What are your thoughts on Edelgard? *SPOILERS*

[MaskedMaskoftheMasks]

Another thing about Crimson Flower route is that after the campaign is over, Edelgard doesn't have Rhea to transform into dragon and take hit for Byleth when Thales tries to self destruct Shambhala 😛

Basically, when the endings says that war against them is long and arduous, you better believe it because they have no way of defending themselves for the missile attack and Thales is still alive to launch them(assuming he is only one who can do so. At least thats why I assume they didn't try to nuke Blue Lions). Like unless Thales is stupid enough to get immediately killed by what they think to be rebellious puppet ruler, the war against them is going to be long and bloody.

[Tenzen12]

Yeah TWSitD, have still plenty power and time double amount of evil they committed. 

[Shoblongoo]

She's Daenyres Targaryen in Fire Emblem.
 
And I've been saying for a while now that Fire Emblem's writing staff should be following George R.R. Martin's lead on how it develops its characters, relationships, and settings.

So I'm 100% okay with that  

 

[Icelerate]

I guess the team of Three Houses visited FE subreddit. 

[BZL8]

Edelgard is the result of combining Dany, Arvis, Walhart, and Lelouch into one character. And I love it.

Overall, regardless of how you view Edelgard, she is one of, if not, the most intriguing Fire Emblem character we've got in a very long time, and feels more like a character that could have easily been crafted up by Kaga. The fact that her morals aren't as clear cut in my opinion only makes the character more intriguing to discuss. 

[Karimlan]

6 minutes ago, BZL8 said:

The fact that her morals aren't as clear cut in my opinion only makes the character more intriguing to discuss. 

 

TFW one poster perfectly encapsulated why this thread now has 14 pages (and counting).

Even my girlfriend, who casually gives me the Procon every time a major story battle occurs, draws parallels between Edie and Dany (less from the series than the book).

[Loki Laufeyson]

When i saw Edelgard had her own nickname reserved for loved ones, i knew for absolute certain she was based heavily on Daenerys. I thought it was just interesting coincidence before playing her route but nah. This is deliberate. 

Edited August 13, 2019 by Loki Laufeyson

[matchalatte]

On 8/12/2019 at 5:15 PM, Nihilem said:

Then how is there any difference when Edelgard, as the emperor, utilizes assassination against minions of the TWSITD, a enemy who tried to kill her and who has infiltrated her institutions to when Rhea, as the the archbishop, utilizes assassination (in form of death sentence) against minions of the TWSITD (western church), a enemy who tried to kill her and who has infiltrated her institutions (the church).

Of course there is a tight limit on how political/militaristic assassination can be justified (or at all). But you have not distinguished the the difference between publicly executing rebels/heretics without due process and militaristic assassination from a revolutionary group. My position is that the former is much harder to defend than the latter.

Whether the establishment adopts the rule of law or rules by law, the former undermines the authority/legitimacy of the establishment itself, because anything is permitted as long as you align with Rhea's whim, which renders any moral standard and respect for law wholly nihilistic. Assassinations are generally covert, which means it still somewhat respects the law (illegal but still recognizes that being responsible for such action leads to punishment by law).

As the militarized opposition or revolutionists/rebels, the default and only position is to fight against the law enacted by the establishment (unless you have the civil/human rights to peacefully protest or criticizes the regime or form political party in a modern society). Thus for revolutionists the justification comes from the argument that such law/rule is unjust or is not worth abiding or is based on shaky foundations (essentially, the implicit social contract is violated). Thus assassinations can be justified as a small price to pay for rewriting the social contract and that they don't have to follow the unjust rules they are revolting against.

You have also confused the nature of the west church with the nature of TWSITD. The west church is a subject of the Church of Seiros, so Rhea cannot wage war against its own subject unless it declares independence. Thus anything related to the west church is an internal affair. On the other hand, TWSITD appears to have sovereignty (unrecognized) over its own people/members and therefore can act independently from the Church. So if for example Rhea decides to assassinate Thales in order to bring down TWSITD, it can be justified in a militaristic sense.

Edited August 14, 2019 by matchalatte

[Tenzen12]

Modern justice system is obviously better, but it is not something that was always around, neither was due process. Justice had to be done regardless. Ultimately it is on Rhea as authority make  decision and only thing you could argue is there wasn't proper investigation, but it's pretty obvious there were very excessive one.

