Jump to content
Icelerate

Which lords are morally grey?

Which lords are morally grey?  

51 members have voted

  1. 1. Which lords are morally grey?



Recommended Posts

The title explains itself. I even included characters like Elincia, Lucina and Kris despite debates on whether they are considered lords or not for the sake of argument. 

I think Micaiah and the Three Houses lords are the only ones that can be considered morally grey. Probably Conquest Corrin as well. Though in Byleth and Corrin's case, it seems like they aren't ever treated to be in the wrong so I don't know. 

Edited by Icelerate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Icelerate said:

Fixed. Thanks for the correction.

No problem. Games and movies do tend to use the plural a lot, don't they?

Edited by Alastor15243

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Etheus said:

Marth, because I'm pretty sure the pantsless look is a war crime in at least 3 realms.

Literally everyone talks about pantsless Marth and I have no clue what they're talking about, but I'm afraid.

 

I said Micaiah, Birth and Conc Corrin, Edelgard and Dimitri. Maybe Birth Corrin shouldn't count, but I'm pretty sure he's suppozed to be morally grey.  (Minor birhthright spoilers below.)

Spoiler

(I mean, he does kill his Nohrian siblings, so...)

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited by Benice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How technical do you want to be?  For example, Roy helps out a rebellion, which is a big no-no on the lawful side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think only Micaiah and Edelgard count personally. Probably don't need much elaboration on those two, but I personally don't see Dimitri as one either. His character arc focuses on him being tormented by the morally grey, especially the blacker parts of it, and his resolution comes when he finds the will to rise above that and shoot for the morally white as his goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SatsumaFSoysoy said:

I think only Micaiah and Edelgard count personally. Probably don't need much elaboration on those two, but I personally don't see Dimitri as one either. His character arc focuses on him being tormented by the morally grey, especially the blacker parts of it, and his resolution comes when he finds the will to rise above that and shoot for the morally white as his goal.

I'd say Dmitri is pretty grey. His sole motivation in Crimson Flow and Verdant Wind is to kill Edelgard, and cutting down anyone who gets in his way. This also starts as his sole motivation in Azure Moon, but he eventually is able to set his demons aside and tries to become the old, optimistic Dmitri.

It's not a noble goal, and he's not ever shown to be keen on mass, discriminate slaughter like Micaiah and Edelgard, but he is a one man army destroying everything from point A(Himself) to point B(Edelgard). He's a lot like Guts from Berserk, who at his worst, was very grey.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Slumber said:

I'd say Dmitri is pretty grey. His sole motivation in Crimson Flow and Verdant Wind is to kill Edelgard, and cutting down anyone who gets in his way. This also starts as his sole motivation in Azure Moon, but he eventually is able to set his demons aside and tries to become the old, optimistic Dmitri.

It's not a noble goal, and he's not ever shown to be keen on mass, discriminate slaughter like Micaiah and Edelgard, but he is a one man warpath. He's a lot like Guts from Berserk, who at his worst, was very grey.

Different way of seeing it I guess. I definitely agree on him being grey during the route, but as he doesn't end on that nor push for/embody those values, I personally don't see him as morally grey.

His appearances in the other routes is a bit more complicated I guess. I didn't really take that into account since he's not really the Lord in those routes, but what you say is true.

Edited by SatsumaFSoysoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SatsumaFSoysoy said:

Different way of seeing it I guess. I definitely agree on him being grey during the route, but as he doesn't end on that nor push for those values, I personally don't see him as morally grey.

His appearances in the other routes is a bit more complicated I guess. I didn't really take that into account since he's not really the Lord in those routes, but what you say is true.

I'd definitely put him on a lighter shade of grey. He doesn't actively try to actively take part in any major atrocities. But if you put an orphanage full of the most lovable, but tragic and sympathetic children AND their adorable puppies between him and Edelgard, it's tough to say what he'd do. His bloodlust for Edelgard is pretty damn insatiable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Slumber said:

I'd definitely put him on a lighter shade of grey. He doesn't actively try to actively take part in any major atrocities. But if you put an orphanage full of the most lovable, but tragic and sympathetic children AND their adorable puppies between him and Edelgard, it's tough to say what he'd do. His bloodlust for Edelgard is pretty damn insatiable.

