Jump to content

The Characterization of the Three Lords


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Crysta said:

In their dialogue she acknowledges that Claude's ideals are not far removed from her own but she can't entrust Fodlan to him because he isn't familiar with the history of Fodlan like she is. She outright refuses to surrender after Claude literally pleads for her to do so.

Self-righteousness and arrogance are pretty much why she has to die in that route. The recycled cutsceneĀ is cool, but... she's her own worst enemy a lot of the time.

But if the animation is recycled, in VW I do not see sense. Why doesn't Claude himself kill her? He can't get his hands dirty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

11 hours ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

But if the animation is recycled, in VW I do not see sense. Why doesn't Claude himself kill her? He can't get his hands dirty?

they were saving that for NemisisĀ 

Edited by darkblade2814
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

She can definitely be her own worst enemy, especially when it comes to her ridiculous stubbornness in refusing to surrender, no matter how dire the situation. I sometimes wonder if she could have actually survived in verdant wind especially if it wasn't for her own insistence to die. Still, I do believe that there are multiple reasons for why she does this, one of them is the reason stated that she believes that her death will prevent more unnecessary casualties. The second is that she is afraid that her enemies will put her in a cell in similar conditions at Thales used to keep her in. The third reason is that she is the kind of person who believes it is noble to die for your cause. There is also a possibility that she chooses to die out of not being able to handle the guilt of all the lives lost in the war. If she knows that their deaths was for nothing, only through victory could she justify these casualties as meaningful. So choosing to die is in a way, are taking responsibility for the lives lost in the war, many has died for her and she is willing to do the same.

The question is if her fears of being treated badly by Claude or Dimitri if she loses and surrenders are founded or not. I don't actually think so, it is pretty obvious to me, but by this point in time, neither Claude or Dimitri have an actual grudge against her, so it is mostly down to Edelgard being psychologically scarred from her previous experiences. She actually makes reference in Azure Moon to that she feels that Edelgard actually died many years ago in that cell, she pretty much has no fear of death because she has no other reason to live other than her cause. She kind of seems depressed and suicidal.Ā 

"Even if one clings to their faith, the goddess will never answer them, countless souls will be lost that way, living without purpose.,Ā I can be counted towards those who have died that way as well.Ā But that is why I must change the world on the behalf of the silent and weak."

As for the arrogance and self-righteousness, Edelgard actually describes herself as arrogant in her introduction, but what kind of truly arrogant person does that? She also says this particular line during the debate with Dimitri in Azure Moon:

"Maybe it is self-righteousness, but it doesn't matter, someone needs to take action and put a stop to this world's endless bloodstained history"

Edelgard seems quite self aware of her flaws. And she has a point, you can't truly expect doing nothing to have any real effect on solving the problems of Fodlan. Which in my view is essentially what Dimitri is suggesting, that the ruler should do nothing, even if they have the power to change things. So in my view Dimitri's adherence to his own values blinds him to the truth of the situation. They are the same in this manner, both are absolutely convinced they are in the right.

There is also one more thing, with Edelgard that I should mention, you remember this line?

"These sacrifices will allow us to create the future will never need sacrifice again, it may seem contradictory but it is the only way".Ā 

Just another statement that shows Edelgard's self-awareness when it comes to the contradictions in her own philosophy. It is just that she believes that it is only contradictory on a surface level and that in reality, her methods are the only method she believes will work.

I honestly feel really sorry for Edelgard, even if I believed she was wrong. I do think she has a good heart, and for that reason, she is not deserving of the hate she gets. Edelgard might look bad at the surface level, which is usually why some people hate her in the story as well, they just look at how things seem on the surface, but once you go deeper, you will realise that Edelgard isn't who she first appears to be. The ironic thing is that it does seem like the harm she causes to Fodlan is actually motivated by caring too much about people. Which is why she is such a tragic figure. Even when she wins she will have to deal with the burden of having so many deaths on her conscience for the rest of her life. Something that is eating her alive, due to the fact that she isn't a bad person at heart.Ā 

Yeah I think that Edelgard is definitely meant to be a tragic character in her disregard for her own life and her distrusting attitude. I think that her distrustful attitude is what really leads her to not ally with Claude because she doesn't have faith in his ability to lead fodlan or to understand its problems because hes from a foreign country. To me it seems like Claude and Edelgard can't get along in the long run because they both are unwilling to make the compromises necessary to move into creating a new and better world together. While Edelgard is aware of some of the issues that one could levy against her I think that she doesn't really address them and just acknowledges them without examining their implications fully. Like in the case of her recognizing that people view her as arrogant she moves dismissive it by saying there is little to be done. She's not completely deluded but I think that she's too driven to properly evaluate some of her tragic flaws; as you mentioned with her goal of changing the crest system after being tortured by the agarthans.

Also in regards to Claude I recently made a new video analyzing some of the aspects of his character and maybe it will bring up some different aspects of his character to talk about in relation to Edelgard and Dimitri

Here it is:Ā 

Ā 

Ā 

Edited by ordinaryunits
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ordinaryunits said:

Yeah I think that Edelgard is definitely meant to be a tragic character in her disregard for her own life and her distrusting attitude. I think that her distrustful attitude is what really leads her to not ally with Claude because she doesn't have faith in his ability to lead fodlan or to understand its problems because hes from a foreign country. To me it seems like Claude and Edelgard can't get along in the long run because they both are unwilling to make the compromises necessary to move into creating a new and better world together. While Edelgard is aware of some of the issues that one could levy against her I think that she doesn't really address them and just acknowledges them without examining their implications fully. Like in the case of her recognizing that people view her as arrogant she moves dismissive it by saying there is little to be done. She's not completely deluded but I think that she's too driven to properly evaluate some of her tragic flaws; as you mentioned with her goal of changing the crest system after being tortured by the agarthans.

