding Vedran who I think would have just done what his advisors told him. Messing with the succession that way was dangerous. Primogeniture does give you a higher chance of ending up with a someone unqualified but it also reduces the chance of fights over succession.
Rade and Usurper Marshal are completely off their rockers, but honestly, them being in position to do what they did was another massive mistake of Sobik.
Giving your quite possibly resentful natural child control of the military is an awful risk to take. There’s no shortage of irresponsible leadership being displayed in Kanton.
10 Likes
He does it because he wishes to make amends (in death) for his past shabby treatment of the Marshal, not because he’s taking the long view. His letter was to be opened on his death, which could have happened naturally after Belos married and had at least one heir—he didn’t foresee being killed on Rade’s orders (and therefore his letter putting the Marshal on the path that could possibly take them to Ending 3).
@random-dude-78 In most playthroughs, I kept a high relationship with Vedran throughout the game and either talked him into surrendering/knocked him out and took him prisoner when he tried to commit suicide-by-Marshal. My Marshal and I agreed that he got a raw deal (and my Marshal does remember the awkward little boy who wanted to try and be as much her friend as Elly was, but was conflicted between her and Belos), but it doesn’t excuse him short-sightedly siding with Rade and doesn’t automatically earn him forgiveness.
11 Likes
If there’s one thing I’m certain in, is that a King Vedran would have listened to the Marshal with great attention and no hesitation, seeing as he witnessed first hand what happened to his more competent twin brother who didn’t accept the Marshal’s advice (for reasons that I, personally, find understandable).
And honestly? I don’t think Vedran being king would certainly result in a doomed Kanton, as Sobik was so convinced it would. That man was terrible, and him having such a low opinion of Vedran was one of the few great points in Vedran’s favour, if you ask me or my Marshal.
19 Likes
The man is an unrepentant murderer and actively leading an act of grand treason out of personal greed.
The man is a war hero.
Rade was promised Elya’s hand in marriage in exchange for winning the War, but all he got for his loyal service was getting metaphorically spat on by Sobik.
Rade was fully within his moral right to rebel.
I can’t quite imagine what else he’d need to do to qualify as a villain in your eyes
I mean, rebelling and having some civilians killed as a part of your military strategy is pretty tame all things (the time period, the stuff your generic Evil McBadguy would engage in and the things some other people (Erisians) in the setting have set a precedent for) considered.
Romanced Lada/Milon get the hell out of the city and as far from the Marshal as they can.
Wrong.
The scene you get in the epilogue, I’m pretty sure, entirely depends on how much affection points you have accumulated by that point.
EDIT
Since I had some time before leaving for work, here, so you don’t have to take my word for it.
Obren and Darin don’t have any real reason to remain loyal
As long as the Marshal is winning, Obren and whatever nobility that have chosen to rally to his/her side will stay by it.
As for Darin…are you serious?
Mentally there’s nothing healthy about it.
I didn’t claim it was healthy, but it is healthier than whatever MC was doing before.
And, anyway, this whole topic about the anger issues hinges entirely upon your quite biased assumption of what Ending 3 Marshal will become.
5 Likes
By medieval European feudal customs which seem to be most similar to this setting as far as real life analogues, some people might accept Rade raising rebellion to get concessions out of Sobik and to make the king keep his end of any agreements that had been violated, but killing him and planning to kill his family and trying to take his throne with no claim to it is way too far even in that world.
9 Likes
@fsix @roodcross In many history sibling kill each other for throne or In Many Chinese history,
Example ,In Tang dynasty, Empress Wu steal her third son’s throne (enforced succession by Her deceased husband ) and become as emperor (She have no right in Throne because In Law of sucession only man can success throne ,but she is woman Yes,she is ambitious and hight Determined woman. (She start from low-rank consort when she arrived at palace in first time,become to Empress mother and become as The first woman Emperor ) but As Emperor she make great contributions to her own country ) .Look in this case ,Mother can steal her son’s throne and extremly against Law of Sucession under Confucianism
Or ฺBefore Empress Wu reign,Emperor Tang Taizong force his Father to give him throne after he can win war between siblings (and One of them is crown prince ).And In History he is good Emperor and better than his father .Look , he is second son and didn’t followed law of succession.but he suceed to rebel against his father (Status : Alive)and all sibling (Status : deceased) .
