flower-of-knighthood
Flower of Knighthood
My personal blog containing my thoughts on various topics.
124 posts
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Last Seen Blogs
erickzimmerma
LEC
paramapparels
Untitled
zapomniana-przezwszystkich
Psychopatkaa
sadcountesss
Sunset sky
northernutahhypnosis-blog1
Northern Utah Hypnosis Center
Text
That's Hilarious.
Clownery at it's finest from Diaphin.
LMAOOOO IM FUCKING LOSING IT
LOOK UP WHAT AN INCEL IS YOU TWAT
BAHHAHAHAHAH
3 notes
·
View notes
Note
One thing I'll add to the Agarthan topic is if you have to use headcanons and transformative works to correct a part of a story that you don't like, then that doesn't change that part of the story in the actual work. Ergo if you're angry that the developers/writers portrayed the Agarthans as blatant villains who represent the worst of humanity that you have to resort to transformative works to correct that, then that doesn't change the fact that the Agarthans are blatant villains who represent the worst of humanity in the actual game. It's the fandom equivalent of coping instead of accepting.
Yes! You can add more history and lore to the Agarthans without trying to make them "actually the native victims fighting against durhhh oppression." They're evil. They want to destroy all life on the surface. Nothing you say or do changes that.
The Agarthans can't be redeemed because they have already crossed the moral event horizon. Their atrocious acts are so bad that it's simply not possible to justify them without making yourself look like a massive turd.
8 notes
·
View notes
Text
Unfortunately you are incorrect.
Edelgard states that it is tradition that the archbishop serve as a witness to the coronation as a symbolic measure likely to reference the founding of Adrestia by Wilhelm. The tradition isn't anywhere as ironclad as you make it seem as Edelgard literally has a professor from the Officer's Academy fill the role of witness in Crimson Flower Routes and in other routes seemingly doesn't care about the tradition.
Unfortunately, when I meant kicked out, I meant that the Empire literally disbanded the Southern Church, and no, there's no evidence to suggest that the Church controls any of the nations, let alone Adrestia at the time of the beginning of Three Houses.
Definition of a Revolution
There's been a recent trend where Edelgard supporters refer to Edelgard's war as a revolution, I don't know if they're purposefully disregarding the definition of revolution or if they're simply ignorant, either way, they're still just wrong.
Firstly, we should begin with the definition of the word, Revolution, which has two main meanings but the one we're most interested in is the overthrowing of a government or ruler, as that tends to be the most popular meaning.
Now last time I checked, neither Faerghus or Leicester are governing Adrestia, which means Edelgard attacking them can't be part of a revolution. As for the Church of Seiros, Adrestia kicked them out 120 years prior to the game's start, and the Church of Seiros isn't in a position of governance over Adrestia either. So then the question is who exactly is Adrestia launching a revolution against?
I'm sure the question on the reader's mind is who exactly is Adrestia launching a revolution against? Many of Edelgard's supports including Edelgard herself believe that her war is a revolt against the social groundwork of Fodlan itself.
Now that seems clever, but falls apart on a closer inspection, because it could be argued that every single war in history could be counted as a revolution which would greatly dilute the meaning of the word. Do you honestly think that the Vietnam War should count as a revolution? The Invasion of Poland by Russia and Nazi Germany in World War II? The Colonization of the American Continent?
For instance the Napoleonic Wars could be argued as a revolution under this logic as one could say that Napoleon was rebelling against the social groundwork of Europe. Now I would think it would be obvious that Napoleon was not launching a revolution, as he was simply intending on conquering Europe.
Now one could try to argue that I'm arguing semantics or performing some description pedantry, but the truth of the matter is that if you're going to use a word especially with a strong meaning such as revolution, make sure you know what the actual definition is, as for those who purposefully disregard the meaning of the word, Congratulations, You're not a Clown, You're the entire Circus.
Regardless of how many people try to claim that it's a rebellion, a revolution, or any other synonym of the word, what will remain true is that Edelgard's war is simply a war of conquest, nothing more and nothing less, and it would be nice if people were honest with themselves and admit that.
13 notes
·
View notes
Text
According to the definition you yourself just posted, actually yes, Edelgards war would fall under a revolution as starting a war to overthrow a supranational centralized authority and end the socio-economic order of feudalism in favor of a casteless merit based political order would fit the definition according to a, b, c and d. Words have meaning, you looked up the meaning of the word, you just don't like it.
You see, an important part of my definition which comes from Merriam Webster is by the governed, and The Church Of Seiros doesn't govern Adrestia, Faerghus or Leicester.
And in many ways, the napoleonic wars were quite revolutionary? They shook up the established power stractures of europe at the time and exported many ideas of the french revolution to wider europe
You're referring to a different meaning altogether here, you're referring to the meaning of a synomym for change, while what I was discussing was the meaning of overthrowing of one government or ruler by the governed.
Definition of a Revolution
There's been a recent trend where Edelgard supporters refer to Edelgard's war as a revolution, I don't know if they're purposefully disregarding the definition of revolution or if they're simply ignorant, either way, they're still just wrong.
Firstly, we should begin with the definition of the word, Revolution, which has two main meanings but the one we're most interested in is the overthrowing of a government or ruler, as that tends to be the most popular meaning.
Now last time I checked, neither Faerghus or Leicester are governing Adrestia, which means Edelgard attacking them can't be part of a revolution. As for the Church of Seiros, Adrestia kicked them out 120 years prior to the game's start, and the Church of Seiros isn't in a position of governance over Adrestia either. So then the question is who exactly is Adrestia launching a revolution against?
I'm sure the question on the reader's mind is who exactly is Adrestia launching a revolution against? Many of Edelgard's supports including Edelgard herself believe that her war is a revolt against the social groundwork of Fodlan itself.
Now that seems clever, but falls apart on a closer inspection, because it could be argued that every single war in history could be counted as a revolution which would greatly dilute the meaning of the word. Do you honestly think that the Vietnam War should count as a revolution? The Invasion of Poland by Russia and Nazi Germany in World War II? The Colonization of the American Continent?
