What are your thoughts on Edelgard? *SPOILERS*

[Tarul]

Quote

58 minutes ago, Hekselka said:

Sorry but I’m not a fan of the “different cultures” argument. If I don’t like something, I don’t like something. Eastern countries being worse with this kind of stuff isn’t an excuse especially since even in the Western side of the world we’re still not doing a great a job in regards to LGBT people.

You’re right that there’s more people that dislike her for other reasons. That doesn’t mean that I can’t dislike people who voted against her because she’s the first Bisexual lord character. 

 

^^ Seconded. Just because a distasteful stance is widespread doesn't mean that the stance has any more legitimacy. We're talking about discrimination here, not food palettes or manners.

That said, we can still be sympathetic to the reasons for why a Korean person might have those viewpoints (given the anti-LGBT cultural normalization); BUT, we should NEVER condone such attitudes.

Also, gay Koreans exist lmao

Edited August 23, 2019 by Tarul

[MessengerIris]

5 minutes ago, Tarul said:

^^ Seconded. Just because a distasteful stance is widespread doesn't mean that the stance has any more legitimacy. We're talking about discrimination here, not food palettes or manners.

That said, we can still be sympathetic to the reasons for why a Korean person might have those viewpoints (given the anti-LGBT cultural normalization); BUT, we should NEVER condone such attitudes.

Also, gay Koreans exist lmao

I don’t agree with or condone any of it. Just putting it into context. There are people like that all over the world on the internet, even in Western countries. 

However, I do think Edelgard’s actions is a touchy subject for a much bigger reason beyond just homophobia/sexism for Koreans. 

Edited August 23, 2019 by MessengerIris

[Mikethemaster2018]

On 8/20/2019 at 1:41 PM, Holder of the Heel said:

I took it to mean that because she knew she had clearly lost, all of the fighting happening in that moment across Fodlan was now happening over a contest that was already decided, and so they need to hurry up and officially conclude the battle with her death so someone can go out and say that the one giving the order for war is gone. It was the single thing she did that aimed to limit casualties and was a nice moment even for me as someone critical of her. 

Pretty strange how different that all goes down in Azure Moon. She is way more spiteful there and willing to sacrifice her humanity.

I mean Byleth her beloved Teacher if anybody should put own it should byleth she say this herself in the church route. If Byleth probably striked her down in blue lions route she probably would of let him. she give byleth a love confession in her death. She wanted to wak with Byleth even at the her death door. She might be jealous of Corrin and Azura relationship because she a ride or die chick for real lol.

Edited August 23, 2019 by Mikethemaster2018

[RamblingAce]

A great villain/antagonist. She’s easy to hate when you don’t play her route first, which is why I get nervous when I hear people pick her route first and just assume she’s a sweetheart that’s justified in her actions and can do no wrong.

As for her as a protagonist (listening to her after the fact) it feels so disingenuous hearing her speak about justice and righteousness given what she chooses to do... vs the other options she had that would’ve produced less bloody results. (Vague on purpose just for spoilers sake)

[PrincessAlyson]

14 minutes ago, Lord Ramble said:

A great villain/antagonist. She’s easy to hate when you don’t play her route first, which is why I get nervous when I hear people pick her route first and just assume she’s a sweetheart that’s justified in her actions and can do no wrong.

As for her as a protagonist (listening to her after the fact) it feels so disingenuous hearing her speak about justice and righteousness given what she chooses to do... vs the other options she had that would’ve produced less bloody results. (Vague on purpose just for spoilers sake)

Agreed. I like her as a character, but I'm playing her route last. I can't really get behind her actions. Her goal is noble; the way she goes about it is not. It's actually funny: she's very similar to Rhea, whom she hates. They both are ruthless, only see their own POV, are stubborn, and refuse to surrender or admit they may not have the moral high-ground like they claim. Make no mistake, I love that she's morally gray like Dimitri and Rhea. I  am just not a fan of her "conquer everything to get rid of the Church and corruption!" shtick.

