Jump to content
semolinaro

What are your thoughts on Edelgard? *SPOILERS*

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Hekselka said:

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.

 

When the situation is comparable, yes I can. It's one thing to like the character, which is absolutely fine as I think Edelgard is a well constructed character, but defending her actions is an entirely different story. 

 

2 minutes ago, Nio said:

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.

  When they do it by force, which is exactly what Edelgard did, yes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

10 minutes ago, Spirit in Black said:

When the situation is comparable, yes I can. It's one thing to like the character, which is absolutely fine as I think Edelgard is a well constructed character, but defending her actions is an entirely different story.

Look, I get it, you're passionate about this topic. But uhh, can you please not call people WWII sympathizers? I think that's crossing the line just a little bit.

We've seen enough of Godwin's law in this thread.

Edited by Hunter Nightblood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Spirit in Black said:

When they do it by force, which is exactly what Edelgard did, yes.  

Again, not true. What she did is called unification/conquer, like many others nation have done in the history of the world and the leader of that movement is not a dicatator. You are just filling those 2 boxes (Ruler and take by force) and saying "well, she has both, so she is a dictator" but it doesnt work like that.

With that said, i do understand what your point is, she is a ruthless person, but that doesnt make her a dictator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agh, this makes my head spin. Like you can like her, join her, love her,  but I don't get how people think she's a hero. 

Though considering, I just had a convo with a friend where they claimed if Hitler brought peace through his actions somehow, what he did would have been justified. And I just.....I see how people side with El. 

 

Actually, it specifically states Dimitris subjects have a saying in the ruling. It makes no such mention with Edelgard. In fact it makes note of her supreme power multiple times. So by definition of the term, how is she not a dictator? 

Also are we forgetting that El is waging war based on an entirely falsified account of history? Everything she thinks is the truth are just lies from those who slither. 

As for oh she can't trust anyone so they have to die, um it specifically says Claude can't trust. And yet, he seems pretty peaceful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Spirit in Black said:

When the situation is comparable, yes I can. It's one thing to like the character, which is absolutely fine as I think Edelgard is a well constructed character, but defending her actions is an entirely different story. 

Just because one has a certain belief towards a character and their actions and defends them in a video game/movie/comic etc. does not mean they'll feel the same when a similar person would appear in real life.

There's another character I like from a manga that wants to use his power to destroy 95% of the people living on the earth thereby committing mass genocide so that his people can live in peace. Also, a girl that is really obsessed with the concept of love that she kills hundreds of people just to get the power of a demon.

I'll defend both characters in the context of their stories but if this was real life I'd want both of them dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough with the Hitler comparisons. Edelgard is not Hitler. Edelgard isn't even close to Hitler. She is not starting a war to exterminate a minority. Nor did she take over a republic and turn it into a dictatorship. Nor is she obessed with racial identity. The far better comparison is with neopolen who has his defenders to this day.

Edited by wissenschaft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What really stands out to me is how angry everyone is if you side with the empire. Like, of course but it never really comes up if you're against them. I can't recall a single BE member mentioning the empire or fighting for El, nor do they express outrage at the professors actions. Like there's Caspar but that's more of a "fight your friends thing" then anything to do with the empire or El. Whereas everyone is outraged and disgusted with them if they join the BE path. It really hammers in that it's the villain path. 

And before anyone says anything, of course it's not the case from your armies pov on that route. El thinks she's right after all. 

@wissenschaft

Well in fairness, she's trying to eliminate an entire religion, uses highly immoral means, and seeks to make the world a better place, her version of it, fully admitting she'll do ANYTH|NG to achieve that. So it's not as if the comparisons are  completely unfair. Even if you don't like it. 'Sides Napoleon has more then his share of dissenters too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Hunter Nightblood said:

Look, I get it, you're passionate about this topic. But uhh, can you please not call people WWII sympathizers? I think that's crossing the line just a little bit.

We've seen enough of Goodwin's law in this thread.

Uh, I guess? But my point is really that defending Edelgard is sympathizing with war.

24 minutes ago, Nio said:

Again, not true. What she did is called unification/conquer, like many others nation have done in the history of the world and the leader of that movement is not a dicatator. You are just filling those 2 boxes (Ruler and take by force) and saying "well, she has both, so she is a dictator" but it doesnt work like that.

