Jump to content
semolinaro

What are your thoughts on Edelgard? *SPOILERS*

Recommended Posts

Why not? You don't need to be a part of the system to expose how flawed it is. And why would you remove them? They're apart of the world just as much as the Nabateans were or are.

Also don't need a cult of evil mole people to create evil in the world. They exploit the weaknesses already there.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


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

Why not? You don't need to be a part of the system to expose how flawed it is. And why would you remove them? They're apart of the world just as much as the Nabateans were or are.

Also don't need a cult of evil mole people to create evil in the world. They exploit the weaknesses already there.

It doesn't matter if they are part of world, they are not product of society. It wasn't result Aztecs flawed system (their society was terrible, but that's different matter) that they basically annihilated by Spanish soldiers. TWSitD are just more sneaky, but their abilies cannot be coped by normal means. 

And yes, you don't nerd evil cult create evil in the world, but it's certainly easier to do good when evil cult doesn't assassinate people trying sign peace treaty with their long time enemies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they are. They literally infiltrate the upper reaches of society and control powerful parts of it. How do you think they got ahold of Edelgard in the first place? They manipulate it well because at one point they were the society that created/coveted the Crests for their power.

But Seiros/the Church revised history to make the Elites the good guys, which led to the noble houses venerating them and as a consequence... that's why the world state is the way it is. Both her and the Slithers share the blame for that.

 

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edelgard achieves "unification" by literally killing everyone in existence who disagrees with her ideals. Achieving peace because everyone who wasn't a puppet to the empire was killed.

Of all four ending banners, only on Crimson Flower's are there people depicted who are in agony.Not only that, but the GD and Seiros flags are trampled on the ground. That definitely symbolizes them being conquered. The BL flag is on the back of someone. I'm not sure if that represents that the Kingdom is still resisting in some way, or if it was just meant to show that those people represent the people of the Kingdom. And there are plenty of drawn weapons, showing ongoing conflict or use of force.

Share this post


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

Edelgard achieves "unification" by literally killing everyone in existence who disagrees with her ideals. Achieving peace because everyone who wasn't a puppet to the empire was killed.

Of all four ending banners, only on Crimson Flower's are there people depicted who are in agony.Not only that, but the GD and Seiros flags are trampled on the ground. That definitely symbolizes them being conquered. The BL flag is on the back of someone. I'm not sure if that represents that the Kingdom is still resisting in some way, or if it was just meant to show that those people represent the people of the Kingdom. And there are plenty of drawn weapons, showing ongoing conflict or use of force.

Oh this one? Yea that's the entrenched nobility and clergy (left) of the various kingdoms paying fealty and turning in the weapons. This represents the waning power of the nobility since on the right you have all the peasants standing strong and tall celebrating. So I guess Edelgard is bad now for doing what she said she was going to do and forcing the two people on equal footing but about a week from now I'll hear again how she didn't actually do what her ending said she did because reasons. Anyway, I've attached the image so you don't have to take his or my word for it, draw your own conclusions.

Capture3.PNG

Share this post


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

Yes they are. They literally infiltrate the upper reaches of society and control powerful parts of it. How do you think they got ahold of Edelgard in the first place? They manipulate it well because at one point they were the society that created/coveted the Crests for their power.

But Seiros/the Church revised history to make the Elites the good guys, which led to the noble houses venerating them and as a consequence... that's why the world state is the way it is. Both her and the Slithers share the blame for that.

 

That's also wrong, they created 3/4 crests, but Crest system is simply result of post war settlement. How much of that can be attribute directly to ChoS scripture is matter of anyone headcanon. 

