What Edelgard means to me…

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Water Mage said:

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 an 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.

The reason it is "inevitable" and why it will always be an "absolute" is because we are IMPERFECT.

And imperfection will ALWAYS lead a way that you can never fight without sacrifice. 

Unless you are claiming that we mortals are perfect and therefore are actually able to create something that is perfect, which is absolutely false. 

It's not giving up. It's acceptance of the entire concept of individuality and imperfection. It's why we humans always struggle, fight, destroy, create, learn, change, grow, and so forth. Because we are imperfect. Because we have to always struggle and live and keep trying to learn to grow. Trying to believe that you can accomplish things without sacrifice by just trying hard enough is pure arrogance. 

And this discussion here is only proof of that. We hold different beliefs, but here you are, insisting that your belief is right, while my belief is wrong. I call your belief naive, you call mine dangerous.

Maybe you're right, or maybe you aren't. But who are you to judge what is right and what is wrong? Do you know what is the absolute right thing is? No. You don't.

Because you're human. You're no god.

And circling back to Edelgard, this is why I support Edelgard. Because she's no god, understands this, but believes in what she believes is the right thing to do.

And you know what Sothis, the "god" of the world says? 

She insists that you choose your own path. 

Interesting, isn't it? 

[Water Mage]

5 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

The reason it is "inevitable" and why it will always be an "absolute" is because we are IMPERFECT.

And imperfection will ALWAYS lead a way that you can never fight without sacrifice. 

Unless you are claiming that we mortals are perfect and therefore are actually able to create something that is perfect, which is absolutely false. 

It's not giving up. It's acceptance of the entire concept of individuality and imperfection. It's why we humans always struggle, fight, destroy, create, learn, change, grow, and so forth. Because we are imperfect. Because we have to always struggle and live and keep trying to learn to grow. Trying to believe that you can accomplish things without sacrifice by just trying hard enough is pure arrogance. 

And this discussion here is only proof of that. We hold different beliefs, but here you are, insisting that your belief is right, while my belief is wrong. I call your belief naive, you call mine dangerous.

Maybe you're right, or maybe you aren't. But who are you to judge what is right and what is wrong? Do you know what is the absolute right thing is? No. You don't.

Because you're human. You're no god.

And circling back to Edelgard, this is why I support Edelgard. Because she's no god, understands this, but believes in what she believes is the right thing to do.

And you know what Sothis, the "god" of the world says? 

She insists that you choose your own path. 

Interesting, isn't it? 

It’s because we’re imperfect that we fight against inevitability and sacrifice in the first place! If we’re were perfect we would just accept things as they were. 
And you know what individuality is? It’s fighting for what you believe for. Giving into the “it’s inevitable” is giving into the herd mentality that sacrifice is always necessary. The reason we struggle and always try to learn and grow is so we can’t deny what’s inevitable. That accept that things are inevitable, that sacrifice is necessary and that we have to do evil to destroy a greater evil is what’s pure arrogance. 
And maybe I don’t know what the right things is, but I know that hurting others is wrong no matter the reason. And you know why? Because I’m a human, not a god.

It because I’m human that I’m capable of feeling empathy. It’s what drives to find a way not to hurt others.

Sothis said to chose your path, but she never said to trample on the path of others.

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Water Mage said:

It’s because we’re imperfect that we fight against inevitability and sacrifice in the first place! If we’re were perfect we would just accept things as they were. 
And you know what individuality is? It’s fighting for what you believe for. Giving into the “it’s inevitable” is giving into the herd mentality that sacrifice is always necessary. The reason we struggle and always try to learn and grow is so we can’t deny what’s inevitable. That accept that things are inevitable, that sacrifice is necessary and that we have to do evil to destroy a greater evil is what’s pure arrogance. 
And maybe I don’t know what the right things is, but I know that hurting others is wrong no matter the reason. And you know why? Because I’m a human, not a god.

It because I’m human that I’m capable of feeling empathy. It’s what drives to find a way not to hurt others.

Sothis said to chose your path, but she never said to trample on the path of others.

Perfection is a lack of flaw. Meaning that there would be nothing to fight against. Meaning that there's no need for "change" in the first place. 

I don't need to simply look at a mentality and "give in". Because everyone has their own beliefs. Those beliefs can be seen as good or evil, or are objectively that way, but that does not mean that sacrifices are avoidable. You already contradicted yourself by already saying that individuality is that people fight for what they believe in. But NO ONE ever believes in the exact same thing. Because no two people think the same. Because no one is the same. Because we have our identities, we have our beliefs, that we come into conflict with one another. And no matter what, one person's happiness is another person's sadness. 

This is why I say that trying to think that you can avoid sacrifice entirely as arrogance. Because all paths will hold sacrifice. That's why it's inevitable. 

