Jump to content

What Edelgard means to me…


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Yexin said:

is being a cute anime girl really that big of a deal for people?

I guess it is for some, but to me Edelgard never really was that cute to begin with. I agree with he rmotives but not because of her looks. Of course, there are a lot of coomers and simps that idolize her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 236
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

But from my perspective, some people think morally grey means someone that is sympathetic, but 100% objectively in the wrong, which isn't what being morally grey means.

I've seen those people, and they're fools. A mass murderer doesn't suddenly become more sympathetic if he's pretty or if she has a tragic backstory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

I think that Edelgard is the type of character that Fire Emblem needed to make a true morally grey story, where there were no absolutes. But from my perspective, some people think morally grey means someone that is sympathetic, but 100% objectively in the wrong, which isn't what being morally grey means.

it really is a shame because moral gray is far more than a sympathetic villain. Morally ambiguous storytelling is one where the story actively questions the audience's own moral standards in regards to character actions, plot developments, and overall world building which is something 3H does well to a degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jason-SilverStarApple said:

I've seen those people, and they're fools. A mass murderer doesn't suddenly become more sympathetic if he's pretty or if she has a tragic backstory.

 

3 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

it really is a shame because moral gray is far more than a sympathetic villain. Morally ambiguous storytelling is one where the story actively questions the audience's own moral standards in regards to character actions, plot developments, and overall world building which is something 3H does well to a degree.

Yup. The fact that people actually argue for Edelgard and against Edelgard to such an extensive and ridiculous degree truly highlights the grey morality.

Now if only FE can stop having the pure evil faction like the Agarthans were in 3H, and then it's much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find Edelgard extremely well written, but I don't agree with her on siding with TWSITD and completely doing away with the church.  I personally believe in freedom of religion, so her saying that she would destroy it and everyone who is considered a "faithful" person made me annoyed.  Wanting to reform the church so that it follows more modern ideals like doing away with crests being important is well and good but saying the church must be destroyed annoyed me greatly.   TWSITD are extremely evil to me and siding with them made me mad because of what happens in part 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, EricaofRenais said:

I find Edelgard extremely well written, but I don't agree with her on siding with TWSITD and completely doing away with the church.  I personally believe in freedom of religion, so her saying that she would destroy it and everyone who is considered a "faithful" person made me annoyed.  Wanting to reform the church so that it follows more modern ideals like doing away with crests being important is well and good but saying the church must be destroyed annoyed me greatly.   TWSITD are extremely evil to me and siding with them made me mad because of what happens in part 1.

Edelgard does restore the Church, seen in Manuela/Hanneman ending and Bernie/Linhardt ending. Her talk of religion actually does get brought up in Manuela's support. She even states that she has no issues with the religion, just the Church in her battle with Rhea in Chapter 12. Ferdinand even states this in his C support with Manuela during Part 2 of CF.

And yeah, working with the obvious evil that did Remire and ultimately had a hand in with Jeralt's death is something that is always gonna have issues. Even if we know, and it's even stated by her and Hubert that she despises them and hates having to work with them. 

But honestly, there's something to consider. 

The Agarthans are the "obvious" evil cause of what they do. 

But let's consider the other parties that we would still work. If we consider Faerghus, fighting for them is fighting for a bunch of people that committed genocide. Even if it was the Agarthans behind Lambert's death, it doesn't change that it was the people of Faerghus that went and committed genocide on Duscur. If we are in Golden Deer, we have Count Gloucester, who actually tries to attack commoners and killed the former Duke Riegan. 

And then there's still the case that it was the corrupt nobles of Adrestia that were the ones that put Edelgard and her siblings into the dungeon to be experimented on, like Ferdinand's father, Ludwig. 

And if you side with Rhea, tragic she might be, this is still the same woman that started a war for 66 years for the primary goal of revenge, and is the one that made a false investigation on Duscur and framed other people for the crime that were actually political enemies of Rhea's. 

There are so many evils around that people seem to zero in on the most obvious one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, omegaxis1 said:

Edelgard does restore the Church, seen in Manuela/Hanneman ending and Bernie/Linhardt ending. Her talk of religion actually does get brought up in Manuela's support. She even states that she has no issues with the religion, just the Church in her battle with Rhea in Chapter 12. Ferdinand even states this in his C support with Manuela during Part 2 of CF.

