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

7 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I really liked Crimson Flower too; I tried to make that as clear as possible. And thanks regarding the suggestion; it seemed only natural to me that Thales' natural response to Edelgard's obvious hostility and intent to betray him would be to beat her to the punch.

That's the thing; as I said, I can understand withholding who's responsible or keeping it need-to-know just like how they kept the attack on Arianrhod a secret in the first place, but lying about it seemed unnecessary. 

 

I agree. If they were going to have her lie like that, then it should have come back to bite her. 

The way I see it, if someone blows up a city, and you can't tell the truth, you still need to pin it on someone. I don't really blame her for this decision, but it does feel like an unresolved plot thread.

Edit. I speculate the developers ran out of time on this route

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

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

Thanks.

Well, that's one more reason for me to dislike that fighting the Slitherers was reserved for the epilogue. 

I really liked Crimson Flower, but I would have also prefered a few more chapters dealing with Thales, Edelgard has more personal reasons to hate him than any other lord. I also loved your suggestion on how to deal with this route extension by having Thales backstab Edelgard after the war is over

About Arianrhod, I believe Edelgard lied as revealing the truth at that time might have invited more retribution from the Slitherers.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Ingrid is pretty racist and while Edelgard seems to be tolerant of various human races you could argue she's racist towards lizard people. 

She does allow you to spare Seteth and Flayn. So I am guessing it is less her being racist and more her having a problem with how the lizard people puts themselves above humanity and think humanity can only prosper if controlled by them. Edelgard does not look favorably on people who consider themselves to have a right to rule based on their bloodline. Whenever that is considering yourself superior or more worthy of rule because of your family, having a crest or being an ageless immortal.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

12 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Does make me wonder how differently people's opinions would be if Edelgard had been a man.

For me the only factor it would change would be attraction, I am not into guys that way.  While I have a slight bias of often showing more sympathy towards women, this doesn't actually change anything in regards to Edelgard's ideology, actions or political platform, nor does it change the nature of her core character. I feel that a lot of assumptions are often made by Edelgard detractors that I will consider certain concepts objectively evil when I often don't, for example, I don't share the view that starting a war is always evil, this does depend highly on context and why that war is started. I also have a personal history of liking characters who leads a resistance against oppressive institutions, even if they use questionable methods, an example being Lelouch from Code Geass, Edelgard also fitting very clearly into this category. 

Edelgard isn't perfect, she would be a rather boring character if she was, but she also isn't an absolute monster. In my mind she is an interesting dichotomy because she is a person with a good heart and the best of intentions, but she also believes that any methods are justifiable if it means making the world a better place in the end. She really makes you ask yourself the question of what good and evil really means to you, is it someone's intentions, their deeds or the eventual result of your deeds? I ultimately follow utilitarian moral philosophy which determines actions as good or evil. Depending on if the result of said actions are ultimately beneficial or detrimental to society.  This is hard to determine, in the case of Edelgard, but I think my estimation leans towards yes in crimson flower and no anywhere else. Primarily for the reason that for Edelgard's sacrifices to do more good than harm in the future. It is absolutely imperative that she achieves victory in this war, otherwise the entire war and the casualties in it was entirely pointless. But this is only judging if Edelgard deeds were good or evil, I think it is still totally possible for a good person to do bad things, and vice versa, especially if they are misguided or mistaken. At a personal level, I think good and evil are determined by intention, good people are motivated by helping other people, while evil people are motivated purely by self-interest. Edelgard starts her war because she considers it to the right thing to do as she wants to free people from what she considers to be an oppressive organisation supporting corrupt nobles who abuse the commoners beneath them, not because she seeks to rule the world for the sake of personal power and glory. I think I support Edelgard because in the end she has a very similar philosophy to mine and it is nice to see that worldview represented. One particular quote from her really spoke to me

"No matter how much blood flows at my feet, I will not relent. We must break the bonds the depraved church has placed on Fodlan. These sacrifices will allow us to create a future where we will never need sacrifice again, it may seem contradictory, but it is the only way,"

_ Edelgard

I feel this is the core of her philosophy, while the war is costly, she ultimately believes that less people will suffer if she takes down the church in the long run than if she just leave things be. She believes that by creating short-term suffering (5 years). She will be able to create a much better society that will last the ages. I cannot help but to find this very admirable,

I hope this helps shed some light on why I see Edelgard the way I do, being a man or woman has nothing to do with it. Sorry for the long post, but when it comes to Edelgard. I just have a lot to say and I like sharing with other people why I like her character

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

4 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

It doesn't help that his "schemes" aren't even depicted as morally grey often. Like, what exactly did he DO to be morally grey? Dimitri, Edelgard, and Rhea all did some horrible things. What did Claude do so much that gives credence that he's morally grey? 

