Jump to content
omegaxis1

The True Tragedy of Three Houses

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

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:

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)

I don't know, Dimitri and Rhea's motive of not wanting to be invaded and killed is pretty easy to understand in Crimson Flower. Rhea obviously have some extra baggage that's unknown to the player in regards to going off the deepend and burning half the city down, but the basic idea of them not wanting to get invaded is easy to grasp. Dimitri especially considering that route has like non of his boar aspects revealed.

12 minutes ago, Crysta said:

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.

On a conceptual level it's not necessarily bad to keep some info hidden on a multi route story like this, but sometimes when the info is as crucial as "Why is all this even happening to begin with?" you end up having four incomplete stories rather than one whole story (which is what a multi route story should still be).

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


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

On a conceptual level it's not necessarily bad to keep some info hidden on a multi route story like this, but sometimes when the info is as crucial as "Why is all this even happening to begin with?" you end up having four incomplete stories rather than one whole story (which is what a multi route story should still be).

You have two routes that don't have the reasons embedded in them because they're not Edelgard-centric stories and not meant to be, you have two where they are embedded and you'd have to be deliberately not paying attention to not notice what they are. You need play at least three in order to get the full picture. They want to make you play them and that's clearly intended.

Do you really want all the important questions answered in one route?

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


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

I don't know, Dimitri and Rhea's motive of not wanting to be invaded and killed is pretty easy to understand in Crimson Flower. Rhea obviously have some extra baggage that's unknown to the player in regards to going off the deepend and burning half the city down, but the basic idea of them not wanting to get invaded is easy to grasp. Dimitri especially considering that route has like non of his boar aspects revealed.

On a conceptual level it's not necessarily bad to keep some info hidden on a multi route story like this, but sometimes when the info is as crucial as "Why is all this even happening to begin with?" you end up having four incomplete stories rather than one whole story (which is what a multi route story should still be).

I have noticed that what route you play first has significant impact in how a person views the story. I wonder if I would view Edelgard the same way if I didn't start with Crimson Flower. I would be willing to bet that most people in favour of Edelgard started with that route, and most who dislike her started with Azure Moon. I think the game does a really good job at making you attached to the characters, which will lead to developing a certain bias towards the people you got attached to first.

Of course, another factor here is that people who choose a certain house probably had some kind of reason to do so, so that bias might be pre-existing.

In my case, I somehow liked Edelgard before I knew anything about her, I don't know how that is possible, maybe some kind of instincts? Somehow, my love for her only increased as I found out more about her. While I did worry she might be evil for a while as I figured out she was the Flame Emperor quite early, that worry vanished with time as I started to understand more about what was going on. What the Flame Emperor said after Remire village. The turning point was the reveal of the Flame Emperor, Rhea left a really bad impression for me in the scene, and I had already been suspicious of her thanks to some of the things she said in relation to Lonato's rebellion and dealing with the Western Church. I even eventually got the satisfying explanation of why she worked with the Agarthans, I couldn't fault. Hubert's logic, however much I hated working with them. I originally hated Rhea quite a bit more than I do now as I only knew what Edelgard did. I really didn't like the eternal punishment ideology she often spouted about Edelgard and Byleth and considered that evidence that she needed to be brought down. Of course, now I have realised that it is likely Rhea doesn't even believe in the afterlife of her own religion, so she's likely just being theatrical.

The fact I played Crimson Flower first, also made me trying to play any other route kind of awkward. As I noticed it felt wrong to fight against my former allies, which I had grown so attached to. I also found Claude surprisingly deep and is more interesting as a character than the impression I were first given my information from various message boards. I admire his willingness to figure out what is going on and I find it very interesting how what he wants to accomplish is actually very similar to what Edelgard wants to accomplish, where they differ is in the preferred methods. I do fear that Claude's dream would remain just a pipe dream. If it wasn't for Edelgard starting the war, however harsh it might seem, sometimes drastic measures are necessary to accomplish true change. There is also the fact that while I do like Edelgard, I do really hate the Agarthans, so I have no problem fighting them. In fact, I will take great pleasure killing Thales like I didn't get to do in person in Crimson flower

Share this post


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

You have two routes that don't have the reasons embedded in them because they're not Edelgard-centric stories and not meant to be, you have two where they are embedded and you'd have to be deliberately not paying attention to not notice what they are. You need play at least three in order to get the full picture. They want to make you play them and that's clearly intended.

