Frostlich1228 (Alt)
Well-Known Member
Hey Y'all! Posted a short solo! Tell me what you think. 
Starstream Think Tank
- Thread starter Lyte
- Start date
Black0ut
Well-Known Member
I'm intrigued. I knew the hierarchy was pretty messed up but the way Nes talks about it makes me want to learn more.Hey Y'all! Posted a short solo! Tell me what you think.
Sorry for the absence. I... didn't have the best weekend, largely due to an increasingly hard time sleeping.
I'm interested in knowing who finished theirnfirst run of Three Houses yet, which routes you took, and if you were satisfied woth the choices made in them.
I'm interested in knowing who finished theirnfirst run of Three Houses yet, which routes you took, and if you were satisfied woth the choices made in them.
Frostlich1228 (Alt)
Well-Known Member
Also please no one spoil the Flame Emperor Reveal for those that haven't played the game yet. Treat that shit like Endgame on the first week of release.
BMPixy
Well-Known Member
So, just finished my first run about ten minutes ago so I could answer this question. Laying in the cut so I can talk freely.
In part 1 I went with Edelgard all the way, putting her on the throne as well as joining her in the Tomb. At first I was kinda unsure about my choice, especially when part 2 started punching me in the gut with memories, but after setting down the game for a little bit I regained some surety, and I feel pretty alright with my choices. Only thing I'm sad about is that I couldn't romance everyone. Damn you Jeralt for only giving Byleth one ring! I want my Tenchi solution!
Frostlich1228 (Alt)
Well-Known Member
Major Spoilers ahead for the Red Eagles Route and minor ending spoilers for both Golden Deer and Blue Lions.
Whhhyy... I had a long long conversation about this with Zombos. Eldegard is easily the most messed up path. She basically kills everyone. Dimitri, who she doesn't seem to understand why he's mad at her. Maybe the rampant murder? The fact that she sold them out to They Who Slither. And the fact that she worked with them before the events of the game. Two the points by the way, the latter of the two causing Byleth's village to be destroyed, and the former of the two being arguably responsible for the death of Byleth's Father. She goes after the GD for no other reason than 'They Might cause complications' she's willing to murder one of her closest friends for no other justification than he might get in her way. And before you mention it, yes, I know you can spare Claude, but Eldegard's route is the only one where you can choose to kill him. In the BL Story, Claude Willing gives his army over to Dimitri, you don't even get the option.
She is a brutal pragmatist monarch that values cold logic over everything and there was no extreme she wasn't willing to go to win. And the most fucked part of all of it is that it didn't even need to happen, all that murder, all that bloodshed, pointless, because Rhea understands that she is losing it and is convinced to step down peacefully in all other endings anyway. So her brutal war that cost the lives of hundred of thousands of Innocents? If Eldegard had actually talked to Them like a normal person she wouldn't have had to murder all her friends.
The Thing about Eldegard that is the thing about all Dictators and Mass Murderers is that she is infectiously charismatic and skilled at manipulating others into empathizing with her ethnic cleansing of the church and anyone who opposes her when it really just boils down to, 'I had an awful childhood because of them and now they all need to die.'
I made this comparison to Zombie too, she's Light Yagami from Death Note. Sure, she's technically making the world better, but is it really worth the cost of butchering everyone who stands in her way, including her former friends and classmates? When it would have been far easier and less bloody to do it another way? No. And I don't buy her crocodile tears either.
She is a brutal pragmatist monarch that values cold logic over everything and there was no extreme she wasn't willing to go to win. And the most fucked part of all of it is that it didn't even need to happen, all that murder, all that bloodshed, pointless, because Rhea understands that she is losing it and is convinced to step down peacefully in all other endings anyway. So her brutal war that cost the lives of hundred of thousands of Innocents? If Eldegard had actually talked to Them like a normal person she wouldn't have had to murder all her friends.
The Thing about Eldegard that is the thing about all Dictators and Mass Murderers is that she is infectiously charismatic and skilled at manipulating others into empathizing with her ethnic cleansing of the church and anyone who opposes her when it really just boils down to, 'I had an awful childhood because of them and now they all need to die.'
