Jump to content
semolinaro

What are your thoughts on Edelgard? *SPOILERS*

Recommended Posts

Yes, it's true.

I was all for Edelgard before playing the game, but I later found out she doesn't know how to read the script of the game, which was the breaking point for me.

As if :rolleyes: From what I'VE gathered, most people who dislike her only do so becasue they wish she tried to look for other options before starting a war, or something along those lines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Rose482 said:

Yes, it's true.

I was all for Edelgard before playing the game, but I later found out she doesn't know how to read the script of the game, which was the breaking point for me.

As if :rolleyes: From what I'VE gathered, most people who dislike her only do so becasue they wish she tried to look for other options before starting a war, or something along those lines. 

I'm being mostly sarcastic but when others have been pressed for answers on those options, it usually requires information she couldn't know or easily acquire I.e. It requires having read the script.

btw small request, could you quote me if you are responding or tag me? If I wasn't following the thread I may have missed your comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there really a good way to just talk the world out of a system that's been a corrupt cornerstone of it's operation for centuries?

Has that been done before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No but a corrupt system collapse even if you don't start a war to make it forcibly collpase 10 years earlier. And a collapse that don't include a continental war is usually less bloody than one that does. And the current system of Fodlan is on it's last leg no matter what Rhea does to keep it alive. 

Share this post


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

Edelgard > Lelouch

I WENT THERE.

You don't need to say it twice. Anybody who isn't a misogynist would agree. 

 

Oops, I went there.

 

Also, people who act like the crest system would just go away, I'd really like to see some examples of this in history. The French Revolution ring a bell to anybody? How peaceful was that?

Edited by Eltoshen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

No but a corrupt system collapse even if you don't start a war to make it forcibly collpase 10 years earlier. And a collapse that don't include a continental war is usually less bloody than one that does. And the current system of Fodlan is on it's last leg no matter what Rhea does to keep it alive. 

So a massive civil war as the people rise up against the crested, are slaughtered en mass, bandits flourish everywhere, hundreds of Microsystems form, these states then go to war for the next hundred or so years until empires replace them, these empires then fight one another in a massive continental war that results in the death of millions.

ok, I can se how just letting the collapse happen in the most chaotic way is the least bloody, thanks for explaining everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

No but a corrupt system collapse even if you don't start a war to make it forcibly collpase 10 years earlier. And a collapse that don't include a continental war is usually less bloody than one that does. And the current system of Fodlan is on it's last leg no matter what Rhea does to keep it alive. 

Allowing for something corrupt to continue to exist because of the short term ramifications - fully knowing that many lives are being ruined in the interim - is not the more moral stance. Remember when I said the lives lost prior to the war count just as much as the ones lost in it? It doesn't even work most of the time.

We legislatively postponed the Civil War like no tomorrow but guess what it happened anyway. Would have been fine with it happening much earlier.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


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

So a massive civil war as the people rise up against the crested, are slaughtered en mass, bandits flourish everywhere, hundreds of Microsystems form, these states then go to war for the next hundred or so years until empires replace them, these empires then fight one another in a massive continental war that results in the death of millions.

First, this is exactly what we got except that edelgard was leading the rebellion. Second, this is the absolutely worst case scenario. What i expect is just a change in the nobles mentality as the generations goes on. We clearly see that none of the current heirs support the system, when their turn to rule comes, they will do reforms. Unless you think that Sylvain would turn into a credt supporter by his 40s.

 

57 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Allowing for something corrupt to continue to exist because of the short term ramifications - fully knowing that many lives are being ruined in the interim - is not the more moral stance. Remember when I said the lives lost prior to the war count just as much as the ones lost in it? It doesn't even work most of the time.

Long terms ramification are too unpredictable and you are going to die before you see them. This is not even sacrificing the few for the need of the many, whic can be acceptable. Is sacrificing many people because, if things goes just as planned for hundreds of years, more people will be saved. But you have no way to know that things will go exactly the way you want. If you want to change a corrupt system, you should do that focussing on the people that are alive now, not on a nebulous Utopia that may or may not happen. Otherwise any kind of bloodshed can be justified, because even a bilion of people is an acceptable sacrifice if you pit them againist the infinite amount of future's people.

