Jump to content

What are your thoughts on Edelgard? *SPOILERS*


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Tenzen12 said:

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

Yes, when you go with her, you learn that and she says "my professor is a proxy.". I was like...wtf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 928
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

18 minutes ago, Tharne said:

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. 

I have already explained why it is bad for Rhea (the establishment) to disregard the rule of law and why it is not so bad (and natural) for Edelgard (the revolutionist) to not follow the law that she is revolting against.

And you still don't seem to understand my point, which is the importance of some kind of due process. As the ruler during peaceful time, you should only execute people after a proper trial (fair or not). A summary execution is terrible and is often associated with terriorist/guerrilla groups. Even Facist states respect the rule of (bad) law (in the worst case, El is a facist, which is suggested by the aesthetics).

Edited by matchalatte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, matchalatte said:

you should only execute people after a proper trial (fair or not). 

quite pointless to apply modern logic to a fantasy middle age where the church is on top of every form of power and pretty much the foundation of the whole continent

you know, crusades and executions just because "they were against the church"

does it ring any bell?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yexin said:

quite pointless to apply modern logic to a fantasy middle age where the church is on top of every form of power and pretty much the foundation of the whole continent

you know, crusades and executions just because "they were against the church"

does it ring any bell?

Sure.

If anything goes in a fantasy setting, there would be no point discussing these details further. I have no problem with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, matchalatte said:

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.

I am actually didn't play GD yet (I will start tomorow), so I might be bit out off line here, but I don't see it to be for justice or goodness of Edie hearth. I mean she have habbit killing not just her oppositon, but even preventivelly trying to kill those who might became oppositon in future (Dimitri/Claude). I would assume she hoped gain something from doing so.

Edited by Tenzen12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tenzen12 said:

I am actually didn't play GD yet (I will start tomorow), so I might be bit out off line here, but I don't see it to be for justice or goodness of Edie hearth. I mean she have habbit killing not just her oppositon, but even preventivelly trying to kill those who might became oppositon in future (Dimitri/Claude). I would assume she hoped something from doing so.

And you will be the judge. That's exactly why El's underhanded dealings were justified from a strategic perspective, precisely because she did them to achieve something.

If you are a moralist, then end does not justify the means. If you are a realist, then end does justify the means.

But El is not completely cold and efficient in routes other than BL.

Edited by matchalatte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, matchalatte said:

Sure.

If anything goes in a fantasy setting, there would be no point discussing these details further. I have no problem with that.

i mean, the topic is about edelgard, not whether rhea can do what she does from a legal point of view

since, well, the church IS the law in fódlan, and as long as you don't do anything that goes against it, you're fine

so yeah, last post about this from me

Edited by Yexin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, matchalatte said:

And you will be the judge. That's exactly why El's underhanded dealings were justified from a strategic perspective, precisely because she did them to achieve something.

If you are a moralist, then end does not justify the means. If you are a realist, then end does justify the means.

But El is not completely cold and efficient in routes other than BL.

Well I certainly agree she is not cold and efficient and I also think she did terrible job from strategic perspective even if she tried achieve something as her actions can't reasonably  lead to desired goals from most part

That said I don't see how is any that related our current conversation. Rhea might or may not act impulsively when ordered Eldegard death, but I don't think it put Edie into better light as pretty much whole her war is driven by emotions alone.

Edited by Tenzen12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, matchalatte said:

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.

Since you brought this up....

Do you guys think Rhea was tortured during her captivity? Either by Edelgard or by TWISTD?

It's hard to believe TWISTD would simply leave her alone consider they were so eager to get dragon blood to advance their "projects", and all their hatrey toward her.

It's also weird they would just lock her up without any agenda for her. Edelgard is also quite ruthless in all anti-imperal route without Byleth.

 

Her health was certainly weakened by the time she was rescued regardless.

Edited by Timlugia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Timlugia said:

Since you brought this up....

Do you guys think Rhea was tortured during her captivity? Either by Edelgard or by TWISTD?

It's hard to believe TWISTD would simply leave her alone consider they were so eager to get dragon blood to advance their "projects", and all their hatrey toward her.

It's also weird they would just lock her up without any agenda for her. Edelgard is also quite ruthless in all anti-imperal route without Byleth.

 

Her health was certainly weakened by the time she was rescued regardless.

There is no evidence for that as far as I am concerned, but what you said could be true.

