Jump to content

Why Edelgard von Hresvelg is the most hated girl?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

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.

. . .that doesn't address my point, though. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 283
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

15 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

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. 

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 of petrification, 

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. 

 

The overall point I want to make is that people are quick to point out how "Edelgard started a war" and try to be all righteous, but ignore entirely how RD has the Laguz Alliance start a war and endanger the entire world, but you don't hear people calling that out. Because they feel that the war is entirely justified because the Bengion Senate is evil. Regardless of how evil or what atrocity the Begnion Senate committed, it does not change the matter that the Laguz Alliance started a war while knowing the risks. 

Hence why I said that had Ashera's Judgment been a death beam, no one would say that the war was worth it. Though as you are showing, you're still trying to insist that it's the Begnion Senate's fault more than anything. but they didn't know. Zelgius knowing is irrelevant, since he's not doing anything with that information because he's following Sephiran's commands. But he's not the one in power in Begnion, as the Senate decides what to do. Hell, disobeying the Senate is treasonous for Zelgius that he was nearly executed. 

But the leaders of the Laguz Alliance did know the dangers, the risks, and they still took it without seeking any alternatives. Regardless of their reasons, understandable it might be, it does not change the literal fact that they started a war with the looming threat of omnicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, eclipse said:

. . .that doesn't address my point, though. . .

And the point is what? That you think I am handwaving the kidnapping thing? If we are talking about Flayn. I see Jeritza as a little more than a obedient minion following the orders of his masters. The one who is truly responsible for it is the one who ordered it rather than the one who carried it out. I am pretty much expecting Thales to order evil crap to be done to further his plans.

Or is there any evidence of Jeritza committing any other kidnappings, and the time he kidnapped Flayn? I think there was something about rumours about people disappearing. I was just wondering what we knew about the context of that and whenever or not it is just rumours with no basis. And if true whenever Jeritza was acting under orders or was acting under his own initiative. That makes a lot of difference for me when determining his morality. 

What is relevant for this discussion is that while Jeritza was under the direct command of Arundel, I do not attribute his actions to Edelgard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

And the point is what? That you think I am handwaving the kidnapping thing? If we are talking about Flayn. I see Jeritza as a little more than a obedient minion following the orders of his masters. The one who is truly responsible for it is the one who ordered it rather than the one who carried it out. I am pretty much expecting Thales to order evil crap to be done to further his plans.

Hoooold up, that is not how that works. Look at any case where someone hires someone to kidnap or kill someone else: both parties are equally culpable. Jeritza is never shown to be an "obedient minion" in the first place, he will directly defy orders if he well feels like it (Holy Tomb) and even attacks Edelgard knowing who she is (any BE chapter where you face him).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

And the point is what? That you think I am handwaving the kidnapping thing? If we are talking about Flayn. I see Jeritza as a little more than a obedient minion following the orders of his masters. The one who is truly responsible for it is the one who ordered it rather than the one who carried it out. I am pretty much expecting Thales to order evil crap to be done to further his plans.

Or is there any evidence of Jeritza committing any other kidnappings, and the time he kidnapped Flayn? I think there was something about rumours about people disappearing. I was just wondering what we knew about the context of that and whenever or not it is just rumours with no basis. And if true whenever Jeritza was acting under orders or was acting under his own initiative. That makes a lot of difference for me when determining his morality. 

What is relevant for this discussion is that while Jeritza was under the direct command of Arundel, I do not attribute his actions to Edelgard.

The rumors of people disappearing has been somewhat proven in two cases - Flayn and Monica.  That means they're more than just rumors.

Edelgard may not have ordered the kidnappings, but "Monica's" behavior after her rescue seems to indicate that Edelgard knows more about it than everyone else.

Lastly, there's the matter of the executioner himself.  He's not a brainwashed minion.  Which means that, at absolute best, someone masterminded it, Jeritza followed orders, and Edelgard was complicit in the fact that she didn't raise hell over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, eclipse said:

The rumors of people disappearing has been somewhat proven in two cases - Flayn and Monica.  That means they're more than just rumors.

