Jump to content

MessengerIris

Member
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Radiant Dawn

Recent Profile Visitors

117 profile views
  1. Edelgard is not much different though. She is “my way or the highway.” Yet, in every route, even her own, Edelgard pretty much goes “surrender and let yourself be conquered or I will run you over” to her opponents. Minimal explanations were seen from her end. If people didn’t actively go looking for explanations (Claude), everyone would be confused. Imagine how the continent is supposed to react since they are just caught in the cross-fire. They aren’t nearly as omniscient as us.
  2. I agree that she was a force that brought about change in all the routes and was a morally gray character - who at best can be considered an anti-hero. My main argument was more whether the means she went about doing it was that noble, as so many fans try to portray her as. There was little to suggest that during her conquest, she reformed her conquered nations for the better (compared to Napoleon). All routes eventually led to a peaceful Fodlan because her actions inspired reaction. However, the means she used to get there were often just as selfish and emotionally driven as those of the people she so fights against, but she acts as if she was better than them. At the end of the day, she was a girl who was naive, arrogant, and endured a lot of suffering, and as a result, made a lot of questionable choices. It was undeniable that she did change the world though, but whether the ends justified the means in her case is left to the interpretation of the individual, especially since the aftermath of the game is left ambiguous, versus being able to retroactively assess real world conquerers such as Napoleon.
  3. Her greatest downfall was her arrogance and entitlement. She thought she was in control of the situation and knew what was going on, but I think she was just as lost as the rest of the cast when it comes to the TWSITD’s manipulation. She definitely let emotions rule her decision making.
  4. Never said it was her primary goal. I just said she had a lot to gain from her actions, and at least some of those gain contributed to her ultimate decisions and what she felt was the best course of action. Diplomacy would ultimately make it hard for her to re-unite the Empire. I just don’t understand why nobody was consulted (are you telling me NO ONE in this world could provide any help to Edelgard, was she really that limited in her resources?), even Micaiah could talk to her close retainers for options, yet Edelgard assumes the position of her against the world. Conquering is always an option but why is it the FIRST option?
  5. 1. Micaiah didn’t support Ashnard. She supported the Daein people, who mostly were innocent to the travesties that Ashnard committed and his goals. Yes, they were racist, not going to deny that. I’m not going to deny that she was dumb for being silent - I accuse Edelgard of the same flaw, but Micaiah never verbally suggested to the players, who so vehemently hate her, that she supports Ashnard or agreed with his actions. To her, Ike IS the villain - he destroyed the country she loved and Begnion WAS the villain for what they did during the occupation. Why should she feel any sympathy towards either Ike or Begnion (or by extension Sanaki who could have just been as equally responsible Daein’s treatment for all Micaiah knew)? I just can’t wrap my mind around how biased people are in games where you can romance characters - she had every reason to hate Ike/Begnion but she is touted like the devil. We even SAW their point of view but Daein can burn, right? Just like how in this game, Dimitri had a lot of good reasons for hating Edelgard. Actually, most of the casts did - she started a WAR that put all of their families lives at stake for no reason made aware to them. But yet, people always defend Edelgard as “it was for the greater good.” The greater good for WHO exactly? No one knew what she was intended, and A LOT of what she did seemed self serving but passed off as “liberating the continent” when she had a strong personal stake in the gains of defeating the church and re-uniting the Empire. 2. She didn’t even know Sanaki was her sister when she was fighting them, seems like a moot point. She had people she loved and knew who she had to protect. Sanaki/Ike/co were literally nobodies who destroyed the people and country she loved. She did what she did out of love and compassion for her nation, how is that not a noble cause? Yet, to many, it is “wrong” whereas Edelgard was in the “right.” My whole argument stems from the fact that I think Edelgard is not a good person, and people should stop defending her actions as self-sacrificial and necessary (how does one person get the authority to make any decision like that?). I concede that she was needed for the progression of the story, never argued otherwise at any point (I even said I can understand why she is well liked as a villain). She was a well written villain, but she is at best an anti-hero and at worse, the same level of villainy as the church. Also, Tenzen12 basically proved my point about Micaiah being hated. I honestly liked Micaiah because of her compassion and ability to make hard choices, still thought she was incredibly dumb at certain points, but not the point. She didn’t try to put up a pretense that she was doing this for anyone besides herself - she cared about Daein and gtfo the rest of the continent.
  6. Yeah I know most of the plot and what Edelgard endured. My point is that sympathy doesn’t detract from who she was. I think my problem is the fans who act as if she can do no wrong. No matter how you slice it, a lot of her actions were selfish, emotionally-driven, and not made with the best interest of the populace at heart, but people act as if she was a self sacrificing savior who had the guts to pull the trigger and that all her actions are justifiable because the end result was meant to be a good one, at least that what we are led to believe. Also, I see no reason the extremes in the disparity in sympathy for characters - for Micaiah to be so hated but Edelgard to be so celebrated. Both were very complex character who had to make very hard choices, yet one of them is lauded as a sympathetic hero and the other is a villain because she went against the fan favorite. If Edelgard wasn’t the fan favourite, often for reasonings like being a romanceable female lead, would she be this celebrated?