My problem whit Edelgard is that the crest system, while shitty, is significantly less shitty than a war. So it's not worth to wage war to stop it. A purge of nobles? Sure. Assassinating Rhea and the higer ups of the Church? Ok. Inavading two countries whose leaders would agree whit you if you bothered to talk whit them? Hell no.

Edited by Flere210

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Flere210 said:

What i expect is just a change in the nobles mentality as the generations goes on. We clearly see that none of the current heirs support the system, when their tur

Unrealistic. The few heirs you see in the story are a very small minority. You seem to underestimate how ingrained these sort of belief systems likely are.

3 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

Long terms ramification are too unpredictable and you are going to die before you see them.

The long term ramifications more. Your kids and grandkids inherit them.

4 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

This is not even sacrificing the few for the need of the many, whic can be acceptable. Is sacrificing many people because, if things goes just as planned for hundreds of years, more people will be saved. But you have no way to know that things will go exactly the way you want.

Doesn't matter. Fighting injustice is usually noble, regardless of whether or not the conclusion is what you predicted. Delaying justice and allowing corruption to fester when you have the power to stop it is always ignoble, even if you may have understandable reasons (such as personal costs to yourself).

8 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

If you want to change a corrupt system, you should do that focussing on the people that are alive

Again, this very rarely happens because the people you have to work with have a vested interest in the corrupted system and will likely oppose you. Only way I could see this happening is if you make the system no longer profitable or sustainable. It could happen once all the bloodlines die out, but that may take centuries more. It would take more lives.

Seeing how traumatically she suffered under that system, I'm unsurprised that Edelgard is not content to simply wait for things to change for the better, and believes a more violent short-term war to change things is preferable to slowly and more politely killing more people throughout the centuries it may take for things to change on their own... if that even happens. There's no telling what circumstance you'll be dealing with then, either.

It's very easy to tell people to wait and talk it out when you're not the one who has something to lose lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the late reply.

On 9/19/2019 at 4:16 AM, LilyRose said:

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. 

Bolded the first: are you kidding? Just in lifetime of the game's principal characters, there has been a (genocidal!) invasion of Duscur by the Kingdom, constant skirmishes between the Kingdom and Sreng and between the Alliance and Almyra, a major conflict between the Empire and Dagda + Brigid, and multiple armed rebellions within the Kingdom. We must have a very different definition of war if those do not count for you. In particular, Faerghus's entire culture is a culture of war (Felix mentions that he learned to swing a sword before he could write his name, and that this is normal!). The Church of Seiros has done a good job of preventing war between one Fodlan power and another, but I don't think that's any consolation to the people who are constantly suffering from all these conflicts (as well as what appears to be an extremely high rate of banditry, at least in the Kingdom).

Bolded the second: That's really all I wanted to hear. I don't care if it's okay by medieval standards: we, the players of the game who this game is written for, are not medieval. Also, the characters within the game clearly think her actions are not okay. I think the writers wanted us to empathize with (a) our own moral standards and (b) the characters within the game. Trying to deflect both by using the standards of human medieval society seems to miss the point to me entirely.

Saying "Rhea didn't go out looking for people to kill" isn't much consolation. A state that only kills those they label criminals, but kills them with great prejudice and no due process, is a state I don't want to live under. Apologizing for Rhea's behaviour in Part 1 is akin to apologizing for police brutality with "hey if you don't want to get beaten by the police, don't go to any protests".

Edited by Dark Holy Elf

Share this post


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

Bolded the first: are you kidding? Just in lifetime of the game's principal characters, there has been a (genocidal!) invasion of Duscur by the Kingdom, constant skirmishes between the Kingdom and Sreng and between the Alliance and Almyra, a major conflict between the Empire and Dagda + Brigid, and multiple armed rebellions within the Kingdom. We must have a very different definition of war if those do not count for you. In particular, Faerghus's entire culture is a culture of war (Felix mentions that he learned to swing a sword before he could write his name, and that this is normal!). The Church of Seiros has done a good job of preventing war between one Fodlan power and another, but I don't think that's any consolation to the people who are constantly suffering from all these conflicts (as well as what appears to be an extremely high rate of banditry, at least in the Kingdom).

 

Heck, and just look at the other three paralogues in the Alliance:

Raphael/Ignatz: Corrupt nobles slaughter merchants for the pettiest pretexts, using monsters.

Lorenz: While being targetted by other corrupt nobles for petty wars.