For instance the Napoleonic Wars could be argued as a revolution under this logic as one could say that Napoleon was rebelling against the social groundwork of Europe. Now I would think it would be obvious that Napoleon was not launching a revolution, as he was simply intending on conquering Europe.
Now one could try to argue that I'm arguing semantics or performing some description pedantry, but the truth of the matter is that if you're going to use a word especially with a strong meaning such as revolution, make sure you know what the actual definition is, as for those who purposefully disregard the meaning of the word, Congratulations, You're not a Clown, You're the entire Circus.
Regardless of how many people try to claim that it's a rebellion, a revolution, or any other synonym of the word, what will remain true is that Edelgard's war is simply a war of conquest, nothing more and nothing less, and it would be nice if people were honest with themselves and admit that.
13 notes
·
View notes
Text
You opened this whole post with, "we're going to ignore the definition that doesn't suit my narrative". Why bother going on when you immediately defeated your own point? Popularity has no meaning to the accuracy of something.
It is the meaning that is most popular when the word Revolution comes up in a political context, additionally it is most likely the meaning you and others are referring to, considering the consistent bringing up of rebelling against the status quo.
Therefore the definition of revolution in it's usage in this context can be narrowed down, unless all this time you've been referring to the meanings referring to an change in direction.
Then there's to say nothing of the frequency with which members of the Church of Seiros, most notably Rhea and Seteth, refer to Edelgard or the Adrestians as rebels or traitors.
Given the context, likely referring to how Edelgard is going against everything Wilhelm stood for in Rhea's case considering Rhea hero worships the man, even after thousand years following his death, and in Seteth's case likely referring to Edelgard's betrayal of their trust as a student of the Officer's Academy.
Edelgard's war is against the social structure established by and upheld by the Church of Seiros. Faerghus, Leicester, and their nobility align with the church's interests in most storylines.
Now then, using the definition provided by Merriam Webster most relevant to this case plus the last one you provided has an criteria of sorts stating By the people governed. Now last time I checked, Adrestia isn't governed by anyone else, there is no government above it, and Social Structure doesn't really have a government to qualify as above Adrestia.
The roots of the Vietnam War lay in the conflict between the Vietnamese and French colonial interests in the region, so yes, it was, to a certain extent, a revolution against western colonial powers in the area.
You are correct in that the roots of the Vietnam War were a revolution which led to a treaty which to summarise things, divided Vietnam into North and South, and expected the two to elect a united leader a few years after the treaty.
South Vietnam led by a democratically elected Leader disagreed, and the US along with it's allies fearing that if Vietnam was to become a communist country, it would be the beginning of a domino effect that would spread communism across the world intervened leading to the disaster known as the Vietnam War.
Therefore while a revolution led to the treaty which eventually led to the Vietnam War, the Vietnam War itself could not be considered a revolution due to the lack of a governing force being rebelled against.
Here comes the point where we just hopelessly talk past each other, since you don't acknowledge what Edelgard was trying to do. You see the war as a landgrab, which is why you compared it to those two, while I understand the unification of Fodlan was not the end goal but a step along the path of her reforms. How would you feel if I hit you with, "Dimitri didn't actually give a fuck about anyone?"
I know full well that Edelgard performed a utilitarian calculation comparing the cost of the existing state of things compared to the costs of war. It just so happens that to me while knowing the intentions behind actions is almost always good, what matters most in my eyes is the actions undertaken.
You seem to believe that I am incapable of understanding Edelgard's goals. I guarantee you that a lot less people would have issues with Edelgard if she fixed up Adrestia as she does in Three Hopes, but without starting a conquest to forcibly reform her neighbours under Adrestia's banner.
The funny thing is the only reason I could make those comparisons to wars from centuries ago was because your definition of Revolution was so loose that it could apply to every single war in history.
Definition of a Revolution
There's been a recent trend where Edelgard supporters refer to Edelgard's war as a revolution, I don't know if they're purposefully disregarding the definition of revolution or if they're simply ignorant, either way, they're still just wrong.
Firstly, we should begin with the definition of the word, Revolution, which has two main meanings but the one we're most interested in is the overthrowing of a government or ruler, as that tends to be the most popular meaning.
Now last time I checked, neither Faerghus or Leicester are governing Adrestia, which means Edelgard attacking them can't be part of a revolution. As for the Church of Seiros, Adrestia kicked them out 120 years prior to the game's start, and the Church of Seiros isn't in a position of governance over Adrestia either. So then the question is who exactly is Adrestia launching a revolution against?
I'm sure the question on the reader's mind is who exactly is Adrestia launching a revolution against? Many of Edelgard's supports including Edelgard herself believe that her war is a revolt against the social groundwork of Fodlan itself.
Now that seems clever, but falls apart on a closer inspection, because it could be argued that every single war in history could be counted as a revolution which would greatly dilute the meaning of the word. Do you honestly think that the Vietnam War should count as a revolution? The Invasion of Poland by Russia and Nazi Germany in World War II? The Colonization of the American Continent?
For instance the Napoleonic Wars could be argued as a revolution under this logic as one could say that Napoleon was rebelling against the social groundwork of Europe. Now I would think it would be obvious that Napoleon was not launching a revolution, as he was simply intending on conquering Europe.
Now one could try to argue that I'm arguing semantics or performing some description pedantry, but the truth of the matter is that if you're going to use a word especially with a strong meaning such as revolution, make sure you know what the actual definition is, as for those who purposefully disregard the meaning of the word, Congratulations, You're not a Clown, You're the entire Circus.
Regardless of how many people try to claim that it's a rebellion, a revolution, or any other synonym of the word, what will remain true is that Edelgard's war is simply a war of conquest, nothing more and nothing less, and it would be nice if people were honest with themselves and admit that.
13 notes
·
View notes
Text
If you ignore the whole reason why Edelgard is waging a war and replace her actual motives with simple greed, then yeah, it looks pretty stupid. When you consider that she's fighting for what she believes is the greater good of all Fódlan and perceives herself as being confronted with a trolley problem where death and suffering cannot be avoided, only minimized, then it's only natural for her to be distraught when minimizing the harm involves killing someone she cares about.