  7. I agree. In all routes, I think she wanted to die thinking she was correct in the end, but I just feel like that just reinforces the delusion she has created for herself as the world’s savior.
  8. I never said the church and others were any less evil - I said they are all deserving the title of being evil. History is written to highlight the good of the victors, doesn’t make the things that war bring about any less horrific. I even agreed that she probably took the most drastic but most effective way to bring about change, but it doesn’t mean I agree with her actions nor do I think they were the right ones. How is your point any different than how Micaiah is viewed by the fans? She literally tried to liberate and free her country, but she is seen as “evil” because she fought against Ike. In my opinion, her reasoning vs Ike&co were a lot more palatable than Edelgard’s reasoning. Edelgard didn’t even try for any alternative whereas Micaiah actively looked and was really pigeon held into a corner. Instead, Edelgard STARTED the chaos when there was nothing to suggest that it was in such dire need that she needed to act ASAP and go completely nuclear. I just said the means and attitude Edelgard went about achieving her goals calls into question her own morality that her fans so preaches as to be better than those of the people she is fighting. Do you really honestly believe that if this was real life, Edelgard’s actions were the way to go? No discussion, no explanation to anyone really, just conquest? Also to the comment above, I think the fact that Dimitri offered her a chance at redemption while she chose to ignore it, shows that SHE was the one too far gone, not him. I honestly believe that she is just stubborn and refused to talk to anyone else because she truly believes what she is doing is right, regardless of the means, more so than the limitations in her position. She refuses to surrender and change her ideals in ANY of the routes...just goes to show you how caught up in her own mind she really was. If she even opened her eyes and looked around, she would see that there were many students sympathetic to her plight, but she basically had tunnel vision.
  9. A lot more people hate Micaiah vs Ike, because to them, Ike was the traditional hero. Micaiah definitely gets more hate than Edelgard for imo, a lot less evil deeds. I think there should be a distinction between sympathetic villain and a good person. You can be a sympathetic person, but that doesn’t make the actions justified. Yet, a lot of Edelgard fans swear by the fact that what she did was for the greater good, despite the chaos that she left in her wake, it was a “necessary sacrifice” which to me, is the definition of the ends justify the mean mentality. How necessary the sacrifice and how worthwhile the “good” that comes, that is up to the discretion of the individual. Why does Edelgard get the authority to decide what is for the greater good? That attitude she has in itself is the problem she has - thinking she is more capable/worthy/better than what she really is - a sociopathic, egotistical conquerer. She did not consult any of the other leaders or even confide in anyone else who might have been able to provide another perspective. I don’t think if Edelgard was a real person, people wouldn’t be singing the same tune and defending her actions to the same degree. It’s why I say I can understand people liking her for her role as a villain, but don’t act as if she was anything other than what she was. That’s why I appreciate what Edelgard represents and did for the story, but I do not agree with what she did nor do I think it was the necessary course of action that some people preach. A lot of her fans are so hypocritical. Dimitri suffered just as much, often at the hands of Edelgard’s inaction, but to them, his murdeous phase was considered just as evil, and they will defend to their graves that Edelgard is the more “right” individual between Dimitri/Rhea/church/etc. I do not agree with the sentiment that just because Rhea/church/TWSITD was “evil” that makes Edelgard right. To me, all of them represent the evil driving a good portion of the story. Only reason people have such fanaticism behind Edelgard is because she is cute, as sad as that is to say.
  10. People give Micaiah all this crap for her actions in her game yet somehow Edelgard gets praise for her courage for the same crap. 1. Both protagonists could’ve avoided a lot of this with just OPENING THEIR MOUTHS. Yet, somehow they both manage to drag their entire country to war. In my opinion, Micaiah had even MORE reason to shut up because if the senate heard (via spies) the blood pact was enacted. Whereas Edelgard just sat on her high horse and waited for the conquest to begin. Maybe Edelgard was being watched by TWSITD, but I find it highly unlikely that there was literally no one she could’ve talked to who could’ve provided help since there was less pressure on her than Micaiah to deal with the situation ASAP. 2. They both try to kill, pretty horrifically, a person with close blood ties. Micaiah tries to burn Sanaki alive, whereas Edelgard’s actions result in Dimitri’s descent in madness and need to kill him on every route (which was WAY worse than whatever Micaiah did - burning to death is a much quicker death than being psychologically tormented for so long. Seriously, she just had to open her mouth and explain and so much with Dimitri could have been avoided). At least, Micaiah doesn’t know Sanaki that well compared to Edelgard and Dimitri. Besides, Sanaki/Micaiah try to understand one another and eventually make amends, whereas Edelgard/Dimitri never do - Edelgard even spits at his sign of generosity. 3. Micaiah was UNWILLINGLY dragged to war. Edelgard STARTED the chaos and DIRECTLY fan the flames that caused the misfortunes of the entire continent. 4. You can argue that both parties were “doing it for their people” at the suffering of other nations, although I would argue that Edelgard’s is a lot less noble. It felt like at least a portion of her motivation was her desire to re-unite the Empire and punish those who made her suffer, whereas Micaiah literally just cared about Daein’s safety. Micaiah didn’t encourage the war, and she wasn’t out for revenge despite her hatred of the suffering inflicted by Begnion’s occupation or the racism she endured throughout her life. What made me the most annoyed was the fact that the entire population was pretty much ignorant to the situation. It felt like victimizing the ignorant by the strong (which is an unfortunate fact of medieval wars, but whatever, doesn’t make it anymore palatable to me from a modern perspective). And what’s worse is that Edelgard did NOT TRY to find an alternative. I find it hard to believe that war is ever the right answer, let alone the ONLY answer (like Edelgard was treating it as), even in modern society. And Edelgard was the aggressor, compared to Micaiah’s situation. I think Edelgard was a puppet who had a much too inflated ego over how much control she really had over the situation and how much she really understood. Feels like she was a sociopath that was blinded solely by her emotions and let that cloud her judgement. At least, Micaiah knew she was way in over her head but resigned to the fact that she no other viable options that she could think of.
