Jump to content
Darkmoon6789

What Edelgard means to me…

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, jawaunw said:

But that's the thing about The Church most of the information we have from it is either flat out lies that people take too seriously or complete head Canon The church needs a DLC route realistically for us to have any actual basis

 

 

I think the Agarthans are the ones most needing a DLC route to be honest.

Share this post


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

I think the Agarthans are the ones most needing a DLC route to be honest.

That too realistically a flashback dlc would be really nice right now what Nemesis and everything

Cuz as of right now it's just a lot of congestion on what actually happened and it would be cool

Share this post


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

And I think the very fact that she was able to launch a direct war against the church means defying the church in other ways is evidently possible.

 

. . .

Politics, and life in general, doesn't exactly always work on the 'If I can get away with X thing, I can get away with lesser thing x'. Shocking, I know. But you seem to (willfully) forget that war isn't just a defiance: it's also the biggest way of answering these defiances. Or you're telling me that because I can, I dunno, kill a cop and flee while all the cops near to me (namely, the one I kiilled) cannot stop me, I can get away with speeding. Except it doesn't work like that. And when I do both, I don't 'get away' with speeding, it only fades into the background because guess what, I killed a cop. Not that lesser offenses won't find their use against me (see Al Capone).

When Edelgard launches her offensive a measly two weeks after the war declaration, heck by doing that war declaration, she pretty much sidesteps the whole diplomatic process which would have led to that point, she doesn't just magically get away with it, she just have thrown a far bigger rock in the pound, so no one is in position of going after her for throwing the smaller rocks before.

War would have been a possible sanction, but I'm sure Rhea would have prefffered in that case that it was one where she could condamn Edelgard as an heretic turning her back on the Goddess in front of the wider population of Adrestia, getting Imperial nobles to side with her for more or less interested motives, and maybe even foreign powers answering the defiance to Fodlan's supreme moral authority.

What Edelgard did here was throwing first punch in such a violent and quick ways that it deprived the Church of any leveraging on Imperial society before the assault on Not!Vatican, striking before anything could be done against her.  After that, either Rhea is out and the Church's political's authority and leverage is pretty much shattered, or Rhea going more and more in what I will dub 'Seiros Mode' will sap what influence she has left all by herself, as evidenced by the regular trickle of Church and Knights deserters you see in CF. And you'll notice that even in this scenario, mentions are made of civilian unrest in face of the war with the Church within Adrestia. Yes, it gets under control after the five years,  but it means the influence and the potential of using it was there. Edelgard just stroke before it could be leveraged.

 

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

That the church would take the relic by force is conjecture. What is not conjecture is that the church believes it belongs to them by virtue of them being the Church. The empire believes it belongs to them because they received it from Dagda. The Church's claim to ownership does not take precedent over the empires claim to ownership. The Church has to send a representative to try and negotiate them giving it to the church. They cannot, and do not, simply take it by force. The empire knows the church wants it and is prepared to use it to exert influence over the church. Duke Gerth gives it up willingly however, even though he knows that's not in the empire's best interests. That's what happens. Saying if that didn't happen the church would have send knights to mug an imperial duke is fanfiction.

 

I was actually thinking about increased diplomatic pressures, in whatever shape the Church could think about. You were the one who made the jump from 'Leveraging guilt and a big favor' to 'Mugging' without thinking of any possible intermediary step. Talk about a lack of imagination.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hardric62 said:

 

. . .

Politics, and life in general, doesn't exactly always work on the 'If I can get away with X thing, I can get away with lesser thing x'. Shocking, I know. But you seem to (willfully) forget that war isn't just a defiance: it's also the biggest way of answering these defiances. Or you're telling me that because I can, I dunno, kill a cop and flee while all the cops near to me (namely, the one I kiilled) cannot stop me, I can get away with speeding. Except it doesn't work like that. And when I do both, I don't 'get away' with speeding, it only fades into the background because guess what, I killed a cop. Not that lesser offenses won't find their use against me (see Al Capone).

