The Characterization of the Three Lords

[Darkmoon6789]

42 minutes ago, Crysta said:

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.

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.

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.

The whole bandit incident is a really odd one, and if assassination was actually the intentions it is one of her most stupid plans in the entire game. I personally more believably theory that it was a scheme to scare away the old professor and to let Jeritza take his place. It is specifically mentioned that her old professor ran away when the bandits attacked, that it was originally a nearby town that was attacked and that Edelgard, Dimitri and Claude kind of wandered off on Claude's request and encountered the bandits in the woods. So I very much doubt that scenario was part of the original plan. Especially not Edelgard almost dying, if it was idle to know what she was thinking with putting out an assassination order on herself. It is actually quite funny how close she comes to killing herself in this situation. Not sure if this is bad writing or really subtle writing. 

And yes, you usually do take care of political dissidents with assassination as that might actually prevent open war and save lives in the long run. It is no sense killing a lot of people when killing one person will also do it. If the intention was actually to kill Claude and Dimitri. This might also be a move that would make the future war easier, and would save lives in the long run. There in mind that this is less of a defence of these actions and more of an explanation of why she probably did it. Also, I was under the impression that most of the nobles who opposed her were put in prison rather than killed, which happens to Duke Aegir. The people who were killed were probably attempting to start a rebellion or was killed to prevent them from doing that, probably by Hubert. The truth is that being in monarch is messy business, and sometimes you are required to commit a lesser evil to prevent a greater one. Yes, I am saying that assassination is totally an acceptable tactic for a monarch. I also very much doubt that she did any of these actions just for the pleasure of killing, it is more of a ends justifying the means thing. 

Edelgard is well aware of the cost of war, and that sometimes a lesser evil is necessary to prevent a greater one. But whatever damage she does she always have a greater goal in mind for doing so. She isn't someone who kills for sport. I cannot help think that most people have a very naive idea in mind when it comes to leaders with perfect morals who never do anything wrong. That is a straight up impossible in that position, especially during a war. The only thing she would accomplish by not doing what is necessary is getting herself killed. 

You should also bear in mind that while I am in this to defend Edelgard, everything I say are my true beliefs. But I also think that for me arguing against her is like the defence lawyer making the argument for the prosecution. Yet, I have admitted she isn't flawless and I have even listed what I think those flaws are. Is that not enough? 

Yes, Edelgard isn't perfect, what do you argue should be done about it? Should she be executed for her crimes in some vain attempt at vengeance? However, many people she has killed directly or indirectly, this is irrelevant to me regardless of who we are talking about. As long as they show this many redeeming qualities. Society has a bad habit of reducing people down to their crimes in order to use it as an excuse not to feel empathy. No victim is ever helped by encouraging their most bloodthirsty attitude. I hate me attitude of infinite culpability, the idea that every individual need to pay for every single thing they did wrong in their entire life. That logic just leads to every single person on earth being condemned. I think it is usually better to try looking at the situation and do what is necessary to prevent as much harm as possible on a grand scale. 

Whenever she wins or loses the war, Edelgard is a person and not a monster, and deserves to be treated as a human being. It would be hard to convince her to not die in the first place if she loses, but if that is going to be done. She needs to be treated well. I would usually argue for rehabilitation of criminals, but Edelgard is a difficult case because she technically doesn't need rehabilitation as there is nothing wrong with her, her sense of empathy is fully functioning and she is more than remorseful over the deaths she caused. If anything, she needs therapy to find a reason to live and to deal with her past trauma. Maybe she can actually find a way to deal with the crest system while working with say Dimitri or Claude. 

I don't care what many people on the continent would think of her getting off scotch free. I think the entire attitude about criminals "getting away with it" if they aren't treated cruelly enough needs just go. If a person can find redemption and get into a situation where will never harm anyone again in the future, I do actually think a former victim of theirs is wrong for demanding vengeance. 

Not that I actually expect anyone in Fodlan to have such a mature understanding of justice, it is simply impossible in a word like theirs. But ideally that is what I think should be done in a perfect world. I hope we can at least agree that Edelgard is ultimately good enough that she does ultimately deserve a happy life.

