Why Edelgard von Hresvelg is the most hated girl?

[omegaxis1]

2 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I could even put up a decent defence for the Agarthans, even if that is obviously going to have some holes in it due to the difficulty of defending those people. But hey, I have used the following orders argument in defence of Kronya just for the heck of it.

This reminds me, I once explained to someone how the shadow library proves that Rhea's beliefs that the Agarthans were consumed by hubris and challenged the goddess is false, and they were just terrified humans that attacked out of fear. But the guy insists that it proves that the Agarthans were just as Rhea said, and then tried to compare the past Agarthans to the current Agarthans, when the current Agarthans are just the fearful Agarthans now consumed by hatred and lust for vengeance.

Just now, JubileePhoenix said:

Yeah, you right, I should have saw it in a different view. That the actions of Edelgard to me seems more unjust then someone like Roy. To me at least. 

Well, that's fine. But others, like myself, don't see her as unjust, but someone that does what is necessary for Fodlan to get out of the stagnant world it lives in. 

[Darkmoon6789]

6 minutes ago, JubileePhoenix said:

Yeah, you right, I should have saw it in a different view. That the actions of Edelgard to me seems more unjust then someone like Roy. To me at least. 

I don't know that much about Roy, but if I were to get guess he is probably one of those fantasy kings that are unrealistically benevolent and an uncontroversial good guy. 

Edelgard is more complex than that. And I would argue she is a fairly realistic monarch. Though I would still say she compares favourably to her historical counterparts like Napoleon. 

I have said this before, but I just don't think that absolutely perfect fantasy monarch actually works in real life as the very role of of leadership requires a level of ruthlessness. So a king being too nice would actually be a detriment as they would be unable to defend their people adequately as they wouldn't be willing to do what the job requires them to do. So in the real world, I do think that someone like Edelgard would be a more effective leader and I think we need people like her. Someone who is willing to make the sacrifices others are unwilling to make make a better future for her people. 

8 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

This reminds me, I once explained to someone how the shadow library proves that Rhea's beliefs that the Agarthans were consumed by hubris and challenged the goddess is false, and they were just terrified humans that attacked out of fear. But the guy insists that it proves that the Agarthans were just as Rhea said, and then tried to compare the past Agarthans to the current Agarthans, when the current Agarthans are just the fearful Agarthans now consumed by hatred and lust for vengeance.

Well, that's fine. But others, like myself, don't see her as unjust, but someone that does what is necessary for Fodlan to get out of the stagnant world it lives in. 

The way I interpreted events is that the Nabateans shared their technology with the Agarthans. They used it to create weapons to wage war among themselves. Sothis was angered and threatened to drown them all in a flood, they responded with using the pillats of light against her in an act of self defence, it failed and Sothis proceeded to drown them all with the exception of those who retreated to an underground bunker that eventually became known as Shambhala. The remaining Agarthans's swore revenge against Sothis and manipulated Nemesis into slaying Sothis while she slept and stealing her power. 

So technically speaking, Sothis started it but that isn't a justification for experimenting on Edelgard and her siblings, causing the tragedy of Duscur and countless other crap they are responsible for. 

[JubileePhoenix]

2 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I don't know that much about Roy, but if I were to get guess he is probably one of those fantasy kings that are unrealistically benevolent and an uncontroversial good guy. 

Edelgard is more complex than that. And I would argue she is a fairly realistic monarch. Though I would still say she compares favourably to her historical counterparts like Napoleon. 

I have said this before, but I just don't think that absolutely perfect fantasy monarch actually works in real life as the very role of of leadership requires a level of ruthlessness. So a king being too nice would actually be a detriment as they would be unable to defend their people adequately as they wouldn't be willing to do what the job requires them to do. So in the real world, I do think that someone like Edelgard would be a more effective leader and I think we need people like her. Someone who is willing to make the sacrifices others are unwilling to make make a better future for her people. 

 

She will make Fodlan great again!

[Darkmoon6789]

15 minutes ago, JubileePhoenix said:

She will make Fodlan great again!

That is assuming it was ever great in the first place. 

Plus Edelgard is more of a liberal than a conservative, how can she be a conservative when she downright dislikes traditions? 

[Troykv]

14 hours ago, JubileePhoenix said:

She will make Fodlan great again!

