[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

On 5/2/2020 at 5:49 PM, kittykatie said:

Obviosously spoilers up ahead: yeah a lot of people give edelgard hate but she is a well written character. if u don't play her route she is just another pawn in Those Who Slither in the Dark. She thinks she is using them when they are really using her. also, she doesn't even remember dimitri until in the blue lion route he gives her the dagger back, so his obsession with her is also a result of Thales manipulating him. I do think she cares for him and kills him to put him out of his misery 😕 Though I think she has some regret, this is probably due to the professors guidance. she is a lot harsher in every other route.

Dimitri in every other route except his own is also a lost cause and needs you to see the light and regain sanity. He has the biggest case of survivors guilt ive ever seen and I honestly enjoyed his supports with felix (become a gravekeeper lol) Blue lions is my favorite route so I may be biased but it seems like the happiest ending to me. Plus I like how the timeskip reunion dimitri is in the dark and you are in the light! and with claude he is in the light showing that claude really doesn't need the professor lol.

Claude is interesting and most people just make him to be a silly memelord when he is actually very cunning and manipulative but for a good cause. He reminds me of the fourth lord Yuri who is the lord of Ashen wolves. Both are charming and attractive and definitely use this to their advantage. But yuri will definitely kill while Claude avoids bloodshed. While claude is in less need of the professor as the other two, byleths guidance does cause him to trust people and let his guard down.

 

I honestly wonder why Edelgard doesn't remember him at all for most of the game. Seeing as they had a unique relationship, it could have been her just moving past it, but it could also be a comment on how relationships can be imbalanced.

Blue lions is also my favorite route so I'm a bit biased too, but I think the reason why I enjoyed the route so much was because of Dimitri's character growth and his interesting views on the world. Sometimes I think it can be hard to relate to dimitri's worldview because of how dark he is in azure moon, but I think that his dual nature is what makes him one of the best characters in the game.

And I agree that Claude is charming and manipulative, it was fun to try and read in between the lines of some of the things that he would say and do throughout the game.

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

5 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Well, that's why Edelgard and Constance's support comes in handy, where Edelgard better explains it, and it becomes clear why noble houses remain nobles for the time being:

And this is better assisted by Ferdinand's proposal to Edelgard:

Edelgard's system is one that requires education to become more widespread for society, so that commoners can learn to become more independent, as the primary reasons why nobility always have the advantage, even without Crests is that they are more educated and know things more. It's the reason why schools exist. Without education, jobs and climbing up the ladder of success is a seriously difficult task.

Back then, nobles held all the education for themselves, because it's their birthright to be educated because they are meant to know how to run things. But Edelgard's system changes it so now everyone will receive the same education, where only the talented ones will rise above. 

You bring up some interesting points with Edelgard's supports with Ferdinand, but I also think that her support with him can work inversely as well. Edelgard really hadn't considered what if any value could be salvaged from the noble system and hadn't really thought through the particular details of creating a new world; her main concern was to end the church's regime. While meritocracy can be good there can be meritocratic systems that have issues. What is viewed as valuable in a meritocracy can be bad, in that there could be a meritocratic system that rewards people who are deceptive or violent. It's impossible to say what Edelgard's new world would value in particular because she herself doesn't rightly make that clear. Education is a tool that can lead to improved freedom and social mobility in society, but it could also have a negative component should certain information be censored or changed. Edelgard and hubert have acted in ways that would lead me to believe that they wouldn't really have a transparent regime in the way that they would conduct themselves during the war. 

I agree that meritocracy is good, but its also important to think about what would be of merit in Edelgard's system.

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

On 5/4/2020 at 6:04 PM, Blackstarskywalker said:

I think that a more virtuous system is the one that gives more freedoms, and gives importance to merit and knowledge. Edelgard believes that the weak can stop being weak, if people have the opportunity to develop as a full individual.

The units that participate in the crimson flower route, the majority have an active role in the fight against the Argathans (it is what their respective endings say). I imagine that some of them would be upset with Edelgard because she lied to them, others will understand the reasons that she had. 

I think that you could infer that the creation of a more freer society was created in eliminating the crest hierarchy, but its left unclear as to what exactly is going to replace it. And in the absence of a definitive system I would defer to the actions of edelgard and hubert throughout the course of the war as to how the society will function. And their actions tell me that while their society will be free of oppression through the crest hierarchy, it will have its own problems in the form of a controlling and protecting new government. Definitely not the worst outcome, but not the best either.

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

On 5/2/2020 at 10:44 PM, Darkmoon6789 said:

Agreed, but I would also like to add that if war might be necessary, then the necessary war is the right decision, aggressor or not. Not necessarily morally right or are pure, but the right decision, given the circumstances. It is almost impossible to know if it was the right decision or not, but she is stuck with this decision now regardless of the best she can do is keep moving forward and do as much good as she can.

The real trick here is to not let the violence turn into a cycle, it needs to end with the end of the war. But there will inevitably be some uprisings. It might be a long process, but hopefully eventually the world would be better. The thing is that holding on to grudges and vengeance will inevitably create a cycle. Edelgard needs to prioritise dealing with those who can't let go of the past. One way to do so is to prove to the people of Fodlan that her rule isn't that bad. 

By the way, Fodlan doesn't seem to be that big and the soldiers involved in the battles doesn't seem to be all that many. So I think people usually royally overestimate the casualty. It will be no one near the number of casualties as World War II. Edelgard's reliance on elite strike teams in Crimson Flower also probably royally minimised casualties. She also pretty much never went after civilians. The most major problems are whatever the Agarthans were doing.

I think that Edelgard is metaphorically the "killer of god" within the context of the story and there is a necessity for someone to tear down degenerating institutions to allow for the creation of new institutions, its the dynamic nature of life. So in that way Edelgard does serve a profound purpose, but I think that she doesn't really consider the ramifications of the "death of god" and exactly how to create and perpetuate her new system. Edelgard misinforms her fellow black eagles throughout the war in crimson flower and hubert actively does more unsavory things to keep the empire running. After the agarthans destroy Arianrhod she tells the army that it was the church who committed such atrocities because she believed that it was better for them not to know about the agarthans yet. And hubert shows in his supports with ferdinand and shamir that he actively defies Edelgard's orders and commits cruel, yet pragmatic acts to ensure that her power is stable. I think that these issues create a political system that seems shaky in its foundation at best and I think that Edelgard doesn't really care, her goal is to get rid of the crest system as it was at the beginning. And as you said she does serve a purpose in doing that, but I think that because she is so focused on destroying the old system that she's not properly equipped to create a new one.

