Jump to content

What Edelgard means to me…


Recommended Posts

8 minutes 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.

 

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?

I don't know why everyone is ignoring this, but looking at the circumstances, I doubt that Edelgard even had the option for a peaceful solution. The Agarthans and their presence in the Empire made that impossible, without them, maybe we can speak about it being a choice, but as it is your options are pretty much start a war like a desire or get killed and have someone else do it for her. I think we need to remember that Edelgard is not the only factor in this game.

She can't just change her own reality and go with an option is to see simply doesn't have

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 236
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I don't know why everyone is ignoring this, but looking at the circumstances, I doubt that Edelgard even had the option for a peaceful solution. The Agarthans and their presence in the Empire made that impossible, without them, maybe we can speak about it being a choice, but as it is your options are pretty much start a war like a desire or get killed and have someone else do it for her. I think we need to remember that Edelgard is not the only factor in this game.

She can't just change her own reality and go with an option is to see simply doesn't have

She can change things from the inside. Just like the Agarthans acted from the shadows, so can she. She gathered a large group of followers. She can win just as she can lose. She could try to approach Dimitri and Claude as ally with them. Yes, there a good choice that it might fail and that they’re not trustworthy, it’s a gamble. But starting a war is also a gamble. She has the same chance of convincing Dimitri and Claude as she has of winning a war against the Church, the Kingdom, the Alliance and the Agarthans. So why not pick the least bloody gamble?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Water Mage said:

And what are the chances of the war be the best choice? Both options have equal chances. The Argathans 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?

No. One has no chance of success. With Agarthans and Rhea, Fodlan simply will not change. There's no "chance" there. 

Let me ask you. If there was an evil nation, one purely evil, like say that we change the entire plot where Edelgard gets the other nations to help her free Adrestia from the Agarthans. Guess what happens? War. You fight a war, you still cause countless suffering. 

Will you support this war cause this time you are opposing the clearly evil nation? You are the ones starting the war here, and countless innocents WILL die still. Is your peace worth it? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say that, in terms of character-writing, all the Black Eagles are really good. I've only done two routes so far, but I have to say, as good as the Golden Deer House is, I think I still prefer the Black Eagles. 

I think one reason for this is that, to me at least, there seems to be a much more clear sense of purpose to each member of the Black Eagles house and why they're there. Edelgard obviously is the leader, but she is also the paragon of the group. Ferdinand and Hubert are the two advisors: one shadowy and with a loyalty bordering on fanaticism and is there to carry things out in the shadows, while the other is openly critical and is there to challenge Edelgard whenever he thinks she may be doing something wrong. You then have Linhardt as the Crest Scholar and pacifist of the group, making him the inquisitive one seeking answers. Caspar is the brute with a strong sense of justice who has to work his way up because the nobility system puts him at a disadvantage. Petra is a political prisoner of the Empire to maintain their hold on Brigid. Bernadetta is an unfortunate victim of the crest system. And, finally, Dorothea illustrates the plight of the peasantry within the empire. In addition to being well-written individuals, they are also well-written as a group, and there is a strong sense of the dynamic between them. 

For the Golden Deer House, I can kind-of see what they were trying to get at: Lorenz is the Golden Deer's Ferdinand, Hilda is of the family that guards the border, Leonie is the former farm girl, Ignatz and Raphael are the ones from merchant families, Lysithea shows the Empire's hold on parts of the Alliance, which would come up in part 2. But, for me, the Golden Deer House seems to be the equivalent of Hufflepuff House: made up of leftovers. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I don't get as much sense of the group dynamic as I did for the Black Eagles students. I feel like the dynamic between them was supposed to be a combination of Ragtag Bunch of Misfits and We ARE Struggling Together (links to descriptions of those two tropes below), which would fit the themes of the route, but I didn't actually get a sense of that very often, or at least, not as often as I did for the Black Eagles House and their dynamic. 

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RagtagBunchOfMisfits

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WeAreStrugglingTogether

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noble is not = bad
Commoner is not = good
There are good and bad people. 

Meritocracy is the same Fodlan's Crest system but in a different color. At the end of the day it all depends on whether people are good or bad, and 99% of normal people will continue with their normal daily lives no matter how much meritocracy or crest system there is.