When Edelgard launches her offensive a measly two weeks after the war declaration, heck by doing that war declaration, she pretty much sidesteps the whole diplomatic process which would have led to that point, she doesn't just magically get away with it, she just have thrown a far bigger rock in the pound, so no one is in position of going after her for throwing the smaller rocks before.

War would have been a possible sanction, but I'm sure Rhea would have prefffered in that case that it was one where she could condamn Edelgard as an heretic turning her back on the Goddess in front of the wider population of Adrestia, getting Imperial nobles to side with her for more or less interested motives, and maybe even foreign powers answering the defiance to Fodlan's supreme moral authority.

What Edelgard did here was throwing first punch in such a violent and quick ways that it deprived the Church of any leveraging on Imperial society before the assault on Not!Vatican, striking before anything could be done against her.  After that, either Rhea is out and the Church's political's authority and leverage is pretty much shattered, or Rhea going more and more in what I will dub 'Seiros Mode' will sap what influence she has left all by herself, as evidenced by the regular trickle of Church and Knights deserters you see in CF. And you'll notice that even in this scenario, mentions are made of civilian unrest in face of the war with the Church within Adrestia. Yes, it gets under control after the five years,  but it means the influence and the potential of using it was there. Edelgard just stroke before it could be leveraged.

 

 

I was actually thinking about increased diplomatic pressures, in whatever shape the Church could think about. You were the one who made the jump from 'Leveraging guilt and a big favor' to 'Mugging' without thinking of any possible intermediary step. Talk about a lack of imagination.

 

The problem is that she had no idea Rhea would go crazy 

The empire already kicked out the church anyway so it really doesn't matter how much influence they have over the people she still has final say

You're also not talking about the major part that made the war only possible to happen when she declared it The raid on the holy tomb and the acts of terrorism that not only endangered the other students 

But also got some of them killed and turned into monsters kill off on a third captains

While they don't know tried to kill two of the future leaders of the alliance and kingdom

She had to attack first because if that actually got out in any form of diplomacy she'll always be the aggressor realistically being the flame emperor did more harm for her she had no choice but to start a war because talking was over at that point she already killed students

A lot of what you're saying applies if she knows Rhea emotionally and as a person but she doesn't she doesn't even think that she's a real person

That's where the argument of what if she had may changes in the empire that would rhea do something but there is literally not a single amount of evidence that says that she ever would

Devaluing the Crest wouldn't matter to her as long as everything still peachy Kin with her mother coming back 

There was a king that tried to do that once but guess who killed him she's literally working with a very people who could tell her if she doesn't listen to them The war was always going to happen if she hated Crest or not

Edited by jawaunw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently, I came across an argument on TV Tropes that was about Rhea burning Fhirdiad; I mention it because it makes an... interesting claim about Edelgard and the Crimson Flower Route:

Quote

Running into a burning city to fight there is a stupid idea. The reasonable thing to do would be to surround the city with your army, kill any enemy soldier who tried to flee, and wait until the fire has burned itself out. Running into the middle of a burning city to fight is a ludicrous case of Hollywood Tactics. Even saying they need to get Rhea doesn't make any sense; they note before the battle that Rhea only controls Fhirdiad, so where would she even go to? What could she accomplish even if she did run away if all of her allies and supporters are dead? And Rhea's decision not only doesn't make sense, as the initial post points out, to light your own position on fire before the enemy is there, but it's also a case of Character Derailment. Rhea's supposed to be a well-intentioned character, and uses force against people who threaten her but is protective of the people on her side and only uses force in retaliation. The end of Crimson Flower has her commit mass murder against her own people in a way that can only help her enemies, and the only justification given is that Rhea is now crazy and thus commits mass murder for no reason. And this means that Edelgard gets vindication for her Fantastic Racism against Nabateans, thus furthering Crimson Flower's theme of Edelgard never having to aknowledge, confront, suffer for, or grow past her character flaws.

Now, pretty much every argument this person made about Rhea and burning Fhirdiad was heavily and thoroughly refuted, and most of their arguments were labelled as flamebait by the site's moderators. I only bring it up because of that last bit that I bolded, which caught my attention. 

