Why Edelgard von Hresvelg is the most hated girl?

[Crysta]

She does. That's why it doesn't happen in the route where she bonds with Byleth, even when she has even more of a reason to use those resources than she does on the other routes (her opposition is in a much better spot in CF).

You can choose to consider them entirely separate entities that Edelgard has no responsibility for, but what actually happens (or in this case doesn't happen) doesn't support that.

[Darkmoon6789]

2 minutes ago, Crysta said:

She does. That's why it doesn't happen in the route where she bonds with Byleth, even when she has even more of a reason to use those resources than she does on the other routes (her opposition is in a much better spot in CF).

You can choose to consider them entirely separate entities that Edelgard has no responsibility for, but what actually happens (or in this case doesn't happen) doesn't support that.

I think it should be fairly obvious, she isn't the leader of the Agarthans, that would be Thales, who Edelgard never had any authority over. She isn't their leader, she is their pawn. Everything you see in the game supports this interpretation. There are multiple instances of Edelgard disapproving of their methods, but is still unable to stop certain events from occurring. The incident at Remire Village and the assassination of Jeralt are two examples. It has clearly been displayed she doesn't have any authority over them and Thales referring to her as their perfect creation shows beyond a shadow of a doubt who is really pulling the strings.

Responsibility is a different story, she might be partwise culpable because of her association with them. But that is not the same as their actions being of her design. They are not. I don't understand why anyone is under the impression that the Agarthans take orders from Edelgard. If anything, she needs to tread a fine line when it comes to them to not incur their wrath. The power dynamic is very much in favour of Thales and even more so in non CF routes. Edelgard is essentially acting under coercion

[Crysta]

Thales follows her orders if they suit his own aims, and they usually do. But they are allies. She is not their pawn, and she certainly doesn't behave as one.

She refrains from using the full extent of what she has because of Byleth's influence on her; this is before he returns.

[zuibangde]

The issue I have with Edelgard is less because of her character (I think she’s pretty well written) but more how people that likes her come up with all ‘explanations’ to justify her actions.

Is it that hard to admit that what she did to achieve her goals literally put thousands of people into a period of immense suffering? 

And because of that fact alone, it makes her a questionable ruler. You can argue that she is a good leader (still debatable) but she’s far from benevolent. 

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, zuibangde said:

The issue I have with Edelgard is less because of her character (I think she’s pretty well written) but more how people that likes her come up with all ‘explanations’ to justify her actions.

Is it that hard to admit that what she did to achieve her goals literally put thousands of people into a period of immense suffering? 

And because of that fact alone, it makes her a questionable ruler. You can argue that she is a good leader (still debatable) but she’s far from benevolent. 

Every Edelgard fan KNOWS that she caused a war. Edelgard herself knows that she is starting a war, and knows the lives that will be lost inevitably. 

What fans "defend" about that is the act of how Fodlan was shit, and it needed to change. Peaceful options were not on the table. The people didn't believe in change, and the few that did suffered immense for it. 

The war is overall what would be called a "necessary evil" in the grand scheme of things. 

If people are going to suffer and die anyway, then she might as well do something bad to force things to get better. 

Being stuck on things like "right", "wrong", "justified", etc. are overall trying to assert the belief of what is black and white morality. 

This isn't a black and white world.

3H is a morally grey story. The very fact is, Fodlan only changes because of the war. That is undeniable fact. The war DID get results. It DID bring about a change, and things DID get better. Lives were lost, people have suffered, but it's better than how Fodlan used to be.

[vanguard333]

8 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

While knowing that you could cause a literal omnicide? They KNEW the danger of Lehran's Medallion.

Lehran's Medallion was only to activate if every nation got involved in the war. As far as the Laguz Alliance was concerned, Beasts and Birds against Begnion, with Daein and Crimea initially out of the war and Goldoa having its anti-getting involved policy, would be safe. In fact, in part 4, Nasir is quick to point out that the situation is kind-of Kurthnaga's fault; had he not gotten involved, Goldoa would not have technically been involved in the war. 

[Darkmoon6789]

5 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Thales follows her orders if they suit his own aims, and they usually do. But they are allies. She is not their pawn, and she certainly doesn't behave as one.

She refrains from using the full extent of what she has because of Byleth's influence on her; this is before he returns.

Thales at most content is to while in the guise of Arundel, but that is only to keep up appearances. Thales is a skilled manipulator who has had strings to the imperial throne for a very long time, it is just that Edelgard isn't as cooperative as her father as she is in a better position to resist. They do have a common enemy, that much is true. But Thales would never consider Edelgard his master, the very notion of following a surface dweller is revolting to the Agarthans. To them, they are nothing more than vermin. That is all Edelgard is to them, a lab rat and a weapon they want to use against the church. I would say that Edelgard is their puppet, but she is a puppet who resents her strings and openly rebels against her puppetmaster any chance she gets. But it is hard for me to consider the power dynamic to be anything other than in the favour of Thales due to him essentially torturing Edelgard and siblings for years while they were still children. Thales is very much essentially her abuser, essentially guilty of kidnapping her and moulding her into what he needed her to be for his war against the church. 

 

12 minutes ago, zuibangde said:

The issue I have with Edelgard is less because of her character (I think she’s pretty well written) but more how people that likes her come up with all ‘explanations’ to justify her actions.

Is it that hard to admit that what she did to achieve her goals literally put thousands of people into a period of immense suffering? 

And because of that fact alone, it makes her a questionable ruler. You can argue that she is a good leader (still debatable) but she’s far from benevolent. 

I think someone has a quite naive of view of statesmanship and what being a monarch actually entails. 

She is benevolent in that she seeks to free the people of Fodlan from an oppressive system that has been keeping them down for millennia. But in order to do that, sometimes drastic measures are required, and that carries a heavy price.

It is the duty of a monarch to weigh decisions against one another and pick what they think is ultimately the best for their subjects. Often times, this will require sacrifices no matter what option is chosen. In this case both action and inaction has its consequences, Edelgard came to be conclusion that in the long run, the war will lead to less suffering than letting the current system continue as is. 

That is all we are saying, not necessarily that the war is necessarily a good thing, but that it is necessary and better than the alternative.

The truth of the matter is that monarchs often cannot afford to remain morally pure as the inability to act in certain situations will just allow their enemies to walk all over them. 

While a pacifist position is admirable in a way. In a more practical sense, it will just allow everyone to mistreat you and your people because of your unwillingness to fight back. 

The willingness to fight for what you believe in is also a virtue and something I respect a lot more than those who let their fear of the consequences of violence lead to more unscrupulous people walking all over their ideals as they are afraid to stand up for them.

Ultimately, I believe that freedom is more valuable than life as life without freedom has no value. Give me freedom or give me death

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, vanguard333 said:

Lehran's Medallion was only to activate if every nation got involved in the war. As far as the Laguz Alliance was concerned, Beasts and Birds against Begnion, with Daein and Crimea initially out of the war and Goldoa having its anti-getting involved policy, would be safe. In fact, in part 4, Nasir is quick to point out that the situation is kind-of Kurthnaga's fault; had he not gotten involved, Goldoa would not have technically been involved in the war. 

Yeah, it's a cause and effect, dude. Why did Kurthnaga involve himself in the war? Because his sister was on Daein. Why was Daein in the war? Because Blood Pact. Why was the Blood Pact used to get them in the war? Because Begnion was beginning to struggle in the war, and wanted to use Daein as their meat shield. Why did Begnion get into a war? Because they killed the laguz messenger. Why? because the laguz discovered that Begnion Senate was responsible for the Serenes Massacre. 