For example, Rodrigue is a good noble, and he cares a lot about people.Not for nothing is called the "Shield of Faerghus", always in the front line of combat always to defend people, and that is also reflected in Felix's paralogue, where he only gives you the Shield if you defend all the villagers. In addition:

 

27e89fd61deef58bbbc16168e709d804o.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Water Mage said:

She can change things from the inside. Just like the Agarthans acted from the shadows, so can she. She gathered a large group of followers. She can win just as she can lose. She could try to approach Dimitri and Claude as ally with them. Yes, there a good choice that it might fail and that they’re not trustworthy, it’s a gamble. But starting a war is also a gamble. She has the same chance of convincing Dimitri and Claude as she has of winning a war against the Church, the Kingdom, the Alliance and the Agarthans. So why not pick the least bloody gamble?

Working against the Agarthans from the shadows is pretty much what she is already doing, the war is necessary to win some time. I also think your suggestion would still result in a war, just a war with different allies and enemies, assuming that she somehow managed to convince to both Dimitri and Claude to join her, they still need to deal with the church and the Agarthans.

I would actually consider bringing in Claude, if I were in her stead, knowing what I do know about him, but it is a complete gamble as if he is not on board on the plan I would have just completely exposed myself and risked losing the chance to ever create a better future. I also think the best way to avoid Agarthan assassins is to pretend to be their ally, while secretly working against them. Here's a thing, though, a plan of mine will still involve a war, the war just would be significantly less disastrous if more factions were on our side. In any case, I understand why Edelgard wouldn't risk this as it is a huge gamble and it would still result in bloodshed in the end

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

No. One has no chance of success. With Agarthans and Rhea, Fodlan simply will not change. There's no "chance" there. 

Let me ask you. If there was an evil nation, one purely evil, like say that we change the entire plot where Edelgard gets the other nations to help her free Adrestia from the Agarthans. Guess what happens? War. You fight a war, you still cause countless suffering. 

Will you support this war cause this time you are opposing the clearly evil nation? You are the ones starting the war here, and countless innocents WILL die still. Is your peace worth it? 

 

Who said there’s no chance of success? As the ending of Crimson Flower shows, she can fight and eliminate the Agarthans. And Rhea? The moment Rhea realizes the Agarthans are threat. That they have been taking advantage of the crest and nobility system of Fodlan and of its medieval stasis to get revenge on her and Sothis she might actually listen! Edelgard used the “we have the same enemy, let’s join forces.” with the Agarthans. Who can’t say it can’t work with the church of Seiros? Just as Rhea is merciless with those that oppose the church so are the Agarthans with their enemies.

But in the case of the evil nation, you already implying that war is the only option. By calling them evil, one has to assume there’s no peaceful option because something that is evil by nature will deny a peaceful option. The evil nation harms others for the sake of harming others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Water Mage said:

Who said there’s no chance of success? As the ending of Crimson Flower shows, she can fight and eliminate the Agarthans. And Rhea? The moment Rhea realizes the Agarthans are threat. That they have been taking advantage of the crest and nobility system of Fodlan and of its medieval stasis to get revenge on her and Sothis she might actually listen! Edelgard used the “we have the same enemy, let’s join forces.” with the Agarthans. Who can’t say it can’t work with the church of Seiros? Just as Rhea is merciless with those that oppose the church so are the Agarthans with their enemies.

But in the case of the evil nation, you already implying that war is the only option. By calling them evil, one has to assume there’s no peaceful option because something that is evil by nature will deny a peaceful option. The evil nation harms others for the sake of harming others. 

A lot of things could have been different if Edelgard didn't believe Rhea was a tyrant and Rhea believing Edelgard was the second Nemesis. What you are suggesting here is pretty much the only reasonable alternative, but it will also involve Edelgard losing control of the Empire and joining the church in the war against the Agarthan controlled Empire. Which still doesn't avoid a war, and this is all assuming the Archbishop could find it within herself not to execute someone who defiled the holy tomb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Water Mage said:

Who said there’s no chance of success? As the ending of Crimson Flower shows, she can fight and eliminate the Agarthans. And Rhea? The moment Rhea realizes the Agarthans are threat. That they have been taking advantage of the crest and nobility system of Fodlan and of its medieval stasis to get revenge on her and Sothis she might actually listen! Edelgard used the “we have the same enemy, let’s join forces.” with the Agarthans. Who can’t say it can’t work with the church of Seiros? Just as Rhea is merciless with those that oppose the church so are the Agarthans with their enemies.

