Jump to content
semolinaro

What are your thoughts on Edelgard? *SPOILERS*

Recommended Posts

One thing I noticed about Edelgard abolishing the nobility is that she kinda.....doesn't. The Black Eagles ending says she does but the individual endings of the many nobles say they ended up inheriting their family lands. Linhardt doesn't but that's depicted as being his own choice because he's such a weirdo. Bernie and Ferdinant are pretty clearly said to become the leading nobles of their territories. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's... a fair point actually. I half-wonder if it's just a product of confused design goals by the dev team. Ferdinand for example has several endings that, as you say, make it clear he inherits the title of Duke of Aegir, but his ending with Edelgard makes no mention of his title or lands and the bit about their children at the end frankly doesn't make any sense in a scenario where they're going to inherit noble privileges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone wants to read the Kostas theory in question, it's right here. It's up to you whether you believe it or not, but either way, I think the Kostas plotline is vague enough that it's hard to make a point using it as support. 

1 hour ago, Tenzen12 said:

-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.

Yes, and how do people become nobility? Generally, it's through 2 factors at its inception, actual merit and connections. Every generation after this receives benefits by virtue of being born. In Fodlan, this is also tied to their magical Crests. My point is that people shouldn't have a massive lead in life by virtue of being born to the right person. If they come into a position of power, it should be based off their merit. The gap you speak of has nothing to do with inherent traits. 

What else would you call Rhea except a ruler? She holds massive influence over the entire continent as the Archbishop of the Church of Seiros. And you seem to be forgetting that Rhea started all of this to begin with. She is the one who legitimized the Adrestian Empire, which eventually spawned the Kingdom and the Alliance which were also sanctioned by her. Even without holding territory, she's kind of a big deal, and the main reason no reform has been made is because she didn't care enough to try it. Even if she didn't directly try, she could have used her influence to solve the inequality in Fodlan. She did not. 

As I said, she is mostly marching to TWSITD's drum. There are minor things she can do within the lines to influence the outcome, but she frankly doesn't have the luxury of waiting things out. And do you really believe she would be able to reform her own country when many of the people she relies on in Part 1 are nobles like Caspar's father and TWSITD? Even if she only focused on reducing the influence of the Church in Adrestia, Edelgard clearly believes that the Church at its core is corrupt. If that's the belief system you're operating under, why would you only focus on the evil in your own country? It's fairly clear that the war is the last option for her to make a difference, not the first. 

58 minutes ago, Tenzen12 said:

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.

It's always possible that they both knew where the mercenaries were. In fact, that actually makes a lot more sense, now that I think about it.

1 hour ago, Nickochan said:

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.

The problem here is that the nobles have the capability to abuse the common people without punishment, not that they always do it. A system which allows corruption to exist is fundamentally flawed, so regardless of all the "good" nobles in the main cast, it doesn't change anything regarding the system. If we're going to use a historical analogy here, it's kind of like saying "Well, feudalism wasn't all bad. There were some nice lords out there, even if some other ones treated their peasants like chattel." Any sort of Caste system with actual power behind it leaves space for corruption. Even if every single noble family were the kindest people in all of Fodlan, I would still say that abolishing nobility is a good idea because of the problems that come with it. Sacrificing other people to accomplish this goal isn't ideal, of course. But it brings to mind the trolley problem for me. The war is going to happen regardless if we're being honest here. Whether it's Edelgard or TWSITD running it, this fact remains true. If that's the case, should Edelgard pull the lever if it means less people will die than if she sat back and watched? It's not an easy choice to make, but in her case, I honestly believe that under the circumstances, it's the only choice. 