And yeah, working with the obvious evil that did Remire and ultimately had a hand in with Jeralt's death is something that is always gonna have issues. Even if we know, and it's even stated by her and Hubert that she despises them and hates having to work with them. 

But honestly, there's something to consider. 

The Agarthans are the "obvious" evil cause of what they do. 

But let's consider the other parties that we would still work. If we consider Faerghus, fighting for them is fighting for a bunch of people that committed genocide. Even if it was the Agarthans behind Lambert's death, it doesn't change that it was the people of Faerghus that went and committed genocide on Duscur. If we are in Golden Deer, we have Count Gloucester, who actually tries to attack commoners and killed the former Duke Riegan. 

And then there's still the case that it was the corrupt nobles of Adrestia that were the ones that put Edelgard and her siblings into the dungeon to be experimented on, like Ferdinand's father, Ludwig. 

And if you side with Rhea, tragic she might be, this is still the same woman that started a war for 66 years for the primary goal of revenge, and is the one that made a false investigation on Duscur and framed other people for the crime that were actually political enemies of Rhea's. 

There are so many evils around that people seem to zero in on the most obvious one. 

Did that just imply that Rhea is responsible for the genocide in Duscur?

I always interpreted that Edelgard has very little choice but to ally with the Agarthans, she wouldn't get any work close to the position of Emperor without their approval given how much power the Agarthans have in the Empire at this time, being behind the insurrection and Edelgard's father, being little more than a puppet. Basically, she needs to ally with them for a time to gain enough power to get rid of them later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Azure loves his Half Elves said:

Or TWSITD. We cannot understand them as much because we lack a reason for why they do what they do aside from being among those god-complex humans with whom Sothis fought a long time ago (as mentioned in SS and VW).

It is also not understandable why they got pretty sidelined, considering that they are one of the most important factions in Fódlan’s history.

I thought their motivation was pretty clear: revenge against Sothis and her children. They're basically the Fire Emblem equivalent of Haman from the book of Esther: hating an entire ethnic group over what was done, rather justifiably, to his ancestors (and also because Mordecai wouldn't bow to him). Then again, I've only completed Crimson Flower so far, and I've only just started part 2 of Golden Deer, so please correct me if I'm wrong. 

I think the real problem with TWSITD is that the game tries to have its cake and eat it too with their level of power, influence, and significance:

The game wants a nuanced story involving a political system that's beginning to fall apart, yet fans are left wondering how much of the problems are the fault of TWSITD. For example: was the Insurrection of the Seven TWSITD's fault? I don't think so, but it very well could be, and some argue that it was.For another example, Was the information really passed down from emperor to emperor, indicating that Rhea left Wilhelm I in the dark about what happened at the Red Canyon? Or did TWSITD feed that to Edelgard as part of making her their puppet? Again, I think it's the former, but it could easily have been the latter, and people have argued that it was the latter. Either they're the masterminds behind everything wrong with Fodlan, and the system isn't to blame, or the system is to blame, and they're just opportunists. You can't have it both ways, but the game uses the ambiguity to do exactly that. 

The game wants them to be a small and vulnerable enough group that Edelgard feels comfortable believing she can just destroy them once she no longer needs them, yet are so powerful that they're the true menace to Fodlan. One moment, it's "AH! Missiles!" The next minute, Edelgard's defeated them all in an epilogue. It's having its cake and eating it too with what they can do. 

I think TWSITD should've been exactly what they seemed to be in part 1: opportunistic terrorists against the Church of Seiros. Keep their backstory, but make it clear that they're small in number and their influence over Fodlan is limited at most. 

 

2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Now if only FE can stop having the pure evil faction like the Agarthans were in 3H, and then it's much better.

I think that TWSITD could've worked, but they needed to be more limited than what they are now. The problem isn't so much having a pure evil villain in a story trying to be nuanced, but having a pure evil villain have so much influence in a story trying to be nuanced. One can have pure evil villains in a nuanced story, so long as their roles are limited to specific things. 

