Why I cannot fully sympathize with Rhea

[Blackstarskywalker]

56 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well she's fighting on behalf of the entire world, which is made up largely of the working class.

Claude gets lots of FMVs...he's just not in any of them.

Well, it is one thing for the entire world to be made up of humble people and the working class, and quite another to say that she only fight for them, which can be deceptive.
 
 

[Darkmoon6789]

5 hours ago, lightcosmo said:

I'm not a fan on either of them, personally, but I don't think their backstories were done the "right" way, which makes it a bit hard to understand what happened and how they felt. Like, why not throw in some "past" scenes to show exactly what they seen through their eyes? It would make looking at what happened much easier, and actually have some decent character development. Of course what Rhea went through is sad, but since we don't see it, it doesn't have nearly as much impact on us. I think 3H did a poor job with something that had a lot of potential, but that's just my opinion.

 

Spoiler

https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/74134914-1d5d-4ac6-82c1-5b2aafff7ee9/ddn2sys-97511ac8-2932-446e-bb20-66685eb212b8.jpg/v1/fill/w_1280,h_905,q_75,strp/fan_art_edelgard___crimson_flower_by_mizonaki_ddn2sys-fullview.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOiIsImlzcyI6InVybjphcHA6Iiwib2JqIjpbW3siaGVpZ2h0IjoiPD05MDUiLCJwYXRoIjoiXC9mXC83NDEzNDkxNC0xZDVkLTRhYzYtODJjMS01YjJhYWZmZjdlZTlcL2RkbjJzeXMtOTc1MTFhYzgtMjkzMi00NDZlLWJiMjAtNjY2ODVlYjIxMmI4LmpwZyIsIndpZHRoIjoiPD0xMjgwIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmltYWdlLm9wZXJhdGlvbnMiXX0.cZlA9QHWlu07D-O7TS0ehRbiNEfd1rS8ONanS0tZ6kk

Fan works like this doesn't really express how much suffering Edelgard went through though. Hopefully this and too graphic for this forum, if it is a mod should remove it. But it does express perfectly how bad things were for her. It should also be noted, it is mentioned that Edelgard has a fear of chains and rats in her profile. Which definitely implies that she was chained up in a rat infested dungeon for however long. Not exactly great prison conditions. 

She also makes direct reference to them, cutting open her body for the experiments and innocence being sacrificed in what appeared to be blood rituals. And this is in addition to witnessing her siblings succumb to either a slow, agonising death or complete insanity.

If any of this was shown directly. It would be beyond horrifying. But probably would help people supervise with Edelgard.

I guess more directly showing the massacre at the Red Canyon would also have a similar effect. But I guess it might be beyond the games age rating.

Always found it kind of weird when it comes to ratings that you can have themes of genocide, people being tortured into insanity and blood sacrifice, and still have a low age rating as long as you don't directly show any of it. At the end of the day three houses does explore a lot of the very dark subject matters (and I love that it does that). In most cases I can imagine how bad things were from the descriptions. Like with Edelgard, I can visualise what she went through and it isn't pretty. 

I am also completely in favour of the fan interpretation that Edelgard has a lot of scars left from the experiments. It would make sense given that she says that they did cut open their very bodies on an almost daily basis. If you really think about it, Edelgard never display any of her skin on her arms or her hands through the entire game. She always wears gloves, always.  My headcanon is that she is trying to hide her scars. 

Spoiler

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by eclipse
Spoiler tags

[haarhaarhaar]

44 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Fan works like this doesn't really express how much suffering Edelgard went through though. Hopefully this and too graphic for this forum, if it is a mod should remove it.

