[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

3 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

A friend of mine actually looks up at quite a few references to Sothis, and there's a connection to Sothis to Tiamat in Babylonia myths, which find of steers the idea that Sothis is neither benevolent nor malevolent. In fact, the Nabateans worship Sothis as a god, but the Agarthans have their own beliefs. Their own gods, in fact. 

So if these random creatures came and said that Sothis was a god, that's basically pushing their beliefs onto the Agarthans. The huge draconic creatures telling them that their beliefs are wrong and Sothis is the true god.

That does seem consistent with Rhea's behaviour in later ages. The old gods of the Agarthans is another thing I know absolutely nothing about. But it does seem like Thales is some kind of high priest for his people, so he obviously had a lot of faith in whatever their religion is. 

I also did look up the origin of the name Rhea quite a while back, it is apparently from Greek mythology, Rhea is actually the wife of Kronos and the mother of Zeus. Not sure how that is relevant to this character, but that seems to be where the name comes from.

Edelgard is a Germanic name simply meaning "noble protector", so very good connotations with that name. Hresvelg is a reference to Hresvelger, a giant in Norse mythology who had the power to turn into an eagle. Makes sense with the eagle on the imperial regalia

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

29 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

This is false. Read the dialogue better.

  Hide contents

 

It's the Agarthans THINKING that Sohis would destroy them, not that she WOULD destroy them. Not to mention that the Agarthans that wrote that text never ONCE thought themselves as gods, but rather just calling Sothis the False God. In fact, the Agarthans refer to themselves as the "children of man" which is the exact opposite of what one that consider themselves gods would refer to themselves. In other words, no, what Rhea claimed about them thinking themselves as gods is false.

Likely the Agarthans wished to return the world to the "children of man", ie. humans, which Rhea simply takes as them thinking themselves as gods. Either way, what you said about them is blatantly false.

 

@Darkmoon6789

Here's a link to the contents of the library books from the Abyss:

  Hide contents

https://imgur.com/a/IbluWTg

 

Thanks, will read that once I have time. I have been kind of wondering for a while now which of these two factions technically struck first. Could be either as all sources we have on this are incredibly biased.
 

Spoiler

I wonder what Sothis did to be considered a threat

 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

18 minutes ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

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 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 True Tragedy of Three Houses]

8 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. 

One thing I have to give Hubert credit for is that his plan does end working and he is instrumental in the destruction of the Slitherers after the war. Edelgard most likely couldn't have done this without him.

But it is also good that Edelgard got Byleth as a second advisor, he/she is quite good at balancing out Hubert as he is often times too pragmatic. Byleth helps Edelgard stay in touch with her emotions and Hubert pushes her in a more cold and calculating direction.

I don't really approve of Hubert silencing the dissenters without Edelgard's approval, but I can't blame this on Edelgard as she has no knowledge of this. This is entirely on Hubert. unless, some dissenters are slitherers in which case, screw them, they do need to die.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

3 minutes ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

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.

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.

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.

While I am uncertain if I would consider Hubert evil, he's definitely worse than Edelgard.

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

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.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

2 minutes ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

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

  Hide contents

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.

 

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. 

I was thinking that Sophis didn't seem like the type to commit genocide for no reason based on our interactions with her. 

39 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. 

Many of the reasons I kind of admire Edelgard, she isn't your typical conqueror. This is actually another reason why I find her alliance with the Agarthians so regrettable, a pretty much ruined what would otherwise be a pretty clean war. It Edelgard could get rid of them. She should, but it didn't seem to be a realistic possibility. 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

14 minutes 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. 

And utilitarianism would say maybe... It depends. The debate between Kantian moral philosophy and utilitarian moral philosophy is quite interesting and I can see some valid points in both camps, even if I do know where I stand. 