Alois/Shamir: The kicker. The knights go to defend Deirdriu. Seat of power of House Riegan, capital of the Alliance and its main trade port, and henceforth main money-maker, from pirates, because no one else is available for the job. When a noble house can't muster the troops to defend its own capital and money-maker like that against bandits, even/especially ones caliming to be Almyran troops, it's generally a sign that things have gone to shit.

Share this post


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

Sorry for the late reply.

Bolded the first: are you kidding? Just in lifetime of the game's principal characters, there has been a (genocidal!) invasion of Duscur by the Kingdom, constant skirmishes between the Kingdom and Sreng and between the Alliance and Almyra, a major conflict between the Empire and Dagda + Brigid, and multiple armed rebellions within the Kingdom. We must have a very different definition of war if those do not count for you. In particular, Faerghus's entire culture is a culture of war (Felix mentions that he learned to swing a sword before he could write his name, and that this is normal!). The Church of Seiros has done a good job of preventing war between one Fodlan power and another, but I don't think that's any consolation to the people who are constantly suffering from all these conflicts (as well as what appears to be an extremely high rate of banditry, at least in the Kingdom).

Bolded the second: That's really all I wanted to hear. I don't care if it's okay by medieval standards: we, the players of the game who this game is written for, are not medieval. Also, the characters within the game clearly think her actions are not okay. I think the writers wanted us to empathize with (a) our own moral standards and (b) the characters within the game. Trying to deflect both by using the standards of human medieval society seems to miss the point to me entirely.

Saying "Rhea didn't go out looking for people to kill" isn't much consolation. A state that only kills those they label criminals, but kills them with great prejudice and no due process, is a state I don't want to live under. Apologizing for Rhea's behaviour in Part 1 is akin to apologizing for police brutality with "hey if you don't want to get beaten by the police, don't go to any 

Jeralt a man who may not hate Rhea but certainly doesn’t particularly like her, stated that it had been centuries since the last major conflict in Fódlan. Are there foreign countries attempting to invade, yes. Are there minor skirmishes, yes. Are there bandits, yes. I mean this is a Fire Emblem game where violence is a basic part of the gameplay. But there hasn’t been a war in centuries until Edelgard started one which resulted in the deaths of far more people than would be harmed in random bandit attacks. And just as an aside the reason why the Kingdom is in disarray and swept into Duscur killing everyone they could find was because Edelgard’s allies killed their King and framed the people of Duscur for his death to ease her path to victory in her eventual invasion of their country.

Also, I just don’t have a problem divorcing my modern world morality from a fantasy game world. We know that Rhea is ruthless when crossed but she doesn’t murder people. The members of the Western Church who were caught trying to carry out both a robbery and an assassination, broke into a tomb and assaulted multiple students were judged guilty by the Archbishop who had every right to as the sovereign of her territory and their sentence was death. What would have been the alternative? 

There is no system in place that called for a judge, jury, prosecutor and defense attorney in Fodlan (& that is consistent regardless of the route you take). Also, there doesn’t seem to be nearly as much vitriol directed at Hubert for assassinating would be threats to Edelgard as there is for Rhea carrying out justice on proven criminals. Or are we going to head canon that Hubert gives all of his targets due process?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So barring mind control, how exactly are the twistd manipulating all these events if the general discontent doesn't already exist? Christoph feels there's a good cause rhea deserves to die, get offed by rhea and framed for an entirely different event so people don't start asking why people might want the leader of the church dead. The father who'd be shamed for his son being involved in the discursive tragedy but knowing that was false would naturally lose all trust in the church and be easy to get in conflict with them later but it does create the issue that barring the twsitd the church's enemies are self made. They put down someone and cover it up and all twsitd has to do is give someone evidence of this and they'll connect the dots to the last couple centuries of unexplained executions and likely become the very next on the list. He'll even Thomas trying to manipulate Claude is literally just telling the truth, "hey check out this dragon, called the immaculate one"

or edelgard "hey professor, what do you think these ruins belonged to: mole people or dragons? Our ancestors? What a boring answer, those first two though I find humorous, maybe they're still influenicng us now eh? Totally not hinting at anything am I? Never"

twistd edelgard, they use the same strategy the give you a little info, you look for more and then the knights of seiros kick down your door and rhea executes you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Fodlan was not steeped in warfare."