For example, in the early seasons of Game of Thrones, the white walkers work because they are more of an unnatural force-of-nature; they're role is to be a coming threat to the whole continent while everyone's busy squabbling over political disputes. It carries the message of the series loud and clear: regardless of our politics and conflicts, we need to learn to cooperate or risk extinction. The white walkers, in this regard, are basically undead fantasy Climate Change. 

Of course, the potential roles of a pure evil villain in a nuanced story are not limited to just that. But the point is that they can work. TWSITD needed to have been a lot more limited in their impact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I thought their motivation was pretty clear: revenge against Sothis and her children. They're basically the Fire Emblem equivalent of Haman from the book of Esther: hating an entire ethnic group over what was done, rather justifiably, to his ancestors (and also because Mordecai wouldn't bow to him). Then again, I've only completed Crimson Flower so far, and I've only just started part 2 of Golden Deer, so please correct me if I'm wrong. 

I think the real problem with TWSITD is that the game tries to have its cake and eat it too with their level of power, influence, and significance:

The game wants a nuanced story involving a political system that's beginning to fall apart, yet fans are left wondering how much of the problems are the fault of TWSITD. For example: was the Insurrection of the Seven TWSITD's fault? I don't think so, but it very well could be, and some argue that it was.For another example, Was the information really passed down from emperor to emperor, indicating that Rhea left Wilhelm I in the dark about what happened at the Red Canyon? Or did TWSITD feed that to Edelgard as part of making her their puppet? Again, I think it's the former, but it could easily have been the latter, and people have argued that it was the latter. Either they're the masterminds behind everything wrong with Fodlan, and the system isn't to blame, or the system is to blame, and they're just opportunists. You can't have it both ways, but the game uses the ambiguity to do exactly that. 

The game wants them to be a small and vulnerable enough group that Edelgard feels comfortable believing she can just destroy them once she no longer needs them, yet are so powerful that they're the true menace to Fodlan. One moment, it's "AH! Missiles!" The next minute, Edelgard's defeated them all in an epilogue. It's having its cake and eating it too with what they can do. 

I think TWSITD should've been exactly what they seemed to be in part 1: opportunistic terrorists against the Church of Seiros. Keep their backstory, but make it clear that they're small in number and their influence over Fodlan is limited at most. 

 

I think that TWSITD could've worked, but they needed to be more limited than what they are now. The problem isn't so much having a pure evil villain in a story trying to be nuanced, but having a pure evil villain have so much influence in a story trying to be nuanced. One can have pure evil villains in a nuanced story, so long as their roles are limited to specific things. 

For example, in the early seasons of Game of Thrones, the white walkers work because they are more of an unnatural force-of-nature; they're role is to be a coming threat to the whole continent while everyone's busy squabbling over political disputes. It carries the message of the series loud and clear: regardless of our politics and conflicts, we need to learn to cooperate or risk extinction. The white walkers, in this regard, are basically undead fantasy Climate Change. 

Of course, the potential roles of a pure evil villain in a nuanced story are not limited to just that. But the point is that they can work. TWSITD needed to have been a lot more limited in their impact. 

I do think that the Agarthans are in many ways very limited, they only have a single city and rely on javelins of light and crest beasts to be a threat. Their greatest source of power is actually their hold on the imperial throne. They actually need Edelgard and the Empire more than she needs them, but Edelgard is risking a night in the dark by opposing them just because they are a threat that is hidden in the shadows. She can't really fight them without knowing the location of their home base. So the way I see them is that they are powerful in some ways, while very weak in others. Their greatest strength lies in using super weapons and working from the shadows undetected. They do however lacked a proper standing army that could actually challenge the church and would probably crumble if Edelgard was able to bring the full force of the Empire against them. It is just that she can't be fighting them and the church at the same time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I do think that the Agarthans are in many ways very limited, they only have a single city and rely on javelins of light and crest beasts to be a threat. Their greatest source of power is actually their hold on the imperial throne. They actually need Edelgard and the Empire more than she needs them, but Edelgard is risking a night in the dark by opposing them just because they are a threat that is hidden in the shadows. She can't really fight them without knowing the location of their home base. So the way I see them is that they are powerful in some ways, while very weak in others. Their greatest strength lies in using super weapons and working from the shadows undetected. They do however lacked a proper standing army that could actually challenge the church and would probably crumble if Edelgard was able to bring the full force of the Empire against them. It is just that she can't be fighting them and the church at the same time