I also found the discussion around sacrifice interesting because it shows a distinctive dichotomy between edlegard and dimitri. Edelgard takes up a traditional matronly role as a protector and advocate for the people in her political work, while Dimitri takes a more paternal role as a leader figure who seeks to embolden the people to make the right decisions of their own accord. Because edelgard fits that matronly leadership style she fights to liberate the oppressed people because they don't have the ability to do it themselves and ultimately makes decisions that don't embolden the people, but leave them in relative ignorance to real state of the new Adrestian government. You can argue that it might change after the war, but the precedent has been one of misinformation from Edelgard and Hubert. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can certainly have its flaws. Because Edelgard creates a system where everyone is told what the leadership views as necessary it creates a population that isn't knowingly virtuous and without the proper authorities to enforce their normative values the system would collapse. Rhea's flawed system only worked so long because she was able to Shepard her narrative and to control the situation for millenia. Dimitri's view is different in that he tries to emulate his paternal figure of rodrigue in empowering people to make the right decisions. While giving everyone the capability to make proper decisions of their own accord can create a more deliberately and knowingly virtuous population, it can also give people the freedom to make the "wrong decisions". Both Edelgard and Dimitri's political systems have their merits, but they're both subject to degeneration and impermanent, so that can leave the question of what's acceptable to reach these ends?

On 5/2/2020 at 10:37 PM, Blackstarskywalker said:

The Agarthans viewed her as a tool, and she viewed them as a means. Did she remove them? Yes, it is clear in most of the ends of her route. So she was a good ruler, improved society and eliminated the agarthans. So the sacrifices were worth it (as ugly as it reads).

Just as Rodrigue's sacrifice was worth it if Dimitri became a good king.

I think the key distinction that can make Edelgard's sacrifices ethically ambiguous is that she sacrifices other people, while rodrigue sacrificed himself. So if its ok to sacrifice the lives of others to greater ends, I'm left wondering how far this line of reasoning would extend. Is it ok for me to sacrifice some person who has well functioning organs to give all of their organs to people who need organ donations to live? Because more people would be saved in the process making it a collective good to the detriment of one individual. Ultimately the people fighting in the war don't entirely know what they're fighting for and don't entirely consent to sacrificing their lives in such a conflict, but Edelgard believes that she is doing it in her best interests. I'm not making any claim on the ethical legitimacy of Edelgard's war, I'm only asking questions that make it more morally grey than you might have thought it as previously.

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

I think that Edelgard dying in every route except for her own pretty fitting for her character for her stubborn and self righteous behavior talked about above, but I do think that's what makes her character and the other lords for that matter so compelling. And I think what's interesting about the story is that all three lords are equally sympathetic and understandable in their goals to where the lords can all be interesting and relatable to people with different fundamental values. Even though people can make differnt arguments for which of the three houses has the best goals and endings I don't think that anyone can argue that Those Who Slither in the Dark have anything redeemable or good about them lol.

1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

It is just more evidence of how amazing Hubert is. 

And it wouldn't be necessarily out of character for her, what I was arguing is that it is a mistake

I agree Hubert is a really fun character because even though he's really slimy I think that he certainly has redeeming qualities that can make him somewhat sympathetic. His voice is also ridiculously brooding and I can't help but be entertained by it consistently. There's almost a sort of contrast between his depraved side and his more dorky side, that you'll see a lot when he's legitimately simping for edlegard. I think it would be interesting to compare and contrast him and dedue because they perform similar roles for their lords, just having some key differences in the characteristics that make them distinct.

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

17 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

She can definitely be her own worst enemy, especially when it comes to her ridiculous stubbornness in refusing to surrender, no matter how dire the situation. I sometimes wonder if she could have actually survived in verdant wind especially if it wasn't for her own insistence to die. Still, I do believe that there are multiple reasons for why she does this, one of them is the reason stated that she believes that her death will prevent more unnecessary casualties. The second is that she is afraid that her enemies will put her in a cell in similar conditions at Thales used to keep her in. The third reason is that she is the kind of person who believes it is noble to die for your cause. There is also a possibility that she chooses to die out of not being able to handle the guilt of all the lives lost in the war. If she knows that their deaths was for nothing, only through victory could she justify these casualties as meaningful. So choosing to die is in a way, are taking responsibility for the lives lost in the war, many has died for her and she is willing to do the same.

The question is if her fears of being treated badly by Claude or Dimitri if she loses and surrenders are founded or not. I don't actually think so, it is pretty obvious to me, but by this point in time, neither Claude or Dimitri have an actual grudge against her, so it is mostly down to Edelgard being psychologically scarred from her previous experiences. She actually makes reference in Azure Moon to that she feels that Edelgard actually died many years ago in that cell, she pretty much has no fear of death because she has no other reason to live other than her cause. She kind of seems depressed and suicidal. 

"Even if one clings to their faith, the goddess will never answer them, countless souls will be lost that way, living without purpose., I can be counted towards those who have died that way as well. But that is why I must change the world on the behalf of the silent and weak."

As for the arrogance and self-righteousness, Edelgard actually describes herself as arrogant in her introduction, but what kind of truly arrogant person does that? She also says this particular line during the debate with Dimitri in Azure Moon:

"Maybe it is self-righteousness, but it doesn't matter, someone needs to take action and put a stop to this world's endless bloodstained history"

Edelgard seems quite self aware of her flaws. And she has a point, you can't truly expect doing nothing to have any real effect on solving the problems of Fodlan. Which in my view is essentially what Dimitri is suggesting, that the ruler should do nothing, even if they have the power to change things. So in my view Dimitri's adherence to his own values blinds him to the truth of the situation. They are the same in this manner, both are absolutely convinced they are in the right.

There is also one more thing, with Edelgard that I should mention, you remember this line?

"These sacrifices will allow us to create the future will never need sacrifice again, it may seem contradictory but it is the only way". 

Just another statement that shows Edelgard's self-awareness when it comes to the contradictions in her own philosophy. It is just that she believes that it is only contradictory on a surface level and that in reality, her methods are the only method she believes will work.

I honestly feel really sorry for Edelgard, even if I believed she was wrong. I do think she has a good heart, and for that reason, she is not deserving of the hate she gets. Edelgard might look bad at the surface level, which is usually why some people hate her in the story as well, they just look at how things seem on the surface, but once you go deeper, you will realise that Edelgard isn't who she first appears to be. The ironic thing is that it does seem like the harm she causes to Fodlan is actually motivated by caring too much about people. Which is why she is such a tragic figure. Even when she wins she will have to deal with the burden of having so many deaths on her conscience for the rest of her life. Something that is eating her alive, due to the fact that she isn't a bad person at heart. 

