The True Tragedy of Three Houses

[Jotari]

10 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

The point here being, the insurrection of the seven wasn't a good thing. Despite the division of power, in fact, they are arguably one of the most corrupt governments in this entire game and Edelgard's empire after a war is a massive improvement from what the Empire was previously. I would rather have one good and selfless person in power than a country controlled by a council of corrupt and selfish people.

Well in Crimson Flower when she has god on her side it is. In the other routes she's just as much in the pocket of the Agrathans as the Seven were and ends up leading her country into utter devastation and ends up getting conquered by a foreign power (except maybe Azure Moon where it's just left devestated).

10 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

 Also, I should also probably address that even an absolute monarch is dependent on other power structures to remain in power, even for someone like Edelgard, the people close to her are a vital to maintain power. Her empire would still have a nobility of sorts, they just wouldn't get their positions from family lines, rather, from personal merit, and these people would still be delegated some degree of power. I have read a bit about non-successive monarchies, that is monarchies that doesn't determine the heir to the throne by Bloodlines, rather by another means that is usually the election of a new monarch through some kind of council, or by an election. . While I know what no system that is immune to human corruption,  The very point of Edelgard not wanting her children on the throne is an attempt to make sure that power only given to those who will use it for the greater good, if this will work or not is another matter, but this is the intent. Plus many of the types of reforms Edelgard introduced is the type that leads to a larger middle-class who will have more influence in politics over the years, which usually leads to the development of a constitutional monarchy, which unless something else major happens, I think is the most likely direction Edelgard's empire will take over the centuries due to the lack of division between commoner and nobility.

That's not the precedent she set though. She didn't become emperor because everyone elected her as one based on her personal merit. She took the possession and now anyone else going forward who thinks they ought to rule has just as much legitimacy to declare themselves supreme leader over all. She's removed the heredity part but left in tact the absolute power and unaccountability. That system has absolutely no guarantee that the wisest most capable leader will take control. It'll be the most forceful one.

7 hours ago, Hardric62 said:

 

 

The whole conflict between nobility and royal/central authority for power is pretty much a constant of the Middle Ages, and the following centuries actually. And while victory of the elites could lead to things like England, it also led to the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania (congrats, the nobility votes and elect the king, plus the major laws. Except they kept chosing, with a few notable exceptions, weaklings which couldn't get them to do anything, while voting in a way that assured everybody was doing whatever in their little corner. Cue the big power of Eastern Europe wasting away until all is left is an open bar for Prussia, Austria and Russia), the latter definitely making me thinking of Leicester in their worst moments.

In Adrestia? I see it as a reflect of the struggle for Holy Roman Emperors to make the title have any meaning against the German, Italian nobles, and the popes. And it didn't work here either, the Habsburg eventually keeping to Austria, Hungary and bohemia while the rest was a dog-eat-dog mess. I would also compare the ministers more to the Electors, the top dogs of the HRE, than anything else.

And absolutism isn't worst regime by itself. Louis XIV and Louis XV managed to run the country pretty well, and had their own ministers to help them do so (Colbert, Louvois, the latter which opened officier carriere for people without the money to buy a commission by the way). Except these ones weren't hereditary titles, which could lead to ineffectual leadership. There is also the fact the turn for absolutism in France was a reaction to the nobility being greedy ambitious backstabbers. And lazy ones to boot, because when the Regent of Louis XV threw them a bone, they immediately wasted it by their intense laziness, leading to it being taken away. Heck, it is the nobility doing obstruction because they went 'Muh Privileges' which led to the French Revolution. Everyone knew they were the last social class with a meaningful amount of money to tax, but they refused to give an inch for so long the Revolution happened.

Yes, there is no tangible signs of how things were before the Seven. But centralization hardly happens only for naked power-grabs.

An absolute dictator is simultaneously both the best and worst form of government, because it depends entirely on who is actually in charge. Accountability makes things slower and less efficient, but it also makes things generally safer. When one person can do whatever they want and genuinely want to make their people more prosperous (and are intelligent enough to do it) then that's great. If that person just happens to be a dick that's only interested in making their own life more prosperous, well then suddenly that sucks royally.

Edited February 29, 2020 by Jotari

[Darkmoon6789]

Obviously17 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well in Crimson Flower when she has god on her side it is. In the other routes she leads her country into utter devastation and ends up getting conquered by a foreign power (except maybe Azure Moon where it's just left devestated).