I wonder if Fodlan was ever great...

[omegaxis1]

14 hours ago, JubileePhoenix said:

She will make Fodlan great again!

That's Rhea. You know, the lady that wanted Sothis to come back so that things would go BACK to how they USED TO BE.

[Darkmoon6789]

47 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

That's Rhea. You know, the lady that wanted Sothis to come back so that things would go BACK to how they USED TO BE.

If anything, Edelgard's position on the past is that it sucked, and that the future will be better. 

It doesn't make much sense to compare Edelgard to Donald Trump (it is usually what that saying is attributed today, even if it was technically stolen from Ronald Reagan), they have pretty much nothing in common at all. We even have a situation similiar to the wall with Fodlan's locket and Almyra. Guess what? Edelgard's position on Almyra is that she wants to open up diplomatic interactions with them and that they should show more respect towards their cultural differences, something that she claims Rhea never did. Do people just compare Edelgard to politicians they don't like without thinking if they actually do have anything in common at all?

Edited May 20, 2020 by Darkmoon6789

[omegaxis1]

10 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

If anything, Edelgard's position on the past is that it sucked, and that the future will be better. 

It doesn't make much sense to compare Edelgard to Donald Trump (it is usually what that saying is attributed today, even if it was technically stolen from Ronald Reagan), they have pretty much nothing in common at all. We even have a situation similiar to the wall with Fodlan's locket and Almyra. Guess what? Edelgard's position on Almyra is that she wants to open up diplomatic interactions with them and that they should show more respect towards their cultural differences, something that she claims Rhea never did. Do people just compare Edelgard to politicians they don't like without thinking if we actually do have anything in common at all?

It's the same for how calling her a "dictator" is just an indirect way of calling her Hitler. Since most people associate the term dictator to Hitler. 

[Darkmoon6789]

6 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

It's the same for how calling her a "dictator" is just an indirect way of calling her Hitler. Since most people associate the term dictator to Hitler. 

Granted, the term dictator comes from the Roman Republic and is the term for someone given emergency power in order to deal with a crisis situation. One such dictator was Julius Caesar who simply refused to step down from power and made himself into the first Emperor of Rome. Though ironically Julius Caesar was actually rather well-regarded throughout most of history as he was such a more efficient a leader than the Senate alone. 

The term dictator just means someone, someone who wields absolute power and wasn't democratically elected. Which would make every Emperor or King a dictator by definition. Even if it is kind of ironic that the first dictators actually were democratically elected as the appointment of one required the approval of the Senate. The term has just gotten a bad rap nowadays because of its association with fascism.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fascism

Which I would say doesn't apply that well to Edelgard. There is no suggestion she enforces any kind of racial discrimination or suppresses those with a different opinion from her. In fact, her interactions with Ferdinand shows quite the opposite.

So Edelgard I think is technically a dictator as he is an absolute monarch, but she is not a fascist, as she primarily uses her power to empower the people rather than suppressing them. Just because she started a war doesn't mean her government is oppressive.

[null]

Since I gave a response to a similar question on another thread, I'll just copy/paste with a few extra thoughts. This comment was about both Rhea and Edelgard, but my opinion still stands.

"For me, I can’t empathize with either Rhea or Edelgard because I believe, as an old teacher of mine used to say: 'It is never right to do wrong to do right.' Rhea hoping that Byleth would merge with Sothis to bring her mother back was incredibly selfish, and Rhea’s totalitarian mindset over the Church of Seiros was very similar to the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages in its eradication of any heretics or opponents. It’s the same with Edelgard, who, in her quest for power, chose to disregard innocent human lives as secondary to her quest to be the Emperor. Both of these individuals had good intentions at best, but their amoral execution of these objectives destroyed any credibility they might have had, in my opinion. There’s no justice in either of their actions, only the blatant expression of their selfish motivations. "

