Jump to content
semolinaro

What are your thoughts on Edelgard? *SPOILERS*

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Nihilem said:

 

I wouldnt say that. From the A-Support between Edelgard and Hubert we know that the adrestian emperor has the right to execute everyone (with official duties) which refuses to obey to his/her orders. Therefore, I cannot imagine that attempted murder of a political leader will be punished with anything less.

That the students are spooked by this is most likely because they not often witness these judgements. I mean for example in some states of America there is death penalty till today. But if you take a random class from these states and let them actually witness the execution there also will be spooked by it.

 

Didn't Kingdom has power to execute but decided to hand Christopher to church because it's fragile political state?

--------------

And I don't understand why are we still arguing Due Process on Rhea, applying an American law only since 1792 on a medieval fantasy game?

By the same standard Edelgard is clearly violating both Hague Convention 1907 and Geneva Convention by ordering No Quarter for Kingdom generals in chapter 17, thus subject to war crimes. But you can already see how ridiculous this argument would be in the context of the game.

 

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/1d1726425f6955aec125641e0038bfd6

Edited by Timlugia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Beowls said:

Well its rational and good from her perspective. If we see it from her eyes, why should she view herself or her actions as evil?

Humans in her eyes are evil. We form judgments/beliefs based on our experiences and observing the experiences of others. Conceptually and theoretically not all humans think the same and act the same, but if every experience she has had or observed points to them being violent and dangerous should she not take an attitude of treating them as such until she is proven wrong? Morally you would say no, but in terms of self preservation why should she risk her life and those she cares about on a moral concept that humans are more than the product of their violent nature?

The point about Sothis being fallible and not omnipotent does not discount the point about her still being the best ruler in Rhea's eyes. 

I do not agree that the system was broken. The system is unjust and unfair and perpetuates tyranny and oppression but it does not mean the system is broken in the sense it cannot persist for say another 1000 years. Countless emperors before Edelgard knew about the failings of the system and the lies it was built upon,  but as long as they did their part in propping up the system it continued to exist. If your point is its inevitable someone like Edelgard would appear, I would counter that her new world order (best real life analogue is the Roman Imperial system) where power is concentrated in one individual is more likely to fall over than Rhea's Fedualism. 

Nobody is arguing how she sees it? Hitler probably saw himself as rational and good. That doesn't make it actually rational and good, so what's your point?

Also, even logically I would say no to that, so?? She clearly had examples of humans being more than that (she trusted one as Seiros), but she chose to use the worst of humans to define all of them. That's just logically messed up. She took the "but I have one friend" approach.

Nobody's discounting what Rhea sees, so your entire post is odd, because it's not about how Rhea approached it and rather or not she was right in her own mind (of course she was). It's how others interpret those actions and reasons.

A system that is unjust and unfair and perpetuates tyranny and oppression is broken. A broken system can of course persist for many more years. But that doesn't make it less broken. Things that are wrong and broken can exist despite being both wrong and broken, that doesn't even make sense to say the system is all those things but somehow not broken. And it was inevitable that Edelgard would appear, but where did I say that her system was not also going to be broken for different reasons?

5 hours ago, LilyRose said:

Also, Rhea created hollow people and tossed Sothis' heart into them to see if it would take. She basically created something from nothing and when Sothis failed to materialize in them they just lived out their lives and when they died, she tried again. Is this a good thing? Obviously not! She said that what she was doing was forbidden but it is very disingenuous to act as if she was conducting some kind of devastating human experimentation. She was not doing a TWSITD on these "creations". The only "human" that we know she did this on was Byleth who was dead.

Yes, Rhea rewrote the history but it had nothing to do with keeping humans under her control. It was to end the war and save what was left of her race. Yes, a thousand years later (!) Fodlan's society had turned increasingly toxic but that wasn’t Rhea’s intention nor was it her fault. 

I know that Edelgard (because she's been brainwashed virtually since birth) believes that Rhea has been moving humans around on her own personal chessboard for a millennia but we as the game players know that is not true. She leads the Church, which is as Jeralt said, a ridiculously large religious organization but she had no direct power over the nobles and by the time the game starts even her ability to influence them was waning. Let's be real here, she couldn't even get them to agree to let their children live next door to commoners in her own dormitory but she was supposed to be able to tell them how to run their territories! Sure, she could tell them that Sothis would damn them or send her army to smite anyone who got too out of hand but how many times would that work before she would have faced a violent uprising herself. The Church has specific doctrine on how disappointed the Goddess is with humanity's greed and violence, the Church encourages equality and good behavior and the use of power wisely so what else was she supposed to do? Rhea recognizes that there are problems in Fodlan, but she doesn't believe she can do more than she already has to fix them and believes Sothis is the only one who can (& since Byleth becomes Sothis-like, she's right).

I think Rhea is an absolutely fascinating character because she is so supremely damaged and yet all of the pain and suffering that weighs on her is turned mostly inward which leads to some extremely questionable decisions but even at her worst, she’s never evil nor is she a villain. We know that she is ruthless and that any amount of violent provocation will be met with an extreme response, but we also know that she can be very selfless and kind and that she values peace and order above all else (and that's not always a good thing). And that is why parts of her s-support are so sad because she starts to blame herself even for things that are not her fault. 

The flip side of that for me is Edelgard who is also a fascinating character and who is also supremely damaged, but she takes all of her pain and suffering and turns it outward with devastating effects for the entire continent. We know that she is extremely arrogant and values her own ideals above all else including the lives of innocent people and she never changes no matter what route you take in the game. She never acknowledges the failings in her plans or that there were other ways to achieve even better results and she never truly takes blame for what she has done or set in motion. She's a liar and manipulator on a scale even higher than Rhea at her worst and she never changes! The lack of change and self-doubt added to her fascism is why I do consider her a villain, even when playing her own route I kept thinking we're the baddies.

And Arianrhod was the pinnacle of my dislike for Edelgard. There are limits to cunningness and when you step over that line you have basically become worse than whatever it is that you are fighting against. In my mind that was the perfect opportunity for the Empire and Church to come together to fight the much larger evil and the fact that I couldn't just jump off the crazy train totally ruined it for me.

We don't know how she was creating these people. At all. We don't know if what she was doing was violent human experimentation to create these 'hollow shells', or somehow using some odd power of creationism. We simply don't know, so it's weird to simply dismiss it. The point stands, she was doing something wrong, all because she couldn't get over her grief.

Umm...it was revenge, first and foremost, she says so herself. And second to keep peace is to control humans. And of course it wasn't her intention, but it IS her fault, because she had numerous times to recorrect what was happening, but what happened was she started with one GIANT lie and did anything in her power to protect said lie, even if it meant letting the world fall into something that was clearly NOT peace. Her entire rewrite of history is exactly WHY Fodlan reached the place it was at, you can't honestly not see that.

Everything you just said makes me dislike Rhea more. Because if she's so willing to kill anyone who gets in her way, you'd think she'd have the power to schedule mass executions of the nobles who are too greedy. If she can execute the entire Western Church, I don't think it's a stretch to believe she could take care of greedy nobles. Like that's just oddly hypocritical that she can only deal with things involving her or her mother, but turn a blind eye to everything else. So no. Everything you said there was wrong, because she clearly did have the power and means necessary to make a change. She chose not too, because she even admitted herself was focused on HER goals over humanity. She wanted her mother back. Not TRULY for Sothis to rule again, but at the end of the day, she wanted to be held by her mother again. She wanted to hear her mother sing to her. At the end of it all, Rhea was just a child who lost her mother and never got over it. In that way, she's SUPER sympathetic and it's heartbreaking. But that doesn't absolve her of everything she did or the things she caused. And you can't write good intentions into her actions, because she herself admitted she got so wrapped up in her own goal that she let things fall apart. She clearly had the power to do something. To suggest she didn't is disingenuous. 

You can't say fascism is bad in one breath and say it's okay for Rhea to be judge/jury/executioner in the next, because modern world standards don't apply.

At Rhea's worst she is most certainly a villain. In the same way that at Edelgard's worst she is also a villain. You can't for a single moment pretend that Rhea is suddenly not a villain (in some routes) just because you sympathize with her. She blames herself for things that are her fault. That's not sad, it's honesty. She needed to see her own mistakes. And I'm glad in that route she can see the mistakes she caused.

I'm sorry, where is Edelgard a liar and manipulator on a scale worse than someone who rewrote history? Like that invalidates almost everything you say, because that's not even remotely true. Edelgard is most certainly a liar and manipulator. But to then say suddenly that Rhea who manipulated history itself and kept up a lie for a 1000 years, is suddenly not on the same level? What?

Edelgard does express doubt. She does acknowledge her failings and does take the blame for what she's done. Did you just conveniently skip over things she said, or.....? Her entire supports pre-time skip with Hubert are knowing her path is going to be steeped in blood and being worried if it's the right path, but knowing it has to be done. Does it have to be done? Not really. Claude kinda shows there's other paths to reunifying Fodlan and getting things done than just a giant war, but we also see that to abolish the system, you do have to get rid of the Church and Rhea, which wouldn't be done without some bloodshed.

