Jump to content
semolinaro

What are your thoughts on Edelgard? *SPOILERS*

Recommended Posts

Edelgard's war while not exactly justified it was supported for stuff that don't only happened directly to her.

She noticed the instability of the world despite the apparent peace; she was in a interesting position because of her connection of the Agarthans. She could or could not knowing, but considering their actions, they want war and will make peaceful resolutions impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure who, but I remember someone making a post saying how the world Edelgard wanted to create was something which was going to happen given time anyway, and I feel like there is some truth to that.

With how many people got hurt by the crest system, it would make those people not want to force their children to go through the same thing if they have the power to stop it, right?  And with Byleth becoming the head of the church, that would only make things more simple. I'm sure it's not as easy as I'm making it sound to be, but I honestly won't see the push to keep a system which is hurting a lot of people to stay if enough people wanted it gone.

You know I find it a bit funny. Past female lords are considered to be a bit too trusting, which gets them in trouble. But I would say with Edelgard, it's the opposite. Had she been more trusting with others, I do believe things wouldn't have needed to be taken as far as they did. Now this is just my opinion, but I disagree with the saying that had she tried to ask for help or support (or whatever you want to call it) that things would have went worst for her. 

Share this post


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

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. 

For your first point, we also learn that Lonato's son was actually framed by the Knights of Seiros and killed because it was the easiest thing to do. Catherine also talks about how she has killed for Rhea just because she ordered it and would again, and I know she doesn't necessarily represent the entire Knights of Seiros but they clearly operate on a "kill first, ask questions later, or not at all" basis, so it's not hard to imagine that more innocents have been wrongly put to death by the Church over the centuries due to misunderstandings or lack of complete loyalty. 

As for crests, yes their influence is due to the power they grant, but the status and standing of those with crests is still due to Rhea lying about them being gifts from Sothis and their bearers being descended from legendary heroes. While there are nobles that have fought for power without crests, we also see that there's nobles who are brought down simply for lacking one. Without the lies it's possible that crest bearers wouldn't overwhelmingly have a grip on the power structure of Fódlan, nor would there be such a focus on passing them down.

And for the last part, my assumption is that Rhea would have still discovered that Byleth wasn't actually Sothis but had only received her power, so rather than giving them free reign she would've had to mold them to rule according to her vision of what Sothis would want (which is the messed up society most of the characters want to change). And since Byleth stops hearing Sothis once they receive her power, there's no way they would've been able to fact-check Rhea, nor would there be a reason to doubt her version of history unless someone (Edelgard) calls her out on it, at which point Rhea/Byleth presumably sic their army on her accuser for blasphemy and we get a war anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Book Bro said:

For your first point, we also learn that Lonato's son was actually framed by the Knights of Seiros and killed because it was the easiest thing to do.

No lol, Christophe was executed because Catherine found out he had a part to play on Rhea's assassination plot and turned him in despite being friends him. This was revealed in Catherine and Ashe's support and brought up a bit in their paralogue. They only convicted him of being involved in the Tragedy of Duscur instead of the assassination to hide that and assassination was attempted on Rhea. He wasn't ever framed just convicted of a different crime which is wrong in itself.

3 hours ago, Book Bro said:

the entire Knights of Seiros but they clearly operate on a "kill first, ask questions later, or not at all" basis, so it's not hard to imagine that more innocents have been wrongly put to death by the Church over the centuries due to misunderstandings or lack of complete loyalty. 

This again isn't true at all. If this was the case, Rhea would've purged Castle Gaspard and the Western Church before the rebellion and the invasion of the Holy Mausoleum. Rhea and the church was very aware that Lonato and the Western Church hated her but, she never did anything until they attacked her. Also, one of the NPcs early on mention that in the current year, the empire and church were in bad relations with each other yet, Rhea still didn't attack them despite the bad relationship between the two. If anything, the Empire is also known to execute those who don't see eye to eye with the emperor, considering what happened with Marquis Vestra and also its mentioned in Edelgard and Hubert's support as well.

3 hours ago, Book Bro said:

Without the lies it's possible that crest bearers wouldn't overwhelmingly have a grip on the power structure of Fódlan, nor would there be such a focus on passing them down

No lol, it would be reversed, those with crests would've been persecuted instead of Rhea told the truth about the 10 elites and crests. We already seen this with Marianne and how anyone with the Crest of Beast were shunned and attacked by the public for having a cursed crest. 

It really helps to play more than 1 route honestly, it really does give you the big picture of the game.

