Darkmoon6789

You know I am starting to understand your perspective now. Just know that I don't really debate to change people's minds, I participate in these debates because I find it entertaining and because it helps me further my understanding of the game, its themes and through it explore philosophy and increase my understanding of the world in general. To do so, you must be exposed to opposing points of view. People are usually set in their ways, which means that trying to change their minds is pointless. Edelgard likely did underestimate the horrors of war when she started it, but during over five years of war, I think she slowly started to realise just how horrific it really was, which put quite a burden on her. But it isn't like she could take back the declaration of war by that point. She was already committed to her path and she had to see it through and hope that her future would be worth it in the end. I think this is the reason she shuts down emotionally over the course of the war, her empathetic side can't handle all the bloodshed and being responsible for it, so she has to shut down that side of herself in order to carry on. Only Byleth could break down that icy shell and help Edelgard embrace her humanity once again. For this reason, I think that Edelgard after her victory in the war in Crimson Flower will likely never want to start a war ever again, because after having experienced war in person. She would understand its horror better than anyone. She wouldn't want more blood and her already heavy conscience. I think that all the death she has been responsible for would bother her specifically because Edelgard is a good person at heart. The concept of the person as good as Edelgard being responsible for so much death and having to deal with the consequences to her psychological well-being is exactly why I think Edelgard is such a compelling character. You do have a point in that a lot of media glorify war, it is just that the military and therefore the government has an incentive to do that as otherwise people would never sign up to be soldiers, not if they understood that in real war, often times it is not a battle of good versus evil, in most cases were consists of battles between two evils. It is only really a question of degrees. I have found after researching World War II that every single nation involved in this war has been responsible for the mass slaughter of civilians. The allies might have been the lesser of two evils, but they are not the heroes they are often portrayed to be. It is highly unlikely that any participant in a war is innocent of war crimes. It is just that it is usually only the loser that gets convicted. So if I have to ask you. Considering what you said about Dimitri and mental issues. Are you familiar with Azula from Avatar the Last Airbender? I have used similar arguments in defence of her in the past with the argument that she isn't truly responsible for her actions due to the immense level of psychological abuse she suffered from her father and her suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, to the point that she does have hallucinations.

As I have been saying before, I don't hate Dimitri or think he is evil. Your defence of him. It makes perfect sense. I would not hold his actions against him. He is definitely emotionally compromised by his trauma for most of the story, which could explain his often times irrational conclusions. For example, it makes a mention later on in the story after he recovered some of his sanity that he suspected that Arundel was responsible for the tragedy of Duscur, as he had been suspicious of his sudden stop of donations to the church. But if he suspected Arundel, why did he spend so long blaming Edelgard for said tragedy? I guess the answer might lie in the fact that he just wasn't thinking rationally at the time due to his issues. He needed a scapegoat to deal with his trauma and Edelgard was convenient for that role due to her actions as the Flame Emperor. You might also have a point in that Dimitri had experienced the horrors of war firsthand, the tragedy of Duscur was beyond horrific and it is pretty much a slaughter as the death of Lambert caused the knights of Faerghus to essentially committed genocide on an innocent party. But Edelgard has been through trauma of her own, even if it is of a different nature. She is no stranger to suffering. I am uncertain of how much experience Edelgard has had with war, I am uncertain if he ever fought a real battle before the start of her revolution. She might have more emotional distance from it, but at the very least, she does understand that innocents will die because of her decision and she did hesitate as a consequence. But to her, the more immediate suffering is the one caused by the crest system and the church as this is the kind of suffering she has experienced. So, the suffering caused by the nobility and the church by the attitude towards crests and the importance of the society of Fodlan places on them is what feels the most real to her for the same reasons as Dimitri's personal experiences with war means that he is more intuned to the suffering caused by war. Essentially Edelgard's experiences with the systematic suffering caused by the brutal, unfair and unjust society of Fodlan makes her unable to accept the existence of this system for another minute, and is why she is willing to move heaven and earth to create a new system. Edelgard's actions are as much motivated by her trauma as Dimitri's actions are motivated by his. So if you extend sympathy to Dimitri regardless of his actions for these reasons, you should also show the same courtesy to Edelgard. Just because someone likes one of them doesn't mean we have to consider the other a monster. Dimitri is actually my second favourite character in this game and if Edelgard didn't exist, he would have been my favourite. I am a bit bothered by that. I don't get why liking one of these characters always has to come at the expense of the other, I can even fall into that trap myself, I guess because my protective instincts kick in whenever someone wants to harm Edelgard. I have been exposed to a lot of the awfulness of humanity, I am well aware of the horrors of war. But I am more well researched on the details of the horrors of systematic human rights violations such as what was done during the Holocaust, what was committed by the Soviet government during the reign of Joseph Stalin, as well as the torture methods used by the Catholic church and the Protestant churches during the mediaeval era, including the witchhunts and the inqusition. War is horrific, yes, but so is living under a theocracy or a oppressive government. Nowadays I try to avoid looking at such material because my mental state can't handle it as well as I used to. The worst part about living under a oppressive system is that often times, it brainwashes you into thinking that oppression is okay. I can only imagine how horrible it must be to live as a woman in a Third World country that considers you a second-class citizen, the culture, even possibly having brainwashed you into thinking this is the natural way of things. Places that practices genital mutilation and stoning rape victims to death. And because of the brainwashing the governments of these places engages in the people might never break free from this of their own accord. I have trouble accepting a reality such as this and however horrific war is, there will be suffering for a time when trying to overthrow this type of system. But in the long run. Such actions might prevent quite a bit of suffering and give the people living in these regions a higher standard of living. Like Edelgard, if I had the power to stop these types of things I would not sit idly by and let these abuses of human rights continue. It is from this context, I view Edelgard's actions. I can sympathise with her desire to use any means to change the world for the better because she is sick of the world, being such a crappy place. Peace is all well and good, but the unwillingness to act that often times comes with too much of an aversion to war can sometimes perpetuate suffering and make people doormats for those who aren't adverse to violence. "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing" Sorry for the long post, but I have a lot to say on the subject. I guess I am trying to say that while I sympathise with both Edelgard and Dimitri, I do understand Edelgard's way of thinking a bit more. Even if she is in the wrong that will not change the fact that I will still love Edelgard. But I don't think that whenever she is in the right or wrong is all that obvious.