Also in regards to Claude I recently made a new video analyzing some of the aspects of his character and maybe it will bring up some different aspects of his character to talk about in relation to Edelgard and Dimitri

Here it is:Ā 

Ā 

Ā 

Quite insightful, like always. Still, Claude shouldn't take it personally that Edelgard doesn't trust him, Edelgard doesn't trust anyone, except for Byleth and that is only in Crimson Flower. She seems to ultimately get over this problem, but by that point, it is already too late to change the past.Ā 

The things that Claude say when Edelgard attacks the monastery also makes me think that he might have been planning to do something in the future, I am just not sure what. That is a thing I don't understand with him. In general, what could he possibly do to realise his dream without conflict? The only reason he succeeds at all is that the war creates the perfect opportunity for him to exploit the situation to his benefit. Still, he obviously is planned to do something. He even mentions at one point that he wanted to make himself ruler of Fodlan in Crimson Flower. The problem is that while both Rhea and Thales exist, conflict is inevitable.Ā 

Close dream is a pipe dream while the church remains in power, as they do propagate the division between the people of Fodlan and Almyra. Ā But at the end of the day, the dreams both Edelgard and Dimitri is impossible as well, as regardless of what you do, I do not believe a future that is without sacrifice or the strong taking advantage of the week is achievable. You can do your best to minimise it, your actions might lead to a golden age for a time, but that will not last forever. Dimitri, Claude and Edelgard have one thing in common, all three of them are unable to accept that the world is and will always be a place where bad things happen sometime and there is nothing they can do to change that.Ā 

"These are sacrifices will allow us to create a world where we will never need sacrifice again, it may seem contradictory but it is the only way."
_ Edelgard

I wouldn't say never again Edelgard, the best you can hope for is that sacrifices like these will never be necessary again for a good while. But hope to use warfareĀ to create a future without war isĀ ultimately impossible as there will always still be war.,Ā It is in fact impossible, regardless of methods.Ā But hopefully there wouldn't be more war for a while. I also wonder how far she would be willing to go to maintain this peace, would she have it in her to snuff out a rebellion early before it spreads and cause another continental war? Sounds like to me that the future will still need some sacrifices. But sometimes the lesser evil must be commited to prevent a greater one. I do believe future Edelgard will likely learn from her mistakes and attempt diplomacy first, but it's not always going to work.

But back to Claude, if he likes Edelgard's goals, but not her methods, I wonder if he ever considered that his goals might not be achievable at all without drastic action. I wonder if he would have in him to do what is necessary if it came between never realising his goals at all or resort to Edelgard's methods. Honestly, the ideal scenario for him is someone else starting the conflict, and he capitalising on it, which is exactly what happened in verdant wind.

It is also interesting how all three lords spouts the value of friendship and togetherness at the end of the game, even Edelgard. She does say this as she is fighting Rhea

"When humanity stands strong and people look out for each other. There is no need for gods"

Which is very similar to what Claude is saying while fighting Nemesis. I think Dimitri says something similar in his debate with Edelgard. It seems that all of them learned the same lesson throughout the game thanks to Byleth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2020 at 1:35 AM, Darkmoon6789 said:

Still, I do believe that there are multiple reasons for why she does this, one of them is the reason stated that she believes that her death will prevent more unnecessary casualties. The second is that she is afraid that her enemies will put her in a cell in similar conditions at Thales used to keep her in. The third reason is that she is the kind of person who believes it is noble to die for your cause. There is also a possibility that she chooses to die out of not being able to handle the guilt of all the lives lost in the war. If she knows that their deaths was for nothing, only through victory could she justify these casualties as meaningful. So choosing to die is in a way, are taking responsibility for the lives lost in the war, many has died for her and she is willing to do the same.

I'm willing to believe her first and foremost reason for not surrendering to Claude is because she legitimately believes he's an unfit ruler, and that reveals an uglier side to her personality - not one that can be easily dismissed due to her trauma or trust issues.Ā Her preferring to go down with the ship is fine and in character, but killing her doesn't actually end the conflict so she's... kind of wrong? And I'm pretty sure she knows it's not the end of it; Hubert is the one who warns Claude about the Slitherers. Losing doesn't really cross her mind, so she had no interest in a contingency plan to help save Fodlan even if she wasn't the savior. That's... not great.

On 4/29/2020 at 1:35 AM, Darkmoon6789 said:

As for the arrogance and self-righteousness, Edelgard actually describes herself as arrogant in her introduction, but what kind of truly arrogant person does that? She also says this particular line during the debate with Dimitri in Azure Moon:

Plenty of arrogant people do that? The key is that because they're arrogant, they believe it's justified and not that big of a flaw.

I don't think she's as self-aware as she thinks she is. Most people aren't.

She has serious personality flaws and they are ultimately what lead to her downfall in Verdant Wind. I'm more interested in judging her fairly, opposed toĀ sympathetically.

crimson flower is still the best ending tho

Ā 

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Quite insightful, like always. Still, Claude shouldn't take it personally that Edelgard doesn't trust him, Edelgard doesn't trust anyone, except for Byleth and that is only in Crimson Flower. She seems to ultimately get over this problem, but by that point, it is already too late to change the past.Ā 

The things that Claude say when Edelgard attacks the monastery also makes me think that he might have been planning to do something in the future, I am just not sure what. That is a thing I don't understand with him. In general, what could he possibly do to realise his dream without conflict? The only reason he succeeds at all is that the war creates the perfect opportunity for him to exploit the situation to his benefit. Still, he obviously is planned to do something. He even mentions at one point that he wanted to make himself ruler of Fodlan in Crimson Flower. The problem is that while both Rhea and Thales exist, conflict is inevitable.Ā 

Close dream is a pipe dream while the church remains in power, as they do propagate the division between the people of Fodlan and Almyra. Ā But at the end of the day, the dreams both Edelgard and Dimitri is impossible as well, as regardless of what you do, I do not believe a future that is without sacrifice or the strong taking advantage of the week is achievable. You can do your best to minimise it, your actions might lead to a golden age for a time, but that will not last forever. Dimitri, Claude and Edelgard have one thing in common, all three of them are unable to accept that the world is and will always be a place where bad things happen sometime and there is nothing they can do to change that.Ā 

"These are sacrifices will allow us to create a world where we will never need sacrifice again, it may seem contradictory but it is the only way."
_ Edelgard

I wouldn't say never again Edelgard, the best you can hope for is that sacrifices like these will never be necessary again for a good while. But hope to use warfareĀ to create a future without war isĀ ultimately impossible as there will always still be war.,Ā It is in fact impossible, regardless of methods.Ā But hopefully there wouldn't be more war for a while. I also wonder how far she would be willing to go to maintain this peace, would she have it in her to snuff out a rebellion early before it spreads and cause another continental war? Sounds like to me that the future will still need some sacrifices. But sometimes the lesser evil must be commited to prevent a greater one. I do believe future Edelgard will likely learn from her mistakes and attempt diplomacy first, but it's not always going to work.

But back to Claude, if he likes Edelgard's goals, but not her methods, I wonder if he ever considered that his goals might not be achievable at all without drastic action. I wonder if he would have in him to do what is necessary if it came between never realising his goals at all or resort to Edelgard's methods. Honestly, the ideal scenario for him is someone else starting the conflict, and he capitalising on it, which is exactly what happened in verdant wind.

