Jump to content
omegaxis1

The True Tragedy of Three Houses

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

This honestly should have been the game that we should have had 8-4 localize. Sure, they aren't without flaws, but they give way better quality work than what Treehouse gives. It's annoying that Echoes got 8-4, but this game got Treehouse.

I'm not capable of comparing and contrasting it to a game I haven't played. You're better off just showing an example of how the localization has dramatically changed the meaning behind a word, or the implication behind a phrase. 

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


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

I'm not capable of comparing and contrasting it to a game I haven't played. You're better off just showing an example of how the localization has dramatically changed the meaning behind a word, or the implication behind a phrase. 

Already mentioned one. 

Cornelia's death in Crimson Flower.

Quote

Cornelia: Ah... All is in accordance with this carefully crafted script of ours... What a masterpiece! What a delightful dance...

This is not what was said at all. 

This line indicates that this was always meant to happen and is following what the Agarthans planned. 

Problem is, Cornelia literally had no idea Edelgard was going to attack them as shown earlier. And Arundel later showed up upset that we killed Cornelia. 

This is because the original line is translated as:

Quote

Cornelia: Ohh, so that... is the outline that you have written... What a masterpiece... the ones that were being forced to dance around were in fact... us...

Meaning that if you actually localize it, you realize there's a legitimate typo, so it SHOULD be written as:

Quote

Cornelia: Ah... All is in accordance with this carefully crafted script of yours... What a masterpiece! What a delightful dance...

See how missing that reverses the entire meaning? 

This is a typo, but there are completely mistranslations like what Edelgard says to Dimitri in their talk during Azure Moon that some people love to harp on. 

There's also what Dimitri even says to Hegemon Edelgard. 

Even Claude suffers from this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm. That may actually be the one instance where I'd agree with you: that's a pretty glaring one-letter typo that changes Cornelia's self-awareness. I wouldn't say it completely reverses the meaning (it reverses who the puppet master actually was - the plot is still undeniably alluded to). Everything else I've heard feels like reading far too much into slight differences meant to make it more digestible for English speakers.

Pretty sure they changed Claude's dialogue simply to make him not sound like a sociopath while still driving home that he'd prefer Rhea dead over alive. And considering he's civil to her when she finally shows up, it makes sense.

 

Share this post


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

Already mentioned one. 

Cornelia's death in Crimson Flower.

This is not what was said at all. 

This line indicates that this was always meant to happen and is following what the Agarthans planned. 

Problem is, Cornelia literally had no idea Edelgard was going to attack them as shown earlier. And Arundel later showed up upset that we killed Cornelia. 

This is because the original line is translated as:

Meaning that if you actually localize it, you realize there's a legitimate typo, so it SHOULD be written as:

See how missing that reverses the entire meaning? 

This is a typo, but there are completely mistranslations like what Edelgard says to Dimitri in their talk during Azure Moon that some people love to harp on. 

There's also what Dimitri even says to Hegemon Edelgard. 

Even Claude suffers from this.

So what are the mistranslation in what Edelgard says to Dimitri? I would like to know as I don't know Japanese so I am stuck with interpreting whatever the english translation says. 

Is the "I don't care about the weak" thing part of said mistranslations? I know it is in azure moon, but it doesn't seem consistent with the Edelgard I know was started this entire war for the sake of the common people who suffered under noble oppression (haven't played Blue Lions, so I am uncertain about the context of this line)

Edited by Darkmoon6789

Share this post


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

Meaning that if you actually localize it, you realize there's a legitimate typo, so it SHOULD be written as:

 

The translation team wasn't even looking at context. Why would Cornelia getting fooled by Edelgard's ruse lead her to saying it was all according to her plan. So it was her plan to get fooled? There were other times where it was clear the translation team wasn't looking at the context as shown by your buddy SigurdVI or whatever his name is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Icelerate said:
 

The translation team wasn't even looking at context. Why would Cornelia getting fooled by Edelgard's ruse lead her to saying it was all according to her plan. So it was her plan to get fooled? There were other times where it was clear the translation team wasn't looking at the context as shown by your buddy SigurdVI or whatever his name is. 

