MessengerIris

Oh, I don’t disagree that she wanted to end the war ASAP. I just didn’t agree with her notion that all of this had to be done in the first place (= war is the one and only solution, as per her eyes), that why all of her war acts are seen as morally questionable, but this is my opinion, I’m not passing it off like a fact.

Don’t think she takes pleasure in it. She just justifies it by saying it is a necessary evil of war, like she does towards most other morally questionable thing she does in the game. (This attitude is the main reason I have a problem with her, because I fundamentally do not agree that any of this was “necessary” as she so puts it, but she is stubborn and has tunnel vision)

I think the point of “Edelgard feeling no remorse” was just a misunderstanding (I wasn’t the one to say it). From my opinion, Edelgard does not feel remorse, but rather REGRET. She feels regret over the necessary evil that is war like (1) killing innocent/ignorant people in the cross-fire of her goal (2) not eliminating the resistance faster and dragging the war out (3) not avoiding it to begin with by hiring better assassins. However, if she could go back in time and do it all over again, does she still think the war was the right decision? I personally think so, even as she is begging for death in the other routes. That’s where I think the distinction between remorse (deep guilt that you did the wrong thing) vs. simply regret over how it went about.

I only called out the fact that you labelled Edelgard detractors as “dishonest hypocrites” which I feel like is an unfair generalization. I don’t see many people applauding Dimitri for being a revenge driven murderer, who coincidentally had an unintentional “good goal” of liberating his Kingdom and ending the war. His fans like him INSPITE of his murderous rampage, which I think is a little different than how Edelgard fans approach these discussions (most times it devolves into “well she HAD to, it was the only way” and “she was justified because the ends were good”). Everyone in the game makes Dimitri out to be wrong from the get go. Even Byleth disapproves of how he is acting. Dimitri’s downfall to madness is there to make him sympathetic, but nowhere does the game suggest that “this is justified and ok behavior.” Maybe it was just me, but no where in his route did I feel like “man, you know what? He had it rough, I can get behind these murders. I mean, it does work towards liberating the Kingdom.” Instead, it showed that Dimitri TRIED to find out who was behind the Tragedy (he was suspecting Arundel all along) and lost his sense of reason during a traumatic reveal. Additionally, his recovery had nothing to do with the finding out who was behind the Tragedy itself. He came upon to the realization that there was a bigger issue at hand with Rodrigue’s death. Meanwhile, you literally do not entertain the idea that Edelgard is wrong in her route - you just had to take her word for it. She doesn’t hesitate nearly as much because she thinks what she is doing IS justified, when clearly a lot of information is missing to you. People compare her to Napoleon and others, which I think is inaccurate. When you look at conquerers and dictators, you look AT THE WHOLE PICTURE and then RETROACTIVELY assess whether they ultimately achieved good or bad. No one analyzes it as “oh in NAPOLEON’S or HITLER’S POV...” Because you can’t actually tell what is good OR bad if you only looked at a biased opinion - that’s my point with Edelgard, you can’t just use a limited and biased POV to argue morality and justification for actions. No one disagrees with her intentions but her means can come across controversial because, no matter what her past is, a sympathetic past does not give you a pass on questionable actions (as seen in Dimitri’s route). Even on her own route, we are missing too much information to thoroughly assess whether (1) was it really the ONLY option (as she presents it as) (2) what other means did she try beforehand (3) was this information even reliable. She might be justified from HER perspective...but there are a lot of OTHER perspectives, often less biased (GD), compared to hers, and that’s why I have an issue with what she does (as do a lot of her critics). She comes off as stubbornly self righteous in knowing what needs to be done, and then shoves it down everyone else’s throat (since everyone just reacts to her proactive decision). She doesn’t gain the same level of insightfulness on her route, all that really happens is that I worked towards achieving her dream. Just imagine this, if both Dimitri and Edelgard could go back in time, at the end of their routes, how would they have done things differently? I think Edelgard would regret not doing things BETTER, but would ultimately still think war was what was needed. She reminds me a lot of Thanos tbh, just without this level of fan support. MCU Thanos, too, experienced a tragedy (destruction of his homeland because of overpopulation). Both had a noble goal and felt the need to take an unpopular decisive actions. Both think they are doing the right thing, and from our perspective, we do not see them try to find less drastic alternatives. Yet, Thanos is not nearly as well-defended. Not many go around trying to say “Thanos was in the right since he had a good reason/past for wanting a good end goal.” If anything, the audience takes on the BL perspective (not as revenge crazed as Dimitri), since our heroes are defending against an aggressor and we are made to sympathize with the tragic fallout of the aggressors’ actions. That being said, I think people need to chill with these discussions. People can like who they like but they should stop trying to drag down other characters to elevate their own. I think everyone in this game is morally gray - just because so-and-so is bad, doesn’t automatically make Edelgard/others in the right. There is nothing wrong with liking characters that are controversial, not everyone has to be “justified” in their actions. The whole point of the game is about showing how perspectives in war really alter the lines between what is ultimately “right.”