Obviously, there is a reason I am only considering Crimson Flower Edelgard on how she would be as a ruler after the war because she is the only version of her that lives after the war. Edelgard does need to actually succeed in order to have the impact she hoped for. It is also the reason why I consider Crimson Flower Edelgard to be the true Edelgard as this is her when she is fully realised as a person and when she is at her best. 

[Jotari]

10 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Obviously, there is a reason I am only considering Crimson Flower Edelgard on how she would be as a ruler after the war because she is the only version of her that lives after the war. Edelgard does need to actually succeed in order to have the impact she hoped for. It is also the reason why I consider Crimson Flower Edelgard to be the true Edelgard as this is her when she is fully realised as a person and when she is at her best. 

The way she acts in the other routes are still part of her character though. Her decision to become emperor and begin the war are poor ones as evidence by the majority of outcomes. Only having Byleth with her gives her success. Her decisions don't retroactively become good because in one scenario it succeeds and two/three scenarios it fails. Edelgard does indeed need to succeed to be fully realized, and the decisions she makes usually means she doesn't in fact succeed and ends up dead with her country devastated. If you choose to ignore that then you're ignoring the majority of the game.

Edited February 29, 2020 by Jotari

[Hardric62]

22 minutes ago, Jotari said:

That's not the precedent she set though. She didn't become emperor because everyone elected her as one based on her personal merit. She took the possession and now anyone else going forward who thinks they ought to rule has just as much legitimacy to declare themselves supreme leader over all. She's removed the heredity part but left in tact the absolute power and unaccountability. That system has absolutely no guarantee that the wisest most capable leader will take control. It'll be the most forceful one.

 

Technically, it's still the same dynasty, it can be presented as a counter-coup.

 

22 minutes ago, Jotari said:

An absolute dictator is simultaneously both the best and worst form of government, because it depends entirely on who is actually in charge. Accountability makes things slower and less efficient, but it also makes things generally safer. When one person can do whatever they want and genuinely want to make their people more prosperous (and are intelligent enough to do it) then that's great. If that person just happens to be a dick that's only interested in making their own life more prosperous, well then suddenly that sucks royally.

 

This piece was more about how centralization of power isn't an automatical downhill fall towards dictatorship. France's monarchy was all about centralization against its vassals so they could actually be the kings of their kingdom, and things went not terribly bad I think. And accountability is precisely why I think Rhea would have to step down from power in 3H. Problem is, means of accountability (here the ministers) can become as corrupt as the authorities they are supposed to check.

I mean, both Lambert and Ionius are Garreg Mach alumni, intending on enforcing reforms for their territories. I guess whatever changes they have in miind have been influenced by their studies there, and so likely opposing the Mole Men's agendas. Both of them are opposed, then disposed/assassinated by corrupt nobles with Mole Men support. And given the fact the Mole Men supported the corrupt nobles over the monarchs, when they can worm their ways into power at theirs side too (see Loog), I guess the nobles' agendas were more favorable to them, aka maybe these reforms, including the centralization, might have been threats for their unraveling of fodlan.

[Jotari]

Just now, Hardric62 said:

 

Technically, it's still the same dynasty, it can be presented as a counter-coup.

 

 

This piece was more about how centralization of power isn't an automatical downhill fall towards dictatorship. France's monarchy was all about centralization against its vassals so they could actually be the kings of their kingdom, and things went not terribly bad I think. And accountability is precisely why I think Rhea would have to step down from power in 3H. Problem is, means of accountability (here the ministers) can become as corrupt as the authorities they are supposed to check.

I mean, both Lambert and Ionius are Garreg Mach alumni, intending on enforcing reforms for their territories. I guess whatever changes they have in miind have been influenced by their studies there, and so likely opposing the Mole Men's agendas. Both of them are opposed, then disposed/assassinated by corrupt nobles with Mole Men support. And given the fact the Mole Men supported the corrupt nobles over the monarchs, when they can worm their ways into power at theirs side too (see Loog), I guess the nobles' agendas were more favorable to them, aka maybe these reforms, including the centralization, might have been threats for their unraveling of fodlan.

It could be considered a counter coup, except Edelgard intends to throw out the entire concept of dynasty altogether meaning anyone with a sufficient amount of political power has just as much legitimacy in trying their hand at exactly what she did. If she actually did maintain heredity succession then she would maintain a more stable from of government as she'd be reinforcing the idea that you can by no means go against the will of the imperial family. But take away the imperial family aspect of it and it suddenly becomes a power grab by the person who thinks they're entitled to it.