"WTF are you talking about? Yes it was. <In-game examples>."

"Yeah but that's just part of the Fire Emblem culture, man. And all those conflicts weren't -official- wars so they don't count."

You can't even argue with fantasy world politics; apparently perpetual warfare is just one of the features, and you even shouldn't try to apply real world machinations to it.

The difference between Hubert and Rhea is obvious: the former doesn't really hide what he is, so there's little point in defending him, while Rhea's true nature is far less obvious and considered justified. There is no debate on Hubert.

Is there any official Edelgard corpse count in game? Because there's a -lot- of people speaking with authority on the claim that her war killed more people but I'm doubtful.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


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

So barring mind control, how exactly are the twistd manipulating all these events if the general discontent doesn't already exist? Christoph feels there's a good cause rhea deserves to die, get offed by rhea and framed for an entirely different event so people don't start asking why people might want the leader of the church dead. The father who'd be shamed for his son being involved in the discursive tragedy but knowing that was false would naturally lose all trust in the church and be easy to get in conflict with them later but it does create the issue that barring the twsitd the church's enemies are self made. They put down someone and cover it up and all twsitd has to do is give someone evidence of this and they'll connect the dots to the last couple centuries of unexplained executions and likely become the very next on the list. He'll even Thomas trying to manipulate Claude is literally just telling the truth, "hey check out this dragon, called the immaculate one"

or edelgard "hey professor, what do you think these ruins belonged to: mole people or dragons? Our ancestors? What a boring answer, those first two though I find humorous, maybe they're still influenicng us now eh? Totally not hinting at anything am I? Never"

twistd edelgard, they use the same strategy the give you a little info, you look for more and then the knights of seiros kick down your door and rhea executes you.

Christophe is a terrible example, he's simply gullible. Catherine's c-support with Ashe: Christophe was a good man—maybe too good. It wasn't in his nature to mistrust people. So when the Western Church told him that Lady Rhea had to die for the goddess's sake, or the world's, he went along with it. Honestly, he'd probably kill his father for you if the reason was convincing enough. 

Share this post


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

Christophe is a terrible example, he's simply gullible. Catherine's c-support with Ashe: Christophe was a good man—maybe too good. It wasn't in his nature to mistrust people. So when the Western Church told him that Lady Rhea had to die for the goddess's sake, or the world's, he went along with it. Honestly, he'd probably kill his father for you if the reason was convincing enough. 

That is coming from the biased source known as Rheas 2nd greatest fan and while I have to accept a degree of word of mouth from the characters, I'd still take that one under unreliable narrator.

Share this post


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

That is coming from the biased source known as Rheas 2nd greatest fan and while I have to accept a degree of word of mouth from the characters, I'd still take that one under unreliable narrator.

I can understand why you'd dismiss it but the whole support chain shows just how much Catherine cared for her friend. They were in the same house and his death nearly broke her. Yes, she believes Rhea was right, but even in the present Catherine carries Chirstophe's death with her. 

Share this post


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

"Fodlan was not steeped in warfare."

"WTF are you talking about? Yes it was. <In-game examples>."

"Yeah but that's just part of the Fire Emblem culture, man. And all those conflicts weren't -official- wars so they don't count."

You can't even argue with fantasy world politics; apparently perpetual warfare is just one of the features, and you even shouldn't try to apply real world machinations to it.

The difference between Hubert and Rhea is obvious: the former doesn't really hide what he is, so there's little point in defending him, while Rhea's true nature is far less obvious and considered justified. There is no debate on Hubert.

Is there any official Edelgard corpse count in game? Because there's a -lot- of people speaking with authority on the claim that her war killed more people but I'm doubtful.

There is no state of constant warfare in Fodlan that's the whole point. Banditry and nobles preying on people is terrible but it's not a state of constant warfare. Whether you agree with Rhea's methods or not, you can't really argue the results of almost 1000 years of peace. Now of course you can argue about the true cost of all that order and peace but to act as if the peace didn't exist is completely ridiculous. Multiple times in game, people (those who liked Rhea and those who didn't) talked about how long it had been since there was a war. Which is why I don't understand why this is even a debate? There are many things that Rhea did that can be analyzed and debated that are clearly shown in game but whether war was sweeping through the continent of Fodlan before Edelgard is really not one of them. 

