Jump to content

What do you think of the two main figures of the war? (Spoilers)


What do you think of the two main figures of the war? (Spoilers)  

92 members have voted

  1. 1. Edelgard

    • I think she's in the right/ means well.
    • I used to think she was wrong but changed my mind.
    • I'm indifferent.
    • I used to think she was right but changed my mind.
    • I think she's wrong/ outright malicious or self-centred.
  2. 2. Rhea

    • I think she's innocent/ meant well.
    • I used to think she was wrong but changed my mind.
    • I'm indifferent.
    • I used to think she was right but changed my mind.
    • I think she's wrong/ outright malicious or self-centred.


Recommended Posts

The war of Three Houses is quite morally ambiguous, with Edelgard doing pretty terrible things for what she believes is a just cause while Rhea did some bad things to ensure the Church's monopoly over Fodlan but genuinely cares for it. However, Edelgard has some pretty horrendous deeds under her belt - not least of which is giving TWSITD free reign to do whatever they wanted. While most of Rhea's crimes happened in the past, there's no denying that she did try to control Fodlan through religion, but Silver Snow suggests that she genuinely thought she was doing the right thing in doing so. Of course, there's also the stuff she did to try and revive her mother, but even this is more out of grief than anything else.

But what do you think? Do you think the two of them are justified in their actions (or at least, do you think they thought they were doing the right thing)? Or are they both acting only for themselves and simply trying to justify their actions?

(For the record, I think they're both good people at heart and are trying to do the right thing, it's just that doing so causes so much death and destruction.)

Edited by DefyingFates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well the first thing to say is that none of them is completely right.

That said I think Edelgard is a good (as in "the good side") character, while Rhea is neutral at best. The thing is, Edelgard's actions are to be determined, if you go CF she doesn't do anything questionable at all, while Rhea has been manipulative for more than 1000 years.

Also on one side you have a person who's looking to build a good future, on the other side a person who maybe is not purposefully doing bad things (that's arguable tbh), but ultimately is just trying to achieve an egoistical goal (get mummy back).

Also I find Rhea's experiments with clones absolutely immoral, especially for a religious figure with power and influence such as her. It was what put her off completely for me, I can't condone that kind of stuff.

Ultimately though I'm a bit bias, it's just my opinion, but I can't help but feel like 3H is about Edelgard, and I think she's the true protagonist of this story (honestly, even in other routes, I struggle to see her as a villain for most of the game). Also I think that Dimitri is A LOT more questionable than Edelgard, as he doesn't really have any "excuse" except mental illness (on the other hand Edelgard HAS to cooperate with TWSITD), and what's worse, his violence is in pursuit of an empty goal (and against the wrong person, and for one who keeps talking about justice, blaming someone (who was 13 at the time lol) randomly on the basis of a eavesdropped conversation is dumb and hypocrite at best).

Edited by timon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't fall in with any of those answers for either character. They're both tragically insane and have an impressive ability to never see fault in the things they've done. It's hard to completely judge Rhea's morality since she's been around for a thousand years and the history of fodlan is hard to parse since all we have is the church's carefully selected materials. Most men and women will go insane before a hundred years. I'm not particularly convinced this game follows the rules of mental deterioration established by other manakete races, but it's a possibility nonetheless. Whatever the case, Fodlan is in pretty excellent condition pre time skip, and the Church is an outward source of good at least until you commit crimes against them which we only see people tricked into doing. The death penalty seems harsh to us in the twenty first century but this is a land that still has nobles, empires, and no printing press. However in the hundreds of years she's been around, Rhea could have been up to all kinds of debauchery and we'd never hear about it. But her greatest crime in the game itself is calling you mean things when you spit on her love and take away her mother. Families make anybody at least a little insane. It's true you never chose to be related to her but also...that's life? She'll fight and kill you after having five years to think about it, but so will any other person on the battlefield, including past friends and coworkers. 

