Jump to content
omegaxis1

Why I cannot fully sympathize with Rhea

Recommended Posts

1 hour 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. 

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.

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.

Well the monopoly of force always has the state (be it a monarchy, empire or a republic). Byleth and Dimitri are also the only authorities on their routes (be they an Archbishop or a King, they are the ones who rule in Fodlan). But here we are not talking about "military dictatorships". It seems that it only applies to Edelgard (for the reason that she started the war). The same in the end of her speaks more than all of freedoms, merit, development and science. Nothing indicates that it was a totalitarian and oppressive system.

What would that ideology of Edelgard be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, JubileePhoenix said:

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

That's fine. I'm not saying that you should like her. I just think that you saying that Edelgard is an idiot and making claims like you did seems a tad silly. 

1 hour ago, Troykv said:

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

I actually think that it's possibly the Vajra-Mushti. Balthus knows that it's manmade, and not a gift of the goddess like he believes the others are. It's likely that this Relic was developed during Loog's era and given to Loog for use. 

20 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

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.

My point is that the Church shouldn't have tried to make a bargain where they get something in return. I wouldn't have complaints on this, because the Church maintained its neutral stance, but it's because the Church DIDN'T maintain a neutral stance that I have issues with it. 

Also, The Empire HAD to back off. Because they lost the Battle of Eagle and Lion, and the Church gave their support to Loog. The Empire no longer has enough power to resist Loog in him separating and becoming independent. 

I mean, in CF, Edelgard didn't go to war against Faerghus until after Dimitri allied with Rhea, thus making Faerghus join the war.Edelgard didn't invade nor was Dimitri really trying to defend his nation, bur rather he took a stance and forced made himself the Empire's enemy. And despite how there's been declaration of support for the Empire from Alliance lords like Ordelia and Gloucester, Claude has prevented said Alliance lords from actively aiding the Empire.

30 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

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

Going back to the original post again, isn't this a MAJOR oversight?

For multiple people claiming that the Agarthans being out there and how the Agarthans are a threat, and thus Rhea can never move on from her trauma, Rhea's been aware of the many activities they have done, yet never actually tried to lay the crackdown on them or kept trying to investigate them. 

Share this post


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

Well the monopoly of force always has the state (be it a monarchy, empire or a republic). Byleth and Dimitri are also the only authorities on their routes (be they an Archbishop or a King, they are the ones who rule in Fodlan). But here we are not talking about "military dictatorships". It seems that it only applies to Edelgard (for the reason that she started the war). The same in the end of her speaks more than all of freedoms, merit, development and science. Nothing indicates that it was a totalitarian and oppressive system.

What would that ideology of Edelgard be?

Edelgard was the only one of the lords who intended to unite Fodlan by violent methods. In CF, that's what she does. She planned to use military might to make a dictatorship and that's what she did. I don't know what else to say. I have never said that that precludes freedom, merit, development or science, and I have never once said totalitarian or oppressive - that's all you. Although to be fair Edelgard inevitably is trampling on the freedoms of those who liked the old system and didn't want to be in a war, or part of the Empire. All I actually said, however, was the very notion of a military dictatorship is morally abhorrent to some. That fact remains unchanged, and Edelgard remains divisive.

53 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

My point is that the Church shouldn't have tried to make a bargain where they get something in return. I wouldn't have complaints on this, because the Church maintained its neutral stance, but it's because the Church DIDN'T maintain a neutral stance that I have issues with it. 

Also, The Empire HAD to back off. Because they lost the Battle of Eagle and Lion, and the Church gave their support to Loog. The Empire no longer has enough power to resist Loog in him separating and becoming independent. 

I mean, in CF, Edelgard didn't go to war against Faerghus until after Dimitri allied with Rhea, thus making Faerghus join the war.Edelgard didn't invade nor was Dimitri really trying to defend his nation, bur rather he took a stance and forced made himself the Empire's enemy. And despite how there's been declaration of support for the Empire from Alliance lords like Ordelia and Gloucester, Claude has prevented said Alliance lords from actively aiding the Empire.

Okay I'm not really sure what's being said here now. The Empire got the worst of a political exchange over four hundred years prior to the events of 3H, and that's the fault of the Church, fine. But even if that were justification for the Empire to invade, 400 years later, when they felt like it, that's not why Edelgard does it. And again, the Empire should have made peace with that by now, because that was the deal that was made, and there is no proof that they have been disputing the independence of Faerghus since. The original point I was making is that the Empire ought to be respecting the independence of other nations, especially since they agreed to ratify said independence. They lost the war 'unfairly', sure, but I don't see how that changes the fact that they signed or the reality now, that Faerghus is an independent country and does not belong to the Empire. 

The order of events in CF is: Edelgard attacks Rhea/Garreg Mach, Rhea & co. flee to Faerghus, who provide them with political asylum. Edelgard attacks Faerghus to get to Rhea. You're right, Dimitri could have refused to shelter or aid Rhea, although I don't think Edelgard would have failed to take over Faerghus as a result. But Dimitri harbouring the political enemies of the Empire does not immediately have to equal war. And the presence of Cornelia etc. shows that TWSITD (who are working under the banner of the Empire in this instance) are waiting to destabilise Faerghus the moment war starts up anyway. If you want to blame Dimitri for not opposing Edelgard, and think he somehow brought the events of CF on himself, go ahead. It seems uncharitable. But the above is at least an accurate interpretation of the events of CF, demonstrating Edelgard to be the aggressor. I'm not even sure how you escape that fact - Chapter 12 is the same map in every route (obviously played from the relevant perspective) and that's the start of the war.

 

It's completely fine to want to defend Edelgard to the bitter end - she's ideologically very appealing, sympathetic, intelligent and compassionate. But completely throwing Rhea under the bus isn't the right way to do it. I've always thought that Edelgard is like a young Seiros - in this analogy the murder of her family by TWSITD is like the Nabatean genocide, both try to shoulder that pain and turn it into the good of society, they are both heirs to a power/authority that sometimes overwhelms them, and their innate desire to want to show humanity the right path is the same in nature, if not in specifics. The fact that they find themselves on opposite sides is a tragic twist of fate, as is the truth that both cannot survive to the end of their route. Edelgard, however, was doomed to a preternaturally short life, Rhea to a long one. They're not nearly as different as people seem to think in the things that matter, and I don't understand why people are so willing to see one point of view but not the other.

Share this post


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

Okay I'm not really sure what's being said here now. The Empire got the worst of a political exchange over four hundred years prior to the events of 3H, and that's the fault of the Church, fine. But even if that were justification for the Empire to invade, 400 years later, when they felt like it, that's not why Edelgard does it. And again, the Empire should have made peace with that by now, because that was the deal that was made, and there is no proof that they have been disputing the independence of Faerghus since. The original point I was making is that the Empire ought to be respecting the independence of other nations, especially since they agreed to ratify said independence. They lost the war 'unfairly', sure, but I don't see how that changes the fact that they signed or the reality now, that Faerghus is an independent country and does not belong to the Empire. 

Actually, no. For multiple reasons.

Because later on, Kingdom actually invaded during the Leicester Rebellion, taking Leicester for itself.

And there was also the case of how Arianrhod was built by House Rowe, only for said house to betray the Empire and defect to Faerghus afterward, making a fortress that was meant for the Empire to now belong to Faerghus. The Empire's been betrayed countless times and been attacked without any mentioned reason countless times.

All without being paid due recompense. 

This resulted in many Imperials actually having a lot of issues with the other nations. Ferdinand even remarked how many nobles in Adrestia dream of reuniting Fodlan under the Empire. And this is precisely why the six great noble families of Adrestia allowed Edelgard and her siblings to be experimented on by the Agarthans. To create a peerless emperor to be used to help them reunite Fodlan. 

When you look at the history of Fodlan, the Empire has been on the side that suffers injustice more than anyone. 

11 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

The order of events in CF is: Edelgard attacks Rhea/Garreg Mach, Rhea & co. flee to Faerghus, who provide them with political asylum. Edelgard attacks Faerghus to get to Rhea. You're right, Dimitri could have refused to shelter or aid Rhea, although I don't think Edelgard would have failed to take over Faerghus as a result. But Dimitri harbouring the political enemies of the Empire does not immediately have to equal war. And the presence of Cornelia etc. shows that TWSITD (who are working under the banner of the Empire in this instance) are waiting to destabilise Faerghus the moment war starts up anyway. If you want to blame Dimitri for not opposing Edelgard, and think he somehow brought the events of CF on himself, go ahead. It seems uncharitable. But the above is at least an accurate interpretation of the events of CF, demonstrating Edelgard to be the aggressor. I'm not even sure how you escape that fact - Chapter 12 is the same map in every route (obviously played from the relevant perspective) and that's the start of the war.

Except the flaw in that is that Dimitri actually allies with the Church and was raising an army to oppose the Empire. That very much IS a declaration of war. 

And we know why Dimitri does this. He blames Edelgard for Duscur, thinking that she was behind this, and thus brings war to his people. 

I'm not denying that Edelgard started a war. And she's not stupid enough to think that the other nations weren't going to get involved either. But it is true that in the war, everyone made a stance and overall caused the war to escalate as long as it had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Edelgard was the only one of the lords who intended to unite Fodlan by violent methods. In CF, that's what she does. She planned to use military might to make a dictatorship and that's what she did. I don't know what else to say. I have never said that that precludes freedom, merit, development or science, and I have never once said totalitarian or oppressive - that's all you. Although to be fair Edelgard inevitably is trampling on the freedoms of those who liked the old system and didn't want to be in a war, or part of the Empire. All I actually said, however, was the very notion of a military dictatorship is morally abhorrent to some. That fact remains unchanged, and Edelgard remains divisive.