Edelgard is extremely arrogant. And she does value her ideals over a lot of things. But, the Church & Empire would never come together. Sure in your 'mind' it was the perfect opportunity, but that in no way makes sense to the story, so it seems odd that you'd suggest that was the moment she lost you, when that was the smartest decision she made in her conquest. I would have done the exact same thing and then some.

3 hours ago, Nihilem said:

That is because I first wanted to have a list of charges against Rhea. Like in a real court the prosecuting attorney starts with what acusses the defandant is charged with. Otherwise I have the feeling we are just spinning circles with the same arguments over and over, going through wall of texts and quote wars until someone gets bored.

This isn't a real court, it's the internet. Instead of wasting so much time organizing a discussion, you could just respond? The discussion is going nowhere because you keep repeating yourself on things already stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Kiran_ said:

This isn't a real court, it's the internet. Instead of wasting so much time organizing a discussion, you could just respond? The discussion is going nowhere because you keep repeating yourself on things already stated.

You can find 30 pages of these kind of discussions in this thread alone were this was tried. And it led to nowhere but constantly spinning in circles with larger and larger wall of texts. Without core questions/claims that all parties can agree to try to solve the discussion becomes quite meaningless as then there cannot be any answers. But if you are not interested in a structured discussion I can understand that. It was an experiment from me to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Kiran_ said:

Nobody is arguing how she sees it? Hitler probably saw himself as rational and good. That doesn't make it actually rational and good, so what's your point?

Also, even logically I would say no to that, so?? She clearly had examples of humans being more than that (she trusted one as Seiros), but she chose to use the worst of humans to define all of them. That's just logically messed up. She took the "but I have one friend" approach.

Nobody's discounting what Rhea sees, so your entire post is odd, because it's not about how Rhea approached it and rather or not she was right in her own mind (of course she was). It's how others interpret those actions and reasons.

A system that is unjust and unfair and perpetuates tyranny and oppression is broken. A broken system can of course persist for many more years. But that doesn't make it less broken. Things that are wrong and broken can exist despite being both wrong and broken, that doesn't even make sense to say the system is all those things but somehow not broken. And it was inevitable that Edelgard would appear, but where did I say that her system was not also going to be broken for different reasons?

My point is if her actions are rational and immoral. Then doing a moral action may not have been a rational action. 

I'm actually not aware of this individual Seiros trusted. Can you point me to the name/scene that shows this? As to choosing the worst of humans to define all them, its just a safe and logical decision. Why should she embark on a "moral" path that endangers herself and her family? Is it moral to risk her life and her entire race on the moral concept not all humans are bad? Is it evil to come to the conclusion that safety of oneself and their kin goes above all else? Also I'm not aware of this "but I have one friend" approach, could you elaborate on this?

My point in explaining her reasoning and actions is to show how its logical and why she did what she did. Now you say that her logical actions are ultimately immoral, but then wouldn't she have had to come to an irrational decision to achieve a moral outcome? What was the path that protected her and her family and was morally right for humans? I'm actually interested in what she could have done differently as secluding themselves didn't seem to work if we believe that Sothis and her children secluded themselves and only for Nemesis to appear. 

Broken meaning the system is no longer achieving the purpose from which it was conceived . A system being wrong does not mean it is broken. Broken would mean it no longer serves Rhea's goal of keeping humanity under control and keeping herself and her species safe. In that regard the system had been working successfully for hundreds of years and could have gone on for many more. 

Edelgard is inevitable in the sense that its inevitable any individual would rise one day to overthrow any system for their own or their immediate supporters benefit. In that sense Feudalism is the best system for Rhea to manage that exact scenario. Dispersing power through some form of representative government means she has to manage and exert influence over too many individuals. Conversely having too centralized a government means they could overpower her, which Edelgard implies in her declaration of war speech that Rhea divided the empire into a kingdom and a kingdom into an alliance to rule Fodlan. This divide and conquer strategy works as even though an individual like Edelgard seized power in the most powerful feudal land, she was not ultimately able to achieve her aims by force except with external support from TWSID. 

As to why i elaborated on the failings of Edelgards system, i wanted to point out that the replacement for Rhea's system is not necessarily better. The main actors of Fodlan have not given a flat out better system to fix the "broken" system, they simply have different advantages and disadvantages for certain groups.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

If you are going to play this card, then there is no problem with Edelgard starting a war because Fodlan is not a modern Earth society, but one steeped in constant warfare anyway. Don't play this card.

Rhea's behaviour as a leader is not okay behaviour, and isn't supposed to be read as such. In fact it's extreme enough that a reasonable person might just do something drastic to get rid of her.

It's pretty obvious Edelgard considers the Church at least as evil as the slitherers and plans to defang both, and dealing with Rhea and consolidating power immediately is the best way to do that. (You obviously don't consider Rhea to be evil, but Edelgard does, and on the whole I'm inclined to agree with her. "Evil" is a strong word but "a  profoundly negative influence on Fodlan we would be better off without", yeah I'd go with that.)

Edelgard's war would have been considered a tyrannical war of aggression even in a medieval society because she did not have a valid casus belli. Also, Fodlan was definitely not steeped in constant warfare. The last major conflict in Fodlan happened centuries before the game started. 

Rhea's behavior as a leader is not okay by our standards but by the standards of a medieval fantasy world Fire Emblem game she was an absolute monarch who was the judge and jury for her territory (the Church of Seiros). She didn't go out searching for people to kill, she pronounced judgement on the people who plotted her assassination, tried to kill her students, broke into her tomb and tried to steal the Sword of the Creator. They were guilty of major crimes. What was she supposed to do with them?

And Edelgard was wrong. No matter what she may have thought about Rhea to put her and the Church on equal footing with a group that was responsible for massacres all over the continent just speaks to how warped her worldview really is. 

19 hours ago, PrincessAlyson said:

I agree with most of this. Both of them are fascinating because they are so damaged and deal with that in different, extreme ways. Morally ambiguous characters usually spark debate, which is a good thing. People should always question and talk about morality and motives. Edelgard and Rhea mostly feel like genuine people who have gone through terrible things and are just trying to cope while also change society to what they think is best (Edel) or keep things mostly peaceful (Rhea).

If I really think on it, Edelgard strikes me as someone who is desperately trying to reach the light at the end of a dark tunnel. After losing her ten siblings to experimentation by TWSITD and suffering ill-effects from that, she wants to make the continent a better place where things like that never happen to anyone else. Problem is, she allies with the people who did that to her (even if she was planning on betraying them later), starts a world war without regard to people trampled along the way, and doesn't accept any other alternative. Why? It's hinted that she has a shortened lifespan like Lysithea, so she wants her change now. That leads to making risky, rash, and immoral decisions no matter the route (turning into a monster in BL is a prime example along with lying about the missile strike in BE). It's really sad. She keeps running to that light while slipping in puddles of her own making. 

I honestly think 3H is one of the best FE games because of the quality of the characters and world building. I'm constantly being blown away by the details every time I pick up the game.

Absolutely! Her shortened lifespan is definitely why she felt she had to do everything so fast. I wish Linhardt could have given her the "a shortened lifespan does not necessarily mean a short life" speech he gave to Lysithea. 

The characters are so well written and they all have such depth which is unusual in a game setting. It's fantastic. I am actually dreading going back to my Revelations replay because compared to 3H's those characters are paper thin. 

18 hours ago, Hardric62 said:

Oh and GD route, once freed, first answer? Try to bullshit again. Claude has to get the answers out with a bloody pincers, and only got the bare minimum before the humble crow pie is fully eaten after Shambhalla. Rhea is just as much as a control freak than Edelgard can be, and these tendancies are far worst on an immortal ruling for centuries.

You're right, it probably was not her intention. But she still has a responsability, because she is the immortal dragon who decided to rule that continent. And yes, that's ruling, from the moment she decided to impose herself peace and order to Fodlan. From that moment, she ruled, albeit with her own tools. And it made her accountable for the failures of her ruling, aka that growing toxicity an immortal should have spotted along the centuries, because that's certainly not a 'one-day' thing, and nipped in the bud a long time ago.

Okay, I have to ask, where does exactly come the idea that Edelgard got her knowledge of Fodlan's situation from the Agarthans? Because everyone agrees she has trust issues (they are at the heart of the problem)... And then everyone says that she trusts the mole people who her open for Crest implentation and butchered her siblings, and the ones she very much plans on betraying the moent the thing she sees as the biggest monster (Rhea) is down. Just. Why?

Regarding Rhea, I would like to point out things like Canossa and the general history Popes/ HRE emperors. And remind people that the pope did all of that without his own armed forces. And for me, the loss of influence of the Church and its splitting off is more a sign of her rule failing that the fact she 'could not'. She decided to rule Fodlan using the pope card, as a supreme moral authority, she totally should have been condamning the seeds of these abuses as they cropt up. especially when her own core mythos is all about 'Bad Crest users get sword to the face'. She didn't enforce her Creed, so from that first step on abuse came the rest of the rot cascading down. And heck, medieval periods, the Church was probably the one educating these nobles and she failed to use that tool to kill the problem in the egg, even before Officiers' Academy. And the statu quo she enforced kept breaking down with each new war, with new kingdoms, loss of control of Church branches...