Edelgard is easier to judge because you see her assent to power, the very bad men that made her what she is and got her that far, and how many people she is willing to kill and tear from countries she will call illegitimate. And it's frustrating to see her blame her past tragedies on esoteric ideas like the nobility and church rather than the actual culprits standing beside her. That she sees no evil on her side nor any chance of peace in the world of Fodlan is something I can only assume is the result of brainwashing. She doesn't need a quick death, she needs rehabilitation and an actual support group. A role you wish Byleth could play but even the game will tell you it's insane you decided to side with her after the war she starts. If the game were better written, if her route wasn't missing a third of its Part 2, maybe the story would treat her situation more honestly, and we could see if she was right about the world. But as written, Those who Slither in the Dark get off from their crimes completely free and continue controlling the world from beneath. That's a sucky ending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I miss the option "They mean well but do the wrong actions". Because I think both of them are guilty of that, while to be fair Edelgard is a little bit more guilty. After all Rhea didnt start a continent wide war with tens of thousands of victims for her ambition.

 

Unless you count the war against Nemesis. But that one was started by Nemesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

A role you wish Byleth could play but even the game will tell you it's insane you decided to side with her after the war she starts. If the game were better written, if her route wasn't missing a third of its Part 2, maybe the story would treat her situation more honestly, and we could see if she was right about the world. But as written, Those who Slither in the Dark get off from their crimes completely free and continue controlling the world from beneath. That's a sucky ending.

Except the game doesn't tell you that you're insane? That phrase just references the fact that, had you gone down "like a boulder" without making a choice you would've ended up against her. I don't see how it's telling you you chose wrong tbh, it may even be a positive remark, the fact you took your fate into your own hand.

Also while I agree on the rushed nature of CF, even if it's only in the written epilogue, TWSITD do get quite clearly eliminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, timon said:

Also while I agree on the rushed nature of CF, even if it's only in the written epilogue, TWSITD do get quite clearly eliminated.

No, the ending says Edelgard could finally wage war against those who slither in the dark after successfully abolishing the other nations and the nobility. Even in the Edelgard confession scene It never specifies how that unseen war might go for her. Just that they haven't yet found Shamballa which is a pretty big disadvantage. Fighting TWSITD certainly couldn't have ended without conflict since we know from other routes they have nukes and Nemesis' army. With Rhea gone, no part of fodlan is safe from either threat. The CF ending is logically just a calm before the storm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These choices are kinda wierd, because I don't think Rhea's innocent by any means, but at the end of the day I would call her "good". So I guess I'll pick innocent/meant well, for the latter.

I think Edelgard is in quite the similar spot, however while Rhea's actions are selfish and caused their fair share of problems, I believe the damage Edelgard causes dwarf Rhea's actions, so I'm more inclined to say she's the "bad guy".

The big difference I find is that Rhea is ultimately open to compromise. In every route outside of Crimson Flower, Rhea ultimately steps down and leaves Fódlan to you and your house leader without any protest. I know a big part of this is because she ultimately planned on Byleth/Sothis succeeding her anyways, but she comes off as a lot more willing to discuss what is the best for Fódlan at the end of the day.

Edelgard on the other hand is not open to discussion. If you aren't with her, you need to be removed. Even on Verdant Wind, where she even admits that Claude's goals align with her own but won't even entertain the thought of cooperation because she presumes he's ignorant of Fódlan's history. Also her collusion with the Agarthans. Yes, she needed to work with them to achieve her goals, but failing to suppress them reflects poorly on her as the visible figurehead of their partnership.

Edited by Jakkun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Glennstavos said:

No, the ending says Edelgard could finally wage war against those who slither in the dark after successfully abolishing the other nations and the nobility. Even in the Edelgard confession scene It never specifies how that unseen war might go for her. Just that they haven't yet found Shamballa which is a pretty big disadvantage. Fighting TWSITD certainly couldn't have ended without conflict since we know from other routes they have nukes and Nemesis' army. With Rhea gone, no part of fodlan is safe from either threat. The CF ending is logically just a calm before the storm.

You're focusing on Edelgard's endings, but most of Byleth's in CF do state clearly that the fight against TWSITD is over (interestingly enough his single ending is one where it says it's still going on), though it wasn't an easy victory.

And even if that wasn't the case, I'd say "could finally wage war on them" quite obviously implies that the war will be won. Let's not be purposefully naïve here, it's just a more artistic way to write it down instead of just stating "she killed them".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edelgard action in my opinion just delayed by 5 years a change that was happening in front of her eyes if she was not so hellbent on her revolution to not see the struggles of everyone around her. She was surronded by the ruling class of the next generation and literally no one was in favor of keeping the current system.

And then there is the fact that she cooperate whit the greater evil to defeat the lesser ones. And i love how Edelgard fans are so eager to use Thales & molepeople friends as a scapegoat for every bad thing the imperial faction ever does.