Okay I'm not really sure what's being said here now. The Empire got the worst of a political exchange over four hundred years prior to the events of 3H, and that's the fault of the Church, fine. But even if that were justification for the Empire to invade, 400 years later, when they felt like it, that's not why Edelgard does it. And again, the Empire should have made peace with that by now, because that was the deal that was made, and there is no proof that they have been disputing the independence of Faerghus since. The original point I was making is that the Empire ought to be respecting the independence of other nations, especially since they agreed to ratify said independence. They lost the war 'unfairly', sure, but I don't see how that changes the fact that they signed or the reality now, that Faerghus is an independent country and does not belong to the Empire. 

The order of events in CF is: Edelgard attacks Rhea/Garreg Mach, Rhea & co. flee to Faerghus, who provide them with political asylum. Edelgard attacks Faerghus to get to Rhea. You're right, Dimitri could have refused to shelter or aid Rhea, although I don't think Edelgard would have failed to take over Faerghus as a result. But Dimitri harbouring the political enemies of the Empire does not immediately have to equal war. And the presence of Cornelia etc. shows that TWSITD (who are working under the banner of the Empire in this instance) are waiting to destabilise Faerghus the moment war starts up anyway. If you want to blame Dimitri for not opposing Edelgard, and think he somehow brought the events of CF on himself, go ahead. It seems uncharitable. But the above is at least an accurate interpretation of the events of CF, demonstrating Edelgard to be the aggressor. I'm not even sure how you escape that fact - Chapter 12 is the same map in every route (obviously played from the relevant perspective) and that's the start of the war.

 

It's completely fine to want to defend Edelgard to the bitter end - she's ideologically very appealing, sympathetic, intelligent and compassionate. But completely throwing Rhea under the bus isn't the right way to do it. I've always thought that Edelgard is like a young Seiros - in this analogy the murder of her family by TWSITD is like the Nabatean genocide, both try to shoulder that pain and turn it into the good of society, they are both heirs to a power/authority that sometimes overwhelms them, and their innate desire to want to show humanity the right path is the same in nature, if not in specifics. The fact that they find themselves on opposite sides is a tragic twist of fate, as is the truth that both cannot survive to the end of their route. Edelgard, however, was doomed to a preternaturally short life, Rhea to a long one. They're not nearly as different as people seem to think in the things that matter, and I don't understand why people are so willing to see one point of view but not the other.

Definitions of military dictatorship

"A military dictatorship, also known as a military junta, is a dictatorship in which the military exerts complete or substantial control over political authority, and the dictator is often a high-ranked military officer."

"A military dictatorship is a form of authoritarian government in which, to a greater or lesser degree, executive, legislative, and judicial institutions are controlled by the armed forces that prevent any form of democratic and social control."

It is a concept that began to be used in the last century, more than anything else when the military give coups to states in countries where there is democracy.

It is difficult for me to apply it in a fictional world similar to the medieval age. I imagine I will have to call Aegon (a song of ice and fire) a military dictator and not a conqueror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

Definitions of military dictatorship

"A military dictatorship, also known as a military junta, is a dictatorship in which the military exerts complete or substantial control over political authority, and the dictator is often a high-ranked military officer."

"A military dictatorship is a form of authoritarian government in which, to a greater or lesser degree, executive, legislative, and judicial institutions are controlled by the armed forces that prevent any form of democratic and social control."

It is a concept that began to be used in the last century, more than anything else when the military give coups to states in countries where there is democracy.

It is difficult for me to apply it in a fictional world similar to the medieval age. I imagine I will have to call Aegon (a song of ice and fire) a military dictator and not a conqueror.

Doesn't seem to work with what we know of Edelgard's regime, especially as the highest millitary officer is not Edelgard, but Byleth. She defers to them in all millitary matters and obeys their orders in battle. 

Also, every king or emperor is by defination a dictator by modern standards so I will not hold it against her that the emperor acts as the emperor

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t23br1q0hydkbl5/Screenshot_20200430-222222.png?dl=0

This should give little doubt for Edelgard's intentions with her goverment. I hope the link works. Can someone tell me why the image filesize upload limit has been 0.12MB lately?

Edited by Darkmoon6789

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Actually, no. For multiple reasons.

Because later on, Kingdom actually invaded during the Leicester Rebellion, taking Leicester for itself.

And there was also the case of how Arianrhod was built by House Rowe, only for said house to betray the Empire and defect to Faerghus afterward, making a fortress that was meant for the Empire to now belong to Faerghus. The Empire's been betrayed countless times and been attacked without any mentioned reason countless times.

All without being paid due recompense. 

This resulted in many Imperials actually having a lot of issues with the other nations. Ferdinand even remarked how many nobles in Adrestia dream of reuniting Fodlan under the Empire. And this is precisely why the six great noble families of Adrestia allowed Edelgard and her siblings to be experimented on by the Agarthans. To create a peerless emperor to be used to help them reunite Fodlan. 

When you look at the history of Fodlan, the Empire has been on the side that suffers injustice more than anyone. 

The Kingdom annexed Leicester as a protectorate after Leicester rebelled, successfully, against the Empire. Not an invasion of Empire territory, because the Empire had already lost control.

House Rowe betrayed the Empire, and joined Faerghus. It may have always been House Rowe's intention to do that, but that can't be blamed on Faerghus.

Also, the bold-marked section - what? The Empire covers the biggest part of Fodlan even after Leicester and Faerghus secede. Before that happened, there was obviously going to be even more tension between all these different peoples with competing interests for power. Add to that Dagda, Almyra, and Sreng and yeah, the Empire has a lot of enemies. It's not some grand conspiracy, though. This is the fate of a political power that large. After Faerghus secedes it takes on the brunt of dealing with Sreng. The Alliance ask for help from the Empire and the Kingdom to construct Fodlan's Locket, but it is their forces that defend it for the next eighty years or so. The Empire was hardly one cohesive whole before, as you'd expect from a territory that covers so many different groups of people. 

And, most importantly, none of the above constitutes a valid reason for the Empire to take over the continent. Even if the Empire 'suffers more injustice than anyone'. This doesn't even deal with the part of my comment that you highlighted originally, because none of the events you cite above are examples of the Empire disputing Faerghus' independence

3 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Except the flaw in that is that Dimitri actually allies with the Church and was raising an army to oppose the Empire. That very much IS a declaration of war. 

And we know why Dimitri does this. He blames Edelgard for Duscur, thinking that she was behind this, and thus brings war to his people. 

I'm not denying that Edelgard started a war. And she's not stupid enough to think that the other nations weren't going to get involved either. But it is true that in the war, everyone made a stance and overall caused the war to escalate as long as it had.

I'm not disputing that Dimitri has a reason to fight, or that he wants to. But he doesn't intend to start a war, and he hasn't been sowing the seeds of war in other countries like TWSITD did. It's a really weird argument to say: Edelgard starts a war in order to make her vision of the world come true, but everyone who opposes her is just as much at fault for the war because they don't agree with that vision and fight the violence she employs to make that happen. It just doesn't seem reasonable. Do you blame Poland as much as Germany for starting WWII?

 

3 hours ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

It is difficult for me to apply it in a fictional world similar to the medieval age. I imagine I will have to call Aegon (a song of ice and fire) a military dictator and not a conqueror

2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Doesn't seem to work with what we know of Edelgard's regime, especially as the highest millitary officer is not Edelgard, but Byleth. She defers to them in all millitary matters and obeys their orders in battle. 

Sorry dude the GoT reference flies over my head, I read the books ages ago but remember very little. 

But using your definition:

The Empire take control over both the Alliance and the Kingdom through military force, deposing their former rulers and those among their higher-ups who refuse to toe the line (Rowe, Rodrigue, etc.) by force.

Edelgard is the highest-ranking officer in the Imperial army (sorry @Darkmoon6789, Byleth taking charge in battles with the Strike Force is a personal request of Edelgard, because she trusts them and enjoys fighting under them, as much as one can do. His official military ranking is not above hers, his command is unofficial, and Edelgard makes it clear that very few people are to know about it because it would undermine her authority). 

The people she puts in charge are people who fought under her (Count Bergliez, the other Black Eagles), and who are thus part of the military. They take over some (not all) affairs and territories. They do leave some old blood in charge (for example Holst), and these tend to be people who they are happy will fall in line. 

I cite a process observed in military dictatorships called civilianisation, where martial law is not imposed, overt military force is not deployed or displayed etc. This seems to be especially likely to be the case during the post-credits destruction of TWSITD, and the inevitable rooting out of such dissidents. 

I don't imagine military rule is a permanent thing - that seems to be against Edelgard's intentions to create social mobility through equal education, at least. But it is the state of affairs when Edelgard takes over the continent. And my original point was that some may find this morally abhorrent. You don't have to, but you are entitled to. 

All this is in contrast to the feudal structure of Faerghus, and the roundtable oligarchy of the Alliance (which actually resembles feudalism as well, just without some higher authority above key nobles). We don't know a ton about nations apart from these three, but it at least appears that Almyra and Sreng are not military dictatorships. The former has some kind of loose, tribal, might-makes-right structure, whereas Sreng is a disorganised collection of nomadic bandits, mountain dwellers etc. So in the context of the game, the only military dictatorship we can confirm existing is the one at the end of CF, and other forms of government exist. 

2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

This should give little doubt for Edelgard's intentions with her goverment

And, yet again, I remind people I don't have any issues with Edelgard's intentions. Hell, I personally don't even have an issue with her character or her decisions. It just remains perplexing how people refuse to see that there is more than one take on Edelgard, and that it isn't less valid. 

Edited by haarhaarhaar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

The Kingdom annexed Leicester as a protectorate after Leicester rebelled, successfully, against the Empire. Not an invasion of Empire territory, because the Empire had already lost control.

That's not a protectorate. That's Faerghus taking an opportunity and occupied Leicester. The Leicester region didn't defect to Faerghus, but Faerghus barged in and took Leicester when the Empire couldn't suppress the rebellion. 

6 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

House Rowe betrayed the Empire, and joined Faerghus. It may have always been House Rowe's intention to do that, but that can't be blamed on Faerghus.

Faerghus can very much be blamed for this because Faerghus actually ACCEPTED House Rowe. Saying that Faerghus isn't involved when they took House Rowe in and giving them the fortress built using the Empire's resources is a bit silly. 