The claim being made is that, in Crimson Flower, Edelgard never has to acknowledge, confront, suffer for, or grow past her character flaws. I don't think that's the case, but I'm having trouble thinking of evidence against it off the top of my head. What do you guys think of it? Do you agree or disagree, and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Recently, I came across an argument on TV Tropes that was about Rhea burning Fhirdiad; I mention it because it makes an... interesting claim about Edelgard and the Crimson Flower Route:

Now, pretty much every argument this person made about Rhea and burning Fhirdiad was heavily and thoroughly refuted, and most of their arguments were labelled as flamebait by the site's moderators. I only bring it up because of that last bit that I bolded, which caught my attention. 

The claim being made is that, in Crimson Flower, Edelgard never has to acknowledge, confront, suffer for, or grow past her character flaws. I don't think that's the case, but I'm having trouble thinking of evidence against it off the top of my head. What do you guys think of it? Do you agree or disagree, and why?

First off, yes. Edelgard didn't need to enter Fhirdiad. In fact, as said, it is better if Edelgard didn't go. But she had to save the civilians inside the burning city. That's why Rhea set it on fire. 

Also, the theme of Crimson Flower is about fighting for what you believe in, in wanting and believing that humanity no longer needs to be coddled by gods and should be free to lead their own lives, not bound by those higher than themselves such as gods and nobles. Edelgard DID grow past her character flaws, as the entire thing is how Edelgard had trouble confiding and trusting those around her, where the other routes had Edelgard lose herself and allowing the Agarthans too much leeway. 

It's also a way for Edelgard to regain her humanity, as she is someone that has buried her emotions when she suffered those experiments. But as the story progresses, she's increasingly regaining her humanity, the final part being where she finally begins to cry when she believed that she lost Byleth. And it's also Byleth regaining his humanity as well, given how this is the route where Byleth loses his god form. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

First off, yes. Edelgard didn't need to enter Fhirdiad. In fact, as said, it is better if Edelgard didn't go. But she had to save the civilians inside the burning city. That's why Rhea set it on fire. 

Also, the theme of Crimson Flower is about fighting for what you believe in, in wanting and believing that humanity no longer needs to be coddled by gods and should be free to lead their own lives, not bound by those higher than themselves such as gods and nobles. Edelgard DID grow past her character flaws, as the entire thing is how Edelgard had trouble confiding and trusting those around her, where the other routes had Edelgard lose herself and allowing the Agarthans too much leeway. 

It's also a way for Edelgard to regain her humanity, as she is someone that has buried her emotions when she suffered those experiments. But as the story progresses, she's increasingly regaining her humanity, the final part being where she finally begins to cry when she believed that she lost Byleth. And it's also Byleth regaining his humanity as well, given how this is the route where Byleth loses his god form. 

I just feel like some people are blatantly unfair Edelgard, like was the case of the person who wrote that TV tropes article.

Despite trying to suppress her emotions to do what she feels has to be done, I do think Crimson flower Edelgard comes across as very human as Byleth reawakened that side of her. Turns out that the true Edelgard buried underneath that cold facade is a wonderful and empathetic creature. In fact, I believe this is exactly why she felt like she had to become cold, she would have trouble handling being responsible for so much bloodshed otherwise. So I do view her emotional distance as a defence mechanism.
 

Edited by Darkmoon6789

Share this post


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

I just feel like some people are blatantly unfair Edelgard, like was the case of the person who wrote that TV tropes article.

Despite trying to suppress her emotions to do what she feels has to be done, I do think Crimson flower Edelgard comes across as very human as Byleth reawakened that side of her. Turns out that the true Edelgard buried underneath that cold facade is a wonderful and empathetic creature. In fact, I believe this is exactly why she felt like she had to become cold, she would have trouble handling being responsible for so much bloodshed otherwise. Press space, so I do view her emotional distance as a defence mechanism.

This is why I am fine with Tara Platt being her VA, despite how some people have issues. 