When it comes to Kronya . I don't necessarily say you should give her a pass (but I have already told you what I think of vengeance). But ultimately in war. I do think her actions are allowable as she technically just assassinated an enemy commander. We as happened to be personally affected by this as Jeralt is Byleth's father. It is understandable that they would take it hard. Even desire vengeance. But ultimately it may have a right to kill Kronya, not because vengeance is right, but because the law of war work both ways. The thing is, anyone you assassinated on any side is a family member of someone, this is as true for Dimitri/Byleth killing Randolph to Kronya killing Jeralt. Both is the exact same action. But morally speaking, while I think assassinating/killing an enemy in war is allowable, killing your own ally to fuel a spell definitely isn't. A willing sacrifice would be one thing, but Kronya isn't willing at all. And there is no excuse for crap like Remire village, the tragedy of Duscur (assassination, fine, encouraging genocide, definitely isn't). Neither is the crap they did to Edelgard and her family. 

Sorry for all the long posts. I very easily get into this type of debate. It isn't just Edelgard, I have very strong opinions on justice and rehabilitation in general, which is directly tied to the concept of guilt.  Which relates to Edelgard. I asked think trying to demonise her is a bad excuse to deny her humanity. Not saying that you are doing that, but I have seen it. I hope I have been able to make my philosophy clear. I am also not saying that Kronya was a good person, she enjoyed killing way too much for that.

[Silver-Haired Maiden]

8 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

At the end of the day boar Dimitri is the representation of the concept 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. 

Congrats, you've answered why some people simply can't like Edelgard.

The simple fact of the matter is that no matter how justifiable and "purely intentioned" you view Edelgard as, people are going to disagree and read her actions differently. She's not a purely good character and at this point it seems a lot like you're making excuses for her and trying to make her out to be a lot more lily white than she actually is.

What she did still matters. Arguably more than her hang ups. She doesn't like that she had to start a war but she did it anyway and will trample anything in her way to achieve her goals. Her not liking it does NOT change that she still did it. Also I disagree with her goals being noble in the first place, they come across instead as arrogant and selfish to me. If I knew Edelgard was planning a continent spanning war that was going to spit in the face of people's sovereignty and lead to thousands if not millions of deaths (of innocent men, women, and children, let's not fool ourselves about what war entails), and the loss of so many other people's livelihoods I would have killed her on the spot.

None of this means I don't like her as a character, but I could never support her. Also I would like to point out that at some point you need to take a step back and see if your strict defense of Edelgard might be having the opposite effect of what you want. It is with me.

[Blackstarskywalker]

7 hours ago, Crysta said:

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.

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.

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.

You may or may not like the method, but those are political murders, that have nothing to do with hatred or revenge (not even she kills Rhea, makes her prisoner). It is a quick way to move forward with her plans, and  agreed with her gray morality.

[omegaxis1]

The biggest irony I always found in 3H is that whether Edelgard wins or loses the war, Edelgard accomplishes what she wanted, which is for Fodlan to change and the people to open their eyes. 

It just marks the case that Edelgard is always the true victor in the end. 

People might demonize war and such, but war has been a reason people has experienced forms of growth. Every FE game has shown how people tend to mature more as a result of tragedy or suffering. Ike grew as he did cause Greil was killed by the Black Knight, forcing Ike to mature more. Marth forced himself to become stronger as a result of the tragedy he experienced, and throughout the war, he matured in learning that there's more to war than just an enemy. 

Hell, we have this rather silly contradictory behavior where we criticize wanton deaths and such, but we want stories with adventures or such to have some form of tragedy in them. We want people to die and suffer, because that is to help the main character develop. 

Anime have children be orphaned cause it makes the character force themselves to grow up or just be sad and pitiful.

War brings about tragedy, but it also becomes an opportunity to grow more. 

It reminds me of what Thórr says in FEH for the first Mjölnir's Strike.

Quote

An opponent is due proper respect. Wanton slaughter is not my aim. War is a forge that shapes the mortal spirit. I must observe how you meet this challenge. Mortals live and die by the sword. The need you have to test yourselves exceeds even that of the gods. I have no desire to destroy you, but I have been given a task that I shall execute with all diligence. I anticipate that you shall meet me with utmost force. Anything less, and you stand no chance. Gather your Heroes at the Shield, and we shall see which shatters first: your citadel, or my Mjölnir.