True, I also never said that Dimitri is absolutely evil. But I see him as a cautionary tale of what an obsession with vengeance can do to an otherwise good person. As you say, Dimitri would be a great soldier if he had a superior to tell him what to do, but as king he doesn't have a superior. But being a terrible king doesn't make him a bad person. Being a monarch is very demanding and I just don't think that someone with severe mental issues would have an easy time in that role. It is even possible to be too good a person for that role as a level of ruthlessness is sometimes required to make difficult decisions and this needs to be counterbalanced by empathy to avoid becoming a tyrant. Even after overcoming his mental issues, I think that Dimitri's inability to handle the deaths of innocents makes him less ideal as a monarch. I have thought that Dimitri had a certain similarity to Jeritza. Who also have a need for violence due to severe mental issues. But Edelgard gave him and his need for bloodshed a place within the Imperial hierarchy as a soldier. So his mentality was put to use for the sake of the war effort. The greatest problem he faces is what he would do once the war is over, would Edelgard's peaceful utopia still have room for a person like him? Maybe if Dimitri wasn't born as king, he might have been better off in a similar position as Jeritza, channelling his bloodlust into his role as a soldier. In another life he could easily have had the same role as the Death Knight.

I am primarily talking about Dimitri in between the holy tomb mission and the death Rodrigue. The person he becomes at the end of the route is a different story entirely. But the darkness within him, is best expressed during his interactions with Randolph, where it is very clear that Dimitri views his enemies as monsters worthy of death, even if they are just soldiers fighting to protect their families. It is Dimitri at his worst, as Dimitri when he is trying to negotiate and later is willing to spare Edelgard is Dimitri at his best. I don't know if you're implying that Edelgard idealise war. But I don't think this is accurate. Edelgard is more than aware of the horrific nature of war, as implied by her interactions with Byleth after the holy tomb mission in Crimson Flower. She knows that innocents and civilians will be caught up in the chaos and that she will be responsible for their deaths by giving the order to start the war. A decision that is weighing on her all the way through. So why does she do it? Well, because she believes that by overthrowing the church. She will be able to put an end to the bloodstained history of Fodlan. She legitimately believes that while the war will be terrible, it will lead to fewer lives lost in the long run, as by victory. She believes that she will be able to usher in a golden age of peace and prosperity. The tragedy is that both Dimitri and Edelgard wants to achieve the same thing, to put a stop to the cycle of the strong oppressing the weak. Dimitri doesn't believe that Edelgard's methods will work due to her methods being leveraging strength in order to change society. I don't actually think the game takes a stance on whenever Edelgard's war was right or wrong. It is much smarter than that, it presents a complicated scenario and lets everyone make their own conclusion based on the information presented. We know that the war is costly, but we do not know if the brighter future ushered in by Edelgard whenever she wins or loses is worth that price. There is a possibility that it is. The message I get is that war is terrible, but sometimes it might be necessary. Which I think is a far more nuanced message than any simple lesson that war is bad. You're right in that of Edelgard and Dimitri are very complex characters, which is why I find them so amazing.

If that is true, then his darkness is genuine and his mental issues cannot be used as an excuse for it. I wouldn't pursue judgement against Dimitri because he is later repentant for a lot of his worst deeds. But I do think he is actually morally worse than Edelgard who doesn't have any sadistic impulse or takes any enjoyment from slaughter, even if her casualty rate is probably higher due to starting the war. It just comes to show why I prefer Edelgard, she has no illusions that any of the innocents that dies in her war deserves it. Nor that those who fight for the church are bad people. Everything is down to necessity for changing the society in Fodlan. It is a lot more honest than fooling yourself into thinking your enemies are literal. Demons and deserves to die. She is even willing to spare Rhea if she surrenders. And she does in many routs when Rhea is captured. Comes to show that the number of casualties isn't everything Short answer, yes, I do think both Edelgard, Rhea and Dimitri have the potential to be good enough people to deserve a second chance. But this isn't exactly feasible given the situation, practicality is also important, and if I have to issues between them, I would choose Edelgard. They still have sympathy for Rhea, but her actions at Fhirdiad hurt a lot of innocent people. Killing her wouldn't be acceptable because her actions make her deserve death, but because it might be the only way to make sure she won't hurt further innocents. Even the same action can carry a lot of different meanings depending on the motivation behind said action. I would argue that the Joker from Batman should probably be killed, not because of any ideas of Indus Irving to pay for these crimes or any such nonsense. But simply because his track record of escape attempts, and ever increasing kill count makes this a matter of it being necessary for saving other people. As well as it being nearly impossible to rehabilitate someone like him. When making a decision like this you need to take into consideration the likelihood of someone changing their ways and becoming a benefit to society instead of a detriment as well as the risk they pose. If they are ever let out again. . Ultimately we lock criminals in prison not because they deserve to suffer, but because we have to protect further innocents from being harmed by their actions as well as a closed off environment being the best circumstance to try to rehabilitate these people. But even if necessary, we should never take pleasure in the suffering of another or in the taking of lives. This is ultimately what I accuse people in favour of punitive justice for doing. I am also not exactly in favour of my country's leadership right now. I would be in favour of another country, taking it over. If I am confident they will run things better. Ultimately, well-being of our citizens is more important than nationality. If a male general Empire invaded Earth and managed to make this craphead of the planet into a utopia that was better for everyone. I would be firmly in favour of our alien saviours. I think it is the fact that neither Edelgard, Rhea or Dimitri aren't ultimately bad people that makes the story into the tragedy. Ideally I would like to save all of them, but I know that is impossible. So I have to focus on the one who is my favourite. Even in real life. I do wish I could save everyone, but that won't be possible, so necessity will take priority over ideals. Protecting people will be the number one priority and we will deal with rehabilitation and second chances when we can afford it. But I do hope that if their world truly does have an afterlife that Sothis will take mercy on all three of them, regardless of route. They all deserve a better than to suffer for eternity for their actions. I do take ideas of an afterlife in consideration as well when dealing with this topic. Even if I don't believe in it myself. I have had discussions elsewhere with fanatics who believe that actions like what Edelgard did needs to be paid for eternally in the afterlife. It is a belief also shared by Rhea . According to her own statements. I just don't see the point, there is no magical need to make anyone suffer regardless of what they have done. That is injustice, it is sadism. We must do what we must in this life, but if there is another I will never sanction any action to carry over into the next one. It is remarkable how little empathy, some people have one dealing with condemning the dead. The annoying thing with Edelgard is while I do think she would deserve a second chance. Even if she loses. She do seem insistent to die in this circumstance, so my insistence on helping her would go against her wishes. We see this very same scenario with Dimitri in Azure Moon. Ultimately her death is her own decision, I can't blame Dimitri in Azure Moon or Byleth in Verdant Wind and Silver Snow for it. They simply respected her wish. Do I truly have a right to force are to live on when she clearly doesn't want to? I don't know the questions that. But it being her decision makes her death easier for me to handle. I would just want Edelgard to be remembered as the person she really was, rather than a caricature. I would prefer history to remember the real reasons behind her actions rather than being painted as a villain. Her willingness to die is just another sign of her self-sacrificing nature and I do find it admirable in a way. Not that I expect a world based on medeval Europe to have such an advanced understanding of justice and rehabilitation. Edelgard knows from experience that in her world death is probably better than any prison sentence as by this era humanity didn't yet have a concept of rehabilitative justice. People still wrongly believed in. eye for an eye.