It is a primary example of what one single word typo and drastically change the meaning of a conversation, or space were going according to plan, that makes no sense, so that our should actually have been your is a more reasonable explanation.

To give my two cents on if declaring war was the greater of two evils, I don't think so. It is important to look at this in the long term, the ward has lead to more short-term suffering, but in the long term, forces the people of Fodlan to confront the issues within the system, and this is whenever Edelgard wins or loses. In this way, her actions are always instrumental for changing Fodlan for the better. 

There is also the fact that war in Fodlan seems to be quite common. aready, Leicester nobles raise armies against one another all the time, Faerghus knights commits genocide on an entire people, displeasure with the current system is high and leads to frequent rebellions. Even without the slitherers. I think that everything would eventually come to a head, this conflict might be inevitable, with or without Edelgard. People die every day because of the crest system, conflict is frequent across Fodlan and more and more bodies will be added to the pile for every day things remain unchanged. 

Rebellions might be put down, but more will happen in their place as long as the people are discontent with the system, reform is the only way this bloodshed will end. Edelgard's war isn't a unique incident, it is just one of many conflicts in the history of Fodlan, and its objective is to end the constant conflict occurring across the continent. As delays will just lead to further deaths, it is best to act immediately and get the war over with so that things can be better in the future

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MrPerson0 said:

 The blame should always be put on the instigator, and that's how it always worked in the Fire Emblem series.

Well, the Laguz attacking Begnion in Radiant Dawn aside. Coming to think of it Marth attacking Pyrathi is also justified only by saying that he was really desperate. No real ethical highground there.

16 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

No, she didn't. She declared war on the Church only. The narration makes it sound like she attacked the Kingdom and Alliance, but that's contradicted by how the characters state that Edelgard left the Alliance alone in CF. 

Yes, and why do you think the narration makes it sound that way? Because in reality that's what's happening. Edelgard might have managed to get away without having to fight the alliance for five years, but in reality the attack on the Church was her first step towards her ultimate desire of uniting Fodlan. The quote I assume you're using from Hubert to say she never attacks the alliance specifically states that the reason for that is because they had to put all their resources into fighting the church.

17 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

While I disagree with your wording, ultimately, that's overall the nature of war itself.

No, not inherently. Not all wars are fought with a surrender or die mindset. A lot, I'd even dare to say most are fought for a specific reason (usual to control a resource of some sort or to preempt a intentional invasion). A lot of wars have ended without one side being put under subjugation by the other's government. Concessions and negotiations can be made (now could they be made in this conflict? That's not something we know because nobody bloody well tries to diplomacy. As I've complained about before even Dimitri's token attempt at it has very little in the way of actually discussing the war).

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well, the Laguz attacking Begnion in Radiant Dawn aside.

Yes, and why do you think the narration makes it sound that way? Because in reality that's what's happening. Edelgard might have managed to get away without having to fight the alliance for five years, but in reality the attack on the Church was her first step towards her ultimate desire of uniting Fodlan. The quote I assume you're using from Hubert to say she never attacks the alliance specifically states that the reason for that is because they had to put all their resources into fighting the church.

No, not inherently. Not all wars are fought with a surrender or die mindset. A lot, I'd even dare to say most are fought for a specific reason (usual to control a resource of some sort or to preempt a intentional invasion). A lot of wars have ended without one side being put under subjugation by the other's government. Concessions and negotiations can be made.

My understanding for why Edelgard decided to fight the alliance was that she didn't want to risk Claude joining up with the kingdom while she was busy fighting Dimitri and Rhea, so she decided to pre-emptively take out him first and gain some more troops in the process by the almost 50% of the alliance that wanted to side with the Empire.

