[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

3 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

The only way she could help Fodlan without starting a war is if she first managed to deal with Thales and his organisation, something I don't think she could do alone at the point in time the war started. Her only real alternative would be to turn to Rhea for help and hope she is more understanding after explaining Thales was behind everything. I don't know how high the chances of this happening actually is after the Flame Emperor reveal. She is otherwise under real pressure from the Slitherers start the war. 

Byleth in crimson flower actually serves primarily as an emotional support for Edelgard, but that is actually vital as this Edelgard does become a lot less ruthless as a result. I am guessing she refuses to use the Slitherers out of principle in this case .

Maybe Hubert's actions do reflect on her reputation, but ultimately she isn't technically culpable. Not any more culpable than she is for the tragedy of Duskur just because Thales claims it was done to her benefit. Edelgard has been loudly condemning that action even to his face. I also really doubt it was beneficial to Edelgard because of what it did to Dimitri.

But in the end, maybe we should just agree on that. The circumstances in this game are very complicated and things aren't that black-and-white. Edelgard isn't all innocent or all guilty, the answer is somewhere in between. She is somewhat culpable for the slitherers actions due to the alliance, but not fully responsible, as a lot of these actions isn't something she really wants. 

I am willing to overlook a lot of Edelgard's less ideal actions because I do know she has good intentions, and that she can be better than she often comes across. In the end. Edelgard's rule isn't all that bad for the people in general, most of the problems exist only during the war. And I do have to give credit for successfully reforming the system and making something better, as well as getting rid of the slitherers, even if the game isn't very clear how exactly that was accomplished. 

The hilarious thing is Rhea actually hates the Agarthans so Edelgard would have had help if she actually sought help. Up until Edelgard tried to raid the tomb, Rhea actually did like Edelgard. Claude also similarly expresses disappointment that Edelgard didn't think to ask for help, and Dimitri's support with Hapi just seems to mock her unwillingness to ask him for help as he offers it to a total stranger when she tells him about what the Slithers have done to innocent people. Edelgard was legitimately in a position where she was surrounded by potential allies but she refused to step out of her comfort.

That's just it though, Edelgard doesn't just need emotional support she needs a person who will challenge her to step out of her comfort zone. Who will look at her willingness to sacrifice innocent lives and question whether or not there was a more peaceful method and question her on why she doesn't seek it out. A person who treats her like the flawed teenager that she is.  Because Byleth may be emotional support but Byleth doesn't do this for Edelgard. Because Byleth in CF doesn't understand the situation themselves and so doesn't know that they should question her actions. Ferdinand is no good as he puts Edelgard on a pedestal and doesn't even starts to do it when it's far too late. 

I think that that's the problem that I have with Edelgard is that she's very much a means justify the ends character but in this case they really don't since there were literally mutual means of reaching the end the only thing she would have to do is accept that she can't personally be in control of everything. Which isn't a loss in my book. If one teenage girl stepping out of her comfort zone can make the world a better place with no sacrifices then she will just have to put up with being uncomfortable. If she truly wants to make the world a better place then sacrificing some potential control and comfort should be nothing. 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

29 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Hubert's advice to ally with the Slitherers is pretty rational. Reform for Fodlan and not revenge on the crazy mole people is first on the agenda for Edelgard. They ally with the slitherers because they can't defeat the church and the other two nations with just the empire. In Crimson flower Hubert's advice to use the Slitherers until their use is up and then betrays them pays off with Edelgard defeating all her enemies, Fodlandian and mole people alike. Even in the other routes Edelgard would likely have defeated the Slitherers if she had won the war. 

Morally the mole people are worse than the church but Edelgard doesn't just want to crush evil but also reform Fodlan to a form she considers better. Defeating the church and unifying the continent are much more important steps to that then defeating some insane mole people. 

The crazy mole people are a part of the reason why Fodlan wasn't able to reform sooner. Hubert's advice that Edelgard use the Slithers until she depletes their numbers isn't something that Edelgard does in CF, the only route where this is done is actually AM, ironically enough. In other routes she's the one who was used and in CF she doesn't use them at all. In fact, nothing is stopping the Slithers from just nuking Enbar if she gets too uppity. Hubert's plan was risky and just required that Edelgard play with fire. She could have still helped Fodlan without starting a war. The only reason why Edelgard "needed" the Slithers was just because she wanted to conquer Fodlan and didn't think that diplomacy was an option. 

@Darkmoon6789More like Hubert was lucky that the Slithers just didn't decide to nuke Enbar or use suberfudge to ensure her compliance for some reason. 

I actually think of CF Byleth is a non-entity in terms of helping Edelgard reign simply because CF is the most ignorant of the 4 Byleths. And what's ti stop Hubert from hiding things from Byleth as well?

Unfortunately, Hubert is still using Edelgard's authority to do these things so his actions do reflect on her regardless of whether or not she's aware of them. The actions that he performs in her name reflect on her regardless of whether or not she's aware id them. Ignorance is not an excuse. 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

17 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Addressing the whole Hubert thing, he is always suspect. He frequently disobeys direct orders from Edelgard to show mercy if he believes that doing otherwise is in her best interest. 

Hubert is coldly rational but lacks empathy, he is however frequently right in his assertions. While he can ultimately be blamed for Edelgard's alliance with the Slitherers has Edelgard originally refused until she was convinced to accept by Hubert. What is even worse is that I actually find humorous logic to be flawless, doesn't make sense for Edelgard to go against the Slitherers at this point, doing so after the war is the superior tactical decision. Just another case of Hubert valuing Edelgard's life above any other. He realised the danger she would be in if she went against them, and he is completely correct about that. Hubert also frequently does things in secret without Edelgard's knowledge. I initially assumed him to be evil and a bad influence on Edelgard, but lately I am not so sure, however cold his perspective is it often makes sense.

