Darkmoon6789
-
Posts
747 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Darkmoon6789
-
-
Edelgard, I admire her ideals, and despite being a conquering Emperor with a cold facade. She is such a sweetie in her personal relationships. Once you get underneath that ice.
But having only played one game I am only really qualified to choose between three. But I do suspect that Micaiah might be a contender. Once I get to Radiant Dawn. But only time will tell. But when it comes to the Lord's of Three Houses. I love all of them for different reasons, it is just a question of degree. But in general I tend to be drawn to characters who are morally complex rather than unquestionable good guys.
-
Managed to get Bernadetta. Any good skills to give her?
-
15 minutes ago, JubileePhoenix said:
She will make Fodlan great again!
That is assuming it was ever great in the first place.
Plus Edelgard is more of a liberal than a conservative, how can she be a conservative when she downright dislikes traditions?
-
6 minutes ago, JubileePhoenix said:
Yeah, you right, I should have saw it in a different view. That the actions of Edelgard to me seems more unjust then someone like Roy. To me at least.
I don't know that much about Roy, but if I were to get guess he is probably one of those fantasy kings that are unrealistically benevolent and an uncontroversial good guy.
Edelgard is more complex than that. And I would argue she is a fairly realistic monarch. Though I would still say she compares favourably to her historical counterparts like Napoleon.
I have said this before, but I just don't think that absolutely perfect fantasy monarch actually works in real life as the very role of of leadership requires a level of ruthlessness. So a king being too nice would actually be a detriment as they would be unable to defend their people adequately as they wouldn't be willing to do what the job requires them to do. So in the real world, I do think that someone like Edelgard would be a more effective leader and I think we need people like her. Someone who is willing to make the sacrifices others are unwilling to make make a better future for her people.
8 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:This reminds me, I once explained to someone how the shadow library proves that Rhea's beliefs that the Agarthans were consumed by hubris and challenged the goddess is false, and they were just terrified humans that attacked out of fear. But the guy insists that it proves that the Agarthans were just as Rhea said, and then tried to compare the past Agarthans to the current Agarthans, when the current Agarthans are just the fearful Agarthans now consumed by hatred and lust for vengeance.
Well, that's fine. But others, like myself, don't see her as unjust, but someone that does what is necessary for Fodlan to get out of the stagnant world it lives in.
The way I interpreted events is that the Nabateans shared their technology with the Agarthans. They used it to create weapons to wage war among themselves. Sothis was angered and threatened to drown them all in a flood, they responded with using the pillats of light against her in an act of self defence, it failed and Sothis proceeded to drown them all with the exception of those who retreated to an underground bunker that eventually became known as Shambhala. The remaining Agarthans's swore revenge against Sothis and manipulated Nemesis into slaying Sothis while she slept and stealing her power.
So technically speaking, Sothis started it but that isn't a justification for experimenting on Edelgard and her siblings, causing the tragedy of Duscur and countless other crap they are responsible for.
-
2 minutes ago, eclipse said:
Pick your battles wisely, lest I have to do my job.
Exhibit A.
I just like discussions because I think arguments are quite fun to participate in.
I am also a huge devils advocate and I take great pleasure in pointing out a good aspects of villainous characters and villainous aspects of good characters. Edelgard is actually easy mode in comparison to a lot of other characters I have defended in the past in other franchises. She is barely even a villain, her role is more complex than that. It is also quite fun to find aspects of holier than thou heroes and make arguments for why they are in actually as good a person as people assume they are. Granted, no character in three houses matches that description as no one is really depicted as being objectively in the right.
I could even put up a decent defence for the Agarthans, even if that is obviously going to have some holes in it due to the difficulty of defending those people. But hey, I have used the following orders argument in defence of Kronya just for the heck of it.
-
I am relatively sure that the dictator have a objective definition. And I am also pretty sure definition makes pretty much any absolute ruler a dictator by that definition. Definitions of words aren't as much opinion as it is fact.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dictator
So by that definition, Edelgard is technically a dictator, but so is Dimitri, and pretty much every King or Emperor ever. Anyone who inherits power from their bloodline is a dictator, by definition. As they are not elected by the people and wield absolute power.