Point is there is no society that doesn't broke when enough people is replaced, removed or coerced. As long as Agarthians  are allowed slither in the dark there is no good defense (because you don't even know you are under attack until it's too late) Decentralization of power can make it somehow more difficult and Dimitri is pretty much first sign that Fodlan society naturally head in that direction and it's certainly not Rhea who using her "manipulation from shadow" thingy who hinder these efforts. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many people would have been massacred just for being a crest descendant if she didn’t revise history look what happened to the innocent descendants of the lopt bloodline in fe4

Share this post


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

How many people would have been massacred just for being a crest descendant if she didn’t revise history look what happened to the innocent descendants of the lopt bloodline in fe4

That's what a lot of people aren't talking about we see someone that didn't have their crest praised and their life is completely awful

Share this post


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

It doesn't matter if they are part of world, they are not product of society. It wasn't result Aztecs flawed system (their society was terrible, but that's different matter) that they basically annihilated by Spanish soldiers. TWSitD are just more sneaky, but their abilies cannot be coped by normal means. 

 

Except Aztec society was one of the root causes of their downfall. The Aztec Empire was actually the Tenochtitlan Empire, with one city and some relatively closer allies beating up and browbeating other cities under their rule through sheer rule of strength, while getting prisoners slaves for these sacrifices they held so often, and being embroiled in several wars with other political entities of the region. And no 'colony', just Tenochtitlan, so the city was actually quite isolated in the big order of things.

It meant Cortez had no shortage of disgruntled Mesoamericans to ally for getting auxiliaries and the numbers of troops actually needed to besiege Tenochtitlan and just fight his war, that the Aztecs' defeats led to more defections from disgruntled subjects and allies not really profitting from the political situation anymore, something compounded by the fact Tenochtitlan was the main target. Nobody was rushing to help the pricks because their only actual bonds of them were those of might, which had just been shattered by the conquistadores, and once Tenochtitlan were gone, goodbye to any form of unity, allowing the Spanish troops to finish the conquest later, piecemeal. The Incas got the same problem, except the ' extreme centralization' was embodied by the emperor, plus a civil war of succession helping to get in there in the first place.

Mesoamerican empires fell in big part because their societies had big faillings which allowed the few hundred of Europeans to destroy them so utterly. The mole men are also exploiting Fodlan's failings.

Edited by Hardric62

Share this post


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

How many people would have been massacred just for being a crest descendant if she didn’t revise history look what happened to the innocent descendants of the lopt bloodline in fe4

Pretty sure there was a wide berth between massacring them or venerating them, but doing the latter suited her purposes better. As well as being the ultimate religious authority over a civilization that helped destroy her own; if she couldn't destroy all of them (and she couldn't when she was essentially by herself at that point), she could at least control and manipulate them. And that's what she did.

From her perspective, it was a smart move. But not a morally sound one. People just prefer her secondhand, more polite way of destroying lives - and don't mind her smiting the infidels if they work against her.

EDIT: Learning about Aztecs in a Fire Emblem thread. Good stuff.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


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

Edelgard achieves "unification" by literally killing everyone in existence who disagrees with her ideals. Achieving peace because everyone who wasn't a puppet to the empire was killed.

Of all four ending banners, only on Crimson Flower's are there people depicted who are in agony.Not only that, but the GD and Seiros flags are trampled on the ground. That definitely symbolizes them being conquered. The BL flag is on the back of someone. I'm not sure if that represents that the Kingdom is still resisting in some way, or if it was just meant to show that those people represent the people of the Kingdom. And there are plenty of drawn weapons, showing ongoing conflict or use of force.

That's strictly speaking not entirely true. In their supports Ferdinant says he disagrees and he's still allowed to have his head on his shoulders. 

Many of the endings have some downsides and the nobility not looking particularly happy on the banner seems a pretty small downside in comparison with the others. In the Blue Lion ending for example the Slitherers aren't completely wiped out nor are they even discovered by the new regime, leaving an extremely dangerous threat still on the loose and in the Golden Deer ending they and the imperial remnant are apparently still powerful enough to almost overthrow Fodlan. The nobilty looking sad while the peasants cheer doesn't seem so bad compared to Fherdiat possibly getting nuked a century down the line or many people dying when Byleth's Fodlan is almost destroyed. 

