Jump to content
Dragoncat

About Randolph in Azure Moon

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, NekoKnight said:

Kids like Fleche? Kids who can and do kill others? All of the students are killers even during the school phase and some of them are as young as 15 years old. Context matters when you're discussing when it's appropriate to kill another. If someone attacks me with lethal intent, at what age am I morally allowed to respond with equal force? 

You're right that Dimitri doesn't care much about the personal motivations for the people he slaughters but as far as we know, he does think they deserved to die according to the actions they chose to take, either fighting as a soldier (against his nation) or being a murderous bandit. Everyone in the army kills hostile targets, in every route of the game.

Dimitri is nothing but repentant in his later chapters and specifically says that he is to blame for the grief he causes whenever he kills, so you're way off base when you say he's excusing himself.

So all kids have to be not actually kids or are all Fleche? Really? You think war orphans, desperate to survive or feed a starving sibling that they would resort to thievery and even hurting/killing someone just to get something to survive, is something that makes Dimitri have every right to kill them? Dimitri's been like this for five years. He's killing anyone he deems to be a "filthy rat" in his eyes. Trying to insist that context is important in this case is more of an excuse, if anything. Dimitri killing kids is the actual fact of the matter, no matter how you look at it. We don't know the age, but saying kids means that any age is possible, including even 7-10 year olds. 

Or they could be just a little boy that killed someone just to get some bread to survive. Or a little girl that killed someone for killing their family. And Dimitri killed them because they killed. Because THAT'S how Dimitri is. Especially since Dimitri has this delusion that the "dead demands tribute" means he doesn't kill for any justifiable reason, but simply because he's delusional. 

Maybe not excusing himself, but definitely trying to act morally righteous, as he still tries to preach that they are all guilty. Saying that he has blame doesn't mean anything when he tries to say that everyone is also to blame in the war. 

It's why in CF, he's way more of a hypocrite even, where he tries to make this moral preach to Edelgard, when he's literally someone that entered this war for revenge and dragged his people into it. Sylvain even notes that he's called the Tempest King cause he literally leaves nothing on the battlefield after winning, meaning that he still follows the "kill every last one of them" mindset. Only this time, he doesn't see himself in the wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, omegaxis1 said:

So all kids have to be not actually kids or are all Fleche? Really? You think war orphans, desperate to survive or feed a starving sibling that they would resort to thievery and even hurting/killing someone just to get something to survive, is something that makes Dimitri have every right to kill them? Dimitri's been like this for five years. He's killing anyone he deems to be a "filthy rat" in his eyes. Trying to insist that context is important in this case is more of an excuse, if anything. Dimitri killing kids is the actual fact of the matter, no matter how you look at it. We don't know the age, but saying kids means that any age is possible, including even 7-10 year olds. 

Are we just inventing the context for who he kills because you don't have actual examples? We'll just assume that the people he killed were innocent?

I gave you two examples of young people who are killers, and in the case of Fleche, were rightfully put down because they presented their lethal intentions. Don't invent scenarios to tell me what Dimitri is guilty of. Cite actual lines of dialogue that give the context for his unjust murders. Again, context matters and you don't have it.

Just now, omegaxis1 said:

It's why in CF, he's way more of a hypocrite even, where he tries to make this moral preach to Edelgard, when he's literally someone that entered this war for revenge and dragged his people into it. Sylvain even notes that he's called the Tempest King cause he literally leaves nothing on the battlefield after winning, meaning that he still follows the "kill every last one of them" mindset. Only this time, he doesn't see himself in the wrong. 

"Dragged his people into a war" that Edelgard started. Did you forget she invades Faerghus regardless of the route you play? She always meant to conquer and it was Dimitri's right to defend his nation.

Share this post


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

Are we just inventing the context for who he kills because you don't have actual examples? We'll just assume that the people he killed were innocent?