With that said, i do understand what your point is, she is a ruthless person, but that doesnt make her a dictator.

Well, I strongly disagree but at this point we're arguing semantics so lets leave it at that.   

23 minutes ago, Hekselka said:

Just because one has a certain belief towards a character and their actions and defends them in a video game/movie/comic etc. does not mean they'll feel the same when a similar person would appear in real life.

There's another character I like from a manga that wants to use his power to destroy 95% of the people living on the earth thereby committing mass genocide so that his people can live in peace. Also, a girl that is really obsessed with the concept of love that she kills hundreds of people just to get the power of a demon.

I'll defend both characters in the context of their stories but if this was real life I'd want both of them dead.

I can't really split my moral compass like that. But I think that what riles me up is that unlike killing 95% of the people on the planet, or killing hundreds of people in the name of a demon ( lol ), Edelgard isn't an outlandish character as people like her really did exist so it feels a lot more real.  


That said, I'll throw you people a bone and say she's at the very least not as bad as Ganon, oops I meant Garon  lol.  

Edited by Spirit in Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CUT THE NONSENSE.

For the love of everything, this is a video game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Uh, I guess? But my point is really that defending Edelgard is sympathizing with war.

You have to make distinction between the concept of war pre/post the founding of UN.

One cannot judge historical conquerors (or by extension, El) by the same standard we use today. For people like Julius Caeser, Alexander, and Napoleon, it is within their right to wage war as one mean to achieve political goal. And like it or not, their 'aggresions' have arguably led to human progress and unless you are an extreme pacifist, their characters are not irredeemable (far from it) just because they were aggressors/warmongers. 

Make not mistake, conquest can be extremely devastating (e.g. Mongolian invasion) to human civilization but that's not what's depicted in the game. The game does recognize the cost of war to some degree (it's still a game sugar-coats war like 99% of video games) but any reasonable person can tell that El is not a bloodthirsty psychopath (although you can read her this way) nor an expansionist warmonger. She has a clearly defined and realistic political objective to achieve through war, which is legitimate because she has claim on Fodlan by birthright. She is definitely not conquering for conquest sake (pillage, plunder, colonization, genocide) and she is not expanding outside Fodlan. This already rank her in the "moral spectrum" higher than well-known unifier-epansionist such as Hideyoshi in feudal Japan or Nurhaci in great Qing dynasty of China.

Moreover, an extreme pacifist should simply refuse to play FE games completely as it is immoral to take enjoyment out of a simulated war, just or not.I am all for Pacifism but Pacifism does not solve all problems all the time. By the logic of a pacifist, any war is bad and unjust so Neville Chamberlain is right that Britain shouldn't declare war against Hitler first and just let Hitler do whatever he wants in Europe. I am simplifying a bit but you get the idea.

Quote

She's Daenerys Targaryen if she was written competently and without an uncomfortable white savior complex

I can see the similarities: both are female leaders, both have white hair, and both can ride dragon/wyvern. But unlike Dany, El's character and decisions are not based on a coin flip. Your second point is provocative for no good reason in the game, so I will not respond to that.

 

 

 

 

Edited by matchalatte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's Daenerys Targaryen if she was written competently and without an uncomfortable white savior complex

Edited by Aiddon

Share this post


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

Just saying, did she even achieve crestless world? I was under impression only crest that was broken was Byleth’s.

Lysithea lives no matter what in her Black Eagles route endings, so I would presume she does. Otherwise you'd get her normal "died after the war" unpaired ending. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 0 Def Cleric said:

Lysithea lives no matter what in her Black Eagles route endings, so I would presume she does. Otherwise you'd get her normal "died after the war" unpaired ending. 

She lives in my GD and church/Byleth ending though. So I don’t think that’s indicative.

 

I remember Edelgard ending only states she work on an more equal world, but nothing says about making Crest disappear. Yet I came across a few people defending her claimed she made crest go away by killing Rhea. As we learned in other routes, Rhea has nothing to do with existence crest at the first place so this claim is quite dubious to me.

 

I feel that her ending cutscene was misleading people into thinking they destroyed crests across the world overnight.

Share this post


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

Just saying, did she even achieve crestless world? I was under impression only crest that was broken was Byleth’s.

The ending narration says more or less yes (esp. El S rank ending "they have achieved much..." and El eventually steps down). 