Share this post


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

That's strictly speaking not entirely true. In their supports Ferdinant says he disagrees and he's still allowed to have his head on his shoulders. 

Many of the endings have some downsides and the nobility not looking particularly happy on the banner seems a pretty small downside in comparison with the others. In the Blue Lion ending for example the Slitherers aren't completely wiped out nor are they even discovered by the new regime, leaving an extremely dangerous threat still on the loose and in the Golden Deer ending they and the imperial remnant are apparently still powerful enough to almost overthrow Fodlan. The nobilty looking sad while the peasants cheer doesn't seem so bad compared to Fherdiat possibly getting nuked a century down the line or many people dying when Byleth's Fodlan is almost destroyed. 

Yeah, overall each endings it's good because overall they're lead by overall good people that manage to unite the world, but each one has their potential disadvantages if things go wrong in some way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for me to completely change tack and write about how Edelgard affiliating with, assisting and using the Slitherers also exacerbated everything leading up to, during, and after her war

I think if Edelgard and Rhea were in any other anime school setting they'd be besties until they both ran for class president, then they'd tear each other apart.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


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

How many people would have been massacred just for being a crest descendant if she didn’t revise history look what happened to the innocent descendants of the lopt bloodline in fe4

It would have been an unending war on the descendants of the “Elites”, the Nabateans and their allies. They would have been hunted down and killed either by those envious of their power or those who saw them as abominations. It is extremely unlikely that her people would have survived considering that there were only five of them left. Chaos and war would have destroyed Fodlan which was the exact opposite of what Sothis, and by extension Rhea, wanted. Censoring the history was the best decision at the time that she made it of course she could have never foreseen what humans would turn the crests into a thousand years later. 

18 hours ago, Crysta said:

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.

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.

How can head canon be factual? If it was factual it would be canon. And how can you judge the validity of someone else's head canon when the very definition of it is that it's a personal interpretation of a story. But you know what, nevermind, it just saves my time because I don't even have to seriously reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, LilyRose said:

How can head canon be factual? If it was factual it would be canon. And how can you judge the validity of someone else's head canon when the very definition of it is that it's a personal interpretation of a story. But you know what, nevermind, it just saves my time because I don't even have to seriously reply.

Headcanon = theory, and theories can have varying degrees of believability dependent on the facts and evidence supporting it.

Yours doesn't really have that, so I lampooning is really just a matter of me saying "no, you're wrong". I took it a step further and explained why it was likely wrong, but that doesn't really matter, does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, LilyRose said:

It would have been an unending war on the descendants of the “Elites”, the Nabateans and their allies. They would have been hunted down and killed either by those envious of their power or those who saw them as abominations. It is extremely unlikely that her people would have survived considering that there were only five of them left. Chaos and war would have destroyed Fodlan which was the exact opposite of what Sothis, and by extension Rhea, wanted. Censoring the history was the best decision at the time that she made it of course she could have never foreseen what humans would turn the crests into a thousand years later.

Also this claim is equally dubious, especially since the Nabateans were vastly outnumbered like you said. You can't have an endless war with only five people on your side.

More than likely, she could have just slaughtered the descendants and eliminate the bloodlines. Assuming they didn't breed like rabbits, it wouldn't be terrifically hard. Evil and ruthless, sure, but she was perfectly fine with setting Fhirdiad on fire so we can't argue it would be terribly out of character... and you wouldn't have the crest system.

Rewriting history was definitely her best interest, but unforeseen? She knew all too well what humankind was like - that's why it was imperative for her to manipulate and control them, if she wasn't capable of killing them all (and she wasn't).

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


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

Also this claim is equally dubious, especially since the Nabateans were vastly outnumbered like you said. You can't have an endless war with only five people on your side.

More than likely, she could have just slaughtered the descendants and eliminate the bloodlines. Assuming they didn't breed like rabbits, it wouldn't be terrifically hard. Evil and ruthless, sure, but she was perfectly fine with setting Fhirdiad on fire so we can't argue it would be terribly out of character... and you wouldn't have the crest system.

