Someone explain this plot point involving Rhea. (Major spoilers, obviously)

[dragonlordsd]

So, having finished my second playthrough of the game, I'm a little lost on how exactly Rhea is evil, and why it's so necessary to kill her.

Especially why Edelgard is so driven to the whole "she must die" thing.

As far as I can see (and remember, I haven't done all the routes), the only "evil" things she does is:

1. Going all Silent Hill on you as a baby:

On the surface, this one sounds bad, but your mother explicitly asked her to do this for you. I get why Jeralt blames her, but at the end of the day, she only did what your mom asked, and it did work. You survived with not really any negative side effects (I think?)

2. Ordering you to wipe out the Western Church:

Ok, so this isn't morally upstanding, but they were attacking you guys, and most governments would respond the same way? I don't quite see how the western church is exactly innocent.

3. She's a Dragon?

But so are Seteh and Flayn. So, by that logic, shouldn't murdering Flayn be just as important? I mean, to be fair, that's exactly what Edelgard does (which is pretty f-ed up. I thought she got away at first, but Edie had her hunted down, that's super cold)

Anyway, I'm a bit lost, so can someone with a more complete picture of the lore help me out here?

Edited August 17, 2019 by eclipse

[redlight]

Didn't she put crest stones in people? Unless of course they were willing for the sake of the goddess returning. Like isn't that how Byleth got his crest stone heart from his mother?

Also, she hoped you'd become Sothis near the end of act 1. Basically having your identity replaced by Sothis's.

Edited August 16, 2019 by redlight

[dragonlordsd]

Just now, redlight said:

Didn't she put crest stones in people? Unless of course they were willing for the sake of the goddess returning. Like isn't that how Byleth got his crest stone heart from his mother?

Right? I'm not sure if the people were willing to do that or not? I know in Byleth's case his mom told Rhea to do it to save him. And there weren't any side effects?

Also, EVERYONE seems to be doing the crest stone thing. As far as I know, she wasn't going around to villages and then wiping them out afterwards, TWSITD style. I mean, maybe it's bad that she's taking advantage of their religion, but that assumes that they were being mislead or weren't aware of what would happen, and also you can't stop people from doing stupid things if they really want to, that happens in life all the time?

[Slumber]

The worst I can attribute to her(And the church) is that she mostly just reinforces the classism in Fodlan with the crests. Which is also my biggest issue with FETH's story, since that element isn't touched on very much. Commoners seem to have it relatively easy, unless Edelgard's allies are turning them into monsters, driving then crazy, or Edelgard is actively destroying their way of life.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Slumber

[Ivan Tridelan]

Edelgard is actually driven against the church largely under misinformation. Most of the stuff she blames the church for are in fact the fault of Those who Slither in the Dark. She was basically engineered into being the perfect pawn for them, and struggles to find ways to bridge the gap in power and information (see Arianrhod's fate) while working with them (keep your friends close and your enemies closer). If she moves against them prior to conquering Fodhlan they'll eliminate her with the many powerful abilities or secret assassins they have, so she needs to cement her status in the Empire. Her main issue is paranoia leading her to not reveal the truth to anyone except Hubert and later Byleth, though with TWSITD being everywhere, such paranoia is justified. She can't just cement her power in the Empire due to them having enormous influence via Lord Arundel publicly and who knows how many operatives in the shadows. So she wages war against the church like they want her to so she remains useful while seeking to undermine them.

 

TLDR, she's a puppet dancing to TWSITD's strings, all while trying to find ways to turn the tables.

[DragonFlames]

The crest stone into people thing was Those Who Slither In The Dark, not Rhea.

Anyway, I wouldn't call Rhea evil, just morally grey, like everyone else (except maybe Sothis herself). She's basically a sad child who watched her whole family die in front of her and wants things to go back to the way they were. And the only method she came up with was bringing her mother back at any cost.
Not that that excuses some of her shady actions, but it puts her severe lack of sanity into perspective, at least. Anyone would lose their mind after something like that, I imagine.

[Ivan Tridelan]

6 minutes ago, Slumber said:

The worst I can attribute to her(And the church) is that she mostly just reinforces the classism in Fodlan with the crests. Which is also my biggest issue with FETH's story, since that element isn't touched on very much. Commoners seem to have it relatively easy, unless Edelgard's allies are turning them into monsters, driving then crazy, or Edelgard is actively destroying their way of life.