All in all, she is a well written character and I love her for it even when I'm disliking her actions. I'm glad this game has so many morally gray characters and actions, since it feels more realistic. Most people are not pure good or pure evil. I personally view her as a good villain with good intentions in BL, GD, and the Church Route as well as a villain protagonist in BE. She's tragic and understandable given the context of her past, but that still doesn't justify everything she does.

[Silver-Haired Maiden]

I think she's well written and very well designed but.... there's no way I can get behind what she does and what she has a hand in. It was so bad that while I intended to play Crimson Flower first, when it got to that point I simply couldn't stomach it and had to side against her.

3 hours ago, PrincessAlyson said:

It's actually funny: she's very similar to Rhea, whom she hates. They both are ruthless, only see their own POV, are stubborn, and refuse to surrender or admit they may not have the moral high-ground like they claim. Make no mistake, I love that she's morally gray like Dimitri and Rhea. I  am just not a fan of her "conquer everything to get rid of the Church and corruption!" shtick.

All in all, she is a well written character and I love her for it even when I'm disliking her actions. I'm glad this game has so many morally gray characters and actions, since it feels more realistic. Most people are not pure good or pure evil. I personally view her as a good villain with good intentions in BL, GD, and the Church Route as well as a villain protagonist in BE. She's tragic and understandable given the context of her past, but that still doesn't justify everything she does.

This sums up my feelings on her quite nicely, though personally I find her more distasteful than either Dimitri or Rhea (though I must admit to major Dimitri bias, he's great). She went from my favorite pre-release to my least favorite after the fact barring Bernadetta who manages to be worse.

[Troykv]

I sometimes feel selfish liking her.

[Eryon]

I refuse to approve Edelgard since she has too many supporters that are fedoras, HFYers (Humanity Fuck Yeah, look up it up, it's /tg/ lingo), or look suspiciously like advocates of "Enlightenment Progressive Conquerors Terrorizing Their Neighbors For Social Justice (or something)" ala Napoleon or Andrew Jackson, the Soviets when they seizing East Europe, or the Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere (who are being unironic about it).

I'll throw in that the Slithers should have never been included in this game since they serve as a cop-out to take the blame for actions that should have been done by imperials.

Edited August 25, 2019 by Eryon

[Troykv]

4 minutes ago, Eryon said:

I refuse to approve Edelgard since she has too many supporters that are fedoras, HFYers (Humanity Fuck Yeah, look up it up, it's /tg/ lingo), or look suspiciously like advocates of "Enlightenment Progressive Conquerors Terrorizing Their Neighbors For Social Justice (or something)" ala Napoleon or the Soviets when they seizing East Europe.

I'll throw in that the Slithers should have never been included in this game since they serve as a cop-out to take the blame for actions that should have been done by imperials.

I look like any of them?

[timon]

5 hours ago, Eryon said:

I refuse to approve Edelgard since she has too many supporters that are fedoras, HFYers (Humanity Fuck Yeah, look up it up, it's /tg/ lingo), or look suspiciously like advocates of "Enlightenment Progressive Conquerors Terrorizing Their Neighbors For Social Justice (or something)" ala Napoleon or Andrew Jackson, the Soviets when they seizing East Europe, or the Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere (who are being unironic about it).

I'll throw in that the Slithers should have never been included in this game since they serve as a cop-out to take the blame for actions that should have been done by imperials.

Mate you're pushing this way too much, and reading a lot more than necessary into a videogame character.

She's a revolutionary, she wants to rebuild what is currently a bad society, and in her own route she doesn't really do anything too questionable. Those are all good reasons to support her, and I don't see how that automatically makes me a soviet or whatever else you wrote there.

And what does that whole HFY thing even have to do with her?

And why do you think twsitd should be merged with the empire? They share an enemy, last time I checked having a common enemy doesn't mean having the same philosophy, motives or principles.