Edelgard may not have ordered the kidnappings, but "Monica's" behavior after her rescue seems to indicate that Edelgard knows more about it than everyone else.

Lastly, there's the matter of the executioner himself.  He's not a brainwashed minion.  Which means that, at absolute best, someone masterminded it, Jeritza followed orders, and Edelgard was complicit in the fact that she didn't raise hell over it.

Both kidnappings, which have a clear purpose in the plans of the Agarthans. Proving that he doesn't seem to do these on his own accord but rather under orders. 

I do think that Edelgard knows that Monica is Kronya, but not necessarily that they plan to kill Jeralt. She does seem genuinely shocked by that. Even if the only reason she cares is that she cares Byleth. Granted, I have seen some people mentioned the possibility that it is possible that the real Monica was actually a friend of Edelgard and that this is the reason they hang around each other so much.

Even if Edelgard maybe didn't raise hell over the kidnappings, I would qualify her reaction to the incident at Remire village to be raising hell. As well as her reaction to Jeralt's death. It is very clear she isn't pleased with that.

11 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Hoooold up, that is not how that works. Look at any case where someone hires someone to kidnap or kill someone else: both parties are equally culpable. Jeritza is never shown to be an "obedient minion" in the first place, he will directly defy orders if he well feels like it (Holy Tomb) and even attacks Edelgard knowing who she is (any BE chapter where you face him).

 

13 minutes ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

Well, Jeritza is the material author of the kidnapping. Thales is the mastermind. In the modern judicial system it would be so specified. And yes, Jeritza would receive a sentence, although not greater than Thales

I am not approaching this from a judicial perspective. My views of morality are often at odds with that of most modern justice systems. One major difference is that I don't view culpability the same way. I am also not in favour of the very principle of punishment. But rather favour containment for the sake of public safety and rehabilitation whenever possible. 

When it comes to Jeritza . He is quite obviously mentally ill, and if we were talking from a judicial perspective, I would argue he should be given psychiatric care instead of prison due to his mental issues. 

There is also the factor that I do not consider it to be job of soldiers to be evaluating the morality of their orders. That is for their superiors to decide and I only expect them to do their job in carrying them out. This also absolves them of responsibility in my mind as their job is to follow the orders of their superiors without question. Therefore, the moral responsibility always falls to the one who gives the order. (Any acts by Jeritza outside of the parameters his orders are however his responsibility)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Both kidnappings, which have a clear purpose in the plans of the Agarthans. Proving that he doesn't seem to do these on his own accord but rather under orders. 

I do think that Edelgard knows that Monica is Kronya, but not necessarily that they plan to kill Jeralt. She does seem genuinely shocked by that. Even if the only reason she cares is that she cares Byleth. Granted, I have seen some people mentioned the possibility that it is possible that the real Monica was actually a friend of Edelgard and that this is the reason they hang around each other so much.

Even if Edelgard maybe didn't raise hell over the kidnappings, I would qualify her reaction to the incident at Remire village to be raising hell. As well as her reaction to Jeralt's death. It is very clear she isn't pleased with that.

 

I am not approaching this from a judicial perspective. My views of morality are often at odds with that of most modern justice systems. One major difference is that I don't view culpability the same way. I am also not in favour of the very principle of punishment. But rather favour containment for the sake of public safety and rehabilitation whenever possible. 

When it comes to Jeritza . He is quite obviously mentally ill, and if we were talking from a judicial perspective, I would argue he should be given psychiatric care instead of prison due to his mental issues. 

There is also the factor that I do not consider it to be job of soldiers to be evaluating the morality of their orders. That is for their superiors to decide and I only expect them to do their job in carrying them out. This also absolves them of responsibility in my mind as their job is to follow the orders of their superiors without question. Therefore, the moral responsibility always falls to the one who gives the order. (Any acts by Jeritza outside of the parameters his orders are however his responsibility)

I think this is a type of perspective that won't be appreciated by some. 

But the thing is, we cannot deny that Jeritza DID still kidnap Flayn, so that's still something he did do. Whether or not he was just a puppet or tool, it doesn't change that he, himself, DID commit the crime. Whether or not it's on someone else's orders, it doesn't change how it's still him that did the actual act.

