Theory in the works: Edelgard Stans argue about characters, backstories and story information solely through the lens that they also experience and attach themselves to Edelgard.
Edelgard does not change or develop in a meaningful way in the story of 3H, no matter what route is chosen. This is an intentional writing decision as it relates to her archetype and role in the story.
But the ramifications of that are her stans now viewing every character in Fire Emblem Three Houses the exact same way.
So even though Dimitri, Claude, Rhea and almost every other character changes through Byleth's guidance through the academy and the war effort, Edelgard Stans will nonetheless argue through the assumption that they're still the same when Byleth first meets them (as well as sometimes sprinkle in the assumptions/views that Edelgard herself has of the characters she has an opinion on).
So Dimitri is still wishy-washy (they usually just cut the middleman and call him a centrist) and secretly deranged, violent and even racist and a cop.
Claude still wants to murder Rhea/wants her gone and believes the church needs to be abolished in order to open the borders to other countries.
Rhea is a secretive, manipulative megalomaniac and tyrant who must be taken down for Fodlan to be free.
Felix still hates his father and Dimitri and wants to be free of his house, Sylvain and Ingrid hate their obligations to being Crest bearers, Lysithea hates Crests first and foremost, Dorothea wants nobles to vanish, Caspar wants to dedicate himself to Edelgard, Dedue and Cyril see themselves as no more than tools of their white masters, etc., etc.
Because Edelgard Stans' favorite character doesn't change, they subconsciously assume the same must be for the rest of the cast.
That's why arguing with them is a lost cause, because while anyone else is operating with a cast that, by the end of any non CF route-actually, any route really considering CF's explicit negative character development-changes and becomes someone new, Edelgard Stans are operating with a cast that hasn't moved past first impressions and initial character flaws, coupled with their own biases for how these characters should talk and act.
There's no winning with people who are applying a, shall I say, "Chapter 1 Thesis to an Epilogue Debate." When they're convinced they know the correct and best interpretation of a character, as evidenced by how they attached themselves to a character intentionally written to not develop or change, that should tell you more than anything else could reveal.
I agree with a lot of what’s being said here and in the comments/reblogs.
I think one of the saddest things about this game is that Edelgard didn’t have to do any of this. I don’t hate the writing of Three Hopes as much as the next person, but one of my biggest issues with it was the fact that it tried to sell the idea that the war was always going to happen. Even if that were true, it’s because of Edelgard specifically that this war was inevitable. If she hadn’t started it, neither Claude nor Dimitri would have. The worst part is that if Edelgard had even made an ATTEMPT toward diplomacy with Claude and Dimitri before pulling that trigger, she would have seen that they share a lot of her opinions. Maybe not all of them, but more than enough to find common ground. And she had the perfect opportunity to at the academy. A year’s worth of perfect opportunities in fact. Yet, she didn’t try because at the end of the day I truly feel she just wanted to wage war and she wanted to be the sole ruler of a united Fódlan. Hearing out Claude and Dimitri would have proved to her that this was unnecessary which is the real reason why she didn’t try.
I think that saying she didn’t try because she just assumed they wouldn’t share her views isn’t necessarily what the game presents us with, but I’d be willing to take that interpretation to make the story a bit more tragic of a tale, but it all ends the same. Edelgard had full right and authority to do whatever she wanted to Adrestia. That’s her country. If she wants to invoke a lot of extreme reforms and start distancing Adrestia from the the Central Church or even the Seiros religion as a whole and form a meritocracy, then I’m all for it. That’s her right. The problem is her insistence that she not stop at her own borders and trying to push her beliefs and ideals onto everyone else through violent conquest. And, really, that’s only one of many issues that just turn her from a character you could easily admire for her fairness into a villain.
Also, the idea that Edelgard doesn’t really develop or evolve—she doesn’t! I’ve played each route of Three Houses and Three Hopes as well, and Edelgard’s most drastic change is perhaps how emotionally open she’s willing to be around select few people. But even at the end of her own route, dedicated to exploring her journey and beliefs, she doesn’t become more trusting of the friends around her. She still keeps many secrets that are only shared between her and Hubert (and sometimes Byleth). She still spies on people as seen in Hubert and Petra’s paired ending (speaking of, I do think it’s telling her and Petra only go to B support, but that’s a conversation for another time). She still has this idea that she’s a lone warrior in her own pursuits and that it’s her against the world.
In AM, Dimitri learns to not only trust his friends, but believe in their loyalty to him. In VW, Claude learns to take wisdom and life experience from each of his friends and wherever else he can find it. I think the academy arc, more than anything, really changed Claude as a person/character. More than it did Edelgard and Dimitri for sure, but that’s once again a post for another time. Hell, in SS, Rhea learns (kind of shoehorned in the end because she wasn’t included nearly as much as she could have been) to let go of many of her secrets and ambitions. It wasn’t delivered or executed in the best way, but it’s something that’s there at least. Edelgard doesn’t really get any of that.
Edelgard doesn’t become a better person or a better leader by the end of her route and anyone who says otherwise is operating under their own confirmation bias. If you already agreed with her before she waged war, you’re not really going to disagree with her after she does from what I’ve seen of this fandom.