[Tenzen12]

She is revolutionary indeed. Thing is she wants rebuilt what she think is bad society and she is hardly objective on that matter. 

She also does plenty questionable thing in own route. Just because Edie lead small strike force personally does not make beasts used by her army main force dissappear. Not to mention she attacked neutral country and used fake news demonise her enemies. 

Edited August 25, 2019 by Tenzen12

[Tarul]

Edelgard's family was getting wrecked by Those Who Slither during her childhood, so she decides to... fight against the Church while allied with Those Who Slither. 

Edel's a great antagonist - you can almost sympathize with her on her route (assuming it's not your first playthrough) - but the "are we the baddies?" keeps popping up nonstop. Besides the fact that TWSITD look like zombies and the Death Knight makes the grim reaper look like Barnie, Edel demonstrates a bunch of worrying fascist traits evident in her own supports. She hates being admonished or having her flaws pointed (she's very easy to get negative support points with the prof, her Bernie support, etc), and desires a tough-guy image (trying to refute her reliance on the professor immediately post-timeskip) . That's a lot of insecurity for a warlord hellbent on unifying the world.

I wish TWS weren't so cartoonishly evil, or heck, even in the story. By being so stupidly evil, they make Edel evil almost just by affiliation (she's, at the very least, complicit in their crimes). If Edel started the war simply because of Rhea's tyrannical reign (like the Western Church purge) or to revolutionize society's reliance on crests, she would have been a more gray character (still tending on the side of evil since her war is long, bloody, and slightly selfish). 

Edited August 25, 2019 by Tarul

[Mikethemaster2018]

8 minutes ago, Tarul said:

Edelgard's family was getting wrecked by Those Who Slither during her childhood, so she decides to... fight against the Church while allied with Those Who Slither. 

Edel's a great antagonist - you can almost sympathize with her on her route (assuming it's not your first playthrough) - but the "are we the baddies?" keeps popping up nonstop. Besides the fact that TWSITD look like zombies and the Death Knight makes the grim reaper look like Barnie, Edel demonstrates a bunch of worrying fascist traits evident in her own supports. She hates being admonished or having her flaws pointed (she's very easy to get negative support points with the prof, her Bernie support, etc), and desires a tough-guy image (trying to refute her reliance on the professor immediately post-timeskip) . That's a lot of insecurity for a warlord hellbent on unifying the world.

I wish TWS weren't so cartoonishly evil, or heck, even in the story. By being so stupidly evil, they make Edel evil almost just by affiliation (she's, at the very least, complicit in their crimes). If Edel started the war simply because of Rhea's tyrannical reign (like the Western Church purge) or to revolutionize society's reliance on crests, she would have been a more gray character (still tending on the side of evil since her war is long, bloody, and slightly selfish). 

What is with everbody wanting grey stories but tthey always want a define Villian

[Tarul]

21 minutes ago, Mikethemaster2018 said:

What is with everbody wanting grey stories but tthey always want a define Villian

I'm taking the approach of an editor - Nintendo had a general idea of the major characters, their interactions, and the world in general, and I just want to tweak it to be more appealing (to me, obviously) . Given that Nintendo clearly wanted Edel to be a grayer villain, I'd have liked if they did a better job at making her.... Gray.

And TWSITD really don't belong in this story, anyways. They're typically introduced and killed in the same chapter lmao

[Mikethemaster2018]

14 minutes ago, Tarul said:

I'm taking the approach of an editor - Nintendo had a general idea of the major characters, their interactions, and the world in general, and I just want to tweak it to be more appealing (to me, obviously) . Given that Nintendo clearly wanted Edel to be a grayer villain, I'd have liked if they did a better job at making her.... Gray.

