Jump to content

What Edelgard means to me…


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, EricaofRenais said:

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.

I would also have wanted to see a few extra charters with Edelgard going up against the Agarthans, would be satisfying. Considering what they did to her.

Granted, from what I saw them from the verdant wind route. Their main base would have been fairly easily defeated by the imperial army once they located its location. It is just a question how Edelgard would be able to handle them blowing up their own base with missiles in response to losing. I am not sure she could, hopefully Edelgard wouldn't be personally present at that particular time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 236
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Personally I always thought that the Crimson Flower should have been a more evil route. It would have been brilliant if they showed the commoners that suffered because of the war Edelgard started. Because of her, many, many commoners lost their father, brother, son, sister, mother, daughter and so on. Do you honestly think those people who lost so much in the war would welcome Edelgard’s rule with open arms? That they would see her as a savior? You say she’s acting in the interest of commoners, but did she really consider them? The huge losses that commoners would receive? Imagine how many people lost their businesses and livelihoods because of the war. Would the commoners of the Kingdom and the Alliance would see Edelgard as their savior? And Edelgard’s meritocracy is no different than the crest and nobility system. Fodlan’s nobility and crest system favor those that are born nobles or with crests while the commoners are in unfavorable situations. But Edelgard’s new system favors those who were born more physically capable, those born more intellectually capable and those born with special skills and aptitudes. What place would a completely normal person have under Edelgard’s rule? What place would a person who was born sickly have under Edelgard’s rule? What place would a person who suffered a great injury or lost a limb have under Edelgard’s rule? Edelgard is replacing one dystopian unfair society for another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Water Mage said:

Personally I always thought that the Crimson Flower should have been a more evil route. It would have been brilliant if they showed the commoners that suffered because of the war Edelgard started. Because of her, many, many commoners lost their father, brother, son, sister, mother, daughter and so on. Do you honestly think those people who lost so much in the war would welcome Edelgard’s rule with open arms? That they would see her as a savior? You say she’s acting in the interest of commoners, but did she really consider them? The huge losses that commoners would receive? Imagine how many people lost their businesses and livelihoods because of the war. Would the commoners of the Kingdom and the Alliance would see Edelgard as their savior? And Edelgard’s meritocracy is no different than the crest and nobility system. Fodlan’s nobility and crest system favor those that are born nobles or with crests while the commoners are in unfavorable situations. But Edelgard’s new system favors those who were born more physically capable, those born more intellectually capable and those born with special skills and aptitudes. What place would a completely normal person have under Edelgard’s rule? What place would a person who was born sickly have under Edelgard’s rule? What place would a person who suffered a great injury or lost a limb have under Edelgard’s rule? Edelgard is replacing one dystopian unfair society for another.

That is all part of the price of war, there obviously would be some resistance at first, especially from the former kingdom and alliance territories. I imagine she would be more popular with the commoners in the Empire. I do not see how a normal person would be any worse off under Edelgard than under the previous system or Dimitri. Nothing about her philosophy says that those shows and four positions of power have the right to neglect the regular citizens, being capable in a position isn't just about talent and strength, is about the ability to perform your duty, which does involve taking care of those you have been set in charge of.one of the primary reasons Edelgard considered a lot of the Empire's ability to to be incompetent is their horrible treatment of their family and subjects. A capable ruler takes care of their subjects and make sure that the people that are born sick or suffered an injury will be okay in this system. This is the major difference between Edelgard and Ashnard, there is a difference between the capable shall rule and the strong should rule, being capable isn't just about physical ability, and it is not just about being better than anyone else, it is about being able and willing to perform your role properly.

I would have also liked to see an evil route where you side with the Agarthans, find out more about them and see what kind of world they would create if they won. It would probably be a horrible future, but that is what an evil route is for

I don't think Crimson flower would make a good evil route, it seems to me like certain people have a desire to shoehorn Edelgard into a role as an evil conqueror who compassed for the sake of personal power, because that is what we expect, but that isn't who she is. Why is this is exactly? Why are some people more comfortable with someone starting a war doing so only for selfish reasons, rather than the possibility that someone might do a terrible thing for sympathetic and selfless reasons? Is it just that they don't want to face the possibility that even the best of people are capable of doing nearly anything in the wrong circumstances? Does this make people uncomfortable? Is it just easier to label a person who does something like that as evil and move on, denying the possibility that you might have done the same thing in their shoes because it makes you uncomfortable?