[Hardric62]

Just now, Jotari said:

The way she acts in the other routes are still part of her character though. Her decision to become emperor and begin the war are poor ones as evidence by the majority of outcomes. Only having Byleth with her gives her success. Her decisions don't retroactively become good because in one scenario it succeeds and two/three scenarios it fails. Edelgard does indeed need to succeed to be fully realized, and the decisions she makes usually means she doesn't in fact succeed and ends up dead with her country devastated.

 

Thing is, by the point she can take action the Mole Men control her empire, and she can only win back nobles by playing on the desire of reuniting Fodlan to outbid Duke Aegir, aka following the Mole Men's road map, and hope to maneuver things so the tables are turned.

Do nothing? Mole Men and the likes keep driving things to the ground, because she's not snatching the ministers away, while gearing up for the war on their own terms. And she can only watch.

Go to the Church (assuming the mole Men pushing cards for a 'Church First' failed)? Could purge the Mole Men, but in the Empire only, from the viewpoint of someone without all the cards, it means taking only part of the symptoms down, while leaving the actual disease (the system who made the sort of actions undertaken by the Seven desirable) to fester. So it would mean using the Mole Men to show the Church's ineptitude, to rally people for a change which has no change of being peaceful. Because even without Rhea's uncompromising attitude, no pope-like figure would take kindly to the ruler of half their 'flock' denouncing the Church's tenets and its failings. They would lose all legitimacy. Cue war, with a devastated Empire this time, or an Empire which got a few years to rebuild, depending on how things are negotiated. And potential Mole Men lurking in the shadows.

 

That's the thing about decisions: sometimes, only poor choices exist, and it all comes down to chosing the least bad option.

 

4 minutes ago, Jotari said:

It could be considered a counter coup, except Edelgard intends to throw out the entire concept of dynasty altogether meaning anyone with a sufficient amount of political power has just as much legitimacy in trying their hand at exactly what she did. If she actually did maintain heredity succession then she would maintain a more stable from of government as she'd be reinforcing the idea that you can by no means go against the will of the imperial family. But take away the imperial family aspect of it and it suddenly becomes a power grab by the person who thinks they're entitled to it.

 

Unless she appoints/'adopts' her own successor, which would mean she choose someone to transfer her 'legitimacy' (Roman adoption of heirs with very faint, or non-existing, genealogical ties to their predecessors). And it is a counter coup, what is done at the moment of the succession is several years away down the line, there is enough distance to make the two things different beasts.

[Darkmoon6789]

Two things, firstly, accountability towards the people always exist, regardless of system of government, if they don't like the rule of their current government. They will rebel. And where will always be people around the monarch with the ability to remove them, the people Edelgard delegates power to will have this ability to the same extent that nobles would.

Secondly, the line of succession in Edelgard's system will be determined by the choice of the previous emperor, anyone trying to grab power not chosen by the previous emperor will be considered illegitimate. I do think the adoption thing makes the most sense for the future Empire. It isn't idiot proof, but no system is

Edited February 29, 2020 by Darkmoon6789

[omegaxis1]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

The way she acts in the other routes are still part of her character though. Her decision to become emperor and begin the war are poor ones as evidence by the majority of outcomes. Only having Byleth with her gives her success. Her decisions don't retroactively become good because in one scenario it succeeds and two/three scenarios it fails. Edelgard does indeed need to succeed to be fully realized, and the decisions she makes usually means she doesn't in fact succeed and ends up dead with her country devastated. If you choose to ignore that then you're ignoring the majority of the game.

That's not how it works, honestly. Failing multiple times doesn't make that she's wrong. It just proves that she wasn't able to meet the ideals she wanted. But really, if anything, she's proven right in literally every route.

How does Fodlan finally change for the better? Edelgard.

How do the Agathans get discovered or get damaged for a long time? Edelgard.

How does Rhea change? Edelgard. 

How does the winner of the war get the supreme power needed to change Fodlan in their view? Edelgard. 

Edelgard wants to make the strongest forms of change, but only if she wins. But even if she loses, Edelgard still managed to bring about a change in Fodlan where things do get better. Because Fodlan before was utter shit. It NEEDED to change. 

All Byleth/Claude and Dimitri did is just capitalize on Edelgard's war and take the power. 

Let's look at Archanea. 

Marth didn't want to unite the continent under one rule. But FE12's War of Heroes resulted in Marth doing just that. He ultimately did what the villain tried to do, unite the continent under one rule. 

It's ironic and almost hypocritical of the hero being presented as the hero when all he does is just win and capitalize on what the villain tried or wanted to do. Whether they had the intention or not doesn't change that that's what they did.

You could even say the similar case for Hanneman. People talking about how Edelgard and Lysithea should just cooperate with him and he'd "save the world" with it, it ultimately ignores that Hanneman is just capitalizing on the ruthless methods of what the Agarthans performed. 