Hmm I'm obviously not a mod, but you probably should put the second pic within a spoilers box or something and warn people about it as well. More to the point, as horrifying as what happened to Edelgard is, your general points above don't really make an argument against people with the outlook of @twilitfalchion or @JubileePhoenix - their point, I believe, is nothing can justify doing wrong or evil deeds, including one's past or one's cause. Obviously not everyone has to feel that way about her character, but it's perfectly legitimate to think like that, and no amount of discussing Edelgard's own suffering would convince such people that she is entitled to commit deeds they consider are morally wrong. They can still have pity for her past, I imagine, without being able to get behind her as a character. 

[null]

3 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Hmm I'm obviously not a mod, but you probably should put the second pic within a spoilers box or something and warn people about it as well. More to the point, as horrifying as what happened to Edelgard is, your general points above don't really make an argument against people with the outlook of @twilitfalchion or @JubileePhoenix - their point, I believe, is nothing can justify doing wrong or evil deeds, including one's past or one's cause. Obviously not everyone has to feel that way about her character, but it's perfectly legitimate to think like that, and no amount of discussing Edelgard's own suffering would convince such people that she is entitled to commit deeds they consider are morally wrong. They can still have pity for her past, I imagine, without being able to get behind her as a character. 

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. There is no justification for people who take morally reprehensible actions regardless of what they have experienced in their own lives. Look at all the people in real life who have used their pain and their traumas to improve themselves. They chose the path that brought the most good to themselves and those around them, instead of harming others as an outlet for their suffering. The words of C.S. Lewis are surprisingly relevant here: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." In seeking to stop the Church of Seiros and ascend to power to create freedom for all of Fodlan, she morphed into the very symbol of authoritarianism and oppression she set out to destroy.

[eclipse]

12 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I never said it was remotely possible. It is not something she can get over any more than Edelgard can get over the death of her siblings in a gruesome fashion as well as being imprisoned and tortured for however long that was (suspect six years, but I could be wrong).

Ultimately Edelgard isn't over her trauma any more than Rhea, her entire reasoning is built upon it. I do think she's accurate in this reasoning, but her hatred of crests and the nobility do stem from the trauma. And it is ultimately what compels her to declare war. Dedicating her life to what she thinks is a noble purpose is the only way she can cope. And she is likely to suffer even more trauma due to the burden the war put on her conscience. 

I don't read Edelgard's advice to Byleth as "get over it". I read it as, "there is no point moping in your room all day, channel your grief into something productive, like hunting down your father's killer. It should give you plenty of motivation for that." 

It is ultimately the same tactic Edelgard herself is using to deal with her trauma. As stated, I don't think Edelgard is over it either and it is unlikely she will ever be. I don't think she intends to be mean, I think she is genuinely trying to help the best way she knows how because she cares for Byleth and she feels guilty for being partwise responsible in their father's death.

But I think I remember you said yourself that despite Rhea's mental state being understandable, he probably shouldn't be in power. Just as however much I like Azula, I don't think she should be Firelord as long as she suffers from paranoid schizophrenia to that extent. It is to the point she is pretty much not responsible for her own actions anymore. So I would still justify removing them from power because their mental state in combination with that power and influence is a threat to other people.

There's a lesser of issue of telling people how to deal with their emotions.  For some people, punching a wall helps them to be less angry.  For others, it makes it worse. Same goes for any other emotion.  But what we can learn from this is that Edelgard is naturally inclined to direct action, while Rhea is more likely to take an indirect route.  Though in Edelgard's case, she wouldn't have had a proper outlet to mourn her sibling's deaths immediately, since she was going through quite a bit!

Also, I shoved the other pic link into spoiler tags, since I'm not sure if the mobile site will randomly render it.  Regardless, that's within the bounds of acceptable content (barely). BTW, nice catch on Edelgard's fears!

3 hours ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

Well, the game puts Dimitri torturing Randolph (it's not explicit, but I know the context, to the point that Byleth kills that man to stop suffering).

So I see no problem putting flashbacks and more animations in Edelgard's route( don't have to be visually explicit).

It's said not shown, much like how Edelgard describes her experiences.  Probably for the best in both cases.