8 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Also, the bold-marked section - what? The Empire covers the biggest part of Fodlan even after Leicester and Faerghus secede. Before that happened, there was obviously going to be even more tension between all these different peoples with competing interests for power. Add to that Dagda, Almyra, and Sreng and yeah, the Empire has a lot of enemies. It's not some grand conspiracy, though. This is the fate of a political power that large. After Faerghus secedes it takes on the brunt of dealing with Sreng. The Alliance ask for help from the Empire and the Kingdom to construct Fodlan's Locket, but it is their forces that defend it for the next eighty years or so. The Empire was hardly one cohesive whole before, as you'd expect from a territory that covers so many different groups of people. 

The Empire was once a united continent.

  • Then Dagda suddenly invaded, and the Empire retaliated against them.
  • Then Loog rebelled against the Empire, and it's noted that Loog is a descendant of the family that first quarreled with the Empire in the past. 
  • Then the Church basically threw the Empire under the bus by making a deal with Loog to back his claim for independence and ripping off the Empire. Thus weakening the Empire by dividing it.
  • Then the Kingdom took Leicester for itself after the latter made a rebellion. 

There's a reason why in CF, it's noted by an NPC that to the Empire, Faerghus and Leicester are basically traitors. 

Trying to say that the Empire should just "get over it" because it's been a long time is not the case. Because the Empire was wronged countless times, and had power taken from them.

 

13 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

I'm not disputing that Dimitri has a reason to fight, or that he wants to. But he doesn't intend to start a war, and he hasn't been sowing the seeds of war in other countries like TWSITD did. It's a really weird argument to say: Edelgard starts a war in order to make her vision of the world come true, but everyone who opposes her is just as much at fault for the war because they don't agree with that vision and fight the violence she employs to make that happen. It just doesn't seem reasonable. Do you blame Poland as much as Germany for starting WWII?

No, Dimitri wanted to kill Edelgard, the emperor, and to do that, he needs an army. So he raised an army alongside Rhea to get the chance to kill Edelgard. I mean, he even tried to use Rhea's army as bait in Chapter 17 by claiming he wants her to flank Edelgard's army, when in reality he wanted to flank Edelgard himself.

Dimitri in CF seems sane, but he's still as obsessed with revenge, and that obsession made him much more deceptive and cunning.

You're trying to say it that Edelgard attacked Faerghus first, and Dimitri is just defending his nation, but no. Edelgard attacked the Church, and Faerghus took arms and joined the Church to oppose the Empire. They declared war on her. 

And the noble houses from the Alliance announced their support for the Empire, but Claude meddled in and blocked them from aiding the Empire. I'm not gonna act like a political expert, but that's something that can be considered a provocation. Keep in mind that Edelgard had left the Alliance alone for the entire five years of the war until now, when the situation was in a state that something needed to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jingle Jangle said:

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.

She isn’t a follower of the Church of Seiros. Her making that a goal literally goes contrary to what she’s done up to that point.

It doesn’t mean she will actively extinguish any of the attempts of her citizens to organize and practice whatever they choose to do. But she isn't likely going to tolerate Church of Seiros 2.0 and I don't really blame her.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

The Kingdom annexed Leicester as a protectorate after Leicester rebelled, successfully, against the Empire. Not an invasion of Empire territory, because the Empire had already lost control.

House Rowe betrayed the Empire, and joined Faerghus. It may have always been House Rowe's intention to do that, but that can't be blamed on Faerghus.

Also, the bold-marked section - what? The Empire covers the biggest part of Fodlan even after Leicester and Faerghus secede. Before that happened, there was obviously going to be even more tension between all these different peoples with competing interests for power. Add to that Dagda, Almyra, and Sreng and yeah, the Empire has a lot of enemies. It's not some grand conspiracy, though. This is the fate of a political power that large. After Faerghus secedes it takes on the brunt of dealing with Sreng. The Alliance ask for help from the Empire and the Kingdom to construct Fodlan's Locket, but it is their forces that defend it for the next eighty years or so. The Empire was hardly one cohesive whole before, as you'd expect from a territory that covers so many different groups of people. 

And, most importantly, none of the above constitutes a valid reason for the Empire to take over the continent. Even if the Empire 'suffers more injustice than anyone'. This doesn't even deal with the part of my comment that you highlighted originally, because none of the events you cite above are examples of the Empire disputing Faerghus' independence

I'm not disputing that Dimitri has a reason to fight, or that he wants to. But he doesn't intend to start a war, and he hasn't been sowing the seeds of war in other countries like TWSITD did. It's a really weird argument to say: Edelgard starts a war in order to make her vision of the world come true, but everyone who opposes her is just as much at fault for the war because they don't agree with that vision and fight the violence she employs to make that happen. It just doesn't seem reasonable. Do you blame Poland as much as Germany for starting WWII?

 

Sorry dude the GoT reference flies over my head, I read the books ages ago but remember very little. 

But using your definition:

The Empire take control over both the Alliance and the Kingdom through military force, deposing their former rulers and those among their higher-ups who refuse to toe the line (Rowe, Rodrigue, etc.) by force.

Edelgard is the highest-ranking officer in the Imperial army (sorry @Darkmoon6789, Byleth taking charge in battles with the Strike Force is a personal request of Edelgard, because she trusts them and enjoys fighting under them, as much as one can do. His official military ranking is not above hers, his command is unofficial, and Edelgard makes it clear that very few people are to know about it because it would undermine her authority). 

The people she puts in charge are people who fought under her (Count Bergliez, the other Black Eagles), and who are thus part of the military. They take over some (not all) affairs and territories. They do leave some old blood in charge (for example Holst), and these tend to be people who they are happy will fall in line. 

I cite a process observed in military dictatorships called civilianisation, where martial law is not imposed, overt military force is not deployed or displayed etc. This seems to be especially likely to be the case during the post-credits destruction of TWSITD, and the inevitable rooting out of such dissidents. 

I don't imagine military rule is a permanent thing - that seems to be against Edelgard's intentions to create social mobility through equal education, at least. But it is the state of affairs when Edelgard takes over the continent. And my original point was that some may find this morally abhorrent. You don't have to, but you are entitled to. 

All this is in contrast to the feudal structure of Faerghus, and the roundtable oligarchy of the Alliance (which actually resembles feudalism as well, just without some higher authority above key nobles). We don't know a ton about nations apart from these three, but it at least appears that Almyra and Sreng are not military dictatorships. The former has some kind of loose, tribal, might-makes-right structure, whereas Sreng is a disorganised collection of nomadic bandits, mountain dwellers etc. So in the context of the game, the only military dictatorship we can confirm existing is the one at the end of CF, and other forms of government exist. 

And, yet again, I remind people I don't have any issues with Edelgard's intentions. Hell, I personally don't even have an issue with her character or her decisions. It just remains perplexing how people refuse to see that there is more than one take on Edelgard, and that it isn't less valid. 

If you're going to be technical, the President of the United States is also the highest official in their military. 

Still, consider who Byleth would likely be after the war, very likely the highest ranking general in the Empire, if not actually the spouse of Edelgard like in my playthrough. Being such a influential factor in winning the war would mean that they do essentially have the final say on all the military matters, as Edelgard would trust them completely. Not a mention the authority that is implied by being married to the emperor (but I guess this is not every version of the ending). Doesn't that make Edelgard and Byleth pretty much equal when it comes to authority? The Empire is ruled by a duo in this case, not Edelgard alone, and one is clearly more focused on military matters. 

Aren't Faerghus also technically a military dictatorship through its upper class of knights, who also answers to the king? I think this is a pretty normal arrangement for the times. Edelgard is hardly unique as it is the norm in Fodlan and most probably be other nations outside of it as well to have an absolute monarch, the Leicester alliance being the one exception I can think of, which is probably an oligarchy. It feels pretty weird for people to give Edelgard crap for what basically amounts to the emperor being an emperor. She is not going to be able to turn a feudal society into a democracy in the time span of a few years, so I don't know why that is the standard we hold to her.

But as you can tell my primary issue here isn't with the idea that Edelgard is an absolute monarch, she is, but with the automatic assumption that this is automatically bad. The truth of the matter is that this is actually a great system as long as the ruler is benevolent and competent, the problem in real life is that such people are very rare, and that dictators are more frequently absolute douchebags. But Edelgard are one of very rare people in such a position who are benevolent towards their people and actually have their best interests at heart rather than personal power. Her intentions alone makes her infinitely better than the likes of Stalin was really just a criminal and a thug before he became a dictator (much like Nemesis), he never had any intention of improving the lives of his people. 

I find it kind of strange that King Dimitri, as well as God King Byleth are both absolute monarchs in the other routes. Yet Edelgard is the only one who gets called a dictator. They are all absolute monarchs (assuming that is synonymous with dictator, which I think it is). Which is the norm in this sort of world. We shouldn't hold any of these societies to modern standard, just as it isn't fair to judge people in the past for not having established a democracy. Edelgard is trying to bring freedom to the people, but it won't be a fast process. 

You are making a good point with that Edelgard did establish her society with military force and that initially the military is going to maintain it, but that it is also likely to be phased out with time as things calm down and the Agarthans are eliminated, together with implementing free education for everyone. 

I would say it kind of depends on the interpretation, people are allowed to think what they want of her. But half the time they don't even get the facts right and make blatantly untrue claims about Edelgard's intentions and the way she governs. Edelgard is an absolute monarch, you have to be if you are the Emperor, but she isn't a tyrant  Yes, there will be proponents of the old crest system she has to deal with, but really, such people are used arguing that they have a right to stand above others because of circumstances of their birth  I don't consider that any more legitimate than those Middle Eastern countries who consider women second-class citizens, people deserve to be equal whenever they want to or not. As I have said before, I don't believe that human rights are up for popular vote. But you know, I respect the opinions of anyone who respect mine, which included many people I disagree with, I just prefer if people have the facts straight. And if they are going to hate Edelgard they should do so for things she is actually guilty of.

