Jump to content

What are your thoughts on Edelgard? *SPOILERS*


Recommended Posts

Are we really comparing the moral high ground between Dimitri and Edelgard when the entire point is that they're both terrible in their own ways. They're supposed to act as foils to each other in essence. They both want a more peaceful world but they each have their own definition of what that world is. Edelgard as far as I can tell is very close minded and stubborn. She has a set path and refuses to deviate from that path because it is the only one she chooses to walk. She feels it is the only way to bring about a peaceful no matter how much blood may be shed. The ends justify the means and all that. 

Dimitri on the other hand is actually more open minded than Edelgard(least as far as I can tell I haven't finished BE yet). He's more naive and idealistic while Edelgard is far more cynical and grounded. Honestly their relationship reminds me a lot of Naruto and Sasuke actually. Because Edelgard is Cynical yet idealistic as well. She sees how much of a failure this current system is and decides to do something about it despite how bloody her hands become. Dimitri on the other hand sees the destruction she causes and cannot agree with it. In essence he won't stand on a peace made from corpses(which I know is a contradiction given his actions but the game does indeed recognize that and it is corrected). Dimitri overall actually does agree with Edelgard that the current system is awful but to him her system isn't much better as the weak will still continue to suffer. In that sense Dimitri is more naive and idealistic than Edelgard. Honestly there's a lot to dig up regarding the relationship between these two but my memory is a little hazy at the moment so I'll just leave it at that. Their conversation near the the end of BL really does shed some light on the differences and similarities between the two. It's fascinating really.

30 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Imagine if Rodrigue didn't die. So much of the narrative hinged on that plot point lol.

You're framing it as if that's a bad thing. Yeah the narrative relies heavily on rodrigue's death to push itself forward. What's wrong with that? It's not like the death is meaningless. It makes sense within the context of the story and has the impact it should on the characters it needs to. I don't see the problem with it other than the fact that Felix took it surprisingly well(then again Felix should have had a bigger role in this story overall but whatever). Like if no one was affected by his death that would be worse. I mean how else is Dimitri supposed to realize the contradiction in his ideals?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 928
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, Ottservia said:

Are we really comparing the moral high ground between Dimitri and Edelgard when the entire point is that they're both terrible in their own ways.

We are because it keeps being brought up as a contrast point to Edelgard in an Edelgard thread, and it's clear the bulk of the animosity towards her is fueled by the Azure Moon route. The solution is to stop bringing it up and discuss the character as she is.

2 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

You're framing it as if that's a bad thing.

Writing-wise it definitely is. It tells me the rest of the story is weak - it can't redeem or resolve itself on it's own, so they throw in a character death. It needs to happen because the writers can't think of any other solution to dig Dimitri out of the hole they put him in. The death itself isn't even written well: it's done right in front of Byleth, who has time-altering powers and presumably doesn't want Rodrigue to die, and Fleche yells a lot before the death blow is actually dealt. WTF was everyone else doing?

The more I think about the writing in this route the more it actively annoys me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Are we really comparing the moral high ground between Dimitri and Edelgard when the entire point is that they're both terrible in their own ways. They're supposed to act as foils to each other in essence. They both want a more peaceful world but they each have their own definition of what that world is. Edelgard as far as I can tell is very close minded and stubborn. She has a set path and refuses to deviate from that path because it is the only one she chooses to walk. She feels it is the only way to bring about a peaceful no matter how much blood may be shed. The ends justify the means and all that. 

Dimitri on the other hand is actually more open minded than Edelgard(least as far as I can tell I haven't finished BE yet). He's more naive and idealistic while Edelgard is far more cynical and grounded. Honestly their relationship reminds me a lot of Naruto and Sasuke actually. Because Edelgard is Cynical yet idealistic as well. She sees how much of a failure this current system is and decides to do something about it despite how bloody her hands become. Dimitri on the other hand sees the destruction she causes and cannot agree with it. In essence he won't stand on a peace made from corpses(which I know is a contradiction given his actions but the game does indeed recognize that and it is corrected). Dimitri overall actually does agree with Edelgard that the current system is awful but to him her system isn't much better as the weak will still continue to suffer. In that sense Dimitri is more naive and idealistic than Edelgard. Honestly there's a lot to dig up regarding the relationship between these two but my memory is a little hazy at the moment so I'll just leave it at that. Their conversation near the the end of BL really does shed some light on the differences and similarities between the two. It's fascinating really.

