Jump to content
semolinaro

What are your thoughts on Edelgard? *SPOILERS*

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Tenzen12 said:

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

I don't want to stray too far from FE but just to want to mention this to you on good faith: after a bit of fact checking on Wikipedia, it was indeed Chamberlain that declared war on Hitler. He made national announcement via radio at 11:15 on 2nd of Sep in 1939 and later instituted a war cabinet and invited Churchill.

15 minutes ago, Tenzen12 said:

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. 

I would very much like to discuss with you but we run the risk of going too far from the game itself. So I will stop developing my point further but to say this: just look at the character, I don't think El is a conqueror in the sense of expansionist/colonist/pillager at all. Her war has a revolution element in it and also has a reunification element in it. War is a grave matter so some justification is necessary.

All I am trying to convey is that we should try to distinguish various shades of grey. Otherwise, the world is black and white and there is no reason to have a conscience at all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, some misconceptions here I want to clarify:

1) Crests do not magically disappear upon Immaculate One's death. It doesn't happen on Church route, so why it would happen in BE route? Byleth's heart just starts beating and they lose Sothis' powers just for whatever reason on Crimson Flower. Crests are still mentioned in character endings and such.(such as Lysithea & Edelgard's paired ending makes note of them doing research on them removing or surviving with their dual crests and Hanneman's & Linhardts endings mention them,and such. Sylvain's endings on Crimson Flowers imply crests still exists. You get the point.)

2) Edelgard doesn't "Crush" Those Who Slither In The Dark offscreen. The endings imply there was second about just as long war with them afterwards 😛 We don't have enough information on them to say why this is the case on this route, since they act differently on every single route. On Church route Nemesis never attacks you after Thales and Shambhala is defeated, while in Golden Deer they do, on Blue Lions route they never try to nuke you, but on otherhand Thales dies while disguised as Arundel so maybe they had Magical Nuclear Launch Codes with them, but again they don't use Nemesis so that leaves questions open of why they stay hidden after Myson is defeated in final chapter. (on Claude & Byleth's paired ending the remnants of TWSITD join up with imperial remnants to attack Derdriu but then get surprised by Almyran reinforcements. So they still exists even after ending of golden deer route)

Like without knowing more on how Agarthans operate, its kinda hard to say why they don't act identically on every route.

3) Game itself doesn't make any moral judgments on any of the endings, just says what they did during their reign, neither does game comment on what happens generations after their reign is over. So saying that game portrays all routes as good guys if Byleth joins them is bit incorrect, since you need to play all routes to get all points of views on the matter. And Claude and Dimitri don't really have issue with Edelgard's ideals, just her methods to achieve them and whether its right to use those kind of methods in first place. On Blue Lions route Dimitri expresses that he thinks Edelgard's methods are just continuing cycle of strong trampling on the weak and I can't really disagree with that since her methods do really support might make right type of thinking 😛 The meritocracy type society doesn't really support people who aren't good enough to raise in ranks and it doesn't protect them from those higher in ranks exploiting them. So you can't really claim "Oh Edelgard was in moral right all along" unless you truly believe end justifies the means.

4) Regardless of whether you agree with Edelgard's ideals or not, she IS nationalistic and biased against other nations. Like she sees kingdom and alliance as poor offshoots of empire, believes in empire's propagandist version of history and thinks Claude isn't capable of achieving her ideals because he is outsider(meanwhile she doesn't know the true history of Fodlan either) Even on route where she is least cruel, she is still anti-hero at best. She knowingly sacrificed innocent people in order to achieve her goals and that is something she says multiple times in different routes.

5) I find it kinda funny how lot of Edelgard fans miss the point that Rhea and Edelgard are super duper similar.

Edited by MaskedMaskoftheMasks

Share this post


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

(on Claude & Byleth's paired ending the remnants of TWSITD join up with imperial remnants to attack Derdriu but then get surprised by Almyran reinforcements. So they still exists even after ending of golden deer route)

I really don't like the idea of paired endings (at least how it's handled in this game). If I don't pair Claude with Byleth does that mean I can't know that some TWSITD are apparently still alive ? Does that mean that even on a specific route the route isn't canon for everyone because they didn't save the same people, didn't pair the same people, etc ?