And TWSITD really don't belong in this story, anyways. They're typically introduced and killed in the same chapter lmao

Well thst sad. Eh probably what happens when your crunch for time like IS was. They were oly given like 2 years to make the game. It IS dont expect FFT(Final Fantasy Tactics writing)

Edited August 25, 2019 by Mikethemaster2018

[Hardric62]

2 hours ago, Tenzen12 said:

She is revolutionary indeed. Thing is she wants rebuilt what she think is bad society and she is hardly objective on that matter. 

She also does plenty questionable thing in own route. Just because Edie lead small strike force personally does not make beasts used by her army main force dissappear. Not to mention she attacked neutral country and used fake news demonise her enemies. 

 

Dunno, given how Crests are presented in most supports, and the pretty rotten situation behind the shiny exterior in all three countries (Imperial scehming, Kingdom near-anarchy, Alliance's open cloak-and-dagger), there is definitely something rotten in Foldan.

 

I dare guess the professor's influence and better position means the former is scaled down to a significiant compared to other routes (examples of tools used in other routes but not this one, Cornelia), (and someone will have to explain to me the Church's own golem battalions), and the latter... While there is discussion about neutrality, how 'real' it is and all, the rest... Welcome to War Propaganda 101. Everyone does that in wartime, even today. And even in WW2, you had the Allies doing that when they were faced to really big goof up to mask how much they lost on one blunder (to give an example, a training in landing for D-Day got jumped by a few Axis torpedo ships, and they dropped the ball so bad several hundreds soldiers died. They hid the losses until D Day, where they were attributed to the actual invasion. It took decades for the truth to come out.)

[Tenzen12]

Yes, there is something rotten in Fodlan it's called Those Who Slither in Darkness.  They caused unbalance in Kingdom  and are source of all Imperial scheming. 

As for Crest itself, nobles make only small fragment of population. They are one with privileges and riches (generally speaking) so it also come with some detriment. I don't think there is need change whole society just to make it more friendly place for nobility, especially if prize is paid by commoners.

Aliance is more or less fine as it is. Could be better, could be worse. 

As for propaganda, I don't have any problem with it, actually I approve it even, but it certainly belong among "questionable" methods so it can't be said Eldegard does not do anything questionable on her route. 

 

[SimplyUnknown]

5 hours ago, Tenzen12 said:

She is revolutionary indeed.

 

5 hours ago, timon said:

She's a revolutionary, she wants to rebuild what is currently a bad society, and in her own route she doesn't really do anything too questionable. Those are all good reasons to support her, and I don't see how that automatically makes me a soviet or whatever else you wrote there.

Is she though? Is she really? I won't argue that Edelgard's actions are revolutionary, but I'm not entirely positive that she is entirely revolutionary herself. The idea of a revolutionary is that they want to overturn the current system in order to create something new, or at least that is my understanding of the definition. But in Edelgard's dialogue, there are hints that she doesn't want to create something entirely new, but instead to return to a time in the past where the Adrestian Empire was in control over Fodlan. Someone posted an analysis of this on Tumblr; here's a link if you want to check it out.

Of course, Edelgard could also be a blend of both reactionary and revolutionary. In politics, revolutionaries are people who support drastic and abrupt change, much like Edelgard does. However, considering that Edelgard does believe that the Kingdom and the Alliance are mere offshoots of the empire and her final goals do involve Adrestia regaining complete control over Fodlan, she might be more reactionary in her motives as well. And that's not a bad thing. People are complicated and Edelgard is perfectly allowed to have multiple reasons and motives for her actions.  It makes her a more interesting character.

[Hardric62]

3 hours ago, SimplyUnknown said:

 

Is she though? Is she really? I won't argue that Edelgard's actions are revolutionary, but I'm not entirely positive that she is entirely revolutionary herself. The idea of a revolutionary is that they want to overturn the current system in order to create something new, or at least that is my understanding of the definition. But in Edelgard's dialogue, there are hints that she doesn't want to create something entirely new, but instead to return to a time in the past where the Adrestian Empire was in control over Fodlan. Someone posted an analysis of this on Tumblr; here's a link if you want to check it out.