Trying to think that the mentality of knowing it's inevitable is wrong is in itself also wrong. It's inevitable because we, as individuals, also hold our own beliefs. 

All you've succeeded on is proving my point. And guess what, the more you try to insist that you are right and I'm wrong means you're self-righteous and think you know better than others and overall push your beliefs onto others.

Sothis said to choose your own path. Problem is that you are choosing to fight a war, meaning you WILL trample on lives no matter what side you are on. Does not matter if choose to fight for or against Edelgard. You will still kill people. You will still trample on the lives of innocents,. And in the end, you are not free of bloodshed and sacrifice. Because guess what? Those people you fought against ARE the sacrifices. 

And you know what makes that worse? Because Rhea always uses the goddess as justification for her actions. She insists that she acts in the will of Sothis, which is false. Sothis told her nothing, but Rhea uses her name. 

[Water Mage]

3 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Perfection is a lack of flaw. Meaning that there would be nothing to fight against. Meaning that there's no need for "change" in the first place. 

I don't need to simply look at a mentality and "give in". Because everyone has their own beliefs. Those beliefs can be seen as good or evil, or are objectively that way, but that does not mean that sacrifices are avoidable. You already contradicted yourself by already saying that individuality is that people fight for what they believe in. But NO ONE ever believes in the exact same thing. Because no two people think the same. Because no one is the same. Because we have our identities, we have our beliefs, that we come into conflict with one another. And no matter what, one person's happiness is another person's sadness. 

This is why I say that trying to think that you can avoid sacrifice entirely as arrogance. Because all paths will hold sacrifice. That's why it's inevitable. 

Trying to think that the mentality of knowing it's inevitable is wrong is in itself also wrong. It's inevitable because we, as individuals, also hold our own beliefs. 

All you've succeeded on is proving my point. And guess what, the more you try to insist that you are right and I'm wrong means you're self-righteous and think you know better than others and overall push your beliefs onto others.

Sothis said to choose your own path. Problem is that you are choosing to fight a war, meaning you WILL trample on lives no matter what side you are on. Does not matter if choose to fight for or against Edelgard. You will still kill people. You will still trample on the lives of innocents,. And in the end, you are not free of bloodshed and sacrifice. Because guess what? Those people you fought against ARE the sacrifices. 

And you know what makes that worse? Because Rhea always uses the goddess as justification for her actions. She insists that she acts in the will of Sothis, which is false. Sothis told her nothing, but Rhea uses her name. 

I think the desire not give up is itself a flaw. 
 

And let me tell something you something about individuality. The idea that everyone has the same ideals and beliefs? It freaking terrifies me. We have different beliefs and that’s good thing. But that doesn’t mean different that those with different believes can respect one another. Which is why we fight sacrifice, so that the belief of another isn’t sacrificed. 
Perhaps I am pushing my belief onto you but accepting sacrifice means pushing your beliefs in others as well. 
It’s not that want you accept that I’m right and you’re wrong. I don’t know better than you. I just want you to understand empathy. Because the moment we forget that, there’s no point in fighting for ideals. 
 

But I’m tired of this discussion, you may me hypocrite for giving up when I said to never give up or accepting the inevitable but I don’t want to disrespect your beliefs. And if we keep this going it’s gonna end up ugly and I don’t hurt anyone.

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Water Mage said:

I think the desire not give up is itself a flaw. 
 

And let me tell something you something about individuality. The idea that everyone has the same ideals and beliefs? It freaking terrifies me. We have different beliefs and that’s good thing. But that doesn’t mean different that those with different believes can respect one another. Which is why we fight sacrifice, so that the belief of another isn’t sacrificed. 
Perhaps I am pushing my belief onto you but accepting sacrifice means pushing your beliefs in others as well. 
It’s not that want you accept that I’m right and you’re wrong. I don’t know better than you. I just want you to understand empathy. Because the moment we forget that, there’s no point in fighting for ideals. 
 

But I’m tired of this discussion, you may me hypocrite for giving up when I said to never give up or accepting the inevitable but I don’t want to disrespect your beliefs. And if we keep this going it’s gonna end up ugly and I don’t hurt anyone.

And what happens when your beliefs end up resulting in exactly what you wanted to go against? That you believe that you can fight without any sacrifice, but when you choose to fight, you end up sacrificing in the end? Guess what? You prove the other party right.

Sacrifice is inevitable and will remain an absolute because we will be imperfect. If you are imperfect, you will not ever avoid sacrifice. 

But in the end, this is what it means to be human. 

And this is the burden you will always carry as a leader. 

If you lead other people, then you have a responsibility to make a decision that will affect many people. And that is why when you are  leader, you have to have the resolve to actually make the stand to fight knowing what will be sacrificed as a result. If you are unprepared, then why did you choose to fight? 

