Darkmoon6789

Like 90 percent of all girls he tries to flirt with. To my understanding he is only ever succesful winning the heart of either Ingrid or Mercedes. Both who are his friends in addition to being a girl. Shows the importance of respecting women as people.

I think because Petra is also royalty and therefore above his station

Hubert would be a hazzle when trying to flirt with Edelgard. Yet, I would consider the risks worth it. Edelgard is a girl like no other. I think the best way to her heart would be to simply be there for her in her time of need. Try to be a person she feels she can confide in. Listening is more effective than any lame pick up line in getting someone to like you

I kind of wonder what would happen if Sylvain actually tried to fit on Edelgard. The crest babies angle would be hilariously disastrous, considering Edelgard's view crests. But if Sylvain really opened up about what he really thought of the crest system and how he hated how girls only wanted him because of his crest. I think they might actually get along. It is just that Edelgard without Byleth is incredibly close off the people and it would be difficult for her to come out of her shell. One character I always thought it would make sense if he joined Edelgard would be Ashe. His stepfather was executed by the churches for a crime he didn't commit, and his stepfather, Lord Lonato was killed by the church in turn. He is more than enough reasons to hate them. I always found it strange that you never did take Lonato's side or consider that he might have been in the right. Lysithea, I think, would join Edelgard if she knew that Edelgard went through the same type of experimentation she did and that this is the reason she started the war. I am not sure why Ferdinand sticks around, but I'm glad he did. Considering his advice is invaluable. Some dialogue seems to suggest he might have a thing for Edelgard. Especially when he is killed in verdant wind and azure moon. He essentially makes a reference to trying to prove himself to Edelgard to win her affections, but them only having eyes for Byleth.

I wonder how much of my position on Edelgard is affected by the fact I played her route first. Meaning I don't actually know what it is like playing the other routes not already understanding Edelgard and what she is trying to accomplish. But that also means I noticed just how inaccurate many characters perception on Edelgard actually is. Seteth downright accuses her of trying to become a false goddess as he can see no other reason of why someone would oppose the church. Not to mention Dimitri blaming Edelgard for the tragedy of Duscur, which thanks to playing crimson flower first I knew was wrong from the start. Maybe the fact that I know that these characters are wrong about Edelgard makes it harder for me to sympathise with their cause in opposing her. While I do feel sorry for Dimitri and Rhea, it doesn't have as much impact as it would have if I didn't play crimson flower first. Especially when it comes to Dimitri, he is so much of a monster at certain parts in the story that I do find it difficult to take his side. It is just that the excessive blame he puts on soldiers and generals who are simply doing their job is completely despicable in my eyes. His only saving grace is that he do eventually become a better person. At least Flayn . I do give the excuse of that she is probably blissfully ignorant of a lot of the suffering the church and her family has brought to the continent, being as sheltered as she is. I do feel bad for her honestly The closest equivalent is Rhea burning the kingdom capital. It is also for a very similar reason to Daenerys, that being madness. It seems like to me that Daenerys finally did succumb to her bloodline's inherent madness and directions were meant to mirror that of the Mad King. To me it isn't that the concept doesn't work, it is that they didn't have the best execution. Properly done, Daenerys would have a more gradual decline into madness, so it wouldn't have come as much out of left field.

So I asked managed to get Byleth, Proven Professor. Any good skills to give her? I have to admit I am kind of confused by her weapon. I also managed to get Mercedes, I don't think I understand how exactly martyr works. Is it the damage the unit you heal has taken that is healed or is it based on how much damage Mercedes has taken? I would like to find a good skill set for both of them.