Just as we say that the war of Fodlan would happen no matter what, it doesn't change that Edelgard still DID start the war. It doesn't change her own actions in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Both kidnappings, which have a clear purpose in the plans of the Agarthans. Proving that he doesn't seem to do these on his own accord but rather under orders. 

I do think that Edelgard knows that Monica is Kronya, but not necessarily that they plan to kill Jeralt. She does seem genuinely shocked by that. Even if the only reason she cares is that she cares Byleth. Granted, I have seen some people mentioned the possibility that it is possible that the real Monica was actually a friend of Edelgard and that this is the reason they hang around each other so much.

Even if Edelgard maybe didn't raise hell over the kidnappings, I would qualify her reaction to the incident at Remire village to be raising hell. As well as her reaction to Jeralt's death. It is very clear she isn't pleased with that.

I think you're going way too far into "Edelgard did nothing wrong" territory.  It's one thing to like a character, but it's a little worrying when you try to completely brush away her flaws.  IMO those flaws make her interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

The overall point I want to make is that people are quick to point out how "Edelgard started a war" and try to be all righteous, but ignore entirely how RD has the Laguz Alliance start a war and endanger the entire world, but you don't hear people calling that out. Because they feel that the war is entirely justified because the Bengion Senate is evil. Regardless of how evil or what atrocity the Begnion Senate committed, it does not change the matter that the Laguz Alliance started a war while knowing the risks. 

Hence why I said that had Ashera's Judgment been a death beam, no one would say that the war was worth it. Though as you are showing, you're still trying to insist that it's the Begnion Senate's fault more than anything. but they didn't know. Zelgius knowing is irrelevant, since he's not doing anything with that information because he's following Sephiran's commands. But he's not the one in power in Begnion, as the Senate decides what to do. Hell, disobeying the Senate is treasonous for Zelgius that he was nearly executed. 

But the leaders of the Laguz Alliance did know the dangers, the risks, and they still took it without seeking any alternatives. Regardless of their reasons, understandable it might be, it does not change the literal fact that they started a war with the looming threat of omnicide.

Just so I have it clear, your argument is that people who think Edelgard is wrong for starting a war should also blame the Laguz Alliance by the same logic (and because the latter is ridiculous, so is the former)? If that's true, then I did misunderstand you, because I thought you were talking round in circles.

Zelgius isn't really a main point, because as you say he is basically an extension of Sephiran. But he could have done any number of things with an independent moral compass - all I wanted to say is that he is culpable by the same standards of knowledge as the ones you put forward.

Presumably the point they are making (whoever they are, you're the first person I've seen compare the two) is that the parallel isn't exact: Rhea isn't as unequivocally in the wrong as Lekain/the Senate, Edelgard isn't as unequivocally right as the laguz, and it's debatable both that the laguz started the war and that Edelgard was provoked enough to justify war. I'm not gonna argue for or against any of those here, I'm just gonna say that opinions on both sides of Edelgard remain legit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I think you're going way too far into "Edelgard did nothing wrong" territory.  It's one thing to like a character, but it's a little worrying when you try to completely brush away her flaws.  IMO those flaws make her interesting.

I have not seen him claim such a thing. In fact, he acknowledges Edelgard's flaws (perfect characters are boring). But if the point is the kidnappings and the death of Jeralt, Edelgard has nothing to do with it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Just so I have it clear, your argument is that people who think Edelgard is wrong for starting a war should also blame the Laguz Alliance by the same logic (and because the latter is ridiculous, so is the former)? If that's true, then I did misunderstand you, because I thought you were talking round in circles.

Zelgius isn't really a main point, because as you say he is basically an extension of Sephiran. But he could have done any number of things with an independent moral compass - all I wanted to say is that he is culpable by the same standards of knowledge as the ones you put forward.