[Darkmoon6789]

This entire discussion is exactly what I would imagine a moral debate between Dimitri and Edelgard to sound like, it is probably easy to guess who I think would hold which position.

I think the review could be objectively right because there is no such thing, only different viewpoints. I do think I lean more towards the Edelgard direction, but there is a caveat to this.

I think that sacrifice is sometimes necessary, but not always, and the less you have to sacrifice to get the same goal, the better, but this will not always be a possibility, it is also not to say that it is never.

With Edelgard it is not really about whenever she's right and not for me, I believe that there is a good chance that she is on the right, but you might also be mistaken. I simply do not have enough information to really be able to tell. But in the end it is irrelevant to the reason I like her, I like her because she tries. Which is something very rare this day and age in my home nation, Sweden is well known for being spineless and refusing to stand up for what we believe in in favour to avoid conflict at all cost. For example, during World War II. Our insistence on neutrality made it so we became a primary supplier of iron for Germany, which I would argue does make us somewhat culpable. Despite our insistence on saying we didn't take sides. 

As a consequence, maybe you can see why a value most people were willing to take a stand against injustice

[omegaxis1]

4 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I think that sacrifice is sometimes necessary, but not always, and the less you have to sacrifice to get the same goal, the better, but this will not always be a possibility, it is also not to say that it is never.

Okay, that much even I can agree with. If you can avoid sacrifice, that's great. But when sacrifice happens, you gotta accept it and be ready for the possibility, especially when choosing to fight. 

 

[LSWolf]

What Edelgard wants to achieve is an impossible dream. At the end of the day, it is a matter of who is in power is a good or bad person. It doesn't matter if it's a meritocracy or a crests system. In the end the important thing is who is in power and how they use it, and not who could have that power, since they will only be an extremely small number of people. If all the nobles were like Rodrigue, nobody would need changes and the crest system would continue, with only the greedy ones having complaints.The problem is not the system, but that people can be good or bad, and that is undeniable. Edelgard seems to think that with her changes everything will be fixed, when in the future it will end the same. Most of the changes she makes could be accomplished without bloodshed along the way, and the change to the meritocracy doesn't solve anything. Good and bad people will continue to be born who will come to power, or who will abuse it in the future.

Edited March 18, 2020 by LSWolf

[Darkmoon6789]

5 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Okay, that much even I can agree with. If you can avoid sacrifice, that's great. But when sacrifice happens, you gotta accept it and be ready for the possibility, especially when choosing to fight. 

 

There is a reason I side with Edelgard in this war. I have considered this for quite some time and I am not certain I could prevent the war and destroying the crest system at the same time, even possessing all the knowledge I have now which none in this universe does. The main problem is that even knowing everything I couldn't safely share this information as few people would accept the truth. With that in mind, I am not certain, Edelgard has another choice. 

5 minutes ago, LSWolf said:

What Edelgard wants to achieve is an impossible dream. At the end of the day, it is a matter of who is in power is a good or bad person. It doesn't matter if it's a meritocracy or a ridge system. In the end the important thing is who is in power and how they use it, and not who could have that power, since they will only be an extremely small number of people. If all the nobles were like Rodrigue, nobody would need changes and the crest system would continue, with only the greedy ones having complaints.El problema no es el sistema, sino que las personas pueden ser buenas o malas, y eso es innevitable. Edelgard seems to think that with his changes everything will be fixed, when in the future it will end the same. Most of the changes she makes could be accomplished without bloodshed along the way, and the change to the meritocracy doesn't solve anything. Good and bad people will continue to be born who will come to power, or who will abuse it in the future.

I believe this is true to an extent, this is why Edelgard is an idealist, she is still young and in some ways, still overly optimistic. This is admirable in a sense. But while a perfect society like she hopes for is impossible, it doesn't mean you can't try to make things better. It is also pretty fortunate that I think Edelgard is one of said good people in power you mention, both her, Dimitri and Claude qualifies as good and capable rulers. Ultimately, it is more important that the person in power is good then anything else. Like you say.

Edelgard being such a good-natured being is also another reason I think that her rain will be remembered as a golden age, and that the Empire will be on a steady decline afterwards. That isn't to say another great leader will never arise.

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, LSWolf said:

What Edelgard wants to achieve is an impossible dream. At the end of the day, it is a matter of who is in power is a good or bad person. It doesn't matter if it's a meritocracy or a ridge system. In the end the important thing is who is in power and how they use it, and not who could have that power, since they will only be an extremely small number of people. If all the nobles were like Rodrigue, nobody would need changes and the crest system would continue, with only the greedy ones having complaints.El problema no es el sistema, sino que las personas pueden ser buenas o malas, y eso es innevitable. Edelgard seems to think that with his changes everything will be fixed, when in the future it will end the same. Most of the changes she makes could be accomplished without bloodshed along the way, and the change to the meritocracy doesn't solve anything. Good and bad people will continue to be born who will come to power, or who will abuse it in the future.

