Who should have betrayed their faction?

[haarhaarhaar]

27 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

It does seem to me that Jeritza has no real dedication to any cause, but would more or less fight for anyone as long as they provide an opportunity for him to exercise his combat skills. Which is why he also follows Arundel after Edelgard lends him over to him. Even joining in at Remire village, which happens against Edelgard's orders

Presumably Edelgard, even in lending him to Arundel, orders Jeritza to follow certain instructions. Which is why he doesn't care about the orders from the Western Church/TWSITD mage in Ch. 4. And his arc in Part I seems a little more Byleth-focused. He gets intrigued in Byleth after they pick up SotC, then the Flame Emperor prevents him from going all out on Byleth a couple of months later. It seems to me (and his dialogue throughout Ch. 8 would confirm) that he's only really in Remire to try and fight Byleth, rather than to protect Tomas. On Maddening, Tomas takes advantage of that and scurries off after the Death Knight, but the Death Knight doesn't really move to protect him at any point, simply charging forwards. Point being, he does what Edelgard says, but only fights for himself outside of that - if that happens to coincide with someone else's aims then so be it.

42 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Personally, I do actually think that holding compassion for more people is inherently more good. To refuse sympathy and compassion for certain people is dehumanisation and dehumanisation is the root of many of the worst acts ever committed by humanity. I don't think punitive justice, and eye for an eye is good at all, as the motive for it (vengeance) is inherently self-serving and sadistic. To enjoy inflicting suffering upon someone, regardless of what they have done this in my view inherently evil.

But in my mind being good in the first place is very closely tied to having empathy for people, therefore my definition of evil is lack of empathy. Which is closely connected to defining good as altruism and evil as selfishness. Good and evil are such nebulous terms, so it is probably for the best that I define my definition of good and evil. 

Yeah I figured it would be for you, and it's a good thing you stated it like this, because often it comes across (probably unintentionally) that your arguments about a character's goodness are somehow objective, or at least that you expect a majority to agree and weight all these qualities in the same way you do. As long as you're happy that at least some people are going to disagree with you on a fundamental level, and that those kinds of differences won't be resolved by debate, then yeah go wild with knocking Dimitri or whatever.

[Darkmoon6789]

1 hour ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Presumably Edelgard, even in lending him to Arundel, orders Jeritza to follow certain instructions. Which is why he doesn't care about the orders from the Western Church/TWSITD mage in Ch. 4. And his arc in Part I seems a little more Byleth-focused. He gets intrigued in Byleth after they pick up SotC, then the Flame Emperor prevents him from going all out on Byleth a couple of months later. It seems to me (and his dialogue throughout Ch. 8 would confirm) that he's only really in Remire to try and fight Byleth, rather than to protect Tomas. On Maddening, Tomas takes advantage of that and scurries off after the Death Knight, but the Death Knight doesn't really move to protect him at any point, simply charging forwards. Point being, he does what Edelgard says, but only fights for himself outside of that - if that happens to coincide with someone else's aims then so be it.

Yeah I figured it would be for you, and it's a good thing you stated it like this, because often it comes across (probably unintentionally) that your arguments about a character's goodness are somehow objective, or at least that you expect a majority to agree and weight all these qualities in the same way you do. As long as you're happy that at least some people are going to disagree with you on a fundamental level, and that those kinds of differences won't be resolved by debate, then yeah go wild with knocking Dimitri or whatever.

I don't even believe in objective morality, so it would be pretty hard for me to claim that my views are objective. Even if deep down I think every human being believe that they are in the right, I just recognise that everyone probably feels that way about their views. Doesn't mean that my views are any more objective than anyone else's. I don't care if people disagree with me, hearing contrary opinions is kind of the point of even having a debate. As stated previously, my goal isn't really to change everyone's mind as I recognise that is impossible. I participate in debates to increase my own understanding and you can only increase understanding by hearing counterpoints to your arguments. 

I just tend to have a compulsion to correct people when they say something I believe is factually incorrect. But odds are that I have probably made some kind of factual error by some point, as there are a lot of pretty complex characters in this game. 

[Silver-Haired Maiden]

7 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

You do have a point in that a lot of media glorify war, it is just that the military and therefore the government has an incentive to do that as otherwise people would never sign up to be soldiers, not if they understood that in real war, often times it is not a battle of good versus evil, in most cases were consists of battles between two evils. It is only really a question of degrees. I have found after researching World War II that every single nation involved in this war has been responsible for the mass slaughter of civilians. The allies might have been the lesser of two evils, but they are not the heroes they are often portrayed to be. It is highly unlikely that any participant in a war is innocent of war crimes. It is just that it is usually only the loser that gets convicted.

