Jump to content
semolinaro

What are your thoughts on Edelgard? *SPOILERS*

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, LilyRose said:

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. 

... I literally only contended that it's not going to be the "endless war" you claimed it was going to be if she didn't revise history, and that segued from our earlier discussion about over exaggerating the cost of Edelgard's war and underplaying the civil rest all those minor bandit skirmishes stemmed from. I agreed with the bolded part. The bit about Seiros presumably leading the hypothetical crusades was tangential and not terribly relevant.

How do you double down on an entirely different point? Unless you mean my pointing out that it was yet another dubious assumption. Then yes, I totally did that.

4 hours ago, LilyRose said:

 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.

I do avoid trying to use *solely* my interpretation on these things, and when I do I try to support it with some kind of in-game factual evidence... otherwise it's not very persuasive or compelling. This whole thing spiraled out of me questioning the assumption that Edelgard is responsible for more deaths than Rhea because of her war, and there really hasn't been any counterpoint to that because there's nothing in the game that supports that assumption. People just assume it's obvious, when it's not.

As for the attempt to tone police, unless it gets personal or inflammatory and a mod has to smack me, you're going to have to get used to it if you outright refuse to block me. I don't want to modify my behavior, and you're outright refusing to use the one tool they give you to circumvent people you don't want to hear from. You're not the only one engaged in this discussion; you blocking me won't "stifle the conversation". It will continue with or without either of us present.

1 hour ago, Tenzen12 said:

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.

She was manipulated and being given a limited world view - which most people suffer from - does exacerbate that. But she isn't inherently dumb, and this isn't a trait that is unique to her. It seems strange to demonize her for it.

1 hour ago, Tenzen12 said:

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. 

Her reforms involve literally eliminating a caste system that is centuries old. I'm honestly not sure why you think that's lacking simply because it doesn't immediately achieve world peace. It's a better system, but it's not a perfect system of governing - we have yet to find that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Her system is lacking because it's meritocracy enforced by authoritarian system. Which basically means instant nepotism and whole system can go hell once emperor became corrupt. Even feudalism is better then that as monarch is limited by nobility while here he/she can just decide who will be in which positions.  without any regard to anyone. Only way to reliably achieve meritocracy is free market as it's self-regulating (real free market still can end take adventage of poor and uneducated as any other kind of meritocracy , but it's less prone to nepotism at least). 

 

49 minutes ago, CyberNinja said:

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.

When it come corrupt nobles Count Gloucester come to mind. He was  responsible for death of many merchants, he supported Empire during war in CE and retained his position. You can find it in Ignatz and Raphael paralogue and in Lorentz CF ending with Mercedes. 

And no I don't think anything leading to democracy would be good thing, but peacful route it have no flaws. Dimitri itself actually focus on elimination of racism and in every route but CE where it's optional Claude survive and move to Almyra, which means there is no reason assume relationships between both countries wouldn't improve. Dimitri also explicitly give common people means partake in ruling, not merchants or nobles specifially. Well if merchant can afford bribe commoners to get what they want, that's perfectly fine though. It's commoner free will vote however they want and whatever reason.

And yes by very definition of word Rhea doesn't rule anything. To be able say that you would have to change meaning of that word. In arguments so far it's used as embelishment to make another points. So yes it's used dishonestly.

Edited by Tenzen12

Share this post


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

When it come corrupt nobles Count Gloucester come to mind. He was  responsible for death of many merchants, he supported Empire during war in CE and retained his position. You can find it in Ignatz and Raphael paralogue and in Lorentz CF ending with Mercedes. 

Its a real shame we never got to meet the count. He'd make a fine minor villain and him burying the hatchet with Claude would be more meaningful if he wasn't a complete nobody. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tenzen12 said:

Her system is lacking because it's meritocracy enforced by authoritarian system. Which basically means instant nepotism and whole system can go hell once emperor became corrupt. Even feudalism is better then that as monarch is limited by nobility while here he/she can just decide who will be in which positions.  without any regard to anyone. Only way to reliably achieve meritocracy is free market as it's self-regulating (real free market still can end take adventage of poor and uneducated as any other kind of meritocracy , but it's less prone to nepotism at least). 

Edelgard steps down and doesn't pass her title down to her children. Who's the authoritarian?

CF is the only route where you don't clearly have a singular person on the top of Fodlan. In SS and VW it's God-King Byleth, in AM it's Dimitri.

Also lol at chugging capitalism kool-aid when talking about a setting that's barely gotten to mercantilism

Edited by Arachnofiend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, except one ending when she decide that sensei is more important then Fodlan she rule for years and years and doesn't retire until... it's time to retire. And yes she is completely and unlimitelly on top. Who she chose to do her job afterward is unrelated whether she is authoritarian, (but it should be noted all her friends get position after their parents. Including letting whole territory to be mannaged by Bernardetta for some reason)

Also I only said free market is only way to have non  meritocracy without nepotism.  It doesn't mean I think capitalism can be just implemented in Fodlan or that unhinged capitalim without regulations is good idea, just that there is no point of doing meritocracy in any other way, because that means certain failure. 

Edited by Tenzen12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, she doesn't immediately step down after the war. Obviously it wouldn't help much for her to just bugger off before implementing her reforms. She still does step down, which is more than Dimitri can say, and a hell of a lot more than Byleth can say. Like seriously why are people so enamored with the idea of another immortal authoritarian taking the throne

Share this post


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

When it come corrupt nobles Count Gloucester come to mind. He was  responsible for death of many merchants, he supported Empire during war in CE and retained his position. You can find it in Ignatz and Raphael paralogue and in Lorentz CF ending with Mercedes. 

Really? Because that epilogue paints Gloucester in a more positive light than what the Ignatz/Raphael paralogue would suggest. He eventually accepts the marriage and even compliments his son for his choice.

 

1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Its a real shame we never got to meet the count. He'd make a fine minor villain and him burying the hatchet with Claude would be more meaningful if he wasn't a complete nobody. 

Seconded. I get morally gray, strident traditionalist vibes from what little is revealed about him... and his interactions with Claude and Lorenz would be interesting.

Alliance politics really should have been explored more.

In regards to re: Edelgard stepping down, I'm legitimately surprised she was comfortable with handing rulership to someone other than Byleth, due to her obvious trust issues. But it is what it is, I guess.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


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

Seconded. I get morally gray, strident traditionalist vibes from what little is revealed about him... and his interactions with Claude and Lorenz would be interesting.

