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

@genagi yeah okay, but even if she builds the worst meritocracy of history (which I don't think it's the case) I'll still take that over an absolute monarchy with heavy religious influence. Any day.

Also let's take a moment to consider the fact that she's the only one who actives herself to do something for change. The point I see throw around randomly is that "the other routes achieve a just as good world" (debatable). Well good for them, but if I win the lottery it's not like I earned that money. I'd rather support a hard worker than a lucky one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, Hardric62 said:

 

Euh, you ever heard about a thing called the Antonine Dynasty? Generally the best succession of emperors Rome ever had, and the whole way succession worked here was the emperor adopting himself a successor, aka doing what Edelgard is doing. And before you mention that the whole thing crashed down, I'll point out it crashed with Commodus, aka Marc Aurele's son, the only person of that dynasty chosen only for heredity.

That's a common way of picturing the dynasty but not entirely accurate. The emperors adopting their successors wasn't so much a succession system as a string of accidents. It just so happened that all those emperors doing the adopting didn't have sons of their own to begin with. One emperor was a weak old man with no heirs chosen because he was a weak old man with no heirs, the following two emperors were probably homosexual and the emperor after that adopted the emperor from a very young age and married him into the family. Unlike the others old Marcus did have a son and passing him over would actually require a ton of explaining. Even with the adopting things were kept as close in the family as possible. Before being adopted Hadrian had already been raised by the emperor since he was a child. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, timon said:

@genagi yeah okay, but even if she builds the worst meritocracy of history (which I don't think it's the case) I'll still take that over an absolute monarchy with heavy religious influence. Any day.

Also let's take a moment to consider the fact that she's the only one who actives herself to do something for change. The point I see throw around randomly is that "the other routes achieve a just as good world" (debatable). Well good for them, but if I win the lottery it's not like I earned that money. I'd rather support a hard worker than a lucky one.

But everyone is working to change the world, they are just doing that in a way that would not bear immediate results. You don't see the fruit of their endeavurs because someone start a war and sabotage the plans of everyone else. you can't tell me whit a straight face that Claude is not working on his "end racism" plan before the timeskip. He had to delay the plan because of Edelgard for 5 years. Similarly, Dimitri wasted 5 years on a murderhobo rampage, when he woukd stay sane and a good ruler whitout Edelgard intervention, purging Farghus of all the corrupt nobles that took part in the Duscur tragedy, cooperating whit Claude on his plan and so on. Whit Sylvain and Ingrid as his best friends there is no way in hell that he is going to support the crest discrimination.

Most Edelgard supporters either don't understand or willingly misinterpret characters in order to make her actions necessary. Just name me a singke character that would support the current nobility? Not even Ferdinand, the one guy that constantly repeat of cool being a noble is, want to keep doing what his father was doing. But somehow i should believe that he woukd be just like his father if Edelgard did not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

But everyone is working to change the world, they are just doing that in a way that would not bear immediate results. You don't see the fruit of their endeavurs because someone start a war and sabotage the plans of everyone else. you can't tell me whit a straight face that Claude is not working on his "end racism" plan before the timeskip. He had to delay the plan because of Edelgard for 5 years. Similarly, Dimitri wasted 5 years on a murderhobo rampage, when he woukd stay sane and a good ruler whitout Edelgard intervention, purging Farghus of all the corrupt nobles that took part in the Duscur tragedy, cooperating whit Claude on his plan and so on. Whit Sylvain and Ingrid as his best friends there is no way in hell that he is going to support the crest discrimination.

Most Edelgard supporters either don't understand or willingly misinterpret characters in order to make her actions necessary. Just name me a singke character that would support the current nobility? Not even Ferdinand, the one guy that constantly repeat of cool being a noble is, want to keep doing what his father was doing. But somehow i should believe that he woukd be just like his father if Edelgard did not exist.

I'll turn the question to you, tell me what they're concretely doing to change the world into their view (which in the case of Claude, let me remind you, is basically eradicating a pseudo-democracy to install a monarchy from another nation. Not to say that the reasons behind that aren't noble, but execution is not exactly more flawless than Edelgard's).

And on Dimitri you've gotta be kidding me, the guy goes hobo because he's mentally ill. Sure maybe some actions trigger him, but at that point saying hi to him would've triggered it. Dimitri's darkness comes exclusively from himself, I mean he's accusing a 13 year old of having orchestrated an intricate mass murder on the basis of an eavesdropped conversation! And you're telling me with a straight face it's Edelgard's fault? Really? He lacks basic logic, which as a side note is another reason I wouldn't have him as a ruler, he's not stable.