I gave you two examples of young people who are killers, and in the case of Fleche, were rightfully put down because they presented their lethal intentions. Don't invent scenarios to tell me what Dimitri is guilty of. Cite actual lines of dialogue that give the context for his unjust murders. Again, context matters and you don't have it.

You are literally only going about Fleche as the ONLY example, one that Dimitri didn't kill. But he did very much admitted that he killed KIDS. And you're assuming trying to insist that every kid that Dimitri killed simply has to be just like Fleche. Am I correct in this? 

26 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

"Dragged his people into a war" that Edelgard started. Did you forget she invades Faerghus regardless of the route you play? She always meant to conquer and it was Dimitri's right to defend his nation.

False. 100% false.

You're first off acting like CF and the non-CF routes are the exact same thing, which is 100% false, since they aren't. CF is the only route where the war is drastically different in every form. 

Second, EVERY route has Edelgard declare war ONLY on the Chruch of Seiros. In fact, in CF, Edelgard had left the Alliance alone for the entire five years, stated in an NPC quote even.

Third, Dimitri makes it abundantly clear that he's in this war for REVENGE. Not to defend his nation. No. He's in it for revenge. A completely misguided revenge at that. He not only housed Rhea and the Knights of Seiros, but allied with them. That's literally INVITING war. 

Dimitri literally has only himself to blame for Edelgard invading Faerghus. Because there is 100% no proof in CF that Edelgard would have even tried to invade Faerghus had Dimitri not allied with Rhea. Because contrary to what you're thinking, Edelgard isn't like she is in the other routes during CF, since even she states in her B support that without Byleth's support, she'd have lost her way.

Edited by omegaxis1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

It's probably the case that Dimitri takes things too far, given the headspace he's in. If he only killed Imperial soldiers, even if he did so out of a sense of vengeance, I would consider such actions justified as acts of war. But killing children (assuming they were non-combatants) is absolutely unjustified, I agree.

Having said that, I don't see Randolphas in "the right", or have much pity for him. There's something perverse about him pleading for mercy, when minutes before he would have killed Dimitri or Byleth in a heartbeat. And what precipitated this, of course, was him using force to attempt to take Garreg Mach from the Kingdom/Church forces (yes, under Imperial orders). I respect Randolph's choice to serve the Empire in their war effort, but part of that choice is accepting a certain risk to his own life. And while it may have been nice to take him prisoner (after killing a bunch of his troops, who probably had their own families), the Kingdom/Church forces likely don't have the resources to keep PoWs at the time.

I'm actually curious about the "killed children" line because the only other particular time Dimitri expressly mentions children is in his own support line, where in his C-support he mentions that he's been tutoring orphans and then in his A-support, those same orphans attacked him for killing the bandits they'd been living with post timeskip. Since the screenshot looks like it's taken post the re-taking of Fhirdiad, I wonder if it's another case of doing supports changing some dialogue/actions? Mostly mentioning this bc I went back and rewatched that dialogue sequence in particular and he doesn't mention that line.

I have little sympathy for Randolph. I felt bad that Dimitri was going to torture him and felt the mercy kill was a nice act of independence from Byleth, but the "I did what I had to for the people." bit just really didn't sit well with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Flere210 said:

Except that all the proof we have of people living like shit is highly annedoctical tales about a few noble families. There is almost nothing in 3H that indicate that common people feel this crest discrimination that much, and the only territory that is clearly oppressed is the one under fucking Arundhel. Also i'd take stagnation over crest luddism, as crests are the only reason Fodlan has not been conquered by Dagda, Almyra and Sreng yet. 

Haneman is the unsung hero of Fodlan and the only one that truly can solve the issue. 

I wouldn't say that there's nothing indicating that the people aren't impressed. Count Gloucester feeds commoners to giant wolves if they dare to do business with a family he doesn't like. The commoner in question explicitly says he's aware that its Gloucester trying to murder them. Count Varley has a commoner boy beaten to near death just because Bernie liked him, lord Kleiman successfully plots a genocide, and Dorothea makes it very clear nobles treated her like dirt before she because famous with Hanneman agreeing with that assessment. 