It should also be pointed out that truly evil people doesn't feel bad about the consequences of their actions. The fact that she does means that Edelgard has a functioning sense of empathy and that she is not truly evil. Remorse makes criminals a lot easier to rehabilitate and therefore it makes all the difference. Ironically Edelgard was more efficient in the war in the beginning when Byleth doesn't join her. I guess because otherwise there wouldn't really be much resistance in that route. One of the worst things that can happen in a war as a stalemate, as it just drags things out and is costly for all sides. There is a legitimate argument to be made that ending it quickly using any method you possibly can, is more humane in the long run. But the drawback hero might be that she allows the Agarthans to become perhaps too powerful for her to stop. You don't have to agree with me, but I would be careful with thinking in terms of what would allow people to get away with what. Really sounds like an obsession with judgement to me and it can lead down a slippery slope towards becoming similar to Light Yagami from Death Note or the Punisher from Marvel comics. (Boar Dimitri is also a good example of this type of justice) I don't actually think that Light is anywhere near as justified as Edelgard or Lelouch, the guy and his methods completely violates due process as he assumes that all criminals that aren't convicted for their crimes are "getting away with it". Ignoring completely, that often times if the criminal can't be convicted in court. That means that they cannot prove that they are actually guilty. To kill them without a trial is nothing more than murder. Same with the Punisher, more than willing to kill because in their eyes criminals are less than human and deserve to die. Their desperation to make sure that no one gets away with crime and turned them into monsters in their own right. Not all antiheroes are created equal, and I think some are more justified than others, I think this needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. (Light might be straight up evil though). The thing is, you do seem to agree that allying with the Agarthans was the smarter move for Edelgard. Doesn't this make it synonymous with the right move? Doesn't make sense to me to judge someone for what is ultimately the right decision. In this case, I define "right" as whatever move leads to the least suffering in the long run. Which putting an end to the crest system does.

Yes, but what does that responsibility actually mean from a practical standpoint? If she was seen as partially responsible for that, what would you suggest should be done about it?. If she wins everything works out in the end anyway and I would argue that insisting on harming the emperor in the name of inflicting judgement would do the world a disservice. Or she loses and she dies anyway. What does responsibility mean in this case? Does it always have to be eye for an eye? I still think it is to her credit that Edelgard clearly dislikes what the Agarthans are doing and clearly hates herself for allying with them , even if she can't fault the logic of that decision. There is also the fact that when Remire actually happens. She had made her decision a long time ago and it is way too late to back out. Yet she seems to consider breaking the deal, considering her plea to Byleth and Jeralt after the incident at Remire village. Considering the circumstances. I think Edelgard is more than deserving of forgiveness and a chance at redemption for both the war and her alliance with the Agarthans. It does have some responsibility for it, but the Agarthans would keep experimenting on people with or without her permission. So it cannot be equated to her ordering it. The truth about morally grey in this case is that in this case, no person overly concerned about their own moral integrity could possibly accomplish what Edelgard managed to accomplish, because they wouldn't be willing to do what must be done. This is also true of Lelouch. Meaning that a good-natured morally grey anti-hero such as Edelgard is capable of doing a greater level of good for the world than a person overly constrained by living up to some high standard. Both Edelgard and Lelouch cares so much about the greater good that they are willing to make themselves villains in the eyes of others to achieve that good. It is the ultimate of self-sacrifice. In the eyes of someone who is as much of a consequentialist as me, this makes Edelgard more heroic than any pure virtuous hero and the fact that she is willing to let herself be tainted is part of why she is capable of achieving so much good. Let's be honest, neither Dimitri nor Claude would have ever accomplished the ambition for a world on their own, they need Edelgard to take the fall to achieve their goals. Is someone who always acts perfectly moral, yet is unwilling to taint their perfect moral character to save a greater number of people really all that moral to begin with? I sometimes question the very notion of what humans consider moral, it almost seems like human morality is more concerned with people not making waves rather than working towards the greater good. This does also make sense as most morality systems exist to maintain the order of the status quo. As such, it makes sense that anyone concerned with maintaining the status quo have an incentive to paint someone like Edelgard as evil as her brand of good is a threat to their power and control. This is very much the case with the religious morality of the church of Seiros. Edit: part of what I like with Edelgard as a character is that her very existence as a concept makes me question the very nature of morality and what is really considered good or evil. This character and her actions have very deep philosophical implications that I find very interesting to discuss. She pretty much breaks the mould of black and white morality altogether and therefore is neither a hero or a villain in the traditional sense.

Exactly, it might not be what the game is about, but ultimately Edelgard will spend a lot more time ruling in a post war world than she will waging war. I think there are even some signs that Edelgard's system might lead towards a democratic system in future generations. She has laid the foundation for a far stronger middle class. I am trying to consider the long-term whenever it comes to her actions being right or wrong. Still, don't you think that the Agarthans would have still been able to gain control of the Empire's military through Arundel and his connection to the insurrection nobles with Edelgard out of the way? What Edelgard is essentially doing is taking a war they already planned for a long time and make it her own. She ultimately does what the Agarthans want, but she has her own reasons for doing so that doesn't necessarily align with the Agarthans and what they want with her. That is my perspective anyway. Do we even disagree about Edelgard at all or are we just misunderstanding what the other is saying?