Hubert will always be a problem when one is evaluating Edelgard's worth as a leader as no matter what there are always things problems that she never has to evualte because Hubert seems it to be beneath her. It doesn't help that he enables her worst traits.

I wouldn't say that Hubert is a rational person or even say that he's right in his assertions if anything he's very irrational and his assertions are very wrong. Edelgard's beliefs that she shouldn't side with the Slithers was actually correct, as the Agarthans were far worse than the church, and were the ones with the actual god complex. Even worse, Rhea was the only one who stood a chance against the Agarthans' nukes, and Rhea, Claude, and Dimitri (as proven his support with Hapi)would have helped her out if she had actually gone to them. Despite projecting himself as pragmatic Hubert is far from such. Especially after Cindered Shadows I can't help but see Hubert's advice to Edelgard as laughably bad. The pragmatic choice would be to get rid of the people who had undermined the emperor's before, the Agarthans aren't just an Empire problem they're a Fodlan problem. Heck there's no guarantee that they won't just oust Edelgard from power even if she does ally with them. 

35 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Also, my understanding the Hyrm doesn't happen at all in crimson flower. 

It might still be happening. Ferdinand's paralogue was originally meant to be accessible in CF as well, you just weren't allowed to bring along Edelgard and Hubert. And Hanneman still says that Slithers are still doing their experiments are are still the Imperial army. Edelgard just isn't using them in her own personal army and I think that Duke Arundel is still in charge of Hyrm even in CF.

44 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

While the conquest can easily make people in universe believe Edelgard is a tyrant, I do not think that make it so. She is just too good a ruler to possibly be considered tyrannical. She just kind of suffers from some bad PR due to her unfortunate alliance with the Agarthans, which however unfortunate it is does make tactical sense. Still think it reflects well on Edelgard that she hates having to tolerate these people until the war is over, I can tell how much that bothers her in almost every scene they are in.

History is written by the winners. It doesn't matter how well of a leader Edelgard might think she is or how the Empire portrays her. One man's messiah may be another man's tyrant. Especially in this case when we actually do know she or rather Hubert does deal with dissenters. And that Edelgard might not be privy to that because Hubert tends to go behind her back. 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

52 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Whatever her flaws Edelgard is definitely not a tyrant. Even the families that tortured her family to death get away with their existence. Some people get killed or locked up but Ferdinand still becomes her prime minister if he doesn't defect and despite him being in on the plot Edelgard seems to foster very good relations with count Bergliez. Not exactly the acts of a tyrant.

As a whole Edelgard seems to be pretty benevolent for a conquering emperor. The widespread atrocities that other conquering nations such as Bern, Daein and Dohlr engage in are noticeably absent in the Adrestian empire. Even if you don't side with the empire we don't get word on them sacking towns or engaging in other war crimes. The war seems pretty clean aside from the crazy mole people. 

Actually I believe that a lot of belief that Edelgard is a tyrant comes from the fact that she still forcefully took control of the continent and by conquering other countries  that had neither the want nor need of her to be their leader and then forced them under subjucation. It ultimately doesn't matter what self righteous reason she did it, she still subjugated the continent.  Also some of Hubert's endings are suspect.

Edelgard doesn't blame the other family members for the problems since they don't know about the Insurrection of Seven. Edelgard's war crimes basically amount to her allowing the Slithers to do as they pleased with the people of Hyrm. Also Hubert.

8 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Thanks, I had been searching for the reason Sophis did that. Currently on my second playthrough (guess what I played first) with the golden deer and I haven't reached the point I can access that library yet. 

It was actually revealed in Cindered Shadows, from a book that from the perspective of the Agarthans. It refers to Sothis as a false god, but hilariously enough it's hard not to be understanding of why Sothis felt the need to get rid of the Agarthans after they joyfully recount about how they annihilated 4 other continents.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

1 hour ago, Licoriceallsorts said:

I agree with what you say about Edelgard, DarkMoon.

I'd go further and say that even Thales and the Agarthans have some justified grievances. However, their chosen methods of seeking redress put them beyond the pale. 

If the Agarthans of Seiro's time had no problems with human experimentation and large scale sacrifice of lives for questionable ends, then it seems Seiros/Rhea were and are right to oppose them with everything she's got. Unfortunately, her methods turn out to be questionable too. 

If we judge them only by their motives and objectives, each lord's cause is a good one - except Dimitri while he's in insane mode. If we judge them by their methods, all of them are in the wrong to some extent. Do the ends justify the means? Kant would say no. 

Actually one of the books in CS reveals that Sothis was the one who destroyed the Agarthans, and why she did it.

Spoiler

Sothis annihilated the Agarthans did so to protect the rest of humanity from the Agarthans. The Agarthans thought of themselves as gods and so actually destroyed other continents for not worshiping them. In order to stop them Sothis had to destroy them. They had zero problems will murdering entire continents of innocent people, but Sothis couldn't stand for it.

 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

1 minute ago, Crysta said:

The evidence doesn't matter if it's so clearly untrue, and it is.

The Western Church was attempting to get rid of Rhea. If they preached isolation and xenophobia somewhere (I don't recall them ever doing so in game), it's not far removed from what Rhea was espousing, anyway.

The dialogue in the cutscene and in the support conversation literally says it was the Church.

