Jump to content

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

It is actually my either favourite or second favourite route in the game, Azure Moon is the main competitor. I just feel that these two routs have the strongest emotional cores. I am not sure what the point of silver snow is at all honestly

Azure Moon is my favourite for several reasons but yes the emotional core is certainly a big one. I have to agree about the thing with Silver Snow since for me everything Silver Snow wanted to do Verdant Wind did better and more interesting. Tho if i remember right SS was the first route they wrote and so basically the 'proto' route for the rest of the game.

 

52 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Granted, I do think that Dimitri should have been developed for has an antagonist in crimson flower, as it is you essentially need to have played Azure Moon truly understand the how dangerous Dimitri actually was when he was obsessed with vengeance. 

If i remember right Dimitri actually was at a way better and stable place mentally in CF than in AM due to his uncle not being murdered, and him not having to flee but yeah i wish they gave the fight between those two in CF more meaning bc while it is kinda showing that Dimitri obsession with vengance was mostly one-sided it also just shortens the experience because they could have made some very nice parallism between the two routes if they wanted to.

52 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Let me tell you, as a massive fan of Edelgard. It is actually amazing that she gets so much focus in heroes. Granted, I would also really love to have timeskip Dimitri as a playable hero. 

Im glad that people get to enjoy their faves in that way but kinda wished they would add the banners more equally ( they could make like 1 BE, 1 BL, 1 GD and 1 from the church) because then it would be nicer and fairer for everyone. Tho tbh especially in heroes i find it interesting that they focus so much on BE given how in Japan Dimitri is just so crazy popular.

 

52 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I could be wrong, but my original estimation for why some people hated her is simply that they couldn't comprehend the concept of a conquering empire being anything other than evil.

Oh yeah i could see that as a reason too, but i guess in the end it probably boils down to multiple factors but thanks for bringing that point up bc it definatly plays into it. This is what makes me kinda afraid of an FE4 remake tbh bc i don't wanna think about how people will treat Alvis, seeing how some of them treat Edelgard.

Edited by Lapis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hong Nhi said:

Edelgard is your best girl ? XD 

 

Pretty much, Edelgard is in my opinion extremely likeable and well-intentioned, especially for a conquering Emperor. I have not encountered many characters like her

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, she isn't. Divisive doesn't equal hated, she even won CYL her first year being out.

You want to see hated female characters? I point you to Micaiah after Radiant Dawn came out. Or Eirika. While the hate for these two has calmed down significantly the past several years (with Heroes playing a large part in Micaiah's) those two had so much vitriol spat at them that it makes Edelgard discourse look downright tame by comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Frankly, she isn't. Divisive doesn't equal hated, she even won CYL her first year being out.

You want to see hated female characters? I point you to Micaiah after Radiant Dawn came out. Or Eirika. While the hate for these two has calmed down significantly the past several years (with Heroes playing a large part in Micaiah's) those two had so much vitriol spat at them that it makes Edelgard discourse look downright tame by comparison.

Personally I suspect that Corrin is largely the cause of Michy getting more recognition. They are in a somewhat similar situation and Corrin handling it so much worse retroactively reflected really well on Michy. I don't really recall much Eirika hate aside from that one point in the story where she took some stupid pills. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Personally I suspect that Corrin is largely the cause of Michy getting more recognition. They are in a somewhat similar situation and Corrin handling it so much worse retroactively reflected really well on Michy. I don't really recall much Eirika hate aside from that one point in the story where she took some stupid pills. 

That may be the case, but I noticed her popularity rising once she was in Heroes as such a good unit. So it was probably a combination of the two. Though I personally find the comparisons of Micaiah to Corrin to be offensive, Micaiah was never that bad >.> As for Eirika, I noticed a lot of hate for her back in the day. I was never a fan of her game so it kind of stuck out to me just how much she got comparatively to everyone else, at least from a somewhat outsider's perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

As for Eirika, I noticed a lot of hate for her back in the day. I was never a fan of her game so it kind of stuck out to me just how much she got comparatively to everyone else, at least from a somewhat outsider's perspective.