So if I have to ask you. Considering what you said about Dimitri and mental issues. Are you familiar with Azula from Avatar the Last Airbender? I have used similar arguments in defence of her in the past with the argument that she isn't truly responsible for her actions due to the immense level of psychological abuse she suffered from her father and her suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, to the point that she does have hallucinations. 

Glad I could explain things. That last post came after midnight my time so I was a little worried it read like nonsense lol. Also I feel I must apologize, it seems like most people argue instead of debate and they do so with the intent of proving themselves right, so I naturally assume most are doing the same thing. That wasn't your intent and I am sorry for reading that into it.

I can see where you're coming from with her starting to realize just how awful war actually is over the course of the 5 years of war. Being the person in charge of causing so much suffering, even if you do think it's for the good of everyone later, would weigh on anyone that isn't a psychopath with a legitimate incapability of experiencing remorse or sympathy. I have my own problems with Byleth and the way they're presented but basically yeah, they all needed someone there to steer them in the right direction. Perhaps she wouldn't ever go to war again after the end of CF, we can't be sure of that however as all the endings are left rather... ambiguous in many ways. As for the media, it does a lot of very serious topics a disservice by portraying them as pretty solidly one way or the other. Sometimes war is necessary in order to right wrongs or protect people. That doesn't mean it isn't always a horror show to actually experience.

I am very familiar with everyone from A:TLA. Less so from Korra, I stopped watching in season 2 of that one. As for Azula, prior to Mai and Ty Lee's betrayal you can hardly say she was suffering a psychotic break. Her actions before that point were absolutely things you can hold her responsible for as sure she was manipulated, but that doesn't absolve you of personal responsibility. That doesn't mean she couldn't have grown past them with the right support system and help, but unlike Zuko she didn't get that help. After The Boiling Rock and her decaying mental state, I do agree that you can't really hold her responsible for that. The show didn't paint her as being responsible either, it was a sad thing and it took pains to show that. I point  you to Jet who was quite similar to Dimitri but without the psychosis. They met similar fates for a reason. Of course comparing the writing of 3H to A:TLA's writing is like comparing a painting done by me to a painting done by Leonardo DaVinci.... anyway, we're getting off track.

Back to the actual topic at hand, someone I don't see many people mentioning as a possibility of changing sides is Kronya. Yeah she's a murderous psychopath, but imagine if she had lived instead of being immediately boinked by Solon. If she'd managed to escape, it's possible that she would've realized just how little they actually cared for her. I don't see her joining with the heroes, or said heroes accepting her because she's Kronya, but it's entirely possible she'd leave the Agarthans after that.

[haarhaarhaar]

1 hour ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Back to the actual topic at hand, someone I don't see many people mentioning as a possibility of changing sides is Kronya. Yeah she's a murderous psychopath, but imagine if she had lived instead of being immediately boinked by Solon. If she'd managed to escape, it's possible that she would've realized just how little they actually cared for her. I don't see her joining with the heroes, or said heroes accepting her because she's Kronya, but it's entirely possible she'd leave the Agarthans after that

From a practical standpoint, I don't think she would have survived long enough to oppose the Agarthans in any meaningful way. Thales rocking up in Ch.9 seems more like a deus ex machina than anything else, given how his ability to interfere with Divine Pulses isn't brought up again, but I don't see how Thales with those powers lets a relatively high-ranking Agarthan like Kronya survive, when her surviving means not only the potential for Rhea to learn too much about the Agarthans, but her actively failing to perform the role Thales intended for her.

It's also unclear how ideologically sincere the Agarthan characters all are - Kronya may genuinely believe Nabateans and their allies are so trash that she'd do Agarthan things just because, or to get back in Thales' favour.

Edited June 3, 2020 by haarhaarhaar

[vanguard333]

5 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

It does seem to me that Jeritza has no real dedication to any cause, but would more or less fight for anyone as long as they provide an opportunity for him to exercise his combat skills. Which is why he also follows Arundel after Edelgard lends him over to him. Even joining in at Remire village, which happens against Edelgard's orders. 

Yeah, he isn't loyal to a particular cause; he outright says that his loyalty is to Edelgard, not the Adrestian Empire.