However uncomfortable that makes some people, the truth still shouldn't be denied, just because you started a war and are responsible for the deaths of a lot of people doesn't mean that you can't have redeeming qualities or be a decent person

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

That is all part of the price of war, there obviously would be some resistance at first, especially from the former kingdom and alliance territories. I imagine she would be more popular with the commoners in the Empire. I do not see how a normal person would be any worse off under Edelgard than under the previous system or Dimitri. Nothing about her philosophy says that those shows and four positions of power have the right to neglect the regular citizens, being capable in a position isn't just about talent and strength, is about the ability to perform your duty, which does involve taking care of those you have been set in charge of.one of the primary reasons Edelgard considered a lot of the Empire's ability to to be incompetent is their horrible treatment of their family and subjects. A capable ruler takes care of their subjects and make sure that the people that are born sick or suffered an injury will be okay in this system. This is the major difference between Edelgard and Ashnard, there is a difference between the capable shall rule and the strong should rule, being capable isn't just about physical ability, and it is not just about being better than anyone else, it is about being able and willing to perform your role properly.

I would have also liked to see an evil route where you side with the Agarthans, find out more about them and see what kind of world they would create if they won. It would probably be a horrible future, but that is what an evil route is for

I don't think Crimson flower would make a good evil route, it seems to me like certain people have a desire to shoehorn Edelgard into a role as an evil conqueror who compassed for the sake of personal power, because that is what we expect, but that isn't who she is. Why is this is exactly? Why are some people more comfortable with someone starting a war doing so only for selfish reasons, rather than the possibility that someone might do a terrible thing for sympathetic and selfless reasons? Is it just that they don't want to face the possibility that even the best of people are capable of doing nearly anything in the wrong circumstances? Does this make people uncomfortable? Is it just easier to label a person who does something like that as evil and move on, denying the possibility that you might have done the same thing in their shoes because it makes you uncomfortable?

However uncomfortable that makes some people, the truth still shouldn't be denied, just because you started a war and are responsible for the deaths of a lot of people doesn't mean that you can't have redeeming qualities or be a decent person

But a capable ruler would have to ensure people are happy with the lives they lead. However in Edelgard’s rule that might not happen. Her system favors those who are skilled and by honing that skill they will be valued and will be able live a successful life. But just because a person is skilled in something doesn’t mean they necessarily like it. But under Edelgard’s rule that person would have to do the thing they are skilled with but don’t like it in order to be successful. Another problem is that say a normal person and a physically capable person wants to have the same position at a job that requires physical strength. They both work hard, the exact same amount in fact but who would be picked for the job under Edelgard’s rule? The person who was born more physically capable. You say Edelgard’s rule promises equality and equal opportunities, but it really doesn’t. In order for Edelgard’s system to be truly successful everyone would have to been born the same, with the same physical and intelectual capabilities in order for people to have equal opportunities. However a world like that sounds even more dystopian that Fodlan’s crest and nobility society. 

Edited by Water Mage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Water Mage said:

But a capable ruler would have to ensure people are happy with the lives they lead. However in Edelgard’s rule that might not happen. Her system favors that those who are skilled will be valued and will be able live a successful life. But just because a person is skilled in something doesn’t mean they necessarily like it. But under Edelgard’s rule that person would have to do the thing skilled with but don’t like it in order to be successful. Another problem is that say a normal person and a physically capable person wants to have the same position at a job that requires physical strength. They both work hard, the exact same amount in fact but who would be picked for the job under Edelgard’s rule? The person who was born more physically capable. You say Edelgard’s rule promises equality and equal opportunities, but it really doesn’t. In order for Edelgard’s system to be truly successful everyone would have to been born the same, with the same physical and intelectual capabilities in order for people to have equal opportunities. However a world like that sounds even more dystopian that Fodlan’s crest and nobility society. 

How was this in a different from the world we live in today? Would a company recruit the handicapped person or the person more capable for the task? If her world is a dystopia, so is ours. There will always be some inequality in the world, but we have to do the best we can to make sure that people can at least get by. 

