Jump to content

The True Tragedy of Three Houses


omegaxis1
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Jotari said:

From what I've heard apparently one of the opening infographics about Almyria shows a cannon on a ship. But I haven't seen the image myself (or rather I probably saw it in the game and just didn't register it) and I'm not sure how far you can take something like that as we don't see it at all in game.

Yes.

It''s a question about what you are trying to argue, yes doesn't answer my question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

19 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

It''s a question about what you are trying to argue, yes doesn't answer my question. 

I was trying to make this joke (not something invented by TFS, general fun English word play).

Essentially, all of the above.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I was trying to make this joke.

Essentially, all of the above.

I genuinly do not understand why people view Edelgard as evil, it requires an understanding of morality very different from my own. Some of her actions might be harmful, but that is not the same as a person being bad at heart. Good in my mind is to care about others above yourself and being willing to sacrifice personal desires for the sake of others. Evil is to put yourself and your intrests above others and being willing to hurt others for personal gain

I think every lord in this game qualifies as good, including Rhea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I genuinly do not understand why people view Edelgard as evil, it requires an understanding of morality very different from my own. Some of her actions might be harmful, but that is not the same as a person being bad at heart. Good in my mind is to care about others above yourself and being willing to sacrifice personal desires for the sake of others. Evil is to put yourself and your intrests above others and being willing to hurt others for personal gain

I think every lord in this game qualifies as good, including Rhea

Maybe she isn't evil, but a few of her actions most definitely are.

Attempted murder (Hubert certainly has murdered people), burning allies, allowing innocents to be turned into demonic beasts, etc. Even plunging the continent into war, although that is more easily debatable in society. How many evil actions can one carry out or allow before you are considered evil? Being selfless is not a good reason to bring harm to others.

And it's not so cut and dry whether Edie is evil or not. I'd personally say she is both. Her (mostly) selfless goals and desires? Not evil. Her actions? Very evil. I don't think anyone is entirely wrong to label her one way or the other, nor are they right if they only think she is 100% evil or 100% good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Slyfox said:

Maybe she isn't evil, but a few of her actions most definitely are.

Attempted murder (Hubert certainly has murdered people), burning allies, allowing innocents to be turned into demonic beasts, etc. Even plunging the continent into war, although that is more easily debatable in society. How many evil actions can one carry out or allow before you are considered evil? Being selfless is not a good reason to bring harm to others.

And it's not so cut and dry whether Edie is evil or not. I'd personally say she is both. Her (mostly) selfless goals and desires? Not evil. Her actions? Very evil. I don't think anyone is entirely wrong to label her one way or the other, nor are they right if they only think she is 100% evil or 100% good.

It's basically a case of the Evil Paradox:

Either Edelgard is willing to commit evil acts to destroy a greater evil, or submit to evil just cause she's fearful or unwilling to get her hands dirty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because your intentions are good doesn't mean you're not evil. It's the whole "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" saying.

Not saying Edelgard is evil, I don't really think she is, but just because you do something with good intentions doesn't mean it wasn't evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

I was trying to make this joke (not something invented by TFS, general fun English word play).

Essentially, all of the above.

I thought a huge Arvis fan like you would like Edelgard but it seems like Arvis fans don't seem to like her much. I guess being a tragic character is something that Arvis has going for him over Edelgard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Just because your intentions are good doesn't mean you're not evil. It's the whole "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" saying.

Not saying Edelgard is evil, I don't really think she is, but just because you do something with good intentions doesn't mean it wasn't evil.

But that is the thing. @Darkmoon6789 is wondering why people say that she's evil or view her as one when she isn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

But that is the thing. @Darkmoon6789 is wondering why people say that she's evil or view her as one when she isn't. 

Yes, that was the answer.

It's because even if her intentions were good, they view her actions as evil. In most cases your intentions don't matter, it's the action itself that does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whew, I'm not reading 41 pages in one sitting again lol. Man, I missed out on some genuinely good discussions 😅.

Anyways, I'm glad TC made this topic. I've been saying this since I completed the game but depending on the site I was using, the discussion would just dissolve into Rhea vs. Edelgard with Dimitri sprinkled in. Not fun. I can only trust in Serenes 🙏 With the occasional reddit post. It's rare but there's some genuinely good character analysis. It just gets buried

I do want to mention the whole "Rhea suppressed technology and humanity's advancement!" Honestly, I doubt the validity of it. Losing books, incredibly rare and valued resources if the dlc was right, would be a punishable crime. Hell, Ashe simply pays off Anna when a thief stole one lol. 