This is why I hate discussing about characters in this game. All of them are pretty morally gray. Just because Dimitri is in the wrong, doesn't make Edelgard right. I haven't seen many people defend or try to justify his action. Both of them had pretty tragic pasts but morally, sympathetic pasts does not justify morally questionable actions, even ones with good intent. I think the main difference in opinions is how the story writes them. Dimitri's route make him look misguided by exposing the real preparator. He doesn't even try to justify his temporary madness or his actions at any point in the game. He just accepts that he is a monster and embraces that. The story constantly reinforces that he is wrong, even when crazy. Compared that to Edelgard, who justifies her actions as a necessary evil. She hates it, but continues to do it anyways. Her fans defend to that it was "necessary" but that in itself is a controversial position because the other routes show Edelgard to be misguided too. Yet, that aspect is not explored in Edelgard's route. She is firmly deadset that she is doing right, and you are just here along for the ride. Then people argue that she "tried to find alternatives" but there is little shown in the narrative (the contents of the manifestos are never shown, just because an attempt was made doesn't make it a GOOD attempt at diplomacy). I don't even hate Edelgard. I think she is a good morally gray character. It's just super annoying when people feel the need to throw someone else under the bus to make Edelgard seem morally better and then call their fans hypocrites...

For me, it is more the narrative vs the character motivations. In their respective routes: Dimitri is painted as very wrong by the game. The game and his interactions with the supporting cast all make him out to be wrong. The supporting cast mainly goes along with it because of the mutual goal (freeing the Kingdom). Heck, even Dimitri (during his speech to Randolph) admits that he is nothing more than a monster who is just awaiting his just desserts (him refusing to move during the attack by Fleche). Even when insane, the game doesn’t try to justify anything Dimitri does (eg, every time Felix bashes on Dimitri for letting his murderous emotions get the best of him). His insanity and downfall is only there to makes you sympathetic, but his end goal and means were ultimately still selfish, and the game does not try to paint it otherwise. Whereas I can’t say the same for Edelgard. Yes, her primary supporting cast also has doubts over her actions but they still go along with it, and not all of them have as strong of a reason to support Edelgard’s aggressive position during the war. Heck, at the time Byleth sided with Edelgard, there wasn’t much going for her either! She goes off justifying the casualties as “necessary sacrifices” ... but this is NOT her decision to make. These sacrifices are not hers to offer - they require the blood of the people caught in the cross-fire to her end goal. And then on the other routes, when given a chance to surrender and negotiate (especially Claude’s), Edelgard refuses because despite their mutual goals, she does not think Claude has the “capacity” that she has to save Fodlan (which in my opinion, is very arrogant and just reinforces her savior complex). I think from a moral perspective, having a tragic past does not give either of them the justification to do the atrocities they did. At the end of their respective routes, with all the additional awareness/insight they learned, if you asked me if the characters had regrets and would have done things differently, I would say: Dimitri - he would not have pursued Edelgard out of revenge and focused on liberating his Kingdom. Edelgard - she would’ve regret not doing things BETTER (better assassin to eliminate Dimitri/Claude, more decisive actions to eliminate the resistance quicker). She regrets not anticipating the push-back/chaos of the war, but ultimately thinks the war is still the right way to achieve HER goal. I think for me, that in lies the difference in my acceptance of these characters. None of their actions were “right.” They were all driven by personal motives to a degree, but whether they recognize it and would have changed it in retrospect, is different. (As shown in your opinion of Hubert. He is who he is, and doesn’t try to make himself sound right OR wrong. He is aware that at the end of the day, he has a goal to reach, which I actually appreciate.)