Uh... nobility hold all power, like typical medieval society. Problem is, nobles are obsessed with crests (Edelgard and Lysithea are victims of experimentation, the first monster you face is a noble son disowned simply because he didn't have a crest, Mercedes was forced out of church life because of her crest, etc.). Admittedly, much of this is in support and paralogue conversations instead of main game.

Rhea doesn't really support the class system, but she doesn't oppose it either. Rhea's big issue is being obsessed with reviving Sothis. The church itself would probably be just fine if it was led by Seteth instead.

 

Incidentally, Rhea only really falls apart completely in Edelgard's path due to Byleth's "betrayal" separating her from her mother (who is inside him) and after 900+ years of trying to bring her back, the attempt that came closest just turned on her.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Ivan Tridelan

[Slumber]

Just now, Ivan Tridelan said:

Uh... nobility hold all power, like typical medieval society. Problem is, nobles are obsessed with crests (Edelgard and Lysithea are victims of experimentation, the first monster you face is a noble son disowned simply because he didn't have a crest, Mercedes was forced out of church life because of her crest, etc.). Admittedly, much of this is in support and paralogue conversations instead of main game.

Rhea doesn't really support the class system, but she doesn't oppose it either. Rhea's big issue is being obsessed with reviving Sothis. The church itself would probably be just fine if it was led by Seteth instead.

I'm aware nobles hold all of the power, but for a medieval society, Fodlan seems pretty ahead of things. The Alliance doesn't seem to hold nobility in as high regard as the other two regions, being more of a nation of merchants and trade specialists. And Faerghus has the typical fantasy "Good king" thing going for it with Dimitri's family, where they explicitly hold ideals to be fair to all, even if they still hold nobility in higher regard. The Empire is probably the most unfair(Or at least, the least explicitly fair) region if you're a commoner. But even then, the commoners of the BE house seem to have their shit together a bit more than the nobles.

It just seems like Edelgard's ultimate goal, and Rhea's lack of helping in any sort of progress of the continent would have been sold a lot better if we saw things being shit for commoners more often. Especially when Edelgard and her allies are the ones clearly making things worse for commoners before full unification of Fodlan.

[Yexin]

basically different points of view

those who like edelgard say rhea is evil, and vice versa

54 minutes ago, redlight said:

Didn't she put crest stones in people? Unless of course they were willing for the sake of the goddess returning. Like isn't that how Byleth got his crest stone heart from his mother?

Also, she hoped you'd become Sothis near the end of act 1. Basically having your identity replaced by Sothis's.

1) no, she did it only with byleth

the guys at the monastery are people who've been saved by rhea for different reasons, and to do this she used her own blood, just like she did with jeralt

that's why they can turn into white dragons

 

2) no

sothis's and byleth's spirits became one, but sothis didn't replace byleth's personality, or s/he would've acted as an old lady with everyone

byleth ends up pretty much becoming a new seiros, but with the goddess' spirit and powers inside, not sothis 2.0

Edited August 16, 2019 by Yexin

[DragonFlames]

17 minutes ago, Yexin said:

basically different points of view

those who like edelgard say rhea is evil, and vice versa

In other words, that particular conflict is meta as hell. Unintentionally so, I imagine, but still.
Personally, I like both as far as the writing is concerned.

Speaking of, one thing I always wonder about: If Rhea's only motive for Byleth is to become Sothis' new body, then why does she act like something of a mother toward them? Heck, Rhea's actions toward Byleth cross over into straight-up lovers territory at times (specifically after Byleth gains Sothis' power and collapses).
Granted, I haven't played the Church Route yet (I'm currently on it), so this might just be my ignorance talking.

[timon]

1. She created people because she missed her mommy, that's both extremely unethical (I'm not a fan of genetic engineering even in our times) and quite insane

2. She's using Byleth (and the whole Church) for her insane goal of bringing her mother back to life (always makes me laugh that, even if she were to succeed, Sothis doesn't seem to have a clue that she's her daughter, "Mother I resurrected you!" "Thanks, now who the hell are you again?"). And yes, Byleth's mother did consent to it, but even then, Byleth's mother herself it's a proof that that woman is crazy. Surely her consent doesn't justify the 11 clones before her (and who knows how many after her).

3. Even Seteth starts to doubt her shady doings, I mean he's basically her lapdog and still doesn't agree.

4. She distorted history to found her Church on false truth

5. She acts insane, to be fair you could say this of most ruling people in this game, but still, executing people on the spot before investigating shows clearly that either she wants to hide stuff or she's just not in her right mind.

