Jump to content

Edelgard + Lelouch: The Cost Of Ideals


Recommended Posts

This video really goes out to express the stuff that I love about Edelgard and how she's very much like Lelouch. 

And overall asks the big question about Edelgard's actions, of starting a war to attain freedom from the system, and whether it was actually the right thing or not. The answer is best understood if you actually watch the video from beginning to end. 

It isn't long, but it really tackles so many important things that makes you aware of how the struggle is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One key difference between them is that Edelgard is acting selflessly while Lelouch, at least at first is utterly selfish. 

Edelgard really believes that what she's doing is for the good of everyone and she makes personal sacrifices for a better world. With Lelouch I always got the feeling he couldn't care less about anyone other then himself, his sister and maybe Suzaku. Lelouch fighting glorious Britania is more him lashing out against a regime that did him and his sister dirty then him trying to making right the actions of his terrible family. 

There's also a little bit of Hubert in him. Not just the obsessive loyalty to a single girl but Hubert and Zero both share a certain flair for the dramatic. Neither is a stranger to an evil laugh or two. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

One key difference between them is that Edelgard is acting selflessly while Lelouch, at least at first is utterly selfish. 

Yeah. In fact, the entire reason that he was opposing Euphemia is cause she's getting in the way of his plans to get revenge, and what made him calm down from that is when Euphemia stated that she had given up her claim to the throne. Then the "joke" happened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're going to have a nice, serious discussion about the objectively funniest mech in SRW X, I'm gonna move this to Far from the Forest.  It's A Comparison, but this is a Fire Emblem forum first and foremost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See I generally agree with this analysis and have said similar things in other Edelgard-centric threads, but it feels like whenever I point out her clear flaws (which I think are good and make her a great character) as a leader there's always push back about it not really being a flaw, it's actually good, she's a pawn and has no agency, or she's not culpable in whatever it was that she did and shouldn't be blamed for it.

Then the thread just further tumbles down that rabbit hole.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Crysta said:

See I generally agree with this analysis and have said similar things in other Edelgard-centric threads, but it feels like whenever I point out her clear flaws (which I think are good and make her a great character) as a leader there's always push back about it not really being a flaw, it's actually good, she's a pawn and has no agency, or she's not culpable in whatever it was that she did and shouldn't be blamed for it.

Then the thread just further tumbles down that rabbit hole.

 

 

 

The way I see it, being a pawn is one of her flaws. 

But her greatest flaw. The way I see it is extreme stubbornness, once she has set her mind on something it is very hard to change it, and she frequently would rather die than give up. It is this tendency that sets her on the path to become the Hegemon Husk as she would rather go to extreme measures like this and is willing to sacrifice even her own humanity for the sake of her cause, rather than give up on her dreams and admit defeat.

Are you happy now? The thing is, people are going to interpret her flaws differently.

 

Edit: 

But the thing is, flawed individual or not. I don't think Edelgard is wrong in that the war is necessary. In fact, I actually think she is doing the right thing, even if it might be difficult to accept. The reality of politics is that it isn't always pleasant. 

I heard a very interesting question recently. In this example, there are two monarchs, one does evil things that their actions frequently results in a better society. The other only ever does good things, but their actions frequently makes things worse. Who would you want to lead your country? 

Edited by Darkmoon6789
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, because the idea that she's not in charge of her own decisions annoys me to no end and makes her far less compelling as a character, imo.

Fortunately I think it's obviously wrong enough that I don't really need to have the same argument again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Crysta said:

No, because the idea that she's not in charge of her own decisions annoys me to no end and makes her far less compelling as a character, imo.

Fortunately I think it's obviously wrong enough that I don't really need to have the same argument again.

It is less of that and more like her making different decisions than she did would also have its consequences, and these consequences wouldn't necessarily be better. 

I think it is pretty much fact that the war would have started with or without her. The hold that the Agarthans have over her empire and how much influence the have had in her life are also pretty much fact. These things are far from being obviously wrong.

What is obviously wrong however is the idea that Edelgard is a fascist. Or that any alternate method of computing her goals would have actually worked. 

Edelgard isn't flawless, all I am saying is that she doesn't deserve to be crucified for said flaws. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Yeah. In fact, the entire reason that he was opposing Euphemia is cause she's getting in the way of his plans to get revenge, and what made him calm down from that is when Euphemia stated that she had given up her claim to the throne. Then the "joke" happened. 

Don't remind me; that had to be the worst moment I had ever seen on TV. I saw Code Geass in 2019: the year that brought us terrible moments like Daenerys burning King's Landing, and I would say that the "Euphemia Incident" was far worse.