And on another note... I think her growing obsession with resurrecting Mama was Rhea being intellectually aware that she was failing, but because of her 'Only Mama knows better' mentality, she went with that resurrection gamble, and while she kept wishing for that critical, the rot kept spreading and breaking things... Sorry, but she is totally accountable for this shit (and on another note, Byleth stays their own person until the end, which does bring the lie to the idea only Sothis could do that. And it is just as good. The idea a continent can only work thanks to one person and only one accross the millenia is frankly depressing).

More of a PS, but double standards, much? If Rhea executing people is 'Medieval society', and it is, Taxing Edelgard of fascism is also wildly anachronic.

On the VW route I don't know if you would consider that as being a control freak or just having absolutely no trust in humans, because to me it felt like she didn't think she owed Claude any answers. She was much more willing to talk in SS because she's talking to her own people (Seteth, Flayn and Byleth) as opposed to the inquisitive little human (Leader)man. She only really told Claude as much as she did at the end because she knew that she was dying. 

I have never understood why people think that Rhea is ruling Fodlan? There is big difference between ruling and leading. Once she decided to setup the Empire as the sole political entity on the continent she gave up ruling as an option. She certainly leads the people of Fodlan (some more than others) but she does it from a religious, moral, mouthpiece for the all-seeing Goddess standpoint not directly political. The most political power that we know she wielded is in negotiating the peace between the Empire and Loog but that was to end what she hates most, a large-scale war. Sure, she has an army and has sent her Knights to defend Fodlan from invaders or squash threats to the Church but we are never shown that Rhea took a hands on approach in the day to day lives of the people. If we consider what we know about Rhea's views on her position I think it is highly unlikely that she would ever be interested in direct rule of Fodlan, she didn't even seem to like being the Archbishop, it was certainly more a duty than a passion for her. And I don't know how fair it is to assign a role to someone who never planned on doing it in the first place and then when they don't do it, to call them a failure. 

Edelgard is brainwashed and she is too arrogant to even consider that as a possibility. TWSITD have been whispering in the ear of various Empire nobles for centuries. All of this "knowledge" that Edelgard thinks she has is obviously tainted by their influence. Do I think that if they face-to-face tell her something that she is likely to believe it, no.  But do I think that the "history" passed down in her family that she believes has been warped by them, yes. 

And this is where we majorly disagree. You're acting as if Rhea sat in Garreg Mach watching the world come undone and did nothing at all. That's not true. The Church has tenets (that she obviously wrote) damning the greed of humans, the abuse of power, the violence and all of the other general bad behavior. The Church is against discrimination and warns against the strong abusing their power over the weak. There are very few societal problems that an army can fix and there are only so many times she can send her Knights out to depose noble families before the rest of the nobles band together to fight the Church leading to a devastating war. Also, I think we really should examine just how much of the toxic nature of Fodlan's society is due to crests or Rhea's action/inaction.

If we look at Almyra, a country with no crests (other than Claude and his mother?) are they really a better society than Fodlan? If we believe what Cyril has to say about them, they are not. Sure, we can infer that they are more advanced in some areas (Claude did say his people considered Fodlan a backwater) but they are also racist (considering Claude's treatment), violent and militaristic and they have a nobility of their own. So it's not like peace and equality are being served in large quantities in Almyra. 

We don't know much about Brigid but we do know that assassinations are rife and that they also have a nobility (so that's a natural power imbalance between the population). 

We don't know much about Sreng other than they keep invading Gautier territory so peaceful they are not. And we don't know a whole lot about Dagda other than at least some of their people are impoverished and they seem intent on squeezing Brigid just as much as the Empire. 

So taken all together the countries around Fodlan don't seem to be doing any better than Fodlan, yet they don't have a crest system and Rhea has no influence at all. The common denominator in all of this is not Rhea, it's humanity. The reason why these societies are toxic are because humans are toxic. And unless you are willing to kill all of the humans (which is probably what Macuil would suggest), hold them in a vice grip of authoritarianism (Edelgard's route, which would work up to the point where they revolt) or have a Goddess or someone Goddess-like deal with them (which is what Rhea believes). And at the end of at least 3 of the 4 paths Rhea's thought process is right (though of course her methods for achieving that were wrong). Byleth is Sothis-like in terms of power and it is her power and influence that changes Fodlan's society for the better. 

The PS: I am not applying modern world standards to Edelgard's actions, only a modern vocabulary. Edelgard's belief system was authoritarian far beyond the level of even an absolute monarch of the time and we can also throw in that she was a nationalist, a racist and an imperialist (she even had her own personal jack-booted thug). I didn't really think I needed to write it all out like that so I just wrapped it up in one word, fascism. 

Edited by LilyRose
left out a word

Share this post


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

On the VW route I don't know if you would consider that as being a control freak or just having absolutely no trust in humans, because to me it felt like she didn't think she owed Claude any answers. She was much more willing to talk in SS because she's talking to her own people (Seteth, Flayn and Byleth) as opposed to the inquisitive little human (Leader)man. She only really told Claude as much as she did at the end because she knew that she was dying.  

 

Yes, and... Nah, sorry, but that's not a trait I find worthy of praise in a ruler, that way lies so many troubles it hurts.

 

10 hours ago, LilyRose said:



I have never understood why people think that Rhea is ruling Fodlan? There is big difference between ruling and leading. Once she decided to setup the Empire as the sole political entity on the continent she gave up ruling as an option. She certainly leads the people of Fodlan (some more than others) but she does it from a religious, moral, mouthpiece for the all-seeing Goddess standpoint not directly political. The most political power that we know she wielded is in negotiating the peace between the Empire and Loog but that was to end what she hates most, a large-scale war. Sure, she has an army and has sent her Knights to defend Fodlan from invaders or squash threats to the Church but we are never shown that Rhea took a hands on approach in the day to day lives of the people. If we consider what we know about Rhea's views on her position I think it is highly unlikely that she would ever be interested in direct rule of Fodlan, she didn't even seem to like being the Archbishop, it was certainly more a duty than a passion for her. And I don't know how fair it is to assign a role to someone who never planned on doing it in the first place and then when they don't do it, to call them a failure. 

 

Because yes, for me Rhea is ruling, with a 'hands off' approach to the day to day stuff, but from the moment she stayed along, and collected all that power within that Church so she would have the means of her policy, it became ruling for me. And from that moment, she became accountable for the failings of that rule. She used the religious and morale tools (and some more personal thingies which can be leveraged into power if needed, like 'witness for each new emperor crowned in Adrestia', or 'Holy Kingdom of Faerghus'), plus the knights as a scalpel for excision of the rot she spots, but it is still her vision she is trying to enforce, so for me, it is ruling. Especialy when, as you said, she has the power to broker negociations between kingdoms. A difference is that I see these wars not as a proof of her not ruling, but as a sign that the order she posed centuries ago is straining and crumbling under the weight of different changes (and Agarthan interference) and her being unable to use the levers of power she created for herself to do more that damage control. She saw that as a duty, but that was still (failing) ruling, and the cloning is her acknowledging that she is unfit for that rule... But because she can only imagine her mother as better than her, the attempts at a pretty mad scheme keeps pilling up, and while she obsess more and more on that, Fodlan rots further.

 

10 hours ago, LilyRose said:

Edelgard is brainwashed and she is too arrogant to even consider that as a possibility. TWSITD have been whispering in the ear of various Empire nobles for centuries. All of this "knowledge" that Edelgard thinks she has is obviously tainted by their influence. Do I think that if they face-to-face tell her something that she is likely to believe it, no.  But do I think that the "history" passed down in her family that she believes has been warped by them, yes. 

 

Well, I do remember some people saying it was involving knowledge of the Hrelsvegr family alone too, but I can't just find where it was said (and would like to know the where, just like I would like to know if that 'Southern Church' really existed). My guess is that Child Edelgard pulled up a Claude after the experimentation, and yes, the Agarthans probably seeded materials showing the Church's foul play with history and the likes, enough to make them look like shadow rulers, which... Rhea is for me. And well, I guess after that, Edelgard probably decided that unlike Claude, she wouldn't go further because with that foul play, she estimated the pass was lost anyways, and irrelevant to a 'now' where the Church and the nobility they were partenered with were strangling the continent, while being unable to fight off bad things like the Agarthans.

 

10 hours ago, LilyRose said:

 

And this is where we majorly disagree. You're acting as if Rhea sat in Garreg Mach watching the world come undone and did nothing at all. That's not true. The Church has tenets (that she obviously wrote) damning the greed of humans, the abuse of power, the violence and all of the other general bad behavior. The Church is against discrimination and warns against the strong abusing their power over the weak. There are very few societal problems that an army can fix and there are only so many times she can send her Knights out to depose noble families before the rest of the nobles band together to fight the Church leading to a devastating war. Also, I think we really should examine just how much of the toxic nature of Fodlan's society is due to crests or Rhea's action/inaction.

