This whole “She’ll become the Great Mother of this Great Nation” gives me dictator vibes, lmao. I have no idea what she will become, but just my thoughts: being inspirational, especially in war, isn’t always a trait associated with being a fair and just ruler afterwards.
I’ll just wait and see. Right now, I have no clue how her character will continue to develop.
Wait, who said the Great Mother thing?! Did I miss that? It’s definitely weird. Sounds like something W would say 
. Homegirl can’t even be a great sister to her sibling; how’s she supposed to be a Great Mother to the country?! lol
This is how I feel about Ariana. Also I played as someone who prefer to be less into revenge and boy she’s constantly dismissing mc’s opinion. So if she’s only nice to mc when mc is supporting her murderous intent and rude when they are against that, that is definitely not a trait of a good leader.
I would agree with that sentiment in real life. The problem is that that is basically npc default reaction in all games. Don’t agree with them? They don’t like you and are, at best, indifferent to you and, at worst, outright hostile to you. So I have a hard time holding her reactions to mc disagreeing with her against her considering that that’s literally the trope in rpgs and IFs in general.
Having murderous intent towards a traitor doesn’t necessarily mean a bad leader. Not everyone is siding with the sister to appease her. Cooperating with the sister to stop Stan, a pawn of Kalltlanders is beneficial for Arcadie since Stan will have Kalltlanders as advisors who will sap the power of Arcadie and will constantly interfere with Arcadie politics whenever they think Arcadie is gaining power. Kalltlanders aren’t always seeking for peace. They aren’t willing to trade with Arcadie. They have always viewed Arcadie as their enemy and will not compromise a thing if it benefits Arcadie. They are smart and tactical enough to withstand a long-standing war against Arcadie. Arcadie didn’t have any progress in the past because they weren’t using a more strategic approach and it had only cost Arcadie resources and men. It’s time for smart mc to take charge against the cunning Kalltlanders and eliminate the threat for once and all. Here, a militaristic mc isn’t a bad leader for not taking a peaceful approach, for he is aware of the long term interactions with Kalltlanders, and is doing what he seems the best for Arcadie.
In simple words as Ariana said, “I am done giving our enemies a chance to stab us in the back.”
So we gonna stab them in the face? Starting with Stan?
Then if we are breaking the 4th wall, what is the writer’s design and their intention on her.
I would love to see her going to different direction depending on whether she’s got MC’s support or not. For example she might take the dictator route if unchallenged and being let loose (thus drown in her desire for revenge), while Ariana with MC support grows out of that anger and can become a great leader. Of course that also depends on whether MC themselves let the anger and desire for revenge be their purpose of life.
It will be better if people understand every player has the right to play according to their style. There are players who support Ariana who are still diplomatic and seeking peace without bloodshed. There are also players who prefer a militaristic approach. It doesn’t guarantee an automatic failure in a playthrough. Some don’t care about revenge. But players can have the choice to punish the traitor as an appropriate response to a kingdom’s regicide. People should stop equating to revenge=bad ending.
For sure. I’m not saying the revenge route is a bad route. It depends on how much the MC allows that to consume them. In one of my playthroughs MC wants Stan to get the punishment for murder and cahooting with the enemies, but at the same time they don’t want to exhaust all resources and lead the hundred thousands of soldier to their death simply for revenge. I don’t think there will be one size fits all kind of ending; the bad ending would be, in my prediction, leaving the country in ruins and that might happen due to excessive desire for revenge, negligence, or even bad tactic.
Clearly you want to argue. I don’t.
I feel this argument is going in circles so I will just say my piece and go.
If players want to side with Stan, Ariana will be a dictator to their views and monarchy system should be replaced.
If players want to side with Ariana, Stan will be a traitor to the country who premeditated a regicide and brought the war directly.
Neither Ariana or Stanislas is willing to give up. Both will try to harm MC if MC doesn’t agree with their plans.
MC will have to choose their ideal and play according to their strength. I have always played as a diplomatic MC and willing to have peace with Kalltland but I don’t believe retaliating against Stan or Kalltland is negligent of the country status or will lead to the bad ending. Every approach has its own merit and should be viewed as such instead of viewing other opinions as impudent.
I’m trying to have healthy discussion, but clearly you can’t see it and chose to interpret my words differently. Anyway, I’m out.
Good luck for the writer and I’ll support whatever directly they are planning to go with the story.