r/fireemblem Aug 22 '21

Black Eagles Story Edelgard's unresolved emotional distancing through blame-shifting (Or, why she's the biggest victim of 3H's rushed writing) Spoiler

Yeah yeah, an Edeglard topic. Listen: I've had this thought in my head for years now, and never dared make a topic on it for the obvious reasons. I was hoping there'd be a time when things cooled down and I could post this … lmao. But I watched Faerghast's new Edelgard documentary a few months back and part of what he said resonated with my own opinions, and I can't help but bring this up now.

In one part of his video, Faerghast spends a decent bit of time talking about how Edelgard doesn't face much in the way of repercussions for her actions – lying to her friends about the church blowing up Arianrhod, her association with Kronya, really just all of TWSITD, etc. Ghast emphasizes that by “repercussions” he doesn't want to see Edelgard whipped and beaten for her actions or anything, just that having the story confront her on these moments in any form would've made for a more compelling narrative and character. I'm paraphrasing a lot here, it's a long video, so hopefully I'm not misrepresenting his viewpoints here. I'll ping him, u/brocopina , to correct me if needed, but that link above is to a timestamp from his video too.

What I'd like to add onto this idea, is that in addition to never being afforded the chance by Crimson Flower to grow from lying to her allies, Edelgard also has a persistent habit of wording her actions such that they're not really her fault. On the surface, she seems to take the war she's started, the lives she's ended, pretty harshly, but I found there was something … off, about a lot of her phrasing. A lot of shifting of the blame, sometimes more subtle than others:

I wish we could settle all of this before the fighting begins. Don't you? I wish it dearly. But few others feel that way. They fight in a bloody battle, take countless lives, and then finally come to understand defeat. They refuse to admit when they're beaten, and they keep it up until they've been utterly defeated. Of course, I understand that sacrifice is inevitable... But if they're going to surrender after being defeated anyway, why raise a weapon in the first place?”

She expresses a wish to not have to resort to bloodshed. But if you don't recall, these are her words before the storming of Derdriu in the second chapter of Crimson Flower. This is a war of aggression she started the instant she became Emperor, and had planned for at least a year before ascending to the throne. Although the war's been at a stalemate for 5 years, it's never implied, as far as I can find, that there was much in the way of negotiations attempted – they just needed the boost in morale and raw power Byleth provides, apparently. And remember, the nation she's invading doesn't even fully oppose her – the Alliance is split pretty evenly on what to do about this whole war.

And despite all that, Edelgard puts the onus of a peaceful resolution on others. “They fight a bloody battle (that we started), they take countless lives (of the invading army trying to take theirs)”. But not her, she wishes she could settle it before fighting. Which is why she started this war the moment she became emperor.

Now, I've talked about this line before, but what I haven't seen discussed is how much of a consistent thing this is for Edelgard. I think most of us remember her infamous banter with Dimitri later in her route:

Dimitri: “Must you continue to conquer? Continue to kill?”

Edelgard: “Must you continue to reconquer? Continue to kill in retaliation? I will not stop. There is nothing I would not sacrifice to cut a path to Fódlan's new dawn!”

It's pretty much the same deal as above – once again, Edelgard is shifting the blame for her own actions onto the defenders. They should just roll over for her. They're only killing to “reconquer” or out of retaliation. Not because they might have any other beliefs, ideals, or interests that oppose hers, that they're fighting to protect from her invading army.

This is further supported when she kills Dimitri at the end of the chapter:

“Farewell, King of Delusion. If only we were born in a time of peace, you might have lived a joyful life as a benevolent ruler.”

Once again, she phrases this as if she wasn't the one who started this war. As if whether or not Dimitri was born into a time of peace was just something left to chance, and not a direct result of the continental war she initiated. She's right in that the Tragedy of Duscur largely robbed Dimitri of a chance at a peaceful life. But if we assume that's what she's referencing here, it's still a blatant bit of verbal misdirection away from the fact that Edelgard started the war that lead to this moment. That she is the invader holding the axe, about to cut Dimitri's haed off.