Personally I always say him as the Laus to Riegan's Ostia. The very morally questionable member who's always bitter about the power of the leading house and who's a crony of the faction trying to overthrow their respective alliance. Since Gloucester doesn't serve a wizard trying to take over the world and because their service to the empire is based more on fear than malice they do come off better than Laus but the comparison is still there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally realized why I personally don't really like Edelgard and why she's causing so much chaos. Edelgard is an excellent example of a Paragon Villain. Or at least a Paragon Antagonist/Antihero depending on what route you take. Now, I know most of you probably won't agree with me because Edelgard doesn't really line up with the traditional idea of a paragon. But a paragon only needs a couple traits; charisma and the desire to help others. Edelgard definitely qualifies as she's quite a capable leader and she does want to help people by attempting to prevent anything like what happened to her from happening again.

I've been thinking about this for a while and the entire Fodlan situation reminds me of the Captain America: Civil War movie. In the end, everyone was walking out of that theater with a completely different perspective on who was right and who was wrong and what could have been done to fix it. Edelgard reminds me a lot of Cap in the sense that they are both trying to do what they think is right even if it leads to some horrible things. This quote could apply to Edelgard as well:

" We may not be perfect, but the safest hands are still our own.” — Captain America: Civil War 

In Civil War, Captain America is being his typical Paragon self and the entire movie is based on how everyone is reacting to him. There's a reason that this movie isn't an Avenger's movie; Cap is at the center of the story, and in most cases, so is Edelgard. Both possess charisma that can lead others to their side; though Edelgard can be outdone by Byleth with recruiting, and both of them are completely convinced that they're doing what needs to be done. And once a paragon is convinced of an action, they cannot/will not be swayed. There's a reason that there isn't a path where Edelgard can be talked down or convinced to ally with Dimitri/Claude. The only choices that Byleth can make regarding Edelgard are who to side with against her or to stand with her.

If you want to see more about how I got this idea, check out the link to this video. I actually paraphrased a lot of stuff about Civil War from this, other than the stuff I quoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, not mine, but I thought it was an interesting piece on crests and their relation to how characters act. Maybe help develop our thoughts on Edelgard's motivations/character.

Quote

I've mentioned that somewhere else, but there is an interesting theory that I very much like about Edelgard and Byleth's connection.

In Hanneman's A support with Byleth, he mentions that a colleague of his had a theory about crests being able to influence up to a person's sense of taste.

We know for a fact that crests influence a person's physical abilities. Dimitri is inhumanly strong thanks to his crest. Edelgard has suffered similar experiments as Lysithea, and yet doesn't seem to suffer from the same side-effects, potentially because the crest of flames preserves her from physical unease.

In Seteth and Bernadetta's supports, Seteth mentions that Indech was an extremely shy person who was good with his hands. Bernadetta very much shares those traits, and bears the crest of Indech.

Linhardt and Flayn bear the same crest as well, and Linhardt highlights their odd similarities in their supports (they share an affinity for white magic, very strange sleeping habitd/patterns, and an inability to focus on the same task for a long time).

Interestingly, Ferdinand and Flayn bear connected crests (Cethleann's and Cichol's) and are strangely attracted to each other. Ferdinand himself notes the oddity of his attitude:

"Such a delicate creature, and that sweet demeanor... Agh! Snap out of it, Ferdinand!"

(I really recommend checking out their support chain, it's so obvious that something strange is going on between them that goes beyond simple affinity.)

Now, as we all know, Edelgard is quite obsessed with Byleth in every route. Some people take it as lazy writing, but the game actually goes out of its way to make us notice it.

in VW, when Ferdinand appears as an enemy unit on the Bridge map, he'll tell Byleth: "Edelgard has always been obsessed with you. I am a little envious, to be frank."

The Black Eagles students also note in CF, post-timeskip, that Edelgard was definitely the most affected by Byleth's disappearance.

Every route has her mention that she would have wanted to walk with Byleth.

In AM, chapter 22, she will never engage Byleth on her own during the battle, and when they engage her, here's what she says:
"Facing you... I grow weak..."

I believed at first that it might be a way for her to express her emotional suffering, but I'm now convinced that it does actually make her physically weak.

As we know, Edelgard bears both the Crest of Flames and the crest of Seiros, both of which react to Sothis' crest stone.

Sothis' crest stone is basically Byleth's heart.

All of this tends to point toward Edelgard's strong reaction to Byleth being a result of them sharing the same crest and Byleth's heart being the creststone to which both of Edelgard's crests react to.

In other words, she would feel a subconscious pull toward Byleth.

It might also explain why the students were drawn to Remire in the prologue. As Ferdinand notes in Ch8:
"Remire Village... Is that not where you met Edelgard? If you had not been there, something terrible could have happened. Did one of the house leaders know that mercenaries were staying in Remire Village? I wonder..."

Edelgard might have very well been subconsciously drawn to Byleth, as she notes their "strange aura" during the prologue battle.

 

Share this post


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

Really? Because that epilogue paints Gloucester in a more positive light than what the Ignatz/Raphael paralogue would suggest. He eventually accepts the marriage and even compliments his son for his choice.

 

Seconded. I get morally gray, strident traditionalist vibes from what little is revealed about him... and his interactions with Claude and Lorenz would be interesting.

Alliance politics really should have been explored more.

In regards to re: Edelgard stepping down, I'm legitimately surprised she was comfortable with handing rulership to someone other than Byleth, due to her obvious trust issues. But it is what it is, I guess.

Well, he certainly have good points, though I think those merchant wouldn't feel any better about it. Point was if he was left in charge, who else was? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do I even start when involving myself in this discussion...?

 

My overall opinion of Edelgard is a positive one, though that doesn't mean I've chosen to deny her flaws.  During my character's time teaching her and later serving her, there were times I got a good laugh out of her quirks and some of her interactions with other characters, times I couldn't help but respect her as a person, as well as times when I wanted to give her a hug (before you go there, no, I don't ship her with my character; I may have pledged my sword to Edelgard, but I've pledged my heart to Marianne).  Her goal of reforming society is one I see as legitimately benevolent; many of the characters we're introduced to have suffered in some way because of the existing class system and/or the value society places on Crests.  That said, part of the problem with trying to figure out whether or not Fódlan is ultimately better off because of her in her route is that the game says very little about her legacy.  We can certainly speculate about weaknesses in the system she creates and whether or not said weaknesses would ultimately lead to the Adrestian Empire's downfall, but the game also says nothing about what happens after she steps down; all we know is that she left the throne to "a worthy successor," not what that successor did, how the Empire fared without Edelgard in charge, or anything like that.  As such, I see no point in trying to argue that Edelgard's reforms will necessarily lead to a dark age or a golden age, as there simply isn't enough information to go off of.