I believe that that's what they were going for, but in practice, the game ends up being inconsistent, raising questions it can't answer, and essentially has its cake and eats it too. To be fair, I've only completed Crimson Flower. But the "having its cake and eating it too" criticism is one I've seen made by people who have completed all four routes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I cannot help but to regard Edelgard as a shining beacon of light in the darkness and hope among hopelessness. While many people see a villain, I see a girl giving her all for the sake of a better future. She always puts her own personal desires second to what she thinks is the greater good, while she does start a war she doesn't even hesitate to give her own life, if that means fewer people would die when she is defeated. That level of dedication is truly admirable. Just how much she is burdened by all the bloodshed and the guilt she seems to be feeling. As a consequence, that she does feel regret and isn't enjoying any of it. Speaks volumes about her character. She constantly speaks of how the blood that flows at her feet is a burden. The way she talks about it makes it clear that she takes full responsibility for every casualty. It Edelgard is a villain. She is the most noble villain I have ever encountered, the contrast between her true good nature and the things she feels she has to do for the greater good makes are quite tragic and the level of sympathy I feel for her as a consequence is indescribable.

I originally discovered three houses during a period I struggled with major anxiety and depression, it caught my interest quite fast and served as a distraction from my issues. Edelgard as a character was especially important to me and for one reason or another she gave me hope. Where none existed before. I am not quite sure why this is but Edelgard gave me a sense of motivation, she showed me how important it is to stand up for what you believe in. I think this is because all the trauma she suffered, and instead of becoming obsessed with revenge against the person responsible for her suffering, she looked towards the system that allowed this to happen and trauma motivated her to make sure what happened to her couldn't happen to anyone else ever again. It is very inspiring to see someone taking experiences that would break the spirit of almost anyone and use it as a drive to change the world for the better. I am still dealing with my mental issues, but words cannot describe just how much Edelgard has helped me through it. 

Do anyone feel the way I do about this character? Is there any other character from this game that has had a major impact in your life?

Even fewer would die if she just surrendered or slit her own throat.

SOME OFVOU MAY DIE BUT THATISA SACRIFICE I'M WILLING TO MAKE Paul Ryan Princess Fiona Lord Farquaad Shrek photo caption
Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Even fewer would die if she just surrendered or slit her own throat.

Edelgard has very particular views on surrendering, she sees it as noble to die for a cause and generally wouldn't surrender as long as there is even the slightest chance of her accomplishing her goals. Extreme stubbornes is probably one of her faults. She cannot accept all those sacrifices being invain as she sees it as a sunk cost and the only way to ever make it worth it is to win.

Only when she knows that everything is lost. Does she consider giving up, and when she does she does offer her own life as a way to stop the fighting and as another way to pay for the sacrifices she made. She simply cannot live with herself knowing that all of those people died invain

It isn't like anyone else in this game surrenders when they should either, The Immaculate One is especially bad in this regard, and burns down a city full of civilians when she should really just give up as there is basically no chance of victory and she's basically just letting more people die for no reason. The same criticism could be applied to Edelgard, but while I haven't finished blue Lions yet, I am pretty sure Edelgard never kills an entire city full of civilians in this manner. It is irrelevant to crimson flower Edelgard anyway who is really the version I admire the most, but it is interesting to know that she is willing to give her life to save others in defeat, even at her worst. Even as a literal monster. She never abandons her humanity completely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I thought their motivation was pretty clear: revenge against Sothis and her children. They're basically the Fire Emblem equivalent of Haman from the book of Esther: hating an entire ethnic group over what was done, rather justifiably, to his ancestors (and also because Mordecai wouldn't bow to him). Then again, I've only completed Crimson Flower so far, and I've only just started part 2 of Golden Deer, so please correct me if I'm wrong. 