Cause Tara Platt manages to get what is needed across of showing the two sides of Edelgard very well. She's able to make Edelgard be the cold one moment, and emotional in another, which is the point of Edelgard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

This is why I am fine with Tara Platt being her VA, despite how some people have issues. 

Cause Tara Platt manages to get what is needed across of showing the two sides of Edelgard very well. She's able to make Edelgard be the cold one moment, and emotional in another, which is the point of Edelgard. 

I do think she is doing a rather good job, I have even seen interviews with her that shows she has a rather good understanding of Edelgard as a character,  Especially the part about her having good intentions.

Some people do claim she comes across as too cold in some emotional scenes compared to her Japanese voice actress, but I think she does her job well enough, Edelgard's entire character is about balancing a cold facade with the emotion underneath .

(If you are wondering about the random press space in my last post, I am using voice recognition to type, it is just a command. The programme misinterpreted and wrote as text instead, this should also explain some of the other odd errors that occur in my posts. I think some of this doesn't make sense if people assume I type by hand)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I just feel like some people are blatantly unfair Edelgard, like was the case of the person who wrote that TV tropes article.

Oh, I completely agree; that argument was blatantly unfair and deserved being labelled as flamebait by site moderators. I only brought up the post as a way to talk about whether or not Edelgard confronts her character flaws in the Crimson Flower route. 

 

1 hour ago, omegaxis1 said:

Also, the theme of Crimson Flower is about fighting for what you believe in, in wanting and believing that humanity no longer needs to be coddled by gods and should be free to lead their own lives, not bound by those higher than themselves such as gods and nobles. Edelgard DID grow past her character flaws, as the entire thing is how Edelgard had trouble confiding and trusting those around her, where the other routes had Edelgard lose herself and allowing the Agarthans too much leeway. 

It's also a way for Edelgard to regain her humanity, as she is someone that has buried her emotions when she suffered those experiments. But as the story progresses, she's increasingly regaining her humanity, the final part being where she finally begins to cry when she believed that she lost Byleth. And it's also Byleth regaining his humanity as well, given how this is the route where Byleth loses his god form. 

Interesting. Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

The claim being made is that, in Crimson Flower, Edelgard never has to acknowledge, confront, suffer for, or grow past her character flaws. I don't think that's the case, but I'm having trouble thinking of evidence against it off the top of my head. What do you guys think of it? Do you agree or disagree, and why?

Some confrontation of ideals in CF would've been neat to see IMO, mostly for consistency's sake as it does happen in Azure Moon and to some extent in Verdant Wind as well. The other stuff makes no sense as the other routes do make a good job showing how Edelgard's flaws end up causing her death in the long run (and the same can be said for every other important player in the plot).

Edited by Moltz23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jawaunw said:

The empire already kicked out the church anyway so it really doesn't matter how much influence they have over the people she still has final say

... The Empire did not kick the Church away. The Southern Church is not THE Church. The Southern Church is just a BRANCH of the Central Church. It's even stated that the branches of the Church are just meant to help extend the Church's influence and proselytizing prowess much easier. The Southern Church being removed only results a loss of a branch, but does not result in the total loss of influence. Because the Empire are still overall believers of the Church and still hold relations with the Central Church.

Contrary to what @Jotari says, politics is a lot more complicated. If you played the Tellius series, you'd learn of the case of how Begnion has suzerain rights on Crimea, despite how Crimea is an independent nation.

Similar to that, the Church would have ways of meddling into the Empire's politics, especially since there are believers of the faith in the Empire. Edelgard's ascension to the throne would easily be called into question because the archbishop never bore witness to the event, meaning that the breaking of tradition and the fact that this was not done under the "will of the goddess" would make it that it's illegitimate.

So anything in regards to Edelgard trying to remove the nobility or the political influence of Crests would result in just the Church constantly meddling and making it absolutely impossible for her to make her changes, especially within her lifetime. And because Rhea is immortal, and Edelgard is not (might actually die sooner than most), once Edelgard dies, any efforts to change WILL easily be undone. 