Pre-Gronder, he'd run through them, yeah. Post-Gronder, not really, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eclipse said:

How technical do you want to be?  For example, Roy helps out a rebellion, which is a big no-no on the lawful side.

I suppose it depends if one considers being unlawful to be in itself morally wrong, regardless if the law itself is or not. Otherwise, it shouldn't count against if the act itself is morally right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

An argument can be made of Sigurd, in that he does not realize the consequences of his actions and screw everything up. 

Sigurd's killing bad people to stop bad things form happening.

He's morally in the right. He's just short-sighted and doesn't realize that he's creating a MASSIVE power vacuum in Jugdral.

Which is an issue no other Lord in the series ever considers, either. Genealogy just decided it'd be fun to play with the idea of a Fire Emblem lord eating shit for being the good guy. Jugdral is a harsher place than the others.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna say no to Conquest Corrin because despite being borderline villainous, his actions are never treated as such and are actually treated like a noble sacrifice on his part.

5 hours ago, Slumber said:

I'd definitely put him on a lighter shade of grey. He doesn't actively try to actively take part in any major atrocities. But if you put an orphanage full of the most lovable, but tragic and sympathetic children AND their adorable puppies between him and Edelgard, it's tough to say what he'd do. His bloodlust for Edelgard is pretty damn insatiable.

Is there really any value in coming up with hypotheticals for what a character could do? The worst he does is be a dick to his friends and go awol while his countrymen are fighting to liberate Faerghus. He is not said to have done anything particularly heinous either on or off screen.

Edited by NekoKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say Sigurd is grey. In the end Sigurd's actions didn't work out but the blame for that is on Arvis for betraying him. 

Its also hard to argue how Sigurd should have acted differently. All of his opponents are cartoonishly evil and were the one that attacked him first. Verdane invaded Granvelle and kidnapped Sigurd's friend so he was fully justified to take them out. Chaggal also declared war first and for good measure also attacked Sigurd's friend and triggered a civil war in his own country purely because he finds it funny. Later Chaggal again attacks first at a time when Sigurd is busy packing up and leaving Augustria. And team Reptor also struck first by killing Sigurd's prince and framing both him and his father for the deed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Slumber said:

I'd say Dmitri is pretty grey. His sole motivation in Crimson Flow and Verdant Wind is to kill Edelgard, and cutting down anyone who gets in his way. This also starts as his sole motivation in Azure Moon, but he eventually is able to set his demons aside and tries to become the old, optimistic Dmitri.

It's not a noble goal, and he's not ever shown to be keen on mass, discriminate slaughter like Micaiah and Edelgard, but he is a one man army destroying everything from point A(Himself) to point B(Edelgard). He's a lot like Guts from Berserk, who at his worst, was very grey.

That's a pretty good comparison tbh. Rage filled one man army with one eye who only care about getting revenge on one individual for their evil deeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

I suppose it depends if one considers being unlawful to be in itself morally wrong, regardless if the law itself is or not. Otherwise, it shouldn't count against if the act itself is morally right.

Hence why this is a simple-seeming topic at first, but gets to be quite the headache if its premise is thought through!

Let's say that Roy failed in the Western Isles.  What would happen to Lycia?  But since he succeeded, it's a story that looks morally right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Hence why this is a simple-seeming topic at first, but gets to be quite the headache if its premise is thought through!

Let's say that Roy failed in the Western Isles.  What would happen to Lycia?  But since he succeeded, it's a story that looks morally right.

