#let it be watsonian wise or doylist wise we know the name of at least one of Rhea's NPC creations

[randomnameless]

@zevfern replied to your post “@zevfern replied to your post “If i may provide a...”:

A whole post to reply to my comment? You shouldn't have 🥰 I wonder if it's possible with magic to replace organs in people's bodies, because in that case Sitri could have been developed like an IV baby and then at some point during her gestation she would have the Crest Stone implanted into her. Buy left does have a heart, it's just not being used, so maybe it's the same case with Sitri? I don’t know, I just don’t want to believe the homunculus theory because it makes Rhea look really shitty (and gives Edelgard serious ammunition to use against her)

​it's because i have many thoughts and the comments aren't long enough lol

TBH the homonculi theory could be a bit fucked up... but then, again, to Nabateans who were also "created" by someone and not "born" (as in Sothis didn't meet a Mr. Sothis and they held hands and what not) I do not think the sheer idea of creating life from scratch is that taboo (or maybe it is since only Sothis is supposed to do it?).

In the most charitable reading, Rhea makes a "being" using her mother's recipe but since she's not her Mother Rhea's "creation" isn't a "full nabatean", then when the "being" wakes up and has a different consciousness than Sothis's, Rhea feels like she failed but, if Citrus is any indication, gives them names and let them live like random humans (or even as her own children).

I think the most "grey" factor could be Rhea's reasons and motivations to create "artificial beings", but someone already pointed out how, irl, we know some people have a baby for, at first, some sort of selfish reasons, like giving a playmate to a first born, rolling for a boy/girl, wanting to have a kid to bring a couple closer, wanting to have a heir, etc, etc.

And yet, wanting to create "a being" to be a vessel for the Goddess isn't, imo, an acceptable reason to, well, "create a being" (maybe that's what Rhea meant by breaking taboos? Or it was the sheer act of mimicking Sothis?) and yet, regardless of the reasons behind those beings's existence, as far as we know for Citrus, when they do not fulfill the role they were created for, instead of throwing them in the trashcan, Rhea loves them as their own beings, supports them as they live in her home and interact with people : aka live.

I'd find this argument rich coming from "devoted fans" especially as it is heavily implied Ionius had children either to get one with a major crest, or said children were a "consequence" of his philandering - dude had 11 I think - and who could "only watch" and close his fist (if you follow the theory that he wasn't the one who foddered them!) when said children were experimented upon.

In a series where sleazebag dads at least had one exposition line about "being good dads to their kids before possession/following an evil cult" (FE7, FE14 and FE17 iirc?) Supreme Leader has nothing of the sort to say about her dad...

Which ultimately leads to the question about what is worse, creating a "tool" and considering "it" like your own child after its birth, or fathering children to use them as tools ?