I agree with that Edelgard isn't entirely clean, no lord in this game really is with the possible exception of Claude, which honestly makes him less interesting than the other two. I always get is shut that down my spine whenever someone debates in terms of "getting away scotch free" or "getting away with it". I think that mindset is the first step on a very dark path. Edelgard is more than just the sum of her crimes and to reduce it down to just requiring punishment and judgement for misdeeds. Is ignoring someones inherent humanity, ignoring who she is as a person and what she really feels just to define her solely by her worst actions. This is more than just about Edelgard, it is about my views on justice and rehabilitation in general. I can never understand or approve of that mindset which is why I also have trouble truly supporting Dimitri. I am not saying you have that mindset, but it is just something that I got reminded of.

I think that the strangest thing about it is that if Rhea assumes that Edelgard will come to the rescue of the civilians. That relies on Edelgard being a good person. She is, but why does Rhea think that? I at least give her the benefit of doubt that she legitimately believes that Edelgard's side is evil. Her entire rationale in this entire war doesn't make any sense, unless she is working from the assumption that her enemies are evil. But if Edelgard was the evil tyrant Rhea believed her to be, she wouldn't have come to the rescue of the civilians and Rhea would have essentially defeated herself by burning down her own stronghold. Essentially, this entire plan would never have worked if Rhea's claim of Edelgard being wicked was actually true. Edelgard and Dimitri are very similar in that regard, they both doesn't want people to get hurt but feel like it is unavoidable. They both live for a memory of those who are dead and is doing what they are doing allegedly to fulfil their wishes. The primary difference is that there is a part of Dimitri that does take pleasure in killing and causing suffering to those he deem evil. But there is also a side of Dimitri that does not. I think Dimitri have a legit split personality. Edelgard, by contrast, doesn't enjoy killing anyone, but is willing to accept innocent people dying for the sake of a better future as she knows that when it comes to war, it is unavoidable. It also seems like Edelgard is more tolerant of morally dubious people than Dimitri. Boar Dimitri after his reunion with Byleth get angry at the very insistence of not straight up murdering the bandits that have come to loot Garreg Mach, citing that, but allowing one to live is implying that Byleth things that their lifestyle of looting and pillaging is justified. In the eyes of Dimitri their actions makes these bandits unfit to live and any mercy towards them, contributing to them hurting more innocent people. Edelgard, on the other hand, frequently associates with bandits and people like Jeritza. Presumably because she understands that sometimes circumstances can drive you to do things you don't really want to do. Some of them are just desperate to survive, and whatever they have done it doesn't stop them from still being human. Despite all the people he had killed, Edelgard takes pity on Jeritza and gives him a sanctuary, trying to make use of his bloodlust for a more productive purpose. Edelgard is herself in a situation where she feels like she hasn't much of a choice but to do some of morally unscrupulous things. Maybe that is what makes our heavy less absolute stance on morality and therefore she is more merciful to supposedly evil people than Dimitri. Dimitri's sense of justice leads to part of him thinking that killing some people is morally justified because they are evil. I don't think Edelgard ever had any such delusions, she makes no pretense that those deaths she is responsible for in the war didn't necessarily deserve to die. She always understood the ramifications of her actions but deemed it necessary

Still, why the army of Faerghus would be in favour of burning down their own capital with the civilians in it is beyond me. It seems quite counter-productive to protecting their people. It also makes no sense from a military standpoint, as you say, Edelgard could have just waited them out and they would have essentially have destroyed their last stronghold. So why does Edelgard act? I think the answer is to save the citizens of Fhirdiad from the fire as she doesn't want any more innocents to die than is absolutely necessary. Did Rhea know she would react this way? If so, that seems like a pretty weird assumption to make for someone who presumably believes that Edelgard is evil. It isn't that they are fighting without a king that I find odd. It is that they are following someone who just told them to burn down their own capital. The knights of Faerghus abandoned any code of chivalry by supporting this move, as knights, they are sworn to protect their, citizena, not to participate in their slaughter. Logically speaking, this should lose Rhea the support of Faerghus as a nation because of such obvious disregard for the lives of their citizens and the oaths of its knights. They would probably still oppose Edelgard, but they shouldn't obey Rhea.

