What are your thoughts on Edelgard? *SPOILERS*

[Tenzen12]

How everyone having crest would screw them up? I am not arguing Elegards war kickstarted didn't social reforms ANY big change does, but story imply most these would happen regardless. Maybe bit later and maybe it would take longer, but seems like better option anyway. 

Rhea certainly isn't portraited as "super nice" no matter which route you take, she tried basically destroy Byleth as individual and fabricated history, but being nice and being good-ish are two different thing. No person of authority can afford be super nice and we know from Advice box she often feel preasured by her position to take strong stance even she has doubts about it. Anyway no matter what you think about Rhea she would likely resign and had Byleth succeed her even if war didn't happen.

 

[B.Leu]

In insight, instead of saying 'the crests are a problem', I should have said 'how the crests are used is a big problem', yeah. I'm very dumb sometime. The heat doesn't help.
This talk reminds of MHA, even if MHA don't do jack about it.

51 minutes ago, Tenzen12 said:

How everyone having crest would screw them up? I am not arguing Elegards war kickstarted didn't social reforms ANY big change does, but story imply most these would happen regardless. Maybe bit later and maybe it would take longer, but seems like better option anyway. 

There's the whole dark beast problem for one, but the problem I allude to is more social. How to say it... do you know My Hero Academia ? Almost everyone have a Quirk, a super power that they obtain, some are more useful but others are useless, and only the best can hope to go to a hero school to possibly become a hero, with society, teachers and the like, leaching on people who have those 'useful quirks', which can leads to disasters. And then there those who are quirkless, who are looked down upon by society.

Replace Quirks by Crest, and try to apply it more... 'widely', do you get my point ? (and ignore te hero school thing or replace it by nobility... or I dunno.)

It could lead to the same problems with crests more widely. Obviously I could be very very wrong.... but it seems to me like it's replacing a big problem with another.

51 minutes ago, Tenzen12 said:

Rhea certainly isn't portraited as "super nice" no matter which route you take, she tried basically destroy Byleth as individual and fabricated history, but being nice and being good-ish are two different thing. No person of authority can afford be super nice and we know from Advice box she often feel preasured by her position to take strong stance even she has doubts about it. Anyway no matter what you think about Rhea she would likely resign and had Byleth succeed her even if war didn't happen.

Yeah, huh, I doubt it since Byleth was stillborn, and got his crest only under the possibility that he could specificaly house Sothis, which they end up not doing.
We seem to have a different view on Rhea. She seem downright psycothic at times.

Edited August 6, 2019 by B.Leu

[Armagon]

1 hour ago, Flere210 said:

The whole crest thing is pure Luddism. Just because they were not used well in the past does not mean that they can't be used well in the future.

The crest have power, power that can be used to heal and protect the people instead of opressing them. The church, the nobles and the slytherines were the problem, not the tool they used. The crests are neutral and by destroing them she is removing a tool that can be used to do great things. I definitelt don't see how a crestless, weakened by 5 year of war empire can stand up to the nation that surrond fodlan and already invaded it several times.

She's not trying to literally destroy Crests, she's simply trying to devalue them completely. She's tired of a world where Crests dictate one's worth. After recovering the Lance of Ruin from Sylvain's brother (name escapes me at the moment), she mentions how he had a good intellect and could've been a good person in shaping Fodlan's future but he never got to be that because his family disowned him out of sheer fact that he didn't have a Crest.

We've seen other examples of Crest society being harmful. There's that one merchant who wanted to marry Ingrid for her Crest. Hanneman's sister didn't have a Crest, despite others in her family having one, and she was married off in hopes of producing an heir that would have a Crest. None of her children ever manifested one and her husband eventually just left her to die. 

Whether or not you agree with Edelgard's actions, it can't be denied that Crest society is more harmful than good.

 

[SimplyUnknown]

Honestly, I think she's this:

Edelgard is a tragic figure because you can see just how her past has changed her and how it has affected her outlook. The entire uprising could have gone very differently if she had focused on making allies within the school rather than outside it, but only Hubert really knew what was going on and the other members of her house are stunned by her actions. She's determined to do what she believes is right, even if history will condemn her, which actually is mirrored in Dimitri's actions. I'm on the Blue Lion's path and maybe that is affecting things, but even on this path you get the feeling that Edelgard's fate isn't entirely of her own making. She's a fascinating character and an interesting villain, and I'm curious to how she'll be on a Black Eagles playthrough.