What schemes were morally grey? 

He's not. Claude is a good guy, his primary weakness is lacking the neccesary ruthlessness to succeed without help. I can sympathise with his status as an outcast. But his lack of flaws makes him less intresting than Dimitri or Edelgard in my opinion. In fact I believe all three house leaders are ultimately good people, the other two just have more extreme flaws.

I do have a theory that it is really a characters flaws that makes them relatable

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

34 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

Fanbases are more likely to accept actual moral ambiguity over the half assing that we usually get. Half of the problem whit Edelgard/Rhea/Dimitri stem from the fact that people have some ground to say "X did nothing wrong". If the game make unambigously clear that they did certain things wrong(things that are not route speciphic), such people won't have much ground to bullshit excuses.

Imo all three did a lot of wrong but i also think the game is trying way too hard to try to excuse, downplay or shift the blame of everything bad they do. 

Hell, instead of a golden route i want an evil route just so i don't have to side whit one of them to kill the others.

Arguing that X did nothing wrong is always somewhat dumb. Of course Edelgard and Rhea aren't perfect, but there this also doesn't mean either is a complete monster. There are other conclusions in between they did nothing wrong and they did everything wrong. I do think it is a mistake to think in absolutes. But I won't blame the game because some people cannot comprehend nuance.

I don't believe in playing the blame game to begin with, to decide who deserves life or death based on simply their crimes is to deny them their basic humanity. What is more important is their intentions and who they are as people. 

The death of Edelgard or Rhea is always a sad event, I don't consider either a bad person at heart and they deserve better. But it is also the only way to end the war, making it a neccesity. 

As for the whole Edelgard intended to kill the Black Eagle students thing. Yes she would if they stood in the way of her cause. She would hate doing so and would prefer if there was another way, but she is often willing to do things she don't like doing for what she believes to be the greater good. The entire war is in the category of things she hates doing but believe is neccesary in fact.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

Never understood that assassination attempt, it is just straight up a bad plan if it was intended to be successful. Edelgard included herself on the hitlist and was almost killed as a result.

As for Lamberts political reforms, could they be of the same nature as Edelgard's? Maybe Thales killed him because his reform would undermine the neccesity of the war and therefore their abillity to rile people up against Rhea

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

52 minutes ago, NobodiePichu said:

 

id say the problem there is that even with the slitherers around edelgards kind of a dick, and instead of leaning into her as a sympathetic villain the likes of zephiel or her inspiration arvis the game bends over backwards to maker her more cutesy marketable. it would be one thing if it was framed as a tragic battle between two deeply flawed individuals with trust issues, but instead its framed as this weird yas queen thing that feels incredibly disingenuous especially when taken in conjunction with the other routes.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree, I don't see it that way at all. Battle between two deeply flawed individual is pretty much exactly what I consider this to be.

Edelgard might be cute, but that is not the main reason I like her. If you pay attention she also some really good policies. Her policy of open discourse with Almyra being one of them. Then we have things like free education and the removal of the division between noble and commoner. The question is just if these reforms are worth the war. But Edelgard is the most progressive leader in the entire game so us that seek change naturally would gravitate towards her. 

42 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

 

Let's consider something here, really.

If you remove the Agarthans from the story, then...

• Lonato and the Western Church attacked on their own.
• Flayn is never kidnapped. 
• Remire is never attacked.
• Jeralt is never killed.
• No Crest Beasts are made. 

So... some of the biggest factors people like to bring up for not wanting to side with Edelgard are basically gone.