You could also relate this to how El's endgame is also about destroying TWISTD in GD route, I can imagine several other more plausible explanations (more because torture serves no purpose and nothing indicates El enjoys torturing, judging from her past, she might be opposing to torturing)

1. As a bargaining chip if her war is at an disadvantage

2. As an anti missile defense

3. As a source of intel for fighting against TWISTD

4. Potentially forming some sort of coalition government if Fodlan is hard to control without the faith

These are all plausible speculations but my point is that holding Rhea as hostage serve many purposes even if you view El as purely Machiavellian, whereas Rhea's decision was entirely driven by emotions and serve very little purpose (not to mention that it is a wrong thing to do, which several people here seem to have trouble grasping).

Again, I have never said Edelgard is a better ruler than Rhea but simply refuting the idea that Rhea is good ruler (hence El is bad) without inspecting her decisions presented in the game. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again

1)Being composed and being rational are two different thing. Rhea might be angry but her choice is consistent with her path actions and what she sees as arci-bishop duty and it certainly warranted as everyone involved can testify. In other hand Edelgard might keep being compossed but pretty much all her action are driven by emotion allone without good reasoning behind it.

2)Rhea isn't really ruler in first place. She is leader of massive organisation, but she doesn't have land nor subjects, although she has certain level of authority and power enforce it. 

3)Comparing leading ability, I think Rhea once again win regardless as she actually were able keep peace for such long time, she has very loyal and competent followers and  even  who  aren't religious and church in general were able swiftly react to any vissible development. Edelgard followers are mostly opportunists that might turn against her when it's beneficial to them not to mention she would probably never be able consolidate her power in Empire if it wasn't handed to her by TWSitD.

In all seriousness, Edie mostly  follow rails prepared for her beforehand and I am not even sure how much she is aware of that. There isn't lot of actual leadership involved. You can argue Rhea being uncompromising against direct opposition is wrong (just because it worked for so centuries, doesn't necessary means it's right method, I think I could get convinced about that), but I think when it come to comparing level of leadership, Edie should compete with post-timeskip Dimitri instead.

Edited by Tenzen12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tenzen12 I thank you for your serious and well meaning response. I personally think some of your claims lack warrants or supporting arguments.

Quote

Edelgard might keep being compossed but pretty much all her action are driven by emotion allone without good reasoning behind it

I have already written perhaps way too much about the reasoning and motives behind Edelgard's choices and showed substantial amount of evidences in the game to tie up the reading. To say that all her action are driven by emotion is an unfair overstatement. Even a superficial reading of Edelgard would conclude that she is not only composed but calculating or even Machiavellian, in constrast with other major characters.

4 hours ago, Tenzen12 said:

Rhea might be angry but her choice is consistent with her path actions and what she sees as arci-bishop duty and it certainly warranted as everyone involved can testify.

I happen to know a thing or two about the subject of rationality. In theory of choice or game theory, rationality implies that decision maker always take the action/strategy in order to optimize his/her utility/objective, i.e, a rational decision maker always make the best choice for him/herself. You can be consistently wrong or consistently emotional or consistently confused and that does not make you rational (unless we go deeper into theory). Being emotional is definitely not a sign of rational decision making.

4 hours ago, Tenzen12 said:

Rhea isn't really ruler in first place. She is leader of massive organisation, but she doesn't have land nor subjects, although she has certain level of authority and power enforce it. 

If so, then Rhea has no right to order people to kill Edelgard, the legitimate ruler the empire which has its own sovereignty. I know this is a fantasy, but this is fantasy with some pretty meaty political themes and I still expect common sense (does anyone ever have the right to order people to kill a foreign leader?) to work just like every other player.

4 hours ago, Tenzen12 said:

I think Rhea once again win regardless as she actually were able keep peace for such long time, she has very loyal and competent followers and  even  who  aren't religious and church in general were able swiftly react to any vissible development.

You are contradicting yourself with the previous point: if Rhea is not the de facto ruler of Fodlan, then how can she be responsible for the peace of Fodlan?

Also North Korea has been peaceful since the ceasefire, and if you travel to Pyongyang everything looks great. But surely it doesn't mean Kim is a good ruler? While this comparison is extreme, I did illustrate why the Church of Seiros has many (bad) features of an authoritarian regime. You have to try a better argument.

Don't forget that her followers are the privileged class just like the party members of Pyongyang. I brought this up because in BL route Edelgard actually mentioned another aspect of her goal, which is to improve the economic/social condition of the common folks. Another contradicting fact is the amount of bandits, thieves, rebellions and dissents presented in the game all over the place. If anything, Rhea is actually facing a political crisis in Fodlan (she clearly failed to contain the threat of TWSITD during those hundreds of peaceful years)

4 hours ago, Tenzen12 said:

Edelgard followers are mostly opportunists that might turn against her when it's beneficial to them not to mention she would probably never be able consolidate her power in Empire if it wasn't handed to her by TWSitD.