1 minute ago, twilitfalchion said:

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. There is no justification for people who take morally reprehensible actions regardless of what they have experienced in their own lives. Look at all the people in real life who have used their pain and their traumas to improve themselves. They chose the path that brought the most good to themselves and those around them, instead of harming others as an outlet for their suffering. The words of C.S. Lewis are surprisingly relevant here: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." In seeking to stop the Church of Seiros and ascend to power to create freedom for all of Fodlan, she morphed into the very symbol of authoritarianism and oppression she set out to destroy.

First few posts in the topic also apply to you.  I'll assume you haven't had any soul-wrenching trauma, and I hope you never do.  But if fate decides otherwise. . .do you really want people to look at you like this, when you're at your worst?

Edited May 4, 2020 by eclipse

[Darkmoon6789]

18 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Hmm I'm obviously not a mod, but you probably should put the second pic within a spoilers box or something and warn people about it as well. More to the point, as horrifying as what happened to Edelgard is, your general points above don't really make an argument against people with the outlook of @twilitfalchion or @JubileePhoenix - their point, I believe, is nothing can justify doing wrong or evil deeds, including one's past or one's cause. Obviously not everyone has to feel that way about her character, but it's perfectly legitimate to think like that, and no amount of discussing Edelgard's own suffering would convince such people that she is entitled to commit deeds they consider are morally wrong. They can still have pity for her past, I imagine, without being able to get behind her as a character. 

Nothing I could ever say could change the minds of some people, the way we think is fundamentally different. In my view it isn't really about being entitled or having a right to do anything. It is that at the end of the day. The only thing that really matters is the result of their actions rather than the actions themselves. I think it is naive to think that you can make the world a better place without a willingness to dirty your hands, sometimes in order to reach the greater good, you have to do things that aren't necessarily morally right. It is why I believe that people who are too concerned about preserving their own personal morality wouldn't make great leaders. It is quite literally their job to make sacrifices for the greater good. Sometimes the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing, which is a situation you could easily slip into if you're hesitant about doing what is necessary.

Both Rhea and Edelgard are sympathetic regardless in my mind because their actions are understandable, given their history. And I feel sorry for both of them. But only one of them could be right in that their actions would lead to the better future. 

Granted, feeling sorry for someone without necessarily being able to get behind their actions is actually exactly how I feel about Rhea. Even if there is an argument to be made that the extreme cost of war makes it so that it might perhaps be justifiable to go to extreme measures to prevent it. It is basically what Rhea is doing. It is just that, ultimately, I believe that freedom is more important than just quantity of life. 

I am not comparing Rhea and Edelgard to some perfect objective moral standard, I am comparing their actions against one another and deciding which one is more beneficial for world the long term. That is how I determine what is morally right. Sometimes you have no choice but to choose between two evils, an oppressive system that causes suffering or a conflict to get rid of said oppressive system at a large cost. Pick your poison, because you need to pick one.

[null]

4 minutes ago, eclipse said:

First few posts in the topic also apply to you.  I'll assume you haven't had any soul-wrenching trauma, and I hope you never do.  But if fate decides otherwise. . .do you really want people to look at you like this, when you're at your worst?

I apologize if I sounded judgmental or insensitive. That was not my intent. Of course I sympathize with individuals who have experienced horrible abuse and trauma. They deserve justice for what they've been put through. But there is a right way and a wrong way to go about seeking justice, and the way Edelgard went about seeking justice came at the expense of innocent lives. That is never acceptable.

[Blackstarskywalker]

41 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. There is no justification for people who take morally reprehensible actions regardless of what they have experienced in their own lives. Look at all the people in real life who have used their pain and their traumas to improve themselves. They chose the path that brought the most good to themselves and those around them, instead of harming others as an outlet for their suffering. The words of C.S. Lewis are surprisingly relevant here: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." In seeking to stop the Church of Seiros and ascend to power to create freedom for all of Fodlan, she morphed into the very symbol of authoritarianism and oppression she set out to destroy.