Most of the bad things Rhea did were centuries in the past, in the present time her biggest flaw was inaction in addressing the problem of Fodlan.

I don't blame her for executing the Western church. They tried to kill her first. She was stupid for not interrogating them but that's all.

As for the clones, they were allowed normal lives. No parent willingly make babies whitout a selfish reason, and i don't find making clones much different. The important is how you treat them after, and Byleth's mother seems to imply an himan treatment.

Ultimately she created a system that was flawed but functional, and her main flaw is not changing what don't work, but she was not opposing most changes and they would happen as soon as Byleth would replace her, wich eventually would happen anyway.

Edited by Flere210
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, timon said:

You're focusing on Edelgard's endings, but most of Byleth's in CF do state clearly that the fight against TWSITD is over (interestingly enough his single ending is one where it says it's still going on), though it wasn't an easy victory.

And even if that wasn't the case, I'd say "could finally wage war on them" quite obviously implies that the war will be won. Let's not be purposefully naïve here, it's just a more artistic way to write it down instead of just stating "she killed them".

I'd like a source on these Byleth endings. Actually, no I don't. Since it sounds like these endings you're referring to are optional what-if scenarios like any other paired ending. None are more canon or "obvious" than the other. And I never suggested it was impossible they couldn't win against TWSITD, just that victory is far from assured based on how the story is told in CF. At no point in the CF story do they discover shamballa or apprehend the obvious members of the group like Arundel. In the GD route, Hubert has discovered their location and personally requests you take them out as his dying wish since they failed to do so during the timeskip and war against you. Incidentally it was his request, not Edelgard's. But that is yet another possibility.

Edited by Glennstavos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

Rhea's morality since she's been around for a thousand years

A friend of mine, who's a combat vet brought up an interesting concept, that Rhea is one of few people actually fought major wars and understand it's consequence, hence she avoided it at all costs even using revision history. This is drawing from his own experience that once he saw the war firsthand, it really shatter all the romantic imagination.

On the other hand, most students, Edelgard included, never experienced a real war (Only student had fighting experience are Dimitri and Felix, and we know it affects Dimitri). Their only sources about war were heavily biased heroic tales or history books, that could never get truth of war across to the readers. (since they didn't have live streaming those days). We can see this in support between Ingrid and Ashe on books, that war stories they had were heavily censored/romanticized.

As result, they likely have very unrealistic even romantic view on warfare, such as Caspar. Edelgard also suggested to Dimitri they "could fight as much as they want if a war breaks out", to the dismay of Dimitri.(again, who have seen the true nature of war before) My friend concluded that had Edelgard fought some major battles herself before, she might really reconsider her plan and methods.

Quote

And I never suggested it was impossible they couldn't win against TWSITD, just that victory is far from assured

I always wonder how would Empire or Byleth able to fight TWSITD and Nemesis without his divine power or sublime Sword of Creator (implied to loss power in CF). The way in GD Nemesis easily defeat Holst, Byleth could barely matching Nemesis's strength, and requires Claude doing potshots to kill him, all makes me think Byelth has no chance if he didn't have his power anymore.

Edited by Timlugia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Premise:

the game wants you to agree with edelgard and doubt about rhea

they want you to watch out from her because she's apparently not very trust-worthy, to the point that even seteth at some point questions her actions

on the other side, edelgard is the charismatic waifu with tragic background the game wants you to feel affection for, the only suspicious thing about her is that hubert 300% places his trust in her, which is not exactly the most normal thing in the world but i mean, many more people doubt about rhea

this is true until edelgard reveals herself as the flame emperor and tries to steal all the crest stones in the holy tomb, where one COULD start doubting her objectives (and, i don't know, realizing that the flame emperor is the same guy who's working with the evil gang which happens to be your father's murderer and the cause of many more tragedies and calamities such as the duscur tragedy and ailell), while rhea COULD be seen as the "less questionable" character, since, well, she's doing her job as the archbishop, so it's only normal that she wants to punish those who don't respect the holy tomb's importance, whether or not they follow the church's teachings

 

this said, the game has SO MANY characters who share edelgard's ideal about changing or even delete the crest-based society, heck most of these characters are nobles

after noticing this, i started to think that edelgard is so blinded by her ideals and her view of fodlan's society to the point that she can't even speak with HER OWN CLASSMATES about this matter, which is so important to her, but not enough to discuss it with her own allies

sure, rhea did some terrible things, no one can deny this, but i can't really say i blame her

so my answer is "i thought edelgard was right but changed my mind", and the opposite for rhea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in the "I think they're wrong" camp on both counts, but I'm okay with characters being wrong otherwise we'd have no intriguing conflict.