Quote

I remember Edelgard ending only states she work on an more equal world, but nothing says about making Crest disappear. Yet I came across a few people defending her claimed she made crest go away by killing Rhea. As we learned in other routes, Rhea has nothing to do with existence crest at the first place so this claim is quite dubious to me.

I think that's a good point. The break of Byleth's crest after defeating Rhea is indeed misleading. This does somewhat support the TWSITD conspiracy theory (El is a pawn/proxy of TWSITD). But this theory contradicts the ending in which El more or less defeats TWSITD.

Edited by matchalatte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Timlugia said:

She lives in my GD and church/Byleth ending though. So I don’t think that’s indicative.

 

I remember Edelgard ending only states she work on an more equal world, but nothing says about making Crest disappear. Yet I came across a few people defending her claimed she made crest go away by killing Rhea. As we learned in other routes, Rhea has nothing to do with existence crest at the first place so this claim is quite dubious to me.

 

I feel that her ending cutscene was misleading people into thinking they destroyed crests across the world overnight.

Ah, she does? I didn't pay much attention to the GD endings except for Claude and Hilda, and was just going off what a friend who played the route said. Whoops. Thanks for clarifying!
Anyway, I would imagine that the claim would spring from Sothis's influence leaving the world in the form of her crest stone disappearing, essentially meaning she either entrusted humanity's own fate to themselves or decided that the differences between dragon and humankind to be irreconcilable. 

Edgy probably does get rid of the political influence of crests, at the very least. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, matchalatte said:

The ending narration says more or less yes (esp. El S rank ending "they have achieved much..." and El eventually steps down). 

That’s super vague through, and could be through political decree/reforms rather than physically destroyed them like many people claimed.

The point is a lot of people claimed kill Rhea made Crest disappear, yet I couldn’t find anything in game supporting this. If she didn’t make Crest disappear, but has to work by political means, then her ending isn’t that unique or “better” compared to three others, especially Claude’s or Byleth’s whom both carried out class reforms.

Edited by Timlugia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

@0 Def Cleric  Anyway, I would imagine that the claim would spring from Sothis's influence leaving the world in the form of her crest stone disappearing, essentially meaning she either entrusted humanity's own fate to themselves or decided that the differences between dragon and humankind to be irreconcilable. 

This is a good point too. It's also very interesting that Sothis didn't explicitly take sides during playthroughs.

Spoiler

As revealed by Sothis S rank support, she did not completely disappear after the she and Byleth merge.

Quote

@TimlugiaThe point is a lot of people claimed kill Rhea made Crest disappear, yet I couldn’t find anything in game supporting this. If she didn’t make Crest disappear, then her ending isn’t that unique compared to three others, especially Claude’s or Byleth’s

That impression mostly came from the disappearing of Byleth's crest. Yes, her ending is not that unique and most player thinks the Claude ending is better (TWSITD clearly defeated, Fodlan becomes an open multicultural republic). I have argued that El's effort contributes greatly to Claude realizing his vision (and unlike many anti-El players, Claude clearly recognizes this in GD route).

Edited by matchalatte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Aiddon said:

She's Daenerys Targaryen if she was written competently and without an uncomfortable white savior complex

Book!Dany is really competently written though? Agreed about the latter part but one can argue she was written with that complex in order for her to double down on her motives. But....this isnt an ASOIAF discussion, despite some rather striking similarities. 

 

6 hours ago, matchalatte said:

But unlike Dany, El's character and decisions are not based on a coin flip

But Dany's decisions are not decided by a coin flip. Ignore the show, cuz Edelgard's similarties have more to do with how Daenerys is originally wriiten. Edelgard is extremely driven. Her "this is the path i must walk" is literally a nicer way of saying "Ill take back whats mine with fire and blood." One could argue that Edelgard is actually motivated by a more moral place. Shes trying to rid the world of crests and the church to cease divides. Not claiming anything that was taken via conquest. She explicitly states shes warring against the institution of the church and not the faith. (Cant really blame her there. Rhea is....A Thing) Edelgard and Daenerys both have their decisions based on ideals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, matchalatte said:

You have to make distinction between the concept of war pre/post the founding of UN.

One cannot judge historical conquerors (or by extension, El) by the same standard we use today. For people like Julius Caeser, Alexander, and Napoleon, it is within their right to wage war as one mean to achieve political goal. And like it or not, their 'aggresions' have arguably led to human progress and unless you are an extreme pacifist, their characters are not irredeemable (far from it) just because they were aggressors/warmongers. 