You seem to be confusing what the people know from what the player knows. The majority of nobles and commoners who took part in Duscar don't know about why it happened. As far as they knew the Duscanrans killed their king after they extended a hand in friendship.

Rhea actually never preached about isolation, she actually didn't believe in it, it's a part of the reason behind why they hated her and wanted her gone. Also they do mention it a few times as one of their gripes with the Central Church.

Actually it doesn't. It just says that he was executed.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

7 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Intelligent, yes, being informed is less... certain. Doesn't Ferninand suggest establishing a formal education system, as though it was some novel idea lol?

A big thread in that chapter is also how incensed the noble characters are at the idea of Lonato bringing the citizenry into his crusade against the church, which suggests he is indeed an exception from what is normally expected from noble behavior. You're right that the militia DOES seem to follow him out of devotion, though. Edelgard is alright with it because, well, you know... that's how she leads.

Just not gonna bet that every Kingdom noble is like Lonato. I don't think House Rowe is known for their loyalty or generosity?

Except, both Slyvain, Felix and Ingrid, do put their people first. Felix even considered it an insult when his father didn't say that he fought his hardest for the people. And from the way how Slyvain speaks about the territory it's obvious that his own hatred for nobles that shirk their duties to the people, it's clear that it's jsut Fearghus's culture that the nobles care for the people. The Faerghus nobles were only upset that Lonato dragged in the commoners into his campaign.

@Darkmoon6789That's actually a good point, we should keep in mind that when Edelgard speaks of nobility, she's only really talking about the Empire. As they're the only group tht she really has a frame of reference for.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

1 minute ago, Crysta said:

No, you're bringing it up to bolster your own and I'm not caring for it. Sorry.

Commoners are irrelevant. We're talking about the conduct of the nobility. Well, I always was, anyway.

Just like how you brought up Duscar in an vain attempt to bolster you're own argument, but sorry I'm not buying it. As it was point out to you from another user, the Kingdom commoners and nobility were both of one mind, just because you wish to ignore it, it doesn't make it any less true.

3 minutes ago, Crysta said:

They weren't enemies: Lambert was about to make them allies. That's probably why some of the nobility wasn't so keen on him and plotted with the Slitherers.

Edelgard in that scene doesn't change the dialogue much at all. And yes I have. It isn't even the only time they make it very clear that Cristoph was executed by the Church: Ashe x Catherine's support chain also establishes it was the Church.

Actually , as far as the Kindom was concerned they weren't allies either. Lambert dying in Duscar and the knights finding evidence of Duscar's involvement when they found Dimitri there was a part of the reason for their beliefs. The Western church preached about isolation and xennophobia, which is why they hated Rhea, but how much of this was Slither influence is unknown. Dimitri imprisons those nobles anyway, so we don't know much about them after that.

Actually it doesn't, because the Central Church didn't know about the Western Church being behind the plot to assassinate Rhea. It never mentions who executed Christophe actually. I'm only pointing out that it was likely the Kingdom due to Rhea not making a move against the Western church until they attempt to assassinate her.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

Just now, Crysta said:

I'm not so sure about this. As is typical with feudal governments, the society is set up in such a way where they're conditioned to defer to the nobility, presumably in exchange for protection and out of tradition. I'd expect the same amount of grousing you find anywhere else when they get drawn into the conflict... unless they're going on a crusade like Lonato was lol. Also I think those Western Church buggers are from the Kingdom.

Except Personal opinion is a thing, even if people are brought up to defer to the nobility, if their way of life isn't very good, then they likely will be dissatisfied. The Alliance is a great example, the people are brought up to defer to nobility, but they don't personally like or respect them. The Kingdom commoners though actually like their nobility since unlike the other two countries the nobility of the kingdom considers it not just a tradition but a sworn duty to protect and defend the commoners. If the commoners don't have enough to eat then the nobility will do what they can to make it so that they have enough food. In CF the people were willing to turn into crest beasts just to defend their king, that should tell you how loyal they are to their nobiliity, and the nobility considered it an insult that people didn't put the  people first.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

3 minutes ago, Crysta said:

We're not arguing about the commoners. I'm not ignoring it: there is no reason to even bring them up.

Except they are, since th argument was about how the kingdom sees the situation. You're ignoring it, because it doesn't help your point. But the commoners weren't innocent of this. You're ignoring it but the commoners of the Kingdom love their kings to a ridiculous degree. That is Faerghus's culture, it wasn't just the nobles it was the commoners as well.

4 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Then that is a very convenient, narrow perspective you have there.

I'm arguing that they're trash, too. Because they are. A social caste which spearheads the genocide of their neighbors is not a social caste I would, in any fashion, want to defend - let alone say they're better than the Empire nobility because Edelgard bad.

You took that tack, and I countered.

Except the point from the start was about how the Kingdom treats it's own people, not about how it treats its enemies. You're trying to include how the Kingdom treats it's enemies into an argument where it's actually irrelevant. Like I said above it wasn't just the nobles who participated in the genocide it was the commoners as well. I'm saying that the Kingdom nobles are better due to the fact that they treat their own people fairly, which is why they inspire loyalty from the commoners, versus the nobles who are cruel to their own people.

You're just moving goal posts, but it's not helping your argument, since the Empire nobles still oppress their own people.

11 minutes ago, Crysta said:

No. It wasn't.

It was, did you even do Asche's and Catherine's paralogue? Edelgard is actually the worst person to quote here, considering how little she actually knows about the Kingdom.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

2 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

So, the one that specifically mentions she succeeded in creating a free and independent society for all. She does eventually retire here, but she was apparently such a good leader that I don't think it really matters. I think the only reason it took so long is that reforming the entire system was a time-consuming process. I have a hard time imagining a better leader than Edelgard anyway.