I find Rhea much, much more volatile, bloodthirsty and capable of outright cruelty, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Timlugia said:

I always wonder how would Empire or Byleth able to fight TWSITD and Nemesis without his divine power or sublime Sword of Creator (implied to loss power in CF). The way in GD Nemesis easily defeat Holst, Byleth could barely matching Nemesis's strength, and requires Claude doing potshots to kill him, all makes me think Byelth has no chance if he didn't have his power anymore.

Eh, unlike Claude, Edelgard's a brute. Seiros killed Nemesis in single combat with just her sword, shield, and fists. Edelgard has the same crest as Nemesis, the Crest of Seiros, the war chest of all the relics in Gareg Mach, the Alliance, and the Kingdom, and her personal customized relic. She has the entire might of the Adrestian Empire + an untouched Alliance + the Remanants of the Kingdom. Nemesis doesn't even wake up in Silver Snow, so even if he did here, his army would be steamrolled by the collective might of Fodlan and Byleth's loss of power is made up by the fact that (divine pulse aside) Edelgard always was stronger than him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Won't elaborate much since I'd just be repeating myself, but I don't consider it at all a paradox to find them both fully supportable in their actions. Went for "in the right" for both of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haaa, I actually don't think any of these choices are able to encapsulate how I actually feel about these two, but I chose "I think she's wrong" for both of them.

I don't want to write an essay on this, so I'll just stay this: at the end of the day, I can sympathize with both Edelgard and Rhea and their goals (admittedly more so with Rhea), but I also ultimately believe both were incredibly misguided with their actions and caused the needless suffering of thousands as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rhea helped create college and gave human beings a safety blanket in religion. Let them self government and do almost anything they wanted if they didn't betray her. Plus created the knights that litterally actively help people in the world. Plus is very reasonable in GD and BLs.

 

Edelgard started a world war to litterally take over and force the continent under one ruler. I feel like a lot of people are ignoring the pure horrors of war. To woobify her into this hero when out of the main lords she's clearly the most extreme. CF doesn't even completely justify this. As she just replaces the church she hates with a puppet one under the empires control. She litterally replaces the church that she claimed manipulates people with one that only exists to manipulate people.  She's a great character but to say her actions are morally more justified then Rheas to me is laughable.

Edited by Julian Solo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I voted "meant well" for both. They have clear flaws, but overall I think neither is outright evil or terrible. I like that they have similarities (tragic backstory, trying to fix what went wrong) and don't even realize it. It honestly seems to me that if they had both sat down and talked about it, there might not have been a war. Game implies that if Edelgard, Dimitri and Claude could have talked it out, things would've been fine. I think the same goes for Rhea: she only gets angry when violence is used against the church and its followers. She was content to let Lord Lonato Gaspard hate her; it was only when he gathered up a militia with the intent of fighting that she decided to take action.

Edelgard: She means well. Good grief, she means well. But starting a world war to change society (and unite everything under her, clear Imperialism) is NOT the way to go about it. As someone above pointed out, her current generation has several nobles who hate the system (Sylvain, Mercedes, Lysithea, most likely Marianne) and even Dimitri and Claude don't find it great. She could have started a more peaceful segue into treating people without Crests as equal. And let's face it. Edelgard was getting a lot of her info from TWSITD, the people who actually did all the experiments on her family and Lystihea's. I seriously can't condone her working with them, the people who caused her tragedy in the first place, all out of some attempt to "reform" society. If you pick any route other than Crimson Flower, the continent still reaches a Golden Age of Reform. Her way is not the only way and certainly not the best. 

I love her as a character. I find the moral gray in this game fantastic. But I just can't agree with her actions.

Rhea: Since the thread has "spoilers" in the very title, I will not hide info. Rhea (who is actually Seiros) witnessed the near genocide of her entire species and family, which was caused by TWSITD manipulating the bandit Nemesis and his crew into killing them. They made powerful weapons out of the bones and hearts of her race, clear disrespect to the dead and horrifying to consider. I think ANYONE would snap in this situation. She goes to war and wins, then obscures what really happened. Why? She did not want a repeat of it. By labeling the bandits "heroes" and the Crests as good things, it would prevent humans from realizing the awful truth and possibly killing/discriminating against the descendants of the bandits. By keeping high-tech weapons away from Fodlan, Rhea was keeping humans from nuking each other.

