Jump to content

Edelgard + Lelouch: The Cost Of Ideals


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Crysta said:

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.

Exactly, it might not be what the game is about, but ultimately Edelgard will spend a lot more time ruling in a post war world than she will waging war. I think there are even some signs that Edelgard's system might lead towards a democratic system in future generations. She has laid the foundation for a far stronger middle class. I am trying to consider the long-term whenever it comes to her actions being right or wrong. 

Still, don't you think that the Agarthans would have still been able to gain control of the Empire's military through Arundel and his connection to the insurrection nobles with Edelgard out of the way? What Edelgard is essentially doing is taking a war they already planned for a long time and make it her own. She ultimately does what the Agarthans want, but she has her own reasons for doing so that doesn't necessarily align with the Agarthans and what they want with her. That is my perspective anyway. 

Do we even disagree about Edelgard at all or are we just misunderstanding what the other is saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between our viewpoints is that I'm willing to assign responsibility to Edelgard for the choice to ally with the Agarthans and use their resources, even if they're doing things she does not personally approve of. I don't think being distressed that Agarthans are doing Agarthan things is enough to absolve her of that responsibility; she knows better than anyone what they are and what they're capable of and willing to do.

It's a strategic choice, but it comes with consequences and definitely puts her more in the morally gray column than you seem comfortable with.  

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Crysta said:

The difference between our viewpoints is that I'm willing to assign responsibility to Edelgard for the choice to ally with the Agarthans and use their resources, even if they're doing things she does not personally approve of. I don't think being distressed that Agarthans are doing Agarthan things is enough to absolve her of that responsibility; she knows better than anyone what they are and what they're capable of and willing to do.

It's a strategic choice, but it comes with consequences and definitely puts her more in the morally gray column than you seem comfortable with.  

 

You know, nothing here is incompatible with the idea that the Mole Men have taken control of the Empire, and that her rise to power is met with their approval. She could have chosen tattling to the Church, to other allies... Just because they have the sort of stranglehold which making chosing them the 'better' alternative doesn't invalidate free wil, absolve her of all responsibilityl, grey stances and the likes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Crysta said:

The difference between our viewpoints is that I'm willing to assign responsibility to Edelgard for the choice to ally with the Agarthans and use their resources, even if they're doing things she does not personally approve of. I don't think being distressed that Agarthans are doing Agarthan things is enough to absolve her of that responsibility; she knows better than anyone what they are and what they're capable of and willing to do.

It's a strategic choice, but it comes with consequences and definitely puts her more in the morally gray column than you seem comfortable with.  

Yes, but what does that responsibility actually mean from a practical standpoint? If she was seen as partially responsible for that, what would you suggest should be done about it?. If she wins everything works out in the end anyway and I would argue that insisting on harming the emperor in the name of inflicting judgement would do the world a disservice. Or she loses and she dies anyway. What does responsibility mean in this case? Does it always have to be eye for an eye? 

I still think it is to her credit that Edelgard clearly dislikes what the Agarthans are doing and clearly hates herself for allying with them , even if she can't fault the logic of that decision. There is also the fact that when Remire actually happens. She had made her decision a long time ago and it is way too late to back out. Yet she seems to consider breaking the deal, considering her plea to Byleth and Jeralt after the incident at Remire village. 

Considering the circumstances. I think Edelgard is more than deserving of forgiveness and a chance at redemption for both the war and her alliance with the Agarthans. It does have some responsibility for it, but the Agarthans would keep experimenting on people with or without her permission. So it cannot be equated to her ordering it.

The truth about morally grey in this case is that in this case, no person overly concerned about their own moral integrity could possibly accomplish what Edelgard managed to accomplish, because they wouldn't be willing to do what must be done. This is also true of Lelouch. Meaning that a good-natured morally grey anti-hero such as Edelgard is capable of doing a greater level of good for the world than a person overly constrained by living up to some high standard. Both Edelgard and Lelouch cares so much about the greater good that they are willing to make themselves villains in the eyes of others to achieve that good. It is the ultimate of self-sacrifice. 