Yeah I think that Edelgard is definitely meant to be a tragic character in her disregard for her own life and her distrusting attitude. I think that her distrustful attitude is what really leads her to not ally with Claude because she doesn't have faith in his ability to lead fodlan or to understand its problems because hes from a foreign country. To me it seems like Claude and Edelgard can't get along in the long run because they both are unwilling to make the compromises necessary to move into creating a new and better world together. While Edelgard is aware of some of the issues that one could levy against her I think that she doesn't really address them and just acknowledges them without examining their implications fully. Like in the case of her recognizing that people view her as arrogant she moves dismissive it by saying there is little to be done. She's not completely deluded but I think that she's too driven to properly evaluate some of her tragic flaws; as you mentioned with her goal of changing the crest system after being tortured by the agarthans.

Also in regards to Claude I recently made a new video analyzing some of the aspects of his character and maybe it will bring up some different aspects of his character to talk about in relation to Edelgard and Dimitri

Here it is: 

 

 

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

 

22 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

It just comes down to Edelgard not having perfect judgement, but she is well-intentioned. Plus, my friend has only played up to the Flame Emperor reveal. So he could change his mind. By the way, this is a different friend from the one who is on these forums. I know more than one person who is currently playing through three houses.

The aspect of trust is interesting especially considering Claude and his themes, where he literally has a speech that talks about the importance of people working together to overcome their burdens in life. And i think that could also be one of edelgard's tragic flaws where she doesn't trust enough people and makes unnecessary enemies. That's probably why claude regretted the way that things turned out in the verdant wind route. Because I really don't think that edelgard and claude are too incompatible.

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

9 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I think it was stated that Edelgard is unaware of Byleth's connection to Sothis, but they do believe that they are one of the children of the goddess, something I frequently use as evidence that Edelgard does not desire to destroy the entire species, she just don't want and ruling over humanity like Rhea. But yes, it is ironic that Edelgard would essentially fall in love with someone who is essentially a holy champion originally meant to fight for the opposing side.

If you really look at it, Edelgard and Byleth are the same, they are both experiments imbued with divine power and groomed to serve a particular role by their respective side. Rhea intending Byleth to be a vessel for Sothis and take their place as ruler of the world, the Agarthans intending Edelgard to be a weapon, they can use to destroy their ancient enemies, bringing about "salvation". Destined to be enemies, yet Edelgard and Byleth decided they had more in common with each other and rejected the roles put upon them by others. At the end of the day, I do think that what Rhea did with Byleth is pretty much the same thing as the Agarthans did with Edelgard, just less torture involved in their creation. But in both cases, neither are really given the freedom to be their own person. Due to the expectations placed upon them.

Oh that's interesting to think about, I really hadn't considered the parallels between Edelgard and Byleth in that way even though it was right in front of my face lol. What Rhea did to byleth was definitely unethical, especially because she might have initially planned for the vessel of the goddess to be erased by her coming. I think that most of Rhea's unethical behavior occurred because her mental state deteriorated over time, either from the trauma of her race effectively being exterminated or just the natural deterioration of the manakete in the rest of the series. I think edelgard addresses the fact that she and byleth probably weren't meant to be together in the crimson flower route.

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

9 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Both Edelgard and Dimitri actually only survive on their own routes, Claude is somehow always manage to find a way to survive and get the exact same ending, the only route he even can die is Crimson Flower and knowing that he can be spared. I don't know who exactly is going to decide to kill him. It is the same way with Flayn and Seteth for me. At least with Edelgard. She always dies of her own choice, someone pretty much always attempts to spare her and she rejects it. But in a way knowing that she could always survive if she made that decision and makes it even more tragic, but also easier to handle knowing this is what she wants. Dimitri either dies in a stupid fashion, essentially committing suicide in verdant wind or put down by Edelgard because he won't let go of his hatred. I have no idea what happens to him in silver snow.

I am not as much, saying that Edelgard is an incompetent commander as she isn't as great as Napoleon, but that man revolutionised military tactics in his era. I personally do prefer to fight wars only with overwhelming forces when I am sure of victory in games like civilisation. It is just that Edelgard always defer to Byleth when comes to military tactics, but Byleth is also basically invincible on the field, thanks to divine pulse. Plus, it is hard to argue that the campaign, where Byleth is with her isn't more successful. Kind of wonder what she was actually doing for those five years, where they weren't with her. 

I guess for all of Claude's lofty ambitions and ideals, he does not know what how to actually achieve them, maybe it is that unlike Edelgard he is under the illusion that they can be achieved without violence. I do admire Edelgard's bravery, even if it can get pretty ridiculous in scenarios where she is losing. But the girl just won't give up, no matter how bad things are going, she can have her entire army being taken out around her and she will still try to fight the entire enemy force just by herself. Even when her capital is taken and she only has the palace left she doesn't give up. And even does the whole Hegemon thing as a desperation move in a hopeless attempt to win, but as far as desperation moves go, Rhea did far worse. Edelgard only really hurt herself. It is exactly the same thing as Dedue did in Crimson Flower. So I have always found argued that this isn't necessarily an evil act, even if it is a reckless one. Even if she wins, it is possible that she won't be able to return from this at all. I think Edelgard can be so brave because she doesn't really place any value on her own life, she has absolutely no fear of death, she lives just for her cause, and have no real desire to exist beyond it. I think Byleth changed that when they joined her. They did give her a purpose to exist beyond changing the world

In silver snow dimitri ends up exactly like he did in verdant wind, but anyway I think that Edelgard and Dimitri's conviction to die in service of their ideals is both tragic and admirable in a way. It can be almost anticlimactic in other routes when claude just leaves for Almyra and I think it points out something interesting about his different values and his roles as an outsider. 

I didn't intend to say that she was incompetent either just that she is serviceable as a commander, whereas Napoleon was exceptional as you pointed out. I think its interesting to consider Byleths thematic role in the story even if he can be catatonic through most of it. In that his presence is integral to leading all three lords to their ideal futures and to even fixing some of the internal issues that Edelgard and Dimitri were grappling with. In a way I think its ironic that Edelgard is so starkly opposed to the church, yet she is so enamored by someone who is basically a second coming of the goddess. Although I suppose that you could argue that what she appreciates in byleth is his human qualities, but I still think she appreciates the components of him that came as a result of his shared body with Sothis. 