Rewriting history was definitely her best interest, but unforeseen? She knew all too well what humankind was like - that's why it was imperative for her to manipulate and control them, if she wasn't capable of killing them all (and she wasn't).

What are you talking about? Do you even know what you're talking about? Or in your haste to tell me how wrong I am did you forget to read with understanding the post I was responding to as well as my own. Because what you are saying has nothing to do with the original post or my response.

The Nabateans, the descendants of the "Elites" and Seiros' Empire allies would have been hunted down because of their crests by regular old humans doing the regular old human thing of killing to obtain power they didn't have and/or killing what they didn't understand. That is the gist of my post as well as the one that I was responding to. I'm not sure what you were responding to and it doesn't even matter. 

1 hour ago, Crysta said:

Headcanon = theory, and theories can have varying degrees of believability dependent on the facts and evidence supporting it.

Yours doesn't really have that, so I lampooning is really just a matter of me saying "no, you're wrong". I took it a step further and explained why it was likely wrong, but that doesn't really matter, does it?

Head canon has an actual definition which you can read below. You can't just make up your own definition because you don't like something that someone else wrote. It's not a theory it is my interpretation of the fictional world of Fodlan and since it isn't contradicting anything that is canon, who are you to say that it is wrong? Were you a writer on this game? Because if you are not one of the writers for Three Houses, then how do you know it is wrong?

I have tried to be mature, decent and respectful to everyone on this board. When I saw that debates were just going around in circles I just dropped it and moved on. We are all just fans here and all of us have our own opinions about this game, the characters, the story and everything else Fire Emblem. I don't have an issue with people disagreeing with my ideas and I welcome any responses to my posts as long as they are just as decent and respectful to me as I'm going to be towards them. 

Headcanon (or head canon, head-canon) is a fan's personal, idiosyncratic interpretation of canon, such as the backstory of a character, or the nature of relationships between characters.

Share this post


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

What are you talking about? Do you even know what you're talking about? Or in your haste to tell me how wrong I am did you forget to read with understanding the post I was responding to as well as my own. Because what you are saying has nothing to do with the original post or my response.

It's a direct response to what you quoted. I'm disagreeing with you. It wouldn't be endless war: it would be a very quick, if Rhea decided to destroy the Elites and by extension the Crests they stole. I don't believe that was the only alternative available to her, either: Flayn and Seteth did not decide to establish their own religion. She didn't have to either condemn the descendants of her enemies or choose to essentially make them nobility.

She established the Crest system, revised history, and did all this knowing full well the nature of humankind.

3 minutes ago, LilyRose said:

The Nabateans, the descendants of the "Elites" and Seiros' Empire allies would have been hunted down because of their crests by regular old humans doing the regular old human thing of killing to obtain power they didn't have and/or killing what they didn't understand. That is the gist of my post as well as the one that I was responding to. I'm not sure what you were responding to and it doesn't even matter.

Yeah, they would, I'm not disagreeing with this part. I said establishing her religious order was a smart move, in the long run, for her interests. Less convinced that it was entirely justified, or a choice she shouldn't be condemned for given it's ramifications... and I certainly do think she knew what those would be.

33 minutes ago, LilyRose said:

Head canon has an actual definition which you can read below. You can't just make up your own definition because you don't like something that someone else wrote.

I... don't think it's an actual word in the dictionary yet. It's not a conventional slang word.

Okay, I find your interpretation of this particular aspect of this fictional universe to be wrong and I'm saying so because you've opted to use headcanon to support your claims in a debate, for whatever reason. If that offends you... I honestly don't care, but you should probably not do that then. I'm under no obligation to drop it if I don't want to: you're fully capable of just ignoring it yourself.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Key word here is "her interests" which in this case means protecting Fodlan on Sothis behalf and while some of her decisions might (or may not) have undesirable consequences through some butterfly effect or something, direct positive outcomes are fully tangible. 