At the very least, I do view this as absolute confirmation that Edelgard is not a tyrant, she values freedom and independence among her citizens. I guess it is also not very clear what later years is really referring to, could also just be referring to her later years as Emperor. It could possibly has been a better way to reach this result, but when it comes to the result itself. I think it is pretty inarguable that she did well. 

I think that the tyrant bit comes from her conquering other nations, and forcing them under her rule, and also some of Hubert's endings doesn't paint a pretty picture. It's kind of like how Dimitri criticized her by pointing out that if she truly wanted to fix the empire then she should have done so and not dragged Fodlan into a war by attempting to conquer it. And that she was just being self righteous in thinking that she knew better than anyone else.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

1 minute ago, Crysta said:

The commoners joining in is irrelevant. We're talking about the nobility, who hold the sway.

You have to make a giant leap in logic to think an entire race is responsible for the death of their monarch. They just don't care. Trash, in other words. Are you arguing that only oppression against their own people counts?

The church influence is more saturated in the kingdom, btw. It isn't called the Holy Kingdom for nothing. Catherine makes it clear the church stepped in and took over law enforcement in the aftermath of that massacre, which included the execution of Cristoph.

Except, the commoners held the same view as well and came to the same conclusion as the nobles, but yeah, yeah sure let's conveniently ignore that fact.

Considering how we are talking about the oppression of people within Fodlan and how the Kingdom treats its own people, yes, it is the only thing that counts. Or are you also arguing that that the doesn't deserve to be a sovereign state because of what it did to Mercedes's and Constantine's families, or to Brigid, or heck what Edelgard's mother did to the Kingdom? Or what the Empire allowed to happen to Hyrm.

Except the execution of Christophe was done by the Kingdom's nobles, to hide the fact that he tried to murder a foreign dignitary. The fact that they lost their stability is why the Kingdom had to rely on the church.

Just now, Darkmoon6789 said:

It is the ending I got however, so screw it. I think it is kind of silly try to figure out some average version of events based on the number of endings, leading to a certain event, in a game with multiple timelines like this, you need to specify a version and stick to it. Crimson flower Edelgard is straight up not the same Edelgard as in Azure Moon. 

I think the fact that so many people have so many different interpretations of events is more than enough proof of how grey this entire conflict really is. Sure, we can all pretend that our interpretation is the only correct one, but that would be dishonest. 

I am only stating my interpretation of events, which is indeed coloured by how strong my feelings are for Edelgard. But affection like this exists at a far deeper level than just attraction, I saw something deep within the soul of this character that is truly beautiful. Even if I did. I agree that Edelgard was entirely the wrong, I still would find the idea of her being hurt as a consequence distasteful. Especially for a barbaric idea of justice. 

What about this for honesty, none of our perspectives is more valid than the other. We asked all happen to believe in our own way of thinking.

.

They're the same Edelgard, the Edelgard that you see in all of the routes is the same. What alters your view of her is the fact that you no longer see things from her perspective. The truth is no longer hidden from you. The differences in characterization come from the difference in their circumstances and Byleth's effect on them. For Dimitri Byleth makes him  look forward towards the future, For Claude Byleth gives him friendship and the truth that even he denied himself, for Edelgard Byleth makes her open up a little bit.

I feel as though if you really like a character then you should like them for who they are, flaws and all. I like Claude and Dimitri but I'm not afraid of admitting that Claude was an arrogant know it all prior to learning the truth who was also way more obtuse than he needed to be. While Dimitri was also an hypocrite who was too afraid to speak out when it was necessary and too afraid of pursuing his own goals.

The sad thing about Edelgard, is that she wouldn't stop wanting to achieve her own ends so long as she was alive, Dimitri has a scene where he begs her to stop and she doesn't. And Byleth isn't really equipped in CF to truly help her

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

5 minutes ago, Crysta said:

You didn't say it, but you're clearly implying it's less bad and the Kingdom nobility is less keen on oppression.

Which is hilariously incorrect.

Actually, what I said was correct, and the fact you legitimately had to ignore the fact that both the nobles and the commoners alike blamed Duscar for the assassination of their king and the destabilization of their nation, after their king was killed in Duscar with many other high ranking nobles says a lot. You are literally arguing that a nation is oppressive because they stroke back against a foreign entity that they believed wronged them. You aren't arguing about how they treat their own people, you're basing your view on how they treat their enemies. Which is hilariously incorrect.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

13 minutes ago, Crysta said:

You do realize that it's clearly not true, it didn't really matter, and actually resulted in the death of the previous king?

"But genocide is justified if you think an entire race of people is responsible" is quite the take, though.

I never said that it was justified, only that it happened because the Kingdom was lead to believe that Duscar, a foreign country was responsible for the assassination of their king and several high ranking nobles, in addition to the destabilization of their country. They had no way of knowing that Thales was behind it. Also you do realize that the tragedy happened in Duscar right? They didn't blame them for no reason.

 

15 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

She she does, however, step down in ending with Byleth, which I would argue is the most important ending due to being the only one with an animated cutscene. Even in the endings she doesn't step down. She still does a really good job as Emperor, one of the best ones are being where she marries Ferdinand. 

Edelgard also went through great effort in order to reshape the Empire and get rid of the corrupt nobles, she needs absolutely no help with this. By the way, the problem I have with kingdom is just how much influence the church has over it, pretty much it doesn't allow for religious freedom. And a feudal society where people their rulers is still a feudal society. But I guess I can make the same argument with Edelgard in that just because people are like their emperor doesn't mean she isn't an absolute monarch. 