 

That was basicly what I was trying to say. Granted none of these actions did actually stop me from supporting Edelgard because I don't consider them her doing. Her blatant disgust for the actions of the slitherers does distance her from them, for me it is enough that she hated working with them. Hubert is the one responsible for that arrangement anyway, but I have a hard time arguing with his logic

But I don't think Lonato and the western church really need the involvement of the slitherers as their motived are strong enough on their own. Killing Lonato's son for a crime he didn't commit should be more than enough fot him to go against Rhea

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

23 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Ehh, that's not really true. You could remove the Slithers from the plot and I still wouldn't find her actions justified. Now if removing them changed most of the events of the game then you could have an argument, but when most people say to remove them, they just mean to remove the shadow people pulling the strings from behind the curtain and shift events over onto Edelgard or Rhea. Which would cast both characters in a worse light, not a better one.

Maybe so, but considering that the fact that one reason I like Edelgard so much her being so well intentioned and well...human despite of everything, which also applies to Rhea, maybe making both of them seem more evil would detract from the story. 

If they could be written to cast in a light either could interpreted as justified (or both being wrong but have reasons to think what they do), that would be better. But that is pretty much what is the case already in my opinion

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

2 minutes ago, B.Leu said:

I feel like a wonderful idiot for forgetting that,oh yeah in other routes Felix is indeed like that.
The irony is almost omnipresent.

Ah, a person like me who loves to look at blood flying, and tasting it !
But alas poor Yorick, we'll never have such tales of shock, betrayal blood, tears, and other delicious things.

I often imagine how fun it could be gameplay wise, the poaching.

A funny way to look at it: they can only be stupid, arrogant and psyco because their targets are just like that too. One could see them as a metaphor for evil.
...which is a pretty awkward way to write a race. That, or the metaphor is: dubstep is just that evil. 😛

Still pretty awkward, and someone will have to explain me as to why would they want to waste a nuke on something so trivial. I get it, they almost won, but sheesh, it's nuke, you don't waste nuke.

Maybe because keeping Edelgard in line is very important as this is what secures them an army. Or maybe Thales really liked Cornelia. The nuke did serve its purpose at least for a time. A better question is why they don't do this more often

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

18 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Same. I'm genuinely starting to wonder if Three Houses could have been done without a comically evil manipulative group in the background. It would take some major rewriting, though.

Edelgard would seem more justified without them, maybe too much so for a balanced approach. They might be a neccessary as a factor to muddle things with Edelgard.

She straight up would not do things like what happened in Remire on her own and if she was truly to blame for the assassination of Jeralt Byleth would have less incentive to join her

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

11 minutes ago, Sid Starkiller said:

Basically what Hubert said in his paralogue: Thales is so confident that he's in charge that he doesn't consider Edelgard a threat. Hence the bombing of Arianrhod: She bit, and he reminded her who holds the leash.

As for after the war with Slither starts...all we really know is that several endings state that Edelgard won. The specifics are beyond us.

Hubert probably plays a major role, I always thought that early on Thales did hold Edelgard's reigns early in their relationship and when the war begins, but after the war the power dynamic shifted. After all the Slitherers are few in number, they are more a danger as a knife in the dark than as an actual army. Edelgard after the war leads a continental empire, having somehow broken free from their reigns. Maybe it is as simple as Hubert having traced the location of their base. I do think that CF Edelgard is ultimately more independant from the Slitherers than otherwise.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

1 hour ago, Licoriceallsorts said:

Something I feel the game rather glosses over in the CF route is why Byleth would choose to ally themselves with someone who was working together with Jeralt's murderers. Please forgive me if this question has already been discussed to death. I'm new to the site and this discourse. 

Well, the way I understood things was that Edelgard wasn't directly responsible for Jeralt's death, and not only that, went out of her way to break out of the his/her grief by delivering Kronya and Solon directly into his/her hands. I could be mistaken, but up I remember of things were done correctly, it wasn't the church that exposed their location,  but Edelgard in the Black Eagles route. 

1 hour ago, Axel987 said:

In CF Hubert directly states that they are only allied with TWSITD out of necessity and Edelgard doesn't -want- to work with them but feels she needs to, for their resources and power. It's one of CF's weaker points in that the actual catharsis of finally sticking it to them is left entirely to the credits, when more than anything CF is the route where you would most want to do so. Edelgard even points out that Dimitri in the end was just another puppet for Thales to use against her, Thales even appears before you take the fight to Rhea at Fhirdiad.