Was mentioned really early on but I agree, Bernie being set on fire is such a tiresome argument

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Yes, that was the answer.

It's because even if her intentions were good, they view her actions as evil. In most cases your intentions don't matter, it's the action itself that does.

I guess I just separate the morality of someone's actions to the morality of someone's character. It is entirely possible for good people to do bad things, especially if they are under the impression that a bad thing they are doing is necessary or have been tricked into thinking it is a good. This actually happens quite frequently, but is usually the are in some way mistaken, a lot of things in history were done with good intent, but ended up going horribly wrong. Without that it necessarily being the intention of the people involved.

I personally don't really like the saying of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I understand what it usually means in a metaphorical sense that no matter what your intention. Things might not work out the way you intended, but in a more literal interpretation. It reflects an inherent cosmic injustice in that no matter how good a person you are, you might still be damned for no other reason that you are fallible and unable to accurately predict unintentional bad consequences from actions made with the best of intentions. I don't like crucifying people because of mistakes and I can't stand the notion that someone like Edelgard would deserve to suffer when all she wanted was to create a better world for humanity. 

I do understand why some people would think Edelgard would be evil, but it is nearly always the war. Nearly everything wrong that Edelgard has ever done is in some way related to the period of the war and the year or so preceding it. After this period is over Edelgard became an impeccable ruler who spent the rest of her time in power, making life better for the entire continent. But the Empire she created was a good thing for most people is most definite, the question lies in it was worth the massive cost it took to create.

Another factor of why I view Edelgard favourably is that she pretty much hated having to do any of her more questionable actions during the war, she hated having to cause all of this bloodshed and she hated the Agarthans and deemed their actions deplorable. She also shows a very diplomatic attitude towards Almyra, which makes me think she is not usually a warmonger, her war against the church is an exception rather than the rule. In crimson flower, if it wasn't for the Agarthans, Edelgard has nearly impeccable code of conduct during the war and generally tries to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. The ability to feel remorse does all the difference

With all of this in mind, I could never condemn Edelgard to hell, if anyone's deserves forgiveness and mercy. It would be someone like her who only did what they did out of a desire to help. 

What makes Edelgard such an interesting character to me is exactly the contrast between her good heart and intentions and the actions she feels is necessary to make the world a better place. She really made me question what being good or evil, really means in the first place and what really matters when determining such things. She is an example that simply couldn't exist in a black and white world

1 hour ago, omegaxis1 said:

It's basically a case of the Evil Paradox:

Either Edelgard is willing to commit evil acts to destroy a greater evil, or submit to evil just cause she's fearful or unwilling to get her hands dirty.

That paradox is the perfect summary of the situation Edelgard is in, it is a no-win scenario. She would either have to sit idly by while the continent is consumed by corruption, if she was unwilling to cooperate the Agarthan controlled nobility of the Empire would dispose of her, see the nation completely into the depths of depravity and probably start the war anyway with a different puppet. The bloodshed wouldn't happen by her order, but it still would happen.

Or Edelgard could do exactly what they want, but on her own terms, secretly working against the Agarthans hoping to use this conflict to create something worthwhile. She has a tough task ahead of her, needing to unite the entire continent, removing the influence of the church of Seiros that has a stranglehold over the entire continent and enables the power of the corrupt nobility, as well as getting rid of the secret cult that has me controlling the Empire from the shadows, all while needing the Agarthans to destroy her other enemies. Hoping that once all the destruction and bloodshed is over she will be able to build a better society without the influence of the two puppet masters of the church and the Agarthans. 

I would argue it is a duty as a monarch to do whatever is necessary to protect her people, or a person in power, the worst thing she could do would be to do nothing, the monarch need to be willing to act and make sacrifices for the greater good, it's literally their job to make this type of tough decisions. A failure to perform this role is failing to perform their duties. This is a true no-win scenario, every option she has is bad. If she wasn't the heir to the throne Edelgard might have had the luxury to remain unstained by the blood of others, but as a monarch, she didn't have that luxury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can do evil actions for good/justified reasons and you can do "good" actions for selfish and evil reasons.

It gets tricky when people are clearly fine with some characters doing bad things for the greater good, but not others. At what point is morally gray too gray for you? Is it really the degree that bothers you, or just the packaging?