Edelgard's endings on the crimson flower route does not indicate what you are claiming
 
 

[null]

5 minutes ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

Edelgard's endings on the crimson flower route does not indicate what you are claiming

I'm actually talking more about the methods and individuals that she used as tools to achieve her objective, rather than the end goal itself.

Edited May 4, 2020 by twilitfalchion

[haarhaarhaar]

4 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Nothing I could ever say could change the minds of some people, the way we think is fundamentally different. In my view it isn't really about being entitled or having a right to do anything. It is that at the end of the day. The only thing that really matters is the result of their actions rather than the actions themselves. I think it is naive to think that you can make the world a better place without a willingness to dirty your hands, sometimes in order to reach the greater good, you have to do things that aren't necessarily morally right. It is why I believe that people who are too concerned about preserving their own personal morality wouldn't make great leaders. It is quite literally their job to make sacrifices for the greater good. Sometimes the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing, which is a situation you could easily slip into if you're hesitant about doing what is necessary.

This is again a completely fair viewpoint to hold. And, like you say, your viewpoints are just fundamentally different, which is mainly what I was saying as well.

2 minutes ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

Edelgard's endings on the crimson flower route does not indicate what you are claiming

It's a difficult one, because on CF you are very much with Edelgard's point of view, and understand her as a character. The fact that she is compassionate and motivated towards the good of humanity doesn't change the fact that she has established a military junta that controls Fodlan by force, and has wiped out the prevailing religion in the region. For some people, that's more than acceptable because they prize her movement towards a better future for humanity above her methods. For others, an imperial-military dictatorship is the evil that has to be avoided, and that and the costs that come with it make her impossible to side. Real world leaders of history are similarly divisive (take Mao or Stalin).

 

I'm assuming that the above Edelgard comments are mainly to place her in a position of contrast to Rhea, though? They are very much opposite sides of the same coin, so it's quite interesting to see those who find one justifiable and the other absolutely not. I find people who find both of them or neither of them justifiable easier to understand.

[null]

3 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

This is again a completely fair viewpoint to hold. And, like you say, your viewpoints are just fundamentally different, which is mainly what I was saying as well.

It's a difficult one, because on CF you are very much with Edelgard's point of view, and understand her as a character. The fact that she is compassionate and motivated towards the good of humanity doesn't change the fact that she has established a military junta that controls Fodlan by force, and has wiped out the prevailing religion in the region. For some people, that's more than acceptable because they prize her movement towards a better future for humanity above her methods. For others, an imperial-military dictatorship is the evil that has to be avoided, and that and the costs that come with it make her impossible to side. Real world leaders of history are similarly divisive (take Mao or Stalin).

I'm assuming that the above Edelgard comments are mainly to place her in a position of contrast to Rhea, though? They are very much opposite sides of the same coin, so it's quite interesting to see those who find one justifiable and the other absolutely not. I find people who find both of them or neither of them justifiable easier to understand.

I agree with you. Having differing viewpoints is a great thing and everyone's opinion is perfectly fair. This is just my opinion and mine alone. For me, the end does not justify the means. And Rhea, I would contend, is just as culpable for her respective actions as Edelgard is.

[Blackstarskywalker]

45 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

This is again a completely fair viewpoint to hold. And, like you say, your viewpoints are just fundamentally different, which is mainly what I was saying as well.

It's a difficult one, because on CF you are very much with Edelgard's point of view, and understand her as a character. The fact that she is compassionate and motivated towards the good of humanity doesn't change the fact that she has established a military junta that controls Fodlan by force, and has wiped out the prevailing religion in the region. For some people, that's more than acceptable because they prize her movement towards a better future for humanity above her methods. For others, an imperial-military dictatorship is the evil that has to be avoided, and that and the costs that come with it make her impossible to side. Real world leaders of history are similarly divisive (take Mao or Stalin).