I hate this tbh, the fact that if you follow all those A support, people declare love and propose to almost all of the opposite gender is awful writing. A support should be about friendship and S support should be restricted and exclusive (with a lot less possibility of S support, maybe even only 1 or 0 for some characters).

The canon of a route should end at the fresco before watching the battle information/paired endings.

So in the Golden Deer route, you put an end to all of the threats (The war, TWSITD, Nemesis) for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
 
3
1 hour 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.

I personally disagree that the church itself is outdated,  but it's true that the motive that makes Fódlan so stratified is what Rhea/Seiros did in the past . IIRC, she gave positions and money to Nemesis's allies, whose descendants are the actual nobility of Fódlan. I don't think she did it with that purpose though, just to mantain a relative peace. And you could totally say is corrupt, given the real intentions of it, but it isn't in the way that they are megalomaniac people trying to make people follow them, but more like they are trying to prevent that what happened in the past ocurrs again. 

The point of radicalism has been brought up many times, and while without context in the situation it's pretty bad (I think all of us started suspecting the Church as the real enemy for that), but when we learn more about the lore it makes sense, not saying it was right ofc. Rhea and Seteth  knew about TSWID. We don't have information about what happened in the past with this type of things (apart from the disappearance of many people ), but in the present, the problems are indeed caused by them and Edelgard. I think it's safe to assume that they know who might be behind events like this. It's pretty clear in chapter 5,  because a normal person wouldn't know what to do with Seiros's corpse while TSWID yes. Also we know that Lord Lonato and the Occidental Church were manipulated by TWSID, so the suspicions aren't baseless. In chapter 4 there is a very interesting dialogue with Lonato in which he calls Sothis (or Rhea depending on who you ask) "a false goddess", when he was religious before, so the manipulation is clear.  My theory here is that while they are totally radical, it isn't because they want everyone to follow the religion (Shamir, Cyril, and I would risk saying that they even know some students aren't religious) but because they fear an attack of those people. 

Also, the censoring of books and that stuff, relates to not wanting people to know the real past of Fódlan, but not because they might stop believing in Seiros and the Goddess, but to prevent people to know the horrible truth about crests and relics and the consequences, which it could affect them as dragons or Fódlan as a whole. It's very questionable (they are totally fooling people), but knowing what happened in the past it's until certain point "understandable". 

I mentioned Seteth because he isn't that religious. He serves Rhea just because they are like family and from we see of him it's a pretty sane man. Knowing this, he still collaborates normally with the things Rhea does, apart from the mommy issues things, which it somewhat corroborates my argument that they just fear TWSID. Also, Rhea stepping down in GD and BL routes to give the position to Byleth, might indicate that she isn't interested in have power.

 
 
 
 
 
3
1 hour ago, matchalatte said:

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.

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.

I know you are mentioning a hypothetical situation, but I think in the GD route is mentioned that TWSID also want to destroy humanity, they don't only resent the Church. They probably attacked Seiros first because she was the principal obstacle to them and the daughter of Sothis. I don't know what to say about the political part though because, as you might have supposed, I don't see this conflict as totally politic, but this might be because of my view on Edelgard itself. (Also because I know nothing about this stuff)

And in the situation you mentioned, I think Rhea's reaction was the normal thing, very emotional, but normal. Edel is not only taking her sibilings's hearts (explains why she is so raged) but the fact that is taking them means that she is collaborating with TWSID and consequently, is a direct threat to Fódlan (Rhea doesn't know that Edel is only collaborating with them for benefit).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Tharne said:

I really don't like the idea of paired endings (at least how it's handled in this game). If I don't pair Claude with Byleth does that mean I can't know that some TWSITD are apparently still alive ? Does that mean that even on a specific route the route isn't canon for everyone because they didn't save the same people, didn't pair the same people, etc ?

I hate this tbh, the fact that if you follow all those A support, people declare love and propose to almost all of the opposite gender is awful writing. A support should be about friendship and S support should be restricted and exclusive (with a lot less possibility of S support, maybe even only 1 or 0 for some characters).

