[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

14 minutes ago, kamineko said:

This has been a fun thread to read.

I get why people always bring up Edelgard. Byleth has close familial ties to the monastery, and she's involved in a conspiracy that leads to the protagonist's father's death. No, she didn't want it that way, but I think in most countries, once you enter into a conspiracy, you share culpability for outcomes.

The death of Jeralt is a "loud" thing that makes an impression on first-time players. There's even different monastery music for the month. Continuing to work with her shitty uncle and TWSID was a decision. Maybe necessary to achieve her objectives, but not necessary. It's an end to a means.

Like I said, these choices are all kind of "loud" and invite discussion (perhaps too much, but I think the designers intended this).  I think these events and others make it possible to overlook how flawed Dimitri and Claude are. As the OP states, they cannot escape their pasts or circumstances, not fully. They, like Edelgard, either forgo or bungle diplomacy when tens of thousands (almost certainly more) of lives are at stake. They are all equally flawed and could have spared countless lives if they had been better listeners.

I agree that Three Houses is a tragedy. I get confused by the many posts arguing for which lord is the better person. They all make bad decisions and only succeed because the protagonist chose them.

That isn't to say I don't like the characters, I do. I even have a favorite. But OP did a good job of distilling a lot of my thoughts on the subject.

Fair enough, I would actually argue that all three lords are actually rather good people, despite the mistakes they make. I know I talk about Edelgard a lot, but I love this character and I enjoy talking about her. 

The thing with Edelgard and her working with her uncle, yes it is technically a decision, but the people ever think about what the consequences would be for her if she rejected those who slither in the dark? Edelgard has been under their thumb, but for most of her existence, Arundel an almost like a abusive stepfather, considering he treated her quite badly while she was still a small powerless child, he has been a presence in her life for a very long time. If she tried to break away from him at this time, it is very much possible she will quickly find herself with a knife in the back from assassins. 

As for the thing with Jeralt, I see it like this: Edelgard might the allied with the slitherers, but they are still a different action and she isn't responsible for all their actions. They do have a common enemy, but they do act independently of one another. The fact that I was actually more attached to Edelgard at this point than Jeralt might play a role, but they simply don't hold Edelgard responsible for this, but Arundel and his followers. In fact, this just makes it so that Byleth and Edelgard both have a strong motivation to hate Arundel. This isn't necessarily everyone's perspective, but it is mine. I am also not saying that Edelgard is completely innocent, she does alot of questionable decisions throughout this game. She should probably break free from her uncle if she can , as I think the main thing that the slitherers managed to accomplish his ruin her reputation by association, and things could have been done a lot cleaner without them. But I am not sure that was a real possibility for her. 

3 minutes ago, jawaunw said:

I have no opinion on edelgard or Rhea if you look at any other route other than crimson flower you could say a edelgard the complete monster if you look at crimson flower you get the same exact thing for Rhea but in the end every time they have large forces on their side cuz people believe I know good or bad doesn't matter like I said at the very end all of the endings and up achieving the same thing this is why I don't prefer either one over the other cuz in the end it's going to end up being the same do I think the war was necessary hell no edelgard could have talked with people Rhea should have stop living in the past if one of the two did one of those things at one point in the story The games events was never happened it would have been US versus those who slither in the dark and that's the tragedy of the game that this is completely 100% avoidable 

 

that's actually another thread about what if a edelgard never attack the church so it all come up with this headcanon of Rhea suddenly attacking a empire her for no reason saying that if they turn their back on crest then she's just going to attack even though everything in the game tells them otherwise in the very end people will have their favorites and they will demonize there enemies edelgard and Rhea especially because they're literally the same person if a edelgard was put in the same situation as Rhea she would end up doing the exact same thing the same thing could be said if rhea switch places with edelgard that's the exact reason why the Black eagle route is split between the two the game is trying to tell us that they're the same 

They are in many ways similar, but with the polar opposite ideology. Both Rhea and Edelgard are people who has entirely traumatised by past events and does what they do because they believe that is what is best for Fodlan. They will also both go to any means necessary to create their ideal society. They are also ultimately both kind people who has an entirely inaccurate view of the other. They are also similar in that Byleth is he to both of them becoming better people and avoiding getting lost in their obsessions. 

If I was present in their world, I would do anything in my power to prevent a war from happening, but if all these efforts fails, I would ultimately choose to side with Edelgard, for two reasons, her ideology is the closest to my own and I do really like her as a person and couldn't bear any harm befalling her. Rhea  wants to harm her. Meaning I would have little choice. If I wanted to protect Edelgard regardless of the cost. 

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

5 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

Ah, yes. Silly me for forgetting that. Of course she was innocent; how old was she when the Tragedy of Duscur happened?

I'm pretty sure she's well-aware. She's seen both Thales and Arundel and spoken with them as if knowing they're the same person. 

Yet another reason why we should've gotten chapters where she fights TWSITD; could you imagine the boss conversation between her and Thales:

Thales: "[…] (Changes briefly into Arundel) You really think you can strike down your uncle?" 

Edelgard: "'Uncle'? You know; I am sick of calling you, 'uncle'! My uncle was a good man! Of all the things I had to put up with when breathing the same air as you, watching your poor imitation of Arundel was probably the worst! You could never hope to hold a candle to the real Arundel." 

Not my best piece of dialogue, but I hope it gives some idea of the potential there. 

I think she was about 12 years old when the tragedy happened. I am also quite certain that she was spending that time locked in a dungeon being experimented upon. Not pleasant memories for her. The sad thing is that if Dimitri would give her a chance to explain then I think the both of them could actually have a chance of relating to the others trauma. They went through quite the ordeal, and while this separated them. It could also bring them together if we actually trust each other.

You know, I was actually thinking of writing a story that takes place after the ending of crimson flower and depicts the shadow war against Thales and his followers. I was intending to explore Edelgard's emotions about the aftermatch of the war and her dealing with the heavy burden of being responsible for so much death. One thing in particular would haunt her more than the rest, the death of Dimitri, whom she still loved and she wonders to herself daily if there was truly no other way and if she did the right decision. Nightmares throughout this time would be more intense than previously, about both events during the war and the blood reconstruction surgery. Byleth serving as emotional support for her during this time, while Hubert tracks down those who slither in the dark. The story is mostly going to focus on the perspective of the three of them.

Thales, knowing the psychology of Edelgard pretty well will pull every trick he can to exploit her vulnerabilities, using his magic to control the swarms of rats to devour everything in their path and spread destruction throughout the Empire. As well as reanimating the corpse of Dimitri as an unstoppable terror to hunt down Edelgard. The circumstances will force Edelgard to come to terms with the trauma she experienced during the experiments, the consequences of the war and her personal guilt in the death of Dimitri in order to bring down Thales once and for all.