Edited by timon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timon said:

@genagi yeah okay, but even if she builds the worst meritocracy of history (which I don't think it's the case) I'll still take that over an absolute monarchy with heavy religious influence. Any day.

Also let's take a moment to consider the fact that she's the only one who actives herself to do something for change. The point I see throw around randomly is that "the other routes achieve a just as good world" (debatable). Well good for them, but if I win the lottery it's not like I earned that money. I'd rather support a hard worker than a lucky one.

There is no worst meritocracy of history because there is no pure meritocracy in history. 

And BL not ends up in absolute monarchy but a pseudo-democratic monarchy, a new form of government (I don't buy it as well as the meritocracy in BE route but it exists). 

And, I don't want to get too much into the terminology here, but the idea of supreme power of the monarch with 'heavy religious influence' is tricky. Religion and church can support the monarch's power, but church can also compete the power with the monarch and try to limit the monarch's influence.

To be honest, I feel the empire Edel built in the ending of BE route is the most despotic and authoritarian of three although added a flavour of 'meritocracy', because all the efforts Edel puts in to eliminate the aristocrats who are against her.

And what is "heavy religious influence", exactly? If a state whose majority are believers and participates actively in religious activities, but it has the separation of the churches and states, and it is based on secularism, does it has heavy religious influence or not? And what count as heavy religious influence and what count as the light?  

Claude is talking about his ambition to change the world (not only Fodlan) all the time in GD route. Edel is the one who starts the war. And other routes are not achieve ”as good as BE” routes. The game tells us that each route (at least three lord routes) makes "progress” in totally different directions. You might say that they achieve different kinds of "good" in the ending, and which one is the best depends on what player thinks is the most important.  For example in BE route there is no mention of the pseudo-welfare system in BL route and the pseudo-globalization in GD route. (you get the pseudo-communism instead) (I am just kidding don't be serious of last sentence)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, timon said:

I'll turn the question to you, tell me what they're concretely doing to change the world into their view (which in the case of Claude, let me remind you, is basically eradicating a pseudo-democracy to install a monarchy from another nation. Not to say that the reasons behind that aren't noble, but execution is not exactly more flawless than Edelgard's).

They are mostly preparing because they are 17 years old and you are not supposed to change a world you don't understand. They are studing how to become a better leader. To change something peacefully will always require more time, it's unreasonable to expect results whitin the years they are left alone. 

And tbh Dimitri insanity imo is not even realistic so i can only speculate on how he will act if not triggered. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

That's a common way of picturing the dynasty but not entirely accurate. The emperors adopting their successors wasn't so much a succession system as a string of accidents. It just so happened that all those emperors doing the adopting didn't have sons of their own to begin with. One emperor was a weak old man with no heirs chosen because he was a weak old man with no heirs, the following two emperors were probably homosexual and the emperor after that adopted the emperor from a very young age and married him into the family. Unlike the others old Marcus did have a son and passing him over would actually require a ton of explaining. Even with the adopting things were kept as close in the family as possible. Before being adopted Hadrian had already been raised by the emperor since he was a child. 

 

More than good point. Still, it does prove that appointing a successor chosen for another reason than 'biological heir' can work, even if reinforcing family links as a supplemental mean of legitimacy happened (when luck is on your side. August kept changing successors, starting from his main lieutenant Aggripa, because they kept dying on him. Tiber got the job in the end by virtue of being the last one standing).

 

17 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

But everyone is working to change the world, they are just doing that in a way that would not bear immediate results. You don't see the fruit of their endeavurs because someone start a war and sabotage the plans of everyone else. you can't tell me whit a straight face that Claude is not working on his "end racism" plan before the timeskip. He had to delay the plan because of Edelgard for 5 years. Similarly, Dimitri wasted 5 years on a murderhobo rampage, when he woukd stay sane and a good ruler whitout Edelgard intervention, purging Farghus of all the corrupt nobles that took part in the Duscur tragedy, cooperating whit Claude on his plan and so on. Whit Sylvain and Ingrid as his best friends there is no way in hell that he is going to support the crest discrimination.

Most Edelgard supporters either don't understand or willingly misinterpret characters in order to make her actions necessary. Just name me a singke character that would support the current nobility? Not even Ferdinand, the one guy that constantly repeat of cool being a noble is, want to keep doing what his father was doing. But somehow i should believe that he woukd be just like his father if Edelgard did not exist.