Do you really want all the important questions answered in one route?

No, but I do want Edelgard to be a present and active antagonists in the routes where she's meant to playing exactly that role. In reality we actually get all of her motivation in that one scene, we just have no idea that's her actual genuine motivation because we don't see her.

28 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I have noticed that what route you play first has significant impact in how a person views the story. I wonder if I would view Edelgard the same way if I didn't start with Crimson Flower. I would be willing to bet that most people in favour of Edelgard started with that route, and most who dislike her started with Azure Moon. I think the game does a really good job at making you attached to the characters, which will lead to developing a certain bias towards the people you got attached to first.

Of course, another factor here is that people who choose a certain house probably had some kind of reason to do so, so that bias might be pre-existing.

In my case, I somehow liked Edelgard before I knew anything about her, I don't know how that is possible, maybe some kind of instincts? Somehow, my love for her only increased as I found out more about her. While I did worry she might be evil for a while as I figured out she was the Flame Emperor quite early, that worry vanished with time as I started to understand more about what was going on. What the Flame Emperor said after Remire village. The turning point was the reveal of the Flame Emperor, Rhea left a really bad impression for me in the scene, and I had already been suspicious of her thanks to some of the things she said in relation to Lonato's rebellion and dealing with the Western Church. I even eventually got the satisfying explanation of why she worked with the Agarthans, I couldn't fault. Hubert's logic, however much I hated working with them. I originally hated Rhea quite a bit more than I do now as I only knew what Edelgard did. I really didn't like the eternal punishment ideology she often spouted about Edelgard and Byleth and considered that evidence that she needed to be brought down. Of course, now I have realised that it is likely Rhea doesn't even believe in the afterlife of her own religion, so she's likely just being theatrical.

The fact I played Crimson Flower first, also made me trying to play any other route kind of awkward. As I noticed it felt wrong to fight against my former allies, which I had grown so attached to. I also found Claude surprisingly deep and is more interesting as a character than the impression I were first given my information from various message boards. I admire his willingness to figure out what is going on and I find it very interesting how what he wants to accomplish is actually very similar to what Edelgard wants to accomplish, where they differ is in the preferred methods. I do fear that Claude's dream would remain just a pipe dream. If it wasn't for Edelgard starting the war, however harsh it might seem, sometimes drastic measures are necessary to accomplish true change. There is also the fact that while I do like Edelgard, I do really hate the Agarthans, so I have no problem fighting them. In fact, I will take great pleasure killing Thales like I didn't get to do in person in Crimson flower

Character design. It plays a far larger role in these things then people realize. I expect you'll disagree, but I reckon that it's also largely the same reason you hate the Agrathans so much even though all the justification for Edelgard's actions can just as easily apply to them (because ultimately it always comes down to the ends justify the means).

(and for what it's worth, Black Eagles was the first house I chose too, Crimson Flower just wasn't the first route I played).

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


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

No, but I do want Edelgard to be a present and active antagonists in the routes where she's meant to playing exactly that role.

Define present and active. I assume you don't expect her to be on the majority of the maps, or in the monastery.

You don't usually learn antagonist motivations until the very end in a game, but that's a standard storyline - not one tailored to a game meant to be replayed, and given an option to tag along with the antagonist where it makes sense that they'd divulge information to you and go on extended monologues about their backstory.

 

Share this post


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

Define present and active. I assume you don't expect her to be on the majority of the maps, or in the monastery.

You don't usually learn antagonist motivations until the very end in a game, but that's a standard storyline - not one tailored to a game meant to be replayed, and given an option to tag along with the antagonist where it makes sense that they'd divulge information to you and go on extended monologues about their backstory.

 

Not sure what you're not getting here. Perhaps you're just debating for the sake of debating. Maybe I should phrase it another way. If a story has an antagonist then the antagonist should be a major character. Edelgard is not a major or even an important character in Azure Moon, Verdant Wind of Silver Snow. This is the most jarring in Azure Moon where she is obviously meant to be an important character yet just isn't. It's not about tossing her into more maps, it's about having her actually interact with the protagonists and make decisions that affect them. As far as antagonists goes, Edelgard makes just one decision, to start the war. After that her impact on the narrative is basically nonexistent as she moves over from a character and on to a nebulous goal they need to reach after sorting out their own shit (or not even doing that in Silver Snow). By not actually utilizing her as a character, she'd almost be better if she never appeared on screen at all.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


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

No, but I do want Edelgard to be a present and active antagonists in the routes where she's meant to playing exactly that role. In reality we actually get all of her motivation in that one scene, we just have no idea that's her actual genuine motivation because we don't see her.