I think it is quite telling with the Agarthans that even someone willing to go as far as Edelgard think we are going too far. The wiki on Edelgard actually states that her primary problem with them is their disregard for civilian casualties. They do in a way represent a level of by any means necessary that even Edelgard wouldn't stoop to. So they are a clear line where Edelgard is moral limit is. She might be allied with them, but she is still going to make it clear that she isn't approving of their actions, it is kind of interesting that Edelgard went as far as actually showing up after Remire village to try and clarify things for Byleth and Jeralt. Quite a bit of risk, but apparently it was really important to her for them to know that the Flame Emperor didn't approve of his course of action.

The Agarthans to my understanding is all about revenge at any cost, I am not even certain if they have any plans of rebuilding society at all. And I think I've made myself clear what I think about revenge as a motivation, I think it is a destructive principle that leads to a cycle of violence and is pretty much never justified. 

This game really made me think when it comes to the contrast between motivations and actions when it comes to morality and made me reach some personal conclusions. One of them being that you can't judge a person by their actions alone, motivation is quite important and even a person responsible for terrible atrocities might not be a monster. I think it is ultimately important to recognise that people like Edelgard, Dimitri and Rhea are ultimately flawed human beings with good intentions (mostly), and neither in my opinion really deserves to be crucified for their supposed crimes. Nobody is perfect and nobody really deserves to be defined by their past when they can contribute to a better future. Basically, I don't care what Edelgard did during the war, it is who she becomes afterwards that really matters. 

To embrace the mentality that people need to suffer because their misdeeds is to embrace sadism and prioritise selfish satisfaction at the cost of even more bloodshed. This is after all what motivates the Agarthans. Vengeance is a satisfying primal instinct, but it is ultimately primal, uncivilized and selfish.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

3 minutes ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

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.

I think we all know that the Western church is probably under the influence of Cornelia considering that their base of operation is Arianrhod. I do have this idea that the Agarthans deliberately spread discontent throughout the continent as their objective was to start a war against the church, the more people they could manipulate into attacking Rhea the better. It could be argued that Edelgard is just another victim of their machinations. I would actually argue that the reason they assassinated King Lambert was because his reforms would counteract their plan of starting a continental war by spreading discontent against the church.

If you really think about it, looking at Edelgard's life. It is pretty obvious why she has the opinion she has about the nobility. Her father was ousted from power very early on in her life, she was basically forced to flee to a different country. While Edelgard did stay for a time in Faerghus . It doesn't seem that the current Edelgard remembers much from this time as I think what happened after must have overshadowed it. Unless I am mistaken, she was held captive by Thales for about six years, but that is an interpretation I made from her in game biography that states that the gap between her return to the Empire from Faerghus and are showing up at the monastery was six years. 

Edelgard quite literally spent the majority of her life, witnessing the subjugation and murder of her family by corrupted nobles, and she was imprisoned and essentially tortured for several years, it's six years is correct a significant portion of her life. The nobles of the Empire has essentially always been a presence in ruining her life, so there is little wonder she has such hatred for the whole nobility system. Who wouldn't after going through all of this?

I guess it is possible to view Edelgard as a well-meaning puppet who thinks she is doing the right thing, but is doing exactly what Thales wants to do that with Byleth's help somehow managed to break free of her strings and establishing herself as a quite decent ruler of the whole continent. I consider Thales the real villain, not Edelgard or Rhea. Even if I do have significant problems with Rhea, she like Edelgard have good intentions. Rhea also makes most of their mistakes due to past trauma.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

5 minutes ago, Licoriceallsorts said:

Random peasants can still be intelligent and informed, have opinions, and choose courses of action. Lord Lenato's peasants fought for him as militia - in the Ambush in the Mist chapter all the students are distressed at having to fight ordinary people, fathers and sons, rather than professional soldiers. It's clear that they fought for him out of love, loyalty, and belief in the justice of his cause.

We don't see a lot of ordinary Faerghus people aside from this militia, and Ashe, and all of them come across as extremely loyal to their lords, which suggests that the lords were on the whole decent rulers rather than oppressive. Unless you want to argue thayt Lenato is somehow an exception? The Faerghus nobility have a very strong ethic of chivalry, sacrifice and service, which might explain their popularity among the people.  Nothing in the game suggests that the nobility were unpopular in Faerghus, and nothing suggests that people born into the nobility think of themselves as somehow a different order of being compared to the people they serve - unlike, say, Lorenz or Ferdinand. 