Edited by Lunarly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rose482 said:

 

With how many people got hurt by the crest system, it would make those people not want to force their children to go through the same thing if they have the power to stop it, right?  And with Byleth becoming the head of the church, that would only make things more simple. I'm sure it's not as easy as I'm making it sound to be, but I honestly won't see the push to keep a system which is hurting a lot of people to stay if enough people wanted it gone.

 

Euh, not wanting to be a cynical wet blanket or anything, but inertia in society can be a mean thing, and you'd be surprised how many people maintain a system they dislike because they just can't imagine the world can change so tremendously. And honestly, many students in the academy show signs of that mindset in Supports and their behavior (Sylvain, Ingrid, Mercedes, Marianne... Pre-support, there is some serious degree of resignation to their position in life). They also sho the potential of moving past these issues, yes, but that is not an easy route by any means. And that's without interference of the rest of the corrupt nobility, who already tanked reforming in two countries already, and the mole men who want to rock the boat. And there is the fact that deep enough changes will become contestations of the Church's power by virtue of questioning one of its core creeds and showing it is not actually true. Real Life Churchs never took to such things gracefully, and... Rhea doesn't exactly strike me as the sort of open-minded person able to see this happen without reacting violently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Book Bro said:

For your first point, we also learn that Lonato's son was actually framed by the Knights of Seiros and killed because it was the easiest thing to do. Catherine also talks about how she has killed for Rhea just because she ordered it and would again, and I know she doesn't necessarily represent the entire Knights of Seiros but they clearly operate on a "kill first, ask questions later, or not at all" basis, so it's not hard to imagine that more innocents have been wrongly put to death by the Church over the centuries due to misunderstandings or lack of complete loyalty. 

As for crests, yes their influence is due to the power they grant, but the status and standing of those with crests is still due to Rhea lying about them being gifts from Sothis and their bearers being descended from legendary heroes. While there are nobles that have fought for power without crests, we also see that there's nobles who are brought down simply for lacking one. Without the lies it's possible that crest bearers wouldn't overwhelmingly have a grip on the power structure of Fódlan, nor would there be such a focus on passing them down.

And for the last part, my assumption is that Rhea would have still discovered that Byleth wasn't actually Sothis but had only received her power, so rather than giving them free reign she would've had to mold them to rule according to her vision of what Sothis would want (which is the messed up society most of the characters want to change). And since Byleth stops hearing Sothis once they receive her power, there's no way they would've been able to fact-check Rhea, nor would there be a reason to doubt her version of history unless someone (Edelgard) calls her out on it, at which point Rhea/Byleth presumably sic their army on her accuser for blasphemy and we get a war anyway.

Catherine has personal motives to defend Rhea, which explains why she is also so radical. Shamir for example is also a KoS yet she doesn't blindly follow Rhea (and she isn't even a believer). And I think you are just speculating, we don't know what happened those years, and for now, the people they have killed did something (violent) against the Church.

Also, Lonato's son was executed because participating in an attempt of assasination against Rhea, not the Tragedy of Duscur.

The truth is that we don't know what happened after the war of heroes. Especially how the nobles came to power. We know Rhea changed history, but that's it. How and why would she put in charge the people that are wielding her family's remainings is not known (or even if was her who made them nobles). And about your point of noble houses lacking a crest, returning to my point of the Empire, Jeritza's house wanted a crest because it was disappearing, but like I said, the Church or religious influence there (especially between the noble) is very little. So, I still think that most of the reason the nobles have are related to power and tradition.

And for your last point...In most of the endings, especially AM, where she doesn't tell nothing about the religion and could still have returned to power, she gives her position to Byleth, even knowing they aren't Sothis. And what did Sothis wanted that it wasn't the same as Rhea wanted? (excluiding revive her, of course)

And no, there would not be a way, but because Fódlan would be in chaos, given that most people are religious (and the reason why Rhea tells the truth in GD isn't Edelgard, is Nemesis)And with the information Edelgard has...Well...How would Rhea not get angry at her? Though I must say that i CF the thing she cares the least is that manifesto.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rose482 said:

I'm not sure who, but I remember someone making a post saying how the world Edelgard wanted to create was something which was going to happen given time anyway, and I feel like there is some truth to that.

With how many people got hurt by the crest system, it would make those people not want to force their children to go through the same thing if they have the power to stop it, right?  And with Byleth becoming the head of the church, that would only make things more simple. I'm sure it's not as easy as I'm making it sound to be, but I honestly won't see the push to keep a system which is hurting a lot of people to stay if enough people wanted it gone.