I certainly don't hate Edelgard, but I can't sympathize with her as easily because of how she went about effecting her reforms on Fodlan. Considering she endured the same kind of tragic, abhorrent Crest-related experimentation that Lysithea did (no doubt shortening her life as well), it is no surprise that she set out to eliminate the social customs concerning Crests. However, sacrificing the lives of the innocent was definitely not the way to go. In several ways, both Dimitri and Edelgard are quite similar (both being characters with glaring flaws and tragic pasts). But way before Dimitri was doing his feral thing during the timeskip (committing atrocities of his own), Edelgard had been working behind the scenes to ensure that she would become Emperor (Empress?) Edelgard, using shady characters like TWSITD and the Death Knight, all the while masquerading as the Flame Emperor. She even orchestrated the bandit raid at the beginning of the game to eliminate both Dimitri and Claude just so she would have lessened opposition as she ascended to power. Again, I don't hate her, and I actually think she's a very well-written character, but she falls more into the category of anti-hero rather than hero/protagonist because her totalitarian methods directly contradict her philosophy of freedom for all of Fodlan.

[Darkmoon6789]

8 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

Since I gave a response to a similar question on another thread, I'll just copy/paste with a few extra thoughts. This comment was about both Rhea and Edelgard, but my opinion still stands.

"For me, I can’t empathize with either Rhea or Edelgard because I believe, as an old teacher of mine used to say: 'It is never right to do wrong to do right.' Rhea hoping that Byleth would merge with Sothis to bring her mother back was incredibly selfish, and Rhea’s totalitarian mindset over the Church of Seiros was very similar to the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages in its eradication of any heretics or opponents. It’s the same with Edelgard, who, in her quest for power, chose to disregard innocent human lives as secondary to her quest to be the Emperor. Both of these individuals had good intentions at best, but their amoral execution of these objectives destroyed any credibility they might have had, in my opinion. There’s no justice in either of their actions, only the blatant expression of their selfish motivations. "

I certainly don't hate Edelgard, but I can't sympathize with her as easily because of how she went about effecting her reforms on Fodlan. Considering she endured the same kind of tragic, abhorrent Crest-related experimentation that Lysithea did (no doubt shortening her life as well), it is no surprise that she set out to eliminate the social customs concerning Crests. However, sacrificing the lives of the innocent was definitely not the way to go. In several ways, both Dimitri and Edelgard are quite similar (both being characters with glaring flaws and tragic pasts). But way before Dimitri was doing his feral thing during the timeskip (committing atrocities of his own), Edelgard had been working behind the scenes to ensure that she would become Emperor (Empress?) Edelgard, using shady characters like TWSITD and the Death Knight, all the while masquerading as the Flame Emperor. She even orchestrated the bandit raid at the beginning of the game to eliminate both Dimitri and Claude just so she would have lessened opposition as she ascended to power. Again, I don't hate her, and I actually think she's a very well-written character, but she falls more into the category of anti-hero rather than hero/protagonist because her totalitarian methods directly contradict her philosophy of freedom for all of Fodlan.

I would agree that Edelgard is all about, seemingly contradicting concepts. Using war with the intention of bringing about an age of peace, assuming absolute power so she can break the chains of oppression. Taking lives so she can save more lives. She even acknowledges this contradiction.

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

Said very soon after the assault upon the holy tomb. If you choose to side with her when playing as the Black Eagles. But the difference is that I actually think there is certain truth to what she is saying that it might be the only way to defeat the theocratic tyranny of the church and Rhea.

While I could nitpick a lot about what you said, I do think you are right on the money with her being an anti-hero. She does have the methods of one. Using evil to defeat evil is pretty much the definition of being an anti-hero. 

I have pointed out before how similar Edelgard and Dimitri really are. For once, both of them are motivated almost entirely by something traumatic that happened to them in the past, it is also the exact same person who wronged both of them , and both of them do what they do not because this is something they really want, but because they feel like they have to to honour the memory of those who perished in their respective traumatic events. Dimitri seek vengeance in the name of those who perished during the tragedy of Duscur. Edelgard seeks to change society so that the sacrifice of their siblings who died horribly making her the strong Emperor the nobles of Adrestian wanted(by giving her the most powerful crest in existence) wouldn't be invain. Basically, the only way she can see any meaning to all of that suffering is if it leads to the powers she was given to make sure that nothing like that could ever happen again. 

She even has the same mindset about the casualties of the war as she does about her siblings, in her mind, the only way all of that suffering can have meaning is if she is successful in her goals. Which is why she will go to any lengths to achieve them, and why she can't live with herself if she fails. 