Really? Did it change in the past 1100 years of Fodlan? Again, medieval times means that commoners really get the sucky end of the stick, no matter how good the leader is. They are uneducated, they have to rely on a noble being decent. They have no power of their own. 

So just try to estimate how many people died in those 1100 years and how had there been an Edelgard that installed a meritocracy, how different things would be. Thing is, that did not happen. So we have 1100 years of nobles ruling over the commoners dictated by "divine right", so trying to assume that those 1100 years did not have commoners suffering is downright silly, since by definition, many commoners will always suffer in such an age no matter how peaceful things are. 

What you're saying is the reliance on modern knowledge of other systems, but you have to remember that MANY changes in government did not happen peacefully at all. And even now, we're still running into problems. But all of the things you know are things that no one in Fodlan would ever know. No one even believes in the idea that commoners can ever rise in status with their own skills. Edelgard is the first one that speaks of such a belief.

Now the question is, how many more years are you willing to insist people wait and continue to suffer and spill blood over before this non-violent change happens, hm? You're still spilling blood, just telling people to suck it up and endure it until we finally get the decent leadership that would actually want to make such a change. But given how it took 1100 years, odds are, it'll take another millennia before such changes finally get set.

And the thing is, Edelgard is well aware that it might not even be a true fix to everything. She admits as such in her C support with Dorothea.

Quote

Edelgard: A character from an opera... Hm. If an opera is made about my life someday, I wonder how I'll be portrayed.

(Part 1) The revolutionary who guided the Empire to a new dawn...or the foolish ruler who took her revolution too far...

(Part 2) The emperor who brought everlasting peace to Fódlan...or the tyrant who shed the blood of her people...

She's well aware that history might not view her in a positive manner. But she will believe what she will and see it through, and whether history or the future accepts her cause as right or not is something that only the future can decide. 

In fact, in Rurouni Kenshin, there was a very much similar clash of ideals, where Kenshin clashed against Shishio, the latter who believed only in strength. The battle ended overall with Kenshin beating him and Shishio dying, but when the kid asked that they won, so they are in the right, Kenshin said that that's Shishio's beliefs, and the only way they can be proven right is for the future to agree with them. Ironically, the future became as Shishio believed it to be. So Shishio lost the fight, but he won the war. 

[Darkmoon6789]

6 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Really? Did it change in the past 1100 years of Fodlan? Again, medieval times means that commoners really get the sucky end of the stick, no matter how good the leader is. They are uneducated, they have to rely on a noble being decent. They have no power of their own. 

So just try to estimate how many people died in those 1100 years and how had there been an Edelgard that installed a meritocracy, how different things would be. Thing is, that did not happen. So we have 1100 years of nobles ruling over the commoners dictated by "divine right", so trying to assume that those 1100 years did not have commoners suffering is downright silly, since by definition, many commoners will always suffer in such an age no matter how peaceful things are. 

What you're saying is the reliance on modern knowledge of other systems, but you have to remember that MANY changes in government did not happen peacefully at all. And even now, we're still running into problems. But all of the things you know are things that no one in Fodlan would ever know. No one even believes in the idea that commoners can ever rise in status with their own skills. Edelgard is the first one that speaks of such a belief.

Now the question is, how many more years are you willing to insist people wait and continue to suffer and spill blood over before this non-violent change happens, hm? You're still spilling blood, just telling people to suck it up and endure it until we finally get the decent leadership that would actually want to make such a change. But given how it took 1100 years, odds are, it'll take another millennia before such changes finally get set.

And the thing is, Edelgard is well aware that it might not even be a true fix to everything. She admits as such in her C support with Dorothea.

She's well aware that history might not view her in a positive manner. But she will believe what she will and see it through, and whether history or the future accepts her cause as right or not is something that only the future can decide. 

In fact, in Rurouni Kenshin, there was a very much similar clash of ideals, where Kenshin clashed against Shishio, the latter who believed only in strength. The battle ended overall with Kenshin beating him and Shishio dying, but when the kid asked that they won, so they are in the right, Kenshin said that that's Shishio's beliefs, and the only way they can be proven right is for the future to agree with them. Ironically, the future became as Shishio believed it to be. So Shishio lost the fight, but he won the war. 

You know, you are better at arguing for Edelgard than I could ever hope to be. 

I think Edelgard being so self-aware of how she might be remembered is another reason I like it so much, she doesn't care what people think of her, she will do what she thinks is right regardless.