 

Thing is, that war started because the rot had been there for so long that odds of pacifical reforms were down to... pretty much nada. Ionius and Lambert tried with their generation, and these little pesky things called the Tragedy of Duscur and the Insurrection of the Seven happened, aka corrupt nobles being used by the Agarthans to rock the boat. What were the odds they would stay put this time exactly?  I mean, I'm sure lambert and Ionius had to have their own allies, and well, look at where they are when the game start.

 

(Besides, before the Academy, there is no denying that some fatalism about their lot in society existed amongst the students (see Ingird about things like arranged marriage, or Sylvain's womanizing). The Academy did give them a chance to evolve beyond that, no arguing on that one, but to me it implies that reformation sin't exactly easy peasy just because they don't like the system. You'd be surprised how many people uphold a rotting system because welp, it is their 'norm', no matter how ugly it is.)

 

And on another angle, the sheer scope of reformations there would have been the sort taking that big axe to the Church, because welp, Rhea influenced things to have that set-up for the sake of the order and peace for Fodlan as she envisioned it, and her mindset of 'only Mother knows best than me' is kinda sorta the sort which kills any sort of changes, bar the perfect storm than Byleth was, and well, by the time the events sequence leading to the fusion with Sothis which put him in the position of chapter 11 happens, how much time would pass? And without that, Rhea isn't accepting any of the major overhaul changes to her system with a smile to her face, and I expect her to be much less chill than she was when it is only a minor lord evolving from brooding in his castle about her to open rebellion.

 

You could say that Dimitri's vision of thing and its implementation in Azure Moon is 'How Rhea's system is supposed to work', but there is the nasty fact that pre-war, it isn't, it's all rampant banditry (Sylvain, Felix and Alois/Shamir Paralogues), while impotent/corrupt nobles waste their troops for petty things and personal power (Raphael/Ignatz and Lorenz Paralogues), with some unscrupulous people wanting to climb up the social ladder ready to almost anything to get these Crests thing the Church keep presenting as a sign of divine favor (Ingrid/Dorothea Paralogue)...

 

The problem isn't 'support of the current nobility' (not even Lorenz does that), it is that the rot is system-wide, pushed forward by the Agarthans, while the main person supposed to regulate that mess, Rhea, has become so obsessed with Mommy's resurrection, ironically because she wants a 'successor' and is unable to imagine someone else than Sothis taking her place, that she has let things derelict to that point.

 

At this point, collapse of the system was pretty much unavoidable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rha is the reason we cannot change stuff. But Rhea also happen to have a clear objective: revive mommy.

If mommy get revived she will go away. And mommy get revived in any route because for her SSJ Byleth is good enought.

In a different time Rhea may have been a wall that can only be removed whit violence, but we are in that one moment when she can step down peacefully. Edelgard did not know that, but the tools to find that out were aviable to her, she just did not use them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Hardric62 said:

More than good point. Still, it does prove that appointing a successor chosen for another reason than 'biological heir' can work, even if reinforcing family links as a supplemental mean of legitimacy happened (when luck is on your side. August kept changing successors, starting from his main lieutenant Aggripa, because they kept dying on him. Tiber got the job in the end by virtue of being the last one standing).

 

Though there's also the Tetrarchy where adopted heirs were officially the way things were handled and that turned into a mess. One of the reasons for that being that the biological relatives who had been passed over were really pissed off about it. I can imagine any son of Edelgard also not being very happy if mommy gives ''his'' empire to some random guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, genagi said:

And, I don't want to get too much into the terminology here, but the idea of supreme power of the monarch with 'heavy religious influence' is tricky. Religion and church can support the monarch's power, but church can also compete the power with the monarch and try to limit the monarch's influence.

To be honest, I feel the empire Edel built in the ending of BE route is the most despotic and authoritarian of three although added a flavour of 'meritocracy', because all the efforts Edel puts in to eliminate the aristocrats who are against her.

 

 

1) Probably what Rhea was aiming at when she established herself as archbishop, and with 'traditions' like the fact the archbishop act as a witness when a new Adrestian emperor is crowned. Thing is, given the current state of Fodlan, she pretty clearly failed, and as pointed out, is unwilling to accept any change, bar a certain exception. And when a system starts to do more harm than good, I fail to see why it shouldn't be removed.