The tragic thing is that Edelgard has mentioned that she would rather have lived her life as a regular person without all of the responsibility she now carries. But that she feels like she has an obligation to the world because of the great power she was given and because of the high cost, but was paid to achieve that power. But ultimately she never asked for the crest of flames and this destiny was thrust upon her by others.  She would have never done any of this if she wasn't essentially made into a weapon by the horrible experiments she went through. Edelgard even refers to herself having died during that imprisonment in her negotiation with Dimitri in Azure Moon. Which is a sign of how deeply it scarred her.

I should also mention that I am definitely a person who believe that the ends justify the means, and I do have a rather Macheivelian philosophy on statesmanship and what it requires from a ruler. It is a hard truth of the universe that the only way freedom can exist is for great power to maintain it, and that the weak can only prosper if they are protected from those who seek to exploit by those who are strong and used their power to protect those who are not. That is pretty much Edelgard's philosophy, it is not for everyone, but it does appeal to a pragmatist like me. I find little use for empty morals if they are detached from results.

[omegaxis1]

36 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

Since I gave a response to a similar question on another thread, I'll just copy/paste with a few extra thoughts. This comment was about both Rhea and Edelgard, but my opinion still stands.

"For me, I can’t empathize with either Rhea or Edelgard because I believe, as an old teacher of mine used to say: 'It is never right to do wrong to do right.' Rhea hoping that Byleth would merge with Sothis to bring her mother back was incredibly selfish, and Rhea’s totalitarian mindset over the Church of Seiros was very similar to the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages in its eradication of any heretics or opponents. It’s the same with Edelgard, who, in her quest for power, chose to disregard innocent human lives as secondary to her quest to be the Emperor. Both of these individuals had good intentions at best, but their amoral execution of these objectives destroyed any credibility they might have had, in my opinion. There’s no justice in either of their actions, only the blatant expression of their selfish motivations. "

I certainly don't hate Edelgard, but I can't sympathize with her as easily because of how she went about effecting her reforms on Fodlan. Considering she endured the same kind of tragic, abhorrent Crest-related experimentation that Lysithea did (no doubt shortening her life as well), it is no surprise that she set out to eliminate the social customs concerning Crests. However, sacrificing the lives of the innocent was definitely not the way to go. In several ways, both Dimitri and Edelgard are quite similar (both being characters with glaring flaws and tragic pasts). But way before Dimitri was doing his feral thing during the timeskip (committing atrocities of his own), Edelgard had been working behind the scenes to ensure that she would become Emperor (Empress?) Edelgard, using shady characters like TWSITD and the Death Knight, all the while masquerading as the Flame Emperor. She even orchestrated the bandit raid at the beginning of the game to eliminate both Dimitri and Claude just so she would have lessened opposition as she ascended to power. Again, I don't hate her, and I actually think she's a very well-written character, but she falls more into the category of anti-hero rather than hero/protagonist because her totalitarian methods directly contradict her philosophy of freedom for all of Fodlan.

So your teacher goes with that the end never justifies the means. 

But here's the question I present that basically is the case for Fodlan. 

What SHOULD Edelgard have done?

It's so easy to go with the morally righteous beliefs, but is that really what will work out always?

• Her nation was under the Agarthans' control.
• Rhea refuses to let go of power to anyone but Sothis. 
• Religion is taken seriously, so Crests will always be worshipped by the Church.
• Commoners are uneducated, so they won't really know what to believe beyond nobles and the Church.

As @Hilda had said, Edelgard has to tread through dangerously thin ice, where a single misstep will result in utter ruin. And leaders don't get the luxury of making entirely righteous choices. Some decisions they make will result in unhappiness for others to benefit some. 

The thing is, the morally righteous path can exist if everyone is willing to accept such a path. Or more than anything, if people, especially those in power, are willing to believe in it. 

And to that, I have to also present this.

If you take the morally righteous path, refuse to dirty your hands, but your efforts amount to naught and still people suffer, or are even worse off, then are you actually morally righteous? Or are you just someone pretending to be morally righteous, when you still make people suffer? 

Either way, your paths will have blood in them. 

[Darkmoon6789]

51 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

So your teacher goes with that the end never justifies the means. 