Of course she'd get hate. Her route is generally rendered moot since Ephraim basically solo'd Grado, making Eirika's efforts pointless, and then Eirika hands the Sacred Stone over to Lyon being possessed by the Demon King. 

Eirika lives in the shadow the great and wonderful Ephraim, who's signature quote "I don't pick fights I can't win" might as well be "B*tch, I'll win cause I'm Ephraim."

Edited by omegaxis1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Frankly, she isn't. Divisive doesn't equal hated, she even won CYL her first year being out.

You want to see hated female characters? I point you to Micaiah after Radiant Dawn came out. Or Eirika. While the hate for these two has calmed down significantly the past several years (with Heroes playing a large part in Micaiah's) those two had so much vitriol spat at them that it makes Edelgard discourse look downright tame by comparison.

Why on earth would Micaiah be hated? From what I know about her that doesn't even make sense to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Why on earth would Micaiah be hated? From what I know about her that doesn't even make sense to me. 

Well she does clearly fight for the wrong side and while she regrets the situation she constantly defends her actions that become increasingly less moral. She's very clearly in the wrong which can make her behavior somewhat frustrating. 

At the time many people also insisted she was a ''marry sue'' which I never really agreed with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Well she does clearly fight for the wrong side and while she regrets the situation she constantly defends her actions that become increasingly less moral. She's very clearly in the wrong which can make her behavior somewhat frustrating. 

At the time many people also insisted she was a ''marry sue'' which I never really agreed with. 

I should really play path of radiance, the game seems to have many fascinating characters. My primary exposure to Micaiah was because she was my starting 5 star in heroes and the girl seems very likeable. I have also had a friend of mine compare her to Edelgard, though I am not sure how similar they really are.  

The character I probably would compare Edelgard to would-be Arvis, the whole of at that Emperor which makes me think that Edelgard's title is the direct reference to him. Once again, I haven't played the game he is from, but based on his dialogue in heroes, he also seems to be a character willing to go to extreme lengths to achieve his vision for the greater good. I think that Arvis and Edelgard would probably get along if we were to meet.

Was Arvis ever a source of controversy? 

There is also the comparison between Edelgard and Ashnard, but other than having the meritocracy angle in common, Ashnard doubles down the very hard on might makes right in a way that Edelgard just doesn't and he also seems to be completely insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I should really play path of radiance, the game seems to have many fascinating characters. My primary exposure to Micaiah was because she was my starting 5 star in heroes and the girl seems very likeable. I have also had a friend of mine compare her to Edelgard, though I am not sure how similar they really are.  

The character I probably would compare Edelgard to would-be Arvis, the whole of at that Emperor which makes me think that Edelgard's title is the direct reference to him. Once again, I haven't played the game he is from, but based on his dialogue in heroes, he also seems to be a character willing to go to extreme lengths to achieve his vision for the greater good. I think that Arvis and Edelgard would probably get along if we were to meet.

Was Arvis ever a source of controversy? 

There is also the comparison between Edelgard and Ashnard, but other than having the meritocracy angle in common, Ashnard doubles down the very hard on might makes right in a way that Edelgard just doesn't and he also seems to be completely insane.

Radiant Dawn, actually. Micaiah is not a character in Path of Radiance. But I would not say that Edelgard and Micaiah are that similar, honestly.

Arvis is not controversial, because he was overall portrayed as an antagonist and overall objectively wrong. Because he did bad things, bad things resulted. Even if at first they were good, the story made everything go to hell for him, so people take that as "do only good things and things will be good" and "if you do bad things for a good cause, you will fail". This is why Edelgard's ending is generally nitpicked by others that are against her, as they don't want to believe that the aggressor of a war should have succeeded into making good things. 

Except the thing is that Edelgard isn't an idiot like Arvis. Where Arvis thinks that after grabbing power, that's it, he didn't bother to deal with the clearly evil cult. Edelgard, on the other hand, knows that the clearly evil mole people should be eradicated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I should really play path of radiance, the game seems to have many fascinating characters. My primary exposure to Micaiah was because she was my starting 5 star in heroes and the girl seems very likeable. I have also had a friend of mine compare her to Edelgard, though I am not sure how similar they really are.