I made this comparison to Zombie too, she's Light Yagami from Death Note. Sure, she's technically making the world better, but is it really worth the cost of butchering everyone who stands in her way, including her former friends and classmates? When it would have been far easier and less bloody to do it another way? No. And I don't buy her crocodile tears either.
Black0ut
Well-Known Member
To be fair to Light Yagami (depending on which of the branches of the manga you go with), he didn't just frighten Japan's criminals, he scared the world's. Most branches had that be a driving point: crime was essentially gone. Although, he did it in a very violent and bloody way; he took care of rapists, serial murderers, and child molesters daily. However, while I do grudgingly admire him for getting rid of the worst humans on earth, he killed good guys too. Police, alphabet soup organizations, and (again depending on what branch you go to) world leaders. All, in all, his total kill count of criminals made the world a better place. At least, that's what I would say as a Devil's Advocate.
But yeah, Death Note's shining glory is the man named L. How the fuck does the world's best detective make me fine with all my insecurities? God... I still wanna watch so much more of L... alright, time to hop into the nostalgia van and go rematch it...
Frostlich1228 (Alt)
Well-Known Member
Well. Until you realize that he didn't judge them. Anyone convicted or arrested by the police and anyone they searched for, he killed in a second. How many of those people were innocent? Probably most of them. That's the thing about Japanese Law, if you're caught, you're guilty, even before you can plead your case. Framed? Doesn't matter. That's why the Defense loses 99 percent of all cases. Yes. That's a real statistic. No. I didn't exaggerate.
I don't want to get into another big arguement about Three Houses. I'm too tired (and lately too depressed) for it right now.
I do have to say though this is a major fault in the arguement about Edelgard and how things would have worked out if she hadn't waged her war. First, it assumes that her waging and losing the war in the other stories wasn't the reason for the reforms. Can you honestly say that they just happened to do the right thing after the war completely seperate from her and that Claude or Dimitri didn't say "Man... Edelgard did some really bad things but she was right in her cause, maybe we should talk to Rhea"? Two, even if that was the case and the reform would have happened with or without the war, your argument seems to assume Edelgard should have known that. That, in a sense, she should have been aware of the outcomes of alternate timelines, and that isn't fair.
There also seems to be the constant ignoiring of Rhea and the bad she has done. The only argument I have seen is that Edelgard was worse or would have or did do the same thing. Even if that was true... how exactly does that change how bad Rhea is?
One argument you gave was that Edelgard had a positive outcome but still committed many atrocities that she is not held accountable for in her story, but what about Rhea? She does many, many bad things during the story, from slaughtering those who oppose the church without forgiveness to burning a capital down in Edelgard's story, and likely many, many more atrocities over the millennia in control of the church before hand. Does she pay for them in any story but Edelgard's? I must remind you that Edelgard did horrible things, but did them for the sake of an entire nation and its freedom. Rhea was motivated purely by a single selfish desire, and anyone who tried to stop her made her flip her crazy switch in a snap.
I do have to say though this is a major fault in the arguement about Edelgard and how things would have worked out if she hadn't waged her war. First, it assumes that her waging and losing the war in the other stories wasn't the reason for the reforms. Can you honestly say that they just happened to do the right thing after the war completely seperate from her and that Claude or Dimitri didn't say "Man... Edelgard did some really bad things but she was right in her cause, maybe we should talk to Rhea"? Two, even if that was the case and the reform would have happened with or without the war, your argument seems to assume Edelgard should have known that. That, in a sense, she should have been aware of the outcomes of alternate timelines, and that isn't fair.
There also seems to be the constant ignoiring of Rhea and the bad she has done. The only argument I have seen is that Edelgard was worse or would have or did do the same thing. Even if that was true... how exactly does that change how bad Rhea is?
One argument you gave was that Edelgard had a positive outcome but still committed many atrocities that she is not held accountable for in her story, but what about Rhea? She does many, many bad things during the story, from slaughtering those who oppose the church without forgiveness to burning a capital down in Edelgard's story, and likely many, many more atrocities over the millennia in control of the church before hand. Does she pay for them in any story but Edelgard's? I must remind you that Edelgard did horrible things, but did them for the sake of an entire nation and its freedom. Rhea was motivated purely by a single selfish desire, and anyone who tried to stop her made her flip her crazy switch in a snap.