However, weird this may sound, I have gained some understanding of the nature of warfare from playing games like Civilisation. In this case, war is often a costly matter that royally eats up production that could be used for improving infrastructure. The times I do go to war are usually either to defend my own resources and nation, or I declare war because another faction has a resource I want and diplomatic measures to get it already failed. In the case my civilisation gets invaded. The enemy usually makes constant offers for peace treaties, which has a starting terms that are often pretty much unacceptable, but the terms are usually scaled back the harder you can kick their ass until the point you get in a position position you can make demands of them. I usually do the same when I am the aggressor, but very seldom do either side actually accept the terms of that peace treaty because it is detrimental to the nation on the losing end of the war and is pretty much only accepted once a side realise they are completely screwed and will lose far more unless they sue for peace. War is also frequently declared by the AI or no other reason than having a different political system from them.

I think this somewhat applies to real warfare, my point here being that even if peace treaties are made, both parties involved are usually so stubborn they won't, except the terms until they are in a desperate situation. Considering just how stubborn Edelgard and Rhea are, there is absolutely no situation where either of them would except the others terms. Heck, Edelgard pretty much made her terms clear with her manifesto, there is no way in hell Rhea would accept her terms for surrender. And I think we all know that Edelgard rather die than surrendering. Of course, in this case I am using the term surrender, not as in surrender. The control of the entire nation to the opponent, but surrendering to whatever demands the opposition has for them to sign a peace treaty.

Not to mention that historically nations that have been forced to sign unfair peace treaties usually want revenge on the other party for dragging the nation into the mud, like was the case in the case of Germany in World War II. The Second World War might not even have happened if Germany wasn't screwed over so badly after the end of the First World War. So this sort of thing tends to lead to more conflict further down the line.

If you want long-term peace. It is better to unify who are posting forces under one banner and make it so the populace have it better under your rule than the previous one to make them less likely to rebel. (They are going to anyway, but treating a conquered nation well will minimise the outrage). Granted a complete takeover is only really achievable if one side has such a superior military power to make victory quick and decisive. It is generally not worth it for either side to get stuck in a stalemate, which with less stubborn leaders usually leads to a more even peace treaty eventually. One thing about me and civilisation is that I only ever attack another nation if I have such superior military force to make the whole thing a cakewalk. 

Edited by Darkmoon6789

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

My understanding for why Edelgard decided to fight the alliance was that she didn't want to risk Claude joining up with the kingdom while she was busy fighting Dimitri and Rhea, so she decided to pre-emptively take out him first and gain some more troops in the process by the almost 50% of the alliance that wanted to side with the Empire.

However, weird this may sound, I have gained some understanding of the nature of warfare from playing games like Civilisation. In this case, war is often a costly matter that royally eats up production that could be used for improving infrastructure. The times I do go to war are usually either to defend my own resources and nation, or I declare war because another faction has a resource I want and diplomatic measures to get it already failed. In the case my civilisation gets invaded. The enemy usually makes constant offers for peace treaties, which has a starting terms that are often pretty much unacceptable, but the terms are usually scaled back the harder you can kick their ass until the point you get in a position position you can make demands of them. I usually do the same when I am the aggressor, but very seldom do either side actually accept the terms of that peace treaty because it is detrimental to the nation on the losing end of the war and is pretty much only accepted once a side realise they are completely screwed and will lose far more unless they sue for peace. War is also frequently declared by the AI or no other reason than having a different political system from them.

I think this somewhat applies to real warfare, my point here being that even if peace treaties are made, both parties involved are usually so stubborn they won't, except the terms until they are in a desperate situation. Considering just how stubborn Edelgard and Rhea are, there is absolutely no situation where either of them would except the others terms. Heck, Edelgard pretty much made her terms clear with her manifesto, there is no way in hell Rhea would accept her terms for surrender. And I think we all know that Edelgard rather die than surrendering. Of course, in this case I am using the term surrender, not as in surrender. The control of the entire nation to the opponent, but surrendering to whatever demands the opposition has for them to sign a peace treaty.