You like this idea? I think that stories taking place in this time period has potential as it is essentially untold in the game itself. Which leaves a lot of room when writing a story.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

1 hour ago, jawaunw said:

I like to put down that the religion existed before Rhea she just amplified it an ealdguard never called Rhea the false goddess she's talking about sothis cuz every time she says it Rhea is already captured

And are you trying to say that the beast call him King you do know after he dies he says he got liberated right He's literally saying he was liberated from life I think the metaphor is mixed by the game standard and by what we saw Nemesis was a villain in a horrible person and they used the book for anything to try and describe him as a hero is head canon at best and you should get your head checked out

I think that for the most part, the one Edelgard refers to as the false goddess is the immaculate one, which is the being she actually seeks to destroy. I am not sure if Edelgard believes Sothis ever existed at all, just another lie told by Rhea to keep people in line. She also have no knowledge about the true history between Rhea, Nemesis and the Agarthans or the fact that Rhea intends to resurrect her mother. It is also an interesting fact that Edelgard actually tolerates faith in Sothis, she has problems with the institution, which is why she can get people like Mercedes on her side (CF only, I have heard her policies on religion is harsher elsewhere). I do believe that Edelgard herself is an atheist though, she doesn't think that Sothis exists at all, and I don't think Byleth ever told her about the girl in his/her head. 

 

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

And to express the will of Sothis in her absence.

All evidence seem to suggest that Sothis doesn't actually agree with most of Rhea's practices. So if she actually did manage to return her mother, I don't think she would be very pleased. 

About your comment on soft and hard power. I guess what you meant to say is that there is a difference between subtle abuses of power and overt used of power. Nemesis is in the overt category and Rhea is quite subtle. But here's the thing, subtle influences can be far more dangerous than overt ones, they are far more insidious and can more easily infiltrate every aspect of an society where overt uses of power will fail. 

Look, I don't hate every aspect of Rhea, I feel sort of bad for her given the circumstances, but she needs to stop being so controlling and actually trust humanity to make their own destiny again. Her primary problem is that she is living in the past and is unable to let it go. But it does seem to be a possibility for Byleth to talk some sense into her. If there is going to be any hope for this conflict to be resolved without war and all, she needs to stop regarding Edelgard as unforgivable, she should be willing to forgive her past transgressions and actually hear her out. Edelgard needs to do the same, there is simply a lot she doesn't know and Rhea could provide that information, Edelgard could possibly change your mind about a lot of things once she has more knowledge about what truly happened. Forgiveness from both sides here is key,  vengeance, so-called "justice" which some people call it, the principle of eye for an eye, the desire for a transgressor to be punished, it often times does nothing but escalate a situation. As long as one side insist on punishment for the other, there is no hope for peace. Even then, they do need to deal with both a slither in the dark, but if they actually talk to each other. I think they will both find that they both are not very pleased with the nobles abusing the crest system.  But I can only really see this happening in a universe where Byleth is close to both Edelgard and Rhea.

What is your opinion of Edelgard anyway? Surely you don't believe she's an absolute monster with no hope of redemption? I don't believe this about Rhea, even if I do heavily disagree with her ideology. 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

13 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

False. It was an expansionist. Hell, even the library book states that Wilhelm started the war and destroyed any house that dared to have more power than his. And this war lasted for 66 years. Nemesis never ruled over Fodlan ever. The idea that he and the Elites wanted to conquer the continent was a lie by the Church. 

Also, in regards to those commandments, once you realize the context of the fake religion, you realize that Rhea is everything Lonato called her: an infidel. 

Rhea is not a true believer of the religion. 

In contrast, Edelgard was able to conquer Fodlan in five years, compared to 66 years the casualty rate must have been minimal. 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I never said that. You've made yourself very clear that you think violence is an appropriate solution.

Do we have any examples of Rhea killing anyone merely for being an atheist? I remember someone saying something like "careful that could be considered heresy" at one point, but other than that the actual executions Rhea demands are for people openly taking up arms against the Church.

The difference is that Rhea already controls Fodlan, while Edelgard only controls her own empire. Serios's conquest wasn't an expansionist affair, it was essentially a rebellion against a ruling class that were themselves acting like tyrants (though for Seiros herself it was most definitely motivated by revenge than political expansionism).

Well, those commandments you linked, does imply this in the very first one "Dare not doubt or deny the power or existence of the goddess". If these were actually enforced like the 10 commandments were in old Testament times, that would mean people were giving the death penalty for breaching one of the commandments. Which in this case would mean that to deny the power or existence of the goddess would be punishable by death. Many of these commandments are actually good rules, that depends entirely on how they are enforced. The biblical commandment to honour your father and mother, a commandment also present on Rhea's list was enforced by the community stoning disobedient children to death. There is also the fact that the reasons that Rhea states for executing both Edelgard and the members of the western church isn't murder, but the desecration of holy places. Which shows that she has a pretty extreme stance on breaches of religious law. Based on this I can take an educated guess how it is enforced. 

"Dare not abuse the power gifted to you by the goddess"

This would also mean that the corrupt nobles of using their crests that Edelgard wants to get rid of art. In fact, in violation of Rhea's doctrine however.

"The goddess will never deny the splendors of love, affection, joy,
peace, faith, kindness, temperance, modesty, or patience."

At least this commandment is something I like, it is essentially an complacent admission that the goddess accepts all types of relationships, whenever it is between people of the opposite sex or not.

I fail to see how the circumstances between Seiros and Edelgard is at all different as I would definitely describe Edelgard as starting a rebellion against a ruling class that is acting like tyrants. I noticed that there are salvageable points with the church of Seiros and their doctrine, it just need to not be enforced by law in an absolute fashion. 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Let's substitute the world religion here for the phrase "belief system," because they are the same thing. Once we've done that it seems clear that of the two Edelgard is the aggressive expansionist one. In the thousand years Rhea has been in control there have been no known crusades to convert the people of Almyra or the surrounding nations. The only outward expansion has been in response to invasions launched at Fodlan first. From everything I can recall that we've been told about in game, Rhea has no ambitions of extending influence beyond what she already controls. Edelgard could have done the same thing and implemented her belief system in the Empire alone, but instead chose to move outwards and force others to accept her vision of the future.

Let's not forget that Rhea basically conquered the very same region during her war with Nemesis, she was instrumental in the very forming of the Adrestian Empire, many heirs to the Imperial royal line have the crest of Seiros, including Edelgard. So she basically did the exact same thing as Edelgard did once upon a time, uniting the continent under one rule, yes, you could argue she's justified in doing this, due to Nemesis and the Agarthans , but I can make the same argument for Edelgard. Let's not forget that Seiros was originally a warrior and a conqueror. I don't know what happened with Rhea and Almyra, but she obviously did something to make them angry as they do constantly invade and Edelgard does imply it is for religious reasons, citing lack of respect for cultural differences as the reason. Here is the thing with Edelgard though, she has no plans to expand any further than just the main continent of Fodlan. She has shown willingness to make peace with Almyra through cultural understanding, she did give Brigid back their independence. She obviously doesn't care to maintain control of colonies like Brigid and Dagda. Edelgard's expansionist policies pretty much ended with her war against Rhea. Is it weird for me to say that I think that both Seiros were justified with their war of conquest? Nemesis needed to be stopped and Seiros brought a necessary order by reuniting the continent after that war by establishing her religion. But circumstances changed, Rhea lost control over the continent with time and power was often abused by corrupt nobles , relying on the authority their crests gave them. Rhea refused to do anything about this rampant abuse so Edelgard took action to reform this now-defunct system. The problem with Rhea is that she doesn't seem to realise things have changed after 1000 years, she still sees Edelgard as just another Nemesis. Rhea brought this on herself by ignoring all the social unrest throughout the continent and not addressing the problems, revolts happen when people get sufficiently discontent. 