6. The whole system she built up has some positive aspects, but also is the primary source of the class based society of Fodlan

7. As Seiros, she shows that she doesn't really care about mankind, but only about her Easter programme. (after all she does burn down Fhirdiad, citiziens included)

All of that considered, I still don't think she's "evil", but I do think she's a lot closer to it than say Edelgard or even Dimitri. That said, as with those 2, their morality and thus their judgment changes depending on the route you take.
If you go Crimson Flower it's pretty clear that she snaps completely the moment you say "no, I won't kill the student I cared for almost a year on the spot without asking questions first", if you go Church I guess you can sort of save her. Even then, dragons in FE are known to be on the insane side, she's no exception.

On the other side, the thing with Edelgard is that yes, she doesn't actually have the full (correct) picture of what's going on, but it's not that important, because the motives behind her revolution still stand. Doesn't matter if she doesn't know the actual truth behind the Zanado conflict, Fodlan needs a revolution and she's doing it.

tl;dr: the big reasons for me are 1) genetic experimentation/using people and 2) never asking/looking for answers before taking action, she's always convinced she knows the truth and there's no need to investigate (and that is true in all routes, and it's the single thing that irritates me the most about her).

[Yexin]

4 minutes ago, DragonFlames said:

In other words, that particular conflict is meta as hell. Unintentionally so, I imagine, but still.
Personally, I like both as far as the writing is concerned.

Speaking of, one thing I always wonder about: If Rhea's only motive for Byleth is to become Sothis' new body, then why does she act like something of a mother toward them? Heck, Rhea's actions toward Byleth cross over into straight-up lovers territory at times (specifically after Byleth gains Sothis' power and collapses).
Granted, I haven't played the Church Route yet (I'm currently on it), so this might just be my ignorance talking.

1) i like them a lot too, writing-wise

i just hate edelgard because she feels like she has every right to do whatever she wants, but this is not the right piace to debate this

 

2) she has every reason to act as a mother (and even something more) with byleth

i won't say anything more, since you're playing the church route right now, but just know this

[DragonFlames]

1 minute ago, Yexin said:

2) she has every reason to act as a mother (and even something more) with byleth

i won't say anything more, since you're playing the church route right now, but just know this

Ah, I see. Good thing that it will get explained. Thanks for the heads up!

[ZeManaphy]

1 hour ago, Slumber said:

The worst I can attribute to her(And the church) is that she mostly just reinforces the classism in Fodlan with the crests. Which is also my biggest issue with FETH's story, since that element isn't touched on very much. Commoners seem to have it relatively easy, unless Edelgard's allies are turning them into monsters, driving then crazy, or Edelgard is actively destroying their way of life.

Actually, its stated that Rhea created the Crest System alongside the false history in order to aid in the search for a way to revive Sothis.... At the cost of people suffering under the political system of crests. Not that I excuse her actions, but I wouldn't call her "evil" per se, she is just misguided and selfish, and like Dimitri, probably suffers a form of PTSD, especially on the Crimson Flower Route where she just snaps  too easily. 

 

[Strullemia]

I wouldn't call her evil but she does some questionable stuff. Just to name a few:

Falsifying history and therefore indirectly approving of the crest system, Hoping that Sothis takes over Byleth, Creating her own people.

[omegaxis1]

Rhea, for a thousand years, allowed for a Crest System that she installed by making the Crests become objects of worship, influence how humanity progressed and created a clear line dividing nobility from commoners. Incredibly lucky commoners have a chance to make it big, as there are far more nobles than commoners in Gareg Mach.

Dorothea said in Ferdinand's A support that because of the Church and its Crest System, she suffered as a child, and it was only because the right person heard her sing, she managed to get in. And in Linhardt's B support, she reveals that she only got into the monastery because she cozied up to a noble to get in. 

Because of the Crest System, humanity was restricted, and many people died. Many more never got to live out their dreams or even get the chance to prove themselves. Anyone that ever opposed the system opposed the Church and would be dealt with. 

Sylvain's brother Miklan grew so bitter because he lost his birthright, all cause he didn't have a Crest, while Sylvain did.

Rhea was not only the archbishop and leader of the Church but also is the one that lived through the millennia and had every chance to be able to make amends to her system. But she never did. She allowed it to continue and made hundreds of thousands of people suffer and die as a result of the system. Even if you blame that people are to blame for that, people are influenced by how society is formed under the system. 