 

I'm assuming that the above Edelgard comments are mainly to place her in a position of contrast to Rhea, though? They are very much opposite sides of the same coin, so it's quite interesting to see those who find one justifiable and the other absolutely not. I find people who find both of them or neither of them justifiable easier to understand.

Sorry, I missed something. Military dictatorship? . You can call her conqueror, she recovers territories that originally belonged to the empire. We are talking about a universe inspired by the medieval age, with monarchies, duchies and empires. And at the end of the SS and AM routes, Fodlan is also unified. Are Byleth and Dimitri tyrants?

PS: Edelgard does not eliminate religion, but religion is not going to get involved in state affairs and laws, which seems good to me.

[JubileePhoenix]

1 hour ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Hmm I'm obviously not a mod, but you probably should put the second pic within a spoilers box or something and warn people about it as well. More to the point, as horrifying as what happened to Edelgard is, your general points above don't really make an argument against people with the outlook of @twilitfalchion or @JubileePhoenix - their point, I believe, is nothing can justify doing wrong or evil deeds, including one's past or one's cause. Obviously not everyone has to feel that way about her character, but it's perfectly legitimate to think like that, and no amount of discussing Edelgard's own suffering would convince such people that she is entitled to commit deeds they consider are morally wrong. They can still have pity for her past, I imagine, without being able to get behind her as a character. 

This is what I believe to an extent. You can justify doing stupid things to yourself all day, it’s your life have fun.  When you do wrong to other people is when you become kind of an asshole.

Also I don’t side with Rhea because she does some shady shit. And I don’t side with Edelgard because she’s an idiot.  

[omegaxis1]

While I understand the morality issue, and how some people would rather keep things black and white, and cannot accept the middle grey area at all, 3H simply doesn't work like that at all. It's a completely morally grey story, because it's a case of how Rhea's way of ruling and influencing how society works is something she won't let go. 

There simply isn't any form of peaceful changes. Every choice you have WILL lead to innocent people dying. There's no absolute right answer. It's more of a case of, which decision better suits your own personal beliefs that you won't damage your superego. 

While some would say that trying to do the morally right thing, and failing to get results, which still results in people suffering is the better choice, others would view this as the cowardly choice, where they refused to actually take action and accomplished nothing. Just as those that would take violent actions would get results, but others would never accept the means used.

I'm on the mindset that there is a balance to things. 

I cannot support Rhea because she had her chance to prevent society from getting how it did, as she had centuries, whereas others didn't even have a decade. 

7 minutes ago, JubileePhoenix said:

And I don’t side with Edelgard because she’s an idiot.  

To that, I have to wonder. What exactly were the options do you see that you seem to think she could have taken? If you think she's an idiot, you must think there's some "simple" solution, right?

Rhea wants society to remain dependent on Crests, nobles, and the goddess pre-redemption, the Agarthans are in control of the Empire, said Agarthans can take on the forms of other people so your ability to trust people is severely limited, your ideas oppose what is seen as common sense to society, and you may or may not be suffering from shortened lifespan.

[Jingle Jangle]

6 minutes ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

PS: Edelgard does not eliminate religion, but religion is not going to get involved in state affairs and laws, which seems good to me.

In Fire Emblem Heroes, Edelgard newest alt is her at the end of the CH route. Bio is:

Quote

Emperor of the Adrestian Empire. Destroyer of the Church of Seiros and unifier of all Fodlan.

There can be an argument made that she is targeting the institution and not the religion as a whole. Even stated in the support with Manuela. But that only goes so far. None of her endings have her address the idea of reforming the Church of Serios. Nor having much sympathy for those that live a different lifestyle than her. 

[Crysta]

Why should she reform the Church of Seiros?

[Jingle Jangle]

2 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Why should she reform the Church of Seiros?