You're framing it as if that's a bad thing. Yeah the narrative relies heavily on rodrigue's death to push itself forward. What's wrong with that? It's not like the death is meaningless. It makes sense within the context of the story and has the impact it should on the characters it needs to. I don't see the problem with it other than the fact that Felix took it surprisingly well(then again Felix should have had a bigger role in this story overall but whatever). Like if no one was affected by his death that would be worse. I mean how else is Dimitri supposed to realize the contradiction in his ideals?

 

When the story written by the same person tells me Dimitri needs to suffer for being a punisher and Edelgard gets off free for starting the war. Plus potentially wiping out Rhea's entire species yes. I brought up Claude in my orginal point to how he actively comes back after GDS ending to help Fodlan. It got ignored. To focus on Dimitri because being a vigilante apparently puts you on the level of a cultural destroying conquer. Which is like comparing Ted Bundy to Stalin. Inconsistent moral themes bug the shit out of me. Specially when nothing Cluade and Dimitri did compare to the horror of a world war and there life ends up being shittier.

Edited by Julian Solo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dimitri deserves more criticism than what he gets, Edelgard gets what she deserves lol. The former is one of the most popular characters, while the latter gets these threads lol.

If you can't handle it, don't wade into an Edelgard thread, I guess?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Writing-wise it definitely is. It tells me the rest of the story is weak - it can't redeem or resolve itself on it's own, so they throw in a character death. It needs to happen because the writers can't think of any other solution to dig Dimitri out of the hole they put him in.

Could they have thought of something else? yes they could have. Is it bad that they didn't? absolutely not. Like saying that they should have thought of a different way resolve that particular thematic conflict is like saying that Edelgard didn't need be the villain. could the writer's have come up with a different villain? yes, they most certainly could have but they didn't want to. It really is that simple there is no "correct" way to to explore a character's arc and a story's thematic through line. A writer can explore the themes of their stories and characters however they please. How they choose to explore those things is entirely up to them. All that really matters is if it's consistent and is structurally sound. Execution is what matters most.

I've said this a million times before but always judge a story on its terms not your own. Judge the story based on the themes and messages it wants to explore and how it goes about exploring them not the themes and messages you think it should explore and in the way you think it should. Just because a story explores it's themes in way that you personally disagree with that doesn't make it bad. It's only bad if it actively contradicts the themes it wants to explore(like SoV for example) or it's inconsistent or whatever.  If a story wants to use a death scene to explore the ramifications of justice through hate and vengeance it should very well have the right to and there's nothing wrong with the idea alone. There's nothing wrong with that idea. It's the execution of the idea that matters. There are about a million different ways to tell a story and explore ideas and deliver messages. To say one idea is the "wrong" way to explore that theme is ignorant of that notion cause there really is no "wrong" way to explore an idea or theme. Like said judge a story based on what it wants to be not how you think it should be or how you want it to be.

23 minutes ago, Crysta said:

The death itself isn't even written well: it's done right in front of Byleth, who has time-altering powers and presumably doesn't want Rodrigue to die, and Fleche yells a lot before the death blow is actually dealt. WTF was everyone else doing?

Y'see that's fair criticism as nitpicky as it is because it actively reveals inconsistencies within the plot which can indeed take away from the intensity of the scene and can take away from the overall theme or message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Dimitri deserves more criticism than what he gets, Edelgard gets what she deserves lol. The former is one of the most popular characters, while the latter gets these threads lol.

If you can't handle it, don't wade into an Edelgard thread, I guess?