But in the case of the evil nation, you already implying that war is the only option. By calling them evil, one has to assume there’s no peaceful option because something that is evil by nature will deny a peaceful option. The evil nation harms others for the sake of harming others. 

I'm sorry, what? Rhea literally preaches that the Crests are gifts of the goddess. Also, Edelgard is in complete control of the Empire by the war's end, unlike before, where the Agathans held major influence and were running things during Part 1. 

Now you're trying to insist on what ifs and giving characters development before it happens. Rhea doesn't believe humans can rule over themselves. She believes they all must be led by the goddess. This is the same woman that took over an investigation to Duscur and used it as a mask to eliminate political enemies of the Church. So Rhea does not believe in the concept of Edelgard's ideals where humans can rule on their own and don't need things like Crests as necessary, which clashes with Rhea, who uses the Church to push Crests as importance. Rhea is one that is perfectly fine with killing and sacrificing people to maintain a "peace" that she believes is good. 

The very fact that she did not try to hold any trial or try to peacefully talk to Lonato or the Western Church, but instead just retaliates and kills them all just pushes how she is not that interested in peaceful talks herself. She more or less wants that people get in line with her Church. 

Also, no. You have an option. Don't fight a war. Leave it alone just so that you avoid a war. As I said, the other parties, not the Agarthans, are starting the war here. Meaning that the good guys started the war, and as a result, countless people died. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

I'm sorry, what? Rhea literally preaches that the Crests are gifts of the goddess. Also, Edelgard is in complete control of the Empire by the war's end, unlike before, where the Agathans held major influence and were running things during Part 1. 

Now you're trying to insist on what ifs and giving characters development before it happens. Rhea doesn't believe humans can rule over themselves. She believes they all must be led by the goddess. This is the same woman that took over an investigation to Duscur and used it as a mask to eliminate political enemies of the Church. So Rhea does not believe in the concept of Edelgard's ideals where humans can rule on their own and don't need things like Crests as necessary, which clashes with Rhea, who uses the Church to push Crests as importance. Rhea is one that is perfectly fine with killing and sacrificing people to maintain a "peace" that she believes is good. 

The very fact that she did not try to hold any trial or try to peacefully talk to Lonato or the Western Church, but instead just retaliates and kills them all just pushes how she is not that interested in peaceful talks herself. She more or less wants that people get in line with her Church. 

Also, no. You have an option. Don't fight a war. Leave it alone just so that you avoid a war. As I said, the other parties, not the Agarthans, are starting the war here. Meaning that the good guys started the war, and as a result, countless people died. 

Even if Rhea is the one that preached that the crests were gifts of the goddess, the moment she learns that the Agarthans are using that against her and Sothis she would rethink her entire plan. And just as Rhea believes the humans can’t rule themselves, the Agarthans also believes that the primitive humans of Fodlan can’t rule themselves. There’s no difference. Just as Rhea used politics to hide secrets and eliminate enemies of the church, so did the Agarthans use politcs to eliminate their enemies and hide their secrets. Just as Rhea doesn’t try peaceful negotiations with her enemies and kills them without question so does the Agarthans. The beliefs of both Rhea and the Agarthans doesn’t align with Edelgard’s ideals where humans can rule on their own. Rhea and the Agarthans are the same. So Edelgard had as much of a chance to ally with the Agarthans as she had with Rhea.

And yes, you could not fight a war with evil nation, but that would result in death just as fighting a war would. So in that case, war is the only option.

Edited by Water Mage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

I'm sorry, what? Rhea literally preaches that the Crests are gifts of the goddess. Also, Edelgard is in complete control of the Empire by the war's end, unlike before, where the Agathans held major influence and were running things during Part 1. 

Now you're trying to insist on what ifs and giving characters development before it happens. Rhea doesn't believe humans can rule over themselves. She believes they all must be led by the goddess. This is the same woman that took over an investigation to Duscur and used it as a mask to eliminate political enemies of the Church. So Rhea does not believe in the concept of Edelgard's ideals where humans can rule on their own and don't need things like Crests as necessary, which clashes with Rhea, who uses the Church to push Crests as importance. Rhea is one that is perfectly fine with killing and sacrificing people to maintain a "peace" that she believes is good. 

The very fact that she did not try to hold any trial or try to peacefully talk to Lonato or the Western Church, but instead just retaliates and kills them all just pushes how she is not that interested in peaceful talks herself. She more or less wants that people get in line with her Church. 