I should probably mention I have been a student of philosophy, so I am very used to thinking about this sort of questions. Also bear in mind that when it comes to responsibility, monarchs play by completely different rules than their citizens. They are not only allowed to do some things that aren't permissible by a regular person, but they are expected to. They are not truly part of the rest of society, but stands above it. It is a old school philosophy, but Fodlan is run by an old school system. When it comes to war, there is only one true rule. The winner writes history, they can do whatever they want with the loser and they will still be considered a hero in the eyes of history. While there is a lot to gain by war, the price for failure is usually death. Something Edelgard understands very well and have accepted. While being a monarch gives you certain rights, it also carries heavy penalties if you fail in your duties. It is hard for us to understand today as we don't really have absolute monarchs anymore. The past doesn't conform to our bubble of morality. Yet the role of a monarch as you say does come with certain responsibilities. And the number one responsibility is to act in the best interest of their people. Monarchs who doesn't act in the best interest of their people will be overthrown as they will inspire rebellions. As I said, harsh penalties. How do you think Edelgard performs her duty as a monarch? I think she does this splendidly.

It depends on what you mean by "choice". While she technically works of them of her own volition, the alternative to doing so and so obviously bad consequences that I have little doubt she made the right decision. I am not trying to excuse her actions, because I don't think her actions were wrong, in my mind, she made the right choice, the only logical choice. It is not trying to excuse anything when I don't believe that the declaration of war to be morally wrong. As for her alliance with the Agarthans, it is simply the most practical decision as they are both enemies of the church and she simply can't fight them and the church at the same time. Edelgard has some choices, but none of them are ideal, and I guarantee you that if there was a perfect solution where she could achieve her goals without any sacrifice being made, she would have done so. Life isn't all sunshine and rainbows, and if you let petty morality stand in the way of the greater good. I would claim it isn't good at all. But I believe that the very concept of a choice is an illusion, by its very nature. Humans like to believe we have free will, that we have all options open to us at all times. But I don't believe this is true, it shall every choice you make is informed by our history and our genetics. Everything that happens to us informs the way we think and as such, every decision we make are already predetermined by our past experiences and the way our brain chemistry works. In this fashion. Edelgard starting the war was already a foregone conclusion after she gone through the experiments and witnessed the death of her siblings, the way her mind works, plus going through something like that in addition to the message of Dimitri's dagger. They are all ingredients in Edelgard's decisions, do she truly have the freedom to choose to defy the conclusion her experiences leads to? If you doubt what I am saying, ask yourself, do you truly feel that you are free to choose to murder your loved ones? I wouldn't think so, right? No one can choose to make a decision. Contrary to our nature and experiences. This is why I think that blame and judgement are ultimately pointless. Everyone is the product of their environment and no one really has a say in who they become. This is equally true of Edelgard as it is of Dimitri and Rhea, as well as any other human ever born. It is fortunate that Edelgard's experiences made her even more empathetic, if somewhat radical. I think Fodlan really needed someone like her. But because of how much of her mindset is dependent on her trauma, she is still ultimately the weapon, the Agarthans made her into even if they themselves didn't understand the full ramifications of what their actions made Edelgard. They thought they made her their pawn, but they created their own destruction. One of my principles is to never close my eyes to an uncomfortable truth. This would be one of them, I don't believe I have true agency, it only feels like I do. In the same manner, I didn't choose to like Edelgard, based on who I am as a person. I was always bound to like her. I hope that offers some insight in my way of thinking

It is less of that and more like her making different decisions than she did would also have its consequences, and these consequences wouldn't necessarily be better. I think it is pretty much fact that the war would have started with or without her. The hold that the Agarthans have over her empire and how much influence the have had in her life are also pretty much fact. These things are far from being obviously wrong. What is obviously wrong however is the idea that Edelgard is a fascist. Or that any alternate method of computing her goals would have actually worked. Edelgard isn't flawless, all I am saying is that she doesn't deserve to be crucified for said flaws.