 

Yes, and when these tenets are not enacted, they lose their value, and her structure looks like it is complicit through inaction. Again, that was likely a real long term processus, it must have been possible to set up a not even necessarily violent example in the past, and keeping enforcing it, because a law not enforced lose all value.

And Crests... it might be my studies in history speaking, but I things happening like this: Nobles use Crests as proof of divine right to rule to reinforce their power, while pointing out they can do that because they are descendants of the sacred heroes, the 10 Elites, and that clearly if that was an abuse like pointed out in the text, the Church would condamn them. Rhea clearly doesn't. The strategy extends to the entire noblity, with Crestless echelons playing up that they take their orders from the goddess-mandated ones. Cue roughly one thousand years of a social class being told it has a divine right to rule, with a tangible sign of that favor... The entitlement and corruption it would breed, boy oh boy. And when the Crests start fading, they need to keep them going at all costs, because they hammered 'Crests as diven favor' for centuries, if they go now, the people could see that as a sign of Goddess' defavor, and bam insurrections. And the longer it would go, the longer they would get to think of the Church which collaborated with these nobles for so long, and if they are associated with them so closely, maybe they share that disapprobation from the Goddess... And welp, the pre-war Fodlan doesn't look that nice, with rampant banditry everywhere (hell, Alois and Shamir's paralogue. The ruling house of the Alliance can't defend its own capital, its trade harbor and main money maker, against bloody pirates alone. Society isn't in a good shape if things like that crop up).

 

10 hours ago, LilyRose said:

 

So taken all together the countries around Fodlan don't seem to be doing any better than Fodlan, yet they don't have a crest system and Rhea has no influence at all. The common denominator in all of this is not Rhea, it's humanity. The reason why these societies are toxic are because humans are toxic. And unless you are willing to kill all of the humans (which is probably what Macuil would suggest), hold them in a vice grip of authoritarianism (Edelgard's route, which would work up to the point where they revolt) or have a Goddess or someone Goddess-like deal with them (which is what Rhea believes). And at the end of at least 3 of the 4 paths Rhea's thought process is right (though of course her methods for achieving that were wrong). Byleth is Sothis-like in terms of power and it is her power and influence that changes Fodlan's society for the better. 

 

You know, 'Humanity Fuck No' is not any better than 'Humanity Fuck Yeah'. By that logic Rhea's system isn't any better as opposed to what you think, because it sunk too. And welp, it takes its comlpete and total failure and someone actually cleaning up the root of her mess to admit it, but she admits she borked her rule of Fodlan. And Byleth, is just Byleth. Yes Sothis gives him some limited time travel, but that's it, not the behemoth magical power of Sothis nearly wiping out the Agarthans and healing Fodlan all by hereself. Just one person, and the people standing with him. These are these people who fix the mess, not the Goddess herself, who very pointedly 'disappears' before the war starts. And because that war pretty much torn the corrupt structures present apart, so something new, and not rotten to the core to the point a leader of half the continent can declare war against the pope and not swim through uprisings, desertions and the likes within her ranks, can be created. Hell, that's why Azure Moon outcome is the one I am the less trusting. The Agarthans are still there to rock the oat as a group, and Rhea has not eaten the humble pie of Verdant Wind and Silver Snow, so I fear that on that route, after Byleth, she resolves herself to 'safekeeping' their legacy herself because she still very mucch in the mode 'Only Mama knows better than me', and it's back to Square One, with Faerghus replacing Adrestia. And I'm not trusting an immortal ruler with that mindset.

 

10 hours ago, LilyRose said:

The PS: I am not applying modern world standards to Edelgard's actions, only a modern vocabulary. Edelgard's belief system was authoritarian far beyond the level of even an absolute monarch of the time and we can also throw in that she was a nationalist, a racist and an imperialist (she even had her own personal jack-booted thug). I didn't really think I needed to write it all out like that so I just wrapped it up in one word, fascism. 

 

For having seen and studied these monarchies in story... No, she can and will trust advisors and ministers (at least in Crimson Flower), nationalism isn't a thing in medieval period, and imperialism... She is not the first ruler of an empire to consider reconquest for lost parts of that empire. And I will also contest the racism (at least in Crimson Flower) when she is willing to let vassals like Briggid to become their own power and want to establish better relationships with other cultures, the problem with the Children of the Goddess springs from the shadow ruling she perceives.

And... personal opinion here, but I think her war also stems from the fact that, welp, by taking such a big axe to the continent's social order, even if she had started with only intern reforms, it's bound to band the nobility in other countries against her to not lose their own power through revolutionary contagion, and the fact that the Church just cannot let a ruler publically denounce a core parts of their beliefs, because that way lies general contestation of the Church and any form of authority it holds. It happened when a monk in Germany was disgusted by the fact that the confession from Catholicism got twisted into pardons against money, it's hard to not see the potential for that when one core mythos of the Church is targetted.

Edited by Hardric62

Share this post


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

 

Yes, and... Nah, sorry, but that's not a trait I find worthy of praise in a ruler, that way lies so many troubles it hurts.

 

 

Because yes, for me Rhea is ruling, with a 'hands off' approach to the day to day stuff, but from the moment she stayed along, and collected all that power within that Church so she would have the means of her policy, it became ruling for me. And from that moment, she became accountable for the failings of that rule. She used the religious and morale tools (and some more personal thingies which can be leveraged into power if needed, like 'witness for each new emperor crowned in Adrestia', or 'Holy Kingdom of Faerghus'), plus the knights as a scalpel for excision of the rot she spots, but it is still her vision she is trying to enforce, so for me, it is ruling. Especialy when, as you said, she has the power to broker negociations between kingdoms. A difference is that I see these wars not as a proof of her not ruling, but as a sign that the order she posed centuries ago is straining and crumbling under the weight of different changes (and Agarthan interference) and her being unable to use the levers of power she created for herself to do more that damage control. She saw that as a duty, but that was still (failing) ruling, and the cloning is her acknowledging that she is unfit for that rule... But because she can only imagine her mother as better than her, the attempts at a pretty mad scheme keeps pilling up, and while she obsess more and more on that, Fodlan rots further.

 

 

Well, I do remember some people it was involving knowledge of the Hrelsvegr family alone too, but I can't just find where it was said (and would like to know the where, just like I would like to know if that 'Southern Church' really existed). My guess is that Child Edelgard pulled up a Claude after the experimentation, and yes, the Agarthans probably seeded materials showing the Church's foul play with history and the likes, enough to make them look like shadow rulers, which... Rhea is for me. And well, I guess after that, Edelgard probably decided that unlike Claude, she wouldn't go further because with that foul play, she estimated the pass was lost anyways, and irrelevant to a 'now' where the Church and the nobility they were partenered with were strangling the continent, while being unable to fight off for good things like the Agarthans.

 

 

Yes, and when these tenets are not enacted, they lose their value, and her strucutre look s like it is complicit through inaction. Again, that was likely a real long term processus, it must have been possible to set up a not even necessarily violent example in the past, and keeping enforcing it, because a law not enforced lose all value.

And Crests... it might be my studies in history speaking, but I things happening like this: Nobles use Crests as proof of divine right to rule to reinforce their power, while pointing out they can do that because they are descendants of the sacred heroes, the 10 Elites, and that clearly if that was an abuse like pointed out in the text, the Church would condamn them. Rhea clearly don't. The strategy extends to the entire noblity, with Crestless echelons playing up that they take their orders from the goddess-mandated ones. Cue roughly one thousand years of a social class being told it has a divine right to rule, with a tangible sign of that favor... The entitlement and corruption it would breed, boy oh boy. And when the Crests start fading, they need to keep them going at all costs, because they hammered 'Crests as diven favor' for centuries, if they go now, the people could see that as a sign of Goddess' defavor, and bam insurrections. And the longer it would go, the longer they would get to think of the Church which collaborated with these nobles for so long, and if they are associated with them so closely, maybe they share that disapprobation from the Goddess... And welp, the pre-war Fodlan don't look that nice, with rampant banditry everywhere (hell, Alois and Shamir's paralogue. The ruling house of the Alliance can't defend its own capital, its trade harbor and main money maker, against bloody pirates alone. Society isn't in a good shape if things like that crop up.

 

 

You know, 'Humanity Fuck No' is not any better than 'Humanity Fuck Yeah'. By that logic Rhea's system isn't any better as opposed to what you think, because it sunk too. And welp, it takes its comlpete and total failure and someone actually cleaning up the root of her mess to admit it, but she admits she borked her rule of Fodlan. And Byleth, is just Byleth. Yes Sothis gives him some limited time travel, but that's it, not the behemoth magical power of Sothis nearly wiping out the Agarthans and healing Fodlan all by hereself. Just one person, and the people standing with him. These are these people who fix the mess, not the Goddess herself, who very pointedly 'disappears' before the war starts. And because that war pretty much torn the corrupt structures present apart, so something new, and not rotten to the core to the point a leader of half the continent can declare war against the pope and not swim through uprisings, desertions and the likes within her ranks, can be created. Hell, that's why Azure Moon outcome is the one I am the less trusting. The Agarthans are still there to rock the oat as a group, and Rhea has not eaten the humble pie of Verdant Wind and Silver Snow, so I fear that on that route, after Byleth, she resolves herself to 'safekeeping' their legacy herself because she still very mucch in the mode 'Only Mama knows better than me', and it's back to Square One, with Faerghus replacing Adrestia. And I'm not trusting an immortal ruler with that mindset.