Lmao what? I am not allowed to talk about comparing the main characters of the game in a thread about one of the main lords? Also your assuming I can't handle what? I don't see how that comment was called for. Unless of course this wasn't aimed at me then I apologize 

 

Edited by Julian Solo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Could they have thought of something else? yes they could have. Is it bad that they didn't? absolutely not. Like saying that they should have thought of a different way resolve that particular thematic conflict is like saying that Edelgard didn't need be the villain. could the writer's have come up with a different villain? yes, they most certainly could have but they didn't want to. It really is that simple there is no "correct" way to to explore a character's arc and a story's thematic through line. A writer can explore the themes of their stories and characters however they please. How they choose to explore those things is entirely up to them. All that really matters is if it's consistent and is structurally sound. Execution is what matters most.

I don't think it's nitpicky at all. I didn't have to go through Azure Moon with a hypercritical eye - the flaws are all pretty obvious and there. I definitely can, and will, criticize the writers for their choices because... why wouldn't I? I spent money on this story and I believe they're competent storytellers. My disappointment in the fact that they took the lazy solution in their own story is valid.

I don't even know if I'd call it consistent. Is there any particular reason why his sadism gets cranked up to 11? That seems separate from his trauma.

11 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Y'see that's fair criticism as nitpicky as it is because it actively reveals inconsistencies within the plot which can indeed take away from the intensity of the scene and can take away from the overall theme or message.

How little the really blatant stuff actually bothers people is weird. But my surprise was in the negatives at that point.

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Julian Solo said:

Lmao what? I am not allowed to talk about comparing the main characters of the game in a thread about one of the main lords? Also your assuming I can't handle what? I don't see how that comment was called for. Unless of course this wasn't aimed at me then I apologize 

 

You're allowed to compare them. But that's what I'm doing, too, and whining about it is dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Crysta said:

I don't think it's nitpicky at all. I didn't have to go through Azure Moon with a hypercritical eye - the flaws are all pretty obvious and there. I definitely can, and will, criticize the writers for their choices because... why wouldn't I? I spent money on this story and I believe they're competent storytellers. My disappointment in the fact that they took the lazy route to their own story is valid.

Yes but the story is not bad simply because you disagree with how it chooses to explore its ideas. That is a matter of personal opinion. There is nothing wrong with having that opinion of course but a story is not bad because of your subjective tastes. That was pretty much my point in all of that. A story is not bad simply because you personally disagree with it. again judge a story by what it wants to do not what you want it to do. Like you don't go into wendy's or something and complain that it doesn't serve authentic chinese food because that was never the intention. No one goes into Wendy's to eat authentic chinese food so to criticize wendy's for not doing that is moot. Wendy's doesn't wanna serve that kind of food so they don't so why complain about it.

Stories are the same way. Like if a story wants to explore it's themes in a way then it should be able to do that. If they want to use a death scene to get the point across, it should be judged based on whether the death scene gets that point across while remaining consistent not the fact that you don't like that there's a death scene there. Like if that's the point and it's conveyed well with inconsistencies then there's no problem. Again, there are so many different ways to go about storytelling so to say one way is better than another is just close minded and arrogant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Yes but the story is not bad simply because you disagree with how it chooses to explore its ideas. That is a matter of personal opinion. There is nothing wrong with having that opinion of course but a story is not bad because of your subjective tastes.

Are you just gonna go "well that's your opinion man" and criticize me for daring to critique a piece of media you enjoy lol?

It's bad. Yes, that's my opinion. And yes I think it's better supported than yours. No, I don't feel bad about thinking that, and I'm perfectly willing to defend my arguments and views on a internet forum - otherwise I wouldn't be here stating them.

You don't have to explain storytelling to me. I find that far more condescending than anything I've thus far said.

EDIT: Also totally legit to criticize Wendy's for making a bad sammich if they're trying to make a good sammich. That doesn't really fit. I went into the route expecting a compelling character arc. It didn't deliver.

Also fine with stopping with the critique about the writing and focusing on how much worse Dimitri is than Edelgard for half his route. I don't agree with the "they're both just as bad in their own ways" argument; I'm willing to stake one being worse than the other.