Edelgard's main flaw, as I see it, is her tendency to see enemies everywhere.  I ran a bit of a thought experiment, asking myself how things would change if, rather than declare war on the Church and attempt to reconquer Faerghus and Leicester, Edelgard chose to limit her ambitions to reforming just the Adrestian Empire and leaving the rest of Fódlan alone.  The outcome that strikes me as most plausible is that the Church and the Adrestian Empire still end up at war; by denouncing Crests and attempting to do away with the existing class system, Edelgard would be tacitly challenging the Church's authority.  I have trouble believing Rhea would allow a heretical empire to exist (please keep in mind that in the routes in which she doesn't have to die, Rhea sees the error of her ways in large part--maybe exclusively--because of the war Edelgard starts, so without the war, I believe Rhea would remain determined to preserve the Church's authority over all of Fódlan).  All that said, in the event of a war between the Church and the Adrestian Empire, Claude and Dimitri are both wild cards.  Claude has Leicester's internal politics to concern himself with, but he also states during his own route that he wants to open Fódlan up to the outside world, so I can easily see him supporting Edelgard in such a scenario.  I'm not as sure about Dimitri, though, considering Faerghus's close relationship with the Church; I consider him siding with the Church slightly more plausible than him siding with the Adrestian Empire, but I wouldn't be surprised if he kept Faerghus neutral in this scenario, either.  I suppose what I'm ultimately getting at is that I believe that even in her own route, Edelgard needlessly burned a lot of bridges by trusting so few people.

I see Edelgard's alliance with the Agarthans as a tragic result of her aforementioned flaw; I do believe she needed allies in order to accomplish her goals, but her own difficulties in trusting outsiders meant that she dismissed more honorable potential allies as untrustworthy, ultimately leaving her with only the Agarthans, a group she openly despises and seeks to wipe out.  While I am of the opinion that there are times when someone suffers no matter what we do, I can't rule out the possibility that her alliance with the Agarthans was only necessary because of her failure to seek out better allies.  I find it telling that when the player character--and by extension, everyone the player character recruited except for Flayn--is on her side, Edelgard is less hostile toward the Church and its followers, willing to go along with the player character's decision to let Claude live, and even open to letting Rhea and her remaining forces live in exchange for them surrendering.  I believe this is in large part because so many people siding with her despite her own prior distrust of them softened her heart and helped her break free of some of her old views.

As far as questions of whether or not her war was justified to begin with, I honestly don't know.  One sad truth of both our world and the game's world is that change for the better often requires sacrifice; the only thing that we can't be sure of is how much and when sacrifice is necessary.  Answering the question of whether or Edelgard could have carried out her reforms without war requires speculation, and while I've offered my own ideas on the matter, they're still just speculation and can't be proven correct or incorrect unless Nintendo makes some sort of official statement on the matter.  Maybe Edelgard could have enacted her reforms without ending up at war, maybe she couldn't have.  There are enough unknowns that I can't consider either possibility a certainty.  I will say this much, though: if meritocracy in the Fódlan can't come about without war, then I say let it be war.

All in all, I think Edelgard makes a good tragic villain thanks to her trust issues leading her down a far darker path than might have been necessary despite her benevolent intentions, yet her own route shows me that she's not so far gone that she can't climb back out of the abyss she's fallen into, provided the player character does as the song says and reaches for her hand.

Share this post


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

Where do I even start when involving myself in this discussion...?

 

My overall opinion of Edelgard is a positive one, though that doesn't mean I've chosen to deny her flaws.  During my character's time teaching her and later serving her, there were times I got a good laugh out of her quirks and some of her interactions with other characters, times I couldn't help but respect her as a person, as well as times when I wanted to give her a hug (before you go there, no, I don't ship her with my character; I may have pledged my sword to Edelgard, but I've pledged my heart to Marianne).  Her goal of reforming society is one I see as legitimately benevolent; many of the characters we're introduced to have suffered in some way because of the existing class system and/or the value society places on Crests.  That said, part of the problem with trying to figure out whether or not Fódlan is ultimately better off because of her in her route is that the game says very little about her legacy.  We can certainly speculate about weaknesses in the system she creates and whether or not said weaknesses would ultimately lead to the Adrestian Empire's downfall, but the game also says nothing about what happens after she steps down; all we know is that she left the throne to "a worthy successor," not what that successor did, how the Empire fared without Edelgard in charge, or anything like that.  As such, I see no point in trying to argue that Edelgard's reforms will necessarily lead to a dark age or a golden age, as there simply isn't enough information to go off of.

Edelgard's main flaw, as I see it, is her tendency to see enemies everywhere.  I ran a bit of a thought experiment, asking myself how things would change if, rather than declare war on the Church and attempt to reconquer Faerghus and Leicester, Edelgard chose to limit her ambitions to reforming just the Adrestian Empire and leaving the rest of Fódlan alone.  The outcome that strikes me as most plausible is that the Church and the Adrestian Empire still end up at war; by denouncing Crests and attempting to do away with the existing class system, Edelgard would be tacitly challenging the Church's authority.  I have trouble believing Rhea would allow a heretical empire to exist (please keep in mind that in the routes in which she doesn't have to die, Rhea sees the error of her ways in large part--maybe exclusively--because of the war Edelgard starts, so without the war, I believe Rhea would remain determined to preserve the Church's authority over all of Fódlan).  All that said, in the event of a war between the Church and the Adrestian Empire, Claude and Dimitri are both wild cards.  Claude has Leicester's internal politics to concern himself with, but he also states during his own route that he wants to open Fódlan up to the outside world, so I can easily see him supporting Edelgard in such a scenario.  I'm not as sure about Dimitri, though, considering Faerghus's close relationship with the Church; I consider him siding with the Church slightly more plausible than him siding with the Adrestian Empire, but I wouldn't be surprised if he kept Faerghus neutral in this scenario, either.  I suppose what I'm ultimately getting at is that I believe that even in her own route, Edelgard needlessly burned a lot of bridges by trusting so few people.