Also, why do you assume that I will automatically consider the aggressive and expansionist one to be a automatically wrong? I think the actual beliefs of said belief system is far more important. The truth is that the only thing Edelgard is forcing on anyone is the removal of inherited social hierarchies and the establishment of a merit-based one. She isn't opressing anyone, she is simply giving the people far more freedom than before by allowing the commoners to reach positions they were previously gated out of. She might have removed the institution of the church, but faith in Sothis and personal spirituality is still perfectly legal, I would argue that religious freedom is actually greater under Edelgard than ever before, as now no one will execute you for having the wrong beliefs.  I should also point out that most of the Western world today is technically defined as a meritocracy, as this is what capitalism is classified under. Does it work? Not really, a lot of incompetent people still managed to get into power(mostly because people are dumb enough to vote them in) but it is a heck of a lot better than theocratic feudalism, which is exactly what Rhea's system is. Ironically, the only thing forced upon the people is freedom.

[Week Five: Who Is Your Favorite Black Eagles Character?]

I am glad to see Edelgard is still in this, even if I predict her to lose to Dorothea, Edelgard has proven herself to be in the top three of the Black Eagle house, which is enough for me to be proud.

I am voting Edelgard and is going to continue voting Edelgard until the end

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

16 minutes ago, jawaunw said:

this is the one good thing about the game it creates four individually very charismatic people Rhea edelgard Dimitri and Claude all four of them are right but all of them are wrong at the same exact time they're all good and evil depending on how you look at them look at the behavior some of you all have about them you praise them to high end and you dismiss the others vehemently if any of them go against the person that you're rooting for each one of them are actual leaders that in real life could realistically have a great army on their side or you know get killed it's the one good thing about this game and that's why I think all of the endings being peace seems really stupid since they want them to be so realistically modern in their military tactics and well rule it just seems weird personally I don't like any of the Lord's because if you really look at it all of this could have been ended with talking if edelgard talked to Dimitri or Claude war wouldn't have happened if she talked to Rhea the war wouldn't have happened if Rhea told the truth she probably would have been turned into a weapon or the war wouldn't have happened or the war wouldn't have happened one isn't in the unmovable object and the other is an unstoppable force and in the end everyone else loses

Rhea did have an uphill climb to begin with when it comes to me, I am a former Christian and theology student who deconverted due to personal reasons and some of the things I discovered during my studies, I am really not in favour of religious organisations holding political power due to being a devoted secularist. Edelgard, however, does reflect many of them beliefs I hold today so I just find her more likeable. Rhea is ultimately well-intentioned, but she is highly unstable and I disagree strongly with her politics. Both Rhea and Dimitri does have a additional disadvantage with me for no other reason than that, I got a really attached to Edelgard and wanting to harm her isn't something that would win them my favour . Dimitri for most of the game also swears by an eye for an eye philosophy to justice, which I highly object to as I deem such an approach to the dangerous, fortunately the Dimitri we see at the end of Azure Moon is a lot more likeable in my opinion. Claude suffers no major disadvantage, I do consider his ideology to be fine, even if he has a tendency not really accomplish much without help, I just prefer Edelgard overall. But this should demonstrate that it is indeed very personal who we relate to the most. Edelgard does also in a way represent my growing frustration with people unwilling to do what is necessary to create a better future. The politicians in my country are known for being doormats and constantly squabbling with each other. It took them over half a year to actually form the government after last election, due to political squabbling, meaning they accomplished literally nothing when it comes to actually ruling the country during this time.. Edelgard is pretty much the exact opposite of that, and someone I would actually vote for if she ran for government (minus starting the war, of course, that wouldn't work so well in the context of real-life Sweden) 

Rhea does however suffer from a few burdens from my view of real-life religion, which is not entirely fair as her religion is different. I don't even really know that many details of what the church of Seiros actullly teaches other than the crests and the relics. Is there any detail about this in game somewhere? 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

6 minutes ago, Jotari said:

The colonialists believed they were civilizing the rest of the world and, especially for the Spanish, saving the souls of the savages by converting them to Christianity. The brunt of colonialism in Africa actually took place after the abolition of slavery in most European countries.

At the very least the titans could be repurposed to be fantastic machines for construction work.

Forcefully converting people to a religion sounds more like Rhea than Edelgard. Granted, I have heard arguments in the past that the two are actually very similar when it comes to how they go about things, the main difference between the two being their ideology and beliefs as Rhea also believed she did what is necessary to help the world. But at the end of the day I just believe that Edelgard's ideology of meritocracy and freedom is a lot better for the world than Rhea's stability and control through religious dogma. There are actually plenty of people in the world who have ideologies that are very similar to the ones of these two characters, and they frequently consider the other to be evil. Maybe some colonialists did believe they were doing a good thing, maybe others just used it as an excuse to rob people of resources, something done by modern military powers to this day, claim a rightous cause for war and use the opportunity to steal resources from another country. 

And yes, the Titans would be very useful for construction work. I am starting to get glimpse on how Edelgard's future would look and it is quite bright. I think Edelgard is at heart a very good person, in fact, the type of good you seldom see in this world, especially in leadership positions. I almost never see a world leader being motivated by anything else, but personal profit and power, any claim to care about the common people, hollow and false and this applies to almost every politician of every party in every country. Edelgard does genuinely care about people and believes in her ideology with all her heart, she is very genuine despite often being flawed and this alone makes her leagues ahead of most politicians. 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

34 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Or maybe because Rhea is dead now, Thales WON'T go kamikaze and blow the Shambhala up. I imagine that if Edelgard can actually attain the Shambhala relatively unscathed, she basically has better chances of dissecting the secrets within.

So essentially Edelgard would be able to use that technology to improve her Empire. The question is if technologies like the javalins of light are worth adapting. Or if they are so dangerous they should be buried. I imagine that the Agarthans would have a lot of dangerous technology as well as helpful ones. Given Edelgard's position on crests, there are certain things she probably won't be in favour of. 

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

5 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Blue Lions spoilers (I'm guessing) much with that first paragraph?

Might have? Odds are that the original Arundel did. He was her uncle after all, and on her mother's side at that, which, by media-logic, usually means they were a good uncle. (Tip: if an uncle in a piece of media is the father's brother, odds are that they're evil. If they're the mother's brother, odds are that they're good and that they may even end up raising the hero. Don't ask me why it is; I just simply noticed the trend). I wouldn't say that that's ironic though; just tragic. Torn from her father, torn from her mother, then forced to watch her siblings die while an imposter paraded around in her uncle's image. 