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Ottservia said:
1 hour ago, Crysta said:

The death itself isn't even written well: it's done right in front of Byleth, who has time-altering powers and presumably doesn't want Rodrigue to die, and Fleche yells a lot before the death blow is actually dealt. WTF was everyone else doing?

Y'see that's fair criticism as nitpicky as it is because it actively reveals inconsistencies within the plot which can indeed take away from the intensity of the scene and can take away from the overall theme or message.

I think the scene still works if you assume Byleth was out of his/her rewind powers after the tough battle of Gronder. And in general, there needs to be a way for bad things to still happen even with Byleth around, or the storytelling would be far too limited.

I guess they could have added a line making Byleth being out of rewind powers explicit, but would that have made things better for you? I tend to think it would have been worse; it would let the player know something bad was about to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I think the scene still works if you assume Byleth was out of his/her rewind powers after the tough battle of Gronder. And in general, there needs to be a way for bad things to still happen even with Byleth around, or the storytelling would be far too limited.

I guess they could have added a line making Byleth being out of rewind powers explicit, but would that have made things better for you? I tend to think it would have been worse; it would let the player know something bad was about to happen.

Thales could magically appear again

They could simply put Byleth on the other side of the field, or have Dimitri run off much further in his frothing rage. Make him marginally less accessible than he clearly was.

I'm not entirely sure where Rodrigue was throughout that entire thing, so having him stumble in just in time wouldn't be too out of place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Crysta said:

Thales could magically appear again

They could simply put Byleth on the other side of the field, or have Dimitri run off much further in his frothing rage. Make him marginally less accessible than he clearly was.

I'm not entirely sure where Rodrigue was throughout that entire thing, so having him stumble in just in time wouldn't be too out of place.

Exspecially as Byleth doesnt serve any purpose in that scene. That scene was also bothering me comparing how logical they made the death scene of Jeralt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised so many people are calling Rodrigue's death scene bad for the story. I found it to be one of the strongest scenes in the game. 

Throughout the story, Dimitri had a strong desire to avenge the dead.  Worsened by the scars he obtained during the 5-year timeskip, his obsession with satiating the dead led him down a dark path where he was literally killing himself to fulfill something that was ultimately meaningless, and he refused to change because he felt he was too far gone. We see this in the Golden Deer path, where Dimitri dies an unceremonious and pitiful death because of his inability to snap back to the right path.

Rodrigue's death is the critical setback Dimitri needed in order to understand that he wasn't doing the right thing. One detail I really love is that Rodrigue's own lingering regret is not fulfilling his promise to Lambert: making Dimitri a respectable ruler. Through this token, I find Dimitri's change more convincing, since he isn't completely thinking for himself, but fulfilling the request of the dead (he mentions he's still haunted by their voices in his S-support w/ Byleth iirc). Also, if I'm being honest, I find that the Blue Lion's story hinging on Rodrigue's death makes the moment even more powerful and tragic because his death was necessary to save Dimitri. I felt it sent a strong message that its never too late to course correct, but its better to do so sooner. 

Divine Pulse is legitimate criticism for the scene, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be better if, for some reason, Dimitri was convinced that someone close to him wasn't liable to die due to his reckless revenge quest. If he was overconfident and simply foolish. It'd be a startling wake-up call.

But that possibility is spelled out for him, and he brushes it off. Barring anyone actually working up the courage to defy his wishes, it makes Rodrigue's death low key predictable. If not him, would have guessed it'd be Gilbert if it wasn't for Dedue possibly permanently being gone. (Which is weird in itself but that's a different complaint)

He's fine with leading his friends to their deaths if it means he gets what he wants. I don't think he needed to be that far gone. The plot demanded he finally reflect on what he was doing, ergo the Rodrigue dying-in-your-arms conversation (which could have happened at any point before this) while Byleth just sits back and watches lol. It certainly has dramatic flair, which I suspect is why people overlook the weirdness and leap of logic it requires to remain immersed, but that's not coherent writing.