I see that the intention is more important to you then the actual action. Tell me, have you ever heard of the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions? Were the witch hunts of early modern Europe justified because it claimed to have the intention of protecting innocent people from the work of the devil? While intentions are important, what really matters is the actions that are made.
It doesn't matter what Edelgard's intentions were, it doesn't change the morally dubious at best actions that she undertook to achieve her intentions. At a certain point, the ends do not justify the means.
Ah yes, Thales, a totally trustworthy source who always has Edelgard's interests at heart. The only sense in which what Dimitri is accusing her of here could be considered true is that Anselma was motivated to participate in the Tragedy to reunite with Edelgard and died as a result. A connection Edelgard herself seems to be unaware of and is morally blameless for.
Considering the context of the situation, Thales has no motive to lie, especially since it is clear what he meant in that Agartha's assassination of Lambert benefited Edelgard by putting Faerghus into disarray, leaving it open for Cornelia to take power and imprison Dimitri upon Edelgard's declaration of war. His accusation of Lambert being killed for Edelgard is true and his accusation of countless people dying in the war she started is also true. The only dubious thing is Anselma, because we actually don't know what happened to her and how she died.
What Dimitri does goes beyond granting asylum. By allowing a belligerent to use his territory as a base of operations he forfeits any claim to neutrality in the conflict. CF in particular has him outright swear fealty to Rhea, which more or less makes the Kingdom an extension of the Church.
Interesting, the first thing you've said that is actually backed up by evidence and it's something I didn't know, Congrats. She still attacked Leicester in Crimson Flower, though which doesn't have any similar excuse for you to use, and also doesn't apply to Three Hopes, because the Church doesn't use Faerghus as a base to launch counter offensives from in Three Hopes.
The way the scene is set up makes it pretty clear that this is theater, not a serious attempt to deceive Claude. Now that they're forming an alliance, it's more convenient for both parties to pretend their prior conflict was a misunderstanding. Edelgard is giving herself plausible deniability and giving Claude a way to buddy up with the nation that just invaded his own without losing face.
Theater? Is that what you call it? Lying to someone's face when you had previously planned an entire campaign to conquer Leicester. Wow. Edelgard fully intended on conquering Leicester before her forces were repulsed, had a counter attack that only withdrew due to a third party and her resources being drawn thin by her conflict with Faerghus. Wow, you are truly the entire circus.
At that point it's clear that she and Dimitri are beyond reconciliation, only one of them can emerge victorious and that person will be the ruler of Fódlan. And no, I don't think she will turn on Claude as long as he holds up his end of the deal. It's repeatedly established that she wants to be a reliable ally and to minimize bloodshed where he can.
Wow, it's almost impressive how much you can twist things. Edelgard had a perfect opportunity to sue for peace in her parley with Dimitri, leaving Adrestia and Faerghus as two separate states, but chose not to, likely to try for a victory against all odds. Common sense dicates that when someone says that there can only be one ruler of this world, it seems exactly that, that only one person should rule the entirety of Fodlan. Actually as Random pointed out in a recent post, her motive for sending forces to save Lonato in Three Hopes is to keep up the narrative that Edelgard will always come to her vassal's aid. https://hopes.fedatamine.com/en-us/events/446/
You know it's really funny to me when people go around saying that Edelgard was so sad about "having" to kill Dimitri and others, when she was the one who decided to start a war and attacked his kingdom.
Oh and by the way, Edelgard wasn't made to start the war either, as Hubert all but confirms that it was Edelgard and Hubert's decision to work with Agartha, https://houses.fedatamine.com/en-us/scenarios/251, and in Hopes, Edelgard explicitly says that her goal is to conquer Fodlan, https://hopes.fedatamine.com/en-us/supports/edelgard/balthus/b/#event-68
17 notes
·
View notes
Note
On your interpretation, no, thats wrong. Its because of the 3 Kingdoms inspiration. It was always about the 3 Kingdoms inspiration, this is a Koei Tecmo Game. Dimitri is Liu Bei, Edelgard is Cao Cao, Claude is Sun Quan. Knowing that explains alot of why the Devs seemed to have been fond of Edelgard so much, as Koei Tecmo seems to be generally fond of this archetype, it goes really back to Kou Shibusawas influence on the company, who famously loved to subvert the demon king trope when it comes to Nobunaga.
Neat, while the knowledge of the intention behind anything is always nice to have, ultimately one of the most important factors is the actual content.
But no, my question was more towards your feelings towards Edelgard when it comes to SB, as she avoids your criticisms of her from Houses which is really one of the core differences to 3 Houses narrative, or maybe also Golden Wildire where she is a supporting ally.
Ok then, I don't find Edelgard of Scarlet Blaze appealing on a moral basis, as she still started a war costing quite a lot of lives, which isn't to say that I actively dislike or hate Edelgard, more that I cannot agree with her on a moral basis.
Although I would say Blue Lions Routes being bad is more of a common issue, Azure Moon also was bad once you critically examine it and aren't cought up into Dimitris Manpain.
I would more say that Azure Moon suffered from the focus on Byleth, a silent protagonist for players to insert themselves into as the salvation for Dimitri, which I don't think works and which Azure Gleam did better. I would recommend that you avoid referring to the mental health of males as manpain, as that gives off a general lack of compassion.
"Rise and fall by their own merits"... and governmental aid and support that intentionally caters to the specific needs of those in important positions who have been determined to be the best fit for roles society needs to flourish:
Linhardt: Are you suggesting land-holding lords would have no means of applying?
Edelgard: Quite the opposite. I'm looking for applicants with enough passion for the job that they're willing to relinquish any land-holding rights they possess. They will be provided with necessities like food, clothing, and housing but will receive no further compensation. That said, they will be free to take as much time off as they desire.
Linhardt: Do you expect anyone to be interested in such an odd position?
Edelgard: That's my hope.
Linhardt: Have you gone mad? Demanding someone rescind their land rights and then provide no compensation? Even the unlimited time off is a rather discourteous perk to offer. No one would accept room, board, and endless time to research... No one but me. Why must you...
Edelgard: Why must I what?
Linhardt: Why must you understand me so well? I asked you to consider the feelings of those below you... I never expected you to consider mine to this extent.