It is also interesting how all three lords spouts the value of friendship and togetherness at the end of the game, even Edelgard. She does say this as she is fighting Rhea

"When humanity stands strong and people look out for each other. There is no need for gods"

Which is very similar to what Claude is saying while fighting Nemesis. I think Dimitri says something similar in his debate with Edelgard. It seems that all of them learned the same lesson throughout the game thanks to Byleth

I also remember Claude's dialogue in CF, that he wanted to become the ruler of Fodlan. Undoubtedly he did not want to make the first move, he wanted to wait for conflicts to break out and take advantage of the situation. In some cases he would use diplomacy, in others war is inevitable. Regardless of the route, the war that begins Edelgard is the trigger for things to improve in Fodlan in the future.

Claude's method is the best? I don't know, I also think like you that inaction can only perpetuate and worsen bad situations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Crysta said:

I'm willing to believe her first and foremost reason for not surrendering to Claude is because she legitimately believes he's an unfit ruler, and that reveals an uglier side to her personality - not one that can be easily dismissed due to her trauma or trust issues.Ā Her preferring to go down with the ship is fine and in character, but killing her doesn't actually end the conflict so she's... kind of wrong? And I'm pretty sure she knows it's not the end of it; Hubert is the one who warns Claude about the Slitherers. Losing doesn't really cross her mind, so she had no interest in a contingency plan to help save Fodlan even if she wasn't the savior. That's... not great.

Plenty of arrogant people do that? The key is that because they're arrogant, they believe it's justified and not that big of a flaw.

I don't think she's as self-aware as she thinks she is. Most people aren't.

She has serious personality flaws and they are ultimately what lead to her downfall in Verdant Wind. I'm more interested in judging her fairly, opposed toĀ sympathetically.

crimson flower is still the best ending tho

Ā 

Edelgard is allowed to be wrong and she is allowed to have flaws. I don't see that as a hindrance for sympathy, rather the opposite. It is hard to have sympathy for a perfect being that never make mistakes, but just because personality flaws is what makes someone seem human as we can see parts of our own flaws in the flaws of a character. There is a reason why the Mary Sue is one of the most hated types of characters as they lack what the audience need to relate to them.

But I would personally say that Edelgard's biggest flaw is stubborness rather than arrogance, she might be slightly arrogant, but it isn't so bad as her being a straight up narcissist. The actual problem. Most of the time is that once she's set her mind to something there is no changing it, it is very hard to change her mind and she pretty much never gives up, regardless of how bad things look. Claude shouldn't take it personally that she considers him unfit to rule Fodlan, Edelgard, pretty much doesn't trust anyone else to rule Fodlan at all, as she thinks she is the only one who knows what must be done. There is an argument to be made here, though, how could someone born outside of Fodlan understand its problems, as well as a native? But they wouldn't let that Edelgard doesn't have the same issue with him ruling Almyra as that is a nation he would know better than her.

What is the exact definition of self-righteousness? If it is the belief, there is absolutely no way that you are in the wrong and that you are in the right, then I might agree. But does this really preclude you from actually being right? I think it only denotes inflexibility in thought, in that they are just too sure of themselves. Still, Edelgard has shown that she has doubts sometimes, but she still feels like she can't back down, this comes back to her stubborn nature again.

She does have plenty of positive traits as well, some even tied into her flaws, on the other end of her stubborness. She is very confident and brave. She has also shown to have an incredibly strong sense of empathy, which is why she can't back down from fixing the injustices of the world. She is also very unselfish and self-sacrificing, if she was selfish, she wouldn't have bothered with trying to change the world in the first place. But these positive traits can also be a drawback in the wrong situation.

I do find her death in verdant wind to be mostly unnecessary and due to her own stubborn nature rather than anything else.

Also, do you mean what you say that you think Crimson Flower is the best ending? I also think that the ending of verdant wind is pretty good. But I can't help but think that Edelgard's death was unnecessary and that the world would benefit for having Edelgard and Claude in it.Ā 

15 minutes ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

I also remember Claude's dialogue in CF, that he wanted to become the ruler of Fodlan. Undoubtedly he did not want to make the first move, he wanted to wait for conflicts to break out and take advantage of the situation. In some cases he would use diplomacy, in others war is inevitable. Regardless of the route, the war that begins Edelgard is the trigger for things to improve in Fodlan in the future.

Claude's method is the best? I don't know, I also think like you that inaction can only perpetuate and worsen bad situations

I think my number one question would be, what method? Neither Claude or Dimitri ever specified a method for dealing with Fodlan's problems. They just call Edelgard's method wrong without ever providing a practical alternative. What was Claude going to do? Talk Rhea out of not showing respect for the cultural differences between Fodlan and Almyra because they don't worship the goddess? The only reason Rhea ever listen to reason at all is because of something Edelgard did, her time in captivity changed her.Ā Ā The old Rhea kills anyone who questions the church

How could Claude's method be better when I don't know his method? I kind of wish the game elaborated on his intentions a bit further, we know his goals, but not what he intended to do about it.Ā 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Edelgard is allowed to be wrong and she is allowed to have flaws. I don't see that as a hindrance for sympathy, rather the opposite. It is hard to have sympathy for a perfect being that never make mistakes, but just because personality flaws is what makes someone seem human as we can see parts of our own flaws in the flaws of a character. There is a reason why the Mary Sue is one of the most hated types of characters as they lack what the audience need to relate to them.

I didn't say it was hindrance. But sympathy can be blinding in it's own way.

28 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

But I would personally say that Edelgard's biggest flaw is stubborness rather than arrogance, she might be slightly arrogant, but it isn't so bad as her being a straight up narcissist. The actual problem. Most of the time is that once she's set her mind to something there is no changing it, it is very hard to change her mind and she pretty much never gives up, regardless of how bad things look. Claude shouldn't take it personally that she considers him unfit to rule Fodlan, Edelgard, pretty much doesn't trust anyone else to rule Fodlan at all, as she thinks she is the only one who knows what must be done. There is an argument to be made here, though, how could someone born outside of Fodlan understand its problems, as well as a native? But they wouldn't let that Edelgard doesn't have the same issue with him ruling Almyra as that is a nation he would know better than her.

I don't think her arrogance is a slight, minor problem. I do think she views it that way, though. It ultimately leads to her death and could have potentially did even more harm if it wasn't for Hubert.

The stubbornness doesn't help, but I don't think it's the greater flaw. "She never gives up!" is almost commendable, right?

When does Claude take it personally lol? It's not like he gets incrediblyĀ offended when she tells him off - he acknowledges that there's much he still needs to learn - but there's nothing he can do at that point other than kill her and be done with it.