The difference between Begnion and the Laguz Alliance is this. Begnion didn't know about Lehran's Medallion. The Laguz Alliance did. But they thought that they could handle it by having Leanne and Reyson guard it. 

But guess what? The war escalated so badly that the spirit of war was going to break the seal. 

The Laguz KNEW, and they STILL acted, arrogantly thinking that they would be fine, when no. They weren't. 

They were damn well lucky that Ashera's Judgment was not a death beam that killed everyone. Otherwise, the story would be a tragic ending where you realize that the war to get justice for the herons was not even worth it. Not next to the bodies of 99% of all life on Tellius.

[Hilda]

6 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

If a necessary evil is actually necessary, I don't consider it dark at all. Can you think of anything in particular, she does do in the other routes which doesn't happen in CF which fits this category?. Allowing the Agarthans to grow too powerful is the only one I can think of. And I don't think that is a willing choice on her part as much as Byleth's presence is a factor that allows her the luxury of having to rely on them less. 

It isn't like she orders the deaths of civilians anywhere really. I don't even truly view the creation of the Dukedom as her doing. Characters in game might view Cornelia as an agent of the Empire, but I know better. And the truth is much darker.

Realisticly speaking: I am not sure if a War was Edelgards intentions at all. I think what many people dont get is that War was inevitable, no matter what. I mean consider the political situation:

The Adrestian empire was allready compromised and partially in the "true enemies" hand (the shadowpeople). The Emperor served as a pure "puppet" device to further the plans of the people in the shadows. So at some point they were going to hit the church and the other lands anyway with a decleration of war.

Then there is the Leicester Alliance. I think the name speaks for itself, its an Alliance. Get some houses to flock to your side (and the shadowpeople were allready doing that) and you see that this Alliance doesnt have much firepower to withstand the full force of the Adrestian empire in the shadowpeoples hand. In an Alliance it is very difficult to get everyone on the same page and push through your agendas and Ideas of the future without a united front, in this case Claude.

The Kingdom of Faerghus. Putting the instability of Dimitri aside as an unfit ruler. The Kingdom of Faerghus had allways strong connections to the church of Seiros and would have sided with the church no matter what. Progression? I dont think so. The Assassination attempt (The Tragedy of Duscur) speaks for itself. Someone wanted to distabilize the country, and they succeeded to some degree.

You can go much more into Detail here, but i mean given the above facts the question i would pose myself as Edelgard is: "Ok I know where this is all heading towards with the information i have and War is innevitable, do i want to have some/partial control over it or let it run its course and then be unable to do anything because its too late? Probably ending with a worse result then my Idea/belief?"
This isnt teletubby land where you can just talk to the other Leaders and "omg yaie we will unite and kill of the shadowpeople". I mean seriously if some random princess i dont know well would come to me and say that their country is being undermined and i should jeopardy my country to go and help them without proof evidence or anything of that sort i would be like "omg go take your pills, you insane?", the second question would be: "what do i and my country gain out of it?" to myself. Beside the fact that i would need to sell that crazy idea first and foremost to my own country and people, thats gonna fly very well.

[Darkmoon6789]

16 minutes ago, Hilda said:

Realisticly speaking: I am not sure if a War was Edelgards intentions at all. I think what many people dont get is that War was inevitable, no matter what. I mean consider the political situation:

The Adrestian empire was allready compromised and partially in the "true enemies" hand (the shadowpeople). The Emperor served as a pure "puppet" device to further the plans of the people in the shadows. So at some point they were going to hit the church and the other lands anyway with a decleration of war.

Then there is the Leicester Alliance. I think the name speaks for itself, its an Alliance. Get some houses to flock to your side (and the shadowpeople were allready doing that) and you see that this Alliance doesnt have much firepower to withstand the full force of the Adrestian empire in the shadowpeoples hand. In an Alliance it is very difficult to get everyone on the same page and push through your agendas and Ideas of the future without a united front, in this case Claude.

The Kingdom of Faerghus. Putting the instability of Dimitri aside as an unfit ruler. The Kingdom of Faerghus had allways strong connections to the church of Seiros and would have sided with the church no matter what. Progression? I dont think so. The Assassination attempt (The Tragedy of Duscur) speaks for itself. Someone wanted to distabilize the country, and they succeeded to some degree.

You can go much more into Detail here, but i mean given the above facts the question i would pose myself as Edelgard is: "Ok I know where this is all heading towards with the information i have and War is innevitable, do i want to have some/partial control over it or let it run its course and then be unable to do anything because its too late? Probably ending with a worse result then my Idea/belief?"
This isnt teletubby land where you can just talk to the other Leaders and "omg yaie we will unite and kill of the shadowpeople". I mean seriously if some random princess i dont know well would come to me and say that their country is being undermined and i should jeopardy my country to go and help them without proof evidence or anything of that sort i would be like "omg go take your pills, you insane?", the second question would be: "what do i and my country gain out of it?" to myself. Beside the fact that i would need to sell that crazy idea first and foremost to my own country and people, thats gonna fly very well.

Well said. Ultimately, the war was already in the making long before Edelgard was even born. Thales had planned this for quite a while, weakening the nations in preparation for revenge against the church. I think it was implied that Edelgard was actually given the crest of flames, exactly for this purpose. The Agarthans needed someone to spearhead the war and act as a scapegoat, as they would rather not reveal their presence. I think the Adrestian nobles also wanted an emperor with a major crest so that they might take back the lands they had lost against Loog. So a lot of people besides Edelgard already wanted this war to happen. It is absolutely beyond me why some people think that Edelgard had any power over Thales, given that she had been his prisoner for a large portion of her life. 

While she was intended to start this war, I do think that the Agarthans would be capable of starting it with or without her. Edelgard decided that if war was inevitable, at the very least it could serve a good purpose in getting rid of two corrupt powers from the continent. The church and the Agarthans. 

As you say, what was really the alternative for Edelgard? Going against the shadowy cult that controls her country before she was crowned Emperor would be suicide. She couldn't become Emperor without their permission, and if she tried to contact the church, the kingdom, the alliance or anyone. The Empire would still declare war under Arundel. As well as the fact that no one would believe her that the shadowy cult had taken over her country. Especially not when combined with stories about the churches being led by lizard people (dragons). She would sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist without proper evidence.

[zuibangde]

8 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

The war is overall what would be called a "necessary evil" in the grand scheme of things. 

 

I can list some real word events that would be considered a 'necessary evil' by some but just 'evil' by many others. A necessary evil doesn't mean it's actually necessary for all involved. 

8 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

It is the duty of a monarch to weigh decisions against one another and pick what they think is ultimately the best for their subjects. Often times, this will require sacrifices no matter what option is chosen. In this case both action and inaction has its consequences, Edelgard came to be conclusion that in the long run, the war will lead to less suffering than letting the current system continue as is. 

 

 She did what she thinks would be best for the Empire and believed that it would also be good for the other two nations. In real life, you wouldn't want a foreign government to tell you what's best for you so why should the people from the Alliance and Faerghus accept what Edelgard wants? In the end, it might be great for all involved but let's not pretend Edelgard was putting every single person's feelings into considerations when she started the war. She was prioritising herself and the Empire first and foremost. Everyone else just happens to 'benefit' from her actions, if any. The fact that there are vassal states within the Empire and they feel the need to send their Nobles as a sign of alliance should suggest to you how 'benevolent' the Empire is. I'm not blaming Edelgard on that but maybe she can work on equality and freedom of the people in her own empire first before worrying about the rest of the continent.