I'm not saying she has to. But as an idea to her to demonstrate the the people of the continent of her goals. Which in hindsight that what Byleth accomplish in most of the routes, making her redundant.

[JubileePhoenix]

17 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

 

To that, I have to wonder. What exactly were the options do you see that you seem to think she could have taken? If you think she's an idiot, you must think there's some "simple" solution, right?

Rhea wants society to remain dependent on Crests, nobles, and the goddess pre-redemption, the Agarthans are in control of the Empire, said Agarthans can take on the forms of other people so your ability to trust people is severely limited, your ideas oppose what is seen as common sense to society, and you may or may not be suffering from shortened lifespan.

Because working with the people THAT KILLED MY WHOLE FAMILY seems extreme to me. Edelgard may have"justifiable" ideas, but the plan to keep these ideas going long term are lacking. Like i said Crest give superpowers and  people are not just going to stop vaulting something just because there dictator said no, as history has shown. 

[Blackstarskywalker]

54 minutes ago, Jingle Jangle said:

In Fire Emblem Heroes, Edelgard newest alt is her at the end of the CH route. Bio is:

There can be an argument made that she is targeting the institution and not the religion as a whole. Even stated in the support with Manuela. But that only goes so far. None of her endings have her address the idea of reforming the Church of Serios. Nor having much sympathy for those that live a different lifestyle than her. 

I still don't see the problem. I like it better that she gives priority to science and research (indicated by her supports with Lysithea, Constance and Hanneman).

She doesn't eliminate religion, but I don't see why she has to prioritize it.

[CustardPudding]

I personally cannot sympathize with either Edelgard or Rhea. Both did some very wrong things that cost the lives of many innocent people, and I feel like the worlds both of them aim to build are unstable and will likely collapse again. Don't get me wrong, I actually LIKE both of them. They are both good people at heart who did some very bad things. 

[haarhaarhaar]

35 minutes ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

Sorry, I missed something. Military dictatorship? . You can call her conqueror, she recovers territories that originally belonged to the empire. We are talking about a universe inspired by the medieval age, with monarchies, duchies and empires. And at the end of the SS and AM routes, Fodlan is also unified. Are Byleth and Dimitri tyrants?

PS: Edelgard does not eliminate religion, but religion is not going to get involved in state affairs and laws, which seems good to me.

Byleth and Dimitri aren't tyrants because they aren't political aggressors (except Byleth on CF). The only character the game gives enough evidence for being called a tyrant is Rhea. Edelgard recovering territories that belonged to the Empire is a poor take - the Alliance was formed over 200 years before, Faerghus about 200 years before them, and both had established political independence, which the Empire had also agreed to. The Empire has, following that political declaration, no right to those territories for multiple reasons, including but not limited to the will and wishes of the people of parts of Faerghus and some of the Alliance. I called it a military dictatorship because it is - Edelgard is a single source of absolute authority, and her rule is supported by military might. It's one of the big reasons she goes through the trouble of uniting Fodlan - to gather enough strength to put down TWSITD and other threats to her ideology. Whether you consider that an evil or not is up to you, but some clearly do. 

Wiping out religion was a poor choice of words - depending on what happens in CF though, you could end up killing two of the saints, Rhea, and the last remnants of Sothis, as well as destroying much of the command structure of the church. The reform of the church's role in society is so radical as to be completely unlike what had gone before. Which, true, isn't the same as wiping out religion. What I meant and should have said was wiping out the religion that people are used to. For plenty of characters in the game (as in medieval Europe) church gives structure to their lives, a code to live by, is a, if not the, pillar of community and alms to the poor. It is integral to the world pre-war, and one could consider removing such a thing without replacement to be irresponsible, at the least.

35 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

While I understand the morality issue, and how some people would rather keep things black and white, and cannot accept the middle grey area at all, 3H simply doesn't work like that at all. It's a completely morally grey story, because it's a case of how Rhea's way of ruling and influencing how society works is something she won't let go.

