ordinaryunits

I honestly wonder why Edelgard doesn't remember him at all for most of the game. Seeing as they had a unique relationship, it could have been her just moving past it, but it could also be a comment on how relationships can be imbalanced. Blue lions is also my favorite route so I'm a bit biased too, but I think the reason why I enjoyed the route so much was because of Dimitri's character growth and his interesting views on the world. Sometimes I think it can be hard to relate to dimitri's worldview because of how dark he is in azure moon, but I think that his dual nature is what makes him one of the best characters in the game. And I agree that Claude is charming and manipulative, it was fun to try and read in between the lines of some of the things that he would say and do throughout the game.

You bring up some interesting points with Edelgard's supports with Ferdinand, but I also think that her support with him can work inversely as well. Edelgard really hadn't considered what if any value could be salvaged from the noble system and hadn't really thought through the particular details of creating a new world; her main concern was to end the church's regime. While meritocracy can be good there can be meritocratic systems that have issues. What is viewed as valuable in a meritocracy can be bad, in that there could be a meritocratic system that rewards people who are deceptive or violent. It's impossible to say what Edelgard's new world would value in particular because she herself doesn't rightly make that clear. Education is a tool that can lead to improved freedom and social mobility in society, but it could also have a negative component should certain information be censored or changed. Edelgard and hubert have acted in ways that would lead me to believe that they wouldn't really have a transparent regime in the way that they would conduct themselves during the war. I agree that meritocracy is good, but its also important to think about what would be of merit in Edelgard's system.

I think that you could infer that the creation of a more freer society was created in eliminating the crest hierarchy, but its left unclear as to what exactly is going to replace it. And in the absence of a definitive system I would defer to the actions of edelgard and hubert throughout the course of the war as to how the society will function. And their actions tell me that while their society will be free of oppression through the crest hierarchy, it will have its own problems in the form of a controlling and protecting new government. Definitely not the worst outcome, but not the best either.

I think that Edelgard is metaphorically the "killer of god" within the context of the story and there is a necessity for someone to tear down degenerating institutions to allow for the creation of new institutions, its the dynamic nature of life. So in that way Edelgard does serve a profound purpose, but I think that she doesn't really consider the ramifications of the "death of god" and exactly how to create and perpetuate her new system. Edelgard misinforms her fellow black eagles throughout the war in crimson flower and hubert actively does more unsavory things to keep the empire running. After the agarthans destroy Arianrhod she tells the army that it was the church who committed such atrocities because she believed that it was better for them not to know about the agarthans yet. And hubert shows in his supports with ferdinand and shamir that he actively defies Edelgard's orders and commits cruel, yet pragmatic acts to ensure that her power is stable. I think that these issues create a political system that seems shaky in its foundation at best and I think that Edelgard doesn't really care, her goal is to get rid of the crest system as it was at the beginning. And as you said she does serve a purpose in doing that, but I think that because she is so focused on destroying the old system that she's not properly equipped to create a new one. I also found the discussion around sacrifice interesting because it shows a distinctive dichotomy between edlegard and dimitri. Edelgard takes up a traditional matronly role as a protector and advocate for the people in her political work, while Dimitri takes a more paternal role as a leader figure who seeks to embolden the people to make the right decisions of their own accord. Because edelgard fits that matronly leadership style she fights to liberate the oppressed people because they don't have the ability to do it themselves and ultimately makes decisions that don't embolden the people, but leave them in relative ignorance to real state of the new Adrestian government. You can argue that it might change after the war, but the precedent has been one of misinformation from Edelgard and Hubert. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can certainly have its flaws. Because Edelgard creates a system where everyone is told what the leadership views as necessary it creates a population that isn't knowingly virtuous and without the proper authorities to enforce their normative values the system would collapse. Rhea's flawed system only worked so long because she was able to Shepard her narrative and to control the situation for millenia. Dimitri's view is different in that he tries to emulate his paternal figure of rodrigue in empowering people to make the right decisions. While giving everyone the capability to make proper decisions of their own accord can create a more deliberately and knowingly virtuous population, it can also give people the freedom to make the "wrong decisions". Both Edelgard and Dimitri's political systems have their merits, but they're both subject to degeneration and impermanent, so that can leave the question of what's acceptable to reach these ends? I think the key distinction that can make Edelgard's sacrifices ethically ambiguous is that she sacrifices other people, while rodrigue sacrificed himself. So if its ok to sacrifice the lives of others to greater ends, I'm left wondering how far this line of reasoning would extend. Is it ok for me to sacrifice some person who has well functioning organs to give all of their organs to people who need organ donations to live? Because more people would be saved in the process making it a collective good to the detriment of one individual. Ultimately the people fighting in the war don't entirely know what they're fighting for and don't entirely consent to sacrificing their lives in such a conflict, but Edelgard believes that she is doing it in her best interests. I'm not making any claim on the ethical legitimacy of Edelgard's war, I'm only asking questions that make it more morally grey than you might have thought it as previously.