9 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

3H is a morally grey story. The very fact is, Fodlan only changes because of the war. That is undeniable fact. The war DID get results. It DID bring about a change, and things DID get better. Lives were lost, people have suffered, but it's better than how Fodlan used to be.

Exactly. Then let's not pretend Edelgard/Empire is acting out of the greater good for everyone in Fodlan and everyone is singing celebrating that their country got invaded 'for the greater good'. There are legitimate reasons for people to like or dislike Edelgard and it's kinda pointless to defend her endlessly. 

Anyways, there's a lot more I want to respond to but I don't have time/want to get into this. I think my problem is that I see real world politics and compare it to Edelgard and honestly, her actions are fairly questionable regardless of intentions or outcome. 

[Darkmoon6789]

5 minutes ago, zuibangde said:

I can list some real word events that would be considered a 'necessary evil' by some but just 'evil' by many others. A necessary evil doesn't mean it's actually necessary for all involved. 

 She did what she thinks would be best for the Empire and believed that it would also be good for the other two nations. In real life, you wouldn't want a foreign government to tell you what's best for you so why should the people from the Alliance and Faerghus accept what Edelgard wants? In the end, it might be great for all involved but let's not pretend Edelgard was putting every single person's feelings into considerations when she started the war. She was prioritising herself and the Empire first and foremost. Everyone else just happens to 'benefit' from her actions, if any. The fact that there are vassal states within the Empire and they feel the need to send their Nobles as a sign of alliance should suggest to you how 'benevolent' the Empire is. I'm not blaming Edelgard on that but maybe she can work on equality and freedom of the people in her own empire first before worrying about the rest of the continent.

Exactly. Then let's not pretend Edelgard/Empire is acting out of the greater good for everyone in Fodlan and everyone is singing celebrating that their country got invaded 'for the greater good'. There are legitimate reasons for people to like or dislike Edelgard and it's kinda pointless to defend her endlessly. 

Anyways, there's a lot more I want to respond to but I don't have time/want to get into this. I think my problem is that I see real world politics and compare it to Edelgard and honestly, her actions are fairly questionable regardless of intentions or outcome. 

Not saying everyone are going to celebrate the invasion, in fact, there will likely be resistance from the former kingdom and alliance in the future. But it doesn't change the fact that Edelgard did what she did with the best interest of everyone in mind, and that it might indeed lead to a better society in the future. It is just that people sometimes don't understand what their best interests are. If I tried to for example, breakdown of the theocratic government system of iran or Saudi Arabia by force. I would bet that the people would resist me initially. Even if what I was doing would ultimately give them more freedom and I would be acting with the motivation to improve the lives of the people who live there. Some people will resist you in these kind of matters even if your intentions are good, and even if you are technically in the right, that is just to the way of things. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true that enforcing a state religion by force isn't evil or that enforcing gender equality isn't good. It is just that doing the right thing will not always be popular.

There is also one big reason Edelgard can't work on freedom and equality in home nation first, they are called the Agarthans, they are pushing for war and the only other option is for Edelgard to create a civil war within the Empire to try to get rid of Agarthan control. Which would weaken harder and open up the Empire for invasion from the church and the other nations. I don't think that Rhea would take the Empire seceding from the church of Seiros lying down and assuming she wins the civil war against Arundel. She will be in a weakened position. But honestly, I think that Arundel would probably win that civil war. Given how strong his influence is. There is also the factor that Edelgard actually cares about the fate of the people of the other nations and not just a wrong, so she wouldn't want injustice to keep happening in Faerghus and Leicester either. 

I don't know why so many people keep coming with suggestions that if you really look at the situation, you would realise aren't possible for Edelgard. Things would be a lot simpler without the existence of a dark cult having so much influence in the Empire. Maybe then a peaceful solution would be possible, with them. however, avoiding war is pretty much impossible. I am not claiming Edelgard is perfect, but she isn't the bogeyman. some people make her out to be. That is why I defend her, because I don't think she deserves the crap some people give her. The truth of the matter is that Edelgard didn't really have a good option if you really take a step back and try to view the situation from her point of view. They war has a steep price, that much is fact, but she didn't do any of this, with malicious intentions. Which is more than I can say about pretty much any historical warlord. It is very hard to find monarchs with motivations as pure as Edelgard's in actual history

[haarhaarhaar]

10 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

The difference between Begnion and the Laguz Alliance is this. Begnion didn't know about Lehran's Medallion. The Laguz Alliance did. But they thought that they could handle it by having Leanne and Reyson guard it. 

But guess what? The war escalated so badly that the spirit of war was going to break the seal. 

The Laguz KNEW, and they STILL acted, arrogantly thinking that they would be fine, when no. They weren't. 

They were damn well lucky that Ashera's Judgment was not a death beam that killed everyone. Otherwise, the story would be a tragic ending where you realize that the war to get justice for the herons was not even worth it. Not next to the bodies of 99% of all life on Tellius.

The laguz are certainly guilty of being rash, and in some cases (particularly Skrimir) arrogant, regardless of the fact that they had the moral high ground. In fairness to them, hotheadedness is part of both the nature of being laguz and their culture, although that alone doesn't excuse the risk they take. What ought to be remembered, however, is that Sephiran was manipulating Begnion even from the shadows (through orders to Zelgius etc.) - Lekain may have been running the show, but Sephiran was using Lekain's corrupt nature to ensure that war engulfed Tellius. And, obviously, Sephiran knows the truth of his own medallion.

I'm not saying any of this to absolve the laguz completely, but given their culture and the information they had when the war began, they aren't as morally damnable as the above quote would have them be. They were manipulated too - sure, they should have been smarter, but none of the beast tribes were in a position to expect either that Sephiran wanted Ashera to return, that Daein would enter the war, or that a dragon would fight at all. All three coming to pass is a threat they ought to have been aware of, but for the laguz, it was a worst-case scenario rather than an expected outcome. It's more accurate to call them shortsighted than straight-up evil, because they didn't intend to bring about Ashera's Judgement either (though yes, they are lucky things didn't end worse for them).

53 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

That is why I defend her, because I don't think she deserves the crap some people give her.

There are definitely some unfair accusations made against Edelgard, and some people just don't like her character etc. So I do get why people defend her so vehemently on these forums.

But I think the flaw of defending any position as strongly as this is that it makes it sound like there can't be room for other opinions. Not accusing you of this personally (I'm just using this quote to refer generally to commenters who go hard defending her), but when people say "I don't like that she's the aggressor" or "I can't stand her methods", it's still a legitimate opinion to hold, even if it's one that you feel justified in disagreeing with. You can explain her actions as much as you like, but for some people she's already crossed a line that makes her unlikable, and trying to justify her all day won't make other people like her, even if they do come to understand your point of view.

Unlike other threads in this forum, this topic is only about her (lack of) likability, rather than whether she was morally right or not. The two go hand in hand a lot in this case, but just as often people will take issue, rightly or wrongly, with her perception as stuck-up or her design as they will with her actions. If Edelgard is the 'most hated' woman in 3H, it's only because people who write about her often do so without nuance, on both sides, which creates the impression that she has lots of detractors. As lots of people have now said, 'most divisive' would be a better descriptor.

Honestly if this thread shows anything it's that more people will come to Edelgard's defence than any other character in 3H lol. Not a bad thing I guess, cause she's one of the best characters.