Not to mention that historically nations that have been forced to sign unfair peace treaties usually want revenge on the other party for dragging the nation into the mud, like was the case in the case of Germany in World War II. The Second World War might not even have happened if Germany wasn't screwed over so badly after the end of the First World War. So this sort of thing tends to lead to more conflict further down the line.

If you want long-term peace. It is better to unify who are posting forces under one banner and make it so the populace have it better under your rule than the previous one to make them less likely to rebel. (They are going to anyway, but treating a conquered nation well will minimise the outrage). Granted a complete takeover is only really achievable if one side has such a superior military power to make victory quick and decisive. It is generally not worth it for either side to get stuck in a stalemate, which with less stubborn leaders usually leads to a more even peace treaty eventually. One thing about me and civilisation is that I only ever attack another nation if I have such superior military force to make the whole thing a cakewalk. 

The enemy actually buckling and suing for peace is something I'd actually really like to see Fire Emblem do at some point. Almost every single war involves the player systematically destroying the enemy's empire until it's the king alone left in their capital fighting to the death convinced having all of their allies destroyed and most of their territory taken is a minor set back. The only exceptions are the ones where you instead just walk straight into the capital and effectively assassinate the king which makes everything better in an uncomplicated fashion. Imagine if, after defeating Micahalis, Marth got an envoy for Medeus saying Medeus wishes to sign a peace treaty and that he's willing to abandon claim to lands still under his control and possibly even offer monetary compensation so long as Altea and Archanea implement some feral Manakete protection laws. It would be such a massive curveball to throw at the protagonist when they're certain the evil king is an embodiment of everything negative and must be destroyed. They could even make it a choice the player actually has to make. With potential negative outcomes from either decision, massive destabilization of their own country by continuing the war versus leaving the war unfinished and possibly allowing the enemy time to rearm and eventually betray the treaty.

Share this post


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

The enemy actually buckling and suing for peace is something I'd actually really like to see Fire Emblem do at some point. Almost every single war involves the player systematically destroying the enemy's empire until it's the king alone left in their capital fighting to the death convinced having all of their allies destroyed and most of their territory taken is a minor set back. The only exceptions are the ones where you instead just walk straight into the capital and effectively assassinate the king which makes everything better in an uncomplicated fashion. Imagine if, after defeating Micahalis, Marth got an envoy for Medeus saying Medeus wishes to sign a peace treaty and that he's willing to abandon claim to lands still under his control and possibly even offer monetary compensation so long as Altea and Archanea implement some feral Manakete protection laws. It would be such a massive curveball to throw at the protagonist when they're certain the evil king is an embodiment of everything negative and must be destroyed. They could even make it a choice the player actually has to make. With potential negative outcomes from either decision, massive destabilization of their own country by continuing the war versus leaving the war unfinished and possibly allowing the enemy time to rearm and eventually betray the treaty.

It would be nice to see something like that in the future, think the only faction that really does negotiate at all in the entire game is Claude, if spared, he does seem rather cool with this defeat, all things considered, I didn't actually notice any hostility towards Edelgard and Edelgard didn't have any towards him. Which is something I haven't really seen between the rest of the leaders. Some kind of mutual respect. I guess Dimitri does try to negotiate with Edelgard in azure moon, but to my understanding, it doesn't really work. Primarily because Edelgard won't be happy with half measures, for her, it is everything or nothing when it comes to reformation.

One of the reasons I like Edelgard as much as I do is actually that she is actually a more human take on the classic conquering Emperor, you generally expect a person in that role to be fairly one-dimensional and being after power for themselves. But Edelgard is far more than that. I would have probably liked to see more variation in that she might be convinced to surrender in certain routes (maybe only if you fulfil some very specific conditions as a player). Or if Rhea could be convinced to stand down before the final battle. For example, if you spare Seteth and Flayn, and she looses her mind completely if they were killed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

If you want long-term peace. It is better to unify who are posting forces under one banner and make it so the populace have it better under your rule than the previous one to make them less likely to rebel. (They are going to anyway, but treating a conquered nation well will minimise the outrage). Granted a complete takeover is only really achievable if one side has such a superior military power to make victory quick and decisive. It is generally not worth it for either side to get stuck in a stalemate, which with less stubborn leaders usually leads to a more even peace treaty eventually. One thing about me and civilisation is that I only ever attack another nation if I have such superior military force to make the whole thing a cakewalk. 