Presumably the point they are making (whoever they are, you're the first person I've seen compare the two) is that the parallel isn't exact: Rhea isn't as unequivocally in the wrong as Lekain/the Senate, Edelgard isn't as unequivocally right as the laguz, and it's debatable both that the laguz started the war and that Edelgard was provoked enough to justify war. I'm not gonna argue for or against any of those here, I'm just gonna say that opinions on both sides of Edelgard remain legit.

You'd be surprised by how people don't take the nuance so far, and just go into absolutes of good and evil.

"Edelgard starts a war" and therefore evil.

"Laguz start a war, but the Senate is evil" and therefore the war is justified. 

They don't bother to pay attention beyond the small scope of good and evil. 

If you analyze into the depths of the war, then you'd know that the laguz, regardless of their reasons, would understand that the laguz ultimately did endanger the world while knowing the risks. Just as people would need to really analyze further into the war of Fodlan to understand that it's not simple black and white logic, but there's lots of nuance into this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I think you're going way too far into "Edelgard did nothing wrong" territory.  It's one thing to like a character, but it's a little worrying when you try to completely brush away her flaws.  IMO those flaws make her interesting.

I never said she is flawless. I think what makes her interesting is that she is such a good and well intentioned person who nonetheless is a conqueror. Empires and emperors like Edelgard are usually depicted as uncontroversial villains, what makes Edelgard stand out is that the situation is depicted with far more nuance than is common. The point I see being made with Edelgard as character is that even the people at the top who start wars and conquers the territories of other nations are still in the end people who might be sympathetic in their own right.  

It is easy to point fingers and judge a person solely by their actions, but maybe that isn't entirely fair.To reduce a person down to their crimes is little more than dehumanisation and an excuse not to feel empathy. Edelgard might have started a war, but what she is above all else is human, nothing she has done makes her any less human or worthy of being treated with respect. 

I think what bothers me the most with people in general is that they are so quick to declare who deserves what horrible thing to happen to other people because of something they have done. Forgetting that such sadistic desires makes little better than the people they condemn. It is easy to deliver judgements when you just view a person as a murderer, a theif, an adulterer or whatever. But ultimately, all the people we label as such are human and to view them as less than human is screwed up. 

Some say that justice should be blind and judge people solely by their actions and not the circumstances that leads to them. I disagree completely with that notion, as I do believe that circumstances surrounding someone's actions are actually important in determining how much of a danger that person is to society. 

So, I believe that the point at least for me when it comes to Edelgard a character is that even those who are responsible for the deaths of thousands can be good people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I never said she is flawless. I think what makes her interesting is that she is such a good and well intentioned person who nonetheless is a conqueror. Empires and emperors like Edelgard are usually depicted as uncontroversial villains, what makes Edelgard stand out is that the situation is depicted with far more nuance than is common. The point I see being made with Edelgard as character is that even the people at the top who start wars and conquers the territories of other nations are still in the end people who might be sympathetic in their own right.  

It is easy to point fingers and judge a person solely by their actions, but maybe that isn't entirely fair.To reduce a person down to their crimes is little more than dehumanisation and an excuse not to feel empathy. Edelgard might have started a war, but what she is above all else is human, nothing she has done makes her any less human or worthy of being treated with respect. 

I think what bothers me the most with people in general is that they are so quick to declare who deserves what horrible thing to happen to other people because of something they have done. Forgetting that such sadistic desires makes little better than the people they condemn. It is easy to deliver judgements when you just view a person as a murderer, a theif, an adulterer or whatever. But ultimately, all the people we label as such are human and to view them as less than human is screwed up. 

Some say that justice should be blind and judge people solely by their actions and not the circumstances that leads to them. I disagree completely with that notion, as I do believe that circumstances surrounding someone's actions are actually important in determining how much of a danger that person is to society. 

So, I believe that the point at least for me when it comes to Edelgard a character is that even those who are responsible for the deaths of thousands can be good people

But what they are saying is that the actions itself shouldn't actually be overlooked either. Actions are still actions, regardless of the reasons behind them. Doing a bad thing is still doing a bad thing.

It's as I said above. It's like Edelgard. Whether the war was inevitable or not, Edelgard did still pull the trigger that started it all. She herself acknowledges this and knows that the lives lost are still on her action. 