You know I find it a bit funny. Past female lords are considered to be a bit too trusting, which gets them in trouble. But I would say with Edelgard, it's the opposite. Had she been more trusting with others, I do believe things wouldn't have needed to be taken as far as they did. Now this is just my opinion, but I disagree with the saying that had she tried to ask for help or support (or whatever you want to call it) that things would have went worst for her. 

People in general prefer order over change and rather have a messy system in place than go through radical changes. This is perfectly shown in the game because of how long the crest nobility system has existed and no one has tried to change it.

Characters like Sylvain, Mercedes, Marianne would prefer a world without crests but unlike Edelgard they aren’t willing to put in through changes. Edelgard is the only is willing to bring change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just going to put this here for anyone that says it's okay for either guard or to take over the kingdom and saying that the church is the only reason they splitThe Empire had lost the war already. Loog would have continued on his merry way and conquered all of it if not for the Church stepping in to prevent so much needless bloodshed.

What you're saying is probably the vision Edelgard has though. She's bathed in propaganda and lies since she was little. She's still too young and proud to be mature enough to realise her misconceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also we have no idea how the 10 elite got into power but we do know that the saints did not like that idea and that they didn't even want them to live

Edited by jawaunw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jena said:

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.

There's one conversation with Byleth where its implied he wouldn't mind if Rhea had died in an imperial dungeon because it would make things a lot easier for him. Its safe to say he doesn't really like Rhea or what she stands for. 

Share this post


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

people they have killed did something (violent) against the Church.

So what did the Eastern church do? Because the knights of Seiros march on the Eastern Church in the alliance right after the attack on the mausoleum (you hear about this from one of the knights complaining about going to die there) so again, what did they do to deserve to get purged?

Edited by CyberNinja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2019 at 11:13 PM, Zelda2120 said:

I'm not sure if we have to use tags, so just in case. 

  Hide contents

Honestly, I don't see how she could be anything but a villain. Now I only did the BL route cause I refuse to go against them in any way, and frankly I wouldn't do Els route if you put a gun to my head, but I've seen the other routes and the BE route makes me less sympathetic, not more. She talks about a false goddess and yet seems to want to be exactly that. She says the power will be in the hands of the people, and yet that's clearly not the case as the ending makes note of her supreme power multiple times. I'll also point out it's the one ending that doesn't mention Byleth helping or guiding her. Which is fair, as he just enables her on her route.

She calls Rhea a villain for not evacuating the citizens and yet does the exact same thing, minus the fire on the GD and maybe the BL routes. But again, Rhea has gone insane and is corrupting everyone else, she does need to be stopped. Rheas bad, the church isn't. If Seteh and Falyn were in charge, it would all be fine. However as she steps down on the other routes, I cannot say she is as villainous as Edelgard. Not to mention, El is like oh we can't let innocents be hurt. Who does she think started this damn war in the first place? It just makes her a hypocrite rather then make me empathize with her. Honestly by the end of just watching her route, I was so ready to have Byleth shoot an arrow through her on the BL route. I can't imagine actually choosing her route myself. 

And the thing about it being a different Edelgard on the other routes, I'm sorry but that is incorrect. On all routes, there is the main conflict, with the lords doing their things. That doesn't change. What does change is who Byleth decides to guide and who makes it out without giving in to the worst of themselves.  So no matter what- She starts the war, leaves the entire Kingdom in shambles under a horrible traitorous ruler, there are looters and thieves everywhere, she tries to destroy both the Kingdom, Alliance, and their allies, will kill anyone who is against her, Acts with TWSITD which makes her an accomplice to their deeds as she makes no attempt to stop them or warn the others. She also may not directly experiment on the people but she has no problem using them. Tries to steal the crest stones and kill anyone who gets in her way.  Works with bandits to try and assassinate any opposition early on, allows the death knight to do as he pleases which means she is in fact partially responsible for what happens to Flayn and likely the death of Jeralt. All this could have been avoided had Byleth just been a bit slower protecting her at the start. And um, are we forgetting it's the only route you can directly kill all opposing factions?

And yet you want me to see her as a hero? She never once attempts to reach out to anyone and make peace on any route whereas all other routes at least try to reason with her. Especially the BLs. That's the thing. There's no backed into a corner, no exhausting other ideas. No lords who refuse to accept her. It's all her refusing to accept them, refusing to consider another way. You know what they say about good intentions. She doesn't want to coexist, she wants to destroy the current world. She's even bothered if you choose to spare Claude. 

She's basically like Danny of GOT, and it baffles me that people think Danny as good. If Micaiah destroyed Ikes faction and brought peace to Tellius, I bet people would call her evil. And yet. In fact, that was Walharts plan, and it would have worked. However as even he admitted, he was wrong and would not have done so had be met Robin first. 