As for books, they're still accessible because they're hand-written. They're not rare relics or anything.

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Crysta said:

You can do evil actions for good/justified reasons and you can do "good" actions for selfish and evil reasons.

It gets tricky when people are clearly fine with some characters doing bad things for the greater good, but not others. At what point is morally gray too gray for you? Is it really the degree that bothers you, or just the packaging?

I do try to remain consistent, but morality is one of the most subjective things in existence and we all have our biases waste could affect our outlook. I obviously have really strong feelings for Edelgard, which does affect my judgement. But that doesn't necessarily mean I am wrong, it just means that I dislike seeing harm done to her. It is an aspect of vengeance that is seldom considered, the target of someone's revenge could easily be a loved one of someone else, and if hurt the loved ones may seek revenge in turn. This cyclical nature of vengeance is why it is almost never a good idea. 

I generally think it is better to be too lenient than too harsh . Empathy is almost never bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

It's because even if her intentions were good, they view her actions as evil. In most cases your intentions don't matter, it's the action itself that does.

I disagree. Intention matters a lot if not more than the action itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I do try to remain consistent, but morality is one of the most subjective things in existence and we all have our biases waste could affect our outlook. I obviously have really strong feelings for Edelgard, which does affect my judgement. But that doesn't necessarily mean I am wrong, it just means that I dislike seeing harm done to her. It is an aspect of vengeance that is seldom considered, the target of someone's revenge could easily be a loved one of someone else, and if hurt the loved ones may seek revenge in turn. This cyclical nature of vengeance is why it is almost never a good idea. 

I generally think it is better to be too lenient than too harsh . Empathy is almost never bad.

Dimitri forgives her in his route (so I hear, just started Blue Lions). Byleth forgives her in Silver Snow and Verdant Wind. So does Claude. So do I, for that matter. They all empathize with her.

I think it's easy to forgive her as a person, genuinely wanting to do good. But as a ruler, she wields great power, power that has and will continue to harm others. That's why she has to be removed in three of the routes, whether that's exile, imprisonment or death.

For example, spoilers for Star Wars: Rebels

Spoiler

When Maul tracks down Kenobi on Tatooine for a final confrontation, Kenobi forgives him. And yet, Kenobi also makes sure Maul doesn't come out of that confrontation alive. It's no longer about good and evil. It's about the danger Maul poses to others and the need for it to stop.

Maybe some fans feel overwhelming hatred and a need for vengeance when it comes to Edelgard, as some do with Rhea. But ultimately, none of our main protagonists kill her for that reason.

Empathy and forgiveness are not mutually exclusive with justice and punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, they certainly do empathize and are willing to forgive her, but they don't kill her out of sense of justice or punishment. They do it because they literally have no choice or she'll kill them.

EDIT: Well, Claude and Dimitri do anyway. Byleth does because she begs him to.

The distinction is important because it isn't a case of them thinking she's too dangerous to be left alive.

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Eh, they certainly do empathize and are willing to forgive her, but they don't kill her out of sense of justice or punishment. They do it because they literally have no choice or she'll kill them.

EDIT: Well, Claude and Dimitri do anyway. Byleth does because she begs him to.

The distinction is important because it isn't a case of them thinking she's too dangerous to be left alive.

Hmmm, I don't really see the difference, to be honest?

She's trying to kill them? She's too dangerous. She's trying to kill others? She's too dangerous. They weren't personally in danger around the time Byleth wakes up.  The war was more or less in a stalemate, but they still fight back against the Empire when the opportunity arises instead of suing for peace.

I don't think such a distinction is necessary in this case, as it's quite plausible that they ended her life for multiple reasons. Like a taco, you know, many kinds of fillings stuffed inside.

And let's say our protagonists didn't kill her out of a sense of obligation, plenty of other people would have. Dedue wants her dead because of justice, with maybe a bit of vengeance thrown in. Caspar's father was executed for the part he played, and he offered his life to spare his soldiers. Who's to say Edelgard would get a free pass if she wasn't personally trying to kill someone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely a difference. If they thought she was a serious threat to the world at large, they wouldn't have considered forgiveness as a valid option in the first place. She was a serious threat to them because she considered them a threat to her cause. That's it. They didn't consider her an irredeemable person or some imminent threat to the world they felt morally obligated to put down no matter what.

