Jump to content
semolinaro

What are your thoughts on Edelgard? *SPOILERS*

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Hekselka said:

Even if you're saying this to poke fun at people it sounds absolutely absurd.

Edelgard wants a world without crests and one where there's no discrimination based on whether you're a noble or not. She even succeeds in her ending in creating a better world.

Yeah, and the only way to accomplish that is by burning the entire world down. Completely justified, she's not evil at all then!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Spirit in Black said:

Yeah, and the only way to accomplish that is by burning the entire world down. Completely justified, she's not evil at all then!  

Thats just hyperbole. Shes not trying to burn the whole world down. Edelgard wishes for a swift end to the war. The faster the war ends the less blood is spilled. The sooner the two rebellious nations (who rightfully belong to the empire) accept that resistance is futile, the faster the war can end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Spirit in Black said:

Yeah, and the only way to accomplish that is by burning the entire world down. Completely justified, she's not evil at all then!  

She doesn't do that though? She unites Fodlan, she doesn't 'burn it down'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, wissenschaft said:

"This conversation is especially really bad on the morality spectrum for Edelgard because here Dimitri is more sane than he was in BL until he gets his redemption scene (here he has his friends with him and didn't endure the loneliness that he did in his path) and she's basically trying to find fault with him DEFENDING HIS COUNTRY his moral obligation like what the heck Edelgard?"

His kingdom is merely a renegade province of the empire. Their "kings" have no legitimate claim to the land.

Its the type of real world reasoning that countless wars have be started over IRL.

So what you're saying is it's basically alright for her to take back what USED to be a part of the Empire from both the Kingdom and the Alliance all the while stepping on the very lives of the people inhabiting them to achieve that? Just because she has the right doesn't make it morally right, you cannot deny that. So it's perfectly fine for hypothetically if the Indians were a large collective enough group to start a war to reclaim their land that is now America despite the lives that are taken in the process it should be all will and good because it's an eye for eye right? No it's not. It's understandable, but not right and that is what Edelgard falls into she by all means has good in her, but the bad outweighs the good to obtain that ideal good world especially when the other endings achieve just that. It's the same case with Nohr needing resources from Hoshido, it's understandable and well in the king's duty to help his kingdom flourish because that's his obligation to the people he's sworn to protect and provide for but it's still a path of blood while stomping on the corpses to achieve those ends and this could have been avoided if there was some sort of peaceful negotiation.

Spoiler

of course we'll never know if that's what good Garon that Xander remembers wanted to do because of evil Gooron Fates writing

The problem here is that I cannot see Edelgard and Dimitri having a peaceful negotiation with him stepping down (especially when she's already killed a lot of people to reclaiming the land) and allowing Edelgard to take back the Kingdom to be reassimilated while she goes on to strip the Kingdom and the Alliance of their very history from the people's minds, which no that's what tyrants/dictators do. People like Edelgard need to accept all forms of history both the good and the bad, not just some of it and the latter is what she's doing to make sure no one has to view her as a questionable individual who wasn't such a squeaky clean good person and to be viewed as nothing but a heroic ruler. But I guess it should come as no surprise given how she has false information on Fodland's history to begin with so her view on history and what to do with it is messed up morally as well just like how she declares war with said misinformed history.

It's just like Ashe said earlier in the discussion "What else is there for you to take?!" unfortunately the Kingdom's history too.

 

Edited by AbsoluteZer0Nova

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, wissenschaft said:

 The sooner the two rebellious nations (who rightfully belong to the empire) accept that resistance is futile, the faster the war can end.

Except it isn't because she loses in every route except her own. Also, by your logic, America should just submit if Britain were ever to wage war on us, right?  Who cares if our ancestors fought for their independence. This is reasoning is completely idiotic. Some of what I'm reading here makes me seriously consider if some of you people wouldn't be WW2 sympathizers.  I fail to understand how anyone could ever defend starting a war. 

Edited by Spirit in Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spirit in Black said:

Except it isn't because she loses in every route except her own. Also, by your logic, America should just submit if Britain were ever to wage war on us, right?  Who cares if our ancestors fought for their independence. This is reasoning is completely idiotic. Some of what I'm reading here makes me seriously consider if some of you people wouldn't be WW2 sympathizers. 