The belief that you never needed war for that is a bit of a fallacy. Fodlan's remained stagnant for 1200 years. Very FEW people ever wanted something to change. 

Hell, the game even shows how peaceful approaches ends in utter failure. 

1) Ionius IX wanted to push a power centralization policy, and corrupt nobles opposed him, eventually teaming with the Agarthans and overthrowing him, resulting in Edelgard's torture and the Agarthans gaining control of the Empire.

2) Lambert had SOME form of change happening that was considered "radical/revolutionary" and made many enemies among nobles, who believed his changes were wrong, and thus teamed up with the Agarthans to assassinate him, resulting in Dimitri's descent to madness. 

Few people believed in changing things up, but many don't in the form of the nobility, who feared losing power or these changes causing problems for their nation. 

So if the world simply won't change peacefully, then it will be forced to change through violence. 

Even if we buy into those that say that Edelgard's system will fail, humans will still pick up the pieces and learn from this. It will be recorded in history, and people will use that knowledge to form something better in the future.

Edelgard left a mark in history, just as Edelgard has left a mark onto players. 

I mean, geez, we have so much debates about her being right and wrong that whether you love or hate her, she left quite the damn strong impression on people.

[Darkmoon6789]

3 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Congrats, you've answered why some people simply can't like Edelgard.

The simple fact of the matter is that no matter how justifiable and "purely intentioned" you view Edelgard as, people are going to disagree and read her actions differently. She's not a purely good character and at this point it seems a lot like you're making excuses for her and trying to make her out to be a lot more lily white than she actually is.

What she did still matters. Arguably more than her hang ups. She doesn't like that she had to start a war but she did it anyway and will trample anything in her way to achieve her goals. Her not liking it does NOT change that she still did it. Also I disagree with her goals being noble in the first place, they come across instead as arrogant and selfish to me. If I knew Edelgard was planning a continent spanning war that was going to spit in the face of people's sovereignty and lead to thousands if not millions of deaths (of innocent men, women, and children, let's not fool ourselves about what war entails), and the loss of so many other people's livelihoods I would have killed her on the spot.

None of this means I don't like her as a character, but I could never support her. Also I would like to point out that at some point you need to take a step back and see if your strict defense of Edelgard might be having the opposite effect of what you want. It is with me.

You don't have to like her, in fact, I know already that it is usually pointless trying to change people's minds, as most people are already set in their beliefs and nothing you can say or do will change that. It is more important to me that I speak the truth as I see it, rather than go out of my way to change anyone's mind.

I could understand the argument that killing Edelgard would be pragmatic because you believe that doing so will save lives. Though I don't personally believe that this will in fact prevent the war. Because at the end of the day, this war is not Edelgard's alone. It is a continuation of a conflict that started a long time ago between the Agarthans and the Nabateans. Ancient grudges die hard you know. It also doesn't change the fact that the current system is responsible for quite a bit of suffering and I do not think that peaceful means of changing it will ever work. 

We might want to accept it as fact that our choices might literally be between stagnation and religious tyranny, and a continental war with a massive cost that leads to liberation. At the end of the day, the war does improve Fodlan whenever Edelgard wins or loses. I guess it is up to each individual to ask yourselves if it is worth it or not. But let's not kid ourselves and pretend there really was another way to create such massive sweeping changes in such a short period of time. The Flame Emperor isn't really a person as much as they are an idea. Any person wronged by the crest system could potentially become the next person who set out to do whatever is necessary to change things. Killing Edelgard will not do anything to change the fact that the crest system is really crappy and that people will take up arms against it in the future.

I think it is just that your own moral convictions don't allow you to accept that the sacrifice of thousands might be necessary to achieve a greater good. I would guess you can't think that as you think that doing so is condoning these sort of actions and you just can never do that. Which is a lot like Dimitri, he just sees the death and suffering in the now and thinks that nothing could ever be worth it. Fair enough, but I think that is ultimately denying an uncomfortable truth because you can't handle its implications. I just think that such a view lacks a long-term perspective. 