I am not sure what exactly is going to happen, but Edelgard has stated that she seeks a successor that is in her own words "capable and kind"

Technically speaking Edelgard's system is pretty much free market capitalism with similar drawbacks, which is a solid social welfare net to take care of those who can't compete without making it so there is no incentive to succeed. It is kind of a balance. But despite all of that talk of meritocracy and the capable ruling, Edelgard did implement at least one socialist policy, free education. I don't find it too hard to imagine a welfare system, eventually being established. If someone is incapable of working. But I don't know if this is really something we could expect out of mediaeval society

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

How was this in a different from the world we live in today? Would a company recruit the handicapped person or the person more capable for the task? If her world is a dystopia, so is ours. There will always be some inequality in the world, but we have to do the best we can to make sure that people can at least get by. 

I am not sure what exactly is going to happen, but Edelgard has stated that she seeks a successor that is in her own words "capable and kind"

Technically speaking Edelgard's system is pretty much free market capitalism with similar drawbacks, which is a solid social welfare net to take care of those who can't compete without making it so there is no incentive to succeed. It is kind of a balance. But despite all of that talk of meritocracy and the capable ruling, Edelgard did implement at least one socialist policy, free education. I don't find it too hard to imagine a welfare system, eventually being established. If someone is incapable of working. But I don't know if this is really something we could expect out of mediaeval society

I’m not saying Edelgard’s system is wholly bad. It has lots of good points, but not that different than before.

My problem is that Edelgard justifies her war and all the death she caused for a society that can be just as problematic as the one before. So in the end, was it worth it? Was it worth all that the lives lost? Does it justify a war over a trying to change to change the system from inside?

Edited by Water Mage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Water Mage said:

My problem is that Edelgard justifies her war and all the death she caused for a society that can be just as problematic as the one before. So in the end, was it worth it? Was it worth all that the lives lost? Does it justify a war over a trying to change to change the system from inside?

Could. Maybe. Might. Possible. 

Is Edelgard a god? Is she omniscient? Does she possess clairvoyance? Does she know everything? 

The answer is no to all. No leader will ever know if a system will actually work. You think it will work, but that's never the same as actually working. But does that mean we should never do anything for the fear that it just might not work out? Will we just let ourselves just take the society we have and never believe in change? 

What is change? 

Is it doing something where you know what the outcome will result?

Again, no. 

Change is where you have no idea what the future will hold. That's why change is scary.

Edelgard cast aside her fears and anxiety, well aware and burdened with the loss of life more than anyone else from this war, because she believes that this is the only way to change things for the better. It's why at war's end, she ensures that there is no longer the threat of Agarthans, and no longer any class barriers where anyone has the ability to achieve. She dedicates her life to creating a peaceful society where people were able to finally have the freedom to pursue one's goals.

Also, you argued that Edelgard was fighting for equality. No, what Edelgard was fighting for was equity. A world where people are free to make use of their talents to rise in society, regardless of the station of their birth. You say that the those physically strong will get the job that requires physical strength, but the old system is where one is born to a position, basically with a "silver spoon in their mouth", but now, everyone has a chance. 

So no, it is vastly different now than from before.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Could. Maybe. Might. Possible. 

Is Edelgard a god? Is she omniscient? Does she possess clairvoyance? Does she know everything? 

The answer is no to all. No leader will ever know if a system will actually work. You think it will work, but that's never the same as actually working. But does that mean we should never do anything for the fear that it just might not work out? Will we just let ourselves just take the society we have and never believe in change? 

What is change? 

Is it doing something where you know what the outcome will result?

Again, no. 

Change is where you have no idea what the future will hold. That's why change is scary.

Edelgard cast aside her fears and anxiety, well aware and burdened with the loss of life more than anyone else from this war, because she believes that this is the only way to change things for the better. It's why at war's end, she ensures that there is no longer the threat of Agarthans, and no longer any class barriers where anyone has the ability to achieve. She dedicates her life to creating a peaceful society where people were able to finally have the freedom to pursue one's goals.

Also, you argued that Edelgard was fighting for equality. No, what Edelgard was fighting for was equity. A world where people are free to make use of their talents to rise in society, regardless of the station of their birth. You say that the those physically strong will get the job that requires physical strength, but the old system is where one is born to a position, basically with a "silver spoon in their mouth", but now, everyone has a chance. 

So no, it is vastly different now than from before.