And it was interesting how dedue would resort to doing that in crimson flower drawing more parallels between him and hubert. Hubert and dedue seem to both go behind their leaders backs to perform acts to their benefit that the leaders wouldn't condone, but it seems that dedue doesn't resort to that as often just being the "sword" of dimitri

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

For sure all of the endings leave things better than they were, largely because the church of seiros was a waning power and rhea was mentally deteriorating. I just don't like how they do my boy dimitri so dirty in 3 out of 4 endings lol, but it makes sense for his character. I assume you feel the same way about how edelgard ends up in every route too. 

Your thoughts on the historical analysis are on point and I wonder if there'd be enough similarities to directly compare the three lords to different historical figures, honestly though Edelgard being similar to napoleon is all that I can think of. I always got the impression that edelgard was just a competent commander who would generally just use overwhelming force to win battles. That could be an interesting thought experiment, what would happen if edelgard survived on the other routes and tried to come back to fodlan?

I'm glad that I made you think about dimitri in a different way because he is my favorite character. I think that his viewpoint can be hard to understand because its rather counter intuitive and its steeped in honor, guilt and duty. Claude especially ends up being a fence sitter in all routes except for verdant wind and it seems like he didn't have any real plan to see his ideals to fruition until a reincarnation of a goddess literally fell right into his life. There is something to be said for edelgard's ambition and bravery in the face of insurmountable odds in taking on a church led by dragons.

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

15 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I am mostly basing my knowledge of Edelgard's policies on the Crimson Flower version as this is the one most expanded upon, I don't know as much about how the Empire of the Edelgard in Azure Moon would differ. It seems to be similar to elsewhere, but she also seems more lenient in Crimson Flower. One major thing is that Crimson Flower Edelgard doesn't actually want to disband the faith in the goddess entirely, she states that she is at war with the sharks and not the faith, which is why she can get people like Mercedes to join her, so it is likely the church of Seiros would still be around in some form, but with way less influence in politics. I can wonder if it would make any kind of difference in their negotiation. If Dimitri was talking to Crimson flower Edelgard instead, some of the his criticisms straight up doesn't apply to this version of Edelgard. Edelgard could just respond to the statement "Some people can't live without their faith" with "I am at war with the church, not the faith, if they need faith to survive, they can keep it."

Honestly, Crimson flower Edelgard, is a lot more lenient on the faith thn I would be in her situation, if I knew for certain a particular faith was based on lies. I wouldn't feel right promoting it. It may seem harmless at first, but many religions uses dogma to justify bigotry and discrimination, it is far from a harmless influence. Granted, the Sothis faith seems less egregious than some real-life counterparts due to its lack of sexist and homophobic policies. 

The thing is that there are some people in the story who have rebelled against the church on their own accord, like Lonato. The people under him seems to have genuinely supported him and wanted change, same with the Western Church, who also opposed Rhea. But the central church crushed all of these resistances without mercy. They will never let Dimitri create any reforms that would endanger the central church's complete control over Fodlan. Even if he got his way. I think war is inevitable anyway. If you ask me Edelgard did make a mistake in having Lonato and the Western churches go against the central church before she was crowned Emperor, if she would have told them to wait they could have launched their attacks simultaneously as the Empire declares war on the central church and the lives of Lonato and the others wouldn't have been wasted.

Anyway, thank you for staying so respectful in this argument, as you can see Edelgard supporters aren't necessarily fascists, in fact, I would argue that if someone do believe Edelgard is a fascist. They don't understand her at all. In fact, we have understandable reasons for why we support Edelgard. I feel that way too often people who support Edelgard are just insulted and dismissed. So thank you for actually listening

 

I don't think that Edelgard means to totally destroy the church for everyone in the crimson flower route, however it would be difficult to have the same religious dogma after killing the dragon that lead the church. In winning a war against the church it delegitimizes them as a moral authority and would cause people to lose their faith nonetheless, even if it wasn't edelgard's intention. Also i agree with you about Lonato I felt like he was needlessly used by the agarthans and the empire and that they died in vain, which is kind of a bummer. And in defense of Dimitri's ending Rhea steps down as archbishop because she is ashamed of her actions and byleth heads the church, creating a system of reforms to better suit the nature of the new world that dimitri is starting.

And yeah I never like it when people mischaracterize Edelgard and her supporters as fascists, going as far as to call her girl Hitler. The comparison is one sided towards those that played any route except for crimson flower and show that they fundamentally misunderstand her character. If I had to liken her to any historical figure I would say its napoleon, especially in the way that he would spread classical liberal values to Europe, with Edelgard probably being more genuine in her goals. And thank you for listening to my opinions because I know dimitri's views are kind of weird and sometimes it can seem that Dimitri's philosophy is too inactive and that can be frustrating. 

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

 

3 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

To my understanding weren't most of the nobles disposed off people like Bermadetta's father, who are guilty of horrible abuse and misuse of their position? As well as people involved in the insurrection of the seven. Than were they really killed? Even the Duke Aegir was the ringleader behind the insurrection were just imprisoned. Edelgard generally do not seem to execute people all that often, not even Rhea. 

We are kind of at an impasse here, probably the same one that exists between Edelgard and Dimitri. Because I came to the conclusion that maybe we do need to start a lot of wars in order to put an end to such discrimination, but the hope is that while things will be Bloody in the short term, in the long term this will lead to a better world for all. I just look at places like Saudi Arabia who treat women as second-class citizens, their indoctrination, often meaning that women are complicit in suppressing themselves and other women. Sure, it is possible that slowly but surely these type of ideologies are losing their grip in even these kind of places. But things are not happening fast enough for my liking, and countless people will suffer in the meantime, depending on how long it would take for such places to reform themselves. It might lead to less suffering in the long run, just to end this discrimination now. This is the place I have seen cases of girls being stoned to death for being raped, yes you heard that right. That is such a violation of my idea of justice that if I had the power to do something about it. I wouldn't just stand by and watch. 

In the eyes of people like Edelgard, Dimitri's unwillingness to do anything about the suffering the crest system causes means he is complicit in said suffering. Maybe the people would eventually rise up against the system, but how many people would suffer before that point? That might be a war eventually anyway, isn't it better to get that over with now before additional decades of the existence of the crest system adds more corpses to the pile than absolutely necessary? I respect your view, but I am just explaining why I couldn't personally get behind that philosophy. 

The saying "the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing" comes to mind. 

