Hmm. Interesting read, but I don't really buy the plot of Conquest as being a treatise on the limits/futility of compassion. It might have turned out that way for you, of course, but I don't think that was even close to the intent. The thing about video game writing is that it's closer to, say, television shows with multiple episodes, or a comic book series that bounces from author to author; there are multiple writers, and even when they're all good they sometimes want to go in different directions. And sometimes some of the writers are bad and write in plot elements that, if taken seriously, suggest themes that radically go against everything that was the intent, but everybody conveniently forgets about this, which is probably for the best. So while I entirely agree there are all sorts of elements in Conquest that *could* be taken this way if written by a singular author with a strong vision - the Yoko Taro or Toby Fox version of FE Fates, basically - it isn't here, any more than the guy who wrote the Mass Effect 3 ending intended all of the horrible consequences of that if you bother to think about it for more than 30 seconds. Why did the 7-year old spill the milk? Because they made a mistake, it's no deeper than that.
Also, I know you didn't play it (yet?), but for all that its plot is crap, Fates Revelation very strongly smells like being the "canon" path of Fates: everybody makes friends and joins Corrin in a super team-up against the bad guys, fight zombies, get the ultimate super sword, and defeat the Real Big Bad. Certainly Corrin's qualities are unambiguously good here: his or her charisma, insight, and compassion save the day with only a few named good-side casualties, so I'm not inclined to think these are supposed to be weaknesses elsewhere.
I suppose I should give my take on Conquest - bearing in mind that I didn't like its plot and dislike it for its writing incompetence:
* We aren't supposed to think too hard about the Hoshidan casualties at all, or how the war was going elsewhere, or anything like that. Whenever Garon or Iago orders slaughters of Chevois prisoners or Hoshidan armies, that is strictly there to develop Garon/Hans/Iago characters and prove how evil they are, just as Corrin miraculously sparing all their foes is there to prove how awesome Corrin is. The story never takes a remote interest in looping back and seeing how others reacted to such deaths, or political fallout, or anything. The game cares about the likes of Ryoma dying, or (as Elf pointed out) Corrin being nice causing people like Kaze to join up or Flora to decide to go along with Corrin despite her original service being an act, but those are named characters. Mooks don't matter. So don't include them in the moral calculus of Conquest; people who don't matter dying is not considered a drawback by the writer.
* Even on the Conquest route, Corrin's compassion is unambiguously a good thing, and not a weakness. That compassion saves Hinoka & Sakura's lives; even ghost Takumi likes Corrin and encourages them to kill zombie Takumi. More generally, if we zoom out a bunch, Corrin is the hero and thus indirectly all their qualities become positive by dint of association with Corrin. I.e. if you make a story where a clever trickster saves the day, you're inherently praising these qualities a bit.
* So if not foolish compassion, why do the terrible things on Conquest route happen at all? Well, I don't think any of it is tied to Corrin, at least in the author(s) head; I disagree with Elf on this that Conquest really criticizes Corrin at all. There's a constant march of stupid justifications for why Corrin isn't "really" at fault for 95% of the bad things that happen in Conquest, usually by having somebody else do the dirty deed that Garon demands or for Ryoma / Rainbow Sage / etc. to commit suicide, as if that somehow matters. While I or anybody who's taken Ethics 101 shouldn't really buy this crap - look, your honor, somebody ELSE in my criminal enterprise pulled the trigger on the gun - I think the writers did. What they want us to take from this is A) Garon/Iago/Hans is bad, B) Corrin's best hope to mitigate the damage while staying on Nohr's side is "win faster" as you put it (no matter how stupid this idea is), C) Corrin can't quit because they love their family but also because the player clicked the "side with Nohr" option at the beginning so they're just gonna keep going along rather than defect or quit in disgust or anything.
* Additionally, sheerly by dint of having two paths where your allies in one path are your enemies in the other path, FE Fates promotes a bit more understanding for at least some of your enemies (not quite the same as compassion, but close). While Fates doesn't give a shit about its unnamed soldiers, it does for its named characters, so you know that at least some of the people you're fighting and beating up have names, friends, histories, etc., which leads to sympathy.
As for the other aspect of your article, the value of (masculine?) strength.. it's there, but in the sense that almost all conflict-oriented games have this inherently a bit by tending to have there be a Big Bad who requires force to take down. (I can think of exactly one strategy RPG that inherently criticizes this a bit.) So not inclined to take too big of a note of it.