She later used her position somehow to attempt revive progenitor God, but even if that was selfish desire she believed it's not against Fodlan best interests (quite opposite actually). 

Rhea herself  believe her lies could be possibly reason for " this war"  , which is enough for her take responsibility and step down , but even if she can't refute accusations that's not same as admitting she is responsible for everything she is attributed with either 

Share this post


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

It's a direct response to what you quoted. I'm disagreeing with you. It wouldn't be endless war: it would be a very quick, if Rhea decided to destroy the Elites and by extension the Crests they stole. I don't believe that was the only alternative available to her, either: Flayn and Seteth did not decide to establish their own religion. She didn't have to either condemn the descendants of her enemies or choose to essentially make them nobility.

She established the Crest system, revised history, and did all this knowing full well the nature of humankind.

Yeah, they would, I'm not disagreeing with this part. I said establishing her religious order was a smart move, in the long run, for her interests. Less convinced that it was entirely justified, or a choice she shouldn't be condemned for given it's ramifications... and I certainly do think she knew what those would be.

I... don't think it's an actual word in the dictionary yet. It's not a conventional slang word.

Okay, I find your interpretation of this particular aspect of this fictional universe to be wrong and I'm saying so because you've opted to use headcanon to support your claims in a debate, for whatever reason. If that offends you... I honestly don't care, but you should probably not do that then. I'm under no obligation to drop it if I don't want to: you're fully capable of just ignoring it yourself.

No, it isn't a direct response to what I quoted. You misinterpreted both the original post and my response but instead of just admitting that you misunderstood the point, you instead decided to double down. The first post and my response was about the persecution and death that would befall the Nabateans, the descendants of the Elites and Seiros' Empire allies if Seiros had never rewrote the history which is why the original post mentioned the Loptyrians. No one is positing that Seiros would be the one killing these people (which is I guess is what you are saying), the entire point of this particular discussion is that if she hadn't censored history her people (including her human allies) and the innocent descendants of the Elites would be persecuted, hunted and killed. 

Also, you have no problem at all using your head canon to support your claims in debates, in fact you've done it multiple times on this page alone. Should you not do that? Everyone interprets things in the game world and incorporates it as their own personal canon because there is only so much actual canon available to us. Some of the things you've written I agree with while others I disagree with but it was done in a respectful way as opposed to the snotty and condescending tone that you have displayed in multiple responses to multiple posts. I don't have a problem with you disagreeing but the tone that you have chosen to take is completely unnecessary, also it defeats your purpose. If your purpose is to get me to take in what you're saying and challenge my own beliefs that goes completely out the window when you start throwing around words like "dumb and silly" or lampooning as you call it. I don't believe in blocking or muting or ignoring people because I feel like that just serves to stifle the conversation and makes everything an echo chamber but in your case I think I may be forced to do that, not because you disagree with me, but because the unpleasantness is too much. 

1 hour ago, Tenzen12 said:

Key word here is "her interests" which in this case means protecting Fodlan on Sothis behalf and while some of her decisions might (or may not) have undesirable consequences through some butterfly effect or something, direct positive outcomes are fully tangible. 

She later used her position somehow to attempt revive progenitor God, but even if that was selfish desire she believed it's not against Fodlan best interests (quite opposite actually). 

Rhea herself  believe her lies could be possibly reason for " this war"  , which is enough for her take responsibility and step down , but even if she can't refute accusations that's not same as admitting she is responsible for everything she is attributed with either 

That's why I found parts of her s-support so sad because she's of course internalizing everything and taking responsibility for things she had no part in without being able to say "yeah, but everything is not my fault and I did good things too". 

I think this is one of the biggest failings of Rhea not being the "4th Lord" on the Church route. She never really gets a chance to speak for herself on what happened and why she did the things that she did and how much of it she really sees as good, bad or just necessary. She's imprisoned for so long that by the time we get her back the war is essentially over so there is no time to build out her character to see just what she thinks about the world of Fodlan and she's just used as a lore dump before the end. 

