Edelgard character sheet cleanup

I think that works. It's pretty short and to the point.

I understand we're getting somewhat into the weeds on motives here, but there's no reason to believe Edelgard forewent diplomacy flippantly. Her parlay with Dimitri at least indicates she considered her options and decided invasion would cause the least amount of suffering in the end. Hopes and the Azure Moon parlay make it plain Dimitri doesn't agree with her direct methods for reform, she couldn't trust Claude due to his untrustworthy behavior, and as her reforms are heretical by their very nature, attempting diplomacy with Rhea is pointless, and if she opposes Edelgard then so does Dimitri.

Additionally, in Hopes at least, Edelgard's war was initially only on the Central Church. She negotiates passage through Alliance territory with Gloucester and Acheron, and Claude and Dimitri only declare war on her in reaction.

Lastly, Crimson Flower is the only route out of 7 between Houses and Hopes where Edelgard attacks the Alliance unprovoked (to deny Claude the chance to flank her, as her enemies in the Kingdom are in a much stronger position than in other stories); in SS, AM, and VW the Empire and Alliance are not apparently at war until Claude attacks the Empire first, and as I discussed concerning Hopes, Claude attacks her as she tries to move her forces across the Alliance border in cooperation with Gloucester. Outright conquering the Alliance seems to be her Plan B.

Maybe we could go with,

Gets the point across while being less argumentative and assuming the fewest things possible. Also, in any case, the game itself puts more focus on:

A) Edelgard started a war and people are suffering in it.

B) Edelgard has Rhea captive.

So the game focuses more on the war as Edelgard's wrongdoing, but I'm willing to meet you partway on this.

Deep breath. Calm myself.

Yeah, let's stay out of the weeds. I can accept your writeup.

WE HAVE REACHED AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION! BEHOLD THE POWER OF REASONABLE PEOPLE DISCUSSING THINGS RATIONALLY AND LISTENING TO EACH OTHER IN GOOD FAITH!

Ukrainian Red Cross

Aside from Fantastic Racism, is there anything still unaddressed?

I don't think so? (Admittedly, I haven't said anything in this thread before because I don't trust myself to be reasoned about Edelgard so you might want to wait for more input)

Absolute destiny... apeachalypse?

For Fantastic Racism, I'd like to suggest:

Fantastic Racism: Her harsh and dehumanizing rhetoric against Nabateans certainly paints a picture of this. This is expressed in her distrust of them holding power over humans, unlike the Agarthans that want them all destroyed.

Nice and short and I feel like it satisfies both sides of the debate. Note that I never argued the Nabateans do currently hold power over humans, just that Edelgard dislikes the idea of it, which is indisputable given her battle lines with Flayn.

Change "Nabateans" to "Children of the Goddess" and we're golden.

Edited by VampireBuddha on Oct 1st 2022 at 8:59:27 PM

Ukrainian Red Cross

I guess if there's consensus to call them that that's cool, but I really think "Children of the Goddess'' is unnecessarily wordy, roflmao. Not a big deal either way, since we already kinda agreed to just keep to calling them that.

EDIT: Anyways, since I think that was the last thing, I'd like to let this sit for a few days to see if anybody has any remaining concerns before I start doing all the editing. And by all means, if anybody thinks some of the tropes are unnecessarily soft on her then bring that up, too.

Edited by Raxis on Oct 1st 2022 at 1:33:15 AM

You are really comitted to using that obnoxiously long term.

All universes shall be judged.

Uh, "Children of the Goddess" is just barely more than twice the length of "Nabateans". I don't see the latter as unacceptable fan terminology or whatever, but I also don't see the big inconvenience in using the former.

One is 20 letters. The other is 8 letters. I'd have no problem if they could be used interchangably, but Buddha actively discourages the use of Nabatean.

Funny story, Buddha just changed every mention of Nabatean to Child/ren of the Goddess in July last year as part of widespread edits, then announced so in the character discussion pages. Nobody actually agreed with him, he just did it.

Edited by snowfire on Oct 1st 2022 at 11:24:29 AM

All universes shall be judged.

Snowfire, Seiros refers to her people as the Children of the Goddess. Claude uses the same term. So does Seteth. So does bloody Edelgard. It's also their designated faction title if you examine the Immaculate One or the White Beasts.

"Nabateans" is used exactly once, in the secret route, in a cutscene that the player isn't guaranteed to see. "Children of the Goddess" is used throughout the game; it's the correct name for them. I don't know why you're so obsessed with calling them "Nabateans", but the wiki should use the proper term.

---

While we're cleaning up, I don't think this example really fits:

• Benevolent Mage Ruler: She's the heir of the Adestrian Empire, a progressive reformer, and her budding talent is in Reason, meaning she can potentially become a magically-inclined Emperor devoted to her nation's well-being post-timeskip.

Sure, Edelgard can use magic, but so can everyone in the game. Her Magic growth rate is unexceptional, and her exclusive classes are both physical (indeed, they're heavy armour). She's always seen in her non-magic classes in cutscenes, and as such I really don't think she narratively qualifies as a mage ruler, benevolent or otherwise

Ukrainian Red Cross

Yeah, I'll concur with that. That's like the argument I saw in the Hindsight (IIRC?) thread comparing her to Daenerys Targaryen because she can become a wyvern rider, even though the only lord who actually gets encouraged/associated with the class is Claude. From what I know as a non-player there are some characters the game definitely encourages you to make primary casters; Edelgard's not one of them and shouldn't really be the subject of narrative tropes related to being a mage.