 

No, not it really isn’t about equity. By starting a war and forcing those ideals in the nations she attacked and conquered it stops being equity. She did not give everyone what they needed to be successful. By starting a war, she robbed people of their lives, their livelihoods, resources, lands, homes and so much more. And now from a land broken by war she promises equity? When she was the one that caused so much damaged and inequality? By forcing what she believes to be equity in other nations that were only defending themselves, she’s not giving everyone what they need to be successful. She caused even more inequality. Because after the war people will have even less opportunities, because the people lost so much. Her equity came from denying equity to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Water Mage said:

Personally I always thought that the Crimson Flower should have been a more evil route. It would have been brilliant if they showed the commoners that suffered because of the war Edelgard started. Because of her, many, many commoners lost their father, brother, son, sister, mother, daughter and so on. Do you honestly think those people who lost so much in the war would welcome Edelgard’s rule with open arms? That they would see her as a savior? You say she’s acting in the interest of commoners, but did she really consider them? The huge losses that commoners would receive? Imagine how many people lost their businesses and livelihoods because of the war. Would the commoners of the Kingdom and the Alliance would see Edelgard as their savior? And Edelgard’s meritocracy is no different than the crest and nobility system. Fodlan’s nobility and crest system favor those that are born nobles or with crests while the commoners are in unfavorable situations. But Edelgard’s new system favors those who were born more physically capable, those born more intellectually capable and those born with special skills and aptitudes. What place would a completely normal person have under Edelgard’s rule? What place would a person who was born sickly have under Edelgard’s rule? What place would a person who suffered a great injury or lost a limb have under Edelgard’s rule? Edelgard is replacing one dystopian unfair society for another.

We really needed a base conversation system ala the Tellius games. Those occasionally showed what the common rabble had to say about things. One notable example is about Crimean citizens discussing who's side they should be on with them all eventually agreeing they'd prefer it most if no one was fighting at all. 

There's very much room for such a discussion in a Fodlandian village. Some would indeed view Edelgard as a monster responsible for the death of their loved ones but I'd suspect she also have some villagers fanatically loyal to their cause. Its not easy being a Fodlandian commoner so many villagers might just prefer Edelgard's model of society. 

Its also noteworthy that Edelgard's war doesn't seem to be all that bloody. Adrestian notably lacks the war crimes of other conquering nations and the vast majority of Fearghus got conquered without a fight with Cordelia pulling a coup and the western lords just rolling out the red carpet for Edelgard. The Alliance meanwhile seems to have largely stayed out of the fighting for five years. 

Edited by Etrurian emperor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Could. Maybe. Might. Possible. 

Is Edelgard a god? Is she omniscient? Does she possess clairvoyance? Does she know everything? 

The answer is no to all. No leader will ever know if a system will actually work. You think it will work, but that's never the same as actually working. But does that mean we should never do anything for the fear that it just might not work out? Will we just let ourselves just take the society we have and never believe in change? 

What is change? 

Is it doing something where you know what the outcome will result?

Again, no. 

Change is where you have no idea what the future will hold. That's why change is scary.

Edelgard cast aside her fears and anxiety, well aware and burdened with the loss of life more than anyone else from this war, because she believes that this is the only way to change things for the better. It's why at war's end, she ensures that there is no longer the threat of Agarthans, and no longer any class barriers where anyone has the ability to achieve. She dedicates her life to creating a peaceful society where people were able to finally have the freedom to pursue one's goals.

Also, you argued that Edelgard was fighting for equality. No, what Edelgard was fighting for was equity. A world where people are free to make use of their talents to rise in society, regardless of the station of their birth. You say that the those physically strong will get the job that requires physical strength, but the old system is where one is born to a position, basically with a "silver spoon in their mouth", but now, everyone has a chance. 

So no, it is vastly different now than from before.

 

Not to mention that getting rid of the Agarthans alone is basically worth the cost of the war by itself, considering how much crap that group has caused over the course of the centuries. This is also accomplished in verdant wind thanks in part due to the actions of Edelgard and Hubert. Avoiding the war in change things slowly were never really an option for Edelgard thanks to the power of the Agarthans and then pushing for a war, in addition to creating a new societal structure. The war was basically also a very indirect way of getting rid of the Agarthans once and for all.

Generally speaking, Edelgard society is actually quite close to the system we have today when it comes to how we approach jobs, at least that would be the ideal. 