Still, just because her new society might not be perfect, it doesn't mean it isn't an improvement. We can argue if the sacrifice was really worth it, but I think it is pretty obvious that her system is an improvement to the old whenever the difference is small or great. But any change tends to cascade throughout history and propel even greater changes over time, her actions will have ramifications for hundreds of years, maybe thousands. The changes she wrote will not end with her death and the Empire will go through spirals of change in both a positive and a negative direction over time

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

You know, you are better at arguing for Edelgard than I could ever hope to be. 

I think Edelgard being so self-aware of how she might be remembered is another reason I like it so much, she doesn't care what people think of her, she will do what she thinks is right regardless.

Still, just because her new society might not be perfect, it doesn't mean it isn't an improvement. We can argue if the sacrifice was really worth it, but I think it is pretty obvious that her system is an improvement to the old whenever the difference is small or great. But any change tends to cascade throughout history and propel even greater changes over time, her actions will have ramifications for hundreds of years, maybe thousands. The changes she wrote will not end with her death and the Empire will go through spirals of change in both a positive and a negative direction over time

If we insist that the war and bloodshed is never worth it, then we're being hypocrites, honestly. It's overall us mocking the ancestors that have fought in wars that changed governments throughout the ages. Maybe some are less justifiable than others, but pretending that we live in a world that isn't built on the back of war or bloodshed is foolhardy. Does that mean I'm saying we should always fight a war? No. But acting like war is never an answer or that the end never justifies the means is false. Because history IRL has proven that the end has justified the means, and other times has proven otherwise. There is a balance to things.

Sometimes, we have to accept what is necessary for things to change. 

Though in this day and age, war itself has taken on a new form. I don't think war is now something where people are fighting on some battlefield anymore. Cause now things have reached a point that before we even fight a war, we'll nuke everyone and just destroy everything. That isn't a war, but just destruction. 

Not sure if it was you or someone else, but it was mentioned that the war of Fodlan is just a result of the culmination of everything negative of the Crest-obsessed society that Rhea started. Well, it's basically how I feel things will happen for humans. If you take too long to change things, something WILL break and will FORCE change to happen. Edelgard was the last straw basically. 

Change things too quickly, and it'll collapse. Take too long to change things, and something will break and cause everything else to break apart as a result. 

[Darkmoon6789]

45 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

If we insist that the war and bloodshed is never worth it, then we're being hypocrites, honestly. It's overall us mocking the ancestors that have fought in wars that changed governments throughout the ages. Maybe some are less justifiable than others, but pretending that we live in a world that isn't built on the back of war or bloodshed is foolhardy. Does that mean I'm saying we should always fight a war? No. But acting like war is never an answer or that the end never justifies the means is false. Because history IRL has proven that the end has justified the means, and other times has proven otherwise. There is a balance to things.

Sometimes, we have to accept what is necessary for things to change. 

Though in this day and age, war itself has taken on a new form. I don't think war is now something where people are fighting on some battlefield anymore. Cause now things have reached a point that before we even fight a war, we'll nuke everyone and just destroy everything. That isn't a war, but just destruction. 

Not sure if it was you or someone else, but it was mentioned that the war of Fodlan is just a result of the culmination of everything negative of the Crest-obsessed society that Rhea started. Well, it's basically how I feel things will happen for humans. If you take too long to change things, something WILL break and will FORCE change to happen. Edelgard was the last straw basically. 

Change things too quickly, and it'll collapse. Take too long to change things, and something will break and cause everything else to break apart as a result. 

I have made this argument of the past, I think many people today take our freedoms for granted. The truth is that people like Edelgard have fought and died to make sure we have the freedoms we have today. Isn't it kind of disparaging to towards the original revolutionaries that made democracy possible to turn around and call these people evil? Not to mention quite ungrateful. 

I also think that if the war wasn't started by Edelgard, someone else would eventually do so as she can't be the only one who feels this level of discontent with the current system. In a sense the Flame Emperor isn't really a person, they are a symbol of rebellion against an oppressive system. If Edelgard wouldn't wear the mask, someone else would. 

If I existed in Edelgard's world, this would be the exact idea I would propose, have more than one person wear a mask of the Flame Emperor to make a point and confuse our enemies.

[omegaxis1]

12 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I have made this argument of the past, I think many people today take our freedoms for granted. The truth is that people like Edelgard have fought and died to make sure we have the freedoms we have today. Isn't it kind of disparaging to towards the original revolutionaries that made democracy possible to turn around and call these people evil? Not to mention quite ungrateful.

Yeah. And then talking about how Loog's rebellion or the Crescent Moon War are totally a-OK for some reason, or ignore the fact that it happened, acting as if those aren't worse. Or the 66-year long War of Heroes.

I guess if it's out of sight, out of mind.

But seriously, open a history book.

We don't learn and make types of governments of progress until people have fought wars and endured lots of bloodshed. It's how people have gone through trials and errors, overall finally making the governments we hold today.