Wasn't the thread supposed to be about Rhea? You mentioned, but some people will just not like Edelgard because of her system of government (even if most endings aren't really that different.when it comes to being a dictatorship). I feel that way about theocracy. I simply do not believe it is ever right for a single religion to hold complete power over a nation, not to mention an entire continent or world. The ultimate authority in a nation belongs to the government, they are supposed to act as representatives of the people as a whole. Not serve the interest of a single religion or the interest of private corporations.  Rhea's system is exactly that, a system serving the interest of the church of Seiros above all, promoting unity through religious dogma and a lack of religious freedom. Claude mentioned that he was worried about being labelled a heretic for his spiritual beliefs. 

But I will give credit where credit is due, the church of Seiros is actually less awful than the actual historical church during the Middle Ages. I don't see any trace of gender discrimination or bigotry towards LGBT people. It has many other problems, but as far as theocracies go, Rhea's system could be worse. Even if it still having issues of executing people for heresy (the Western Church). I'm also not seeing any signs of witchhunts. But to be fair, Magic was also viewed differently in the early Middle Ages, compared to later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

This should give little doubt for Edelgard's intentions with her goverment. I hope the link works. Can someone tell me why the image filesize upload limit has been 0.12MB lately?

You're getting close to your attachment limit.  You'll have to delete old attachments.

Or, use an external image host.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, eclipse said:

You're getting close to your attachment limit.  You'll have to delete old attachments.

Or, use an external image host.

Thanks, I guess it is a certain limit per account, I really thought it was per post.

I guess I will use external image host for images in the future. 

Share this post


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

The Kingdom annexed Leicester as a protectorate after Leicester rebelled, successfully, against the Empire. Not an invasion of Empire territory, because the Empire had already lost control.

House Rowe betrayed the Empire, and joined Faerghus. It may have always been House Rowe's intention to do that, but that can't be blamed on Faerghus.

Also, the bold-marked section - what? The Empire covers the biggest part of Fodlan even after Leicester and Faerghus secede. Before that happened, there was obviously going to be even more tension between all these different peoples with competing interests for power. Add to that Dagda, Almyra, and Sreng and yeah, the Empire has a lot of enemies. It's not some grand conspiracy, though. This is the fate of a political power that large. After Faerghus secedes it takes on the brunt of dealing with Sreng. The Alliance ask for help from the Empire and the Kingdom to construct Fodlan's Locket, but it is their forces that defend it for the next eighty years or so. The Empire was hardly one cohesive whole before, as you'd expect from a territory that covers so many different groups of people. 

And, most importantly, none of the above constitutes a valid reason for the Empire to take over the continent. Even if the Empire 'suffers more injustice than anyone'. This doesn't even deal with the part of my comment that you highlighted originally, because none of the events you cite above are examples of the Empire disputing Faerghus' independence

I'm not disputing that Dimitri has a reason to fight, or that he wants to. But he doesn't intend to start a war, and he hasn't been sowing the seeds of war in other countries like TWSITD did. It's a really weird argument to say: Edelgard starts a war in order to make her vision of the world come true, but everyone who opposes her is just as much at fault for the war because they don't agree with that vision and fight the violence she employs to make that happen. It just doesn't seem reasonable. Do you blame Poland as much as Germany for starting WWII?

 

Sorry dude the GoT reference flies over my head, I read the books ages ago but remember very little. 

But using your definition:

The Empire take control over both the Alliance and the Kingdom through military force, deposing their former rulers and those among their higher-ups who refuse to toe the line (Rowe, Rodrigue, etc.) by force.

Edelgard is the highest-ranking officer in the Imperial army (sorry @Darkmoon6789, Byleth taking charge in battles with the Strike Force is a personal request of Edelgard, because she trusts them and enjoys fighting under them, as much as one can do. His official military ranking is not above hers, his command is unofficial, and Edelgard makes it clear that very few people are to know about it because it would undermine her authority). 

The people she puts in charge are people who fought under her (Count Bergliez, the other Black Eagles), and who are thus part of the military. They take over some (not all) affairs and territories. They do leave some old blood in charge (for example Holst), and these tend to be people who they are happy will fall in line. 

I cite a process observed in military dictatorships called civilianisation, where martial law is not imposed, overt military force is not deployed or displayed etc. This seems to be especially likely to be the case during the post-credits destruction of TWSITD, and the inevitable rooting out of such dissidents. 

I don't imagine military rule is a permanent thing - that seems to be against Edelgard's intentions to create social mobility through equal education, at least. But it is the state of affairs when Edelgard takes over the continent. And my original point was that some may find this morally abhorrent. You don't have to, but you are entitled to. 

All this is in contrast to the feudal structure of Faerghus, and the roundtable oligarchy of the Alliance (which actually resembles feudalism as well, just without some higher authority above key nobles). We don't know a ton about nations apart from these three, but it at least appears that Almyra and Sreng are not military dictatorships. The former has some kind of loose, tribal, might-makes-right structure, whereas Sreng is a disorganised collection of nomadic bandits, mountain dwellers etc. So in the context of the game, the only military dictatorship we can confirm existing is the one at the end of CF, and other forms of government exist. 

And, yet again, I remind people I don't have any issues with Edelgard's intentions. Hell, I personally don't even have an issue with her character or her decisions. It just remains perplexing how people refuse to see that there is more than one take on Edelgard, and that it isn't less valid. 

The definitions are there. But if we use your logic, then every King or emperor of the past must be called a military dictator, as Darkmoon told you

The concept of dictator if it is old, since it is handled from ancient Rome. This was a special magistrate who had special powers defined in a certain period of time. It didn't even have a negative connotation.

Well, going back to my example of Aegon, I remind you that it was a guy who went with his 2 sisters, 3 dragons and a small army to conquer a continent of which he had no relationship or link (either by language, culture or religion ). His motives? Because he had the power to do it, and because he wanted to.

At least Edelgard has more valid reasons to regain territory. It was never for the ambition of power. Nor is it that she has given coup d'etats to a republic or a democracy. She won a war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

That's not a protectorate. That's Faerghus taking an opportunity and occupied Leicester. The Leicester region didn't defect to Faerghus, but Faerghus barged in and took Leicester when the Empire couldn't suppress the rebellion. 

Faerghus can very much be blamed for this because Faerghus actually ACCEPTED House Rowe. Saying that Faerghus isn't involved when they took House Rowe in and giving them the fortress built using the Empire's resources is a bit silly.

Our interpretations differ for the above. Note that I actually don't care whether or not you consider Faerghus to be less just or worse than the Empire - I only presented the facts like someone who isn't a diehard Edelgard fan. The territory of Leicester was violent and unstable, Faerghus stepped in. Their motivations are frankly secondary, the point is they haven't invaded the Empire. Similarly, it is in Faerghus' interests to accept House Rowe, but they did not instigate it. There's no rule or code that says Faerghus has to do everything the Empire wants, and two nations can be on less than cordial terms without being entitled to invade one another. The Empire doesn't have to like any of its neighbours, but that still doesn't become a justification for invasion. With the exception of Dagda, I suppose, because they invaded first.

7 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

There's a reason why in CF, it's noted by an NPC that to the Empire, Faerghus and Leicester are basically traitors. 

Trying to say that the Empire should just "get over it" because it's been a long time is not the case. Because the Empire was wronged countless times, and had power taken from them.

 And I didn't say 'get over it' as if this were your argument about Rhea's trauma, I said that, over two hundred and four hundred years respectively passed where the Alliance and the Kingdom were independent and their borders respected. The Empire agreed to that. So no, they don't get to suddenly summon up those earlier grievances as excuses to reabsorb those territories. And, once more, this makes no explicit feature in why either the Alliance or the Kingdom are invaded. Respecting another country's borders is one of the bare minimum conditions of a peaceful society, and it's a big deal not to.

NPCs are welcome to say the Empire thinks the other nations are traitors. They are stating an opinion, and there exists more than one valid opinion.

7 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

No, Dimitri wanted to kill Edelgard, the emperor, and to do that, he needs an army. So he raised an army alongside Rhea to get the chance to kill Edelgard. I mean, he even tried to use Rhea's army as bait in Chapter 17 by claiming he wants her to flank Edelgard's army, when in reality he wanted to flank Edelgard himself.

Dimitri in CF seems sane, but he's still as obsessed with revenge, and that obsession made him much more deceptive and cunning.

You're trying to say it that Edelgard attacked Faerghus first, and Dimitri is just defending his nation, but no. Edelgard attacked the Church, and Faerghus took arms and joined the Church to oppose the Empire. They declared war on her

Dimitri did not act on any desire to murder Edelgard until after the war begins. Once Edelgard starts a war, he moves to oppose her. Chapter 17 has Dimitri take a defensive position on the plains (this is what Hubert calls shrewd) in wait for Rhea to flank Edelgard. Rhea doesn't show on time, because of the rain but also because she wants the Kingdom to take the majority of the casualties. Remember that Chapter 17 does just as much to show that the alliance between Dimitri and the Church is flawed. Revenge or not, by the way, killing Edelgard is ending the war - by your original logic about ends justifying all, Dimitri and Rhea's motivations are secondary.

If you do want to include their motivations, then Dimitri has personal and political motivations for doing what he does, and you can't forget that. Dimitri being cunning or deceptive is besides the point. The declaration of war also happens after the attack on Garreg Mach, which is the start of the war. He is making a stand, as you said previously, which is more justifiable than invasion. He is also allowed to hate Edelgard, rightly or wrongly. But don't dress it up as him finally getting to gather up an army to go get revenge - Edelgard started this war, and you can't escape that.

7 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

And the noble houses from the Alliance announced their support for the Empire, but Claude meddled in and blocked them from aiding the Empire. I'm not gonna act like a political expert, but that's something that can be considered a provocation. Keep in mind that Edelgard had left the Alliance alone for the entire five years of the war until now, when the situation was in a state that something needed to change.