Edelgard definitely isn't perfect, she wouldn't be so interesting if she was, in any case, I would never judge her for her actions, even if she was mistaken her motives were so good that I would let her off the hook if I were the goddess judging her in the afterlife. I think Edelgard has suffered enough and quite frankly deserves a better life than what she got

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Water Mage said:

No, not it really isn’t about equity. By starting a war and forcing those ideals in the nations she attacked and conquered it stops being equity. She did not give everyone what they needed to be successful. By starting a war, she robbed people of their lives, their livelihoods, resources, lands, homes and so much more. And now from a land broken by war she promises equity? When she was the one that caused so much damaged and inequality? By forcing what she believes to be equity in other nations that were only defending themselves, she’s not giving everyone what they need to be successful. She caused even more inequality. Because after the war people will have even less opportunities, because the people lost so much. Her equity came from denying equity to others.

I feel you're more trying to insist on a form of logic that is just downright false. The system Edelgard created is equity. It's a system where people are free to pursue goals and not trapped by the station of their birth. Because she is fighting to destroy the nobility system, a system that is rooted to every nation because of the Chruch. It is a system that is entirely based on inequality and far from being equity. So trying to say that Edelgard is not fighting for equality or equity is just silly, given that she is doing away wiht the nobility that brings about inequality and allowing everyone to have a chance, thus promoting equity.

Also, you talk about how Edelgard stole lives and such. Yeah, she knows this.

But how about how many lives are trampled on by corrupt nobles in general? How many people suffered because of the nobility? Once again, medieval times. Commoner life is shit. You can literally even see quite a few of Ashe's supports where he laments how much commoners suffer that they resort to being thieves or such. 

You can call Edelgard's actions self-righteous, sure. 

But she is the one that dedicated her life to making sure to improve the lives of everyone in Fodlan after uniting the continent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

We really needed a base conversation system ala the Tellius games. Those occasionally showed what the common rabble had to say about things. One notable example is about Crimean citizens discussing who's side they should be on with them all eventually agreeing they'd prefer it most if no one was fighting at all. 

There's very much room for such a discussion in a Fodlandian village. Some would indeed view Edelgard as a monster responsible for the death of their loved ones but I'd suspect she also have some villagers fanatically loyal to their cause. Its not easy being a Fodlandian commoner so many villagers might just prefer Edelgard's model of society. 

Its also noteworthy that Edelgard's war doesn't seem to be all that bloody. Adrestian notably lacks the war crimes of other conquering nations and the vast majority of Fearghus got conquered without a fight with Cordelia pulling a coup and the western lords just rolling out the red carpet for Edelgard. The Alliance meanwhile seems to have largely stayed out of the fighting for five years. 

That conversation with the villagers in Radiant Dawn and the conversation in Path of Radiance with Ike, Jill and a villager from Daein is exactly what I wanted in Three Houses. Show how the common people, the ones Edelgard claim she’s fighting for feel about it! And Edelgard’s war might not seem bloody at first but remember that war are the perfect time for pillaging. With the army busy preparing for war or having to be ready for battle at anytime, it’s the perfect time for bandits to attack villages.

12 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Not to mention that getting rid of the Agarthans alone is basically worth the cost of the war by itself, considering how much crap that group has caused over the course of the centuries. This is also accomplished in verdant wind thanks in part due to the actions of Edelgard and Hubert. Avoiding the war in change things slowly were never really an option for Edelgard thanks to the power of the Agarthans and then pushing for a war, in addition to creating a new societal structure. The war was basically also a very indirect way of getting rid of the Agarthans once and for all.

Generally speaking, Edelgard society is actually quite close to the system we have today when it comes to how we approach jobs, at least that would be the ideal. 

Edelgard definitely isn't perfect, she wouldn't be so interesting if she was, in any case, I would never judge her for her actions, even if she was mistaken her motives were so good that I would let her off the hook if I were the goddess judging her in the afterlife. I think Edelgard has suffered enough and quite frankly deserves a better life than what she got

 

4 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

I feel you're more trying to insist on a form of logic that is just downright false. The system Edelgard created is equity. It's a system where people are free to pursue goals and not trapped by the station of their birth. Because she is fighting to destroy the nobility system, a system that is rooted to every nation because of the Chruch. It is a system that is entirely based on inequality and far from being equity. So trying to say that Edelgard is not fighting for equality or equity is just silly, given that she is doing away wiht the nobility that brings about inequality and allowing everyone to have a chance, thus promoting equity.

Also, you talk about how Edelgard stole lives and such. Yeah, she knows this.