Yes, she did what she had to do, could even say that she didn't have much of a choice, but she did still act and caused a war. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, omegaxis1 said:

But what they are saying is that the actions itself shouldn't actually be overlooked either. Actions are still actions, regardless of the reasons behind them. Doing a bad thing is still doing a bad thing.

It's as I said above. It's like Edelgard. Whether the war was inevitable or not, Edelgard did still pull the trigger that started it all. She herself acknowledges this and knows that the lives lost are still on her action. 

Yes, she did what she had to do, could even say that she didn't have much of a choice, but she did still act and caused a war. 

Yes, she did start the war, that is undeniable (kind of, there is also the Agarthan influence). But what does that really mean in this case? I actually think she was in the right for doing that, given the circumstances. I don't buy the argument that there was another way to change Fodlan.

The problem I really have is that when it comes to some people, admitting that someone is responsible for something like this will lead to them immediately jumping to the argument that this person deserves death. I don't think this is accurate at all when it comes to Edelgard. She is even grieving the deaths caused by the war, she is far from a cold-blooded killer. It comes to show that the can't simply look at the number of deaths caused by a person and judge their value as a human being accordingly. There are other factors that matters here. Edelgard might have caused more deaths than most, but ultimately she is still better than a murderer who killed even a single person or personal gain or pleasure. The difference in position and motive matters

When it comes to Jeritza, his case is helped by the fact that I do know rehabilitation for him is possible, as he is able to live a relatively normal life after the war with Mercedes. It is always more important to me. If the person is posing a risk to others in the future rather than what they have done in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Yes, she did start the war, that is undeniable (kind of, there is also the Agarthan influence). But what does that really mean in this case? I actually think she was in the right for doing that, given the circumstances. I don't buy the argument that there was another way to change Fodlan.

The problem I really have is that when it comes to some people, admitting that someone is responsible for something like this will lead to them immediately jumping to the argument that this person deserves death. I don't think this is accurate at all when it comes to Edelgard. She is even grieving the deaths caused by the war, she is far from a cold-blooded killer. It comes to show that the can't simply look at the number of deaths caused by a person and judge their value as a human being accordingly. There are other factors that matters here. Edelgard might have caused more deaths than most, but ultimately she is still better than a murderer who killed even a single person or personal gain or pleasure. The difference in position and motive matters

When it comes to Jeritza, his case is helped by the fact that I do know rehabilitation for him is possible, as he is able to live a relatively normal life after the war with Mercedes. It is always more important to me. If the person is posing a risk to others in the future rather than what they have done in the past.

So what you're saying is that Jeritza shouldn't be just hanged or killed, but rather be rehabilitated and overall atone for what he had done, yes? 

Basically, no different from how Edelgard dedicated herself to help the people with her new government reformations so that the war she caused was not just some giant waste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

So what you're saying is that Jeritza shouldn't be just hanged or killed, but rather be rehabilitated and overall atone for what he had done, yes? 

Basically, no different from how Edelgard dedicated herself to help the people with her new government reformations so that the war she caused was not just some giant waste.

Pretty much. Edelgard especially can do a lot more good for the world alive than dead. It is very much possible to view her spending her life trying to improve things for the people of Fodlan is her own personal atonement for the war. 

Ultimately, if you just kill a criminal, but does little good except possibly preventing them from doing more harm in the future. They are however more likely to atone for their crimes by doing good, it is better to leave them alive as at least then they can atone for their crimes somewhat. Even if sometimes it cannot be atoned completely.

But Edelgard when she loses the war is a bit of an annoying case for someone with my view of justice. If I put myself in the shoes of Byleth in silver snow and verdant wind. I actually would never argue for putting her to death if she wasn't insisting on it. Which kind of puts me in a dilemma between respecting her wishes and remaining true to my own personal beliefs. Is it right to put her to death because she wants me to even if I believe that she is too good a person to deserve death? Or should I spare her against her wishes as I value her life and the potential good she could still do in the future? But I guess it is a moot point as I would never fight against her in the first place. If I truly lived in her world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

I have not seen him claim such a thing. In fact, he acknowledges Edelgard's flaws (perfect characters are boring). But if the point is the kidnappings and the death of Jeralt, Edelgard has nothing to do with it

At best, it's an unknown for the kidnappings.  For Jeralt, it's hard to say, since "Monica" spent a very long time with Edelgard beforehand, and we have no idea what they were talking about.