 

 

For having seen and studied these monarchies in story... No, she can and will trust advisors and ministers (at least in Crimson Flower), nationalism isn't a thing in medieval period, and imperialism... She is not the first ruler of an empire to consider reconquest for lost parts of that empire. And I will also contest the racism (at least in Crimson Flower) when she is willing to let vassals like Briggid to become their own power and want to establish better relationships with other cultures, the problem with the Children of the Goddess springs from the shadow ruling she perceives.

And... personal opinion here, but I think her war also stems from the fact that, welp, by taking such a big axe to the continent's social order, even if she had started with only intern reforms, it's bound to band the nobility in other countries against her to not lose their own power through revolutionary conatgion, and the fact that the Church just cannot let a ruler publically denounce a core parts of their beliefs, because that way lies general contestation of the Church and any form of authority it holds. It happened when a monk in Germany was disgusted by the fact that the confession from Catholicism got twisted into pardons against money, it's hard to not see the potential for that when one core mythos of the Church is targetted.

Martin Luther the founder of today’s Protestantism truly nice comparison. I completely agree with what you said, Reah should have left the stage of history after the founding of the church or at least shouldn’t have kept such a „hands of“ approach. About the rest that you wrote there is nothing I can ad just about Edelgard. Among the discussion about her that I have seen so far she was described with a plethora of word, mostly negative ones, but what I see seldom is revolutionary. That’s exactly what she is, a revolutionary out to break the order of the false goddess that has kept the continent under her fist while building a society whose very core was corrupted. Heck not only the church she even wants to abolish nobility, though in a single reign a bit impossible she lays the groundwork for it by not choosing one of her children but one who she deems as competent as her successor for the throne, thus promoting a meritocratic mindset. And as it’s not rare with revolutionaries she has to combine her strength with those who should normally be destroyed after all revolutions are revolts of the weak versus the strong, and without help they wouldn’t be able to complete their goal.

Share this post


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

Martin Luther the founder of today’s Protestantism truly nice comparison. I completely agree with what you said, Reah should have left the stage of history after the founding of the church or at least shouldn’t have kept such a „hands of“ approach. About the rest that you wrote there is nothing I can ad just about Edelgard. Among the discussion about her that I have seen so far she was described with a plethora of word, mostly negative ones, but what I see seldom is revolutionary. That’s exactly what she is, a revolutionary out to break the order of the false goddess that has kept the continent under her fist while building a society whose very core was corrupted. Heck not only the church she even wants to abolish nobility, though in a single reign a bit impossible she lays the groundwork for it by not choosing one of her children but one who she deems as competent as her successor for the throne, thus promoting a meritocratic mindset. And as it’s not rare with revolutionaries she has to combine her strength with those who should normally be destroyed after all revolutions are revolts of the weak versus the strong, and without help they wouldn’t be able to complete their goal.

I'm sorry Martin Luther King are you talking about him as a comparison because if you are I kind of feel offended by that they are nothing alike at all the two characters that y'all keep talking about are are literally the same type of person Y'all keep saying that one is worse than the other but they both do the exact same thing they alter history so that so they can actually seem good and the other side looked bad and they completely willing to just kill anyone that gets in their way and they're willing to use human shields the difference is that one of them has way better motives than the other one of them was literally a puppet forced to do what they wanted to do even if it really wasn't their idea and the other half had there entire race slaughtered but a few of them and got revenge and led to a thousand years of peace they're both pretty much the same That's why they let you pick between the two neither one of them are a saint they're both chaotic neutral at best and at worst just flat out chaotic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Martin Luther the founder of today’s Protestantism". I don't that's the black civil rights activist one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2019 at 10:44 AM, Hardric62 said:

Yes, and... Nah, sorry, but that's not a trait I find worthy of praise in a ruler, that way lies so many troubles it hurts.

You know, 'Humanity Fuck No' is not any better than 'Humanity Fuck Yeah'. By that logic Rhea's system isn't any better as opposed to what you think, because it sunk too. And welp, it takes its comlpete and total failure and someone actually cleaning up the root of her mess to admit it, but she admits she borked her rule of Fodlan. And Byleth, is just Byleth. Yes Sothis gives him some limited time travel, but that's it, not the behemoth magical power of Sothis nearly wiping out the Agarthans and healing Fodlan all by hereself. Just one person, and the people standing with him. These are these people who fix the mess, not the Goddess herself, who very pointedly 'disappears' before the war starts. And because that war pretty much torn the corrupt structures present apart, so something new, and not rotten to the core to the point a leader of half the continent can declare war against the pope and not swim through uprisings, desertions and the likes within her ranks, can be created. Hell, that's why Azure Moon outcome is the one I am the less trusting. The Agarthans are still there to rock the oat as a group, and Rhea has not eaten the humble pie of Verdant Wind and Silver Snow, so I fear that on that route, after Byleth, she resolves herself to 'safekeeping' their legacy herself because she still very mucch in the mode 'Only Mama knows better than me', and it's back to Square One, with Faerghus replacing Adrestia. And I'm not trusting an immortal ruler with that mindset.

I don't know if I would call it good or bad but it was certainly the more prudent choice on her part. Theoretically, she could have lived another 1000 years or more why would she trust Claude, the master schemer, with all the secrets of her kind. Let's be honest, her race haven't had the greatest track record with people knowing who they are and not using it against them. But when she knew that she was dying she did tell them so it's not like she took all of her secrets to the grave. 

"Humanity Fuck No" is definitely not what I wrote. It is very easy to dump all of the bad things in Fodlan at the foot of Rhea as if all wayward behavior can be attributable to one person. So, looking at other contemporary countries should give us a glance at what is possible without the influence of Rhea or crests. And when we look at those countries, we find that they are in no better shape than Fodlan but they don't have crests and Rhea holds no sway in those areas, so why are they stumbling and falling? And it has nothing to do with "Rhea's system failed too", that's not the point. The point is that we know of the existence of five countries in the 3H's universe and all those countries have societal issues plaguing them. All five countries with different cultures, different Gods, different languages and the only common denominator is humanity. Does that mean that I think humanity should be wiped out? Of course not! But I do think that Sylvain's statement about how there will be another war eventually because humans thrive on conflict is true and that truth shines a whole different light on what's going on in Fodlan.

Also, Byleth is a lot more than just Byleth after she merges with Sothis, of course even before she merged with Sothis she was no ordinary human. Sothis gave Byleth the power of the Progenitor God which allowed her to cut a hole between dimensions (!) to release herself from the realm of darkness (that is a lot more than some "limited time travel"). The fact that she survives a fall that would have killed any regular person, then sleeps for five years at the bottom of a canyon to recover, makes it seriously debatable if Byleth can be considered human at all. When Sothis wakes Byleth from her slumber, she speaks as if she and Byleth are indeed the same entity, so the Goddess didn't disappear she just became one with Byleth (or at least a part of her did considering Rhea's s-support). We know that Indech, Macuil and even Thales consider Byleth as an incarnation or extension of Sothis. While Seteth and Flayn certainly think of her as one of them and if you s -support Seteth there is even more evidence to suggest that they are correct. So Byleth is already an immortal leader, right? I mean it is written in the Byleth/Flayn ending that he is ageless and if the fall off a mountain won't kill her what can?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2019 at 2:44 PM, Kiran_ said:

Nobody is arguing how she sees it? Hitler probably saw himself as rational and good. That doesn't make it actually rational and good, so what's your point?

Also, even logically I would say no to that, so?? She clearly had examples of humans being more than that (she trusted one as Seiros), but she chose to use the worst of humans to define all of them. That's just logically messed up. She took the "but I have one friend" approach.

Nobody's discounting what Rhea sees, so your entire post is odd, because it's not about how Rhea approached it and rather or not she was right in her own mind (of course she was). It's how others interpret those actions and reasons.

A system that is unjust and unfair and perpetuates tyranny and oppression is broken. A broken system can of course persist for many more years. But that doesn't make it less broken. Things that are wrong and broken can exist despite being both wrong and broken, that doesn't even make sense to say the system is all those things but somehow not broken. And it was inevitable that Edelgard would appear, but where did I say that her system was not also going to be broken for different reasons?

We don't know how she was creating these people. At all. We don't know if what she was doing was violent human experimentation to create these 'hollow shells', or somehow using some odd power of creationism. We simply don't know, so it's weird to simply dismiss it. The point stands, she was doing something wrong, all because she couldn't get over her grief.