But here's the question I present that basically is the case for Fodlan. 

What SHOULD Edelgard have done?

It's so easy to go with the morally righteous beliefs, but is that really what will work out always?

• Her nation was under the Agarthans' control.
• Rhea refuses to let go of power to anyone but Sothis. 
• Religion is taken seriously, so Crests will always be worshipped by the Church.
• Commoners are uneducated, so they won't really know what to believe beyond nobles and the Church.

As @Hilda had said, Edelgard has to tread through dangerously thin ice, where a single misstep will result in utter ruin. And leaders don't get the luxury of making entirely righteous choices. Some decisions they make will result in unhappiness for others to benefit some. 

The thing is, the morally righteous path can exist if everyone is willing to accept such a path. Or more than anything, if people, especially those in power, are willing to believe in it. 

And to that, I have to also present this.

If you take the morally righteous path, refuse to dirty your hands, but your efforts amount to naught and still people suffer, or are even worse off, then are you actually morally righteous? Or are you just someone pretending to be morally righteous, when you still make people suffer? 

Either way, your paths will have blood in them. 

If you ask me. Her only real alternative is to not be the person who is going to change the world, but rather abdicate her position, it suites and laze about all day, like she always wanted. While leaving the Empire in the hands of Arundel and the Agarthans to enact their war without her.

But this decision would bring ruin to Fodlan and she would essentially be ignoring her responsibilities as heir to the throne. So it is hardly any better. A lot of evil would come to pass, because she would be unwilling to do something about it. Maybe it is better that Edelgard was the person she was and was so dedicated to making a difference. Doing nothing might avoid personal responsibility for any direct potential wrongdoing, but that is exactly the problem. 

[omegaxis1]

4 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

If you ask me. Her only real alternative is to not be the person who is going to change the world, but rather abdicate her position, it suites and laze about all day, like she always wanted. While leaving the Empire in the hands of Arundel and the Agarthans to enact their war without her.

But this decision would bring ruin to Fodlan and she would essentially be ignoring her responsibilities as heir to the throne. So it is hardly any better. A lot of evil would come to pass, because she would be unwilling to do something about it. Maybe it is better that Edelgard was the person she was and was so dedicated to making a difference. Doing nothing might avoid personal responsibility for any direct potential wrongdoing, but that is exactly the problem. 

Or she could submit to the Church. Tell Rhea everything, obey the status quo that is Rhea's doctrine, and let her country be destroyed to put her back as the leader, but at the cost of forever abandoning her ideals and beliefs. If you consider it, the Empire is basically roughly half of Fodlan itself. Attacking the Empire would still result in massive casualties on all sides.

So after the war, all Edelgard can hope for is that the next generation is better off. 

[Darkmoon6789]

4 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Or she could submit to the Church. Tell Rhea everything, obey the status quo that is Rhea's doctrine, and let her country be destroyed to put her back as the leader, but at the cost of forever abandoning her ideals and beliefs. If you consider it, the Empire is basically roughly half of Fodlan itself. Attacking the Empire would still result in massive casualties on all sides.

So after the war, all Edelgard can hope for is that the next generation is better off. 

Seems to me that there will be a war, no matter what she does or doesn't do. 

I don't think Edelgard really had any good options to begin with, she was always to cursed into being born as the person she was. It is easy to remain morally pure when you don't have any responsibilities. But she was born the heir to an empire. And as such it was always her duty to do what is best for her people

[omegaxis1]

18 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Seems to me that there will be a war, no matter what she does or doesn't do. 

I don't think Edelgard really had any good options to begin with, she was always to cursed into being born as the person she was. It is easy to remain morally pure when you don't have any responsibilities. But she was born the heir to an empire. And as such it was always her duty to do what is best for her people

Yeah. Innocent people would have suffered and died no matter what she did. A war was going to happen no matter what. 

But if I had to guess, people wouldn't judge her as badly, because Edelgard would be the Nyna-archetype. The damsel princess in distress, who fled from her country and needs the help of another country to save/defeat her country and put her back in power. It happened with Nyna, then FE6's Guinevere, then FE9's Elincia, then FE10's Sanaki, etc.

However, this isn't about "saving a country" over how the system is the issue here, not the management. 