…Which makes it particularly jarring to me that Edelgard sometimes refers to the person she knows is an imposter that killed her uncle as, "Uncle" even in private. I would imagine that she would hate it every time someone referred to him as that; that she would say he doesn't deserve that title and that the real Arundel was a greater man than he could ever hope to be, and every other way she could express contempt for Thales using Arundel's name and appearance.  

It is less of a Blue Lions, spoiler and more just me referencing what Edelgard said after she killed Dimitri. The assassination of King Lambert, was the thing that triggered the tragedy of Duskur and the thing that Dimitri blames Edelgard for. I happen to know way more about this, but that would be a spoiler for the Blue Lions, just know that Edelgard is telling the truth when she says she is innocent of that crime

Sometimes I am not been entirely certain if Edelgard actually knew that Thales was impersonating her uncle. But it is also possible that she just couldn't let anyone, not even the people closest to her know who Arundel really was due to them becoming a target for Thales if they knew the truth, so she begrudgingly always called him uncle. She probably hates every moment of it. If her real uncle was kind to her. But Edelgard does a lot of things she hates, including working with Thales in the first place and I never get the impression she ever enjoys the bloodshed during the war. 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

16 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well I don't believe we have the right to assert our own moral code upon others using force. That's precisely what the colonialists went about doing and it's generally agreed  upon that colonialism was really, really shitty for the people for the colonized people involved (though I will acknowledge it wasn't purely evil as some would suggest).  If you have the mentality of "I know best and everyone who dares to disagree with me is evil" then you become a menace who believes they're fighting for the ultimate good, and thus anything done in service of that cannot possibly be evil. Even though an invasion and oppression of the middle east would lead to a shit tonne of death of all those women you'd be trying to liberate.

I do think that the problem with colonialism was that the powers behind it never did so for the best interest of those who were colonised, but merely to benefit themselves. No one who's primary objective was to help would take slaves, but it is also possible to use extravagant wealth to enrich the people you conquer, but doing so would mean a loss of wealth for the colonising nation, not a gain that could be the case if the colonised country was exploited instead. So ultimately the problem is selfishness. I would agree with the notion that the mentality anyone who disagrees with me is evil can be extremely dangerous and I am fully aware that the a lot of the people who oppose me and my ideas use the same mindset. It is an argument I have used in the past four why I believe the notion of objective morality can be dangerous, because in my experience most people who believe in objective morality consider their morality to be the objective one. And nearly every person who believe in objective morality has a different definition for what this objective morality is. Which could definitely lead to a case of people trying to force their will on others. But that doesn't mean I don't have strong beliefs of my own. I am uncertain of many things, but when it comes to my belief in basic equality, I am absolutely certain. North Korea is such a complete nightmare to live in that I do think a takeover would be justified if it wasn't for one thing, they have nuclear weapons, it could possibly lead to an extreme number of deaths that simply might not be worth it. 

However arrogant it may sound, the people in my home country have it better than in the majority of the rest of the world, even nations like the United States, pale in comparison, we simply have a better healthcare system, less crime, less poverty and generally better equality. Sweden does suffer from our own issues, but we are still doing pretty well, even if it is not as well as our neighbours like Norway. Of course, Sweden doesn't have a military power to invade anyone so we really can't conquer anyone alone. In order to help them. While I am not certain that my ideas for the correct course of actions are correct, they are at least well intended, so while they could be a mistake. I don't think that they could be evil. I am in the same position with Edelgard, it is possible she is mistaken, but she isn't deliberately evil. It is hard to know in the end what actions are truly beneficial for the world in the long run

It is true that the Agarthans has a lot of advanced technology that could benefit the world, maybe Edelgard could steal some of their blueprints before they are destroyed and use them to benefit her Empire. 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

3 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

I meant more like highlight Edelgard's issues and why she's fighting against this. 

It really has. But people thinks that Rhea having suffered genocide and such made people too willing to forgive and just criticize Edelgard for acting on "false" info.

While Edelgard certainly have some false information, it is not like she has a way to know the actual truth because Rhea goes out of her way to hide it. Really, what would you expect someone to think after finding out that the dominant religion in Fodlan is secretly controlled by immortal dragons who has falsified history. Edelgard straight up and don't know about the genocide on Rhea's people, or who the Slitherers actually are. I think that Rhea's main problem is that she refuse to move on from the death of her mother and the war with Nemesis. Her background does make her sympathetic to a degree, which is why I consider her death to be more of a necessary thing rather than something I actually enjoy. It is somewhat sad that Rhea would lose herself to her obsession with Sothis to this degree, but the war simply won't end without the death of a Edelgard or Rhea. Edelgard also has a sympathetic background and I think her political policies makes a lot more sense and is generally better for the world. 

This not even mentioning the whole chalice of beginnings fiasco, which is a primary example of what Rhea's obsession with resurrecting her mother can lead to. This is supposed  holy relic is just a straight up evil and doesn't even work for its intended purpose. Rhea should just accept that her mother is dead by this point and try to handle her grief in a more healthy manner, the experiments she is doing is basically necromancy. Even when they are not causing quite a number of deaths when the experiments inevitably fail to work. I am also a bit put off by Rhea's habit of labelling evil as F items as holy. This also applies to the crests and the relics, they are made from the bones of Rhea's people after they were killed in a genocide, considering that the crest stone of the sword of the creator is able to put Sothis mind into Byleth, it is reasonable to assume that the crest stones contains the souls of these slain dragons. This sword of the creator is essentially the equivalent of swinging around the corpse of Sothis and Byleth is blissfully unaware of this. It about it this way, what would we think if someone in this world made weapons out of the bones of the victims of a massacre? These relics aren't holy in the slightest, and are in fact the result of very evil types of magic. Why Rhea allows their use and claims them to be holy is beyond me, she if anyone should be disturbed by their very nature. I guess in this context, it does make sense why Rhea reacts this way to Edelgard wanting to take crest stones in the holy tomb, but there is one major problem with this, Edelgard doesn't actually know the true nature of the crest stones and has no idea that the remains of Rhea's people. So it is silly to act as if Edelgard intended to desecrate their remains (Like Rhea hasn't done that already by allowing relics to be used in war).

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

5 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Eh; I would more likely believe that Thales was an opportunist; he likely didn't plan for the Insurrection, but once he saw the opportunity it created, he could not let it slip by. 

Maybe so, but the Slitherers has been spreading political discontent to benefit their goals in the past, so it can't be ruled out they had something to do with it. He was most definitely involved in the assassination of King Lambert however. And whenever he was behind the insurrection or not, it did use it to his benefit, as you say. 

Also, one ironic thing with the original Arundel is that he might have actually cared for Edelgard, he might have been a good guy before he was replaced. Which makes the whole thing quite tragic. I am not sure if Arundel was involved in the insurrection, but I don't think he became a part of it until after he was replaced, otherwise I don't see why he would save Edelgard.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

14 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Yet people don't get that, or people defend that. People try to think that Loog won the battle against the Empire, so that means that they got their independence, but despite that one guy saying that the Church was forced to accept, that's contradicted by the fact that they bargained with Loog to give the Church proselytizing rights.