I see Edelgard's alliance with the Agarthans as a tragic result of her aforementioned flaw; I do believe she needed allies in order to accomplish her goals, but her own difficulties in trusting outsiders meant that she dismissed more honorable potential allies as untrustworthy, ultimately leaving her with only the Agarthans, a group she openly despises and seeks to wipe out.  While I am of the opinion that there are times when someone suffers no matter what we do, I can't rule out the possibility that her alliance with the Agarthans was only necessary because of her failure to seek out better allies.  I find it telling that when the player character--and by extension, everyone the player character recruited except for Flayn--is on her side, Edelgard is less hostile toward the Church and its followers, willing to go along with the player character's decision to let Claude live, and even open to letting Rhea and her remaining forces live in exchange for them surrendering.  I believe this is in large part because so many people siding with her despite her own prior distrust of them softened her heart and helped her break free of some of her old views.

As far as questions of whether or not her war was justified to begin with, I honestly don't know.  One sad truth of both our world and the game's world is that change for the better often requires sacrifice; the only thing that we can't be sure of is how much and when sacrifice is necessary.  Answering the question of whether or Edelgard could have carried out her reforms without war requires speculation, and while I've offered my own ideas on the matter, they're still just speculation and can't be proven correct or incorrect unless Nintendo makes some sort of official statement on the matter.  Maybe Edelgard could have enacted her reforms without ending up at war, maybe she couldn't have.  There are enough unknowns that I can't consider either possibility a certainty.  I will say this much, though: if meritocracy in the Fódlan can't come about without war, then I say let it be war.

All in all, I think Edelgard makes a good tragic villain thanks to her trust issues leading her down a far darker path than might have been necessary despite her benevolent intentions, yet her own route shows me that she's not so far gone that she can't climb back out of the abyss she's fallen into, provided the player character does as the song says and reaches for her hand.

A pretty good assessment. I would point out that a HUGE part of her alliance with TWSITD is the fact they're DEEPLY entrenched within the Empire (Thales is almost certainly Arundel, who holds as much influence in the Empire as Edelgard herself if not more, especially pre-timeskip) and watching her every move, more or less (Kronya playing Monica came across to me as them being like "You're getting too close to your Professor, so we're going to run interference here", their use of the DK in Remire to link it to her FE persona to further make it difficult to find allies, etc.).

I do agree reforming ONLY Adrestia would reduce her enemy count, however, Cornelia is in Faerghus for sure and likely there are other TWSITD agents around, and one of her goals is eradicating that group, which is easier to do when you control the whole continent, as is waging war against a group that has Ballistic Missiles among other weapons. A lot of people seem to think that she waged war in part to have Adrestia rule the whole continent again, and while that may be part of it, especially since it would get a number of nobles on her side (Ferdinand mentions in a monastery conversation that there are Adrestian nobles who desire the unification of Fodlan under Adrestian rule), like I said, it also helps make it a lot easier to eradicate the group responsible for so much suffering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone i just finished the last route and I think there is no FE Character i dislike more than Edelgard except maybe Sonia from Blazing Blade. No matter how hard i try to wrap my head around her reasoning at the end of the day i still think she is wrong and evil. 

She just sees what she wants to see (Church, Crests, Caste System evil) but in reality the game presents you with equally good examples of the things she declares war on, as it does bad for example Rodrigue or Lorenz as Nobles who use their power for the betterment of the people. The Church providing shelter and support for all the people suffering from the Flame Emperor. There are more examples but i think my point is clear. And in the end no matter how you play the game it always turns out for the better of Fodlan not only because of your Houseleader but also thanks to all your Students for example Ferdie becomes a great ruler no matter what, Petra renegotiates Brigids terms and works for better relations etc... So all Edelgard accomplished is start a war that cost many peoples life claiming doing something else would cost more... laughable.

Furthermore I can never accept someone who thinks the end justifies the means. Hiring Bandits to kill Dimitri and Claude is sick. Kidnapping an innocent *Child* (Flayn) for her blood and what not, also sick. Stealing Crest Stones to turn people into monsters very dubious. General Luigi and others pointed out why Edelgard worked with TWSITD but that doesn´t make it any better even worse if you ask me since she knew what they were capable of and honestly i can´t understand why she would work with these monsters instead of maybe opening up about their true nature to the professor or her peers. In the AM route i think it becomes very clear that she is just evil when you finally defeat her and she still tries to kill Dimitri who is even reaching a hand out to her. I´m glad i played this route last because i think i could never stomach a CF run after witnessing what this vile woman is capable of.

These are my 2 Cents at least I can´t find a way to sugarcoat her behaviour. Sorry for bad english.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Nickochan said:

She just sees what she wants to see (Church, Crests, Caste System evil) but in reality the game presents you with equally good examples of the things she declares war on, as it does bad for example Rodrigue or Lorenz as Nobles who use their power for the betterment of the people. The Church providing shelter and support for all the people suffering from the Flame Emperor. There are more examples but i think my point is clear. And in the end no matter how you play the game it always turns out for the better of Fodlan not only because of your Houseleader but also thanks to all your Students for example Ferdie becomes a great ruler no matter what, Petra renegotiates Brigids terms and works for better relations etc... So all Edelgard accomplished is start a war that cost many peoples life claiming doing something else would cost more... laughable.

Furthermore I can never accept someone who thinks the end justifies the means. Hiring Bandits to kill Dimitri and Claude is sick. Kidnapping an innocent *Child* (Flayn) for her blood and what not, also sick. Stealing Crest Stones to turn people into monsters very dubious. General Luigi and others pointed out why Edelgard worked with TWSITD but that doesn´t make it any better even worse if you ask me since she knew what they were capable of and honestly i can´t understand why she would work with these monsters instead of maybe opening up about their true nature to the professor or her peers. In the AM route i think it becomes very clear that she is just evil when you finally defeat her and she still tries to kill Dimitri who is even reaching a hand out to her. I´m glad i played this route last because i think i could never stomach a CF run after witnessing what this vile woman is capable of.