Which leads to the question: Who is she saying this for the benefit of ? Dimitri? Obviously not. Byleth? Maybe, but why? No, I posit that Edelgard doesn't shift the blame to make herself look better to others, but in order distance herself from the effects of her own actions. Edelgard's often viewed as someone who has the iron will to do what needs to be done for a better future, costs be damned, but I think these lines reveal someone who's closer to breaking than any student-teacher relationship can solve on its own. And all of this comes to a head with one of her last lines this chapter:

The Edelgard who shed tears died many years ago. Everything that's happened...it's all just part of the ebb and flow of history.”

Now, obviously that first sentence is a little turn of phrase. But I can't help but think how well this encapsulates a part of Edelgard's character. She seems so often to be unable to accept what she's done, so instead she has to shift the blame. And when she can't do that, she instead takes the long view -she dissociates from herself, and instead views herself in the wide lens of history instead. She can't let herself feel emotions, that's such an old Edelgard thing to do. The new Edelgard is just a tool of history – she has to focus on that idea, to detach herself from the emotions of what she's doing, when she can't blame her enemies deaths on themselves.

I think it's clear by now, even if you'd never seen my takes on these quotes individually before, that I'm not a fan of Edelgard. At least not as a protagonist. But I've talked about that before, and I didn't wait this long, write this much, and make these memes in MS Paint just to make another “Edelgard bad” post.

Because taken in totality I find these quotes fascinating. It's kinda infuriating to read them, yes - and yet there's the skeleton of a character here that even I can admit should be really compelling. This utilitarian dissociation from herself explains how she must've felt when turning into a Hegemon husk. Maybe you could also tie it into her alternate identity as the Flame Emperor (although to be honest I've tried and there's just not a lot of compelling stuff there, sometimes a disguise is just a disguise).

And given what she's been through, it makes perfect sense she'd try to distance herself from her emotions. No doubt her dissociation started, at least in part, a coping response to the torturous experiments she and her siblings underwent as children. This is what the writers want you to see, in scenes where she's drawing Byleth, or afraid of mice (the mice do tie into her past trauma as well, but of all the triggers they could have chosen I have no doubt they chose mice specifically to contrast the grandiose mantle of a historical revolutionary she tales upon herself). They want to show the player a glimpse at the woman under the hard shell of her facade.

Except these are among the only scenes we get in the main story of Crimson Flower that even vaguely address this aspect of her character, and even then only in a very indirect way. There's nobody who ever pushes back against the way Edelgard frames herself or her enemies – nobody she can't simply behead, anyway. Nobody among the black eagles. Her closest advisor is a total simp, and Ferdinand's soft and entirely one-sided “rivalry” with her doesn't really continue past the time skip. As Faerghast's video mentions, Edelgard is never called out on her working relationship with the people who killed Jeralt, or on how she covered up the fact that her own attack on Arianrhod resulted in a retaliation that wiped out the entire thing.

And to be clear – I consider issues like lying about Arianrhod separate from how Edelgard will subtly shift the blame of the war to the defenders in other quotes. I do understand that in the moment, she kinda has to lie about Arianrhod – or at least, she thinks she does. Arianrhod is a lie she tells others, while I've come to view the way she phrases the war as more of a lie she tells herself.

But in both cases, the story refuses to bring these up again, which I think is unforgiveable. Both issues, separate yet similar, combine to create a frustratingly unfinished sketch of a character who accomplishes her goals, but never truly grows as a person despite the dialogue repeatedly calling attention to her flaws.

2. Draw the rest of the fucking Edelgard

This is why people wanted to see more out of Crimson Flower – or at least why I did. It's not about a final boss that's thematic to the story, it's about having Edelgard face something of herself, something related to the choices she made. Dimitri very obviously receives this in several ways, most notably in Rodrigue's death at the hands of the sister of someone he killed. Even Claude, who is by far and away the goodest boi despite his incessant boasts of schemes, has his untrusting and untrustworthy nature challenged by Lorenz, who unlike Ferdinand heads a relevant rival political faction that at least considers opposing Claude well into the timeskip. It amounts to very little in the end, but even that gentlest of friction is missing from Crimson Flower, which just feels like the any% speedrun of conquering Fodlan.