  11. I just don’t understand WHY she never said anything - she had SO many chances to explain. She was so caught up in the fact that she was correct and that whatever she did was 100% justified because her intentions were good. I also think a good portion of her version of the a lot of the events surrounding the church was wrong too (they never applauded people who had Crests, they weren’t the ones advocating for experimentation, that was solely due to the selfishness of the noble houses and the populace), but she twisted them according to TWSITD to fit her own narrative and goals.
  12. BL player here. I hate her. I just don’t understand how anyone can defend her as being a “good person.” I have read part of her story spoilers. I can understand liking her because she is complex or a well-written villain, but no matter how you slice it, having a tragic backstory and good motivation did not justify the means to which she went about achieving her ambition. If she was a male character that was not the first promoted character of the game, I find it highly unlikely that she would have the degree of fan support she currently has. She basically: 1. Went nuclear with her plan. Did not even attempt at diplomacy - I feel like both had a high chance of agreeing with her stance, Dimitri out of support/love and Claude out of his own suspicion of the church. Instead, she tries to kill off both Dimitri/Claude in the beginning. I mean, if things didn’t work out, the option to conquer was always still there, but nope, she did not even try to let other people know what was going on. Because of this, it felt like her actions were based off of more than just destroying the church, it felt like she wanted to re-unite the Empire, but sells it as if she is doing the people a service by starting a war to “save them.” 2. Caught up in her own arrogance - it was either her way or the highway. Although she gave people a chance of surrendering, if you resisted her or tried to reason with her, you were as good as dead. A true sign of a tyrant/conquerer in my opinion. Even after Dimitri gives her a chance in the end for redemption, she is so far gone that she rather die and uses the dagger he gave her out of love to encourage him to kill her. Geez. 3. Acts like an innocent bystander to all the travesty committed by TWSITD. I think she is at least somewhat cupable to some of the things they’ve done. Even if she hates working with them, that doesn’t stop her from giving them the means to achieve their goals (letting them access into the school and intel, acts as a silent bystander while they are there turning people into rampaging monsters etc.), and she never attempts to get in the way of their plans or reigns them in, only gives them her displeasure AFTER they commit the act. I understand that she did not cause Dimitri’s family tragedy, but she didn’t even try to explain anything to Dimitri besides “I wasn’t involved” - I feel like his descent to murdeous madness is at least justified considering the misinformation, yet people act as if Dimitri is anywhere near her level of evil post-time skip just because he is a murderer. I think at least he is aware of who he is, unlike those who prattle on about “doing it for the general populace” he understands that war is messed up and even good intentions can make you a villain. 4. Her goals were selfish. She was willing to plunge the entire innocent and unaware continent into a war, which imo seemed much worse than the alternative of just letting the status quo continue (but that’s completely personal opinion). She acts as if she is doing it for the greater good but it felt more like out of her personal grudge of losing control of “her” Empire and her personal history with Crests (which is more fair of a reason, it was a messed up system). I don’t even mind that her goals were selfish, but the way she acted about them, like she was magnanimous enough to do it it for the people, was what pissed me off. I will play her route, probably last, but I find unlikely for my opinion to change much. I can agree she brought a lot more complexity to the game with her character, but to sell her as a “good person” or “better than Rhea” when she did a lot of questionably evil things is just too much for me. I think my main gripe with her was more her attitude, she thought she was a lot better of a person than what she really was - and people applaud her for it, as if her “ends justify the means” attitude would be commendable, if this was real life. Did she change the world for the better? Probably. But my argument was more that there were other ways she could have gone about it that wasn’t as terrible. What happened to Dimitri because of her actions was just horrendous and selfish because of all the love he gave her, yet people somehow bash Dimitri for having an “overreaction.” If this was the real world, besides people of her nation, I think most people would look unfavourably upon her actions.
×
×
  • Create New...