I think the real problem with TWSITD is that the game tries to have its cake and eat it too with their level of power, influence, and significance:

The game wants a nuanced story involving a political system that's beginning to fall apart, yet fans are left wondering how much of the problems are the fault of TWSITD. For example: was the Insurrection of the Seven TWSITD's fault? I don't think so, but it very well could be, and some argue that it was.For another example, Was the information really passed down from emperor to emperor, indicating that Rhea left Wilhelm I in the dark about what happened at the Red Canyon? Or did TWSITD feed that to Edelgard as part of making her their puppet? Again, I think it's the former, but it could easily have been the latter, and people have argued that it was the latter. Either they're the masterminds behind everything wrong with Fodlan, and the system isn't to blame, or the system is to blame, and they're just opportunists. You can't have it both ways, but the game uses the ambiguity to do exactly that. 

The game wants them to be a small and vulnerable enough group that Edelgard feels comfortable believing she can just destroy them once she no longer needs them, yet are so powerful that they're the true menace to Fodlan. One moment, it's "AH! Missiles!" The next minute, Edelgard's defeated them all in an epilogue. It's having its cake and eating it too with what they can do. 

I think TWSITD should've been exactly what they seemed to be in part 1: opportunistic terrorists against the Church of Seiros. Keep their backstory, but make it clear that they're small in number and their influence over Fodlan is limited at most. 

Ok, I think that about explains it.

They can probably keep undead Nemesis and his Elites as their ace in the hole. Just explain why they came up in VW, or provide some sort of details in SS, and most everything will be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Jotari said:

SOME OFVOU MAY DIE BUT THATISA SACRIFICE I'M WILLING TO MAKE Paul Ryan Princess Fiona Lord Farquaad Shrek photo caption

You like to use that as a jab at Edelgard. But let me ask, is starting a war to make the changes where commoners can actually earn a decent life for once a bad thing?

This is the medieval times. You should be aware that life is shit for commoners generally. If life is shit, but they are alive, is that a good thing? There being no war and no signs of any real change, would that mean that doing nothing and just letting people live a shit life is the best option? 

If you tried to do nothing and have "peace" where commoners can never hope to rise in status and just be in their shit lifestyle forever, then you still a horrible person for making people suffer still.

Yeah, war causes people to die, but at war's end, what happens? Commoners finally have a chance to rise and live in luxury, have a chance to have power, have a chance to get out of a shitty life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Azure loves his Half Elves said:

Ok, I think that about explains it.

Thanks. Anyway, I do agree that what exactly they plan to do once they've gotten their revenge is unclear, but, if they haven't thought that far ahead, they wouldn't be the first villains to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

You like to use that as a jab at Edelgard. But let me ask, is starting a war to make the changes where commoners can actually earn a decent life for once a bad thing?

This is the medieval times. You should be aware that life is shit for commoners generally. If life is shit, but they are alive, is that a good thing? There being no war and no signs of any real change, would that mean that doing nothing and just letting people live a shit life is the best option? 

If you tried to do nothing and have "peace" where commoners can never hope to rise in status and just be in their shit lifestyle forever, then you still a horrible person for making people suffer still.

Yeah, war causes people to die, but at war's end, what happens? Commoners finally have a chance to rise and live in luxury, have a chance to have power, have a chance to get out of a shitty life. 

Not to mention that making decisions for the people is the literal job of a monarch, it is what you are supposed to do, the problem with the Shrek villain is that he sacrifices people for an entirely selfish purpose, while Edelgard's goal is selfless.

I also don't think peace is worth much. If the status quo means suffering for most people, sometimes some conflict is necessary to change the world for the better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Not to mention that making decisions for the people is the literal job of a monarch, it is what you are supposed to do, the problem with the Shrek villain is that he sacrifices people for an entirely selfish purpose, while Edelgard's goal is selfless.

I also don't think peace is worth much. If the status quo means suffering for most people, sometimes some conflict is necessary to change the world for the better

That's another thing. Edelgard is actually thinking far more about the life of commoners more than anything. It annoys me and makes me roll my eyes at people going about how Dimitri is the perfect King cause he "suffered" alongside his people cause of how he had to live on his own as a runaway for five years during the timeskip, acting as if Edelgard isn't thinking about the commoners. 