Being morally right or wrong is not a matter of succeeding or not, though. Once he knows the people of the isles are being oppressed, turning a blind eye will be morally wrong, not deciding to help them out and fail. Roy is putting belief in the system. He hopes that by ensuring the mistreatment goes public, the Etrurian council and many members of the court will finally take  action against Arcardo and Roartz; and thus Lycia itself won't be affected negatively by his actions. Just after arriving at the isles, Cecilia tells Roy those two were already not well liked, because they're taking advantage of the King's grief of his son's death in only looking over themselves and being self-serving. It was Arcardo himself who asked for the Lycian Alliance Army to deal with the problems at the isles, because it's his mining operations and profiting that were at risk. If it wasn't for the fact he'd be helping the locals, which would be morally right, helping Arcado would be inmoral, helping a shady character with his selfish desires.

Ultimately, it boils down to what sounds more suspicious. Arcado already has shady spots on his record. The LAA suddenly siding with the rebels, specially when you have people like Cecilia vouching for Roy's character; and the fact Roy spent time in Etruria so he's not quite a complete stranger, as well as his actions in Lycia to quell down the Bern-friendly rebellion, is going to put more suspicious on Arcado. There's also the fact that Roy himself doesn't outright goes against Etruria's orders. Before he sends his letter to Cecilia, he's fighting against bandits (Ch9), Etrurian forces who deliberately attacked him first (Ch10A), or Etrurian forces outright attacking villagers (Ch10B). Only in the last case he'd be outright accused of disobeying orders; which he hopes to explain. Which, again, Arcado's shady behavior is already well-known by the people from whom their opinion on the matter, well, matters.

 

Edited by Acacia Sgt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Being morally right or wrong is not a matter of succeeding or not, though. Once he knows the people of the isles are being oppressed, turning a blind eye will be morally wrong, not deciding to help them out and fail. Roy is putting belief in the system. He hopes that by ensuring the mistreatment goes public, the Etrurian council and many members of the court will finally take  action against Arcardo and Roartz; and thus Lycia itself won't be affected negatively by his actions. Just after arriving at the isles, Cecilia tells Roy those two were already not well liked, because they're taking advantage of the King's grief of his son's death in only looking over themselves and being self-serving. It was Arcardo himself who asked for the Lycian Alliance Army to deal with the problems at the isles, because it's his mining operations and profiting that were at risk. If it wasn't for the fact he'd be helping the locals, which would be morally right, helping Arcado would be inmoral, helping a shady character with his selfish desires.

Ultimately, it boils down to what sounds more suspicious. Arcado already has shady spots on his record. The LAA suddenly siding with the rebels, specially when you have people like Cecilia vouching for Roy's character; and the fact Roy spent time in Etruria so he's not quite a complete stranger, as well as his actions in Lycia to quell down the Bern-friendly rebellion, is going to put more suspicious on Arcado. There's also the fact that Roy himself doesn't outright goes against Etruria's orders. Before he sends his letter to Cecilia, he's fighting against bandits (Ch9), Etrurian forces who deliberately attacked him first (Ch10A), or Etrurian forces outright attacking villagers (Ch10B). Only in the last case he'd be outright accused of disobeying orders; which he hopes to explain. Which, again, Arcado's shady behavior is already well-known by the people from whom their opinion on the matter, well, matters.

 

That's not the issue.

Let's say that Roy fails.  Since he's the head of the Lycian Alliance Army, it'll be interpreted as Lycia supporting a failed rebellion against Etruria.  This, in turn, endangers Lycia.  Turning a blind eye to suffering is one thing, but so is screwing your own home over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, eclipse said:

That's not the issue.

Let's say that Roy fails.  Since he's the head of the Lycian Alliance Army, it'll be interpreted as Lycia supporting a failed rebellion against Etruria.  This, in turn, endangers Lycia.  Turning a blind eye to suffering is one thing, but so is screwing your own home over.