Or If you read The Three kingdoms, You will see Cao Cao,nobleman ,no royal blood who steal Throne from Emperor and establish his own Dynasty (Wei Dynasty) .(imagin as Rade 2.0 but smarter mix with tactic Marshall 1.5 he have knowledge about art of war ) He have no right in Throne and not follow law of succession at all . But he become as Emperor until he die and give throne to his son .
Or In HOD, Aegon II ("Well…his mother mostly) coup Rhaenyra,the crown princess ( by Viserys himself ) , Can I ask @fsix @roodcross Where is the Law of succession ? If they follow law of succession they should let Rhaenyra be queen without question,but they don’t . they enforce law as new monarch and accuse Rhaenyra as Reble .
.so, This is normal thing in Royal family /whoever involve with power .This is politic in Royal family /noble wanna be.No one care about law of succession or Law beause Law depend on whoever is present king/queen who can succeed to size and secure throne .It can’t enforced by itself and by dead people who enforced it before they die .As long as you can secure your power as king/queen and alive until ending of your reign,you are person who enforces all Law, not dead person.
1 Like
While i agree its fairly common in history the things your stating both in fiction and real life across the world its equally true that across the world the laws of succession the others mention do get followed.
There are various reasons for all of it and at the moment i will not or care to debate the nuances of it all let alone trying to track down such info of the past both for or against.
I will however say this much its been true across much of history exspecially in the past in a time before modern era and more so the deeper into the past one goes that the saying " Might makes right " exists and basically the meaning is that power the right to rule goes to those with the strength to take it and keep it.
Which in the context of this story rade is attempting or while a ursurper MC is going to attempt. Weather they succeed or not remains to be seen so time will tell.
4 Likes
Agree with You.I feel very tired about this topic.and this is my last opinion for Ending 3 
1 Like
The original context of that statement was a discussion about Rade (not) being a villain of the story.
Rade didn’t just wake up one day and decide on committing regicide and taking power for himself, he had good reasons to rebel. And if it wasn’t for the protagonist, he would have succeeded with an absolutely negligible number of victims.
Also, it’s not like Rade’s initial plan included killing off the entirety of the royal family. Belos and Vedran would have been disposed of, no doubt about it, but Elya would “only” be forced to marry Rade, thus legitimizing his rule. And I don’t think there ever was a reason for him to kill Mira or MC (assuming s/he didn’t take up arms against Rade) either.
Additionally, Kanton isn’t absolute, but a feudal monarchy. Just as vassals have certain obligations to their king, so the king swears to uphold the rights and privileges of his vassals.
By so blatantly deceiving Rade, all the while being obviously unprepared to deal with the inevitable consequences of such a dishonourable behaviour; Sobik had proved himself to be unfit to rule and it was his vassals’ sacred duty to have him removed from power.
Or, at least, that’s the way I see it.
3 Likes
Roodcross stated that Rade wasn’t wrong to rebel over the lack of compensation for veterans of the Border War (in Rade’s case, a favorable resolution of his land dispute with the Duke of Jutrea [Milon and possibly Milon’s dad before Milon became Duke], as well as a betrothal to Elya). Regicide (considered unacceptable even in feudal monarchies) was where he deviated from acceptable behavior.
And he gets an alternative path, thanks to the Marshal, that could get him everything he (claims to have) rebelled for except the crown (and if he makes a good case during his negotiation with Elya, he could get to be King-consort [although in practice a co-ruler] in two years; Elya is still underage, eighteen is the age of marriage in Kanton, yet Rade is a powerful Duke and marrying him would shore up her domestic power, ignoring the age gap and that the father she loved died on his orders). He doesn’t take it, and his reason is “I’ve come too far to back down now.”
19 Likes
A great neutral answer taking all points into account.
I am not sure if examples taken from chinese history and GoT are at all useful understanding the nature of the game, specially if contrasted with western medieval history.
The common denominator of most medieval succession crisis is the existence of multiple heirs either controlling or being controlled by the nobility. While wild social climbing is not unkown, the path for all ambitious noblemen is to get closer to the throne and either secure a marriage (thus becoming kin with the royals) or becoming the puppetmasters of the maleable, naive young heir.
Legitimacy by way of marriage and blood is important, too important in fact, and very rarely we see someone without one of those actually coming on top during a crisis of this nature. Honor-based societies as depicted here are all about social thrust, and “might makes right” taken at face value with no subtlety behind will just mean the destruction and harm of everyone including the ambitious nobleman in question.