Character design. It plays a far larger role in these things then people realize.

Well, Edelgard does have really appealing character design. 

edelgardfeh_7.png

Just look at her, her appearance just screams elegance, but appearance isn't the only reason I think I was drawn to her. First impressions of her personality is that of a very refined but competitive young lady, she seems to have been very no nonsense attitude, but can surprisingly relax and show great amounts of compassion and understanding. It quickly becomes obvious that despite her noble status, does not consider herself superior to commoners or those without crests. She also states in very early supports that she has a distaste for the nobility system. So overall, she does make a very great first impression. 

latest?cb=20190612065130

One thing that should be mentioned about her post time skip appearance, this outfit contains all kinds of visual clues to her character. First and foremost, why is her colour scheme, primarily red and white and not red and black like the colour of the Empire? I believe this is to reflect the contrast between her true nature and the actions she feels are necessary to take. The white part of her outfit is displayed primarily on the inner side of her cloak, and the inner layer of her dress. Representing her good intentions and in the noble character, but this layer is hidden from most observers like not all could perceive her well-meaning intentions through her actions. Which brings me to the red representing the bloodied path she walks to bring about change. She is a literal crimson flower, a white rose stained with blood. 

The Crown representing her position as Emperor, the horms attached to it, the inherent corruption that comes with absolute power. The axe, made by the Agarthans represents how she will use the Agarthans as a tool to accomplish her goals. I also notice how she has hearts all over her outfit, one pair which are crossed out, perhaps representing her sense of empathy and perhaps how she's trying to suppress it in order to do what she feels must be done.

Do you think I am overanalysing or do you think at least part of this was intended in her design?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he means she's a poorly designed character functionally because she's not a centerpiece of every route like an antagonist ought to be, not her physical appearance.

And just like he thinks I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing, I feel he's complaining for the sake of complaining lol

I don't really want Edelgard to be the centerpiece of any route other than her own, even if she's the antagonist. It'd feel out of place if I was somehow privy to her plans, feelings or motivations when there's no real reason for Byleth to be privy to such things. Beyond breaking immersion, it'd also make playing the rest of the game less appealing. She's better as a more distant, mysterious obstacle in this particular story structure.

But I guess YMMV, as it is with most things. 

Share this post


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

Well, Edelgard does have really appealing character design. 

edelgardfeh_7.png

Just look at her, her appearance just screams elegance, but appearance isn't the only reason I think I was drawn to her. First impressions of her personality is that of a very refined but competitive young lady, she seems to have been very no nonsense attitude, but can surprisingly relax and show great amounts of compassion and understanding. It quickly becomes obvious that despite her noble status, does not consider herself superior to commoners or those without crests. She also states in very early supports that she has a distaste for the nobility system. So overall, she does make a very great first impression. 

latest?cb=20190612065130

One thing that should be mentioned about her post time skip appearance, this outfit contains all kinds of visual clues to her character. First and foremost, why is her colour scheme, primarily red and white and not red and black like the colour of the Empire? I believe this is to reflect the contrast between her true nature and the actions she feels are necessary to take. The white part of her outfit is displayed primarily on the inner side of her cloak, and the inner layer of her dress. Representing her good intentions and in the noble character, but this layer is hidden from most observers like not all could perceive her well-meaning intentions through her actions. Which brings me to the red representing the bloodied path she walks to bring about change. She is a literal crimson flower, a white rose stained with blood. 

The Crown representing her position as Emperor, the horms attached to it, the inherent corruption that comes with absolute power. The axe, made by the Agarthans represents how she will use the Agarthans as a tool to accomplish her goals. I also notice how she has hearts all over her outfit, one pair which are crossed out, perhaps representing her sense of empathy and perhaps how she's trying to suppress it in order to do what she feels must be done.

Do you think I am overanalysing or do you think at least part of this was intended in her design?

I'm sure it was intended. I forget were I read it, but supposedly Edelgard was the first character they designed, so they would've had lots of time to incorporate symbolism in her design.

And yeah, I gotta admit her being cute did play some factor in my liking her. Agreeing with her beliefs got me to stay, but her (and the other BE girls) being cute got me in the door in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Darkmoon6789

I brought that up only because you said you didn't understand why some people view Edelgard as evil. I don't find Edelgard evil personally, but that is the most common reason I have found as to why people do.