[Tenzen12]

1 hour ago, B.Leu said:

In insight, instead of saying 'the crests are a problem', I should have said 'how the crests are used is a big problem', yeah. I'm very dumb sometime. The heat doesn't help.
This talk reminds of MHA, even if MHA don't do jack about it.

There's the whole dark beast problem for one, but the problem I allude to is more social. How to say it... do you know My Hero Academia ? Almost everyone have a Quirk, a super power that they obtain, some are more useful but others are useless, and only the best can hope to go to a hero school to possibly become a hero, with society, teachers and the like, leaching on people who have those 'useful quirks', which can leads to disasters. And then there those who are quirkless, who are looked down upon by society.

Replace Quirks by Crest, and try to apply it more... 'widely', do you get my point ? (and ignore te hero school thing or replace it by nobility... or I dunno.)

It could lead to the same problems with crests more widely. Obviously I could be very very wrong.... but it seems to me like it's replacing a big problem with another.

Yeah, huh, I doubt it since Byleth was stillborn, and got his crest only under the possibility that he could specificaly house Sothis, which they end up not doing.
We seem to have a different view on Rhea. She seem downright psycothic at times.

Again that's same with talented or rich people (or both), but given Hanneman massproduce crests to be used as utility I doubt it would get into MHA territory (though you making it sound like MHA world would be better without quirks altogether by making such comparisson, which is obviously not true. And if you don't like that route Ingrid and Sylvain managed to deal with prejudices and stuff completely peacufully on their own.

And no Byleth got crest because his dying mother pleaded Rhea to save him, sure there possibility he will be able house Sothis, but that was never reason. 

[Timlugia]

Byleth was mostly an "accident",

Rhea never planned to created Byleth, she wanted exact clone of Sothis.But all of them turned out to be mortal and lived out their lives without knowing the origin.

Somehow one of the clones fell in the love with Jeralt, combining the blood of three of them it created Byleth.

[Fabulously Olivier]

Everything wrong with religion, both in modern and historical times is embodied proudly by the Church of Seiros, often to the extreme. They have to be destroyed.

 

Religious wars and violent schisms.

Devaluing outsiders.

Harsh punishments for non-believers and apostates.

Religious indoctrination masquerading as private school education.

Private religious armies and police forces. In this case, the dominant power of the world to boot.

Child soldiers manipulated into participating in religious wars.

Justifying atrocities (like the intentional burning of the Kingdom's capital city by the church literally right after their king Dimitri had just died protecting the Church) as necessary for a holy cause (defeating Edelgard).

 

 

Fodlan is a theocratic nightmare. Edelgard is right, and Rhea is a monster. TWSITD could be removed from the game entirely with no negative effect on the plot because we already have a plot-defining villain in Rhea.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Etheus

[Tenzen12]

Yeah, no.

-Religious wars  and schisms : Church didn't start any war, at least not in recent century or so

- Harsh punishment for non-believers and apostates: Except it doesn't. Church has no problem working with atheist or outsiders. As long as they don't rise armies and kill people

-Religious indoctrination masquerading as private school education: It's church school, it's perfectly open about it's doctrine, no mascarade here.

-Private religious armies and police forces. In this case, the dominant power of the world to boot: Yeah nothing wrong here. Keeping order is pretty important.

-Child soldiers manipulated into participating in religious wars: It's freaking officer academy, students are either here of their free will or send by parents. Noone is manipulated into anything

-Justifying atrocities: Yeah Rhea went nuts and commited attrocities, that's has nothing with church policies under normal circumistances.