That 3H has no absolutes (except potentially TWSITD, but not even them) is definitely true. But those who hold more absolute views on morality are entitled to say that none of the characters are good, or good enough. They are just as legitimate as those with more relativistic views.

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, JubileePhoenix said:

Because working with the people THAT KILLED MY WHOLE FAMILY seems extreme to me. Edelgard may have"justifiable" ideas, but the plan to keep these ideas going long term are lacking. Like i said Crest give superpowers and  people are not just going to stop vaulting something just because there dictator said no, as history has shown. 

Again, Agarthans are in control of the Empire. Whether she likes it or not, Edelgard has no power unless she allies with them. 

Also, Crests might give superpowers, but they are also known to now be on the decline. But people want them because simply HAVING one gives you privileges, such as wealth, prestige, etc. But Edelgard's system no longer provides those privileges. It's no longer worth the effort to get lucky and have a Crest. Not to mention, the symbol of Crests present is that of "divine right" to rule. That's no longer the case either. 

In fact, her support with Constance has her explain that nobles will cease to be a concept as they are changed into government officials that work for a paycheck, and how even commoners will be made into officials. This goes into how free education is introduced as well. 

So overall, the value of a Crest means nothing in Edelgard's system. 

28 minutes ago, Jingle Jangle said:

In Fire Emblem Heroes, Edelgard newest alt is her at the end of the CH route. Bio is:

There can be an argument made that she is targeting the institution and not the religion as a whole. Even stated in the support with Manuela. But that only goes so far. None of her endings have her address the idea of reforming the Church of Serios. Nor having much sympathy for those that live a different lifestyle than her. 

Here are some Crimson Flower endings:

Quote

Linhardt/Bernadetta:

Linhardt and Bernadetta caused quite the stir after the war when they abandoned their inherited titles and eloped to Garreg Mach. Returning to the monastery, where they were always most comfortable, the couple lived peaceful lives away from the hassle of politics. When the Empire's efforts to restore the church were complete, the Officers Academy reopened, and two eccentric individuals took up professorships there. One was perpetually asleep, or absorbed in absentminded study; the other refused to show herself at all unless it was time to give a lecture.

-

Manuela/Hanneman:

After the war, Hanneman and Manuela held a grand wedding ceremony, to which all of their many students were invited. Later, after the church was transformed and rehabilitated under the supervision of the Empire, the Officers Academy finally reopened, with a renewed focus on accepting students regardless of status and offering classes on a wider variety of practical subjects. Hanneman and Manuela returned to work as teachers, almost as if nothing had changed, and filled the halls with their banter in the way only married couples can.

The Church of Seiros is still restored in CF. They just dismantled it of its political power and military. In other words, separate religion from politics, which is actually the ideal thing to do, since religion shouldn't be involved with politics. 

2 minutes ago, CustardPudding said:

I personally cannot sympathize with either Edelgard or Rhea. Both did some very wrong things that cost the lives of many innocent people, and I feel like the worlds both of them aim to build are unstable and will likely collapse again. Don't get me wrong, I actually LIKE both of them. They are both good people at heart who did some very bad things. 

I personally dislike people feeling the need to say that doing bad things to get results must fail or will fail. I mean, realistically, all the routes can and would fail. Claude's route would likely lead on to a full on race war. And Dimitri's system will lead to a war for power and more say in things. A participatory government in a nobility system has proven in history to collapse. 

2 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

That 3H has no absolutes (except potentially TWSITD, but not even them) is definitely true. But those who hold more absolute views on morality are entitled to say that none of the characters are good, or good enough. They are just as legitimate as those with more relativistic views.

I agree. It's a case of how I said, it lines with their own personal beliefs. 