Agreed. I feel like the main reason Edelgard is so controversial is because unlike Dimitri/Claude/Rhea, she comes off as stubbornly self-righteous. Yes, her intent was good (no one disagrees with her desire to remove Crests) but on all the routes, she is very deadset on her way being the “right way” and then proceeds to shove it down everyone else’s throat with minimal alternative options being considered. You can argue that she “tried” or she “couldn’t have negotiated” but to me, those are flimsy excuses. To jump straight to war because the other options were too difficult, just left a bad taste in my mouth. She doesn’t sound nearly as conflicted as she should if she was actually struggling with her decision, she just plays it off as a “necessary evil” in the all routes. If you didn’t agree with the necessity of it, you will have a hard time agreeing with her. It felt like her decision on what is the “best” solution was driven by personal reasons, but played off as “it was the only way.” That said, she was a good morally gray character, in my eye. Meanwhile, Dimitri, even insane, knows he is wrong, does not try to play the “good guy trying to liberate his kingdom from the big bad.” You get what you see with him, a man driven by revenge (at least in BL). In BE, his motivations may be more questionable since he isn’t nearly as crazy (he wasn’t isolated and he did end up becoming king so he does have some responsibility as its leader to defend against an aggressor, but probably still driven a fair bit by revenge). Even in BL, the game basically portrays him in a bad light for his actions - it shows that his revenge was basically completely misguided (by exposing the real perpetrator) and ontop of that, Dimitri himself recognizes that he was wrong, that he will have to live with the consequences of his actions, and refuses to shy away. Not saying one is better than the other, just shedding some light as to why people, myself included, find Dimitri and the others more tolerable than Edelgard.

Edelgard is not much different though. She is “my way or the highway.” Yet, in every route, even her own, Edelgard pretty much goes “surrender and let yourself be conquered or I will run you over” to her opponents. Minimal explanations were seen from her end. If people didn’t actively go looking for explanations (Claude), everyone would be confused. Imagine how the continent is supposed to react since they are just caught in the cross-fire. They aren’t nearly as omniscient as us.

I agree that she was a force that brought about change in all the routes and was a morally gray character - who at best can be considered an anti-hero. My main argument was more whether the means she went about doing it was that noble, as so many fans try to portray her as. There was little to suggest that during her conquest, she reformed her conquered nations for the better (compared to Napoleon). All routes eventually led to a peaceful Fodlan because her actions inspired reaction. However, the means she used to get there were often just as selfish and emotionally driven as those of the people she so fights against, but she acts as if she was better than them. At the end of the day, she was a girl who was naive, arrogant, and endured a lot of suffering, and as a result, made a lot of questionable choices. It was undeniable that she did change the world though, but whether the ends justified the means in her case is left to the interpretation of the individual, especially since the aftermath of the game is left ambiguous, versus being able to retroactively assess real world conquerers such as Napoleon.

Her greatest downfall was her arrogance and entitlement. She thought she was in control of the situation and knew what was going on, but I think she was just as lost as the rest of the cast when it comes to the TWSITD’s manipulation. She definitely let emotions rule her decision making.

Never said it was her primary goal. I just said she had a lot to gain from her actions, and at least some of those gain contributed to her ultimate decisions and what she felt was the best course of action. Diplomacy would ultimately make it hard for her to re-unite the Empire. I just don’t understand why nobody was consulted (are you telling me NO ONE in this world could provide any help to Edelgard, was she really that limited in her resources?), even Micaiah could talk to her close retainers for options, yet Edelgard assumes the position of her against the world. Conquering is always an option but why is it the FIRST option?