In the eyes of someone who is as much of a consequentialist as me, this makes Edelgard more heroic than any pure virtuous hero and the fact that she is willing to let herself be tainted is part of why she is capable of achieving so much good. Let's be honest, neither Dimitri nor Claude would have ever accomplished the ambition for a world on their own, they need Edelgard to take the fall to achieve their goals. 

Is someone who always acts perfectly moral, yet is unwilling to taint their perfect moral character to save a greater number of people really all that moral to begin with? 

I sometimes question the very notion of what humans consider moral, it almost seems like human morality is more concerned with people not making waves rather than working towards the greater good. This does also make sense as most morality systems exist to maintain the order of the status quo. As such, it makes sense that anyone concerned with maintaining the status quo have an incentive to paint someone like Edelgard as evil as her brand of good is a threat to their power and control. This is very much the case with the religious morality of the church of Seiros. 

Edit: part of what I like with Edelgard as a character is that her very existence as a concept makes me question the very nature of morality and what is really considered good or evil. This character and her actions have very deep philosophical implications that I find very interesting to discuss. She pretty much breaks the mould of black and white morality altogether and therefore is neither a hero or a villain in the traditional sense.

Edited by Darkmoon6789
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Hardric62 said:

 

You know, nothing here is incompatible with the idea that the Mole Men have taken control of the Empire, and that her rise to power is met with their approval. She could have chosen tattling to the Church, to other allies... Just because they have the sort of stranglehold which making chosing them the 'better' alternative doesn't invalidate free wil, absolve her of all responsibilityl, grey stances and the likes.

I'm not sure how much of a 'stranglehold' it really is. It sounds like the initial plan may have been to start the shadow war against them immediately once she got the throne versus after the Church is dealt with, if allying with them wasn't the plan from the start (and the fact that she needed coaxing suggests that this was indeed her plan if not for Hubert's interference). It's clearly not the smarter, more strategic plan, but that's mostly because the Church is the bigger threat.

52 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I still think it is to her credit that Edelgard clearly dislikes what the Agarthans are doing and clearly hates herself for allying with them , even if she can't fault the logic of that decision. There is also the fact that when Remire actually happens. She had made her decision a long time ago and it is way too late to back out. Yet she seems to consider breaking the deal, considering her plea to Byleth and Jeralt after the incident at Remire village.

This means a lot less to me than it does to you. She did, ultimately, make that decision. Feeling bad about the consequences doesn't really earn you 'credit'.

What 'must' exactly be done is also debateable. What she does in CF versus the other routes suggest she did not have to leverage that much force against her opponents to accomplish her goals, but she decides to do so in the non-CF routes because it's the path of least resistance towards accomplishing her ultimate goal. And, ironically enough, in those routes she loses... though I'd argue that's more because it seems like she just kind of waits there for Byleth to arrive and join the enemy forces instead of just steamrolling everyone while he's gone lol.

I don't think she's really 'more heroic' than a pure white knight because she's willing to do 'what must be done'. A lot of awfully bad people can get away with doing cruel things under that justification.

 

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Crysta said:

I'm not sure how much of a 'stranglehold' it really is. It sounds like the initial plan may have been to start the shadow war against them immediately once she got the throne versus after the Church is dealt with, if allying with them wasn't the plan from the start (and the fact that she needed coaxing suggests that this was indeed her plan if not for Hubert's interference). It's clearly not the smarter, more strategic plan, but that's mostly because the Church is the bigger threat.

Euh, I'd say the initial plan was 'tackle the biggest monster/opponent', aka the Church. The only reason she entertains the idea of going at it  by crushing Mole Men is because of having Byleth on her side influenced her, and talk with Hubert or not, she still had to bow to strategic imperatives, aka keep the Mole Men for later. She was very much going for the bigger threat on the strategical plan in her initial plans, aka routes other than Crimson Flower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess she could have planned to target the Church first, and simply have the molemen lingering on the peripheral instead of actively working alongside her.

The larger point may be that she didn't consider them a threat nor absolutely necessary to do her thing, it just strategically made more sense to ally with them if they were working towards the same goal anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, eclipse said:

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

If Edelgard died, then the Agarthans would continue to control the Empire and just keep spreading their influence until they create another Nemesis copy. As humanity gets more desperate for Crests, the Agarthans would be able to perform heinous experiments on children. 