But he wouldn't fight for "anyone as long as they provide an opportunity for him to exercise his combat skills". His reason for serving Edelgard is one of feeling he owes her: she found him after he had just killed almost his entire family and had inadvertently created the Death Knight, and she gave him a new identity and found ways to help him control the Death Knight and point the Death Knight at specific targets. He feels that he owes Edelgard his life. Given how the Death Knight behaves around the Western Church and Solon, he seems reluctant; he's working for them because Edelgard told him to do so. 

[Darkmoon6789]

6 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Back to the actual topic at hand, someone I don't see many people mentioning as a possibility of changing sides is Kronya. Yeah she's a murderous psychopath, but imagine if she had lived instead of being immediately boinked by Solon. If she'd managed to escape, it's possible that she would've realized just how little they actually cared for her. I don't see her joining with the heroes, or said heroes accepting her because she's Kronya, but it's entirely possible she'd leave the Agarthans after that.

Kronya is the most likely Agarthan to turn against her kind in my opinion. If she survived Solon's attempt on her life. I could see her holding a grudge against the higher-ups of her people. Byleth would probably not be willing to work with them unless they have a divine level of forgiveness. I am also not certain if Kronya would be willing to work with surface dwellers.  But she might if she is desperate enough for revenge. 

Disregarding any potential personal attachment to Jeralt, Kronya is in my opinion the least evil of the named Agarthans. While she enjoys her job, she is just an assassin, and I do feel bad for her when she is betrayed by Solon. Makes me wonder if the girl was truly evil, or just made that way from being raised in a brainwashing cult.

I have actually invented a character called Kaira for my role-playing game set in Fodlan. Kaira is a clone of Kronya, who was initially sent to Enbarr as a spy. But upon learning the truth of who really killed her sister she turns against her own people  and helps Edelgard and the other surface dwellers from the shadows. I guess this is more or less what we could expect from a redeemed Kronya. 

[omegaxis1]

17 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

You can think Dimitri isn't fit to be a leader all you want. I don't really see a point in arguing that one because it's all down to what you think is a good leader. However if you think someone during a psychotic break can be controlled by a superior officer then you have another thing coming. Now Gilbert and Rodrigue and that whole culture is an entirely different can of worms, loyalty to your King/Prince should also include knowing when to step in and stop them. That one is entirely on them and their misplaced sense of duty. I personally think a lot more people should have spoken up against Dimitri, not that I think it would've done much good. But at least they could claim they tried, jeez xD

Yeah, I totally agree with that. More people should have tried. Frankly, it's upsetting how despite Felix saying that he called it when Dimitri loses it, no one is willing to really try and calm him down. No one is trying to make him see that there are other things at hand. Which is why I have issues with Dimitri's redemption. 

17 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

As for the thing about the others, Dimitri is the only one stated to have been in battles like that (of the house leaders) before the game starts. Claude has never been in battles quelling rebellions that he states so we can't assume either way. And yes, Edelgard experiences some really traumatic shit, but the insurrection and experiments are not the same thing as killing people on a field of war. An actual war magnifies that by magnitudes. It's that sort of thing multiplied by the number of soldiers and the countries fighting. So no, Edelgard genuinely had no idea. Edelgard may not have wanted the war but that does not absolve her of the responsibility of starting it. One thing I feel these games, none of them, do accurately is portray just how bad war is. To be fair none of them have the appropriate rating to do so. But Edelgard is idealistic and frankly naive, so while she can claim she accepts the responsibility of the blood at her feet, she does not understand the suffering that the blood she spilled entails. Hubert understands much better than she does in my opinion.

To an extent, I agree, but I also think that trying to label war as just one horrible and ugly thing is also the wrong way to understand it. Yes, war brings about death and suffering. Everyone knows that. But Dimitri never thinks about WHY people fight wars to begin with. For someone that talks about how there should be a mutual concession, he never tries to see anything beyond the ugliness of death in wars. 

Edelgard didn't start a war and the bloodshed because she had malicious intent. She does it because it's the only way for things to finally change and make a difference. 

Dimitri's view on war is because of how he sees death as something that is utterly meaningless. If someone dies, there is nothing to it. It's ugly, end of story. It's what we see in how he talks of Glenn's death to Ingrid. You can also see it in Lonato's chapter. He sees that his fight was fruitless, pointless, and they all died meaningless deaths. Edelgard, on the other hand, sees them as people that fought for what they believed in, even if it meant giving their lives for it, and is something that should be respected. 

But the thing is, death isn't always meaningless. How the people take those deaths is what gives death meaning.

Edelgard and her soldiers died fighting for their beliefs in Silver Snow that made Seteth realize that he was wrong about what he believed about Edelgard, that she was not evil at all. Even if history says that Edelgard was wrong in non-CF routes, there are many people that would view her as a good person and believe that she was right, even if she lost. It's similar to why Nemesis and the Elites were seen as heroes to humanity, even though they lost. Rhea just altered things to make them "fallen heroes".