She specifically caters to Lindhardt's needs. His merits are his Crest research and so she provides a specialised opportunity for him to be able to persue that, with the consideration that it would be the only thing he does and knowing he wouldn't be capable to taking care of his land holdings. (Much like the position of president this also removes the opportunity for excessive power and bias.)
People seem to focus a lot on what Emperor Edelgard says and completely ignore that she's extremely considerate of other people's needs, with Bernadetta being the prime example, as she only leaves her room in Crimson Flower. (And is mocked by Dimitri in AM.)
Her society isn't so easily comparable to what we experience, and even in comparing it to other societies it shows a bias towards a very democratic capitalist systems, which consistently fail minority groups (see Australia's recent referendum) and create extreme class divides that with no upward mobility that instills a "noble" class in billionaires outside of all consequences who serve as political decision-makers without the public's consent and steals the wages of the middle-class and poor alike for their mega yachts.
Fodlan is a xenophobic country. Democracy isn't going to work there.
Edelgard's society of catering to the specific individual needs of her subjects through public schooling, equal rights (not a "we need to respect that some people are born noble and better" ideology), religious freedom, and an understanding of equity is far more advanced than the societies created by her peers.
Also. How did you expect her to kill the Agarthans before Remire? They don't know where they are. No one does.
Obviously you understand that Edelgard isn't actually in control of Adrestia, right? Like she has her own bid and Hubert's. But she has to perform a military coup in order to even have a majority vote of confidence in her council. She can't get rid of Thales for the same reason the Insurrection happened in the first place. The Emperor consolidating power scares the nobility and they would revolt again.
Beyond that, the war is stated as "inevitable" by the game repeatedly. If not Edelgard it would have been someone else. (The Tragedy of Duscur was already an act of war from Agartha.)
So in order to have any spin on the war she needed to convince the head of Adrestia's military that it was a good choice backing her. How do you do that? You promise conquest! How does Edelgard know it's a good time for her to promise conquest? Because that's what the Slithers were already planning to do, she's cashing their cheques to steal back governmental control, and Thales can't do shit because despite him still owning his own giant militia, this "to war" attitude was what they wanted anyway. And he's not worried because Edelgard for the most part needs their support and she cannot trust anyone in any government ever while they still exist.
Her situation is more nebulous than you give it credit for and it relates specifically to the order in which Fodlan needs to be deconstructed to remove the rot. It's why Rhea never stays in power in any route. She was a super conservative.
Hi there, thanks for the ask.
I've stated several times in the past that the system Edelgard seeks to create is a meritocracy, which you were kind enough to spare me provide a definition. It seems that you are unknowingly or not projecting onto Edelgard's society, as there is no evidence of religious freedom or a freedom of equity being in Edelgard's ideal society, with equal rights being nebulous as it is possible that the talented rising in society could be considered equal rights and education being a possibility that Edelgard will consider. The main issues I have with Edelgard is her complicity in several of Agartha's crimes and her war of conquest.
You do realise that Fodlan's caution towards foreign nations is because most of them such as Almyra and Sreng continue to launch offensives against Leicester and Faerghus, with Dagda recently launching an invasion of Adrestia, additionally the claim of xenophobia comes from Claude, the guy who consistently dodges the fact that Almyra continues to assault Leicester, only being halted by Holst.
Actually no, Edelgard explicitly says that she has set out to conquer Fodlan, https://hopes.fedatamine.com/en-us/supports/edelgard/balthus/b/#event-68. Edelgard has already secured the loyalty of all seven noble houses by the end of pre-timeskip one may or another, with all evidence pointing to be the result of Edelgard and Hubert's efforts with no assistance of Agartha, and no evidence of people making her do anything.
You know she could simply not work with the genocidal maniacs that have already exhibited the willingness to mass murder people? It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp.
What is it with people and trying to shroud morally atrocious actions in a veil of "grey morality". Sure, a lot of the time, things tend to be gray, not entirely good and not entirely bad, but sometimes there are just situations where that rule doesn't apply such as willingly working with a cult of mass murderers until their use is depleted.
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
Definition of a Revolution
There's been a recent trend where Edelgard supporters refer to Edelgard's war as a revolution, I don't know if they're purposefully disregarding the definition of revolution or if they're simply ignorant, either way, they're still just wrong.
Firstly, we should begin with the definition of the word, Revolution, which has two main meanings but the one we're most interested in is the overthrowing of a government or ruler, as that tends to be the most popular meaning.
Now last time I checked, neither Faerghus or Leicester are governing Adrestia, which means Edelgard attacking them can't be part of a revolution. As for the Church of Seiros, Adrestia kicked them out 120 years prior to the game's start, and the Church of Seiros isn't in a position of governance over Adrestia either. So then the question is who exactly is Adrestia launching a revolution against?
I'm sure the question on the reader's mind is who exactly is Adrestia launching a revolution against? Many of Edelgard's supports including Edelgard herself believe that her war is a revolt against the social groundwork of Fodlan itself.
Now that seems clever, but falls apart on a closer inspection, because it could be argued that every single war in history could be counted as a revolution which would greatly dilute the meaning of the word. Do you honestly think that the Vietnam War should count as a revolution? The Invasion of Poland by Russia and Nazi Germany in World War II? The Colonization of the American Continent?
For instance the Napoleonic Wars could be argued as a revolution under this logic as one could say that Napoleon was rebelling against the social groundwork of Europe. Now I would think it would be obvious that Napoleon was not launching a revolution, as he was simply intending on conquering Europe.
Now one could try to argue that I'm arguing semantics or performing some description pedantry, but the truth of the matter is that if you're going to use a word especially with a strong meaning such as revolution, make sure you know what the actual definition is, as for those who purposefully disregard the meaning of the word, Congratulations, You're not a Clown, You're the entire Circus.
Regardless of how many people try to claim that it's a rebellion, a revolution, or any other synonym of the word, what will remain true is that Edelgard's war is simply a war of conquest, nothing more and nothing less, and it would be nice if people were honest with themselves and admit that.
13 notes
·
View notes
Note
Welcome back to Tumblr, I'm assuming Tumblr bugged out and deleted your account.