Dedue isn't beholden to a desire to kill her until her forces kill Dimitri in VW, and that's vengeance and his sense of duty to Dimitri at work than any moral compass in play. Caspar's dad died in battle on her behalf, didn't he?

Can't speak for the world at large, but I have a sneaking suspicion not every person in Fodlan is keen on Dimitri either, so I'm not sure why that's even relevant.

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Eh, they certainly do empathize and are willing to forgive her, but they don't kill her out of sense of justice or punishment. They do it because they literally have no choice or she'll kill them.

EDIT: Well, Claude and Dimitri do anyway. Byleth does because she begs him to.

The distinction is important because it isn't a case of them thinking she's too dangerous to be left alive.

Pretty much, the main reason Edelgard dies in any route is because she literally insists on being killed due to her own sense of honour and obligation. I think it comes down to the idea that as others has been willing to die for her and her cause she feels that she should be willing to do the same, otherwise she would betray her principles and to her that would be worse than death. Edelgard has this idea of that dying for your beliefs is honourable and the sacrifice of those who do so should be respected, not pitied. It makes it a bit easier for me knowing that Edelgard's death is her own choice

Edelgard has proven to not be dangerous at all once the war is over, assuming she would rein in the same way as in Crimson flower if she was victorious. Granted, she is incredibly stubborn and might pose a danger up until she realises she has no way of winning any more, at which point she will likely demand death due to her own personal beliefs.

22 minutes ago, Slyfox said:

Dimitri forgives her in his route (so I hear, just started Blue Lions). Byleth forgives her in Silver Snow and Verdant Wind. So does Claude. So do I, for that matter. They all empathize with her.

I think it's easy to forgive her as a person, genuinely wanting to do good. But as a ruler, she wields great power, power that has and will continue to harm others. That's why she has to be removed in three of the routes, whether that's exile, imprisonment or death.

For example, spoilers for Star Wars: Rebels

  Hide contents

When Maul tracks down Kenobi on Tatooine for a final confrontation, Kenobi forgives him. And yet, Kenobi also makes sure Maul doesn't come out of that confrontation alive. It's no longer about good and evil. It's about the danger Maul poses to others and the need for it to stop.

Maybe some fans feel overwhelming hatred and a need for vengeance when it comes to Edelgard, as some do with Rhea. But ultimately, none of our main protagonists kill her for that reason.

Empathy and forgiveness are not mutually exclusive with justice and punishment.

I really don't believe ideas of justice and punishment for its own sake. I am more about necessity and rehabilitation. Justice in the punitive sense I feel is nothing more than glorified vengeance. While a natural inclination is a dangerous principle that justifies sadism and creates a cycle of violence. 

If I argue that someone should be killed. It is never out of some sense that they deserve to die, but that they need to die in order to protect other people. This doesn't contain any judgement on my part, it is simply a matter of necessity. 

Edelgard do seem to share my philosophy in this regard, as she doesn't kill Dimitri and Rhea out of a desire for vengeance, she does so because she feels it is necessary. Dimitri at this point is a danger to both Edelgard and to anyone who follows her, even in defeat, he still swears he will kill her and he will go to any lengths to do it. She hates doing it, but she has no choice but to put him down. Rhea refuses to surrender and has proven that she is dangerous enough to burn an entire city of innocent people just to get to Edelgard and Byleth, she has proven to be a massive danger to the people of Fodlan. Rhea always talks about her enemies deserving to die and burn in the eternal fire, I feel Edelgard's approach of necessity is far more pure.

If a criminal isn't a danger to other people however, or could be contained for long enough so they can have a change of heart, rehabilitation is always better than punishment for punishment sake. It is better for someone to become a functioning member of society than going through what is essentially torture for the sake of vengeance. The only legitimate use of punishment is if this leads to a criminal realising they were wrong and towards rehabilitation. Granted, in the case of war, if someone insists on dying because we are convinced that is the honourable thing to do, they have a right to make that decision.

I don't think Edelgard is really in need of redemption, as there is really nothing wrong with her, she is a good person with a good heart, what she did is simply due to circumstances. She wouldn't do so. If she wasn't convinced that it was necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Definitely a difference. If they thought she was a serious threat to the world at large, they wouldn't have considered forgiveness as a valid option in the first place. She was a serious threat to them because she considered them a threat to her cause. That's it. They didn't consider her an irredeemable person or some imminent threat to the world they felt morally obligated to put down no matter what.