Everything about Faerghus is used to push Edelgard's beliefs, really. 

A major problem with that.

The Church is meant to mediate between the Empire and Loog. In other words, it's meant to be a "neutral" party in here. Yet we learn that the Church only backed up Loog's independence in exchange for making the Kingdom follow the Church's religion, and give the Church proselytizing rights. But by doing this, the church violated what it means to be neutral. Being neutral means they bargain and gain NOTHING. But what happened is that they ultimately did. They took advantage of it and gave Loog independence in exchange for helping spread the Church's own influence over the new nation. 

With that, it's incredibly hypocritical of Rhea to get mad at Edelgard, a member of House Hresvelg, to "betray" the Church, when Rhea betrayed the Empire here.

I think you probably meant to say that everything about Faerghus was meant to push Rhea's beliefs, not Edelgard's. That wouldn't make much sense. 

I think another problem with the church is that is that they pretty much in don't allow for religious freedom as they only really allow for one interpretation of their religion, they even go to war against the Western Church for differences in interpretation. Edelgard's system. However, do allow for religious freedom, she has nothing against people worshipping Sothis, just don't like being an institution forcing this on everyone, just imagine what it would be like worshipping the gods of the Almyrans under Rhea compared to under Edelgard. No matter how bloody the war was, it's hard to deny that people don't have more freedom with Edelgard as their leader than previously.

I don't mean to bash Rhea either, but her system was far from flawless and caused a lot of people to suffer.

 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

6 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Unfortunately, it's TOO subtle. People go from insisting that Edelgard was totally in the wrong, using too much meta knowledge and saying that EVERYONE wanted what she did, which isn't even true, or some even saying that the racism isn't even that bad. Cause apparently genocide is not that bad. 

People don't realize that Rhea backing Loog's independence is proof of meddling into politics, made even more clear in the Tragedy when they took over the investigation. Some justify it, but no one realizes that taking over the investigation to perform a false investigation is proof of corruption.

Well, basically the entire kingdom of Faerghus only exist because of church meddling in politics, it is known as the holy kingdom of Faerghus for a reason, and this is because the church has massive influence over this state, religious policies, governs it and they pretty much have free reign. The church was also instrumental in its creation to the point that this nation wouldn't exist at all without them. Really looking at it, Edelgard is actually right that Faerghus is essentially Empire territory that was stolen from them in order to create a region where the church has more influence. Also, I really don't think that it should be the job for a group like the Knights of Seiros to put down a local rebellion such as that of Lord Lonato, that should be the job of the kingdom army. I do find it rather disturbing that a religious organisation has a private army they use to put dissenters in their place at all. Just imagine if the Catholic Church still had a private army they still used to intervene in political matters. This is a huge red flag for me.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

5 hours ago, omegaxis1 said:

We aren't sure how long she reigns as the emperor. They never really make the time period clear. However, one thing I DO notice is how multiple endings either say "Emperor Edelgard" or just "emperor" which strikes me as odd. In regards to "Emperor Edelgard" ending cards, it tends to indicate that not that much time had passed, but in regards to the "emperor" ones, some time had passed, which generally makes me wonder if the "emperor" cards is the indication of the successor being chosen.

I even asked my friends to take a look at the JP endings and confirm if the same happens there, and they confirm that that is indeed the case, and how the "Emperor Edelgard" texts are longer on its own, which gives the impression that it can't be really a case of simply saving text space. 

All we do know is that Edelgard wipes out the Agarthans, creates a new system that is based off of merits, and then leaves behind a successor. But it can't be done overnight, so yeah, her rule had to have taken some time. We just don't know how long. 

That actually made me understand how much pressure nobles really do face in regards to the Church's religion. Lorenz even remarks in the very beginning of the story that he wasn't much of a believer himself, but it was his duty as a noble to follow the faith. 

It's a subtle indication of how the Church influences people and how dangerous their control is. It's not until someone actually decided to oppose the Church and go to war with them that they finally decided to make their own move once they felt that Edelgard had a chance at winning. 

I think a lot of the latest posts do showcase rather well why I consider Edelgard to be a pretty good ruler. I don't know why people often times don't realise this, but the type of control Rhea has other people is in my opinion extremely dangerous, but also subtle and insidious enough to pass completely over some people's head. This type of organisation often wields power by infiltrating every aspect of society, making them think it is their rightful place to have control over every aspect of people's lives. Rhea might have good intentions, but she is also extremely controlling.  

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

7 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

 

Small Corrections: Edelgard didn't have Jeritza kidnap Flayn though; after the attack on Seiros' Tomb, The Flame Emperor loaned the Death Knight to TWSITD as part of a deal. TWSITD then had Jeritza abduct Flayn. It's the same reason that the Death Knight is at Remire Village two months later even though the Flame Emperor had no idea that Solon was going to do his experiment. 

Also, I would say that Edelgard's speech was less of a CEO-during-restructuring speech and more of a tough-love speech; it's the sort of speech one can imagine she gives herself to cope with the loss of her siblings. 

I agree that the Holy Tomb mission is a mess. I don't think it requires that drastic a change to fix, but yeah; it could've been handled a lot better so the decision moment wasn't nearly so jarring. 

 

I'm pretty sure Thales didn't replace Arundal until well after the Insurrection of the Seven.

As far as I recall, the Insurrection of the Seven is the event that forced Arundal to take Edelgard and her mother to Fearghus; correct? Then one day, Arundal abruptly brought Edelgard back to Adrestia and the experiments commenced. I think Arundal was replaced by Thales at some point while they were in Fearghus, and so the experiments were TWSITD's doing, but the Insurrection of the Seven was entirely the seven nobles' doing.

The timeline around these events is a bit messy, so, if I'm wrong, could someone please explain?

To my understanding, it is true that Thales replaced Arundel while they were in Faerghus, while I can't prove this, I do believe that Thales was pulling strings in the Empire for far longer than that under a different guise. While he might not have been personally involved in the insurrection, I do think is actions led him to put it into motion. The insurrection was a vital part of the plans fo those who slither in the dark. 

4 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

I think one reason that people can still see Edelgard as "evil" despite her sympathetic moments would be that they think along the lines of, "'She committed all these acts, but she adorably hides in her room for a month over a painting she drew of you' is a weak excuse", as in they see the moments where they try too hard, and say that that doesn't justify it. I suppose they're coming from the perspective that, just because you see a villain do something nice or sweet or adorable, it doesn't make them not evil or a villain. If that's the case, then it's a valid point, but I still wouldn't necessarily call Edelgard a villain as we'd then have to discuss if that point applies in this case, and I don't think it does.

Even from just a writing perspective, a villain is a character that the heroes are morally obligated to oppose. Because of Three Houses' multiple paths and nuance to the conflict, it would be hard to call anyone a villain outside of TWSITD. Even Rhea in Crimson Flower can only really be considered an antagonist. 

 

I didn't say that Edelgard isn't believable; I said that I wasn't sure, as in that I would need to think about it a bit more. I was mainly just trying to say that Edelgard definitely fits the first three things I listed: Dimensional, Fascinating, and Compelling. 