Fodlandian nobles aren't the complete parody of corrupt nobility that the Begnion nobles are, but they are closer to the senate than they are to the traditional benevolent Fire Emblem nobles. 

Edited by Etrurian emperor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

You are literally only going about Fleche as the ONLY example, one that Dimitri didn't kill. But he did very much admitted that he killed KIDS. And you're assuming trying to insist that every kid that Dimitri killed simply has to be just like Fleche. Am I correct in this? 

Well, even one example is more than you gave, to be quite honest. You merely created some highly theoretical scenarios of little, innocent boys, killing to survive, to get some bread and such.

As Axel987 mentioned, the only other concrete proof of Dimitri killing children, besides Fleche, is his own support line. You know, those orphans who attacked him, with obvious lethal intent; circling back to Dimitri not having killed any non-combatants. Merely those showing clear hostility towards him, in a time of war.

Fleche and those orphans are already enough children to be counted as "children". Dimitri saying he killed "Adults and children." doesn't mean he slaughtered millions of them. Pretty sure he would already feel bad enough about killing those few, hostile children.

1 hour ago, omegaxis1 said:

Because contrary to what you're thinking, Edelgard isn't like she is in the other routes during CF, since even she states in her B support that without Byleth's support, she'd have lost her way.

And yet you say Dimitri is "way more of a hypocrite", "he's in for revenge" and criticize him for not seeing "himself in the wrong". In a route that is not his own. A route without Byleth as Dimitri's support. Doesn't he state multiple times, in AM that is, that he wouldn't know what he would have done without the professor?  Like, literally the same reason you defend Edelgard for her actions in the other routes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kyn said:

Well, even one example is more than you gave, to be quite honest. You merely created some highly theoretical scenarios of little, innocent boys, killing to survive, to get some bread and such.

As Axel987 mentioned, the only other concrete proof of Dimitri killing children, besides Fleche, is his own support line. You know, those orphans who attacked him, with obvious lethal intent; circling back to Dimitri not having killed any non-combatants. Merely those showing clear hostility towards him, in a time of war.

Fleche and those orphans are already enough children to be counted as "children". Dimitri saying he killed "Adults and children." doesn't mean he slaughtered millions of them. Pretty sure he would already feel bad enough about killing those few, hostile children.

No, I did. I gave one example of Dimitri confessing that he killed children. He used Fleche, who isn't even someone Dimitri killed, as an example. So no, that's not even one example. I did give scenarios, because the point is that Dimitri doesn't look under nuances and deeper reasons. If he views someone in a negative way in his boar state, he kills, simple as that. 

Also, he states this confession not in the support, but in the story. If anything, trying to insist that he's justified in his admission of killing kids just too much.

9 minutes ago, Kyn said:

And yet you say Dimitri is "way more of a hypocrite", "he's in for revenge" and criticize him for not seeing "himself in the wrong". In a route that is not his own. A route without Byleth as Dimitri's support. Doesn't he state multiple times, in AM that is, that he wouldn't know what he would have done without the professor?  Like, literally the same reason you defend Edelgard for her actions in the other routes?

If you're willing to ignore the literal fact he just tried to insist that Dimitri was just trying to defend his nation. Which is entirely false. The only non-AM route where Dimitri plays a role and not get killed off screen, and people defend and justify his actions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

No, I did. I gave one example of Dimitri confessing that he killed children. He used Fleche, who isn't even someone Dimitri killed, as an example. So no, that's not even one example. I did give scenarios, because the point is that Dimitri doesn't look under nuances and deeper reasons. If he views someone in a negative way in his boar state, he kills, simple as that. 

Also, he states this confession not in the support, but in the story. If anything, trying to insist that he's justified in his admission of killing kids just too much.

I kinda get you're missing the point of what I said. First of all, the orphans I used as examples are mentioned in his supports. His C and A support to be exact.