Are we comparing Hubert and Rhea? I thought we were talking about due process. But yes, the difference between Hubert and Rhea is obvious. One of them is a murderer who will do whatever he feels is "justified" to protect Edelgard. The other is a ruthless person who will respond violently when she is attacked but she never actually goes out and pre-emptively starts killing people. She was more than justified in her decision to execute people who tried to kill her, robbed her tomb and assaulted her students. 

How can one be doubtful that a war that engulfed the entire continent, decimated the armies of the Kingdom and Alliance, and took a chunk out of the Knights of Seiros when Garreg Mach fell resulted in the deaths of fewer people than random bandit attacks? Even at the end Edelgard said that all across this continent people are killing each other, I've got to think she meant more a couple of dozen.
 

4 hours ago, CyberNinja said:

So barring mind control, how exactly are the twistd manipulating all these events if the general discontent doesn't already exist? Christoph feels there's a good cause rhea deserves to die, get offed by rhea and framed for an entirely different event so people don't start asking why people might want the leader of the church dead. The father who'd be shamed for his son being involved in the discursive tragedy but knowing that was false would naturally lose all trust in the church and be easy to get in conflict with them later but it does create the issue that barring the twsitd the church's enemies are self made. They put down someone and cover it up and all twsitd has to do is give someone evidence of this and they'll connect the dots to the last couple centuries of unexplained executions and likely become the very next on the list. He'll even Thomas trying to manipulate Claude is literally just telling the truth, "hey check out this dragon, called the immaculate one"

or edelgard "hey professor, what do you think these ruins belonged to: mole people or dragons? Our ancestors? What a boring answer, those first two though I find humorous, maybe they're still influenicng us now eh? Totally not hinting at anything am I? Never"

twistd edelgard, they use the same strategy the give you a little info, you look for more and then the knights of seiros kick down your door and rhea executes you.

TWSITD were able to take on the likeness of humans and therefore were able to actually plant those seeds of doubt and discontent all over the continent. How do you think they were able to take over the Empire? And we are clearly told in game that the Bishop of the Western Church wanted Rhea out of the way because he wanted control and didn't like the religion being ruled by the Central Church from Garreg Mach. Also, in the first (or second) side quest that Seteth gives Byleth, we find out that the Western Church also hates Rhea for being too permissive (which considering how some people in the fandom look at her is kinda funny) because she has foreigners and non-believers in the Monastery/KoS.

Rhea made a mistake in dealing with Christophe. He tried to assassinate her so his execution was justified but regardless of what was going on in the Kingdom she should have just told the truth about why he was executed. Sure people would have panicked because first the King is assassinated and then an attempt is made on the Archbishop's life, but still the lie did far more harm than the truth would have. This is an ongoing problem with Rhea's desire for peace and order, most of the time it's a good thing but sometimes a little chaos on the front end saves you from having a lie come back to bite you in the butt years later. The fact that she lied about why she killed Christophe made Lonato more militant in his actions towards her and the Central Church, driving a man who was loyal into the waiting arms of the Western Church bishop.

What last couple of centuries of unexplained executions? That never happened. When have the Knights ever kicked down any doors while Rhea just wantonly executed people? That never happened, ever! And if I'm not mistaken in another post you also said that the Eastern Church was purged along with the Western Church. That never happened. The Eastern Church was basically a rubber stamp for Rhea, what reason would she have to purge it? 

Edited by LilyRose
commas matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the discussion recently got me thinking that Edelgard's ideology reminds me of Malcolm X in some aspects. Edelgard is from a more privileged position of power, but the main comparison I'd make is that both believed that no change would ever come about unless people fought back against the violence and discrimination they were experiencing.

People are complacent and are more comfortable with what they know and fear change of any sort, even if it's against their best interests. You can just look at the current state of the world.

 

Quote

The other is a ruthless person who will respond violently when she is attacked but she never actually goes out and pre-emptively starts killing people. She was more than justified in her decision to execute people who tried to kill her, robbed her tomb and assaulted her students. 

Uh...no she wasn't. Multiple students make remarks about her decision in every route. They were not even given a trial. That scene was literally there to show you that Rhea has a dark side, as cringy as that sounds (the face she makes, the creepy smile - read between the lines dude). Jeralt comments on this the moment you meet her. Like, you have got to be purposefully misunderstanding the source material to say something like this and mean it.