Personally this is what soured me on CF a bit, despite actually coming to slowly like it a lot in spite of my initial view, as things progressed. CF is straight up missing 2 incredibly important chapters that end up making what could be an excellent route feel like it blue-balled you.

 

Despite loving crimson flower as much as I do, this is a legitimate weakness of this path as I would have loved to see Edelgard directly deal with the Slitherers,  she has an even stronger motivation to hate Thales than any other due to what he did to her and her siblings. I sometimes wonder if the developers just ran out of time or if this was  an intentional decision. After all, it was decided that the Slitherers would be dealt with from the shadows, rather than with open warfare.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

13 minutes ago, B.Leu said:

You know, I'm really happy to see that other people think that Dimitri, BL and Fearghus feel... wrong sometimes. A lot of times.

Another It also kinda sorta weird me out that CF Felix is supposed to be bad and feel bad when everything he thought about his country is proven correct. Obviously he should feel bad -it's his old friends and his dad after all- but beyond that ? I don't think he is a boar at all.

First, amen to that, secondly, you forgot the part where AM Dimitri is welcomed back with utter adoration from his country to the point of rebelling apparently, despite Dimitri having done less than christian things, despite not caring about them. (I'm not confounding with VW or SS do I ? It's hard keep track at times)
And okay, in AM it's hearthwarming because Dimitri started to get a grip, but think a little, and that's less fuzzy.

 

First time ? 😛
Ahaha... yeah same for me.

We did actually recruit Felix for Crimson Flower, mainly justice due to convenience because our Byleth specialised in sword, but as we never used him in battle, just as adjutant, he never did kill his father. 

Is it weird that I am less comfortable with some of the stuff Dimitri does than I am with Edelgard? I guess it kind of comes down to this quote from Linkara, which is also apparently from the movie Camelot:
"revenge, the most worthless of causes".

At least Edelgard has a cause worth a damn, I am glad that Dimitri gets over this obsession with revenge, but I am still to see that in person

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

4 minutes ago, Crysta said:

I think most of the users who gravitate to these sort of threads have played all or most of the routes, so they're better at arguing the details instead of sticking with the broad strokes and generalizations.

But I see no problem with kicking up a prior conversation again in the same thread, even if it's been awhile since we've been on the topic. I literally just dropped into the middle of another conversation because I'm rude like that.

To be honest, I haven't finished every route yet, I am mostly just been picking up information from various threads, and I do seek to understand the bigger picture. (Spoilers usually doesn't bother me, I am usually still interested to see things in person to better understand context)

I have played through crimson flower entirely so I have the greatest knowledge about that path, I am partwise through a maddening golden deer run (which got paused for cindered shadows), and I am watching a let's play of a Blue Lions run, which was actually what inspired me to get the game in the first place. But I am not even remotely close to done with the Golden Deer and the Blue Lions. 

I actually have some hesitation with the Blue Lions run in particular due to some of the things I heard about it, I am really attached to Edelgard, I really don't enjoy seeing her get hurt. I consider Dimitri a great character, but I seriously don't like how Dimitri blames Edelgard for something she didn't even do. It is not his fault, but is still hard for me to watch

I know, I am being silly, I do have to get through this run eventually to have a true understanding of the game

If my knowledge of the game seems incomplete, this would be why.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

6 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Oh wow. This thread absolutely exploded overnight. Was going to respond to some stuff from the first page, but it hardly seems relevant now.

Never seen this much discussion in one day since I joined this site, which admittedly wasn't very long ago. 

You know, I did always assume that Duke Aegir worked for Arundel, and for this reason I made the interpretation that those slither in the dark, has had influence in the Empire for quite a while. 

There are a lot of signs to suggest that Edelgard was meant to be another puppet and that she essentially got tricked into starting the war for them. 

[CS SPOILERS - Romance of the World’s Perdition]

If what is said in this book is true, that completely changes what I thought I knew about this game and those you slither in the dark. This actually makes their motivations makes sense

if true, then maybe it is for the past if Sothis never recovers her memory, she could become a monster that would flood the world and commit mass genocide. Surely Rhea wouldn't intend for this will write with resurrecting her mother? But there is a chance of her being the person who resurrected Sothis in this text, which reveals a far more sinister nature than I knew. Strange, Sothis really doesn't come across as evil. Is that just because she doesn't have her memories?