It is also totally possible that Edelgard's view of nobility was highly shaped just by how awful much of the Empire nobility was, it is what she would be directly exposed to after all. 

One thing I am getting out of this conversation is that just like real life, politics, the situation is such a mess that it is nearly impossible to point out any objective evidence to anyone being entirely in the right or wrong. Everyone is basically awful and good in some manner or another. Things get really difficult when the people actually like a system I consider oppressive and wouldn't want to live under, so it is very hard to resist the temptation of pushing your will and to others thinking you were helping them in this sort of cases.

But I also think there is peace and evidence that the Empire under Edelgard is quite a lot better than the Empire was before Edelgard, whenever the are talking about the rule of the insurgents or her father and even most of the previous emperors. The Empire conquered territory such as Dagda and Brigid in the past, but Edelgard doesn't seem to have any trouble respecting their independence. 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

20 minutes ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

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.

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

If Byleth has affected her 

then, that does mean that that Edelgard is different than the one who hasn't been affected by Byleth. They are like alternate timeline versions of themselves, ultimately the same person, but they go in different directions. I just don't think it makes much sense to hold the Edelgard in crimson flowers responsible for actions she only do in azure moon, which, yes, I actually have seen people doing even if I haven't seen that here. 

I don't deny floors at all, I love them as well. But in my view she is if anything overly idealistic and self-sacrificing. Edelgard pretty much never indulges herself in anything even as simple as sweets while she feels that there is still work to be done. She has real trouble opening up to people as she has major trust issues. Which makes her assume diplomacy is doomed before she even tried. While she is willing to sacrifice the lives of others, these are mostly people who also believe in her course and is willing to die for it, and she makes no exception towards herself, for better or worse. It is actually her stubborn belief in the righteousness of dying for a good cause that makes her so insistent on dying in any route she doesn't win. I kind of wish she wouldn't do this, but is still needs to respect her desire to die an honourable death. It does make sense, if you're willing to have others die for your course, you should be willing to do the same.

This is also without even mentioning her huge problems dealing with her past trauma, she has constant nightmares and suffer from several phobias due to her experiences. Primarily her phobia for rats, chains and imprisonment, as well as a loss of control in general. All of this makes Edelgard very human in my eyes, it is just that in my view, most of the "evil" Edelgard does isn't because of malicious intent. But simply a mistake due to her personal flaws. I do think that Edelgard's general good nature should be recognised despite all of this. Her humanity and good intentions makes her very much deserving of mercy and forgiveness. Regardless of her actions.

About the tyrant thing as well, maybe some people would view her as that because of the conquests. I don't think that makes it true. In the end life under Edelgard wouldn't be that bad and I hope the people would realise that. They could even be massive improvements in the quality of life of the average citizen under her rule. Which could be argued as a factor that could legitimise the entire conquest as short-term death and bloodshed might save lives in the long run. It is important to look at this from the big picture, rather than just the short term. I will admit actions could be a mistake, but I don't know that for certain given the information I have been given, things do turn out rather fine in the end. 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

6 minutes ago, Crysta said:

The lord solo endings are probably the most trustworthy baseline you're gonna get. It's what happens without the dressing.

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. 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

2 minutes ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

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.

 

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.

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.

.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

Just now, Crysta said:

They did it because they were the easiest scapegoat.

The Kingdom nobility is trash lmao

Everyone's nobility sucks.

♪Hail the mighty Edelgard, though red blood stains her story…♪
Heavy as her crown may be, she will lead us all to glory… To a brighter dawn, we shall carry on… Hail Edelgard!♪

What wouldn't I give to actually see that Opera play out. I kind of wonder how Edelgard's story would be depicted in this future. Probably some kind of idealised version while Edelgard feels guilt watching the events unfolding on stage. I always kind of seen Edelgard as struggling with massive guilt after the war. 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

2 minutes ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

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

Still not a good excuse for genocide against an entire people. I am actually not sure why they went with such drastic measures or who is fault that really was. But it was probably Thales somehow. I just know that it sure as hell wasn't Edelgard

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

2 minutes ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

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.