I think every other scene in that route is leagues better, writing-wise and artistically. (I'd actually give it the highest marks in the latter category)

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rodrigue's death scene is probably one of the worst scenes in the game, in my opinion. From the beginning, his death is so obviously coming that despite me liking the character, I struggled to care much when he died. Dads die all the time in fiction, and that's even more true in Fire Emblem. Since Dimitri serves as the main character of Azure Moon and Rodrigue is basically the closest thing he has to a dad, the writing was on the wall the moment you see that he's an NPC. If a writer is going to so heavily foreshadow something to the point that it's hardly foreshadowing anymore, they really need to do something great with it. I don't think IS did, though. Instead of playing the long con and having it act as a catalyst for a longer redemption arc, Dimitri flips like a switch to atoner mode. It's jarring, honestly. The Support system doesn't help this either because once he's back, you have so many supports that represent an entirely different character than the one you saw an hour or so ago.

It also kind of misrepresents what the story says is supposed to have happened. When you talk to Dedue in the monastery, he says that Dimitri hasn't gone back to the way he was, but Dimitri has fundamentally changed. The Dimitri you saw post-timeskip was the "real" Dimitri, and the pre-skip behavior was essentially a mask. This is also supported by Dimitri's Goddess Tower scene and a few of his story mode scenes where his quest for vengeance is shown off. Okay, I can buy that. Then, you open up the supports and see him talking about atonement in pretty much every one of them. Somehow, he's changed so thoroughly in a few days of game time from a single event. No matter how impactful Rodrigue's death was for him, this can elicit a lot of emotional whiplash from the player.

Also, I kind of find it odd that a death is what made him better when many deaths made him worse, and I think it would have been more realistically portrayed if Dimitri went through a prolonged period of grief instead of skipping all of that. If we're just using the traditional five stages of grief with denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and aceeptance, I think there's a lot there that could have been explored. Maybe his delusions now include Rodrigue for a time, and he lashes out at anyone who comes near him in Garreg Mach. Eventually, his anger fades to depression, and some other trigger ultimately leads to him accepting his role as the King of Faerghus. Instead, we go from Rodrigue's death to the final stage in a few minutes for the player. There is so much lost potential there that I can't really call it anything but bad writing. There was an interesting datamine that showed game files where Felix and Annette are enemies on the Fhirdiad map with Cornelia. This also was supposed to occur after Rodrigue's death, so maybe that was the missing piece that Dimitri needed for his redemption arc to not feel so rushed.

I don't really know, but after thinking about it more, it has sort of soured the BL route's story for me. A big part of any story is the journey, and I kind of feel like Azure Moon got lost on the way to the destination. Other routes have their flaws certainly. Silver Snow and Golden Deer share too much which makes both feel uninspired, and Crimson Flower ends way too soon (and I actually liked Edelgard more in Azure Moon, but that's not particularly relevant). Azure Moon just feels like it had so much missed potential. It starts off relatively strong, and I think having a Lord fall into insanity and come back could have been very interesting. Instead, the transition between the two states is mostly skipped, and a murder hobo suddenly becomes the atoner king. It's just too sudden, and I think that kind of sums up Three Houses' writing in a nutshell. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, LegendOfLoog said:

(and I actually liked Edelgard more in Azure Moon, but that's not particularly relevant)

Seconded, funnily enough. I like them both more on each other's routes than in their own.

I agree that Dimitri's redemption is way too quick for it to feel earned. Being so instrumental to bringing him back into the light via Byleth felt more forced than moving or endearing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are your thoughts on Edelgard?

My opinion: I don't like her. She is a good villain... and that's all.

I holded my opinion until I played enough of the BE path (a.k.a. Be Evil Path), nothing made me like Evilgard as the "heroine". I like her as the villain she is.

I have some problems with her path... Some times I easy get bored by the plot, something that didn't happen in the others paths. In my opinion, she isn't a likeable likible character as well.