The Alliance is explicitly not provoking the Empire thanks to Claude. House Gloucester left unchecked could have allowed the Empire to enter the Alliance and invade the houses that didn't want Empire control, but Claude prevents it. Dimitri is the more significant threat than Claude, but the war and the western front especially is at a stalemate when Byleth returns which is why they target the bridge of Myrddin.

5 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

If you're going to be technical, the President of the United States is also the highest official in their military. 

Still, consider who Byleth would likely be after the war, very likely the highest ranking general in the Empire, if not actually the spouse of Edelgard like in my playthrough. Being such a influential factor in winning the war would mean that they do essentially have the final say on all the military matters, as Edelgard would trust them completely. Not a mention the authority that is implied by being married to the emperor (but I guess this is not every version of the ending). Doesn't that make Edelgard and Byleth pretty much equal when it comes to authority? The Empire is ruled by a duo in this case, not Edelgard alone, and one is clearly more focused on military matters. 

The first bit is really irrelevant - the military are not governors of individual territories within America. America is not a military dictatorship. It is just that its head of state is also the head of the military. It also can't be a dictatorship because it's a fixed-term democracy?

Good for you for getting Byleth and Edelgard together, I did too. There is still no ending in CF where Edelgard isn't the emperor. Byleth's position is informal, so even if he has a lot of say he is not the highest-ranking member of the Imperial army because he doesn't really exist within the Imperial army structure (and if he does, it is as a member of the Strike Force).

5 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Aren't Faerghus also technically a military dictatorship through its upper class of knights, who also answers to the king? I think this is a pretty normal arrangement for the times. Edelgard is hardly unique as it is the norm in Fodlan and most probably be other nations outside of it as well to have an absolute monarch, the Leicester alliance being the one exception I can think of, which is probably an oligarchy. It feels pretty weird for people to give Edelgard crap for what basically amounts to the emperor being an emperor. She is not going to be able to turn a feudal society into a democracy in the time span of a few years, so I don't know why that is the standard we hold to her

Okay dude you clearly didn't read me describing Faerghus as a feudalist state. The king awards land and titles to nobles, who in turn lend military support. The nobles are tasked with protecting the peoples on their land, and in return the people farm the land and pay taxes. In contrast, Edelgard's system starts out with her army taking effective control of the entire continent. That's where the big difference lies. What you say about other nations has no proof (again, read my point from earlier, where I say Edelgard's system post-CF is the only one like it that we know of).

No one is asking for a democracy either, you just introduced this (and I don't think anyone expected it in the first place). That doesn't mean one can't ideologically oppose the system Edelgard has. For reference, I personally do not. That doesn't mean that everyone doesn't. 

5 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

But as you can tell my primary issue here isn't with the idea that Edelgard is an absolute monarch, she is, but with the automatic assumption that this is automatically bad. The truth of the matter is that this is actually a great system as long as the ruler is benevolent and competent, the problem in real life is that such people are very rare, and that dictators are more frequently absolute douchebags. But Edelgard are one of very rare people in such a position who are benevolent towards their people and actually have their best interests at heart rather than personal power. Her intentions alone makes her infinitely better than the likes of Stalin was really just a criminal and a thug before he became a dictator (much like Nemesis), he never had any intention of improving the lives of his people. 

I find it kind of strange that King Dimitri, as well as God King Byleth are both absolute monarchs in the other routes. Yet Edelgard is the only one who gets called a dictator. They are all absolute monarchs (assuming that is synonymous with dictator, which I think it is). Which is the norm in this sort of world. We shouldn't hold any of these societies to modern standard, just as it isn't fair to judge people in the past for not having established a democracy. Edelgard is trying to bring freedom to the people, but it won't be a fast process. 

This is gonna keep coming up so I'm gonna bold and capitalise this. I HAVE NOT CALLED EDELGARD BAD. All I have pointed out is that attempting to establish dictatorial rule and succeeding is, to some people, inherently morally wrong. Regardless of extenuating factors, like the goodness of her intentions. Byleth and Dimitri never set out to gain power or unite Fodlan, they are what's left after the war. For what it's worth, Dimitri also establishes a participatory government. And that's without intending to start a war to unite Fodlan.

And once again, no one's talking about democracy, but that doesn't make Edelgard's political system indisputably good.

6 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Wasn't the thread supposed to be about Rhea? You mentioned, but some people will just not like Edelgard because of her system of government (even if most endings aren't really that different.when it comes to being a dictatorship). I feel that way about theocracy. I simply do not believe it is ever right for a single religion to hold complete power over a nation, not to mention an entire continent or world. The ultimate authority in a nation belongs to the government, they are supposed to act as representatives of the people as a whole. Not serve the interest of a single religion or the interest of private corporations.  Rhea's system is exactly that, a system serving the interest of the church of Seiros above all, promoting unity through religious dogma and a lack of religious freedom.

Yep this was the inevitable tangent to a loyal Edelgard supporter starting a Rhea thread. Interesting that you can't accept a theocracy, but can accept a dictatorship, especially one that at first is not representative of its people. One could say (and indeed other people on this forum like @twilitfalchion have said) that Edelgard in her drive towards freedom, creates political dogma and a lack of political freedom, just like Rhea does with religion. 

53 minutes ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

The definitions are there. But if we use your logic, then every King or emperor of the past must be called a military dictator, as Darkmoon told you

The concept of dictator if it is old, since it is handled from ancient Rome. This was a special magistrate who had special powers defined in a certain period of time. It didn't even have a negative connotation.

Well, going back to my example of Aegon, I remind you that it was a guy who went with his 2 sisters, 3 dragons and a small army to conquer a continent of which he had no relationship or link (either by language, culture or religion ). His motives? Because he had the power to do it, and because he wanted to.

At least Edelgard has more valid reasons to regain territory. It was never for the ambition of power. Nor is it that she has given coup d'etats to a republic or a democracy. She won a war.

For your first point see my reply to @Darkmoon6789. I also, and hasten to add this, never called a military dictatorship inherently bad. People just assumed I was insulting Edelgard. All I have said, and all I will continue to say, is that some people object to such a system as being morally bad on principle. That doesn't mean that it is, but their opinion is equally valid.

I mean, the fact that Edelgard has better motivations than a guy from a completely different franchise is cool beans. Edelgard won the war, true. She started it, too. Her reasons are not what I'm grumbling at, I'm only saying that there is an entirely acceptable view that she had no just reason to start a war. You're welcome to disagree, but one view doesn't have primacy over the other because both are subjective opinions.

 

@Darkmoon6789 has also flagged that the current discussion is pretty far from Rhea. I'm not sure that there is an argument that defends Edelgard that also shows that Rhea is unjustifiable. Unless people genuinely believe that proving Edelgard is good beyond all doubt must show that Rhea is not just evil, but inexplicably so? That'd definitely be a flawed argument. My two cents are that neither Edelgard nor Rhea are unjustifiable. I like to hold off on the terms 'good' and 'bad' in a moral sense because people get in a huff over things that are obviously subjective. I think both are flawed, but neither are evil. I'd rather live in Edelgard's post-CF society than Dimitri's, and if I had to choose who to fight for, I'd choose Edelgard's cause. That comes with the recognition that Edelgard's society does not appeal to everyone, nor the costs paid to achieve it. Rhea does some awful things, and is revealed to have done things that are dubious at best on every route (I'm mainly referring to the Byleth stuff here). Her stepping down, one way or another, happens on every route, and that's a good thing. But any account of Rhea ought to recognise the good that she did, and accept that her character flaws are justifiable too.

 

Share this post


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

Our interpretations differ for the above. Note that I actually don't care whether or not you consider Faerghus to be less just or worse than the Empire - I only presented the facts like someone who isn't a diehard Edelgard fan. The territory of Leicester was violent and unstable, Faerghus stepped in. Their motivations are frankly secondary, the point is they haven't invaded the Empire. Similarly, it is in Faerghus' interests to accept House Rowe, but they did not instigate it. There's no rule or code that says Faerghus has to do everything the Empire wants, and two nations can be on less than cordial terms without being entitled to invade one another. The Empire doesn't have to like any of its neighbours, but that still doesn't become a justification for invasion. With the exception of Dagda, I suppose, because they invaded first.

 And I didn't say 'get over it' as if this were your argument about Rhea's trauma, I said that, over two hundred and four hundred years respectively passed where the Alliance and the Kingdom were independent and their borders respected. The Empire agreed to that. So no, they don't get to suddenly summon up those earlier grievances as excuses to reabsorb those territories. And, once more, this makes no explicit feature in why either the Alliance or the Kingdom are invaded. Respecting another country's borders is one of the bare minimum conditions of a peaceful society, and it's a big deal not to.

NPCs are welcome to say the Empire thinks the other nations are traitors. They are stating an opinion, and there exists more than one valid opinion.

Dimitri did not act on any desire to murder Edelgard until after the war begins. Once Edelgard starts a war, he moves to oppose her. Chapter 17 has Dimitri take a defensive position on the plains (this is what Hubert calls shrewd) in wait for Rhea to flank Edelgard. Rhea doesn't show on time, because of the rain but also because she wants the Kingdom to take the majority of the casualties. Remember that Chapter 17 does just as much to show that the alliance between Dimitri and the Church is flawed. Revenge or not, by the way, killing Edelgard is ending the war - by your original logic about ends justifying all, Dimitri and Rhea's motivations are secondary.

If you do want to include their motivations, then Dimitri has personal and political motivations for doing what he does, and you can't forget that. Dimitri being cunning or deceptive is besides the point. The declaration of war also happens after the attack on Garreg Mach, which is the start of the war. He is making a stand, as you said previously, which is more justifiable than invasion. He is also allowed to hate Edelgard, rightly or wrongly. But don't dress it up as him finally getting to gather up an army to go get revenge - Edelgard started this war, and you can't escape that.

The Alliance is explicitly not provoking the Empire thanks to Claude. House Gloucester left unchecked could have allowed the Empire to enter the Alliance and invade the houses that didn't want Empire control, but Claude prevents it. Dimitri is the more significant threat than Claude, but the war and the western front especially is at a stalemate when Byleth returns which is why they target the bridge of Myrddin.