There really isn't much of an argument to be made about Claude being unable to comprehend a history lesson; it is sheer arrogance on her part. He learns more than she does in the next two chapters, and there's really nothing suggesting he can't simply learn from her, but we can't be having cooperation happening now can we.

28 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

What is the exact definition of self-righteousness? If it is the belief, there is absolutely no way that you are in the wrong and that you are in the right, then I might agree. But does this really preclude you from actually being right? I think it only denotes inflexibility in thought, in that they are just too sure of themselves. Still, Edelgard has shown that she has doubts sometimes, but she still feels like she can't back down, this comes back to her stubborn nature again.

The dictionary defines it as "confident of one's own righteousness, especially when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others." Imo self-righteous people can have doubts sometimes, but they believe their viewpoint is not only correct but the only correct way, and are outright dismissive of evidence going contrary to that. She is dismissive of Claude's ability to lead Fodlan because he was not born and raised there, and doesn't know the 'true' history of Fodlan like she does. There areĀ no such presumptions on his end.

28 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

She does have plenty of positive traits as well, some even tied into her flaws, on the other end of her stubborness.Ā 

Yeah but I'm not talking about them.

28 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Also, do you mean what you say that you think Crimson Flower is the best ending? I also think that the ending of verdant wind is pretty good. But I can't help but think that Edelgard's death was unnecessary and that the world would benefit for having Edelgard and Claude in it.Ā 

I explained itĀ in another thread. I crossed it out because this really isn't the place for that discussion, but I like being cheeky.

God Emperor Byleth prevents VW from being the best, imo. We also have no idea what Crest-related reforms are implemented in that ending, or in any other ending, for that matter.

As for what Claude intended to do to move his plans forward without Edelgard attacking or Byleth being there, it is pretty clear even throughout VW that he anticipates having to go up against Rhea/the Church and that isn't likely to go peacefully. He doesn't get the chance to really develop whatever plot he was concocting before Edelgard strikes, and it's unrealistic to expect a literal newcomer to hatch and enact a world-upending scheme in a couple of years no matter how talented he may be. He isn't even the leader of the Alliance yet at that point lol. Whatever he intended to do was gonna happen much later, and the political landscape may have been different.

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see how her death by stubbornness or arrogance can generate more damage, or is leaving Fodlan to it fate. The one who defeats her and kills her (at her request) is Byleth (both SS and VW). It is not that she thinks that she is leaving fate in the hands of him or Claude, but being the victors it is obvious that they are capable of facing the threat of Thales.

Her death at VW may be bad writing, because I don't see any point in it. In SS and AM if it makes sense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Crysta said:

I didn't say it was hindrance. But sympathy can be blinding in it's own way.

I don't think her arrogance is a slight, minor problem. I do think she views it that way, though. It ultimately leads to her death and could have potentially did even more harm if it wasn't for Hubert.

The stubbornness doesn't help, but I don't think it's the greater flaw. "She never gives up!" is almost commendable, right?

When does Claude take it personally lol? It's not like he gets incrediblyĀ offended when she tells him off - he acknowledges that there's much he still needs to learn - but there's nothing he can do at that point other than kill her and be done with it.

There really isn't much of an argument to be made about Claude being unable to comprehend a history lesson; it is sheer arrogance on her part. He learns more than she does in the next two chapters, and there's really nothing suggesting he can't simply learn from her, but we can't be having cooperation happening now can we.

The dictionary defines it as "confident of one's own righteousness, especially when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others." Imo self-righteous people can have doubts sometimes, but they believe their viewpoint is not only correct but the only correct way, and are outright dismissive of evidence going contrary to that. She is dismissive of Claude's ability to lead Fodlan because he was not born and raised there, and doesn't know the 'true' history of Fodlan like she does. There areĀ no such presumptions on his end.

Yeah but I'm not talking about them.

I explained itĀ in another thread. I crossed it out because this really isn't the place for that discussion, but I like being cheeky.

God Emperor Byleth prevents VW from being the best, imo. We also have no idea what Crest-related reforms are implemented in that ending, or in any other ending, for that matter.

As for what Claude intended to do to move his plans forward without Edelgard attacking or Byleth being there, it is pretty clear even throughout VW that he anticipates having to go up against Rhea/the Church and that isn't likely to go peacefully. He doesn't get the chance to really develop whatever plot he was concocting before Edelgard strikes, and it's unrealistic to expect a literal newcomer to hatch and enact a world-upending scheme in a couple of years no matter how talented he may be. He isn't even the leader of the Alliance yet at that point lol. Whatever he intended to do was gonna happen much later, and the political landscape may have been different.

She never gives up is commendable until it is put in a context where you extend a war way beyond the point you actually had a chance to win, simply because you are unable to accept defeat. By all logic, she should surrender once the Imperial Palace is surrounded. But Edelgard is the type who insists the go down fighting.

I should also probably address the whole thing with Hubert having a contingency plan, while Edelgard probably didn't plan for a losing I do believe that Hubert did whatĀ his mistress would probably want even if she wasn't aware of it. If Edelgard were to lose I believe she definitely would want the Agarthans out of the picture.Ā Hubert made sure that Edelgard's will would be done even beyond the grave

One thing I found rather interesting, with Edelgard is that she is apparently willing to clear out the rubble from the ruins of the monastery, even after becoming emperor. If Byleth tells her to. The Emperor doing work like that cannot be considered anything other than humble. If she is arrogant. It is in the "I have no doubt that my ideals are right" sort of way, rather than a "interacting with commoners is beneath my station and I shouldn't sully my hands with menial labour " type of arrogance.

I actually have a lot in common with Edelgard, which might be why I relate to her so strongly. I am also fairly secure in my beliefs and there are some things I am so sure of I don't even consider the possibility that I might be wrong. I also don't have much faith in people in general, but on the other hand, this world has given me very little reason to trust the judgement of others. I can relate to Edelgard in this regard, to be honest, if I were to give up on my belifs in certain things I would no longer be myself, so I think it is likely that Edelgard ties her ideology so much into her identity that her unshakeable confidence in her ideals is tied to her self-confidence in the general.Ā 

I actually do believe that Claude and Edelgard should have worked together, especially if Claude intended to go to war with the church later anyway. So I believe Edelgard is actually wrong in this case, she could probably teach Claude a few things as you suggest. They could even make an arrangement to rule Fodlan together. But Claude doesn't even stay in Fodlan, so their conflict is even more unnecessary. They have literally no reason to be fighting other than Edelgard being stubborn (and possible pressure from the Agarthans, it would be so much easier to achieve a compromise if they didn't exist). Still, if Claude planned to attack the church anyway, what is his problem with Edelgard's methods? It is just that he wasn't ready to move to this stage of his plan yet and he was annoyed with Edelgard for screwing up his carefully laid plans? If this is true Claude and Edelgard or even more similar than I originally thought, other than Claude being a better tactician.Ā 

13 minutes ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

I do not see how her death by stubbornness or arrogance can generate more damage, or is leaving Fodlan to it fate. The one who defeats her and kills her (at her request) is Byleth (both SS and VW). It is not that she thinks that she is leaving fate in the hands of him or Claude, but being the victors it is obvious that they are capable of facing the threat of Thales.