She certainly is likable. Very selfless, benevolent and kind with some bits of stubbornness and a surprising amount of sass to prevent her from being boring. I'd say she's definitely not similar to Edelgard though. Michy is rather fragile which Edelgard very much isn't. 

21 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Was Arvis ever a source of controversy? 

So far as I can tell Arvis has never been controversial and has always been considered a very effective villain. However barely anyone knows of Arvis so he might have been controversial if Fire Emblem fans could actually play his game. Its also somewhat different to be a clear antagonist from the get go then it is to first be a protagonist who then turns into an antagonist. The later category has a chance to have fans reject the character due to feeling betrayed or holding a protagonist to higher moral standards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I should really play path of radiance, the game seems to have many fascinating characters. My primary exposure to Micaiah was because she was my starting 5 star in heroes and the girl seems very likeable. I have also had a friend of mine compare her to Edelgard, though I am not sure how similar they really are.  

The character I probably would compare Edelgard to would-be Arvis, the whole of at that Emperor which makes me think that Edelgard's title is the direct reference to him. Once again, I haven't played the game he is from, but based on his dialogue in heroes, he also seems to be a character willing to go to extreme lengths to achieve his vision for the greater good. I think that Arvis and Edelgard would probably get along if we were to meet.

Was Arvis ever a source of controversy? 

There is also the comparison between Edelgard and Ashnard, but other than having the meritocracy angle in common, Ashnard doubles down the very hard on might makes right in a way that Edelgard just doesn't and he also seems to be completely insane.

Not gonna go into tooo much spoilers here but just gonna say he is a bit diffrent than Edelgard. Basically he gets more or less played by the evil death cult for some time but the after he knows exactly what their intentions are and what evil deeds they are doing he tries to go against them as much as he can and even helps Celice and the others in the end out and is willing to die in the battle against Celice in the end, because he trusts that Celice will make that world he dreams of happen. His main motivation is a world without any discrimination against anyone which is tidly connected to his herritage being from a bloodline that was hunted down and almost erased entirely. Which is also how the cult kept him under control basically going ' U go against us and we will tell everyone what u are' which would mean he would lose well everything and be hunted down as well thats why he had to go behind their back to even do anything.

So mostly On the surface both are kinda similar seeing how TH is so much inspired of FE4 but there ARE some differences. Alvis is basically an antagonist with what started as good intentions

Edited by Lapis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Well she does clearly fight for the wrong side and while she regrets the situation she constantly defends her actions that become increasingly less moral. She's very clearly in the wrong which can make her behavior somewhat frustrating. 

At the time many people also insisted she was a ''marry sue'' which I never really agreed with

(Spoilers for RD lol)

I hadn't really thought of the parallels between Micaiah and Edelgard, but they're definitely there. It's true that she doesn't have an especially clear vision for society at large (which makes sense because she never wanted power) and was happy accomplishing relatively small feats of good. Edelgard never got that opportunity (although some of her dialogue indicates she would have preferred a smaller life than fate gave her). But the life experiences of both and their compassion for the downtrodden directly motivate their desires for the world (no racism/no Crest-based class system respectively) and their unwilling shouldering of responsibility. Micaiah refuses to fight in Part I after Izuka attempts to turn Muarim feral, and shuts down any possibility of that, (unlike Edelgard with crest beasts) but the power dynamics are also more in her favour at that point than Edelgard's are with TWSITD. 