Also, no. You have an option. Don't fight a war. Leave it alone just so that you avoid a war. As I said, the other parties, not the Agarthans, are starting the war here. Meaning that the good guys started the war, and as a result, countless people died. 

I pretty much think war is unavoidable, if Edelgard didn't start it. The Agarthans would, what changes with different variables are the parameters rather than the act itself, no matter what is done in a sense will die, that is guaranteed.

Like you pointed out, it isn't the church is innocent in this either. Their responses has been estimating things.

But you know what? For me it doesn't really matter if Edelgard had another option, what matters to me is that she is a good person with good intentions. I don't deal in judgement, forgiveness is such a more beautiful thing and if anyone deserves to be forgiven for their crimes, it is someone as well intentioned and remorseful as Edelgard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

But you know what? For me it doesn't really matter if Edelgard had another option, what matters to me is that she is a good person with good intentions. I don't deal in judgement, forgiveness is such a more beautiful thing and if anyone deserves to be forgiven for their crimes, it is someone as well intentioned and remorseful as Edelgard.

Okay, let’s just forget about Edelgard, Three Houses and Fire Emblem for a moment. What you said just now? It’s not healthy. It doesn’t matter how remorseful a person is, it doesn’t if they have good intentions, there are some things you just can’t forgive. Forgiveness is a beautiful thing but also incredibly stupid. If remorse and good intentions were enough to forgive someone for a crime, society would be in chaos. If a person commits a serious crime, they cannot be forgiven. Period. People have to pay for their crimes.

Edited by Water Mage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Water Mage said:

Even if Rhea is the one that preached that the crests were gifts of the goddess, the moment she learns that the Agarthans are using that against her and Sothis she would rethink her entire plan. And just as Rhea believes the humans can’t rule themselves, the Agarthans also believes that the primitive humans of Fodlan can’t rule themselves. There’s no difference. Just as Rhea used politics to hide secrets and eliminate enemies of the church, so did the Agarthans use politcs to eliminate their enemies and hide their secrets. Just as Rhea doesn’t try peaceful negotiations with her enemies and kills them without question so does the Agarthans. The beliefs of both Rhea and the Agarthans doesn’t align with Edelgard’s ideals where humans can rule on their own. Rhea and the Agarthans are the same. So Edelgard had as much of a chance to ally with the Agarthans as she had with Rhea.

First off, Edelgard does not know what Rhea went through. She does NOT know that Rhea would also share the same type of hostility. How would she? Would the Agarthans tell her? Obviously not. And Edelgard doesn't trust what they have to say even then. What DOES Edelgard know? The story of what she learned from her father, a story passed down from the time of the first emperor. And the story, while lacking in context, is a story that already contradicts the teachings of the Church in regards to the Relics and War of Heroes. 

And what Edelgard also knows is that going against the Church of Seiros is impossible if she doesn't ally herself with the Agarthans. 

I made a thread about this, how everyone is bound by things they do know, things they don't know, and that becomes their reality. 

And that reality makes them act on said reality, and what one's reality would be another's illusion. 

Rhea doesn't prove anything to Edelgard in the course of the game that she's reasonable, that they can talk things out. All Rhea proved is that she will kill anyone that would dare to oppose her and the Church. Edelgard very much opposes what the Church is like, making her an enemy of Rhea. And Rhea is a much more dangerous threat than the Agarthans, given how the Agarthans would not even try to go against Rhea until they finally had Edelgard bear the Crest of Flames.

8 minutes ago, Water Mage said:

And yes, you could not fight a war with evil nation, but that would result in death just as fighting a war would. So in that case, war is the only option.

Thank you. You now justified Edelgard's war. 

She was opposing something that can very much be seen as evil. 

The Church, and by its influence on the Kingdom and Alliance, can be viewed as an evil that has very much caused the suffering of people. With Faerghus committing genocide and Alliance having the shit Gloucester pulls and Goneril having Almyran slaves. Or commoners overall never able to get an education unless they pay nobles a lot of money. 

There you go. Evil. Injustice. Cruelties. 

Now you basically have Edelgard have a perfectly justified war where she is actually trying to save Fodlan from the evil. 

2 minutes ago, Water Mage said:

Okay, let’s just forget about Edelgard, Three Houses and Fire Emblem for a moment. What you said just now? It’s not healthy. It doesn’t matter how remorseful a person is, it doesn’t if they have good intentions, there are some things you just can’t forgive. Forgiveness is a beautiful thing but also incredibly stupid. If remorse and good intentions were enough to forgive someone for a crime, society would be in chaos. If a person commits a serious crime, they cannot be forgiven. Period. People have to pay for their crimes. 