[Azz]

Personally, I quite enjoy Edelgard as an antagonist, especially in AM and somewhat in SS. However, I personally cannot agree with her and her methods (like how she hired Kostas to kill Dimitri and Claude, how she lets Jeritza simply run wild and murder innocent people etc.) if she is the protagonist. While I agree, Edelgard had little choice in her actions, however, there were alternate routes Edelgard could've taken to prevent what happened, such as, just not instigating a huge war. What exactly could TWSITD do if Edlegard just refused to partake in their schemes? They had no political power aside from the few nobles houses (Volkhard and Cornelia being the main ones, and even then, they are some of the weaker powers in their respective countries) they managed to sneak their ways into. Edelgard simply waiting rather than deciding to instigate a war with the church would have prevented a lot of disaster. While I think war was definitely inevitable, that's undeniable, the war would have been on much smaller scale then the war Edelgard caused imo.

As well as that, I personally just don't agree with the future she wants for Fodlan. While a meritocracy is admirable and a good idea in practise, in a world where crests, despite Edelgard wanting less emphasis put on them, still exist and will still give those who have them an advantage over those that don't (and even then, crests become less important in every route without Edelgard winning the war so...). As well as that, nobles, especially those that sided with Edelgard, will still retain their wealth of gold and land, which will give those nobles and their heirs a very real unfair advantage over any commoner, regardless of merit. On top of that, unlike when Rhea posing as Seiros united the continent with Wilheim, Fodlan was very much so one country with little cultural diversity (or at least that is what I'm presuming) outside of little pocket civilisations. Now though, Fodlan has spent hundreds of years as three separate countries with different cultures and just uniting a continent under one banner is bound to cause major culture clash and cause many civil and guerrilla wars to happen from traditionalists/anti-imperialists, which will bring even more deaths. It is an extremely flawed system that while it may work for a while, is bound to fall apart after Edelgard's death and after a few successors and Fodlan will just turn back into what it was and the war will have been for naught and history will repeat itself. 

(Both Edelgard and Rhea suffered sever trauma related to loosing their families at the hands of TWSITD or at by proxy of TWSITD's actions/prompting. Both set out aiming to kill those they see responsible for their suffering (Rhea for Edelgard and Nemesis for Rhea). Both prevail and end up uniting Fodlan under one banner. And then, in Rhea's case, due to manipulation by TWSITD and many other politcal things, the continent gets split in three, so on and so forth, which is bound to happen again with Edelgard's vision of Fodlan).

TLDR; Edelgard is cool playing the role of the antagonist, but I can't agree with what she does as a protagonist nor do I agree with her vision for Fodlan as it will just cause history to repeat itself.

[omegaxis1]

46 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

The laguz are certainly guilty of being rash, and in some cases (particularly Skrimir) arrogant, regardless of the fact that they had the moral high ground. In fairness to them, hotheadedness is part of both the nature of being laguz and their culture, although that alone doesn't excuse the risk they take. What ought to be remembered, however, is that Sephiran was manipulating Begnion even from the shadows (through orders to Zelgius etc.) - Lekain may have been running the show, but Sephiran was using Lekain's corrupt nature to ensure that war engulfed Tellius. And, obviously, Sephiran knows the truth of his own medallion.

I'm not saying any of this to absolve the laguz completely, but given their culture and the information they had when the war began, they aren't as morally damnable as the above quote would have them be. They were manipulated too - sure, they should have been smarter, but none of the beast tribes were in a position to expect either that Sephiran wanted Ashera to return, that Daein would enter the war, or that a dragon would fight at all. All three coming to pass is a threat they ought to have been aware of, but for the laguz, it was a worst-case scenario rather than an expected outcome. It's more accurate to call them shortsighted than straight-up evil, because they didn't intend to bring about Ashera's Judgement either (though yes, they are lucky things didn't end worse for them).

There's no "fairness" to them. The point is, people are too quick to defend the laguz and try to think that their war was perfectly alright, but no, it wasn't. They may have started a war for justice for the herons, but they still started a war while knowing the dangers of Lehran's Medallion. They should have thought of another plan, like to get Sanaki and get answers from her. But the laguz immediately went for war, and endangered all life because of that. 

And Ike chose to help that side, so he's just as guilty as them on that account. Tatiana warns them of the threat of Lehran's Medallion, but Ranulf insists that they have it under control, which proved to be a failure in the end. 

But people certainly don't try and point this out enough for Ike and the laguz, and because the Begnion Senate was so corrupt and evil, people insist that the war is entirely justified. 

8 minutes ago, Azz said:

Personally, I quite enjoy Edelgard as an antagonist, especially in AM and somewhat in SS. However, I personally cannot agree with her and her methods (like how she hired Kostas to kill Dimitri and Claude, how she lets Jeritza simply run wild and murder innocent people etc.) if she is the protagonist. While I agree, Edelgard had little choice in her actions, however, there were alternate routes Edelgard could've taken to prevent what happened, such as, just not instigating a huge war. What exactly could TWSITD do if Edlegard just refused to partake in their schemes? They had no political power aside from the few nobles houses (Volkhard and Cornelia being the main ones, and even then, they are some of the weaker powers in their respective countries) they managed to sneak their ways into. Edelgard simply waiting rather than deciding to instigate a war with the church would have prevented a lot of disaster. While I think war was definitely inevitable, that's undeniable, the war would have been on much smaller scale then the war Edelgard caused imo.

As well as that, I personally just don't agree with the future she wants for Fodlan. While a meritocracy is admirable and a good idea in practise, in a world where crests, despite Edelgard wanting less emphasis put on them, still exist and will still give those who have them an advantage over those that don't (and even then, crests become less important in every route without Edelgard winning the war so...). As well as that, nobles, especially those that sided with Edelgard, will still retain their wealth of gold and land, which will give those nobles and their heirs a very real unfair advantage over any commoner, regardless of merit. On top of that, unlike when Rhea posing as Seiros united the continent with Wilheim, Fodlan was very much so one country with little cultural diversity (or at least that is what I'm presuming) outside of little pocket civilisations. Now though, Fodlan has spent hundreds of years as three separate countries with different cultures and just uniting a continent under one banner is bound to cause major culture clash and cause many civil and guerrilla wars to happen from traditionalists/anti-imperialists, which will bring even more deaths. It is an extremely flawed system that while it may work for a while, is bound to fall apart after Edelgard's death and after a few successors and Fodlan will just turn back into what it was and the war will have been for naught and history will repeat itself. 

(Both Edelgard and Rhea suffered sever trauma related to loosing their families at the hands of TWSITD or at by proxy of TWSITD's actions/prompting. Both set out aiming to kill those they see responsible for their suffering (Rhea for Edelgard and Nemesis for Rhea). Both prevail and end up uniting Fodlan under one banner. And then, in Rhea's case, due to manipulation by TWSITD and many other politcal things, the continent gets split in three, so on and so forth, which is bound to happen again with Edelgard's vision of Fodlan).

TLDR; Edelgard is cool playing the role of the antagonist, but I can't agree with what she does as a protagonist nor do I agree with her vision for Fodlan as it will just cause history to repeat itself.

You know there's hints that killing Dimitri and Claude was never her plan right? The other thing is that Jeritza was saved by Edelgard and prevented from harming innocent people, since he states that if he was left alone, he would have harmed them. It isn't clarified what these "hunting grounds" were, but Edelgard is certainly someone that wouldn't get innocent people involved and die for something that they wouldn't know what purpose for. 