Remove TWSITD and Eldegard is happy, Dimitri is happy, Lysithea is happy and there would be no rebelion and non of  atrocities we know about would happen during time game covers.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Tenzen12

[B.Leu]

1 hour ago, Tenzen12 said:

Again that's same with talented or rich people (or both), but given Hanneman massproduce crests to be used as utility I doubt it would get into MHA territory (though you making it sound like MHA world would be better without quirks altogether by making such comparisson, which is obviously not true. And if you don't like that route Ingrid and Sylvain managed to deal with prejudices and stuff completely peacufully on their own.

And no Byleth got crest because his dying mother pleaded Rhea to save him, sure there possibility he will be able house Sothis, but that was never reason. 

Yes, it would cause some great enhancement, doesn't change the fact that it'll cause another problem on top of talented and rich people, and might enchance those. Again, my comparison with MHA. (About MHA, I'm just saying, their quirk-oriented society is crap, you cannot convince me it's not true, the fact it's japanese doesn't help, but I won't talk about that point.)
... I admit, I forgot about Ingrid/Sylvain ending though.

As for Rhea, why the hell would she give this particuliar crest if it wasn't in the hope for Sothis possessing Byleth then ? She outright call them 'another failure' after taking BE path. Just like their mother. It's pretty clear what was the fate Rhea wanted for Byleth: a lack of it and Sothis taking over. Except Sothis did not want that.

44 minutes ago, Tenzen12 said:

Yeah, no.

-Religious wars  and schisms : Church didn't start any war, at least not in recent century or so

- Harsh punishment for non-believers and apostates: Except it doesn't. Church has no problem working with atheist or outsiders. As long as they don't rise armies and kill people

-Religious indoctrination masquerading as private school education: It's church school, it's perfectly open about it's doctrine, no mascarade here.

-Private religious armies and police forces. In this case, the dominant power of the world to boot: Yeah nothing wrong here. Keeping order is pretty important.

-Child soldiers manipulated into participating in religious wars: It's freaking officer academy, students are either here of their free will or send by parents. Noone is manipulated into anything

-Justifying atrocities: Yeah Rhea went nuts and commited attrocities, that's has nothing with church policies under normal circumistances.

Remove TWSITD and Eldegard is happy, Dimitri is happy, Lysithea is happy and there would be no rebelion and non of  atrocities we know about would happen during time game covers.

Eeeeh... agree with some disagree with other, dunno about some.

Religious war, technicaly no, it's some battle and cowering up messes. Schisms, definitely.
I wouldn't call that harsh punisment, just... disapprovement.
Indocrination, they're already 'indocrined', it's the local religion after all, and they're not forceful about it.
Private religious army... well, it is the inquisition, so of course they would have them.
Child soldiers... huh ? It's just an academy for the 'elite' and that's all that done.
Atrocities is a big word, but they do bad thing, she doesn't really justify them though, personaly, I would add 'creating people so they could house Sothis' soul' first. Burning the capital was full crazy Seiros in her, poor, defense.

Edited August 6, 2019 by B.Leu

[Tenzen12]

I don't see why she wouldn't, all her creations that failed seems to be allowed live as they pleased, if she had problem with time she would just rip them instantly after it became clear Sothis can't manifest and start anew. 

And it's not like it's first case Rhea saved someones live without profit on mind. She might be willing sacrifice Byleth without as much as winking, but she is pretty consistent with her better side otherwise. 

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Tenzen12

[Troykv]

11 minutes ago, Tenzen12 said:

I don't see why she wouldn't, all her creations that failed lived their lives happily, if she had problem with time she would just rip them instantly after it became clear Sothis can't manifest and start again. 

I don't see difference here. 

Probably isn't like it would be needed anyway; the failed experiments seem to have low life expectancies anyway. For someone as old as Rhea that is nothing.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Troykv

[Timlugia]

Sorry, but where in the game says church kills non believers? Most knights including Catherine, Jeralt, Shamir and Cyril are openly about being non believers.

 

Both times in the game church sent army were after open hostility being declared by the opposing side rather than just difference in doctrine.(and both time were plotted by TWSITD) Seteth even said they were in disagreement with Western Church for years until they attacked the monastery in the game.