As for your problem with the statement, that's entirely it's point. Being a good person or having good intentions doesn't justify you committing evil actions. It doesn't excuse you. If you do something bad, it doesn't matter that you intended good because you still ended up doing bad, people still probably got hurt, and there are going to be consequences for that.

For example, if I said something without the intention of hurting someone, but it hurt someone, it doesn't matter that I didn't intend it to. What matters is that I hurt someone and no case of "but that wasn't what I meant!" will change that fact. You can't justify when someone does something wrong just because their intentions were good. Them being a good person doesn't matter - they still hurt people.

As for what you said about Edelgard's ending, people are far more inclined to judge characters based on the time they actually spend interacting with them in the game than based on some text at the end that just tells them something. The time a player actually spends with Edelgard and how they view her actions are going to color their opinions far more strongly than something they're just told about after the fact.

Personally, I don't ever really touch any of the route endings. They're all meant to be happy sunshine endings, with none more valid than the others. But they all have massive holes in them and once you start poking in one you have to poke in the others. If you start saying one is better than the others you're missing the whole point behind the endings and also ignoring the faults in your own preferred ending. I think it's better to just take the endings at face value, that they're happy endings where the characters make Fodlan a better place.

Share this post


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

don't really want Edelgard to be the centerpiece of any route other than her own, even if she's the antagonist. It'd feel out of place if I was somehow privy to her plans, feelings or motivations when there's no real reason for Byleth to be privy to such things. Beyond breaking immersion, it'd also make playing the rest of the game less appealing. She's better as a more distant, mysterious obstacle in this particular story structure.

I believe that's because (in my humble opinion) Edelgard only works as an antagonist in Dimitri's route, where she's more or less his antithesis. Silver Snow has a really cool premise that sets up a very personal and tragic vendetta with her and it really wastes it by making her vanish up until the end. And Vendant Wind's portrayal of her is hurt by the juxtaposition of lack of personal antagonism coming from Claude (even if it makes sense for his character) and the highly emotional death cutscene the route reuses from Silver Snow.

Edited by Moltz23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Moltz23 said:

I believe that's because (in my humble opinion) Edelgard only works as an antagonist in Dimitri's route, where she's more or less his antithesis. Silver Snow has a really cool premise that sets up a very personal and tragic vendetta with her and it really wastes it by making her vanish up until the end. And Vendant Wind's portrayal of her is hurt by the lack of any personal antagonism coming from Claude (even if it makes sense for his character).

Fair point on SS having wasted potential.

Can't wait to be disappointed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

@Darkmoon6789

I brought that up only because you said you didn't understand why some people view Edelgard as evil. I don't find Edelgard evil personally, but that is the most common reason I have found as to why people do.

As for your problem with the statement, that's entirely it's point. Being a good person or having good intentions doesn't justify you committing evil actions. It doesn't excuse you. If you do something bad, it doesn't matter that you intended good because you still ended up doing bad, people still probably got hurt, and there are going to be consequences for that.

For example, if I said something without the intention of hurting someone, but it hurt someone, it doesn't matter that I didn't intend it to. What matters is that I hurt someone and no case of "but that wasn't what I meant!" will change that fact. You can't justify when someone does something wrong just because their intentions were good. Them being a good person doesn't matter - they still hurt people.

As for what you said about Edelgard's ending, people are far more inclined to judge characters based on the time they actually spend interacting with them in the game than based on some text at the end that just tells them something. The time a player actually spends with Edelgard and how they view her actions are going to color their opinions far more strongly than something they're just told about after the fact.

Personally, I don't ever really touch any of the route endings. They're all meant to be happy sunshine endings, with none more valid than the others. But they all have massive holes in them and once you start poking in one you have to poke in the others. If you start saying one is better than the others you're missing the whole point behind the endings and also ignoring the faults in your own preferred ending. I think it's better to just take the endings at face value, that they're happy endings where the characters make Fodlan a better place.

Well, I spent literally the entire first playthrough of the game interacting with Edelgard, some of it really reflecting the true nobility of her character, I experienced who Edelgard is is a person more so than being told. Which could explain why am so attached to her.