But at the very least, I prefer people to dislike Edelgard for things she has actually done other than for untrue nonsense. She is neither racist nor a fascist, but she did undeniably start a war. Think of that what you wish.

52 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

The biggest irony I always found in 3H is that whether Edelgard wins or loses the war, Edelgard accomplishes what she wanted, which is for Fodlan to change and the people to open their eyes. 

It just marks the case that Edelgard is always the true victor in the end. 

People might demonize war and such, but war has been a reason people has experienced forms of growth. Every FE game has shown how people tend to mature more as a result of tragedy or suffering. Ike grew as he did cause Greil was killed by the Black Knight, forcing Ike to mature more. Marth forced himself to become stronger as a result of the tragedy he experienced, and throughout the war, he matured in learning that there's more to war than just an enemy. 

Hell, we have this rather silly contradictory behavior where we criticize wanton deaths and such, but we want stories with adventures or such to have some form of tragedy in them. We want people to die and suffer, because that is to help the main character develop. 

Anime have children be orphaned cause it makes the character force themselves to grow up or just be sad and pitiful.

War brings about tragedy, but it also becomes an opportunity to grow more. 

It reminds me of what Thórr says in FEH for the first Mjölnir's Strike.

The belief that you never needed war for that is a bit of a fallacy. Fodlan's remained stagnant for 1200 years. Very FEW people ever wanted something to change. 

Hell, the game even shows how peaceful approaches ends in utter failure. 

1) Ionius IX wanted to push a power centralization policy, and corrupt nobles opposed him, eventually teaming with the Agarthans and overthrowing him, resulting in Edelgard's torture and the Agarthans gaining control of the Empire.

2) Lambert had SOME form of change happening that was considered "radical/revolutionary" and made many enemies among nobles, who believed his changes were wrong, and thus teamed up with the Agarthans to assassinate him, resulting in Dimitri's descent to madness. 

Few people believed in changing things up, but many don't in the form of the nobility, who feared losing power or these changes causing problems for their nation. 

So if the world simply won't change peacefully, then it will be forced to change through violence. 

Even if we buy into those that say that Edelgard's system will fail, humans will still pick up the pieces and learn from this. It will be recorded in history, and people will use that knowledge to form something better in the future.

Edelgard left a mark in history, just as Edelgard has left a mark onto players. 

I mean, geez, we have so much debates about her being right and wrong that whether you love or hate her, she left quite the damn strong impression on people.

Well said, ultimately, I don't think the game actually takes a stance on whenever Edelgard is right or wrong. There is no evidence presented in game that reform through non-violent means is even possible at all, in fact, you did bring up examples of people have tried this in the past and failed. 

While it is possible to see three houses as a commentary on the tragedy of war, I think it actually goes far deeper than that. It is a commentary on the tragedy of the human condition and the reality of politics. It comments on the nature of change, the sacrifice, it often requires and asked the question whenever the cost is actually worth it. It's brilliance is in that it doesn't actually beat you over their head with one stance or another. It isn't just a moral cookie on how war is always bad and never justified, the message is far more complex than that.

At the end of the day, if you want to leave your mark on history, it is inevitable that not all people will like you. The stronger your impact the stronger the controversy. Individuals like Edelgard will create a strong response whenever positive or negative, by their very nature.  The reason I like her so strongly is the same reason that someone might hate, Edelgard is a character that actually dares to stand for something and something meaningful. 

[omegaxis1]

4 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

While it is possible to see three houses as a commentary on the tragedy of war, I think it actually goes far deeper than that. It is a commentary on the tragedy of the human condition and the reality of politics. It comments on the nature of change, the sacrifice, it often requires and asked the question whenever the cost is actually worth it. It's brilliance is in that it doesn't actually beat you over their head with one stance or another. It isn't just a moral cookie on how war is always bad and never justified, the message is far more complex than that.

3H is the first that really DELVES into the political issues of Fodlan. Edelgard is the first and only character that ever tried to oppose the concept of monarchies and install a new form of government. 

Instead of the typical situation in FE, where you just capitalize on war to remove corrupt nobles, basically putting new people in charge, 3H has Edelgard go DEEPER than that, and goes to the core issue in the system itself. 