1. Micaiah didn’t support Ashnard. She supported the Daein people, who mostly were innocent to the travesties that Ashnard committed and his goals. Yes, they were racist, not going to deny that. I’m not going to deny that she was dumb for being silent - I accuse Edelgard of the same flaw, but Micaiah never verbally suggested to the players, who so vehemently hate her, that she supports Ashnard or agreed with his actions. To her, Ike IS the villain - he destroyed the country she loved and Begnion WAS the villain for what they did during the occupation. Why should she feel any sympathy towards either Ike or Begnion (or by extension Sanaki who could have just been as equally responsible Daein’s treatment for all Micaiah knew)? I just can’t wrap my mind around how biased people are in games where you can romance characters - she had every reason to hate Ike/Begnion but she is touted like the devil. We even SAW their point of view but Daein can burn, right? Just like how in this game, Dimitri had a lot of good reasons for hating Edelgard. Actually, most of the casts did - she started a WAR that put all of their families lives at stake for no reason made aware to them. But yet, people always defend Edelgard as “it was for the greater good.” The greater good for WHO exactly? No one knew what she was intended, and A LOT of what she did seemed self serving but passed off as “liberating the continent” when she had a strong personal stake in the gains of defeating the church and re-uniting the Empire. 2. She didn’t even know Sanaki was her sister when she was fighting them, seems like a moot point. She had people she loved and knew who she had to protect. Sanaki/Ike/co were literally nobodies who destroyed the people and country she loved. She did what she did out of love and compassion for her nation, how is that not a noble cause? Yet, to many, it is “wrong” whereas Edelgard was in the “right.” My whole argument stems from the fact that I think Edelgard is not a good person, and people should stop defending her actions as self-sacrificial and necessary (how does one person get the authority to make any decision like that?). I concede that she was needed for the progression of the story, never argued otherwise at any point (I even said I can understand why she is well liked as a villain). She was a well written villain, but she is at best an anti-hero and at worse, the same level of villainy as the church. Also, Tenzen12 basically proved my point about Micaiah being hated. I honestly liked Micaiah because of her compassion and ability to make hard choices, still thought she was incredibly dumb at certain points, but not the point. She didn’t try to put up a pretense that she was doing this for anyone besides herself - she cared about Daein and gtfo the rest of the continent.

Yeah I know most of the plot and what Edelgard endured. My point is that sympathy doesn’t detract from who she was. I think my problem is the fans who act as if she can do no wrong. No matter how you slice it, a lot of her actions were selfish, emotionally-driven, and not made with the best interest of the populace at heart, but people act as if she was a self sacrificing savior who had the guts to pull the trigger and that all her actions are justifiable because the end result was meant to be a good one, at least that what we are led to believe. Also, I see no reason the extremes in the disparity in sympathy for characters - for Micaiah to be so hated but Edelgard to be so celebrated. Both were very complex character who had to make very hard choices, yet one of them is lauded as a sympathetic hero and the other is a villain because she went against the fan favorite. If Edelgard wasn’t the fan favourite, often for reasonings like being a romanceable female lead, would she be this celebrated?

I agree. In all routes, I think she wanted to die thinking she was correct in the end, but I just feel like that just reinforces the delusion she has created for herself as the world’s savior.

I never said the church and others were any less evil - I said they are all deserving the title of being evil. History is written to highlight the good of the victors, doesn’t make the things that war bring about any less horrific. I even agreed that she probably took the most drastic but most effective way to bring about change, but it doesn’t mean I agree with her actions nor do I think they were the right ones. How is your point any different than how Micaiah is viewed by the fans? She literally tried to liberate and free her country, but she is seen as “evil” because she fought against Ike. In my opinion, her reasoning vs Ike&co were a lot more palatable than Edelgard’s reasoning. Edelgard didn’t even try for any alternative whereas Micaiah actively looked and was really pigeon held into a corner. Instead, Edelgard STARTED the chaos when there was nothing to suggest that it was in such dire need that she needed to act ASAP and go completely nuclear. I just said the means and attitude Edelgard went about achieving her goals calls into question her own morality that her fans so preaches as to be better than those of the people she is fighting. Do you really honestly believe that if this was real life, Edelgard’s actions were the way to go? No discussion, no explanation to anyone really, just conquest? Also to the comment above, I think the fact that Dimitri offered her a chance at redemption while she chose to ignore it, shows that SHE was the one too far gone, not him. I honestly believe that she is just stubborn and refused to talk to anyone else because she truly believes what she is doing is right, regardless of the means, more so than the limitations in her position. She refuses to surrender and change her ideals in ANY of the routes...just goes to show you how caught up in her own mind she really was. If she even opened her eyes and looked around, she would see that there were many students sympathetic to her plight, but she basically had tunnel vision.