Thank you, the descendants of the people of the past should take responsibility and submit while stripping away everything their history and culture is completely ludicrous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all war is bad then America should give back half its land mass to mexico which it took in war. The same nation that gained it Independence would suppress a bid for independence from within (civil war). Just because a nation gained independence doesn't make it just (or bad for that matter). I only bring that up as an example that nations and war are complicated and are not easily reduced to a bad side and a just side. Allowing the kingdom to exist in Edelgard's mind will allow the exploitative nobility system to continue to exist. The kingdom having its independence just to continue a corrupt nobility system does not make it just. The kingdom stands for everything shes against so its little wonder in my mind that Edelgard refuses to except its existence. It kind of weird that people are shocked that she refused to surrender on the Blue Lions route. Why would she accept king Demtiri and the continence of everything she stands against?

Again, I agree that comparing Edelgard to Neopoleon is FAR more apt than any WW2 analogy. A self-proclaimed emperor who was an enemy of the nobility of their time. Who used war to expedite their vision for the world. 

 

Edited by wissenschaft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Despite taking visual cue's from emperor Hardin is seems that Arvis was the emperor that inspired Edelgard's role in the story As such I view Edelgard similar to how I view Arvis. 

The two are somewhat unique among well intended extremists found in jrpg's. Most of those villains are really obviously in the wrong with ideals that are benevolent only in their own warped minds or with sacrifices far too big to justify those ideals. That's not really the case with Edelgard and Arvis. They just want a very conventional ideal of a just world without persecution. They aren't wrong in their desire for this and if left to their own devices they do follow up on their desire to create a better world. Arvis wasn't wrong but he was sabotaged by the Lopt cult. Edelgard's ideal isn't wrong either and she seems intent not to let Those that Slither sabotage her reign.

Even if their goals are undeniably good their means of getting their is.....bad. Arvis was said to be a great ruler who led Jugdral into a golden age but he still held that barbecue and manipulated everyone to get that. Edelgard strives to be a just ruler, abolish an oppressive class system and lead a unified Fodlan to a golden age. But she still starts a war that probably kills thousands to get there. I suppose it boils down to whether the ends justify the means. 

So is she a better character than Arvis IYO? Or is Arvis still top dog? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

So is she a better character than Arvis IYO? Or is Arvis still top dog? 

I think that answer is subjective. Perhaps we can agree that Edelgard is the best character the series has had since Arvis?

Edited by wissenschaft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, wissenschaft said:

If all war is bad then America should give back half its land mass to mexico which it took in war.
 

Mexico took it from Spain before them, which in turns from various native tribes and nations...modern day State of Mexico has very little claim on these lands since their cultural ancesators Mexica/Azatec never controlled these lands outside Teotihuacan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tenzen12 said:

 

BE is still most played route in game. It's true that Eldegard is more on black then gray, but people love her regardless. So I don't think your words were warranted. 

Just felt like stating my opinion that all. I dont care really if its the wrong opinion to some one else 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wissenschaft said:

I think that answer is subjective. Perhaps we can agree that Edelgard is the best character the series has had since Arvis?

That claim is even harder to make because all those characters are quite different from Edelgard. I know the answer to that is subjective which is why I asked IYO. 

I'd say she is because Arvis' betrayal is no surprise to the player as they already know what he's about to do long before it happens. Furthermore, she has a large number of supports whereas Arvis doesn't get as much dialogue to flesh out his ideals nor does he go through on screen character development other than off panel one during the time skip. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

So is she a better character than Arvis IYO? Or is Arvis still top dog? 

Its a bit too soon to say for sure since I haven't completed the game yet and we don't know how Arvis would turn out in a remake. 

She's definitely more successful than Arvis but Arvis failing despite his good intentions and ability to follow up on those intentions was exactly what made him so tragic. Edelgard's plans going without a hitch if you take her route decreases her tragedy points somewhat. Edelgard's definitely more likable. Despite all the ideals and iron queen facade she wants to be a young girl while we never see Arvis engage in his more human side. Some flashbacks with Azelle might have worked wonders on that front. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Spirit in Black said:

Except it isn't because she loses in every route except her own. Also, by your logic, America should just submit if Britain were ever to wage war on us, right?  Who cares if our ancestors fought for their independence. This is reasoning is completely idiotic. Some of what I'm reading here makes me seriously consider if some of you people wouldn't be WW2 sympathizers.  I fail to understand how anyone could ever defend starting a war. 