But these claims are completely unfounded. In fact, if you paid attention to Edelgard's support conversation, she has intimate and sincere relations with almost everyone in the Black Eagle group. Dorothea is a confidant and both Ferdinand and Petra look up to her as a role model. In particular, Hubie has confessed more than one time he is willing to sacrifice everything for her. 

4 hours ago, Tenzen12 said:

Edie mostly  follow rails prepared for her beforehand and I am not even sure how much she is aware of that. There isn't lot of actual leadership involved.

You can't just throw an allegation like that. At least loosely show me events, texts, or conversations in the game that support this interpretation. There is no evidence at all suggesting Edelgard did not make choice independently or out of her own will in BE, GD, and BL routes.

OK I feel like we are going in circles and I am repeating a lot. If you think Rhea > Edelgard period, you are definitely entitled to that opinion and I am happy for you.

Edited by matchalatte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, matchalatte said:

That's exactly why El's underhanded dealings were justified from a strategic perspective, precisely because she did them to achieve something.

No, hiring bandits to kill Dimitri, Claude, and their companions (possibly even her own were back at the camp too) to try to prevent a war that she will start anyway does not justify said action.

 

15 hours ago, matchalatte said:

As the ruler during peaceful time, you should only execute people after a proper trial (fair or not).

You really shouldn't apply modern logic to fantasy games that are based on our world's medieval times. You should also note that Rhea and the church didn't execute Lonato when he started hating them (when they executed Christophe for being a part of the Tragedy of Duscur), then only did it when he threatened to kill him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am extremist myself, and I have no problem what Edelgard do to achieve her goal (I am sure I will do far worse/evil if I am at her situation), and of course I play BE first and already finish all routes, maybe something I remember about BE are mixed with other routes I played later, but I have a habit to Screenshots every moments and dialogues, so it is OK to correct me if I am really wrong(forgot or just missed?), but try to mislead me is useless because even I won't replay it until there is Lunatic difficulty, I can check my screenshots to fact check. However I am not English native, though I consider myself good at reading, but still not a native and never good at writing, and definitely not play the game in English, maybe some translation are different, the word I use might not accurate or correct (e.g. I thought Arundel called Nemesis "Rogue", but it seems in English it is "Thief")

But I cannot really stand with some Edelgard's Fans (Or maybe I should said Fanatic), I saw too many of them from both English and Chinese forum, and their behavior really disgust me. I can accept Edelgard lie about the fact that it is TWSITD launch the missile but to blame it to the Church (It is war after all), I cannot stand with those just because want to make their favorite character look like a "Perfect Hero", they started to spread either pure imagination (and sound like it is proved fact), or obviously lies to smear Rhea/The Church. There are 3 "points" I saw them said repeatedly (and dodge every other questioning where they get the information, and the only source I can remember is from Edelgard, which thought are obviously manipulated by TWSITD, Nemesis is Good? Sothis is Evil Goddess?)

1: The Church kill all non-believer: and their evidence is generally how Rhea treat those of Western Church that plan to assassinate her, which is just sign of her tyranny/arbitrary but nothing to do with something like Crusade/Inquisition. And just like every time, people can easily proved that is totally nothing close to the truth as there are many non-believer even in high position of the Church military.

2: The Church advocate crest system (some called this caste and I am sure they have no idea what is caste, nobility is far more closer to caste; and some even called there is slavery, I am not sure are we playing the same game) , they claimed it is in the Dogma of the Church:  Let not saying most people that related to the Church give no concerned about the crest and even nobility, the Dogma of the Church is there for public, and no single word about the advocate the crest and instead it condemn the pursue of bloodline and power (and I don't think they will public a different Dogma to common people while practicing something else secretly, it really don't make sense if they want to advocate crest by not letting the people know they have to)

 - And why I said nobility is close to caste, because IMO, caste is inherited just like the status of nobility, generally your father is noble then you will also a noble, the caste work in similar way, while Crest Power is more like a special talent maybe we can said Crest Power is just like Superman Power, you have greater chance to have it if your ancestor had it, but it is pure random. Nobles and even commoner consider this talent over all other, just like Ingatz case, it is nothing about Crest but his family will think the talents that help to become knight are above drawing talent, and generally speaking People thinks that the Crest Power talent are above all other talents. And I think even without Crest, people will just value some talents over some other talents, maybe just value the talents to hold a sword or use magic above all other just like Ingatz case. Unlike what other said, I would say this is more about Eugenics, and the real problem is nothing about the Crest but the nobility itself, but like real world, without nobility we will have capitalist and unless they create an Utopia, or really implement the Communism successfully.