Last edited:
...and I still see the comparison to Light as unfair. Both might have set out to make a better world, but Edelgard never loses sight of her desire to make a free world for the sake of others, and Light decides that he'll be a god of his worldview.
Edelgard hears out those that might think she is going about things wrong like Ferdinand and Hanneman. Edelgard has remourse for what she has to do and those who die. She specifically say they should mourn those lost on both sides.
Light murders FBI agents the moment he hears they are investigating him. Light stalks and preys on an innocent woman who is simply seeking justice for her boyfriend's death and not only kills her, but orders her to kill herself in a way and place where she'll never be found. In the live action movie, he manipulates the death note so the woman kills herself after killing Light's girlfriend, the most innocent of innocents who had absolutely nothing to do with his goals and the Death Note but was a convenient sacrifice to make himself look innocent. And he does it all with absolutely zero remorse. He cares nothing for the innocents that die for his goals.
The comparison, on anything but a purely superficial level, is unfair, and is the anime equivalent to trying to villify someone by comparing them to Hitler. The only one I think would be a less fair comparison to would be... I don't know, Griffith.
Edelgard hears out those that might think she is going about things wrong like Ferdinand and Hanneman. Edelgard has remourse for what she has to do and those who die. She specifically say they should mourn those lost on both sides.
Light murders FBI agents the moment he hears they are investigating him. Light stalks and preys on an innocent woman who is simply seeking justice for her boyfriend's death and not only kills her, but orders her to kill herself in a way and place where she'll never be found. In the live action movie, he manipulates the death note so the woman kills herself after killing Light's girlfriend, the most innocent of innocents who had absolutely nothing to do with his goals and the Death Note but was a convenient sacrifice to make himself look innocent. And he does it all with absolutely zero remorse. He cares nothing for the innocents that die for his goals.
The comparison, on anything but a purely superficial level, is unfair, and is the anime equivalent to trying to villify someone by comparing them to Hitler. The only one I think would be a less fair comparison to would be... I don't know, Griffith.
Last edited:
Frostlich1228 (Alt)
Well-Known Member
Major Blue Lions Campaign Spoilers Ahead.
Well. Eldegard has the murdering of her friends down pat like Griffith does.
I don't buy her sadness. I really don't. Even if she was truly sad, she could just you know... Actually attempt to see her friend's side of things? Try to compromise at all? Nope, is just Murder Murder Murder. Gotta Murder Rhea.
In Rhea's defense, we learn when you side with her that she was being controlled by the same evil curse that was controlling her Mother. It was passed down to her by blood. Do I think Rhea deserved to be punished? Yes. Do I think Eldegard had the sole right to be judge, jury, and executioner? Nooooo.
Back to the subject of me not buying her sadness. Big Blue Lions Spoilers coming up. Dimitri, you know, the guy that Eldegard paints as a revenge obsessed murder hobo, when he beats Eldegard, offer her a hand in mercy. In response, Eldegard attacks him without hesitation during his gesture, throwing the dagger that Dimitri Gave Her... Right into his heart, he would've died without his armor blocking the blow. There was no remorse from her, no tears, she wanted to take him with her. In the Black Eagles Route when during the scene when she kills him, she offers him no mercy, and while she cries afterwards, during that scene there wasn't a Moment of hesitation or sadness or pity of anything. Just the cold, calculating, violence, and nothing else.
Not to mention you didn't talk about what I said about Eldegard being responsible at least partially for the destruction of Byleth's village AND his Dad's Death.
I don't buy her sadness. I really don't. Even if she was truly sad, she could just you know... Actually attempt to see her friend's side of things? Try to compromise at all? Nope, is just Murder Murder Murder. Gotta Murder Rhea.
In Rhea's defense, we learn when you side with her that she was being controlled by the same evil curse that was controlling her Mother. It was passed down to her by blood. Do I think Rhea deserved to be punished? Yes. Do I think Eldegard had the sole right to be judge, jury, and executioner? Nooooo.