When I was asking what you felt about the point about the character writing thing I mentioned, I more was asking what you felt about said character writing thing specifically: that great characters should be dimensional, fascinating, compelling and believable, and that sympathetic, likeable and relatable are not bad, but shouldn't be sought after as they can be misused. 

It's okay; I created this thread to talk about Crimson Flower, and Edelgard's a big part of Crimson Flower. Feel free to talk plenty about Edelgard. 

I would agree that Thales and his cult are pretty much the only true evil characters in this entire game. Edelgard might associate with them, but it is also rather clear that she would rather not if she felt she had any alternative. I do think one of the reasons why this bothers me less than that of others is because I don't truly hold Edelgard responsible for the actions of the Slitherers, might have been allies, but they are still two completely different factions. I do ultimately believe that Rhea is in the wrong, she is still somewhat sympathetic. Due two being motivated by grief, wanting nothing more than to return her mother to the world. She is pretty much the embodiment of the refusing to let go of the past. I have seen some people argue that Edelgard is insincere and is manipulating the player, but I don't get that impression at all, I think this side she shows Byleth is her true personality, is the ruthless conqueror that is the facade. Some other people who consider Edelgard to be evil simply has such a different view of morality than I do so that I hate noticed that there is simply no reconsidering our views. In my case, Edelgard has proven that maybe it is a mistake to judge the person by their actions alone without considering the context. I am also extremly opposed to eye for an eye, as a general principle. I think it is nothing but glorified vengeance. 

I do think that Edelgard is pretty well written overall, there are some writing mistakes at times, but it is not enough to ruin her character or the story. Edelgard is in my opinion, one of the most compelling characters I have come across in a long time. 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

5 minutes ago, Licoriceallsorts said:

The thing is, after Napoleon was forced to abdicate, the aristocracy and monarchy came back in France with a vengeance. I love her ideals, but the reality is that the kind of change she envisions takes generations to establish. It's always two steps forward, one step back. That's why I can't see Edelgard actually retiring. She will yearn to, and she will intend to, but the right moment will never come. There will always be another war to fight, another rebellion to put down, new guerilla groups forming in the cold mountains of Faerghus, reactionary conspiracies to quell at home...

I feel for her. 

Good point, most endings are actually rather unclear about the timeframe of her retirement, but in certain cases, she does seem to be in power for quite a while. Not to mention that she also needs to deal with the remains of those as slither in the dark, as long as Thales lives the entire empire is in danger.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

5 minutes ago, Axel987 said:

Honestly I always imagined that her successor would be someone raised under her system and that until a proper one could be found, Hubert and Ferdinand would act in her stead. IMO it would feel like the most apt ending for her.

 

That does actually make a lot of sense, I would also think that a successor from a later generation might be picked from the commoners on purpose just to drive home that even those that were born in poverty can rise to the top. It is also interesting that Edelgard actually values kindness as one of the most important traits for a successor of hers as revealed in one of her tea time conversations. I am uncertain how well Hubert would do as Emperor due to him being very emotionally cold and sometimes cruel, but he does make a great right hand man to Ferdinand as he is very intelligent and does what needs to be done. He just needs to be tempered by someone with a sense of mercy. It does kind of seem to me like Edelgard really wants to retire as soon as she feels she can. They really get the impression from her that she didn't want to rule to begin with, this was never about claiming power for herself, the war was only really about removing a system she saw as corrupt. While I think Edelgard earned her retirement, I am also hard pressed to find any ruler as capable as she

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

1 hour ago, Licoriceallsorts said:

Edelgard as Napoleon is a very apt comparison. He rose from relative obscurity; he aimed to create a system of meritocracy; he saw that France needed a firm hand but he was also broadly on board with the ideals of the French Revolution and tried, to a limited extent, to spread them in the territories he conquerered. But ultimately he came as a conquerer. He had his supporters even in Russia, even in England; nevertheless, at the end of the day nobody likes being conquered and they resent reforms being forced upon them, however wonderful those reforms may be. Edelgard needs to stay on the throne for a lot longer than she thinks, and maintain a powerful standing army, if she is not to witness the same kind of conservative reaction that seized Europe at the Congress of Vienna. A few years of reform isn't enough to loosen the grip of the old guard on power. Spain never knuckled under to Napoleonic rule; the Peninsular war was horrifically brutal. I imagine the war in Faerghus being much the same. Catholicism ran deep in Spain, and religion and love of their kings runs deep in Faerghus. They'll be fighting to regain their independence and self-determination as soon as they can. 

This actually makes a lot of sense, looking at it closely, there was actually given more parallels between Edelgard and the Napoleon than I first thought. They have similar ideals and a similar reason to conquer. Edelgard is even quite short which is a myth often asscribed to Napoleon (not actually true, but it is so often believed that this could easily be a reference). I think the most impressive thing about Napoleon for me is that after returning from the island he was exiled to, just walked right into france and claimed the throne again without even needing an army, the people of work that level of loyal to him. Other French armies were sent to stop him, but most ended up joining him as he didn't want to fight their former Emperor. This of course ended with the battle for Waterloo. I should look into Napoleon more, he is a very interesting historical figure. It is also worth pointing out that the ideals of the French Revolution is probably a big reason why we have democracy in Europe today, I think this is because it served as a point of inspiration and proved that the monarchy and aristocracy could be overthrown and that people didn't have to accept the status quo. I wonder if Edelgard inspired the same loyalty in Empire territories as Napoleon did in France. 

You also have a point that rebellions from Faerghus is probably inevitable, but hopefully these wars will be minor in comparison to the continental war of conquest. The hope is that after some time, the people would realise their lives are actually pretty good under the Empire and lose motivation to rebel. Edelgard's rule is going to benefit most of the commoners, it is really the former nobility who has cause to rebel and they need the commoners to support them to have any real numbers, if Edelgard's system benefits the commoners more then the numbers of rebels will be quite significantly smaller. I think some backlash is definitely to be expected when you conquer a territory, but it usually dies down with time, especially if the citizens of that territory are treated well by the new government reforming a society isn't easy, it takes a blood sweat and tears, but sometimes it can be for the best. 