Dedue isn't beholden to a desire to kill her until her forces kill Dimitri in VW, and that's vengeance and his sense of duty to Dimitri at work than any moral compass in play. Caspar's dad died in battle on her behalf, didn't he?

Can't speak for the world at large, but I have a sneaking suspicion not every person in Fodlan is keen on Dimitri either, so I'm not sure why that's even relevant.

Most people in the game don't consider her irredeemable, nor do I. Per the online Merriam Webster dictionary, I'm using "forgive" in the following sense. "to cease to feel resentment against (an offender)". That doesn't exclude taking further action, and further action is what happens in part 2.

I haven't seen enough of Dedue to argue your point.

Caspar's father is definitely executed in Verdant Wind and Silver Snow after the invasion of Enbarr, per Caspar's and Dorothea's monastery dialogue.

It was also my understanding that Dimitri changes from vengeance-obsessed to simply carrying out his duty and ending the war. So that's why I deem it relevant. If that's not what happens, I guess I'll just have to keep playing Blue Lions to get the full picture.

To be honest, I think we are mostly on the same page and are arguing minor points on said page. It's not surprising, if I agree 75% on one thing and disagree 25% on that same thing, I'd argue my points. Correct me if I'm wrong.

24 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I really don't believe ideas of justice and punishment for its own sake. I am more about necessity and rehabilitation. Justice in the punitive sense I feel is nothing more than glorified vengeance. While a natural inclination is a dangerous principle that justifies sadism and creates a cycle of violence. 

If I argue that someone should be killed. It is never out of some sense that they deserve to die, but that they need to die in order to protect other people. This doesn't contain any judgement on my part, it is simply a matter of necessity. 

If a criminal isn't a danger to other people however, or could be contained for long enough so they can have a change of heart, rehabilitation is always better than punishment for punishment sake. It is better for someone to become a functioning member of society than going through what is essentially torture for the sake of vengeance. The only legitimate use of punishment is if this leads to a criminal realising they were wrong and towards rehabilitation. Granted, in the case of war, if someone insists on dying because we are convinced that is the honourable thing to do, they have a right to make that decision.

I don't think Edelgard is really in need of redemption, as there is really nothing wrong with her, she is a good person with a good heart, what she did is simply due to circumstances. She wouldn't do so. If she wasn't convinced that it was necessary.

This is all fine, but Edelgard will not change and stop fighting until she has achieved her goals. She will not be rehabilitated, nor will she let herself be captured. She is a danger to other people until the war is over with her death or her victory. Thus, it's a necessity for those she opposes to remove her. She started a war, and no matter how right she may be, war has consequences, ones that she knew she would have to pay. I am not arguing for punishment or justice because I don't like her. I'm arguing for it because I believe it to be necessary, given what we know of her.  And, if we really want to dive deep into philosophical debate regarding justice/vengeance/criminals/etc, I did write up a little bit of text, though it may irrelevant to Fire Emblem. So maybe not...

In regards to the line in bold, as, hypocritical though he may be, Felix said to Ashe: "be more moderate in your passions". I find it important to listen to both my heart and my mind. Relying on one too much makes us blind to other facets of life. As you've mentioned, you really like Edelgard. Maybe you truly believe she there is nothing wrong with her. Just keep in mind that we tend to overlook the flaws in those we love.

Also, anyone else take up to an hour to write and edit replies? It's so difficult to write stuff without being too opinionated and fanning the flames of war debate. I promise I'm not so robotic in person.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Slyfox said:

Caspar's father is definitely executed in Verdant Wind and Silver Snow after the invasion of Enbarr, per Caspar's and Dorothea's monastery dialogue.

Quote

Dorothea: So, the moment we defeat Edie, the nobles cozy up to the Alliance and church... That lot really does think only of themselves, and no one else. But then there's Count Bergliez. He used to be Minister of Military Affairs... He sacrificed his own life so that all the soldiers and officers who fought could be given quarter... When I heard that... I don't know... that simple act of humanity... I couldn't help it. I burst into tears. You know Count Bergliez is Casper's father, right? I can't even imagine how Caspar must feel about it.

Caspar: He's dead... My father's dead... I'm OK though. Really. I was ready for it. He was a general in the Imperial army, after all. Minister of Military Affairs... He gave his own life so the Empire's soldiers wouldn't have to lose theirs. That's a fight that only he could take on. He was such a tough guy. This whole time I fought side by side with you and Claude... But did I ever get any stronger? Will I ever be as strong as my father?