Her death at VW may be bad writing, because I don't see any point in it. In SS and AM if it makes sense

The only reason Edelgard actually dies in verdant wind is literally because she insists on it. Which is why I call Ā her stubborn, she is literally dead set on dying for her cause. She doesn't actually have that much of a reason to be fighting Claude. It is pretty much irrelevant which of the two wins because their ideals are so similar. I sometimes wish that there was an option to spare Edelgard like there is this Claude in Crimson Flower. I don't actually think Edelgard has die as often as she does in the story. Just imagine if she actually played a role in fighting Thales in verdant wind. I don't actually believe that she has to die because of her crimes or something stupid like that.Ā 

I also kind of love how respectful Edelgard and Claude are to each other. If you spare him in Crimson flower. Claude even wishes Edelgard good luck. It just seems that things will work out better if Edelgard is winning, most of her flaws also only really comes into play when she is losing.Ā 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure she'd like them dead, but that doesn't amount to much when it doesn't result in action.Ā She doesn't take additional measures to ensure they are defeated if she loses, because she doesn't think she'd lose. If Hubert hadn't prepared for that possibility, Byleth and Claude would be flying in a post-war Fodlan blind with an enemy in the shadows, and they will persist for much longer and do more damage. Her inability to surrender and help, or die but warn them, would have endangered Fodlan further if it wasn't for Hubert.

All three lords have notable character vicesĀ that make them less than ideal leaders. Edelgard's is pride. I don't think her death is actually out of character, tbh. She's not acting rationally because she's not a rational person 100% of the time like a normal person, and this flaw was established very early in the game.

Ā 

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Crysta said:

I'm sure she'd like them dead, but that doesn't amount to much when it doesn't result in action.Ā She doesn't take additional measures to ensure they are defeated if she loses, because she doesn't think she'd lose. If Hubert hadn't prepared for that possibility, Byleth and Claude would be flying in a post-war Fodlan blind with an enemy in the shadows, and they will persist for much longer and do more damage. Her inability to surrender and help, or die but warn them, would have endangered Fodlan further if it wasn't for Hubert.

All three lords have notable character vicesĀ that make them less than ideal leaders. Edelgard's is pride. I don't think her death is actually out of character, tbh. She's not acting rationally because she's not a rational person 100% of the time like a normal person, and this flaw was established very early in the game.

Ā 

It is just more evidence of how amazing Hubert is.Ā 

And it wouldn't be necessarily out of character for her, what I was arguing is that it is a mistake

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Edelgard dying in every route except for her own pretty fitting for her character for her stubborn and self righteous behavior talked about above, but I do think that's what makes her character and the other lords for that matter so compelling. And I think what's interesting about the story is that all three lords are equally sympathetic and understandable in their goals to where the lords can all be interesting and relatable to people with different fundamental values. Even though people can make differnt arguments for which of the three houses has the best goals and endings I don't think that anyone can argue that Those Who Slither in the Dark have anything redeemable or good about them lol.

1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

It is just more evidence of how amazing Hubert is.Ā 

And it wouldn't be necessarily out of character for her, what I was arguing is that it is a mistake

I agree Hubert is a really fun character because even though he's really slimy I think that he certainly has redeeming qualities that can make him somewhat sympathetic. His voice is also ridiculously brooding and I can't help but be entertained by it consistently. There's almost a sort of contrast between his depraved side and his more dorky side, that you'll see a lot when he's legitimately simping for edlegard. I think it would be interesting to compare and contrast him and dedue because they perform similar roles for their lords, just having some key differences in the characteristics that make them distinct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ordinaryunits said:

I think that Edelgard dying in every route except for her own pretty fitting for her character for her stubborn and self righteous behavior talked about above, but I do think that's what makes her character and the other lords for that matter so compelling. And I think what's interesting about the story is that all three lords are equally sympathetic and understandable in their goals to where the lords can all be interesting and relatable to people with different fundamental values. Even though people can make differnt arguments for which of the three houses has the best goals and endings I don't think that anyone can argue that Those Who Slither in the Dark have anything redeemable or good about them lol.

I agree Hubert is a really fun character because even though he's really slimy I think that he certainly has redeeming qualities that can make him somewhat sympathetic. His voice is also ridiculously brooding and I can't help but be entertained by it consistently. There's almost a sort of contrast between his depraved side and his more dorky side, that you'll see a lot when he's legitimately simping for edlegard. I think it would be interesting to compare and contrast him and dedue because they perform similar roles for their lords, just having some key differences in the characteristics that make them distinct.

Honestly, most of Edelgard's deaths actually made me like her even more, as she always dies willingly. It is just another thing that shows her noble and self-sacrificing nature. Dimitri usually dies recklessly pursuing vengeance or by refusing to let go of his hatred. They are both tragic and their own right, especially as Dimitri dies, never knowing the true culprit behind the death of his father.

The only thing good I can say about the Agarthans is that they might have been wronged by the Nabateans first, not that this really excuses anything they have done since. I also feel sorry for certain members as it is obvious the leadership cares nothing for even their own people, and that most are probably just brainwashed by cult leaders like Thales to hate the surface dwellers. They can still not help but to have certain sympathy for Kronya when I see the horror in her eyes as she is betrayed by Solon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how Edelgard refusing to give up her own fruitless quest and dying is more self-sacrificing and noble than Dimitri refusing to give up his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Crysta said:

Not sure how Edelgard refusing to give up her own fruitless quest and dying is more self-sacrificing and noble than Dimitri refusing to give up his own.

Depends on which Dimitri we are talking about. At the end of Azure Moon, he might have more or less the same level of nobility. But with other versions of Dimitri, his cause is vengeance and is the cause. I think vengeance is entirely worthless. Nothing will ever be accomplished by adding more people to the pile of dead bodies. Edelgard cause is far more worthwhile as it is actually about helping other people rather than a personal desire for vengeance.