Back to the subject of me not buying her sadness. Big Blue Lions Spoilers coming up. Dimitri, you know, the guy that Eldegard paints as a revenge obsessed murder hobo, when he beats Eldegard, offer her a hand in mercy. In response, Eldegard attacks him without hesitation during his gesture, throwing the dagger that Dimitri Gave Her... Right into his heart, he would've died without his armor blocking the blow. There was no remorse from her, no tears, she wanted to take him with her. In the Black Eagles Route when during the scene when she kills him, she offers him no mercy, and while she cries afterwards, during that scene there wasn't a Moment of hesitation or sadness or pity of anything. Just the cold, calculating, violence, and nothing else.
Not to mention you didn't talk about what I said about Eldegard being responsible at least partially for the destruction of Byleth's village AND his Dad's Death.
I didn't talk about those things because I talked about them privately and forgot to mention them here. I keep agreeing that Edelgard isn't pure of heart and deserves punishment, but I am not seeming to get any consetions in return.
Regardless of what she did or how she went about it, Edelgard's goals were just. Ending a thousands years of inequality and injustice, supported by the Kingdom, the Alliance, and her own goverment, and encouraged by the church, was right.
And it is because of Edelgard amd her war that things change, whether it is because she does it herself or others do it after defeating her but realizing she was right in her cause.
Her being indirectly responsible for the action of Those That Slither in the Dark? I absolutely agree. And her siding with them is not something I can agree with. It's like... when in Star Trek Voyager, the Captain agrees to help the Borg develop weapons against an enemy that is destroying them in exchange for safe passage through their space.
Are these things justified? Probably not, though that is for history to decide. Would I have done the same thing in Edelgard's position? Again, probably not, but I can't say for sure what I would do if I was as desperate as her.
And being cold and calculating in the moment is a part of war. That doesn't mean she isn't human. That doesn't make her a remourseless killing machine. It is not all murder, murder, murder like you say if is. I might not know as much about the other stories as you seem to, but I do know that if her main goal was to simply murder Rhea, Rhea would be killed on the spot, not captured and eventually saved like she is in most playthroughs.
Edelgard might have tried to backstab Dimitri in ONE of the FOUR timelines, and that is wrong, she should have accepted her defeat, but at least in her timeline, she offers everyone a chance to stop fighting. When she enters most battlefields, she offers the enemy a chance to surrender. She spares Claude (yes, because of Byleth being there, but every character does something good they might not have otherwise done because Byleth is there at some point). When she beats an enemy commander, she orders the enemy soldiers to surrender instead of killing them all. She goes after Cornelia despite her being a member of Those Who Slither with the Long, Obnoxious Name. When Rhea retreats with her troops in the fight with Dimitri, she doesn't have anyone pursue.
Final battle against Rhea? Still offers the Nights of Seiros AND Rhea a chance to surrender! That actually shocked me. We came all this way to stop Rhea and the church's strangle hold on Fodlan, and she actually offers Rhea a chance to surrender, only deciding Rhea is too far gone when she sets the city on fire, a move that shakes even the otherwise blindly loyal Catherine to her core.
So no... not Murder, Murder, Murder. Maybe she is portrayed something like that in another storyline, but not in hers.
I would also like clearification on Rhea being controlled by an evil curse. The same one that effected Sothis? I have scoured the wikis and I see no mention of a curse. For Sothis, all it says was she fell into a slumber from the exhaustion brought on from having to heal the land after the great war between her people and their allies and the Agathians, and she was killed in her sleep. It mentions nothing of her blood being cursed by them, or Seiros being cursed. All I saw was Seiros was unhinged by her mother's death, hence the surprisingly brutal scene in the very beginning of her repeatedly stabbing Nemesis to death, an unhinged state that always seems just below the surface of her calm demeanor. Though in some respects the calm, collected state while she orders the execution of everyone in the West Church and anyone remotely involved in the insurrection at the beginning of the game could be seen as worse. Scared the hell out of the students in my house anyway.
Regardless of what she did or how she went about it, Edelgard's goals were just. Ending a thousands years of inequality and injustice, supported by the Kingdom, the Alliance, and her own goverment, and encouraged by the church, was right.