Dimitri's philosophy is essentially assuming that everything will always develop in the right direction as well, but will not always be the case. Sometimes the society can actually develop for the worse. But in the end this comes down to me and Edelgard being unable to just accept the injustices of the world.

I think we have managed to hit me nail on the head what exactly their conflict is about here. Maybe I wouldn't be able to persuade Dimitri, I expected him to be less stubborn than Edelgard, but perhaps I assumed wrong, maybe he is just as pigheaded and in that case conflict is inevitable. While at least, I could say I tried the diplomatic approach. Think the problem is that neither of them is really willing to compromise. Granted, I wouldn't compromise in this either, so I honestly can understand them. But there stubborness as definitely costing more losses of life than absolutely necessary that is regrettable.

Yeah I agree there is a sort of impasse here, but i just want to say you made a good case for your point and I thought it was a valuable discussion to get to the root of Edelgard and Dimitri's differences. I'm not entirely averse to war and conflict because I understand it to be a necessity of life because conflicts can't always be resolved peacefully, even if both parties understand one another. I'm not entirely on the same page as dimitri, but I do tend to agree with some of his general ideas and his ideals are definitely admirable. My main issue with Edelgard is primarily her methodology which, as I pointed out in the video is similar to Rhea's because if any ruler disregards the means to which ends are achieved they might cause more harm than good. I think that's the case for Edelgard in the other three routes just not in black eagles because she has someone to keep her from becoming too cruel. 

Finally I don't think Dimitri believes that inactivity will solve the worlds issues, but rather that he intends to empower people so that they won't need someone to protect them or to put them on the right path. In his ending he creates a representative government that lets the people pass legislation in the government that concerns them. So if the people of Faerghus wanted to change the inequality within fodlan they could reasonably change that. 

But thanks for arguing this out and giving feedback on my videos

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

17 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

But aren't the people incapable of defeating such a major power as the church of Seiros by themselves without the support of a major figure with actual power? There is also the factor that the crestless masses might actually be brainwashed enough into believing those with crests have a right to rule over them, because it is the will of the goddess, therefore making them unlikely to go against the shortage for the nobles above them, regardless of how crappy their lives are. The masses are simply not educated enough to know what they are missing and how much better their lives can truly be. It is kind of a dilemma when you are dealing with people living under oppressive conditions that don't want to be liberated, like many women will regularly opposed her own right to vote as they legitimately thought that this month against their rightful place in society. Personally though, I feel that basic human rights and equality are not up for popular vote and should be given to all whenever they want to or not. Just because the majority of people are in agreement that a certain group should be discriminated against, doesn't mean that they are in the right. 

It is also worth pointing out that no Emperor could ever rule without people who support them, unpopular rulers are usually overthrown by the people as long as they have the desire to do so. (Which is why propaganda is important for oppressive regimes, as they also rely on the support of the people to stay in power). It isn't like Edelgard forces everyone to participate in the war against their will, she legitimately has the support of a lot of the population in the Empire, her generals and soldiers are legitimately loyal to her as they do believe in her cause. As a result, I do believe that a greater portion of the population support Edelgard than Dimitri seems to think.

 If I were present during Edelgard's and Dimitri's negotiation. I think I would have tried a bit longer to convince Dimitri of our point of view, I am quite confident I could dismantle his arguments. If I was given enough time to do so. Especially as if he truly doesn't want any more casualties. The quickest way to achieve that is to lay down his arms and concede Faerghus territory over to Edelgard. The only thing they would be losing out on is a system where people are considered superior due to the circumstances of their birth, if that isn't considered the strong trampling on the weak. I don't know what is. Dimitri is just as guilty in perpetuating the conflict as Edelgard as without him, the war would have ended a long time ago. Dimitri could even remain as the leader of the Faerghus region as long as he proved himself a capable leader, Faerghus could even retain some degree of cultural independence with its knightly traditions as long as they adhere to certain stipulations. If Dimitri wants to see the people have more of a say, let's try giving everyone free education, as suggested by Ferdinand. 

I would promise Dimitri that things wouldn't be as bad as he fears. For those who aren't strong enough to rise up in this new system? Don't worry, they will be protected and cared for by those who are capable to ascend to a higher position. Those who abuse their power would be struck down by the emperor. Strength can also be used to protect the weak and allow those who are capable of such a thing to ascend. Edelgard might not think that Dimitri can be persuaded, I beg to differ. Edelgard, however, is probably impossible to persuade from giving up her crusade. 

Sure and I think there is where the primary philosophical distinction takes place. Edelgard takes the position that she must eliminate a cruel system of oppression in the form of the church to help those who are benighted because they can't help themselves, including those in different territories. She seeks to eliminate the oppression of the church all across fodlan because all the people don't have the power or the information to fight back against the church. Dimitri on the other hand genuinely believes that the people of any power structure, no matter how oppressive, are complicit in its perpetuation and that should they really have disagreements with the system they would rise up against it themselves. There are some people like mercedes who live for the church because they genuinely believe in the goddess and the good that she brings, those people aren't evil and they would suffer immensely through the destruction of the church.

I'm not saying that you guys are wrong in your beliefs about Edelgard's war, but I do disagree with you on the philosophical grounds that people in power need to liberate other groups from systems of oppression because such liberation is non-consensual ultimately even if it is in favor of the greater good. If you do think that we ought to liberate other nations from regimes that commit human rights violations then we'd have to start a lot of wars to put an end to such discrimination. And then if the world a better place when you force everyone to be better through coercion, it seems a kind of like a shallow victory in that as soon as people aren't coerced into being good they'll just go back to committing evil. Historically the population of countries have fought back against tyrannical systems even though information was dominated by the oppressive systems, such as in the protestant reformation, the american revolution, etc. It's just the ebb and flow of history that systems consolidate their power until eventually their power wanes and the people come to resist that system of power that previously dominated everything.  Also its not necessarily about popular voting, but just a system that provides representation to a nations citizens so that they can structure society in a way that is agreeable to them.

Honestly, even though you make very good points I don't think that you would have been able to talk dimitri down at the negotiation because their disagreement goes beyond a misunderstanding.  Dimitri knows how oppressive the crest system is, but he also recognizes the importance of it as a social fixture in fodlan, he doesn't think that totally destroying the church is the answer as oppressive as it may be. 

Also not everyone gets on board with Edelgard's war in the empire, Hubert says as much when he informs edelgard in crimson flower that her opposition has been disposed of. I give edelgard a pass on that normally because its hubert who performs most of the ethically unsavory acts, but in this case it shows that people didn't have a choice to disagree with her otherwise they would be disposed of.