[Darkmoon6789]

36 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Yeah, I totally agree with that. More people should have tried. Frankly, it's upsetting how despite Felix saying that he called it when Dimitri loses it, no one is willing to really try and calm him down. No one is trying to make him see that there are other things at hand. Which is why I have issues with Dimitri's redemption. 

To an extent, I agree, but I also think that trying to label war as just one horrible and ugly thing is also the wrong way to understand it. Yes, war brings about death and suffering. Everyone knows that. But Dimitri never thinks about WHY people fight wars to begin with. For someone that talks about how there should be a mutual concession, he never tries to see anything beyond the ugliness of death in wars. 

Edelgard didn't start a war and the bloodshed because she had malicious intent. She does it because it's the only way for things to finally change and make a difference. 

Dimitri's view on war is because of how he sees death as something that is utterly meaningless. If someone dies, there is nothing to it. It's ugly, end of story. It's what we see in how he talks of Glenn's death to Ingrid. You can also see it in Lonato's chapter. He sees that his fight was fruitless, pointless, and they all died meaningless deaths. Edelgard, on the other hand, sees them as people that fought for what they believed in, even if it meant giving their lives for it, and is something that should be respected. 

But the thing is, death isn't always meaningless. How the people take those deaths is what gives death meaning.

Edelgard and her soldiers died fighting for their beliefs in Silver Snow that made Seteth realize that he was wrong about what he believed about Edelgard, that she was not evil at all. Even if history says that Edelgard was wrong in non-CF routes, there are many people that would view her as a good person and believe that she was right, even if she lost. It's similar to why Nemesis and the Elites were seen as heroes to humanity, even though they lost. Rhea just altered things to make them "fallen heroes".

I think you hit the nail on the head of why Edelgard inspires hope in me, with how she sees meaning to suffering and death and respect sacrifice. We all know that death is inevitable, but to see someone so boldly embrace dying for the sake of others, and the meaning it grants that sacrifice, it gives meaning to the inevitable death. 

Also, I am glad that Seteth eventually realises the truth about Edelgard. Silver Snow is the only route I haven't played yet.

 

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I think you hit the nail on the head of why Edelgard inspires hope in me, with how she sees meaning to suffering and death and respect sacrifice. We all know that death is inevitable, but to see someone so boldly embrace dying for the sake of others, and the meaning it grants that sacrifice, it gives meaning to the inevitable death. 

Also, I am glad that Seteth eventually realises the truth about Edelgard. Silver Snow is the only route I haven't played yet.

Of course, bear in mind that not everyone would see hope in death. Suffering after a loss is something horrible, and many would never see that the death is meaningful. Some people would rather not have to deal with the pain of loss. Just because death is inevitable doesn't mean that people would take it well when it happens. 

After all, a LOT of bad guys do tend to go with the speech of "sacrifice for the greater good" and such in many stories, justifying evil as good. Plenty of people would see Edelgard giving meaning in the deaths in a war she started as petty excuses to justify herself, no different from the bad guys. It's wrong to see Edelgard as no different from those villains, but people would make the comparison. 

[Darkmoon6789]

4 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Of course, bear in mind that not everyone would see hope in death. Suffering after a loss is something horrible, and many would never see that the death is meaningful. Some people would rather not have to deal with the pain of loss. Just because death is inevitable doesn't mean that people would take it well when it happens. 

After all, a LOT of bad guys do tend to go with the speech of "sacrifice for the greater good" and such in many stories, justifying evil as good. Plenty of people would see Edelgard giving meaning in the deaths in a war she started as petty excuses to justify herself, no different from the bad guys. It's wrong to see Edelgard as no different from those villains, but people would make the comparison. 

I guess this would depend on if these people truly believe they are doing the right thing or they are just lying to her followers for personal gain. Or if their actions truly are necessary for the greater good. 

Yet I would think if someone has good intentions but is mistaken, they are a misguided hero, not a villain. I think there is a distinction as the misguided hero lacks malevolence

[omegaxis1]

7 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I guess this would depend on if these people truly believe they are doing the right thing or they are just lying to her followers for personal gain. Or if their actions truly are necessary for the greater good. 

Yet I would think if someone has good intentions but is mistaken, they are a misguided hero, not a villain. I think there is a distinction as the misguided hero lacks malevolence

Exactly. Not everyone fought the war for the best of intentions. Some did it to hold power, others out of fear of the power that was winning the war, and others did it because they genuinely doing it for the good of the war. 