Largely it depends on when Roy fails. As I said, if it's against the bandits of Ch9, then nothing can pin him as disobeying orders. If the soldiers of Ch10 succeed, they'd have to come up with a very good lie painting them as the aggressors instead of them, otherwise they'd just say the bandits got them. THen by Ch12, Arcado and Roartz are too panicked, so even if Roy fails to capture Djuto, the rebellion will start anyway, and Lycia becomes a minor issue at that moment. Roy can only be said to be supporting the rebels after 11A, or 10B, both times a letter is already on its way to mainland Etruria to explain his actions... and once again, it's all about character. Arcado and Roartz are well known for their shady behavior. They'd jump on the "Lycia has betrayed us!" dialogue to discredit them; but their opposition will know something's not quite right, specially since Roy's action seem quite sudden. Roy knows this, Cecilia told him people in Etruria weren't on board on the idea to send Lycia to the isles to begin with. Once again, Roy doesn't have a record for such behavior, which helps him, while Arcado and Roartz do have past behavior that puts their word and actions into doubt.

The thing is, regardless, it's in Etruria's interest to keep Lycia on their SOI. They can't abandon it to Bern since then the balance of power reached when each country now effectively had half the continent in their control/influence would be broken into Bern's favor, which Etruria wouldn't want. Lycia itself, while a protectorate, is still autonomous. If they start imposing themselves too much on them, Eliwood can start making noises of "Keep going and perhaps now our next call of help will be to Bern". Even if Eliwood may not want that, it's leverage at his disposal; and Etruria knows this and might not want to press their chances. The main Army may have been sent to the Western Isles; but Lycia wasn't left completely defenseless. Considering how the army itself was at ARaphen yet places like Laus, Thria, and Ostia still had plenty of soldiers around, that means Lycia still has an army in the form of their local levies to defend themselves; and a war with Lycia, even if Etruria will win, won't be good since then BErn can capitalize on the situation. The important detail to consider here is that: Roy is quite aware of this situation. He knows Lycia is protected enough from any possible fallout of his actions, which is why he's willing to disobey orders to help the people who aren't as protected.

 

Edited by Acacia Sgt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Largely it depends on when Roy fails. As I said, if it's against the bandits of Ch9, then nothing can pin him as disobeying orders. If the soldiers of Ch10 succeed, they'd have to come up with a very good lie painting them as the aggressors instead of them, otherwise they'd just say the bandits got them. THen by Ch12, Arcado and Roartz are too panicked, so even if Roy fails to capture Djuto, the rebellion will start anyway, and Lycia becomes a minor issue at that moment. Roy can only be said to be supporting the rebels after 11A, or 10B, both times a letter is already on its way to mainland Etruria to explain his actions... and once again, it's all about character. Arcado and Roartz are well known for their shady behavior. They'd jump on the "Lycia has betrayed us!" dialogue to discredit them; but their opposition will know something's not quite right, specially since Roy's action seem quite sudden. Roy knows this, Cecilia told him people in Etruria weren't on board on the idea to send Lycia to the isles to begin with. Once again, Roy doesn't have a record for such behavior, which helps him, while Arcado and Roartz do have past behavior that puts their word and actions into doubt.

The issue is how much support there will be if the Alliance fails in the Western Isles.  Open secrets are a thing, but they're useless if someone doesn't do something about it.  Cecilia would, but she has to contend with Perceval/Douglas, who are more willing to back the king than to believe in Lycia.  Since the king isn't in his sound mind, it would basically be Cecilia yelling at him again versus whatever the bad guys are telling him.

Likewise, letters can be intercepted - or it can be explained that Roy knew he was going down, so this was his last-ditch effort to bring down Etruria with him.  Once again puts Lycia in a really awkward spot.

Once again, this hinges on a lot of things happening, and happening right.  If something fails, history will be rewritten as "Lycia decided to break the agreement, and we dealt with them accordingly".