I am not saying that she isn't the dictator, but that it is a pretty silly thing to criticise when it comes to medieval fantasy worlds like this at it is pretty much the status quo.
The problem is that when people use the word dictator as a derogatory, but the truth is that a dictator can be both good and bad depending on the person. We don't favour that government today, but people of the past used to have a different mindset.
I don't actually expect to change anyone's mind, but I will speak mine regardless. I just wanted to make it clear that I have no expectations of everyone agreeing with me, that would be pretty silly.
-
43 minutes ago, eclipse said:
I guess that means we're doing something right.
But it also means that you'll need to tailor the discussion to the community. . .and if you're running into people who don't seem able to comprehend things like "nuance", then perhaps it's best NOT to discuss something so complex in such environments. Over here, there's people who love/hate Edelgard for their own reasons, and I doubt any of them will hate you because of it.
More than just right, I think this board is the most insightful on the topic of fire emblem on the entire Internet. People here are really helpful.
I have also been able to gain a greater understanding and appreciation for the game because of the discussions here. It wasn't until I got to this site. I started to understand how much bollocks , I managed to absorb from other places. It wasn't until I actually finished 3 three out of 4 routes that I realised that a lot of what I had been told about certain paths were completely wrong. The thing I have noticed on some other places, there are a lot of people who are straight up and dishonest there and will lie to further their position. This applies both to the detractors of Edelgard and some of her supporters as they will twist the truth and even straight up lie about events in the game to support their claims. I have not seen that here.
52 minutes ago, Ottservia said:I feel like a distinction needs to be made here between simply disliking Edelgard and saying outright incorrect information to try and justify that dislike. I mean criticize all you want but at least get your facts straight when you do so. Also, personally I really don’t get criticizing a character for their flaws because a character’s flaws are what make them relatable and nuanced but that’s just me. People will dislike whatever they want I suppose
Pretty much, it is very difficult for me to not want to correct someone when they present facts that are inaccurate. Still, if that is the biggest problem that is pretty good. I am used to worse.
A character's flaws is definitely what makes them relatable, believe it or not, but Dimitri is actually one of my favourite characters in this entire game specifically because his Boar persona makes him a lot more interesting than he would have been otherwise. I wouldn't like Edelgard as much as I do if she wasn't flawed. My three favourite characters in order are Edelgard, Dimitri and Rhea. All three of them are incredibly complex and have both good and bad aspects to them.
-
Just now, eclipse said:
Here?
No, I have really bad experiences with GameFAQ's and reddit. The main reason I chose this place as my primary avenue for Three Houses discussions is that debates here are so much more civil. Here it is actually possible to express my views and why I like this character without being called a fascist or being compared to Hitler.
I even encountered a case that is worse than this with an argument with a religious fundamentalist who literally called me a devil worshipper for being agnostic. And who did argue that Edelgard would deserve not only to die, but to be tortured for all eternity. Still, as this person was a literal theocrat . There is no wonder they would hate Edelgard with such a passion. Considering that Edelgard like me is a nonbeliever in the dominant religion of their respective regions.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I might have gotten into a habit of being overly defensive because of past experiences. Still, I am the type who seek out this type of arguments as I take literally any excuse of talking about Edelgard as I enjoy doing that. She is interesting and there are a lot of ideas to explore with her character.
I just prefer to be talking about that on this forum as discussions are less likely to turn into a toxic discussion about religion or nazi germany.
I have to say I got exactly what I wanted from this forum, I came here to find like-minded individuals who I could talk to about the game and I found exactly that.
-
10 minutes ago, eclipse said:
At best, it's an unknown for the kidnappings. For Jeralt, it's hard to say, since "Monica" spent a very long time with Edelgard beforehand, and we have no idea what they were talking about.
. . .yeah, way too far down the rabbit hole.
The point of pointing out those flaws isn't necessarily dehumanization. In my case, it's a pointed reminder that people will dislike her for them. What your opinion is on that segment of the fanbase is for your to decide. But people who don't like her aren't doing it just to spite your views. Sometimes, it's truly a difference of opinion. . .and if you want people to respect your opinion, then you'd damn well better respect theirs when it runs counter to yours with cause.
And for her being a good person? I don't care. She's a video game character.