When newsflash, actually allowing commoners the chance to rise in status is literally something almost every commoner would want. Hell, it's for this reason why Ashnard was actually praised as a king in the Tellius series, with Sothe even stating that Ashnard was not bad. And this is the man that was actually much closer to what Dimitri tried to claim Edelgard was being, someone that believed only the strong would live and the weak would be trampled on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

That's another thing. Edelgard is actually thinking far more about the life of commoners more than anything. It annoys me and makes me roll my eyes at people going about how Dimitri is the perfect King cause he "suffered" alongside his people cause of how he had to live on his own as a runaway for five years during the timeskip, acting as if Edelgard isn't thinking about the commoners. 

When newsflash, actually allowing commoners the chance to rise in status is literally something almost every commoner would want. Hell, it's for this reason why Ashnard was actually praised as a king in the Tellius series, with Sothe even stating that Ashnard was not bad. And this is the man that was actually much closer to what Dimitri tried to claim Edelgard was being, someone that believed only the strong would live and the weak would be trampled on. 

Yeah, I have seen no evidence that Edelgard would allow the strong to trample on the weak, but isn't really her goal, quite the opposite. I just think that Dimitri doesn't truly understand what Edelgard wants. It also seems to me that Dimitri actually considers most commoners too weak to rise above their position while Edelgard has more faith in their capabilities. Just because someone is a commoner, doesn't mean that they can't have talent. Even just a chance to rise to the greater position is still better than no chance.

Plus Edelgard is planning to provide things like free education, thanks to Ferdinand, which would greatly help elevate the commoners and give them a chance for a better life. In general, it is the commoners who will benefit the most from Edelgard's system, the group most likely to oppose her are former nobles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say, as much as I like Edelgard as a character, as a chapter boss, she's a bit boring, at least in part 1. There's really nothing to fighting the Flame Emperor; they're just an armoured unit with a battalion and an ordinary axe; the only differences being general and counterattack, which can be found on at least a few bosses. The worst part though is having to first her two times in a row with little-to-no difference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only difference between the Flame Emperor in chapter 12 compared to chapter 11 is that now she has a silver axe instead of a steel axe. It's rather redundant. 

6 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

That's another thing. Edelgard is actually thinking far more about the life of commoners more than anything. It annoys me and makes me roll my eyes at people going about how Dimitri is the perfect King cause he "suffered" alongside his people cause of how he had to live on his own as a runaway for five years during the timeskip, acting as if Edelgard isn't thinking about the commoners. 

When newsflash, actually allowing commoners the chance to rise in status is literally something almost every commoner would want. Hell, it's for this reason why Ashnard was actually praised as a king in the Tellius series, with Sothe even stating that Ashnard was not bad. And this is the man that was actually much closer to what Dimitri tried to claim Edelgard was being, someone that believed only the strong would live and the weak would be trampled on. 

Very true:

Sothe: Every one was mad that Crimea had won. They said if the king had been here, there's no way they would've been defeated. It's so weird. Until now, all they had ever done was complain about this place.

Ike: I see.

Sothe: You know, Ashnard wasn't such a bad king. At least, as far as we could see. If you were strong enough, you could rise up and become a knight one day. You could escape the filthy slums. He was the only king who ever gave us that chance. That hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Edelgard does restore the Church, seen in Manuela/Hanneman ending and Bernie/Linhardt ending. Her talk of religion actually does get brought up in Manuela's support. She even states that she has no issues with the religion, just the Church in her battle with Rhea in Chapter 12. Ferdinand even states this in his C support with Manuela during Part 2 of CF.

And yeah, working with the obvious evil that did Remire and ultimately had a hand in with Jeralt's death is something that is always gonna have issues. Even if we know, and it's even stated by her and Hubert that she despises them and hates having to work with them. 

But honestly, there's something to consider. 

The Agarthans are the "obvious" evil cause of what they do. 

But let's consider the other parties that we would still work. If we consider Faerghus, fighting for them is fighting for a bunch of people that committed genocide. Even if it was the Agarthans behind Lambert's death, it doesn't change that it was the people of Faerghus that went and committed genocide on Duscur. If we are in Golden Deer, we have Count Gloucester, who actually tries to attack commoners and killed the former Duke Riegan. 

And then there's still the case that it was the corrupt nobles of Adrestia that were the ones that put Edelgard and her siblings into the dungeon to be experimented on, like Ferdinand's father, Ludwig. 