3: The Church fractures the Empire/Fodlan to maintain it authority (Divided and Conquered) : I don't know where this come from except from what Edelgard have said? (And again, it is either a propaganda to achieve her goal or just mislead by TWSITD). First, The Church divided itself, and it really don't make sense if it want to maintain supreme authority over all other. Second, actually I even feel it is unrealistic that the descendents of Ten Elites did not rebel sooner but almost 700 years after they surrender to Empire. Why I am saying that is because as we all know, though not every generation, they have the Crest Power AND Relics (an enemy Superman will willingly to serve as vassal, and not to seek the chance to rebel whenever he can? It is more believable to claim the Greyjoy will never rebel except it is The Faith initial it. If the Empire view they are just rebel provinces, I think they are more justified to view that Empire an evil conqueror that killed their king Nemesis and force them to serve)

Last thing I want to said is, spreading pure imagination but sounds like an absolute truth or even lies won't strengthen your argument but make you a jerk, and even your other points are valid will become trash IMHO, at least I am getting more and more annoyed by these people.

Edited by tkmtso
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

No, hiring bandits to kill Dimitri, Claude, and their companions (possibly even her own were back at the camp too) to try to prevent a war that she will start anyway does not justify said action.

Of course it is justified in the sense that a larger scale war with higher (human) cost could be prevented. A decapitation-like strike has long been (and still is) a viable strategy in the art of war.

24 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

You really shouldn't apply modern logic to fantasy games that are based on our world's medieval times.

Rule of law is not a modern concept and it has existed since Babylon along with every major civilization. Players are also entitled to apply modern ethics and moral standards to fantasy characters despite that some of them rely on modern institutions (which is precisely why many players view El as a complete villain).

Edited by matchalatte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, matchalatte said:

Of course it is justified in the sense that a larger scale war with higher (human) cost could be prevented.

Could be, but she couldn't even confirm that. How many murders of innocents would it take to reach a point of confirmation? That is why some believe Edelgard became ridiculous once she tried to unit Fodlan again (whose fracture wasn't even the fault of the Church).

4 minutes ago, matchalatte said:

Rule of law is not a modern concept and it has existed since Babylon along with every major civilization.

And yet, in practically every Fire Emblem game, we kill bandits who threaten our or civilians' lives without any trial. Why do people expect one all of a sudden with Lonato, who outright stated that he "must destroy these evil-doers" (Rhea and the church), and he is willing to kill Dimitri as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, tkmtso said:

I am extremist myself, and I have no problem what Edelgard do to achieve her goal

I hope you do understand what an "extremist" means (since you mentioned that you are little rusty with English) before you proudly announcing it. I wouldn't consider Edelgard as an extremist even in the BL route (in which she comes pretty close). Her ideals are not so far off from the mainstream (Claude admitted that their end goal is similar) since it is depicted in the game that nobles hate the crest too.

21 minutes ago, tkmtso said:

But I cannot really stand with some Edelgard's Fans (Or maybe I should said Fanatic), I saw too many of them from both English and Chinese forum, and their behavior really disgust me.

I can't imagine what you said is helpful in any way for constructive discussions about this game. Your points are fair, but propensity to inflame the conversation is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

Could be, but she couldn't even confirm that. How many murders of innocents would it take to reach a point of confirmation? That is why some believe Edelgard became ridiculous once she tried to unit Fodlan again (whose fracture wasn't even the fault of the Church).

I agree to a degree, ultimately you are the judge of that. At the same time, you could apply this argument to almost every conqueror/nation-unifier throughout history, many of them are enshrined and lauded for their military deeds (to name a few, Alexander the great, Cyrus the great, Napoleon, the first Emperor of China, Tokugawa). I am merely pointing out perspectives that many players seem to completely miss.

58 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

And yet, in practically every Fire Emblem game, we kill bandits who threaten our or civilians' lives without any trial. Why do people expect one all of a sudden with Lonato, who outright stated that he "must destroy these evil-doers" (Rhea and the church), and he is willing to kill Dimitri as well?