The main reason I say that I don't think she had much to do with Jeralt's death is that she is clearly sympathetic to Byleth after the fact and even basically leaks the location of his killer to them. If she was involved, it is at least clear that she feels guilty about the whole ordeal and want to make up for it. Granted, this is primarily in Crimson Flower and she might feel differently if she isn't as close to Byleth. Despite, Jeralt's death does seem more like Kronya taking an opportunity rather than something that was planned beforehand. I believe that the actual plan was the crest beasts on the mission before, essentially as a proof of concept.
She might have known about the kidnappings, but it is fact that the Death Knight was under the control of Arundel from the point directly after the mission where you get the sword of the creator. Which I think is a clue on who ordered it. Granted, I guess the Monica kidnapping happened a year before the start of the game.
I don't really care if someone dislike her, but I do prefer it to be for something she actually did. Most people do this as the most common reason is just the war itself. But sometimes you find situations where someone dislike her because they have a misunderstanding of the events of the game. Trying to change someone's mind is usually pointless, as people just think differently. It isn't really the goal of what I am doing, I am simply trying to explain my perspective and correct what I see as misconceptions. While I think not agreeing with her methods is reasonable, saying that he had the option to approach this peacefully is just incorrect.
What I mind isn't as much people disliking her, but what I can't stand is those who mistreat her fans and supporters and consider us to be bad people for supporting her. I have never seen it on this site, but I have experienced that a lot elsewhere.
-
4 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:
So what you're saying is that Jeritza shouldn't be just hanged or killed, but rather be rehabilitated and overall atone for what he had done, yes?
Basically, no different from how Edelgard dedicated herself to help the people with her new government reformations so that the war she caused was not just some giant waste.
Pretty much. Edelgard especially can do a lot more good for the world alive than dead. It is very much possible to view her spending her life trying to improve things for the people of Fodlan is her own personal atonement for the war.
Ultimately, if you just kill a criminal, but does little good except possibly preventing them from doing more harm in the future. They are however more likely to atone for their crimes by doing good, it is better to leave them alive as at least then they can atone for their crimes somewhat. Even if sometimes it cannot be atoned completely.
But Edelgard when she loses the war is a bit of an annoying case for someone with my view of justice. If I put myself in the shoes of Byleth in silver snow and verdant wind. I actually would never argue for putting her to death if she wasn't insisting on it. Which kind of puts me in a dilemma between respecting her wishes and remaining true to my own personal beliefs. Is it right to put her to death because she wants me to even if I believe that she is too good a person to deserve death? Or should I spare her against her wishes as I value her life and the potential good she could still do in the future? But I guess it is a moot point as I would never fight against her in the first place. If I truly lived in her world.
-
1 hour ago, omegaxis1 said:
But what they are saying is that the actions itself shouldn't actually be overlooked either. Actions are still actions, regardless of the reasons behind them. Doing a bad thing is still doing a bad thing.
It's as I said above. It's like Edelgard. Whether the war was inevitable or not, Edelgard did still pull the trigger that started it all. She herself acknowledges this and knows that the lives lost are still on her action.
Yes, she did what she had to do, could even say that she didn't have much of a choice, but she did still act and caused a war.
Yes, she did start the war, that is undeniable (kind of, there is also the Agarthan influence). But what does that really mean in this case? I actually think she was in the right for doing that, given the circumstances. I don't buy the argument that there was another way to change Fodlan.
The problem I really have is that when it comes to some people, admitting that someone is responsible for something like this will lead to them immediately jumping to the argument that this person deserves death. I don't think this is accurate at all when it comes to Edelgard. She is even grieving the deaths caused by the war, she is far from a cold-blooded killer. It comes to show that the can't simply look at the number of deaths caused by a person and judge their value as a human being accordingly. There are other factors that matters here. Edelgard might have caused more deaths than most, but ultimately she is still better than a murderer who killed even a single person or personal gain or pleasure. The difference in position and motive matters
When it comes to Jeritza, his case is helped by the fact that I do know rehabilitation for him is possible, as he is able to live a relatively normal life after the war with Mercedes. It is always more important to me. If the person is posing a risk to others in the future rather than what they have done in the past.