Her relative incompetence as a general in Part 3 of RD is slightly excused by her trust in and sympathy for Pelleas, and she is similar to Edelgard in that both publicly support their regime even though they privately dislike aspects of it. Her calculations are also fairly utilitarian - she attempts to kill Sanaki as soon as she can because the only other apparent alternative is the blood pact murder of her entire country, and gets foiled because she lets her emotions get in the way. Edelgard probably would have sacrificed a loved one in order to save her country though (idk? Byleth in CF is the only person she's close enough to for that, but Byleth never gets put in Sothe's position). After that chapter in RD, Micaiah is just getting shat on, but that's simply the logical move for the Gallian Alliance against someone they have to treat as a genuine enemy. Basically, Micaiah's half-resolve saves Sothe but as a result kills Pelleas needlessly (on your first playthrough) and inevitably loses a lot of Daein lives anyway. I doubt it was more lives lost than would have been lost if Micaiah let the blood pact activate, but there's also the race factor going on, so I don't really know how to weigh that decision morally. Long story short, their situations and characters have some similarities, but Edelgard is more resolved (and thus more divisive) than Micaiah.

 

And yeah I agree Micaiah was never a Mary Sue character either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Radiant Dawn, actually. Micaiah is not a character in Path of Radiance. But I would not say that Edelgard and Micaiah are that similar, honestly.

Arvis is not controversial, because he was overall portrayed as an antagonist and overall objectively wrong. Because he did bad things, bad things resulted. Even if at first they were good, the story made everything go to hell for him, so people take that as "do only good things and things will be good" and "if you do bad things for a good cause, you will fail". This is why Edelgard's ending is generally nitpicked by others that are against her, as they don't want to believe that the aggressor of a war should have succeeded into making good things. 

Except the thing is that Edelgard isn't an idiot like Arvis. Where Arvis thinks that after grabbing power, that's it, he didn't bother to deal with the clearly evil cult. Edelgard, on the other hand, knows that the clearly evil mole people should be eradicated. 

Of course I would say that the entire concept of "if you do bad things for a good cause, you will fail" is moralistic bullcrap. When you are in a position of leadership, the effectiveness of your leadership is far more important than the purity of of your actions. The job basically requires the willingness to make sacrifices for the greater good to be an effective leader. Anyone who actually believes that leaders have the luxury to remain morally pure. I suggest should go and read The Prince by Machiavelli for a real understanding about the nature of politics.

One example I heard brought up recently was that in game of thrones, when the Faith Militant took over King's Landing. Many people wished that Joffrey was still king rather than the mild-mannered Tomen. Of course, both of those kings are rather crappy in their own right for different reasons. But it shows you that ruthlessness does have a value when it comes to leadership and that if you are too nice. People will just walk all over you.

I think Edelgard strikes a good balance between being merciful and doing what must be done.

I could also pick apart literally every ending in the game, the truth is that will always be more problems in the future, that is just unavoidable because that is what reality is like. But I do think that things will be better in the future than how things were before. After the ending of Crimson Flower. It just won't be flawless.

If anyone is doubting that war can lead to good things, I would say that abolishing slavery after the American Civil War was a good thing.

45 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

She certainly is likable. Very selfless, benevolent and kind with some bits of stubbornness and a surprising amount of sass to prevent her from being boring. I'd say she's definitely not similar to Edelgard though. Michy is rather fragile which Edelgard very much isn't. 

So far as I can tell Arvis has never been controversial and has always been considered a very effective villain. However barely anyone knows of Arvis so he might have been controversial if Fire Emblem fans could actually play his game. Its also somewhat different to be a clear antagonist from the get go then it is to first be a protagonist who then turns into an antagonist. The later category has a chance to have fans reject the character due to feeling betrayed or holding a protagonist to higher moral standards. 

Selfless, benevolent and stubborn does actually sound very much like Edelgard.

Think one reason I never felt betrayed by Edelgard is that I never held any real loyalty to the church in the first place. I had been sceptical of them since Lonato. If you go Crimson Flower, I would describe Edelgard as a protagonist, simultaneously playing the role as antagonist, but later goes over to being the protagonist full-time after you join her. Thing is that being the antagonist, it is just a designation of going against the protagonist, if the protagonist joins the antagonist, they are no longer the antagonist.