My honest question to you would be, what do you think about the fact that overall, the unification of Fodlan into a single state is considered a desirable outcome that is realized in every single one of the routes? Combined with our knowledge that the basic premise of 3 Houses is very much inspired by three Kingdoms period of chinese history, do you acknowledge the possibility that the games narrative considers unification a desirable outcome regardless of the specifics?
So my interpretation of a United Fodlan at the end of all routes was pretty much because the developers wanted to keep their options open if they wanted a sequel to Three Houses, be it a direct sequel or a distant sequel, ala Awakening to Shadow Dragon and Mystery of the Emblem, as it would be more difficult to reference the events of Three Houses if every route had a different state of affairs.
Especially in hindsight of DLC material that confirms that the initial rebellion of Faerghus that lead to its seperation from Adrestia was supported by and relied on Those Who Slither in the Dark and that the Events leading to Leicester breaking off of Faerghus are hinted to have been so as well, hinting at the fragmentation of Fodlan into seperate states to be the result of hostile schemes?
The Shadow Library does heavily imply that the rebellion against Adrestia by Faerghus was supported by Agartha in the provision of Hero Relic replicas and the tactician Pan. However there is also hints in the Shadow Library in a Feast of Decadence that the reason why Faerghus rebelled was because of mistreatment by Adrestia.
If the alliance with the Agarthans is your main concern, I would assume you received Edelgard more positively in that game?
I actually felt sorry for her, considering the developers decided to pull a Kaga and have Edelgard be brainwashed and reverted to a child in a blatant example of bad writing. I suspect that the reason why Monica appeared as a playable character despite Houses implying that Monica has been dead for a while is because some of the developers wanted to give Edelgard a win, because perhaps they disagreed with the plot point of Edelgard's brainwashing.
"Rise and fall by their own merits"... and governmental aid and support that intentionally caters to the specific needs of those in important positions who have been determined to be the best fit for roles society needs to flourish:
Linhardt: Are you suggesting land-holding lords would have no means of applying?
Edelgard: Quite the opposite. I'm looking for applicants with enough passion for the job that they're willing to relinquish any land-holding rights they possess. They will be provided with necessities like food, clothing, and housing but will receive no further compensation. That said, they will be free to take as much time off as they desire.
Linhardt: Do you expect anyone to be interested in such an odd position?
Edelgard: That's my hope.
Linhardt: Have you gone mad? Demanding someone rescind their land rights and then provide no compensation? Even the unlimited time off is a rather discourteous perk to offer. No one would accept room, board, and endless time to research... No one but me. Why must you...
Edelgard: Why must I what?
Linhardt: Why must you understand me so well? I asked you to consider the feelings of those below you... I never expected you to consider mine to this extent.
She specifically caters to Lindhardt's needs. His merits are his Crest research and so she provides a specialised opportunity for him to be able to persue that, with the consideration that it would be the only thing he does and knowing he wouldn't be capable to taking care of his land holdings. (Much like the position of president this also removes the opportunity for excessive power and bias.)
People seem to focus a lot on what Emperor Edelgard says and completely ignore that she's extremely considerate of other people's needs, with Bernadetta being the prime example, as she only leaves her room in Crimson Flower. (And is mocked by Dimitri in AM.)
Her society isn't so easily comparable to what we experience, and even in comparing it to other societies it shows a bias towards a very democratic capitalist systems, which consistently fail minority groups (see Australia's recent referendum) and create extreme class divides that with no upward mobility that instills a "noble" class in billionaires outside of all consequences who serve as political decision-makers without the public's consent and steals the wages of the middle-class and poor alike for their mega yachts.
Fodlan is a xenophobic country. Democracy isn't going to work there.
Edelgard's society of catering to the specific individual needs of her subjects through public schooling, equal rights (not a "we need to respect that some people are born noble and better" ideology), religious freedom, and an understanding of equity is far more advanced than the societies created by her peers.
Also. How did you expect her to kill the Agarthans before Remire? They don't know where they are. No one does.
Obviously you understand that Edelgard isn't actually in control of Adrestia, right? Like she has her own bid and Hubert's. But she has to perform a military coup in order to even have a majority vote of confidence in her council. She can't get rid of Thales for the same reason the Insurrection happened in the first place. The Emperor consolidating power scares the nobility and they would revolt again.
Beyond that, the war is stated as "inevitable" by the game repeatedly. If not Edelgard it would have been someone else. (The Tragedy of Duscur was already an act of war from Agartha.)
So in order to have any spin on the war she needed to convince the head of Adrestia's military that it was a good choice backing her. How do you do that? You promise conquest! How does Edelgard know it's a good time for her to promise conquest? Because that's what the Slithers were already planning to do, she's cashing their cheques to steal back governmental control, and Thales can't do shit because despite him still owning his own giant militia, this "to war" attitude was what they wanted anyway. And he's not worried because Edelgard for the most part needs their support and she cannot trust anyone in any government ever while they still exist.
Her situation is more nebulous than you give it credit for and it relates specifically to the order in which Fodlan needs to be deconstructed to remove the rot. It's why Rhea never stays in power in any route. She was a super conservative.
Hi there, thanks for the ask.
I've stated several times in the past that the system Edelgard seeks to create is a meritocracy, which you were kind enough to spare me provide a definition. It seems that you are unknowingly or not projecting onto Edelgard's society, as there is no evidence of religious freedom or a freedom of equity being in Edelgard's ideal society, with equal rights being nebulous as it is possible that the talented rising in society could be considered equal rights and education being a possibility that Edelgard will consider. The main issues I have with Edelgard is her complicity in several of Agartha's crimes and her war of conquest.
You do realise that Fodlan's caution towards foreign nations is because most of them such as Almyra and Sreng continue to launch offensives against Leicester and Faerghus, with Dagda recently launching an invasion of Adrestia, additionally the claim of xenophobia comes from Claude, the guy who consistently dodges the fact that Almyra continues to assault Leicester, only being halted by Holst.