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

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

6 minutes ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

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.

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

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

8 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 you. 

I keep hearing the claim that Edelgard is being wrong, that the crests are responsible a lot, but I think a lot of people just don't understand why she is so opposed to that system. In fact, the further I have gotten into the other routes, the more it is starting to become clear just how many people has suffered under that system. Quite a number of people should just join Edelgard really. That would fix a lot of their problems. Sylvain, Marianne, Lysithea, three people on the top of my head that have suffered because of crests.  In fact, so many people agree about this that sometimes I wonder why there is any conflict at all. Of course, the most messed up example of all when it comes to crest abuse is Edelgard and her siblings.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

4 minutes ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

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.

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.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

4 minutes ago, Earth Worm Jim said:

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.

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

  Hide contents

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.

 

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. 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

17 hours ago, Jotari said:

You keep on responding to me as if you think I am a supporter of Rhea. I'm not. She's a figure of authoritarian control that is manipulating the entire continent and likely strangling any attempts of progress beyond the rigid rules she has defined but doesn't seem fit to follow herself. She, while nicer than the Agarthans about it, has committed numerous horrid human experimentations. When I respond to you I am not saying "Edelgard is wrong and Rhea is right!" I'm saying "I think that perception of events is an inaccurate way of looking at the situation

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.

Sorry if I am coming across that way. 

I have participated in way too many Edelgard versus Rhea topics on Gamefaqs, you can easily get into a sort of pattern. Some people are really unfair to Edelgard, which might have resulted in the habit of mine to defend Edelgard every chance I get. I find great entertainment in that, it kind of feels like sticking up for someone you have a strong attachment to. 

We don't actually view Edelgard all that differently, not everything she does is necessarily perfect, or even all that good, but everything she does is ultimately towards a noble purpose. I wouldn't consider her an idiot, but she is definitely a bit of a Agarthan puppet, poor girl, they basically made her to serve a particular role which she has trouble breaking out of since. I have two dominant emotions about Edelgard, the first is admiration for her drive and goals, the second is sympathy for going through so many awful things. 

I heard it suggested that a possible reason for Edelgard wanting to die in the most routes is that she can't handle the guilt of all of those sacrifices being for nothing. She is a good girl at heart, which is what makes all of this bloodshed so painful to her.

[My Thoughts on Crimson Flower (1st Playthrough)]

20 minutes ago, NolanBaumgartner said:

Thanks for the correction on the use of DK/Jeritza. Although I'm not sure how much "better" that is. Edelgard evidently knows better than anyone how messed TWSITD are, and how mentally crippled Jeritza is. When trying to explain the decision to other people it seems impossible to not share culpability on what TWSITD had Jeritza do. 

Which segways into her speech after Jeralt's death. My first impression was exactly as you said - Edelgard trying to get Byleth back on their feet with harsh but fair observations. But then I thought the CEO comparison was better because Edelgard is after all, partially complicit for Jeralt's death by collaborating with TWSITD (and though never explicitly stated, likely deflecting suspicion from "Monica" by overtly socializing with her). It does bother me a lot that Edelgard never acknowledges, let alone take some responsibility for the harm caused to Byleth by TWSITD as she otherwise is extremely aware of the indirect consequences of her actions. The speech per se isn't out of character, but that Edelgard's own degree of involvement is never brought up by either Edelgard or Byleth seem to me like a story writing gap. 

Well, the speach happened before the reveal, so she couldn't really say anything incriminating. Byleth never really brought up her role in Jeralts death either. I can understabnd Byleth forgiving Edelgard as Byleth cares about Edelgard as well as don't want to see her get hurt

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

1 hour ago, omegaxis1 said:

Though in the other routes, when she's more alone, Edelgard ultimately is not able to perform the type of admirable actions as she does in CF.