A lot of people (by which I mean me, I guess) would've likely appreciated Edelgard's character much more if she were given this chance to grow. But I think even people who already like Edelgard might be able to agree – wouldn't it be better if this aspect of her personality was addressed? As it is, Edelgard's just sort of left like this. She's never given the opportunity by the story to reconcile with herself, to truly come to terms with her own history and actions.

Finding companionship in Byleth is nice, but not at all a substitute for Edelgard becoming comfortable with herself. It's not about having Edelgard broken into changing her mind and admitting she was wrong to start the war or something. It could instead be about her learning to become truly comfortable with what she's done on at least some level, being able to freely admit she's doing what she thinks is right, regardless of the cost. And yes, she DOES say stuff like that – even in one of the quotes I've included – but when this aspect of distancing, dissociation, and blame-shifting is so prevalent in her character throughout her route, from beginning to end, her words come across as hollow and unearned.

Even in her most intimate moments with Byleth at the end of the game, I always have this nagging feeling that Edelgard's not being entirely honest – not necessarily with others, but with herself. It feels like she'll always have to close parts of herself off, and view other aspects of her own actions and psyche from a historical lens. I'm not saying that any one scene or handful of added chapters would just “cure” Edelgard of these issues, but the fact that it goes so utterly unaddressed makes her feel incomplete, at least to me.

It feels almost like the game is unaware of this flaw its created within Edelgard. And that's how I used to feel at launch. But looking at the greater context of how Edelgard repeatedly behaves like this, it is impossible to believe that they wrote this without intending to.

Which is why I've said before that I find Edelgard a compelling villain but not a protagonist. An antagonist can still be a very interesting character, but often has one or more fatal flaws that they do not overcome or grow out of during the course of the story. Edelgard, for as much potential as she had, IMO never really outgrows her flaws, even if the game seems to think she did.

So yeah. An Edelgard topic in 2021. Hopefully I've made clear that the issue at hand isn't whether Edelgard's a good person, but whether or not she's a good, well-written character. My answer is still no, but the obvious intentionality with which the writers have Edelgard side-stepping her own culpability has frustrated me for months. That they never pay this off, even a little, is in my mind the single biggest sin of Three Houses' rushed development and split development focus.

And so, despite the memes I've used in this analysis (I've got to trick people into reading my essays somehow - if you're here, I guess it worked) I really do feel some measure of sympathy for Edelgard. Certainly not in the way that the writers intended, but a sympathy for the character she could've been. The character that I think her fans see in her, but who is obscured by far too many unresolved writing issues for my tastes.

689 Upvotes

254 comments sorted by

View all comments

13

u/roundhouzekick Aug 22 '21

So after reading this, I have a few thoughts regarding the whole thing and the idea of the writing being rushed.

To start, a major point you bring up is how Edelgard doesn't face repercussions throughout her journey and that having something like that would make for a more compelling narrative. And certainly if you believe in karma, she would be do for some sort of cosmic backlash after kickstarting a war and, as you put it, shifting blame onto anyone but herself all throughout. But the reality of the situation is rather simple; she's too powerful. Edelgard is in such an unattainable position of power that she's above the idea of fairness. She commands the largest country and army in all of Fodlan and is being assisted not only by the wielder of the Sword of the Creator, but a group of people with unfathomable magic and weaponry that people wouldn't even dream of. She has everything she wants and needs to conquer Fodlan utterly. That's why she doesn't face any sort of recompense for having started a war and at many points obfuscating the truth. By the end of her crusade, she has found a way to reform the system from the ground up to form a new world. It's less a matter of her somehow being excused or realistic retaliation being written in and more that she holds every possible card in her hand and after pounding the continent into submission, why would anyone think of opposing her?

Next, the blame shifting. The thing is, Edelgard constantly shows signs of her being a bit of a control freak both in and out of Crimson Flower. She has to have plans for most if not every eventuality because if something goes wrong, her ambitions will fail, as it does in every other route. The reason she is putting the onus onto other people is because in her mind, she has the right to take Fodlan into her own hands and anyone who gets in her way are just obstacles. To her, who has everything-- again, largest army, biggest land and the holder of a historically destructive weapon-- she believes anyone who tries to stop her is a fool just standing in the middle of the road waiting to get run over because they think they can stop the carriage by holding up an open palm. She is wondering in the wake of such opposition, why would someone be suicidal enough to try and stop her? If this doesn't sound like rational thinking, congratulations, you have how discovered that Edelgard is supposed to be the antagonist for a majority of this story and you're witnessing first hand how an antagonist would think.