Don't see anything here suggesting an execution, but a sacrifice?

8 minutes ago, Slyfox said:

It was also my understanding that Dimitri changes from vengeance-obsessed to simply carrying out his duty and ending the war. So that's why I deem it relevant. If that's not what happens, I guess I'll just have to keep playing Blue Lions to get the full picture.

Redeeming yourself to your friends doesn't really mean you've redeemed yourself to those you have hurt in the past. Thankfully Dimitri himself at least acknowledges it. Whether or not other people forgive Edelgard is irrelevant because it's ultimately not their choice to decide whether or not she deserves to die, or "give her a pass", as you say.

12 minutes ago, Slyfox said:

To be honest, I think we are mostly on the same page and are arguing minor points on said page. It's not surprising, if I agree 75% on one thing and disagree 25% on that same thing, I'd argue my points. Correct me if I'm wrong.

We agree that they have to stop her, but your argument seems to revolve around characters having a moral obligation to put her down because she's dangerous to the world at large, but that isn't really consistent with what she actually does, and how other characters view her or react to her in the game. They have to defend their own lives and their nations, but Edelgard isn't sowing death and destruction everywhere she goes. She's not putting towns to the torch or murdering civilians: she's mostly just fighting your army.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I genuinly do not understand why people view Edelgard as evil, it requires an understanding of morality very different from my own. Some of her actions might be harmful, but that is not the same as a person being bad at heart. Good in my mind is to care about others above yourself and being willing to sacrifice personal desires for the sake of others. Evil is to put yourself and your intrests above others and being willing to hurt others for personal gain

I think every lord in this game qualifies as good, including Rhea

So you've expressed...but..eh...why are you quoting a completely unrelated post of mine.

8 hours ago, Icelerate said:

I thought a huge Arvis fan like you would like Edelgard but it seems like Arvis fans don't seem to like her much. I guess being a tragic character is something that Arvis has going for him over Edelgard. 

I like Alvis's character, doesn't mean I think he's a morally good person. That being said I don't necessarily dislike Edelgard. I have issues with her, but as I said earlier I have issues with a lot of characters in Three Houses. I have issues with people trying to twist the narrative to suggest Crimson Flower is the only lense of the game worth analyzing through, but Edelgard herself has some certainly good points as a character. Actually probably my biggest complaint about her is what a poor antagonist she makes as (and I played Crimson Flower as my third route) we really have little idea as to what she actually wants. We get her big speech before the time skip and then she basically vanishes for the entire rest of the story until you kill her (and funnily enough this is the biggest problem I have with Rhea too...the second half of Three Houses is mostly a whole lot of nothing really. Just talking to your lord, and not even that in Silver Snow).

 

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Slyfox said:

Most people in the game don't consider her irredeemable, nor do I. Per the online Merriam Webster dictionary, I'm using "forgive" in the following sense. "to cease to feel resentment against (an offender)". That doesn't exclude taking further action, and further action is what happens in part 2.

I haven't seen enough of Dedue to argue your point.

Caspar's father is definitely executed in Verdant Wind and Silver Snow after the invasion of Enbarr, per Caspar's and Dorothea's monastery dialogue.

It was also my understanding that Dimitri changes from vengeance-obsessed to simply carrying out his duty and ending the war. So that's why I deem it relevant. If that's not what happens, I guess I'll just have to keep playing Blue Lions to get the full picture.

To be honest, I think we are mostly on the same page and are arguing minor points on said page. It's not surprising, if I agree 75% on one thing and disagree 25% on that same thing, I'd argue my points. Correct me if I'm wrong.

This is all fine, but Edelgard will not change and stop fighting until she has achieved her goals. She will not be rehabilitated, nor will she let herself be captured. She is a danger to other people until the war is over with her death or her victory. Thus, it's a necessity for those she opposes to remove her. She started a war, and no matter how right she may be, war has consequences, ones that she knew she would have to pay. I am not arguing for punishment or justice because I don't like her. I'm arguing for it because I believe it to be necessary, given what we know of her.  And, if we really want to dive deep into philosophical debate regarding justice/vengeance/criminals/etc, I did write up a little bit of text, though it may irrelevant to Fire Emblem. So maybe not...