After re-reading these however, it turns out he merely captured the children. Which does mean he must have killed at least one child off-screen, but we have no way of knowing whether they were "innocent" or hostile. Considering the context however - the full blown war with children losing loved ones left and right - it is more likely he was attacked by children.

At least only one child, you may ask? Yes, as not having directly killed Fleche himself does not mean Dimitri can not feel responsible for her death. As the support proves, he could have easily disarmed Fleche, stopped her in some way, and prevented Rodrigue and Fleche from dying. 

Oh, and thinking about it... didn't Edelgard try to assassinate her fellow students multiple times? Before the war? You know, when they were under 18? "Children", one might say.

2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Dimitri literally has only himself to blame for Edelgard invading Faerghus. Because there is 100% no proof in CF that Edelgard would have even tried to invade Faerghus had Dimitri not allied with Rhea. Because contrary to what you're thinking, Edelgard isn't like she is in the other routes during CF, since even she states in her B support that without Byleth's support, she'd have lost her way.

Which kinda brings me back to this. Edelgard was aware of who Dimitri was: her childhood friend/step-sibling. And I don't remember Dimitri allying with Rhea before the war, huh, weird. And you are telling me she only invaded Faerghus because he allied with Rhea? Why try to assassinate him then?

 

But heavens, this thread is hardly about Randolph and Fleche anymore and is devolving into a Dimitri bad/Edelgard bad thread once more. I think imma stop bothering with this, maybe we can pick this up in a more appropriate thread, hm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kyn said:

I kinda get you're missing the point of what I said. First of all, the orphans I used as examples are mentioned in his supports. His C and A support to be exact.

After re-reading these however, it turns out he merely captured the children. Which does mean he must have killed at least one child off-screen, but we have no way of knowing whether they were "innocent" or hostile. Considering the context however - the full blown war with children losing loved ones left and right - it is more likely he was attacked by children.

At least only one child, you may ask? Yes, as not having directly killed Fleche himself does not mean Dimitri can not feel responsible for her death. As the support proves, he could have easily disarmed Fleche, stopped her in some way, and prevented Rodrigue and Fleche from dying. 

Oh, and thinking about it... didn't Edelgard try to assassinate her fellow students multiple times? Before the war? You know, when they were under 18? "Children", one might say.

Which kinda brings me back to this. Edelgard was aware of who Dimitri was: her childhood friend/step-sibling. And I don't remember Dimitri allying with Rhea before the war, huh, weird. And you are telling me she only invaded Faerghus because he allied with Rhea? Why try to assassinate him then?

 

But heavens, this thread is hardly about Randolph and Fleche anymore and is devolving into a Dimitri bad/Edelgard bad thread once more. I think imma stop bothering with this, maybe we can pick this up in a more appropriate thread, hm.

Checked again, it was a dialogue box difference that brings up the line about him killing children. Considering the context though, especially given an NPC mentioning that he was surprisingly soft with children even pre-Gronder, I'd definitely say he killed children that attacked him with intent to kill specifically.

Definitely think it's better to move on with this thread now though, the last two pages have been a back and forth of Edelgard vs Dimitri as per usual and it's grating to see every discussion of this game's characters eventually devolve down to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as Randolph himself,  he doesn't get enough screen time to flesh him out enough that you could care about him. He's not much better than the nameless enemies you fight in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kyn said:

I kinda get you're missing the point of what I said. First of all, the orphans I used as examples are mentioned in his supports. His C and A support to be exact.

After re-reading these however, it turns out he merely captured the children. Which does mean he must have killed at least one child off-screen, but we have no way of knowing whether they were "innocent" or hostile. Considering the context however - the full blown war with children losing loved ones left and right - it is more likely he was attacked by children.

At least only one child, you may ask? Yes, as not having directly killed Fleche himself does not mean Dimitri can not feel responsible for her death. As the support proves, he could have easily disarmed Fleche, stopped her in some way, and prevented Rodrigue and Fleche from dying. 

I mean, he says children as in plural, so not even just one. But that's my point. 