And it is because of Edelgard amd her war that things change, whether it is because she does it herself or others do it after defeating her but realizing she was right in her cause.
Her being indirectly responsible for the action of Those That Slither in the Dark? I absolutely agree. And her siding with them is not something I can agree with. It's like... when in Star Trek Voyager, the Captain agrees to help the Borg develop weapons against an enemy that is destroying them in exchange for safe passage through their space.
Are these things justified? Probably not, though that is for history to decide. Would I have done the same thing in Edelgard's position? Again, probably not, but I can't say for sure what I would do if I was as desperate as her.
And being cold and calculating in the moment is a part of war. That doesn't mean she isn't human. That doesn't make her a remourseless killing machine. It is not all murder, murder, murder like you say if is. I might not know as much about the other stories as you seem to, but I do know that if her main goal was to simply murder Rhea, Rhea would be killed on the spot, not captured and eventually saved like she is in most playthroughs.
Edelgard might have tried to backstab Dimitri in ONE of the FOUR timelines, and that is wrong, she should have accepted her defeat, but at least in her timeline, she offers everyone a chance to stop fighting. When she enters most battlefields, she offers the enemy a chance to surrender. She spares Claude (yes, because of Byleth being there, but every character does something good they might not have otherwise done because Byleth is there at some point). When she beats an enemy commander, she orders the enemy soldiers to surrender instead of killing them all. She goes after Cornelia despite her being a member of Those Who Slither with the Long, Obnoxious Name. When Rhea retreats with her troops in the fight with Dimitri, she doesn't have anyone pursue.
Final battle against Rhea? Still offers the Nights of Seiros AND Rhea a chance to surrender! That actually shocked me. We came all this way to stop Rhea and the church's strangle hold on Fodlan, and she actually offers Rhea a chance to surrender, only deciding Rhea is too far gone when she sets the city on fire, a move that shakes even the otherwise blindly loyal Catherine to her core.
So no... not Murder, Murder, Murder. Maybe she is portrayed something like that in another storyline, but not in hers.
I would also like clearification on Rhea being controlled by an evil curse. The same one that effected Sothis? I have scoured the wikis and I see no mention of a curse. For Sothis, all it says was she fell into a slumber from the exhaustion brought on from having to heal the land after the great war between her people and their allies and the Agathians, and she was killed in her sleep. It mentions nothing of her blood being cursed by them, or Seiros being cursed. All I saw was Seiros was unhinged by her mother's death, hence the surprisingly brutal scene in the very beginning of her repeatedly stabbing Nemesis to death, an unhinged state that always seems just below the surface of her calm demeanor. Though in some respects the calm, collected state while she orders the execution of everyone in the West Church and anyone remotely involved in the insurrection at the beginning of the game could be seen as worse. Scared the hell out of the students in my house anyway.
Last edited:
Note that I am ignoring that line about Griffith, simply looking at it as a joke, because otherwise I would at best see it as a remark that undermines your entire argument, at worse is a shot specifically meant to anger me and make me say things I would regret.
There is a difference between waging a war and being forced to fight former allies, and willingly taking your current friends, friends who all love and support you and have risked their lives to save you and protect you and who not five minutes ago were your family, and allowing them to be brutally murdered and devoured by demons so you can be a god, going on to rape your closest ally and follower in front of your former best friend, shattering her mind while he is mutilated, all to spite him.
There is a difference between waging a war and being forced to fight former allies, and willingly taking your current friends, friends who all love and support you and have risked their lives to save you and protect you and who not five minutes ago were your family, and allowing them to be brutally murdered and devoured by demons so you can be a god, going on to rape your closest ally and follower in front of your former best friend, shattering her mind while he is mutilated, all to spite him.
Last edited:
Insane Darkness
Active Member
I literally can't read any of this as I'm still on the first part. ;-;
Sorry buddy. You'll get there. *Head pats*
Frostlich1228 (Alt)
Well-Known Member
Don't worry. I was joking. She's not Griffith Bad. But why do you keep saying she was *forced* to kill them? She wasn't, she absolutely wasn't. At all.
So. I guess after all this. I have a single question left for you.