 

2) *Looks at the sterling example presented by Fodlan's older generation of nobility, and how they strangled any possibility of reform until it is too late, like, let's say, the nobility in France befor ethe French Revolution* And it is a problem how? Especially since they are not replaced by nothing but, you know a new elite, one which seems to be a future result of an attempt for universal education and exam (Imperial China's bureaucracy and its exams)? with things like merchant classes still existing, and likely some form of nobility ot a lesser degree, since they aren't likely disappearing overnight, especially when some members of it prove worth it and keep some place(aka students from the cast?).

 

12 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

Rha is the reason we cannot change stuff. But Rhea also happen to have a clear objective: revive mommy.

If mommy get revived she will go away. And mommy get revived in any route because for her SSJ Byleth is good enought.

In a different time Rhea may have been a wall that can only be removed whit violence, but we are in that one moment when she can step down peacefully. Edelgard did not know that, but the tools to find that out were aviable to her, she just did not use them.

 

Fair point, but... How is Edelgard supposed to know that? Or any of the other lord for that matter. Not even Claude manages it, and he's poking at the holes in the wall quite hard. And again, there is the fact that 'SSJ Byleth' is quite a bit of a perfect storm, caused in no small part by Edelgard's very preparations for war. Without the chain of events of the game, just how long would it take to reach the point of Chapter 11 exactly? And given Fodlan's general state pre-timeskip, I doubt there was so much time left to get to that point.

It is tragic indeed that the one pacific opportunity exists and is created because of her actions, but ultimately, there was no way for her to guess at that series of events.

 Because the cards for that revelation are in Rhea's hands, and welp, look at how hard it is to make her fess up in Golden Deer after being freed.

 

3 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Though there's also the Tetrarchy where adopted heirs were officially the way things were handled and that turned into a mess. One of the reasons for that being that the biological relatives who had been passed over were really pissed off about it. I can imagine any son of Edelgard also not being very happy if mommy gives ''his'' empire to some random guy.

 

Also fair point. Guess it would boils down to the kid's education, and the efforts Edelgard spend in stressing the idea of 'succession to apt indivdual only, bloodline isn't a factor, period'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

Rha is the reason we cannot change stuff. But Rhea also happen to have a clear objective: revive mommy.

If mommy get revived she will go away. And mommy get revived in any route because for her SSJ Byleth is good enought.

In a different time Rhea may have been a wall that can only be removed whit violence, but we are in that one moment when she can step down peacefully. Edelgard did not know that, but the tools to find that out were aviable to her, she just did not use them.

Regardless of the fact that I disagree with you when you said Rhea was just going to step aside, nobody knew what Rhea's objective was because she confided in nobody. You expect the students like Edelgard and Claude to know that she was just going to step aside once she resurrected her mother when nobody knew about their relationship? She lied about the entire history of Fodlan. Claude questioned her multiple times in his route and she only spilled the beans after it was clear that she was literally about to die so she had nothing to lose.

Looking at things in hindsight isn't a good way to make an argument regarding these characters. Edelgard had a just purpose (to abolish the injustice of the class system and censorship by the Church) with questionable actions. Rhea's sole purpose was a selfish desire to resurrect her mother to govern all of Fodlan. She literally admits this.

People acting like change comes about without opposition haven't studied enough history. There is no such thing as peaceful change. Did Edelgard go overboard with some of her actions? No doubt. However, anybody who pretends like the nobility system was just going to disappear once Byleth became archbishop are fooling themselves. There is no indication in Claude or Dimitri's route that the nobility and Crest system was abolished.

Edited by Eltoshen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rhea names Byleth before his Sothis her succesor before the time skip and the Cluade Cyril support litterally exists to convince Cluade Rhea is actually reasonable. Rhea being against "change" sounds like unreliable narration.  Or more lies spread by Thales. She litterally let humans change society by splitting into three nations and weakened her own church by separating into different sects. It be a complete gross miss use of her power for her to go looking for random mole people to murder without proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Flere210 said:

I don't think that the corrupt nobles will disappear. I think that they will keep doing their own thing, die of old age or something and get replaced by Sylvain,Ferdinand and so on, wich will not do the same things.

Power corrupts. Even if we pretend like Ferdinand and Sylvain are perfect angels, what happens after they die? What prevents the corrupt nobles from rising to power again? The status quo won't change if there is no forced incentive for them to do so.

Edited by Eltoshen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Eltoshen said:

Power corrupts. Even if we pretend like Ferdinand and Sylvain are perfect angels, what happens after they die? What prevents the corrupt nobles from rising to power again? The status quo won't change if there is no forced incentive for them to do so.