And if you side with Rhea, tragic she might be, this is still the same woman that started a war for 66 years for the primary goal of revenge, and is the one that made a false investigation on Duscur and framed other people for the crime that were actually political enemies of Rhea's. 

There are so many evils around that people seem to zero in on the most obvious one. 

I did see the character endings where the officers academy was rebuilt, but it doesn't mention it being related to the church anymore at all.  I missed that Ferdinand support.  I never said the other paths were perfect, but I like the fact that I don't have to side with people involved in Jeralt's death and the fact that it is stated that Byleth takes over the church, who actually lived as a commoner and has an idea how the church should treat them and help them.  Of course the whole thing was going to blow up at some point there would have been war no matter which of the house lords started it I think it would have happened.  All three of them want to change their world for the better,  in slightly different ways.  I just wanted to state my views on Edelgard, we can agree to disagree on how we see her.  She is in my view the best done female lord, but still a bit lacking in what I want see.  She did give me hope that IS might one day make a strong female lord who I can relate to.

Edited by EricaofRenais
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Yeah, I have seen no evidence that Edelgard would allow the strong to trample on the weak, but isn't really her goal, quite the opposite. I just think that Dimitri doesn't truly understand what Edelgard wants. It also seems to me that Dimitri actually considers most commoners too weak to rise above their position while Edelgard has more faith in their capabilities. Just because someone is a commoner, doesn't mean that they can't have talent. Even just a chance to rise to the greater position is still better than no chance.

Plus Edelgard is planning to provide things like free education, thanks to Ferdinand, which would greatly help elevate the commoners and give them a chance for a better life. In general, it is the commoners who will benefit the most from Edelgard's system, the group most likely to oppose her are former nobles

That's why in her mural, you notice that it's the commoners celebrating on the right, while nobles are lowering their heads on the left, as she is destroying the nobility system. 

But I won't blame Dimitri for not understanding. The writing behind their talks was just bad. 

1 minute ago, EricaofRenais said:

I did see the character endings where the officers academy was rebuilt, but it doesn't mention it being related to the church anymore at all.  I missed that Ferdinand support.  I never said the other paths were perfect, but I like the fact that I don't have to side with people involved in Jeralt's death and the fact that it is stated that Byleth takes over the church, who actually lived as a commoner and has an idea how the church should treat them and help them.  Of course the whole thing was going to blow up at some point there would have been war no matter which of the house lords started it I think it would have happened.  All three of them want to change their world for the better,  in slightly different ways.  I just wanted toste my views on Edelgard, we can agree to disagree on how we see her.  She is in my view the best done female lord, but still a bit lacking in what I want see.  She did give me hope that IS might one day make a strong female lord who I can relate to.

I could show you.

Here's Hanneman/Manuela, which even indicates how the more universal education is being placed, as well as Bernie/Linhardt:

Quote

After the war, Hanneman and Manuela held a grand wedding ceremony, to which all of their many students were invited. Later, after the church was transformed and rehabilitated under the supervision of the Empire, the Officers Academy finally reopened, with a renewed focus on accepting students regardless of status and offering classes on a wider variety of practical subjects. Hanneman and Manuela returned to work as teachers, almost as if nothing had changed, and filled the halls with their banter in the way only married couples can.

-

Linhardt and Bernadetta caused quite the stir after the war when they abandoned their inherited titles and eloped to Garreg Mach. Returning to the monastery, where they were always most comfortable, the couple lived peaceful lives away from the hassle of politics. When the Empire's efforts to restore the church were complete, the Officers Academy reopened, and two eccentric individuals took up professorships there. One was perpetually asleep, or absorbed in absentminded study; the other refused to show herself at all unless it was time to give a lecture.

It's clear that the Empire does work to restore the Church, just no longer with a military or political power behind it, which honestly is better, since religion ad politics really don't go well together. 

The problem is that even with Byleth being a commoner, he's overall has no real intention or ability to understand how to really make a reform where you can do away with the nobility system. It's why only Edelgard's endings ever go with them dismantling the nobility system, while the other routes uphold it overall. 

But frankly, when it comes to female lords, we seriously need to do away with having male lords being around. IS can apparently have male lords be the only lead lord, but not have the same for female lords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Edelgard has very particular views on surrendering, she sees it as noble to die for a cause and generally wouldn't surrender as long as there is even the slightest chance of her accomplishing her goals. Extreme stubbornes is probably one of her faults. She cannot accept all those sacrifices being invain as she sees it as a sunk cost and the only way to ever make it worth it is to win.