4 hours ago, jawaunw said:

You're also not talking about the major part that made the war only possible to happen when she declared it The raid on the holy tomb and the acts of terrorism that not only endangered the other students 

But also got some of them killed and turned into monsters kill off on a third captains

While they don't know tried to kill two of the future leaders of the alliance and kingdom

She had to attack first because if that actually got out in any form of diplomacy she'll always be the aggressor realistically being the flame emperor did more harm for her she had no choice but to start a war because talking was over at that point she already killed students

Even if that is the case, it does not change that Edelgard is the EMPEROR of Adrestia. You don't just kill the emperor like that. It's why in today's day and age, we call it a diplomatic immunity. Does not matter what crimes the person commits, that status renders someone immune to the law entirely. Cause if you kill them, you spark a diplomatic crisis that would result in war. If Rhea was actually thinking wisely, she should have wanted Edelgard to be captured, not killed.

4 hours ago, jawaunw said:

A lot of what you're saying applies if she knows Rhea emotionally and as a person but she doesn't she doesn't even think that she's a real person

Except Edelgard DID try to spare Rhea in the last chapter. She is trying to be reasonable with Rhea, and even just wants her to surrender, and in a lecture question, would prefer to just strip her of her power as she did with Duke Aegir. But when Rhea decided to burn Fhirdiad, Edelgard saw Rhea as nothing but a monster at that point, but that isn't that she sees only Rhea as the monster. Cause she had to be aware of Seteth and Flayn's survival when they had attacked, since otherwise there'd be dead bodies. But even in other routes, Edelgard doesn't kill Rhea. Hell, if anything, she hides Rhea from the Agarthans, who'd tear Rhea apart otherwise. 

4 hours ago, jawaunw said:

That's where the argument of what if she had may changes in the empire that would rhea do something but there is literally not a single amount of evidence that says that she ever would

Except we HAVE seen how Rhea operates in how she promotes her religion. How she justifies her actions as the will of the goddess (especially in the JP version). How she protects nobles by hiding information. How she would frame people for the Tragedy of Duscur if they are political obstacles. And finally, she makes it clear to Byleth that the entire Lonato battle is an EXAMPLE of what happens if anyone should dare to oppose the Church. 

And how she did meddle into the affairs of the Loog Rebellion and betrayed the Empire by backing Loog's claim for independence. 

4 hours ago, jawaunw said:

Devaluing the Crest wouldn't matter to her as long as everything still peachy Kin with her mother coming back 

You are ignoring the fact that Rhea wanting Sothis back is because she wants humanity to be ruled over BY Sothis. For everyone to worship Sothis as the goddess, believing that it would return things to the golden age. But it's replacing one immortal ruler with just another. It's dangerous and toxic. Stagnant leadership is Rhea's problem. 

It isn't JUST about devaluing a Crest, it's the fact that people are being controlled by non-human entity. Edelgard believes that humans can rule over themselves. Rhea does not believe this, and that's why she never had a successor, and wants only her mother to be the successor. Rhea, overall, doesn't trust humans and believe that they have to be guided by the goddess. 

15 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Oh, I completely agree; that argument was blatantly unfair and deserved being labelled as flamebait by site moderators. I only brought up the post as a way to talk about whether or not Edelgard confronts her character flaws in the Crimson Flower route. 

Interesting. Thanks. 

Also want to point out that Crimson Flower pushes how it's what you believe in because this is the only route where you have to CHOOSE of your own will. Cause you get locked out otherwise. 

7 minutes ago, Moltz23 said:

Some confrontation of ideals in CF would've been neat to see IMO, mostly for consistency's sake as it does happen in Azure Moon and to some extent in Verdant Wind as well. The other stuff makes no sense as the other routes do make a good job showing how Edelgard's flaws end up causing her death in the long run (and the same can be said for every other important player in the plot).

Well, Edelgard does get confrontation or have to start seeing things in new perspective in her support. Manuela helps Edelgard learn the importance of religion and how the religion provides the emotional support some people need. And Ferdinand helps Edelgard understand a way to better understand how to help improve her system by introducing free education, allowing commoners to get the skills needed. 