[Blackstarskywalker]

3 hours ago, twilitfalchion said:

Again, I don't hate her, and I actually think she's a very well-written character, but she falls more into the category of anti-hero rather than hero/protagonist because her totalitarian methods directly contradict her philosophy of freedom for all of Fodlan.

Actually none of the three Lord would put them in the hero category 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Blackstarskywalker
Error

[TheGreatHooey]

I don't hate her at all. Why I might not be on her side for it, as I believe the war wasn't the right choice, I can understand her choice. She is a very well written character with good stats and a good design. Main reason I could see someone hating her is because they disagree with her, but I feel that a lot of people still appreciate her character. Also, about her being the most hated female seems wrong, and even saying she's more loved than female Byleth, who, like most avatar characters, has the personality of cardboard. Byleth is mainly more shippable, due to the outrageous amount of supports they get, which means off the bat they get a lot of shipping art.

That's what I have to say on a whim honestly. While Edelgard is probably my least favorite of the 3H lords, I still love her character, as all the lords are good in their own way.

[Hardric62]

15 hours ago, twilitfalchion said:

Since I gave a response to a similar question on another thread, I'll just copy/paste with a few extra thoughts. This comment was about both Rhea and Edelgard, but my opinion still stands.

"For me, I can’t empathize with either Rhea or Edelgard because I believe, as an old teacher of mine used to say: 'It is never right to do wrong to do right.' Rhea hoping that Byleth would merge with Sothis to bring her mother back was incredibly selfish, and Rhea’s totalitarian mindset over the Church of Seiros was very similar to the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages in its eradication of any heretics or opponents. It’s the same with Edelgard, who, in her quest for power, chose to disregard innocent human lives as secondary to her quest to be the Emperor. Both of these individuals had good intentions at best, but their amoral execution of these objectives destroyed any credibility they might have had, in my opinion. There’s no justice in either of their actions, only the blatant expression of their selfish motivations. "

I certainly don't hate Edelgard, but I can't sympathize with her as easily because of how she went about effecting her reforms on Fodlan. Considering she endured the same kind of tragic, abhorrent Crest-related experimentation that Lysithea did (no doubt shortening her life as well), it is no surprise that she set out to eliminate the social customs concerning Crests. However, sacrificing the lives of the innocent was definitely not the way to go. In several ways, both Dimitri and Edelgard are quite similar (both being characters with glaring flaws and tragic pasts). But way before Dimitri was doing his feral thing during the timeskip (committing atrocities of his own), Edelgard had been working behind the scenes to ensure that she would become Emperor (Empress?) Edelgard, using shady characters like TWSITD and the Death Knight, all the while masquerading as the Flame Emperor. She even orchestrated the bandit raid at the beginning of the game to eliminate both Dimitri and Claude just so she would have lessened opposition as she ascended to power. Again, I don't hate her, and I actually think she's a very well-written character, but she falls more into the category of anti-hero rather than hero/protagonist because her totalitarian methods directly contradict her philosophy of freedom for all of Fodlan.

 

While I agree with the contestation of Rhea's iron grip on the Church and through it Fodlan, and will agree that Edelgard methods are bloody to say the least, I also find this answer... Both a bit naive and off-topic.

Off-topic because 'totalitarisms' are very much a XXth century thing, use of the term for realities of the medieval period is a very reducing thing, trying to force XXth century beliefs for times where they just don't have the same relevance, if at all. People speaking of dictature for these times... tyranny can definitely exist in these times, but the sort of dictatures people imagine when using these words just don't exist in these times, so it makes the use of these terms seem useless to me here.

And naive because... I am sorry for your teacher, because it would be nice if the world ran on that logic, reality is a vicious thing, so vicious in fact who makes the Lannisters Freys and Boltons of Song of Ice and Fire looks like freaking choir boys. To quote some names, look closely at Peter the Great of Russia, Augustus during the civil war, or Khosrau I, one of the last, if not the last, great shah of the Sassanid Empire before the Muslim conquest. Three great men, who all did right things for their countries for their time... And Almighty Gygax, these things came with truckloads of body. Because History does care more for success or failure than good or evil at the end, and success buries many evils. It should not be that way in a fair world, but...