[Darkmoon6789]

4 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

That's not how it works, honestly. Failing multiple times doesn't make that she's wrong. It just proves that she wasn't able to meet the ideals she wanted. But really, if anything, she's proven right in literally every route.

How does Fodlan finally change for the better? Edelgard.

How do the Agathans get discovered or get damaged for a long time? Edelgard.

How does Rhea change? Edelgard. 

How does the winner of the war get the supreme power needed to change Fodlan in their view? Edelgard. 

Edelgard wants to make the strongest forms of change, but only if she wins. But even if she loses, Edelgard still managed to bring about a change in Fodlan where things do get better. Because Fodlan before was utter shit. It NEEDED to change. 

All Byleth/Claude and Dimitri did is just capitalize on Edelgard's war and take the power. 

Let's look at Archanea. 

Marth didn't want to unite the continent under one rule. But FE12's War of Heroes resulted in Marth doing just that. He ultimately did what the villain tried to do, unite the continent under one rule. 

It's ironic and almost hypocritical of the hero being presented as the hero when all he does is just win and capitalize on what the villain tried or wanted to do. Whether they had the intention or not doesn't change that that's what they did.

You could even say the similar case for Hanneman. People talking about how Edelgard and Lysithea should just cooperate with him and he'd "save the world" with it, it ultimately ignores that Hanneman is just capitalizing on the ruthless methods of what the Agarthans performed. 

You do make a really good point. You do give many reasons of why I ultimately consider Edelgard to be a hero, she did what was necessary regardless of the cost to herself, very few people are this level of selfless. She does make mistakes, yes, but I never seen her do anything with malicious intent.

I also don't think that the timelines accurately reflect the the true odds of one side achieving victory, Edelgard should have the advantage given having the strongest military force and should be able to achieve victory most frequently. Without Byleth, I think she would have achieved victory if Byleth didn't fight for the other side. I guess it could be argued that the odds for her to achieve victory is the same as the odds of Byleth joining her as this person literally can't lose. If Byleth mentor is the Black Eagle house. I think he/she is statistically very likely to join Edelgard if they were close to her at all. 

Or I guess you can put it this way, if the crush that Edelgard has on Byleth is mutual, then Edelgard will win, I guess in this case that love conquers all in a very literal fashion

[Flere210]

15 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

That's not how it works, honestly. Failing multiple times doesn't make that she's wrong. It just proves that she wasn't able to meet the ideals she wanted. But really, if anything, she's proven right in literally every route.

How does Fodlan finally change for the better? Edelgard.

How do the Agathans get discovered or get damaged for a long time? Edelgard.

How does Rhea change? Edelgard. 

How does the winner of the war get the supreme power needed to change Fodlan in their view? Edelgard. 

Edelgard wants to make the strongest forms of change, but only if she wins. But even if she loses, Edelgard still managed to bring about a change in Fodlan where things do get better. Because Fodlan before was utter shit. It NEEDED to change. 

All Byleth/Claude and Dimitri did is just capitalize on Edelgard's war and take the power. 

Let's look at Archanea. 

Marth didn't want to unite the continent under one rule. But FE12's War of Heroes resulted in Marth doing just that. He ultimately did what the villain tried to do, unite the continent under one rule. 

It's ironic and almost hypocritical of the hero being presented as the hero when all he does is just win and capitalize on what the villain tried or wanted to do. Whether they had the intention or not doesn't change that that's what they did.

You could even say the similar case for Hanneman. People talking about how Edelgard and Lysithea should just cooperate with him and he'd "save the world" with it, it ultimately ignores that Hanneman is just capitalizing on the ruthless methods of what the Agarthans performed. 

There is no reason not to capitalize on what bad people did. 

Sure, certain scientiphic discoveries where made trough unethical experimentations, but those would eventually by made by ethical experimentations, albeit much slower. 

Similarly, no politycal system is eternal, even those ruled by dragon god emperors. Fodlan was on the verge of changing no matter what, because literally every important young noble don't support the system. If nothing happened, Edelgard's ministers would be Hubert, Ferdinand, Linhardt, Bermadetta and two guys that would be in the minority(and this is assuming Caspar's brother won't die like an idiot), the Kingdom would be ruled by Dimitri whit Felix and Sylvain as the most powerful house leaders and the council of the alliance would be Claude, Lorenz, Lysithea, Hilda or Holst(that would do whatever Hilda tell him to do) and Marianne.