So you dislike the Lords, including Edelgard because you think they are too good? I will take that as a compliment. Granted out of the three I don't actually think that Claude has enough blood on his hands to be as interesting as the other two, I wish that the developers would have focused more on his underhanded tactics. Dimitri's and Edelgard's differing versions of justice has resulted in the both of them having quite a bit of blood on their hands. Despite their good intentions. It is complexity like this that makes them interesting. But lying to the Black Eagles, you might just hit the nail on the head. Edelgard has trust issues and therefore has trouble showing weakness to people other than Byleth. It isn't really about Edelgard being a terrible person, it is about her having some issues based on her past. One of Edelgard's primary weaknesses is her inability to trust people, despite regarding them as friends. It is only Byleth trusts enough to know that they wouldn't cause any trouble if they knew the truth. Which all stands back from Edelgard's trust issues and how her position distances her from people. As the previous commentator pointed out, Byleth is the only one who doesn't let her position as the Emperor get in the way of regarding them simply as Edelgard.

That just means you are biased against everyone, not neutral. Also, did you even read what I wrote about why it is a really stupid idea to tell the Empire as a whole who was really responsible for the destruction of Arianrhod? The short summary is this, the Agarthans will take an official declaration of their existence as an act of war and destroyed more cities in retaliation. She lies because she cannot officially admit that the true culprit even exists without risking her own people.

While I can't answer for him, I can answer for me. In my case, because I like her. Edelgard might be a conqueror and a warrior, but she is also a human being. Underneath her tough exterior she is a traumatised young girl who want nothing more than to make the world a better place so that the horrible thing that happened to her and her siblings wouldn't happen to anyone else ever again. Edelgard isn't a typical villain who enjoys bloodshed and death, she mourns the fallen, her decisions do weigh on her conscience. She is stubborn to a fault, but she is a very sweet girl on the inside as evidenced by her love of sweets and armoured stuffies (Teddie Bears). She is also very easily embarrassed, which is adorable. Given everything that she is, I don't think it is fair to paint Edelgard as some kind of monster, she is very sympathetic and human proving that even those who starts wars and conquers nations are very much still a person who can have quite a few redeemable qualities. She is the living embodiment of why judging a person solely by their actions can be misleading. Edelgard is so much more than just a conqueror.

Are you certain about that as you are hardly neutral yourself as your anti-Edelgard bias is obvious. You do have a certain track record. But it is okay as long as you try to keep to the facts, after all, true objectivity is impossible. Even with the same information we are going to interpret it differently. I think you failed to consider the far more plausible option. Edelgard doesn't know the full truth of everything and is just speculating about a lot of things and sometimes she is mistaken. I am assuming you are referring to the church being behind purposefully splitting the Empire into several pieces to weaken it? If you pay attention to some of the books in the shadow library. There is actually an insinuation that it is correct that someone did it deliberately worked behind the scenes to split the Empire into pieces to propagate war and conflict. Edelgard is only wrong about the perpetrator, as it was in reality the Agarthans. So, she is technically right about someone deliberately supporting Loog in order to weaken the Empire, but wrong about the culprit as Agarthans to try to blame the church for the incident. She just happens to fall for their trick. Yet it cannot be argued that the church didn't benefit from the deal with Faerghus, it is just that the church took the bait that would later be used against them in motivating the Empire to fight. Even if some of the stuff she says about the church is made up, Edelgard still obviously believe it and wasn't the one who made it up. Also, literally everything in this game is from an unreliable narrator as everything is someone's perspective. One you know about the world history but isn't in the hidden library is literally church propaganda. And hidden library has an anti-church bias , so it isn't fully reliable either. There is also no guarantee that Rhea is actually telling the truth at the end of verdant wind. It is always the truth according to someone, even if they do believe it. There might still be all kinds of misconceptions. This isn't unique to Edelgard. And yes, I believe that Rhea likely believe her version of events that she tells Claude. But she is still horribly biased and there is some signs she might have be underestimating the benevolence of her mother as there are some signs that Sothis might have committed genocide on the Agarthans. Something that Rhea probably believes is justified because she could never comprehend that her mother would ever do anything wrong. Furthermore, the reason she lied about destroyed Arianrhod is blatantly obvious, how is it especially terrible? It is obviously because provoking the Agarthans at this point would be incredibly stupid after making such a demonstration of power. The Agarthans would likely take Edelgard revealing their existence to the rest of the Empire as another act of defiance and nuke Enbarr if she told her troops the truth about what really happened at Arianrhod. You have to remember that they are a shadow action that very few people know exist, so if Edelgard can't reveal their existence to the Empire as a whole, blaming the church is the only logical option. It also helps that the church already have taken credit for the valley of torment in the past in an attempt to hide the existence of the Agarthans, which makes this lie quite believable. My point here is that there are strong incentives to not want people to know about the existence of those who slither in the dark and the lie is entirely in service of not angering them further as long as they still have the church to fight. So it is entirely possible that by making this decision, Edelgard could have saved quite a number of lives. Is it better to blame an atrocity on it action not responsible for it or risk another city being destroyed?

But the Flame Emperor directly denies being responsible for the Remire incident. Granted, maybe only Byleth knows that. Still, you would think that this will would a fact worth mentioning to the rest of them. The number one error everyone makes is assuming the Flame Emperor is the mastermind when they weren't. But most I guess wouldn't understand that there is a separation between Flame Emperor followers and the Agarthans. Also, the dialogue you use as an example, does seem to be from exactly before the final battle. That is the way into the war, Ferdinand is just essentially saying that they have to finish what we started, it is way too late to turn back now. Which is absolutely logical given the situation. Silver snow is only one out of four routes, it is the outlier as Ferdinand is very loyal in the other 3. But considering Dorothea seemed to be reluctant to fight Edie even in silver snow, so I guess I do have to give her the gold medal for loyalty to Edelgard over Ferdinand. Maybe she wouldn't usually choose to fight, but I always got the impression she had a very strong friendship with Edelgard, so I believe she would at least be supportive of her in most cases.