What happen after Edelgard worthy successor dies? What happen in the future is not revealed to us. For example i doubt Fodlan can defend  itself againist Dagda and Almyra whitout relics, but this is never brought up in any ending. As it's not brougth up how they deal whit unfought supporters of the enemy like Caspar's father or the slithers main force(they are not aan hive mind controlled by Thales) in BL. We are just told GoLdEn AgE. I in fact think no ending should logically lead into a golden Age for a number of reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

What happen after Edelgard worthy successor dies? What happen in the future is not revealed to us. For example i doubt Fodlan can defend  itself againist Dagda and Almyra whitout relics, but this is never brought up in any ending. As it's not brougth up how they deal whit unfought supporters of the enemy like Caspar's father or the slithers main force(they are not aan hive mind controlled by Thales) in BL. We are just told GoLdEn AgE. I in fact think no ending should logically lead into a golden Age for a number of reasons.

Agreed. All of the endings require suspension of belief, Edelgard’s probably requires the most, solely because a meritocratic society is good in theory...never been done in reality. It’s pretty much comparable to how communism plays out in theory vs in practice. Both systems downplay the effect of humanity’s selfishness. 

It’s a “naive” government system because it often doesn’t account for (1) who determines what is considered “meritable” qualities (2) people with money/influence/connections can more easily get “merit” (i.e. paying for access to education). (3) some people are just born at a disadvantage, solely based on luck. No matter how much they try, they cannot rise up because of biological/societal/economic limitations placed on them. If anything, those people are probably more victimized with her new system of motivating the weak to become strong through merit. 

While the other ends aren’t much more realistic, at least those government systems/transitions in power have historically occurred (probably not as easily or quickly as the endings make it sound), whereas Edelgard’s idealistic society has never actually been implemented in reality...either now or historically. 

Edited by MessengerIris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Edelgard is more moral than Rhea. Edelgard imprisons political opponents whereas Rhea executes them. Edelgard doesn't burn an entire city even though she does keep civilians hostage whereas Rhea keeps civilians hostage and burns their homes to make a last stand. 

Edited by Icelerate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Flere210 said:

What happen after Edelgard worthy successor dies? What happen in the future is not revealed to us. For example i doubt Fodlan can defend  itself againist Dagda and Almyra whitout relics, but this is never brought up in any ending. As it's not brougth up how they deal whit unfought supporters of the enemy like Caspar's father or the slithers main force(they are not aan hive mind controlled by Thales) in BL. We are just told GoLdEn AgE. I in fact think no ending should logically lead into a golden Age for a number of reasons.

Well, if we're not going to take the endings for what they're worth, then they were just badly written. You have a point, but if you break it down, if you're operating under a system that focuses on merit rather than inheritance, then that's what you're used to...same goes the other way around. In Edelgard's ending, that change has already taken place. Meanwhile, a church state? No revolution actually occurred so you're still in the status quo where nobles are still in power and the people who inherit that power are other nobles. It's not fair to compare them on equal terms because the path to corruption would be far easier in a system where nobility is still awarded because the inherent privilege of being born to a higher class has never been abolished.

However, I'd still choose Edelgard's world of merit > class over Rhea's Church and Nobility trumps all, which is what this topic was discussing anyways.

Edited by Eltoshen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading through the replies, I wanna comment on Rhea's goal vs. Edelgard's. 

The general consensus is that Rhea's goal is selfish and disregards everyone else but I want to challenge that. According to Rhea, Sothis ruling = true peace. Rhea believes with all her heart that Fodlan can achieve true peace after Sothis returns because she experienced what it's like. So in a way, she's been dedicated to her ideal version of peace.

I think it's a bit unfair to completely dismiss her goal for being selfish. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ChickenBits said:

After reading through the replies, I wanna comment on Rhea's goal vs. Edelgard's. 

The general consensus is that Rhea's goal is selfish and disregards everyone else but I want to challenge that. According to Rhea, Sothis ruling = true peace. Rhea believes with all her heart that Fodlan can achieve true peace after Sothis returns because she experienced what it's like. So in a way, she's been dedicated to her ideal version of peace.

I think it's a bit unfair to completely dismiss her goal for being selfish. 

Of course, but that goes both ways. Rhea shows little care for those who suffer now because in some indeterminate future Sothis will be returned and all will be well, the current generation may never benefit but Rhea has time. For Edelgard, she's willing t sacrifice the lives and happiness of the current generation under the belief that the survivors of this generation, and each one after will finally have peace and see an end to the suffering. Edelgard, unlike Rhea, doesn't have time and her actions reach a certain level of desperation. In Rhea's mind, it doesn't matter how many are suffering now because ultimately her mother will be returned and eventually the numbers who benefit will outweigh those who suffered, for Edelgard those who suffered is already too many and she must bring about change as soon as possible so that that number may finally reach an end.