The canon of a route should end at the fresco before watching the battle information/paired endings.

So in the Golden Deer route, you put an end to all of the threats (The war, TWSITD, Nemesis) for example.

Eh, I actually prefer this game's version of doing A supports to S supports. Always thought that S supports were kinda hamfisted "And now, they love each other" while I think this game's A supports do good job of leaving open for future development(even the majority of more romantic ones allow possibility of it not happening in the future)

Like, I think it comes down to that if there are S supports, then writer believe they HAVE to be romantic and about one topic 😛 While a supports in this game don't necessarily need to end in "And now we promise to marry each other" and more like "Now we are super close friends who might get even closer in future"

S supports also felt disconnected from previous three supports, because support chain's storyline had to end at the A, meaning S support is basically just additional "and now they propose". Meanwhile if S support was final part of the storyline, that would make it so that all characters with S supports have to have romantic storyline through C-A unless they want S support come out of nowhere.

Edited by MaskedMaskoftheMasks

Share this post


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

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.

That is quite a bit of ifs and maybes. At the end she ends an authoritarian system just to create a new - completly similiar - authoritarian system just with herself at the top. What happens if suddenly a majority of the people in faerghus want their independence back and uses military forces to do so? Do you think she would not surpress it with military? Then she acts like Rhea with Lonato.

What if someone tries to assassinate her? Actually we already know that - she lets Hubert quietly solve the problem. With no court etc. Similiar reaction to Rhea when confronted with the betrayal of the western church or Edelgard.

And for the false reporting on history. Do you really think she will reveal the truth of what happened with Arianrhod? That the church was completly innocent on that matter and she lied to rally the troops (including her close friends)?

Funnily enough also her greatest plus point - the willingness to surrender her power to someone capable when she retires - is quite similiar to Rhea. Because also she was willing to surrunder her position to a worthy sucessor - in you, namely.

 

So if one system is outdated and corrupt - then the other is too. I dont see to much difference in the two authoritarian systems outside that one is legitimized by religion and the other by nationalism.

 

But - to make that sure - that doesnt mean I dislike her character. I just cannot see her as anything than a (really well written) villain.

 

Quote

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.

I did. And it doesnt answer my question. Do we have evidence that the church would stop her making reforms to the crest system, exspecially as we know that they hate it themselfs?

(Or maybe I have red the wrong post - you made quite a few in this thread😅. Then please link me to the right one.)

Edited by Nihilem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Nihilem said:

That is quite a bit of ifs and maybes. At the end she ends an authoritarian system just to create a new - completly similiar - authoritarian system just with herself at the top. What happens if suddenly a majority of the people in faerghus want their independence back and uses military forces to do so? Do you think she would not surpress it with military? Then she acts like Rhea with Lonato.

She steps down from her position, though? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And hand it over to her handpicked sucessor, so? Thats doesnt make it less authoritian, just not determined by bloodline. Which is a good thing, but not what I wanted to say in that example.

 

And as i mentioned in the same post, both - Rhea and Edelgard - were willing to surrunder their position to a worthy sucessor after their job was done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Nihilem said:

But - to make that sure - that doesnt mean I dislike her character. I just cannot see her as anything than a (really well written) villain.

First of all, thank you for your detailed response.

Before I dig a bigger hole for myself, I have to clarify that my position is bit misunderstood. I have never argued that El is necessarily a better ruler than Rhea, especially if we stretch it outside her ending. Better for who? In what sense? She could be more ruthless and cruel as far as I am concerned.

This is the century old problem of what-happens-after-the-revolution. Aren't revolutionist just the same when they are in power (or worse, we all know how many innocent heads rolled during the French/October Revolution)?  The answer is highly contentious and both history and this game has been ambiguous about it. We simply don't know. 

However, this doesn't stop El's church downing effort being justified in the sense that I have mentioned before, which is the main conflict of the plot. Rhea, just like any status quo power, is doing everything she can to stay in power. Her reign is clearly flawed in multiple ways and ending of all routes confirm this (otherwise the status quo should be restored, say like the Lion King).