But if you mean the part where Dimitri rushes out trying to kill Edelgard in verdant wind and dying as a consequence, perhaps has one thing in common, it is kind of pointless, even if both these people wouldn't see that way. At the end of the day. Edelgard's goals only have value if she succeeds, as otherwise these sacrifices are for nothing. Dimitri's goals of revenge are worthless whenever he fails or succeeds.Ā He isn't even targeting the people actually guilty for the tragedy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the death themselves are what I'm referring to, since you stated that they made you like Edelgard more and I was kind of ??? You could make the argument that Dimitri is similarly suicidal in his murder hobo endings, and he's operating on behalf of other people too (though they're ultimately justĀ voices in his head - he doesn't really perceive it that way), and there isn't an Edelgard death that isn't essentially worthless.

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Yes, the death themselves are what I'm referring to, since you stated that they made you like Edelgard more and I was kind of ??? You could make the argument that Dimitri is similarly suicidal in his murder hobo endings, and he's operating on behalf of other people too (though they're ultimately justĀ voices in his head - he doesn't really perceive it that way), and there isn't an Edelgard death that isn't essentially worthless.

I definitely feel sorry for him, is linked to the voices in his head. But what the voices are telling him to do is no better than the voices in a serial killer's head, telling them to kill. The malicious brutality of the voices of these ghosts makes me feel this goal isn't admirable in the slightest. Quite the opposite, vengeance is one of the most destructive principles in the world, and it creates an infinite cycle, something that Dimitri eventually realised when Fleche tried to kill him. He should have never listened to the voices, they don't want what is best for him or anyone really.

I kind of wish Edelgard didn't feel the need to die like this, she could have survived if she wanted to. But her intention is to die to save lives, rather than to add more corpses to the pile. A major reason I like Edelgard more than Dimitri is that she never killed out of some misguided idea that people deserve to die, authorities always been about the necessity. She has never by any point convinced herself that most of the soldiers that died against her deserve death. In my mind her goals, an attitude are infinitely better.Ā 

But that she never want to live on is a sign that she might be suffering from a major depression and the course was just a distraction that kept her from having to deal with her mental trauma. She is a beautiful flower that deserve to blossom and live, not wilt away and die. I guess the same applies to Dimitri, wish he wouldn't lose himself to absolute darkness, because that is what vengeance is. It is an evil that is easy to mistake for good, and therefore it is among the most dangerous, and it brings suffering on an unparalleled level. But on some level Dimitri seem to recognise that this side of him is monstrous and therefore it does refer to himself as a monster.

What I see in Edelgard isn't darkness, it is light, she is a white rose covered in blood, the blood might obscure her true purity, but it is still there. Necessity stains you, but is not all-consuming like vengeance, it doesn't reach your inner nature, nor does it tell you that anyone deserve anything.Ā 

These two were similar in many ways, but their goals are not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't imagine it's terrifically easy for someone strugglingĀ withĀ trauma to acknowledge that their brain is actively plotting against them. Warped reality is still going to be perceived as reality to them, and it makes itĀ just as understandable as "well she has trust issues so she can't bring herself to do that clearly reasonable thing".

She doesn't really die to stop the war, and she knows it will continue afterward. The Slitherers are still very there, and if it wasn't for Hubert - the one willing to be the gracious loser - theyĀ would definitely have the upper hand over Byleth/Claude. She dies because she promised not to give up, not out of noble sacrifice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Crysta said:

I don't imagine it's terrifically easy for someone strugglingĀ withĀ trauma to acknowledge that their brain is actively plotting against them. Warped reality is still going to be perceived as reality to them, and it makes itĀ just as understandable as "well she has trust issues so she can't bring herself to do that clearly reasonable thing".

She doesn't really die to stop the war, and she knows it will continue afterward. The Slitherers are still very there, and if it wasn't for Hubert - the one willing to be the gracious loser - theyĀ would definitely have the upper hand over Byleth/Claude. She dies because she promised not to give up, not out of noble sacrifice.

I think they are both definitely sympathetic. But keeping a promise not to give up is in a way noble, stubborn, yes, but noble. She thinks she owes it to her dead siblings. I guess in that sense. She is very similar to Dimitri. Both are doing what they are doing, not really for themselves, but because they think that their perished relatives would want something like this. Some kind of notion that don't have a right to live for themselves anymore and must do something that would please the dead.Ā 

I swear, the more I examine things. The two of them seems more similar than different, and neither ever really so it. Both Edelgard and Dimitri are motivated by something tragic that happened to them in the past, something they have trouble letting go of. As well as a compulsion to fulfil a promise they feel they made to those who died. With Edelgard, I think that promise expanded with time to all who died for our during the war. She feels it is dishonouring their memory to back down.Ā 

Like I said, very much like Dimitri, minus the vengeance.Ā 

I guess one factor is that Dimitri's target is Edelgard, someone I really care about, I went with Black Eagles first and ran Crimson Flower, I was already more than attached to Edelgard on experiencing Dimitri's story. Maybe it would be different if he was my first Lord. But I knew from the beginning that Edelgard wasn't worthy of his hatred, given the circumstance. It is amazing that I feel anything for him at all.Ā 

At the end of the day boar Dimitri is the representation of the conceptĀ I hate the most in the world, the idea that evildoers must suffer for justice to occur. It is sadistic and self-righteous. However sorry I feel for Dimitri, it is muddled by the fact that I will never ever approve of these type of actions, even a little bit. I am glad he recovered from this darkness. The truth is that if I personally witnessed what he planned to do with Randolph. I would have killed him on the spot. Not out of hatred, but because I would be worried about what he would do in the future. If I didn't know the future already I would be worried, he would do the same to Edelgard. Killing is one thing, but torture? I could never allow that.Ā 

Edit:Ā 

One of my principles is to never suspend with empathy for anyone regardless of what they might have done, but the one thing that really challenge this principle is people saying someone does serve to have something bad happen to run. However much I would hate a rapist . I would hate them even more if the said the victim deserved to be raped.Ā 

Heck, I am even capable of feeling empathy for Kronya.Ā Not sure why, I just don't hate her any more than I hate Dimitri. But it is a case where I could justify killing her in revenge, in the end it is basically war and killing your enemy in war is fine. The put it like this, she might killed Jeralt, we care because he was the father of the protagonist. But every person Dimitri killed is the relative of someone as well, someone is bound to have the same personal reaction to their death. Does being personally affected make it any worse? I guess this also applies to any person who dies in the war, which could be attributed to Edelgard. At least Edelgard feels bad about killing people, Boar Dimitri and Kronya doesn't (however redeemed Dimitri does feel guilt, which is part of why he is a better person).Ā 

Edited by Darkmoon6789
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is just that Edelgard isn't a pure white rose covered in blood who is only motivated by virtue and unselfish goals, and that everything morally grayĀ she does is out of necessity.Ā Like, not even close. She has her own flaws and hang-ups and they shouldn't be overlooked if you really want to fairly analyze and respect her as a character.Ā Dimitri's issues are a lot more extreme and I have significantly more issues with him as a ruler and protagonist, so I'm not going to allege they're the same, either. They're similar in the ways most people in general are similar.