Oh and the Tragedy of Duskur thing, even if that is technically the fourth of Thales. It is kind of ridiculous how many scapegoats are blamed for this incident, there is literally several layers of false culprits

You're being dishonest again. That isn't her only ending, and if you have to ignore other parts of the game to suit your narrative then there is a problem with your logic. As she still doesn't always step down, contrary to what she says.

The church had no more influence over the Kingdom than it had over the Empire. Rhea actually has zero political power in the Kingdom and they at best only used her as a symbol of unification but she kept a hands off approach to the nations. In fact, the reason for Christophe's execution was because the Kingdom found out that he was effectively trying to assassinate a foreign dignitary of an allied Nation. Actually, now that I think about it, the only problem with the Kingdom was the Western Church starting trouble, but then again even that was because of the Slithers infiltrating it.

I know, but as far as the Kingdom knew the Duscarans were behind the assassination. The Kingdom had no way of knowing that the Thales was behind everything. And it was the commoners who blamed the Duscar since tragedy happened in Duscar.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

4 minutes ago, Crysta said:

You do realize that the nobility of the Kingdom has overseen a genocide, right?

You do realize that this happened because they though that Duscar was behind their king's assassination right?

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

11 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I can.have this thing that I don't recognise the sovereignity of nations that oppresses their citizens, in my mind. Nationality is far less important than the quality of life for the average individual. This is more true of the kingdom of than the alliance, but I have noticed quite a bit of infighting between alliance nobles, but it really gives the impression that war is going on constantly anyway, without or with Edelgard. Primarily referring to the conflict between Lorenz and Acheron, but it is really treated like it is an everyday occurrence. 

Things of that kind of makes me think that Edelgard probably should occupy this place just to stop this nonsense. The alliance might not have a king, but the political squabbling is between the nobles is really killing the nation. 

Edit. Also, Edelgard's tea time conversations do also mention that she plans to step down

Except, the Kingdom doesn't oppress it's citizens, just the opposite really. The Kingdom is the only country where the people actually like the nobles who rule over them. The Kingdom's problem as pointed out by Slyvain was simply the fact that it needed a strong Monarch, which is why they wanted Dimitri to give up on his revenge and to take up the throne as quickly as possible. Heck the Alliance, their problem is the nobles infighting, not the oppression. The oppression is mostly a problem in the Empire's nobles. In fact, by this logic, the Empire shouldn't be recognized as a sovereign nation because it regularly oppresses it's people, and Edelgard should allow Claude and Dimitri to occupy the nation in order to stop the nobles.

And Edelgard doesn't step down in most of her endings.

@CrystaGonreil and Gautier don't mind loaning their weapons to their heirs so that they can get the hang of using them. In the case of Gautier he wants Slyvain to accept his responsibility as the his heir. And yeah they don't mind loaning their weapons to their heirs since they still have their crests to give them a boost in battle anyway.

The nobility isn't concerned with religion, it's pointed out by both Ferdinand, and Lorenz in their supports that the nobles don't care, and heck in CF, Lorenz takes it a step further and points out that if the nobles show that they care for the religion it's only to make them look good in the eyes of the people. Also you speak of me not paying attention but then ignore the fact, that Claude's whole point is how little he actually understands Fodlan until he speaks with Rhea. Heck he really only agrees with Edelgard until he speaks with Rhea because he doesn't understand Fodlan. This is the same guy that honestly thought that people would accept him simply because he had a crest. The archbishop crowing the emperor is simply just tradition, she holds no power in the empire. Case in point the Southern church was kicked out and Rhea couldn't do anything about it.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

15 minutes ago, Crysta said:

There are several points in the story and in supports where they make it clear just how far the nobility is willing to go to acquire a crest in their bloodline, whether it's adopting people, taking several consorts to up the chances of conceiving a child with a crest, marrying daughters off to unsavory men, or unsavory men contemplating marrying their stepdaughters. You remember Miklan, right?

If you don't think the dominant world religion sanctioning Crests and calling them gifts from the goddess is significant, I don't know what to tell you. You're clearly playing a different game and reading a different story than the one they're trying to tell.

Except if you actually spoke with Slyvain, you know Miklan's brother you find out that house Gautier values crests because of the strength that they give their weilder on the battlefield. In fact Dimitri points out that this is true for the kingdom in general as they are under constant attack from their neighboring countries. The same might actually hold true for the Alliance as well, as they have the same problems with their neighbors. The only area where this isn't true is the Empire, because they don't have to deal with as many attacks.

It's not significant, because the nobles ultimately don't care about religion, but they do care about how useful crests actually are. Because crests do actually make people stronger on the battlefield which offers more opportunities to building a good rapport.

 

@Crystaboth of my statements are correct. Edelgard rules over all of Fodlan, as she intended to do from the very start, but she only steps down in two endings.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

1 minute ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

She is under the impression that she alone can fix Fodlan, yes, but she really isn't intending to be the one to rule it. She plans on attending the Imperial royal line and stepping down, giving power to a successor. She isn't perfect by any means, but she does truly believe that that what she does is right. One of Edelgard's primary weaknesses is that she always chooses to be the one who carries the burden to fix the entire world. Her alliance with the Agarthans is actually just another piece of evidence that she puts her desire for revenge second to success in reforming the system.

She is aware that they are dangerous, yes, but not the full extent, she doesn't know the full extent of their power until after the javalin of light is used on Arianrhod. For all their technology and dark magic, the Agarthans lack any real numbers and is mostly a shadowy network with lots of influence, which is very difficult to fight due to being hard to track down every member. But I can also understand how they could be perceived as a secondary threat, compared to one that controls the entire continent.