Of course, Edelgard could also be a blend of both reactionary and revolutionary. In politics, revolutionaries are people who support drastic and abrupt change, much like Edelgard does. However, considering that Edelgard does believe that the Kingdom and the Alliance are mere offshoots of the empire and her final goals do involve Adrestia regaining complete control over Fodlan, she might be more reactionary in her motives as well. And that's not a bad thing. People are complicated and Edelgard is perfectly allowed to have multiple reasons and motives for her actions.  It makes her a more interesting character.

 

I like that sort of answers. More for the discussion though, I think beyond the 'reclaim parts of the empire' rhethoric (something all empires in stories shared in one way or another, no ruler is supposed to like seeing their territory shrink, no matter how justified this shrinkage was (stressing so people don't mistake that as an empires apology), there are other 'pragmatic' reasons for the conquest:

-She wants to break the power of Crests and nobility everywhere. After all, there is no real changing Fodlan's social order if nothing is done about the other half of the continent's situation. Some revolutions saw that as 'spreading the revolution'. Something to be discussed though.

-And something more cold-blooded and pragmatic: Generally, both to enforce the statu quo favoring them and out of fear from 'contagion' and the point I raised above, foreign nations have a tendancy to support counter-revolutionary moves against such drastic revolutions as the one professed by Edlegard (French Revolution comes to mind. Heck, you can have an example from the XXth centuries after WW1, when European, and even american, countries offered some support to the Whites in the Russian Civil War). And the Church too, especially when the social order being attacked is the one the Church has been built around and been enforcing for a millenium. And Rhea has consistently showed ruthlessness and willingness to utterly crush threats to her rule, a trait she shares with Edelgard. My opinion is that Edelgard goes for war both for the first point, and beause she knows that the sort of radical changes she is speaking for will provoke hostile reactions from outside, leading her to decide 'Welp, they will want war with me for the changes I'm bringing anyways. Might just as well take the forst shot while I can'.

- PS: Her father's fate is also something she must consider as a testament of 'Soft way? Yup, never going to happen.'

 

5 hours ago, Tenzen12 said:

Yes, there is something rotten in Fodlan it's called Those Who Slither in Darkness.  They caused unbalance in Kingdom  and are source of all Imperial scheming. 

As for Crest itself, nobles make only small fragment of population. They are one with privileges and riches (generally speaking) so it also come with some detriment. I don't think there is need change whole society just to make it more friendly place for nobility, especially if prize is paid by commoners.

 

Yup, the Agarthans played a major part in creating the mess, but they are only one of the actors. They aren't telling nobles to sire as many bastards as posssible for one more Crest-bearing child, to think of their profit first in front of reforms... They still choose of indulging that whole mess, even if other play a great part in creating it.

 

She doesn't want a 'friendly place for nobility', she wants to abolish it because she deems the system utterly rotten, too much for a less radical reform (and the way her father, or the reform-inclined father of Dimitri ended up can be seen as incentives towards radicalization). And generally, when the ruling class of a society is completely rotten and misbehaving, the lower classes do have a tendancy to pay the tab, quite heavily... There is to be a reason she managed to get near-monolithic support from the Empire's population despite openly declaring war on her continent's supreme moral authority, at a time when such authority would have been seen as just as important, nah superior, to hers (See the conflict between Holy Roman Emperors and Popes during the Middle Ages). People say 'No smoke without fire', I say 'No fire without fuel'. She couldn't have garnered the support to make such a move if there wasn't enough rot in the system to make people consider following her.

[Silver-Haired Maiden]

14 hours ago, Troykv said:

I look like any of them?

You can like Edelgard, don't worry. While Edelgard is problematic she's still a character and there's nothing wrong with liking her character. If there was I'd be in major trouble for liking Light from Death Note lol.