35 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

(Spoilers for RD lol)

I hadn't really thought of the parallels between Micaiah and Edelgard, but they're definitely there. It's true that she doesn't have an especially clear vision for society at large (which makes sense because she never wanted power) and was happy accomplishing relatively small feats of good. Edelgard never got that opportunity (although some of her dialogue indicates she would have preferred a smaller life than fate gave her). But the life experiences of both and their compassion for the downtrodden directly motivate their desires for the world (no racism/no Crest-based class system respectively) and their unwilling shouldering of responsibility. Micaiah refuses to fight in Part I after Izuka attempts to turn Muarim feral, and shuts down any possibility of that, (unlike Edelgard with crest beasts) but the power dynamics are also more in her favour at that point than Edelgard's are with TWSITD. 

Her relative incompetence as a general in Part 3 of RD is slightly excused by her trust in and sympathy for Pelleas, and she is similar to Edelgard in that both publicly support their regime even though they privately dislike aspects of it. Her calculations are also fairly utilitarian - she attempts to kill Sanaki as soon as she can because the only other apparent alternative is the blood pact murder of her entire country, and gets foiled because she lets her emotions get in the way. Edelgard probably would have sacrificed a loved one in order to save her country though (idk? Byleth in CF is the only person she's close enough to for that, but Byleth never gets put in Sothe's position). After that chapter in RD, Micaiah is just getting shat on, but that's simply the logical move for the Gallian Alliance against someone they have to treat as a genuine enemy. Basically, Micaiah's half-resolve saves Sothe but as a result kills Pelleas needlessly (on your first playthrough) and inevitably loses a lot of Daein lives anyway. I doubt it was more lives lost than would have been lost if Micaiah let the blood pact activate, but there's also the race factor going on, so I don't really know how to weigh that decision morally. Long story short, their situations and characters have some similarities, but Edelgard is more resolved (and thus more divisive) than Micaiah.

 

And yeah I agree Micaiah was never a Mary Sue character either

I can certainly see some similarities.

I have heard of these blood pacts and they sound absolutely horrifying. To my understanding if someone breach a contract signed as a blood act, it will lead to every single citizen in their country dying. Because we are talking about casualties on such a massive scale, I would say that it is clearly the moral thing to do to sacrifice the life of one in order to save countless others. It is so destructive that nearly anything is better than to allow a blood pact to trigger. But this is assuming that a blood pact actually ends with the death of the person who signed it. 

Edelgard is very lucky that blood pacts doesn't exist in her world, otherwise I'd bet that Thales would have forced her to sign one. As for the hypothetical if she would sacrifice Byleth to save that the rest of her people in this situation,. Yes, I think she would, but she would feel horrible about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I should really play path of radiance, the game seems to have many fascinating characters. My primary exposure to Micaiah was because she was my starting 5 star in heroes and the girl seems very likeable. I have also had a friend of mine compare her to Edelgard, though I am not sure how similar they really are.  

 

I think they are quite different and quite similar at the same time. Most Edelgard fans tend to like Micaiah and vice-versa so I believe you will most likely like her character as well. 

When it comes to personality, Edelgard is a lot more arrogant while Micaiah is humble but Micaiah has her sass as well. While both are resolute, Edelgard is even more so. Micaiah is a lot more outwardly kind than Edelgard. Micaiah is rather naive compared to Edelgard while Edelgard is better at reading people. 

When it comes to character, both of them end up allying with awful people to accomplish their goals and use ruthless tactics to accomplish their objectives.

Minor RD epilogue spoilers. 

Spoiler

Also, Micaiah was chosen as the new Queen of Daein for merit, not her bloodline, so I'm sure Edelgard would be happy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I can certainly see some similarities.

I have heard of these blood pacts and they sound absolutely horrifying. To my understanding if someone breach a contract signed as a blood act, it will lead to every single citizen in their country dying. Because we are talking about casualties on such a massive scale, I would say that it is clearly the moral thing to do to sacrifice the life of one in order to save countless others. It is so destructive that nearly anything is better than to allow a blood pact to trigger. But this is assuming that a blood pact actually ends with the death of the person who signed it. 