2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I never said she is flawless. I think what makes her interesting is that she is such a good and well intentioned person who nonetheless is a conqueror. Empires and emperors like Edelgard are usually depicted as uncontroversial villains, what makes Edelgard stand out is that the situation is depicted with far more nuance than is common. The point I see being made with Edelgard as character is that even the people at the top who start wars and conquers the territories of other nations are still in the end people who might be sympathetic in their own right.  

It is easy to point fingers and judge a person solely by their actions, but maybe that isn't entirely fair.To reduce a person down to their crimes is little more than dehumanisation and an excuse not to feel empathy. Edelgard might have started a war, but what she is above all else is human, nothing she has done makes her any less human or worthy of being treated with respect. 

I think what bothers me the most with people in general is that they are so quick to declare who deserves what horrible thing to happen to other people because of something they have done. Forgetting that such sadistic desires makes little better than the people they condemn. It is easy to deliver judgements when you just view a person as a murderer, a theif, an adulterer or whatever. But ultimately, all the people we label as such are human and to view them as less than human is screwed up. 

Some say that justice should be blind and judge people solely by their actions and not the circumstances that leads to them. I disagree completely with that notion, as I do believe that circumstances surrounding someone's actions are actually important in determining how much of a danger that person is to society. 

So, I believe that the point at least for me when it comes to Edelgard a character is that even those who are responsible for the deaths of thousands can be good people

. . .yeah, way too far down the rabbit hole.

The point of pointing out those flaws isn't necessarily dehumanization.  In my case, it's a pointed reminder that people will dislike her for them.  What your opinion is on that segment of the fanbase is for your to decide.  But people who don't like her aren't doing it just to spite your views.  Sometimes, it's truly a difference of opinion. . .and if you want people to respect your opinion, then you'd damn well better respect theirs when it runs counter to yours with cause.

And for her being a good person?  I don't care.  She's a video game character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, eclipse said:

At best, it's an unknown for the kidnappings.  For Jeralt, it's hard to say, since "Monica" spent a very long time with Edelgard beforehand, and we have no idea what they were talking about.

. . .yeah, way too far down the rabbit hole.

The point of pointing out those flaws isn't necessarily dehumanization.  In my case, it's a pointed reminder that people will dislike her for them.  What your opinion is on that segment of the fanbase is for your to decide.  But people who don't like her aren't doing it just to spite your views.  Sometimes, it's truly a difference of opinion. . .and if you want people to respect your opinion, then you'd damn well better respect theirs when it runs counter to yours with cause.

And for her being a good person?  I don't care.  She's a video game character.

The main reason I say that I don't think she had much to do with Jeralt's death is that she is clearly sympathetic to Byleth after the fact and even basically leaks the location of his killer to them. If she was involved, it is at least clear that she feels guilty about the whole ordeal and want to make up for it. Granted, this is primarily in Crimson Flower and she might feel differently if she isn't as close to Byleth. Despite, Jeralt's death does seem more like Kronya taking an opportunity rather than something that was planned beforehand. I believe that the actual plan was the crest beasts on the mission before, essentially as a proof of concept. 

She might have known about the kidnappings, but it is fact that the Death Knight was under the control of Arundel from the point directly after the mission where you get the sword of the creator. Which I think is a clue on who ordered it. Granted, I guess the Monica kidnapping happened a year before the start of the game. 

I don't really care if someone dislike her, but I do prefer it to be for something she actually did. Most people do this as the most common reason is just the war itself. But sometimes you find situations where someone dislike her because they have a misunderstanding of the events of the game. Trying to change someone's mind is usually pointless, as people just think differently. It isn't really the goal of what I am doing, I am simply trying to explain my perspective and correct what I see as misconceptions. While I think not agreeing with her methods is reasonable, saying that he had the option to approach this peacefully is just incorrect.