Edited by LilyRose
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Tenzen12 said:

Key word here is "her interests" which in this case means protecting Fodlan on Sothis behalf and while some of her decisions might (or may not) have undesirable consequences through some butterfly effect or something, direct positive outcomes are fully tangible. 

She later used her position somehow to attempt revive progenitor God, but even if that was selfish desire she believed it's not against Fodlan best interests (quite opposite actually). 

Rhea herself  believe her lies could be possibly reason for " this war"  , which is enough for her take responsibility and step down , but even if she can't refute accusations that's not same as admitting she is responsible for everything she is attributed with either 

So this brings us back to the topic at hand: How are we to judge Edelgard? Are we to consider the result or the intent?

if we are to go by intent we need to understand she lacks the perspective of the player and regardless of Rheas intent her rule resulted in the terrible system and she did nothing major to fix it beyond trying to return her mother, a motive none know about or would they understand her rule then seems tyrannical to one who knows her lies. Thus Edelgards intent is to undo her rule and reunify humanity I.e. Undo the damage rhea inflicted by Edelgards own understanding. A noble goal or not?

if we consider the result, the truth is that going by endings it's the only one where commoners are made truly equal to nobility, while they are made to have representation in other routes they are only given true equality here and that is the statement of the ending so unless we deny what the game tells us, this is the factual truth.

all endings result in bloodshed in part due to her but the war is inevitable thanks to the slithers and the failing system. Thus her result remains the least bloody if Byleth sides with her and continuing rheas path of no war results in generations more suffering as she continues to fail to revive sothis or dea with the slithers.

end result? Still better ending than no war.

so do we judge her by intent or result and having decided on which of these we can judge her by, we can bring this back to the topic at hand.

There was an interesting post not on this site but o e interesting none the less if I can dig it up. It covered the crests and how it influences the behavior of those that bear them. Ferdinand being oddly protective of flayn in supports and having many of the same traits as setteth, among other examples. The reason I bring this up is because we can likely derive a lot of Rheas behavior in the past from what we see Edelgard do in the present we can see how ruthless seiros can be when it's only hinted at in game. It explains a lot of how the slithers could come to hate her species so even beyond the evil cult bad of standard fire emblem tropes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again there is no evidence "terrible system" you speak of is result of Rhea decisions she made millennium ago. And to be honest I really have trouble see anyone mentioning "Rhea ruling Fodlan" having good faith. 

Edelgard fault is her huge confirmation bias, once she hears anything that suit her, she instantly accept it and that isn't great combination with her strong nationalistic views and ambitions. Given she blame Church even for splitting Kingdom from Empire, it's very likely she would get easily manipulated into war regardless how much of actual truth she knows. 

And what Edelgard fixed in the end? Fodlan is still full of local conflicts during her reign, corrupted nobles are in power by "merit" they showed during war and she established power structure most prone to corruption imaginable (well, after communism that is) on top of that she stopped  Fodlan progress toward democracy for her generation.

Given how lacking her reforms are previous system was better in long run. Best way we can hope is that her "worthy successor" is really worthy and rebuilt Adrestia Empire power structure from scratch. 

Edited by Tenzen12

Share this post


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

That's why I found parts of her s-support so sad because she's of course internalizing everything and taking responsibility for things she had no part in without being able to say "yeah, but everything is not my fault and I did good things too". 

I think this is one of the biggest failings of Rhea not being the "4th Lord" on the Church route. She never really gets a chance to speak for herself on what happened and why she did the things that she did and how much of it she really sees as good, bad or just necessary. She's imprisoned for so long that by the time we get her back the war is essentially over so there is no time to build out her character to see just what she thinks about the world of Fodlan and she's just used as a lore dump before the end. 