[Crysta]

8 hours ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

You may or may not like the method, but those are political murders, that have nothing to do with hatred or revenge (not even she kills Rhea, makes her prisoner). It is a quick way to move forward with her plans, and  agreed with her gray morality.

Okay? There's a multitude of ways I can reach my goals more efficiently that would still rightfully draw the ire of whomever I screw over along the way, and I don't think going "it's nothing personal, man" would change their thoughts regarding the issue, nor my responsibility in being a callous asshole.

It's a small relief that she doesn't derive great personal pleasure from the suffering she inflicts, I guess.

[kittykatie]

Obviosously spoilers up ahead: yeah a lot of people give edelgard hate but she is a well written character. if u don't play her route she is just another pawn in Those Who Slither in the Dark. She thinks she is using them when they are really using her. also, she doesn't even remember dimitri until in the blue lion route he gives her the dagger back, so his obsession with her is also a result of Thales manipulating him. I do think she cares for him and kills him to put him out of his misery 😕 Though I think she has some regret, this is probably due to the professors guidance. she is a lot harsher in every other route.

Dimitri in every other route except his own is also a lost cause and needs you to see the light and regain sanity. He has the biggest case of survivors guilt ive ever seen and I honestly enjoyed his supports with felix (become a gravekeeper lol) Blue lions is my favorite route so I may be biased but it seems like the happiest ending to me. Plus I like how the timeskip reunion dimitri is in the dark and you are in the light! and with claude he is in the light showing that claude really doesn't need the professor lol.

Claude is interesting and most people just make him to be a silly memelord when he is actually very cunning and manipulative but for a good cause. He reminds me of the fourth lord Yuri who is the lord of Ashen wolves. Both are charming and attractive and definitely use this to their advantage. But yuri will definitely kill while Claude avoids bloodshed. While claude is in less need of the professor as the other two, byleths guidance does cause him to trust people and let his guard down.

 

[Darkmoon6789]

1 hour ago, Crysta said:

Okay? There's a multitude of ways I can reach my goals more efficiently that would still rightfully draw the ire of whomever I screw over along the way, and I don't think going "it's nothing personal, man" would change their thoughts regarding the issue, nor my responsibility in being a callous asshole.

It's a small relief that she doesn't derive great personal pleasure from the suffering she inflicts, I guess.

For you it might be small, for me it makes all the difference in the world. She not only does not derive pleasure from suffering, but it actually hurts her mentally. Says alot about her true character and would make rehabilitation way easier.

Edelgard struggling with guilt over her actions while simultaniously seeing no other way is part of hat makes her tragic.

[Crysta]

Yes, her suffering is less sympathetic when she is willfully inflicting suffering on others because she believes she has no other choice.

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Crysta said:

Yes, her suffering is less sympathetic when she is willfully inflicting suffering on others because she believes she has no other choice.

Honestly, the fact is, at least Edelgard is doing something. 

Time and time again, people talk about "I will right the wrongs of this society" and then do absolutely nothing. They accomplish nothing, but are we meant to commend them for at least trying some non-violent way? That doesn't change how people are STILL suffering and their lives aren't improving, and there's no form of long-term benefit coming either. 

I'm not saying that violence is the only answer, but the fact is, in Fodlan, contrary to what people believe, was a continent where very few ever truly wanted to change things. 

Look at the students that have suffered from the Crests.

• Sylvain, instead of being motivated to change how things are for him, decided to be a shameless flirt to date women only to break their hearts because he holds a personal hatred for women cause he thinks they see him for his status or Crest.
• Lysithea, instead of wanting to do something about the nobility or Crests from the pain she received, opts to instead just settle matters with her family and then live a simple short life after.
• Marianne, rather than try to make life better for herself, would rather just be in the background and hope that no one bothers with her existence. 
• Mercedes, rather than seek to change how society views, would rather just live a simple life as a cleric. 

These people KNOW that society's views on Crests is horrible, and know that the cycle will simply repeat itself. 

People are and have been suffering under the Crests and nobility for ages. It's not a good system. But people don't believe that it can or should change, because said system is promoted by their own religion, where people simply believe that this is how the world works. 

Yeah, Edelgard is inflicting suffering, but at the end of the road, she intends to change Fodlan so that the people don't suffer any longer under the old, oppressive system. 