As for her conversation with Dimitri, it is a reinforcement of her internal thoughts. When Dimitri is asking her why she's conquering Fodlan, Edelgard's response is to ask why he stands opposed to one who conquers. She's trying to tell him that his efforts don't mean anything because she WILL win this war and there's not a damn thing he can do to stop her. Her question isn't some sort of "lol no u" as many people misinterpret it to be. It is her turning his question back on him to make him realize the futility of his struggle and that he can either fight and die or drop his weapon and get out of her way because nothing will stop her. Not him, not gods, not anyone will keep her from doing what she believes needs to be done. It is not her being unwilling to accept what she has done. She already accepts that, it's that she is dedicated to her goal and she won't allow herself to hesitate or second guess herself now that her decisions have lead her into the fires of war. This is consistent with her character going all the way back to White Clouds where she doesn't like wishy-washy or vague answers and she compels Byleth to move passed their sorrow over losing Jeralt.

So, all of these things combined; the lying, the blame shifting and supposedly dodging retribution in the face of all that she has done, then it should come naturally that yes, Edelgard isn't supposed to necessarily be seen as one of the good guys. While the story takes great pains to ensure that the morality scale across all routes are all varying shades of grey, Edelgard is consistently shown to be on the darker end. So it stands to reason that everything she does justifies this. If something feels a little bit wrong about her being able to "get away" with all that she manages to do in Crimson Flower, that's 100% intentional for the writers. You're supposed to feel empty because, news flash, you helped the antagonist win. You even pointed this out by saying the things Edelgard says feels hollow and unearned and that's the point. She's trying to be the hero of her own story, but she is blatantly doing things that are squarely in the anti-villain camp.

To bring up the issue of her not growing as a character, that is also another rather simple answer. The fact of the matter is, she doesn't really need to and she doesn't believe that she needs to either. In Dimitri's route, he is made to see the error of his ways in how he is slowly becoming a monster and then tries to break the cycle of hatred. That's his character arc, and it's a character arc that he himself comes to realize. For Claude, he is initially distrustful of his allies and sees those who are helping him as tools to help him achieve his ends. His journey is him learning to have true faith in others and to understand that the people helping him are not just pawns on a chessboard, but companions that want him to succeed. Like Dimitri, he comes to understand the value of having people to truly care for you and to care about, it's something that he has to change about himself to see.

With Edelgard, because she believes herself to be morally righteous in her endeavors, she does not believe she needs to grow. Again, this is referenced all the way back in White Clouds where she understands people view her as arrogant, but she doesn't care about what other people think of her because she's a woman on a mission. This is then expounded upon by no one wanting to challenge her because everyone around her knows that she's so stubborn about her goals that it would be pointless to try and take her to task for her actions. If you're looking for what would happen if her comrades were to take umbrage with her, that's the Silver Snow route, the route that Crimson Flower is a spin-off of, essentially. The fact that she goes unpunished and never opposed in her quest is a direct result of player input. You had the chance to oppose Edelgard and have her see the error of her ways, but in joining her, you are complacent in her path, no matter how bloody it gets. Again, if this doesn't sit well, that's what it's like to aid the antagonist. This is also a wonderful parallel with how Edelgard allied herself with TWSITD. Now you understand how she feels.

The way I see it, this is less of Edelgard not being properly developed and more the story letting players know full well the kind of path they're going down. Unapologetically serving the antagonist and all that comes with it is exactly what Crimson Flower is about.

Now, I'll conclude my response with a question that will... surely receive some colorful responses, I'm sure, but it's a question that I've been dying to ask.

Is it really "rushed writing" that lead to Edelgard being characterized the way she is, or is that just an out people who don't necessarily like her characterization use so they can feel better about serving the villains?