Did her actions create an oppressive caste system? Yes. But she was trying her best to keep the peace instead of annihilating humanity in revenge for what they did to her species (she and her remaining family probably could have wiped out humans if they wanted to). She is actually pretty reasonable: she hires knights who don't even worship her Mother (Real Life popes would NOT be as tolerant and would not do this), she tries to keep the school equal (Seteth says they make sure not to discriminate based on social status but some nobles throw fits and want dorms on the second floor), she takes in orphans like Cyril and the people of Remire Village after the tragedy, and she only resorts to violence when the other side starts it.

Some may think she overreacts in the Holy Tomb, but let's think about it. The Monastery had a string of incidents involving the Flame Emperor (the bandit attack, the attempt to steal from Seiros's coffin, etc), Flayn (her niece) was kidnapped to have her blood harvested, Remire Village was attacked by TWSITD for fun, her Knight Captain was murdered, and then the Flame Emperor (Edelgard) invades the tomb to steal Crest Stones...the remains of Rhea's dead species/family. Of course she would snap. And if you side with someone who's willing to desecrate the graves of genocide victims and ally with TWSITD, of course Rhea would view Byleth in a very negative light and vow to kill them.

Wow, long post is long. But anyway, I love both of these characters. Do I agree with every action? NO. Both have clear flaws and have done terrible things, but ultimately they had good intentions. Thank you, Three Houses, for giving us characters like these so we can debate. They're excellently written for the most part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Flere210 said:

In verdant wind you fight both Edelgard and Nemesis  nothing seems to indicate that she is stronger than him. Actually i doubt everyone in this day and age came even close to him.

It's mentioned Holst holds him off long enough for Alliance forces to retreat. Also, to be fair, his army came out of nowhere and it's basically just Alliance forces that had no reason to expect they'd be fighting to try to stall him. If Nemesis had gone on a rampage instead of straight to Garreg Mach, he'd have done massive damage.

 

20 hours ago, Timlugia said:

I always wonder how would Empire or Byleth able to fight TWSITD and Nemesis without his divine power or sublime Sword of Creator (implied to loss power in CF). The way in GD Nemesis easily defeat Holst, Byleth could barely matching Nemesis's strength, and requires Claude doing potshots to kill him, all makes me think Byelth has no chance if he didn't have his power anymore.

As was mentioned by CyberNinja, CF ending has the Alliance almost entirely untouched, the Empire running strong and only the Kingdom got ravaged. As stated above, Holst and a largely unprepared Alliance force manages to at least survive against Nemesis and his army, so logically a prepared Imperial army + Alliance forces should be OK. Byleth + Edelgard should be able to fight Nemesis as well as Byleth + Claude, unless we're assuming that Byleth is somehow physically weaker in CF. Crest stone was absorbed, IMO he should still be able to use Sword of the Creator, he's just a human instead of magically powered zombie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PrincessAlyson said:

Okay, I voted "meant well" for both. They have clear flaws, but overall I think neither is outright evil or terrible. I like that they have similarities (tragic backstory, trying to fix what went wrong) and don't even realize it. It honestly seems to me that if they had both sat down and talked about it, there might not have been a war. Game implies that if Edelgard, Dimitri and Claude could have talked it out, things would've been fine. I think the same goes for Rhea: she only gets angry when violence is used against the church and its followers. She was content to let Lord Lonato Gaspard hate her; it was only when he gathered up a militia with the intent of fighting that she decided to take action.

Edelgard: She means well. Good grief, she means well. But starting a world war to change society (and unite everything under her, clear Imperialism) is NOT the way to go about it. As someone above pointed out, her current generation has several nobles who hate the system (Sylvain, Mercedes, Lysithea, most likely Marianne) and even Dimitri and Claude don't find it great. She could have started a more peaceful segue into treating people without Crests as equal. And let's face it. Edelgard was getting a lot of her info from TWSITD, the people who actually did all the experiments on her family and Lystihea's. I seriously can't condone her working with them, the people who caused her tragedy in the first place, all out of some attempt to "reform" society. If you pick any route other than Crimson Flower, the continent still reaches a Golden Age of Reform. Her way is not the only way and certainly not the best. 