Actually no, Edelgard explicitly says that she has set out to conquer Fodlan, https://hopes.fedatamine.com/en-us/supports/edelgard/balthus/b/#event-68. Edelgard has already secured the loyalty of all seven noble houses by the end of pre-timeskip one may or another, with all evidence pointing to be the result of Edelgard and Hubert's efforts with no assistance of Agartha, and no evidence of people making her do anything.
You know she could simply not work with the genocidal maniacs that have already exhibited the willingness to mass murder people? It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp.
What is it with people and trying to shroud morally atrocious actions in a veil of "grey morality". Sure, a lot of the time, things tend to be gray, not entirely good and not entirely bad, but sometimes there are just situations where that rule doesn't apply such as willingly working with a cult of mass murderers until their use is depleted.
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
First, the post is a response to oft repeated complaints that Edelgard is mean to Dimitri or that she doesn't care about him (sometimes because they missed how Edelgard's trauma affected her memories of their childhood friendship, or because they just don't like that she called him "King of Delusion" in response to his ranting about how he'll kill her for doing things she did not, and could not, have done). The dialogue I posted shows Edelgard expressing her regret that she could not prevent Dimitri falling into madness and her belief that putting him out of his misery was the kindest thing she could do for him, as far gone as he was.
You're not a clown, you're the entire circus. The whole reason my post was made because do you know how stupid it looks for someone who out of their own free will chooses to invade a country, kill the leader and then cry about supposedly having to kill them. If a man killed another for his wealth, the court wouldn't give a damn if he was sad about the victim "making" them murder them.
Secondly, I don't know if you didn't bother to check your sources or tried to lie to my face when I have the evidence available, https://houses.fedatamine.com/en-us/scenarios/266. First of all, Dimitri makes the accusation that Lambert was killed for Edelgard, which per Thales is true, https://houses.fedatamine.com/en-us/scenarios/110. Secondly, he claims that Anselma was killed by Edelgard, which is the only dubious part because her fate is kept vague. Thirdly, he says that Edelgard will bow before the lives she has trampled for her ideals, which is true as what do you expect to happen from starting an continental war of conquest?
It's also worth noting that Edelgard did not attack the Kingdom unprovoked. She went to war against the Church, and Dimitri intervened on the latter's behalf. Hopes, even in the example you cited, makes it pretty clear she's more interested in unifying Fódlan, than in conquering it, as is made apparent by her partnership with Claude. She even tells Dimitri that she'd leave him alone if he'd just cut ties with the Central Church and stop interfering, which he refuses.
Last time I checked, giving people asylum isn't a valid Casus Belli. I'm unsure if you're being obtuse on purpose, but unifying a continent through warfare is a war of conquest.
Oh yes, Claude. You mean how in their meeting, https://hopes.fedatamine.com/en-us/events/639/. Edelgard outright lied to Claude's face per https://hopes.fedatamine.com/en-us/events/606/. You actually think that someone who honestly says that there can only be one ruler of this world won't backstab Claude once his use is over? https://houses.fedatamine.com/en-us/scenarios/226#event-60
Thirdly, even before she knows where Rhea is gone, she is already preparing to launch an invasion of Faerghus and later launches an invasion of Leicester, https://hopes.fedatamine.com/en-us/events/443/#event-96. Funny how the event is called Beginning of the Conquest, almost like it's trying to tell you something.
Congratulations, you just played yourself.
You know it's really funny to me when people go around saying that Edelgard was so sad about "having" to kill Dimitri and others, when she was the one who decided to start a war and attacked his kingdom.
Oh and by the way, Edelgard wasn't made to start the war either, as Hubert all but confirms that it was Edelgard and Hubert's decision to work with Agartha, https://houses.fedatamine.com/en-us/scenarios/251, and in Hopes, Edelgard explicitly says that her goal is to conquer Fodlan, https://hopes.fedatamine.com/en-us/supports/edelgard/balthus/b/#event-68
17 notes
·
View notes
Note
Imagine waiting a week to respond to an argument you weren't involved in originally, couldn't be me.
You don't genuinely believe Thales would just go, "oh, okay, we'll find someone else to start our war," if Edelgard refused, do you? Obviously, she did ultimately agree to work with Thales of her own free will, but that wasn't because she wasn't being pressured to play ball with him. Ultimately, she decided to usurp his plan (start a war to destabilize the church and unite Fodlan under the Empire) toward her own ends.
Evidence seems to suggest that Thales had only prepared a countermeasure for Edelgard in the form of Aymr, following her kicking him out of Adrestia. Considering Thales is unable to stop a exhausted Dimitri from strolling up to him while tanking his blasts before shanking him, Thales can't really do anything against Edelgard, who at the very least should be on par with Dimitri when it comes to pure physical prowess.
A rejection of traditional thinking in favor of rationalism and empiricism. Which… fits Edelgard exceptionally well.
Edelgard's goals barely fall under enlightenment thinking, because Meritocracy in it's most known form was the result of the Enlightenment, but rationalism and empiricism don't appear to be major concerns of Edelgard.
You mean that to be frightening, so as to imply that the underprivileged will just get fucked and die in her system (they already do in Fodlan as-is ftr), but when Edelgard rants about people she hates, she's never directing her ire to the poor and downtrodden. Her "rise and fall by their own merit" talk is her expressing her desire to get corrupt and incompetent nobility out of power. Really, it's her detractors who stuff "meritocracy" down her throat.
Unfortunately for you, you seem to have told on yourself, I made no judgement of Meritocracy as a system or as a concept. All I provided was it's definition, because Diaphin gave off the vibe of someone who throws around words without regard for their meaning, considering they seemed not to know what an enlightenment monarch was.
That, unfortunately, would depend on who you ask.
However, our modern society also tends to frown upon theocracies, child soldiers, monarchies, and sham religions. At least outside regions run by monarchies and theocracies, anyways.
I don't place any value in the opinions of right wing lunatics, in fact I put negative value on said opinions.
Modern society tends to put more of a critical light on starting wars of conquest and willingly working with murderous maniacs.
Oh no, is this the "Dimitri/Claude/Byleth do an accidental conquest!" argument again? Much of the cause of the disarray is due to Dimitri, Claude, and Seteth struggling to work together without Byleth there to make them, or the victorious power doing things like executing Count Bergliez after Edelgard falls.