[CyberNinja]

58 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

You can like Edelgard, don't worry. While Edelgard is problematic she's still a character and there's nothing wrong with liking her character. If there was I'd be in major trouble for liking Light from Death Note lol.

Personally I think Edelgard would have lost something if she were pure white. (heh)

[daisy jane]

7 hours ago, Tarul said:

Edelgard's family was getting wrecked by Those Who Slither during her childhood, so she decides to... fight against the Church while allied with Those Who Slither. 

Edel's a great antagonist - you can almost sympathize with her on her route (assuming it's not your first playthrough) - but the "are we the baddies?" keeps popping up nonstop. Besides the fact that TWSITD look like zombies and the Death Knight makes the grim reaper look like Barnie, Edel demonstrates a bunch of worrying fascist traits evident in her own supports. She hates being admonished or having her flaws pointed (she's very easy to get negative support points with the prof, her Bernie support, etc), and desires a tough-guy image (trying to refute her reliance on the professor immediately post-timeskip) . That's a lot of insecurity for a warlord hellbent on unifying the world.

I wish TWS weren't so cartoonishly evil, or heck, even in the story. By being so stupidly evil, they make Edel evil almost just by affiliation (she's, at the very least, complicit in their crimes). If Edel started the war simply because of Rhea's tyrannical reign (like the Western Church purge) or to revolutionize society's reliance on crests, she would have been a more gray character (still tending on the side of evil since her war is long, bloody, and slightly selfish). 

 

I think TWSITD is the angle that should have been completely fleshed out more. like we get bits and pieces on all the sides- but not enough to really....be like WOW. this is everything. so each angle has a legitimate grasp on the situation. (so yeah sort of like you  because of that i wish it was removed because i feel it was just more of a "oh wait! THERE'S MORE!" on Claude's path, and the "and what the what now? for Edelgard."

Now - my thoughts on El. 
Like Dimitri and Claude  - i love that she's morally grey and willing to be dark and dirty when need be. However-basically since the GD Path (my first one) for a lack of a better term/example I kept calling El "Hitler/Mussolini - or for GoT Fans, Dany." because she has no qualms of burning it all to the ground to do what she believes is right and she doesn't have the self awareness- or doesn't care (which is more apt) that her way is basically the underside of the coin of what she hates.  - and because of the failure of the game (if it's there I do apologise - I did rush through CF so i wanted to be able to discuss) to explain some key aspects (rather than handwaving it as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend") - I ultimately still don't have much....time for her. I can empathize (and even see why she's motivated to do it) - but I don't buy it - not in the way I feel the game kind of wants you to. 

I think the main issue is this. 
Claude and Edelgard - very much have the same missions. 

1: they don't believe in the Goddess, the church of Seiros. both hate the blind devotion a lot of people tend to give the church - refusing to accept to just be "told" what to do - or accept anything good or bad is due to the will of the Goddess. Claude (with supports with Petra) is willing to consider everything - praising/blessing Nature and the other spirits as well as the sense/logic in his own head. However he also doesn't flat out dismiss others who are whole-heartedly devoted to having a touchstone such as the goddess. Just asks them to be open minded.

Edelgard - not so much. She hates the Church because the Church puts importance on the Crests. The  importance of Crests is what caused her to go through the blood transplants that killed her entire family and caused her suffering. she survived because she was strong, thus you can be strong too  and you can do whatever you want, and the church will be removed. and if you don't agree- you'll be eliminated.  Where as Claude relishes the debate (even if some choices give you a sour result/support down) - he can see that coin. anything basically not agreeing with Edelgard is a support down and she snaps at you for Joking/not being serious or not thinking her determined. She is single focused on imposing her will and there is no space for other beliefs. 