Also, what? The Agarthans have control over the Empire as a result of the Insurrection of the Seven. Edelgard's the one that has no power. 

I'm not going to respond to everything, but I think you MIGHT have looked so much at the surface, and never actually dived into the depths of Edelgard and her situation. Because she's in a far more complicated situation than you realize that the idea of "alternate" paths weren't even actually avoiding a war either. 

2 hours ago, zuibangde said:

I can list some real word events that would be considered a 'necessary evil' by some but just 'evil' by many others. A necessary evil doesn't mean it's actually necessary for all involved. 

 She did what she thinks would be best for the Empire and believed that it would also be good for the other two nations. In real life, you wouldn't want a foreign government to tell you what's best for you so why should the people from the Alliance and Faerghus accept what Edelgard wants? In the end, it might be great for all involved but let's not pretend Edelgard was putting every single person's feelings into considerations when she started the war. She was prioritising herself and the Empire first and foremost. Everyone else just happens to 'benefit' from her actions, if any. The fact that there are vassal states within the Empire and they feel the need to send their Nobles as a sign of alliance should suggest to you how 'benevolent' the Empire is. I'm not blaming Edelgard on that but maybe she can work on equality and freedom of the people in her own empire first before worrying about the rest of the continent.

Exactly. Then let's not pretend Edelgard/Empire is acting out of the greater good for everyone in Fodlan and everyone is singing celebrating that their country got invaded 'for the greater good'. There are legitimate reasons for people to like or dislike Edelgard and it's kinda pointless to defend her endlessly. 

Anyways, there's a lot more I want to respond to but I don't have time/want to get into this. I think my problem is that I see real world politics and compare it to Edelgard and honestly, her actions are fairly questionable regardless of intentions or outcome. 

There's a problem in what you're arguing. She's not invading the other nations cause she wants to. The other nations also took their own stance in the war. In CF, Claude prevented noble houses that declared their support of the Empire from actually aiding the Empire because Claude didn't want to lose power as he wanted to be Fodlan's supreme ruler, and preventing aid to the Empire from supporters is something that can be considered provocation. The Kingdom allied itself with the Church of Seiros because Dimitri wanted revenge for the Tragedy of Duscur.

Edelgard declared war on the Church of Seiros, and overall, the other nations took a stance that forced Edelgard to invade. It's not a case of "Edelgard is evil because she started a war". Everyone took a stance and caused more bodies to pile up. The deaths of the people of Faerghus are on Dimitri's hands for choosing to want revenge over doing what is best for his people. And while there wasn't as much death in the Alliance because Claude kept things to a minimum, Claude still endangered people's lives for his desire to become the supreme ruler of Fodlan. 

Edelgard might have started the war, but that doesn't make her the supreme evil here. She is doing this to stop a corrupt system from remaining in place. Otherwise, people WILL continue to suffer as they HAVE been already. 

[Azz]

52 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

 You know there's hints that killing Dimitri and Claude was never her plan right? The other thing is that Jeritza was saved by Edelgard and prevented from harming innocent people, since he states that if he was left alone, he would have harmed them. It isn't clarified what these "hunting grounds" were, but Edelgard is certainly someone that wouldn't get innocent people involved and die for something that they wouldn't know what purpose for. 

Also, what? The Agarthans have control over the Empire as a result of the Insurrection of the Seven. Edelgard's the one that has no power. 

I'm not going to respond to everything, but I think you MIGHT have looked so much at the surface, and never actually dived into the depths of Edelgard and her situation. Because she's in a far more complicated situation than you realize that the idea of "alternate" paths weren't even actually avoiding a war either. 

Based on the scene where Edelgard as the Flame Emperor berates Kostas for being unable to perform his job, which, as his says was 'to kill as many noble pipsqueaks as possible', I'm highly unsure that Edelgard didn't intend for Dimitri and Claude not to be killed. There is even a NPC that references something along the lines that it's crazy how this year's studnet body consist of the next three leaders, and if anything were to happen, it would be horrible for the church. So I'd love to know these 'hints' where it is implied Edelgard didn't want Dimitri and Claude dead.

 Also, concenring Jeritza, within the game, there are many references to people disappearing at night and never being seen again by the hands of someone in black armour wielding a scythe. If this doesn't translate to Jeritza killing people, I don't know what does.

That is incorrect. The insurrection was spurred by Emperor Ionius suppressing the Hrym rebellion as they tried to join Leicester. The seven main noble houses of the empire then stages a coup where together they stripped Ionius of much of his power and those seven each taking a responsibility over the empire's affairs (like how Aegir is prime minister, Arundel reagent and so on). The slithers took no part in the insurrection and didn't get involved in imperial business until after when they began experimenting on the Hresvelg family. However, despite this we see that Edelgard is still able to go to her father, demand he abdicate the throne to her where she then proceeds to strip Duke Aegir of his power with little to no problem at all and with no intervention from the slithers. Clearly Edelgard has a large modicum of power if she is able to take the role of emperor and take all the power back that was stolen from her father to lead Adrestia into the war to begin with.

Also, as someone who has looked quite deeply into the characters of this game, namely Edelgard, DImitri and Rhea as they interest me the most, I think I have quite a decent understanding of Edelgard's life and her situation based on what was given to us in all the routes and supports and supplementary lore in game. Based on all of that, I do think Edelgard had more options, not many albeit, but more than plunging the entire continent into a war, senselessly ending the lives of many people in service to TWSITD and the nobles of Adrestia who were really responsible for her trauma.

On top of that, as I said previously, Edelgard's vision for Fodlan is extremely flawed and would simply not function in such a world that is Fodlan and is bound to repeat history and again, make her entire war moot.

[haarhaarhaar]

16 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

There's no "fairness" to them. The point is, people are too quick to defend the laguz and try to think that their war was perfectly alright, but no, it wasn't. They may have started a war for justice for the herons, but they still started a war while knowing the dangers of Lehran's Medallion. They should have thought of another plan, like to get Sanaki and get answers from her. But the laguz immediately went for war, and endangered all life because of that. 

And Ike chose to help that side, so he's just as guilty as them on that account. Tatiana warns them of the threat of Lehran's Medallion, but Ranulf insists that they have it under control, which proved to be a failure in the end. 

But people certainly don't try and point this out enough for Ike and the laguz, and because the Begnion Senate was so corrupt and evil, people insist that the war is entirely justified

Your alternative probably wouldn't work, because at the beginning of the war the laguz believe they have all the answers they need, and assume Begnion soldiers are acting under orders from the top (and don't yet have reason to suspect Sanaki is not the one responsible). But like you say there might have been another way, though I'm not sure what it would have been.

And any hypothetical on that would also have to include the possibility that Sephiran would have engineered something else (or Lekain would have done something himself without even intending to rouse Ashera) in order to cause the medallion to act up - the 1000-year deadline was coming anyway and a member of every race had already taken part in at least one war since the slumber of the goddess, so Ashera's revival and judgement only needed a few sparks if that. But all of that is secondary, because the laguz did start the war. It wasn't immediate as you claimed (in bold), because they sent a messenger to Begnion first, but they did start it and they risked the continent.

You're right, the laguz war was not 'perfectly alright'. But being fair is important, and very briefly, the laguz side of it is: centuries of discrimination; a culture that commends expression of physical strength in combat and eye-for-an-eye justice, mainly because most beast laguz are instinctively minded to that; racially-motivated genocide of your sworn allies; the opponent killing your messenger when you try diplomacy. There's also an argument that Begnion started the war by killing a Gallian diplomat - it's not the same as an army-scale assault like the laguz do, but if you wanted to claim the laguz were entirely justified then that's where you'd start. All of these seem like mitigating factors in understanding why the laguz do what they do. 