She has some scenes that tries to change my thoughts, like the rat scene or the painting dialogue, but without success.

As villain, great! Evilgard is great, especially in the Blue Lions path. As the main character, kinda meh.

Dimitri and Claude are way better characters than Evilgard... She shines as a villain, but fade as a protagonist of her own story.

Can someone explain to me why she wants to kill Rhea in the BE path so much, but in the others paths she kept her imprisoned instead of killing her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Crysta said:

Are you just gonna go "well that's your opinion man" and criticize me for daring to critique a piece of media you enjoy lol?

It's bad. Yes, that's my opinion. And yes I think it's better supported than yours. No, I don't feel bad about thinking that, and I'm perfectly willing to defend my arguments and views on a internet forum - otherwise I wouldn't be here stating them.

You don't have to explain storytelling to me. I find that far more condescending than anything I've thus far said.

EDIT: Also totally legit to criticize Wendy's for making a bad sammich if they're trying to make a good sammich. That doesn't really fit. I went into the route expecting a compelling character arc. It didn't deliver.

Also fine with stopping with the critique about the writing and focusing on how much worse Dimitri is than Edelgard for half his route. I don't agree with the "they're both just as bad in their own ways" argument; I'm willing to stake one being worse than the other.

You’re missing my point. It’s totally okay to criticize a story for having a bad character arc like it’s okay to criticize Wendy’s for making a bad sandwich cause y’know that’s the point of what both things are trying to do. However, what my point was in all of that is that you shouldn’t criticize something for merely existing. Just because you didn’t like the fact that the plot hinged on a death scene then that doesn’t make it bad. What makes it bad is the lack of proper build up and pay off as well as all the inconsistencies it brings to light not the fact that it exists. Tropes are universal in fiction and for good reason. A trope isn’t bad merely for existing. No it’s bad because it was poorly executed. That’s my point. Rodrigue’s death is a pivotal plot point that the writer’s used to get their ideas across. The plot point isn’t bad because they “should’ve thought of something else” cause you can say that about literally every other plot point in the story. No it’s bad because of the lukewarm buildup and inconsistency to the plot it brings to light(eg Byleth not turning back time when they could). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Crysta said:

Seconded, funnily enough. I like them both more on each other's routes than in their own.

I agree that Dimitri's redemption is way too quick for it to feel earned. Being so instrumental to bringing him back into the light via Byleth felt more forced than moving or endearing.

Crimson Flower contorts itself trying to make Edelgard and the Empire as weak as possible imo. Dimitri is never betrayed by Cornelia, and Rhea is an active participant in the plot. This is fine on its own, but then it feels like in nearly every other cutscene, Crimson Flower almost tries to make Edelgard appear incompetent. In five years, am I supposed to believe that almost nothing has changed at all? It also doesn't help that Edelgard believes the history passed down the Adrestian imperial line which is proven false in other routes. And in the beginning of the route, it seems every other character says something to the effect of "Edelgard really missed you, professor." Then, there are scenes like the rat one where they really go above and beyond to endear her to the player. I really don't feel it's necessary at this point to do this, and they could have used the time to explain Edelgard's ideals more thoroughly. Somehow, I've learned more about her motives in Azure Moon than in Crimson Flower, and that doesn't make a lot of sense. I guess you could say they're spelled out in her supports, but it really should have been a more important part of the main story. Instead, IS spent the limited amount of time the route had trying to constantly convince the player they're doing the right thing and that Edelgard needs Byleth or something which wasn't really necessary or interesting. 