Edit. If Edelgard retires soon after the end of the game, it is very likely her successor would be one of the members of the Black Eagle strikeforce. Who do you think is the most likely to get nominated as Edelgard's successor? For some reason I am thinking Ferdinand or Lysithea (who is part of the Golden Deer, I know, but if recruited, the she is basically like Edelgard's little sister and one of the most loyal people to her cause. She is very capable and motivated to end both the crest and nobility system. I think Emperor Lysithea might actually work)

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

9 minutes ago, jawaunw said:

You're right she does end up saying that in the azure Moon route only but just like Claude and Dimitri her system is bound to fail her merit system is completely flawed and yes I would like for the endings to end up saying that there weren't everlasting peace That's a cop out I mean Ash virtually gives the exact reason why none of these routes would ever work inside the end when fighting edelgard he literally says you've took our land you've took our king you've took our people what else is there left for you to take it adds realism to this game at least instead of all three endings haven't never achieved everlasting peace it's cheap

 

Well yes thinking about injustice in the world waiting isn't a good idea The idea of saying that mine way is better than yours is completely unjustified this is where the similarities with Hitler comes from with a lot of people. people only think about the Jewish part of world war II and Hitler but in the very end Hitler was a guy who was in world war I saw his country lose all a massive debt as people were dying all around from being poor and sorry and how the world was just taking their money letting their country die and he decided I'm going to get us all back together That's how he became a leader for them he gave them what they want in the end they thought they were going to end up with better lives after the crap they had to deal with after world war I he even said that he'll make the world a better place Heck he hated white people in America because he thought they were weak That's why I never understand why they say Nazi here Hitler hated Americans just because he had the few good ideas doesn't make it right to go to someone else's land to say You're doing everything wrong and no one's happy so I'm going to take over in that I will make them happy and if you end up fighting back that is a cost I'm willing to make if everyone on your side dies fighting cuz not many people are willing to surrender to a foreign power easily look at Japan it took a nuke for them to stop

I don't think any of the endings would lead to everlasting peace, that would be a bit silly,  but maybe peace for a time, maybe a few hundred years with only minor rebellions like the ones we already seen in the early game before the outbreak of the war.  That does seem to be standard practice. I think most of the endings are just referring to the immediate future, as during the lives of the characters involved, it didn't even go far enough into the future in Crimson flower to reveal how Edelgard's successor faired. It is presumed they did well, but we don't know this for certain. I also think it is spake to apply information from one route to another, characters often develop in different direction between routes and crimson flower Edelgard is in many ways less radical than she is elsewhere, thanks to support from Byleth and general good advice from other Black Eagle members. Edelgard has shown she is willing to listen to opposing ideas on this route and her allies has helped her formulate her ideas into something that might have some actual chance at working.

Don't compare Edelgard to Hitler, other than starting a war they have very little in common. But they had very different reasons for doing so. Not to mention that Edelgard wasn't a huge racist who enabled massive discrimination and eradication against millions among both his own citizens and the regions he conquered. Edelgard has never done anything remotely close to this level of evil. If anything, Edelgard is reminiscent of Napoleon, I did try to do some reading to find out what Napoleon's motivation for starting his war was, seems to be some suggestions of it being a pre-emptive strike against perceived hostility of from other nations due to Frances political system, others say it was a way to spread the ideals of the Enlightenment to other countries in Europe, the second one sounding rather close to Edelgard's motivations.  I have also heard from a friend about the nukes on Japan , but it is very likely they would have surrendered anyway, and that Truman just wanted an excuse to test out the bombs. I don't know if my friend is right, but it is a legit possibility as winners in history have a tendency to rewrite things to suit their narrative. The truth about World War II is that every faction involved is guilt of doing at least something horrible. However, if the nuke was indeeed necessary, it would indeed have been better than continuing a drawn-out war. 

Despite recognising the arrogance of saying this, there are some things I am not willing to compromise on, things that I believe to be right so strongly that I don't think anything wrong with pushing this on the rest of the world. These are things like "people should be considered equals no matter their ethnicity, biological sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, no discrimination against anyone based on these grounds is to be allowed for any reason." In my mind, any nation who breaks this rule is guilty of crimes against humanity and will lose all rights to sovereignity in the eyes of the civilised world. There are some things that simply cannot be tolerated as they cause great harm to the citizens of a nation.

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

28 minutes ago, NolanBaumgartner said:

I made an account here to ramble about Crimson Flower, so I'm glad this thread already exists. I generally agree with the observations pointing out the major unresolved plot points, which is highly problematic considering there won't be a continuation to the narrative. Not only the route is substantially shorter than the others, but the "true" antagonist of the route is hand-waived as a footnote that's never resolved. 

Some other points that I hope serve as fresher discussion:

Realistically, could we even get to Crimson Flower?

  Hide contents

From a narrative standpoint, my problem with Edelgard-as-Flame-Emperor is that her association with TWSITD doesn't just grays the morality of her actions, but that it SHOULD have been a major, perhaps even irreconcilable fault line between herself and Byleth. She orchestrated the bandit attack. She had Jeritza kidnap Flayn. She assisted TWSTID in some of their brutal, murderous pursuits. She even had the balls to give a CEO-during-restructuring type of speech to Byleth after Jeralt's murder, even though she was indirectly irresponsible for it via her associating with "Monica"/TWSITD. Hell, "Monica" is inseparable from Edelgard in the chapters leading up to her true identity reveal. That she "disavowed" TWSITD's methods shouldn't have mattered, considering the consequences. 

Last but not least, there's the attack on the Holy Tomb. This genuinely makes 0 logical sense on the Crimson Flower route. If Byleth had sufficient support, not only she revealed to them her Crest of Flames but also had them vouch for her in her ascent to Emperor. Both actions not only imply an incredible amount of trust and recognition of Byleth's strength, but also made the Flame Emperor masquerade really easy to figure out. Either way, the consequence of the attack is that Edelgard shows herself willing to have Byleth and her classmates killed over Crest Stones, and to die herself if the attempt failed, without ever cluing in someone she ostensibly trusted to the highest degree and who would obviously be the main foil to her plan. I feel like this part only made it to the final product because doing otherwise would've required a redesign of Chapter 11 just for the Edelgard route, effectively starting Crimson Flower earlier. 

Despite all this, Byleth chose to not execute her. At the very, very least, the camp before the monastery retake could've been where all of the crap that she pulled as Flame Emperor that came to hurt Byleth one way or the other should've been laid bare. And it just never happens. Worse, she maintains associate (albeit uneasy) with TWSTID throughout the game - we've talked plenty about that, but it only accentuates how strained the relationship should've been and it does worsen the quality of the story. Although it's beaten over everyone's head how Edelgard's actions leads her to become seemingly evil, the way she personally hurt Byleth and her peers is just not addressed.

If the writing was tighter, the pre-Holy Tomb situation could've been such that Edelgard either willingly reveals her plot to Byleth to enlist them as allies, or Byleth figures out the Flame Emperor charade. Then Byleth could've had the choice to either go ahead with her, or reject her plans. Even without the necessary support level, it would've made actual sense instead of the intellectually insulting mess that made to the game.

 

RE: Is Edelgard a believable character?

I certainly think so. In terms of historical leaders she's comparable to enlightened rulers who sought to upend the very system that gave them power, which was a recurring theme between the French Revolution and WWI - think Napoleon I or Pedro of Portugal/Brazil. On a modern society comparison, she's more like a self-aware CEO-type. You'll find similar people in middle management and corporate boards. Not so much democratically-elected politicians.

A character doesn't have to have strictly negative traits to be perceived as villainous. Edelgard's personality is mostly positive - she's intelligent, earnest, empathetic, hardworking and takes responsibility for her choices. But she's also ideological, stubborn and impulsive - which you could use to describe any number of perfectly normal people. However, given her position as the leader of the Empire, it's what makes her not only wage war to pursue lofty societal goals but also align herself with highly unsavory characters if it meant accomplishing that goal in the short term. Despite all the good in her, Edelgard still has a Machiavellian streak that makes it justifiable to cast her as a villain even when you get her side of the story. Her circumstances where such that she chose to do something about the evil that surrounded her, but therein lies the tragedy of unleashing unto others the same nightmare you're trying to undo. 