Is she evil? Perhaps not the cackling evil type. But she is just as guilty.

[Fie Claussell]

idk, I think Rhea is pretty evil. In fact I think she's on par, if not worse, with anyone bar the Slitherers. Disclaimer I've only played the two Black Eagle routes, but have seen some footage of the ends of GD/BL and know the general plot of both.

From the get-go you know Jeralt doesn't fully trust Rhea, but then you play the game and see how she's so quick to straight up kill people, how little value she places no human lives, how she runs a church that worships herself and her mother, and how tried to turn so many people into Sothis.

I think the last thing is incredibly fucked up. They're not actually themself, she's trying to make them someone else. And she's done it for so many years. Byleth was the 14th attempt if I recall correctly, which pretty clearly shows how she's desperately clinging to being able to recreate her mother at the expense of peoples lives. I don't fully comprehend the circumstances of putting the Crest stone onto Byleth's heart, but it's quite obvious that Byleth doesn't have the same levels of being human as other characters; just look at Jeralt's journal. It's hard to judge to what extent exactly Byleth is "human" because they're an avatar character, thus mostly void in personality in the first place, but from what I gather is they're even less than what an avatar would be. Let's remember Jeralt's death scene; that was the first time Byleth's ever cried. Byleth is 21 years old according to their mother's tombstone.

The Crest/Noble thing is a pretty big deal, too. It's probably the only theme that every lord and a majority of students will agree is a big issue; and Rhea is the centerpiece of said issue. She's the one who established the system in the first place, and her power as archbishop is a centerpiece to upholding the current standing.

And then you find out just how insane she is when you do Crimson Flower. And in another route even Seteth is very questioning of her methods and her plan; she doesn't trust him with any big information.

To the things you laid out in the OP:

(spoils church route)

Spoiler

1. She did it to Byleth's mother as well. According to Rhea, Byleth's mother was also a former attempt at bringing Sothis back, and a failed one. When giving birth to Byleth, both Byleth and their mother were about to die, and her mother chose to keep Byleth alive. Let's assume this is entirely true for a second; for one, Byleth's mother already had a twisted view because she had full knowledge of what she actually was and her value of life is skewed + she probably got manipulated by Rhea throughout her life, but also let's not act like Jeralt is perfectly okay with having all this happen. But also this just simply cannot be accepted as cold, hard fact. Rhea fudges the history books to her suiting in the first place. Rhea is also insane. She's manipulative, she doesn't trust anyone, and she doesn't tell anyone the whole truth. Just look at how clueless Seteth is for so long. The odds Rhea saw Byleth's mother as a failed attempt and was ready to discard her and move onto the next try are definitely there. This should be pretty clear from Jeralt's suspicions that he doesn't trust Rhea, so you shouldn't really either. Now I'm not saying that isn't true, but I think it's designed to be presented this way so you're suspicious and don't know the truth.

2. There's a difference between retaliation and genocide. She offers them no alternative punishment except death, and does so right in front of a person that barely knows her. I'm not saying it's not likely that others would respond similarly, but the manner in which Rhea presents herself in regards to the Western Church is quite scary to see from someone with so much power and expected to be a holy authority.
3. All of the Saints were gifted powers from Sothis. Seteth/Flayn just lost their power to transform into a Dragon, whereas Rhea, the most powerful one, still has it. Seteth and Flayn are just humans with a long lifespan, whereas Rhea posses more power than pretty much anyone. She's an incredibly dangerous force and she's also insane.  

Edited August 16, 2019 by Cadros

[dragonlordsd]

1 hour ago, timon said:

1. She created people because she missed her mommy, that's both extremely unethical (I'm not a fan of genetic engineering even in our times) and quite insane

2. She's using Byleth (and the whole Church) for her insane goal of bringing her mother back to life (always makes me laugh that, even if she were to succeed, Sothis doesn't seem to have a clue that she's her daughter, "Mother I resurrected you!" "Thanks, now who the hell are you again?"). And yes, Byleth's mother did consent to it, but even then, Byleth's mother herself it's a proof that that woman is crazy. Surely her consent doesn't justify the 11 clones before her (and who knows how many after her).

3. Even Seteth starts to doubt her shady doings, I mean he's basically her lapdog and still doesn't agree.

4. She distorted history to found her Church on false truth

5. She acts insane, to be fair you could say this of most ruling people in this game, but still, executing people on the spot before investigating shows clearly that either she wants to hide stuff or she's just not in her right mind.