The way I see it, being a pawn is one of her flaws. But her greatest flaw. The way I see it is extreme stubbornness, once she has set her mind on something it is very hard to change it, and she frequently would rather die than give up. It is this tendency that sets her on the path to become the Hegemon Husk as she would rather go to extreme measures like this and is willing to sacrifice even her own humanity for the sake of her cause, rather than give up on her dreams and admit defeat. Are you happy now? The thing is, people are going to interpret her flaws differently. Edit: But the thing is, flawed individual or not. I don't think Edelgard is wrong in that the war is necessary. In fact, I actually think she is doing the right thing, even if it might be difficult to accept. The reality of politics is that it isn't always pleasant. I heard a very interesting question recently. In this example, there are two monarchs, one does evil things that their actions frequently results in a better society. The other only ever does good things, but their actions frequently makes things worse. Who would you want to lead your country?

Hubert is actually far more militant in his opposition to the goddess than Edelgard. Edelgard actually doesn't dislike choir practice while Hubert does, and states that she is at war with the church, not the faith. I get the impression Hubert would probably want to go further than that. I don't know why he would carry a goddess icon. But I can guarantee one thing. He is not a secret believer torn between his belief and his loyalty to Edelgard, as his disdain for the church is actually larger than that of his Emperor. He wouldn't feel pressured into taking such an extreme stance as Edelgard is actually somewhat moderate in comparison.

I guess it comes with the territory, with being a monarch, regardless of what you do or don't do, someone will hate you for it. Your actions will be controversial no matter what when you are a politician. You know, Edelgard really means a lot to me as a character, there is just something about her that really resonated with me. Enough so that this character has helped me handle quite a bit of suffering due to medical issues. So, she is special to me because of how much her example have helped me

It should still be pointed out that even if she does go to a summerhouse and eat sweets and just leave things be. There would still be a war, she just wouldn't be personally involved with it. I guess the follow-up question is if inaction by her part would make her equally responsible for the events that follow, as participating directly in starting the war. In my opinion it would be like letting the world burn around you just because you are unwilling to take personal responsibility for what happens with your people. I wouldn't say she would be less responsible for the upcoming conflict at all, just that in one case she is responsible through neglect and another she is responsible through direct action.

Seems to me that there will be a war, no matter what she does or doesn't do. I don't think Edelgard really had any good options to begin with, she was always to cursed into being born as the person she was. It is easy to remain morally pure when you don't have any responsibilities. But she was born the heir to an empire. And as such it was always her duty to do what is best for her people

If you ask me. Her only real alternative is to not be the person who is going to change the world, but rather abdicate her position, it suites and laze about all day, like she always wanted. While leaving the Empire in the hands of Arundel and the Agarthans to enact their war without her. But this decision would bring ruin to Fodlan and she would essentially be ignoring her responsibilities as heir to the throne. So it is hardly any better. A lot of evil would come to pass, because she would be unwilling to do something about it. Maybe it is better that Edelgard was the person she was and was so dedicated to making a difference. Doing nothing might avoid personal responsibility for any direct potential wrongdoing, but that is exactly the problem.

I would agree that Edelgard is all about, seemingly contradicting concepts. Using war with the intention of bringing about an age of peace, assuming absolute power so she can break the chains of oppression. Taking lives so she can save more lives. She even acknowledges this contradiction. "These sacrifices will allow us to create the future where we will never need sacrifice again, it may seem contradictory but it is the only way" _ Edelgard Said very soon after the assault upon the holy tomb. If you choose to side with her when playing as the Black Eagles. But the difference is that I actually think there is certain truth to what she is saying that it might be the only way to defeat the theocratic tyranny of the church and Rhea. While I could nitpick a lot about what you said, I do think you are right on the money with her being an anti-hero. She does have the methods of one. Using evil to defeat evil is pretty much the definition of being an anti-hero. I have pointed out before how similar Edelgard and Dimitri really are. For once, both of them are motivated almost entirely by something traumatic that happened to them in the past, it is also the exact same person who wronged both of them , and both of them do what they do not because this is something they really want, but because they feel like they have to to honour the memory of those who perished in their respective traumatic events. Dimitri seek vengeance in the name of those who perished during the tragedy of Duscur. Edelgard seeks to change society so that the sacrifice of their siblings who died horribly making her the strong Emperor the nobles of Adrestian wanted(by giving her the most powerful crest in existence) wouldn't be invain. Basically, the only way she can see any meaning to all of that suffering is if it leads to the powers she was given to make sure that nothing like that could ever happen again. She even has the same mindset about the casualties of the war as she does about her siblings, in her mind, the only way all of that suffering can have meaning is if she is successful in her goals. Which is why she will go to any lengths to achieve them, and why she can't live with herself if she fails. The tragic thing is that Edelgard has mentioned that she would rather have lived her life as a regular person without all of the responsibility she now carries. But that she feels like she has an obligation to the world because of the great power she was given and because of the high cost, but was paid to achieve that power. But ultimately she never asked for the crest of flames and this destiny was thrust upon her by others. She would have never done any of this if she wasn't essentially made into a weapon by the horrible experiments she went through. Edelgard even refers to herself having died during that imprisonment in her negotiation with Dimitri in Azure Moon. Which is a sign of how deeply it scarred her. I should also mention that I am definitely a person who believe that the ends justify the means, and I do have a rather Macheivelian philosophy on statesmanship and what it requires from a ruler. It is a hard truth of the universe that the only way freedom can exist is for great power to maintain it, and that the weak can only prosper if they are protected from those who seek to exploit by those who are strong and used their power to protect those who are not. That is pretty much Edelgard's philosophy, it is not for everyone, but it does appeal to a pragmatist like me. I find little use for empty morals if they are detached from results.