Don't forget that Rhea has a vested interest in Byleth and Byleth's default interest/privilege aligns with the church.

Whether she is a villain or an (anti) hero is a matter of taste and perspective. It is easy to paint her as a villain so it's not that worthwhile to discuss it. The multi-route narrative structure of this game subverts the traditional hero-vs-villain mode so her character worth a closer inspection.

Share this post


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

First of all, thank you for your detailed response.

Before I dig a bigger hole for myself, I have to clarify that my position is bit misunderstood. I have never argued that El is necessarily a better ruler than Rhea, especially if we stretch it outside her ending. Better for who? In what sense? She could be more ruthless and cruel as far as I am concerned.

This is the century old problem of what-happens-after-the-revolution. Aren't revolutionist just the same when they are in power (or worse, we all know how many innocent heads rolled during the French/October Revolution)?  The answer is highly contentious and both history and this game has been ambiguous about it. We simply don't know. 

However, this doesn't stop El's church downing effort being justified in the sense that I have mentioned before, which is the main conflict of the plot. Rhea, just like any status quo power, is doing everything she can to stay in power. Her reign is clearly flawed in multiple ways and ending of all routes confirm this (otherwise the status quo should be restored, say like the Lion King).

Don't forget that Rhea has a vested interest in Byleth and Byleth's default interest/privilege aligns with the church.

Whether she is a villain or an (anti) hero is a matter of taste and perspective. It is easy to paint her as a villain so it's not that worthwhile to discuss it. The multi-route narrative structure of this game subverts the traditional hero-vs-villain mode so her character worth a closer inspection.

1 hour ago, Nihilem said:

What if someone tries to assassinate her? Actually we already know that - she lets Hubert quietly solve the problem. With no court etc. Similiar reaction to Rhea when confronted with the betrayal of the western church or Edelgard.

You have confused the nature of these two assassination attempts. In Rhea's case, it happened during peaceful time (political nature), under her reign, and her response is open (which means she doesn't even recognize/respect the rule of law). In El's case, it happened during the war (militaristic nature), Hubert's response is covert, and without El actually knowing the situation. The whole point of that support conversation is that once El knows El would be held responsible for her reaction so Hubert must do the dirty works without her knowing, such approach is questioned and criticized by El in a later support conversation. If anything, this comparison actually paint El as a better ruler than Rhea.

 

Edited by matchalatte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the point is she doesnt stop him. Question dirty stuff but dont doing anything against it, while you are the reason why it happens, is not really better than supporting it. In my opinion at least. And Edelgard have other examples were she was entirely fine with ordering someone to kill someone other in her way. Dimitri and Claude for example with the bandits at the beginning of the game. And they werent even threaths or criminals - just potential future enemies.

Sure, all of that happened before she rose to power. but assuming that she just stops dealing with her enemies that way is - to put it midly - quite wishful thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Nihilem said:

Well the point is she doesnt stop him. Question dirty stuff but dont doing anything against it, while you are the reason why it happens, is not really better than supporting it. In my opinion at least. And Edelgard have other examples were she was entirely fine with ordering someone to kill someone other in her way. Dimitri and Claude for example with the bandits at the beginning of the game. And they werent even threaths or criminals - just potential future enemies.

Sure, all of that happened before she rose to power. but assuming that she just stops dealing with her enemies that way is - to put it midly - quite wishful thinking.

It is not wishful think but a matter of strategic options. El hiring bandits to hit on Dimitri and Claude seems irredeemable, but the larger context is that the war is inevitable from her perspective so such assassinations will no doubt accelerate the process, hence reducing the human cost of the war. Compared to Dimitri (understandable from a psychoanalytic point of view), El does not have a deep crave for bloodbath so she does not kill for fun. I do admit that it is possible that Claude might cooperate with her so such attempt seems reckless but in GD route we see that Claude is very ambitious with his own hidden agenda.