Counter-couping the Seven to take back the Empire, although it is under the Mole Men's ""alliance"" (let's be clear, these ducktards are the ones with the pants in the relationship, from Day One), and these assassinations attempts? Nasty stuff, but flowers and sunshine compared to the sort of things History has in store, and it will remain a mystery to know how much of that was Mole Men's orders, or personal maneuvering, even if either explanations burn the same bridges. And wars have been launched for far less worthy reasons than the ones she uses here. And to be frank, I think the Mole Men's diktats here are as much to balem than any desire to unify Fodlan. She had to offer something to Bergliez and Hevring for them to switch sides, and she couldn't offer them more within Adrestia's limits than what Aegir had already given to them. The cards here are ugly, unsavory... But sometimes they are the only ones you have, and even inaction here means leaving the misery to fester more (And frankly, even if you remove Edelgard and her actions, I don't give many years to Fodlan before internal collapse and wars ruin the continent).

Heck, even Rhea, for all the bodies shaping a continent through use of a monotheistic religion imply (heresies, control of knowledge, while the Mole Men are rocking the boat in the shadows), got (seemingly) six centuries of a peace to show for it, which does represent an exceptional length of time by most human standards (look in History for places wihch knew six centuries of general peace in histiry on the scale of a continent. They are not that many). Her failure lies more in being unable to adapt to changing times, unable to spot the Mole Men and their work, and unable to provide another solution to the problems other than 'Mommy Will Fix Everything' (despite excellent earlier attempts like the Officiers Academy, whose only real flaw was coming too late), and her unwillingness to cede this power to another than Mommy.

 

Short form, I hate neither of them. I think Rhea's rule has been good for a long time, but has now failed and is overdue for a change in the face of her own near-total unwillingness to change personaly, and think that what Edelgard wants to build deserves to exist, or at least to be given a shot.

 

(Dunno why, but something about Three Houses makes me wants to compare it to Real Life History far more than most of the other fantasy games I played. Definitely counting that one in the 'pro' part of the game's review though.)

[null]

15 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

What SHOULD Edelgard have done?

It's so easy to go with the morally righteous beliefs, but is that really what will work out always?

• Her nation was under the Agarthans' control.
• Rhea refuses to let go of power to anyone but Sothis. 
• Religion is taken seriously, so Crests will always be worshipped by the Church.
• Commoners are uneducated, so they won't really know what to believe beyond nobles and the Church.

As @Hilda had said, Edelgard has to tread through dangerously thin ice, where a single misstep will result in utter ruin. And leaders don't get the luxury of making entirely righteous choices. Some decisions they make will result in unhappiness for others to benefit some. 

The thing is, the morally righteous path can exist if everyone is willing to accept such a path. Or more than anything, if people, especially those in power, are willing to believe in it. 

And to that, I have to also present this.

If you take the morally righteous path, refuse to dirty your hands, but your efforts amount to naught and still people suffer, or are even worse off, then are you actually morally righteous? Or are you just someone pretending to be morally righteous, when you still make people suffer? 

Either way, your paths will have blood in them. 

Perhaps, instead of allying herself with TWSITD and the Death Knight, she could have forged alliances with her fellow lords and their respective nations to ultimately gain their assistance in purging her country of the corruption she was fighting against, while also working to expose the corruption within the Church of Seiros. I'm not saying there is an easy solution to such a complex issue, or that it is possible to achieve a solution without bloodshed. War will never be truly free of innocent lives being taken (except in rare instances like the Cold War), but Edelgard could have chosen an option that did not involve antagonizing individuals who most likely would have aided her if she had sought them out and exacerbating what would have already been a violent conflict.

[Hardric62]

Just now, twilitfalchion said:

Perhaps, instead of allying herself with TWSITD and the Death Knight, she could have forged alliances with her fellow lords and their respective nations to ultimately gain their assistance in purging her country of the corruption she was fighting against, while also working to expose the corruption within the Church of Seiros. I'm not saying there is an easy solution to such a complex issue, or that it is possible to achieve a solution without bloodshed. War will never be truly free of innocent lives being taken (except in rare instances like the Cold War), but Edelgard could have chosen an option that did not involve antagonizing individuals who most likely would have aided her if she had sought them out and exacerbating what would have already been a violent conflict.