-
7 minutes ago, eclipse said:
I think you're going way too far into "Edelgard did nothing wrong" territory. It's one thing to like a character, but it's a little worrying when you try to completely brush away her flaws. IMO those flaws make her interesting.
I never said she is flawless. I think what makes her interesting is that she is such a good and well intentioned person who nonetheless is a conqueror. Empires and emperors like Edelgard are usually depicted as uncontroversial villains, what makes Edelgard stand out is that the situation is depicted with far more nuance than is common. The point I see being made with Edelgard as character is that even the people at the top who start wars and conquers the territories of other nations are still in the end people who might be sympathetic in their own right.
It is easy to point fingers and judge a person solely by their actions, but maybe that isn't entirely fair.To reduce a person down to their crimes is little more than dehumanisation and an excuse not to feel empathy. Edelgard might have started a war, but what she is above all else is human, nothing she has done makes her any less human or worthy of being treated with respect.
I think what bothers me the most with people in general is that they are so quick to declare who deserves what horrible thing to happen to other people because of something they have done. Forgetting that such sadistic desires makes little better than the people they condemn. It is easy to deliver judgements when you just view a person as a murderer, a theif, an adulterer or whatever. But ultimately, all the people we label as such are human and to view them as less than human is screwed up.
Some say that justice should be blind and judge people solely by their actions and not the circumstances that leads to them. I disagree completely with that notion, as I do believe that circumstances surrounding someone's actions are actually important in determining how much of a danger that person is to society.
So, I believe that the point at least for me when it comes to Edelgard a character is that even those who are responsible for the deaths of thousands can be good people
-
3 minutes ago, eclipse said:
The rumors of people disappearing has been somewhat proven in two cases - Flayn and Monica. That means they're more than just rumors.
Edelgard may not have ordered the kidnappings, but "Monica's" behavior after her rescue seems to indicate that Edelgard knows more about it than everyone else.
Lastly, there's the matter of the executioner himself. He's not a brainwashed minion. Which means that, at absolute best, someone masterminded it, Jeritza followed orders, and Edelgard was complicit in the fact that she didn't raise hell over it.
Both kidnappings, which have a clear purpose in the plans of the Agarthans. Proving that he doesn't seem to do these on his own accord but rather under orders.
I do think that Edelgard knows that Monica is Kronya, but not necessarily that they plan to kill Jeralt. She does seem genuinely shocked by that. Even if the only reason she cares is that she cares Byleth. Granted, I have seen some people mentioned the possibility that it is possible that the real Monica was actually a friend of Edelgard and that this is the reason they hang around each other so much.
Even if Edelgard maybe didn't raise hell over the kidnappings, I would qualify her reaction to the incident at Remire village to be raising hell. As well as her reaction to Jeralt's death. It is very clear she isn't pleased with that.
11 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:Hoooold up, that is not how that works. Look at any case where someone hires someone to kidnap or kill someone else: both parties are equally culpable. Jeritza is never shown to be an "obedient minion" in the first place, he will directly defy orders if he well feels like it (Holy Tomb) and even attacks Edelgard knowing who she is (any BE chapter where you face him).
13 minutes ago, Blackstarskywalker said:Well, Jeritza is the material author of the kidnapping. Thales is the mastermind. In the modern judicial system it would be so specified. And yes, Jeritza would receive a sentence, although not greater than Thales
I am not approaching this from a judicial perspective. My views of morality are often at odds with that of most modern justice systems. One major difference is that I don't view culpability the same way. I am also not in favour of the very principle of punishment. But rather favour containment for the sake of public safety and rehabilitation whenever possible.
When it comes to Jeritza . He is quite obviously mentally ill, and if we were talking from a judicial perspective, I would argue he should be given psychiatric care instead of prison due to his mental issues.
There is also the factor that I do not consider it to be job of soldiers to be evaluating the morality of their orders. That is for their superiors to decide and I only expect them to do their job in carrying them out. This also absolves them of responsibility in my mind as their job is to follow the orders of their superiors without question. Therefore, the moral responsibility always falls to the one who gives the order. (Any acts by Jeritza outside of the parameters his orders are however his responsibility)
-
4 minutes ago, eclipse said:
. . .that doesn't address my point, though. . .