Also, Constance was confrontational of Edelgard in Chapter 11 when they fight, and how Constance admitted that had she known, she'd have tried to stop Edelgard, which proves Edelgard's point as to why she didn't tell. Of course, in Chapter 12, Constance states that she had got Edelgard to tell her everything, including her past.

But the story is portraying how people are fighting for Edelgard and not being confrontational on her because of how they believe in her cause overall and what she is fighting against. As I mentioned, CF is the route where you make a willing choice to side with her. Her friends also side with her despite their own issues, like Ferdinand, who has issues about how Edelgard just stripped her father of his position so easily and imprisoned him.  

Cause if you are the fighting on the aggressor's side of the war, then willing to fight for them to the end is because you believe in them.

This isn't like Conquest where you fought for them to the bitter end just to get someone to sit on a chair and prove that this entire war was meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's IT.

This topic is being locked for the next few hours.  IN THE MEANTIME, reread the first post, then tell me whether or not Edelgard Story Discussion The Third is appropriate here.

EDIT: I GOT BUSY, 'K?

Edited by eclipse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all I am new to this franchise. I have been wonderful with Three Houses, that combination of tactical role with sociability parts is the soul of the game (I have only played two routes for now).

I wanted to find debates about Edelgard and the crimson flower route, and I liked finding this topic (and 2 others that I read) where people masterfully defend Edelgard's position and personality with solid arguments. For a long time, a fictional character didn't captivate me as much as she did (and I've seen and read a lot of anime, manga, comics, epic fantasy books, movies). Meeting Edelgard was a great experience. She is a powerful, charismatic, idealistic, kind and friendly character when she wants. It has light and darkness. I understand that some do not like her way of proceeding, I would also question some of her actions, but in the long run I think that her fight is fair. If you give me a choice between the church and her, for me the ethical thing will always be to support Edelgard, it is closer to my ideals (liberalism, meritocracy, welfare state, equity, progress).

Even if you don't choose her, she makes me a worthy antagonist.

I love all of her interactions and support with Byleth.

Share this post


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

First of all I am new to this franchise. I have been wonderful with Three Houses, that combination of tactical role with sociability parts is the soul of the game (I have only played two routes for now).

I wanted to find debates about Edelgard and the crimson flower route, and I liked finding this topic (and 2 others that I read) where people masterfully defend Edelgard's position and personality with solid arguments. For a long time, a fictional character didn't captivate me as much as she did (and I've seen and read a lot of anime, manga, comics, epic fantasy books, movies). Meeting Edelgard was a great experience. She is a powerful, charismatic, idealistic, kind and friendly character when she wants. It has light and darkness. I understand that some do not like her way of proceeding, I would also question some of her actions, but in the long run I think that her fight is fair. If you give me a choice between the church and her, for me the ethical thing will always be to support Edelgard, it is closer to my ideals (liberalism, meritocracy, welfare state, equity, progress).

Even if you don't choose her, she makes me a worthy antagonist.

I love all of her interactions and support with Byleth.

I am always glad when other people are able to see Edelgard the way I do. She is truly inspiring in my eyes.

Share this post


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

I am always glad when other people are able to see Edelgard the way I do. She is truly inspiring in my eyes.

 

2 hours ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

Even if you don't choose her, she makes me a worthy antagonist.

You know, that's actually pretty funny. Whether you support her or not, she is liked in one way or another. 

Share this post


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

 

You know, that's actually pretty funny. Whether you support her or not, she is liked in one way or another. 

She is a pretty good antagonist as well. In the other routes, but I never really feel entirely right about fighting her, it always feels like I should have made the choice to stand by her side. Many people get the same feeling when they play Crimson flower, but I feel like I am doing something wrong if I don't. 