Also it is not uncommon for revolutionist to use assassination as a strategy. The KMT party in China (now in Taiwan not PRC) was the revolutionary party that overthrown the 2000-years long imperial/dynasty system (and lauded for starting the first republic in Asia). If you dig up the history (quite consensual) a bit, you realize KMT during the Chinese revolution was made up by various triad factions, assassination groups, and even far-right Japanese militaristic proxies. But the revolution itself is almost universally seen as justified (of course history is made by the victors).

On other hand, it is very different when the church (establishment) choose to openly prosecute dissidents without due process because the church has no right to do so unless the nobles (or the common folk) authorize them. It is clear that not all nobles house support the church (see my previous posts, Chapter 5 basically shows that nobles without crest hate the system). Such heavy-handed approach not only undermines the church's own legitimacy (as representing the will/benefit of Fodlan's people) but also corrupts the rule of law (since there is not point following any rules according to the moral authority Rhea). There are many other ways to deal with/prevent political opposition and rebellions.

 

Edited by matchalatte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jena Thank you for your fair analysis. You brought up many good points, especially that the church's imperative is the containment of TWSITD. So accroding to this interpretation,  Rhea is essentially a cynical ruler (explains Seteth's attitude) who did dictatorial things for "national security" reasons rather than fundamental values.

By taking away the rights of Fodlan's people to know the truth, Rhea smothered the possibility that various forces within Fodlan can decide for themselves and participate in the fight with TWSITD. This leaves plenty of rooms for TWSITD to infiltrate the noble houses (especially the empire) because people simply weren't aware of the threat. Thus the church has not been effective dealing with TWSITD and is indirectly responsible (but not held accountable) for TWSITD's growing threat.

Edited by matchalatte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I have to ask since due process has come up a lot but what information do we have on the forts in Fódlan? I don’t remember seeing anything about it so far in game though I may have missed something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blue Lions route makes me loathe her, but I always play through every available route. Since Black Eagles has two, I'm not particularly looking forward to it. That said, she is a good villain, I just really don't like her. Just finished my first playthrough, so I'll be doing Golden Deer next. 

Share this post


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

Blue Lions route makes me loathe her, but I always play through every available route. Since Black Eagles has two, I'm not particularly looking forward to it. That said, she is a good villain, I just really don't like her. Just finished my first playthrough, so I'll be doing Golden Deer next. 

I mean, in second route you are fighting against her so you shouldn't mind that one 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, one more thing that people misunderstand that I wanted to point out, I finally found the quote for it:

On Crimson Flower route, Edelgard doesn't apparently destroy church completely. I'm not sure what exactly happens, but apparently pragmatism happens and they keep institution around? How I know this? Well this is apparently Hanneman and Manuela ending on that route.

After the war, Hanneman and Manuela held a grand wedding ceremony, to which all of their many students were invited. Later, after the church was transformed and rehabilitated under the super vision of the Empire, the Officers Academy finally reopened, with a renewed focus on accepting students regardless of status and offering classes on a wider variety of practical subjects. Hanneman and Manuela returned to work as teachers, almost as if nothing had changed, and filled the halls with their banter in the way only married couples can.

Sooo uh yeah, not sure what up with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Church of Seiros was essencially dismantled with Rhea's dead; but Garreg Mach is still there; and they need to start somewhere in their plan of creating a world with free education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, silverserpent said:

Blue Lions route makes me loathe her, but I always play through every available route. Since Black Eagles has two, I'm not particularly looking forward to it. That said, she is a good villain, I just really don't like her. Just finished my first playthrough, so I'll be doing Golden Deer next. 

Well it should especially considering that she causes Faerghus to be brought to shambles by Cornelia the person she has running it is not liked by the people at all yet on her own path she kills her despite that not being what her uncle wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AbsoluteZer0Nova said:

Well it should especially considering that she causes Faerghus to be brought to shambles by Cornelia the person she has running it is not liked by the people at all yet on her own path she kills her despite that not being what her uncle wanted.