Killing bandits in every FE game is framed as the outcome of militaristic combats (using militaristic term such as rout the enemy). For instance, it is plainly obvious an ally soldier can kill any Nazi German solider in combat without going to court. And of course FE like most other games, still glorifies wars and violence by dehumanizing bandits as killing targets. But killing no combatants requires a lot more to justify, especially when it is done in public. In addition, the western church members are the Church's own fellow-men and Rhea is not at war (or in immediate danger) with the western church, so there is no urgency for a summary execution without at least given them a chance to defend themselves.

Not to mention the profound implications on people's morals and respect for law and order when a ruler can just execute her subject without any legal basis. Such action is mostly found in the worst authoritarian regimes. The game is also intentionally casting doubt by explicitly showing Seteth questioning her rash decision and the fear shown in those church members (they are apparently not expecting such a swift and cruel punishment).

The fact TWSITD manipulated the western church makes such action looks even worse because 1. there is a larger plot going on so executing these heretics before a thorough investigation seem impulsive and shady 2. if indeed the church members are being manipulated then they become less responsible for their action (or not responsible at all if say hypothetically their family members are held hostage or they are mistakenly implicated). The fact is that even if they are later exonerated, they are dead.

Personally, I found that through these discussions many seem to have a double standard when judging these characters. If you want to effectively apply moral judgement on political characters, at least spend some time on what mankind have already known about the idea of justice (rights, laws, the ideal government etc).

Edited by matchalatte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, matchalatte said:

@Tenzen12 I thank you for your serious and well meaning response. I personally think some of your claims lack warrants or supporting arguments.

I have already written perhaps way too much about the reasoning and motives behind Edelgard's choices and showed substantial amount of evidences in the game to tie up the reading. To say that all her action are driven by emotion is an unfair overstatement. Even a superficial reading of Edelgard would conclude that she is not only composed but calculating or even Machiavellian, in constrast with other major characters.

I happen to know a thing or two about the subject of rationality. In theory of choice or game theory, rationality implies that decision maker always take the action/strategy in order to optimize his/her utility/objective, i.e, a rational decision maker always make the best choice for him/herself. You can be consistently wrong or consistently emotional or consistently confused and that does not make you rational (unless we go deeper into theory). Being emotional is definitely not a sign of rational decision making.

If so, then Rhea has no right to order people to kill Edelgard, the legitimate ruler the empire which has its own sovereignty. I know this is a fantasy, but this is fantasy with some pretty meaty political themes and I still expect common sense (does anyone ever have the right to order people to kill a foreign leader?) to work just like every other player.

You are contradicting yourself with the previous point: if Rhea is not the de facto ruler of Fodlan, then how can she be responsible for the peace of Fodlan?

Also North Korea has been peaceful since the ceasefire, and if you travel to Pyongyang everything looks great. But surely it doesn't mean Kim is a good ruler? While this comparison is extreme, I did illustrate why the Church of Seiros has many (bad) features of an authoritarian regime. You have to try a better argument.

Don't forget that her followers are the privileged class just like the party members of Pyongyang. I brought this up because in BL route Edelgard actually mentioned another aspect of her goal, which is to improve the economic/social condition of the common folks. Another contradicting fact is the amount of bandits, thieves, rebellions and dissents presented in the game all over the place. If anything, Rhea is actually facing a political crisis in Fodlan (she clearly failed to contain the threat of TWSITD during those hundreds of peaceful years)

But these claims are completely unfounded. In fact, if you paid attention to Edelgard's support conversation, she has intimate and sincere relations with almost everyone in the Black Eagle group. Dorothea is a confidant and both Ferdinand and Petra look up to her as a role model. In particular, Hubie has confessed more than one time he is willing to sacrifice everything for her. 

You can't just throw an allegation like that. At least loosely show me events, texts, or conversations in the game that support this interpretation. There is no evidence at all suggesting Edelgard did not make choice independently or out of her own will in BE, GD, and BL routes.

OK I feel like we are going in circles and I am repeating a lot. If you think Rhea > Edelgard period, you are definitely entitled to that opinion and I am happy for you.