That's why I feel Edelgard struggles so much more in non-CF routes and is definitely setting herself to a more self-destructive path. Because she ultimately succumbed to accepting the Agarthans help to a greater degree, the Agarthans overall performed far more horrific actions. You hear about what Arundel does to the Hrym territory in the Ferdinand/Lysithea paralogue, but this paralogue is absent in Crimson Flower, primarily because the Agarthans have been kept under a leash. Edelgard also seems to go for more "surgical strikes" toward enemies in CF. For the Alliance, she focuses only on Claude. And for the Kingdom, she tries to corner Fhirdiad. In non-CF routes, she seems to go for the overwhelming power to crush enemies more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

It would be nice to see something like that in the future, think the only faction that really does negotiate at all in the entire game is Claude, if spared, he does seem rather cool with this defeat, all things considered, I didn't actually notice any hostility towards Edelgard and Edelgard didn't have any towards him. Which is something I haven't really seen between the rest of the leaders. Some kind of mutual respect. I guess Dimitri does try to negotiate with Edelgard in azure moon, but to my understanding, it doesn't really work. Primarily because Edelgard won't be happy with half measures, for her, it is everything or nothing when it comes to reformation.

One of the reasons I like Edelgard as much as I do is actually that she is actually a more human take on the classic conquering Emperor, you generally expect a person in that role to be fairly one-dimensional and being after power for themselves. But Edelgard is far more than that. I would have probably liked to see more variation in that she might be convinced to surrender in certain routes (maybe only if you fulfil some very specific conditions as a player). Or if Rhea could be convinced to stand down before the final battle. For example, if you spare Seteth and Flayn, and she looses her mind completely if they were killed

Still need a final boss though. I vote for Thales riding a mech.

Share this post


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

That's why I feel Edelgard struggles so much more in non-CF routes and is definitely setting herself to a more self-destructive path. Because she ultimately succumbed to accepting the Agarthans help to a greater degree, the Agarthans overall performed far more horrific actions. You hear about what Arundel does to the Hrym territory in the Ferdinand/Lysithea paralogue, but this paralogue is absent in Crimson Flower, primarily because the Agarthans have been kept under a leash. Edelgard also seems to go for more "surgical strikes" toward enemies in CF. For the Alliance, she focuses only on Claude. And for the Kingdom, she tries to corner Fhirdiad. In non-CF routes, she seems to go for the overwhelming power to crush enemies more often.

Something to consider about the situation in Hrym is the possible reasons why Arundel is invested in that territory and in causing strife. Mainly that Shambhala happens to be located in the far east of that territory so there's motive there to cause unrest even if they had to scale back/focus on the area around Shambhala. 

As for the surgical strikes, I quite enjoyed that gameplay and story aspect of CF. Decapitate the noble (and Cornelia) leadership of regions and sieze the strategic location in the first chapter than move on to the main target in the next. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So one thing I have heard from other people in other places is that Edelgard was gaslighting Byleth in crimson flower. 

Personally, I don't get that impression at all, I think that the vulnerable Edelgard we see in our support conversations with Byleth are very much her genuine feelings. Is there any credit to the idea that she is manipulating Byleth at all or is it just another case of people not understanding that someone like Edelgard could have a softer side?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

So one thing I have heard from other people in other places is that Edelgard was gaslighting Byleth in crimson flower. 

Personally, I don't get that impression at all, I think that the vulnerable Edelgard we see in our support conversations with Byleth are very much her genuine feelings. Is there any credit to the idea that she is manipulating Byleth at all or is it just another case of people not understanding that someone like Edelgard could have a softer side?