Oh? Did America pay for its crime of dropping a nuke onto Japan? Did every German pay for the Holocaust? 

What makes a "crime"? Laws. Rules. But if you are a rebel, like the America's Independence War, they are the criminals. They are the ones that are breaking the laws of society, and ultimately started a war. Are they justified? They won, so yes, they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think i know what a certain green-haired traveling bard would tell edelgard

"You know who suffers then? The people"

 

@omegaxis1 you said you can't know for sure whether your actions will cause the desired result unless you bring them forth

what i think is that a tactician like Soren would be able to do that with a certain degree of accuracy

yeah, imo edelgard lacks a reasonable, capable and unbiased tactician, who can advise her about the consequences of her actions, a role hubert clearly can't fit

point is, i doubt she would listen anyway, she's way too convinced she has to carry on her war, she wouldn't change her mind

so yeah, while determination is indeed commendable, it only is when your purpose is positive

is edelgard's purpose positive? well, that's her character's entire point i guess, everyone has a different opinion about it

for me, it isn't, not in the slightest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Water Mage said:

Okay, let’s just forget about Edelgard, Three Houses and Fire Emblem for a moment. What you said just now? It’s not healthy. It doesn’t matter how remorseful a person is, it doesn’t if they have good intentions, there are some things you just can’t forgive. Forgiveness is a beautiful thing but also incredibly stupid. If remorse and good intentions were enough to forgive someone for a crime, society would be in chaos. If a person commits a serious crime, they cannot be forgiven. Period. People have to pay for their crimes.

There is a difference between judgement and necessity. Maybe I should actually explain my views on justice and the justice system to make you understand. In my mind. The purpose of the justice system isn't necessarily to punish criminals, it is to incarcerate those who are a danger to other people and hopefully eventually rehabilitate them. Just because I forgive someone doesn't mean I say we shouldn't serve any time, I am saying they should still be respected as human beings. Regardless of what anyone has done and will not deny them their basic humanity. What really matters isn't what someone has done the past, it is whenever they would be a danger to people again.

I could even rarely get behind the use of the death penalty, but never with the motivation of someone's deserves to die, only with the motivation, that someone needs to die to protect other people. I think the primary example I would bring up with this would be the Joker from DC comics, I would actually he should be executed, but not because he necessarily deserves to die as much as in order to prevent further victims. I think he needs to considering how often he escapes and kills more people.

With Edelgard, this situation is different as she is a monarch and therefore is operating under completely different rules from regular citizens, a declaration of war is actually a completely legal action in monarch like her has the right to do, but also has severe consequences for the loser and I think she accepts that. Even countries without the death penalty normally still reserves this right for their enemies in a war.

I guess I am essentially trying to say that forgiving someone for a crime and potentially allowing dangerous people to walk the streets are completely different things. Still, if someone is genuinely remorseful. There is a good chance mate can be rehabilitated and will likely one day be functioning members of society again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

 

Oh? Did America pay for its crime of dropping a nuke onto Japan? Did every German pay for the Holocaust? 

What makes a "crime"? Laws. Rules. But if you are a rebel, like the America's Independence War, they are the criminals. They are the ones that are breaking the laws of society, and ultimately started a war. Are they justified? They won, so yes, they are.

Look, let’s drop the Edelgard, Three House and Fire Emblem discussion. We can back to in later if you want. Right now, let’s talk about what you said. You’re twisting my words. When I said to him that his way of thinking it’s not healthy, it’s because if you willing to forgive any crime as long the person shows remorse and had good intentions it makes you easily manipulated. And actions have CONSEQUENCES. No matter what. And don’t bring up rebellion and war crimes, you know it’s entirely different from what I talking. I’m talking about individual people not countries. You can’t forgive everything.

Edited by Water Mage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

There is a difference between judgement and necessity. Maybe I should actually explain my views on justice and the justice system to make you understand. In my mind. The purpose of the justice system isn't necessarily to punish criminals, it is to incarcerate those who are a danger to other people and hopefully eventually rehabilitate them. Just because I forgive someone doesn't mean I say we shouldn't serve any time, I am saying they should still be respected as human beings. Regardless of what anyone has done and will not deny them their basic humanity. What really matters isn't what someone has done the past, it is whenever they would be a danger to people again.