I love her as a character. I find the moral gray in this game fantastic. But I just can't agree with her actions.

Rhea: Since the thread has "spoilers" in the very title, I will not hide info. Rhea (who is actually Seiros) witnessed the near genocide of her entire species and family, which was caused by TWSITD manipulating the bandit Nemesis and his crew into killing them. They made powerful weapons out of the bones and hearts of her race, clear disrespect to the dead and horrifying to consider. I think ANYONE would snap in this situation. She goes to war and wins, then obscures what really happened. Why? She did not want a repeat of it. By labeling the bandits "heroes" and the Crests as good things, it would prevent humans from realizing the awful truth and possibly killing/discriminating against the descendants of the bandits. By keeping high-tech weapons away from Fodlan, Rhea was keeping humans from nuking each other.

Did her actions create an oppressive caste system? Yes. But she was trying her best to keep the peace instead of annihilating humanity in revenge for what they did to her species (she and her remaining family probably could have wiped out humans if they wanted to). She is actually pretty reasonable: she hires knights who don't even worship her Mother (Real Life popes would NOT be as tolerant and would not do this), she tries to keep the school equal (Seteth says they make sure not to discriminate based on social status but some nobles throw fits and want dorms on the second floor), she takes in orphans like Cyril and the people of Remire Village after the tragedy, and she only resorts to violence when the other side starts it.

Some may think she overreacts in the Holy Tomb, but let's think about it. The Monastery had a string of incidents involving the Flame Emperor (the bandit attack, the attempt to steal from Seiros's coffin, etc), Flayn (her niece) was kidnapped to have her blood harvested, Remire Village was attacked by TWSITD for fun, her Knight Captain was murdered, and then the Flame Emperor (Edelgard) invades the tomb to steal Crest Stones...the remains of Rhea's dead species/family. Of course she would snap. And if you side with someone who's willing to desecrate the graves of genocide victims and ally with TWSITD, of course Rhea would view Byleth in a very negative light and vow to kill them.

Wow, long post is long. But anyway, I love both of these characters. Do I agree with every action? NO. Both have clear flaws and have done terrible things, but ultimately they had good intentions. Thank you, Three Houses, for giving us characters like these so we can debate. They're excellently written for the most part.

Long post may be long, but great post is still great. Thank you so much!

I love your dissection of Rhea especially - you really can't help but sympathise with her once you realise what she's been through and in Silver Snow she even starts to blame herself for the war. And it's only once you see it written out that it really hits you that Rhea watched Edelgard try to steal, you know, the remains of her family. Of course she overreacts!

Honestly, I love the moral dichotomy in this story and that it prompts analyses like this. Thanks again for the write up and for liking this thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we do not look in depth at each route (aka Rhea is nuts in cf, and eldegard is more sympathetic), then I pretty much have to lean towards Rhea on this one.  Eldegard starts a war with the whole continent for her own ideals that could have been solved via diplomacy especially with other houses nobles sharing similar ideals.

Rhea may have done some questionable shit, but nobody can deny that the church did help a lot of people and kept the peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rhea has done some questionable shit, and if you play Edelgard's route, this is highlighted even further prior to the start of the final chapter.

Rhea's loyalty is...

Her mother >>>>>>>>> Byleth (unless...you know) > Flayn and Seteth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everybody else > Church dissidents

It's hard to argue that Edelgard took the morally justifiable route by starting a war with an entire continent, but you can see the reasoning behind her actions. Hers seems to more on a grander scale for the betterment of society while Rhea's is purely for selfish reasons.

I can understand why Rhea became the way she did, but I personally don't agree with her methods. Censoring the truth and executing anybody who dares question the Church is just barbaric.

I see people here making arguments that she did well to promote peace, and I can agree that she has done some amazing things for people worthy of respect, but her primary concern is the resurrection of her mother -- to the point where nothing else matters in the face of a possible reunion with her creator. Catherine and Cyril remark on this plenty of times throughout the game, admitting that Rhea really only cares about Byleth and not them.

Quote

As she just replaces the church she hates with a puppet one under the empires control. She litterally replaces the church that she claimed manipulates people with one that only exists to manipulate people.  She's a great character but to say her actions are morally more justified then Rheas to me is laughable.