Dimitri, being as strong as he is, shouldn't fear or kill any children at all. But his insanity made him deem anyone that he deems an enemy to be someone to kill, no exceptions. That's the problem. And that's assuming if they even attacked him first. Why are we under the presumption that Dimitri only kills cause they attack first? 

8 minutes ago, Kyn said:

Oh, and thinking about it... didn't Edelgard try to assassinate her fellow students multiple times? Before the war? You know, when they were under 18? "Children", one might say.

Which kinda brings me back to this. Edelgard was aware of who Dimitri was: her childhood friend/step-sibling. And I don't remember Dimitri allying with Rhea before the war, huh, weird. And you are telling me she only invaded Faerghus because he allied with Rhea? Why try to assassinate him then?

First off, no. Edelgard doesn't remember Dimitri. Both her goddess tower event with Byleth has her imply it, though it feels vague, while Dimitri's route make it clear that she really doesn't remember. Her trauma during the experiments caused her to suffer memory loss, which makes legit sense given both the PTSD event and the literal environment she had been in. 

And second, was Edelgard actually seeking to kill anyone? For an assassination, she sends Kostas and brigands after students guarded by the Knights of Seiros, whom Kostas pointed out he had no idea were there. That's also not getting to the case that they only ever got in trouble because of Claude, who ran off immediately after the attack started, so they left the protection of the Knights. If she wanted them dead, why would she have followed the two? They got in danger on their own, but she went with them, which also put her in danger. And finally, if the intention was their deaths, the Flame Emperor never bothered to even dwell on it, while instead just talks about Rhea making Byleth the new professor. The event also caused the teacher to run off, and it was noted by Caspar that Jeritza to be the new professor had it not been for Byleth. If Edelgard was literally wanting for Dimitri and Claude to die, it was dumb beyond all means to send bandits against the Knights of Seiros.

Finally, it's stated in the narration, but worse in localization. In the JP, Dimitri is stated to have allied with Rhea. In the localization, he swore fealty. So yeah, not only housing the ones Edelgard declared war on, but also allying with her. By all accounts, Dimitri dragged his nation to war. And this is despite Edelgard sending out manifestos, so Dimitri knows why she is in this war. But Dimitri doesn't care. He wants revenge.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

I mean, he says children as in plural, so not even just one. But that's my point. 

Dimitri, being as strong as he is, shouldn't fear or kill any children at all. But his insanity made him deem anyone that he deems an enemy to be someone to kill, no exceptions. That's the problem. And that's assuming if they even attacked him first. Why are we under the presumption that Dimitri only kills cause they attack first? 

First off, no. Edelgard doesn't remember Dimitri. Both her goddess tower event with Byleth has her imply it, though it feels vague, while Dimitri's route make it clear that she really doesn't remember. Her trauma during the experiments caused her to suffer memory loss, which makes legit sense given both the PTSD event and the literal environment she had been in. 

And second, was Edelgard actually seeking to kill anyone? For an assassination, she sends Kostas and brigands after students guarded by the Knights of Seiros, whom Kostas pointed out he had no idea were there. That's also not getting to the case that they only ever got in trouble because of Claude, who ran off immediately after the attack started, so they left the protection of the Knights. If she wanted them dead, why would she have followed the two? They got in danger on their own, but she went with them, which also put her in danger. And finally, if the intention was their deaths, the Flame Emperor never bothered to even dwell on it, while instead just talks about Rhea making Byleth the new professor. The event also caused the teacher to run off, and it was noted by Caspar that Jeritza to be the new professor had it not been for Byleth. If Edelgard was literally wanting for Dimitri and Claude to die, it was dumb beyond all means to send bandits against the Knights of Seiros.

Finally, it's stated in the narration, but worse in localization. In the JP, Dimitri is stated to have allied with Rhea. In the localization, he swore fealty. So yeah, not only housing the ones Edelgard declared war on, but also allying with her. By all accounts, Dimitri dragged his nation to war. And this is despite Edelgard sending out manifestos, so Dimitri knows why she is in this war. But Dimitri doesn't care. He wants revenge.

