#edeldiscourse

[archer3-13]

Edelgard is an interesting character in everyway but this discourse really sucks since it limits any interesting takes you can have on her

eh, to be frank im not that found of her as shes written even putting aside the discourse and well a part of that is personal taste [i like my villain protagonists more on the eccentric side of things to say the least] it also just comes down to how i find her kinda boring. there are interesting threads that could be picked at there, how despite her overt demenour shes really rather childish, how shes wilfully misinformed to the point of constructing an elaborate personal narrative to make herself feel better/more secure in her beliefs, her 'only i can fix it' mindset inherited from so many red emperors of the past.

In a sense shes the manic pixie dream girl of red emperors in terms of the fire emblem meta narrative and that should express itself in a character with a lot of rather interesting quirks to her behaviour and story. But it just never gets there, and sadly her most interesting point as a character is when shes wearing the flame emperor mask which i so desperately wish had kept through her presentation as consistent characterization as opposed to being a separate persona on which to hoist all the 'bad karma'.

cause the flame emperor is interesting, that fascinating paradox of petty childish and insecure behaviour [hey, i know my allies just killed basically everyone in this village but that was toats not my fault so you shouldn't blame me and i'd be really sad if you did], combined with a brutal intimidating leader dragging her followers along through brute force and deception [i dont wanna play with you anymore kostas so im just gonna let you get killed, mkay.]

her speech is noticeably at its most crass as the flame emperor, and in many ways i've always viewed it as the 'mask off edelgard' where shes free to most be herself ironically well shes wearing a mask. most noticeably because as soon as the mask breaks she immediately drops any flame emperor mannerisms just as shes specifically attempting to leverage sympathy. thats not how i imagine your suppose to take it mind, but its the only way i can find to grapple with her as a character that i on an individual level find interesting.

[teaveetamer]

What is people's obsession with putting Seteth and Flayn in Crimson Flower? I saw a long ass post of people like "Crimson Flower Seteth who just wants to make a world safe for Flayn" BY JOINING A WOMAN WHO WANTS THEIR KIND KILLED OFF?! How is that making a world safe for Flayn? JFC Made worse by the post saying that Flayn tells Seteth that their kind merely EXISTING has brought pain on the world. That's just horrible to me and it makes me sick to see.

Oh I actually know the answer to this one!

See, if Crimson Flower is the bestest most rightest route, that means absolutely nothing bad can happen in it ever. Which means they have three major points to contend with.

1) Felix because he will never have a happy ending outside of Azure Moon. This is why we get all of these weird mental gymnastics insisting that Felix’s life is somehow better without Dimitri, despite every single one of his endings being objectively worse in every way compared to their Azure Moon variation.

2) Seteth and Flayn because they, unlike Rhea, Catherine, and Cyril are generally universally likable characters that cannot coexist with a Crimson Flower run. Crimson Flower always results in bad things for them (and no I don’t count “being allowed to live and being forced to go into hiding for potentially hundreds of years” as better than just dying).

This is why we get all of this dialogue about how “isn’t it so great that you can let them live!” just don’t talk about what happens to them afterwards details details... Or we get the classic “the game messed up their writing and they would totally side with Edelgard!” Just ignore the fact that Edelgard is hella racist and the only way they live is if Byleth lets them go.

3) The other two lords because you have to take them down in Crimson Flower despite their complete lack of aggression towards Edelgard. So somehow you have to blame something that isn’t Edelgard for their conflict.

Claude, of course, they deal with by pointing out that you can spare him, and by making him Edelgard’s “black friend”. The whole “omg it’s so tragic that Claude and Edelgard never talked because they would have totally agreed with each other and killed Rhea together!” and “Edelgard isn’t racist because she totally would have gotten along with Claude!” thing.

Dimitri they deal with by dismissing everything he’s about, because he’s just crazy. It’s not Edelgard’s fault she had to kill him, he’s just obsessed with her and crazy. It’s not Edelgard’s fault she had to invade his country, he teamed up with the crazy dragon lady and is super crazy. And craaaaaaazy people deserve to die, so that’s obviously not a mark against Edelgard’s character. Though there is the slightly rarer variation of “Edelgard convinced Dimitri that he was totes wrong and he magically got over his craaaazy and all three lords got together and murdered Rhea #SlayQueen”

Basically... Shoehorning Seteth and Flayn into Crimson Flower is some sort of grotesque “fix it” fic hell bent on making Crimson Flower ~perfect~ and disregarding absolutely everything about the game in the process.

[foxartisans]

You know, I’ve always wondered why people claim AM is the route that “makes Edelgard look bad” and blame it for people not liking her. I honestly thought VW was when my opinion of her soured most, and ironically playing AM actually made me like her a little more after playing CF first. But, while that’s the case for me personally, it’s undeniable that there does seem to be a connection between those who play AM first and those who don’t like Edelgard.

Obviously there’s many reasons why people who play AM first might be more inclined to dislike Edelgard, and while for some people it may just be “she goes against Dimitri,” I think the actual answer is a little more complicated than that.

For one, AM comes closest to presenting multiple sides to Edelgard’s actions and has people actively question her. While there is still some of that “but why can’t we walk with Edelgard???”, it’s much less apparent here. The absence of her VW and SS death cutscene, especially, is a big point since that scene is designed to make players feel sorry for her, and it’ll be the last impression they have of her before learning about TWSITD. Final impressions are powerful; one sad cutscene about her wanting to talk with you is probably going to hold much more weight in someone’s head than a quick line about her using her citizens as shields in VW.