2: They both want unification. 
Claude: wants unification because as someone who has lived outside and inside of Fòdlan - if you are different, you are seen as trash. It's what caused him to always be thinking several steps ahead, and plan for success as well as failure because he's constantly been at the bottom - despite having much. his dream is to end xenophobia  -however - I also feel  -if he and Dimitri just had a long conversation - he'd be fine (as evidenced in BL path) -dissolving the alliance as long as his goal of "no xenophobia." was accomplished - or still have the Empire/Kingdom/Alliance - but no one side-eyed anyone for being you know, from Duscar, or Brigid or Almyra or Dagda, and what not.  I never once felt that to accomplish his goal, he'd target to conquer the Kingdom or the Empire - but basically be all Martin Luther King Jr, and try to peach it out. 

Edelgard: wants unification to stamp out the church and have humans decide their own fate. - which in time can develop into a xenophobia on its own. it was mentioned in the BL path- having something to believe in - isn't weakness it's a different kind of strength, so why are you punishing those who want it. Edelgard's reply was something basically like well. too bad for them. I know better. this is the only way. someone above said "where there is smoke, there is fire, but where there is fire  - there is a fuel." yes - i agree. but is the fuel - actually right and justified? (IMO - no). again- the motivation is stemmed from the torture she gained.. but what if Rhea was wrong and there were more Sothis children kicking about? would they be eliminated quickly (because of their power/not humans?) like how far does this go? pretty damned far as El has proven

i feel that Claude - always strives for understanding for every angle  where Edelgard (like Rhea) feels she doesn't need to - because she's right. and i feel the fact that Edelgard can't see how much she's like Rhea (you don't get a cookie for giving people a chance to flee, because if they don't, you'd have no qualms burning it all the ground anyway). and willing to sacrifice anything to get her way and what she wants. even the death quotes between Rhea/Edelgard are the same. Thank you for your sacrifice. You sacrificed much for MY belief. MY Will. What I FEEL IS RIGHT.  Where as Claude/Dimitri are truly impacted by each and every single death they encounter  and wished there was another way - a way to save them, and perhaps another way to achieve the goals they believe is right for the country they are fighting for. 

I wish - in a sense the game had had the guts to double down on the fact that Edelgard is very much unbending. (I think they try to have her toe a line - and I don't think the line was needed. I am not a fan of her - but i love the character/character development even though i feel there are some holes - holes that are slightly patched up in the DLC -but not big enough for me to go "yeah but, tho.")

I ultimately feel that Edelgard is a dictator who  - while has compassion for her friends, will have no qualms sacrificing all for her end game - and that ultimately her end game waswrong and misguided, driven by her past. (I honestly don't know in other playthroughs if i'd even PLAY the BE path again - (I am doing the BE church route now so maybe some other things will be addressed).  I feel the real true story is with Claude/Dimitri. (and this is coming from someone who thought the Dimitri-line was going to be the worst one lol). 
 

(I am sorry that my view on Edelgard is so tied up into everyone else, but i felt to better explain my standing this was the best way).  

[Tenzen12]

1 hour ago, Hardric62 said:

 

I like that sort of answers. More for the discussion though, I think beyond the 'reclaim parts of the empire' rhethoric (something all empires in stories shared in one way or another, no ruler is supposed to like seeing their territory shrink, no matter how justified this shrinkage was (stressing so people don't mistake that as an empires apology), there are other 'pragmatic' reasons for the conquest:

-She wants to break the power of Crests and nobility everywhere. After all, there is no real changing Fodlan's social order if nothing is done about the other half of the continent's situation. Some revolutions saw that as 'spreading the revolution'. Something to be discussed though.