Glouchester, Varley, Aegir and all those assholes would eventually die/retire no matter what, because they are humans of flesh and blood. Should i really believe that a council of Claude, Hilda, Lorenz, Lysithea and Marianne won't pass progressive reforms if there was not a war? Should i believe that the minor noble houses have any power to oppose the major ones? At best they can assassinate another king but they only pulled it off whit Lambert because Patricia was on board. Good luck doing that whit any of the pairings. 

 

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Flere210 said:

There is no reason not to capitalize on what bad people did. 

Sure, certain scientiphic discoveries where made trough unethical experimentations, but those would eventually by made by ethical experimentations, albeit much slower. 

Similarly, no politycal system is eternal, even those ruled by dragon god emperors. Fodlan was on the verge of changing no matter what, because literally every important young noble don't support the system. If nothing happened, Edelgard's ministers would be Hubert, Ferdinand, Linhardt, Bermadetta and two guys that would be in the minority(and this is assuming Caspar's brother won't die like an idiot), the Kingdom would be ruled by Dimitri whit Felix and Sylvain as the most powerful house leaders and the council of the alliance would be Claude, Lorenz, Lysithea, Hilda or Holst(that would do whatever Hilda tell him to do) and Marianne.

Glouchester, Varley, Aegir and all those assholes would eventually die/retire no matter what, because they are humans of flesh and blood. Should i really believe that a council of Claude, Hilda, Lorenz, Lysithea and Marianne won't pass progressive reforms if there was not a war? Should i believe that the minor noble houses have any power to oppose the major ones? At best they can assassinate another king but they only pulled it off whit Lambert because Patricia was on board. Good luck doing that whit any of the pairings. 

You're thinking more in regards to guesswork and thinking that things MIGHT happen, but forgetting that each person overall changes as a result of both the war and Byleth. Not because of themselves. Even Ferdinand admits that he has changed thanks to how the war made him open his eyes on things, especially because of how Edelgard stripped his family of all power, wealth, and land. 

You're also having to think that the Empire isn't controlled by the Agarthans, when they are. They even talked about how Edelgard is their "greatest creation" and how she was to bring their "salvation." 

There's so many layers of context that things aren't just Point A to Point B.

Saying that these corrupt nobles would surely have died and then we'd get good nobles. That's... not really anything. So what happens if their children becomes shitty? 

Good parents =/= good kids.

Just as bad parents =/= bad kids. 

Odds are higher, but that means nothing when the chance is always present. 

Any good that one generation can do can be instantly undone by the next generation that becomes bad.

Let's look at how Ionius and Lambert both tried to make their own forms of peaceful resolution.

Well, the Agarthans took advantage of the corrupt nobility, and got to work to have the Insurrection of the Seven and the Tragedy of Duscur respectively. 

In the end, unlike many other cases where things are simple, 3H is not. Motivations and issues, along with the many layers of forces behind the scenes make simple things be just overall unlikely. 

It's why it's not really that "simple" that people in 3H can just "talk" to each other. 

[Darkmoon6789]

7 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

There is no reason not to capitalize on what bad people did. 

Sure, certain scientiphic discoveries where made trough unethical experimentations, but those would eventually by made by ethical experimentations, albeit much slower. 

Similarly, no politycal system is eternal, even those ruled by dragon god emperors. Fodlan was on the verge of changing no matter what, because literally every important young noble don't support the system. If nothing happened, Edelgard's ministers would be Hubert, Ferdinand, Linhardt, Bermadetta and two guys that would be in the minority(and this is assuming Caspar's brother won't die like an idiot), the Kingdom would be ruled by Dimitri whit Felix and Sylvain as the most powerful house leaders and the council of the alliance would be Claude, Lorenz, Lysithea, Hilda or Holst(that would do whatever Hilda tell him to do) and Marianne.

Glouchester, Varley, Aegir and all those assholes would eventually die/retire no matter what, because they are humans of flesh and blood. Should i really believe that a council of Claude, Hilda, Lorenz, Lysithea and Marianne won't pass progressive reforms if there was not a war? Should i believe that the minor noble houses have any power to oppose the major ones? At best they can assassinate another king but they only pulled it off whit Lambert because Patricia was on board. Good luck doing that whit any of the pairings. 

 

I am not sure about the other monarchs, but they definitely have the means to assassinate Edelgard for not wanting to play ball.

Are we also forgetting that a certain immortal Dragon is also highly resistant to change? Not to mention that the slitherers are still a thing and will most likely start some kind of conflict, no matter what. I also think people underestimate how much of a choice. Edelgard actually had, to essentially playing ball with the evil cult, hoping to make something good out of a bad situation, or die and have them use the empire to declare war anyway. Seriously, Edelgard's entire life has been entirely in control of these people.