The church legitimized the caste system at the very beginning with her false tale about how the 10 Elites were heroes. In actuality, they participated in the genocide of Rhea's entire race which gave them their power to begin with. Whether her reasons were justified or not, that is quite literally encouraging the system. She didn't create it, but she did support it in its infancy, so besides the nobility themselves, there really isn't anywhere else to point blame at. I think I already mentioned why it's not really possible for Edelgard to restrict the revolution to her own domain (i.e. TWISTD wants bloodshed), but Edelgard's ability to imprison Duke Aegir results directly from TWISTD's power. It's clear that behind the scenes, the people behind the Insurrection of the Seven are partially beholden to the Slitherers. Most of Edelgard's political and military power results from three members of that group: Arundel/Thales, Caspar's dad, and Lindhardt's dad. Without them, most of her power vanishes, and she becomes a lame duck like her father was after the Insurrection of the Seven. Her power to oppose them is mostly limited pre-skip, and once she has consolidated more power post-skip, she still isn't able to openly move against them. In any case, she doesn't have enough political clout or military strength to oppose them and accomplish her goals. 

1 hour 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.

He has little reason to lie to his employer, but she has many reasons to lie to him. If Edelgard's plan really was something as specific as scaring away a professor, that would draw quite a bit of suspicion to the students, something Edelgard would likely try to avoid. This isn't really the main point here, but I think it's vague enough that the Kostas saga isn't a very useful point to use in potential arguments about Edelgard.

1 hour ago, Nickochan said:

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. 

Idk, look at it from a person in the Kingdom's perspective. The Empire has destroyed your country and killed your loved ones, but finally, the Emperor has been beaten. Now all we have to do is wait for the execu... wait, no one's killing her? What gives? From a logical perspective, if Edelgard wants to make the transition of power as smooth as possible to make a better Fodlan, dying is actually the right call here. That way, the Empire doesn't keep trying to fight, and the Kingdom doesn't turn on Dimitri for letting her live. Avoiding the Tragedy of Duscur: Part 2 - Electric Boogaloo is probably a good idea, and I have a sneaking suspicion that keeping an enemy monarch alive would not help that. Dying is her redemption here, imo, and any other outcome would likely lead to a weaker Fodlan overall. 

I don't think her methods are necessarily morally grey. The blending of her motives and actions makes her morally grey to me. I'm actually not sure when she kills innocents pre-skip though. The only time I remember her directly attacking anyone is in chapter 11 or 12 (we've already established that Remire isn't on her), and calling anyone in your party an innocent at this point is not strictly true. After the Red Canyon, none of your students are innocent anymore, so technically speaking, they're all combatants. Kind of splitting hairs here, but it's an important distinction imo. And thank you as well because this is helping me flesh out my own thoughts on Three Houses. I started BL and wasn't originally sure what to make of Edelgard, but I've found that for me, she's definitely a very interesting character. 

Share this post


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

Yes, and how do people become nobility? Generally, it's through 2 factors at its inception, actual merit and connections. Every generation after this receives benefits by virtue of being born. In Fodlan, this is also tied to their magical Crests. My point is that people shouldn't have a massive lead in life by virtue of being born to the right person. If they come into a position of power, it should be based off their merit. The gap you speak of has nothing to do with inherent traits. 

What else would you call Rhea except a ruler? She holds massive influence over the entire continent as the Archbishop of the Church of Seiros. And you seem to be forgetting that Rhea started all of this to begin with. She is the one who legitimized the Adrestian Empire, which eventually spawned the Kingdom and the Alliance which were also sanctioned by her. Even without holding territory, she's kind of a big deal, and the main reason no reform has been made is because she didn't care enough to try it. Even if she didn't directly try, she could have used her influence to solve the inequality in Fodlan. She did not. 

As I said, she is mostly marching to TWSITD's drum. There are minor things she can do within the lines to influence the outcome, but she frankly doesn't have the luxury of waiting things out. And do you really believe she would be able to reform her own country when many of the people she relies on in Part 1 are nobles like Caspar's father and TWSITD? Even if she only focused on reducing the influence of the Church in Adrestia, Edelgard clearly believes that the Church at its core is corrupt. If that's the belief system you're operating under, why would you only focus on the evil in your own country? It's fairly clear that the war is the last option for her to make a difference, not the first. 

-That wasn't your point. You said"Without crests there would be no dramatic wealth gap", which is false. Having crest only decide who  is privileged not existence of privilege  itself. Anyway feudal system of inheritence is still better then communism/autocratic meritocracy, even if it gives massive lead to people who may not deserve it at times.

- You yourself called her Arcibishop of Church. That's what I would call her. You can't be ruler without territory with people tied to it. Only people Rhea can boss around are ones paid to be ordered around, which means by very definition of that word she can't be ruler. 

-Yes she could, she were able do it after war, through assassination and she had fair share of inside knowledge from get to go. There is no reason assume she couldn't do same instead of war. Linhardt and Caspar fathers might be responsible for Insurection of seven, but they seems to be decent guys who would support Edie against Arundel and with Church and Kingdom backing, there is no reason it wouldn't work. And sure she believes Church is corrupted and whatever, but she had never problem to work with corrupted people in first place lot of them stayed in power after war too. In first place why would you NOT focus on evil in your own country? Adrestian Empire is WORST of three, if Edie fail she will make everyone equally misrable. She should first prove she knows what she is doing before export "justice" by force, but she tries force system she can't even know will work allongside with TWSitD influence.

 

Edited by Tenzen12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 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.

This was already responded to, but I really want to emphasise that "great character" and "evil" are not mutually exclusive. I happen to think that Edelgard is definitely an outstanding character: well-written dialog, consistent personality which ties neatly to her trauma in a way which has seen praise, takes actions which are contraversial but also interesting and the dilemma of whether they are justified one is a timely one which resonates with events in our world today.

Whether she's seen as good or evil is inherently more subjective and very much a question the game wants you to consider, and I'm not going to fault anyone for the answer they come to. IMO she can be seen as either one of the most interesting, complicated, and best-characterized heroes in the series, or its best villain by a lot.

I do think it's interesting the emotional reaction she generates in people. Even the least charitable interpretations of her morality wouldn't leave her as vile an individual as Manfroy or Validar or [insert long parade of cartoonishly evil FE characters here]. Does she get more hate because unlike those guys, many players will defend her actions as justifiable? Kinda interested on your take, here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That theory doesn't trudge into "Edelgard is actually playing 4D chess" territory, and on it's own seems alright, but as much as I enjoy this game I have difficulty believing the writing team was interested in making the situation that complicated or covert lol 

I think it may just be what it presents itself as just because.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Whether she's seen as good or evil is inherently more subjective

Wouldn't you say that how well-written she (or any other character) is subjective? 

1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

 I do think it's interesting the emotional reaction she generates in people. Even the least charitable interpretations of her morality wouldn't leave her as vile an individual as Manfroy or Validar or [insert long parade of cartoonishly evil FE characters here]. Does she get more hate because unlike those guys, many players will defend her actions as justifiable? Kinda interested on your take, here.

Have you played FE4 yet? Last time I checked, you did not. I'm curious to see how you see 3H compares with it as they are similar. IMO, FE4 has the far better first half but FE16 has a way better second half. 

It's not too odd she gets more hate than the villains. I remember Micaiah getting more hate than Jarod, Izuka, Lekain, etc. One would have to be deluded to think they are more morally upright than her. 

1 hour ago, Crysta said:

That theory doesn't trudge into "Edelgard is actually playing 4D chess" territory, and on it's own seems alright, but as much as I enjoy this game I have difficulty believing the writing team was interested in making the situation that complicated or covert lol 

 

I like that theory, hopefully we get some answers with the Death Knight DLC.

Edited by Icelerate

Share this post


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

-That wasn't your point. You said"Without crests there would be no dramatic wealth gap", which is false. Having crest only decide who  is privileged not existence of privilege  itself. Anyway feudal system of inheritence is still better then communism/autocratic meritocracy, even if it gives massive lead to people who may not deserve it at times.

My exact quote was the following:

6 hours 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. 

Not only did I not mention Crests, I didn't even say that there would be no wealth gap. The statement you supplied is not something I have ever said, so I feel no need to defend it. Moving past that, Crests are quite literally an advantage that not everyone will have and are explicitly attached to bloodlines. I fail to see any other way to define it except as a privilege, and I fail to see how a person can be privileged while simultaneously not? Kind of confused, tbh. Feudal systems are explicitly worse for commoners than an autocratic meritocracy is. The only people that consistently prosper in a feudal society are those born at the top. This is not better in any sense of the word unless you favor those who are born as elites.

1 hour ago, Tenzen12 said:

- You yourself called her Arcibishop of Church. That's what I would call her. You can't be ruler without territory with people tied to it. Only people Rhea can boss around are ones paid to be ordered around, which means by very definition of that word she can't be ruler. 

If you really want to get technical here, she does have territory in Garreg Mach that she rules. The definition of that word per Google is "a person exercising government or dominion." So by the very definition of that word, she is a ruler because she exercises dominion over Garreg Mach, a sovereign area. Beyond the literal definition, she's also the spiritual ruler of Fodlan, something that shouldn't be so easily dismissed when talking about her power over the continent. 

1 hour ago, Tenzen12 said:

 -Yes she could, she were able do it after war, through assassination and she had fair share of inside knowledge from get to go. There is no reason assume she couldn't do same instead of war. Linhardt and Caspar fathers might be responsible for Insurection of seven, but they seems to be decent guys who would support Edie against Arundel and with Church and Kingdom backing, there is no reason it wouldn't work. And sure she believes Church is corrupted and whatever, but she had never problem to work with corrupted people in first place lot of them stayed in power after war too. In first place why would you NOT focus on evil in your own country? Adrestian Empire is WORST of three, if Edie fail she will make everyone equally misrable. She should first prove she knows what she is doing before export "justice" by force, but she tries force system she can't even know will work allongside with TWSitD influence.

I'm not sure where you're inferring that they would support her against Arundel. Lindhardt's dad is almost never mentioned that I can remember, and the most noble thing I can remember Caspar's dad doing is dying for his men in the Golden Deer/Church route. None of this changes that along with the rest of the Emperor's advisers, they turned a blind eye/sanctioned the deadly experiments done on Edelgard and her siblings. I can't see why she would have them around any longer than necessary, and relying on them to fight TWSITD, the organization that controls the Empire politically, makes no sense as they're essentially Arundel's cronies. Why would they risk their neck for Edelgard? What makes even less sense is why Edelgard would team up with the Church when they're her enemies too. She's allied with TWSITD because she has no other choice, and she doesn't have the power to get rid of them. The Kingdom is also in complete shambles and occupied with many Church of Seiros devotees, so even considering the possibility where she gets Dimitri on board, he's not even the King yet, and his country is falling apart at the seams. Not very inspiring, if I'm being honest.

As a result, she's stuck with TWSITD, like it or not. She actually does eliminate the evil that she can pre-skip during the purge of nobility (Lord Vestra, Duke Von Aegir), but there's not much she can do against technologically advanced mole-people who control most of the political landscape of the Empire. It also feels like you're conflating the Church and TWSITD here. If you consider that her primary enemy is Rhea, then the Adrestian Empire is actually the least influenced by the Church of Seiros. This is thanks to growing tensions between them and TWSITD's influence, so if she wants to root out the Church first, she should go to other countries first. And again, you're completely ignoring that the war was going to occur regardless. I see this argument over  and over and over again. "Why didn't Edelgard just hold hands with Claude/Dimitri/Rhea? If they just used the power of friendship, they could have easily defeated TWSITD and reformed the Church of Seiros without any violence! All you have to do is completely ignore the impact that Edelgard/Dimitri/Rhea's individual traumas have inflicted on them!"* The war is happening, with or without Edelgard at the helm. TWSITD wants to kill Rhea even more than Edelgard does, and there is no circumstance where Dimitri, Claude, and Rhea all join with Edelgard that isn't completely contrived Golden Ending shenanigans. There's no time to patiently test out each possible method and slowly win people over to your side, not to mention that it would probably fail anyway. Force is the only option here.

*Not an actual quote. You can add or remove characters as you like, but the sentiment is the same. Think of it like Madlibs for fans of Golden Endings. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is Edel's ideals and how her post-war system just culminates into basically nothing noteworthy, she wants to abolish the nobility but hands land back to former nobles in their endings, while also keeping the emperor title alive and legitimizing it further.

It does however make sense if we take Claude's notion that she is naive at face value, because she certainly is regarding her system. The Empire did work very well. But the point is that what she says she wants and what she does are polar opposites.

"I'm going to discard the old system of people fighting over power and instead appoint myself as queen of the new meritocratic order I'm establishing. Also all my friends are a part of my cabinet as are their lineages. But it's totally merit based I swear!"

Also there was much nepotism that took place in the Empire and many Emperors were related but so distant it didn't count. That's really the main reason why for me Dimitri > Edelgard.

The big problem with a meritocracy is....just because someone has "merit" doesn't mean he isn't a total jerk with little care for the normal people. Technically the only thing a "good ruler" needs to do is to be an effective ruler, meaning to prevent disorder/anarchy/rebellion, how this is done is subjective so trampling the weak so hard they can't fight back or brainwashing them to a point they think they are well even though they aren't are legitimate ways to rule. They are absolutely horrible ways but it's shown that it can work . And we have absolutely zero ideas what those "reforms" are (except for public education provided Ferdinand survives, which is a step in the right direction, but not enough). She wants to be Emperor and to have the power to appoint who works for her/succeeds her rather than those positions being inherited. In essence, it's a trickle down power structure. She didn't even think about giving commoners an education until Ferdinand brought it up 5 years into the war, since she believes those with strength will naturally rise to the top.

In essence, her government is ripe for all sorts of problems. People will suck up to those in power in hope of being granted power, but anyone who is shown favor becomes a target for assassinations. We also saw with Caspar's grandfather that just because someone is free to choose their successor, it doesn't mean the best person will get the job. Hell, people have been arguing about Edelgard restoring the nobility status of those who followed her by saying examples like Bernie (especially paired with Felix) and Caspar show she herself is not picking the best people.Her A support with Ferdinand gives me chills, honestly. Edelgard wants to destroy basically the backbone of society... and hasn't though of something to replace it. Ferdinand has to remind her that she needs a substitute

It honestly feels like Edel is making s*** up as she goes... Which I don't see working for establishing a working long-term society. Her whole plan reeks of " Let's overthrow the tyrant and create a good ol' power vacuum for a worse tyrant instead ".
Then again, I'm french, and failed revolutions is something my country is famous for, so maybe I'm biased >

Share this post


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

- You yourself called her Arcibishop of Church. That's what I would call her. You can't be ruler without territory with people tied to it. Only people Rhea can boss around are ones paid to be ordered around, which means by very definition of that word she can't be ruler.

 

Beyond the spiritual leader part you forgets and the considerable influence a medieval pope could get, you forget that Rhea's goals, as said by herself, was imposing peace and order on Fodlan. From the moment she works to create and enforce such political situation... This is ruling. A hands off approach to the day to day stuff thanks to nobles doing that work, but it is still ruling. And she has an army with which she can potentially enfore that ruling, with mandate to act anywhere on Fodlan. Oh, and the political capital to broker deals between Kingdoms. And such a system require influencing and shaping the nobility the right way, an approach well-suited for an immortal controling the continent's faith (and education, the Church was doing that for the Middle Ages to better reinforce its power and influence, Rhea is smart enough to think of that even before the Officiers Academy)... Theoretically, because that rule clearly failed, and hard.

 

5 hours ago, Arachnofiend said:

ITT the catholic church had no authority over medieval Europe because it didn't hold territory

 

HRE Emperors Frederick II (How dare he negotiate during a Crusade?) and Henry IV (Canossa) would surely like to discuss that point. And the pope managed that one without real armies under his direct command. Pretty sure Rhea can manage one better.

Share this post


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

Pretty sure Rhea can manage one better.

I'd have to go through the cutscenes but I'm pretty sure Hubert mentions that the Knights of Seiros are roughly comparable to another kingdom in terms of military power. Note: Between the centuries old cardinals with crest stones embedded in them; the fanatically loyal best knights and soldiers of the empire, alliance, and kingdom; the Golem war machines; and the expansive armory of sacred weapons in storage; I'm pretty sure he's right.

Share this post


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

Wouldn't you say that how well-written she (or any other character) is subjective? 

Have you played FE4 yet? Last time I checked, you did not. I'm curious to see how you see 3H compares with it as they are similar. IMO, FE4 has the far better first half but FE16 has a way better second half. 

It's not too odd she gets more hate than the villains. I remember Micaiah getting more hate than Jarod, Izuka, Lekain, etc. One would have to be deluded to think they are more morally upright than her. 

I like that theory, hopefully we get some answers with the Death Knight DLC.

I haven't played it myself, but I watched my wife do a full playthrough of FE4 earlier this year so I have a pretty good handle on it. FE4's fine but I think 3H Is dramatically superior in a number of ways, and having way deeper characters is a big part of that. For example, I think Arvis could be super-cool but we just don't get enough out of him.

Obviously, writing quality of a character is subjective too, but I think it's less subjective relatively. As an example, I don't like Ike much whereas I do like, say, Nailah or Kieran considerably more. But I can admit, objectively, that Ike is obviously more fleshed-out and well-characterized, and it's easier to argue he's a "great character" than they are.

I have some theories on why Micaiah got disproportionate hate when her game was new but I don't think this is the place. (Short version: it wasn't a good look for our fanbase.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so when i first start playing edelgard came off as a arrogant girl it made me very off putting but eventually i played her route and then my dislike turned to hatred she says that she was the best option for fodlan despite the fact that she started a 5 year war and ended up with thousands of peoples blood on her hands and she has the gal to say that she is making the world a better place. i believe dimitri says it best "`and yet you haven't even had the decency to stop and consider the reasons behind your actions" this line speaks volumes about how i personally feel about edelgard while others like her or dislike her i hate her to such a degree that i refuse to even play on her route again that is just how much i hate her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2019 at 4:42 PM, Etrurian emperor said:

One thing I noticed about Edelgard abolishing the nobility is that she kinda.....doesn't. The Black Eagles ending says she does but the individual endings of the many nobles say they ended up inheriting their family lands. Linhardt doesn't but that's depicted as being his own choice because he's such a weirdo. Bernie and Ferdinant are pretty clearly said to become the leading nobles of their territories. 

Nobility is a broad concept. For real world examples, the nobility still exists in most European countries (even in cases where they overthrew and executed their kings in violent revolutions, such as France) but doesn't enjoy many of its historic privileges. Modern nobles are still generally successful and important because of inherited real estate + investments and social connections, but most of the power elite in any given European country are commoners who have no titles or ancestral lands. 

I'm sure IS dealt vaguely with how exactly Edelgard dealt with the nobility because they didn't want to detract from the dramatic thrust of her arc with a bunch of obscure, analytical details and also because they don't want to commit to a continuity in case Three Houses is popular enough to justify a slamdunk sequel -- point is she did *something* to make them less important and powerful than they were before, don't think too much about the details. 

But to give a practical example, you're probably going from a world where the justice system is a local lord or his steward taking a short break from managing his estate to summarily pass judgment on a peasant after an hour or so of deliberations to a professional magistrate whose entire life and career is organized around managing a court room -- a magistrate who can devote days, weeks, or even months hearing all sides of the argument and seeing all of the evidence collected and presented. 

However, while she may not have the ability to run a court room in Edelgard's world, a noble like Bernadetta probably still has a lot of influence over the appointment and behavior of magistrates in her territory because she is a mammoth-sized property owner/employer who can easily get in the way of him doing his job if he makes her angry. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by MoralityGames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are really obsessed with her aren't you? It's really amusing how much you look like Dimitri, a simple fictional character that someone thought of in his head mind you, yet you pretend to pass as a real person.

Edited by Nickdos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic was quiet for awhile, actually!

Though "Edelgard is bad because she started a war" will always be a favorite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ashe02 said:

Edelgard is bad becasue she started a war.

Like saying the North is bad because they invaded the South. Never mind that the South was revolting against the outcome of a democratic election they participated in and where it would be expected the North would honor the result if a Southern preferred candidate had won (not to mention slavery). 

The problem with a status quo that enforces social distinctions between Haves and Have-Nots is that you don't have a right to complain if the Have-Nots revolt, or if some third-party intervenes on behalf of the Have-Nots. After all, you are maintaining an unjust society under the threat of violence, so there is no right to complain if some third party comes and uses violence (war )to enforce their vision on your society. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by MoralityGames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But war make things worse first and foremost for the have-not, wich is why you should only use it when the situation is so utterly shitty that a war can't possibly make it worse.

Edited by Flere210

Share this post


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

But war make things worse first and foremost for the have-not, wich is why you should only use it when the situation is sonutterly shitty that a war can't possibly make it worse.

War is literally as bad as it gets, so essentially you are saying that you should put up with any injustice as long as it helps you avoid a war (so, forever). 

End result of that is a peaceful world, but one run by bullies and murderers (such as the bullies and murderers who used Edelgard and her siblings as human sacrifices in their question for power). The price of peace will be paid by the likes of Bernadetta being tortured by her father and the commoner boy who tried to befriend her, by Edelgard and her siblings, by Dorothea, etc. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by MoralityGames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, MoralityGames said:

Like saying the North is bad because they invaded the South. Never mind that the South was revolting against the outcome of a democratic election they participated in and where it would be expected the North would honor the result if a Southern preferred candidate had won (not to mention slavery). 

The problem with a status quo that enforces social distinctions between Haves and Have-Nots is that you don't have a right to complain if the Have-Nots revolt, or if some third-party intervenes on behalf of the Have-Nots. After all, you are maintaining an unjust society under the threat of violence, so there is no right to complain if some third party comes and uses violence (war )to enforce their vision on your society. 

 

 

 

 

I was being sarcastic in my post above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, MoralityGames said:

War is literally as bad as it gets, so essentially you are saying that you should put up with any injustice as long as it helps you avoid a war (so, forever). 

End result of that is a world run by bullies and murderers (such as the bullies and murderers who used Edelgard and her siblings as human sacrifices in their question for power). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

War is not worse than slavery or widespread extreme poverty, that's why the American civil war and French revolution are justfied for example. 

The problem is that every single instance of "crest opression" we see in Foodlan is annedoctical and does not seems to influence the majority of the population:

-Edelgard and her sibling, plus an unspecified numbers of commoners(wich is TWSITD fault and not of Rhea or the Nobility

-Lysithea(see above)

-Sylvain and his brother

-Bernadetta and her commoner friend

-Mercedes, her mother, and most probably her brother

-Ingrid

-Marianne and likely the whole beast crest family.

-Haneman and his sister

Now count how many people dies in a single chapter, battalions included. 

The game does not give us often the perspective of common people, but they don't seems to live in poverty most of the time. There is a bit more instances of noble oppressing commoners, for example the Ferdinand/Lysithea paralogue but those are unrelated to crests, and any corrupt politician could have done the same. 

 

Also call me a cinic, but imo the world will always be run by bullies and murderers no matter what, one of the reason being that you have to became a bully and a murderer to combat them.

Edited by Flere210

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...