Some of what I'm reading here makes me think some people think that we can't differentiate video games from reality.

Which wouldn't surprise me since America seems to think that video games causes us to be violent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Its a bit too soon to say for sure since I haven't completed the game yet and we don't know how Arvis would turn out in a remake. 

She's definitely more successful than Arvis but Arvis failing despite his good intentions and ability to follow up on those intentions was exactly what made him so tragic. Edelgard's plans going without a hitch if you take her route decreases her tragedy points somewhat. Edelgard's definitely more likable. Despite all the ideals and iron queen facade she wants to be a young girl while we never see Arvis engage in his more human side. Some flashbacks with Azelle might have worked wonders on that front. 

She's quite tragic in the other routes. I agree that in her route, her relatively easy and quick success can make her inferior as a protagonist compared to other lords but that's just one facet. 

It all depends on how much emphasis you put in tragedy. The reason why I and many others rank Sigurd quite high is because of how well executed his tragedy was but without it, he'd be ranked quite low. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hekselka said:

Some of what I'm reading here makes me think some people think that we can't differentiate video games from reality.

Which wouldn't surprise me since America seems to think that video games causes us to be violent.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with drawing parallels between video games and real life when one is obviously inspiring the other, but I see you don't want to face the reality that you're defending a dictator like the many we've had throughout history so you're attempting to change the subject and move the goalpost with a strawman, ok.

Edited by Spirit in Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Spirit in Black said:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with drawing parallels between video games and real life when one is obviously inspiring the other, but I see you don't want to face the reality that you're defending a dictator like the many we've had throughout history so you're attempting to change the subject and move the goalpost, ok.

Being an Empress (not quite the same as dictator) doesn't automatically make one unjust nor are democracies (or republics) automatically just. Humans are too complicated for that. Of course, this isn't even a story of the evil empire bring war to the innocent republic. Its a story of Empress waging war on a king to remove their corrupt system of aristocracy. And aristocracy isn't a system I'm in favor of protecting.

Does the Blue Lions ending remove the aristocracy or does it not mention it? If no mention then its certainly not my preferred ending.

Edited by wissenschaft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wissenschaft said:

Being an Empress (not quite the same as dictator) doesn't automatically make one unjust nor are democracies automaticly just. Humans are too complicated for that.

dic·ta·tor - a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force
Sounds like Edelgard to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spirit in Black said:
dic·ta·tor - a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force
Sounds like Edelgard to me. 

Not at all tho? Dimitri also has total power over his Kingdom, even Claude, even tho is an Alliance and you are completely ignoring the "by force" part, which neither have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Spirit in Black said:
dic·ta·tor - a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force
Sounds like Edelgard to me. 

Except Edelgard is just taking her birthright. Demitiri might as well be a dictator as well though his ancestors took their right to rule by force in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nio said:

Not at all tho? Dimitri also has total power over his Kingdom, even Claude, even tho is an Alliance and you are completely ignoring the "by force" part, which neither have done.

Are you seriously telling me Edelgard didn't unify Fodlan by force? Are you being deliberately obtuse? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Spirit in Black said:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with drawing parallels between video games and real life when one is obviously inspiring the other, but I see you don't want to face the reality that you're defending a dictator like the many we've had throughout history so you're attempting to change the subject and move the goalpost with a strawman, ok.

You were the one that said "Some of what I'm reading here makes me seriously consider if some of you people wouldn't be WW2 sympathizers. " so it looks like you can't see the difference between the two. Because you came to the conclusion that some people here would symphatize with WW2 based on the opinion they have about a video game character. That's why I brought that up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spirit in Black said:

Are you seriously telling me Edelgard didn't unify Fodlan by force? Are you being deliberately obtuse? 

Try to be less unclear next time.

Even then, you are still evading the main point. So every king/queen in the story of anything is a dictator because they had full power over the country they ruled? No, and is not even debatable, so no, shes not a dictator.

Im not defending her tho, just clarifying that calling her a dictator is not accutare, as you did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Spirit in Black said:

Are you seriously telling me Edelgard didn't unify Fodlan by force? Are you being deliberately obtuse? 

Fodland was originally split by force so Edelgard is just reversing what was done by force. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...