#in CF however their actions (killing Rhea and yeah I assume that's the thing that prompts the disparition of the Crest Stone

[laulink]

I think it's pretty well established now that Edelgard and Dimitri are foils to each other in that one looks to the future and the other to the past and that's a huge part of why their outlook on the war and what they went through is so different, but I haven't seen it pointed out and discussed yet that a good chunk of their classmates follow that theme as well.

(I haven't seen all the Blue Lions' supports so this is in general, from the Academy phase's supports I've seen, which means I may lack a specific example one way or the other, but is still globally accurate, at least for their Academy phase)

In the Blue Lions House, based on the students' supports with each other, the most obvious are Ingrid, still mourning and resenting the loss of her fiancé, Felix, still mourning the loss of his brother and focused on that one day he saw Dimitri rampage and those two things being basically the only things that inform his decisions, and Dedue, who literally tries to push EVERYONE away because of how still hung up on the Tragedy of Duscur the Kingdom is and how anyone who spends time with him would be shunned for it (though he does look forward to Dimitri's reign because he believes Dimitri will change things in Faerghus, but most of his supports are still based on the Tragedy of Duscur still impacting his life to this day). Sylvain also fits because bad past examples and relationships have taught him that women are only interested in his blood line ; he doesn't ever talk about finding someone who would think differently, for example, he stays hung up on the past and doesn't even consider the future, at least not as something that could bring a change. Mercedes is less hung up on her past, though still quite focused on what happened to her mother, her brother and herself and wanting to find her brother so they can be happy again, like when they were children. Annette and Ashe, from what I've seen, don't fit the theme.

In the Black Eagles House, the most obviously focused on the future are Dorothea, who talks about her past but only to explain why she's so focused on securing a good future for herself, Ferdinand, who can't SHUT UP about becoming Edelgard's Prime Minister and guiding her in her reign, Petra, who holds a grudge against Caspar's father for killing her own, but whose supports pretty much all mention her desire to make Brigid an equal to Adrestia and ensure a bright future for her people, and Caspar, who is focused only on getting stronger to carve his own path in life. Hubert, of course, being aware of Edelgard's plans, is also solely focused on the future, though always only related to Edelgard and her goals, never his own person outside of his work ; Linhardt is neutral, as he focuses only on Crests ; Bernadetta has been traumatised by her past, but she's not hung up about it, she's only focusing on how afraid she is in the present, so I'd say she's neutral as well.

It always struck me as odd that no one, among the Black Eagles, ever said a word about the Insurrection of the Seven, Edelgard's time in the Kingdom when she sought asylum there, or Edelgard's siblings when, in comparison, the Blue Lions wouldn't SHUT UP about the Tragedy of Duscur and the Faerghus Four's childhood friendship. Even Edelgard and Hubert barely ever mention that they knew each other as children (Edelgard only tells you once, in Hubert's introduction I believe, that he has served her since she was a child) and the others never mention any time spent with Edelgard as children (the only ones who admit they saw each other often as kids are Caspar and Linhardt, but it doesn't even really come up in their supports, when the Faerghus Four's supports with each other are FULL of reminders of their shared past). Now I think it's to further emphasise the themes of their houses : the Black Eagles represent rebellion and the desire to shape their futures the way they see fit while the Blue Lions represent order, discipline and the shackles of the past.

It's really super interesting on a meta level. I haven't played VW yet but I'm curious to see if a similar theme is shared through the House, or if it's a patchwork of different goals and focuses, to represent how disparate the Alliance is and how they can never make a unanimous choice.

[acitybythelightdivided2006]

on edelgard, and some of the various gotchas people use to discredit her (major spoilers for the whole game):

im gonna keep it real. edelgard was like, 98% in the moral right for her actions.

“she’s a fascist!”

hardly if at all. starting a war doesn’t make you a fascist in the slightest, and her ideology falls far closer to various forms of representative democracy than anything close to fascism. considering various CF endings do corroborate her goals working out, albeit long-term. even before democracy can set into the land, edelgard has the conscience to appoint commoners to positions of power, e.g. manuela becoming prime minister in her and ferdinand’s ending. a power-hungry tyrant probably isn’t going to step down immediately after feeling her work is done, because a tyrant’s only work is maintaining their strength above the people.

"she's an imperialist!”

sure, but her motivations AND end results do not reflect any past real-world imperialism. there is no historical parallel from her to imperialism that relates so much as there is from her to revolutionaries like napoleon (or even lenin), made even clearer by the knowledge that rhea and the church hold a cultural grip over the entire continent and the war is specifically against the church. almyra is never stated to have problems with the leicester alliance so much as they do fodlan as a whole - it just happens that theyre closest to the alliance rather than anyone else. this dichotomy between fodlan and almyra is further acknowledged by a personal problem written by cyril in part 2, where he specifies that people view the two continents separately rather than the alliance versus almyra separately. anyway, regardless of any historical parallels, this is not a retelling of actual history; you can take edelgard’s actions at face value for what they are.