 

With regards to the intro chapter; there's also an NPC that directly mentions that he wouldn't know what would befall the church if the heirs of the continent's three major powers got hurt or died under their roof. This NPC is relatively early into the game too, which imo makes it more as if it was a multi-purpose thing; potentially kill off the other heirs to the other powers but also at the same time put all eyes and scrutiny on the church for failing to prevent this kind of thing from happening. The Caspar comment just seems more like common sense than anything else, why WOULD the Archbishop employ a random mercenary, even one that was personally taught by the former captain of the knights, as a teacher vs a currently employed and certified weapons instructor that she presumably trusts. I see the merit in that theory personally but don't fully subscribe to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Axel987 said:

With regards to the intro chapter; there's also an NPC that directly mentions that he wouldn't know what would befall the church if the heirs of the continent's three major powers got hurt or died under their roof. This NPC is relatively early into the game too, which imo makes it more as if it was a multi-purpose thing; potentially kill off the other heirs to the other powers but also at the same time put all eyes and scrutiny on the church for failing to prevent this kind of thing from happening. The Caspar comment just seems more like common sense than anything else, why WOULD the Archbishop employ a random mercenary, even one that was personally taught by the former captain of the knights, as a teacher vs a currently employed and certified weapons instructor that she presumably trusts. I see the merit in that theory personally but don't fully subscribe to it.

It could have multiple layers, but if she really wanted Dimitri and Claude dead, she'd never have gone with them in the first place. She really had no need to. Dimitri said he followed cause he thought Claude was acting as bait. She never said why she followed, just that it was noted that she did follow. But her following them only put her in danger just as much, while she'd be safe with the Knights of Seiros. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dylan Corona said:

Agreed completely! I would have loved if you got them in the non church route and Seteth and Flayn in the Church route! That would have been so cool!

. . .how did I miss this?

Dunno how Fleche would've played out, but I could see this working!

5 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

People both in and out of story call Dimitri horrible for his actions but no one cares that Byleth killed a prisoner of war and then a teenage girl.

It flies, until this thing called "context" rears its head.

First, Randolph.  There was no way anyone would talk Dimitri out of torturing him.  Nor would releasing him back to Edelgard be advised.  Though contrived, there's very few options that Byleth has.  Killing him was the best compromise IMO.  Unless you can think of a better way out of this situation.

Next, Fleche.  She'd taken out a weapon, and attacked.  Untrained or not, she'd declared her intent by action.  So again, what would Byleth do?  The equivalent of "shoot for the legs/arms"?  There's a reason why cops shoot towards the center of mass, and that's what Byleth did.

1 hour ago, Sid Starkiller said:

As far as Randolph himself,  he doesn't get enough screen time to flesh him out enough that you could care about him. He's not much better than the nameless enemies you fight in that regard.

He gets more in CF - still fairly boring, but it's better than a true generic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, eclipse said:

He gets more in CF - still fairly boring, but it's better than a true generic.

You know, I seriously think him, Fleche, and Ladislava were intended to be recruitable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

You know, I seriously think him, Fleche, and Ladislava were intended to be recruitable. 

I think that extends to the likes of Judith, too.  If Rodrigue had a different fate, put him in there, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

You know, I seriously think him, Fleche, and Ladislava were intended to be recruitable. 

I dunno about Fleche(PROBABLY a Flayn replacement though.) but honestly, Randolph, Ladislava, Rodrigue, Judith and Nader being unrecruitable is an actual crime. I find the later 3 to especially be potentially very interesting characters, with Judith having made a big name for herself, ending as a parralel to Rodrigue. Idk, I'd have preferred Rodrigue over bloody Gilbert at least...

OH AND Holst. Mr. I hold back the Almyran Army's periodical invasions practically on my own, himself....

And Count Bergliez too, y'know, the guy who apparently could have turned the tide of the war by HIMSELF if he was actually fought.