Only when she knows that everything is lost. Does she consider giving up, and when she does she does offer her own life as a way to stop the fighting and as another way to pay for the sacrifices she made. She simply cannot live with herself knowing that all of those people died invain

It isn't like anyone else in this game surrenders when they should either, The Immaculate One is especially bad in this regard, and burns down a city full of civilians when she should really just give up as there is basically no chance of victory and she's basically just letting more people die for no reason. The same criticism could be applied to Edelgard, but while I haven't finished blue Lions yet, I am pretty sure Edelgard never kills an entire city full of civilians in this manner. It is irrelevant to crimson flower Edelgard anyway who is really the version I admire the most, but it is interesting to know that she is willing to give her life to save others in defeat, even at her worst. Even as a literal monster. She never abandons her humanity completely

Bold yes, italics no. They're contradictory. Edelgard will keep on fighting no matter how detrimental it clearly is. She only gives up when she literally cannot fight any more. She dies with a bit of grace but it's not only giving up her life to stop the fighting. It's giving up her life because it's been taken from her. And that's only Silver Snow/Verdant Wind. In Azure Moon sue keeps trying to kill Dimitri to her literal final breath.

55 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

You like to use that as a jab at Edelgard. But let me ask, is starting a war to make the changes where commoners can actually earn a decent life for once a bad thing?

This is the medieval times. You should be aware that life is shit for commoners generally. If life is shit, but they are alive, is that a good thing? There being no war and no signs of any real change, would that mean that doing nothing and just letting people live a shit life is the best option? 

If you tried to do nothing and have "peace" where commoners can never hope to rise in status and just be in their shit lifestyle forever, then you still a horrible person for making people suffer still.

Yeah, war causes people to die, but at war's end, what happens? Commoners finally have a chance to rise and live in luxury, have a chance to have power, have a chance to get out of a shitty life. 

I originally wrote a response here outlining an opinion (one which if you've paid enough attention to my posts on this matter before you should be able to guess), but I've decided not to post that because you're throwing out a massive redirect here. My comment was in response to how Edelgard chooses to die, which has nothing to do with what your positing.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

 

I could show you.

Here's Hanneman/Manuela, which even indicates how the more universal education is being placed, as well as Bernie/Linhardt:

It's clear that the Empire does work to restore the Church, just no longer with a military or political power behind it, which honestly is better, since religion ad politics really don't go well together. 

The problem is that even with Byleth being a commoner, he's overall has no real intention or ability to understand how to really make a reform where you can do away with the nobility system. It's why only Edelgard's endings ever go with them dismantling the nobility system, while the other routes uphold it overall. 

But frankly, when it comes to female lords, we seriously need to do away with having male lords being around. IS can apparently have male lords be the only lead lord, but not have the same for female lords.

Ah OK I seemed to have missed the part about the restored church.   I guess my biggest problem with CF is that you don't get to actually fight TWSITD, if that had been added I would have been happier.  I guess it would be better if they explained a bit more how Edelgard's government worked after the war, because it seemed like most of the characters who were nobles kept their titles so I guess she still kept the system just with big changes that helped the commoners, but its not like it went from overbearing horrid nobles to no nobles and the commoners have a say in how the government is run.

I like to think Byleth did their best to help the commoners in the other routes and big reforms happened, it just took a bit longer.

Agreed I would love a FE with just a female lord and no male lords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

 

But frankly, when it comes to female lords, we seriously need to do away with having male lords being around. IS can apparently have male lords be the only lead lord, but not have the same for female lords.

I'm in full agreement here but it'll probably never happen now. Or well at least not any time soon. Chances are every game henceforth will have an avatar and it will always either be avatar + lord or avatar as the sole lord. Female Corrin is the closest we'll get to a sole female lord until the avatar system is removed which isn't likepy as it's been a rather profitable feature.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a bunch of other things to do, so here's my unwelcome two cents:

It's fine to like fictional things.  It becomes dicier when it becomes so close to your heart that it's all you can talk about.  Please be careful!

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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