She does something, works toward something, and intends to see it through, rather than just accept that things can't or won't change. No, things HAD to change. And Edelgard simply knows that people are not going to just go along with it because Edelgard is defying what is known to be common sense.

[Crysta]

All I'm keen on is Edelgard being given responsibility for choosing violence, and not being portrayed as a selfless paragon who was only doing what was necessary. I agree that it's not the only answer, and it is an answer and one she chose knowing full well the consequences. The fact that she feels bad about isn't sufficient recompense for the moral ambiguity of what she chose to do. Knowing the person who wronged you feels really bad about it doesn't really nullify the sting, particularly if you didn't do anything wrong to justify it and just happened to be in the way.

"Well at least she did something" doesn't have great mileage either, tbh. Her dad tried to do a thing and it worked out magnificently, as you could tell.

[omegaxis1]

Just now, Crysta said:

All I'm keen on is Edelgard being given responsibility for choosing violence, and not being portrayed as a selfless paragon who was only doing what was necessary. I agree that it's not the only answer, and it is an answer and one she chose knowing full well the consequences. The fact that she feels bad about isn't sufficient recompense for the moral ambiguity of what she chose to do. Knowing the person who wronged you feels really bad about it doesn't really nullify the sting, particularly if you didn't do anything wrong to justify it and just happened to be in the way.

"Well at least she did something" doesn't have great mileage either, tbh. Her dad tried to do a thing and it worked out magnificently, as you could tell.

Yeah, both Ionius and Lambert tried to do something peacefully, people opposed it, and it resulted in catastrophic consequences. Not only did society not change, but many people suffered even more. 

Also, trying to say that she should be judged and take responsibility ignores how after the war, she actually dedicates herself to making the changes. If she went to war and caused suffering for many people, then by winning the war, her responsibility is to make sure that her war was not for nothing. That she goes and works to make the changes that she started a war over. 

And she succeeds.

• She reforms the system where people can start to rise in society through merit, not blood.
• Create free education.
• Start to open foreign negotiations.
• Restores the Church so that people can still have a place to still practice religion. 

I feel that you're taking the "she doesn't take responsibility" as, "she should suffer," which is just wrong. 

[Crysta]

Not really. Making good changes does not miraculously absolve you of the actions you took to get to that point. It's the whole "do the ends justify the means?" debate all over again.

I feel you're essentially saying "she did something good in the end, so it's okay". There's still plenty there to criticize, and it should be.

[Darkmoon6789]

47 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Not really. Making good changes does not miraculously absolve you of the actions you took to get to that point. It's the whole "do the ends justify the means?" debate all over again.

I feel you're essentially saying "she did something good in the end, so it's okay". There's still plenty there to criticize, and it should be.

As he was saying, the problem is that you seem to be interpreting

"she doesn't take responsibility" as "she should suffer. I have already told you what I think of that type of justice. I don't believe in moral responsibility. In that way, it is nothing more than glorified vengeance.

It is okay to criticise her, she isn't perfect and she has made mistakes.

But killing Edelgard or making her suffer for what she has done wouldn't make anything better for anyone other than in a sense of sick and sadistic satisfaction. The only way she could truly make up for anything is if she spends the rest of her life trying to make the world a better place. If someone has done wrong in the past. There's nothing better they can do them to dedicate their lives doing good. Her suffering will never improve anything for anyone.

I should make it clear that I don't deal in the eye for an eye philosophy of justice, redemption and rehabilitation is all that matters to me as well as the greater good. No one will ever benefit from the notion that someone should suffer just because they inflicted suffering. This kind of equivalence does nothing but add more suffering to the world. Is nothing more than glorified sadism and I think it is wrong. 

I am not saying she's perfect, I am saying I am opposed to the idea that she deserves to have something horrible happened to her because of what she has done. In the end it is just an excuse to not feel empathy. I wouldn't even justify this crap with Thales, he needs to die for the sake of the world, but death will be it. I will not justify this whole "paying for your crimes" garbage.

Edited May 3, 2020 by Darkmoon6789

[Crysta]

Where am I suggesting that she should suffer? All I got was insistence that she was indeed suffering for doing harmful things and I didn't actually disagree with that, let alone suggest she should suffer or deserves greater punishment.