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Tenzen12

[Nihilem]

7 hours ago, matchalatte said:

 But you have not distinguished the the difference between publicly executing rebels/heretics without due process and militaristic assassination from a revolutionary group.

That was not the thing I was comparing. My latest example is from AFTER the war. Edelgard no longer leads rebellious group but is now the absolute authority in form of the emperor.

Now my claims:

 

1.) Edelgard is now in a position of authority over her subordinates the imperial citizens, completly similiar how Rhea was in a position of authority over her subordinates (the church members)

2.) TWSITD managed to manipuates a few of these subordinates to try and kill their authority, here I claim it is from no interest if said subordinates are actually members of TWSITD or just pawns that do their bitting

3.) The Authority decides to punish their subordinates by death sentences.

 

By following these claims the Actions of Rhea and Edelgard after her rise to power (as indicated by the ending and huberts "daggers in the night") are completly similiar.

[Timlugia]

Just pointing out, those few Western Church guys were sentenced to death not because they held different view, but because they were accused participating plot to kill Rhea.

Consider Catherine and Shamir's bad endings were "executed as church spies during 5 years by the Empire", I really don't think Rhea's judgement were any harsher than other nations when comes to spy or assassin

[matchalatte]

49 minutes ago, Timlugia said:

Just pointing out, those few Western Church guys were sentenced to death not because they held different view, but because they were accused participating plot to kill Rhea.

Consider Catherine and Shamir's bad endings were "executed as church spies during 5 years by the Empire", I really don't think Rhea's judgement were any harsher than other nations when comes to spy or assassin

Well one detail during the Western Church side quest is the the item you get from the student "Dissident Intel". Of course they held different view, that's why they are involved with the plot in the first place.

My argument has always been that Rhea seem to execute people without any trial or due process. And apparently she can just order people to kill legal heir of the Empire such as Edelgard on the spot, without arresting/investigation/legal basis or anything at all. Yes it could be lazy writing (we don't know) but if you are still unable to see what's wrong with it, then I urge you to learn a bit about how the government works (I hate to be patronizing, maybe I am the crazy one here).

1 hour ago, Nihilem said:

The Authority decides to punish their subordinates by death sentences.

Death sentence implies that it is punishment warranted by law, not punishment by whim. I am not going to explain the difference a third time.

And I have already commented on hypothetical situations: El can be a good or bad ruler after her victory. Outside the ending narration, anything goes. You can decide for yourself.

[Tenzen12]

If law gives Rhea right execute people, then her executing people is in line with law and we certainly  saw that there weren't any doubts of their guilt. It's pretty ridiculous assume Edie or Di wouldn't do same. Claude might not because he needs any bargaining chip he can get, but that's about it.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Tenzen12

[matchalatte]

2 minutes ago, Tenzen12 said:

If law gives Rhea right execute people, then her executing people is in line with law and we certainly  saw that there weren't any doubts of their guilt.

Good point. But I don't think any sensible ruler can just kill people on a whim (unless he/she is a dictator in the worst sense). Even 4000 years ago we see Babylon having rule of law (Code of Hammurabi). It doesn't mean that she has to follow it. But at least she should respect it to set an example for her people? 

I am not a Rhea hater. Rhea is a fine manakete 😉. I am just point out that people seem to overlook.

[Tenzen12]

I mean there is no doubt they were guitly, I wouldn't exactly call it "on whim" even if it something she decided on spot. Honestly I think her swiftly dealing with rebels is more  requirment of her status as Arci-bishop then her personality or wants anyway. At several points she admit her being decessive and strict is what required of her not what she likes.

So no I don't think it's matter of whims.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Tenzen12

[timon]

It should be considered that not only the Western Church was influenced by TWSITD, but they had good reasons of starting a rebellion against oppression (let's not forget Lonato's story).

And even if you consider them completely evil, executing them on the spot instead of advancing an investigation to understand their motives is just stupid, unless you're crazy for control and power (looking at you, Rhea).

idk, the 2 situations are not really alike to me, one is removing a clearly threatening and evil organization from the world, the other is executing rebels on the spot without trying to understand anything (actually making it look more like she's trying to shut their mouth).