I also think AM is the route that shows the ramifications of war the most. It has the most consistently serious tone and is very much a story about how violence and war can destroy people, from the literal war to showing the effects of the violence and death of the Tragedy of Duscur on the Kingdom’s politics, the survivors, the aftermath and subsequent genocide of the Duscur people, etc. And, of course, it shows the dangers of “revenge” mentality. So it’s natural that people who play it first and pick up on those themes are less inclined to like someone who does everything that AM cautions against and causes violence herself.

Basically, AM is not written to be “biased against Edelgard.” In fact it has probably the most fair portrayal of her of all the routes. It’s written to have consistent theming, and it just so happens that those themes that players pick up on outline all the ramifications of what Edelgard is doing in ways that other routes do not.

[archer3-13]

Small plot holes are fine, big one however can ruin the story. That can make something literaly crumble if it's too big. And if i recall 3 houses had its fair share of those.

Not strictly disagreeing, just ya know. Sometimes a plothole isn't a plothole its an intentional choice to leave information out or ambiguous, and part of critical analysis is recognizing when that is and isn't the case.

for instance, is the tragedy of duscur and if dimitris adoptive mother culpable in it a plothole? no, its pretty clearly suppose to be an ambiguous note left unresolved as part of dimitris own journey as a character. a sad reminder that he'll never really know the full truth of what happened there, but that he needs to keep moving forward regardless for the sake of those who rely on him. even the fact that we get presented contradictory information on the matter is a deliberate writing choice to emphasize its place in the story.

on the other hand, does edelgard have sibling or not? i would say the story as it stands in three houses only really works under the assumption that edelgard is an only child, because otherwise the idea that edelgard has numerous siblings creates inconsistencies in other essential areas of the narrative three houses wants to tell. But in other areas of the text where its more convenient to present edelgard as having multiple siblings, shes presented as having multiple siblings. Thus it becomes a plothole in the story because the information is presented as true when its relevant, but otherwise not treated as if it were true when it is irrelevant. this isn't carefully cultivated contradictions, this is writing thats missing pieces of itself and connective tissue to the story being told. Hence, what I would consider, a plothole.

[archer3-13]

I've seen the argument float around a bit, mostly from edelstans but ive seen it crop up elsewhere, that people who dont like edelgard have been saying edelgard deserves what happens in AG in becoming a mental child.

Now, i have not seen any such argument actually be seriously made in that regard. If someone could link to anything that supports the above claim id be happy to see it, but in terms of areas of 'traffic' where you would expect to see such an assertion made again

i have not seen anything that remotely falls into that line of thinking

which brings me to a more general statement i feel is important to make, and its that what happens to edelgard in AG is indeed intellectually unsettling in its implications in many ways. However, its also not something I, and indeed some others, can feel particularly sympathetic towards edelgard on outside of the intellectual implications of it. That is because the narrative of hopes does not treat what happens to edelgard with the gravitas such a concept would require to work and actually be emotionally unsettling with, instead it is used as a mechanical narrative device in hopes story to expediate edelgard from narrative consequences of her actions by removing responsibility from her person.

in other words, its not that edelgard deserves to become a mental child. the issue is that edelgard should be facing actual narrative consequences for her actions, but instead she is being removed from them through someones infantilization kink.

[archer3-13]

I remember people getting mad at Ruby for being legitematley upset and people calling her names because she dared to interput a yuri kiss scene... like euhuhuhh ?

i heard about that yeah, and well that does sound pretty insane given a lot of 'edeldiscourse' it sadly didnt surprise me to hear about it. and given those similarities it also would not surprise me if half or more of the people doing that were just dudebros who wanted to gawk at a lesbian couple but also pretend to be allies.

[archer3-13]

Your Code Geass explanation works but I think you forgot a few key points too. Edelgard is the Britannian Empire in this world: she's imposing her will upon Faerghus and Leicester (a la Area 11/Japan in CG). Lelouch is siding with the underdogs (Area 11 with the knights). Adrestia is not the underdog and they're certainly not Area 11 either. Faerghus is the underdog/Area 11 trying to win back it's freedom from imperialist invaders. Edelgard's Empire is the aggressor like Britannia (1/2)

But as you did touch upon, Lelouch also faces consequences far more often than Edelgard does; these force him to reevaluate himself and understand that he's fucked up. Euphemia, Shirley, Nunnally (when he believed she was caught up in Tokyo when the bomb exploded). Lelouch suffers consequences and makes himself into the martyr to die so that the world can lay the blame on him and unite with peace after. None of this is true of Edelgard, who never learns or grows in any route ever. (2/2)

Not much to add there outside of yes i did indeed miss the most obvious difference there. idk, i wanted to focus more so on the idea of foils and how edelgard really just doesnt work as one for dimitri or anyone really because of how hollow of a character she is. lelouch and suzaku were just a strong example of a foil i could think of in that moment.

no, in many ways edelgard is basically discount senator armstrong from mgr. all the hollow rhetoric and faux intellectualism of armstrongs crony politician facade, but unlike armstrong where it was indeed a facade theres not much else to edelgard other then the hollow facade. [plus shes not nearly as much of a hilarious blast]

really edelgard is most interesting when shes in her flame emperor disguise.

[archer3-13]

What kind of character do you get when you sand down edelgard and remove her complicity in the agarthans. The answer is much like what happens when you sand down lelouch and remove his complicity in war crimes to ease the path to his objectives: you get characters that are inherently and objectively less interesting, less compelling and less multi faceted.

on the other end of that spectrum what happens when you remove or ignore the inherent conflict of suzaku both being at heart a compassionate peaceable individual well simultaneously holding an intense degree of repressed self loathing and suicidal tendencies which come together to drive him in the directions his character goes. again, removing that you get a less interesting, less compelling and less multi faceted character.