Is it possible that the war won't be worth it in the end, is it possible that she is being misled by Thales and is ultimately doing what he wants to do, certainly. But I feel like even if I believed she was mistaken in that she could create a society that would make the war worth it. I still can't hold it in my heart to hold this against her as her heart is still in the right place, she's trying the best she can to make the best out of a bad situation

Share this post


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

She is a pretty good antagonist as well. In the other routes, but I never really feel entirely right about fighting her, it always feels like I should have made the choice to stand by her side. Many people get the same feeling when they play Crimson flower, but I feel like I am doing something wrong if I don't. 

Is it possible that the war won't be worth it in the end, is it possible that she is being misled by Thales and is ultimately doing what he wants to do, certainly. But I feel like even if I believed she was mistaken in that she could create a society that would make the war worth it. I still can't hold it in my heart to hold this against her as her heart is still in the right place, she's trying the best she can to make the best out of a bad situation

Honestly, people are very much blinded by the "what if" or thinking that, like Dimitri tries to preach, that "surely" there could have been a peaceful solution. 

This is why people like to nitpick her ending and make entire video essays to preach that she's wrong or that her ending didn't change anything or that it will inevitably fail. Accepting it means that she was proven right and her war DID get results. They don't want to believe that morally wrong people succeed.

It's like in FE4, where Arvis, whom people see the predecessor of Edelgard, did morally wrong things and worked with the evil cult group. He got his own form of peace for a time, but it all went to hell, and the more morally righteous group rose up, killed all the evil, and thus ensured a true peace. Because they are morally righteous.

I feel 3H has proven that quite a lot of people DON'T actually know what grey morality means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Honestly, people are very much blinded by the "what if" or thinking that, like Dimitri tries to preach, that "surely" there could have been a peaceful solution. 

This is why people like to nitpick her ending and make entire video essays to preach that she's wrong or that her ending didn't change anything or that it will inevitably fail. Accepting it means that she was proven right and her war DID get results. They don't want to believe that morally wrong people succeed.

It's like in FE4, where Arvis, whom people see the predecessor of Edelgard, did morally wrong things and worked with the evil cult group. He got his own form of peace for a time, but it all went to hell, and the more morally righteous group rose up, killed all the evil, and thus ensured a true peace. Because they are morally righteous.

I feel 3H has proven that quite a lot of people DON'T actually know what grey morality means.

The thing is that it Edelgard was perfect and absolutely right about everything, she wouldn't be morally grey, she would be way too perfect and not as interesting as a result. But I don't think you need to be perfect in order to be overall, a good person, I think Edelgard is a good person, she was just put in a rather bad situation, maybe she doesn't always make perfect decisions. There are some things, especially early on in the story that are questionable. 

Edelgard is in my mind very human, she has good intentions but is not infallible, in fact, according to her conversation with Dimitri, it is not even necessarily certain that she even thinks of herself as strong. In my mind it is Edelgard's good heart and very human failings that makes her so likeable to me. Also, I genuinely believe in her ideals

Share this post


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

The thing is that it Edelgard was perfect and absolutely right about everything, she wouldn't be morally grey, she would be way too perfect and not as interesting as a result. But I don't think you need to be perfect in order to be overall, a good person, I think Edelgard is a good person, she was just put in a rather bad situation, maybe she doesn't always make perfect decisions. There are some things, especially early on in the story that are questionable. 

Edelgard is in my mind very human, she has good intentions but is not infallible, in fact, according to her conversation with Dimitri, it is not even necessarily certain that she even thinks of herself as strong. In my mind it is Edelgard's good heart and very human failings that makes her so likeable to me. Also, I genuinely believe in her ideals

That's just it. In a story like Fire Emblem, people are too used to weak forms of grey morality. They believe that grey morality is that the other side is still objectively wrong, and have to be defeated, and you are more righteous and morally just. 

This being multiroute only adds further to wanting to reject Edelgard. Because she starts the war.

Share this post


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

That's just it. In a story like Fire Emblem, people are too used to weak forms of grey morality. They believe that grey morality is that the other side is still objectively wrong, and have to be defeated, and you are more righteous and morally just. 

This being multiroute only adds further to wanting to reject Edelgard. Because she starts the war.