- As I mentioned multpiple time before neither, removing crests, Church or Rhea is beneficial to her goal create better society, nor is her conquest especially as she might not have lifespam long enough both wage war and enforce reforms afrerwards. Whole war is her lashing out over her childhood trauma instead facing it head on. It's also very possible she is afraid of "Arundel" who rised her and that's why she rather look for something else direct her rage imho. She using calculaing logic for  goals she set base on emotions, that's why I can't consider her rational even she is composed calculating and Machiavellian. That's not mutually exlusive

- Again definition alone makes Rhea not ruler, she authority , power and duty enforce it but it doesn't change definition. Church of Seiros is not completely diffrent from medieval catholic church when it come to influence, but even if pope could refuse king legitimacy or order war of cross, or he wouldn't be ruler either. In same hypothetical scenario Pope could in theory use his authority same way as Rhea did. Given situation in medieval Europe it wouldn't be good idea, but that option would still be ithere. This also reason why she can keep peace without being actual Ruler as having influence is not equal of having land nor subjects. Nor it means having direct control over sovereign countries. Killing Edelgard is not policially good move as she technically on top of Empire, but nor is letting her allive. Unfortunatelly there is no good third option.

- It's true Rhea weren't able deal with TWSitD and that's indeed her greatest failure as pretty much this whole political crissis you mentioned is engineered by them, but again Church doesn't act as final authority. It use it's influence when then things get out hands, but leave handling internal affairs to people who are suppossed to handle it. It's not different then for example NATO stepping in Izrael-palestine conflict although given powerscalling it would be more like NATO stepping between hypothetical US-China conflict instead.

- You sort of got me there, I never really considered Black Eagles as part of Edie followers, more like friends who stick with her because Byleth (who is one that should get leadership points here), but yes if Black Eagles decide side with her (which is not something she herself expected) then yes she got some loyal subordinates. 

Ultimatelly I believe Eldegard is not good leader whatsover due her immaturity and lack of charisma. Church is too rigid to be able adapt to extreme cover terrorist tactics of TWSitD (Basically situation would probably contiune work relatively normally if TWSitD didn't start openly operate after seizing power in Empire, which is where ChoS stopped to be adequate as power balancer)  and it's probably better being reformed under Byleth afterward. Claude is most likely best when it come to actuall diplomacy even if he lack power. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, matchalatte said:

I am merely pointing out perspectives that many players seem to completely miss. 

Sure, you try to suggest "the ends justify the means", but that is also only if it is guaranteed, not a chance. For all Edelgard knew, she could killing the other leaders and their companions would have eventually lead to the bandits outing the Flame Emperor anyway.

9 hours ago, matchalatte said:

Killing bandits in every FE game is framed as the outcome of militaristic combats

And the same can be said for what happened with Lonato. He was out to kill Rhea, no questions, and was willing to kill anyone in the way. That includes the students and faculty at Garreg Mach.

Also, TWSitD likely tricked the soldiers in the kingdom to cause the Tragedy of Duscur. That doesn't mean that all of them should be exempt from being killed because those were still their actions. Same with the Western Church members. Now, killing members who had no part in this debacle (I forget if the central church did this), would be outright wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
 
1
3 hours ago, MrPerson0 said:

Sure, you try to suggest "the ends justify the means", but that is also only if it is guaranteed, not a chance. For all Edelgard knew, she could killing the other leaders and their companions would have eventually lead to the bandits outing the Flame Emperor anyway.

^And THIS is the main driving force for Edelgard's character. She's a lot like Dimitri in that their actions all link to a tragedy that happened in their childhoods. In Edelgard's case she's driven to destroy the Church because she wants the tragedy of her siblings' deaths and being implanted with two crests to mean something. If she can force something good out of that tragedy, then their deaths wouldn't have been meaningless. This definitely snowballs along the way, with her doing more and more morally questionable actions because losing now would mean she'd have died a monster that caused the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands of people.

I still don't like what she does and would never side with her on an ideological basis. I mean it doesn't look good on her if Sylvain demeans the Crest system and helps build the steps towards a meritocracy nonviolently in one of his Blue Lions endings, and it's even more pointless since Hanneman mass produces crests in one of his, though I guess this is all in hindsight. Keep in mind that she's the only faction aside from TWSITD that willingly and consistently uses Black Beasts (Dmitri doesn't count since he specifically begged his men not to) which, hypocritically enough, means that it's more than likely she lets TWSITD experiment on people. As Dmitri pointed out, she wants to stop the strong from trampling the weak and forcing down their ideals onto them by doing exactly that.

The Church of Seiros imo, wasn't all that bad from what I remembered. The whole crest thing looked like something more propagated by the nobility, and even then it was TWSITD that was responsible for the experiments, the whole valuing crests in an heir could have been, and in a few endings is, solved with relatively little bloodshed. There's the whole western Church fiasco, but even then according to Ashe's support with Catherine, that wasn't the first time they'd tried to assassinate Rhea (and in fact, were the ones that helped lead Christophe to his death) and it most certainly wouldn't have been their last.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tenzen12 We are now entering the finer and finer area of discussion that are perhaps further away from in-game materials. But since you brought up a number of interest points, I will give it a go anyway.