I think that Edelgard dying in every route except for her own pretty fitting for her character for her stubborn and self righteous behavior talked about above, but I do think that's what makes her character and the other lords for that matter so compelling. And I think what's interesting about the story is that all three lords are equally sympathetic and understandable in their goals to where the lords can all be interesting and relatable to people with different fundamental values. Even though people can make differnt arguments for which of the three houses has the best goals and endings I don't think that anyone can argue that Those Who Slither in the Dark have anything redeemable or good about them lol. I agree Hubert is a really fun character because even though he's really slimy I think that he certainly has redeeming qualities that can make him somewhat sympathetic. His voice is also ridiculously brooding and I can't help but be entertained by it consistently. There's almost a sort of contrast between his depraved side and his more dorky side, that you'll see a lot when he's legitimately simping for edlegard. I think it would be interesting to compare and contrast him and dedue because they perform similar roles for their lords, just having some key differences in the characteristics that make them distinct.

Yeah I think that Edelgard is definitely meant to be a tragic character in her disregard for her own life and her distrusting attitude. I think that her distrustful attitude is what really leads her to not ally with Claude because she doesn't have faith in his ability to lead fodlan or to understand its problems because hes from a foreign country. To me it seems like Claude and Edelgard can't get along in the long run because they both are unwilling to make the compromises necessary to move into creating a new and better world together. While Edelgard is aware of some of the issues that one could levy against her I think that she doesn't really address them and just acknowledges them without examining their implications fully. Like in the case of her recognizing that people view her as arrogant she moves dismissive it by saying there is little to be done. She's not completely deluded but I think that she's too driven to properly evaluate some of her tragic flaws; as you mentioned with her goal of changing the crest system after being tortured by the agarthans. Also in regards to Claude I recently made a new video analyzing some of the aspects of his character and maybe it will bring up some different aspects of his character to talk about in relation to Edelgard and Dimitri Here it is:

The aspect of trust is interesting especially considering Claude and his themes, where he literally has a speech that talks about the importance of people working together to overcome their burdens in life. And i think that could also be one of edelgard's tragic flaws where she doesn't trust enough people and makes unnecessary enemies. That's probably why claude regretted the way that things turned out in the verdant wind route. Because I really don't think that edelgard and claude are too incompatible.

Oh that's interesting to think about, I really hadn't considered the parallels between Edelgard and Byleth in that way even though it was right in front of my face lol. What Rhea did to byleth was definitely unethical, especially because she might have initially planned for the vessel of the goddess to be erased by her coming. I think that most of Rhea's unethical behavior occurred because her mental state deteriorated over time, either from the trauma of her race effectively being exterminated or just the natural deterioration of the manakete in the rest of the series. I think edelgard addresses the fact that she and byleth probably weren't meant to be together in the crimson flower route.