Edelgard is very lucky that blood pacts doesn't exist in her world, otherwise I'd bet that Thales would have forced her to sign one. As for the hypothetical if she would sacrifice Byleth to save that the rest of her people in this situation,. Yes, I think she would, but she would feel horrible about it.

Correct me if I’m wrong but, could the javelins of light work in a similar way as the blood pact? Thales: “If you dare to oppose me i will blow up your entire army with my ICBMs” like precisely what happened to arianrhod (and her troops established on there after its capture).

Edited by NicolaTesla&you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I have heard of these blood pacts and they sound absolutely horrifying. To my understanding if someone breach a contract signed as a blood act, it will lead to every single citizen in their country dying. Because we are talking about casualties on such a massive scale, I would say that it is clearly the moral thing to do to sacrifice the life of one in order to save countless others. It is so destructive that nearly anything is better than to allow a blood pact to trigger. But this is assuming that a blood pact actually ends with the death of the person who signed it

33 minutes ago, NicolaTesla&you said:

Correct me if I’m wrong but, could the javelins of light work in a similar way as the blood pact? Thales: “If you dare to oppose me i will blow up your entire army with my ICBMs” like precisely what happened to arianrhod (and her troops established on there after its capture).

Lots of people had issues with the blood pact in RD because it was a huge story contrivance to get team Micaiah to fight team Ike (and I think it's used to retroactively explain Ashnard coming to power and Naesala's multiple betrayals), and had the added disadvantage of excusing moral ambiguity on the parts of Micaiah, Pelleas (and Naesala but he's more of a rogue anyway). The exact mechanism is technically unconfirmed (because they don't risk it during RD), but the story Pelleas tells is that one citizen of a given country dies the first day the pact is invoked upon the country's ruler, two on the second day and so on. I don't think any invoked blood pact got far enough to kill an entire country, but it probably could. 

If you were being purely utilitarian about it, then the casualties from obeying the pact terms and continuing the war (in Pelleas/Micaiah's blood pact anyway) start off as more than disobeying the pact. But there's no guarantee Begnion (the empire in RD) wouldn't send a punitive military force to kill Daein citizens, or that Micaiah could break the pact before the casualties from disobeying snowballed too much anyway. 

As I remember, killing Pelleas (the person who signed the blood pact as the subject) wasn't enough to break the pact anyway - the sacrifice of one person I was referring to was at a slightly earlier point, where Micaiah nearly succeeds in killing the apostle of Begnion (her fairly blameless little sister Sanaki), but is prevented by an enemy king (Tibarn) taking Sothe, her boyfriend/son captive. Oedipal stuff included, Micaiah couldn't bear to let him die, so lets Sanaki escape. Killing Sanaki wouldn't have broken the blood pact and it probably wouldn't have ended the war, so it's lucky that Micaiah didn't, but Sanaki might have been able to overrule the blood pact as a representative of Begnion, so Micaiah did miss a trick there. 

For some reason, Arundel/Thales never threatens to use the javelins of light in the same way as leverage. I guess because no one would have believed him before he demonstrated their use, and/or because it would have irrevocably tipped the hand of TWSITD? Edelgard and Claude might have figured out that he was telling the truth about their destructive potential (both work out that the javelins of light are what actually destroyed Ailell permanently) but they both had to see it happen to believe it. The javelins of light also aren't quite as surefire as the blood pact (the Golden Deer/Resistance Army and the Death Knight manage to survive it even though they escape to only a few seconds' horse ride away from the strike zone, Rhea blocks several without dying, and some Agarthans escape Shambala). In SS/VW, the javelins of light are what give away Shambala's position and allow Thales to be defeated, and in CF we get told Hubert roots TWSITD out (since Hubert is the one who figures out Shambala's position, it's not a big leap to think he did the same thing in CF, although we don't see it). So ultimately, it's a double-edged sword for TWSITD, unlike the blood pact which is a one-way punishment for the subject ruler/nation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Frankly, she isn't. Divisive doesn't equal hated, she even won CYL her first year being out.