Edited by Eltoshen

Share this post


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

Uh...no she wasn't. Multiple students make remarks about her decision in every route. They were not even given a trial. That scene was literally there to show you that Rhea has a dark side, as cringy as that sounds (the face she makes, the creepy smile - read between the lines dude). Jeralt comments on this the moment you meet her. Like, you have got to be purposefully misunderstanding the source material to say something like this and mean it.

Multiple students also had near breakdowns when they were sent to clear out Kostas' bandit gang and fight Lonato's militia. All that says is that they are children who have not had to actually experience what happens when you have to stop bad people from doing bad things.

Also, they were tried (after being apprehended while escaping by the Knights). Shamir read their list of charges, Seteth had already investigated them which is how he knew who they were and the highest person in the Church of Seiros pronounced the verdict and punishment. Are you doubting that they were guilty? I'm not sure what other trial you think needed to take place. 

And to be really clear about this, the game points you in different directions for all of the major characters. Claude is the schemer and cheat who is not to be trusted only for him to turn out to be the most solid and decent of all the Lords. Dimitri who is noble and upstanding turns into a murderous animal then back again. Edelgard is cold and arrogant but also an abused and damaged kid lashing out at the system she thinks destroyed her family. We are pushed towards a belief that Rhea is evil incarnate. Jeralt doesn't trust her. He tells you to be on your guard at all times. She is completely ruthless. And it's pretty easy to see that she is not telling Byleth (and us as the player) the whole truth. But I've played every route including VW and SS twice (because those are the routes with the most lore) and what we learn about Rhea is that she's not evil, she's not a villain. She's done some stuff (some of it questionable) but her intentions were never bad and she never directly hurt anyone who didn't come for her first. Jeralt was her friend for a century and he only stopped trusting her because she was telling him an obvious lie which led him to believe the worst. But, after being back at the monastery for a while he also said that perhaps there was never any reason to leave the monastery in the first place. I have no idea what creepy smile you are talking about because like I said I've played this game 6 times and I never saw it, perhaps you are imagining it because it reinforces what you already believe. 

Share this post


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

There is no state of constant warfare in Fodlan that's the whole point.

This is a dumb point, because there are numerous military engagements mentioned in the game itself. It doesn't need to be a nation versus nation war declaration for it to be warfare.

2 hours ago, LilyRose said:

Whether you agree with Rhea's methods or not, you can't really argue the results of almost 1000 years of peace. Now of course you can argue about the true cost of all that order and peace but to act as if the peace didn't exist is completely ridiculous.

It wasn't 1000 years of peace. I'll be impressed if that ever exists even in a fantasy setting, but especially not in this fantasy setting where you raise your own child soldiers lmao

Your definition of "peace" is completely ridiculous. 

2 hours ago, LilyRose said:

Are we comparing Hubert and Rhea? I thought we were talking about due process. But yes, the difference between Hubert and Rhea is obvious. One of them is a murderer who will do whatever he feels is "justified" to protect Edelgard. The other is a ruthless person who will respond violently when she is attacked but she never actually goes out and pre-emptively starts killing people. She was more than justified in her decision to execute people who tried to kill her, robbed her tomb and assaulted her students. 

You were complaining about the lack of flak he gets compared to Rhea. I doubt there is anyone here who will defend Hubert, yet here you are going to bat for Rhea. I'm not particularly fond of weird whataboutism, and it's a silly comparison to begin with.

2 hours ago, LilyRose said:

How can one be doubtful that a war that engulfed the entire continent, decimated the armies of the Kingdom and Alliance, and took a chunk out of the Knights of Seiros when Garreg Mach fell resulted in the deaths of fewer people than random bandit attacks? Even at the end Edelgard said that all across this continent people are killing each other, I've got to think she meant more a couple of dozen.

Very easily, if you're observant.

I can see how prolonged civil unrest can result in more deaths than a single war, and this setting sure as hell has that. Want to guess how many people died under Stalin's rule, even excluding all the soldiers he threw under nazi tanks?

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Crysta said:

This is a dumb point, because there are numerous military engagements mentioned in the game itself. It doesn't need to be a nation versus nation war declaration for it to be warfare.

It wasn't 1000 years of peace. I'll be impressed if that ever exists even in a fantasy setting, but especially not in this fantasy setting where you raise your own child soldiers lmao

Your definition of "peace" is completely ridiculous. 