Edited by Axel987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, eclipse said:

I think that extends to the likes of Judith, too.  If Rodrigue had a different fate, put him in there, too.

Why Judith is not playable, I'll never understand, given how she literally stays in the entire story of VW. How is it possible for her to NOT be a recruit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:
5 hours ago, Kyn said:

 

No, I did. I gave one example of Dimitri confessing that he killed children. He used Fleche, who isn't even someone Dimitri killed, as an example. So no, that's not even one example. I did give scenarios, because the point is that Dimitri doesn't look under nuances and deeper reasons. If he views someone in a negative way in his boar state, he kills, simple as that. 

I gave Fleche as an example because despite your wailing about "Won't someone please think of the children!" there are reasons why someone would morally kill a child, that reason being that they're armed, dangerous and attacking with killing intent. And all you can respond with is your headcanon about how Dimitri murders innocent 7 year olds. I'm so glad that speculation is now being held with the same weight as evidence.

Dimitri isn't guilty of killing innocents unless the game specifies he did. That you would bend over backwards to defend Edelgard with your imperial apologetics while inventing scenarios for why Dimitri is a monster is extremely intellectually dishonest.

2 hours ago, eclipse said:

It flies, until this thing called "context" rears its head.

First, Randolph.  There was no way anyone would talk Dimitri out of torturing him.  Nor would releasing him back to Edelgard be advised.  Though contrived, there's very few options that Byleth has.  Killing him was the best compromise IMO.  Unless you can think of a better way out of this situation.

Next, Fleche.  She'd taken out a weapon, and attacked.  Untrained or not, she'd declared her intent by action.  So again, what would Byleth do?  The equivalent of "shoot for the legs/arms"?  There's a reason why cops shoot towards the center of mass, and that's what Byleth did.

I agree with all of this! I think Byleth was morally justified in killing both of them. Rudolph was an enemy commander who attacked Garreg Mach with the intention to kill Dimitri and his men. Killing enemy commanders is the usual rule of battle in Three Houses. Edelgard executes Dimitri who was similarly disabled in CF.

Fleche was an armed and murderous child which makes her killing justified. The point of referring to these plot points is that Dimitri killing POWs or children is treated as irredeemable but Byleth does these exact things for good reason. Dimitri would have tortured Randolph, which certainly is evil, but Byleth stopped it before it happened.

 

Share this post


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

I gave Fleche as an example because despite your wailing about "Won't someone please think of the children!" there are reasons why someone would morally kill a child, that reason being that they're armed, dangerous and attacking with killing intent. And all you can respond with is your headcanon about how Dimitri murders innocent 7 year olds. I'm so glad that speculation is now being held with the same weight as evidence.

Dimitri isn't guilty of killing innocents unless the game specifies he did. That you would bend over backwards to defend Edelgard with your imperial apologetics while inventing scenarios for why Dimitri is a monster is extremely intellectually dishonest.

How am I bending over backwards? This coming from someone speculating that Dimtiri only killed kids out of self defense, because you think that every kid killed by Dimitri is a Fleche? 

That's about as much speculation as anything I said. I'm going by what he admitted to doing, but you're trying to defend Dimitri by arguing that he's justified.

So please do not spout that I'm bending over backwards since the only one trying to defend and justify someone here is you with Dimitri. 

9 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

I agree with all of this! I think Byleth was morally justified in killing both of them. Rudolph was an enemy commander who attacked Garreg Mach with the intention to kill Dimitri and his men. Killing enemy commanders is the usual rule of battle in Three Houses. Edelgard executes Dimitri who was similarly disabled in CF.

Fleche was an armed and murderous child which makes her killing justified. The point of referring to these plot points is that Dimitri killing POWs or children is treated as irredeemable but Byleth does these exact things for good reason. Dimitri would have tortured Randolph, which certainly is evil, but Byleth stopped it before it happened.