The first bit is really irrelevant - the military are not governors of individual territories within America. America is not a military dictatorship. It is just that its head of state is also the head of the military. It also can't be a dictatorship because it's a fixed-term democracy?

Good for you for getting Byleth and Edelgard together, I did too. There is still no ending in CF where Edelgard isn't the emperor. Byleth's position is informal, so even if he has a lot of say he is not the highest-ranking member of the Imperial army because he doesn't really exist within the Imperial army structure (and if he does, it is as a member of the Strike Force).

Okay dude you clearly didn't read me describing Faerghus as a feudalist state. The king awards land and titles to nobles, who in turn lend military support. The nobles are tasked with protecting the peoples on their land, and in return the people farm the land and pay taxes. In contrast, Edelgard's system starts out with her army taking effective control of the entire continent. That's where the big difference lies. What you say about other nations has no proof (again, read my point from earlier, where I say Edelgard's system post-CF is the only one like it that we know of).

No one is asking for a democracy either, you just introduced this (and I don't think anyone expected it in the first place). That doesn't mean one can't ideologically oppose the system Edelgard has. For reference, I personally do not. That doesn't mean that everyone doesn't. 

This is gonna keep coming up so I'm gonna bold and capitalise this. I HAVE NOT CALLED EDELGARD BAD. All I have pointed out is that attempting to establish dictatorial rule and succeeding is, to some people, inherently morally wrong. Regardless of extenuating factors, like the goodness of her intentions. Byleth and Dimitri never set out to gain power or unite Fodlan, they are what's left after the war. For what it's worth, Dimitri also establishes a participatory government. And that's without intending to start a war to unite Fodlan.

And once again, no one's talking about democracy, but that doesn't make Edelgard's political system indisputably good.

Yep this was the inevitable tangent to a loyal Edelgard supporter starting a Rhea thread. Interesting that you can't accept a theocracy, but can accept a dictatorship, especially one that at first is not representative of its people. One could say (and indeed other people on this forum like @twilitfalchion have said) that Edelgard in her drive towards freedom, creates political dogma and a lack of political freedom, just like Rhea does with religion. 

For your first point see my reply to @Darkmoon6789. I also, and hasten to add this, never called a military dictatorship inherently bad. People just assumed I was insulting Edelgard. All I have said, and all I will continue to say, is that some people object to such a system as being morally bad on principle. That doesn't mean that it is, but their opinion is equally valid.

I mean, the fact that Edelgard has better motivations than a guy from a completely different franchise is cool beans. Edelgard won the war, true. She started it, too. Her reasons are not what I'm grumbling at, I'm only saying that there is an entirely acceptable view that she had no just reason to start a war. You're welcome to disagree, but one view doesn't have primacy over the other because both are subjective opinions.

 

@Darkmoon6789 has also flagged that the current discussion is pretty far from Rhea. I'm not sure that there is an argument that defends Edelgard that also shows that Rhea is unjustifiable. Unless people genuinely believe that proving Edelgard is good beyond all doubt must show that Rhea is not just evil, but inexplicably so? That'd definitely be a flawed argument. My two cents are that neither Edelgard nor Rhea are unjustifiable. I like to hold off on the terms 'good' and 'bad' in a moral sense because people get in a huff over things that are obviously subjective. I think both are flawed, but neither are evil. I'd rather live in Edelgard's post-CF society than Dimitri's, and if I had to choose who to fight for, I'd choose Edelgard's cause. That comes with the recognition that Edelgard's society does not appeal to everyone, nor the costs paid to achieve it. Rhea does some awful things, and is revealed to have done things that are dubious at best on every route (I'm mainly referring to the Byleth stuff here). Her stepping down, one way or another, happens on every route, and that's a good thing. But any account of Rhea ought to recognise the good that she did, and accept that her character flaws are justifiable too.

 

I never said you called her bad in particular. I guess I am just ranting because of how many people have called her Hitler in other discussions I have read. 

The eternal dilemma wary hold my position on morality, don't believe there is some objective right and wrong, especially not in situations like this. That people disagree is usually a sign that the situation is indeed morally grey. But ultimately, most people do believe that their own views are right, at least that is right for them. I am utilitarian in my philosophy, so I ultimately believe that who was in the right depends on who's mission leads to the least suffering in the long run. So it is completely comparative.

So in my view, if Rhea is worse than the Edelgard, that does make Edelgard in the right, even if she isn't perfect. It just has to be better than the alternatives. Honestly, I don't think Edelgard ever had any good options, she was born right into a complete mess of a political situation and have strings attached to her ever since she was a child. People like to say this is Edelgard's war, but that is ignoring that the Agarthans has planned this for far longer than Edelgard has even existed. Also point out that Loog is rather similar to Edelgard, both start a war, both get aid from the Agarthans. Yet Loog is remembered as a hero king (ironically, even Pan is remembered like a hero and they were very likely one of the Agarthans). 

Honestly, very few people in this game are entirely bad, I feel sorry for most of them. Rhea's problem mostly comes down to her brutal ways of keeping the peace, her unstable mental state and the fact that she is jumping to conclusions about the Edelgard that are completely wrong. I honestly do believe she could have defused the situation at the holy tomb if she was more forgiving the way she was with Aelfric. The way she acted just confirmed Edelgard's view her as a despot. Same with how she handled the dissent of Lonato and the Western Church. But honestly, if there was an option I would have spared her life. It also seems that Edelgard would have spared her life if she surrendered. The only time she ever kills her is one Rhea burns down the kingdom, capital. It is very clear that Rhea would not spare Edelgard if given the opportunity. 

The end of the day. I don't believe it matters who started it, it is only the final result that matters. Fodlan is united regardless, so that mission will always be accomplished, even if it wasn't what Dimitri set out to do.  It is ultimately how they gather and that determines if someone is a tyrant, not how they got into power.

By the way, what do you think would happen if Rhea was successful in bringing back Sothis, would she be able to fix things? Would she even have an interest in being the goddess and ruling over the world? I generally get the impression that Sothis is more kind than Rhea (on the other hand, she did supposedly flood the world, so I can't be sure.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that they have to show anything gruesome, but some insight on the past would go a long way to helping us understand. A bit late, I know.

Share this post


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

Our interpretations differ for the above. Note that I actually don't care whether or not you consider Faerghus to be less just or worse than the Empire - I only presented the facts like someone who isn't a diehard Edelgard fan. The territory of Leicester was violent and unstable, Faerghus stepped in. Their motivations are frankly secondary, the point is they haven't invaded the Empire. Similarly, it is in Faerghus' interests to accept House Rowe, but they did not instigate it. There's no rule or code that says Faerghus has to do everything the Empire wants, and two nations can be on less than cordial terms without being entitled to invade one another. The Empire doesn't have to like any of its neighbours, but that still doesn't become a justification for invasion. With the exception of Dagda, I suppose, because they invaded first.

I'm just saying this now, politically, if a major defection like this happens, it is entirely within grounds to declare war. The Empire has rights to demand for Arianrhod's return and even compensation. This is also why House Hrym and House Ordelia suffered when House Hrym attempted to defect and Ordelia attempted to help. 

2 hours ago, haarhaarhaar said:

And I didn't say 'get over it' as if this were your argument about Rhea's trauma, I said that, over two hundred and four hundred years respectively passed where the Alliance and the Kingdom were independent and their borders respected. The Empire agreed to that. So no, they don't get to suddenly summon up those earlier grievances as excuses to reabsorb those territories. And, once more, this makes no explicit feature in why either the Alliance or the Kingdom are invaded. Respecting another country's borders is one of the bare minimum conditions of a peaceful society, and it's a big deal not to.

NPCs are welcome to say the Empire thinks the other nations are traitors. They are stating an opinion, and there exists more than one valid opinion.

Except what you aren't really taking into account is that these injustices that the Empire faced without any recompense is what led to the prideful and corrupt nobles of Adrestia to actually seek to weaponize Edelgard and use her to reunite Fodlan. This is explicitly why Ferdinand states that nobles of Adrestia dream of reuniting Fodlan under the Empire. 

2 hours ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Dimitri did not act on any desire to murder Edelgard until after the war begins. Once Edelgard starts a war, he moves to oppose her. Chapter 17 has Dimitri take a defensive position on the plains (this is what Hubert calls shrewd) in wait for Rhea to flank Edelgard. Rhea doesn't show on time, because of the rain but also because she wants the Kingdom to take the majority of the casualties. Remember that Chapter 17 does just as much to show that the alliance between Dimitri and the Church is flawed. Revenge or not, by the way, killing Edelgard is ending the war - by your original logic about ends justifying all, Dimitri and Rhea's motivations are secondary.

If you do want to include their motivations, then Dimitri has personal and political motivations for doing what he does, and you can't forget that. Dimitri being cunning or deceptive is besides the point. The declaration of war also happens after the attack on Garreg Mach, which is the start of the war. He is making a stand, as you said previously, which is more justifiable than invasion. He is also allowed to hate Edelgard, rightly or wrongly. But don't dress it up as him finally getting to gather up an army to go get revenge - Edelgard started this war, and you can't escape that.

I think you may have misinterpreted Chapter 17. Dimitri LIED to Rhea about her flanking and he would take the defensive. He told her that he intended to meet Edelgard's army, and Rhea to flank, but intended for Rhea's army to actually be the bait. 

Quote

Dimitri: No need to worry yourself. Even if I am defeated, the Blaiddyd bloodline will live on. And the Kingdom's territory has never been rich in resources. If the castle falls under siege, our loss is inevitable. I will deploy my army onto the plains and wait for the enemy. Please position your forces so that they can flank the Imperial army. 

Rhea: Yes, given the present situation, making the plains our battlefield is a logical choice. I have no objection. However...

Dimitri: There is only one person I am after. I have no interest in any other prey.