Going back to Lelouch and Edelgard, I will say that one major difference between them is that Edelgard was in a much better-written story with a much better-utilized supporting cast. Code Geass had some great ideas, but it was a massive train-wreck in execution and the other students in that show's school setting were immensely underutilized. 

 

16 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

There's also a little bit of Hubert in him. Not just the obsessive loyalty to a single girl but Hubert and Zero both share a certain flair for the dramatic. Neither is a stranger to an evil laugh or two. 

That's true. To add to the comparison, both Lelouch and Hubert are behind-the-scenes schemers who like to use subterfuge and other such tactics. Edelgard usually defers a lot of the behind-the-scenes stuff to Hubert. 

Ironically, Edelgard herself does have a flair for the dramatic, but only as Edelgard; not as the Flame Emperor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Going back to Lelouch and Edelgard, I will say that one major difference between them is that Edelgard was in a much better-written story with a much better-utilized supporting cast. Code Geass had some great ideas, but it was a massive train-wreck in execution and the other students in that show's school setting were immensely underutilized. 

Also, there's much more mixed morality at times with Edelgard to how people perceive it. Where no one has ANY issues with Lelouch's radical efforts that is basically acts of terrorism, where he brainwashes, manipulates, and murders countless people, because Britannia is shown to be a seriously racist people that oppress the Japanese, reducing them to a mere number, they insist that Lelouch's radical acts are entirely justified, and thus hate on Suzaku, who wants to play by the system. 

People don't feel the same with Edelgard, where many disagree with her radical acts and try to prop the idea that everything she does is wrong. Or that her radical efforts are entirely unnecessary.

14 hours ago, Crysta said:

No, because the idea that she's not in charge of her own decisions annoys me to no end and makes her far less compelling as a character, imo.

I think I get what you're trying to say.

You're saying that because there isn't much of a choice to begin with, it feels like it defeats the point of how Edelgard chose to work with them. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

lso, there's much more mixed morality at times with Edelgard to how people perceive it. Where no one has ANY issues with Lelouch's radical efforts that is basically acts of terrorism, where he brainwashes, manipulates, and murders countless people, because Britannia is shown to be a seriously racist people that oppress the Japanese, reducing them to a mere number, they insist that Lelouch's radical acts are entirely justified, and thus hate on Suzaku, who wants to play by the system. 

People don't feel the same with Edelgard, where many disagree with her radical acts and try to prop the idea that everything she does is wrong. Or that her radical efforts are entirely unnecessary.

You have a good point. Lelouch today (like when the anime aired) was and is very popular as a character, it is difficult to find detractors of him. Which makes me wonder if Three Houses got an anime adaptation, like the Edelgard reception would. I believe that she would become someone iconic (more than she is now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

You have a good point. Lelouch today (like when the anime aired) was and is very popular as a character, it is difficult to find detractors of him. Which makes me wonder if Three Houses got an anime adaptation, like the Edelgard reception would. I believe that she would become someone iconic (more than she is now).

I mean, you see the Japanese people being oppressed, even slaughtered, by Britannia, and then you see how Zero is viewed by the people as a hero. You have Japanese kids or some Japanese workers trying to run around with capes and masks, going about how they are Zero. The Japanese people adore Zero, and they show a lot about the oppression itself.

Now if the anime was strictly about Edelgard's route, Crimson Flower, the animators might actually do something similar, showing how bad the corrupt nobility is, and how the Church is not all that good, and how the corruption is that bad. And then they would show how many people in nations actually praise Edelgard as a liberator or savior, for how she opposes the Church and seeks to bring justice. 

People don't think much about Edelgard's efforts because people don't SEE the corruption or rationalize the problems. And because they cannot SEE it, they don't believe it's even there.

They are like Flayn, basically.

Quote

Flayn: Professor, I'm not sure I understand... Why is the Empire intent on making an enemy of the church?

Byleth:
(Choice 1) I don't understand either.

Flayn: Quite perplexing... If the church disappears from Fódlan, I wonder if the Empire thinks it will benefit them in some way? I feel, I feel that it will only confuse the people.

(Choice 2) They must oppose the way of the church.

Flayn: What is meant by "the way of the church"? What do they dislike about it?

Seteth: I have no idea what Edelgard was thinking or how she arrived at the decision to raise an army. However, I do have some small insight as to what she is after. She is attempting to destroy the existing social order. That is why the Church of Seiros is first on the list of institutions that must be destroyed. It may very well be her goal to rebuild Fódlan from the ground up...

Flayn: I see... But that is only Edelgard's desire, is it not? I cannot imagine that the people of Fódlan would want that for themselves. She may have high ideals, but she certainly lacks any compunction about throwing the world, and its people, into an awful war... It just seems so illogical!