Interesting stuff tho

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

1 hour ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

Yes, I know that. In her country she was the highest authority, but not in the Kingdom and the Alliance. So by winning the war, she also becomes ruler of those territories and can implement the changes that she sees fit.

Yeah I agree that might does make right in that by winning the war she can functionally do whatever she wishes, but I was speaking more on an ethical ground; as in should edelgard exercise that power. Sure all the lords have an opportunity with the power they've been given to make tangible differences to improve peoples situations, but it becomes a little more grey when you consider the lower class of fodlan who were enfranchised in the church's system, flawed as it may have been. 

One could argue historically that certain leaders would claim there actions are to the benefit of the common man, but are they really? I'm not saying that Edelgard doesn't genuinely believe what she's doing isn't right and I'm also not saying that the meritocracy she wants to create isn't good. But, it's a similar situation to interventionism today, where certain countries will liberate others under governmental systems that they view as regressive. But I don't necessarily think that interventionism is always justified. 

But I definitely see where both of you guys are coming from and those points are functionally correct, winning the war gives them the right to impose rule on others and those with power have greater opportunity to make change. I just agree with dimitri that power ultimately lies within the people to reject oppressive systems, its not as immediate as a unilateral decision, but its more consensual.

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

2 hours ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

How are people empowered without merit, without knowledge and without individual liberties? How do you ask people how they want to live, if they live in a system where knowledge and development is limited? For a society to have progress , it must have a lot of knowledge and freedoms. And as other colleagues here in this forum commented, sometimes war is necessary for that.

It is true that there are also many examples of revolutions that become tyrannies, but looking at all the endings and supports of her, because she did not seek to be an eternal ruler, nor to create a system like Rhea's. In her ending with Byleth, she after Fodlan's reconstruction, she wants to enjoy life.

Those are good questions to ask and they bring up some genuine flaws in dimitri's logic. But I could also ask in response: does everyone have the capability to live in the way that edelgard imagined? Couldn't the new system, even with the removed censorship of the church, have certain dogma's and belief structures that can prevent people from being able to properly understand the world beyond Edelgard's? And even though war is a necessity to instigate change in systems that one sees as corrupt, what gives edelgard the right to make such a grand decision for all the people of fodlan? How will the people react once their entire belief structure has been destroyed and replaced by a new one? 

Just to be clear I also think that war is a necessity and I think that dimitri goes to far with his philosophy as is the tragic flaw of his character.

Also I didn't mean to imply that Edelgard would become a cruel dictator I only meant to say that in dimitri's view she would effectively set the values for the new world making her equivalent to the goddess in that the rules under which they operate are decided upon by her. 

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

6 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Yes, I have finished Azure Moon. 

Which is why I mentioned that maybe it was his intent to point out that maybe the idea of a king making all the decisions for their people without consulting them is not something he is comfortable with. Granted, his society still has both the crest system and the inherent inequality in the nobility and commoner division, which seems to contradict his philosophy of giving power to the people. Sometimes I am not sure if Dimitri ever realised that he is fighting a war to preserve a system promoting inherent inequality. 

I did just what sure analysis, good job. But I am not really that certain that Dimitri really succeeds all that well in rebuttling  Edelgard. Primarily because I don't actually think he understands her at all. Edelgard certainly does not intend to stand for the strong dominating the weak, as she states she also desires to break that cycle. Edelgard has no desire to to suppress the masses and some tyrannical rule, but she also seeks to empower the common people through giving them a chance to rise above the station of their birth. Edelgard makes a statement during teatime that as a successor she would not want one of her own children, but a stranger that is both capable and kind. Keyword being kind, meaning that one of Edelgard's criteria for being capable of leadership is treating other people well. 

The ironic thing is that Edelgard and Dimitri want practically the same things, a world where people doesn't have to suffer oppression from corrupt rulers and nobles. But both are convinced that the others methods won't work. But if we look at the games endings. That seems to suggest that in fact the methods of both will work as both Edelgard and Dimitri brings about a golden age of their own design. So it is possible that they are both utterly wrong in considering their ideals irrreconcileable. Which adds to the tragedy

Just imagine a world where both of them cooperated to create a society together. A society combining Dimitri's ideas for government participation with Edelgard's disbandment of the nobility and the crest system, as well as promotion to positions of power through merit. I think that would be better than either managed to create on their own. The sad thing is that such a future could only really happen if Azure Moon Dimitri and Crimson flower Edelgard coexisted in the same timeline, something which is impossible because for either version of the character to exist, they need Byleth to join them, and they can't help them both at the same time.

By the way, you mentioned an interesting interpretation of Dimitri's line about Edelgard seeking to become the goddess herself in your Edelgard analysis. I didn't even consider before that he might have meant that Edelgard would become like Rhea. I thought he was just repeating the complete nonsense claim that Seteth made in the beginning of a route with Edelgard wanting to replace the goddess and create a cult worshipping herself. Which of course is completely made up as Seteth was just jumping to conclusions based on absolutely nothing. But I think it is telling that the leadership of the church of Seiros cannot imagine a world without an absolute divine authority, so they immediately jump to the conclusion that Edelgard wants to claim said authority, which shows just how authoritarian their worldview actually is. It is actually not very obvious at all that Dimitri would man to be first interpretation, so it could easily be misconstrued by Edelgard into a repetition of the church's made up claim and therefore served to make her angry. Serving to further support my idea that the two just didn't understand each other's intentions all that well.

Edit: one thing I really admire with Dimitri in the end is that he actually did try to spare Edelgard, in this case, I believe it is Edelgard who is mistaken in insisting to die. She has many reasons to do it this way, including personal guilt, fear of imprisonment because of her trauma as well as as you suggest holding the belief that her philosophy can't truly coexist with that of Dimitri. It is quite sad that I do believe she could have survived in any route, it is just that extreme stubbornness is probably Edelgard's biggest weakness, once she put her mind to something, there is no changing it , and she is dead set on a dying for her cause. If she can't have victory. But part of me, do wish she accepted as that would make a really sweet ending, it really comes down between whenever a tragic or a happy ending is more satisfying. As it is written, three houses and especially Azure Moon is a brilliant tragedy.

i think another key difference between edelgard and dimitri is that edelgard seeks to protect people by making unilateral decisions to their benefit, while dimitri thinks that as a ruler he ought to empower people to make good decisions to their own benefit. I think the scene where edelgard and dimitri talk before the invasion of enbar is so great because while they didn't agree on anything, their incompatibly was directly pointed out. I'm also glad that you thought about that line differently because it implies something a lot different, in that edelgard will become the new figurative goddess of her new world in that she is the one who sets the value systems under which everyone will live. 