But how about how many lives are trampled on by corrupt nobles in general? How many people suffered because of the nobility? Once again, medieval times. Commoner life is shit. You can literally even see quite a few of Ashe's supports where he laments how much commoners suffer that they resort to being thieves or such. 

You can call Edelgard's actions self-righteous, sure. 

But she is the one that dedicated her life to making sure to improve the lives of everyone in Fodlan after uniting the continent.

You’re missing my point. It doesn’t matter that she the consequences of her actions, it doesn’t that she got rid in the agarthans in the end. What matter that lives were lost in the first place. Edelgard had two options, a war that would guarantee death and destruction or the slow change from the inside which could cause as much death and destruction as the war or much less death and destruction. Both options had equal opportunities of success and failure. Can you really she truly dedicated her life to improve the lives of the people of Fodlan when she picked the path that guaranteed death and destruction instead of the path that had the possibility of having less death and destruction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

I feel you're more trying to insist on a form of logic that is just downright false. The system Edelgard created is equity. It's a system where people are free to pursue goals and not trapped by the station of their birth. Because she is fighting to destroy the nobility system, a system that is rooted to every nation because of the Chruch. It is a system that is entirely based on inequality and far from being equity. So trying to say that Edelgard is not fighting for equality or equity is just silly, given that she is doing away wiht the nobility that brings about inequality and allowing everyone to have a chance, thus promoting equity.

Also, you talk about how Edelgard stole lives and such. Yeah, she knows this.

But how about how many lives are trampled on by corrupt nobles in general? How many people suffered because of the nobility? Once again, medieval times. Commoner life is shit. You can literally even see quite a few of Ashe's supports where he laments how much commoners suffer that they resort to being thieves or such. 

You can call Edelgard's actions self-righteous, sure. 

But she is the one that dedicated her life to making sure to improve the lives of everyone in Fodlan after uniting the continent.

sorry, but I can't support Edelgard's meritocracy, at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, darkblade2814 said:

sorry, but I can't support Edelgard's meritocracy, at all

Okay. I'm just saying, that also means you're letting the nobles still hold the power and commoners remain being beneath them, trapped by the station of their birth and just not allowed to rise. 

3 minutes ago, Water Mage said:

You’re missing my point. It doesn’t matter that she the consequences of her actions, it doesn’t that she got rid in the agarthans in the end. What matter that lives were lost in the first place. Edelgard had two options, a war that would guarantee death and destruction or the slow change from the inside which could cause as much death and destruction as the war or much less death and destruction. Both options had equal opportunities of success and failure. Can you really she truly dedicated her life to improve the lives of the people of Fodlan when she picked the path that guaranteed death and destruction instead of the path that had the possibility of having less death and destruction?

Actually, turn the thinking around.

You either choose a path where that will result in making the changes you envision able to happen, or you make the slow changes that can so easily amount to absolutely nothing and do nothing, thus your efforts are wasted by trying to be peaceful. 

Yes, war will result in death and suffering. But it will allow you the path to making changes. 

Look at Fodlan's history. Remember how long this nobility system has remained in place. And how long things have remained stagnant. 

Over 1100 years. 

That's how long.

If you have all this history proving that society just refused to change, what makes you think that you trying to make peaceful changes amounts to anything? 

So either you are too scared to make a move to actually change something, thus allowing things to stay exactly the same. Or you do something that you know will harm many people, but will pay off by actually changing something.

And in the end, CF results in commoners finally receiving education, social mobility, etc. 

Look at that. Real change. Finally. After so many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, omegaxis1 said:

Okay. I'm just saying, that also means you're letting the nobles still hold the power and commoners remain being beneath them, trapped by the station of their birth and just not allowed to rise. 

Actually, turn the thinking around.

You either choose a path where that will result in making the changes you envision able to happen, or you make the slow changes that can so easily amount to absolutely nothing and do nothing, thus your efforts are wasted by trying to be peaceful. 

Yes, war will result in death and suffering. But it will allow you the path to making changes. 

Look at Fodlan's history. Remember how long this nobility system has remained in place. And how long things have remained stagnant. 

Over 1100 years. 

That's how long.

If you have all this history proving that society just refused to change, what makes you think that you trying to make peaceful changes amounts to anything? 

So either you are too scared to make a move to actually change something, thus allowing things to stay exactly the same. Or you do something that you know will harm many people, but will pay off by actually changing something.