Umm...it was revenge, first and foremost, she says so herself. And second to keep peace is to control humans. And of course it wasn't her intention, but it IS her fault, because she had numerous times to recorrect what was happening, but what happened was she started with one GIANT lie and did anything in her power to protect said lie, even if it meant letting the world fall into something that was clearly NOT peace. Her entire rewrite of history is exactly WHY Fodlan reached the place it was at, you can't honestly not see that.

Everything you just said makes me dislike Rhea more. Because if she's so willing to kill anyone who gets in her way, you'd think she'd have the power to schedule mass executions of the nobles who are too greedy. If she can execute the entire Western Church, I don't think it's a stretch to believe she could take care of greedy nobles. Like that's just oddly hypocritical that she can only deal with things involving her or her mother, but turn a blind eye to everything else. So no. Everything you said there was wrong, because she clearly did have the power and means necessary to make a change. She chose not too, because she even admitted herself was focused on HER goals over humanity. She wanted her mother back. Not TRULY for Sothis to rule again, but at the end of the day, she wanted to be held by her mother again. She wanted to hear her mother sing to her. At the end of it all, Rhea was just a child who lost her mother and never got over it. In that way, she's SUPER sympathetic and it's heartbreaking. But that doesn't absolve her of everything she did or the things she caused. And you can't write good intentions into her actions, because she herself admitted she got so wrapped up in her own goal that she let things fall apart. She clearly had the power to do something. To suggest she didn't is disingenuous. 

You can't say fascism is bad in one breath and say it's okay for Rhea to be judge/jury/executioner in the next, because modern world standards don't apply.

At Rhea's worst she is most certainly a villain. In the same way that at Edelgard's worst she is also a villain. You can't for a single moment pretend that Rhea is suddenly not a villain (in some routes) just because you sympathize with her. She blames herself for things that are her fault. That's not sad, it's honesty. She needed to see her own mistakes. And I'm glad in that route she can see the mistakes she caused.

I'm sorry, where is Edelgard a liar and manipulator on a scale worse than someone who rewrote history? Like that invalidates almost everything you say, because that's not even remotely true. Edelgard is most certainly a liar and manipulator. But to then say suddenly that Rhea who manipulated history itself and kept up a lie for a 1000 years, is suddenly not on the same level? What?

Edelgard does express doubt. She does acknowledge her failings and does take the blame for what she's done. Did you just conveniently skip over things she said, or.....? Her entire supports pre-time skip with Hubert are knowing her path is going to be steeped in blood and being worried if it's the right path, but knowing it has to be done. Does it have to be done? Not really. Claude kinda shows there's other paths to reunifying Fodlan and getting things done than just a giant war, but we also see that to abolish the system, you do have to get rid of the Church and Rhea, which wouldn't be done without some bloodshed.

Edelgard is extremely arrogant. And she does value her ideals over a lot of things. But, the Church & Empire would never come together. Sure in your 'mind' it was the perfect opportunity, but that in no way makes sense to the story, so it seems odd that you'd suggest that was the moment she lost you, when that was the smartest decision she made in her conquest. I would have done the exact same thing and then some.

This isn't a real court, it's the internet. Instead of wasting so much time organizing a discussion, you could just respond? The discussion is going nowhere because you keep repeating yourself on things already stated.

1.) There's nothing indicating she dislike humans it's pretty much shown with her taking in Cyril and having been good enough friends with Jeralt before the start of the game. Distrusts, sure, but keep in mind that the last time Nabateans were known they were genocided to create Crests and Relics, and that's definitely something someone doesn't just gets over. The whole Church of Seiros is more or less a way to protect the Nabateans remnants from being hunted down. You don't just bounce back after seeing your whole race massacred, especially since if the true origin of Crests and Relics were known she'd have that threat always looming over her and her family's heads.

2.) Okay, I think this is a major misconception, but Rhea did not create the Crest system. In fact, Crests would've come about whether she'd wanted it to or not since the Ten Elites who were allied with Nemesis were already empowered by then. Think about it: there must've been a lot of time between when Nemesis came about and Rhea stopped him, by then it wouldn't be farfetched to say that the Elites either had children, passed down Crests, or to the very least told people about them. As soon as those Ten were empowered, there was no way to stop Crests from spreading. Even if the Church of Seiros was never created , and the Nabateans hidden, it would've been inevitable that a system of these Crests would be created- especially since they are valued because they increase magical and physical capabilities. All Rhea did was provide a safeguard for her kind so humans would stop hunting them down.

Even if she were to go out and say that Crest Marriages or valueing crests so much is bad (and keep in mind having Crests less valued would actually be to her benefit), there's nothing stopping nobles from shrugging it off, putting up an act, and doing it anyway, because Crests are just that valuable.

3.) Funny that you say that but... https://pastebin.com/HZrUaBhh the Japanese text explicitly states she creates artificial bodies, of which from what we've seen from Byleth's mom, she lets her failures live out their lives as their own individuals, so that whole debacle is out the window.

4.) I think you're severely overestimating exactly how much power Rhea has. For one, in every route both the Alliance and Faerghus operate separatley from the Church. There's nothing to indicate Claude nor Dmitri answers to Rhea, with Claude not even trusting the religion and it's stated that Faerghus only becomes a theocracy if Byleth marries Dmitri. You're also forgetting a few important factors in that Western Church issue:

  • They tried to kill her THREE TIMES, Like including with what happened at the tomb there's the incident with Lonato, of which Byleth's class gets ambushed in what's supposed to be an easy mission, and the incident with Christophe. 
  • Not only did they try to kill a major figurehead of their religion, they tried to steal incredibly powerful weaponry that could be used for war, desecrated holy ground, tried to kill innocent students who weren't even planned to fight, AND on top of this potentially threatening a future king (Dmitri), future Emperor (Edelgard) or the next leader of the Alliance (Claude). All of that is... pretty grave, if not treason against multiple countries at the exact same time.
  • It's stated that she only executed those directly involved in the raid. So basically, anyone who was there to raid the tombs and those found to be explicit conspirators (They said something along the lines of "We were told we wouldn't be implicated").
  • And most importantly, it was an internal affair. Rhea only COULD punish the Western Church because it's well within her scope of power. She's the centralized figurehead of the Church of Seiros, so of course she'd be granted power in the Church's own affairs and not be able to control what happens in other countries. It's basically called "soft power"; she has some control over the faith, oversees doctrine, and handles internal affairs, but if she were to openly pine for power she'd lose her influence almost instantly. And before anyone mentions Faerghus in Crimson Flower, she was only able to do that because Dmitri (who mind you granted her asylum) had died at that point.

Rhea's shown to neither exert her power over any of the three countries involved, nor is depicted to hold any power over the main Trio outside of being what's essentially a headmaster.

5.) Okay, so here's the hole in this: Not only does Hanneman destroy the Crest system in every route he survives in through mass producing crests, but the Crests only vanished in Crimson Flower because of an enormous gaping plot hole (Rhea can die in Verdant Wind and Silver Snow, but it's shown that the crests still remain). Most people seem to forget that conquering Fodlan is every bit as much of a reason for Edelgard to start the war as is attacking the Church. The biggest proof of this? In Verdant Wind and Silver Snow she captures Rhea after the attack on Gareg Mach. She essentially has the Pope as a hostage in a war against the Church for over five years. If she really was all about stopping that system and destroying Rhea and the Church she would've used her as leverage to get the Church to surrender and then executed her. So there's no denying she just as badly wants to conquer all of Fodlan, which would involve invading the Alliance and Faerghus, countries who are shown to be fine being independant for centuries now, and forcing her own ideals on the people who live there.

6.) Edelgard doesn't even have that high ground going for her. https://pastebin.com/66h7S04d Pretty much according to the original JP text, she essentially erases Faerghus from history. That could just be embellishment, but I find it hard to believe that people would up and forget an entire nation. Again, compare this with Rhea who had very real reasons not to trust humans with Crests and Relic Weapons spread about on top of fighting TWSITD, while it's still a terrible thing to do it's arguably justifiable given her situation. And even then, my answer would still be "Yes". You can not deny the fact that her overall goals are imperialistic; as stated before, she could easily make the Church bend for her  and stop the conflict after her attack on Garreg Mach ended with her capturing Rhea, there's also the fact that she outright says in every single one of her speeches upon being crowned Emperor that she wants to conquer Faerghus and Leicester. 

Yeah, rewriting history was definitely a shitty thing to do, but at the same time she maintained peace for several hundred centuries, Edelgard caused an entirely needless blood 5-year war because she wanted to conquer the continent, ideals be damned. Maybe it's just me, but ideals can only have so much worth until you're willing to take first blood over it, (heck, she tried to kill Dimitri and Claude before the game even started) especially since her ideals could be enacted wholly nonviolently with the right decisions.

I know Rhea's not a saint (lol) with her whole resurrecting her mother thing, but it's honestly hard for me to side with Edelgard considering- and I think this is something I see a ton of people gloss over- the fact that she based her whole war on factually wrong informationFor one, the Church wasn't involved at all with Crest experiments outside of the one involving Sothis, those were perpetuated by TWSITD (of which Edelgard chooses to work with), and Rhea ISN'T trying to conquer the continent- if anything that would put a target on her head and go against what she'd been doing for centuries, heck there was nothing stopping her from taking over as Seiros after defeating Nemesis she was straight up revered at the time and could've easily deposed the first Adrestian Emperor if she wished- and the Church only does so by complete accident in Silver Snow by virtue of surviving.