 

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

6 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Having a personal bias is fine, as long as you can remain objective.  It sounds like you're striving for that!  I may not always agree with you, but know that I'll probably respect your opinion.

Thanks, respecting each other's opinions is really what everyone should do in civilised debates. To me, Edelgard is really just a girl with a good heart that did some bad things because she thought they were necessary. I think that ultimately most characters in three houses are well-intentioned, which is what makes this story so tragic. 

It is literally impossible for everyone to agree at all times, what is important is to listen, something that if more people in this game did could have avoided a continental conflict.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

11 minutes ago, eclipse said:

. . .then say it like that.  "Siding" already tells the other guy that you're biased, so there's no real discussion that CAN take place.

I am obviously biased and in what direction should be obvious for anyone, but I try my best to remain objective, or at least as objective as is possible. It is part of why I try to not blame the other sides involved in the war either. Everyone did what made sense from their perspective. The mark of a true tragedy. 

I have to apologise if I sometimes pre-emptively anticipate an argument against Edelgard and counter it before it has even been mentioned. I have some bad experiences arguing about Edelgard on other sites, so I have come to expect certain things.

I love how calm the people on this site is in general. One of the only times I haven't felt the attacked for my perspective.

It is also wonderful to see this topic so active

2 minutes ago, Timlugia said:

One problem here is that one of Edelgard's main manifestos to the world was the Church are evil because they manipulated Kingdom and Alliance to succeed from the Empire. The truth here was debatable especially with new DLC, but that's for another topic.

The point here is such condition would never be accepted by Kingdom and Alliance, since agreeing it would invalid their claim of sovereignty. As so the Empire is in a irreconcilable position with other nations since they are basically saying other nations are illegitimate governments created by the church, thus rendering peace term between very difficult if not impossible.

I still bet that Edelgard believed every single word of what was written in that manifesto. It is completely possible she did consider the other governments illegitimate. Which does make sense if she believes the narrative that the church has controlled and shaped Fodlan to its own purposes for a millennium. She does in a way want to restore Fodlan to what it was before the split, just with new reformed policies she believes will make life better for everyone.

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

2 minutes ago, AbsoluteZer0Nova said:

How history is precisely written is what bothers me the most from Crimson Flower's ending as apparently the japanese translation was that the other two lands were wiped clean (I'll look for it again just to make sure) and it doesn't help that omega mentioned earlier that it was a historian's point of view about that which doesn't help but of course a nation's history never labels itself as the bad guy which the USA isn't the only one that has its own darkness like Japan and so forth but I don't want to get off topic.

Wiped clean as in their history was quite clean? Somehow I don't feel like that wouldn't make sense for Edelgard to do considering how much she hates the church's fabrication of history. But I guess this could also been in the later generations when telling the history about Edelgard's conquests. It makes sense that they would be trying to present her as the hero in this timeline, I wonder if she would have been villainised the other timelines, or if they would have mentioned her rather complicated nature and misguided intentions. I guess the details often gets lost to time. I wonder how much of a hand Edelgard and the others would really have in the writing of history. 

In any case, there is nothing present in English that would suggest this. 

 

6 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Even if he wasn't spurred by revenge, I think Dimitri likely would have sided with Rhea just by the conclusion he ultimately reaches in AM. I think that may have happened even if he for some reason refrained from taking in Rhea, too, because Edelgard didn't really have that justification to use against Claude/the Alliance.

So I'm about as engaged with this point of contention as much as I was with the "Edelgard burned Bernie!" thing.

Of course I don't blame Dimitri from allying with Rhea, it makes sense given the circumstances. Another reason I think finger pointing is useless, I generally do not think anyone in this entire game is truly evil, except for the Slitherers. I think this was the entire point of the thread, ultimately, it all comes down to misunderstanding, misinformation and a stubborn refusal to hear what the others have to say

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

2 minutes ago, AbsoluteZer0Nova said:

I genuinely want to understand where he's coming from with Dimitri is to blame for harboring Rhea when as @Shanty Pete's 1st Mate stated before why it doesn't make a lick of sense of it being fair to say Dimitri is responsible for what happened to the kingdom. Like that gives Edelgard the complete justified right to come through Faerghus as she pleases to get her? That wouldn't slide irl where other people would find it abhorrent. If Dimitri was granting sanctuary to someone that had openly proven crimes against humanity than that would be a better case, but here it's Edelgard's word alone.

