Follow TV Tropes
HI, I haven\'t logged on for quite some time, but i just added in a part to Edelgard\'s fantastic racism entry \" Her attitude is also fueled by the fact that Nabateans like Rhea and Seteth have manipulated Fodlan\'s history and politics from behind the scenes, encouraged the usage of crests through the Church, and have currently lead Fodlan to it\'s dysfunctional status quo. This is emphasized in Crimson Flower, where her primary goal is to overthrow Rhea and allow humanity to control it\'s own fate.\" is it bad in anyway? It\'s not at all contradictory and it does explain her antipathy towards Nabateans. Isn\'t the thing about the racism entry about people claiming she\'s not racist? I\'m confused. May i put my entry back in? Because the part \" on the non crimson flowers this attitude become \" looks awkward without something from Crimson Flowers. Also i added in MORE extreme.
It\'s already discussed here and most of us are on the consensus to not add anything else.
Hello! Thanks for your contribution to the wiki!
As discussed below, we decided to keep Edelgard\'s Fantastic Racism entry short and concise to avoid edit wars, bloating, and subjective interpretations. How much of Fodlan\'s state is because of the Church is not made clear (see \"how much control does Rhea have over Fodlan\" on the Alternative Character Interpretation page), nor how much of the Crest system is because of them (they established it, but did they encourage it? Their teachings say they disapprove, but one could argue that doing nothing is endorsing...which ties back into \"did they have the power to do anything, though?\").
The thing about the racism entry is not people claiming she\'s not racist—she clearly is. It\'s about preventing an edit war from starting over a flaw that provokes a knee-jerk reaction in people. Fans will be pressed to downplay or justify it, and haters will feel vindicated in exaggerating it.
Are we going to keep it a protected entry for how long exactly?
RE: Edelgard\'s Fantastic Racism Entry:
I\'ve had to repeatedly remove edits trying to claim that Edelgard is not racist against Nabateans because she\'s not specifically trying to hunt them all down. Edelgard, even on her own route, is at best completely apathetic to their well-being, showing no remorse over Flayn\'s kidnapping and not batting an eye if her former classmate is killed during the war. Edelgard cites Rhea not being human as her main reason for rebelling. The fact that Seteth and Flayn can be convinced to go into hiding by Byleth doesn\'t reflect on Edelgard at all for the simple fact that Edelgard has zero involvement in it. Saying she doesn\'t hate them for not hunting down all of the four saints ignores that Edelgard doesn\'t know they\'re alive. She never even figured out that Rhea was actually Seiros, so how is she supposed to know that the others are still alive?
Probably mis-information? ^^\"
Well, it is important to note that Edelgard isn\'t primarily motivated by racism, she has a point that Rhea\'s behind the scenes ruling has lead the current status quo, and has no right to manipulate mankind. There is also the fact that Byleth is part Nabatean, which is part of why the Agarthans want them dead, in addition to being the vessel for Sothis which even Edelgard and Hubert take note of in CF. Contrasting it to the Agarthans, who want a genocide, is not the same as denying it. It is also important to note, that Edelgard is primarily aiming for Rhea because she has power over Fodlan. she doesn\'t really prioritize Seteth or Flayn as targets in her own route. I just feel that the post makes it seem racism is primarily Edelgard\'s motivation for overthrowing Rhea, when she wants to free mankind from the manipulations of divine beings like Seiros and Seiros is responsible for distorting history, the crest system, the caste system, Fodlan\'s isolationism, and manipulating the Nobility with said crest system, it\'s not like if Rhea was human that Edelgard would find her not part of the problem.
Agreeing here that \"Edelgard is completely apathetic to the existence or nonexistence of the dragons\" is not proof of racism. If she had a grudge against the Nabateans, she wouldn\'t have \"zero involvement\" in letting Flayn and Seteth go; she would hunt them down, which she doesn\'t do.