Make not mistake, conquest can be extremely devastating (e.g. Mongolian invasion) to human civilization but that's not what's depicted in the game. The game does recognize the cost of war to some degree (it's still a game sugar-coats war like 99% of video games) but any reasonable person can tell that El is not a bloodthirsty psychopath (although you can read her this way) nor an expansionist warmonger. She has a clearly defined and realistic political objective to achieve through war, which is legitimate because she has claim on Fodlan by birthright. She is definitely not conquering for conquest sake (pillage, plunder, colonization, genocide) and she is not expanding outside Fodlan. This already rank her in the "moral spectrum" higher than well-known unifier-epansionist such as Hideyoshi in feudal Japan or Nurhaci in great Qing dynasty of China.

Moreover, an extreme pacifist should simply refuse to play FE games completely as it is immoral to take enjoyment out of a simulated war, just or not.I am all for Pacifism but Pacifism does not solve all problems all the You  time. By the logic of a pacifist, any war is bad and unjust so Neville Chamberlain is right that Britain shouldn't declare war against Hitler first and just let Hitler do whatever he wants in Europe. I am simplifying a bit but you get the idea.

Fodlan nation's living in peace with each other for 3 centuries, only fighting defensive war with outsiders. Edie is different from Ceaser or Alex as she is broking existing treaties and go against Fodlan moral standards that are not that different from our own. 

And I certainly take issue with you trying justify war of aggression by equating it  to war against aggression. Even more given my country got sold out to nazis by Chamberlain 

Edited by Tenzen12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we should bring real politics into this discussion, we are talking about fiction and it isn't even that complex. Not to mention that people have different opinions on historical events and characters. 

 
 
 
 
 
3
9 hours ago, Timlugia said:

The point is a lot of people claimed kill Rhea made Crest disappear, yet I couldn’t find anything in game supporting this. If she didn’t make Crest disappear, but has to work by political means, then her ending isn’t that unique or “better” compared to three others, especially Claude’s or Byleth’s whom both carried out class reforms.

I don't think that Edelgard made crests disappear because they are dragons' blood. Unless you kill everyone who comes from a crest lineage, the crests are going to keep existing. I don't comprehend Edelgard's plan, because from what I understand, even if they end with the church, people are going to still believe that they are blessings of the goddess to the heroes who helped to protect Fódlan and still give their bearer special abilities. Like some people mentioned here, Edelgard says her problems aren't with the religion, but the institution of church itself. 

Sothis disappearing at the end it's very open to interpretation. Maybe it was because we killed her daughter or because she wanted to give us another chance to live...Or it could be just a plot device to make sure Byleth lives in the end.

 

 

Share this post


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

And I certainly take issue with you trying justify war of aggression by equating it  to war against aggression.

This is a strawman argument. I did not equate war of aggression with war against aggression. And I did not equate El with Alexander the great and J. Caesar.  I am simply showing you that even declaring war first can be justified in many cases, unless you are a hardcore pacifist. And to be fair, Chamberlain did not really "sold your country out" if one read the history a bit more closely, he was responsible for declaring war with Hitler as well as preparing for it (if my memory has not failed me). You have to try harder than saying, I quote:

Quote

But my point is really that defending Edelgard is sympathizing with war.

Now you have made two better arguments stating that 1. Fodlan's nations are living in a long period of peace under the rule of the church 2. El broke some treaties (which I am not aware of).

Well, the USSR was also internally peaceful but you wouldn't make blame if its eastern European members rises up and rebel against Moscow, plunging the whole Soviet bloc into war, would you? Why? Because you have an different ideology than the Soviet Union about the ideal form of government or society. Unless you are a hardcore socialist, you probably don't think the USSR system is a good form of government, which makes it justifiable to rise up against it by violent means when peaceful reform is impossible. In fact, the collapse of the USSR involved a coup and it was fortunate that a civil war didn't occur. 

I am not equating the church of Seiros with the USSR, that would be ridiculous. But an internally peaceful regime does not make it just, especially when there is new ideology challenging the establishment. North Korea has been peaceful internally but it is arguable one of the most brutal regime in the world. The Zhou dynasty in China has 800 years of mostly peaceful rule (and golden age),  but was eventually overthrown by local war lords because it was outdated and corrupt. 