Seteth: You have a point, Flayn. I do not believe the people will ever understand her aim. So long as she makes the people suffer, our Knights of Seiros will fight on and strive to protect them. If we do not defeat Edelgard and retake control of this world, Fódlan's future shall be as dark as night.

Flayn: Thank you, dear Brother. I finally feel I understand what is going on.

Flayn is a naive girl that thinks that the world is just fine and the Church is just great. Seteth is not as naive and understands that Edelgard has legit reasons to oppose the Church, but he likely doesn't want to admit that so much, or is rationalizing it as something that doesn't warrant Edelgard's actions. 

Let's consider Lonato's Rebellion or the Western Church's actions. 

People insist that they were the ones in the wrong, and the Church isn't wrong in what they did, despite how what Rhea did can actually be considered oppression. 

Unless people see the Church kick a puppy or something, they'll just insist that Edelgard's war is unjust. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

I think I get what you're trying to say.

You're saying that because there isn't much of a choice to begin with, it feels like it defeats the point of how Edelgard chose to work with them. Right?

Sort of? It's being a victim versus being an arbiter.

Hubert makes it pretty clear that she was initially adamantly against the idea, but he coaxed her into seeing the strategic value in leaving them intact and working with them versus fighting them right off the bat.

She still outright threatens them even so. She's not a pawn lol.

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Sort of? It's being a victim versus being an arbiter.

Hubert makes it pretty clear that she was initially adamantly against the idea, but he coaxed her into seeing the strategic value in leaving them intact and working with them versus fighting them right off the bat.

She still outright threatens them even so. She's not a pawn lol.

I think it goes to bring about the case of how Edelgard doesn't hide behind the excuse of "I didn't have a choice" situation. All paths of Edelgard lead to war or the suffering of countless people. Her choice was whether she was willing to make the most out of the shitty paths where she gets what she wants out of it. If she went with the pure selfish route of what she wants for herself, she would choose revenge, and just wage war against the Agarthans. 

What she chose to do was be willing to change the world even if it meant working with her tormentors. 

And she definitely holds fault for lending Jeritza to Thales, which is why Remire even happened. 

The Agarthans clearly don't treat their relationship with Edelgard with equality. Despite how Edelgard threatened them, they clearly weren't fazed, treating it like a child being in a phase. Hell, in CF, Arundel/Thales immediately sought to punish Edelgard for killing Cornelia by blowing up Arianrhod. She isn't a pawn, but they definitely see her as one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

I think it goes to bring about the case of how Edelgard doesn't hide behind the excuse of "I didn't have a choice" situation.

Yeah but her fans do. And I think it does her a disservice.

2 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

She isn't a pawn, but they definitely see her as one. 

Sure. They both think they're using each other and have the upperhand. But that's very different than one party clearly controlling the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Sure. They both think they're using each other and have the upperhand. But that's very different than one party clearly controlling the other.

I've always found that aspect of the plot intriguing, because once you've done all 3(4?) routes you realize the Agarthans are entirely reliant on Edelgard and her army to get anywhere, and the same does not apply in reverse.

Like, while Edelgard is a pawn of sorts, she's also fully aware of her status and is actively milking it for all it's worth to abuse TWSITD's resources (the missiles bombing Fort Merceus, for example). And the Slithers still get to have someone destroy as much of Fódlan as possible, so it's still a win in their eyes. In spite of this, if Edelgard kicks the bucket first, the Slitherers end up literally as a sitting duck if an enemy army just so happens to casually invade their hideout. If Thales dies first however, Edelgard remains fully in charge and can freely abuse their resources (sans the missiles for obvious reasons) and provide a competent counterattack to an invading army with only her own troops.

In that regard, I don't believe Edelgard's at the mercy of the Agarthans because: not only she's far more autonomous than you would think, whether she ends up doing what the Shadesteppers want or not won't matter in the long run as they'll be unable to enjoy the spoils of their manipulations when their pawn casually drops her army on them once everything's said and done. (Honestly, Edelgard would probably have more problems doing it if the game bothered to clarify what kind of handicap the "Javelins of Light" actually have, but I digress).

Edited by Moltz23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Let's say Edelgard randomly dies, and Hubert says nothing.  The Agarthans go back to their underground hideout.

This happens in AM, only Thales randomly dies, too.

But Hapi comes and saves the day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Crysta said:

Yeah but her fans do. And I think it does her a disservice.

Sure. They both think they're using each other and have the upperhand. But that's very different than one party clearly controlling the other.

It depends on what you mean by "choice".  While she technically works of them of her own volition, the alternative to doing so and so obviously bad consequences that I have little doubt she made the right decision. 