I would say that the claim that either is entirely to blame or entirely in the right is ignoring the reality of warfare. Things are simply more nuanced than that. It is easy to play the blame game, but it is a pointless endeavour, I think the actions of both makes sense given the circumstances. 

I have long made the claim that the only thing that matters in war is a victory, because history will nearly always perceive the winner as the good guys, historically only the losers ever face consequences for potential atrocities committed during a war, and nearly every nation is responsible for at least some. How history is written will determine how people like Dimitri, Edelgard, Claude or Rhea are remembered, and how that history will be told, will depend on who is still alive to write the history. Or do you think that the potential winners would be honest enough to write down what these people were really like without making them into caricatures?

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

7 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

I feel you are ignoring the manifestos on purpose. I said this to you, like, three times now. So diplomacy was already attempted, and Dimtiri didn't care. He had the opportunity to avoid bringing war to his doorstep. He chose not to and go to war because he wanted revenge. 

Also, yeah, Faerghus sucks as a nation. It's the most toxic environment. Teaching kids how to fight before they write basically promotes them to be violent. It's why Faerghus actually went crazy and committed genocide. No nation ever displayed this type of horrific act. It's why when Ingrid doesn't pursue her dream to be a knight but actually takes a step back and reevaluate things, she helps turn a frigid wasteland into a bountiful field. 

Yeah, that's why I was never gonna bother replying to that part. 

One reason I am not too crazy about Faerghus as a nation, we do seem the most steeped in tradition and unwilling to change. 

I have been trying to understand things, is any truth to Edelgard's claim that the church has been trying to split up empire territories into smaller nations to make them easier to control? I can certainly see the logic behind that statement. And if true, how that could cause further and further division in future. 

I see nothing wrong with unifying Fodlan under one leader as long as that leader is benevolent. The most important thing is the living standard of the majority of people. Faerghus isn't exactly brilliant, so I actually believe that life under Edelgard (CF) might actually be an improvement. But the path to get there was still very costly

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

17 minutes ago, Axel987 said:

Arundel was the regent post Part 1, however power was largely in the hands of Duke Aegir before Edelgard took over. After Duke Aegir is imprisoned, Arundel takes control of his lands, which mind you included Hrym teritorry that he excessively already taxed, and bleeds that place dry and places forced conscription with execution as the punishment for not complying. Similar things happen in Fhirdiad where Cornelia is in charge.

She needed their power for her cause but she's also kind of complicit in allowing them to abuse her citizens like that.

Also again, kinda glad we can actually have a discussion about this stuff without being at each other's throats.

 

 

I am also glad that I found a place to have discussions like this in a civilised manner.

Whatever is the case otherwise, Edelgard clearly despises the Slitherers and hates working with them, omly doing so because it is neccesary. Even worse for her as Hubert's reasoning is sound. I didnt understand why she associated with them, but Hubert actually convinced me it was the best move however much I hated it

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

2 minutes ago, Crysta said:

I thought Aegir was removed and replaced by Thales when she formally took the throne? I don't think Thales was regent during her father's reign... but I could have missed it.

Aegir to my underdtanding was always a puppet of Thales, even before he killed and replaced the real Lord Arundel

[The True Tragedy of Three Houses]

5 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Edelgard is not an egregious villain by FE standards. Her moves are more calculated and cold than atrocious and cruel. There's no evil laughter or overextended monologues.

I think the worst thing she probably does beyond being responsible for the casualties of war (again not something OMG TERRIBLE or unusual by FE villain standards) is give Thales the reigns on anything full knowing he's evil af. She prevents the citizens of the capital from evacuating but doesn't actually... do anything with them? It feels like she just rolls over and dies at that point in VW lol.

Actually, to my understanding she didn't give Thales the reigns, he already had them. He had full control of Edelgard's father, if anything she was given the reigns by him