[Tenzen12]

You don't have to be completely evil warrant death sentence and armed rebelion is certainly on top of list that earn you that. Lonato also wasn't really "oppressed", it's unfortunate what happened to his son, but there is no evidence it was mistake or that investigation was lacking. Also in both cases motives were clear, even if TWSitD pushing from behind scene was obvious.

If every american dad whose son got death row took weapon and charged on white house, I don't think anyone would approve that.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Tenzen12

[Tharne]

8 minutes ago, timon said:

It should be considered that not only the Western Church was influenced by TWSITD, but they had good reasons of starting a rebellion against oppression (let's not forget Lonato's story).

Lonato's story is that his son got killed for the "Tragedy of Duscur" while the real reason was an assassination attempt on Rhea by the Western Church. So the Western Church rebelling by trying to kill Rhea because they already tried to kill Rhea in the past isn't what I would called oppression. More like TWSITD is full on controlling the Western Church and are the sole responsible.

[matchalatte]

26 minutes ago, Tenzen12 said:

I mean there is no doubt they were guitly, I wouldn't exactly call it "on whim" even if it something she decided on spot. Honestly I think her swiftly dealing with rebels is more  requirment of her status as Arci-bishop then her personality or wants anyway. At several points she admit her being decessive and strict is what required of her not what she likes.

So no I don't think it's matter of whims.

It's just an expression. The meaning I am trying to convey here is you don't see the bases for her decisions. They seem to be driven by emotions or intuitions. Killing someone as a moral authority or as a ruler is not minor matter. I could question what exactly are those poor souls' crime? Did she gathered all the evidences and convince other church members that this is just? Is the punishment by death absolutely necessary?

Well it could be lousy writing (people are saying that this is an anime game after all, as if that means bad writing is expected), but if you see how the Western Church member reacted with horror and surprise, or how Seteth thought that this is ill-advised, then clearly the writer are making you questioning. Don't forget, those church member are their fellow men!

Her action is even worse when she deals with El's betrayal. We can certainly understand her rage but ordering Byleth to kill her on the spot? Not to mention it is completely unnecessary (she can put her in jail), it seems that she doesn't even consider the repercussions within Fodlan or entertain the possibility that a full investigation could yield intels about empire/TWSITD, or possibly a bigger plot against her.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by matchalatte

[Tharne]

1 minute ago, matchalatte said:

(she can put her in jail)

Seeing as how Edelgard and Hubert always "retreat" by teleportation magic (this is one of my biggest problem with the game tbh so much retreating while they are right the fuck in front of me...) I think that wouldn't work.

[matchalatte]

1 minute ago, Tharne said:

Seeing as how Edelgard and Hubert always "retreat" by teleportation magic (this is one of my biggest problem with the game tbh so much retreating while they are right the fuck in front of me...) I think that wouldn't work.

As if killing her on the spot would work by that logic.

[Tenzen12]

Well I admit Edie case in particular could be emotional there was enough reason for that, but personally If I was in Rhea shoes I would have her killed  anyway. She has enough allies that could take action. You know cutting head of snake and stuff.

And of course there is good enough chance, Rhea would decide same even if she was calm.

Also I don't think @Tharne is wrong, killing her on spot would very likely prevented her escape XD.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Tenzen12

[Tharne]

1 minute ago, matchalatte said:

As if killing her on the spot would work by that logic.

Since her coronation must be in presence of the Archbishop and that it wasn't the case, you could make a case that all she's doing is already outside of the law and usurping an Empire is probably punishable by the death penalty. 

[Tenzen12]

Is that true though? I might missed that piece of lore.

[matchalatte]

1 minute ago, Tenzen12 said:

Well I admit Edie case in particular could be emotional there was enough reason for that, but personally I would have her executed anyway. She has enough allies that could take action. You know cutting head of snake.

And of course there is good enough chance Rhea would decide same even if she was calm.

I am willing to following your line of reasoning and say, yes, killing her immediately would be correct thing to do (forget the due process it's nonsense in fantasy)

However, this compares unfavorably with how El treats Rhea in GD route, in which she treats Rhea as more of a hostage.