In silver snow dimitri ends up exactly like he did in verdant wind, but anyway I think that Edelgard and Dimitri's conviction to die in service of their ideals is both tragic and admirable in a way. It can be almost anticlimactic in other routes when claude just leaves for Almyra and I think it points out something interesting about his different values and his roles as an outsider. I didn't intend to say that she was incompetent either just that she is serviceable as a commander, whereas Napoleon was exceptional as you pointed out. I think its interesting to consider Byleths thematic role in the story even if he can be catatonic through most of it. In that his presence is integral to leading all three lords to their ideal futures and to even fixing some of the internal issues that Edelgard and Dimitri were grappling with. In a way I think its ironic that Edelgard is so starkly opposed to the church, yet she is so enamored by someone who is basically a second coming of the goddess. Although I suppose that you could argue that what she appreciates in byleth is his human qualities, but I still think she appreciates the components of him that came as a result of his shared body with Sothis. And it was interesting how dedue would resort to doing that in crimson flower drawing more parallels between him and hubert. Hubert and dedue seem to both go behind their leaders backs to perform acts to their benefit that the leaders wouldn't condone, but it seems that dedue doesn't resort to that as often just being the "sword" of dimitri

For sure all of the endings leave things better than they were, largely because the church of seiros was a waning power and rhea was mentally deteriorating. I just don't like how they do my boy dimitri so dirty in 3 out of 4 endings lol, but it makes sense for his character. I assume you feel the same way about how edelgard ends up in every route too. Your thoughts on the historical analysis are on point and I wonder if there'd be enough similarities to directly compare the three lords to different historical figures, honestly though Edelgard being similar to napoleon is all that I can think of. I always got the impression that edelgard was just a competent commander who would generally just use overwhelming force to win battles. That could be an interesting thought experiment, what would happen if edelgard survived on the other routes and tried to come back to fodlan? I'm glad that I made you think about dimitri in a different way because he is my favorite character. I think that his viewpoint can be hard to understand because its rather counter intuitive and its steeped in honor, guilt and duty. Claude especially ends up being a fence sitter in all routes except for verdant wind and it seems like he didn't have any real plan to see his ideals to fruition until a reincarnation of a goddess literally fell right into his life. There is something to be said for edelgard's ambition and bravery in the face of insurmountable odds in taking on a church led by dragons.

I don't think that Edelgard means to totally destroy the church for everyone in the crimson flower route, however it would be difficult to have the same religious dogma after killing the dragon that lead the church. In winning a war against the church it delegitimizes them as a moral authority and would cause people to lose their faith nonetheless, even if it wasn't edelgard's intention. Also i agree with you about Lonato I felt like he was needlessly used by the agarthans and the empire and that they died in vain, which is kind of a bummer. And in defense of Dimitri's ending Rhea steps down as archbishop because she is ashamed of her actions and byleth heads the church, creating a system of reforms to better suit the nature of the new world that dimitri is starting. And yeah I never like it when people mischaracterize Edelgard and her supporters as fascists, going as far as to call her girl Hitler. The comparison is one sided towards those that played any route except for crimson flower and show that they fundamentally misunderstand her character. If I had to liken her to any historical figure I would say its napoleon, especially in the way that he would spread classical liberal values to Europe, with Edelgard probably being more genuine in her goals. And thank you for listening to my opinions because I know dimitri's views are kind of weird and sometimes it can seem that Dimitri's philosophy is too inactive and that can be frustrating.

Yeah I agree there is a sort of impasse here, but i just want to say you made a good case for your point and I thought it was a valuable discussion to get to the root of Edelgard and Dimitri's differences. I'm not entirely averse to war and conflict because I understand it to be a necessity of life because conflicts can't always be resolved peacefully, even if both parties understand one another. I'm not entirely on the same page as dimitri, but I do tend to agree with some of his general ideas and his ideals are definitely admirable. My main issue with Edelgard is primarily her methodology which, as I pointed out in the video is similar to Rhea's because if any ruler disregards the means to which ends are achieved they might cause more harm than good. I think that's the case for Edelgard in the other three routes just not in black eagles because she has someone to keep her from becoming too cruel. Finally I don't think Dimitri believes that inactivity will solve the worlds issues, but rather that he intends to empower people so that they won't need someone to protect them or to put them on the right path. In his ending he creates a representative government that lets the people pass legislation in the government that concerns them. So if the people of Faerghus wanted to change the inequality within fodlan they could reasonably change that. But thanks for arguing this out and giving feedback on my videos