You want to see hated female characters? I point you to Micaiah after Radiant Dawn came out. Or Eirika. While the hate for these two has calmed down significantly the past several years (with Heroes playing a large part in Micaiah's) those two had so much vitriol spat at them that it makes Edelgard discourse look downright tame by comparison.

Why does everyone hate Micairah ? I think she's good. If I remember corectly she have a skill that heal others, but reduce her HP. She seem like a good girl

Eiraka what ? she is my favourite after Lyn. 

I think we should make a post with title : "and the most hated female charater goes to :"

Edited by Hong Nhi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, haarhaarhaar said:

For some reason, Arundel/Thales never threatens to use the javelins of light in the same way as leverage. I guess because no one would have believed him before he demonstrated their use, and/or because it would have irrevocably tipped the hand of TWSITD? Edelgard and Claude might have figured out that he was telling the truth about their destructive potential (both work out that the javelins of light are what actually destroyed Ailell permanently) but they both had to see it happen to believe it. The javelins of light also aren't quite as surefire as the blood pact (the Golden Deer/Resistance Army and the Death Knight manage to survive it even though they escape to only a few seconds' horse ride away from the strike zone, Rhea blocks several without dying, and some Agarthans escape Shambala). In SS/VW, the javelins of light are what give away Shambala's position and allow Thales to be defeated, and in CF we get told Hubert roots TWSITD out (since Hubert is the one who figures out Shambala's position, it's not a big leap to think he did the same thing in CF, although we don't see it). So ultimately, it's a double-edged sword for TWSITD, unlike the blood pact which is a one-way punishment for the subject ruler/nation.

 

I see. I guess they didn’t use it in that way for those reasons (i mean they created them, and they used it before, it would be weird that they weren’t aware of their inconvenients). But, looks like they still seem eager to use it, even if it was just a show of their power.

Returning to the topic. As other people already said here, there is no way she is the most hated but its true that her haters are quite vocal. The FE fandom’s resumee with the female lords doesn’t help though.

Edited by NicolaTesla&you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't get the hate then again it's hard for me to understand the hate towards any fictional character in general. Like I get people have tastes and will therefore dislike anything for whatever reason but what I don't understand is why people hate her this much. It doesn't make a lot of sense especially because a lot of the reasons people say they dislike her isn't even true y'know like saying she caused the tragedy of duscur. Like no she didn't. I thought that was obvious. Also she killed Geralt. She didn't do that either. This community confuses me sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ottservia said:

I honestly don't get the hate then again it's hard for me to understand the hate towards any fictional character in general. Like I get people have tastes and will therefore dislike anything for whatever reason but what I don't understand is why people hate her this much. It doesn't make a lot of sense especially because a lot of the reasons people say they dislike her isn't even true y'know like saying she caused the tragedy of duscur. Like no she didn't. I thought that was obvious. Also she killed Geralt. She didn't do that either. This community confuses me sometimes.

It also stems from people thinking and applying modern form of logic onto a setting that does not have that kind of thinking.

Like saying that Edelgard could simply oppose the Church's ways in a setting when the Church and the religion is taken very seriously. To challenge the Church's beliefs is akin to heresy, and you'd likely be assassinated or just straight up executed for such things.

Or the idea that Edelgard can work with the Church to deal with the Agarthans, when the Agarthans control the Empire. The Agarthans would simply let the Empire be destroyed, leaving Edelgard with nothing if Edelgard were to oppose them. And it isn't like Edelgard would have the ability to oppose the Church if she asks for their help, because politically, the Church would gain influence over the Empire as a result of Edelgard siding with the Church. 

Politics is VERY complicated, and thinking that "simple solutions" would work simply is ignoring the state that Fodlan's society is not in a "simple" just cause it's not as advanced as ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

It also stems from people thinking and applying modern form of logic onto a setting that does not have that kind of thinking.

Like saying that Edelgard could simply oppose the Church's ways in a setting when the Church and the religion is taken very seriously. To challenge the Church's beliefs is akin to heresy, and you'd likely be assassinated or just straight up executed for such things.