I never said it won't be consequences, Edelgard is actually very accepting when it comes to taking the consequences of her actions. What I really object to is mankind's attitude to crime and punishment, a lot of people are very primal in their way of thinking, obsessed with personal satisfaction and revenge, and taught by false ideologies that this destructive principle is righteous.

It feels that a lot of the time when anyone does anything wrong whenever intentional or not, they will never live that down, the public will call for their blood.  People demand that they shall suffer. Even if the culprit changes and becomes a person who would never do what they did ever again and whose every action, people will still want them to suffer.

Even in cases where we talk about serial killers who tortured their victims before killing them, is it truly right to subject them to the same thing they subject period the victims to and make them beg for death before you grant it. I have seen many people suggest this sort of thing, but is this truly justice? I think not, if the killer is such a danger to society they can't be allowed to live, they should just be killed swiftly and efficiently. It should be done only to protect other people, to allow yourself to justify and gain satisfaction from the suffering of another person, regardless of what they might have done is doing nothing but adding additional suffering to the world on top of what has already been done. It is needless and only makes the people desiring such things into the same type of monster as the person they despise.

Use an example from the game, tragedy of Duskur. What the kingdom of Faerghus did in response to the death of the king as revenge is horrific, even if the people of Duskur were guilty of the death of King Lambert, this would still be unjustified. It is a clear example of the idea of revenge as justice being justified inflicting a lot of unnecessary suffering. Most of the time not seeking revenge is more beneficial to the world. A desire for vengeance in the guise of justice promotes sadism and makes people into beasts.

Applied against someone like Edelgard who didn't gain any enjoyment from the suffering of others, enjoying her suffering would make a person objectively worse than her in my opinion. She isn't like the serial killer who tortured and killed people for personal pleasure. It Isn't that I object to that Edelgard did cause some harm, it is the presumed fate of the guilty. I have a problem with

2 hours ago, Sid Starkiller said:

I'm sure it was intended. I forget were I read it, but supposedly Edelgard was the first character they designed, so they would've had lots of time to incorporate symbolism in her design.

And yeah, I gotta admit her being cute did play some factor in my liking her. Agreeing with her beliefs got me to stay, but her (and the other BE girls) being cute got me in the door in the first place.

I do consider Edelgard quite cute in both personality and appearance. Despite all her confidence in her role as Emperor, Edelgard has turned out to be rather shy in her personal relationships as she has been very closed off for most of her life. She has difficulty letting people get to know her as a consequence and is very easily embarrassed. This sort of thing adds a lot of humanity to Edelgard and makes her seem like a real person to me.

Edit: "@Silver-Haired Maiden, sorry for the long rant, just know that I am not accusing you of anything, you probably don't believe in vengeance any more than I do. Just trying to explain my viewpoint. You might have noticed that my opinion of eye for and eye as a concept is basically the same as Edelgard's opinion on crests.

Edited by Darkmoon6789

Share this post


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

I do consider Edelgard quite cute in both personality and appearance. Despite all her confidence in her role as Emperor, Edelgard has turned out to be rather shy in her personal relationships as she has been very closed off for most of her life. She has difficulty letting people get to know her as a consequence and is very easily embarrassed. This sort of thing adds a lot of humanity to Edelgard and makes her seem like a real person to me.

Yeah, some of my favorite moments of her are when she gets to be a little silly. The thing with the portrait, doing impressions, wanting tons of sweets, etc. It's those fleeting moments where she gets to take a break from being the Flame Emperor and just be, well, Edelgard.

Sorry, trying not to take up too much of this topic gushing about her.

Share this post


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

Yeah, some of my favorite moments of her are when she gets to be a little silly. The thing with the portrait, doing impressions, wanting tons of sweets, etc. It's those fleeting moments where she gets to take a break from being the Flame Emperor and just be, well, Edelgard.

Sorry, trying not to take up too much of this topic gushing about her.

Well, it is what happens when you put more than one Edelgard fan in the same thread.

I think our gushing is making a point, but Edelgard is far more than just a conqueror, that she is very much a human being with her own feelings, fears and quirks. The sweets thing is actually one of many reasons I compare her to Lysithea. Are we sure these two aren't related? 

I think one of the reasons I favour crimson flower is that this is the only time when Edelgard ever gets a chance to retire with the love of her life (Byleth) and gets to be just Edelgard instead of the Flame Emperor for the rest of her life. Something I think she wants more than anything else and a good happily ever after for her character.