-

Dimitri: I was hoping they would strike the church first... We must have miscalculated the rate of their advance. Reorganize the formation. We have no choice but to buy time until the church arrives. It will be a long battle... Are you afraid, Dedue?

Yeah, Edelgard declares war and attacks the Church. But keep in mind that Edelgard had already sent manifestos to every noble house across Fodlan, acquiring the support of many nobles in both the Alliance and Kingdom. Dimitri knows why Edelgard is opposing the Church, and had a choice. Rather than try any forms of negotiation or remain neutral, Dimitri actually joined with Rhea, cause he wanted revenge for Duscur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Yeah, Edelgard declares war and attacks the Church. But keep in mind that Edelgard had already sent manifestos to every noble house across Fodlan, acquiring the support of many nobles in both the Alliance and Kingdom. Dimitri knows why Edelgard is opposing the Church, and had a choice. Rather than try any forms of negotiation or remain neutral, Dimitri actually joined with Rhea, cause he wanted revenge for Duscur.

Stop with the b******* man Dimitri had the choice of surrender and serve edelgard or die fighting her. why do you keep bringing this up as if he had an actual choice of still being anything other than her servant.

 

Let me put how I can see this edelgard and Rhea are both unsympathetic assholes. But I can at least understand why Rhea did what she did she has the excuse of an actual genocide happening in being mentally crazy. 

 

The problem with trying the sympathize with any of them is the fact that at the end all of game they achieve the same goal even if Rhea is dead or alive. 

 

you can say one's worse than the other but that's just personal opinion. there's no point in trying to change someone's personal opinion because in the end they all achieve peace That's the problem with the game. Because in the very end all of the Lord's are good guys they all have good endings so no one is actually wrong. People defend them to death because in the very end the Lord is right no matter what happens no one has a bad ending.

 

That's why I like the church ending so much without Rhea. because I know me as the main character is my avatar will put in the system I think is right. I think it'll be good so give me that blank avatar ending any day over the bull crap that all the other ones have they're all terrible. The game didn't have the balls to try to give us at least one actual bad ending. because it tried to sugarcoat everyone into being the good guy there's no point in trying to actually debate over who's right and who's wrong. cuz in the end you're just going to have the two dogs barking at each other about whose peace is better even though everyone is already at peace.

Edited by jawaunw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jawaunw said:

Stop with the b******* man Dimitri had the choice of surrender and serve edelgard or die fighting her. why do you keep bringing this up as if he had an actual choice of still being anything other than her servant.

 

Let me put how I can see this edelgard and Rhea are both unsympathetic assholes. But I can at least understand why Rhea did what she did she has the excuse of an actual genocide happening in being mentally crazy. 

 

The problem with trying the sympathize with any of them is the fact that at the end all of game they achieve the same goal even if Rhea is dead or alive. 

 

you can say one's worse than the other but that's just personal opinion. there's no point in trying to change someone's personal opinion because in the end they all achieve peace That's the problem with the game. Because in the very end all of the Lord's are good guys they all have good endings so no one is actually wrong. People defend them to death because in the very end the Lord is right no matter what happens no one has a bad ending.

 

That's why I like the church ending so much without Rhea. because I know me as the main character is my avatar will put in the system I think is right. I think it'll be good so give me that blank avatar ending any day over the bull crap that all the other ones have they're all terrible. The name didn't have the balls to try to give us at least one actual bad ending. because it tried to sugarcoat everyone into being the good guy there's no point in trying to actually debate over who's right and who's wrong. cuz in the end you're just going to have the two dogs barking at each other about whose peace is better even though everyone is already at peace.

Yeah, sorry, everything you said isn't even what happened at all. And I genuinely dislike the tone you have, so either tone it down, or get out.

Share this post


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

Yeah, sorry, everything you said isn't even what happened at all. And I genuinely dislike the tone you have, so either tone it down, or get out.

well I'm not exactly angry or very emotional about this I mean this is the first comment I've made here in like 3 months.

 

I Said as my point that I don't find either one of them sympathetic in the slightest. The game makes it clear that they could have talked it out. The game made it clear that there were other options. The game has endings for each character achieving the same exact goal so there's no exact point All of them are wrong and all of them are right. so I'm completely indifferent about it.

Also I like to say that the manifest had no basis once so ever in the story. for all we know it could have easily said I'm going to war with the church to get power. Serve me or die there's a reason that we never see the manifest. We only hear what edelgard tells us are you telling the truth Is she lie they leave it blank intentionally.

 

The game does this because you're supposed to feel inspired sympathetic loving caring passionate for these characters and hatred disgust envy for the enemies. I don't like the Lord's I love the storytelling of the game they actually do make you care for them in a very passionate way just look at you in the others here. You truly love these characters here. that's the greatest achievement that the game has for itself.

Also like to put down that I am not trying to disagree with you. if you said on the first page that this is your stance there's no point in trying to change it or debate with you on that matter. I am just trying to put down how I feel for the characters and my own way just as you have on this thread.

 

And if my tone of speaking seems rough to you don't worry my mother and father have already told me something about it but they get the same indifference like the rest of humanity. so sorry I will try and tone things down.

 

Edited by jawaunw
Had to fix the comment

Share this post


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

well I'm not exactly angry or very emotional about this I mean this is the first comment I've made here in like 3 months.

 

I Said as my point that I don't find either one of them sympathetic in the slightest. The game makes it clear that they could have talked it out. The game made it clear that there were other options. The game has endings for each character achieving the same exact goal so there's no exact point All of them are wrong and all of them are right. so I'm completely indifferent about it.

Also I like to say that the manifest had no basis once you'll ever in the story. for all we know it could have easily said I'm going to war with the church to get power. Serve me or die there's a reason that we never see the manifest. We only hear what edelgard tells us are you telling the truth Is she lie they leave it blank intentionally.

 

The game does this because you're supposed to feel inspired sympathetic loving caring passionate for these characters and hatred disgust envy for the enemies. I don't like the Lord's I love the storytelling of the game they actually do make you care for them in a very passionate way just look at you in the others here. You truly love these characters here. that's the greatest achievement that the game has for itself.

Also like to put down that I am not trying to disagree with you. if you said on the first page that this is your stance there's no point in trying to change it or debate with you on that matter. I am just trying to put down how I feel for the characters and my own way just as you have on this thread.

 

And if my tone of speaking seems rough to you don't worry my mother and father have already told me something about it but they get the same indifference like the rest of humanity. so sorry I will try and tone things down.

 

Except you're missing the point. The entire "talking" things out is a case where NO ONE is willing to talk things out. But more than anything, they all have their own goals and ideals, one that contradicts others. Edelgard wants freedom for humanity and for people to no longer be divided by a class system. Rhea believes that people must be dependent on the goddess and remain bound by the nobility system, as it is the best way to maintain order. That already puts them at odds, where talking won't accomplish anything. 

The game makes it clear that they can't talk it out, and in fact, would always be in opposition. 

The manifestos are nothing at all like you said.

She literally explains what the manifestos are:

Quote

Edelgard: We will distributing our manifesto to every lord within Fódlan. We will expose the dark side of the Church of Seiros and the foul practices of the nobles from the Kingdom and the Alliance. We will force the people of Fódlan to open their eyes to the truth and relinquish any remaining conviction to unite against the empire. Certain nobles have already offered their support.

She's not making an ultimatum. She's giving the people her reasons for why she's opposing the Church and trying to tell them not to fight against her. 

So no, Dimitri wasn't in an ultimatum where he must bow to the Empire or die. But he chose to fight the Empire because he wanted revenge for Duscur. I dunno why people try to insist otherwise, when this has been the ENTIRE basis of his character in all the routes, and how he confessed his entire reason to go to Garreg Mach was for revenge. He blames Edelgard for Duscur, and won't ever listen to reason. 

10 minutes ago, jawaunw said:

Also like to put down that I am not trying to disagree with you. if you said on the first page that this is your stance there's no point in trying to change it or debate with you on that matter. I am just trying to put down how I feel for the characters and my own way just as you have on this thread.

Yeah, it's one thing to have a stance. But it's another thing to say something that's false as if it's the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

So in my view, if Rhea is worse than the Edelgard, that does make Edelgard in the right, even if she isn't perfect. It just has to be better than the alternatives. Honestly, I don't think Edelgard ever had any good options, she was born right into a complete mess of a political situation and have strings attached to her ever since she was a child. People like to say this is Edelgard's war, but that is ignoring that the Agarthans has planned this for far longer than Edelgard has even existed. Also point out that Loog is rather similar to Edelgard, both start a war, both get aid from the Agarthans. Yet Loog is remembered as a hero king (ironically, even Pan is remembered like a hero and they were very likely one of the Agarthans). 

Completely fair viewpoint. For what it's worth, I personally believe that Edelgard goes to war for the right reasons, and I would have said that even if there weren't internal pressure from the Agarthans, because I too prefer Edelgard's vision for humanity to Rhea's. 

4 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

The end of the day. I don't believe it matters who started it, it is only the final result that matters. Fodlan is united regardless, so that mission will always be accomplished, even if it wasn't what Dimitri set out to do.  It is ultimately how they gather and that determines if someone is a tyrant, not how they got into power.

Fair enough, though this is probably quite controversial.

4 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

By the way, what do you think would happen if Rhea was successful in bringing back Sothis, would she be able to fix things? Would she even have an interest in being the goddess and ruling over the world? I generally get the impression that Sothis is more kind than Rhea (on the other hand, she did supposedly flood the world, so I can't be sure.)

Assuming Sothis took over Byleth's body and will, the possibilities are endless. She might be able to create new Nabateans, her dragon form probably has unparalleled power, but she also has magic on a level unlike anyone else in Fodlan. There's any number of things she could do, but in many ways I don't think the world would be fixed. Because Rhea would want to stay by Sothis' side, more so than she does with Byleth, and Sothis' very presence might cement the Church of Seiros in its very flawed state. It's a cool thing to wonder about, though.

3 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

I'm just saying this now, politically, if a major defection like this happens, it is entirely within grounds to declare war. The Empire has rights to demand for Arianrhod's return and even compensation. This is also why House Hrym and House Ordelia suffered when House Hrym attempted to defect and Ordelia attempted to help.