I can't think of a single person who should remain after Rhea sets Fhirdiad on fire. With the possible exception of Cyril. Even Catherine seems to be bothered by this, it is by this point, they should realise that Rhea has lost it. I do think that Seteth and Flayn would also of yet to the burning of Fhirdiad if they were still around at that point. But this is right at the end of the war, so maybe it doesn't matter. Everyone's allegiance would have been the same up to this point

I kind of think that back-and-forth arguments is exactly what you are supposed to do in an discussion. how else are you going to be exposed to different viewpoints. If you are not allowed to express them? If you have 10 paragraphs to say about what I have said about Dimitri, I invite you tell me what you think. It is possible I could gain more knowledge in the exchange and that is ultimately my goal here. To gain a greater understanding. Would you believe me if I say that Dimitri is actually my second favourite character in the entire game? And it certainly isn't because I think he is in the right or that I agree with him. He actually reminds me quite a bit of Arthas Menethil from Warcraft , who is also one of my favourite fictional characters of all time. Both started out with ultimately good intentions and let an obsession with vengeance, twist them into becoming monsters. The difference is that Dimitri did manage to catch himself and managed to become a better person. Arthas lost his humanity completely and became one of the most evil villains in the history of his world. Dimitri is very interesting to me because he is the character that somehow managed to make his unwillingness to accept the idea that sometimes innocents needs to be sacrificed for the greater good and his hatred for the strong trampling the weak into reaching a conclusion that led him to become the very thing that he hated. Ultimately, his desire to punish those who he sees as guilty leads him to becoming incredibly sadistic, and he projects that sadism onto the people he punishes , whenever that is true or not, as he assumes every Imperial general takes pleasure in the killing of innocents. Which is in the case of Randolph is not true, him and soldiers like him are just fighting for their country. They are not the monsters Dimitri think they are, this even applies to Edelgard herself as Dimitri during this time, has a very distorted vision of what she is really like. Even after his recovery, Dimitri ultimately wants to end the bloodshed by any means necessary, but he is blind to the fact that he helps perpetuate the cycle of violence as much as Edelgard. The very act of fighting against her perpetuates more casualties. Dimitri is a multifaceted character who I find quite interesting because he isn't the typical goody two shoes hero. He is in my opinion the most fascinating at height of his insanity Also keep in mind that if I do talk about crimson flower a lot. It is because I love that route. Azure moon is a close second. Neither exist in a vacuum and what you learn on one route informs the other. Why the fact that Dimitri and Edelgard weren't able to get along is such a tragedy is specifically because neither of them are really bad people at heart. Sorry if I can be a bit long winded, I just love talking about this game and often I don't mean for my posts to be as long as they are. I just think of one thing I want to say and then think of thousand more when I am in the process of writing a comment. I guess what you mean with talking about crimson flower is that I was mainly talking about who would join Edelgard rather than the other way around? I just don't have as much of an idea why any of the Black Eagles would fight for the other side. I also find it a bit suspicious that some of those charts have a most people on the Imperial side fight for it supposedly unwillingly. It just screams of bias to me and it is like some people can't accept that some people would follow Edelgard willingly. Not everyone would be against her because not everyone thinks her methods are unjustifiable. Ultimately, I am not trying to say that her actions are okay because she is well-meaning, I am saying that they might be necessary and that some of her actions. Being sketchy doesn't preclude her from possibly being in the right.

Yes, I consider all the crests of the 10 elites in the dark magic as well as all the relics as they were all created by the Agarthans. All crest beasts are is a corrupted form of the Nabateans own transformations after all. The only crests that aren't dark magic are crests of the Saints. That being the crests of the Seiros, Cichol, Cethleann, Indech and Macuil. They were all either willingly passed to humans or the humans with those crests are their direct descendants, not sure which. There are also sacred weapons like the sword and shield of Seiros which are in a completely different category from the relics. Who are unholy in nature. Also, but does provide a good explanation for why Ferdinand doesn't see Edelgard's new system as an issue, if he is right and it wouldn't make a single bit of difference for people like him as he considers himself qualified to rule. If all the nobles actually were the most competent and most well-equipped members of society and most qualified to rule Edelgard's meritocracy wouldn't do a single bit of difference. Because the game have so many routes. A lot of characters are very flexible in what they are willing to support. I just object to the idea that Ferdinand isn't loyal to the Empire. He is actually one of the last people I would ever argue would betray Edelgard. There is also another question I have been thinking about, would it be possible for any Agarthan to betray their faction? I would assume that most would be brainwashed into unquestioned loyalty by Thales and more than willing to die for their cause. Yet again Kronya didn't seem to be a willing sacrifice. Even if they are evil people, maybe not everyone would be up for being treated as completely disposable. There we have another possibility would response to crest beasts, while I don't think it is the case, given some of the earlier examples in the game. Is it possible that some of them might have previously been Agarthans? They have certainly shown themselves to be willing to sacrifice their own in the past for various dark rituals.