In the end both are uncompromising and extreme in their own ways, and yet I find Edelgard's much more humane by comparison. Despite this, many will take me as being for or against one or the other, ultimately I find both to be well-intention-ed but misguided, but that is still better than those that sold the future to benefit themselves in the present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CyberNinja said:

Of course, but that goes both ways. Rhea shows little care for those who suffer now because in some indeterminate future Sothis will be returned and all will be well, the current generation may never benefit but Rhea has time. For Edelgard, she's willing t sacrifice the lives and happiness of the current generation under the belief that the survivors of this generation, and each one after will finally have peace and see an end to the suffering. Edelgard, unlike Rhea, doesn't have time and her actions reach a certain level of desperation. In Rhea's mind, it doesn't matter how many are suffering now because ultimately her mother will be returned and eventually the numbers who benefit will outweigh those who suffered, for Edelgard those who suffered is already too many and she must bring about change as soon as possible so that that number may finally reach an end.

In the end both are uncompromising and extreme in their own ways, and yet I find Edelgard's much more humane by comparison. Despite this, many will take me as being for or against one or the other, ultimately I find both to be well-intention-ed but misguided, but that is still better than those that sold the future to benefit themselves in the present.

That's pretty much my thoughts as well. I just chose to focus on Rhea since she tends to get a lot of flak for her goal. Ultimately, I think her goal is admirable and understandable, but her lack of attention towards the present is problematic. 

It's honestly hard for me to say which one is more humane though. War is a horrific experience so I can't really get behind Edelgard because of that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ChickenBits said:

It's honestly hard for me to say which one is more humane though. War is a horrific experience so I can't really get behind Edelgard because of that. 

For me, my logic is that it takes a certain kind of will - or coldness, to be able to sit idly/calmly while those suffer around you for centuries/millennia. In the case of Edelgard, she at least has the benefit of ignorance of the nature of war, as most people should, since they've been living in an era of relative peace regardless of the amount of suffering those at the bottom suffered.

Comparing the might of the Empire to the Alliance or Kingdom, its understandable one would believe the conflict to be a quick one, especially with the assistance of the Agarthans. Unfortunately as the war continues, supply lines get stretched and the war front expands, she loses the ability to concentrate her forces while the opposite happens for her enemies, she has to fight the terrain in the kingdom which is like the worst elements of Russia, France, and Poland combined. She's ignorant because she grew up in an era that had the peace to romanticize war, and her interactions with the lords reflect that.

One thing I find fascinating is that the criticisms that each lord throws at the other in the beginning of the game are completely accurate. Edelgard points to the lack of self awareness of Claude (who called her predictable) and Claude is completely blindsided that she was the Flame Emperor, Claude is correct: Edelgard is exceptionally naive, and like Dimitri said, her downfall comes from her inability to trust in those around her (or even her dear professor, in SS) and Dimitri's misery comes from being unable to read between the lines of what Edelgard was saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ChickenBits said:

After reading through the replies, I wanna comment on Rhea's goal vs. Edelgard's. 

The general consensus is that Rhea's goal is selfish and disregards everyone else but I want to challenge that. According to Rhea, Sothis ruling = true peace. Rhea believes with all her heart that Fodlan can achieve true peace after Sothis returns because she experienced what it's like. So in a way, she's been dedicated to her ideal version of peace.

I think it's a bit unfair to completely dismiss her goal for being selfish. 

It's a goal that makes sense and is in-character, but a goal I find quite reprehensible.

We have people with that exact goal in real life: deeply religious people who are willing to let their citizens suffer because they believe they are bringing about the God's world / the return of the Messiah / what-have-you, all of which tend to mean eternal peace and happiness. They may mean well, but they do incredible harm in the name of their belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

It's a goal that makes sense and is in-character, but a goal I find quite reprehensible.

We have people with that exact goal in real life: deeply religious people who are willing to let their citizens suffer because they believe they are bringing about the God's world / the return of the Messiah / what-have-you, all of which tend to mean eternal peace and happiness. They may mean well, but they do incredible harm in the name of their belief.

The officer Academy and the knights exist to help the people though. She never helped in say Duscur as much as she probably could have, but that could have been viewed as picking favorites by the other nations. Or even a straight up theocratical control of the continents governments. Which wasn't an actual thing till Byleth decides to be an idiot. 

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...