At the time, they could have started a war. But the Empire made their decision not to declare war, not because they couldn't, but for whatever reason because they thought it was more politically prudent. EDIT: I deleted a comment here which came off harsher than I intended. What I wanted to say was if the Empire were to use these grounds, it would be for political convenience rather than resolving injustice, because otherwise they would have done so much sooner. (They don't, though).

3 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Except what you aren't really taking into account is that these injustices that the Empire faced without any recompense is what led to the prideful and corrupt nobles of Adrestia to actually seek to weaponize Edelgard and use her to reunite Fodlan. This is explicitly why Ferdinand states that nobles of Adrestia dream of reuniting Fodlan under the Empire

They are allowed to have that dream, and to feel injustice from past wrongs. It doesn't constitute a justification for war in the present day. I am beginning to suspect we may just disagree on when it is acceptable to use violence.

3 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

I think you may have misinterpreted Chapter 17. Dimitri LIED to Rhea about her flanking and he would take the defensive. He told her that he intended to meet Edelgard's army, and Rhea to flank, but intended for Rhea's army to actually be the bait. 

Quote

Dimitri: No need to worry yourself. Even if I am defeated, the Blaiddyd bloodline will live on. And the Kingdom's territory has never been rich in resources. If the castle falls under siege, our loss is inevitable. I will deploy my army onto the plains and wait for the enemy. Please position your forces so that they can flank the Imperial army. 

Rhea: Yes, given the present situation, making the plains our battlefield is a logical choice. I have no objection. However...

Dimitri: There is only one person I am after. I have no interest in any other prey.

-

Dimitri: I was hoping they would strike the church first... We must have miscalculated the rate of their advance. Reorganize the formation. We have no choice but to buy time until the church arrives. It will be a long battle... Are you afraid, Dedue?

Yeah, Edelgard declares war and attacks the Church. But keep in mind that Edelgard had already sent manifestos to every noble house across Fodlan, acquiring the support of many nobles in both the Alliance and Kingdom. Dimitri knows why Edelgard is opposing the Church, and had a choice. Rather than try any forms of negotiation or remain neutral, Dimitri actually joined with Rhea, cause he wanted revenge for Duscur.

I don't think what you've quoted actually disagrees with what I've said. Dimitri's intentions for how the battle was supposed to turn out are besides the point, and I don't make any claims about his intentions for Rhea's army anyway.

Dimitri also, for better or worse, believes in the Church. It isn't simply about revenge - he is opposed to Edelgard ideologically as well as personally. Edelgard has no room for those who disagree with her that strongly anyway, and Dimitri could never have lived under her because of his own shit. I think that's the point of the writing - there is no world in which Edelgard accomplishes what she wants without stepping on a pile of bodies, at the head of which is Rhea and those loyal to her. Joining with Rhea is as legitimate a choice as remaining neutral or entering negotiations, not less legitimate. It is the aggressor who broke the peace, and they hold the greatest share of responsibility for whatever follows. That remains true in every route.

Edited by haarhaarhaar

Share this post


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

She's not making an ultimatum. She's giving the people her reasons for why she's opposing the Church and trying to tell them not to fight against her. 

So no, Dimitri wasn't in an ultimatum where he must bow to the Empire or die. But he chose to fight the Empire because he wanted revenge for Duscur. I dunno why people try to insist otherwise, when this has been the ENTIRE basis of his character in all the routes, and how he confessed his entire reason to go to Garreg Mach was for revenge. He blames Edelgard for Duscur, and won't ever listen to reason

Once again we actually don't know and once again what I'm trying to tell you All we hear is what edelgard tells us. this is why I'm saying that we don't know what the manifest was. The game ain't makes it abundantly clear to never show us the manifest. Perfectly willing to lie about a village being destroyed we have an example of her forcing someone else to help her or else they'll be destroyed and golden deer route. The only reason that the manifest is brought up inside her route is to cast doubt it's called the blank story event.

and that's the point you believe edelgard. but anyone else could look at the same things later on in route and say she could have lied about the manifest. 

19 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Except you're missing the point. The entire "talking" things out is a case where NO ONE is willing to talk things out. But more than anything, they all have their own goals and ideals, one that contradicts others. Edelgard wants freedom for humanity and for people to no longer be divided by a class system. Rhea believes that people must be dependent on the goddess and remain bound by the nobility system, as it is the best way to maintain order. That already puts them at odds, where talking won't accomplish anything. 

The game makes it clear that they can't talk it out, and in fact, would always be in opposition. 

The manifestos are nothing at all like you said.

Yes they could have talked it out in each route one of the lords including our main character tries to talk to edelgard or the Lord opposing them. Dimitri tries to talk to edelgard. Claude tries to talk to Dimitri and edelgard. and then the church route the main character literally tries to talk edelgard down. And edelgard tries to talk to Dimitri and succeeds at talking with Claude. although she never tries to talk rhea down.

 

trying to say that talking was off the table completely ignores the fact that at one point in each route all of the Lord's tried to talk to one another but the other one was too stubborn.

Edited by jawaunw
Forget something in the comment

Share this post


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

At the time, they could have started a war. But the Empire made their decision not to declare war, not because they couldn't, but for whatever reason because they thought it was more politically prudent. EDIT: I deleted a comment here which came off harsher than I intended. What I wanted to say was if the Empire were to use these grounds, it would be for political convenience rather than resolving injustice, because otherwise they would have done so much sooner. (They don't, though).

They are allowed to have that dream, and to feel injustice from past wrongs. It doesn't constitute a justification for war in the present day. I am beginning to suspect we may just disagree on when it is acceptable to use violence.

I don't think what you've quoted actually disagrees with what I've said. Dimitri's intentions for how the battle was supposed to turn out are besides the point, and I don't make any claims about his intentions for Rhea's army anyway.

Dimitri also, for better or worse, believes in the Church. It isn't simply about revenge - he is opposed to Edelgard ideologically as well as personally. Edelgard has no room for those who disagree with her that strongly anyway, and Dimitri could never have lived under her because of his own shit. I think that's the point of the writing - there is no world in which Edelgard accomplishes what she wants without stepping on a pile of bodies, at the head of which is Rhea and those loyal to her. Joining with Rhea is as legitimate a choice as remaining neutral or entering negotiations, not less legitimate. It is the aggressor who broke the peace, and they hold the greatest share of responsibility for whatever follows. That remains true in every route.

This overall goes to the issue. 

Basically, the Empire suffered much injustice throughout history. And overall, you're saying because it happened in the past, it should be ignored and pretend it never happened? Except they did, were not paid for, and now it should just be forgotten? So if it happens a long time ago, it's no longer relevant? 

You realize that's now how human society works, right? 

It's because of these actions that the nobles had Edelgard and her siblings experimented on. The nobles WANTED to have a war and unify Fodlan.

The three nations generally on their own thing, but there's hardly any real forms of communication between the nations. Despite Garreg Mach being a thing, the houses overall study to fight and fight each other rather than trying to learn from each other and help one another out. The one and only time the three nations ever worked together was making Fodlan's Locket.

3 minutes ago, jawaunw said:

Once again we actually don't know and once again what I'm trying to tell you All we hear is what edelgard tells us. this is why I'm saying that we don't know what the manifest was. The game ain't makes it abundantly clear to never show us the manifest. Perfectly willing to lie about a village being destroyed we have an example of her forcing someone else to help her or else they'll be destroyed and golden deer route. The only reason that the manifest is brought up inside her route is to cast doubt it's called the blank story event.

and that's the point you believe edelgard. but anyone else could look at the same things later on in route and say she could have lied about the manifest. 

So, you want to ignore what the game states and insist that it has to be something akin to an ultimatum? Where is your logic behind it? In fact, it's very much tantamount that Edelgard would actually NOT make it be an ultimatum, given how Edelgard is always someone that respects choices. Out of all the cahracters in the game, Edelgard's always been the one that ever actually asks Byleth what THEY want, and if they are sure of their path, always giving them a choice, even in her own route, asking that they can walk away from this fight at any point, and Byleth always assures her that they are certain of their choice.

To say that she lied about the manifesto is sounds like what Seteth and Dimtiri think, where they insinuate that she wants to become a false deity even though that is blatantly wrong.

12 minutes ago, jawaunw said:

Yes they could have talked it out in each route one of the lords including our main character tries to talk to edelgard or the Lord opposing them. Dimitri tries to talk to edelgard. Claude tries to talk to Dimitri and edelgard. and then the church route the main character literally tries to talk edelgard down.

try and say that talking was off the table completely ignores the fact that at one point in each route all of the Lord's tried to talk to one another but the other one was too stubborn.

Byleth literally tells Dimitri to talk to Edelgard in AM during Part 1, and he refuses to. Dimitri talks to Edelgard in Part 2, but that can hardly even be considerd a talk, as Edelgard is forced to be vague, and Dimitri overall rejects all her beliefs and ideals, insisting that she is wrong. That's no compromise or anything peaceful, but basically submission. That's only provoking her to remain to fight. That talk only accomplished in settling that they don't understand one another and thus cannot compromise.

Edelgard actually TRIES to talk to Claude in VW's Part 1, and he basically made an unreasonable demand because he refuses to trust other people. 

The thing is that every route proves that the possibility exists if every character could develop, but that's just it. They don't all develop.

  • Dimitri refuses to talk until he lets go of his obsession with revenge. Only lets go in AM.
  • Claude won't talk unless he can learn to trust others (Only in VW) or be forced to trust them after losing the fight (AM/CF). 
  • Edelgard can't talk to others cause she's in a precarious position where she's surrounding by mole people that impersonates her uncle, and she knows things that others wouldn't believe. Only in CF when someone is willing to trust and believe in her does she learn to be better. 
  • Rhea is a liar that would lie for the sake of what she believes is best for things. She only starts to be more honest with herself and others only after being forced to after five years of war and imprisonment.

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...