I'm not gonna pretend that Edelgard's ending will be a happy-go-lucky one. There are bound to be future conflicts for one reason or another, and could result in further conflict. Same for all the endings. Even if you take the Agarthans out entirely, conflict won't be out. But when things break, humans pick up the pieces and start over.

[Darkmoon6789]

1 hour ago, omegaxis1 said:

Yeah. And then talking about how Loog's rebellion or the Crescent Moon War are totally a-OK for some reason, or ignore the fact that it happened, acting as if those aren't worse. Or the 66-year long War of Heroes.

I guess if it's out of sight, out of mind.

But seriously, open a history book.

We don't learn and make types of governments of progress until people have fought wars and endured lots of bloodshed. It's how people have gone through trials and errors, overall finally making the governments we hold today.

I'm not gonna pretend that Edelgard's ending will be a happy-go-lucky one. There are bound to be future conflicts for one reason or another, and could result in further conflict. Same for all the endings. Even if you take the Agarthans out entirely, conflict won't be out. But when things break, humans pick up the pieces and start over.

A 66 year long war is definitely going to have a casualty number that completely dwarfs that of Edelgard war, didn't Seiros use the exact same method as Edelgard when first uniting the continent? And the original King of the holy kingdom also had an alliance with the Agarthans, as confirmed by some books in the abyss library. 

One thing I find really inspiring with Edelgard is that this girl is willing to sacrifice even her own happiness for the sake of a better future. It might not be a perfect future, but it is definitely better

[Jotari]

6 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Trying to believe that you can accomplish things without sacrifice by just trying hard enough is pure arrogance. 

Sacrificing others because you believe you alone have the wisdom to determine people's fate is pretty arrogant too.

[vanguard333]

7 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

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

 

I was wondering when someone was going to reference Code Geass. By the way, I wouldn't recommend doing so; that show was a train wreck of storytelling. The... Euphemia Incident (if you've seen the show, you know which scene I'm referring to) was the worst story event I have ever seen, and that's a pretty high bar. 

That said, there are a lot of parallels between Three Houses and Code Geass:

• The protagonist speaks with a mysterious immortal green-haired woman who gives them power at a price
• There's a morally grey revolutionary of imperial birth
• There's a mentally-unhinged former friend of the revolutionary that vehemently believes violent revolution is not the answer and opposes the revolutionary
• A world split between three superpowers
• A magical power with a dark secret behind it that gives different effects (crest, geass)
• An old man villain that manipulates the revolutionary and whose plan amounts to killing a creature revered as a deity in order to "advance" humanity (Thales, Emperor Charles)
• A story split in two parts with a timeskip between them, and the first part is of noticeably higher quality

Anything that I missed?

[omegaxis1]

11 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Sacrificing others because you believe you alone have the wisdom to determine people's fate is pretty arrogant too.

Well first off, it's a good thing Edelgard admits that people perceive her as arrogant. 

Second, it's not wisdom, it's the one that has the type of thinking that is contrary to what society thinks. Edelgard believes that anyone can and should be able to achieve positions, rather than be born to it. And it's the kind of thing that does not exist in Fodlan. 

Actually think about it. 

In a society where nobles have ruled for ages, what kind of logic would it be for someone to say that anyone can rise in status? It's unheard of. It's illogical. People would never believe such a thing, especially nobles. That's how serious this kind of thinking is. It's something that would be considered "radical" by all accounts.

What, you think the uneducated commoners would believe that they have the right to actually rise in status? Pft, hardly. That's why education is so important. Because it gives people dreams of rising beyond their social status and work hard for it. But nobility system and Crests make it so that people cannot believe in such things, especially the uneducated masses. 

Edelgard is described by Lorenz, alongside Claude, to be a visionary, who does not bound themselves to normal forms of thinking and go beyond that. 

And finally, a LEADER is, by definition, someone that has to determine people's fate. They are the ones that ultimately run society and determine how people should lead their lives. 

1 minute ago, vanguard333 said:

I was wondering when someone was going to reference Code Geass. By the way, I wouldn't recommend doing so; that show was a train wreck of storytelling. The... Euphemia Incident (if you've seen the show, you know which scene I'm referring to) was the worst story event I have ever seen, and that's a pretty high bar. 

I do still use Code Geass, cause there's still plenty of things from there that work out well. And yes, I get why people have so much issues with the Euphemia incident. I don't need that guy's video on Youtube to tell me that.

But overall, yes, there are a lot of similarities. 

[Jotari]

7 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Well first off, it's a good thing Edelgard admits that people perceive her as arrogant. 

Second, it's not wisdom, it's the one that has the type of thinking that is contrary to what society thinks. Edelgard believes that anyone can and should be able to achieve positions, rather than be born to it. And it's the kind of thing that does not exist in Fodlan. 

Actually think about it. 