Sorry, I did mean Maurice, it is quite similar names so I just mixed it up. I would say that the crest of flames is of the dark nature, because Nemesis stole that power. Byleth inherited this power directly from Sothis, but Edelgard was given it through dark experimentation. It is an unnatural crest with its powers arising from the murder of a deity. I have never by any point said that Edelgard is entirely innocent. That is an interpretation you yourself have made. I am saying that there is usually a reason for her doing scummy shit. She is not one to do bad for the sake of doing bad. Most of the scummy things she has ever done is more or less linked to her decision to ally with the Agarthans. She obviously have some responsibility for this decision, but it is at least second-hand and should not be treated as if their actions are always 100% fully supported by her, they are mostly not, just barely tolerated for the sake of the war effort. It is just irritating that some people can't seem to comprehend that there is a middle ground between absolute innocence and absolute guilt. Even if the crest beasts were volunteers. It is not a completely morally good act as it is still a horrific sacrifice and somewhat equivalent to someone deciding to become a suicide bomber for a cause they believe in. But Edelgard isn't moustache twirling villain , despite what some people may think. The truth of the matter is pretty undeniably. But Edelgard is a good and well-intentioned person who is willing to go to extreme lengths to make her vision of the greater good a reality. If she does evil. It is because she believes that her end goal makes it worth it. The Agarthans will be allowed to commit atrocities for a time, but Edelgard ultimate goal is to destroy them as well as the church. She is just willing to do what is necessary to make sure both will be defeated. It doesn't make her entirely innocent, but it is a mitigating factor and shows what she really thinks of their methods. It is a lot like how Edelgard plans to use wars to end future wars I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think Edelgard would willingly take part in the creation of crest beasts from innocents. But she could potentially turn a blind eye to the Agarthans doing that and use the result of their work. It is not that unusual in the war for a country to ally with someone reprehensible if they have a common enemy. Great Britain and the United States, as well as the rest of the allies did cooperate with the Soviet Union in World War II. Does that make them partially responsible for all the atrocities committed by Joseph Stalin? I guess that could be argued if they had the power to stop it. But I think we can all agree that deciding to fight the Soviet Union at this time. In addition to Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan would be a pretty nonsensical decision. So they tolerated the obvious abuse of human rights in order to cooperate in defeating their common enemy. I think that situation is roughly analogous of Edelgard making an alliance with the Agarthans. It doesn't necessarily mean she has to approve of everything they are doing. It is just the tactically smarter decision Also, have you even been reading my post? I specifically told you that azure moon and verdant wind also clearly supports the idea that most of the Black Eagles will join Edelgard on default. In fact, most of the time, I do think that people would stay with their respective house, with a few exceptions. This is pretty much what is the default fact in the game, regardless of if a character's interests would be better served joining another side. Which happens quite frequently, as multiple characters are fighting on a side that is ultimately against their own best interest. Of course, there are scenarios where it would make sense for various characters to go with various sides. Most have at least one reason to be at either side of the war. But once committed to one side or another, most cannot be so easily convinced to join the other. I do interpret a character not being sparable as a willingness to fight to the death for their respective sides. Which showcases quite a bit of dedication. It means that nothing I left could say could convince them to betray their country by the point. There is a reason most need to be convinced before the war begins as after they have already made their decision. Generally speaking, any character who values keeping a noble title could be argued to be fighting against their own best interests siding with Edelgard. Any character wronged by the crest system for is a commoner is ultimately fighting against their best interest siding against Edelgard. This would be the primary reason Ferdinand have an incentive to go against Edelgard, but it does seem that for the most part, his loyalty to his nation is strong enough to fight for Edelgard anyway. Just like how despite being wronged by the crest system, or are kept under the boot of the nobility. Loyalty to their original nations is still the reason these people fight against what would actually benefit them. The problem is that there is a chance that almost every character can and up at almost any side depending on the circumstances. But they are still more likely to pick one side or another. For the record, I don't think Felix would betray Faerghus most of the time, but he could be convinced to do so under the right circumstances. Like Ferdinand could be convinced to go against Edelgard, even if most of the time he would not.

I think that Edelgard is able to transform as her transformation is different in nature from the rest. It is implied that she actually transforms as a response to unlocking the true power of the crest of flames I think that is a sign of the true dark nature of that crest. In the case of Macuil, is crest was known as being cursed, so it wouldn't surprise me if different rules apply to him than normal. This is not a normal transformation If you remember I also stated a second option, I said that they would wither be volunteers or created by the Agarthans independently of the main Imperial army and lended to them to help in the war effort. Little evidence we do have as you say seem to suggest Myson is one of the primary people behind the creation of crest beasts. He also happens to be present during the siege of the Imperial Palace in Azure Moon. Suggesting he might also have had a hand in hers transformation as well, he probably devised the method. Obviously the Agarthans wouldn't bother to just use volunteers. Yet, I don't think it is entirely impossible, but some people would volunteer for this if the Imperial army practised this. Some people are willing to die for the nation and for a cause they believe in, why wouldn't this extend to transforming into a monster as well? Maybe then people should stop pretending people like Ferdinand doesn't fight for Edelgard in every single rout with the exception of silver snow. And that is only due to influence from Byleth. Regardless of his views on nobility, Ferdinand is nonetheless loyal to Edelgard most of the time. Same with Petra, she is in verdant wind. The only member of the Black Eagles to stand directly outside Edelgard's throne room. This suggests to me that she is trusted above all others, which implies quite a bit of loyalty. I think this is because Edelgard has promised her the independence of the nation in return for her service. A promise I know she keeps if she wins the war. I find it pretty silly that Petra would fight against Edelgard for the independence of the nation when Edelgard has already promised to make her nation independent, she has no reason to be interested in Brigid as a vassal state. The default state of all Black Eagles members is to join Edelgard without interference from Byleth. So even if Byleth didn't exist, they would pretty much all be part of the imperial army in Azure Moon, Verdant Wind and Crimson Flower. If we want a way to measure loyalty, I guess we can see it like this, the ones that can be spared and recruited the even once the war phase has started has comparatively less dedication to their faction. I think that Ashe in the verdant wind is recruitable after his defeat, same with Lorenz in both that route and azure moon. We also have Lysithea in crimson flower. Do anyone have a complete list of characters that is sparable and recruitable in each route after the war has already started? I would think that the fact that both Ferdinand and Petra fight to the death and can not be spared, and convinced to join your side shows that they are both very loyal to the Empire.