I highly resistant to any attempts to call Edelgard a bad person, she is way too selfless and have intentions way too good for that to be a possibility and that is if I would agree that actions were a mistake. That is just it, she intended to help, not harm, any harm done was because she is fallible, not because of malicious intent. Bad people don't have good intentions. I will not crucify someone just because they made mistakes. If their intentions are good

[MrPerson0]

11 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

she is way too selfless and have intentions way too good for that to be a possibility and that is if I would agree that actions were a mistake

I find myself disagreeing with her when she says things such as:

Quote

No matter how much blood flows at my feet, I will not relent. We must break the bonds that the depraved church has placed on Fódlan. These sacrifices will allow us to create a future where we never need sacrifice again. It may seem contradictory, but it's the only way.

After you pick the CF path.

There's a difference between someone starting a war to fight for freedom and someone starting a continental war to conquer it.

Edited February 29, 2020 by MrPerson0

[Flere210]

Good nobles can change the system so it's not an aristocracy anymore, you do not need a war to do that. It can be achieved by just exiling who is going to Complain. The main reason Ionius failed is because he had other major houses like the Aegirs againist him. Edelgard would have all the big houses on her side. As for Lambert i already said it, whitout Patricia and the slithers their chance to kill him where not good. 

As i mentioned them, the slithers are not that powerful, they always lose in any route. They are only a threat if they are backed by Adrestia. I can understand Ionius being their hostage, but the moment he died Edelgard could do what she wanted as long as she made sure to be guarded at all times.

 Rhea wanted to give the church away to SSJ Byleth and she hate the nobles, she won't oppose any reform.

And yes, what i said had a chance to fail, but her own plan has roughly a 25% chance of sucess anyway.

I want to go more in depth on to why i don't like pretty much anyone in this fucking war, but as soon as i am not Hilda about it i am going to open a thread about it. 

[Moltz23]

8 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

There's a difference between someone starting a war to fight for freedom and someone starting a continental war to conquer it.

Isn't Edelgard using conquest as a means to liberate humans from the Church/Rhea's influence tho? I recall her stating something like that when you fight her on Embarr in VW/SS.

[Darkmoon6789]

2 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

I find myself disagreeing with her when she says things such as:

After you pick the CF path.

There's a difference between someone starting a war to fight for freedom and someone starting a continental war to conquer it.

Just because you disagree with her that doesn't mean that she doesn't believe in what she is saying and that she has good intentions.

It is kind of ironic that at one quote is exactly the one that convinced me that she has good intentions, I do actually understand her logic here. She is essentially saying that she is well aware that she is about to do something awful, context from earlier in the same conversation reveals she is reluctant and remorseful about starting the war. But she does believe it is necessary to break the tyranny of the church and create a better future for everyone. She also reveals she is aware of the innate contradiction in the idea of starting a war to create peace, but that she had nevertheless believes this course of action will be for the best in the long run.

I do think myself that starting a war for freedom is exactly what she did, the conquest part is secondary. It is a means to an end, but freedom is the end

[MrPerson0]

2 minutes ago, Moltz23 said:

Isn't Edelgard using conquest as a means to liberate humans from the Church/Rhea's influence tho? I recall her stating something like that when you fight her on Embarr in VW/SS.

That might be her reasoning, but this goes back to why she decides to conquer Fodlan when she could have tried to fix her country first. Also, she says that to Flayn, who she should know that, of all people, doesn't have power over anyone.

2 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I do think myself that starting a war for freedom is exactly what she did, the conquest part is secondary. It is a means to an end, but freedom is the end

The way I see it, the conquering part is the issue. The way we are raised today, that isn't acceptable. If she was able to fix her own country instead, then I would be more inclined to be on her side (especially if Rhea/the Church chose to attack her).

[Flere210]

Intentions are irrelevant, otherwise Arvis was right turning Sigurd's army into a barbeque.

[omegaxis1]

5 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

Good nobles can change the system so it's not an aristocracy anymore, you do not need a war to do that. It can be achieved by just exiling who is going to Complain. The main reason Ionius failed is because he had other major houses like the Aegirs againist him. Edelgard would have all the big houses on her side. As for Lambert i already said it, whitout Patricia and the slithers their chance to kill him where not good. 

As i mentioned them, the slithers are not that powerful, they always lose in any route. They are only a threat if they are backed by Adrestia. I can understand Ionius being their hostage, but the moment he died Edelgard could do what she wanted as long as she made sure to be guarded at all times.