In a society where nobles have ruled for ages, what kind of logic would it be for someone to say that anyone can rise in status? It's unheard of. It's illogical. People would never believe such a thing, especially nobles. That's how serious this kind of thinking is. It's something that would be considered "radical" by all accounts.

What, you think the uneducated commoners would believe that they have the right to actually rise in status? Pft, hardly. That's why education is so important. Because it gives people dreams of rising beyond their social status and work hard for it. But nobility system and Crests make it so that people cannot believe in such things, especially the uneducated masses. 

Edelgard is described by Lorenz, alongside Claude, to be a visionary, who does not bound themselves to normal forms of thinking and go beyond that. 

And finally, a LEADER is, by definition, someone that has to determine people's fate. They are the ones that ultimately run society and determine how people should lead their lives. 

I do still use Code Geass, cause there's still plenty of things from there that work out well. And yes, I get why people have so much issues with the Euphemia incident. I don't need that guy's video on Youtube to tell me that.

But overall, yes, there are a lot of similarities. 

Yes, but Edelgard is determining the fate of people whom she's not leading, and killing anyone who disagrees with her until they do. For their own benefit of course.

11 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I was wondering when someone was going to reference Code Geass. By the way, I wouldn't recommend doing so; that show was a train wreck of storytelling. The... Euphemia Incident (if you've seen the show, you know which scene I'm referring to) was the worst story event I have ever seen, and that's a pretty high bar. 

That said, there are a lot of parallels between Three Houses and Code Geass:

• The protagonist speaks with a mysterious immortal green-haired woman who gives them power at a price
• There's a morally grey revolutionary of imperial birth
• There's a mentally-unhinged former friend of the revolutionary that vehemently believes violent revolution is not the answer and opposes the revolutionary
• A world split between three superpowers
• A magical power with a dark secret behind it that gives different effects (crest, geass)
• An old man villain that manipulates the revolutionary and whose plan amounts to killing a creature revered as a deity in order to "advance" humanity (Thales, Emperor Charles)
• A story split in two parts with a timeskip between them, and the first part is of noticeably higher quality

Anything that I missed?

Have you seen this video?

It doesn't quite vindicate the Euphemator, but it does try to rationlize it and actually makes what I think is an excellent suggestion for making it more palatable (and unlike a lot of controversial hottakes, keeps well in mind why people hate it to begin with).

Edited March 19, 2020 by Jotari

[vanguard333]

13 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

I do still use Code Geass, cause there's still plenty of things from there that work out well. And yes, I get why people have so much issues with the Euphemia incident. I don't need that guy's video on Youtube to tell me that.

But overall, yes, there are a lot of similarities. 

Eh, I'd say the show was best at coming up with good concepts. The execution left a lot to be desired, and I say this as someone who enjoyed Code Geass at first. 

What guy on YouTube? I have not watched a single video about the Euphemia scene on YouTube; not even the video that desperately tries in vain to defend that scene. 

Yeah; there are a lot of similarities. I just thought of two more:

• Rampant classism
• The revolutionary wears a mask in the first part. 

Are there any that I missed? 

@Jotari I've been meaning to see it, but I haven't yet. I can say though that the scene is indefensible. It makes Daenerys burning King's Landing look like a TV masterpiece, and that is a sentence I did not think I'd say. 

By the way, how do you put a quote in an edit?

EDIT: Also, I think we can all agree that Edelgard is a far better written character than Lelouch. 

Edited March 19, 2020 by vanguard333

[omegaxis1]

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Yes, but Edelgard is determining the fate of people whom she's not leading, and killing anyone who disagrees with her until they do. For their own benefit of course.

Well, if you go against the Church that has influence across the continent, the other nations won't be able to avoid it. Since the Church is the one that upholds the nobility by their worshipping of Crests. It ain't like she wants to kill others, but if people opposes her that they will fight a war, then that leaves no choice. You wanna ensure that there's no way to prevent any future conflict from creating another war. 

Cause let me ask.

You think that beating the Church at first would end the war completely? You know after wars,t here's always the threat of rebellion and grudges. So now there are two nations that now, if not under Imperial control, means that the Church sympathizers and loyalists, or Empire haters, would just oppose the Empire till they declare war, thus we get more wars happening. 

You wanna ensure peace with as much mitigation of rebellions not destroying everything you worked for. That's the consequence of when the Church holds such political power and influence to the point that it's the system itself. You wanna uproot it, everything it's connected to will suffer as well. 

[Darkmoon6789]

4 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Sacrificing others because you believe you alone have the wisdom to determine people's fate is pretty arrogant too.

Determining people's fate is your literal role as a monarch, if you are unable or unwilling to do that you do not deserve to rule.

Of course, this also involves being wrong every once in awhile as monarchs are also humans and fallible. Edelgard doesn't live in a world that is dominated by democracy, making these kind of decisions is exactly what she is expected to do. As a monarch her duty to the world and her people is greater than any obligation to remain morally blameless. 