They'd definitely infect more of Faerghus and the Alliance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Crysta said:

I'm not sure how much of a 'stranglehold' it really is. It sounds like the initial plan may have been to start the shadow war against them immediately once she got the throne versus after the Church is dealt with, if allying with them wasn't the plan from the start (and the fact that she needed coaxing suggests that this was indeed her plan if not for Hubert's interference). It's clearly not the smarter, more strategic plan, but that's mostly because the Church is the bigger threat.

This means a lot less to me than it does to you. She did, ultimately, make that decision. Feeling bad about the consequences doesn't really earn you 'credit'.

What 'must' exactly be done is also debateable. What she does in CF versus the other routes suggest she did not have to leverage that much force against her opponents to accomplish her goals, but she decides to do so in the non-CF routes because it's the path of least resistance towards accomplishing her ultimate goal. And, ironically enough, in those routes she loses... though I'd argue that's more because it seems like she just kind of waits there for Byleth to arrive and join the enemy forces instead of just steamrolling everyone while he's gone lol.

I don't think she's really 'more heroic' than a pure white knight because she's willing to do 'what must be done'. A lot of awfully bad people can get away with doing cruel things under that justification.

 

It should also be pointed out that truly evil people doesn't feel bad about the consequences of their actions. The fact that she does means that Edelgard has a functioning sense of empathy and that she is not truly evil. Remorse makes criminals a lot easier to rehabilitate and therefore it makes all the difference.

Ironically Edelgard was more efficient in the war in the beginning when Byleth doesn't join her. I guess because otherwise there wouldn't really be much resistance in that route. One of the worst things that can happen in a war as a stalemate, as it just drags things out and is costly for all sides. There is a legitimate argument to be made that ending it quickly using any method you possibly can, is more humane in the long run. But the drawback hero might be that she allows the Agarthans to become perhaps too powerful for her to stop.

You don't have to agree with me, but I would be careful with thinking in terms of what would allow people to get away with what. Really sounds like an obsession with judgement to me and it can lead down a slippery slope towards becoming similar to Light Yagami from Death Note or the Punisher from Marvel comics. (Boar Dimitri is also a good example of this type of justice)

I don't actually think that Light is anywhere near as justified as Edelgard or Lelouch, the guy and his methods completely violates due process as he assumes that all criminals that aren't convicted for their crimes are "getting away with it". Ignoring completely, that often times if the criminal can't be convicted in court. That means that they cannot prove that they are actually guilty. To kill them without a trial is nothing more than murder. Same with the Punisher, more than willing to kill because in their eyes criminals are less than human and deserve to die. Their desperation to make sure that no one gets away with crime and turned them into monsters in their own right. Not all antiheroes are created equal, and I think some are more justified than others, I think this needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. (Light might be straight up evil though). 

The thing is, you do seem to agree that allying with the Agarthans was the smarter move for Edelgard. Doesn't this make it synonymous with the right move? Doesn't make sense to me to judge someone for what is ultimately the right decision. In this case, I define "right" as whatever move leads to the least suffering in the long run. Which putting an end to the crest system does.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

You don't have to agree with me, but I would be careful with thinking in terms of what would allow people to get away with what. Really sounds like an obsession with judgement to me and it can lead down a slippery slope towards becoming similar to Light Yagami from Death Note or the Punisher from Marvel comics. (Boar Dimitri is also a good example of this type of justice)

I don't actually think that Light is anywhere near as justified as Edelgard or Lelouch, the guy and his methods completely violates due process as he assumes that all criminals that aren't convicted for their crimes are "getting away with it". Ignoring completely, that often times if the criminal can't be convicted in court. That means that they cannot prove that they are actually guilty. To kill them without a trial is nothing more than murder. Same with the Punisher, more than willing to kill because in their eyes criminals are less than human and deserve to die. Their desperation to make sure that no one gets away with crime and turned them into monsters in their own right. Not all antiheroes are created equal, and I think some are more justified than others, I think this needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. (Light might be straight up evil though). 

Might be? I'm pretty sure the whole point of Light Yagami was that he was a Villain Protagonist (link below), and that, ultimately, despite everything he says to try to justify his actions, he was never anything more than a serial killer with a god complex. He's not an anti-hero; not in any sense of the word. 