And in the end, CF results in commoners finally receiving education, social mobility, etc. 

Look at that. Real change. Finally. After so many years.

The problem is that you’re acting as if the war would guarantee that she would be successful. It’s doesn’t. She could have failed miserably and make things even worse for Fodlan. She chose war which had the equal chance of success and failure as trying to avoid war. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Water Mage said:

The problem is that you’re acting as if the war would guarantee that she would be successful. It’s doesn’t. She could have failed miserably and make things even worse for Fodlan. She chose war which had the equal chance of success and failure as trying to avoid war. 

It could fail. But better to try and fail than to have never tried anything at all. Fodlan's history has made it clear that Fodlan simply will not change for the better unless you take drastic measures. Not with Rhea in the Church, and not with the Agarthans. She either does nothing, or she could do something. 

It's basically like taking a stand against an oppressive ruler. There will be loss and sacrifice. 

But are you going to back down just cause you're afraid of said loss and sacrifice? 

And that's Edelgard. Either she lets fear overtake her decisions and she does nothing, or she will stand up and oppose the injustice of the world, even if the path results in great bloodshed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Water Mage said:

The problem is that you’re acting as if the war would guarantee that she would be successful. It’s doesn’t. She could have failed miserably and make things even worse for Fodlan. She chose war which had the equal chance of success and failure as trying to avoid war. 

To quote Edelgard herself “better war than a peace built on suffering” and that’s the truth of the matter. Agree or disagree she has a point. Hypocritical as it may be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

I feel you're more trying to insist on a form of logic that is just downright false. The system Edelgard created is equity. It's a system where people are free to pursue goals and not trapped by the station of their birth. Because she is fighting to destroy the nobility system, a system that is rooted to every nation because of the Chruch. It is a system that is entirely based on inequality and far from being equity. So trying to say that Edelgard is not fighting for equality or equity is just silly, given that she is doing away wiht the nobility that brings about inequality and allowing everyone to have a chance, thus promoting equity.

Also, you talk about how Edelgard stole lives and such. Yeah, she knows this.

But how about how many lives are trampled on by corrupt nobles in general? How many people suffered because of the nobility? Once again, medieval times. Commoner life is shit. You can literally even see quite a few of Ashe's supports where he laments how much commoners suffer that they resort to being thieves or such. 

You can call Edelgard's actions self-righteous, sure. 

But she is the one that dedicated her life to making sure to improve the lives of everyone in Fodlan after uniting the continent.

I think Edelgard would make his speech such as this in the Aftermatch of the war to try to mitigate hostilities towards her and the Empire.

Edelgard: "Citizens of the Empire, the last five years has been a long and arduous road for all of us, many lives has been lost and the continent devastated by the war. I take full responsibility for this and I personally mourn with you for every son, daughter, father or mother, you might have lost as a consequence of this war. Just know that if I had any other course of action. I would have taken it. Know that I will honour the sacrifice of the fallen, it doesn't matter if they fought for the Empire, the Kingdom or the Alliance, they died valiantly fighting for a cause they believed in and I respect that. Each and every one of them will be remembered as a Martyr and a monument will be raised to honour the fallen. I will not let the sacrifice of these valiant people go to waste and I will honour their memory by dedicating my life to making a better society for everyone, free from the yoke of oppression from both the nobility, the church and an even darker power who I will tell you everything about in due time. I might have gone to war against the church, but I do not consider myself an enemy of the faith, know that worship of the goddess is still very much allowed across the Empire and the church will be rebuilt under new leadership, the faithful doesn't need to fear this new dawn. I don't know if anything I could ever do could ever make up for the losses, but I do promise that I will try."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly Claude would probably the best ruler because he's the not-extremist lad in three houses. Democracy would probably work better than a society based on individual strength or ability. Of course, it is just a video game, so maybe I'm overthinking it a little.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

It could fail. But better to try and fail than to have never tried anything at all. Fodlan's history has made it clear that Fodlan simply will not change for the better unless you take drastic measures. Not with Rhea in the Church, and not with the Agarthans. She either does nothing, or she could do something. 

It's basically like taking a stand against an oppressive ruler. There will be loss and sacrifice. 

But are you going to back down just cause you're afraid of said loss and sacrifice? 

And that's Edelgard. Either she lets fear overtake her decisions and she does nothing, or she will stand up and oppose the injustice of the world, even if the path results in great bloodshed. 