14 hours ago, Tenzen12 said:

As I mentioned multpiple time before neither, removing crests, Church or Rhea is beneficial to her goal create better society, nor is her conquest especially as she might not have lifespam long enough both wage war and enforce reforms afrerwards. Whole war is her lashing out over her childhood trauma instead facing it head on.

1. Well according to the game (BE ending), she eventually had enough time to achieve a systemic reform so what you have here is a fan-theory.

2. Her childhood trauma is a major psychological motive for her conquest/revolution but that is just one interpretation pushed in BL route. In other routes, she expressed other valid concerns such as threat of TWSITD and the illegitimacy of the Church (built on a heap of lies). Your argument is purely Freudian in the sense that all her political actions are reduced to childhood trauma. But while a Freudian reading is useful for understanding her inner motive, it cannot possibly lead to any evaluation about Edelgard being a conqueror/political leader.

14 hours ago, Tenzen12 said:

She using calculaing logic for  goals she set base on emotions, that's why I can't consider her rational even she is composed calculating and Machiavellian. That's not mutually exlusive

Quite opposite to your claim, what you said is exactly the interpretation of rationality in modern day choice/decision/game theory: "using calculaing logic for goals she set base on emotions". Rationality is never about goals (preference of outcomes based on psychology/culture/emotion that can be represented by objective functions) but how such goal is achieved (expected utility maximization or minmaxing). Put in simple terms, being rational means you choose the best option for achieving your goal, whatever that is. Unless we use some outlandish definition of rationality, you are in fact agreeing that Edelgard is paragon of a rational decision maker.

14 hours ago, Tenzen12 said:

Again definition alone makes Rhea not ruler, she authority , power and duty enforce it but it doesn't change definition. Church of Seiros is not completely diffrent from medieval catholic church when it come to influence, but even if pope could refuse king legitimacy or order war of cross, or he wouldn't be ruler either. In same hypothetical scenario Pope could in theory use his authority same way as Rhea did. 

You are using a rather rigid defintion of a ruler. By a ruler, I mean a de facto ruler instead of a de jure ruler. For instance, during the cold war, Honecker might be de jure ruler/leader of Eastern Germany but the de facto ruler is Gorbachev, since Eastern Germany is a vassal state of the USSR. Honecker cannot issue order to shot the protester or refugees during the fall of the Berlin wall because Gorbachev phoned him not to.

Since you mentioned the Catholic Church, I must add first the power of the church fluctuate throughout medieval times. Judging by the fact that Rhea has her own big army (and own land), controls knowledge, can order kingdom to wage war against the empire, and can execute Edelgard with impunity, the Church of Seiros rivals the Catholic Church at its prime as the de facto ruler of Europe because the Church has power far superior than the kings and queens and its relation to the kings and queens is parallel to the relation between kings and their lords.

14 hours ago, Tenzen12 said:

Killing Edelgard is not policially good move as she technically on top of Empire, but nor is letting her allive. Unfortunatelly there is no good third option.

Of course there is, that is to put her on trial, which is the only reasonable thing to do as the moral authority of Fodlan.

14 hours ago, Tenzen12 said:

It's not different then for example NATO stepping in Izrael-palestine conflict although given powerscalling it would be more like NATO stepping between hypothetical US-China conflict instead.

These are completely different scenarios. NATO is not a form of government above the states and nations but rather a military alliance. Neither Israel nor Palestine, neither US nor China would possibly surrender even a tiny fraction of sovereignty to NATO, which is a military alliance that was design for the containment of the Soviet Union, which supposedly has nothing to with the Middle East or Asian Pacific. I think what you meant is the UN, which suppose to act as a sort of world government but it is failing precisely because no independent states would be willing to surrender their sovereignty for world peace.

To think NATO could interfere with either China or the US's internal affairs is ridiculous (forgive me for using such a strong word). Even in a military conflict, NATO is not a third party mediator because again, it's a bunch of European countries that are US's allies led by the US. I would also expect either UN or the NATO to diligently follow international treaties and conventions but certainly not Rhea, who has the power to do whatever she wants without any concerns about any rules. And apparently Rhea can just order around the kings and queens (emperor and empress) like they are school kids for military/political purposes.  How can she act as a third-party mediator like what you have suggested?