Sure and I think there is where the primary philosophical distinction takes place. Edelgard takes the position that she must eliminate a cruel system of oppression in the form of the church to help those who are benighted because they can't help themselves, including those in different territories. She seeks to eliminate the oppression of the church all across fodlan because all the people don't have the power or the information to fight back against the church. Dimitri on the other hand genuinely believes that the people of any power structure, no matter how oppressive, are complicit in its perpetuation and that should they really have disagreements with the system they would rise up against it themselves. There are some people like mercedes who live for the church because they genuinely believe in the goddess and the good that she brings, those people aren't evil and they would suffer immensely through the destruction of the church. I'm not saying that you guys are wrong in your beliefs about Edelgard's war, but I do disagree with you on the philosophical grounds that people in power need to liberate other groups from systems of oppression because such liberation is non-consensual ultimately even if it is in favor of the greater good. If you do think that we ought to liberate other nations from regimes that commit human rights violations then we'd have to start a lot of wars to put an end to such discrimination. And then if the world a better place when you force everyone to be better through coercion, it seems a kind of like a shallow victory in that as soon as people aren't coerced into being good they'll just go back to committing evil. Historically the population of countries have fought back against tyrannical systems even though information was dominated by the oppressive systems, such as in the protestant reformation, the american revolution, etc. It's just the ebb and flow of history that systems consolidate their power until eventually their power wanes and the people come to resist that system of power that previously dominated everything. Also its not necessarily about popular voting, but just a system that provides representation to a nations citizens so that they can structure society in a way that is agreeable to them. Honestly, even though you make very good points I don't think that you would have been able to talk dimitri down at the negotiation because their disagreement goes beyond a misunderstanding. Dimitri knows how oppressive the crest system is, but he also recognizes the importance of it as a social fixture in fodlan, he doesn't think that totally destroying the church is the answer as oppressive as it may be. Also not everyone gets on board with Edelgard's war in the empire, Hubert says as much when he informs edelgard in crimson flower that her opposition has been disposed of. I give edelgard a pass on that normally because its hubert who performs most of the ethically unsavory acts, but in this case it shows that people didn't have a choice to disagree with her otherwise they would be disposed of. Interesting stuff tho

Yeah I agree that might does make right in that by winning the war she can functionally do whatever she wishes, but I was speaking more on an ethical ground; as in should edelgard exercise that power. Sure all the lords have an opportunity with the power they've been given to make tangible differences to improve peoples situations, but it becomes a little more grey when you consider the lower class of fodlan who were enfranchised in the church's system, flawed as it may have been. One could argue historically that certain leaders would claim there actions are to the benefit of the common man, but are they really? I'm not saying that Edelgard doesn't genuinely believe what she's doing isn't right and I'm also not saying that the meritocracy she wants to create isn't good. But, it's a similar situation to interventionism today, where certain countries will liberate others under governmental systems that they view as regressive. But I don't necessarily think that interventionism is always justified. But I definitely see where both of you guys are coming from and those points are functionally correct, winning the war gives them the right to impose rule on others and those with power have greater opportunity to make change. I just agree with dimitri that power ultimately lies within the people to reject oppressive systems, its not as immediate as a unilateral decision, but its more consensual.

Those are good questions to ask and they bring up some genuine flaws in dimitri's logic. But I could also ask in response: does everyone have the capability to live in the way that edelgard imagined? Couldn't the new system, even with the removed censorship of the church, have certain dogma's and belief structures that can prevent people from being able to properly understand the world beyond Edelgard's? And even though war is a necessity to instigate change in systems that one sees as corrupt, what gives edelgard the right to make such a grand decision for all the people of fodlan? How will the people react once their entire belief structure has been destroyed and replaced by a new one? Just to be clear I also think that war is a necessity and I think that dimitri goes to far with his philosophy as is the tragic flaw of his character. Also I didn't mean to imply that Edelgard would become a cruel dictator I only meant to say that in dimitri's view she would effectively set the values for the new world making her equivalent to the goddess in that the rules under which they operate are decided upon by her.