The biggest tragedy of Edelgard in the other routes is that she never truly got to be her true self, she was forced into a role by the circumstances of her birth and the events of her life. A role she never wanted but felt she was obligated to fulfil due to being born as Edelgard von Hresvelg, and not just Edelgard the commoner. 

Edit: maybe we should create an Edelgard appreciation topic?

Edited by Darkmoon6789

Share this post


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

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

The writers don't outright spell it out for us, but their intent is as clear as day to me. I'd have a hard time believing that Dorothea, who heavily dislikes nobility and violence, would commend him going down fighting. Giving up your life and being executed, in exchange for the lives of others, is most definitely a sacrifice. I can't see the opposing militaries going easy on his army if he went down fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Slyfox said:

The writers don't outright spell it out for us, but their intent is as clear as day to me. I'd have a hard time believing that Dorothea, who heavily dislikes nobility and violence, would commend him going down fighting. Giving up your life and being executed, in exchange for the lives of others, is most definitely a sacrifice. I can't see the opposing militaries going easy on his army if he went down fighting.

It's not clear. At all. He could've signaled to his men to flee while he held off the enemy, in which case they would still be fighting him and just kill him normally. An execution is a more formal affair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, or how, could Edelgard have her own general executed after a battle she herself died in?

Share this post


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

I don't know, Dimitri and Rhea's motive of not wanting to be invaded and killed is pretty easy to understand in Crimson Flower. Rhea obviously have some extra baggage that's unknown to the player in regards to going off the deepend and burning half the city down, but the basic idea of them not wanting to get invaded is easy to grasp. Dimitri especially considering that route has like non of his boar aspects revealed.

Except that wasn't their motivation at all. Both of them were driven not out of a sense of righteous reasons. Not out of a sense of obligation. But rather just plain revenge. Dimitri makes it abundantly clear in a multitude of lines that he wants revenge on Edelgard for Duscur. Rhea also makes it clear that she wants revenge, because she accuses Byleth of "stealing" her mother like Nemesis. Neither of them are actually thinking in regards for their people in actuality, but just for their own satisfaction. Or in Dimitri's case, the satisfaction of the ghosts in his head.

 

5 hours ago, Jotari said:

On a conceptual level it's not necessarily bad to keep some info hidden on a multi route story like this, but sometimes when the info is as crucial as "Why is all this even happening to begin with?" you end up having four incomplete stories rather than one whole story (which is what a multi route story should still be).

I think you are confusing the case of how this particular multi-route story is. 

This is the story of how every side in the war have their own story. Dimitri, Claude, Edelgad. They each have a story behind them. Are we supposed to understand them in all the routes? No. We learn shards, or tiny portions in each route.

In VW/SS, Edelgard fights to oppose Rhea, the False Goddess, and free humanity from their clutches. While we understand Rhea is a tragic character that suffered from great solitude and isolation, and survived a genocide, does it change that she's the biggest reason why things in Fodlan went to shit? No. It doesn't. 

However, on the flipside, in VW/SS, we learn nothing about Dimitri really for going insane with this obsession with vengeance. And we definitely don't get Claude's deal unless it's in VW. 

In AM, Edelgard speaks of wishing to commit wrongs now in order to change the world so that things will get better for people, so the weak don't have to suffer under the oppressive rule, which Dimitri believes isn't worth the war.

But this makes me think back to the Edelgard and Dimitri talk. 

The irony in the talk of Dimitri and Edelgard is Dimitri accusing Edelgard of making a world where only the strong rule and the weak suffer, and insists that the people are weak and cannot survive in a world Edelgard believes in. If you think back to the talk of Dimitri with Byleth after Miklan, Dimitri overall makes a philosophy that nobles and commoners, or Crests and Crestless, need to acknowledge each other's own merit. Thing is, this overall follows the ideal that nobles have power to protect the weak, and the weak should stay in the protection of the nobles, while the two continue to support one another in their own way. 

But Edelgard, speaking as someone that felt what it was like to be weak, actually saying that she's experienced it firsthand, believes people are not as weak as Dimitri claims, but instead all should be given a chance to rise up with their own merits, and not cling to a goddess or someone else to coddle them in protecting them, which she views is the only reason they would remain weak, cause they keep needing to be coddled. This actually reflects close to what Sothis says to Byleth in every route right when he wakes up, stating that Byleth keeps needing to be coddled by her, but he has to start standing on his own feet. If you go by how Edelgard talks of the last line to Rhea, about how if humans can reach out to one another, then there's no need for gods, reflecting that while humans can stand on their own, they will support one another without needing to be coddled and taken care of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh, I was gone for only two days and the thread has grown for more then 4 full pages, its hard to keep up with you guys .... 😅

42 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Why, or how, could Edelgard have her own general executed after a battle she herself died in?