Of course you don't have to agree - the threat of Ashera's judgement holds the kind of overwhelming moral weight that makes it seem impossible to allow any war (indeed, petrification is for all intents and purposes death, because Ashera didn't intend anyone except her Chosen to ever not be petrified), but if anyone were merely justified in going to war, then it would probably be the Gallians. Presumably the point that you're making is that war should have been a non-starter for the laguz nations, regardless of any justification they did have.

And it's entirely your right to say that the risk the laguz take is unconscionable (and it is a huge risk they take, but not a certainty given the knowledge the laguz had at the beginning of the war). Yet this is presumably why you understand how people feel the same way about Edelgard plunging Fodlan into war. 

The argument for Ike being just as guilty is interesting - in many ways, he is responsible for prolonging the war because Soren (so Ike by extension) is the main reason the Laguz Alliance manage to make so many gains, and it is after they retreat from getting so far into Begnion that Daein gets dragged into the war (which ultimately drags Kurth into the war, and that's the nail in the coffin). Again, Ike couldn't reasonably have known this in advance though, and he, like the laguz, are over-confident in the remaining herons'/Mist's ability to contain it. That's the risk of attempting to predict the future on past trends - Ike ought to have factored in this risk, but he is a mercenary who by profession profits from war, and a bit of a meathead anyway. This war happens to be easier for him to get behind because his friend is asking him for help (and the injustice he feels about what's happened to them) but if he let the Gallian alliance go to war would he have been just as guilty, and would another potential genocide be on his head? I hadn't really considered Ike's moral responsibility before but it's a good point.

[omegaxis1]

24 minutes ago, Azz said:

Based on the scene where Edelgard as the Flame Emperor berates Kostas for being unable to perform his job, which, as his says was 'to kill as many noble pipsqueaks as possible', I'm highly unsure that Edelgard didn't intend for Dimitri and Claude not to be killed. There is even a NPC that references something along the lines that it's crazy how this year's studnet body consist of the next three leaders, and if anything were to happen, it would be horrible for the church. So I'd love to know these 'hints' where it is implied Edelgard didn't want Dimitri and Claude dead.

Except she also doesn't even stick to the topic of the killing people but instead goes on and on about Byleth being given the position. The thing is, it's heavily implied that the purpose of the attack was to get Jeritza installed as the professor. This ended in failure because of Byleth. The three main heirs being students is why the teacher ran off, because it's detrimental to them to be held responsible. I mean, Kostas also said that he never heard of the students being guarded by the Knights of Seiros, which should have been important to know.

Cause if Edelgard wanted them dead, she definitely made no further attempts to kill them throughout the year, and also, why did she follow them in the first place? The only reason they got in trouble is cause Claude ran off and Dimitri followed. Edelgard had nothing to gain from following them, but actually endangered herself by doing so. If she wanted them dead, she would have stuck with the Knights and let them get themselves killed. 

24 minutes ago, Azz said:

 Also, concenring Jeritza, within the game, there are many references to people disappearing at night and never being seen again by the hands of someone in black armour wielding a scythe. If this doesn't translate to Jeritza killing people, I don't know what does.

That is false. Not once were people "disappearing". the rumors are that there are people seeing the Death Knight. But the Death Knight only kidnapped Flayn on Thales' orders. In fact, any rumors of the Death Knight attacking innocents were investigated by the Knights of Seiros, and they found no evidence of anything of the likes. 

So what you're doing is a case of buying into rumors. The Death Knight didn't actually murder any innocent people. 

24 minutes ago, Azz said:

That is incorrect. The insurrection was spurred by Emperor Ionius suppressing the Hrym rebellion as they tried to join Leicester. The seven main noble houses of the empire then stages a coup where together they stripped Ionius of much of his power and those seven each taking a responsibility over the empire's affairs (like how Aegir is prime minister, Arundel reagent and so on). The slithers took no part in the insurrection and didn't get involved in imperial business until after when they began experimenting on the Hresvelg family. However, despite this we see that Edelgard is still able to go to her father, demand he abdicate the throne to her where she then proceeds to strip Duke Aegir of his power with little to no problem at all and with no intervention from the slithers. Clearly Edelgard has a large modicum of power if she is able to take the role of emperor and take all the power back that was stolen from her father to lead Adrestia into the war to begin with.

Um... no. First off, the Insurrection is basically a case of nobles opposing Ionius's policy of power centralization. The other thing is that Hubert states that Arundel teamed up with Aegir to strip Ionius of all power.

This, in itself, should all be what you need to know.

Arundel is Thales, ie. the known leader of the Agarthans. And he's the regent of the Empire. 

Edelgard's family has NO power anymore. 

The REASON that she attained her position of emperor is because she cooperated with the Agarthans, along with Bergliez and Hevring, who helped her get to the position of emperor. In other words, Edelgard needed to cooperate with the corrupt nobles and the Agarthans to be able to regain power. Also, she didn't "demand" that Ionius hand over the throne. Aegir no longer had the support of the other nobles because they support Edelgard. And Edelgard promised war for them. 

Hell, there's been hints of Edelgard working behind the scenes. The Battle of Eagle and Lion had it end with Edelgard speaking to Count Bergliez. Ferdinand also states that nobles in Adrestia dream of reuniting the continent. The experiments that Edelgard went through was to create a "peerless emperor". 

Edelgard was made to be a weapon for the nobles and the Agarthans to fight a war. 

Her power is overall borrowed from the Agarthans and nobles, and until she secures her reign as emperor, the idea that she can take out the Agarthans easily or avoid a war is a fallacy. The moment that Ionius was stripped of his power from the Insurrection, the war was inevitable.

24 minutes ago, Azz said:

Also, as someone who has looked quite deeply into the characters of this game, namely Edelgard, DImitri and Rhea as they interest me the most, I think I have quite a decent understanding of Edelgard's life and her situation based on what was given to us in all the routes and supports and supplementary lore in game. Based on all of that, I do think Edelgard had more options, not many albeit, but more than plunging the entire continent into a war, senselessly ending the lives of many people in service to TWSITD and the nobles of Adrestia who were really responsible for her trauma.

She really didn't, cause you're making light of the Insurrection of the Seven and hardly scratching the surface of what Edelgard had to do to get into the emperor position. Edelgard was treading ice as thin as a hairline. 

Also, I have to ask on what time period you are basing these alternate options on. 

Are you talking about how Rhea could be talked out of things because of how she was remorseful? Keep in mind that Rhea only changes her perception of things after being imprisoned for five years during the war. Before that, Rhea held the obsession that Sothis had to be revived and then lead Fodlan. She would never believe that humans can be independent. 

Dimitri also believes in the status quo, and overall rejects Edelgard's beliefs, overall kind of playing a self-righteous hypocrite when he overall refuses to compromise himself. 

24 minutes ago, Azz said:

On top of that, as I said previously, Edelgard's vision for Fodlan is extremely flawed and would simply not function in such a world that is Fodlan and is bound to repeat history and again, make her entire war moot.

That's a fallacy, and you know it. Trying to insist that things would end up like hell is something that can be said for all the routes. You can microanalyze every route ending and say that more bloody wars and suffering can happen from it.