Not really, it's more of everything has fallen to anarchy argument. I would argue that it's more that the developers decided to have the political landscape to be mostly the same across the endings of all routes, likely to leave things open if Intelligent Systems want to do a sequel set in the future of Three Houses, Ala Awakening to Shadow Dragon.
Would you care to elaborate on what Diaphin said that sounded like this to you? Was it the bit about Dimitri and Duscur?
Also, yes, Diaphin and I are speaking again, as I'm sure Ezralahm or someone will soon point out. Second chances are a thing, and it's been nearly a year since the callout post.
You would be correct. Diaphin seems to have a talent of throwing out baseless arguments that sounds straight out of 4chan.
It's funny, I wasn't even referring to you at all. At the time I wrote the conclusion to my argument, I was thinking that there was no way Diaphin was actually sourcing arguments from 4chan and expecting them to be legit, so I made the assumption he was using another internet source of dubious credibility and used that as an attack on the credibility of his arguments.
Weird. Considering Diaphin seems to have deleted their tumblr account, I wonder why.
You're five years late to the discourse. What's even the points of making a post about it? It's not like every single points you said has been discussed and refuted over and over either... At least if you're going to obsess about the thing you hate, you could have the decency to deal with the complexity of the subject and make a proper post about it instead of your ridiculous three sentences ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You know if you had bothered to do some research you would know that I've been involved in discourse for a little while, though the last time I got myself involved in discourse was January. I haven't been as active as say RandomNameless or FantasyInvader, because I usually only make posts in response to stupid arguments that I see, and it just so happens that I happened to see someone arguing about how sad Edelgard was about "having" to kill Dimitri.
Unfortunately for you, my points haven't been refuted, because the fact is as I pointed out, it was ultimately Edelgard and Hubert's decision to work with Agartha and it is one of Edelgard's goals to conquer Fodlan, as is pointed out in the hyperlinks I provided as evidence.
Obsessed? You do realise that Ad Hominen attacks can't serve as the backbone of a argument, in fact trying to have ad hominen attacks serve as the foundation of your argument just makes it look fragile.
16 notes
·
View notes
Note
"Rise and fall by their own merits"... and governmental aid and support that intentionally caters to the specific needs of those in important positions who have been determined to be the best fit for roles society needs to flourish:
Linhardt: Are you suggesting land-holding lords would have no means of applying?
Edelgard: Quite the opposite. I'm looking for applicants with enough passion for the job that they're willing to relinquish any land-holding rights they possess. They will be provided with necessities like food, clothing, and housing but will receive no further compensation. That said, they will be free to take as much time off as they desire.
Linhardt: Do you expect anyone to be interested in such an odd position?
Edelgard: That's my hope.
Linhardt: Have you gone mad? Demanding someone rescind their land rights and then provide no compensation? Even the unlimited time off is a rather discourteous perk to offer. No one would accept room, board, and endless time to research... No one but me. Why must you...
Edelgard: Why must I what?
Linhardt: Why must you understand me so well? I asked you to consider the feelings of those below you... I never expected you to consider mine to this extent.
She specifically caters to Lindhardt's needs. His merits are his Crest research and so she provides a specialised opportunity for him to be able to persue that, with the consideration that it would be the only thing he does and knowing he wouldn't be capable to taking care of his land holdings. (Much like the position of president this also removes the opportunity for excessive power and bias.)
People seem to focus a lot on what Emperor Edelgard says and completely ignore that she's extremely considerate of other people's needs, with Bernadetta being the prime example, as she only leaves her room in Crimson Flower. (And is mocked by Dimitri in AM.)
Her society isn't so easily comparable to what we experience, and even in comparing it to other societies it shows a bias towards a very democratic capitalist systems, which consistently fail minority groups (see Australia's recent referendum) and create extreme class divides that with no upward mobility that instills a "noble" class in billionaires outside of all consequences who serve as political decision-makers without the public's consent and steals the wages of the middle-class and poor alike for their mega yachts.
Fodlan is a xenophobic country. Democracy isn't going to work there.
Edelgard's society of catering to the specific individual needs of her subjects through public schooling, equal rights (not a "we need to respect that some people are born noble and better" ideology), religious freedom, and an understanding of equity is far more advanced than the societies created by her peers.
Also. How did you expect her to kill the Agarthans before Remire? They don't know where they are. No one does.
Obviously you understand that Edelgard isn't actually in control of Adrestia, right? Like she has her own bid and Hubert's. But she has to perform a military coup in order to even have a majority vote of confidence in her council. She can't get rid of Thales for the same reason the Insurrection happened in the first place. The Emperor consolidating power scares the nobility and they would revolt again.
Beyond that, the war is stated as "inevitable" by the game repeatedly. If not Edelgard it would have been someone else. (The Tragedy of Duscur was already an act of war from Agartha.)
So in order to have any spin on the war she needed to convince the head of Adrestia's military that it was a good choice backing her. How do you do that? You promise conquest! How does Edelgard know it's a good time for her to promise conquest? Because that's what the Slithers were already planning to do, she's cashing their cheques to steal back governmental control, and Thales can't do shit because despite him still owning his own giant militia, this "to war" attitude was what they wanted anyway. And he's not worried because Edelgard for the most part needs their support and she cannot trust anyone in any government ever while they still exist.
Her situation is more nebulous than you give it credit for and it relates specifically to the order in which Fodlan needs to be deconstructed to remove the rot. It's why Rhea never stays in power in any route. She was a super conservative.
Hi there, thanks for the ask.
I've stated several times in the past that the system Edelgard seeks to create is a meritocracy, which you were kind enough to spare me provide a definition. It seems that you are unknowingly or not projecting onto Edelgard's society, as there is no evidence of religious freedom or a freedom of equity being in Edelgard's ideal society, with equal rights being nebulous as it is possible that the talented rising in society could be considered equal rights and education being a possibility that Edelgard will consider. The main issues I have with Edelgard is her complicity in several of Agartha's crimes and her war of conquest.