I also totally respect your opinion that Dimitri doesn't rebut edelgard too well, because both dimitri and edelgard are right about each other. Edelgard rebuts dimitri's methods by calling them too idealistic and dimitri acknowledges as much and dimitri thinks that edelgards means don't justify the means, as can be seen in his dialogue withe edelgard at the taltean plains when he tell edelgard that "'this future of yours is built on a foundation of corpses and tears'". But someone can reasonably believe that the ends do justify the means as in Edelgard's path because honestly rhea's system wasn't strong enough to last in perpetuity. 

Also I don't think that Dimitri cares about defending the church inasmuch as he cares for defending the people from any aggression, so I could see dimitri defending any system against anyone's aggression. Dimitri's main goal is to empower people and to protect them from being dominated by the aggression of others, not to protect them by making decisions for others like edelgard. The thing is both views are valid, but they have very different implications, one believes that people can and ought to choose what's best for themselves and the other believes that the people need to be lead to goodness because they are powerless to do it themselves because of institutional pressures. Dimitri believes that the people of any system consent and are complicit in its existence, while edelgard thinks that the people are oppressed by lies and misinformation and don't have the opportunity to consent. The incongruity when Dimitri says edelgard doesn't end the cycle of the strong trampling the weak is the difference in opinions of what that is. We could talk about this all day because there's a lot to think about here, but I'll leave it at that for now.

I also really like how Dimitri spares edelgard at the end of the azure moon route, but sometimes I can't help but wonder if edelgard's decision to force him to kill wasn't the reasonable thing to do. How would edelgard exist in the world after the absolute defeat she faced in her revolution, surely the people of faerghus and the alliance would want some punishment for what she did and what purpose would edelgard do in the world? We know that all she lived for was to see the church destroyed and a new world created without crests so I don't think that she would want to live in such a world. I also liked the symbolism of her throwing the dagger at dimitri allowing him to finally carve his own path into a brighter future instead of living for the dead. Finally I also like how claude is characterized as a solution to the problems in fodlan that doesn't have to be within the context of defending the church and tearing down the church. Claude's solution is to globalize the world which has absolutely nothing to do with Edelgard and Dimitri's goals and while some can see this as good others can criticize it as ignoring the problems that matter to fodlan. And while the crest system and the church are dismantled in claude's route that's just a byproduct of his larger goal.

 

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

55 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Thanks, I think you earned yourself a subscriber, it is good to see someone will actually thanks you for having a different perspective. 

About Edelgard and contradiction, remember when she says this?

"These sacrifices will allow us to create a future where we never need sacrifice again, it may seem contradictory but it is the only way."

So, she is at least aware of that her position looks to be contradictory. Where she might be mistaken is that she believes that it is actually possible to obtain a world without conflict, as long as her goals are realised. But what she seeks is an impossible dream, no matter how good her future empire is, and I do think it is a massive improvement from what was before, there will always be more conflict, more sacrifices that needs to be made. Even if Edelgard hopes that conflict on a continental scale will never again be necessary, there will likely be rebellions that needs to be put down, and despite her best efforts, there will come time where the future emperor makes a mistake in regards to their successor and someone unworthy and corrupt attains power over the Empire. But despite the inevitability of further sacrifice, I cannot hold it against her that the righteous world she desires is a pipedream. Edelgard is kind of motivated by her inability to accept a world where meaningless sacrifice is sanctioned, which is why she is desperate to make every sacrifice have meaning.

The inability to accept a fundamental aspect of reality is something Edelgard has in common with Dimitri, with the difference that Dimitri is unable to accept sacrifice at all, meaningful or not. It does actually seemed to me that Dimitri's boar personality came into being due to his inability to accept the horrific nature of war.

You were right, Edelgard is like many rulers before her, there are many before her who started a war with presumably good intentions, like I assume was the case with Loog and even Rhea, who tried and failed to create a world without conflict, Rhea becoming blind to the festering corruption within her system and desperate to retain the status quo. It is kind of a blessing in disguise that, unlike Rhea, Edelgard is a mortal and will probably not live to see her system turn to crap. But there is one thing with Dimitri that always kind of annoyed me, it is that making these kind of tough decisions and making sacrifices for the greater good is actually kind of his job as a monarch, so he is in a way a king who rejects his very role. Maybe what Dimitri is actually saying here is that the duty expected of a monarch to make decisions on the behalf of his people is not necessarily the way he thinks things should be done. This is saying that he thinks there shouldn't be a king? Isn't that paradoxical with his own position in his future?

I do remember that quote, at one point I was planning on incorporating it in the video, but I think that it just got lost on the cutting board unfortunately. I think that her acknowledgment of the seemingly contradictory nature of such a statement shows a capability to acknowledge flaws in her worldview, but she seems to never go further into it than that because as we talked about before her only reason for moving forward is to see her world through. I think that there's definitely a nobility to Edelgard's character in her noble aspirations and I think that one of the tragedies of the game is the fact that she had her nobility manipulated by the agarthans to serve their ends, which is a lot like dimitri. I think you're spot on with your comment about dimitri failing his duties as a king because the agarthans seemed to have planned the tragedy of duscur specifically to put him on his destructive path; edelgard acknowledges as much after she kills dimitri in the crimson flower route. 

I'm not sure if you've done the azure moon route all the way through yet, but in case you didn't I'll be spoiling an aspect of the ending so be warned. In one of his endings dimitri creates a sort of republic where the people of Faerghus are able to express their wishes by taking part in the government. Because one of dimitri's defining philosophies is that he seeks to empower others as best he can. I actually explore this a lot inn my dimitri video so when you watch that I'm curious to hear what you think. It's a bit longer and the resolutions a tad bit worse, but I think the ideas in there are pretty thought provoking. 

Thanks for the sub by the way and thanks for talking this out with me I feel like I'm understanding the game from a different perspective now.

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

12 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

After watching your analysis of Edelgard, interesting interpretation. But I could nitpick a lot of things.

One of those being that I don't actually think Edelgard is aware that what she is spreading about the church is misinformation, I think she believes every single word she says. Plus, I think she is actually right that the kingdom of Faerghus and Leicester alliance were created in an attempt to create division within Fodlan, but she is wrong about it being the doing of the charged, as it is mentioned that Loog was supported by Agarthan allies during the war, preceding the creation of the kingdom. It is safe to say that they desired this split. Perhaps because it is hard to turn Fodlan against itself while they are still united under one Empire.