6. The whole system she built up has some positive aspects, but also is the primary source of the class based society of Fodlan

7. As Seiros, she shows that she doesn't really care about mankind, but only about her Easter programme. (after all she does burn down Fhirdiad, citiziens included)

All of that considered, I still don't think she's "evil", but I do think she's a lot closer to it than say Edelgard or even Dimitri. That said, as with those 2, their morality and thus their judgment changes depending on the route you take.
If you go Crimson Flower it's pretty clear that she snaps completely the moment you say "no, I won't kill the student I cared for almost a year on the spot without asking questions first", if you go Church I guess you can sort of save her. Even then, dragons in FE are known to be on the insane side, she's no exception.

On the other side, the thing with Edelgard is that yes, she doesn't actually have the full (correct) picture of what's going on, but it's not that important, because the motives behind her revolution still stand. Doesn't matter if she doesn't know the actual truth behind the Zanado conflict, Fodlan needs a revolution and she's doing it.

tl;dr: the big reasons for me are 1) genetic experimentation/using people and 2) never asking/looking for answers before taking action, she's always convinced she knows the truth and there's no need to investigate (and that is true in all routes, and it's the single thing that irritates me the most about her).

See, here's the thing.

Your first point is kind of subjective. That's NOT to say you are "wrong", I'm just saying it's not an exact metaphor and that debate is up in the air. So, to be fair, I'll give you that point. Cool.

2, 3, 5, and 6 aren't... well, things that make her evil. I'll take them one at a time.

2 - While Rhea's motives were totally selfish, it doesn't change the fact that she saved this child's life at the request of his/her mother. It doesn't justify the clones, but even though she was using the child, I can't call this action straight up "evil".

3 - Sure, that implies things, but that's not a reason.

4 - Not nice, sure, but it's not like Seiros didn't exist, or didn't have divine powers. It's not like, IDK, scientology or something. I mean, I wouldn't consider this good, but again, it's not straight up evil.

5 - So does everyone else. Both on the acting insane, and the executing people on the spot without investigation. Evil? Sure, but literally everyone but Claude does this at some point, so it doesn't make her more evil than anyone else. 

6 - Again, though this isn't "good", it's also not any more evil than just straight up feudalism.... or modern society depending on where you live.

So, that leaves us with 7, which I would definitely love to debate more.

Now, I HAVE to call out @Cadros:

MENTAL DISEASE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS EVIL.

Several of your points keep coming back to "she's insane". Which... ok. Sure. But that's not "evil". That's not an evil action, it's not an evil thought, it's just a mental disease. I mean, seriously, you have to give me more than that.

[Troykv]

I don't think Rhea is evil; but she is definitely crazy and a PSTD victim.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Troykv

[omegaxis1]

@dragonlordsd Okay, now what about what I said? I made myself rather clear about what made Rhea pretty evil.

[Crysta]

Rhea/Edelgard are two sides of the same authoritarian coin, tbh. There's no line they're willing to leave uncrossed if it stands in the way of their goals, and they will happily end the lives of innocent people to achieve that end; the chief difference is that Rhea isn't a kid and operates under significantly more information.

[dragonlordsd]

4 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Okay, now what about what I said? I made myself rather clear about what made Rhea pretty evil.

Ok, so here's the thing. Because, you're right in what you say, but the question I come back to is, isn't that INEVITABLE under a feudal system?

Dorothea's whole thing about suffering would be exactly the same if she were in ANY society with a nobility system, whether it's Fodlan or Victorian England (I just saw the portrait of Dorian Grey, so contrast with the character in that to illustrate my point)

That's not saying that it is a GOOD thing. Like, no disagreement on that. But, looking at real world history, are all of the things you listed really Rhea's fault? I mean, if it weren't for crests, here going back to the whole Miklan/Sylvain thing, wouldn't the situation be EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE? Where Sylvain would be worthless, and Miklan would be the one sent to the officer's academy? I mean, I know Sylvain says he doesn't care, but if the roles were reversed... idk. It's speculation at that point.

I guess, to conclude, my question to you is, do you think that a system under her would be significantly worse than a situation under Dmitri or Edelgard, and if so, how?

Edited August 16, 2019 by dragonlordsd

[omegaxis1]

Just now, dragonlordsd said:

Ok, so here's the thing. Because, you're right in what you say, but the question I come back to is, isn't that INEVITABLE under a feudal system?

 Dorothea's whole thing about suffering would be exactly the same if she were in ANY society with a nobility system, whether it's Fodlan or Victorian England (I just saw the portrait of Dorian Grey, so contrast with the character in that to illustrate my point)

That's not saying that it is a GOOD thing. Like, no disagreement on that. But, looking at real world history, are all of the things you listed really Rhea's fault? I mean, if it weren't for crests, here going back to the whole Miklan/Sylvain thing, wouldn't the situation be EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE? Where Sylvain would be worthless, and Miklan would be the one sent to the officer's academy? I mean, I know Sylvain says he doesn't care, but if the roles were reversed... idk. It's speculation at that point.

Except here's the thing, though. Rhea has been alive for the entirety of the time. She oughta KNOW how flawed her system is. She controls the Church, and could actually have been able to make the system better to benefit others as well, to appease their suffering. 

But she DIDN'T try to change the system. 

In fact, she ENFORCED it by making sure that anyone that opposed the Church gets dealt with.

Also, no on the Sylvain thing. Not at all. Sylvain would basically be in a Caspar situation, where because he knows he is the second son, he needs to make merit with his own strength. In fact, he has a rather cynical view of life because of how his Crest caused suffering for both him and his brother. 

[dragonlordsd]

2 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Except here's the thing, though. Rhea has been alive for the entirety of the time. She oughta KNOW how flawed her system is. She controls the Church, and could actually have been able to make the system better to benefit others as well, to appease their suffering. 

But she DIDN'T try to change the system. 

In fact, she ENFORCED it by making sure that anyone that opposed the Church gets dealt with.

Also, no on the Sylvain thing. Not at all. Sylvain would basically be in a Caspar situation, where because he knows he is the second son, he needs to make merit with his own strength. In fact, he has a rather cynical view of life because of how his Crest caused suffering for both him and his brother. 

I mean.... yes? She ought to. There's definitely an argument there.

But you're also leaning into the whole "social obligation" theory, which, I mean, if you really hold to, is cool and all, but can be pretty f-ed up if you're not careful.

Basically, you're saying that ones obligations are to change society for the better... which is good, but that also implies that you're going to make decisions that will alter other people's lives without their consent. For example, under your scenario, the government would have an obligation to correct society. But most people actually in said society (even in a deeply flawed society) would oppose that. Note that I said most.

I want to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you, it's just, the implications of your accusation, that she should have fixed human society, are... interesting. And directly opposed to what Edelgard is fighting for, so if you were to agree with Edelgard's claims that she's evil, you'd be doing so for exactly the opposite reason (ie, Edelgard argues that she is evil because she uses her power to influence all of Fodlan. You're arguing that she is evil because she should use her power MORE in Fodlan)

[omegaxis1]

1 hour ago, dragonlordsd said:

I mean.... yes? She ought to. There's definitely an argument there.

But you're also leaning into the whole "social obligation" theory, which, I mean, if you really hold to, is cool and all, but can be pretty f-ed up if you're not careful.

Basically, you're saying that ones obligations are to change society for the better... which is good, but that also implies that you're going to make decisions that will alter other people's lives without their consent. For example, under your scenario, the government would have an obligation to correct society. But most people actually in said society (even in a deeply flawed society) would oppose that. Note that I said most.

I want to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you, it's just, the implications of your accusation, that she should have fixed human society, are... interesting. And directly opposed to what Edelgard is fighting for, so if you were to agree with Edelgard's claims that she's evil, you'd be doing so for exactly the opposite reason (ie, Edelgard argues that she is evil because she uses her power to influence all of Fodlan. You're arguing that she is evil because she should use her power MORE in Fodlan)

Except by refusing to act, allowing the system to continue to make people be corrupted or oppress many people under it, it basically creates the threat of others opposing such systems. 

The best way to describe Edelgard and Rhea are basically the Evil Paradox that Lelouch says:

Rhea is the one with every ability to change the system. She's living through the lifetimes and would have every ability to see the suffering and problems of society, given the influence of the Church.

By not acting, she basically allows evil to flourish as a result. 

The fact that she is meant to be some "proxy of the goddess" and the religious form of trying to help the people, ignoring the people's cry like that and still pushing for her system as the better way, she ignores the suffering of others. 

Edelgard, on the other hand, understands what her action will do now and accepts her sins, but knows that this is better for the long term by removing the oppressive nature of the Church.

It's easy to blame others just because you see them commit the act.