You do realise that Fodlan's caution towards foreign nations is because most of them such as Almyra and Sreng continue to launch offensives against Leicester and Faerghus, with Dagda recently launching an invasion of Adrestia, additionally the claim of xenophobia comes from Claude, the guy who consistently dodges the fact that Almyra continues to assault Leicester, only being halted by Holst.
Actually no, Edelgard explicitly says that she has set out to conquer Fodlan, https://hopes.fedatamine.com/en-us/supports/edelgard/balthus/b/#event-68. Edelgard has already secured the loyalty of all seven noble houses by the end of pre-timeskip one may or another, with all evidence pointing to be the result of Edelgard and Hubert's efforts with no assistance of Agartha, and no evidence of people making her do anything.
You know she could simply not work with the genocidal maniacs that have already exhibited the willingness to mass murder people? It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp.
What is it with people and trying to shroud morally atrocious actions in a veil of "grey morality". Sure, a lot of the time, things tend to be gray, not entirely good and not entirely bad, but sometimes there are just situations where that rule doesn't apply such as willingly working with a cult of mass murderers until their use is depleted.
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
You know up until this post, I didn't know this scene had happened, actually probably because I mainly watched the anime and it drastically cut back on this scene, removing the torture dialogue.
As I've said, Aizawa as a character demonstrates the false rationality of emotional men who have rationalized to themselves that all of their decisions/opinions are the most logical and everyone else is irrational/emotional.
What do I mean and why these panels? Torture doesn't work for intelligence. And logically speaking, how much would pain motivate a guy covered head to toe in self-inflicted third degree burns. Regardless of his rationalizations, Aizawa was breaking Dabi's arms here to feel more in control and because he felt afraid.
To be fair, at least Horikoshi didn't reward his actions here, as Aizawa doesn't get anymore useful intelligence than what the League wanted him to know anyway.
137 notes
·
View notes
Note
No everything is about debate. It's not an ad-hominem, because my goal is not to discredit your argument here ( hence why I haven't bothered to actually tackle your points ): I'm talking about you. Why are you still going over and over something you hate? Just block and move on, you're ridiculous. It's been five years!!
Hi again, and thanks for the ask. Bold of you to assume I hate Edelgard, in fact as an antagonist, I find her unwillingness to give up and relent respectable. What I dislike is how people go around, claiming that her actions are justified, that they were the right thing to do, because if there's no thing that I cannot stand, it is people trying to justify atrocities on a moral basis.
Honestly, I'm kinda confused why you're asking me this, because I make an occasional post every so often when I find the inspiration, and there are quite a few people who are way more active then me in Edelgard Discourse.
0 notes
Note
What is wrong in principle with working with Agartha? Have you actually played Three Houses or are you debating based off cliff notes from 4chan? There's obviously nothing wrong with working with a group who willingly drives a entire village to madness as a experiment, who on a regular basis transform people into demonic beasts. Edelgard and Hubert aren't being coerced, you would know that if you bothered to read my evidence that I provided and they didn't know about the Javelins of Light prior to their use.
Do you even know what enlightenment thinking even is? What Edelgard desires to create is a society where those with talent and the will to do whatever it takes will rise to the top, aka a Meritocracy. You know what our modern society doesn't like? Conquering your neighbours.
Personally I think it is unwise to declare an definite intent of the work, because it is highly subjective without word from the developers themselves. Most routes have the rest of the nations in massive disarray with the vast majority of leadership either dead or missing, resulting in a incidental "unification". You know quoting the deranged ramblings of the equivalent of flipping 4chan makes you look like a clown.
You're five years late to the discourse. What's even the points of making a post about it? It's not like every single points you said has been discussed and refuted over and over either... At least if you're going to obsess about the thing you hate, you could have the decency to deal with the complexity of the subject and make a proper post about it instead of your ridiculous three sentences ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You know if you had bothered to do some research you would know that I've been involved in discourse for a little while, though the last time I got myself involved in discourse was January. I haven't been as active as say RandomNameless or FantasyInvader, because I usually only make posts in response to stupid arguments that I see, and it just so happens that I happened to see someone arguing about how sad Edelgard was about "having" to kill Dimitri.
Unfortunately for you, my points haven't been refuted, because the fact is as I pointed out, it was ultimately Edelgard and Hubert's decision to work with Agartha and it is one of Edelgard's goals to conquer Fodlan, as is pointed out in the hyperlinks I provided as evidence.
Obsessed? You do realise that Ad Hominen attacks can't serve as the backbone of a argument, in fact trying to have ad hominen attacks serve as the foundation of your argument just makes it look fragile.
16 notes
·
View notes
Note
You're five years late to the discourse. What's even the points of making a post about it? It's not like every single points you said has been discussed and refuted over and over either... At least if you're going to obsess about the thing you hate, you could have the decency to deal with the complexity of the subject and make a proper post about it instead of your ridiculous three sentences ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You know if you had bothered to do some research you would know that I've been involved in discourse for a little while, though the last time I got myself involved in discourse was January. I haven't been as active as say RandomNameless or FantasyInvader, because I usually only make posts in response to stupid arguments that I see, and it just so happens that I happened to see someone arguing about how sad Edelgard was about "having" to kill Dimitri.
Unfortunately for you, my points haven't been refuted, because the fact is as I pointed out, it was ultimately Edelgard and Hubert's decision to work with Agartha and it is one of Edelgard's goals to conquer Fodlan, as is pointed out in the hyperlinks I provided as evidence.
Obsessed? You do realise that Ad Hominen attacks can't serve as the backbone of a argument, in fact trying to have ad hominen attacks serve as the foundation of your argument just makes it look fragile.
16 notes
·
View notes
Text
You know it's really funny to me when people go around saying that Edelgard was so sad about "having" to kill Dimitri and others, when she was the one who decided to start a war and attacked his kingdom.
Oh and by the way, Edelgard wasn't made to start the war either, as Hubert all but confirms that it was Edelgard and Hubert's decision to work with Agartha, https://houses.fedatamine.com/en-us/scenarios/251, and in Hopes, Edelgard explicitly says that her goal is to conquer Fodlan, https://hopes.fedatamine.com/en-us/supports/edelgard/balthus/b/#event-68
17 notes
·
View notes