“but this is a narrative written in japan, surely there are sympathies for japan’s imperialist history at play here?”

imperial japan was far from edelgard’s empire. edelgard fights for democracy (or meritocracy, if you prefer) and liberation. imperial japan fought for control and resources. also, do not assume a japanese writer discussing imperialism and war as a theme is automatically drawing parallels to hypothetical sympathies.

"her war is worse than any stagnation rhea was responsible for!"

the crest system suffocated the populace and tortured the nobility alike. any look at the noble students’ supports corroborate this. this stagnation lasted for 1000 years already, and even rhea agrees that her actions over the past millennia were inexcusable in silver snow. this is hardly mentioning the fact that there are various skirmishes and revolts before the war begins, such as lonato’s rebellion. five years of explicit unrest resulting in a golden age taking place (on every route, not just crimson flower) proves that rhea’s rule was stifling the continent.

“edelgard’s actions are overtly violent, disturb the peace, and kill innocent lives!”

while nobody would deny that yes, a warring faction is going to commit atrocities in said war (which is a trait shared by every faction in the game) edelgard nonetheless avoids needless conflict when it is available to do so and vastly prefers to keep civilians out of the picture in said conflicts. by far the best example of this is at the final chapter of crimson flower where she openly gives rhea, her primary enemy in the war, a chance to surrender without any violence required. fighting only begins when rhea sets flame to the city in her violent rage. this is after the fact that edelgard can also spare a vast amount of her former classmates, most notably claude and lysithea. the only reason she kills dimitri in CF outright is because she realizes that dimitri has wasted his life focused on nothing more than revenge, and realizes that he needs to be put out of his misery - the same reason she does not clue him into the truth of the tragedy of duscur, because she realizes that killing him after destroying his entire worldview is needless cruelty. speaking of dimitri, another example of this on a different route is the fact that she is not the aggressor against dimitri in azure moon - he is essentially a wrench in her plan to unify fodlan and establish her goals.

“she starts the war on a false narrative! her understanding of the nemesis/seiros conflict is not true!”

yes, edelgard’s understanding of the conflict is untrue. however, the facts of the matter are known only by rhea, and perhaps seteth and flayn as well. regardless of edelgard’s understanding of the nemesis/seiros conflict being incorrect, that is hardly the reason she starts the war. she starts the war specifically out of a desire to eradicate the corrupt crest system that ruined her and countless other peoples’ lives and gave the agarthans reason to experiment on her, her siblings, and other nobles like lysithea, and to establish the commoners of the continent as independent.

“the adrestian empire’s past actions are unquestionably evil, like their control of brigid as a vassal state!”

yeah, and? edelgard’s actions are not the actions of her predecessors, and she even goes out of her way to rectify these mistakes. on the brigid example, she outright tells petra, who is there as a political prisoner, that brigid can gain independence for itself so long as they assist her in the war effort, which, on CF and routes where petra is not recruited to another faction, seems to happen rather cooperatively.

“she allies herself with the agarthans to further her goals, and if there’s any villainous faction in three houses, it’s TWSITD!”

if edelgard has one fatal flaw, it’s that she’s determined to a fault and needs to get things done quickly lest she dies as a result of her twin crests. while yes, she does indeed ally herself with the agarthans, it is through extremely gritted teeth and with the intent to dispose of them immediately after she is done using their resources. the ending of crimson flower outright says she wages further war specifically on this terrorist group.

“her disdain for rhea is based on a hatred for the nabateans as a whole!”

there are very few nabateans that edelgard ever even knows, and only one of them she ever shows malice towards, that being rhea. both flayn and seteth are able to be spared and edelgard bears no ill will towards them for their race so much as she does their affiliation with the church, and even then, as mentioned, edelgard consistently avoids violence that is unnecessary. as mentioned before, she does attempt to spare rhea’s life at the end of crimson flower, but is met instead with a city on fire.

“she’s responsible for the tragedy of duscur!”

maybe if you listen to dimitri’s entirely false understanding of the situation early in azure moon. she was barely an adolescent and had quite literally zero political power. dimitri needed a scapegoat and realizes the truth (or at least becomes far closer to realizing the truth) with byleth’s influence in azure moon.

“she employed kostas and his gang to kill claude and dimitri in the beginning of the game!”

yeahhh i said 98% for a reason lol