Is the church of Seiros outdated or corrupt? The game is clearly making this interpretation open to the player. In GD route, Claude suggests multiple times that Fodlan's establishment is outdated and if an impediment to progress. Both Chapter 4 and 5 shows just how heavy-handed the Church deals with its dissidents: crushing rebellions (in BL route, Dimitri bemoans the civilians that are slaughtered in the crossfire), and sentencing people to death on a whim with absolutely no rule of law (no trial at all, worse than some fascist regimes). The biggest offender is censoring the books and history of Fodlan, this is some 1984-level minister of truth stuff, yet the moralist reading sweep these details under the rug.  

Is it so crazy to imagine El, as well as those who have a different vision for Fodlan (even TWSITD with their advanced techs), view the church and the crest as a backward and corrupt ruler of Fodlan? If that doesn't sound crazy, then we should ask, what are her realistic options? I have wrote quite a bit (others have similar analysis) to explain why the only realistic option for El is to cooperate with the TWSITD first in order to fight both the church and TWSITD.

Share this post


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

Is the church of Seiros outdated or corrupt? The game is clearly making this interpretation open to the player. In GD route, Claude suggests multiple times that Fodlan's establishment is outdated and if an impediment to progress. Both Chapter 4 and 5 shows just how heavy-handed the Church deals with its dissidents: crushing rebellions (in BL route, Dimitri bemoans the civilians that are slaughtered in the crossfire), and sentencing people to death on a whim with absolutely no rule of law (no trial at all, worse than some fascist regimes). The biggest offender is censoring the books and history of Fodlan, this is some 1984-level minister of truth stuff, yet the moralist reading sweep these details under the rug.  

Is it so crazy to imagine El, as well as those who have a different vision for Fodlan (even TWSITD with their advanced techs), view the church and the crest as a backward and corrupt ruler of Fodlan? If that doesn't sound crazy, then we should ask, what are her realistic options? I have wrote quite a bit (others have similar analysis) to explain why the only realistic option for El is to cooperate with the TWSITD first in order to fight both the church and TWSITD.

1.) Which of this actions do you thing Edelgard would not do herself if she was in a comparable situation as Rhea?

2.) Do we have any evidence that the church would actually try to intervene with Edelgards plan to reform the crest/nobillity system? Considering she would do it by politics and not by war?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again just because Ceasar wasn't particularly "justified" for conquest. Revolution might conquest (which is Edelgard case) for sake of conquest is not. Some eras might normalize it and make it matter if fan of glory, but it was never matter of altruism or justice. Because wars were not considered from perspective of morality there was no need for justification. 

 

And yes, Chamberlain did sold whole allied country to Hitler, it's called Munich Agreement. One who declared war was Churchill iirc 

 

And again you equate  civil war with conquest. Aliance and Kingdom were suverene countries not part of Adrestisn soviet block and ChoS does not rule Fodlan its own suverene entity that doesn't interfere with others unless things doesn't get really out of hand

Edited by Tenzen12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nihilem said:

Which of this actions do you thing Edelgard would not do herself if she was in a comparable situation as Rhea?

This question is mostly irrelevant for understanding El's motive and justification as a conqueror/revolutionist/iconoclast/modernizer. The story of this game is NOT about Edelgard being a ruler. She could be better or worse and it is open to the player's own imagination. 

The only evidence is in the BE route ending, which indicates that she is pretty OK. In other route we simply don't know.

My take is that the whole point of downing the church is to have a superior system of governance. This means that El should not find herself in the same situation as Rhea if the system work. For example, in a meritocracy, it is conceivable that even members of TWSITD can work openly for the society (also their enemy is gone) and this internalizes the conflicts and renders rebellion unnecessary. Or we can imaging with rule of law, she could delegate the court to prosecute the dissidents even if freedom of speech is not allowed. These are all speculations but Rhea is not a paragon of a benevolent dictator so improvement is not difficult to imagine.

Quote

Do we have any evidence that the church would actually try to intervene with Edelgards plan to reform the crest/nobillity system? Considering she would do it by politics and not by war?

Please search my preivous posts for an interpretation of El's character and motives. Rhea's reaction to El's betrayal was very blunt if you recall, she simply asks you to kill El on the spot.  No investigation, no due process, no trial, no legal basis, just pure rage and hatred. This is where the game's writing wears thin.

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...