And despite Dimitri showing up hardly ever, he actually comes across pretty well on this route. Sure, he still wants vengeance, but he goes about it fairly reasonably. Hubert tries to tell you that Dimitri fights dirty or something, but isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Of course Dimitri's going to do whatever he can to defeat invaders of his kingdom, and Edelgard goes even further to defeat Dimitri in Azure Moon, so it comes across as a strange line to me. Edelgard's battle quote with him sticks out as a particularly dumb version of this. Dimitri asks her why she's continuing to directly cause thousands of deaths. A reasonable question, honestly, especially when she hasn't exactly tried to tell him. She basically responds with "no u" and follows up by saying she doesn't care what she has to sacrifice. And then after she kills him, she tries to say she couldn't save him. I guess? There's really no way to know because she didn't try at all in this route. At least in Azure Moon, she does tell him directly she wasn't involved, but here, she just doesn't seem to care enough to do that. I don't think he could have been saved either, but good writing would have shown that and not told it directly to the player. It's too bad because he's basically a non-factor in Golden Deer and Silver Snow (Dedue is more important than him in these routes), and in BL, IS decided that all it took to redeem him was his father figure's death and a moment in the rain with a blank slate protagonist. As much as I like him as a character, he really gets the short end of the stick in the story at large. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually shocked people can't love both Edelgard and Dimitri. Because I simply adore both characters.

But on Edelgard herself, I actually fell in love with her. And the crazy part was, is that I played Crimson Flower last. I played Azure Moon first, and after watching support after support in the Blue Lions route where they talk about how royally screwed their lives are because of the Crests (and just knowing Rhea was super creepy), I found myself wanting to JOIN Edelgard when she renounced the crests and the nobility and Rhea. This is without having been spoiled/knowing anything about the plot aside from my guesses.

And when Dimitri and Edelgard met before the final battle, I agreed with everything Edelgard said. I love Dimitri because he's a precious, misguided cinnamon roll who is super idealistic in a way, with a dark side (and why can't I gay marry him?). But I loved Edelgard because she was a dictator. If people are too weak to rise up in a world without the Goddess or the crests to look up to, they don't deserve to be in that world. I so agree with this, because if people need something so desperately to cling to, that they can't stand up on their own two feet, than they are weak. Edelgard has a super strong willpower and in this, she can't abide by, or justify the weakness in others, because she herself doesn't feel those things. Is it right? Not necessarily. But do I agree with her? Yes.

And now, finalllllly playing Crimson Flower, my love for Edelgard grows and grows. To me, she's not a villain at all. She's the hero. Or at least ... the hero I've always wanted. Someone willing to walk through blood to get to a better world. And I love that even though she's misguided and lied to and not even aware of everything, she still trudges forward, because that's life. It's realistic. And ironically, she's still right in her own way, despite the lies she's been fed.

My only critique is that she's not curious enough and tries so hard to keep her emotions in check, that sometimes she makes emotional decisions (not joining Claude for instance), but honestly it's less of a critique and more of a character flaw that I find super believable. Do I think there's a world where Claude and Edelgard could join forces and take down TWSITD, while fighting against Rhea? Yes. But do I believe Dimitri would ever join that world? No. And that's what I love.

But yeah, my thoughts on Edelgard is that she's my favorite character, because she's the dictator. If I had the power and means to do what she did, I would 98% do the same thing, except recruit Claude. Haha. Also it's the only route you honestly fight the Church and Rhea (who disgusts me), and so it's my favorite simply because Edelgard is the only one who actually sees Rhea for the awful human she is and challenges her. And yes I understand Rhea and Edelgard are similar in their own ways, but they react fundamentally different and the way Edelgard reacts is closer to what I would do. Plus I hate on the other routes that Rhea is simply 'absolved' of her sins of completely derailing humanity because her stupid mother died and she couldn't cope with grief. Like I might even say the Golden Deer would be my favorite simply IF they had held Rhea accountable for all the stuff she's done, but they never did, which frustrated me. 

And Edelgard is the only one who does, which I think is important (and I took great relish in betraying the person who created me to be a host for her mother). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Kiran_ said:

Plus I hate on the other routes that Rhea is simply 'absolved' of her sins of completely derailing humanity because her stupid mother died and she couldn't cope with grief. Like I might even say the Golden Deer would be my favorite simply IF they had held Rhea accountable for all the stuff she's done, but they never did, which frustrated me.