Again, she's sympathetic, she's tragic. I don't see her as pure evil, but I don't like her as a person at all and she's definitely a villain.  

But I do have a question. Exactly what did Byleth stop her from doing on her own route? How did he help her in anyway? She wipes out all opposing forces and he just lets her. The only difference is that she wins. 

I couldn't have put it any better myself, the only thing I could add is that people probably only like Daenerys and Edelgard because they're women and in today's day and age the "strong independent woman who don't need no man" archetype is basically what's "in" right now. If the exact same characters were guys, they would hate the living daylights out of them. I disliked Daenerys ever since she executed every noble back in season 3, and as soon as Edelgard's true character was revealed I instantly saw the link between the two characters. The truth is, neither Daenerys nor Edelgard are strong women, they're both just authoritative greedy pigs who will kill everything and anything until they gain the power they so desperately need, all under the false pretense that they're actually helping the poor underprivileged who are so mistreated by everything. It's all plastic nonsense that anyone who has ever studied history for more than 5 minutes can see through.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lannister said:

 

Yeah no.

If there’s one argument I will absolutely 200% disagree with it is the idea that Edelgard is more popular because she’s a girl ESPECIALLY IN THIS FANDOM where Female lords in general tend to get so much more shit.

It’s obvious when you compare the existence of Arvis and compare his reception to that of Edelgard.

Share this post


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

Yeah no.

If there’s one argument I will absolutely 200% disagree with it is the idea that Edelgard is more popular because she’s a girl ESPECIALLY IN THIS FANDOM where Female lords in general tend to get so much more shit.

It’s obvious when you compare the existence of Arvis and compare his reception to that of Edelgard.

Well that and it rings hollow when it comes from the same people who keep talking about how badly they want to fuck Dimitri.

Share this post


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

There's one conversation with Byleth where its implied he wouldn't mind if Rhea had died in an imperial dungeon because it would make things a lot easier for him. Its safe to say he doesn't really like Rhea or what she stands for. 

Really? My bad then. Could you tell me the chapter where is the conversation? 

But still, in the end of the support with Cyril he says "Maybe I don't need to make an enemy of her", after Cyril  has explained to him what Rhea does, so I don't think it is so safe to assume so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CyberNinja said:

So what did the Eastern church do? Because the knights of Seiros march on the Eastern Church in the alliance right after the attack on the mausoleum (you hear about this from one of the knights complaining about going to die there) so again, what did they do to deserve to get purged?

The conversation with the NPC doesn't tell why are they going there or what are they going to do. And, iirc, is not brought up on something more than that conversation. 

I mean, they surely went there, but nothing is telling that they traveled to purge the EC, especially when, like you said, they did nothing. Why would the CC attack the EC without motive?  It would be stupid an move for Rhea, even if you think she is a tyrant or something like that. After all, they are allies. 

Imo, the KoS were probably just investigating, which it would be the normal thing after the Archbishop is attacked because of internal tensions, and the comment of the knight about dying was just because they didn't know what they would find there. 

If there is something more to this, please, tell me where. I don't really recall anything more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Jena said:

The conversation with the NPC doesn't tell why are they going there or what are they going to do. And, iirc, is not brought up on something more than that conversation. 

I mean, they surely went there, but nothing is telling that they traveled to purge the EC, especially when, like you said, they did nothing. Why would the CC attack the EC without motive?  It would be stupid an move for Rhea, even if you think she is a tyrant or something like that. After all, they are allies. 

Imo, the KoS were probably just investigating, which it would be the normal thing after the Archbishop is attacked because of internal tensions, and the comment of the knight about dying was just because they didn't know what they would find there. 

If there is something more to this, please, tell me where. I don't really recall anything more.

 

Why would he be complaining about dying in the alliance if he didn't expect combat? Why would he be expecting combat if it was a mission of peace? Why are the cardinals all hidden from knowledge? As we would eventually learn it's because they're all crest bearing immortals who do secret missions for the church. A lot of the church's shiftiness is hidden in base conversations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will put this out there but this is about Edelgard this is why I don't like talking about her or Rhea because the conversation just turns in the complete chaos. Everyone will bring up the other character saying they're worse than them and it gets absolutely nowhere.

Share this post


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

Why would he be complaining about dying in the alliance if he didn't expect combat? Why would he be expecting combat if it was a mission of peace? Why are the cardinals all hidden from knowledge? As we would eventually learn it's because they're all crest bearing immortals who do secret missions for the church. A lot of the church's shiftiness is hidden in base conversations.