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainProtagonist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2020 at 10:41 PM, vanguard333 said:

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.

Hey now, at least GoT fans theorised that Daenerys was corrupted by power and let opportunity to get revenge get to her head. Euphemia Incident is just...a fixed plot in time to get the next plot going.

Anyway, I find antagonistic protagonist like Edel and Lelouch is just not convincing enough for me to support their actions. I like Edel a lot better when she is treated like the villain she is in other routes. Lelouch has his moments but Edel is better because at least she didnt manipulate her trusted allies (Hubert, CF Black Eagle Strike Force) the way Lelouch did (if I remember Code Geass correctly).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MagicCanonBalls said:

Anyway, I find antagonistic protagonist like Edel and Lelouch is just not convincing enough for me to support their actions. I like Edel a lot better when she is treated like the villain she is in other routes. Lelouch has his moments but Edel is better because at least she didnt manipulate her trusted allies (Hubert, CF Black Eagle Strike Force) the way Lelouch did (if I remember Code Geass correctly).

Isn't that how people would in the other routes? The point of the other routes is that you don't truly understand Edelgard and what she is seeking to accomplish. You don't see her side of things, and therefore, it's easy to just call her a villain. It's only when you see her side of things, through her route, that you realize that she's not truly a villain, and simply someone that is doing what she can in a shitty world.

It's like how in Code Geass, we see how the Japanese people are so heavily oppressed that it's only through Lelouch's acts as Zero that the people of Japan actually saw hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MagicCanonBalls said:

Hey now, at least GoT fans theorised that Daenerys was corrupted by power and let opportunity to get revenge get to her head. Euphemia Incident is just...a fixed plot in time to get the next plot going.

So... You agree that both are bad and the Euphemia Incident is the worse one of the two? (I'm just asking for clarification)

Side-Note: that theory makes no sense; if it were vengeance clouding her judgement, she would've burned King's Landing and Cersei, not go out of her way to burn literally everything else first. 

By the way, I wonder what would be a hypothetical equivalent of the Euphemia Incident if FE: Three Houses had been that dumb. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Isn't that how people would in the other routes? The point of the other routes is that you don't truly understand Edelgard and what she is seeking to accomplish. You don't see her side of things, and therefore, it's easy to just call her a villain. It's only when you see her side of things, through her route, that you realize that she's not truly a villain, and simply someone that is doing what she can in a shitty world.

It's like how in Code Geass, we see how the Japanese people are so heavily oppressed that it's only through Lelouch's acts as Zero that the people of Japan actually saw hope.

I wonder how much of my position on Edelgard is affected by the fact I played her route first. Meaning I don't actually know what it is like playing the other routes not already understanding Edelgard and what she is trying to accomplish. But that also means I noticed just how inaccurate many characters perception on Edelgard actually is. Seteth downright accuses her of trying to become a false goddess as he can see no other reason of why someone would oppose the church. Not to mention Dimitri blaming Edelgard for the tragedy of Duscur, which thanks to playing crimson flower first I knew was wrong from the start. Maybe the fact that I know that these characters are wrong about Edelgard makes it harder for me to sympathise with their cause in opposing her. While I do feel sorry for Dimitri and Rhea, it doesn't have as much impact as it would have if I didn't play crimson flower first. Especially when it comes to Dimitri, he is so much of a monster at certain parts in the story that I do find it difficult to take his side. It is just that the excessive blame he puts on soldiers and generals who are simply doing their job is completely despicable in my eyes. His only saving grace is that he do eventually become a better person.

At least Flayn . I do give the excuse of that she is probably blissfully ignorant of a lot of the suffering the church and her family has brought to the continent, being as sheltered as she is. I do feel bad for her honestly

3 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

So... You agree that both are bad and the Euphemia Incident is the worse one of the two? (I'm just asking for clarification)

Side-Note: that theory makes no sense; if it were vengeance clouding her judgement, she would've burned King's Landing and Cersei, not go out of her way to burn literally everything else first. 

By the way, I wonder what would be a hypothetical equivalent of the Euphemia Incident if FE: Three Houses had been that dumb. 

The closest equivalent is Rhea burning the kingdom capital. It is also for a very similar reason to Daenerys, that being madness.  