Edelgard's system isn't perfect, but then again, no system is. But Edelgard's system is DEFINITELY better that how things were before. Crests are already on the decline. It's become very rare to have Crest babies. Edelgard removed the benefits having a Crest gives. Maybe some would covet Crests, but as it gets rarer, people won't find any merit in trying to get one. 

11 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Your alternative probably wouldn't work, because at the beginning of the war the laguz believe they have all the answers they need, and assume Begnion soldiers are acting under orders from the top (and don't yet have reason to suspect Sanaki is not the one responsible). But like you say there might have been another way, though I'm not sure what it would have been.

And any hypothetical on that would also have to include the possibility that Sephiran would have engineered something else (or Lekain would have done something himself without even intending to rouse Ashera) in order to cause the medallion to act up - the 1000-year deadline was coming anyway and a member of every race had already taken part in at least one war since the slumber of the goddess, so Ashera's revival and judgement only needed a few sparks if that. But all of that is secondary, because the laguz did start the war. It wasn't immediate as you claimed (in bold), because they sent a messenger to Begnion first, but they did start it and they risked the continent.

You're right, the laguz war was not 'perfectly alright'. But being fair is important, and very briefly, the laguz side of it is: centuries of discrimination; a culture that commends expression of physical strength in combat and eye-for-an-eye justice, mainly because most beast laguz are instinctively minded to that; racially-motivated genocide of your sworn allies; the opponent killing your messenger when you try diplomacy. There's also an argument that Begnion started the war by killing a Gallian diplomat - it's not the same as an army-scale assault like the laguz do, but if you wanted to claim the laguz were entirely justified then that's where you'd start. All of these seem like mitigating factors in understanding why the laguz do what they do. 

Of course you don't have to agree - the threat of Ashera's judgement holds the kind of overwhelming moral weight that makes it seem impossible to allow any war (indeed, petrification is for all intents and purposes death, because Ashera didn't intend anyone except her Chosen to ever not be petrified), but if anyone were merely justified in going to war, then it would probably be the Gallians. Presumably the point that you're making is that war should have been a non-starter for the laguz nations, regardless of any justification they did have.

And it's entirely your right to say that the risk the laguz take is unconscionable (and it is a huge risk they take, but not a certainty given the knowledge the laguz had at the beginning of the war). Yet this is presumably why you understand how people feel the same way about Edelgard plunging Fodlan into war. 

The argument for Ike being just as guilty is interesting - in many ways, he is responsible for prolonging the war because Soren (so Ike by extension) is the main reason the Laguz Alliance manage to make so many gains, and it is after they retreat from getting so far into Begnion that Daein gets dragged into the war (which ultimately drags Kurth into the war, and that's the nail in the coffin). Again, Ike couldn't reasonably have known this in advance though, and he, like the laguz, are over-confident in the remaining herons'/Mist's ability to contain it. That's the risk of attempting to predict the future on past trends - Ike ought to have factored in this risk, but he is a mercenary who by profession profits from war, and a bit of a meathead anyway. This war happens to be easier for him to get behind because his friend is asking him for help (and the injustice he feels about what's happened to them) but if he let the Gallian alliance go to war would he have been just as guilty, and would another potential genocide be on his head? I hadn't really considered Ike's moral responsibility before but it's a good point.

You're saying that they have "understandable reasons" but that doesn't make what they did "right" by any means. They knew the dangers. And they still acted on their war. They started a war, and because of that, the chain of events resulted in all life nearly being wiped out. 

The fact of the matter is, the laguz were objectively wrong to have started the war. It's only by sheer luck that things worked out. Or to put it bluntly, because the plot demands a happy ending.

Edited May 19, 2020 by omegaxis1

[haarhaarhaar]

44 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

You're saying that they have "understandable reasons" but that doesn't make what they did "right" by any means. They knew the dangers. And they still acted on their war. They started a war, and because of that, the chain of events resulted in all life nearly being wiped out. 

The fact of the matter is, the laguz were objectively wrong to have started the war. It's only by sheer luck that things worked out. Or to put it bluntly, because the plot demands a happy ending

Only Sephiran and Dheginsea (and by extension the dragons) know that Ashera can be awakened before 1000 years to hand down punishment for breaking the contract between god and man. Tellius didn't get anywhere near that 1000 year mark. What the other laguz know is something like: "the dark god Yune is sealed inside the medallion, and will be awakened and bring punishment on humanity if there is enough chaos in the world" - Ashnard attempts to accomplish exactly that in PoR, and fails in no small part due to Mist recovering the medallion after his death and giving it to the herons. This is the war that happens about 3 years before RD. Zelgius also knows about the Medallion's destructive capability because of being close to Sephiran and, for a while, Ashnard.

The risk of the medallion going berserk is not only in the main exacerbated by Begnion (chaotic violence against the very people safeguarding the medallion) but one that, despite the Serenes Massacre, is still held off by Reyson during the Daein insurrection and the Crimean civil revolt. In other words, the size of the risk that the laguz take is as big as the risk taken in any war in Tellius, but the information that they have suggests that the probability of that risk occurring is small.

You're right that being justified to do something and doing the right thing are two separate things (I spoke of justified because you used the phrase "people insist that the war is entirely justified" in the comment I quoted, and I actually agreed that the war wasn't "perfectly alright" in my comment too). The laguz were justified, on that I think we're happy to agree. You think they do the wrong thing because they come out on the wrong end of that risk. That's a fair criticism, but they aren't situationally different from every other large-scale combatant in Tellius ever. If anything, they are intensely unfortunate (as well as being rash) because the laguz races suffer a ridiculous amount just to be goaded into a war to awaken the Medallion. In Tellius, all wars are "objectively" wrong - you have to either use that logic for everybody (which is basically Ashera's logic anyway) or not at all.

If you want a meta-argument, the reason the Medallion erupted in RD and not PoR is probably because the developers always wanted to make a sequel to PoR.

Edited May 19, 2020 by haarhaarhaar

[omegaxis1]

4 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

If you want a meta-argument, the reason the Medallion erupted in RD and not PoR is probably because the developers always wanted to make a sequel to PoR.

PoR was definitely made with a sequel in mind, given how the story leaves a lot of hints for a sequel and even with the ending not even giving a proper ending like most Fire Emblem games. 

8 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Only Sephiran and Dheginsea (and by extension the dragons) know that Ashera can be awakened before 1000 years to hand down punishment for breaking the contract between god and man. Tellius didn't get anywhere near that 1000 year mark. What the other laguz know is something like: "the dark god Yune is sealed inside the medallion, and will be awakened and bring punishment on humanity if there is enough chaos in the world" - Ashnard attempts to accomplish exactly that in PoR, and fails in no small part due to Mist recovering the medallion after his death and giving it to the herons. This is the war that happens about 3 years before RD. Zelgius also knows about the Medallion's destructive capability because of being close to Sephiran and, for a while, Ashnard.

The risk of the medallion going berserk is not only in the main exacerbated by Begnion (chaotic violence against the very people safeguarding the medallion) but one that, despite the Serenes Massacre, is still held off by Reyson during the Daein insurrection and the Crimean civil revolt. In other words, the size of the risk that the laguz take is as big as the risk taken in any war in Tellius, but the information that they have suggests that the probability of that risk occurring is small.

And that is the problem. They think that the war will be fine because they think that they can control it, and that's exactly why the war ended up getting so bad. That's like playing with a nuke like it's a football, and not worrying it'll explode cause the safety is on or something. Nothing is guaranteed, and because of that, they endangered the world. But not once does anyone actually call the laguz out on endangering the world and doing just that, because "everything worked out". 