It really doesn’t matter how many of the “good ones” there are for the nobility. If there is the potential for abuse (which there very much is), then the system is flawed. You brought up two examples of the nice ones. Let me bring up two off the top of my head that aren’t so nice. Acheron frequently switches sides and engages in actual banditry in Lorenz’s paralogue, but no one can do anything because having him around is politically expedient. Bernadetta’s father is by all accounts a piece of garbage, but the current system turns a blind eye to the abuse that he inflicts on his his daughter. The Church has tacitly allowed and legitimized this system for millennia, so bringing up that they took in a few survivors at a village isn’t really relevant to the conversation here. Not to mention that the Flame Emperor didn’t have anything to do with Remire, but let’s move on.

You also seem to be missing a key detail in your commentary on the ending. Yes, every ending has an overly optimistic tone, including Edelgard’s. Do you know why this all happened? THE WAR. Do you really think that all of the reform would have occurred if everything stayed at the status quo? Do you really think Ferdinand or Petra would be in any position to make these reforms without a massive power vacuum as a result of the preceding war? Of course not. You cannot simultaneously give them credit for their reforms and ignore what allows them to do it in the first place. 

Also, your entire paragraph here is acting as if Edelgard has a full copy of the script right in front of her. Are her actions good? No, not usually. Does she truly believe that the sacrifices she makes now will lead to less in the future? Yes. And if you consider how long it may take for another would-be rebel to pop up, she may even be right. Why would she open up to Byleth, someone who is literally employed to the Church she’s going to overthrow, or her peers, who have flimsy enough loyalty that they can ditch her because they like the other professor more? She wouldn’t even be the same character fundamentally if she was that dumb. 

Funnily enough, if you actually paid attention to Edelgard’s death in other routes, it’s very clear what she’s trying to do when throwing that dagger. Once she’s lost, she basically eggs on Byleth to kill her in both GD and Church to end the war. If you apply the same logic, that’s what she was doing here. She knew Dimitri wouldn’t kill her no matter what she said, so she forced him to act and discard their past, something she wants him to do in her own route as well. You’re welcome to your interpretation, but it’s a fundamentally bad take on a great character imo.

Share this post


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

It really doesn’t matter how many of the “good ones” there are for the nobility. If there is the potential for abuse (which there very much is), then the system is flawed. You brought up two examples of the nice ones. Let me bring up two off the top of my head that aren’t so nice. Acheron frequently switches sides and engages in actual banditry in Lorenz’s paralogue, but no one can do anything because having him around is politically expedient. Bernadetta’s father is by all accounts a piece of garbage, but the current system turns a blind eye to the abuse that he inflicts on his his daughter. The Church has tacitly allowed and legitimized this system for millennia, so bringing up that they took in a few survivors at a village isn’t really relevant to the conversation here. Not to mention that the Flame Emperor didn’t have anything to do with Remire, but let’s move on.

I just think that this isn´t a problem of the Caste System in particular. I mean do you think not being a noble will stop bad people with wealth at their disposal from doing what they want. I certainly don´t they will just find other ways of doing their misdeeds. And as far as how the Church has allowed this system for millenia the game is somewhat vague. I mean they did grant revolutionary forces autonomy twice in the history of Fodlan so who is to say if they stood against a more peaceful approach to a fundamental change in society? And i know the Flame Emperor isnt responsible for Remire but these are her allies and she still let them do what they pleased. I know that Edelgards dislike for TWSITD is a focus point in her campaign but I simply can´t agree with this attitude of her.

 

1 hour ago, LegendOfLoog said:

You also seem to be missing a key detail in your commentary on the ending. Yes, every ending has an overly optimistic tone, including Edelgard’s. Do you know why this all happened? THE WAR. Do you really think that all of the reform would have occurred if everything stayed at the status quo? Do you really think Ferdinand or Petra would be in any position to make these reforms without a massive power vacuum as a result of the preceding war? Of course not. You cannot simultaneously give them credit for their reforms and ignore what allows them to do it in the first place. 

Of course in the game the war makes it possible for things to change but that´s because of the game it would be pretty boring if it where just diplomatical banter and now actual fighting. But consider this with Edelgard, Dimitri, Claude and the rest of the students we have a generation of more progressive thinkers that in my opinion could have changed Fodlan for the better without an allout war. Saying that the War is necessary for these changes is like saying WWII was necessary for the formation of the Federal Republic of Germany. In a sense you´re right but on the other hand we will never know how it could have played out differently with maybe less violence.

I give you that she should not open up to her peers although with Dimitri and Claude she would have two capable allys at her side. But she does state a certain attraction towards Byleth no matter the gender and no matter the House you teach. For someone who is clever and uses eversthing at her disposal to achieve her goal it seems rather extreme to first try to kill Dimitri and Claude instead of trying to probe them if they would be willing to join forces and share her viewpoint. 

2 hours ago, LegendOfLoog said:

Funnily enough, if you actually paid attention to Edelgard’s death in other routes, it’s very clear what she’s trying to do when throwing that dagger. Once she’s lost, she basically eggs on Byleth to kill her in both GD and Church to end the war. If you apply the same logic, that’s what she was doing here. She knew Dimitri wouldn’t kill her no matter what she said, so she forced him to act and discard their past, something she wants him to do in her own route as well. You’re welcome to your interpretation, but it’s a fundamentally bad take on a great character imo.

Here i would argue you insinuate Edelgard knows the whole script. For someone who goes to great lenght to see her goals become reality chosing death and the ambiguity that Dimitri will somehow change the world for the better in a sense that it also befits her legacy is rather naive. Taking his hand on the other hand could allow her to still achieve way more in this scenario Edelgard may never be redeemed for the people of Fodlan but she at least could work towards her goals and against TWSITD.

 

2 hours ago, LegendOfLoog said:

You’re welcome to your interpretation, but it’s a fundamentally bad take on a great character imo.

And this is just unnecessary. You can consider her great and i can consider her evil that doesn´t make my interpretation bad. Nonetheless you gave me something to think about.

Share this post


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

Here i would argue you insinuate Edelgard knows the whole script. For someone who goes to great lenght to see her goals become reality chosing death and the ambiguity that Dimitri will somehow change the world for the better in a sense that it also befits her legacy is rather naive. Taking his hand on the other hand could allow her to still achieve way more in this scenario Edelgard may never be redeemed for the people of Fodlan but she at least could work towards her goals and against TWSITD.