What you're describing. There isn't grey morality at or, but black and white one. Morally grey is where you aren't certain who is in the right and who was in the wrong. 

Maybe it may seem obvious at first, but I am not even that certain if I can really lay the blame for starting the war entirely on Edelgard. It seems like the Agarthans has a history of stirring things up, relatively certain they were also responsible for the war that led to be founding of Faerghus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

What you're describing. There isn't grey morality at or, but black and white one. Morally grey is where you aren't certain who is in the right and who was in the wrong. 

I know. But that's actually exactly how Fire Emblem has always handled "grey" morality.

They aren't actually morally grey, but they make a clear cut who are the good people and who are the scummy ones. 

2 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Maybe it may seem obvious at first, but I am not even that certain if I can really lay the blame for starting the war entirely on Edelgard. It seems like the Agarthans has a history of stirring things up, relatively certain they were also responsible for the war that led to be founding of Faerghus. 

Yeah. But they don't care about the past events. Hell, they even justify Rhea starting a 66 year long war that spans the entire continent, despite how this was stated to be for revenge. But people just insist that it was rightoeus because she suffered genocide and that Nemesis was a douche and tricked people. By that logic, Rhea also deceived people with her religion. 

But apparently she had the best of intentions, but then, doesn't Edelgard also?

People have double standards. They justify and believe what they want to believe, and reject what they don't want to.

Share this post


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

I know. But that's actually exactly how Fire Emblem has always handled "grey" morality.

They aren't actually morally grey, but they make a clear cut who are the good people and who are the scummy ones. 

Yeah. But they don't care about the past events. Hell, they even justify Rhea starting a 66 year long war that spans the entire continent, despite how this was stated to be for revenge. But people just insist that it was rightoeus because she suffered genocide and that Nemesis was a douche and tricked people. By that logic, Rhea also deceived people with her religion. 

But apparently she had the best of intentions, but then, doesn't Edelgard also?

People have double standards. They justify and believe what they want to believe, and reject what they don't want to.

In an effort to be consistent, then I should probably also say that Rhea and Edelgard are actually remarkably similar in that they are both conquerors who believed they fought for a just cause. But their ideology is polar opposite. Rhea stands for strict hierarchies justified by divine right and strict religious control and suppression of technology in order to prevent what happened in the past from happening again. Edelgard stands for the abolishment of blood-based hierarchy, secularism and technological progress. Heck, the two might even be related. The library books certainly seems to imply that, if you read the entry on house Hresvelg. 

I also think the the war that preceded the founding of Faergus was no more justified than Edelgard's war. It is basically the same thing. There was even Agarthan support involved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

She is a pretty good antagonist as well. In the other routes, but I never really feel entirely right about fighting her, it always feels like I should have made the choice to stand by her side. Many people get the same feeling when they play Crimson flower, but I feel like I am doing something wrong if I don't. 

Is it possible that the war won't be worth it in the end, is it possible that she is being misled by Thales and is ultimately doing what he wants to do, certainly. But I feel like even if I believed she was mistaken in that she could create a society that would make the war worth it. I still can't hold it in my heart to hold this against her as her heart is still in the right place, she's trying the best she can to make the best out of a bad situation

I am also happy to find people who like Edelgard. It also broke my heart to go against her on the silver snow route, and still I was captivated by her words in the 2 animations she has after time skip. Like me I like to think that at the end of that route Byleth uses his divine pulse, and goes back time 5 years ago to support his beloved girl 😜

When I acquire the DLC, I plan to follow Claude's route and replay the crimson flower route. From spoilers, I already know what happens in Azure Moon. I have a lot of love and respect for Edelgard, I would not have the heart to play that version of the story.

Maybe I'm missing something, but Edelgard's story and background is enough and very compelling for me. The problem was Rhea and Thales, and she solved it. There are questionable methods, but it is what happens in a world similar to the medieval one. Many criticize her for the issue of war, but history shows that in many cases war served for better change. And the end of it goes according to my ideas. Technological progress, free knowledge and individual freedoms have been shown to be what brings people well-being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...