Do the ends justify the means? Because that is the crux of this argument.
I find it a little bit rediculous when you say 'People Die, that's War' not only does that not have to be how war is waged, she's the one who started the war by literally helping the main Villians and preemptively attacking to try to murder Rhea in front of you. So if we add up all the Innocents killed by ELDEGARD'S WAR, the war she wanted and started, it makes the burning of that one town look like child's play in comparison.
But, back to my question, if you really do believe that any atrocity is acceptable to make the world better, which I would be honestly surprised if you did believe, then honestly I think that's seriously wrong on a fundamental and moral level. (Not that I'm saying you're a bad person or anything, don't get me wrong, I'm saying Eldegard is a bad person.)
The Problem is that Eldegard is scarily Charismatic and charming. She can present her ideas in such a way that she can make even the murder of her former friends, YOUR STUDENTS, seem reasonable. That's the most dangerous thing about her and that's why I feel most people side with her. Not because they would actually do the things she is doing, but because she's had a hard life, and she doesn't want to have to do it, and she's so so so sorry to have to hurt her friends.
It's terrifyingly accurate to history. That people will commit murder after murder, crime after crime, some truly terrible unjustifiable things, because they were slowly convinced to do it one thing at a time. That's how Hitler got away with so much.
I think the mercy that she offered at the start of fights was an act to make herself seem better, because her goal is to kill them, she would probably just have them executed anyway. No. It's to make YOU believe she is good. The Tears after she kills Dimitri, to make you truly believe that she's a good person. What you saw as a normally stoic girl breaking down, I saw it as a cruel pragmatic leader acting in order to manipulate you. Because if that sadness was real, if that crying was real? Where was the regret and hesitation when she was actually killing him? Where were the tears? Why only after did she seem to care at all?
Keep in mind, I'm basing these off the Black Eagle Route that is Canon when you side with her. The main issue is she is saying one thing, how she's so sorry, and feels so bad. But doing things that undercut that statement.
You have to look at what she DOES, not what she says, then you start to see that pretty girl Waifu might not actually have your best interests at heart and would likely kill you too if you got cold feet.
Can I also just add in that I think the idea of making her a romancible waifu was genius? Because again, if you romanced her, you would make any consession and any excuse to justify her position, because you love her after all.
So. I guess after all this. I have a single question left for you.
Do the ends justify the means? Because that is the crux of this argument.
I find it a little bit rediculous when you say 'People Die, that's War' not only does that not have to be how war is waged, she's the one who started the war by literally helping the main Villians and preemptively attacking to try to murder Rhea in front of you. So if we add up all the Innocents killed by ELDEGARD'S WAR, the war she wanted and started, it makes the burning of that one town look like child's play in comparison.
But, back to my question, if you really do believe that any atrocity is acceptable to make the world better, which I would be honestly surprised if you did believe, then honestly I think that's seriously wrong on a fundamental and moral level. (Not that I'm saying you're a bad person or anything, don't get me wrong, I'm saying Eldegard is a bad person.)
The Problem is that Eldegard is scarily Charismatic and charming. She can present her ideas in such a way that she can make even the murder of her former friends, YOUR STUDENTS, seem reasonable. That's the most dangerous thing about her and that's why I feel most people side with her. Not because they would actually do the things she is doing, but because she's had a hard life, and she doesn't want to have to do it, and she's so so so sorry to have to hurt her friends.
It's terrifyingly accurate to history. That people will commit murder after murder, crime after crime, some truly terrible unjustifiable things, because they were slowly convinced to do it one thing at a time. That's how Hitler got away with so much.
I think the mercy that she offered at the start of fights was an act to make herself seem better, because her goal is to kill them, she would probably just have them executed anyway. No. It's to make YOU believe she is good. The Tears after she kills Dimitri, to make you truly believe that she's a good person. What you saw as a normally stoic girl breaking down, I saw it as a cruel pragmatic leader acting in order to manipulate you. Because if that sadness was real, if that crying was real? Where was the regret and hesitation when she was actually killing him? Where were the tears? Why only after did she seem to care at all?