I have assumed that either the crest beasts in the Imperial army was either volunteers or made by the Agarthans independently from Edelgard and later lended to her to help with the war effort. Edelgard accepts their presence because they provide a military advantage as she considers achieving victory and reshaping the society in Fodlan to be more important in the long run. I don't actually view the use of monsters in your army as inherently evil, if for example the people who transformed were volunteers. It would be a lot better, morally speaking. It also seems from the dialogue following the holy tomb incident in the crimson flower that Edelgard will allow those who are not willing to fight for her to leave, and that the people who stay do so willingly. For this reason, I can say with confidence. She doesn't have a tendency to force people to fight for her. People are willing to do a lot for ideals they believe in, I could definitely see some being willing to make this sort of sacrifice as in most cases, it doesn't seem like the transformation is permanent. But the game never fully explains how exactly these demonic beasts were created , so this is just speculation. But I think we shouldn't jump to conclusions that they were all kidnapped civilians or something. A lot of people in the universe jumped to conclusions when it came to Edelgard and a lot of those conclusions have turned out to be wrong. Once you examine the situation further. When it comes to Edelgard and Dragons. I think the problem isn't necessarily that Rhea is a dragon, but that she is an immortal despot who has ruled Fodlan for over a millennia, deciding that she knows better than humanity, makes decisions for them and tells everyone who oppose are without mercy. Rhea has also limited technological progress in Fodlan for reasons she never disclosed to her subjects and has been lying to them the entire time. Even if she thinks it is for their own good. Edelgard is someone who embraces humanity and mortality, and I get the impression she finds the idea of the ruler living forever to be abhorrent. Especially another species, deciding what is best for another because they consider themselves above them. This applies not only to dragons, but the very concept of gods as Edelgard doesn't believe anyone has an inherent right to rule because of circumstances of birth. So, she rejects the very concept of divine authority, the same as she rejects the right of the nobility and the monarchy to stand above the commoners. Edelgard always intended to be the final emperor who inherited their position through her bloodline. Her war is very much about liberation for humanity from the tyranny of dragons who considers themselves above them, as well as the liberation of commoners from the nobility, whose attitude towards the commoners is very much similar as what the Dragons have towards humanity. That they are inherently superior and it is their role to protect those beneath them. You're right in that some people would actually appreciate being protected by such a powerful beings such as the immaculate one, this is where the primary conflict between the two factions takes shape. As some people want to be protected by something stronger than them and they want these beings, whenever dragons, gods, or the nobility, to make decisions on their behalf as they do think they have that right. While I haven't played awakening, I did read a little bit about Naga. To my understanding, while she is worshipped as the goddess by humanity. Naga is the complete opposite of Rhea as she has never claimed to be a god and the worship of her did arise independently of any design by her instead of the deliberately created church, like was created by Seiros with the expressed purpose of making her mother a goddess. Naga deliberately doesn't interfere in the affairs of humanity because she doesn't think it is her right to rule over them. Rhea is the complete opposite in this regard, as she thinks she needs to rule over and guide humanity for their own good. I guess I am trying to say but Edelgard probably wouldn't have the same problem with Naga as with Rhea as she doesn't rule over humanity with an iron fist

That is a very intelligent comment, one of the reasons I would say that Edelgard becomes such a great leader in crimson flower is because she listens to the advice of her companions and takes what they say in their supports to heart. People like Ferdinand, Byleth, Manuella and Dorothea helps Edelgard be a better leader than she would have ever been on her own. Even in an absolute monarchy. Leadership is still a team effort as the advisors to the emperor are also just as important as the Emperor herself. The thing is, the reason why Edelgard in non-crimson flower routes shuts down her capacity for empathy and becomes, in her own words, an Ice Queen is because she basically needs to in order to be able to carry the burden of all the death and bloodshed she has to bear the responsibility for during the war. Edelgard is normally a very empathetic person, so her primary defence mechanism to be able to bare what she feels must be done is to shut down that side of her entirely. This side of her is reawakened by Byleth, which leads to a less ruthless Edelgard during crimson flower, but it also has the side-effect of Edelgard feeling a lot more of the weight of all of those who perished in the war. But because Byleth is with her, she is able to bare it without shutting down her emotional side entirely. I do believe Edelgard is very likely to be suffering from some pretty heavy guilt later in life from all that death and destruction. Even if she still likely believed she did was to must be done. But Byleth will be there for her to help her deal with that. One of the reasons I find Boar Dimitri so frustrating is because he flat out refuses to listen to anyone. As soon as they contradict his delusions in any way. Fortunately, he eventually snaps out of it with the help of Byleth. As you say, he will be a good thing because of his support group. My primary worry would be for him to fall into insanity again at some point in the future, it is mentioned, even at the very end, but he still hears the voices. But maybe with Byleth and the rest he will have the strength to ignore them. Without Byleth, he would be an absolutely awful King. In fact, I would rather have insane Azula as Firelord than insane Dimitri as King. This is because Azula for the most part, still sticks to banishment, regardless of how bad her mental state while Dimitri at his worst kills and tortures with impunity and enjoys every second of it. It is a very good thing that this isn't the person he is anymore at the end of Azure Moon. One reason I do prefer Edelgard to Dimitri, even at their best, is that Edelgard was never as bad as Dimitri at her worst. Edelgard might be cold at her worst, but she was never sadistic

I was talking about what I would do if I somehow ended up in Fodlan during this period of time. I would agree that the recruitment system is pretty silly for the most part , with a few exceptions, and it can result in pretty ridiculous scenarios. Granted, I do keep forgetting that Lysithea isn't technically part of the Black Eagles, she really does feel like a part of the Black Eagles to me. Edelgard does suffer from her own trauma, but she is remarkably stable. Given what happened, logically speaking, she probably should be just as unstable as Dimitri, but she kind of isn't for whatever reason. The primary difference being Dimitri is obviously of his rocker and it is very easy to notice. Edelgard does suffer from a lot of different phobias due to her imprisonment and experimentation, but she doesn't share this with most people, as she is a very closed off person. Granted, there are also certain members of the Black Eagles who doesn't have a strong reason to fight for one side or another, and is probably only siding with the Empire because that happens to be the nation they are from. Primarily Lindhardt and Bernadetta. Even if in the case of Bernadetta , it is possible she is loyal to Edelgard because Edelgard imprisoned Bernadetta's father for what he did to Bernadetta and she is now free of his abuse. The thing with Dorothea is that while she doesn't necessarily want to fight it really comes across in her supports she is very close to Edelgard and appreciate the increased influence she wants to give commoners. About Ferdinand, I think he sticks around because he knows that if he proves himself useful to Edelgard, he is likely to keep his old position in the Imperial hierarchy. It seems like he wants to be a sort of advisor to Edelgard.