I'm more or less trying to break the pedestal you put her on lol.

Ā 

Ā 

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Crysta said:

My point is just that Edelgard isn't a pure white rose covered in blood who is only motivated by virtue and unselfish goals.Ā Like, not even close. She has her own flaws and hang-ups and they shouldn't be overlooked if you really want to fairly analyze and respect her as a character.Ā Dimitri's issues are a lot more extreme and I have significantly more issues with him as a ruler and protagonist, so I'm not going to allege they're the same, either. They're similar in the ways most people in general are similar.

I'm more or less trying to break the pedestal you put her on lol.

Ā 

Ā 

The covered in blood part is kind of important. Edelgard isn't perfect, but no one really is. Never denied the floors and hangups, but they are never a hindrance for my love of her.Ā 

The thing is, when you love someone, complete objectivity is impossible. I am not even completely certain why I love Edelgard so much, I guess she is just very likeable and sympathetic. The thing is that because I understand why she is doing what she's doing. I never blamed her for it. I don't even believe in judgement to begin with, so it is pretty difficult for me. My personal philosophy is also all about doing what is necessary. Something that aligns very closely to her views.Ā 

I don't think Edelgard's flaws makes her a bad person, I think it just makes her human. And humanity makes someone relatable, beyond all else, what Edelgard is, is human. She is the stubborn spirit of the young revolutionary who would do whatever it takes to make the world the better place, whenever it works or not there is something about that. That is truly inspiring to me.Ā 

I kind of think that people today are too keen on doing nothing in face of the world's problems, we have been convinced that being a pacifist and avoiding conflict at all cost is always the right position. I have started to question that, how could we ever hope to make a difference if we don't actually take action? Even if things don't go entirely right. At least we can say we tried. It doesn't always involve killing people or starting wars, but the type of idealistic dedication that Edelgard stands for is the type that actually brings forth change.Ā 

My biggest problem with the other Lords is that neither could accept the truth that sometimes in order to change things for the better, that change sometimes can't be entirely clean. Peaceful reforms doesn't always work. Dimitri and Claude are more focused on keeping their hands clean rather than actually doing what they need to do to realistically actually accomplished their dream. One of my principles is that regardless of how hard something is to accept, the truth is the truth regardless if it is pretty or not, and the truth sometimes isn't pretty. By focusing on accomplishing positive change instead of their own moral purity, Edelgard's bloodstained hands are purer than any of them, for she alone was willing to sacrifice her own image and risk being perceived as a villain to do what she thought was right.

I know this might seem contradictory, but is that I really feel. Here's another one of those truths at our hard to accept , but that I think is actually the truth. Being a flawed human being is purer, more honest and more beautiful than being perfect. Being flawed is required for empathy, a perfect being cannever feel empathy towards others as they cannot understand what it is like to have flaws. The lack of true empathy makes perfection monstrous and flawed but well-meaning beings beautiful. We can never feel for Ā perfect being, and they can never feel for us.Ā 

Edelgard could never be as lovely as he is if she wasn't flawed, the fact that she makes mistakes is part of her beauty

Sorry about my rambling. I don't know how much sense it truly makes to try to put love into words.Ā 

Dimitri is also a truly beautiful character in the way that he has darkness, but overcomes it. He would not be a compelling character if he started out perfect, always acted perfectly and ended up being perfect. Same with Edelgard, in her case the obstacle she overcomes is her lack of trust. The other routes showing the tragedy of what would happen to her if she doesn't overcome this flaw. But without the journey, she wouldn't be human

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dimitri and Claude aren't fixated on "keeping their hands clean" - ergo their reputation - they simply don't believe as strongly as she does that she has to wage war to achieve the same ends. They didn't go through the same stuff she did, so this is pretty understandable and you can't really fault them for thinking that way. She has had to endure a long journey for her views to calcify the way they have.

And speak for yourself, yo. I obviously don't possess the same emotional investment you do in a fictional character,Ā I can at least try to be objective about the stuff I love lol.

It just feels like every flaw poked at is instead turned into how it's not really her fault, there's some sympathetic reason that makes it justified, or it's actually a good thing...Ā and I'm inevitably like 'uh, no'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Dimitri and Claude aren't fixated on "keeping their hands clean" - ergo their reputation - they simply don't believe as strongly as she does that she has to wage war to achieve the same ends. They didn't go through the same stuff she did, so this is pretty understandable and you can't really fault them for thinking that way. She has had to endure a long journey for her views to calcify the way they have.

And speak for yourself, yo. I obviously don't possess the same emotional investment you do in a fictional character,Ā I can at least try to be objective about the stuff I love lol.

It just feels like every flaw poked at is instead turned into how it's not really her fault, there's some sympathetic reason that makes it justified, or it's actually a good thing...Ā and I'm inevitably like 'uh, no'.

Aren't we all technically products of our environment? Using the Kronya example again, is it really her fault she was raised in the most awful society in all of Fodlan and brainwashed from birth to hate surface dwellers? She is who she logically should be given how she was raised and what is happened to her up to this point. The same logic applies to 'Dimitri, Claude, Edelgard and everyone else. Free will is an illusion, I don't truly believe the that we have any real choice but to be who we are. Therefore, throwing around blame is pointless. It doesn't matter if something is her fault or not. Kronya needed to be killed, not because she deserves to die, but because she needed to die, she was an enemy and whenever who she is is her fault or not. It doesn't matter. Only what is necessary matters. The same logic applies to Edelgard, Dimitri, Rhea. It is not about if some flaw of theirs make it so they are not worthy of life, by justify killing any of them. It is because in the situation it becomes a necessity to create a better world and minimise risks in the future. The only one of those three I am uncertain needed to die in the route they do die is Edelgard. It is less that she needs to die and more that she insisted on it. But once she attacks Dimitri it does fall into the realm of necessity.