Edit for further clarification: Basically, I don\'t think that there\'s enough evidence to call this Fantastic Racism, since Edelgard has plenty of reason to dislike the one Nabatean she interacts with on a personal level. It\'s Species Loyalty, or would be if that trope didn\'t seem pretty bare-bones; Edelgard\'s goal is a Fodlan ruled by humans, not the deaths of all, or even any, Nabateans specifically because they\'re Nabatean.
Regardless, it seems like there are a lot of sides to this, i say restore the part, Tambourine man just deleted and leave it at that, maybe delete the part about the saints if people feel so inclined. the parts about freeing humanity, and Byleth being a Nabatean should be kept but Seteth and Flayn is quite a difficult case, easy to argue one way or the other. It IS Byleth who makes the decision, but Edelgard\'s reaction is not shown.
This is true, and in absence of evidence I think we should err on the side of caution. I don\'t think this is a trope that can be inferred, basically. We can\'t prove a negative, meaning we can\'t prove the trope DOESN\'T apply, but I think the flipside of that is that the burden of proof is on proving it does - and as noted, I think there\'s enough evidence to suggest that it\'s Rhea\'s deeds, not her species, that Edelgard wants to strike against.
I would argue against the notion that Edelgard isn\'t racist by pointing at other routes—specifically her combat dialogue with Flayn, wherein she says \"You are a Child of the Goddess. You cannot be allowed power over the people!\" She isn\'t judging Flayn on personal merit or ability, just race—and Flayn didn\'t even mention wanting to rule! That indicates Edelgard sees Nabateans as power-hungry and inherently unworthy.
While she doesn\'t hunt Flayn and Seteth down on CF, I wouldn\'t say that\'s evidence of her not being racist. I\'d actually say that\'s route-specific development. On her route, her distaste focuses on Rhea specifically, but outside, it extends to the species as a whole.
Indeed, its not like prejudice requires a certain level of action. It just means that one views a group negatively for what they are rather than who they are. And Edelgard certainly fits that criteria as while she is personally against Rhea she also applies negative beliefs to Rhea\'s kin as a whole. In addition to what she says about Flayn, she also at different points calls Sothis \"a vile false goddess,\" and claims that the Nabatea \"lack humanity\" and merely have human form.
I hadn\'t meant that as an exhaustive list of evidence that Edelgard is racist against Nabateans. It seems I have once again failed to explain myself properly. The argument I was trying to make in regards to Flayn\'s kidnapping was the Edelgard expressed some degree of distaste or another for the actions of TWS in part 1 except for Flayn\'s kidnapping, which I took to mean that Edelgard did not have any issue with their actions as long as the person getting hurt was a Nabatean.
Regardless, Edelgard being prejudiced against Nabateans is indisputable. She expresses a negative opinion of them as a whole on multiple occasions, as a few tropers smarter than me have already said. The entry saying that Edelgard is prejudiced does not imply that she\'s genocidal, and that point does not need clarification.
I would support the addition of Fantastic Racism to Edelgard\'s page on the condition that that point is clarified, since I have seen people make that misinterpretation before. It\'s best to be specific as possible, especially since the various paths tend to invoke tropes that don\'t necessarily apply on other routes - not arguing that Edelgard doesn\'t show some degree of prejudice on CF, but Felix turning on his father doesn\'t happen in AM or routes where you don\'t recruit him away from Faerghus, for instance, so applying Patricide to him as a whole would be inaccurate.
Is something like this satisfactory?
Her attitude towards non-humans is not the best. While the brunt of her disdain is reserved for Rhea, Edelgard believes Nabateans as a whole are merely creatures in human form and that they \"lack humanity.\" This attitude becomes extreme on non-Crimson Flower routes, as she refers to Sothis as a \"vile false goddess\" and Rhea \"her minion\". If Flayn confronts her in battle and asks that she stop the war, Edelgard says the following, which is quite striking given that Flayn is one of the sweetest characters in the game.
Trying to handle some of the Word Cruft + possible speculation (Edelgard\'s hate for Rhea is definitely colored by her misunderstanding of history, but to say that explains her disdain for the Nabateans as a whole? She\'s MET Flayn, she should know she\'s the furthest thing from a monster!)