I do know what you mean. Considering I played the game three times in a row, crimson flower, verdant wind and azure moon in the listed order. Let's say that I am very sick of playing white clouds by this point. But at the very least the different house leaders have different common terrace on the events. I did also read, but it is really not recommended to play Verdant Wind after Silver Snow, or vice versa. Silver Snow being so similar to a route I have already played is another reason why I saved it for last. Makes perfect sense as Rhea's behaviours surrounding the holy tomb incident is also what solidified my loyalty to Edelgard's cause. Makes sense that it would do the same for certain characters. I already had my suspicions regarding the church because of some statements Rhea made about the Lonato rebellion about making an example of those who stand against the church. There has been signs of her being extremely cruel and ruthless throughout the game and her dialogue after the holy tomb mission solidified this. There is also all be fact that the leading figures of those posting Edelgard is Rhea and Dimitri, both who are completely insane. Truth be told, if I was actually there in Fodlan . I would never choose to fight for Dimitri because it is obvious he is mentally unstable, the attitude of him and Rhea combined would easily make me defect to the Empire. I don't find it that unbelievable that some of the students might have similar thought patterns.

If anything, I think it is silver snow that is the odd one out. As in both azure moon and verdant wind. All of the black eagle members join Edelgard, including a few other people like Lorenz and apparently Hanneman. So I assume this is the default position without any intervention from Byleth. They fight with my left against Edelgard for the same reason many non-black eagle members join them in crimson flower, because they trust Byleth. Granted, no black eagle member was present at the holy tomb in those routes. I personally think that you should have been given the opportunity to join Edelgard before the holy tomb mission, not after. I had already made up my mind by that point, and I found it frustrating that I basically had to fight her against my will. I also have no idea why Edelgard reveals herself before the fight even starts in this route. If you have to fight anyway. Maybe they should have saved the reveal for after that fight like every other route. If she is going to reveal herself, at least grant the player the option to sign of her before the mission. I think that would make a lot more sense in terms of believability. By the way, I do strongly recommend playing crimson flower, it has its flaws, but it is a really good route regardless and the most different in the entire game. The supports with Edelgard really humanises her as a character and explains why many of these people would join with her. The only route in the game I haven't played is silver snow, I will do it one day. But I did do it last as for me as someone was started with crimson flower, the members of the black eagle house going against Edelgard just feels wrong to me. Many of these people I originally knew as close friends of hers, so it is heartbreaking to see them like that.

Is mainly due to the fact that you can recruit almost every character, regardless of route, regardless of how little sense that makes. For that reason they needed to make each character quite flexible in their goals to justify siding with basically anyone. I would also agree that telling Lonato to wait with announcing his rebellion until Edelgard declares war would have been the smarter decision. That way, his life wouldn't have been wasted. I don't know what the heck they were thinking with having him rebelling so early. He either was impatient, and did that of his own accord, or it had some kind of connection to the Western Church, which all signs point to having some kind of connection with Cornelia because the base of the Western Church is Arianrhod. There is something I think is rather odd with the idea of the choosing to fight against Edelgard because you don't believe the war is the right thing to do. By that point there will be war whenever they want it or not, if there is going to be fighting anyway, doesn't it make more sense to actually fight for the side that more closely aligns with your ideals whenever you agree with the war itself or not? The act of resisting itself perpetuates more bloodshed, which kind of makes the idea of fighting against someone in a war because you are not in the favour of war pretty ridiculous. If any of them were truly against the very idea of having a war. The logical decision would be to not fight for either side. Like with Dimitri towards the end of the azure moon, if he is really that keen on stopping Edelgard's war, with quickest way to accomplish that would be to surrender as bloodshed would only continue as long as he continues to resist. The war could end with the death of Edelgard, but it could also end with her achieving victory. There is more than one way to put an end to her war. Maybe someone came to the conclusion that the best way to minimise casualties is to assure Imperial victory. But hey, I don't know why I am expecting humans to be logical, they almost never are. Humans are sometimes capable of making bizarre decisions for bizarre reasons, it is actually somewhat realistic.

I would respecfully disagree, as I think more than a few individuals have been significantly wronged by the crest system enough for them to support Edelgard's actions once they are clear about why she is doing what she's doing. In fact, for some people, I see very little reason not to. Most students of the Black Eagle house are loyal to the Empire. First and foremost, and therefore they follow its Emperor. Dorothea has a legitimate personal investment in Edelgard's cause being a commoner, Caspar's focus on justice could just as easily apply to getting justice against the church. Most of the rest are there because they are bound to be Empire in one way or another. Petra especially has been shown to be extremely loyal to Edelgard to the point that she frequently is the last person standing in the Imperial Palace guarding her throne room. I think this is because despite Brigid being a vassal state of the Empire, she is loyal to Edelgard because she has promised to make her nation independent in return for her service. The reason most of the students would side with their respective house leaders is mostly out of loyalty to their country. But there are some cases where siding with Edelgard would actually better serve their interest in the main reason they don't is that they don't know what she is fighting for. Ultimately, I believe that Ashe would be misguided in fighting against her as it is against his own best interest and the wishes of his stepfather. No one forced Lonato to do anything and he rebelled of his own free will and those who followed him did so often their free will. Edelgard says as much during the Lonato mission and we should know she has more insider information than anyone. There are reasons why Ashe wouldn't, but there are also reasons why he would. Felix chose downright in disdain towards the knightly code of Faerghus as he thinks it is hypocritical due to the death of his brother. I can definitely see him create a new and different society. Plus his hatred of Dimitri makes joining Edelgard even more likely, especially once Dimitri goes off the deep end. Lysithea shares a lot of Edelgard's experiences as she went through similar experiments. And if she knew her goal was to end such things once and for all. I believe she would be all for it. Her primary reason for opposing Edelgard is because of the Empire's connection to the people who experimented on her. She's usually unaware Edelgard is also one of their victims. Mercedes is one of very few people I legitimately wonder what the heck she is doing on the side of the Empire in crimson flower. The only legitimate reason I can think of is Jeritza. Faith means a lot to Mercedes, which makes her usually more likely to side with the church, I guess it depends how strong her ties is to her family. It is also kind of funny that the two most classic nobles in the entire game, Ferdinand and Lorenz also side with Edelgard on default. Count Gloucester sides with the Empire in a power play against house Riegan. his son coming with him due to his loyalty to his family. Ferdinand actually seemed to be one of the most loyal to Edelgard in my opinion, I guess he sees himself as a natural counterweight to Edelgard and considers his presence invaluable (which it is).