A lot more people hate Micaiah vs Ike, because to them, Ike was the traditional hero. Micaiah definitely gets more hate than Edelgard for imo, a lot less evil deeds. I think there should be a distinction between sympathetic villain and a good person. You can be a sympathetic person, but that doesn’t make the actions justified. Yet, a lot of Edelgard fans swear by the fact that what she did was for the greater good, despite the chaos that she left in her wake, it was a “necessary sacrifice” which to me, is the definition of the ends justify the mean mentality. How necessary the sacrifice and how worthwhile the “good” that comes, that is up to the discretion of the individual. Why does Edelgard get the authority to decide what is for the greater good? That attitude she has in itself is the problem she has - thinking she is more capable/worthy/better than what she really is - a sociopathic, egotistical conquerer. She did not consult any of the other leaders or even confide in anyone else who might have been able to provide another perspective. I don’t think if Edelgard was a real person, people wouldn’t be singing the same tune and defending her actions to the same degree. It’s why I say I can understand people liking her for her role as a villain, but don’t act as if she was anything other than what she was. That’s why I appreciate what Edelgard represents and did for the story, but I do not agree with what she did nor do I think it was the necessary course of action that some people preach. A lot of her fans are so hypocritical. Dimitri suffered just as much, often at the hands of Edelgard’s inaction, but to them, his murdeous phase was considered just as evil, and they will defend to their graves that Edelgard is the more “right” individual between Dimitri/Rhea/church/etc. I do not agree with the sentiment that just because Rhea/church/TWSITD was “evil” that makes Edelgard right. To me, all of them represent the evil driving a good portion of the story. Only reason people have such fanaticism behind Edelgard is because she is cute, as sad as that is to say.

People give Micaiah all this crap for her actions in her game yet somehow Edelgard gets praise for her courage for the same crap. 1. Both protagonists could’ve avoided a lot of this with just OPENING THEIR MOUTHS. Yet, somehow they both manage to drag their entire country to war. In my opinion, Micaiah had even MORE reason to shut up because if the senate heard (via spies) the blood pact was enacted. Whereas Edelgard just sat on her high horse and waited for the conquest to begin. Maybe Edelgard was being watched by TWSITD, but I find it highly unlikely that there was literally no one she could’ve talked to who could’ve provided help since there was less pressure on her than Micaiah to deal with the situation ASAP. 2. They both try to kill, pretty horrifically, a person with close blood ties. Micaiah tries to burn Sanaki alive, whereas Edelgard’s actions result in Dimitri’s descent in madness and need to kill him on every route (which was WAY worse than whatever Micaiah did - burning to death is a much quicker death than being psychologically tormented for so long. Seriously, she just had to open her mouth and explain and so much with Dimitri could have been avoided). At least, Micaiah doesn’t know Sanaki that well compared to Edelgard and Dimitri. Besides, Sanaki/Micaiah try to understand one another and eventually make amends, whereas Edelgard/Dimitri never do - Edelgard even spits at his sign of generosity. 3. Micaiah was UNWILLINGLY dragged to war. Edelgard STARTED the chaos and DIRECTLY fan the flames that caused the misfortunes of the entire continent. 4. You can argue that both parties were “doing it for their people” at the suffering of other nations, although I would argue that Edelgard’s is a lot less noble. It felt like at least a portion of her motivation was her desire to re-unite the Empire and punish those who made her suffer, whereas Micaiah literally just cared about Daein’s safety. Micaiah didn’t encourage the war, and she wasn’t out for revenge despite her hatred of the suffering inflicted by Begnion’s occupation or the racism she endured throughout her life. What made me the most annoyed was the fact that the entire population was pretty much ignorant to the situation. It felt like victimizing the ignorant by the strong (which is an unfortunate fact of medieval wars, but whatever, doesn’t make it anymore palatable to me from a modern perspective). And what’s worse is that Edelgard did NOT TRY to find an alternative. I find it hard to believe that war is ever the right answer, let alone the ONLY answer (like Edelgard was treating it as), even in modern society. And Edelgard was the aggressor, compared to Micaiah’s situation. I think Edelgard was a puppet who had a much too inflated ego over how much control she really had over the situation and how much she really understood. Feels like she was a sociopath that was blinded solely by her emotions and let that cloud her judgement. At least, Micaiah knew she was way in over her head but resigned to the fact that she no other viable options that she could think of.