Suppose, for the sake of argument, Rhea is simply a mediator for the peace of Fodlan and does not meddle with nations' internal affairs. Then she has absolutely no right to withhold information about TWSITD from the nobles and commons which is crucial for the security of all nations in Fodlan. Following your logic, this is like NATO leaders withholding information about an alien invasion from its member countries. How can this ever be justified?

14 hours ago, Tenzen12 said:

You sort of got me there, I never really considered Black Eagles as part of Edie followers, more like friends who stick with her because Byleth (who is one that should get leadership points here), but yes if Black Eagles decide side with her (which is not something she herself expected) then yes she got some loyal subordinates. 

The BESF members are legitimate heirs of major houses in the political scene and play key roles in the war effort as well as making personal sacrifices for taking political stands (Hubert and Ferdinand) and possibly relevant for Fodlan's foreign relations (Petra will be the queen of Brigid). And they are the only in-game evidence about Edelgard's charisma and as far as I know all of them are positive.

14 hours ago, Tenzen12 said:

I believe Eldegard is not good leader whatsover due her immaturity and lack of charisma. Church is too rigid to be able adapt to extreme cover terrorist tactics of TWSitD (Basically situation would probably contiune work relatively normally if TWSitD didn't start openly operate after seizing power in Empire, which is where ChoS stopped to be adequate as power balancer)  and it's probably better being reformed under Byleth afterward. Claude is most likely best when it come to actuall diplomacy even if he lack power. 

I hope you are not making argument for argument's sake. In addition to what I have mentioned above, Edelgard is the only one who adopts a diplomatic stance with TWSITD. She is also the only leader that takes initiative and dictates the situation in Fodlan

Maybe there is something wrong with me, but I simply don't see anyone who has seriously played the game multiple times could view El as an immature, uncharismatic, or like many have said, stupid and crazy, unless you are an avid fan of FE:IF characters.

Edited by matchalatte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2019 at 4:59 AM, tkmtso said:

There are 3 "points" I saw them said repeatedly (and dodge every other questioning where they get the information, and the only source I can remember is from Edelgard, which thought are obviously manipulated by TWSITD, Nemesis is Good? Sothis is Evil Goddess?)

 

Well, to be fair these points do have a basis. Not to the absolute extend presented here, but still:

 

1) Sure it is true on an individual level, but as a system, well GD does point out that enforced statsis, the stroy rewriting... All of that involves purging dissenting elements as entities. And her actions in-game shows that Rhea don't really hesitate to bring down the axe when she thinks it is necessary. Never near the extent some says, but well, you don't rule a faith for a thousand years without breaking things standing in the way.

 

2) Rhea rewrote story to have the dang thins placed as 'Goddess' Gifts', complete with Saints and the likes, probably more to honor and keep what's left alive of the other Children of the Goddess (see Marianne for what happens without that), but the result is still there. With a rhethoric base like that, there is all the elements to lead to sacralization of the dang things... And the elements to lead to abuse to keep them going at all costs. And she didn't exactly seem that eager to correct that interpretation (she is the archbishop and ultimate moral authority of the continent, and control the monastery where the continent's nobility and promising youth trains. With influence like that, curbing the Crest System's abuses should have been child's play).

 

3) 'Divide and Conquer', no, but 'Position yourself for big influence', more yes. Faerghus is called the 'Holy' Kingdom, titles like that are rife with intense rapports with the Church, even hostile ones, and always omen a big deal of influence (Canossa, Frederic II, for the Holy Roman Empire...). And the Empire has this 'tradition' of the archbishop as a temoin for each new crowning of an emperor, aka 'the Archbishop needs to like next emperor too' (Edelgard crowning without a Rhea is so much of a big deal probably in part because of that). And again, Garreg March, aka control of the nobility's next generation education (and potential for preening off indesirable ones if one is ruthless enough, and well, ruthlessness is one thing Edelgard and Rhea share). And when you have your own big army, you can also excerts a certain amount of power.

 

I do not want to try to excuse Edelgard's more ruthless tactics in the slightest. But bottom fact is, she wanted to change a system she felt personally as corrupted (and well, from what I saw from the Supports and missions, something is rotten in the Crest Nobility system), a system that is in many with the Church as its center (moral and temporal influence), leading her, in a very cold and Spock way, to decide that that upheaval couldn't happen with a Church which would certainly not favor changing a system placing it at the center of the game. From there, war... Is hard to avoid to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wondering, why are we even arguing due process in FE to begin with? It’s not something enforced by government law until US Constitution of 1792, and not an universal concept until late 19th century.  It’s like the “child soldiers” argument we had a dozen pages back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...