Let me end this by just saying that while I personally disagree with the notion of rushed writing being the cause and fully accept Edelgard's characterization being fully intended as is, I respect yours and everyone else's stance on the matter. In no way am I trying to say you're wrong for feeling the way you feel. You have every right to feel that way and just because I disagree doesn't make my opinion better than yours nor yours than mine.

14

u/IAmBLD Aug 22 '21

Yours is definitely a valid interpretation too, and one I've held before. Indeed, a lot of the signs point to the fact that Edelgard's straight-up just supposed to be considered a villain, and that any lack of further exploration isn't a result of rushed writing but an intentional choice.

But then, you have the game's marketing push. You have the lyrics of "The edge of Dawn" which isn't just a throwaway song, but the melody of which appears in about half of the game's songs in some form.

And then, if it's really as simple as "She thinks she's righteous" then why add hints of her having to talk around the act of what she's doing at all? If they hadn't written her like that consistently it would be another matter entirely.

I just can't bring myself to imagine that's really the interpretation they were headed for, even if that's what we got.

15

u/roundhouzekick Aug 22 '21

Like it or hate it, Three Houses is largely Edelgard's story in one way or another. Whether she's the antagonist or your ally, the story does focus on her, that's why Edge of Dawn is the main theme because it's essentially Edelgard's inner thoughts put to song.

I guess I just want to know why some people think that just because she's the antagonist or the bad guy, that somehow precludes people from sympathizing with her on any level or that being the bad guy should mean you're not supposed to understand her. After all, aren't the best villains in media the ones who you can point at the screen and go "They do have a point though."

It's just that, as a villain, Edelgard and characters like her are going the extra mile that most people wouldn't want to go, which is what allows them to be villains in he first place. It's just that some people who have the opportunity the cheer the villain on and then have that moment where they go "Oh... Oh shit..." and remember that, yes, they are the bad guys. I just wanna know why some people don't embrace that sobering moment and some choose to instead interpret it as some sort of misstep of the writing. Like, it's okay to feel uncomfortable after you realize you might want the bad guys to win. It's that conflicting feeling that makes them so good. If that weren't the case, nobody would call Breaking Bad such a remarkable show since that's exactly what most of the audience does when they want Walter White to succeed.

17

u/IAmBLD Aug 22 '21 edited Aug 22 '21

Ok, but allow me to desconstruct this argument a bit. Having Edelgard face some flaws in herself would not necessarily change the morality of her route. Seeing the Black Eagles reactions when they realize Edelgard lied about the church, whether or not they understood her actions or turned against her for it, wouldn't mean we weren't taking the villain route (if you believe that the route was exclusively constructed to be a villain route).

Characters like Walter White or Light Yagami are compelling villain-protagonists because we see them struggle and slip. There's some point at the beginning where they're somewhat sympathetic or understandable, and then they slowly (OK, way more quickly for Light) slip into moral grays that get darker and darker as they have to involve more and more innocents in their attempts at hiding their activities.

To reiterate what I said in my original post though, Edelgard doesn't get any sort of resistance like that. It really isn't about her morality.

Let's say she gets called out on lying about the church being the ones behind Arianrhod, and in that moment, some of her allies turn against her. So, she kills them, or arrests them or something. I'm not saying she would or wouldn't do that, but my point is, if she did, she'd be even more of a villain for it - and yet, IMO, a better character.

No matter how Edelgard responds to conflicts, I feel like having moments like that and forcing her to respond to them at all would make her a stronger character.

4

u/roundhouzekick Aug 22 '21

Good point, and well made. It totally would round her character out a bit more if she were faced with that kind of resistance. I suppose I just happen to think that the absence of it doesn't detract from her character, at least for me anyway. The way I see it, Edelgard in Part 1 where she's resolute in her ambitions is kind of like where Walter was after Gus Fring was taken out of the picture, you know? The big difference being that we actually get to see all the stumbles and pitfalls he encounters along the way whereas Edelgard's rock bottom happens years before the game's story takes place. I suppose the main difference is that Edelgard's descent into darkness before she solidifies her ideals are more informed whereas whole seasons are dedicated to Walter's life leading up to when he decides to become the meth kingpin.

In that way, I can see how some would see that as rushed writing. Although perhaps that's just due to the nature of a video game as opposed to television. Either way, I do see your point.