I just don’t understand WHY she never said anything - she had SO many chances to explain. She was so caught up in the fact that she was correct and that whatever she did was 100% justified because her intentions were good. I also think a good portion of her version of the a lot of the events surrounding the church was wrong too (they never applauded people who had Crests, they weren’t the ones advocating for experimentation, that was solely due to the selfishness of the noble houses and the populace), but she twisted them according to TWSITD to fit her own narrative and goals.

BL player here. I hate her. I just don’t understand how anyone can defend her as being a “good person.” I have read part of her story spoilers. I can understand liking her because she is complex or a well-written villain, but no matter how you slice it, having a tragic backstory and good motivation did not justify the means to which she went about achieving her ambition. If she was a male character that was not the first promoted character of the game, I find it highly unlikely that she would have the degree of fan support she currently has. She basically: 1. Went nuclear with her plan. Did not even attempt at diplomacy - I feel like both had a high chance of agreeing with her stance, Dimitri out of support/love and Claude out of his own suspicion of the church. Instead, she tries to kill off both Dimitri/Claude in the beginning. I mean, if things didn’t work out, the option to conquer was always still there, but nope, she did not even try to let other people know what was going on. Because of this, it felt like her actions were based off of more than just destroying the church, it felt like she wanted to re-unite the Empire, but sells it as if she is doing the people a service by starting a war to “save them.” 2. Caught up in her own arrogance - it was either her way or the highway. Although she gave people a chance of surrendering, if you resisted her or tried to reason with her, you were as good as dead. A true sign of a tyrant/conquerer in my opinion. Even after Dimitri gives her a chance in the end for redemption, she is so far gone that she rather die and uses the dagger he gave her out of love to encourage him to kill her. Geez. 3. Acts like an innocent bystander to all the travesty committed by TWSITD. I think she is at least somewhat cupable to some of the things they’ve done. Even if she hates working with them, that doesn’t stop her from giving them the means to achieve their goals (letting them access into the school and intel, acts as a silent bystander while they are there turning people into rampaging monsters etc.), and she never attempts to get in the way of their plans or reigns them in, only gives them her displeasure AFTER they commit the act. I understand that she did not cause Dimitri’s family tragedy, but she didn’t even try to explain anything to Dimitri besides “I wasn’t involved” - I feel like his descent to murdeous madness is at least justified considering the misinformation, yet people act as if Dimitri is anywhere near her level of evil post-time skip just because he is a murderer. I think at least he is aware of who he is, unlike those who prattle on about “doing it for the general populace” he understands that war is messed up and even good intentions can make you a villain. 4. Her goals were selfish. She was willing to plunge the entire innocent and unaware continent into a war, which imo seemed much worse than the alternative of just letting the status quo continue (but that’s completely personal opinion). She acts as if she is doing it for the greater good but it felt more like out of her personal grudge of losing control of “her” Empire and her personal history with Crests (which is more fair of a reason, it was a messed up system). I don’t even mind that her goals were selfish, but the way she acted about them, like she was magnanimous enough to do it it for the people, was what pissed me off. I will play her route, probably last, but I find unlikely for my opinion to change much. I can agree she brought a lot more complexity to the game with her character, but to sell her as a “good person” or “better than Rhea” when she did a lot of questionably evil things is just too much for me. I think my main gripe with her was more her attitude, she thought she was a lot better of a person than what she really was - and people applaud her for it, as if her “ends justify the means” attitude would be commendable, if this was real life. Did she change the world for the better? Probably. But my argument was more that there were other ways she could have gone about it that wasn’t as terrible. What happened to Dimitri because of her actions was just horrendous and selfish because of all the love he gave her, yet people somehow bash Dimitri for having an “overreaction.” If this was the real world, besides people of her nation, I think most people would look unfavourably upon her actions.