What exactly is it that makes it so much harder than its Crimson flower counterpart? Is it the level around it? Presumably it is the same boss

While I haven't played the church path. I actually found Rhea in the Crimson flower a path to be rather easy on hard. Still, the final bosses are usually pretty difficult, especially on maddening. The verdant wind and azure moon final bosses were really tough. Are you attempting a solo run?

Granted, the term dictator comes from the Roman Republic and is the term for someone given emergency power in order to deal with a crisis situation. One such dictator was Julius Caesar who simply refused to step down from power and made himself into the first Emperor of Rome. Though ironically Julius Caesar was actually rather well-regarded throughout most of history as he was such a more efficient a leader than the Senate alone. The term dictator just means someone, someone who wields absolute power and wasn't democratically elected. Which would make every Emperor or King a dictator by definition. Even if it is kind of ironic that the first dictators actually were democratically elected as the appointment of one required the approval of the Senate. The term has just gotten a bad rap nowadays because of its association with fascism. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fascism Which I would say doesn't apply that well to Edelgard. There is no suggestion she enforces any kind of racial discrimination or suppresses those with a different opinion from her. In fact, her interactions with Ferdinand shows quite the opposite. So Edelgard I think is technically a dictator as he is an absolute monarch, but she is not a fascist, as she primarily uses her power to empower the people rather than suppressing them. Just because she started a war doesn't mean her government is oppressive.

If anything, Edelgard's position on the past is that it sucked, and that the future will be better. It doesn't make much sense to compare Edelgard to Donald Trump (it is usually what that saying is attributed today, even if it was technically stolen from Ronald Reagan), they have pretty much nothing in common at all. We even have a situation similiar to the wall with Fodlan's locket and Almyra. Guess what? Edelgard's position on Almyra is that she wants to open up diplomatic interactions with them and that they should show more respect towards their cultural differences, something that she claims Rhea never did. Do people just compare Edelgard to politicians they don't like without thinking if they actually do have anything in common at all?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gzss8im9igfiaap/Screenshot_20200520-164637.png?dl=0 I guess I need to level her up again, but I guess this is the better nature for the skill set. Here is my original Micaiah, which was one of my first units. But I haven't really changed her skill set from the basic one. There are probably ways to make her more useful https://www.dropbox.com/s/t8v2012l0zrjmc7/Screenshot_20200520-164727.png?dl=0

Dimitri is actually my second favourite. I actually think it is his darkness that makes him such a compelling character. He quite similar to Edelgard in many ways, and the tragedy is that neither of them ever realise this I am an anti-theist as well, yet another reason for me to like Edelgard. Granted, maybe anti-theocrat would be more accurate to my actual position. I don't really care what people believe in as long as they don't use it as an excuse to hurt other people. The problem is that many religious people want nothing more than for their religion to wield absolute power in society, and many do use religion as an excuse to discriminate against certain groups of people. So I guess you can say I am not against personal spirituality, but I am against organised religion due to its tendency due to its tendency to try to violate freedom of religion by trying to legislate its tenants. Edelgard actually holds a very similar position as she has nothing against people who worship Sothis as a concept, but she is against the church and the political power it wields.