Or the idea that Edelgard can work with the Church to deal with the Agarthans, when the Agarthans control the Empire. The Agarthans would simply let the Empire be destroyed, leaving Edelgard with nothing if Edelgard were to oppose them. And it isn't like Edelgard would have the ability to oppose the Church if she asks for their help, because politically, the Church would gain influence over the Empire as a result of Edelgard siding with the Church. 

Politics is VERY complicated, and thinking that "simple solutions" would work simply is ignoring the state that Fodlan's society is not in a "simple" just cause it's not as advanced as ours.

yeah that too also people saying the new system she'll put in place is flawed and won't last. And I'm just like yeah that's true but that's also true of any governmental system. No government system is perfect so yeah it's gonna fall eventually so what exactly is the point being made here? The point of the narrative isn't if Edelgard's system will last it's that it's better than the system Foldlan has currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

yeah that too also people saying the new system she'll put in place is flawed and won't last. And I'm just like yeah that's true but that's also true of any governmental system. No government system is perfect so yeah it's gonna fall eventually so what exactly is the point being made here? The point of the narrative isn't if Edelgard's system will last it's that it's better than the system Foldlan has currently.

Like I said earlier, people don't want to believe that someone that starts the war and works with evil people will get anything good out of it. They think that politics and pure ideals work flawlessly, or that change in a society where people don't think about change is easily accepted. 

Ionius and Lambert both tried to change, but nobles opposed their efforts, resulting in them working with the Agarthans, which caused catastrophic consequences. 

Peaceful changes weren't an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Like I said earlier, people don't want to believe that someone that starts the war and works with evil people will get anything good out of it. They think that politics and pure ideals work flawlessly, or that change in a society where people don't think about change is easily accepted. 

Ionius and Lambert both tried to change, but nobles opposed their efforts, resulting in them working with the Agarthans, which caused catastrophic consequences. 

Peaceful changes weren't an option.

I think I already said my piece why politics and pure ideals doesn't match. It simply ignores reality.

I guess she could join in with the charge against the Agarthans, but doing that would mean losing the Empire completely and from her point of view, it is exactly the same as siding with the Agarthans, joining up with people she hates the fight a common enemy. Mark my words, the Agarthans still controls the Empire, this choice would not prevent the war. And how much does it bird really even contribute to the cause without control of the Empire? She has a lot more control over events doing the exact opposite, going with the Agarthans against the shirts, maintaining control of the Empire and use said control of the Empire in the end to destroy the Agarthans. She simply wouldn't have the power to destroy the church after the war against the Agarthans was over going with the other option.

29 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

yeah that too also people saying the new system she'll put in place is flawed and won't last. And I'm just like yeah that's true but that's also true of any governmental system. No government system is perfect so yeah it's gonna fall eventually so what exactly is the point being made here? The point of the narrative isn't if Edelgard's system will last it's that it's better than the system Foldlan has currently.

That is a point I am trying to make for a long time, the new system doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better. I think it will be even if it will have ups and downs. 

I also think literally any ending to the game have its detriments to its government system. It is not unique for Crimson Flower. I personally think that doing this entire war and not removing the nobility or the crest system is honestly a complete waste. At least with Edelgard winning the war has more of a point. 

56 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I honestly don't get the hate then again it's hard for me to understand the hate towards any fictional character in general. Like I get people have tastes and will therefore dislike anything for whatever reason but what I don't understand is why people hate her this much. It doesn't make a lot of sense especially because a lot of the reasons people say they dislike her isn't even true y'know like saying she caused the tragedy of duscur. Like no she didn't. I thought that was obvious. Also she killed Geralt. She didn't do that either. This community confuses me sometimes.

Still, these are misconceptions at least one character in the game actually has about Edelgard. Still, I sometimes wonder if some other haters has even played the game at all considering some of the things they are saying. Many I know haven't played Crimson flower, which makes me wonder if they are even qualified to have an opinion on her as they clearly haven't even tried to get to know her.

Not to mention the whole "she burned Bernadetta" thing. It is the King of nonsense accusations

Share this post


Link to post
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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...