Point of all of this: what Rade is doing is extreme even in medieval standards, and an absolute breach of all social convention even in the context of open rebellion. Dude is a madman.
13 Likes
Roodcross stated that Rade wasn’t wrong to rebel over the lack of compensation for veterans of the Border War
I wasn’t debating Roodcross, though…
Fsix claimed that Rade (and by extension the Usurper, for being Rade 2.0) was a villain for being a “traitor” and an “unrepentant murder”.
Anyway,
Regicide (considered unacceptable even in feudal monarchies) was where he deviated from acceptable behavior.
Maybe. But, once again, considering how blatantly Sobik used and then discarded Rade, the latter didn’t have much of a choice but to take the course he has taken.
Rade wouldn’t have rebelled if he didn’t believe he could win… And if you have the opportunity to truly elevate yourself by taking an extra step, it would be foolish not to take it.
Moreover, Sobik had already proven himself untrustworthy: even if he was successfully forced to honour his promise to Rade, there was no guarantee that Sobik wouldn’t stab him in the back at the first opportunity.
Committing regicide was the only sure way to deal with Sobik.
Belos and Vedran would never forgive Rade for assassinating their father, so killing them, once again, was the only right choice Rade could make.
He doesn’t take it, and his reason is “I’ve come too far to back down now.”
And that’s a very good reason.
From his perspective, there’s no guarantee that Elya won’t eventually (if not almost immediately) mark him for death. And it’s not like she doesn’t have a very obvious reason (avenging her beloved father and brother) for doing so.
If Rade’s rebellion succeeds, he alone will hold the power, and Elya will be nothing more than a figurehead, who couldn’t possibly pose any threat. But being a “co-ruler” would mean being on guard at all times.
Why take such unnecessary risks when victory seems to be a question of “when” rather than “if”? To save a few thousands lives? After so many have already been sacrificed?
I think sometimes people forget that morality is a thing that, you know, exists. A villain is someone who discards morality (things like murder is bad) in favour of their own personal power.
9 Likes
An unworthy ruler is sitting on the throne, a disgrace to all that is good and holy…is it not the duty of the righteous to strike down the fiend?
And if by a whim of fortune, in the pursuit of justice, should innocents be fallen…“the Lord knows those that are his own.”
In a hereditary European monarchy, you really, really aren’t supposed to kill the monarch. You can rebel in certain circumstances like I said, but regicide is a big no no.
There’s a reason Cromwell had to use his army to purge the Parliament before putting Charles I on trial. Even most of the Parliamentarians thought that executing a king was beyond the pale.
The judges of Charles I who signed his death warrant that lived long enough went on to meet a sorry end when his son was invited back to England after Cromwell’s death.
6 Likes
I’m well aware of that. The French Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
What Rade did is undeniably extreme by most standards, especially those of medieval Europe, but my original point was that it doesn’t necessarily make him a villain.
He has his villainous moments, but right now I see him as nothing more than a very “grey” antagonist.
That’s what Rade tells you. For all we know that could be very well just a presumption on Rade’s part, if not outright lie to get the Marshal on his side with a sob story. Just like he claims he’s doing it all “for the war veterans” but when given option to have these very veterans rewarded by Elya like they’re supposed to, he won’t take it because in reality he’s much more interested in acquiring the throne for himself and the veterans are just convenient excuse.
Throughout the game Rade explicitly shows that he has no interest in actually marrying Elya, and his only thoughts regarding her are along the lines she needs to be killed and thrown in a ditch.
Obren stays with the Marshall out of sense of self-preservation. But he also recognizes that he isn’t really safe – “If the Marshal betrayed ${his} sister, then who else would ${he} throw to the lions?”
The same sense of self-preservation might very well push Obren to turn on the Marshall to save himself. Or at least cause paranoid Marshal to act on such presumption and force Obren’s hand.
As for Darin, certainly. He might consider turning on the Marshal as a way to “save them” from what he clearly views as wrong course of action. Or, again, that might be just what the Marshal comes to think – the thing is, if you can betray even your closest family, then it’s pretty normal to project such sentiments on other people as well. To the Marshall they’re themselves the very proof that people can’t be trusted to stay loyal. And that was the entire point, that disloyal Marshal no longer has the comfort of having people they can really trust.
He could very well demand such guarantee as part of the deal.
This is known as “sunk cost fallacy” and it’s called fallacy for a good reason. If Rade thinks his victory is inevitable then he’s deluding himself, as evidenced by the game itself.
7 Likes