I completely agree that if a hero is genuinely trying to do the right thing, with no real malicious intent behind it, but still doing something that is wrong overall, they are at worst misguided, but not a villain. 

[Darkmoon6789]

5 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Exactly. Not everyone fought the war for the best of intentions. Some did it to hold power, others out of fear of the power that was winning the war, and others did it because they genuinely doing it for the good of the war. 

I completely agree that if a hero is genuinely trying to do the right thing, with no real malicious intent behind it, but still doing something that is wrong overall, they are at worst misguided, but not a villain. 

I do think the worst Edelgard could be in my opinion, is a misguided hero, even if she is wrong about the war being worth it, she still doesn't have malicious intent. If people claim that she does I think we are seeing things that aren't there

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I do think the worst Edelgard could be in my opinion, is a misguided hero, even if she is wrong about the war being worth it, she still doesn't have malicious intent. If people claim that she does I think we are seeing things that aren't there

It's cause people know different things. Players know more than what characters would. Because they know the "whole" truth, or see various endings, they immediately begin to misinterpret things. 

Take Sylvain's solo ending, where through oration alone, he was able to stop people from relying on Crests and made peace with Srengs. People see that and try and insist that it proves that this would have happened even if she didn't start her war. But this only happens after a war did. Before the war, Sylvain was nothing more than a shameless flirt that was doing it just to make break their hearts cause he sees them as vile people only after him for his status or Crest.

Hanneman's ending, where he creates magical tools that don't require Crests, but ignore that those tools resemble the Agarthan weapons like Indra's Arrow, which are available on every route, meaning that Agarthan tech fall into Hanneman's hands and only thanks to the war that his research produced such results. 

People see VW and Rhea explaining the truth about Nemesis and such, and when hearing what Edelgard knows about the the War of Heroes in Chapter 14 of CF, they start making assumptions that Edelgard was fed false info and that the Agarthans were behind that, even though there's no evidence that the Agarthans had anything to do with the story. That and the whole "simple dispute" thing really annoys them. 

Rhea in non-CF routes talks about how she wants Byleth to take over in Chapter 12, and steps down after Part 2, but they ignore how Rhea admits that she only ever saw Byleth as a vessel during Part 1, even in Chapter 12, not because of Byleth the person. Five years of imprisonment later, and Rhea realizes how she messed up.

Overall, players simply hear and learn things more, and simply forget the nuances and circumstances of the information.

[Darkmoon6789]

6 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

It's cause people know different things. Players know more than what characters would. Because they know the "whole" truth, or see various endings, they immediately begin to misinterpret things. 

Take Sylvain's solo ending, where through oration alone, he was able to stop people from relying on Crests and made peace with Srengs. People see that and try and insist that it proves that this would have happened even if she didn't start her war. But this only happens after a war did. Before the war, Sylvain was nothing more than a shameless flirt that was doing it just to make break their hearts cause he sees them as vile people only after him for his status or Crest.

Hanneman's ending, where he creates magical tools that don't require Crests, but ignore that those tools resemble the Agarthan weapons like Indra's Arrow, which are available on every route, meaning that Agarthan tech fall into Hanneman's hands and only thanks to the war that his research produced such results. 

People see VW and Rhea explaining the truth about Nemesis and such, and when hearing what Edelgard knows about the the War of Heroes in Chapter 14 of CF, they start making assumptions that Edelgard was fed false info and that the Agarthans were behind that, even though there's no evidence that the Agarthans had anything to do with the story. That and the whole "simple dispute" thing really annoys them. 

Rhea in non-CF routes talks about how she wants Byleth to take over in Chapter 12, and steps down after Part 2, but they ignore how Rhea admits that she only ever saw Byleth as a vessel during Part 1, even in Chapter 12, not because of Byleth the person. Five years of imprisonment later, and Rhea realizes how she messed up.

Overall, players simply hear and learn things more, and simply forget the nuances and circumstances of the information.

Good to know that Edelgard being one of the only girls that Sylvain doesn't hit on might actually be a good thing for her. 

[omegaxis1]

1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Good to know that Edelgard being one of the only girls that Sylvain doesn't hit on might actually be a good thing for her. 

Sylvain would never hit on her because she's already an heiress. She's already a noble that has it all. So ironically, Sylvain actually hold no hate toward her as he would other girls. 

But frankly, had they did have a support, I imagine Edelgard would be the only one that would acutally call out Sylvain's scummy nature.