In her own ending, she steps down from her throne and a suitable ruler takes her place. There's also a difference between a ruling power who doesn't hide the truth and one that purposefully lies to the people to keep peace. Which one you would rather live under is up to the individual. Let's not forget that a huge plot point in this game revolves around the injustice of nobility and the crest system. We learn Rhea is not responsible for the creation of the Crests, but she does take advantage of their existence to maintain power. This, in turn, upholds a world where those without crests or nobility would be seen as lesser than. Obviously, there may be a potential path to corruption in Edelgard's new Adrestian ruled continent, but we don't really have many details to go off of regarding how her new system even works.

Edited by Eltoshen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2019 at 8:32 PM, Glennstavos said:

But as written, Those who Slither in the Dark get off from their crimes completely free and continue controlling the world from beneath. That's a sucky ending.

As far as I see it the only ending where the Slitherers are truly free to go on controlling the world is the Blue Lion ending were their existence isn't even discovered. Thales does end up dying but with no one knowing about their existence they can pretty safely regroup and just try again some time in the future. 

Personally I've always read the Eagle ending as stating that Edelgard will destroy those that Slither. But you're right. The text indeed doesn't explicitly says that Edelgard will win that fight though with the ending stating she leads Fodlan into a golden age I'd say her victory is at least implied. They certainly don't go on ruling the world from the Shadows however. Edelgard and Arundel make it very clear they'll turn on each other sooner rather than later so even if the Slitherers survive for a long time to come it will be as a faction fighting against a united Fodlan instead of those controlling it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Eltoshen said:

Rhea has done some questionable shit, and if you play Edelgard's route, this is highlighted even further prior to the start of the final chapter.

Rhea's loyalty is...

Her mother >>>>>>>>> Byleth (unless...you know) > Flayn and Seteth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everybody else > Church dissidents

It's hard to argue that Edelgard took the morally justifiable route by starting a war with an entire continent, but you can see the reasoning behind her actions. Hers seems to more on a grander scale for the betterment of society while Rhea's is purely for selfish reasons.

I can understand why Rhea became the way she did, but I personally don't agree with her methods. Censoring the truth and executing anybody who dares question the Church is just barbaric.

I see people here making arguments that she did well to promote peace, and I can agree that she has done some amazing things for people worthy of respect, but her primary concern is the resurrection of her mother -- to the point where nothing else matters in the face of a possible reunion with her creator. Catherine and Cyril remark on this plenty of times throughout the game, admitting that Rhea really only cares about Byleth and not them.

In her own ending, she steps down from her throne and a suitable ruler takes her place. There's also a difference between a ruling power who doesn't hide the truth and one that purposefully lies to the people to keep peace. Which one you would rather live under is up to the individual. Let's not forget that a huge plot point in this game revolves around the injustice of nobility and the crest system. We learn Rhea is not responsible for the creation of the Crests, but she does take advantage of their existence to maintain power. Obviously, there may be a potential path to corruption in Edelgard's new Adrestian ruled continent, but we don't really have many details to go off of regarding how her new system even works.

I mean it's not like Edelgard didn't come clean with the truth, considering she spent the first half of the game running around in the shadows under a persona so she wouldn't be caught. She also attempts to execute Dimitri and Claude with Kostas in the beginning anyways and tries to kill Byleth in the tomb, which shows she will execute anyone in her way. In CF route, she even wants Byleth to keep her identity as the Flame Emperor a secret from the general public, and also lies to the army by blaming the Javelins of Light attack onto the Church in order to retain peace because no one but Hubert/Byleth/Edelgard know that TWiSTD is a threat to the empire.

To say Rhea executes questions everyone who questions the church is weird because she executes those that actually attacked her in the first place. Lonato hated Rhea but, she never went out of her way to execute him until he raised a militia in order to take down the church. Same deal with the Western church, Rhea is well aware she is hated by the Western Church but doesn't do anything until they tried to pillage the holy mausoleum, take sacred land (w/e that means) and attacking her randomly in Ashe/Catherine's paralogue. Besides Shamir and Cyril are pretty explicit that they could care less about the Seiros religion but, Rhea still doesn't execute them. Is it that absurd to for people to respond violence with violence? 

Besides Edelgard stepped down from the throne because her life is limited lol, she does make it clear she doesn't care for power but to say she steps down only because she doesn't want power is false. Judging by her actions in all 4 routes, she seems driven to start the war over her own personal grudge with Crests than like actually for the betterment of society.

Edited by Lunarly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...