 

Student age wise, in European tradition it’s not uncommon to enroll noble into military academy as early teen. Especially in the ancient times I happen to read about Robert Scott, the famed Antarctic explorer today. He enrolled into naval academy at age of 13, graduates as midshipmen on HMS Britannia at 15. In fact many people were married at this age those days. Saying Church is making “child soldier” is absolutely using contemporary ethics to examine the setting in Medieval/ early modern era.

 

edit: a little more research suggest that minimum enlistment age is mostly American concept. US set minimum age at 18 (16 with consent) as early as 1802. Later even raised to 21 post Civil War. Most European countries had much lower age limits until during or post First World War. Even today, UK still allow 16 to to enlist military, but won’t be deploy into combat until they were 18.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Timlugia

[Eryon]

4 hours ago, Etheus said:

Everything wrong with religion, both in modern and historical times is embodied proudly by the Church of Seiros, often to the extreme. They have to be destroyed.

 

Religious wars and violent schisms.

Devaluing outsiders.

Harsh punishments for non-believers and apostates.

Religious indoctrination masquerading as private school education.

Private religious armies and police forces. In this case, the dominant power of the world to boot.

Child soldiers manipulated into participating in religious wars.

Justifying atrocities (like the intentional burning of the Kingdom's capital city by the church literally right after their king Dimitri had just died protecting the Church) as necessary for a holy cause (defeating Edelgard).

 

 

Fodlan is a theocratic nightmare. Edelgard is right, and Rhea is a monster. TWSITD could be removed from the game entirely with no negative effect on the plot because we already have a plot-defining villain in Rhea.

Considering there's no evidence that man behaves kinder absent of an authority like the Church in the real world let alone FE (as demonstrated by endings where Edelgard fails), your post falls apart. I don't remember Stalin, Hitler, Thomas Jefferson, etc. being legit Catholics or proper Sunnis. Let alone when looking at FE with actions of men like the imperial nobility.

Actually, considering the behavior of TWSITD's homeland I imagine Seiros saw the writing on the wall when it came to how filthy man is when he has nothing to fear and acted suitably.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Eryon

[ZeManaphy]

Finished Blue Lions, I've seen most of the story, so I'm ready to discuss my thoughts. 

 

I really don't like her. Well, I admit she's a much more well- written character than Celica, I simply cannot agree with her methods. I do agree on her view of the crests, but there are simply better ways to oppose the church  just full-fledged war. 

Like how about instead of hiding the apparent traumatic childhood about crests, why doesn't she reveal that to the general public and rally support against the church in order to do a peaceful protest? Lot of the students such as Lysithea, Sylvain, and Ingrid dislike and have suffered  from crests as well, so I'm sure she would have had support. 

On a related note, calling the church evil is an overstatement. Only Rhea is the suspicous one, older faculty like Seteth and Manuela are clueless over the facts like Holy Tomb existing. Seteth even questions Rhea upon reading Jeralt's Diary; and with his supports with Ingrid, mentions that he doesn't like the crest system. If Edelgard wanted to do start a war, she should have openly called out Rhea, not the church. 

I also agree with @Landmaster that she is far too blindsided by her ideals for her own good. Even if it was for the sake of a crest-less future, siding with a cult, turning students into monsters, and killing Jeralt is not a good excuse. I'm also do not see how eliminating the church is going to remove the influence of crests. 

Spoiler

The final straw for me to see how blindsided she was on her ideals was at the ends of BL where she literally turns herself into a monster for her ideals. When she is finally defeated and has lost literally everything, Dimitri offers mercy only to Edelgard to try stab him. How low could she go? Not to mention she should join Takumi in the club of " Turning into monsters and trying to kill family." 

That being said, my opinion might change slightly when I play BE. Its going  to be my last route though.

[MessengerIris]

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. 

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by MessengerIris

[Strullemia]

 

It should be noted that her uncle put her in the TWSITD after she and Dimitri met as kids and that till her ending she doesn’t have enough power to take any meassires against them. Had she actually done anything significant against them they would have probably murdered her. In a way she is a hostage to them for a large part of the game.

[MessengerIris]

3 minutes ago, Hekselka said:

 

It should be noted that her uncle put her in the TWSITD after she and Dimitri met as kids and that till her ending she doesn’t have enough power to take any meassires against them. Had she actually done anything significant against them they would have probably murdered her. In a way she is a hostage to them for a large part of the game.