4 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Byleth and Dimitri aren't tyrants because they aren't political aggressors (except Byleth on CF). The only character the game gives enough evidence for being called a tyrant is Rhea. Edelgard recovering territories that belonged to the Empire is a poor take - the Alliance was formed over 200 years before, Faerghus about 200 years before them, and both had established political independence, which the Empire had also agreed to. The Empire has, following that political declaration, no right to those territories for multiple reasons, including but not limited to the will and wishes of the people of parts of Faerghus and some of the Alliance. I called it a military dictatorship because it is - Edelgard is a single source of absolute authority, and her rule is supported by military might. It's one of the big reasons she goes through the trouble of uniting Fodlan - to gather enough strength to put down TWSITD and other threats to her ideology. Whether you consider that an evil or not is up to you, but some clearly do. 

Um... not sure how you can say that the Empire actually agreed to it. Keep in mind that it was the Church that divided the Empire by backing Loog's claim for independence. This was done in a pretty bad way. The Church was meant to be mediating, thus acting as a neutral 3rd party. But the Church made a bargain with Loog in which he must allow the Church to gain proselytizing rights in Faerghus, as well as make Faerghus mainly follow the Church's religion. This breaks the conduct of neutrality, as the Church shouldn't gain anything.

So the Empire lost territory, people, Relics, and other things, and nothing is known to have been returned back. If anything, the Church betrayed the Empire. 

Also, given how Loog's Rebellion was something that was indicated to have had the backing of the Agarthans, I don't get why Rhea didn't investigate into this either, especially given how Loog had attained weapons that were similar to Relics, which oughta have been more red flags.

[Troykv]

5 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Also, given how Loog's Rebellion was something that was indicated to have had the backing of the Agarthans, I don't get why Rhea didn't investigate into this either, especially given how Loog had attained weapons that were similar to Relics, which oughta have been more red flags.

This makes me think... Loog had prototypes of the Arrow of Indra and similar stuff?

[JubileePhoenix]

Look, dude die on this hill if you want. I just don't like Edelgard.

[haarhaarhaar]

 

26 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Um... not sure how you can say that the Empire actually agreed to it. Keep in mind that it was the Church that divided the Empire by backing Loog's claim for independence. This was done in a pretty bad way. The Church was meant to be mediating, thus acting as a neutral 3rd party. But the Church made a bargain with Loog in which he must allow the Church to gain proselytizing rights in Faerghus, as well as make Faerghus mainly follow the Church's religion. This breaks the conduct of neutrality, as the Church shouldn't gain anything.

So the Empire lost territory, people, Relics, and other things, and nothing is known to have been returned back. If anything, the Church betrayed the Empire

It's true that the church overstepped, although of course a different story is that Loog impressed the church with his heroism. Not saying this account supersedes the other, btw. I think you're right and the Empire lost out because of Church scheming. The Church definitely has its own vision for humanity that is bound to involve strengthening itself, and rightly or wrongly they decided to split power away from the Empire in order to follow that through. Neutrality doesn't have to equate to maintaining the status quo, but I take your point that it also means they shouldn't have desired to benefit from the situation. Separately, I'm not sure we know enough to declare Loog was in the wrong for wanting to break away. But none of that is the point - the Empire agreed to the result of the mediation, even if it was unfairly tilted against them. I'm not claiming the Church is in the right, merely that the Empire made a legal contract honouring the independence of Faerghus, and all such contracts ought to be honoured. Political betrayals are a dime a dozen - they are underhanded, sure, and they reflect badly on their purveyors, but they aren't a basis to undermine contract law.

It's pretty true to medieval history to cite moments like the above as justification for invading a territory, but Edelgard never does. Make of that what you will.

42 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Also, given how Loog's Rebellion was something that was indicated to have had the backing of the Agarthans, I don't get why Rhea didn't investigate into this either, especially given how Loog had attained weapons that were similar to Relics, which oughta have been more red flags.

Agreed, Rhea's had plenty of oversights when it comes to the Agarthans, and this seems like another one.