And the point is what? That you think I am handwaving the kidnapping thing? If we are talking about Flayn. I see Jeritza as a little more than a obedient minion following the orders of his masters. The one who is truly responsible for it is the one who ordered it rather than the one who carried it out. I am pretty much expecting Thales to order evil crap to be done to further his plans.
Or is there any evidence of Jeritza committing any other kidnappings, and the time he kidnapped Flayn? I think there was something about rumours about people disappearing. I was just wondering what we knew about the context of that and whenever or not it is just rumours with no basis. And if true whenever Jeritza was acting under orders or was acting under his own initiative. That makes a lot of difference for me when determining his morality.
What is relevant for this discussion is that while Jeritza was under the direct command of Arundel, I do not attribute his actions to Edelgard.
-
2 minutes ago, eclipse said:
Y'know, kidnapping is still pretty traumatic, and shouldn't be handwaved.
I think this took place while Arundel was put in charge of the Death Knight. Jeritza was just carrying out the orders from the Agarthan leaders. To his credit Flayn and Manuella was found alive. Yes, this is pretty traumatic, but what I really want to know if he really does slaughter innocents indiscriminately or if he usually sticks to combatants.
I do actually see the Death Knight as rather similar to Boar Dimitri , who despite his sadism do stick to killing people in the military hierarchy. Both are also essentially a second personality developed because of trauma that are both overly violent.
-
Do we actually even know if Jeritza actually kills innocents? I thought he did on my first playthrough of the game for quite a while. But upon further examination, he seems to be more concerned with the fighting worthy opponents and I don't think there is a single case of him killing anything other than combatants. He is concerned about testing his mettle, not slaughtering the helpless. I think the Death Knight is pretty much all about honourable combat
-
5 minutes ago, zuibangde said:
I can list some real word events that would be considered a 'necessary evil' by some but just 'evil' by many others. A necessary evil doesn't mean it's actually necessary for all involved.
She did what she thinks would be best for the Empire and believed that it would also be good for the other two nations. In real life, you wouldn't want a foreign government to tell you what's best for you so why should the people from the Alliance and Faerghus accept what Edelgard wants? In the end, it might be great for all involved but let's not pretend Edelgard was putting every single person's feelings into considerations when she started the war. She was prioritising herself and the Empire first and foremost. Everyone else just happens to 'benefit' from her actions, if any. The fact that there are vassal states within the Empire and they feel the need to send their Nobles as a sign of alliance should suggest to you how 'benevolent' the Empire is. I'm not blaming Edelgard on that but maybe she can work on equality and freedom of the people in her own empire first before worrying about the rest of the continent.
Exactly. Then let's not pretend Edelgard/Empire is acting out of the greater good for everyone in Fodlan and everyone is singing celebrating that their country got invaded 'for the greater good'. There are legitimate reasons for people to like or dislike Edelgard and it's kinda pointless to defend her endlessly.
Anyways, there's a lot more I want to respond to but I don't have time/want to get into this. I think my problem is that I see real world politics and compare it to Edelgard and honestly, her actions are fairly questionable regardless of intentions or outcome.
Not saying everyone are going to celebrate the invasion, in fact, there will likely be resistance from the former kingdom and alliance in the future. But it doesn't change the fact that Edelgard did what she did with the best interest of everyone in mind, and that it might indeed lead to a better society in the future. It is just that people sometimes don't understand what their best interests are. If I tried to for example, breakdown of the theocratic government system of iran or Saudi Arabia by force. I would bet that the people would resist me initially. Even if what I was doing would ultimately give them more freedom and I would be acting with the motivation to improve the lives of the people who live there. Some people will resist you in these kind of matters even if your intentions are good, and even if you are technically in the right, that is just to the way of things. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true that enforcing a state religion by force isn't evil or that enforcing gender equality isn't good. It is just that doing the right thing will not always be popular.