I also don't think she is much consider herself superior to Ferdinand in their supports as she just considers the act of comparing themselves to be a complete waste of time as she is extremely busy with furthering her cause, so she doesn't think that she should waste her time in some kind of nonsense competition with him and she thinks that he also should have better things to do than compare himself to her.

One of the things I think you are right about is that Edelgard for most part doesn't really have a will to live at all, so she exists solely to further her cause, not even really for herself, but because she believes this is the only thing that could grant the death of her siblings, meaning. Ironically, in trying to live her life only to fulfil the hypothetical wishes of the dead, rather than do what she actually wants with her life, she is incredibly similar to Dimitri. One wanting to reform the entirety of society to make sure what happened to their siblings could never happen again, the other haunted by the voices of the dead, demanding revenge against their killer. Edelgard has mentioned that she would rather laze about all day and eat sweets than the who she is and leading this revolution, but that she feels that doing this is her obligation as the only surviving member of her family. Dimitri has mentioned that revenge was less his personal desire and more what he thought was required of him to honour the dead. Both did what he did not out of personal desire, but out of the feeling of obligation.

The comparison between Edelgard and Rhea is accurate for the most part. At least when it comes to their methodology. 

After all, both used in the exact same method in uniting Fodlan and creating a society according to their preferences. But the differences is in that said preferences are very different. Rhea halted technological progress out of fear of what advanced weaponry was capable of in the past and established a strict hierarchical system justified by bloodlines, Edelgard wants to embrace technological progress, tearing down the current hierarchies and replace the importance placed on crests and bloodlines with placing importance of a person's capability and merit. Maybe Azure Moon Edelgard would be similar to Rhea in her ruling style, I don't know because we never saw the rule because she didn't win, but I don't think this holds true for Crimson flower Edelgard simply because I think the people close to her and prompted her with advice to keep her grounded. I should also point out that by no instance in any route does Edelgard ever resort to burning down her own capital city with the civilians in it for a military advantage, she resorts to other means of desperation, but she by no point falls as far as Rhea does in Crimson Flower

Another thing I think you should talk more about is Edelgard's reluctance and guilt over the entire war and its casualties. She constantly refer to the blood that flows at her feet as a burden, she understands that civilians will inevitably caught in the crossfire, but she tries to avoid attacking civilians directly than she can avoid it, she prefers surgical strikes, leading a spearhead of personal elite forces in order to end conflict quickly so she can prevent unnecessary casualties. She even places flowers on the graves of the fallen in a clear act of mourning. She clearly feels the weight of responsibility and guilt for the entire war on her shoulders, to the point. I think it plays a large role in why she downright refuses to be spared when she loses the war, with all the massive amounts of casualties on her conscience. She is simply unable to live with herself knowing that it was all for nothing. 

However cold Edelgard may seem most of the time. I think it is nothing more than a facade. A way for her to be able to do what she feels must be done and trying to suppress the massive guilt building up inside of her.

I think her struggle with the weight of being responsible for so much of death is part of what makes Edelgard such an interesting character for me. She is something as odd as a kind and noble person stuck in a role as a reluctant villain because she thinks that is what is her duty and obligation thanks to her position. This is also what makes her incredibly difficult to classify, a villain to some and a hero to others, possibly both at the same time. Mainly because I think there is no reliable proof that the really is another way, in fact, every single character relies on the war happening to create their preferred future. 

I will watch your analysis on Dimitri at a later point, he is my second favourite character in the game so I might have a bit to say about that as well. But one thing I have started to notice over playing through both crimson flower and azure moon, Dimitri and Edelgard has way more in common than it first seems. It is kind of tragic met neither ever realised this. 

I think that your interpretation of Edlegard is pretty interesting in that in homes in on certain aspects that didn't really focus too much on. I agree with you that Edelgard doesn't want to pave such a bloody path to her future and tries to limit casualties where she can, but I do think that one of her flaws is that she doesn't quite see the contradictory nature of her actions. Basically after lonata's death Dimitri points out that all rulers throughout history have had their own just causes to start wars and to risk the lives of their people, however Dimitri questions if they have the right to make such sacrifices. In the same conversation, just within the context of the black eagles route Edelgard says that she is a leader like lonato who will make sacrifices in the service in the service of the greater good. I like how those two conversations show the key distinction between Edelgard and Dimitri, that being that Edelgard views sacrifices in the name of the greater good acceptable and Dimitri does not. And ultimately Dimitri re contextualizes Edelgard's war in his conversation after lonato's death and before the invasion of enbar by pointing out that while Edelgard's cause may be just, she functionally does the same thing as rulers before her.

 There was a lot about Edlegard that I didn't go into in my video because i think that as a character she has some of the most characterization in the game, being a significant player in all 4 routes. I definitely agree that Edelgard isn't naturally a cold and cruel person, but I think the beauty of the crimson flower route is that Byleth allows her to blossom into the best version of herself by keeping her grounded within her more carefree and empathetic attitude. Also the splitting of the kingdoms to achieve political manipulation was true, but the context in which she presented it was what made it untruthful. I also didn't intend to imply that Edelgard lied to Fodlan knowingly, but I can see that it can be misinterpreted because I liken Rhea and Edelgard and then I describe one as knowingly lying and one as spreading misinformation.

I also liked your comparison between Dimitri and Edelgard and I think that I might want to explore a comparison between all three lords in the future.

Thanks for pushing back on some of the points in my video by the way I think it's always important to question and reevaluate the statements you make.

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

I personally really enjoyed most of the characters in Three Houses, but I especially liked the characterization of the lords and how they fit into themes within the main story. So I thought it'd be fun to have a thread discussing their separate character arcs and comparing and contrasting the characters to see how different people interpret them. Personally my favorite of the lords is Dimitri because of his redemptive character arc where he was able to reevaluate his views on the world and to move past his destructive path to become a better person. I also think Edelgard is a very interesting character, even if her route is too short, because even though she's an antagonist within most of the routes she still can't be easily classified as a villain. I'll leave this open to anyone who wants to respond now and possibly talk more about why I like claude's character later.

If you guys want my extended thoughts on Dimitri and Edelgard I made some character analyses on youtube if you want to check them out and talk about them too.

Here are the videos to those who are interested:

Dimitri: 

 

Edelgard: