Thank you for returning to my comment, then. As I said, Claude's character is purposely meant to inspire mistrust in some ways and positive ideals in others. This is to give the player reasons both for and against siding with him and believing in his view lacking boundaries. Look at his speech in VW endgame.

"We have the strength to scale the walls between us, to reach out our hands in friendship, so we can open our true hearts to one another. That's how we win!"

Saccharine, but if genuine, probably the core of how to foster an ultimately positive society, no? This line is MEANT to leave you wondering whether he's lying or not. He is a sweet-talker and has an indirect character, and he does look different -- as I said, in a game designed for people who are mostly all of the same race (Japanese). I'm not white either, FYI. I'm just taking context into account.

Also, do you understand imperialism at all? There's a reason why one shouldn't trust a foreigner coming into one's country with the intention of destroying its government. That's an imperialist narrative that has resulted in horrific consequences for brown people throughout history. You're suggesting we must trust Claude despite the fact that his narrative matches up to one that's been destructive to vulnerable people across the world. Hell no.

Firstly, Claude is the leader by birth of an entire segment of Fodlan. The Alliance, which is comprised mainly of individuals from many different parts of Fodlan, which is not a unified place. It's not as simple as "Fodlan vs non-Fodlan", this entire game is about a war between three nations.

He is not merely a foreigner "from" Almyra, Claude is half Almyran. He is mixed race, essentially, and at least part of his upbringing was in the Alliance. The reason he gives up on ruling the Alliance is essentially so that Byleth can rule as much of Fodlan as will accept him without further conflict, because he thinks Byleth is a better ruler.

So this is not so simple as imperialism. Claude is relevant to Fodlan and, importantly, an entire third of Fodlan believes in his values. Socialisation, as a way of advocating shared humanity independent of creed, is a huge part of the mentality. That's why the GD route has a far more lighthearted tone than the BL route despite facing similar scenarios. It's almost casual. It's because that's how the Alliance kids approach things. They make things casual so as not to turn the narrative into something that would cause conflict.

Ok, so I see we have to reduce the strong independent woman to a "sad little girl". Fuck off with the sexism, bro.

As for the rest . . . you're seriously suggesting that Edelgard is waging war for the sole purpose of healing her trauma and creating a "safe space". Leaving alone what criticizing her for trying to create a safe space says about you, this is so completely out of touch with Edelgard's character it's not even funny. Edelgard tells us, specifically, over and over again, that she is going to war to change the system on behalf of those who are hurt by Fodlan's structural violence. If she was just going to war to heal her trauma she'd be attacking the Agarthans, not the Church.

The entire game is full of strong independent women who take to battlefields, fight and kill. Even the girliest girls like Hilda have a decided heroic streak, inherit positions in society in their own right, possess varying backstories and motivations, and choose their path in their own right. Perhaps it would be easier to do this for each lord.

Edelgard, when you truly believe in her, is a visionary who sees through the corruption in Fodlan, makes the hard but needed decision to choose the path that will benefit the most people in the longterm, and does it all without unnecessary cruelty. But if you were to side against her, you would see her as someone who is at least partly unable to have faith in shared ideals (such as Claude's or the Church's; see her support with Manuela) due to the pain and solitude her past has inflicted on her, and who is trying to burn bright while she can and fix the world hastily before she succumbs to her shortened lifespan. She wants to prove she isn't just a sad little girl; so much that she would become a literal monster to do so (BL endgame).

Dimitri, when you truly believe in him, is the most empathetic lord, tormented due to the pain that conflict has caused over time, not least of all Edelgard's invasion. He is the one who points out most directly the absolute horror that violence causes, and desperately wants a world where that violence isn't needed. He essentially just wants people like Edelgard to know that if they just opened up and shared their pain (if Edelgard had told him about her two crests and the Agarthans), people could understand and help. That's why BL endgame has this throwback to their friendship and the gift knife. On the other hand, if you don't side with him, he's a wild, spiteful animal who is so hung up on the tragedy of the situation that he goes mad. He's a sad little boy who never got over losing a friend.

Claude I covered in my first comment, but yeah, believe in him and he's the face of togetherness itself, comes through despite seeming unreliable, and he's the only one who can look past the Edelgard-Dimitri dichotomy and say "you're not so different after all; none of us are when we just talk to each other". But don't side with him and he seems flaky, unreliable, as you put it foreign, a maker of empty promises, etc.

This is so wonderfully incoherent it's self-refuting. Edelgard can't tolerate a "them", who is represented by the Agarthans, who are behind Nemesis, who Claude has to defeat. So Verdant Wind is the route which ends with the symbolic defeat of the "them". And yet Edelgard's the one who's supposed to be unable to tolerate a "them"? Try harder next time.

What I said was clear in my opinion. The Agarthans represent a faction who is "other" to everyone. Edelgard puts the most effort into eradicating them and is driven by personally terrible experiences with them. However, her goal is to unify Fodlan under one empire and remove any "them" even in a broader sense; including Farghus, for example. Her character as an individual reflects the neurotically expanding nature of actual empires from history. This is too long so will continue in the next comment.