She's choosing death to ensure the end of the fighting, when she loses she's given up on having her goals accomplished. It's her accepting her failure and bringing an end to things. Living would result in war hawks on both sides calling for war, she'd be the most hated person in the kingdom and alliance territories and conflicts would spring up between the nations, if the empire hadn't been annexed. If it was people would be calling for her head anyway and Dimitri pardoning her would only build resentment.

Share this post


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

I just think that this isn´t a problem of the Caste System in particular. I mean do you think not being a noble will stop bad people with wealth at their disposal from doing what they want. I certainly don´t they will just find other ways of doing their misdeeds. And as far as how the Church has allowed this system for millenia the game is somewhat vague. I mean they did grant revolutionary forces autonomy twice in the history of Fodlan so who is to say if they stood against a more peaceful approach to a fundamental change in society? And i know the Flame Emperor isnt responsible for Remire but these are her allies and she still let them do what they pleased. I know that Edelgards dislike for TWSITD is a focus point in her campaign but I simply can´t agree with this attitude of her.

Right, but they attained that wealth through the Caste System to begin with. There wouldn’t be as dramatic a wealth gap between commoners and nobles without the system Rhea sanctioned and continues to perpetuate through the Church of Seiros. The first step to reducing that gap is abolishing nobility, and after that, establishing a meritocratic system is the best path to leveling the playing field. I personally don’t think that allowing a corrupt system to continue is ok because “well, they’ll still have money.” Eliminating noble status is the first step of many, but it is a necessary one. 

Regarding the Church of Seiros, even if they allowed revolutions to occur before, none of those revolutions fundamentally changed anything with the relationship between commoners and nobility. And as long as Rhea is focused on reviving her mother, I don’t think she’s particularly interested in making any reforms on her own. This is supported by the game itself. She had literally 1000 years to try and change the system, but she only allows reform to occur after a bloody war and the failed resurrection of Sothis. I also think you’re misinterpreting how much power Edelgard actually has here. Despite her saying to TWSITD’s faces that she wants to kill them basically, they do nothing. Why? Because she isn’t actually a threat in Part 1. She has no real control over them, so saying that she “let” them do something is inaccurate. Her claims that she would have stopped them in her Flame Emperor persona are false and, in my opinion, stem from her dislike of losing control. She’s marching to their drum in Part 1, not the other way around. 

2 hours ago, Nickochan said:

But consider this with Edelgard, Dimitri, Claude and the rest of the students we have a generation of more progressive thinkers that in my opinion could have changed Fodlan for the better without an allout war. Saying that the War is necessary for these changes is like saying WWII was necessary for the formation of the Federal Republic of Germany. In a sense you´re right but on the other hand we will never know how it could have played out differently with maybe less violence.

Your last sentence is more or less my point. None of us know what would have happened if everyone held hands and walked into the sunset together. That includes the characters in this story as well. Edelgard doesn’t even know if anyone would agree with her in the first place. She has no reason to believe that Rhea will be totally cool with giving up all her power and abolishing the Church she established. Similarly, she has no reason to believe that most of the currently entrenched nobility would just give up their privileged status, something deeply ingrained to their identity. This applies to Dimitri and Claude as well since she plans to basically take control of the entire continent. Regardless of her reasons, it wouldn’t make much sense for the two heirs of said countries to just hand away their position on words alone. As a result, she relies on military strength. This is fairly rational imo, and I can’t see why she would go about it any other way. 

2 hours ago, Nickochan said:

But she does state a certain attraction towards Byleth no matter the gender and no matter the House you teach. For someone who is clever and uses eversthing at her disposal to achieve her goal it seems rather extreme to first try to kill Dimitri and Claude instead of trying to probe them if they would be willing to join forces and share her viewpoint. 

Honestly, I’m still not even sure killing them was the intention of hiring Kostas. I’m assuming Thales would be down with killing them as it would make his life a lot easier in the long run, but instead of TWISTD, she relies on some random bandits? There are some interesting nuggets hidden here and there that may support this. For example, there’s an odd line at the Monastery where Ferdinand wonders if one of the Lords knew that there were mercenaries in Remire. And when Edelgard with her mask confronts Kostas, she doesn’t appear particularly angry that he failed to kill them. She seems frustrated that Rhea made Byleth a professor. There was an interesting theory on Reddit that said it was all a plot to replace the unnamed professor that was originally supposed to teach. Caspar makes a comment where he expected Jeritza to replace the missing professor, and the idea here is that was Edelgard’s plan. After all, having your underling (the Death Knight) as your Professor would be convenient. Of course, this is all a theory, but it seems fairly plausible to me. Unfortunately, the game doesn’t say anything explicit about it, so we’ll never know. 

2 hours ago, Nickochan said:

Here i would argue you insinuate Edelgard knows the whole script. For someone who goes to great lenght to see her goals become reality chosing death and the ambiguity that Dimitri will somehow change the world for the better in a sense that it also befits her legacy is rather naive. Taking his hand on the other hand could allow her to still achieve way more in this scenario Edelgard may never be redeemed for the people of Fodlan but she at least could work towards her goals and against TWSITD.

I don’t think that’s true. What I’m saying here is that her motivations are consistent across the routes. As a result, it makes sense that in a similar position, she would make a similar decision. Let’s assume for a second that she does take Dimitri’s hand. Do you think she’ll ever have power again to accomplish her goals? Assuming she doesn’t die from her monster transformation or experimented Crests, I can’t imagine that even Dimitri would just let her roam freely after throwing the entire continent into war. In that case, she’d be imprisoned like she was in her childhood, but this time, there’s no way out. So either way, her losing is essentially death. Her staying alive would also embolden any remaining Empire and TWISTD forces, so her dying is actually beneficial to ending the war. 

2 hours ago, Nickochan said:

And this is just unnecessary. You can consider her great and i can consider her evil that doesn´t make my interpretation bad. Nonetheless you gave me something to think about.

I consider her a great character not because of her moral goodness though. I just think calling her a “vile woman” oversimplifies her character massively. Actions do not exist in a vacuum, so regardless of the moral uncleanliness of some of her choices, I don’t think it’s so simple. You’re right that doesn’t really make your interpretation “bad” though. I just strongly disagree with it.