 

Stronger position reducing the need for TWSITD (plus maybe having the influence of having Byleth siding with her increasing her wariness) because in the Crimson Flower route, Leicester is already down, so the TWSITD puppet is not required? And maybe having Rhea and her knights around also reduce drastically Cornelia's odds of ever managing something inside Fearghus?  Also, since she is intending on purging them after the war after all, why not have some 'infortunate casualties' while securing her strategical goals?
"Look, I was securing a position to backstab the Kingdom's armies and put them in a position where they can be outflanked. What, that unlikeable mage weirdo we butchered was your own? Too bad, accidents happen in war, Creepy People Who Carved Me Up Like Raw Burger For Crest Implantation And Slaughtered My Siblings I Totally Trust And Would Never Backstab Eventually. No ill feelings, right?"

Share this post


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

It is not wishful think but a matter of strategic options. El hiring bandits to hit on Dimitri and Claude seems irredeemable, but the larger context is that the war is inevitable from her perspective so such assassinations will no doubt accelerate the process, hence reducing the human cost of the war. Compared to Dimitri (understandable from a psychoanalytic point of view), El does not have a deep crave for bloodbath so she does not kill for fun. I do admit that it is possible that Claude might cooperate with her so such attempt seems reckless but in GD route we see that Claude is very ambitious with his own hidden agenda.

Also it is not uncommon for revolutionist to use assassination as a strategy. The KMT party in China (now in Taiwan not PRC) was the revolutionary party that overthrown the 2000-years long imperial/dynasty system (and lauded for starting the first republic in Asia). If you dig up the history (quite consensual) a bit, you realize KMT during the Chinese revolution was made up by various triad factions, assassination groups, and even far-right Japanese militaristic proxies. But the revolution itself is almost universally seen as justified (of course history is made by the victors).

On other hand, it is very different when the church (establishment) choose to openly prosecute dissidents without due process because the church has no right to do so unless the nobles (or the common folk) authorize them. It is clear that not all nobles house support the church (see my previous posts, Chapter 5 basically shows that nobles without crest hate the system). Such heavy-handed approach not only undermines the church's own legitimacy (as representing the will/benefit of Fodlan's people) but also corrupts the rule of law (since there is not point following any rules according to the moral authority Rhea). There are many other ways to deal with/prevent political opposition and rebellions.

 

So your argument is that for one party assassination is a valid option because of the coming war (which said party will start) while for the other party the same action is a sign of corruption? So that would mean of Rhea planned in near or distant future a full out war against TWSITD her action would be ok again? Because it weakend the enemy and therefore shortened the fight?

 

Ok maybe we have just just different opinions about how intentions can justify actions. Lets try another comparision:

 

Do we agree that after the crimson rose campaign Edelgard will still use assassination to combat TWSITD? Because Huberts support talking about "daggers in the night" make that quite clear in my opinion.

Then how is there any difference when Edelgard, as the emperor, utilizes assassination against minions of the TWSITD, a enemy who tried to kill her and who has infiltrated her institutions to when Rhea, as the the archbishop, utilizes assassination (in form of death sentence) against minions of the TWSITD (western church), a enemy who tried to kill her and who has infiltrated her institutions (the church).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2019 at 8:01 PM, iavasechui said:

Ok I have to ask since due process has come up a lot but what information do we have on the forts in Fódlan? I don’t remember seeing anything about it so far in game though I may have missed something...

Courts I meant courts stupid autocorrect -_-;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hardric62 said:

 Too bad, accidents happen in war, Creepy People Who Carved Me Up Like Raw Burger For Crest Implantation And Slaughtered My Siblings I Totally Trust And Would Never Backstab Eventually. No ill feelings, right?"

I have to admit, this made me laugh far harder than it should have.

Share this post


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

Then how is there any difference when Edelgard, as the emperor, utilizes assassination against minions of the TWSITD, a enemy who tried to kill her and who has infiltrated her institutions to when Rhea, as the the archbishop, utilizes assassination (in form of death sentence) against minions of the TWSITD (western church), a enemy who tried to kill her and who has infiltrated her institutions (the church).

This line of reasoning sounds treasonous. Fortunately for you, our Empress is mercifully enough to send you to a reeducation camp. comrade. 

Do as the Empress commands, not what she does. Hypocrisy is a state privilege.

Edited by wissenschaft

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...