I just said it didn't matter much. Because it doesn't.

Edited May 3, 2020 by Crysta

[omegaxis1]

4 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Where am I suggesting that she should suffer? All I got was insistence that she was indeed suffering for doing harmful things and I didn't actually disagree with that, let alone suggest she should suffer or deserves greater punishment.

I just said it didn't matter much. Because it doesn't.

You aren't making any sense now. 

So what exactly are you WANTING for Edelgard to do? Her taking responsibility by helping people doesn't work. You don't want her to suffer.

So what is it? 

[Crysta]

She's a fictional character in a game that won't react to anything I say here. My complaints have clearly been about the justifications her supporters are espousing.

You know, how she's being discussed here.

[Darkmoon6789]

4 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Where am I suggesting that she should suffer? All I got was insistence that she was indeed suffering for doing harmful things and I didn't actually disagree with that, let alone suggest she should suffer or deserves greater punishment.

I just said it didn't matter much. Because it doesn't.

At the end of the day. The only thing that really matters is the end result. Who is guilty of what and if it is justified or not is kind of unimportant. Either Edelgard dies by her own choice or she achieves victory and will live the rest of her life dealing with the burden of the casualties of the war and trying to make up for it in the process. 

I sometimes wonder if I underestimate how common my views on justice and redemption is. I am generally under the impression that most people supported punitive justice and that they are wrong for doing so. 

I think Edelgard is more than well aware that she has caused a lot of suffering. She is just hoping that it would be less than the suffering. The old system would have caused to the world if she did nothing. It might be, it is impossible to know for sure.

I guess one issue is that I do essentially treat Edelgard as if she was a real person. She is so complex and well written that she does actually feel real to me. 

 

[Silver-Haired Maiden]

Hard agree with @Crysta. Edelgard feeling bad for doing something doesn't absolve her of her crimes. It just doesn't. You don't get to murder my mother and then just say "Well I feel really bad about doing it so it's okay", that's not how that works. Is there anything she can do about that? ... No, probably not. It's just something she, and you two, are going to have to live with.

[Crysta]

30 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

At the end of the day. The only thing that really matters is the end result. Who is guilty of what and if it is justified or not is kind of unimportant. Either Edelgard dies by her own choice or she achieves victory and will live the rest of her life dealing with the burden of the casualties of the war and trying to make up for it in the process. 

What you do in war matters even when you win, including in the in-game universe. The system that wrought the suffering Edelgard fought against (and in doing so wrought suffering herself) was a reply to the war Rhea helped wage. The glaring flaws in that system then led to Edelgard taking up the revolutionary mantle against the victors of that war. It parallels real history, i.e. the aftermath of WWI playing a direct hand in leading to WWII.

Though I feel I'm just complaining about people getting upset or dismissing the wrong things now lol

[Blackstarskywalker]

58 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Hard agree with @Crysta. Edelgard feeling bad for doing something doesn't absolve her of her crimes. It just doesn't. You don't get to murder my mother and then just say "Well I feel really bad about doing it so it's okay", that's not how that works. Is there anything she can do about that? ... No, probably not. It's just something she, and you two, are going to have to live with.

What are those crimes? In our world, war crimes would be the following: Executions of prisoners of war and hostages, forcing civilian populations to carry out forced labor, genocide. Of course we are debating a fictional fantasy world inspired by the medieval age, yet Edelgard does not go to such extremes.

[Silver-Haired Maiden]

Just now, Blackstarskywalker said:

What are those crimes? In our world, war crimes would be the following: Executions of prisoners of war and hostages, forcing civilian populations to carry out forced labor, genocide. Of course we are debating a fictional fantasy world inspired by the medieval age, yet Edelgard does not go to such extremes.

Crimes like waging a continent spanning war for instance. Helping the Agarthans, who she knows do awful things to people because they did it to her and her family, allowing them to turn people into crest beasts. Her feeling "bad" about doing these things does not change that she did them and the ends do NOT justify the means. If she or you think that the result was worth it, I want you both to go to the victims of a war and tell them that it's okay that their loved ones died because it was "worth it in the end". No. Most of them would spit in your face and for good reason.