Keep in mind, I'm basing these off the Black Eagle Route that is Canon when you side with her. The main issue is she is saying one thing, how she's so sorry, and feels so bad. But doing things that undercut that statement.
You have to look at what she DOES, not what she says, then you start to see that pretty girl Waifu might not actually have your best interests at heart and would likely kill you too if you got cold feet.
Can I also just add in that I think the idea of making her a romancible waifu was genius? Because again, if you romanced her, you would make any consession and any excuse to justify her position, because you love her after all.
Black0ut
Well-Known Member
Okay. As I seem to have caused a massive argument, I now say: *bops Frost over the head gently* You knock it off. *bops Zombie over the head, just as gently* You too. As for both your picks... Red and blue are fine but Gold is where it's at.
Frostlich1228 (Alt)
Well-Known Member
You didn't cause anything pal. We were actually discussing this way before though text.
Come on now, you're being unfair. You're projecting this idea of me falling for an act, and you actually went and compared her to Hitler. Not everyone who starts a war is evil. Technically both sides started the Amwrican Revolutionary War, and the north started the American Civil War by refusing to accepted the South's desire to leave the union. If you were in the south, you could easily argue "Man, those North guys are evil! All we want to do is have our own country amd they are willing to murder us in order to keep their whole country!"
All war leaders have to charismatic to lead their troops, so I don't see why that makes her the scary one. Claude isn't charismatic? Rhea isn't?
I don't believe "atrocities" justify anything, but sometimes the horrors of war do. You talk about Edelgard like she committed war crimes! I don't remember the concentration camps and mustard gas. Do I think she is innocent, no, but I don't care how many SOLIDERS she killed, she didn't do anything as bad as murdering innocents to slow her enemy. Rhea did. The church did. Your argument that burning one town (which wasn't just a town, it was the capital city where thousands and thousands of innocents died horrific burning deaths) doesn't hold water with me.
I am not saying the ends justify the means. But I am saying Edelgard is not even close to as bad as you portray her. She did not commit war crimes. She did not murder civilians. She is not Hitler. And you aren't giving her ANY leeway based on her past, which is fine... unless you do give it to others, which you have.
Why does the hard past Dimitri and Rhea have excuse their actions, but not Edelgard? Dimitri snaps and turns into a manic, sadistic killer (I believe the rumors about him called him a "sadistic warrior capable of slaying scores of soldiers"), and I've mention all the evil things Rhea has done for a thousand years, but that's okay because Rhea lost her mother and people and Dimitri witnessed the death of his friends and family. Edelgard? Lost ten siblings? Experimented on? Manipulated by Those That Slither since she was a child? No excuses for her.
All war leaders have to charismatic to lead their troops, so I don't see why that makes her the scary one. Claude isn't charismatic? Rhea isn't?
I don't believe "atrocities" justify anything, but sometimes the horrors of war do. You talk about Edelgard like she committed war crimes! I don't remember the concentration camps and mustard gas. Do I think she is innocent, no, but I don't care how many SOLIDERS she killed, she didn't do anything as bad as murdering innocents to slow her enemy. Rhea did. The church did. Your argument that burning one town (which wasn't just a town, it was the capital city where thousands and thousands of innocents died horrific burning deaths) doesn't hold water with me.
I am not saying the ends justify the means. But I am saying Edelgard is not even close to as bad as you portray her. She did not commit war crimes. She did not murder civilians. She is not Hitler. And you aren't giving her ANY leeway based on her past, which is fine... unless you do give it to others, which you have.
Why does the hard past Dimitri and Rhea have excuse their actions, but not Edelgard? Dimitri snaps and turns into a manic, sadistic killer (I believe the rumors about him called him a "sadistic warrior capable of slaying scores of soldiers"), and I've mention all the evil things Rhea has done for a thousand years, but that's okay because Rhea lost her mother and people and Dimitri witnessed the death of his friends and family. Edelgard? Lost ten siblings? Experimented on? Manipulated by Those That Slither since she was a child? No excuses for her.
Frostlich1228 (Alt)
Well-Known Member
Okay. I think we have reached a point where no one is going to budge here.
But I did enjoy the conversation. I think we can both agree that the fact we can have such different views of the character shows how well they wrote her.