 Rhea wanted to give the church away to SSJ Byleth and she hate the nobles, she won't oppose any reform.

And yes, what i said had a chance to fail, but her own plan has roughly a 25% chance of sucess anyway.

I want to go more in depth on to why i don't like pretty much anyone in this fucking war, but as soon as i am not Hilda about it i am going to open a thread about it. 

There's the flaw in the logic. If they would have actually wanted to change the nobility system, they'd have done it on their own. But people are shaped by their own beliefs over how they've been raised. 

You have Ferdinand, Constance, Lorenz, and even Dimitri, who believe that nobility exist for a reason and must stay. They won't abolish nobility because they believe that it should remain. It's why no other route actually abolishes nobility. Only Edelgard's route actually went to abolish it overall. 

Also, really? If Edelgard would not have promised war, she would not have gained any power. She needed the backing of Bergliez, Hevring, and the Agarthans to become Emperor. Waiting for Ionius to die was not going to do anything. 

Rhea never once displayed hatred toward the nobility. Ever. Hell, she protected them. But her wanting to give Byleth the position ignores how she wanted SOTHIS to get it. The Rhea we see at the end of the other routes is NOT the same Rhea we see in Part 1. The 5 years she's been imprisoned helped her finally realize the error in her ways. She never saw Byleth himself as a person, but jut a vessel that was meant to turn into Sothis.

And this is ignoring that Edelgard is ironically the reason Byleth was found. 

13 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

I find myself disagreeing with her when she says things such as:

After you pick the CF path.

There's a difference between someone starting a war to fight for freedom and someone starting a continental war to conquer it.

I'm sorry, but she's literally talking about wanting to free society from Rhea and the the Church. How is that anything about starting a war for the sake of conquest solely? If anything, you just contradicted yourself.

2 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I do think myself that starting a war for freedom is exactly what she did, the conquest part is secondary. It is a means to an end, but freedom is the end

By the words of Zack Fair:

Quote

"The price of freedom is steep."

 

2 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

That might be her reasoning, but this goes back to why she decides to conquer Fodlan when she could have tried to fix her country first. Also, she says that to Flayn, who she should know that, of all people, doesn't have power over anyone.

The way I see it, the conquering part is the issue. The way we are raised today, that isn't acceptable. If she was able to fix her own country instead, then I would be more inclined to be on her side (especially if Rhea/the Church chose to attack her).

How can she change her country that's been taken over by the Agarthans, when she only rose to power with their help through the promise of war, and how she cannot actually change the system is Rhea herself keeps the doctrine where the Crests are blessings of the goddess in place? 

And that Flayn argument is rather dumb. She says this to literally any Nabatean she fights, which happen to be Flayn and Seteth. It's literally reused dialogue, just as how Thales has the same line if he fights Flayn or Seteth. But sure, microanalyze that and define everything in regards to it. Flayn's also the one that thinks that the Church's done absolutely nothing wrong. Her ignorance towards the crimes of Rhea and how her brother overall advocates it just shows her own form of corruption.

Random thing, but look at Iron Man 3, where the terrorist "Mandarin" was played by a guy that didn't know he was helping out with people that were overall terrorists in their experiments. Does he get a free pass? No. He goes to jail. Not knowing that you committed a crime doesn't change that you overall played a role. Flayn being ignorant over what Rhea does and what her brother overall advocates is a problem in and of itself. 

Overall, Edelgard cannot fix anything unless Rhea is gone. She needed to go. But Rhea'd be damned to leave to mere humans. Only the goddess Sothis can take her place.

[Moltz23]

5 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

That might be her reasoning, but this goes back to why she decides to conquer Fodlan when she could have tried to fix her country first.

The issue is as far she's concerned, she already fixed Adrestia via the whole "corrupt noble purging" thing she does (sans the molemen issue which is more complex 'cause they have agents in the Kingdom as well). Also, right before the Garreg Mach attack in CF she deliberately omits the empire of the places she'll need to liberate the church's influence of for a reason.

[Flere210]

There is no need to abolish nobility entirely. England still has fucking nobility and they don't do anything. You just need to keep it in check and shift some of the power to the people. 

[MrPerson0]

1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

How is that anything about starting a war for the sake of conquest solely?

I never said it was for the sake of conquest solely. Her wanting to conquer other countries is the problem no matter what.

As for fixing the Empire, we have gone over this before. She could easily raise her own army or get help to truly take over the Empire from the nobles who has taken control from the Emperor.

5 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Not knowing that you committed a crime doesn't change that you overall played a role. Flayn being ignorant over what Rhea does and what her brother overall advocates is a problem in and of itself. 