[omegaxis1]

25 minutes ago, Crysta said:

What you do in war matters even when you win, including in the in-game universe. The system that wrought the suffering Edelgard fought against (and in doing so wrought suffering herself) was a reply to the war Rhea helped wage. The glaring flaws in that system then led to Edelgard taking up the revolutionary mantle against the victors of that war. It parallels real history, i.e. the aftermath of WWI playing a direct hand in leading to WWII.

Though I feel I'm just complaining about people getting upset or dismissing the wrong things now lol

I think it's a bit much to compare this to World Wars, which is a MUCH higher level of war than what Edelgard's war is about. However, it's not like designing a new form of government is done overnight. An entrenched system of nobility that's been around for 1200 years isn't easily dismantled. So Edelgard spent years, dedicated to reforming things and improving the lives and livelihood of the people of Fodlan. 

Cause the thing is, that's all she CAN do. She can't bring the dead back to life. All she can do is work for the future she made the sacrifices for. People had suffered, and they'll need to learn to heal from this. That's how people have been. They experience war, and sometimes wonder if it was ever worth it, and then just cope with the losses because that's all anyone can do. 

Just now, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Crimes like waging a continent spanning war for instance. Helping the Agarthans, who she knows do awful things to people because they did it to her and her family, allowing them to turn people into crest beasts. Her feeling "bad" about doing these things does not change that she did them and the ends do NOT justify the means. If she or you think that the result was worth it, I want you both to go to the victims of a war and tell them that it's okay that their loved ones died because it was "worth it in the end". No. Most of them would spit in your face and for good reason.

The end justify the means or not has been a contested debate done by philosophers across history. We STILL have not yet reached a conclusive answer. Cause history has proven on both sides to have a point in matters regarding it. 

The simple reason is that there's a time where the ends do justify the means, and other times that they do not. Cause just as taking violent action can make people suffer, taking a morally righteous action can still make people suffer. 

Cause at times, results DO matter. If the morally righteous actions don't get results, then the morally righteous actions isn't so morally righteous. It's just as bad. 

You talk about the victims of war, but what about the victims that suffered under the oppressive system that didn't get reformed for them? They would do the same thing in regards to what you said. Just spit at the morally righteous action because they would develop their own hatred. 

[Silver-Haired Maiden]

Just now, omegaxis1 said:

I think it's a bit much to compare this to World Wars, which is a MUCH higher level of war than what Edelgard's war is about. However, it's not like designing a new form of government is done overnight. An entrenched system of nobility that's been around for 1200 years isn't easily dismantled. So Edelgard spent years, dedicated to reforming things and improving the lives and livelihood of the people of Fodlan. 

Cause the thing is, that's all she CAN do. She can't bring the dead back to life. All she can do is work for the future she made the sacrifices for. People had suffered, and they'll need to learn to heal from this. That's how people have been. They experience war, and sometimes wonder if it was ever worth it, and then just cope with the losses because that's all anyone can do. 

The end justify the means or not has been a contested debate done by philosophers across history. We STILL have not yet reached a conclusive answer. Cause history has proven on both sides to have a point in matters regarding it. 

The simple reason is that there's a time where the ends do justify the means, and other times that they do not. Cause just as taking violent action can make people suffer, taking a morally righteous action can still make people suffer. 

Cause at times, results DO matter. If the morally righteous actions don't get results, then the morally righteous actions isn't so morally righteous. It's just as bad. 

You talk about the victims of war, but what about the victims that suffered under the oppressive system that didn't get reformed for them? They would do the same thing in regards to what you said. Just spit at the morally righteous action because they would develop their own hatred. 

None of that means you get to dismiss all the bad shit she did as "UWU Edelgard is an innocent flower who feels bad about what she did so it makes it all okay". No. Two things being bad doesn't make either of them good. You can debate which of them was worse until you're blue in the face, the fact of the matter is that they're both bad and need to be acknowledged as such. It was not okay for her to start a war. Obviously you have no idea what war entails, the decades or centuries of suffering that it can leave whole nations with. What the people not sitting in a palace or away from the combat experience. You may argue that sometimes war is necessary and maybe it is, but that does NOT make it okay and it does not make the aggressor right to declare war.