Agreed. Rhea should have been the 4th lord, genuinely going missing during the time-skip (presumably a recovery trance like Byleth), then we get to see her, talk to her in a world at war (which would undoubtedly affect her, since her setup has fallen apart at this point). The fact she's more or less just a lore dump at the end of the game feels super lazy on the developers part (then again, CF suggests devs ran out of time/money/other resources). I've heard datamining indicates she was meant to be playable, and that would be excellent material for the Church route. Furthermore, it's not like you'd have to give her access to Immaculate One form (citing injuries sustained in original Battle for Garreg Mach as reason; yes she takes that form near the end of VW despite being imprisoned for 5 years but she's more or less in "I'll protect you even if it kills me" mode at that point, where in this hypothetical adjustment to Church route she's devoted to remaining by your side), or make her OP (same reason). While she would likely be an Enlightened One in terms of strengths (Sword, Fist and Faith seem pretty much canon for her) she could have her own unique class and battalion, have supports with a few others (KoS, Cyril, possibly the teachers and maybe even Marianne/Mercedes since they're particularly strong believers) that distinguish her from Byleth.

At the very least, she should be playable on the Church route, even if they just pull an Athos and put her in for Shambala. The fact you never really hear her opinions on Fodlan, humanity and the wars she's been through does a great disservice to the whole game.

Edited by Ivan Tridelan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Tenzen12 said:

Again there is no evidence "terrible system" you speak of is result of Rhea decisions she made millennium ago. And to be honest I really have trouble see anyone mentioning "Rhea ruling Fodlan" having good faith. 

Edelgard fault is her huge confirmation bias, once she hears anything that suit her, she instantly accept it and that isn't great combination with her strong nationalistic views and ambitions. Given she blame Church even for splitting Kingdom from Empire, it's very likely she would get easily manipulated into war regardless how much of actual truth she knows. 

And what Edelgard fixed in the end? Fodlan is still full of local conflicts during her reign, corrupted nobles are in power by "merit" they showed during war and she established power structure most prone to corruption imaginable (well, after communism that is) on top of that she stopped  Fodlan progress toward democracy for her generation.

Given how lacking her reforms are previous system was better in long run. Best way we can hope is that her "worthy successor" is really worthy and rebuilt Adrestia Empire power structure from scratch. 

You know, you could at least quote or mention me if you're going to respond so I can get the alert.

I sincerely doubt you take anyone who's disagreed with you in good faith, so why should I place any value in that? Other than the fact I was trying to steer the thread on to topic by reiterating some positions. However you seem to be unwilling to offer even the courtesy to back up any of your claims so how about this:

you start posting screenshots backing anything of what you've said and I'll get off your case? Let's start with:

who are the corrupt nobles she has placed in power, what evidence do you have to support this?

is it caspars father, who dies to save the lives of his soldiers

or are you going to make the argument about Ferdinand, who gains his position in all his endings in all routes because he is actually just that good at governing? Does Dimitri undermine his nonexistent democracy in doing so? How about Byleth, I suppose Claude is pretty terrible about creating an equal society if he entrusted ruling Fodlan to his teacher who only put his students in positions of power.

lindhart is able to cause an industrial revolution in Brigid in one of his endings, leonie and Felix can become so successful that they make themselves jobless as mercenaries. The end state of Fodlan is so determinate on who was recruited that you'd have to set some sort of parameters for us to judge it. What remains constant is that your students are the most competent, most deserving of merit, around.

I get that in the wonderful world of the modern western enforced peace we have this great love for democratic values but are you just going to work under the expectation that anything leading to democracy is an ultimate good thing? Do you really want to bow down to the popular opinion of the very isolationist, fanatically religious, and racist Fodlan? This is a medieval society, any democracy would be run by the wealthiest merchants, the landowners in the old nobility, and the religious demagogues who control the masses. It would at best be a secret oligarchy, a tyranny without a figurehead to throw down, the blame shifted to the people who voted the party into power. It would be ridiculously corrupt there just wouldn't be the possibility of it ever being revealed as such.

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...