I dunno about Edelgard expressing hatred towards Nabateans as a whole is accurate. She only really interacts with Rhea, and judging by their interactions, Edelgard really seems to express dislike towards her and her actions, not her race, She\'s against a shadow ruler who just happens to be a dragon. It\'s really more of the fact that a dragon is ruling Fodlan in secret unjustly, it\'s like arguing her speech after defeating Miklan is proof Edelgard hates crest bearers. Regardless, i think it is important to note, that her route does explain that she feels humanity must decide it\'s own fate and to be free from the manipulations of shadow rulers, and that Byleth is part Nabatean.
How about: Her attitude towards non-humans is not the best. While the brunt of her disdain is reserved for Rhea, Edelgard believes Nabateans as a whole are merely creatures in human form and that they \"lack humanity.\" In the Crimson Flower route, It\'s made clear in the that Edelgard feels that humanity must decide it\'s own destiny, and that Rhea\'s policies and behind the scenes rule has led to the current dysfunction Fódlan is in. This attitude becomes extreme on non-Crimson Flower routes, as she refers to Sothis as a \"vile false goddess\" and Rhea \"her minion\". If Flayn confronts her in battle and asks that she stop the war, Edelgard says the following, which is quite striking given that Flayn is one of the sweetest characters in the game.
I second Apocrypha\'s proposal. I think that would be best.
It is also important to note that Rhea\'s actions have also motivated Edelgard\'s rebellion, not just her species.
Okay, so i\'ve written a post that may or may not satisfy all parties: Her view of the Nabateans is not the best, in the start of Chapter 12, Edelgard calls Rhea a cruel beast after she reveals her true form, and refers to her and her family as the monsters who have been controlling Fodlan from behind the scenes. It\'s clear that Edelgard feels that Rhea\'s behind the scenes rule and manipulation of Fodlan has lead to the current dysfunctional status quo, that she has no right to manipulate humanity, and that in order to allow humanity to make it\'s own destiny, Rhea must be overthrown. It\'s like if Walhart\'s anti-divinity slant also had an anti-dragon slant.
There, acknowledges both sides of her feelings towards Nabateans so we can avoid future edit wars, (Least people think i\'m the only one who edits that part, i recall the part about Seteth and Flayn being an edit war at one point.) Doesn\'t mention the whole sparing Flayn and Seteth point, and there is also the fact that Byleth IS part Nabatean.
I\'m pretty sure Edelgard yelling at Flayn is expressing some degree of hatred toward Nabatea as a whole. Its certainly not a neutral or positive thing. She likewise is adamant that none of the Nabatea should have any role in governing human society, not just Rhea. Byleth having some Nabatean aspects and Edelgard coming to accept this is notable but also mitigated in that this does not alter her views on Nabateans as a whole, and that Byleth outright loses most or all of their Nabatean aspects at the end of the game and thus Edelgard doesn\'t have to deal with it any more.
So honestly I think Apocrapha\'s version expresses things succinctly and accurately. Other tropes can and do cover Edelgard\'s issues with Rhea in particular, her beliefs regarding how much Rhea has influenced Fodlan in negative ways, etc. but those don\'t necessarily have to be detailed in a trope entry talking about her feelings towards non-human humanoids in general.
So are we all in agreement that Apo\'s post is what we should use for fantastic racism? Though I do feel we should at least keep the part about freeing humanity. Regarding Byleth, their s-support with Edelgard does not have her being happy that Byleth is more human. Plus Byleth still has Nabatean traits like their hair.
Note Linhardt in his paralogue actually wanted her to not know about Indech, since he figured out who he was even before they headed there, precisely because of her colored views of the Saints and Dragons. Even after it\'s over, he tries to pretend Indech isn\'t a Saint by calling him a Saintly Beast when he realizes he said more than he should in front of Byleth. Even asking to only inform her when the timing is right(which is either when Indech decides to leave, or potentially, when Edelgard is no longer sitting on a throne and could threaten Indech).
Which, ascribing what an individual does to their entire race like she does with Nabateans and power, is a form of discrimination by steterotyping. That\'s part of how Real Life discrimination works.