Sorry, this is a bit much, but I've been interested in this topic for a while and needed to let that out

Edited by Cyan1456

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that makes the execution wrong on all levels is how she takes the decision.

"Hey Rhea so these are the baddies"

"Cool, kill every last one of them"

"Shouldn't we ask or invest-"

"I said kill them shut up"

Are you trying to look as dodgy as possible or what? And why wouldn't you at least try to understand? They're literally trying to tell that they've been tricked before she shuts them up. To me that's an incredibly irrational decision, especially for a head of state, that shows just how bad of a ruler she is.

 

Also on CF, the disappearence of crests makes sense, I think you may be misinterpreting here. They don't go away with Rhea's death, they go away because people don't care anymore and over time the bloodline weakens. In other routes they keep existing because of Hanneman's ministrations, otherwise they'd still disappear (it's a biological process more than a political one).

What is actually true and never explained is why Byleth loses his crest with Rhea's death. That's almost as random as having Nemesis be the GD boss. I guess it just goes into the big pile of incomplete CF stuff, let's hope the DLC can finish it (eg add twsitd confrontation after ch17, like it's supposed to be).

Share this post


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

The thing that makes the execution wrong on all levels is how she takes the decision.

"Hey Rhea so these are the baddies"

"Cool, kill every last one of them"

"Shouldn't we ask or invest-"

"I said kill them shut up"

Are you trying to look as dodgy as possible or what? And why wouldn't you at least try to understand? They're literally trying to tell that they've been tricked before she shuts them up. To me that's an incredibly irrational decision, especially for a head of state, that shows just how bad of a ruler she is.

 

Also on CF, the disappearence of crests makes sense, I think you may be misinterpreting here. They don't go away with Rhea's death, they go away because people don't care anymore and over time the bloodline weakens. In other routes they keep existing because of Hanneman's ministrations, otherwise they'd still disappear (it's a biological process more than a political one).

What is actually true and never explained is why Byleth loses his crest with Rhea's death. That's almost as random as having Nemesis be the GD boss. I guess it just goes into the big pile of incomplete CF stuff, let's hope the DLC can finish it (eg add twsitd confrontation after ch17, like it's supposed to be).

1) Seteth already says they were identified in their involvement, and their entire defense in that one conversation was that they didn't think they'd be implicated. Plus, keep in mind, a majority of the one she did execute were already at the Holy Tomb. What needed to be investigated by that, other than the fact that they were caught blatantly red handed? I don't agree with it from a modern perspective, but given that the political system in Fire Emblem's always been run on a Medieval style, and given the situation she's perfectly in her bounds to do that.

Edit: I'd like to clarify that for them to have caught the conspirators in the first place, there'd have to have been an investigation unless they were pointing fingers willy nilly.

2.) There's nothing indicating that's what happens, in fact Lysithea's Crimson Flower endings has her live out her full lifespan without crests shortening it unlike the other endings so yes, they in fact do disappear.

Edited by Cyan1456

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Cyan1456 said:

1) Seteth already says they were identified in their involvement, and their entire defense in that one conversation was that they didn't think they'd be implicated. Plus, keep in mind, a majority of the one she did execute were already at the Holy Tomb. What needed to be investigated by that, other than the fact that they were caught blatantly red handed? I don't agree with it from a modern perspective, but given that the political system in Fire Emblem's always been run on a Medieval style, and given the situation she's perfectly in her bounds to do that.
Edit: I'd like to clarify that for them to have caught the conspirators in the first place, there'd have to have been an investigation unless they were pointing fingers willy nilly.

It's not a matter of historical context, it's a matter of logic. If someone is trying to assassinate you or trying to pull a coup you should be concerned with understanding their reasons and, more importantly, the true size of your enemy. She doesn't give a damn, she's blinded by her zealotry.

35 minutes ago, Cyan1456 said:

2.) There's nothing indicating that's what happens, in fact Lysithea's Crimson Flower endings has her live out her full lifespan without crests shortening it unlike the other endings so yes, they in fact do disappear.

Her crests disappear in other endings as well, probably due to research or magic or god knows what (with Linhardt' I'm pretty sure it's confirmed to be research, but she loses the crests even in some endings with Byleth and it's not exactly explained why). Still, it's nothing different in Crimson Flower, it's never even remotely hinted that Rhea's death has ANY significance for crests, aside from Byleth's.

Edited by timon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timon said:

It's not a matter of historical context, it's a matter of logic. If someone is trying to assassinate you or trying to pull a coup you should be concerned with understanding their reasons and, more importantly, the true size of your enemy. She doesn't give a damn, she's blinded by her zealotry.

Her crests disappear in other endings as well, probably due to research or magic or god knows what (with Linhardt' I'm pretty sure it's confirmed to be research, but she loses the crests even in some endings with Byleth and it's not exactly explained why). Still, it's nothing different in Crimson Flower, it's never even remotely hinted that Rhea's death has ANY significance for crests, aside from Byleth's.

1.) She already knew full well that the Western Church was corrupt and vying for power. Several characters confirm this like Ashe, Shamir, and Catherine, and this was far from the first time the Western Church acted against her, heck they've attacked the Central Church without prompting from TWSITD before through Christophe so there's no reason to think someone else could be involved. In Catherine's (I think) paralogue they straight up ambush her and Byleth's class when there was no indication that she was planning to execute anyone else except the bishop they found to be corrupt.

And the moment you use lethal force  (and keep in mind that it's shown that the Western Church has always resorted to lethal force first and foremost when dealing with Rhea) before trying to reason with someone, that person has absolutely no obligation to listen to you. You had the chance to reason beforehand, and being willing to kill someone for your ideals means you should expect to be killed back in retaliation. Keep in mind, they not only tried to kill her, but several of her unsuspecting students, the heir to one of the three Kingdoms, on top of trying to steal weapons of incredible power and destruction (and we see how badly things can go if they fall into the wrong hands with Miklan), there was no possible way to justify that.

And that's pretty much how Rhea operates: she has only ever used lethal force on people openly attacking the Church and meaning to do great physical harm or death. She's perfectly fine coexisting with people of different ideals, as shown with Garreg Mach- for all means and purposes it's a military academy that accepts people from all around the world. Not only do characters like Dedue and Petra worship an entirely different religion, but one of her closest aids, Shamir, is a straight up atheist.

2.) Eh I'll give you that one.

Still it's unfair to pin the Crests on Rhea when she has absolutely no control over them, and in fact would want them gone as much as Edelgard. Whether she wanted to or not- and remember, her main objective with the Church is to protect her kind from being hunted down by hiding the origins of the crests so a lack of crest system would be to her benefit- there still would have been a crest system because the 10 Elites would've had enough time to use and spread information about them. Wars take a long time, so there's reason to believe that the idea of Crests was at least visible to those who worked with the Ten Elites. Crests would've been inherently valued even without the Church of Seiros because of the physical and magical capabilities they offered. I guarantee you, even without the Church of Seiros nobility would still hound over crests- the Church just ensured no Nabateans would be slaughtered over it.

What could have Rhea done? If she told people the truth it's liable to backfire and cause certain groups to go after the remnants of her kind- after all it happened once with Nemesis, so it's a very real danger. She couldn't just go around killing people who have them, not only is that totally monstrous given that some may just have been born with it, but it would've been nigh impossible since by the time she stopped Nemsis the Ten Elites had time to spread info on them, possibly have children, or transfer them via blood transfusion. If she vilified those with Crests and made them enemies of Fodlan then these people-who are essentially super powered because of said crests mind you- would easily turn against her. She essentially took a system that was going to happen no matter what and minimized the bloodshed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm about to do the last chapter on GD and, is it just me or was Edelgard not really that bad on this route? Is everyone who calls her merciless and extreme basing that on only BL or am I still biased due to starting with Crimson Flower? Like she didn't really do anything reprehensible except cooperate with the slitherers, which even Claude says he can try to understand why she felt she had to do. In fact I got the impression Claude agreed with her in everything but her starting a war to achieve her/their goals, but like... without a war it would've been impossible to unite Fódlan, restructure the Church, and get rid of the slitherers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2019 at 1:14 AM, LilyRose said:

I don't know if I would call it good or bad but it was certainly the more prudent choice on her part. Theoretically, she could have lived another 1000 years or more why would she trust Claude, the master schemer, with all the secrets of her kind. Let's be honest, her race haven't had the greatest track record with people knowing who they are and not using it against them. But when she knew that she was dying she did tell them so it's not like she took all of her secrets to the grave. 

 

Because by that point her system had utterly collapsed, Claude made it clear he knew about the buullshitting, and, welp, said bullshitting had been one of the factors leading to the whole bloody mess? Like he said, by that point, time for secrecy was very much over. If anything I'd hold how long it took her to fess up against her. Because she refused to acknowledge her mistakes up to her deathbed. Again, my dream ruler, Rhea is most emphatically not.