Share this post


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

Honestly, I’m still not even sure killing them was the intention of hiring Kostas. I’m assuming Thales would be down with killing them as it would make his life a lot easier in the long run, but instead of TWISTD, she relies on some random bandits? There are some interesting nuggets hidden here and there that may support this. For example, there’s an odd line at the Monastery where Ferdinand wonders if one of the Lords knew that there were mercenaries in Remire. And when Edelgard with her mask confronts Kostas, she doesn’t appear particularly angry that he failed to kill them. She seems frustrated that Rhea made Byleth a professor. There was an interesting theory on Reddit that said it was all a plot to replace the unnamed professor that was originally supposed to teach. Caspar makes a comment where he expected Jeritza to replace the missing professor, and the idea here is that was Edelgard’s plan. After all, having your underling (the Death Knight) as your Professor would be convenient. Of course, this is all a theory, but it seems fairly plausible to me. Unfortunately, the game doesn’t say anything explicit about it, so we’ll never know. 

This is a really interesting idea - the whole thing with Kostas always struck me as strange because it seems to be a pretty massive risk for minimal reward. Taken at face value there's no reason why Edelgard would believe she'd survive that encounter and the other two would die (in fact, if Jeralt and Byleth hadn't shown up it likely would have been Dimitri and Edelgard who died and Claude would escape). If she knew Jeralt was there to save them and her goal was something that would be accomplished anyways then that makes a lot more sense.

Share this post


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

Right, but they attained that wealth through the Caste System to begin with. There wouldn’t be as dramatic a wealth gap between commoners and nobles without the system Rhea sanctioned and continues to perpetuate through the Church of Seiros. The first step to reducing that gap is abolishing nobility, and after that, establishing a meritocratic system is the best path to leveling the playing field. I personally don’t think that allowing a corrupt system to continue is ok because “well, they’ll still have money.” Eliminating noble status is the first step of many, but it is a necessary one. 

Regarding the Church of Seiros, even if they allowed revolutions to occur before, none of those revolutions fundamentally changed anything with the relationship between commoners and nobility. And as long as Rhea is focused on reviving her mother, I don’t think she’s particularly interested in making any reforms on her own. This is supported by the game itself. She had literally 1000 years to try and change the system, but she only allows reform to occur after a bloody war and the failed resurrection of Sothis. I also think you’re misinterpreting how much power Edelgard actually has here. Despite her saying to TWSITD’s faces that she wants to kill them basically, they do nothing. Why? Because she isn’t actually a threat in Part 1. She has no real control over them, so saying that she “let” them do something is inaccurate. Her claims that she would have stopped them in her Flame Emperor persona are false and, in my opinion, stem from her dislike of losing control. She’s marching to their drum in Part 1, not the other way around. 

Your last sentence is more or less my point. None of us know what would have happened if everyone held hands and walked into the sunset together. That includes the characters in this story as well. Edelgard doesn’t even know if anyone would agree with her in the first place. She has no reason to believe that Rhea will be totally cool with giving up all her power and abolishing the Church she established. Similarly, she has no reason to believe that most of the currently entrenched nobility would just give up their privileged status, something deeply ingrained to their identity. This applies to Dimitri and Claude as well since she plans to basically take control of the entire continent. Regardless of her reasons, it wouldn’t make much sense for the two heirs of said countries to just hand away their position on words alone. As a result, she relies on military strength. This is fairly rational imo, and I can’t see why she would go about it any other way. 

Honestly, I’m still not even sure killing them was the intention of hiring Kostas. I’m assuming Thales would be down with killing them as it would make his life a lot easier in the long run, but instead of TWISTD, she relies on some random bandits? There are some interesting nuggets hidden here and there that may support this. For example, there’s an odd line at the Monastery where Ferdinand wonders if one of the Lords knew that there were mercenaries in Remire. And when Edelgard with her mask confronts Kostas, she doesn’t appear particularly angry that he failed to kill them. She seems frustrated that Rhea made Byleth a professor. There was an interesting theory on Reddit that said it was all a plot to replace the unnamed professor that was originally supposed to teach. Caspar makes a comment where he expected Jeritza to replace the missing professor, and the idea here is that was Edelgard’s plan. After all, having your underling (the Death Knight) as your Professor would be convenient. Of course, this is all a theory, but it seems fairly plausible to me. Unfortunately, the game doesn’t say anything explicit about it, so we’ll never know. 

I don’t think that’s true. What I’m saying here is that her motivations are consistent across the routes. As a result, it makes sense that in a similar position, she would make a similar decision. Let’s assume for a second that she does take Dimitri’s hand. Do you think she’ll ever have power again to accomplish her goals? Assuming she doesn’t die from her monster transformation or experimented Crests, I can’t imagine that even Dimitri would just let her roam freely after throwing the entire continent into war. In that case, she’d be imprisoned like she was in her childhood, but this time, there’s no way out. So either way, her losing is essentially death. Her staying alive would also embolden any remaining Empire and TWISTD forces, so her dying is actually beneficial to ending the war. 

I consider her a great character not because of her moral goodness though. I just think calling her a “vile woman” oversimplifies her character massively. Actions do not exist in a vacuum, so regardless of the moral uncleanliness of some of her choices, I don’t think it’s so simple. You’re right that doesn’t really make your interpretation “bad” though. I just strongly disagree with it.

-Real world shows that gap between nobility na commoners is unrelated to magical crests. Even in Fodlan majority nobles don't have crests in first place.

-Rulers of Fodlan are ones who should make reforms and Rhea isn't one. Why should somoene who hold no territory and have no right to collect taxes, make reforms on territories of people who do? 

-Well yeah stuff like abolishing church or nobility in countries she has no buisiness to interfere with wouldn't exactly be most warmly accepted ideas, but getting support for own reform on own territory is something that can be talked through. If talks fail there is always room for violence, but honestly doing stuff through war is least productive and most costy way to make change. Any sane person would go for it as last option, not first.

- She literally hired him to kill "as much noble brats as possible" and it's pretty obvious it was Claude who knew about Jeralt mercenary band. He was one who decided run away toward village, Dimitri and Edie followed after him. He is also one fairly used attempts to his life irc so it make sense he would do homeworks.

 

Edited by Tenzen12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tenzen12: Claude says to Byleth if you talk to him in prologue "I didn't know there would be mercenaries in this village. I guess Lady Luck is smiling on me"

 

Edelgard knowing about the mercenary company is an interesting idea since it would drastically reduce the risk of her getting killed OR causing needless deaths and if her primary goal was getting rid of the unknown professor-to-be then it works out well.

