#fe3h thematic discussion

[furry-emblem]

One thing that I think makes Edelgard a contentious character (but also really interesting), is that she was right to start the war she did.

She's the only house leader where the social and political changes she wants to bring would positively impact the majority of the cast, including multiple characters from each house (some directly, some indirectly). She wants to dismantle the Church and the Slitherers, both of whom are extremely shady (and in every route their leaders are at least knocked out of power). There are a number of reasons why she had to go to war and couldn't resolve this peacefully.

But despite this, Fire Emblem Three Houses, especially in Dmitri's route, is about the horrors of war. Besides that, most of the characters in this war aren't fighting for ideology, they're fighting to protect their own. Even Byleth only picks a side of the war based on what class of students they chose to pick. It's really interesting how Dorothra and Linhart, two characters who loath violence, are Black Eagle and stick with Edelgard by default, even in routes other than Crimson Flower.

Alongside that, each of the main three routes has a fundamentally different ideology for war. Dmitri's route says "war is horrible and brings out the worst in people" Claude's route says "violence is not the only option when it comes to enacting social change," and Edelgard's route is saying "sometimes violence is not only inevitable, but necessary." All three of these ideas can coexist, but both Claude's and Dmitri's routes lean into more pacifist sounding ideals, even though neither character, by any definition, is pacifists.

So the question people have to graple with regarding Edelgard is "even if a war is justified, does that make it ok?" People who say "no" are a lot more likely to try and undermine the good reasons Edelgard went to war. The people more likely to say "yes" to that question are more likely to ignore the serious harm and suffering Edelgard's war causes.

Like most things in the game, the question is perspective. While Edelgard started the war that the second part of the plot is about, Claude and Dmitri both make similar decisions in their own route. Dmitri, upon reaching the gates of Embarr, is given the choice to try and resolve things diplomatically. He instead chooses to fight her because their differences in perspective are incompatible and neither wishes to back down. Claude, upon defeating the Empire and learning about the Slitherers, decides to start war with them because leaving them be would only threaten the world. Mirrors of the reasons Edelgard had to go to war.

War is sometimes necessary, war is horrible, war is always inferior to peaceful solutions. These are all ideals that can and should coexist. Each route emphasizes their respective philosophy on war, but they all include the importance of the other two.

There's a good reason Edelgard is contentious, her primary philosophy is uncomfortable to think about, especially while simultaneously embracing the other two. Especially if you reject her philosophy (and by extension the themes of Three Houses regarding war). Alongside that, Edelgard's philosophy initially seems contrary to the beliefs about war forefront of every other route in the game, so whichever of those three worldviews you lean towards will likely impact how much you side with the character. Thus, the question that should be asked about Edelgard isn't whether she's evil or a villain, but rather whether the sacrifice of human life in purpose to a greater goal is worth it. Was Edelgard's war worth it? Was Claude's campaign against the Agarthans worth it? Was Dmitri's invasion of Embarr worth it? Can war ever be worth it?