As I said, the WC just tried to assassinate the Archbishop, it would not be unexpected if they encountered another threat like that while investigating the EC, so that is why the knight could be saying that. That doesn't mean they were there intending to immediately purge anyone because...What reasons do you think they would have to do it? Also, what I said before: this is never brought up again (please, correct me if it is), and I don't think a purge in the EC would go unnoticed.

And what? IIRC, the only two times we hear about the Cardinals is in a conversation with Tomas where he says they control the church or something like that (and well...is...Tomas), this is shady, but we don't have any details more. And the other time is when we see they transform into white beasts because of having Rhea's blood. If you ask me, the blood ritual isn't something that strange or shady in FE; in Fates, in Siegbert Japanese voice lines in My room, he says there is a ritual between retainer and lord where the lord gives then their blood (which is also, more or less, dragon blood). Rhea didn't know she would transform, so I think it is merely an act of loyalty. 

 I don't think is mentioned they do secret missions. Or is that what Tomas dialogue said?

Also, a little detail, but they aren't immortal. In the "best" case, they would be just like the 10 elites, Nemesis and Jeralt: they can live a long time, but they are still humans and will end up dying, also they can get killed. Another thing to note is that the beasts we found in the SS map have minor crests, unlike Jeralt, which means they haven't got the blood directly from Rhea, so it is even more questionable if they even have the peculiarities of the characters I mentioned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jena said:

Really? My bad then. Could you tell me the chapter where is the conversation? 

But still, in the end of the support with Cyril he says "Maybe I don't need to make an enemy of her", after Cyril  has explained to him what Rhea does, so I don't think it is so safe to assume so.

I'm not exactly sure. I think its either the chapter with the Bridge of Myrdinn or the valley of torment. Its pretty early in the route. When discussing Rhea you get two dialogue option, one boring one I forgot and one where you can question Claude if he secretly wishes she's dead. Claude doesn't deny it and says it would make things easier but also says he hopes she's alive to give him some of those juicy secrets she was holding onto. 

Share this post


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

I'm not exactly sure. I think its either the chapter with the Bridge of Myrdinn or the valley of torment. Its pretty early in the route. When discussing Rhea you get two dialogue option, one boring one I forgot and one where you can question Claude if he secretly wishes she's dead. Claude doesn't deny it and says it would make things easier but also says he hopes she's alive to give him some of those juicy secrets she was holding onto. 

 

16 minutes ago, Humanoid said:

Thank you both ^^

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lannister said:

I couldn't have put it any better myself, the only thing I could add is that people probably only like Daenerys and Edelgard because they're women and in today's day and age the "strong independent woman who don't need no man" archetype is basically what's "in" right now. If the exact same characters were guys, they would hate the living daylights out of them. I disliked Daenerys ever since she executed every noble back in season 3, and as soon as Edelgard's true character was revealed I instantly saw the link between the two characters. The truth is, neither Daenerys nor Edelgard are strong women, they're both just authoritative greedy pigs who will kill everything and anything until they gain the power they so desperately need, all under the false pretense that they're actually helping the poor underprivileged who are so mistreated by everything. It's all plastic nonsense that anyone who has ever studied history for more than 5 minutes can see through.

That's a strawman if I've ever seen one.

8 hours ago, Lannister said:

f the exact same characters were guys, they would hate the living daylights out of them.

Lelouch vi Britannia exists. He's male. Has a similar mindset and methodology. One of the most famous anime characters of all time.

8 hours ago, Lannister said:

hey're both just authoritative greedy pigs who will kill everything and anything until they gain the power they so desperately need, all under the false pretense that they're actually helping the poor underprivileged who are so mistreated by everything.

Ah yes, Edelgard's end goal was just power. That's it. Had nothing to due with mental trauma due to crest experimentation and watching her siblings die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So having been a part of this thread for a while having read all of it I can finally conclude what we've all been saying but couldn't put to words:

if only Edelgard had read the script of three houses then she could be as knowledgable as us. What an amateur mistake, careless really. If she'd read the script she wouldn't have made all those dumb decisions like not knowing Claude's goal when he refused to answer when she asked, or she'd have known to reconnect with dimitri even though she forgot who he was and he had no intention on reconnecting with her either. Then she two would have realized their goals were basically the same even as all three of them refused to give the other the needed information. Luckily they have the script like we do and they can see how all the routes play out and how dumb they are for taking the actions they did, like being too dumb to read the script because that's the level we're judging their actions by, apparantly.

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...