What I mind isn't as much people disliking her, but what I can't stand is those who mistreat her fans and supporters and consider us to be bad people for supporting her. I have never seen it on this site, but I have experienced that a lot elsewhere.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

What I mind isn't as much people disliking her, but what I can't stand is those who mistreat her fans and supporters and consider us to be bad people for supporting her. I have never seen it on this site, but I have experienced that a lot elsewhere.  

Here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, eclipse said:

Here?

No, I have really bad experiences with GameFAQ's and reddit. The main reason I chose this place as my primary avenue for Three Houses discussions is that debates here are so much more civil. Here it is actually possible to express my views and why I like this character without being called a fascist or being compared to Hitler.

I even encountered a case that is worse than this with an argument with a religious fundamentalist who literally called me a devil worshipper for being agnostic. And who did argue that Edelgard would deserve not only to die, but to be tortured for all eternity. Still, as this person was a literal theocrat . There is no wonder they would hate Edelgard with such a passion. Considering that Edelgard like me is a nonbeliever in the dominant religion of their respective regions.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I might have gotten into a habit of being overly defensive because of past experiences. Still, I am the type who seek out this type of arguments as I take literally any excuse of talking about Edelgard as I enjoy doing that. She is interesting and there are a lot of ideas to explore with her character. 

I just prefer to be talking about that on this forum as discussions are less likely to turn into a toxic discussion about religion or nazi germany.

I have to say I got exactly what I wanted from this forum, I came here to find like-minded individuals who I could talk to about the game and I found exactly that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

No, I have really bad experiences with GameFAQ's and reddit. The main reason I chose this place as my primary avenue for Three Houses discussions is that debates here are so much more civil. Here it is actually possible to express my views and why I like this character without being called a fascist or being compared to Hitler.

I even encountered a case that is worse than this with an argument with a religious fundamentalist who literally called me a devil worshipper for being agnostic. And who did argue that Edelgard would deserve not only to die, but to be tortured for all eternity. Still, as this person was a literal theocrat . There is no wonder they would hate Edelgard with such a passion. Considering that Edelgard like me is a nonbeliever in the dominant religion of their respective regions.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I might have gotten into a habit of being overly defensive because of past experiences. Still, I am the type who seek out this type of arguments as I take literally any excuse of talking about Edelgard as I enjoy doing that. She is interesting and there are a lot of ideas to explore with her character. 

I just prefer to be talking about that on this forum as discussions are less likely to turn into a toxic discussion about religion or nazi germany.

I have to say I got exactly what I wanted from this forum, I came here to find like-minded individuals who I could talk to about the game and I found exactly that.

I guess that means we're doing something right.

But it also means that you'll need to tailor the discussion to the community. . .and if you're running into people who don't seem able to comprehend things like "nuance", then perhaps it's best NOT to discuss something so complex in such environments.  Over here, there's people who love/hate Edelgard for their own reasons, and I doubt any of them will hate you because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like a distinction needs to be made here between simply disliking Edelgard and saying outright incorrect information to try and justify that dislike. I mean criticize all you want but at least get your facts straight when you do so. Also, personally I really don’t get criticizing a character for their flaws because a character’s flaws are what make them relatable and nuanced but that’s just me. People will dislike whatever they want I suppose 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I feel like a distinction needs to be made here between simply disliking Edelgard and saying outright incorrect information to try and justify that dislike. I mean criticize all you want but at least get your facts straight when you do so. Also, personally I really don’t get criticizing a character for their flaws because a character’s flaws are what make them relatable and nuanced but that’s just me. People will dislike whatever they want I suppose 

Does it matter in the long run?  Will this affect the future of the world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, eclipse said:

Does it matter in the long run?  Will this affect the future of the world?

Not necessarily but I’m just one to prefer more nuanced and in-depth discussion. Like I said if you’re frame your opinion as an objective argument you should at least try and get your facts straight. People have different tastes and there’s nothing wrong with that. I just generally dislike it when people have to make stuff up to try and frame it as an objective critique when it’s not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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