Edited by nrjxll on Oct 2nd 2022 at 6:45:41 AM

Yeah, I agree, cut it.

Regarding the discussion on the Irony entry, I don't think anyone disputes that the Church was involved in the forming of the Kingdom. That's not at issue. What Edelgard is plainly wrong about is her claim that it was the Church's idea and that they did it to divide Fodlan and create conflict. The truth was that Loog was inspired/enabled to rebel by the Agarthans (who do want to divide Fodlan and create conflict), and the Church legitimizing him was simply what they had to do to end the war after a series of military victories made it clear Loog would not be stopped any time soon otherwise. A monk in the monastery outright notes that the Church was left with little choice. That it worked out well for the Church by giving them their most devout ally nation was certainly fortunate for them, but it doesn't change that the split was not something they planned to do. The split that created the Alliance is a more murky matter as to how involved the Agarthans were, but presumably the Church legitimizing them was for the same reason, to try to stop the conflict.

Regarding Nabateans, isn't one of the music themes in the game called "Song of the Nabateans"?

That's one person's account of events that happened over 400 years ago. Rhea is perfectly willing to revise history when it suits her, and she's also a liar. The church's involvement with Loog may have been considerably less arm-twisty as that dialogue implies.

Additionally, there's a certain undercurrent of the Church expecting deference from the nations it helps founds (Rhea's constant calling Edelgard a rebel or an upstart, the relationship between the church and Faerghus, or her scorning the Federation in Hopes for having not been created with the goddess's blessing).

The church definitely benefited from the formation of the Holy Kingdom, so Edelgard's belief that the church created it is not without merit, nor is it even strictly inaccurate.

Edited by Raxis on Oct 7th 2022 at 6:42:00 AM

If nobody else has any points to bring up, I'll probably start applying the edits we agreed upon this weekend :)

Okay, I applied the changes we discussed to her main character page. I'll check individual trope pages and apply them there more gradually.

Thank you to everyone who got involved :)

Huh, what an interesting thread here.

Could I use Rage against the heavens citing both Houses and Heroes lines?

Because I know Vampire has issues with accepting that game is a valid source of characterization even if IS writers HAVE worked on that game and the game is considered a mainline game.

Besides, @Dragonfire's cited comment was more on Omega citing problems with the FEH Ask Sharena website.

There's no real inconsistency between Edelgard of Houses and Edelgard of Heroes.

In particular, Fallen Edelgard's convo with Mila is entirely consistent with her portrayal in Houses. She sees the Nabateans as deities, even her closing lines in CF are about how humanity will no longer need Gods as long as humanity can reach out for each other.

I think it could be a downplayed trope since Rhea, Seteth, and Flayn are at the very least revered saints, with Rhea in particular also being the Immaculate One.

There is a religious aspect to Edelgard's motivations I feel needs focus.

Edited by RedHunter543 on Nov 24th 2022 at 2:19:12 PM

I'll teach you a lesson about just how cruel the world can be. That's my job, as an adult.

Edited by Ruderuby on Jan 2nd 2023 at 10:17:58 AM

A troper named ZtheGengar has been circumventing the lock on the Edelgard page by adding tropes on the main trope list. In their mind, Edelgard is a brainwashed pawn that, even though she kills them afterwards, has accomplished those who slither in the dark's goals.

The tropes they added are:

• The Bad Guy Wins: In Crimson Flower while Edelgard ultimately does away with Those Who Slither, she has nonetheless accomplished one of their main goals; The Nabateans have been completely wiped out of existence. Can be partially averted if the player defeats Flayn and Seteth with Byleth, who spares them, but they are otherwise executed on the battlefield if taken out with anyone else.
• Brainwashed and Crazy: Also applies to Edelgard to various extents. Even in Crimson Flower, the route made to depict her as heroic as possible, Edelgard suffers from a critical flaw; She is completely indoctrinated by the people she hates; Those Who Slither In The Dark. While she loathes and regrets that she has to work with them to achieve her own goal, a goal she believes to be righteous, Edelgard gives the Agarthans almost a complete and total victory, fulfilling their main goal of wiping out the Nabateans and destroying everything Rhea and Sothis built up. She fully believes their version of history and their propaganda and even uses it as her own, and to make matters worse, Edelgard spares no one in Crimson Flower by default. The only way to spare certain enemies is to defeat them with Byleth, otherwise they are killed.

I have deleted the second trope for being misuse, but is the first trope viable?

It's misuse. The Nabateans aren't actually extinct no matter what happens, because Macuil and Indech survive the paralogues they're fought as bosses, and regardless while their destruction is a goal of the slitherers it's not their only goal, because they hate surface humanity nearly as much.

Getting rid of the Nabateans is still their main goal. All other goals are secondary. Which is why Thales tends to commit suicide attacks or even destroy their main base of operations in an attempt to kill the Nabateans/Sothis, or Epimenides trying to kill Byleth when we don’t kill them on Three Hopes.

Edited by OmegaRadiance on Aug 20th 2023 at 10:00:09 AM

Every accusation by the GOP is ALWAYS a confession.