There is also one big reason Edelgard can't work on freedom and equality in home nation first, they are called the Agarthans, they are pushing for war and the only other option is for Edelgard to create a civil war within the Empire to try to get rid of Agarthan control. Which would weaken harder and open up the Empire for invasion from the church and the other nations. I don't think that Rhea would take the Empire seceding from the church of Seiros lying down and assuming she wins the civil war against Arundel. She will be in a weakened position. But honestly, I think that Arundel would probably win that civil war. Given how strong his influence is. There is also the factor that Edelgard actually cares about the fate of the people of the other nations and not just a wrong, so she wouldn't want injustice to keep happening in Faerghus and Leicester either.
I don't know why so many people keep coming with suggestions that if you really look at the situation, you would realise aren't possible for Edelgard. Things would be a lot simpler without the existence of a dark cult having so much influence in the Empire. Maybe then a peaceful solution would be possible, with them. however, avoiding war is pretty much impossible. I am not claiming Edelgard is perfect, but she isn't the bogeyman. some people make her out to be. That is why I defend her, because I don't think she deserves the crap some people give her. The truth of the matter is that Edelgard didn't really have a good option if you really take a step back and try to view the situation from her point of view. They war has a steep price, that much is fact, but she didn't do any of this, with malicious intentions. Which is more than I can say about pretty much any historical warlord. It is very hard to find monarchs with motivations as pure as Edelgard's in actual history
-
16 minutes ago, Hilda said:
Realisticly speaking: I am not sure if a War was Edelgards intentions at all. I think what many people dont get is that War was inevitable, no matter what. I mean consider the political situation:
The Adrestian empire was allready compromised and partially in the "true enemies" hand (the shadowpeople). The Emperor served as a pure "puppet" device to further the plans of the people in the shadows. So at some point they were going to hit the church and the other lands anyway with a decleration of war.
Then there is the Leicester Alliance. I think the name speaks for itself, its an Alliance. Get some houses to flock to your side (and the shadowpeople were allready doing that) and you see that this Alliance doesnt have much firepower to withstand the full force of the Adrestian empire in the shadowpeoples hand. In an Alliance it is very difficult to get everyone on the same page and push through your agendas and Ideas of the future without a united front, in this case Claude.The Kingdom of Faerghus. Putting the instability of Dimitri aside as an unfit ruler. The Kingdom of Faerghus had allways strong connections to the church of Seiros and would have sided with the church no matter what. Progression? I dont think so. The Assassination attempt (The Tragedy of Duscur) speaks for itself. Someone wanted to distabilize the country, and they succeeded to some degree.
You can go much more into Detail here, but i mean given the above facts the question i would pose myself as Edelgard is: "Ok I know where this is all heading towards with the information i have and War is innevitable, do i want to have some/partial control over it or let it run its course and then be unable to do anything because its too late? Probably ending with a worse result then my Idea/belief?"
This isnt teletubby land where you can just talk to the other Leaders and "omg yaie we will unite and kill of the shadowpeople". I mean seriously if some random princess i dont know well would come to me and say that their country is being undermined and i should jeopardy my country to go and help them without proof evidence or anything of that sort i would be like "omg go take your pills, you insane?", the second question would be: "what do i and my country gain out of it?" to myself. Beside the fact that i would need to sell that crazy idea first and foremost to my own country and people, thats gonna fly very well.Well said. Ultimately, the war was already in the making long before Edelgard was even born. Thales had planned this for quite a while, weakening the nations in preparation for revenge against the church. I think it was implied that Edelgard was actually given the crest of flames, exactly for this purpose. The Agarthans needed someone to spearhead the war and act as a scapegoat, as they would rather not reveal their presence. I think the Adrestian nobles also wanted an emperor with a major crest so that they might take back the lands they had lost against Loog. So a lot of people besides Edelgard already wanted this war to happen. It is absolutely beyond me why some people think that Edelgard had any power over Thales, given that she had been his prisoner for a large portion of her life.
While she was intended to start this war, I do think that the Agarthans would be capable of starting it with or without her. Edelgard decided that if war was inevitable, at the very least it could serve a good purpose in getting rid of two corrupt powers from the continent. The church and the Agarthans.
As you say, what was really the alternative for Edelgard? Going against the shadowy cult that controls her country before she was crowned Emperor would be suicide. She couldn't become Emperor without their permission, and if she tried to contact the church, the kingdom, the alliance or anyone. The Empire would still declare war under Arundel. As well as the fact that no one would believe her that the shadowy cult had taken over her country. Especially not when combined with stories about the churches being led by lizard people (dragons). She would sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist without proper evidence.