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. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by MessengerIris

[Strullemia]

12 minutes ago, MessengerIris said:

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. 

Just to be clear my post wasn’t really directed at you. It was more something general I wanted to bring up because I feel like some people think that she has as much control over TWSITD as Thales.

I’ll get back to your post with multiple points when I can get on a pc or when I have a break. 

[Tenzen12]

I am honestly not against narrative she was just their puppet from very start. 

[Cute Chao]

I feel like I agree with MessengerIris. I like how they've done her - she's not a straightforward characters, but after reading all the spoilers about her... I just can't see myself ever liking or agreeing with her. I don't even want to play her route... although that is also Dimitri bias, since he's my favourite and I hate what happens to him. 

So all in all, I think she's a great character, but I don't like her at all.

[Flere210]

7 hours ago, Etheus said:

Everything wrong with religion, both in modern and historical times is embodied proudly by the Church of Seiros, often to the extreme. They have to be destroyed.

 

Religious wars and violent schisms.

Devaluing outsiders.

Harsh punishments for non-believers and apostates.

Religious indoctrination masquerading as private school education.

Private religious armies and police forces. In this case, the dominant power of the world to boot.

Child soldiers manipulated into participating in religious wars.

Justifying atrocities (like the intentional burning of the Kingdom's capital city by the church literally right after their king Dimitri had just died protecting the Church) as necessary for a holy cause (defeating Edelgard).

 

 

Fodlan is a theocratic nightmare. Edelgard is right, and Rhea is a monster. TWSITD could be removed from the game entirely with no negative effect on the plot because we already have a plot-defining villain in Rhea.

1)Thocratic wars that only begun because TWSITD manipulated the western branch.

2)Rhea personal attendent is Almyran and the accademy makes a point about accepting everyone. The secular authorities are more racist than the churc in Fodlan. Hell, we even see some people outright calling the church out for having foreigners.

3) The church employ nonbeliever and afaik only punish people when they clearly oppose it  wich is what everyone usually do to their enemies in middle age. Keep in mind that everyone is eviler in certain routes(it seems you are playing BE Edelgard route). Except for Claude he is always good.

4) You are the teacher, do they ever force you to teach your students about how awesome Seiros is? I suppose students have to partecipate in the rites, but this is hardly enought. The library censoring books definitely lead toward indoctrination, but is more preventing students from opposing the church rather than turning students into fanatics. 

5) not sure how private religious armies are more dangerous than any other army in the hand of a tyrant. 

6) They are students in a accademy of officers, they need to learn on the field. The school does not require a certain age, several students are 18+, the parents are to blame if they don't wait for their children to reach adulthood before sending them to a school that like that. Also historically the age of adulthood ws much lower than 18 

7) Edelgard commit atrocities too in different routes. 

What i see is mostly a church interested in maintaining power and authority that is willing to kill in order to do that, but is far from a totalitarian nightmare. Begnion, with it's open slavery, free employ of the blood pact and corrupt senate, is a theocratyc nightmare, not the church of Seiros. 

[MessengerIris]

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. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by MessengerIris

[dragonlordsd]

@MessengerIris Idk, I think there are plenty of people who side with Micaiah. I'm not personally one of them, but she is a very popular character from what I understand.

That said, Edelgard definitely has a more tragic backstory. In her own way, Micaiah was pretty well off, so even though I think you've got good points, people are more likely to sympathize with Edelgard because her personal struggles were much greater.

[MessengerIris]

22 minutes ago, dragonlordsd said:

@MessengerIris Idk, I think there are plenty of people who side with Micaiah. I'm not personally one of them, but she is a very popular character from what I understand.

That said, Edelgard definitely has a more tragic backstory. In her own way, Micaiah was pretty well off, so even though I think you've got good points, people are more likely to sympathize with Edelgard because her personal struggles were much greater.

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. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by MessengerIris

[SRPG Tryhard]

Apparently being slaves to another race is ok and rebellion is bad, so Edelgard that sought to liberate humanity is "evil".