It seems like to me that Daenerys finally did succumb to her bloodline's inherent madness and directions were meant to mirror that of the Mad King. To me it isn't that the concept doesn't work, it is that they didn't have the best execution. Properly done, Daenerys would have a more gradual decline into madness, so it wouldn't have come as much out of left field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

So... You agree that both are bad and the Euphemia Incident is the worse one of the two? (I'm just asking for clarification)

Side-Note: that theory makes no sense; if it were vengeance clouding her judgement, she would've burned King's Landing and Cersei, not go out of her way to burn literally everything else first. 

By the way, I wonder what would be a hypothetical equivalent of the Euphemia Incident if FE: Three Houses had been that dumb. 

Plot-wise, yeah I agree both are pretty bad. But King's Landing on fire is much cooler. It's just a fan theory I constantly see on Reddit. 

And I can't think of a hypothetical equivalent of Euphemia Incident in 3H. Is that a good thing or I am just not creative enough? 

25 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Isn't that how people would in the other routes? The point of the other routes is that you don't truly understand Edelgard and what she is seeking to accomplish. You don't see her side of things, and therefore, it's easy to just call her a villain. It's only when you see her side of things, through her route, that you realize that she's not truly a villain, and simply someone that is doing what she can in a shitty world.

It's like how in Code Geass, we see how the Japanese people are so heavily oppressed that it's only through Lelouch's acts as Zero that the people of Japan actually saw hope.

What I mean is despite finished CF, I am still not on Edelgard side. Like I said, she is just not convincing enough for me, even in jer own route.

Anyway, due to weak internet connection I can't watch the video. And I don't remember Code Geass much to contribute on comparing these two beyond what I said. 

Side note: I am sorry if this is my double post. I refreshed accidentally while still posting my last comment. Waited few minutes and refreshed few more times but my reply never shows up. So I am submitting this again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, MagicCanonBalls said:

Lelouch has his moments but Edel is better because at least she didnt manipulate her trusted allies (Hubert, CF Black Eagle Strike Force) the way Lelouch did (if I remember Code Geass correctly).

Edelgard did at least lie to them. May not be to the level of "manipulation", depending on how you see it, but Edelgard is still willing to lie to her allies to further her agenda. Just pointing that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2020 at 3:58 PM, omegaxis1 said:

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.

I think that part of that may have to do with their opponents. (Before I continue, I should clarify that I've only seen season 1, but I know the bulk of what happens in season 2) The Brittanian Empire that Lelouch is fighting is repeatedly shown over and over again to the viewer to be rotten to the core; a militaristic empire built on scheming, backstabbing and systemic bigotry with little-to-no chance of internal reform being able to change what it's defined itself to be. Any moral grayness within Brittania lies within the individual characters that oppose Lelouch, not within the system. Code Geass is very much a case of what TV Tropes calls Black-and-Gray Morality https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackAndGrayMorality

By contrast, Edelgard is not fight a rotten evil empire; she's fighting an ultimately well-meaning church, and Three Houses is very much Gray-and-Gray Morality, with the only evil faction being TWSITD, who are fighting alongside Edelgard. 

 

I suspect, however, that the bigger reason for it is the often-subconscious misconception that protagonist = hero/good-guy. A lot of people, knowingly or not, tend to have an instinct to share the protagonists' desires to achieve their goals, and with that often comes centering the perceived morality of the story around the protagonist. Just look at Light Yagami from Death Note: he is very much the villain of the story, with the author of the manga having said multiple times that Light is a Villain Protagonist. But you'll still find a lot of people insisting that Light's and anti-hero or that Light's morally-gray. The reason for this is very simple: he's the primary character.

Similarly, for Code Geass, Lelouch is the protagonist; we spend the bulk of the story seeing his perspective, so we naturally have a biased view aligned with his. The instinct is that he''s the main focus of the show, and he's fighting an evil empire, so he must be the "good guy" of the story. 

By contrast, in Three Houses, Byleth is the protagonist, and Edelgard is the main lord for only one of four routes. In every other route, she's one of the main antagonists. Again, much like how a lot of people subconsciously link protagonist to hero, by that same logic, antagonist is often linked to villain, when they actually mean very different things. 

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...