But why not pick the peaceful if it also has a chance of success? You’re acting as the peaceful is cowardly. She can do something in a peaceful way.

 

14 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

To quote Edelgard herself “better war than a peace built on suffering” and that’s the truth of the matter. Agree or disagree she has a point. Hypocritical as it may be

As you said it’s hypocritical. Peace obtained through war is also peace built on suffering so what makes a method better than the other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Benice said:

Honestly Claude would probably the best ruler because he's the not-extremist lad in three houses. Democracy would probably work better than a society based on individual strength or ability. Of course, it is just a video game, so maybe I'm overthinking it a little.

 

Assuming Claude actually bothers ruling at all, in the ending, I got in verdant wind he actually left for Almyra, leaving Byleth in charge. I actually think that Edelgard system has a decent chance to turn into a democracy over the centuries, that is generally what happens when you allow commoners to have upwards mobility.

When it comes to Edelgard, what makes all the difference to me is that she do feel burdened by all the bloodshed caused during the war, that reluctance in this kind of case is everything. I don't believe for a second she enjoyed killing her old childhood sweetheart Dimitri, I could clearly see how painful this was to her and this is part of what makes her to me quite sympathetic and relatable. I could only imagine the emotional turmoil she must be going through during this war

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Water Mage said:

But why not pick the peaceful if it also has a chance of success? You’re acting as the peaceful is cowardly. She can do something in a peaceful way.

What chance of success? The Agarthans are in control of the Empire. Rhea is an immortal dragon. Edelgard likely will have a small lifespan too from her two Crests. What options does she have to believe that things can change when society itself has proven that it simply will not change in the course of 1100 years? 

3 minutes ago, Water Mage said:

As you said it’s hypocritical. Peace obtained through war is also peace built on suffering so what makes a method better than the other?

One just doesn't pretend that it isn't causing suffering (war), while the other does. 

It's like how you allow innocents to die just cause you refuse to try to change something out of fear of starting a war. You can be proud that you didn't start war and pat yourself on the back next to the bodies of the innocents that were helpless to the inherently oppressive system of nobility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Assuming Claude actually bothers ruling at all, in the ending, I got in verdant wind he actually left for Almyra, leaving Byleth in charge. I actually think that Edelgard system has a decent chance to turn into a democracy over the centuries, that is generally what happens when you allow commoners to have upwards mobility.

When it comes to Edelgard, what makes all the difference to me is that she do feel burdened by all the bloodshed caused during the war, that reluctance in this kind of case is everything. I don't believe for a second she enjoyed killing her old childhood sweetheart Dimitri, I could clearly see how painful this was to her and this is part of what makes her to me quite sympathetic and relatable. I could only imagine the emotional turmoil she must be going through during this war

...Yeah, you know what, I haven't actually played three houses, I've only seen secondhand what it's like, so I probably shouldn't be in this conversation, period, so I guess I apologize for cluttering it up with my nonsense.

Regardless, I do see what you are saying. I also see why many people like Edelgard, but she's just too extreme for my tastes. She might not be for other people, and that's fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Benice said:

Regardless, I do see what you are saying. I also see why many people like Edelgard, but she's just too extreme for my tastes. She might not be for other people, and that's fine. 

Edelgard truly is someone that goes down to the core of one's personal philosophy and morality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

What chance of success? The Agarthans are in control of the Empire. Rhea is an immortal dragon. Edelgard likely will have a small lifespan too from her two Crests. What options does she have to believe that things can change when society itself has proven that it simply will not change in the course of 1100 years? 

One just doesn't pretend that it isn't causing suffering (war), while the other does. 

It's like how you allow innocents to die just cause you refuse to try to change something out of fear of starting a war. You can be proud that you didn't start war and pat yourself on the back next to the bodies of the innocents that were helpless to the inherently oppressive system of nobility. 

And what are the chances of the war be the best choice? Both options have equal chances. The Agarthans have super weapons and control armies in the shadows and Rhea had the entire knights of Seiros. What makes you so sure that the path of war had better chances of success than a peaceful path?

And who says the the peaceful pretends there isn’t suffering? You can choose a peaceful path and acknowledge the suffering! You’re also causing innocents to die by starting the war. Is starting a war really something to be proud of when the peaceful path was an option?

Edited by Water Mage
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...