I could even rarely get behind the use of the death penalty, but never with the motivation of someone's deserves to die, only with the motivation, that someone needs to die to protect other people. I think the primary example I would bring up with this would be the Joker from DC comics, I would actually he should be executed, but not because he necessarily deserves to die as much as in order to prevent further victims. I think he needs to considering how often he escapes and kills more people.

With Edelgard, this situation is different as she is a monarch and therefore is operating under completely different rules from regular citizens, a declaration of war is actually a completely legal action in monarch like her has the right to do, but also has severe consequences for the loser and I think she accepts that. Even countries without the death penalty normally still reserves this right for their enemies in a war.

I guess I am essentially trying to say that forgiving someone for a crime and potentially allowing dangerous people to walk the streets are completely different things. Still, if someone is genuinely remorseful. There is a good chance mate can be rehabilitated and will likely one day be functioning members of society again

Sorry for the double post but let me answer this. 

Honestly? I agree with you. I don’t like the death penalty, that no matter how bad the crime everyone deserves to be treated with human decency and I believe that if a person shows remorse, in a way you can forgive them. But not completely. Your way of think is beautiful. It really is. And like I said before, I agree with you. But your way of thinking is also extremely dangerous. Because it makes it very easy for people to take advantage of you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Yexin said:

i think i know what a certain green-haired traveling bard would tell edelgard

"You know who suffers then? The people"

 

@omegaxis1 you said you can't know for sure whether your actions will cause the desired result unless you bring them forth

what i think is that a tactician like Soren would be able to do that with a certain degree of accuracy

yeah, imo edelgard lacks a reasonable, capable and unbiased tactician, who can advise her about the consequences of her actions, a role hubert clearly can't fit

point is, i doubt she would listen anyway, she's way too convinced she has to carry on her war, she wouldn't change her mind

so yeah, while determination is indeed commendable, it only is when your purpose is positive

is edelgard's purpose positive? well, that's her character's entire point i guess, everyone has a different opinion about it

for me, it isn't, not in the slightest

Except the "people" are ALREADY suffering. Plenty of commoners suffer in society. 

  • Dorothea states that it's because of the "goddess and her noble regime" that she had suffered as a child.
  • Ashe was an orphan and talks about how many commoners become thieves out of desperation.
  • Raph's parents were killed by Count Gloucester for trading with House Riegan. 
  • Leonie makes it clear that commoners would only ever get an education by paying off nobles, and that isn't cheap. 

And let's not forget what Faerghus did. Reminder, they committed full blown genocide on the people of Duscur.

If the people are already suffering because no one is willing to change things, then Edelgard starting a war as the only means of actually trying to change things, the purpose is indeed positive. 

Yeah, war will still cause suffering, but when the war ends, then it's up to her to prove that her goal is right.

Honestly, the irony is that even in the other routes where she loses, she still accomplishes things from the war. 

The Agarthans suffer losses and will back off for long time. Rhea changed for the better. The Church recognizes that it needs to change along with the people, and Fodlan is unified under a decent leadership that can help improve some things for the some being.

Just now, Water Mage said:

Look, let’s drop the Edelgard, Three House and Fire Emblem discussion. We can back to in later if you want. Right now, let’s talk about what you said. You’re twisting my words. When I said to him that his way of thinking it’s not healthy, it’s because if you willing to forgive any crime as long the person shows remorse and had good intentions it makes easily manipulated. And actions have CONSEQUENCES. No matter what. And don’t bring up rebellion and war crimes, you know it’s entirely different from what I talking. I’m talking about individual people not countries. You can’t forgive everything.

I wasn't even talking about Edelgard there. 

Yes, actions have consequences. But human beings have always done a lot of shitty things and a lot of good things. But there's no such thing as change without sacrifice. Even the non-violent methods of Ghandi and Martin Luthor King Jr. were both born after bloody wars and then enduring a lot of suffering and losses, and they also died in the end. 

And it's not about forgiveness, either. You can live life never being forgiven.

But do you worry what other people think to the point that it will stop you in what you believe is the right thing? Are your ideals going to be stopped cause some people hate you or can't forgive you? 

No. 

Because people are people. They have their thoughts, you have yours. And if you always let fear of others stop you from doing what you believe is right, then you never get anything done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

 

I wasn't even talking about Edelgard there. 