Maybe so, but CF Edelgard is my girl and this is even more reasonI feel like Byleth needs to join her. Byleth is key to making her a great person

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

2 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

Yeah, in her reality, Sothis should be the one to rule and everything she does is under the goddess's justification. But the problem is that she THINKS that she's working under Sothis's will, and anyone that would say that she's wrong are completely heretical. It's when the Western Church paralogue happened and when they accuse Rhea of being the apostate and that the goddess with them, Rhea immediately snaps at them, saying that the goddess is with her. It's a case of where she believes that she is 100% right because she's deluded herself into believing that all her actions are under the will of Sothis.

This is why in the JP version, Rhea constantly says the goddess in practically every sentence she's in. 

The thing that makes me admire Edelgard is how she doesn't see the the people in charge as the main source of the problem, but looks at the system. She's looking at the bigger picture. Hence why she realizes that even if she gets rid of these nobles, that won't stop future generations from suffering the exact same thing she had suffered. 

Hence why she wants to destroy the current system. 

Which is very much true. The system is inherently corrupt, running by worth being determined by blood or Crest, when someone's worth should be determined by far more than that. 

Yeah, though she wants to vomit at how she's got to work with her tormenters, she's putting aside her issues with them because, again, she's focusing on the big picture. With her short life and Rhea's eternal life, Edelgard sees a huge problem with how the world will continue to remain stagnant if things don't change. She needs to have to world change, else the sacrifices made by the people before will have been for nothing. 

And that is one of many things I think is very admirable with Edelgard. 

Another thing worth mentioning is that most of the people who die for her cause want to do that, she usually allows those who want to leave her service to do so as was the case with the garreg mach students. She just inspires alot of loyalty from people

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

30 minutes ago, Licoriceallsorts said:

I would definitely read that story. Your take sounds psychologically realistic and interesting. 

Thanks, I hope it will be able to pull this story off satisfactorily. It was part of a story concept to cover the time period of Edelgard's shadow war against Thales.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

3 minutes ago, Licoriceallsorts said:

I agree. To put it simplistically, Claude has a heart but is ruled by his head; Dimitri isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and is ruled by his heart; Edelgard thinks she's ruled by her head but is actually ruled by her heart. 

Dimitri's desire to do right by people is so intense it's almost painful. I feel that for him, "people" means individuals, whereas for Edelgard "people" means the collective everyone. 

(Sorry if what I'm posting sounds obvious; I'm still working out my thoughts on this game, and using this thread as a sounding board.)

That is an interesting way of putting it, the way I would describe Edelgard as a person is someone who hides her emotions behind a facade of cold logic. But I don't think this facade of hers is genuine, she has shown to feel very strongly about a lot of things. Regardless of thinking herself as a cold decision-maker who does what is necessary, her actions are ultimately motivated by a strong sense of empathy and a desire to make sure that no one ever has to suffer under the crest system,like she has. She ultimately cannot accept the suffering that exists in the world and will do her best to end it. The result being a person that is capable of rationalising horrible actions as being necessary, while simultaneously feeling awful about everything she does and therefore suppressing her sense of empathy beneath a cold facade of logic, even if her decisions are still based on said empathy, but as you say, it is empathy for the collective rather than the individual. Am I making any sense? 

I do imagine however that once the fervour of the war has died down, because Edelgard has in suppressing her emotional side to get the war over with, I think that her certainty about her actions will shatter once the war is over. Leading to the weight of her decisions hitting her all at once, she will start second guessing decisions she made and wonder if she did the right thing. Edelgard is ultimately a good person who cares about others, I think that ultimately all this bloodshed would affect her and that she would start to develop feelings of guilt and remorse. I actually have a story idea set after the ending of crimson flower dealing with exactly this. Edelgard coping with the war, and her actions in it. Leading to the message that the past is the past, whenever your actions were right or wrong, you cannot take them back now, the only thing you can do is move forward and try your best to be a good person in the future.