 

Okay, leaving aside the bolded part, which is so delusional it hurts something fierce... That could be why Solon attacked Remire, and Monikronya glued herself to Edelgard. The Mole Men certainly realized Edelgard had no reason to be loyal to them, so they monitored her closely, because you don't just leave your big 'superweaon' lying around unsupervised after creating it, precisely to make sure she didn't get fancy ideas... While making sure she was associated to enough messes (Remire, Monikronya...) that this possibility was shattered

[Etrurian emperor]

22 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Granted, the term dictator comes from the Roman Republic and is the term for someone given emergency power in order to deal with a crisis situation. One such dictator was Julius Caesar who simply refused to step down from power and made himself into the first Emperor of Rome

Actually Caesar was stabbed about 200 times before he ever became emperor. It was his adopted son Augustus who would be the first emperor of Rome. And truth be told I doubt Caesar would have done something radical like that anyway. Most of his career was actually quite ordinary and content to work with the existing structure, even if tweaked for his own benefit. 

22 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Which I would say doesn't apply that well to Edelgard. There is no suggestion she enforces any kind of racial discrimination or suppresses those with a different opinion from her. In fact, her interactions with Ferdinand shows quite the opposite.

So Edelgard I think is technically a dictator as he is an absolute monarch, but she is not a fascist, as she primarily uses her power to empower the people rather than suppressing them. Just because she started a war doesn't mean her government is oppressive.

True. Edelgard doesn't really have much traits inherent to facism. I think most people don't look further then the fact that she and the fascists both started war, not really realizing that declaring war is hardly a fascist invention. Napoleon is probably the better comparison.  

To me the biggest difference is that fascism seeks to glorify the nation state and while nationalistic Edelgard isn't quite like that. Trying to conquer Fodlan has more to do with realizing her own vision and ideals rather then any long standing notion of Adrestian superiority. 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Etrurian emperor

[omegaxis1]

1 hour ago, twilitfalchion said:

Perhaps, instead of allying herself with TWSITD and the Death Knight, she could have forged alliances with her fellow lords and their respective nations to ultimately gain their assistance in purging her country of the corruption she was fighting against, while also working to expose the corruption within the Church of Seiros. I'm not saying there is an easy solution to such a complex issue, or that it is possible to achieve a solution without bloodshed. War will never be truly free of innocent lives being taken (except in rare instances like the Cold War), but Edelgard could have chosen an option that did not involve antagonizing individuals who most likely would have aided her if she had sought them out and exacerbating what would have already been a violent conflict.

The problem with that is that you didn't take into account the other party's beliefs, as well as how the nations are. 

Though you could argue that Dimitri "may" be willing to help for revenge, the Kingdom is overall an ally of the Church, and thus the Kingdom wouldn't actually oppose the Church by any means. Edelgard had tried to approach Claude in Part 1 of VW, but Claude himself is unwilling to trust her because of how he is fearful of Fodlan's xenophobia. Not to mention that the Alliance isn't exactly a unified nation, as Claude is just a sovereign duke, not a prince. 

And ultimately, the effort to purge the Empire is something that would also result in war, therefore, you aren't choosing a morally righteous path as you are still bringing war to Fodlan and causing many innocent people to suffer and die. The Agarthans basically hold strong positions in the Empire, along with the corrupt nobles that back them. 

There's no path for Edelgard that isn't stained with the blood of innocents. 

Edited May 21, 2020 by omegaxis1

[Blackstarskywalker]

I think it is more honest to say "I don't like Edelgard because I don't like her methods" than to say "I don't like Edelgard because I think she had other alternatives to achieve her goals". Here several colleagues have masterfully explained the little margin that Edelgard had to fulfill her objectives. Either it was war, or she could go to a summer house to eat sweets and leave things as it were

[omegaxis1]

39 minutes ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

I think it is more honest to say "I don't like Edelgard because I don't like her methods" than to say "I don't like Edelgard because I think she had other alternatives to achieve her goals". Here several colleagues have masterfully explained the little margin that Edelgard had to fulfill her objectives. Either it was war, or she could go to a summer house to eat sweets and leave things as it were

That's basically the best way to go about it.

Even if it was the only way, you can say you don't like it and don't like Edelgard for doing it.