Executed by the winning faction, not by Edelgard.

 

4 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

@Darkmoon6789

I brought that up only because you said you didn't understand why some people view Edelgard as evil. I don't find Edelgard evil personally, but that is the most common reason I have found as to why people do.

 

If you see here as evil or a villain or a villainous Evil highly depends on the personal definition of those things. Which is quite different for most people. Thats why villains in most mainstream media are made doing needlessly cruel things just so that a broad audience will hate them (See "kicking the dog"-trope). I am quite glad that IS didnt use that trope in the game (outside of TWSITD).

 

4 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Personally, I don't ever really touch any of the route endings. They're all meant to be happy sunshine endings, with none more valid than the others. But they all have massive holes in them and once you start poking in one you have to poke in the others. If you start saying one is better than the others you're missing the whole point behind the endings and also ignoring the faults in your own preferred ending. I think it's better to just take the endings at face value, that they're happy endings where the characters make Fodlan a better place.

I think that is intentional. They were quite clear that they didnt like to have a golden ending (unfortunately) to not invalidate a decision the player made. Having one of the routs be the "good" ending and the other two "worse/bad endings" would also invalidate that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes marginally more sense but seems... uncharacteristic of Byleth/Claude’s army?

Share this post


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

Except that wasn't their motivation at all. Both of them were driven not out of a sense of righteous reasons. Not out of a sense of obligation. But rather just plain revenge. Dimitri makes it abundantly clear in a multitude of lines that he wants revenge on Edelgard for Duscur. Rhea also makes it clear that she wants revenge, because she accuses Byleth of "stealing" her mother like Nemesis. Neither of them are actually thinking in regards for their people in actuality, but just for their own satisfaction. Or in Dimitri's case, the satisfaction of the ghosts in his head.

 

I think you are confusing the case of how this particular multi-route story is. 

This is the story of how every side in the war have their own story. Dimitri, Claude, Edelgad. They each have a story behind them. Are we supposed to understand them in all the routes? No. We learn shards, or tiny portions in each route.

In VW/SS, Edelgard fights to oppose Rhea, the False Goddess, and free humanity from their clutches. While we understand Rhea is a tragic character that suffered from great solitude and isolation, and survived a genocide, does it change that she's the biggest reason why things in Fodlan went to shit? No. It doesn't. 

However, on the flipside, in VW/SS, we learn nothing about Dimitri really for going insane with this obsession with vengeance. And we definitely don't get Claude's deal unless it's in VW. 

In AM, Edelgard speaks of wishing to commit wrongs now in order to change the world so that things will get better for people, so the weak don't have to suffer under the oppressive rule, which Dimitri believes isn't worth the war.

But this makes me think back to the Edelgard and Dimitri talk. 

The irony in the talk of Dimitri and Edelgard is Dimitri accusing Edelgard of making a world where only the strong rule and the weak suffer, and insists that the people are weak and cannot survive in a world Edelgard believes in. If you think back to the talk of Dimitri with Byleth after Miklan, Dimitri overall makes a philosophy that nobles and commoners, or Crests and Crestless, need to acknowledge each other's own merit. Thing is, this overall follows the ideal that nobles have power to protect the weak, and the weak should stay in the protection of the nobles, while the two continue to support one another in their own way. 

But Edelgard, speaking as someone that felt what it was like to be weak, actually saying that she's experienced it firsthand, believes people are not as weak as Dimitri claims, but instead all should be given a chance to rise up with their own merits, and not cling to a goddess or someone else to coddle them in protecting them, which she views is the only reason they would remain weak, cause they keep needing to be coddled. This actually reflects close to what Sothis says to Byleth in every route right when he wakes up, stating that Byleth keeps needing to be coddled by her, but he has to start standing on his own feet. If you go by how Edelgard talks of the last line to Rhea, about how if humans can reach out to one another, then there's no need for gods, reflecting that while humans can stand on their own, they will support one another without needing to be coddled and taken care of.