Not that I've seen. People probably underestimate how much one little thing can change a person. I could totally see non-CF Edelgard reacting to Byleth not joining her as: "That's what I get for trusting someone. Never again will I be so foolish," which is when she closes off her heart and becomes the ruthless Edelgard of those routes.

That or they're just looking for reasons to justify their hatred.

Share this post


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

Not that I've seen. People probably underestimate how much one little thing can change a person. I could totally see non-CF Edelgard reacting to Byleth not joining her as: "That's what I get for trusting someone. Never again will I be so foolish," which is when she closes off her heart and becomes the ruthless Edelgard of those routes.

That or they're just looking for reasons to justify their hatred.

I would have thought so, I interpreted the point of the entire game being how much the support of a single person can influence someone and in doing so affect the course of world history. Edelgard, Dimitri and Rhea are all very dependent on Byleth to overcome their respective issues and we all lose themselves without that emotional support. Because you cannot be everywhere at once. You can't save everyone. Claude is actually relatively fine compared to the others, but it doesn't accomplish much without help.

My personal interpretation for Edelgard becomes so cold is actually because she is such an empathetic person at heart, in order to do the things she feels must be done. She needs to suppress her emotions in order to not have a mental breakdown under the sheer weight of the sacrifices she makes. As the war goes on. She pushes her empathetic side further and further down until the ice queen facade entirely takes over. Whilst she is still somewhat like this in crimson flower, Byleth helps find a better balance between empathy and pragmatism, she still does what she feels must be done, but with Byleth. She won't lose her humanity in the process. It might sound contradictory, but I guess I am trying to say that Edelgard becomes cold because her inner self care is too much about people. The way I see it. The very reason she wants to reshape society at all is because of this sense of empathy and that she feels for the victims of the crest system

As you pointed out, Edelgard does have trust issues and feeling betrayed by Byleth would also push her emotions further down as she doesn't dare to trust anyone again. I guess a similar principle also applies to Rhea who loses her mind completely due to her emotional connection with Byleth and his/her connection with mother making her take Byleth's betrayal really hard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

So one thing I have heard from other people in other places is that Edelgard was gaslighting Byleth in crimson flower. 

That's interesting....

Looking up signs of gaslighting...

  1. They tell balant lies. Sort of ?
  2. They deny they ever said something even though you have proof. Don't remember this at all.
  3. They use what is near and dear to you as ammunition. If you count the students and lords Byleth was unable to recruit ?
  4. They wear you down over time. Don't think so ?
  5. Their actions don't match their words. Again, don't think so. 
  6. They throw in positive reinforcement to confuse you. No ? Edelgard seems to really like Byleth.
  7. They know confusion weakens people. This sounds more like Hubert tactic.
  8. They project. No ?
  9. They try and algin people against you. If you include the war ?
  10. They tell others that you are crazy. No, hell no. Edelgard would never do that to Byleth
  11. They tell you everybody else is a liar. Again, don't think so ?

 

I'm not sure that she does ? Gaslighting sounds more like Hubert 101 to be frank. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah people who argue that Edelgard is gaslighting Byleth likely don't even know what gaslighting is. It's dumb that it's becoming more and more of a buzzword.

Share this post


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

Yeah people who argue that Edelgard is gaslighting Byleth likely don't even know what gaslighting is. It's dumb that it's becoming more and more of a buzzword.

I mean, we have people that like to throw around words like Hitler around to her. Or call her a fascist. Some idiot actually wrote a 6000 word essay for why Edelgard is a fascist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made a passing joke about people calling Edelgard 'Stalin in a red dress' and someone immediately replied with 'well, actually...' so I'm not surprised. People like their word associations. 

Share this post


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

I've made a passing joke about people calling Edelgard 'Stalin in a red dress' and someone immediately replied with 'well, actually...' so I'm not surprised. People like their word associations. 

Funny thing, on reddit, the mods actually start deleting stuff about Hitler.

So what do the haters do? Start calling her a dictator.