That is blatantly false because, she was planning on ruling the united Fodlan from the start, and she does rule it in all of her endings. She only steps in some of her endings, not all of them, so applying that to her character as whole is simply dishonest (she only steps down in 2 of her endings). Heck even when she does step down she does so when she's an old woman, when she's decided to retire. She steps down on her terms. Edelgard is changing things not just because she thinks its for the good of others but also for herself.

The simple fact that they can undermine the leaders of two different countries and completely mess up the infrastructure of the both countries should have set off warning signs in her head, if she was taught to think that way. What they can do in terms of suberfudge is far more dangerous than a dying religion fighting to stay relevant.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

23 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I agree with the ignorance bit, but how is wanting to help out the world at the cost of even your own life in any way selfish? She could have just ignored all of this and lived a peaceful life, but she doesn't because she is convinced that the current system is causing suffering every day, and she wants that suffering to end. How is anyone supposed to know how dangerous the Agarthans are without access to the information that Rhea is hoarding in any case? Ignorance is a direct result of keeping knowledge from the public and the war is therefore a consequence of the truth not being well-known. 

It is also worth addressing that it alerts system in crimson flower does indeed work, but maybe because Byleth and the rest influenced her to scale back are more radical ideas a bit. It is also important to note that Ferdinand does actually frequently disagree with her in this route and Edelgard is always respectful about these disagreements and actually listens to his advice.

This type of criticism is probably what Edelgard in other routes is missing however. A good ruler needs good advisors. 

Except there is selfishness in her belief that she and she alone is worthy of ruling Fodlan, there is selfishness in her refusal to accept the Leicaster Alliance and the Kingdom of  Faerghus are sovereign nations literally hundreds of years after they gained their independence. We have to also recogize the fact that Edelgard did in fact take her revenge on the nobles that were responsible for her and her siblings' capture, as well as the fact that a part of Edelgard's problem with those who worship the goddess is that she blames the goddess for her plight. Edelgard isn't altruistic by any stretch of the imagination. Also Edelgard was in the perfect position to know that the Agarthans were dangerous considering that she knows that the Agarths were the ones that allowed the Insurrection of Seven to be the success that it was, they were also the ones that were able to kidnap, kill, and then impersonate a foreign dignitary and then also kill a foreign king. Those acts have red flags all over them, and if Edelgard was truly a careful leader she wouldn't have needed the nukes to be able to tell that the Agarthans were the bigger threat. For that matter, Rhea doesn't even know that they're still around so she's a not even in this equation. 

Actually, even in CF Edelgard isn't really surrounded people who are critical of her, as even Ferdinand tends to lick her boots, and Byleth in CF doesn't know anything or even realize that she needs to be criticized. In other routes you are aware that Edelgard needs to be criticized, but in CF you aren't made aware of that.

@CrystaActually now that I think about it, have we ever seen the nobles argue that the crests makes them better than others because they were given to them by the goddess? There are a lot of noble houses that actually don't have crests in all parts of Fodlan. In fact, we're told the opposite, that the nobles don't really care about the holy significance of the crests at all. It's not just the Agarthans of why I claim that Edelgard isn't a good leader, it's a part of the problem,  but not the full thing. It's her lack of communication skills, her inability to actually consider diplomacy as a viable option before acting. The fact that she prioritizes an enemy that can and does undermine her over an enemy that doesn't didn't even protest when they lost influence in her country, the fact that she lets the Slithers use her own people as experiments, and yes she does this even in CF. The fact that she expends her own forces in CF, VW, and SS instead of making the Slithers use up their own, etc.

 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

17 hours ago, Jotari said:

Honestly I think Edelgard is a bit of an idiot who is being massively manipulated by the Agarthans. Her train of logic is "I was tortured by the North Korean Government. Therefore all Governments are evil. Therefore I should ally myself with the North Koreans to take down the American Government." The fact that we're meant to believe she manages to beat the Agrathans in the proceeding secret war I find incredulous when every move she's made has been to their benefit and they've been playing this game of espionage far longer than her (and have freaking nukes and murder machine Nemesis to back them up). And even if she manages to succeed her meritocracy would likely become very corrupt very quickly because that's generally how meritocracies go (especially when they're founded on the premise of one individual seizing absolute political power #inssurectionOfTheSevenDidNothingWrong). But that's just Three Houses for you. Claude solving all racism in a month is massively unrealistic too and Dimitri's ending is so vague and disconnected from the main thrust of his narrative that I don't even bloody know what it means politically. Honestly I have a lot of issues with Three Houses just in general. It's a massive step up from Awakening and Fates in terms of plot and writing, but it's also massively more ambitious than those two games so it's flaws become much more glaring.

TL;DR: I think Edelgard isn't an overtly evil person (well not super anyway, continuing to permit the use of Crest Monsters after what she went through is super shady and this happens even in Crimson Flower), but she is very naive and misguided. I also reckon she gets a lot of undue sympathy by being female (and attractive). If she literally looked like Ashnard (whom she is identical to politically) more people would view her as an outright villain.