Yes, actions have consequences. But human beings have always done a lot of shitty things and a lot of good things. But there's no such thing as change without sacrifice. Even the non-violent methods of Ghandi and Martin Luthor King Jr. were both born after bloody wars and then enduring a lot of suffering and losses, and they also died in the end. 

And it's not about forgiveness, either. You can live life never being forgiven.

But do you worry what other people think to the point that it will stop you in what you believe is the right thing? Are your ideals going to be stopped cause some people hate you or can't forgive you? 

No. 

Because people are people. They have their thoughts, you have yours. And if you always let fear of others stop you from doing what you believe is right, then you never get anything done.

That way of thinking is extremely dangerous. There can be change without sacrifice. And I never said you should let what other people think stop you from doing the right thing. You shouldn’t. 
 

But the moment you start hurting someone, then it stops being the right thing! It’s not a matter of that people are going to hate you or will not forgive you. 
 

But if you act recklessly because you’re believe you’re doing the right thing, you’re gonna end hurting people! 

It’s not fear of others that should stop you, it’s fear of hurting others that should stop you. 
 

Rebellion isn’t worth it if you’re hurting innocent people. You can rebel without hurting others.

Edited by Water Mage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Water Mage said:

That way of thinking is extremely dangerous. There can be change without sacrifice. And I never said you should let what other people think stop you from doing the right thing. You shouldn’t. 
 

But the moment you start hurting someone, then it stops being the right thing! It’s not a matter of that people are going to hate you or will not forgive you. 
 

But acting recklessly because you’re believe you’re doing the right thing, you’re gonna end hurting people! 

It’s not fear of others that should stop, it’s fear of hurting others that should stop you. 
 

Rebellion isn’t worth it if you’re hurting innocent people. You can rebel without hurting others.

That way of thinking is even MORE dangerous. It's submission. It's allowing bad things to happen and remove the free will of people. 

If people cannot act on what they believe is right, then you will submit to tyrants. You will sooner kiss the feet of a tyrant than stand to oppose them. 

If you are afraid of doing the right thing out of fear, then you are a horrible person that allow people to continue to suffer regardless. If people are going to suffer no matter what, then you might as well make a decision to act on doing the right thing. 

Albert Einstein even said: "The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch and do nothing."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Water Mage said:

Sorry for the double post but let me answer this. 

Honestly? I agree with you. I don’t like the death penalty, that no matter how bad the crime everyone deserves to be treated with human decency and I believe that if a person shows remorse, in a way you can forgive them. But not completely. Your way of think is beautiful. It really is. And like I said before, I agree with you. But your way of thinking is also extremely dangerous. Because it makes it very easy for people to take advantage of you. 

Thank you, I am glad that made sense to you. Maybe people could exploit this attitude, but does that mean we shouldn't be good people?

I do have a tendency to be a lot more unforgiving in my "Emperor" persona, so to speak, but this one I put myself in the shoes of the ruler of the nation, rather than just a normal citizen. That is because that I do believe that you sometimes have to do a lot of things you don't necessarily want to do for the good of the people. Whatever my personal feelings about the criminal and need to do my duty to protect my people. Edelgard in crimson flower probably do not want to kill Dimitri, but she does so anyway because she believes leaving him alive would be a danger. It is not an act of malice or vengeance, but necessity.

I do think Dimitri in azure moon actually forgives Edelgard, it is just that Edelgard refuses to be forgiven so it can be extrapolated that she actually feels rather guilty about the war, and if she loses she can't forgive herself for it, which is part of why she gives up her life. Some part of me do wonder if the right thing to do with Edelgard is to honour her wish of dying or spare are in hope she can of benefit to society in the future. She would not take imprisonment that well, even a benevolent one, and they would mark her as having a high risk of suicide as a consequence if this was tried. But maybe she would one day find meaning in life and be glad that she didn't die the day she lost the war? This would be a legitimate moral dilemma to me as it is actually her wish to be killed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

That way of thinking is even MORE dangerous. It's submission. It's allowing bad things to happen and remove the free will of people. 

If people cannot act on what they believe is right, then you will submit to tyrants. You will sooner kiss the feet of a tyrant than stand to oppose them. 

If you are afraid of doing the right thing out of fear, then you are a horrible person that allow people to continue to suffer regardless. If people are going to suffer no matter what, then you might as well make a decision to act on doing the right thing. 

Albert Einstein even said: "The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch and do nothing."