Cause the only dictator you will think of when you hear the term is Hitler. So they are like kids. They look for a loophole.

The irony is that most FE lords ARE dictators. Dimitri and Byleth are dictators as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've grown numb to people calling characters they don't like Hitler. I've heard it so many times over the years, and it's usually because they can't actually explain what they don't like about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sid Starkiller said:

I've grown numb to people calling characters they don't like Hitler. I've heard it so many times over the years, and it's usually because they can't actually explain what they don't like about them.

UGH!

You are so right. It's disgusting really. Throw the term around without any regard to the weight it carries. 

Share this post


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

Funny thing, on reddit, the mods actually start deleting stuff about Hitler.

So what do the haters do? Start calling her a dictator.

Cause the only dictator you will think of when you hear the term is Hitler. So they are like kids. They look for a loophole.

The irony is that most FE lords ARE dictators. Dimitri and Byleth are dictators as well.

It is actually quite silly to apply modern standards to a mostly mediaeval world, technically any king would be a dictator by modern standards. I also hate one more than definitions of war crimes are used to define actions in fantasy settings, people had very different standards when it comes to warfare back then.

The most major differences between Edelgard and people like Stalin is that Edelgard actually cares about her people, she is a devout believer in her own ideology, Stalin was never a true believer in the ideology of the revolution, he just exploited a power vacuum for his own personal gain. Plus, I am not too sure that meritocracy and communism are all that comparable, they are more like complete opposites

By the way, the person I was talking to a few weeks ago that accused Edelgard of gaslighting did also say that she reminded him of his ex-girlfriend, so I believe there is quite a bit of projecting going on there, he was unable to see at Edelgard was actually telling the truth to Byleth, for the most part, due to his own experience with his ex 

Edit: there is a reason I usually roll my eyes whenever a character is being compared to Hitler, I think some people just have a problem understanding nuance and want to paint complex characters as either pure good or pure evil. The only time I think it is apt to compare anyone to Hitler is if they are also responsible for racist policies and committing genocide on a racial basis. Edelgard just doesn't do this, I think Edelgard deserves better than to be compared with the likes of Hitler and Stalin, the girl isn't actually all that bad once you get to know her. But I will accept comparisons to Napoleon as that is at least somewhat accurate

Edited by Darkmoon6789

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

It is actually quite silly to apply modern standards to a mostly mediaeval world, technically any king would be a dictator by modern standards. I also hate one more than definitions of war crimes are used to define actions in fantasy settings, people had very different standards when it comes to warfare back then.

The most major differences between Edelgard and people like Stalin is that Edelgard actually cares about her people, she is a devout believer in her own ideology, Stalin was never a true believer in the ideology of the revolution, he just exploited a power vacuum for his own personal gain. Plus, I am not too sure that meritocracy and communism are all that comparable, they are more like complete opposites

By the way, the person I was talking to a few weeks ago that accused Edelgard of gaslighting did also say that she reminded him of his ex-girlfriend, so I believe there is quite a bit of projecting going on there, he was unable to see at Edelgard was actually telling the truth to Byleth, for the most part, due to his own experience with his ex 

Edit: there is a reason I usually roll my eyes whenever a character is being compared to Hitler, I think some people just have a problem understanding nuance and want to paint complex characters as either pure good or pure evil. The only time I think it is apt to compare anyone to Hitler is if they are also responsible for racist policies and committing genocide on a racial basis. Edelgard just doesn't do this, I think Edelgard deserves better than to be compared with the likes of Hitler and Stalin, the girl isn't actually all that bad once you get to know her. But I will accept comparisons to Napoleon as that is at least somewhat accurate

Even Napoleon isn't completely accurate given how Edelgard doesn't need to be forced out of power, but rather abdicates.

The very thing that makes Edelgard not a dictator in the negative sense or anything near a tyrant is the fact that she is willing to abdicate. She doesn't fear the idea of losing power and would love to lose it.

She even said it herself. She'd rather laze around gorging on sweets.

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...