Honestly Edelgard's problem comes from a combination of ignorance, selfishness, and also the fact that she was never meant to be a leader. She had many siblings before her and was already unlikely to take the throne, and  the Insurrection of Seven guaranteed that she'd just be a figurehead leading in name only. So they never bothered to teach her how to be a leader. She grew up looking at her father being a shadow of his former self because of him losing power but then not realizing that it was a result of his tyranny. She grew up being told that the Leicaster Alliance and the Kingdom of Faerghus aren't real countries and that the church is responsible for separating them from the Empire and she believed it, having no way of knowing differently and no interest in other perspectives. So she never realizes that the Agarthans are far more dangerous than the church could ever be, because she wasn't really taught to think that way, nor is she surrounded with people who she is completely open with from the start that will give her constructive criticism, or is brutally honest with her, as even Byleth can't criticize her, nor is Byleth given any information to realize that Edelgard needs to be criticized.

Though Claude and Dimitri though I disagree that they solve everything in their routes, as in the case of Dimitri he points out that change needs to happen gradually in order for it to truly be effective and also in order to not leave society vulnerable. So Dimitri only introduces a small change that will allow for bigger reforms down the line. Yeah he does solve a lot of problems but it takes him dedicating his life to it for it to really start. A part of Claude development is him realizing that change can't happen overnight, that rushing in and doing things just doesn't work and that forcing change when the world isn't ready for it can cause more harm than good. Just like Dimitri he spends the rest of his life working for change. He makes progress but things don't change overnight. But both men do get rid of the Slithers which was standing in the way of reforms.

On 2/22/2020 at 10:16 PM, omegaxis1 said:

No, in her death. Sothis was dead. There was no prophecy that she would return. That was all Rhea. The most we can presume is "Sothis" told Rhea to "save humanity", but nothing in that was about how Sothis was return. Rhea wanted Sothis to return, so she experimented on reviving her. 

Which is again, just Rhea acting out of her own selfish desires. Nothing about being a devout believer as opposed to using religion to make people believe what she wants them to believe. 

Actually it's mentioned a few times by different characters that Sothis was very much capable of reviving and has done so in the past. That's why they recognize Byleth as her incarnation despite not knowing that Rhea implanted Sothis's crest stone in Byleth. And also there is unused data for a playable Sothis that mentions her new body. So it seems that she was originally meant to revive.

As for your second point, consider Rhea's siblings and how they helped out humanity without expecting anything in return even after humanity killed their brethren, and how they did so until they eventually lost faith in humanity. In addition Cindered Shadows offered some credence to Rhea's statement and also gave the additional context to it since timeline wise

Spoiler

Sothis would have said this before or after she flooded the world to save humanity from the Agarthans who had nuked the other continents because they wanted people to worship as gods. And they would have therefore have been Sothis's last words to Rhea and her children.

 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

16 minutes ago, Axel987 said:

I mean as much as I like Rhea(which I do a fucking lot. She's a great character with so much more potential that goes unexplored because she's a goddamn mcguffin most of the time in part 2);

• She's the one that came up with the mythos with regards to the Crests being blessings from the Goddess. Yes, she is not the one who made these people nobles but their claim to power is inherently steeped in her religion's dogma. As revealed in CS; Rhea only persecuted the 10 Elites themselves, their families were entirely cleared but she hunted the Elites down with unyielding wrath.
• While she herself does not promote Xenophobia and Racism, she's complicit in allowing it to go on instead of cracking down on it. People from Almyra, Dagda etc are treated as demons in Fodlan and people abuse them endlessly.
• She allows the blatant abuse of power done by nobles such as Count Gloucester and others.
• Slows down the progression of human advancement.

And arguably more. Edelgard prosecutes her for THAT, and she's completely right to even if you may not agree with what she does following that.

Also that post is lowkey shit-stirry in a thread that had actual mutual respect and good discussion going on. Why do that. I have my own misgivings about her actions but this certainly isn't the thread to discuss that and shit on her.

I've often seen people use this reasoning but it always falls flat when you actually consider the characters responses in the game.

• The nobles don't care about the mythos about the crests or the religious dogma. In fact, many of the nobles with crests got their position through actual military prowess or by assisting their state in some form.  They're not attached to crests because of religion, rather they value them because they are useful. It's much easier to think of crests as like family talent or specialty. Some people have it and some don't, but the ones that do are valuable to the family. They are valued because they are useful tools. Dimitri actually brings this up as a point, and it's something that Edelgard doesn't consider. Also Rhea wasn't alone when she hunted down the 10 Elites as Willheim was right their helping her willingly and gaining from it. There's also the fact that Rhea likely hid the truth in order to protect the rest of her family, for fear that they'd be hunted. And it's sad that Edelgard jusitifies her fear.
• Rhea is just one person. She doesn't rule over the church with an iron fist, ironically enough. She can't force people to change their minds about their neighbors, especially when those opinions come from their negative experiences. Cyril actually points this out to Claude, that part of the reason why Fodlani people don't trust Almyrans is because the Almyrans attack them for fun.
• Rhea has no control over the nobles, the most she can do is take away their relics when they lose their crests but that's it. She doesn't and can't control them, instead it's the other way around, they control the church through money. The church relies on donations survive and to help continue it's charity work. It's actually the leaders who control the nobles not the church. The empire nobles running wild is the fault of Inoius and his predecessors.  Especially, Ionius because his tyranny is what caused the insurrection of Seven.
• And this is something that is debunked, since Manuela performs an autopsy on Jeralt,  Slyvain talks bout book publishing, and Edelgard brings up the astronomers.  Heck the church funds Hanneman's research that will make crests and relics obsolete so that alone, destroys the argument.

Edelgard doesn't persecute Rhea for things that she does, but rather for things that she perceives as wrong. She persecutes Rhea without applying objectivity and pragmatism to her reasoning. The criticism that she lobs at Rhea is criticism that she should be lobbing at her own ancestors. But she doesn't do so, she doesn't acknowledge that humans are already in control of their own destinies.