You were complaining about the lack of flak he gets compared to Rhea. I doubt there is anyone here who will defend Hubert, yet here you are going to bat for Rhea. I'm not particularly fond of weird whataboutism, and it's a silly comparison to begin with.

Very easily, if you're observant.

I can see how prolonged civil unrest can result in more deaths than a single war, and this setting sure as hell has that. Want to guess how many people died under Stalin's rule, even excluding all the soldiers he threw under nazi tanks?

Regardless of whether you consider it dumb or not, there is a clear distinction between wars (like the Seiros/Empire vs Nemesis, Loog vs the Empire or the Alliance breaking free from the Kingdom) and the minor skirmishes, bandit attacks and nobles being jerks to one another that you seem to be talking about. Three wars in a 1000 years is a really good record and I would consider that relative peace. It is most definitely not "constant warfare" which is what the person who I was responding to said Fodlan was enduring. 

I never made a comparison between the characters, Hubert and Rhea, I believe that it was you who made that comparison. I'm talking about due process or the lack thereof and how it doesn't seem to be a factor at all in certain situations, not sure what you were talking about. 

And finally, since your head canon says that not many people died in Edelgard's war then by all means go with it. My head canon says that a continent wide war that raged for over five years is going to be far more deadly than some random bandit attacks. 

Share this post


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

 

And finally, since your head canon says that not many people died in Edelgard's war then by all means go with it. My head canon says that a continent wide war that raged for over five years is going to be far more deadly than some random bandit attacks. 

 

I get the impression you keep missing that one, but here it is again: Shamir and Alois Paralogue, Alliance can't even defend its own capital against a pack of pirates, and the ducktards pretend they are Almyrans, so I dare say such a thing should trigger a priority answer when they attack your duchy's freaking capital and big money-maker. If the situation is reaching that freaking point in the Alliance, these attacks certainly don't look remotely minors, and man Fodlan doesn't look remotely peaceful. And most Paralogues are about established noble houses unable of jugulating that banditry too. That level of low-key anarchy looks like a pretty bloody situation to me, and is clearly not something that happened in one day, some build-up had to happen. And anarchy like that to the size of the continent would be accumulating quite the body count, and welp, that looks like something quite close to constant warfare by itself. Because of course, going by Lorenz and Ignatz and Raphael's Paralogues, you get petty wars between nobles, nobles trying their own hand to banditry, rebellions which have to be crushed (Lysitheia got to feel that one pretty bad)... Seriously, the whole continent is falling apart. Because I'm sorry, when groups of armed people are killing themselves everywhere, that is a form of warfare, and one the current nobility seems unable to contain when they are not joining the slaughter.

And also, I guess you'll say headcanon, but my memories of history and things like 'Pax Romana' tells me that you can rebellions aplenty even during 'peace times', so i will wonder how many Lonatos got the axe accross the centuries, because again, you don't reach a point where the ruler of half the continent can go 'Fuck the Church' during medieval times and not have their country fall apartnor at least no major intern troubles beyond mole people rocking the boat where they can because of that deicision without some serious institutional failure from the Church.

Share this post


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

Regardless of whether you consider it dumb or not, there is a clear distinction between wars (like the Seiros/Empire vs Nemesis, Loog vs the Empire or the Alliance breaking free from the Kingdom) and the minor skirmishes, bandit attacks and nobles being jerks to one another that you seem to be talking about.

Didn't the kingdom like nearly collapse in itself just prior to the game? To the point where it needed to essentially by saved by the church? You're vastly underestimating these "minor skirmishes" and overestimating how "peaceful" it was.

 

1 hour ago, LilyRose said:

And finally, since your head canon says that not many people died in Edelgard's war then by all means go with it. My head canon says that a continent wide war that raged for over five years is going to be far more deadly than some random bandit attacks. 

Pffft, my headcanon isn't even that. I'm just questioning the validity of your headcanon, which I suspect is just an assumption more than anything realistic or factual.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove TWSitD from equation and only bad things you get are Miklan and Aliance being Aliance. (though without Empire backing Acheron wouldn't be able cause trouble). You cannot use actions of terrorists, that were never part of system to claim system is flawed. 

 

 

Edited by Tenzen12

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...