Find it interesting that you refer to MCU. Another big problem with the villains was their plan in The Winter Soldier, where they want to kill anyone who could potentially go against them (Project Insight). Of course, Edelgard tried to do the same thing by getting Dimitri and Claude murdered before they could even voice their opinions against her, which is another huge issue I have with her.

8 minutes ago, Moltz23 said:

The issue is as far she's concerned, she already fixed Adrestia via the whole "corrupt noble purging" thing she does (sans the molemen issue which is more complex 'cause they have agents in the Kingdom as well).

If that is the case, then there really isn't any need for her to conquer Fodlan just to liberate it. She should have been fine with her own country.

 

[Moltz23]

3 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

If that is the case, then there really isn't any need for her to conquer Fodlan just to liberate it. She should have been fine with her own country.

 There's 2 huge problems with that:

1. Edelgard doesn't see it that way, and the only people who can convince her with proof that wouldn't be the case (Rhea and the molemen) have no business ever doing it.

2.It's heavily implied and mentioned by Linhart the main reason she manages to pull off her reforms is because his and Caspar's dad (the dudes in charge of adrestia's finances and army) support her 'cause due to conquest being on the table.

[omegaxis1]

3 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

There is no need to abolish nobility entirely. England still has fucking nobility and they don't do anything. You just need to keep it in check and shift some of the power to the people. 

Her route does abolish nobility, but acting like an entrenched nobility system can be abolished overnight is dumb. Thank goodness Constance and Edelgard's support actually has this clarified to how it is meant to proceed, cause people absolutely needed to know how working for long term is not something that can be done overnight.

2 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

I never said it was for the sake of conquest solely. Her wanting to conquer other countries is the problem no matter what.

As for fixing the Empire, we have gone over this before. She could easily raise her own army or get help to truly take over the Empire from the nobles who has taken control from the Emperor.

 

9 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

If that is the case, then there really isn't any need for her to conquer Fodlan just to liberate it. She should have been fine with her own country.

And once again, I point out to you that you have a very big tendency to ignore that Edelgard's "army" only happens thanks to the support she gains from Count Bergliez, who controls the military, who is one that advocates her ascension to power through promise of warfare. 

As Ferdinand pointed out, many nobles in Adrestia dream of reuniting the continent. Bergliez and Edelgard have a bad relationship as pointed out by Caspar, but he supported her. And Linhardt points out how his father and Caspar's father are supporting Edelgard. 

Context clues are all there, dude. 

Overall, if she backed out of her war against the Church, she won't get power. No military, no authority. Nothing. 

4 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

Find it interesting that you refer to MCU. Another big problem with the villains was their plan in The Winter Soldier, where they want to kill anyone who could potentially go against them (Project Insight). Of course, Edelgard tried to do the same thing by getting Dimitri and Claude murdered before they could even voice their opinions against her, which is another huge issue I have with her.

You mean the "assassination" that seems to have way too many flaws to be really something Edelgard would have intended on? If she REALLY wanted those two dead, why did she leave the safety of the KNights of Seiros to chase after Dimitri and Claude? Kostas even made it clear that he never once heard about the Knights of Seiros, who are considered elites, and how Edelgard doesn't even show any problems with Claude and Dimitri surviving, but only interest in Byleth. 

This is the thing about Edelgard. You don't look solely at the surface. You have to actually look deeper into the context. 

This bandit attack happening is what causes the teacher to run off, and Jeritza was apparently gonna replace him had that happened. Not to mention that Edelgard, despite being Jeritza's superior, had no use for him. Like, that makes no sense for that to be the case. 

Overall, there's a whole mess of writing for the Prologue that I think you're trying to overemphasize on.

 

[Darkmoon6789]

57 minutes ago, MrPerson0 said:

That might be her reasoning, but this goes back to why she decides to conquer Fodlan when she could have tried to fix her country first. Also, she says that to Flayn, who she should know that, of all people, doesn't have power over anyone.

The way I see it, the conquering part is the issue. The way we are raised today, that isn't acceptable. If she was able to fix her own country instead, then I would be more inclined to be on her side (especially if Rhea/the Church chose to attack her).

That is exactly the problem with your logic, that is how we are raised TODAY, Edelgard wasn't raised in the modern world, neither were anyone else in this game. Therefore I will judge them only by the standards appropriate for the time period. I'm not entirely convinced that our extreme aversion to conflict is necessarily always the right thing anyway. Our due respect to national sovereignity sometimes lead us to be complacent to the abuses of human rights committed by other countries.