I think one reason I am so defensive Edelgard is partwise out of habit, because I am so used to people demonising Edelgard every opportunity, so I instinctively try to weigh it out by sending her in as positive a light as possible. I do legitimately believe she is often unfairly maligned. And the fact that her friends are often called fascists is straight up untrue and unfair. If anything shatters the idea that Edelgard is some kind of tyrant. It is a quote that the most recent version of Edelgard made in heroes:

"I will create a world where all people are free, regardless of their bloodline"

That is fairly unambiguous, Edelgard's goal is freedom for all people. Doesn't actually mean what she is doing will actually work, but that is her intent. This is from a official source no less. But it doesn't seem to matter how obvious she makes her intent, people will call her fascist regardless and I don't think this is fair to her. I get the impression that some people are so desperate to paint her as a villain that they will ignore the obvious fact. Sorry if that kind of thing can make me a bit defensive when it comes to her.Ā 

I also frequently get the feeling that a lot of people use someones flaws as an excuse to not feel any sympathy for someone and argue that they deserve nothing but suffering. Edelgard makes mistakes and she is flawed, but I think this tendencyof humanity toĀ believe hat just because someone is flawed. That makes them undeserving of happiness. Despite her flaws. I think that Edelgard is worthy of sympathy because she often times do have understandable, sympathetic, and evenĀ noble reasons for her actions.Ā 

I don't care one bit for the philosophy that says that justice demands an eye for an eye, I don't care if someone says that her victims require justice and that justice can only be achieved by the suffering of the people that wronged them. I don't care what these supposed voices of the dead, say, no one actually benefits from adding additional cruelty to the world. It is probably a primary reason why the justice philosophies of both boar Dimitri and Rhea is something I find revolting. Rhea really showed how cruel and sadistic she really is in the scene after the Flame Emperor reveal if his side with her. She has absolutely zero compassion or understanding for Edelgard, she doesn't even attempt to understand why she would do something like that, the instant she goes against the church. She is worthy of torture, death and eternal torment in the afterlife. I don't think it is possible to react any worse than that. It makes me flat out and doubtĀ the claim that Cyril makes that Rhea is compassionate. Ā (Still the game manages to make me feel sorry for Rhea, because it is really good at doing that.)

When it comes down to it, Edelgard doesn't need to be perfect, she just needs to be less crappy than everyone she's up against (I don't think Claude counts as a true adversary as there simply isn't any hard feelings between them as there is with Dimitri and Rhea). All I will say that I haveĀ never seen Edelgard perform any action motivated by malicious intent, if she does something it is never with the goal to hurt someone. If people die that is a means to an end, never an end to itself. And Edelgard's ends is always the same thing. She pretty much never succumbs to the idea that vengeance is righteous. Most of her flaws is more connected to a lack of judgement, being straight up mistaken if something is necessary or not, or doing something recklessly stupid because she is stubborn.Ā 

I guess what I am trying to say is that all evidence points to Edelgard being pretty impeccable when it comes to her motivations. It is when it comes to methods that the flaws start showing. But even then I don't think the war itself was necessarily one of them. But she did make a bunch of tactical errors along the way that made things worse than they had to be, most of them coming from her lack of trust.

(Even Hegemon is ultimately motivated by winning the war, and winning the war is something she wants to do because she wants to bring freedom to Fodlan. Making even her worst act ultimately having a good motivation. But it doesn't prevent this act from being brainless, stupid and reckless and I don't think she truly considered the implications of doing this. She can't have because if she did she would realise that this doesn't accomplish her goal, even if she does win, and she would never do it. Why would she do something knowing that it wouldn't lead towards her goal? I don't buy spite towards Dimitri as the motivation for this or the dagger. She was pretty none-spiteful, just some scenes prior and she has never become spiteful like any point in the game, so why would she start now?)

So I guess I can summarise with that. I am overly defensive of Edelgard because I am not used to her detractors being anywhereĀ close to fair. But things have improved since I came to this site. Most people here have a more nuanced opinion. It is just that old habits die hard. Just know that I really enjoy these discussions and that is why I keep having them, I just take any excuse to talk about her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Aren't we all technically products of our environment? Using the Kronya example again, is it really her fault she was raised in the most awful society in all of Fodlan and brainwashed from birth to hate surface dwellers? She is who she logically should be given how she was raised and what is happened to her up to this point. The same logic applies to 'Dimitri, Claude, Edelgard and everyone else. Free will is an illusion, I don't truly believe the that we have any real choice but to be who we are. Therefore, throwing around blame is pointless. It doesn't matter if something is her fault or not. Kronya needed to be killed, not because she deserves to die, but because she needed to die, she was an enemy and whenever who she is is her fault or not. It doesn't matter. Only what is necessary matters. The same logic applies to Edelgard, Dimitri, Rhea. It is not about if some flaw of theirs make it so they are not worthy of life, by justify killing any of them. It is because in the situation it becomes a necessity to create a better world and minimise risks in the future. The only one of those three I am uncertain needed to die in the route they do die is Edelgard. It is less that she needs to die and more that she insisted on it. But once she attacks Dimitri it does fall into the realm of necessity.

Your environment isn't really a valid reason to eschew responsibility for your actions. Kronya doesn't get a pass for harming people because she grew up in a harsh environment. Refusing to blame, or thinking two parties are equally to blame, kind of works against any attempt to think critically about something. And I find it's normally what people say when they don't really want to accept that there is, you know, usually meaningful degrees.

Edelgard isn't forced to do anything, and the actions she does commit to are not always smart or noble. And it's perfectly fine for someone to not like her for them.

tl;dr this isn't really logical. Very few comparisons in general are equally bad, good, or meaningful. You don't need to try to be objective, I guess, but I can't say I find this argument and the generalization it comes with compelling at all.

41 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I think one reason I am so defensive Edelgard is partwise out of habit, because I am so used to people demonising Edelgard every opportunity, so I instinctively try to weigh it out by sending her in as positive a light as possible. I do legitimately believe she is often unfairly maligned. And the fact that her friends are often called fascists is straight up untrue and unfair.

This is kind on the opposite end of the spectrum, though? It's exaggerating her good traits to a needless degree and kind of miring whatever is actually being argued. It's less annoying because there's a lack of dumb Hitler references, but not every argument needs paragraphs and paragraphs about how good Edelgard is and how much you like her and what your relationship with her means and why you feel the way you do.

41 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

All I will say that I haveĀ never seen Edelgard perform any action motivated by malicious intent, if she does something it is never with the goal to hurt someone.

Uh, do you think the goons she hired to go after Dimitri and Claude just wanted to be friends? We can argue about what her true motivations for using Kostas were, but they weren't wielding nerf bats. Multiple assassinations are carried out when she ascends her throne. She's perfectly willing to hurt people to achieve her goals, and not necessarily against people who have personally wronged her.

Her detractors aren't often interested in being fair, but it cuts both ways.

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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