Linhardt keeping it a secret could have many other reasoning behind it, to avoid being questioned on why he only brought this up to get a weapon ETC, then again, he did request Hubert and Edelgard not to be told of their quest, only saying it could be bothersome for them to find out. He never suggests that Edelgard would hunt down Indech by requesting it be kept hidden from her, only telling Byleth to tell Edelgard when the time is right.
But i am in agreement with Apo One\'s post, i\'m just saying we should add in the part about freeing humanity. Note that part does not contradict anything about the racism.
Her wanting to free humanity is, I feel, superfluous to the entry as a whole. It doesn\'t contradict her racism, but it isn\'t adding anything to the post, either. In fact, I think adding it might open the way to future edit wars.
For instance, while Edelgard does believe humans should rule themselves...is it because of Rhea\'s actions, or because she believes the Nabateans *aren\'t* human at all (and thus do not deserve to rule)? Most likely it\'s a mix, but there\'s room for interpretation.
Things like Edel\'s S-support with Byleth and Linhardt\'s paralogue are interesting details, but adding them has the same problem—we don\'t really need to list all the specific instances of her displaying or not displaying this trope, especially when it can be subject to interpretation. That\'s how edit wars start. A basic overview of the most notable instances keeps thing simple.
Very well. I think we are all in agreement. Let\'s hope that this ends the edit wars, this has been a hot issue trope, and there have been a lot of edits.
On the whole I figured pointing out Linhardt\'s response to it, shows he doesn\'t have the best faith in Edelgard regarding her attitude towards them. Which I feel helps clear some of that up. We don\'t need to add it since her non-CF routes where she\'s more ruthless show her normal attitude towards Nabateans best.
@Red Hunter: He does reference it being connected to the Church as a reason why he doesn\'t want to mention it to Edelgard, and since he already figures out who Indech is, to the point Indech asks him to keep it a secret while they fight, Linhardt still tries to keep him being a Saint, and thus a dragon, to himself.
Notably as the Fridge page points out, you lose access to the Paralogue if Flayn and Seteth are killed.
In universe, isn\'t Byleth\'s Crest called the Crest of Flames? Why do we call it the Crest of the Goddess here?
Regarding the argument in the edits that Rhea would have removed Byleth\'s Crest Stone if she had realized they weren\'t Sothis, and that the other test subjects were allowed to live because they didn\'t have the Crest Stone, this isn\'t the case at all from what we\'re told. Rhea specifically says on Silver Snow that she created the other subjects by making a body and then putting Sothis\' Crest Stone in them. The failures were failures because Sothis\' consciousness didn\'t manifest, but they still kept the stone as removing it would presumably kill them. Byleth\'s mother still had the Crest Stone inside her when she gave birth to Byleth, hence her begging Rhea to transfer it to Byleth to save them. So unless she treated Byleth\'s mother differently, Rhea must have let the other failures keep the stone inside themselves until they died (she had only made 12 attempts in a thousand years, so presumably the failures had human-like lifespans).
I agree with this, and even if Byleth was a successful attempt on awakening Sothis\' consciousness, Rhea probably didn\'t count on the fact that Sothis just went and let Byleth have her powers instead of coming back full force. She did wonder what else she missed despite Byleth successfully having Sothis\' powers back in chapter 11. Even without Edelgard interfering in the holy tomb, I think that Rhea would be resigned that Sothis has no will to come back when she saw that Sothis only gave Byleth access to her powers. The experiments might be questionable, but Rhea isn\'t heartless.
Yeah, she only went full crazy in Edelgard\'s route because on top of Sothis not appearing in Byleth, shortly after Byleth sided with someone who defiled her mom\'s tomb.
She\'s much more accepting about Byleth\'s situation on the other routes.
Agreed, there\'s nothing suggesting Byleth was in danger at that moment. Suggesting that Edelgard\'s assault on the tomb was a Villainous Rescue is pure speculation at best and misinformation at worst (since all other info points to Rhea letting the previous \'failures\' live happy lives).
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?