Share this post


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

Right, but they attained that wealth through the Caste System to begin with. There wouldn’t be as dramatic a wealth gap between commoners and nobles without the system Rhea sanctioned and continues to perpetuate through the Church of Seiros. The first step to reducing that gap is abolishing nobility, and after that, establishing a meritocratic system is the best path to leveling the playing field. I personally don’t think that allowing a corrupt system to continue is ok because “well, they’ll still have money.” Eliminating noble status is the first step of many, but it is a necessary one. 

But this is just Edelgards perspective on the whole. She says the nobles abuse the common people and drain them of everything they have and that might be true regarding Duke Aegir, Arundel and some other nobles but the game also goes out of its way to show that here are nobles who not prey on the weak. Lonatos men follow him because he convinced them as a Leader same for Rodrigue and many others. The meritocracy she wants to build wouldn´t just solve all problems and instead would create new one. In this regard i side with Dimitri the world she wants to create just benefits the strong ones. And i know you will disagree with me on this point but i guess it is like the Meeting between these two both have valid points for their Beliefs but i could never support someone who only thinks killing other people is the only way to achieve your goal. It´s a simple matter of beliefs and i think you can´t value the life of other people like this for the *greater* good. Regarding Rhea, Edel pinpoints all the blame on the church but the church neither encouraged the caste system nor did they abolish it they simply stood aside. Not the best attitude i agree but i don´t think Rhea would have opposed a social revolution in the Empire. And from there she could have easily reformed the Church in the Empire. Regarding Edelgard and TWSITD in Part 1 i´m not sure how much power she upholds appereantly enough to wrestle Duke Aegir out of his own lands and enough to field Imperial Soldiers at the Holy Tomb. She has the Death Knight at her Disposal and Randolph and Ladislava. So i dont think she has no power to oppose them but again the game is not clear on that.

1 hour ago, LegendOfLoog said:

Honestly, I’m still not even sure killing them was the intention of hiring Kostas. I’m assuming Thales would be down with killing them as it would make his life a lot easier in the long run, but instead of TWISTD, she relies on some random bandits? There are some interesting nuggets hidden here and there that may support this. For example, there’s an odd line at the Monastery where Ferdinand wonders if one of the Lords knew that there were mercenaries in Remire. And when Edelgard with her mask confronts Kostas, she doesn’t appear particularly angry that he failed to kill them. She seems frustrated that Rhea made Byleth a professor. There was an interesting theory on Reddit that said it was all a plot to replace the unnamed professor that was originally supposed to teach. Caspar makes a comment where he expected Jeritza to replace the missing professor, and the idea here is that was Edelgard’s plan. After all, having your underling (the Death Knight) as your Professor would be convenient. Of course, this is all a theory, but it seems fairly plausible to me. Unfortunately, the game doesn’t say anything explicit about it, so we’ll never know. 

I wondered this myself already but i just thought disaptching *mysterious soldiers* would have alerted the Knights even more onto their plan of Total War since in Chapter 1 or 2 we already get to know that Rhea and Seteth are suspicious of something. And Kostas confirms that his job was just to kill as many nobles as possible in his convo with the Flame Emperor. The theory you mentioned could be possible i also read that people think Edelgard is drawn to Byleth because of her Crest and him housing Sothis. But unless we get more info about her actual thoughts i take Kostas words for the truth. He has little reason to lie to his Contractor.

1 hour ago, LegendOfLoog said:

I don’t think that’s true. What I’m saying here is that her motivations are consistent across the routes. As a result, it makes sense that in a similar position, she would make a similar decision. Let’s assume for a second that she does take Dimitri’s hand. Do you think she’ll ever have power again to accomplish her goals? Assuming she doesn’t die from her monster transformation or experimented Crests, I can’t imagine that even Dimitri would just let her roam freely after throwing the entire continent into war. In that case, she’d be imprisoned like she was in her childhood, but this time, there’s no way out. So either way, her losing is essentially death. Her staying alive would also embolden any remaining Empire and TWISTD forces, so her dying is actually beneficial to ending the war. 

In this regard you might be right but she always fights with all means necessary and is willing to do everything to achieve her goal and since this is the only route where she is offered pardon I simply would assume she´d rather live to maybe have another chance than just dying. Naturally i didn´t assume Dimitri would let her roam free but his route, in my opinion at least, focuses very heavy on the topic of earning your redemption even if it costs you your life. Dimitri first thinks he owes it to the dead people then he swears to live so he can redeem his past sins by serving the living. Gilberts support show a similar mind set. Rodrigue mentions this aswell. I think out of all people Dimitri could have been the one to actually still give her a Chance despite political uproar. But it´s just speculation.

Vile might be a strong word but i do think her methods are not morally grey in the least. She is willing to kill innocents even before she declares war on everyone and that is in my opinion hard to justify. And i know this game is all about if you beleive you´re right stick to your ideals but that is in my opinion a very dangerous attitude. But i have to thank you, you gave me some new things to think about. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ivan Tridelan said:

@Tenzen12: Claude says to Byleth if you talk to him in prologue "I didn't know there would be mercenaries in this village. I guess Lady Luck is smiling on me"

 

Edelgard knowing about the mercenary company is an interesting idea since it would drastically reduce the risk of her getting killed OR causing needless deaths and if her primary goal was getting rid of the unknown professor-to-be then it works out well.

Doesn't change Claude was first one to take off and Edie with Di after him. It could be true he was lucky enough to ennact Edies plan without even noticing or... it could be scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Nickochan said:

I wondered this myself already but i just thought disaptching *mysterious soldiers* would have alerted the Knights even more onto their plan of Total War since in Chapter 1 or 2 we already get to know that Rhea and Seteth are suspicious of something. And Kostas confirms that his job was just to kill as many nobles as possible in his convo with the Flame Emperor. The theory you mentioned could be possible i also read that people think Edelgard is drawn to Byleth because of her Crest and him housing Sothis. But unless we get more info about her actual thoughts i take Kostas words for the truth. He has little reason to lie to his Contractor.

It's not Kostas that's lying in this theory, it's Edelgard. If she had told Kostas what she really wanted him to do and Kostas gets captured and spills the beans then suddenly there is a LOT of suspicion dropped on Jeritza as the person who would have most benefited from Edelgard's plan. It's far better for Edelgard for Kostas to believe he's supposed to kill everyone since it means the teacher just looks like collateral damage.

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...