I never understood why Dimitri thinks that the weak cannot survive in Edelgard's world, is it because the commoners would no longer be protected by the nobility as they don't exist? I see no reason why the week would have it any worse under Edelgard and Dimitri, selecting your leaders based on merit rather than bloodline doesn't change the basic duty of acting in the good of every citizen of the kingdom. Isn't calling the commoners weak just on her way to keep down and justify the power nobles have over them?

Under Edelgard any commoner have a chance to rise to any position, which they will not under the mission of any other Lord as they are assumed weak and incapable of leadership. 

Share this post


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

I never understood why Dimitri thinks that the weak cannot survive in Edelgard's world, is it because the commoners would no longer be protected by the nobility as they don't exist? I see no reason why the week would have it any worse under Edelgard and Dimitri, selecting your leaders based on merit rather than bloodline doesn't change the basic duty of acting in the good of every citizen of the kingdom. Isn't calling the commoners weak just on her way to keep down and justify the power nobles have over them?

Under Edelgard any commoner have a chance to rise to any position, which they will not under the mission of any other Lord as they are assumed weak and incapable of leadership. 

From my perspective, that's very much the case. While he cares for the commoners, having to live as a fugitive during the timeskip, he's overall under the belief that nobles and Crests exist and withstand the test of time for a reason (based on what he says after Chapter 4). So he thinks that nobles and those with Crests have power and should use that power responsibly.

This is not a bad belief to have. 

Obviously this means Dimitri is overall against the notion of corruption. 

While I personally do not think that Dimitri made a better government system than Edelgard, I think the participation government of his DOES hold small merit in it. Yes, there are corrupt nobles. But if commoners can at least get a chance to speak and be heard in said participation government, maybe some good noble will hear them and thus may take action against the corrupt nobles. 

There are... obviously flaws in that, but every system in each route has its flaws. No human can create a perfect system cause humans are imperfect by nature. 

But this is a method that Dimtiri might have given to allow commoners to not be oppressed and allow good nobles to actually strive to protect the weak. 

So the strong and those in power will protect the weak. 

Share this post


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

From my perspective, that's very much the case. While he cares for the commoners, having to live as a fugitive during the timeskip, he's overall under the belief that nobles and Crests exist and withstand the test of time for a reason (based on what he says after Chapter 4). So he thinks that nobles and those with Crests have power and should use that power responsibly.

This is not a bad belief to have. 

Obviously this means Dimitri is overall against the notion of corruption. 

While I personally do not think that Dimitri made a better government system than Edelgard, I think the participation government of his DOES hold small merit in it. Yes, there are corrupt nobles. But if commoners can at least get a chance to speak and be heard in said participation government, maybe some good noble will hear them and thus may take action against the corrupt nobles. 

There are... obviously flaws in that, but every system in each route has its flaws. No human can create a perfect system cause humans are imperfect by nature. 

But this is a method that Dimtiri might have given to allow commoners to not be oppressed and allow good nobles to actually strive to protect the weak. 

So the strong and those in power will protect the weak. 

I would probably want to tell Dimitri that my homeworld has neither nobility nor crests and that the weak are care for better than they ever were in Fodlan. They would also be fine under Edelgard.

Both their systems are fine, but I do prefer Edelgard's vision in the end.

Share this post


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

I would probably want to tell Dimitri that my homeworld has neither nobility nor crests and that the weak are care for better than they ever were in Fodlan. They would also be fine under Edelgard.

Both their systems are fine, but I do prefer Edelgard's vision in the end.

His belief isn't wrong per se. The "strong" and "those that have power" very much SHOULD use that power responsibly for those that are "weak" or don't hold the power that nobility do. 

The flaw, from my perspective, is the belief that "nobility" are the ones in power. Dimitri ends up following the belief of bloodline and being born to power. But because they are "born to power," they are born with a responsibility. This is something, ironically, shared by nobles like Ferdinand and Lorenz, who believe in the nobility, but view that it is a noble's duty to use their power for the sake of the commoners.

However, this is the interesting thing.

You can actually see that BOTH Edelgard and Dimitri's forms of government, if combined, actually would hold a LOT more merit. 

Edelgard's government allows for anyone to hold positions of power, thus allows those that have the will and desire to rise to power and earn it, so no one is divided by the concept of being "born" to power, but "earning" power. And Dimitri's system allows those without power to still get a chance to be heard and thus would actually help to mitigate the problem of corruption. 

If you actually combine these two... you would actually have a true path toward democracy. 

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...