-
5 minutes ago, Crysta said:
Thales follows her orders if they suit his own aims, and they usually do. But they are allies. She is not their pawn, and she certainly doesn't behave as one.
She refrains from using the full extent of what she has because of Byleth's influence on her; this is before he returns.
Thales at most content is to while in the guise of Arundel, but that is only to keep up appearances. Thales is a skilled manipulator who has had strings to the imperial throne for a very long time, it is just that Edelgard isn't as cooperative as her father as she is in a better position to resist. They do have a common enemy, that much is true. But Thales would never consider Edelgard his master, the very notion of following a surface dweller is revolting to the Agarthans. To them, they are nothing more than vermin. That is all Edelgard is to them, a lab rat and a weapon they want to use against the church. I would say that Edelgard is their puppet, but she is a puppet who resents her strings and openly rebels against her puppetmaster any chance she gets. But it is hard for me to consider the power dynamic to be anything other than in the favour of Thales due to him essentially torturing Edelgard and siblings for years while they were still children. Thales is very much essentially her abuser, essentially guilty of kidnapping her and moulding her into what he needed her to be for his war against the church.
12 minutes ago, zuibangde said:The issue I have with Edelgard is less because of her character (I think she’s pretty well written) but more how people that likes her come up with all ‘explanations’ to justify her actions.
Is it that hard to admit that what she did to achieve her goals literally put thousands of people into a period of immense suffering?
And because of that fact alone, it makes her a questionable ruler. You can argue that she is a good leader (still debatable) but she’s far from benevolent.
I think someone has a quite naive of view of statesmanship and what being a monarch actually entails.
She is benevolent in that she seeks to free the people of Fodlan from an oppressive system that has been keeping them down for millennia. But in order to do that, sometimes drastic measures are required, and that carries a heavy price.
It is the duty of a monarch to weigh decisions against one another and pick what they think is ultimately the best for their subjects. Often times, this will require sacrifices no matter what option is chosen. In this case both action and inaction has its consequences, Edelgard came to be conclusion that in the long run, the war will lead to less suffering than letting the current system continue as is.
That is all we are saying, not necessarily that the war is necessarily a good thing, but that it is necessary and better than the alternative.
The truth of the matter is that monarchs often cannot afford to remain morally pure as the inability to act in certain situations will just allow their enemies to walk all over them.
While a pacifist position is admirable in a way. In a more practical sense, it will just allow everyone to mistreat you and your people because of your unwillingness to fight back.
The willingness to fight for what you believe in is also a virtue and something I respect a lot more than those who let their fear of the consequences of violence lead to more unscrupulous people walking all over their ideals as they are afraid to stand up for them.
Ultimately, I believe that freedom is more valuable than life as life without freedom has no value. Give me freedom or give me death
-
2 minutes ago, Crysta said:
She does. That's why it doesn't happen in the route where she bonds with Byleth, even when she has even more of a reason to use those resources than she does on the other routes (her opposition is in a much better spot in CF).
You can choose to consider them entirely separate entities that Edelgard has no responsibility for, but what actually happens (or in this case doesn't happen) doesn't support that.
I think it should be fairly obvious, she isn't the leader of the Agarthans, that would be Thales, who Edelgard never had any authority over. She isn't their leader, she is their pawn. Everything you see in the game supports this interpretation. There are multiple instances of Edelgard disapproving of their methods, but is still unable to stop certain events from occurring. The incident at Remire Village and the assassination of Jeralt are two examples. It has clearly been displayed she doesn't have any authority over them and Thales referring to her as their perfect creation shows beyond a shadow of a doubt who is really pulling the strings.
Responsibility is a different story, she might be partwise culpable because of her association with them. But that is not the same as their actions being of her design. They are not. I don't understand why anyone is under the impression that the Agarthans take orders from Edelgard. If anything, she needs to tread a fine line when it comes to them to not incur their wrath. The power dynamic is very much in favour of Thales and even more so in non CF routes. Edelgard is essentially acting under coercion
-
6 minutes ago, Crysta said:
Not utilizing Cornelia or the crest beasts to nearly the same extent. There is a reason for it.