In regards to the line in bold, as, hypocritical though he may be, Felix said to Ashe: "be more moderate in your passions". I find it important to listen to both my heart and my mind. Relying on one too much makes us blind to other facets of life. As you've mentioned, you really like Edelgard. Maybe you truly believe she there is nothing wrong with her. Just keep in mind that we tend to overlook the flaws in those we love.

Also, anyone else take up to an hour to write and edit replies? It's so difficult to write stuff without being too opinionated and fanning the flames of war debate. I promise I'm not so robotic in person.

 

Well, war is war and what you are suggesting isn't really all that different from Edelgard killing Dimitri and Rhea because it was necessary. It is as much Dimitri's duty to do whatever it takes to stop the war for the sake of his people as it is for Edelgard, I would not blame a monarch for doing his/her duty. Sometimes in war you do need to kill the enemy commander, especially if they are being stubborn. To be consistent. I can't blame Edelgard or Dimitri for killing the other. I wouldn't approve of Dimitri killing Edelgard for vengeance, but motive and intent makes all the difference with me, to do so out of duty and obligation is far better in almost every way

I think the most significant challenge in the "rehabilitation" of Edelgard would be convincing her not to want to die after her defeat. I know Edelgard well enough that she will prefer death of any kind of imprisonment, even a benevolent one. Even if she is left of the hook entirely, she might still prefer death rather than to live in a world dominated by crest hierarchy. She would need significant persuasion to consider it worth living in the world the other Lords would create. Likely if she isn't granted death she will do whatever is necessary to force someone to put down, she has already demonstrated that she will do this if someone tries to spare her.

This doesn't sit entirely right with me emotionally, it is frustrating that Edelgard has this mindset to defeat, but in the end that is her choice and for her to die by her own volition is better than having her beg for her life and being put down like a dog. But in any case, I would exist in Fodlan I would fight for Edelgard, so I would likely be dead myself by this point. Heck, I like her enough that if she is willing to become a Crest Beast. I will do the same. 

But I generally agree with Crysta when it comes to Edelgard's character, but it doesn't really change anything I said here. 

And yes, I do take quite some time writing a reply, mostly using voice recognition, so it is a bit faster, but it can sometimes contain weird typos. When the program writes the wrong word. I am here because I like debating and I take any excuse I can to talk about Edelgard, this entire conversation is actually really simple in comparison to what I am used to. I have not seen a single person here consider Edelgard a complete monster with no redeeming qualities, not even the people here who do dislike Edelgard go that far. 

Edit:

16 minutes ago, Jotari said:

So you've expressed...but..eh...why are you quoting a completely unrelated post of mine.

I like Alvis's character, doesn't mean I think he's a morally good person. That being said I don't necessarily dislike Edelgard. I have issues with her, but as I said earlier I have issues with a lot of characters in Three Houses. I have issues with people trying to twist the narrative to suggest Crimson Flower is the only lense of the game worth analyzing through, but Edelgard herself has some certainly good points as a character. Actually probably my biggest complaint about her is what a poor antagonist she makes as (and I played Crimson Flower as my third route) we really have little idea as to what she actually wants. We get her big speech before the time skip and then she basically vanishes for the entire rest of the story until you kill her (and funnily enough this is the biggest problem I have with Rhea too...the second half of Three Houses is mostly a whole lot of nothing really. Just talking to your lord, and not even that in Silver Snow).

 

Did I quote the wrong post? I guess that is possible

I do think that Edelgard not being that well planed in other routes is to encourage playing the story from our perspective to understand her motives. I wouldn't have understood Dimitri or Rhea from Crimson Flower alone. I would never suggest that Crimson flower is the only route worth analysing, but it is a good source for Edelgard as it is the route that best explains her and what she is about. It is also definitely a factor that Crimson flower is the only rout I have fully finished by this point, so I'm the most qualified talking about that one. Currently on my second playthrough on chapter 15 of the Verdant Wind. I have seen parts of the Azure Moon in a let's play and absolutely nothing from Silver Snow so far. (As well as looking up Edelgard's death in every route just to make sure I could emotionally handle seeing that, yes, I like her that much. The answer is yes, I can handle it. Due to her death being Edelgard's choice, it has turned out that she is far less demonised in the other routes than other online conversations led me to believe)

Edited by Darkmoon6789
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the other routes the speech makes it pretty clear what she wants to do, but we don't really get the reasons for why. That's intended by design.

It's not bad design for a game like this, either, otherwise Blue Lions wouldn't be nearly as appealing if I already knew what happened to Dimitri and why he was that way.

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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