I do think I would have preferred if the choice to join with the Flame Emperor actually came before the mission and not after,  that would have made more sense. I already made up my mind before at that point, as I already had figured out the identity of the Flame Emperor, just felt to me that I was basically forced to fight her despite not really wanting to. I think the game overestimated how loyal I would really be to the church, they have shown signs of sketchy behaviour by the church the entire game. So I never felt truly aligned with them and more like circumstances forced me to act as the leader of one of Rhea's death squads in dealing with supposed heretics. Dealing with Lord Lonato never sat entirely right with me and I was wondering through most of the early game if there was legitimate reasons for his rebellion, and I honestly think there are. Yes, there are such things as the assassination of Jeralt, but I quickly came to the conclusion that Edelgard wasn't truly in favour of this, in fact, she almost immediately afterwards helps you hunt down his killer. I don't consider her words after his death, a problem either, it is obvious she just want to help you in her own way. I am kind of reading the entire situation as her serving up Kronya's head as a way to help Byleth overcome his/her grief. However harsh it may sound, Edelgard is right, you need to eventually move on from grief, you shouldn't let it cripple your entire life. It is here she is very different from Rhea.

I also think that Edelgard's ideals are actually very similar to that of the French Revolution and I have made comparisons between her and Napoleon in the past. Her alliance with the slitherers is unfortunate but it is also clear to me that she really don't have much of an alternative, given how much power they have in the Empire. To my understanding Thales was behind the insurrection of the seven and have had power over the imperial royal line for most of Edelgard's life. Everything you describe is why I consider Edelgard such a great character, she really makes you think about the very nature of good and evil, and their relationship between someone's core character, motivation and actions. And as a result of contemplating these things I have learned a lot about myself and how I view these topics. I don't think there is an objective answer, as each person would see someone like Edelgard differently, in my mind her good intentions overshadow everything else. Whenever she is right or not is unclear as that would require me to know every single potential outcome of this war and what kind of future they would lead to for quite a long time into the future, more so than the game is providing. But I do think that she was basically tricked into declaring this war as Thales has been planning exactly this for a very long time, that Edelgard also managed to get rid of Thales and his minions, so whatever damage was done during the war, his evil was eventually undone. Thanks to Edelgard. Antihero and Antivillain I think the terms that best describe who Edelgard is, which is the case, does depend on whenever you join her or not.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

7 minutes ago, jawaunw said:

yeah but the problem with that type of thinking is once you think about it why not just be God of the world it leads to just pure dictatorship you think you know best for everyone else so they should live the way that you say they should hell her system is all about merit improving themselves to the emperor so they can end up inside of a good position The weak die and the strong live That's the type of world edelgard wants to live in Dimitri creates the world that's closest to a democracy and even then it still sounds horrible if it wasn't for the fact that every ending stated that they all achieved peace then no one will actually believe half of these endings achieved anything The games just sugarcoating it for usClaude is the closest one that gives us any type of society that shows natural progress honestly of course people wouldn't accept him becoming the ruler and he'll leave it to the main character they have influence in the church it's easier for people to trust them and in him after the war is over Claude goes back to his own country and creates diplomatic ties it's a long process but it sounds a lot better than suddenly I won the war in the other side loves me now even though I kill every a bunch of people over there and told them that I'm their new ruler after they're killing their king or queen doesn't work that way

Would it be better if all the endings stated that no one actually achieved anything and that the war was always completely pointless? I never got the impression that Edelgard would allow the poor to starve or the weak to die, at least not crimson flower Edelgard(things her Azure Moon counterpart says can't necessarily be applied to other routes as here, she lacks certain people to influence her in the right direction), rather I would think that she wants for those who are capable to use their talents to better the lives of everyone in society. Edelgard's system has a way of upwards mobility that just isn't present in the ideal societies of the other lords, with the possible exception of Claude. If even a poor commoner could rise as high as Emperor, people would never be stuck in their current roles, and you could imagine what happens when a formally poor commoner does become Emperor. Presumably he would make policies to benefit the poor because he would know what it is like to be in that position. As such, it is uncertain how long this government will even have an Emperor as it might develop in a democratic direction with time. Edelgard herself doesn't even stay in power for all that long as she abdicates the throne after she deals with the slitherers. What happens to the society does depend on the nature of this successor, but Edelgard does state that when it comes to her successor. She seeks someone who is in her words "capable and kind".  It might be a slow change, but I do think that Edelgard might have laid the foundation for a much better society. Either that or it just goes back to being a aristocracy within a few generations, and the entire war was pointless. I think that Edelgard abdicates the throne because she is well aware of that she inherited her title as the leader and that is inherently contradictory to her ideology, she thinks the imperial line should end with her, blood will no longer determine who is fit for rulership. Yes, there will be rebellions, that is unavoidable, but hopefully with time, people would realise that their life under the new Empire is actually drastically better than it used to be and the rebellions would die down over the generations.

The funny thing with that is that Edelgard after giving up the throne would just be a regular citizen in the Empire she created, she wouldn't have any titles or anything to stand above a normal commoner, because thanks to her there is no division between commoner and noble any more. You really think she would make it difficult for a subset of the population she would soon join? 

And yes, I am well aware of the potential flaws in my thinking, but doesn't mean I don't understand the mindset or why someone would do what Edelgard did, it is a massive risk, but the idea of just sitting by and doing nothing also doesn't sit right with me. Sometimes I grow impatient with the injustices in the world and just want them to be gone. The thing is, if I actually did manage to conquer a world, I probably should undo my own power after it is done to avoid absolute power corrupting me. You will need power to unite, but in peacetime. That will be less necessary. It would be conceivable to go back to a democratic system, at least once your subjects are properly educated and actually understand their own best interest. People not understanding that is usually the biggest drawback to democracy.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

1 hour ago, Axel987 said:

Possibly! Unfortunately there's not really enough fan-content of the two bc the fanbase is constantly at odds about them haha. The fact that it doesn't happen is also the inherent tragedy, since in either path it ends in one sibling killing the other because of their dickhead uncle.

Despite them being step siblings, the game do seem to imply that they did used to have a romantic connection, I would like to see more fan content about the two. While my number one ship with Edelgard is with Byleth, I think Edelgard reconciling with Dimitri would have been really sweet. There is one alternative way I could think of Azure Moon ending. What if Edelgard actually accepted the offer of mercy and Dimitri and Edelgard rekindled the relationship that used to be, everything ending with a marriage between the two uniting the kingdom and the Empire as one. Which could lead to both of them getting what they want (or at least find an acceptable compromise). 

You know, I am a somewhat skilled amateur writer, I had considered writing a fanfiction about Edelgard's shadow war with those of slither in the dark, just needed to make sure my knowledge about the events of the game is near flawless first, so I need to experience literally everything the game has to offer. Might also consider writing about some alternate timelines about how things could have gone if things went down a bit differently.