Or at least not utilising the crest beasts in her personal army, I am uncertain she had enough influence to prevent the Agarthans from doing anything. I view them as an entirely different faction who will often do things whenever Edelgard approves of it or not. They are not under our control and has never been. If anything, she is under their control in non-CF routes. The only time she is relatively free from their shadow is at the very end of AZ after the death of Arundel. And at that point, there is still Myson in a high position within the Imperial court.
I don't think Cornelia ever worked for Edelgard or followed orders from her. It is just that some characters assume that because they don't know that Cornelia is one of the Agarthans.
The reason she can get away with not using crest beasts to the same extent is because Byleth is quite the power in their own right, so she doesn't really need to. As soon as Edelgard doesn't think a necessary evil is necessary anymore, she usually doesn't do it.
-
3 minutes ago, Crysta said:
I think the "darker impulse" is not necessarily enjoying it, but considering inflicting harm a necessary evil to achieve whatever her end goal may be. She refrains from doing this in CF.
If a necessary evil is actually necessary, I don't consider it dark at all. Can you think of anything in particular, she does do in the other routes which doesn't happen in CF which fits this category?. Allowing the Agarthans to grow too powerful is the only one I can think of. And I don't think that is a willing choice on her part as much as Byleth's presence is a factor that allows her the luxury of having to rely on them less.
It isn't like she orders the deaths of civilians anywhere really. I don't even truly view the creation of the Dukedom as her doing. Characters in game might view Cornelia as an agent of the Empire, but I know better. And the truth is much darker.
-
4 minutes ago, Crysta said:
Can get behind Edelgard > Dimitri when it comes to actually leading, but the game shows us they both fall to their darker impulses without Byleth being there beside them.
That is not a good thing.
Edelgard doesn't display anything I would call a darker impulse. But she is certainly capable of making mistakes without Byleth. For something to be considered a darker impulse in my opinion, most involved enjoying inflicting harm on another.
This matches with Boar Dimitri as he is legitimately sadistic and enjoys inflicting suffering on his enemies. Edelgard has never displayed anything even remotely close to that.
Yet the Dimitri we see at the end of the game, I would say would be an acceptable monarch as long as we can trust that the Boar will never surface again.
-
18 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:
This is a VERY interesting bit, that I feel does't get mentioned as often.
If Edelgard didn't try and get power as the Emperor of Adrestia, then the Agarthans would only gain more power in the Empire, possibly even assume total control over the nation. Then Edelgard would never be able to oppose them except to destroy her nation to root them out.
And the only reason she was able to get power and become the Emperor is because of making deals with Bergliez and Hevring and working with the Agarthans. That secured her getting the position of Emperor, but now she had to also get the war going.
As you said, Edelgard was in a VERY delicate position. She might as well treading a hairline thin ice constantly.
That is a very good point.
I think Hilda put everything really well and I agree with pretty much everthinh they are saying.
I am also not sure Dimitri is fit to rule for the same reason I think Azula is not fit to rule. They are way too mentally unstable to handle that much responsibillity.
The funny thing is while some people never felt like they were doing the right thing siding with Edelgard. I never fekt right siding against her, felt like I was doing the wrong thing the entire time
"Ask Fire Emblem Heroes Questions and Get Them Answered Here" Thread
in Fire Emblem Heroes
Posted · Edited by Darkmoon6789
Does it make any difference that my Bernadetta has a flaw in HP and an asset in resistance?
I also managed to get Micaiah Dawns Wind Duo. How is she compared to her Queen of Dawn counterpart? She has a flaw in attack and an asset in speed. Any skills that would compliment her? It seems like sacrifice would benefit from a way to regain HP.
While I am on the topic of Micaiah, how can I improve her basic skill set from her base one?
I also managed to get another copy of Idunn dark priestess from sheer luck. So she no longer has the flaw in defence
Edit: My second Idunn has a flaw attack and an asset in resistance. What would happen if I merged her with my first Idunn with asset in attack and a flaw in defense with the second one being the enhanced unit? Would I keep the skills she has inherited from other sources?
Not sure if an asset in attack or an asset in resistance is better for this unit.