And unlike Begnion, the laguz saw Lehran's Medallion, where they even witnessed Ashnard using it, and know how dangerous it is. So they definitely know that something terrifying is within there.

10 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

You're right that being justified to do something and doing the right thing are two separate things (I spoke of justified because you used the phrase "people insist that the war is entirely justified" in the comment I quoted, and I actually agreed that the war wasn't "perfectly alright" in my comment too). The laguz were justified, on that I think we're happy to agree. You think they do the wrong thing because they come out on the wrong end of that risk. That's a fair criticism, but they aren't situationally different from every other large-scale combatant in Tellius ever. If anything, they are intensely unfortunate (as well as being rash) because the laguz races suffer a ridiculous amount just to be goaded into a war to awaken the Medallion. In Tellius, all wars are "objectively" wrong - you have to either use that logic for everybody (which is basically Ashera's logic anyway) or not at all.

No, war is morally wrong, but whether the war is objectively wrong is a different matter. Because there are times where peaceful negotiations are not possible because of the parties, and thus war becomes inevitable, and can be seen as objectively right to do. It depends on the reasons.

But for the laguz, they knew the dangers of the war that could bring with Lehran's Medallion. The Begnion Senate didn't know the dangers, and likely didn't even believe in Ashera really. 

What I said is that the laguz are "understandable" for their reasons. That's about as accurate as Rhea being "understandable" in what she did. But being understandable does not mean they are right in what they did or justified. 

And people are too quick to defend the Laguz Alliance starting a war by blaming the Begnion Senate alone, when it was the laguz that endangered the entire world.

[Darkmoon6789]

Do we actually even know if Jeritza actually kills innocents? I thought he did on my first playthrough of the game for quite a while. But upon further examination, he seems to be more concerned with the fighting worthy opponents and I don't think there is a single case of him killing anything other than combatants. He is concerned about testing his mettle, not slaughtering the helpless.  I think the Death Knight is pretty much all about honourable combat

[omegaxis1]

8 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Do we actually even know if Jeritza actually kills innocents? I thought he did on my first playthrough of the game for quite a while. But upon further examination, he seems to be more concerned with the fighting worthy opponents and I don't think there is a single case of him killing anything other than combatants. He is concerned about testing his mettle, not slaughtering the helpless.  I think the Death Knight is pretty much all about honourable combat

There's definitely a form of inconsistency in the Death Knight's lust for blood. For the most part of what we see, the Death Knight doesn't actually seek to kill those he deems weak unless they provoke him. But he does have a desire to kill so he seeks battles out. 

[eclipse]

Y'know, kidnapping is still pretty traumatic, and shouldn't be handwaved.

[haarhaarhaar]

2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

No, war is morally wrong, but whether the war is objectively wrong is a different matter. Because there are times where peaceful negotiations are not possible because of the parties, and thus war becomes inevitable, and can be seen as objectively right to do. It depends on the reasons.

But for the laguz, they knew the dangers of the war that could bring with Lehran's Medallion. The Begnion Senate didn't know the dangers, and likely didn't even believe in Ashera really. 

What I said is that the laguz are "understandable" for their reasons. That's about as accurate as Rhea being "understandable" in what she did. But being understandable does not mean they are right in what they did or justified. 

And people are too quick to defend the Laguz Alliance starting a war by blaming the Begnion Senate alone, when it was the laguz that endangered the entire world

Objectively doesn't mean completely, it means from all perspectives. Which is why it's pretty rare to find objective anythings, ever (and why I used quote marks above and following). If all wars in Tellius are "objectively" wrong, they are so because any and every instance of war is potential cause for Ashera's judgement. It's a circumstance unique to Tellius, and the reason it is objective is because it applies to all wars in Tellius after Ashera's contract, regardless of any other context. Some peoples don't know that this risk comes with war, and that can be a mitigating factor for their own moral culpability, but the risk never disappears. The example of an objectively right war that you give (which is actually an example fo a justifiable war) is pretty much exactly what happens to the laguz in RD Part 3.

Sephiran and Ashnard (and those who work directly for them) are people who actively intend to cause the judgement, and Sephiran is pulling the strings for most of PoR and RD. The laguz never intend anything like what actually happens - the risk they take on is one they believed, and had some proof for, being mitigated (the presence of Reyson). Their flawed knowledge should also count as a mitigating factor, because had they known what the Begnion senate knew (that the senate were acting without approval from Sanaki) then they could have changed approach. And that's putting aside the literal ton of other reasons they had to go to war.

The senators are mostly rats with an agenda of racial bigotry (basically the Agarthans) and they did provoke the laguz repeatedly and awfully. A lot of the blame does go to them, because they wanted an excuse to wipe out the laguz while maintaining the semblance of justice, and incited a race war to do it. Not the first time that's happened in our history, and probably not the last, but history tends to attribute the majority of the blame to the oppressor, for good reason. The senate created a situation that caused a race war, and (even if unintentionally) also risked Ashera's judgement. The laguz are basically manipulated into fighting, made so angry that they fall right into Sephiran's aims. I don't think people are too quick to blame the Begnion Senate, the game all but forces you to acknowledge that they have the lion's share of culpability. 

2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

And that is the problem. They think that the war will be fine because they think that they can control it, and that's exactly why the war ended up getting so bad. That's like playing with a nuke like it's a football, and not worrying it'll explode cause the safety is on or something. Nothing is guaranteed, and because of that, they endangered the world. But not once does anyone actually call the laguz out on endangering the world and doing just that, because "everything worked out". 

And unlike Begnion, the laguz saw Lehran's Medallion, where they even witnessed Ashnard using it, and know how dangerous it is. So they definitely know that something terrifying is within there

Zelgius knows. He doesn't have complete control over Begnion's actions, but he does have a fair amount of authority. But even putting that aside, I don't know why you've focused in so much on the laguz being somehow morally more bankrupt than everyone else in RD, especially when they tend to be the aggrieved party. They didn't choose to have their allies, the guys "making sure the nuke doesn't blow" massacred, or their attempts at diplomacy brutally cut off. The risk that they shoulder isn't a risk of the outcome that actually happens, but of a nebulous bad end that they think they have safeguards against.

They stood up to fight despite the risk. If that sounds familiar, it's because it's an argument often used to defend Edelgard. Not saying they are the same in every respect, just in this one. The argument that the laguz shouldn't have gone to war would also justify Dheginsea for isolating himself and dragonkind from humanity the whole time, but this didn't stop any of his children from getting involved and has the opposite effect to his intention of preserving the peace. And again, the argument of not going to war could be used on Edelgard.

I'm not gonna get into another Edelgard debate - the above is just to point out the double standards in going all-in to justify Edelgard, at the expense of shutting down dissenting opinions, but then having the opposite outlook for the laguz and still claiming there isn't room for disagreement. 

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by haarhaarhaar

[Darkmoon6789]

2 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Y'know, kidnapping is still pretty traumatic, and shouldn't be handwaved.

I think this took place while Arundel was put in charge of the Death Knight. Jeritza was just carrying out the orders from the Agarthan leaders. To his credit Flayn and Manuella was found alive. Yes, this is pretty traumatic, but what I really want to know if he really does slaughter innocents indiscriminately or if he usually sticks to combatants.

I do actually see the Death Knight as rather similar to Boar Dimitri , who despite his sadism do stick to killing people in the military hierarchy. Both are also essentially a second personality developed because of trauma that are both overly violent.