Dimitri was the a lunatic KING of a nation that dragged his nation to war. Trying to say that Dimitri could clearly be spared is downright silly. Unlike Claude, Dimitri isn't someone that is willing to listen to reason or is going to stand down. His words to Edelgard in that very scene is that he will kill her for Duscur. Tell me how Edelgard can listen to that and say, "I'll spare you " exactly? Randolph could have been helped as a prisoner of war, but the problem is that Dimitri wanted to torture him to death, and wasn't gonna back down, as @eclipse said. Byleth killing Randolph wasn't the problem. Dimitri wanted to capture him just to torture him was what was f*cked up. 

And once again, Dimitri kills and murders because of his own mental illness. His own delusions and madness, and kills for the sake of killing.

Trying to say that Byleth killing them is the same as Dimitri is once again absurdly wrong. Dimitri murders. Byleth killed. Big difference.

Edited by omegaxis1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

How am I bending over backwards? This coming from someone speculating that Dimtiri only killed kids out of self defense, because you think that every kid killed by Dimitri is a Fleche? 

That's about as much speculation as anything I said. I'm going by what he admitted to doing, but you're trying to defend Dimitri by arguing that he's justified.

 

People are not guilty of crimes unless there is proof of them. I didn't say every every child is a Fleche, just that there are situations where killing children is justified contrary to your repeated statements that it's never okay. Dimitri brings up in his Byleth support that other youths have tried to kill him in retaliation for other people he has killed. "Fleches" are probably pretty common in the war. You assume the worst scenario because that suits your hilariously biased narrative. Keep drinking that imperial Kool aid.

It may surprise you that I don't think Dimitri isn't sick or blameless for countless deaths. That's the whole bloody point of AM that killing causes pain regardless of the excuses you want to attach to it.

Share this post


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

People are not guilty of crimes unless there is proof of them. I didn't say every every child is a Fleche, just that there are situations where killing children is justified contrary to your repeated statements that it's never okay. Dimitri brings up in his Byleth support that other youths have tried to kill him in retaliation for other people he has killed. "Fleches" are probably pretty common in the war. You assume the worst scenario because that suits your hilariously biased narrative. Keep drinking that imperial Kool aid.

It may surprise you that I don't think Dimitri isn't sick or blameless for countless deaths. That's the whole bloody point of AM that killing causes pain regardless of the excuses you want to attach to it.

Yet there you go, trying to attach a "Fleche" into the case yet again. Dimitri's murderous rampage driven by his own madness from his delusions isn't something that you can go about claiming is able to be justified by any means, since your entire case has been that everyone he kills are people that always show hostile intentions to him, which ignores the case of how he admitted that he would kill literally anyone that he considers a "filthy rat" regardless of reasons. 

It may surprise you that almost any Edelgard fan never actually denies things that she does do morally wrong things, since no one denies that she starts a bloody war, regardless of the reasons behind it or if its necessary. That's cause it's still a morally wrong thing. 

And no, it doesn't surprise me, but it certainly does how you're trying to spin the admission into saying that his killing of kids were all justified. 

Edited by omegaxis1

Share this post


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

I would love to see Fleche fleched out. Pun intended. Same with her brother. 

I agree they should've been recruitable in CF it's sad they offed him and Ladislava those potentials are gone in that path...but at least Fleche had absolutely no reason not to be recruitable there same for Judith in VW would've like to see her supports....I'm guessing because they didn't want many exclusive characters there but that doesn't excuse Judith not being playable since the other 2 paths(excluding SS) now has exclusives ie Jeritza and Gilbert but NOTHING for VW it could change but doubt it. I'm honestly confused by this decision at least....

Edited by Mage Goddess Lysithea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mage Goddess Lysithea said:

that doesn't excuse Judith not being playable since the other 2 paths(excluding SS) now has exclusives ie Jeritza and Gilbert but NOTHING for VW it could change but doubt it.

While I agree that she should become playable, I feel like we would've found that out by now if she were.

Share this post


Link to post
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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...