[Choose Your Legends Round 4 Official Discussion Thread!]

I'm actually going to vote for FRobin because she's the only my unit in the game that isn't in the regular summoning pool, and her winning CYL is the only way to force IS to actually put her in the pool. 

[What Is *SPOILERS* Rationale For Hating The Church?]

32 minutes ago, Hardric62 said:

 

And all of them happen after the war. And after Rhea's own poliies about things like 'Keeping the people of Fodlan from reaching a level similar to the Agarthans', and Hanneman's studies would be a big first step forward in that direction. He wouldn't have been allowed to go that far. How is the only question left.

And Church route and alive Rhea got served the humble pie about her failings while ruling Fodlan and the methods used, hard. And my problem is that she never did anything to correct that perversion while she was the archbishop with that nice school, and an army. Or was failing so hard it is the same. And the lance... Well, just watch her reaction if you say 'no' at that moment. And while 'tolerant', she was still pressing the issue enough that Sylvain deems it was a narrow thing that they didn't lose the damn thing. Someone who keeps coming back after 'no' isn't that tolerant.

And yet, once again, despite the moral authority and the fact they are the one teaching Fodlan's elite in Garreg March, she never uses that to correct the nobility's views on Crests. She is the archbishop, all she had to do was to condamn these abuses before they became system-wide and doing so stopped being a real possibility without alienating the entire ruling class she is cooperating with to rule Fodlan.

Of course they are only able to proceed with achieving their goals after the war. They are  soldiers, basically generals and were needed to fight on the front lines of the battlefield. And it's not as though they could have completed their goals while fighting either the war took up all of their attention. You're seeing a false positive, the war happened and things changed so therefore the war must have brought about the change but  again this is false. Because the characters were already working to make changes before the war started. They were only able to realize their goals after the war because they were soldiers fighting in said war and therefore could not pursue their desired reforms. The war was a deterrent not a cause. Besides that what Rhea wanted them to do was to not repeat the actions of the Agarthans. It is Edelgard whom holds the belief that Rhea is holding back humanity,  but Edelgard's perspective isn't trustworthy, because it's based on lies.

 

You're assuming that Rhea can do anything to make the continent better but the simple fact that she hates the crest so much and yet couldn't  take them back is proof alone that she isn't nearly as influential as Edelgard makes her out to be. And this isn't the only example of Rhea's limitations either. The fact that Slyvain's family could keep the crest weapons away from her shows another one of her limitations, the nobles can choose not to listen and they don't always do so. Why she keeps trying to get them back should be obvious because they are the desecrated bodies of her family. 

 

Heck going down further into the rabbit hole the nobles aren't her responsibility because she didn't give them their positions. The one who did that were the rulers of the Adestrian Empire, aka Edelgard's ancestors. And then of the leaders of society to fix, which they do. You're expecting the person who doesn't even own the horse to lead it to water and force it to drink. 

[What Is *SPOILERS* Rationale For Hating The Church?]

21 minutes ago, Hardric62 said:

Hanneman... It has been 1000 years. Let's say I find really doubtful he is the first person seeking and able to revolution things on the Crests front (eh, it doesn't have to end badly for him. Some people had to construct these Golems for Rhea, right?).

 

Thing is, the Church is also radically altered compared to the pre-war one, and Rhea isn't in charge anymore after that. Let's say it's the problem of indulgences being a perversion of the principle behind confession in catholicism, which was one of the factors leading to protestantism. If the Church begins to step back on some points of doctrin, it hurts its own credibility, leading people to question more parts of it, further weakening its power. Of course, it can also not budge, which led to resentment then violence...

 

Hanneman's ending says that he succeeds so there's no room to question how successful he'll be. 

 

Actually even in the church route when Rhea is still the Archbishop she doesn't stop the changes. Rhea never supported the doctrine about crests being all important to society. Or rather it was never a part of the church's doctrine in the first place, humans just perverted her words because of they found them useful. She also didn't do anything to Sylvain's family when that refused to give her the Crest weapons. So she's way more tolerant than first impressions imply.

Rhea herself hates the crests but she can't get rid of them. The church never supported that doctrine, but what the church and Rhea did support was the uplifting of the lower classes. You find this out if you have Claude support with Cyril, but Rhea regularly takes care of the poor and tries to find ways to better their lives. In fact, that's her ending in the Church route.

The war didn't change her mind, she always thought this. This is also true for Claude, Dimitri, Slyvain, Lorenz, and Hanneman who were also thinking of ways to reform the society before Edelgard's war. The war didn't change their minds, it just acted as a detour for their goals. 

[What Is *SPOILERS* Rationale For Hating The Church?]

36 minutes ago, Nihilem said:

I think that is a major point in why the church acts how it does. Speaking for the whole lying thing etc. Considering that their bones are literraly magic batteries it is probably a good idea to make the masses believe that these nice magical weapons came from the godess.... it would be quite bad for them if humans started to think where these weapons came from .... and if you can craft more of them.....

Then they'd kill the last survivors of her brethren to get more super weapons and crests.

 

Something to also consider fact that she also hired Hanneman the guy whose Crest research could completely change their value in society. And she effectively funds his research and gives him the best environment for his research too. In reality Rhea's lies and Nemesis and the true origin of the crests don't matter when it comes to reforming society.

 

Bringing up Slyvain again his ending is that he changes society so that the nobles no longer treat the crests as all important. And he does so regardless of whether or not he learns the truth of the crests, and regardless of whether, or nor Rhea is dead, or the church is still around. I honestly don't think that the church really matters as Edelgard claims it does.