 

On 9/21/2019 at 1:14 AM, LilyRose said:

"Humanity Fuck No" is definitely not what I wrote. It is very easy to dump all of the bad things in Fodlan at the foot of Rhea as if all wayward behavior can be attributable to one person. So, looking at other contemporary countries should give us a glance at what is possible without the influence of Rhea or crests. And when we look at those countries, we find that they are in no better shape than Fodlan but they don't have crests and Rhea holds no sway in those areas, so why are they stumbling and falling? And it has nothing to do with "Rhea's system failed too", that's not the point. The point is that we know of the existence of five countries in the 3H's universe and all those countries have societal issues plaguing them. All five countries with different cultures, different Gods, different languages and the only common denominator is humanity. Does that mean that I think humanity should be wiped out? Of course not! But I do think that Sylvain's statement about how there will be another war eventually because humans thrive on conflict is true and that truth shines a whole different light on what's going on in Fodlan. 

 

Yes. But in Fodlan, Rhea had a direct hand in shaping society in Fodlan for one thousand years, in the name of her own brand of ruling. And that makes Fodlan's failures very much hers.

 

On 9/21/2019 at 1:14 AM, LilyRose said:



Also, Byleth is a lot more than just Byleth after she merges with Sothis, of course even before she merged with Sothis she was no ordinary human. Sothis gave Byleth the power of the Progenitor God which allowed her to cut a hole between dimensions (!) to release herself from the realm of darkness (that is a lot more than some "limited time travel"). The fact that she survives a fall that would have killed any regular person, then sleeps for five years at the bottom of a canyon to recover, makes it seriously debatable if Byleth can be considered human at all. When Sothis wakes Byleth from her slumber, she speaks as if she and Byleth are indeed the same entity, so the Goddess didn't disappear she just became one with Byleth (or at least a part of her did considering Rhea's s-support). We know that Indech, Macuil and even Thales consider Byleth as an incarnation or extension of Sothis. While Seteth and Flayn certainly think of her as one of them and if you s -support Seteth there is even more evidence to suggest that they are correct. So Byleth is already an immortal leader, right? I mean it is written in the Byleth/Flayn ending that he is ageless and if the fall off a mountain won't kill her what can?

 

But ultimately, Sothis isn't in the driving seat, hell she isn't even driving shotgun, only showing up after the end in one specific scenario. Ultimately, it is Byleth alone, with 'bonus' powers, yes, but it is Byleth, and that's it. Some people can choose to link them and Sothis more closely, but ultimately, I dare think Byleth would have taken similar choices without the hair and eyes color change. Yes, I know that would suppose moving past the several points where the fusion with Sothis gave them the means of surviving some of the ordeals on the way. But ultimately, that fusion only cleared these obstacles, the rest is pretty much the professor/teach.

Share this post


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

I'm about to do the last chapter on GD and, is it just me or was Edelgard not really that bad on this route? Is everyone who calls her merciless and extreme basing that on only BL or am I still biased due to starting with Crimson Flower? Like she didn't really do anything reprehensible except cooperate with the slitherers, which even Claude says he can try to understand why she felt she had to do. In fact I got the impression Claude agreed with her in everything but her starting a war to achieve her/their goals, but like... without a war it would've been impossible to unite Fódlan, restructure the Church, and get rid of the slitherers.

Well you have to question how necessary it really was to unite all of Fodlan. Keep in mind, there was relative peace between the three nations regardless beforehand and the Alliance and Kingdom broke off from the Empire of their own volition. Yes, they've united Fodlan, but at the cost of thousands if not millions of innocent lives. This might be just me, but no matter how good an ideal you have it means nothing if you're willing to trample so many people over it. 

And the Church thing, Rhea was planning to step down anyway and make Byleth the Archbishop. Edelgard probably would've had decent relations because they knew each other beforehand, and she could have a sway in how things go politically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cyan1456 said:

And that's pretty much how Rhea operates: she has only ever used lethal force on people openly attacking the Church and meaning to do great physical harm or death.

1. I think we're arguing over two different points here, I understand that she needs to kill the bishop, that's not my problem.

Why doesn't she ask first?? That's my problem.

It's in her interest to know the truth! If you go into a room and there's someone with a gun and a corpse, then they're probably the killer. Assuming they're not in a position to harm you (and the western church guys are not when they're in front of her) you can either kill them on the spot or ask them why they did it (since maybe they'll try to kill you as well!) and THEN kill them. First you get the information out of the bad guy, then you dispose of the bad guy, that's how it works.

Her willingness of putting that whole deal away as fast as possible just goes to make her look as dodgy and fanatic as she can be (even if maybe she isn't).

 

2. As for the "crest disappearence" thing, I wasn't really talking about her control over the crest or anything, it's more of a thing that I wanted to clarify, since there's a lot of misunderstanding over that ending scene in CF (which affects only Byleth, while people seem to think it represents the disappearence of all crests on the spot).
Still, it's not explained why the heart disappears, I interpreted it as Sothis leaving Byleth live as a regular human, since he doesn't end up as arcbishop like in the other routes, thus he doesn't need her guidance anymore.

Edited by timon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's plenty of implications that things were beginning to reach the tipping point and war was on the horizon. That's why your students are all like "we knew this was gonna happen sooner or later" when she declares war. There was a LOT of insidious, dysfunctional stuff going on - in no small part due to the hierarchies and corruption Edelgard wants to destroy.

There are very few bloodless revolutions, inevitably because the people at the top don't want things to change for obvious reasons. Edelgard clearly made the decision that millions of innocent lives in the short term is better than even more millions of innocent lives lost in the long term, and I don't entirely disagree with the logic.

My beef with her is that she's clearly operating out of mistaken assumptions, and I don't think reconquering the world is conductive to her ultimate aim so much as it's simply easier for her to control things in the short term.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cyan1456 said:

Well you have to question how necessary it really was to unite all of Fodlan. Keep in mind, there was relative peace between the three nations regardless beforehand and the Alliance and Kingdom broke off from the Empire of their own volition. Yes, they've united Fodlan, but at the cost of thousands if not millions of innocent lives. This might be just me, but no matter how good an ideal you have it means nothing if you're willing to trample so many people over it. 

And the Church thing, Rhea was planning to step down anyway and make Byleth the Archbishop. Edelgard probably would've had decent relations because they knew each other beforehand, and she could have a sway in how things go politically.

Eh, Fódlan had peace but it was based on fear and opression. Rhea was the ultimate authority and if you didn't subscribe to her doctrine she had an army ready to kill no questions asked. It's also thanks to her lies that the crest system was in place and while some nobles kept the peace, those without crests still suffered under their dominance. So I get Edelgard's disdain for the Church, and Rhea's system wouldn't have allowed Claude to realize his goals either, so I actually like how he makes it clear he only wants to rescue Rhea because he knows she's the only one with answers. Rhea stepping down to make an emotionally stunted kid she experimented on with her mother's heart in them her heir doesn't exactly strike me as very positive either. Without Edelgard's war I'm sure Rhea would've just filled Byleth with her lies so they'd maintain the status quo and nothing in Fódlan would've really changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Book Bro said:

Eh, Fódlan had peace but it was based on fear and opression. Rhea was the ultimate authority and if you didn't subscribe to her doctrine she had an army ready to kill no questions asked. It's also thanks to her lies that the crest system was in place and while some nobles kept the peace, those without crests still suffered under their dominance. So I get Edelgard's disdain for the Church, and Rhea's system wouldn't have allowed Claude to realize his goals either, so I actually like how he makes it clear he only wants to rescue Rhea because he knows she's the only one with answers. Rhea stepping down to make an emotionally stunted kid she experimented on with her mother's heart in them her heir doesn't exactly strike me as very positive either. Without Edelgard's war I'm sure Rhea would've just filled Byleth with her lies so they'd maintain the status quo and nothing in Fódlan would've really changed.

The only two times in the game (part 1) where we see the KoS kill someone was when they were trying to kill her or using violence against the Church...(inspired by TWSID)

People wanted crests for power, not for religion. The empire, the place least influenced by the religion of Fódlan was where most crest experiments were made. And also, where most corruption existed. If I may add to the point before,  there was a Southern Church in the Empire that disappeared (probably due to TWSID influence or something like that) and we don't see Rhea trying to restore it by force at all. And there are powerful (by influence) nobles without a crest. For example, Judith or even Arundel, who was the main figure of the insurrection of the 7. 

Claude doesn't consider Rhea an obstacle for his objectives. He just doesn't care that much about her. And well, looking at the supports with Cyril, he doesn't consider her a direct threat, and he even ends up believing that Rhea might agree with what he thinks.

Well, the "experiment" with Byleth is explained in SS. And in the end I think is clear Byleth develops emotions. Also, Rhea literally thought that Byleth was Sothis, so in the case El didn't start the war, she would have probably let them do what they wanted. Because for her (before the ts), Byleth is the Progenitor God and the true leader of religion in Fódlan. 

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...