10 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

The thing is, regardless, it's in Etruria's interest to keep Lycia on their SOI. They can't abandon it to Bern since then the balance of power reached when each country now effectively had half the continent in their control/influence would be broken into Bern's favor, which Etruria wouldn't want. Lycia itself, while a protectorate, is still autonomous. If they start imposing themselves too much on them, Eliwood can start making noises of "Keep going and perhaps now our next call of help will be to Bern". Even if Eliwood may not want that, it's leverage at his disposal; and Etruria knows this and might not want to press their chances. The main Army may have been sent to the Western Isles; but Lycia wasn't left completely defenseless. Considering how the army itself was at ARaphen yet places like Laus, Thria, and Ostia still had plenty of soldiers around, that means Lycia still has an army in the form of their local levies to defend themselves; and a war with Lycia, even if Etruria will win, won't be good since then BErn can capitalize on the situation. The important detail to consider here is that: Roy is quite aware of this situation. He knows Lycia is protected enough from any possible fallout of his actions, which is why he's willing to disobey orders to help the people who aren't as protected.

Before Lycia became its head, Ostia was.  Bern killed the head of Ostia.  As a result, Ostia wound up being Etruria's protectorate.  Thus, a call for help to Bern wouldn't be seen in a good light from Ostia - and this would be right after things began to stabilize.  Thus, Eliwood may very well be faced with a rebellion within a rebellion.  Laus' position would be really interesting - on one hand, Erik wanted to ally with Bern, but on the other, it was Roy who killed off their head.  Araphen/Thria were more-or-less turned into a non-issue (though Thria would most likely side with Eliwood, given its former lord), leaving Pherae, who would most likely follow Eliwood.

I'm sure Roy knows what's going on, but whether or not it's moral to put your own people in that kind of situation, for the sake of an unknown group, heavily depends on your morals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my perspective, moral grey is where no side is absolutely right and wrong.

The stories in FE generally forgoes the morally grey and tends to actually be more black and white morality.

Lopto Sect suffered persecution? Well, they worship an evil god that likes to perform child hunts. No moral grey, but just moral black there, so anyone that would kill them all is the morally white side. Hence why Seliph can just slaughter them all and get away with it, cause they are the obvious evil.

Medeus's kind were persecuted? Who cares, because the story don't. They only explain it only in the sequel, where Medeus is not even a factor. Even the first story he was hardly a factor. If anything, Medeus was presented as this personification of evil.

Micaiah was morally grey as well, but it's undermined by the fact that she's forced to do things as a result of the the Blood Contract, which is something almost everyone hated. Of course, Ike is willing to side with the Laguz Alliance, starting a war with Begnion that nearly destroys all life on the continent, ie. Lehran's Medallion, but the Alliance were trying to oppose the genocidal Begnion Senate, who are racist pricks that should all be killed, so I don't tend to see people really call Ike out on how he's actually on the aggressor's side overall in the war and nearly got everyone killed, and instead, Micaiah is the one that gets called out on more often. 

Dimitri is plenty morally grey because of how atrocious and horrific his behavior was, where he wanted to slaughter anyone that he viewed as an enemy, and would butcher people and torture them just to prove some sick point. But because he's insane and then regains his sanity in AM, it's almost like people would separate the two people as if they are not the same person. But he's still very much guilty of the things he did and had done. I mean, saying sorry and being pitiful does not change the things he did. Yet for some reason, he's on the morally white side still, with just shades of grey.

Claude, due to not being insane or go off on the deep end, ends up being morally grey only in regards to some of his scheming, but still is morally white due to how he just wanted to end racism, and it's not like he started the war. Apparently people don't realize that capitalizing on war is still pretty messed up and horrible, and the fact that his goals still involved uniting the continent. But since he did not start the war, he's apparently clean. Or cleaner. 

Edelgard is morally grey, but viewed more on the moral black scale, because she started a war and works with the obvious evils. Despite the many legit reasons and the goals she seeks for herself that would help, the fact that she does these two things already have plenty of people hating on her. I don't see anyone ever going on about how Edelgard's done nothing wrong, because even fans of her know that she's not doing the morally right thing. She starts a war.

But I have to wonder. 

If she started a war, and the Church was the obvious evil, would she get called out nearly as much? Or if she was the only route? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...