Might given me a list of all the sins Rhea had commited that made her deserved cruel death (for her and her entire race)? From before the time skip I mean. Preferable with quotes from the game so I can also look them up. Because all I came up with is:

 

- Lying - notourisly to hide things that could hurt her, which allowed some bad people to get quite powerful positions.

- Not actively going to continent wide war to stop the Nobles from abusing their power. She has opposed them verbally however.

- Executing people that tried to kill her

- beeing a really scary lizard

 

Because I have the feeling most highly exagerating the evil that she has done to excuse the continent wide war with uncountable death, becoming orphans or losing children, friends, lovers....

If only there would be a person who is known to care for the weakest amoung the humans, like the orphans for example ...... oh wait I know one ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, Rhea hasn't done much explicitly evil until CF Part 2.

On the other hand, she IS guilty of complicity through inaction (please tell me where she opposes the nobility verbally, because this might change my opinion of her some) in the nobility's extreme actions to maintain their Crest = Divine Right to Rule ideal

She also hasn't done much to guide Fodlan, she's mainly pictured as maintaining the status quo and trying to avoid an all-out war (though the War of the Eagle and Lion is never clarified on how big that got; she does mediate here to end it though) while trying to revive her mother (through admittedly morally dubious experiments)

I love Edelgard AND Rhea, despite their respective flaws. I dislike Dmitri considering his redemption in AM comes across as rushed, forced and overall implausible, and dealing with his emo, murder-hobo self for the first half of AM was irritating as hell. Claude I dislike on account of the game favoring him way too much (he's literally the only faction leader who can survive on every route) and his general laid-back attitude doesn't mesh with me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ottservia said:

However, what my point was in all of that is that you shouldn’t criticize something for merely existing. Just because you didn’t like the fact that the plot hinged on a death scene then that doesn’t make it bad. What makes it bad is the lack of proper build up and pay off as well as all the inconsistencies it brings to light not the fact that it exists. Tropes are universal in fiction and for good reason. A trope isn’t bad merely for existing. No it’s bad because it was poorly executed. That’s my point. Rodrigue’s death is a pivotal plot point that the writer’s used to get their ideas across. The plot point isn’t bad because they “should’ve thought of something else” cause you can say that about literally every other plot point in the story. No it’s bad because of the lukewarm buildup and inconsistency to the plot it brings to light(eg Byleth not turning back time when they could). 

It doesn't make it good, either. I don't see any problem stating and explaining why I think it's bad, and AM's mere existence isn't the reason why I find it bad. I'm not even complaining about the use of tropes: they can be used well and Wikitropes is one of my favorite reference guides.

But it is bad and they could have and should have handled it differently. I don't know why that's an invalid critique to you; you're free to be offended more by another aspect than I am. You're probably better off simply arguing why it's good beyond it's mere existence, and essentially complaining about me complaining.

Someone can say they could have done something better with plot point x and I'd still be willing to hear them out and may even agree with them. And I could disagree. Welcome to a forum discussion. It is entirely up to you whether or not you want to participate.

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Crysta said:

It doesn't make it good, either. I don't see any problem stating and explaining why I think it's bad, and AM's mere existence isn't the reason why I find it bad. I'm not even complaining about the use of tropes: they can be used well and Wikitropes is one of my favorite reference guides.

But it is bad and they could have and should have handled it differently. I don't know why that's an invalid critique to you; you're free to be offended more by another aspect than I am. You're probably better off simply arguing why it's good beyond it's mere existence, and essentially complaining about me complaining.

I feel there was a miscommunication here somewhere and for that I apologize but my main issue with your statement is that you kept saying the writers should’ve not used a death scene to resolve that thematic conflict (at least that’s how I interpreted your statements if I’m wrong please correct me) which is something I disagree with. I think Rodrigue’s death is still a valid way to resolve that conflict because that’s how the story wants to convey its ideas. As for the execution of the plot point in question its fine if a little rushed because I do agree with Byleth not using divine pulse and the lack of emotional build up with Rodrigue. I also feel it could’ve been handled better but I just don’t think it’s as bad as you’re saying it is because really it would require very little fixes to make it work.

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...