I am not trying to excuse her actions, because I don't think her actions were wrong, in my mind, she made the right choice, the only logical choice. It is not trying to excuse anything when I don't believe that the declaration of war to be morally wrong. As for her alliance with the Agarthans, it is simply the most practical decision as they are both enemies of the church and she simply can't fight them and the church at the same time. Edelgard has some choices, but none of them are ideal, and I guarantee you that if there was a perfect solution where she could achieve her goals without any sacrifice being made, she would have done so.  Life isn't all sunshine and rainbows, and if you let petty morality stand in the way of the greater good. I would claim it isn't good at all.

But I believe that the very concept of a choice is an illusion, by its very nature. Humans like to believe we have free will, that we have all options open to us at all times. But I don't believe this is true, it shall every choice you make is informed by our history and our genetics. Everything that happens to us informs the way we think and as such, every decision we make are already predetermined by our past experiences and the way our brain chemistry works.  

In this fashion. Edelgard starting the war was already a foregone conclusion after she gone through the experiments and witnessed the death of her siblings, the way her mind works, plus going through something like that in addition to the message of Dimitri's dagger. They are all ingredients in Edelgard's decisions, do she truly have the freedom to choose to defy the conclusion her experiences leads to?

If you doubt what I am saying, ask yourself, do you truly feel that you are free to choose to murder your loved ones? I wouldn't think so, right? No one can choose to make a decision. Contrary to our nature and experiences. This is why I think that blame and judgement are ultimately pointless. Everyone is the product of their environment and no one really has a say in who they become. This is equally true of Edelgard as it is of Dimitri and Rhea, as well as any other human ever born.

It is fortunate that Edelgard's experiences made her even more empathetic, if somewhat radical. I think Fodlan really needed someone like her. But because of how much of her mindset is dependent on her trauma, she is still ultimately the weapon, the Agarthans made her into even if they themselves didn't understand the full ramifications of what their actions made Edelgard. They thought they made her their pawn, but they created their own destruction.

One of my principles is to never close my eyes to an uncomfortable truth. This would be one of them, I don't believe I have true agency, it only feels like I do. In the same manner, I didn't choose to like Edelgard, based on who I am as a person. I was always bound to like her. 

I hope that offers some insight in my way of thinking

Edited by Darkmoon6789
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeeeah really not going to get into a philosophical debate on whether or not choice is an "illusion".

I'll just hold her to the same tenets of responsibility as I would towards anyone and everyone else, as a member of a functional society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Crysta said:

This happens in AM, only Thales randomly dies, too.

But Hapi comes and saves the day!

Don't have the DLC, but this doesn't sit right with me.  Eh, I'll reserve judgment for later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Yeeeah really not going to get into a philosophical debate on whether or not choice is an "illusion".

I'll just hold her to the same tenets of responsibility as I would towards anyone and everyone else, as a member of a functional society.

I should probably mention I have been a student of philosophy, so I am very used to thinking about this sort of questions.

Also bear in mind that when it comes to responsibility, monarchs play by completely different rules than their citizens. They are not only allowed to do some things that aren't permissible by a regular person, but they are expected to. They are not truly part of the rest of society, but stands above it. It is a old school philosophy, but Fodlan is run by an old school system. 

When it comes to war, there is only one true rule. The winner writes history, they can do whatever they want with the loser and they will still be considered a hero in the eyes of history. While there is a lot to gain by war, the price for failure is usually death. Something Edelgard understands very well and have accepted. While being a monarch gives you certain rights, it also carries heavy penalties if you fail in your duties. It is hard for us to understand today as we don't really have absolute monarchs anymore. The past doesn't conform to our bubble of morality.

Yet the role of a monarch as you say does come with certain responsibilities. And the number one responsibility is to act in the best interest of their people. Monarchs who doesn't act in the best interest of their people will be overthrown as they will inspire rebellions. As I said, harsh penalties.

How do you think Edelgard performs her duty as a monarch? I think she does this splendidly.

Edited by Darkmoon6789
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

Let's say Edelgard randomly dies, and Hubert says nothing.  The Agarthans go back to their underground hideout.

And that would be a win for the Agarthans if Hubert actually underestimated them like Edelgard. He only does in AM because their leader kicks the bucket in Derdriu and thus lose their missiles, 'cause apparently no TWSITD member ever thought one dude being in charge of the nukes was a bad idea. (like seriously, most of the Molemen's dumbest choices can be traced down from their Hubris).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

How do you think Edelgard performs her duty as a monarch? I think she does this splendidly.

She does alright according to the ending. But the game is more about her waging war than actually ruling, and presumably so is this thread.

I have a feeling Thales didn't give a copy of the magic nuke remote to Myson in AM just so the route could finally end on a positive note instead of turning the castle into a crater and everyone dying.

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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