 

Submission? I never said it was submission. If anything it’s the opposite. You can oppose tyrants without hurting innocent people! The moment you accept people are gonna get hurt is the moment you give into submission. You should fight tooth and nail to find a way to not hurt innocent people. It’s not doing nothing! It’s doing everything in your power to achieve freedom with hurting innocent people. Because it’s those innocent people you’re fighting for in the first place! To accept that innocent people are getting hurt no matter what it’s what evil and it’s what going to destroy the world!

Edited by Water Mage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Edelgard had a good point. It’s just that there were better ways to do it. And she felt that she was the only one who could do it until either Byleth reached out for her hand or when she was on death’s door in the other routes.

Heck, Claude and Edelgard both wanted a united Fódlan. What kind of united they wanted and how they were going to get it was what separated them. And it was like Fódlan was the town, and Edelgard and Claude are two cowboys. One of them says the town isn’t big enough for the two of them, and they’re correct, kind of. And then we have Byleth, which is like fate here. Whomever’s aside Byleth is one draws first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Water Mage said:

Submission? I never said it was submission. If anything it’s the opposite. You can oppose tyrants without hurting innocent people! The moment you accept people are gonna get hurt is the moment you give into submission. You should tooth and nail to find a way to not hurt innocent people. It’s not doing nothing! It’s doing everything in your power to achieve freedom with hurting innocent people. Because it’s those innocent people you’re fighting for in the first place! To accept that innocent people are getting hurt no matter what it’s what evil and it’s what going to destroy the world!

The moment you choose to fight, innocents WILL die.

That is INEVITABLE.

No matter how much you try to avoid hurting innocent civilians, they WILL get caught up. Why? Because people you fight might also be innocent, and are just people trying to protect their loved ones. You kill them, or they kill you. And tyrants will always make innocents suffer even more in the fight. 

Your line of thinking is one of trying to think that change is possible without any sacrifice, but that's not how it works. Sacrifice is something that will always happen. You don't even know it. 

Wanna know why? Because to desire change is because the way current things are going is horrible. Because people are suffering and dying. But to attain that desire for change, people were ALREADY sacrificed for that mindset to be born. And then in the process to change, more people were sacrificed. And more will continue to die and be sacrificed. 

Thinking that your hands are clean that you did nothing wrong and made no sacrifice is the words of an ignorant idealist who tries to excuse himself. 

And slow change will still result in people dying and being sacrificed still. 

No. This is an absolute. Because people are mortals. 

We are imperfect. And trying to act like there is a perfect route is the most foolhardy belief there is. 

In the end, you are still stuck on the Evil Paradox:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

The moment you choose to fight, innocents WILL die.

That is INEVITABLE.

No matter how much you try to avoid hurting innocent civilians, they WILL get caught up. Why? Because people you fight might also be innocent, and are just people trying to protect their loved ones. You kill them, or they kill you. And tyrants will always make innocents suffer even more in the fight. 

Your line of thinking is one of trying to think that change is possible without any sacrifice, but that's not how it works. Sacrifice is something that will always happen. You don't even know it. 

Wanna know why? Because to desire change is because the way current things are going is horrible. Because people are suffering and dying. But to attain that desire for change, people were ALREADY sacrificed for that mindset to be born. And then in the process to change, more people were sacrificed. And more will continue to die and be sacrificed. 

Thinking that your hands are clean that you did nothing wrong and made no sacrifice is the words of an ignorant idealist who tries to excuse himself. 

And slow change will still result in people dying and being sacrificed still. 

No. This is an absolute. Because people are mortals. 

We are imperfect. And trying to act like there is a perfect route is the most foolhardy belief there is. 

In the end, you are still stuck on the Evil Paradox:

 

There’s no such thing as inevitable. If you fight as hard as you can, then you can avoid hurting innocent people.
The “it’s inevitable” idea is the mindset of someone who already lost and gave up. It’s not resolve, it’s not courage. It’s giving up. If you accept that you have to do evil to do good, then you never believed in the ideals you’re fighting for anyway. That means you were never interested in helping others in the first place. You only believed in a fake ideal. And an ideal is nothing without people.

We may be imperfect, but if we believe that there’s is a way to help everyone without sacrifice, then there will be. It’s because people believe there’s no way to save everyone that you end up thinking sacrifice is inevitable. There’s no such thing as an absolute. “It’s inevitable” it’s an ignorant mindset. Realism and optimism are not mutually exclusive.

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...