I do not understand why some people need to bash Edelgard any chance they get. I sometimes get the impression that people are just incapable of perceiving nuance or seeing past a person's actions in determining their character. Judging someone solely by their actions is just another way of dehumanising people and reducing them down to simple categories because they can't comprehend complexity. Edelgard isn't blameless when it comes to her actions, but she's hardly a complete monster, and I do see a refusal to see her as a human being worthy of sympathy to be straight up delusional.

I originally created this thread to to express why this character has been such a positive influence in my life, having a different opinion is fine, but my original intention wasn't to spark a debate, only to express why I have such strong positive feelings about the Edelgard and encourage other people to do the same about characters they admire.

[Jotari]

1 minute ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Determining people's fate is your literal role as a monarch, if you are unable or unwilling to do that you do not deserve to rule.

Of course, this also involves being wrong every once in awhile as monarchs are also humans and fallible. Edelgard doesn't live in a world that is dominated by democracy, making these kind of decisions is exactly what she is expected to do. As a monarch her duty to the world and her people is greater than any obligation to remain morally blameless. 

I do not understand why some people need to bash Edelgard any chance they get. I sometimes get the impression that people are just incapable of perceiving nuance or seeing past a person's actions in determining their character. Judging someone solely by their actions is just another way of dehumanising people and reducing them down to simple categories because they can't comprehend complexity. Edelgard isn't blameless when it comes to her actions, but she's hardly a complete monster, and I do see a refusal to see her as a human being worthy of sympathy to be straight up delusional.

I originally created this thread to to express why this character has been such a positive influence in my life, having a different opinion is fine, but my original intention wasn't to spark a debate, only to express why I have such strong positive feelings about the Edelgard and encourage other people to do the same about characters they admire.

Determining your people's fate. Not determining the fate of everyone else who follow different monarchs/leaders.

7 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Well, if you go against the Church that has influence across the continent, the other nations won't be able to avoid it. Since the Church is the one that upholds the nobility by their worshipping of Crests. It ain't like she wants to kill others, but if people opposes her that they will fight a war, then that leaves no choice. You wanna ensure that there's no way to prevent any future conflict from creating another war. 

Cause let me ask.

You think that beating the Church at first would end the war completely? You know after wars,t here's always the threat of rebellion and grudges. So now there are two nations that now, if not under Imperial control, means that the Church sympathizers and loyalists, or Empire haters, would just oppose the Empire till they declare war, thus we get more wars happening. 

You wanna ensure peace with as much mitigation of rebellions not destroying everything you worked for. That's the consequence of when the Church holds such political power and influence to the point that it's the system itself. You wanna uproot it, everything it's connected to will suffer as well. 

Church was ousted from the empire a hundred years before the game began.

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Jotari said:

Church was ousted from the empire a hundred years before the game began.

The Empire was still very much holding connections with the Church of Seiros. Guess you didn't pay attention.

Quote

Scholar: You must know about the Western Church in the Kingdom, and the Eastern Church in the Alliance. But you probably don't know about the Southern Church. It used to exist a long time ago, in Enbarr. About 120 years ago, they had a massive insurrection. The bishop of the Southern Church who participated was exiled by the furious emperor. After that, the Empire reconciled with the Central Church, but relations continued to be strained. That history has probably laid the groundwork for the current antagonism among the Empire's citizens.

And then you are quick to forget how there are still many followers of the Church of Seiros even in present time, as before being replaced by Thales, Arundel was a pious man that made very generous donations to the Church. And we see from Chapter 12 and Imperial soldier saying that she was a loyal follower of the faith, but is horrified by learning the truth of Edelgard's words about Rhea. And there are plenty of priests and such in Garreg Mach in CF and other people that still follow the faith. 

The Empire did not sever ties with the Church despite the problems with the Southern Church. 

 

[Jotari]

4 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

The Empire was still very much holding connections with the Church of Seiros. Guess you didn't pay attention.

And then you are quick to forget how there are still many followers of the Church of Seiros even in present time, as before being replaced by Thales, Arundel was a pious man that made very generous donations to the Church. And we see from Chapter 12 and Imperial soldier saying that she was a loyal follower of the faith, but is horrified by learning the truth of Edelgard's words about Rhea. And there are plenty of priests and such in Garreg Mach in CF and other people that still follow the faith. 

The Empire did not sever ties with the Church despite the problems with the Southern Church. 

 

Of course. Having relations with the institutes of the land is inevitable (be they positive, negative or has described here, strained). England continued having Catholics even after the whole Henry VIII thing. People still followed the church because they wanted to. The point is the church's independent political control had been removed and replaced with a branch of the imperial command.

Edited March 19, 2020 by Jotari