-And something more cold-blooded and pragmatic: Generally, both to enforce the statu quo favoring them and out of fear from 'contagion' and the point I raised above, foreign nations have a tendancy to support counter-revolutionary moves against such drastic revolutions as the one professed by Edlegard (French Revolution comes to mind. Heck, you can have an example from the XXth centuries after WW1, when European, and even american, countries offered some support to the Whites in the Russian Civil War). And the Church too, especially when the social order being attacked is the one the Church has been built around and been enforcing for a millenium. And Rhea has consistently showed ruthlessness and willingness to utterly crush threats to her rule, a trait she shares with Edelgard. My opinion is that Edelgard goes for war both for the first point, and beause she knows that the sort of radical changes she is speaking for will provoke hostile reactions from outside, leading her to decide 'Welp, they will want war with me for the changes I'm bringing anyways. Might just as well take the forst shot while I can'.

- PS: Her father's fate is also something she must consider as a testament of 'Soft way? Yup, never going to happen.'

 

 

Yup, the Agarthans played a major part in creating the mess, but they are only one of the actors. They aren't telling nobles to sire as many bastards as posssible for one more Crest-bearing child, to think of their profit first in front of reforms... They still choose of indulging that whole mess, even if other play a great part in creating it.

 

She doesn't want a 'friendly place for nobility', she wants to abolish it because she deems the system utterly rotten, too much for a less radical reform (and the way her father, or the reform-inclined father of Dimitri ended up can be seen as incentives towards radicalization). And generally, when the ruling class of a society is completely rotten and misbehaving, the lower classes do have a tendancy to pay the tab, quite heavily... There is to be a reason she managed to get near-monolithic support from the Empire's population despite openly declaring war on her continent's supreme moral authority, at a time when such authority would have been seen as just as important, nah superior, to hers (See the conflict between Holy Roman Emperors and Popes during the Middle Ages). People say 'No smoke without fire', I say 'No fire without fuel'. She couldn't have garnered the support to make such a move if there wasn't enough rot in the system to make people consider following her.

Nobility and Crest system is not inherently bad, it was established for reasons and it's reason mostly (or even completely) unrelated to church doctrine. Nobility protect commoners, that's why cast systems exist in first place and lot of nobles of Fodlan did not forget about it. Except empire there is no nation "rotten to core" and yes its because TWSITD corrupted it and took complete control over it. This also serve as "fuel". 

And it's pretty obvious she's not gonna abolish nobility anyway. She didn't turned Empire into democracy, she handed it to her sucessor eventually, which means it's still autocratic nation, and it's obvious Linhardt and Caspar fathers as well as any other nobles who supported her will stay in power. 

Fodlan society in general has its flaws and it that would be nice if they got fixed, but it's nothing that would require armed intervention (from nation that has it actually worst.) as again only one who suffer because it are nobles and  they have it in their job description. 

 

 

 

[Troykv]

I personally believe the closest thing to a Canon ending is the Church/Claude ending because of the more lore focused story arc, the fact you always play with the good guys, the fact that pretty much all the important villans appear and the fact in both stories Byleth became King/Emperor of Fodlan in classic FE Style like with Marth, Alm and Seliph.

Edited August 25, 2019 by Troykv

[Hardric62]

1 minute ago, Tenzen12 said:

Nobility and Crest system is not inherently bad, it was established for reasons and it's reason mostly (or even completely) unrelated to church doctrine. Nobility protect commoners, that's why cast systems exist in first place and lot of nobles of Fodlan did not forget about it. Except empire there is no nation "rotten to core" and yes its because TWSITD corrupted it and took complete control over it. This also serve as "fuel". 

 

Funny, I remember paralogues dedicated to Alliance nobles killing off merchants or giving them up to giant beasts for daring go to their rivals, constantly backstabbing for more power, killing each other, and Kingdom nobles hostile to reforms of the precedent king, and only too happy to slaughter people like Duscurs rather than adress true problems, generally doing a shit job of enforcing the peace, and let's not talk about the pretty much universal toxic way Crests are viewed by all these people and people trying to marry into the precious thingies in Supports, Paralogues... Yup, looks like the rot goes pretty far, and if that's the best of their time they can find, then I fail to see why not change the whole thing, and since they assassinate/coup when you try the soft way, there are not that many other ways left.