What alignment are the Three Houses characters?

[Darkmoon6789]

If anyone familiar with the Dungeons & Dragons alignments. What character do you think belongs to what alignment?

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

 

Personally,  this is my reading.

Edelgard: chaotic good

The girl has a good heart and the best of intentions, but she is very much against traditions, and the oppressive effect such traditions can have on people. Edelgard follows her own moral compass and will do what she thinks is right, regardless of what other people or society as a whole thinks. To achieve what she considers her ideal society. She is willing to plunge the world into chaos to rebuild it anew. Saw her listed as lawful evil on another site, but I don't think this is accurate. Mainly that, because according to the alignment system, the evil alignment usually points to selfish motivations.

 

Hubert: lawful evil/lawful neutral

This is a tricky one, Hubert is incredibly loyal to Edelgard, but is willing to go pretty far to serve his mistress, further than even Edelgard. And unlike Edelgard he doesn't do so, as much for the greater good. As much as to protect and serve a single person, he cares about. His loyalty definitely makes him lawful, but I am uncertain of is if his casual murder and assassination makes him of the evil alignment, even if it usually requires selfish motivations, but Hubert doesn't do it to benefit himself as much as to benefit Edelgard.

 

Dimitri: lawful good

Dimitri have the best of intentions, and believe in preserving life, order and peace. He is often unwilling to accept that sacrifices is sometimes necessary, and will do anything to protect those he think is getting trampled on by the strong. Even his dark side is ultimately lawful good as this side of him is overly focused on justice and the punishment of evildoers, which are usually associated with this alignment, regardless of how destructive. Dimitri is basically a retribution Paladin and represents really well both the bad and the good of this alignment. Good in that he protects the innocent and promotes order and stability, bad in that it can get overly sadistic in punishing those he sees as evil.

 

Rhea: lawful good

She believes order stability and peace needs to be prioritised by any cost, as she has seen just how bad things can get when things get out of hand. While she is kind to those who obey the laws. She is incredibly uncompromising towards those who break her laws and traditions. But she isn't evil as she doesn't do this to promote her own power as much as she generally believes this is what is best for the world. 

 

Claude: neutral good

Claude is a good guy, he desires for everyone to be treated equally regardless of where they are from and wants to unite all people under one banner of tolerance. His primary fault is just that he is often unwilling to go to extreme measures to achieve his goals. Which often means that without help. He is often times not successful.

 

Thales: chaotic evil

he wants revenge against the church and is willing to raise the world to the ground to do it. Unlike Edelgard he doesn't have a greater good in mind while spreading destruction across Fodlan. He is also responsible for genocide, causing multiple wars and torturing innocent children all to destabilise the region to make it easier to fulfil his plans. 

[Benice]

I agree with all of these, except perhaps chaotic neutral for Edelgard, as I believe in the player's handbook, the ideal "the ends justify the means" is neutral. However, I don't really want to go too much into that because we don't need Edelgard story discussion No. 567356389728126529

I guess I'll pitch in some more:

Alois: Chaotic good.

Kronya: Chaotic good evil

Dorothea: Chaotic neutral

Gatekeeper: Lawful good.

[haarhaarhaar]

I'm not an expert on DnD (my first game got a few sessions in but then corona hit) but as I understand it, the morality compass in D&D is absolute, and quite rigid. By that I mean there is such a thing as objectively good and objectively evil, and what is good and evil roughly corresponds to what Christian morality has as good and evil (and the neutral alignments cover personal codes).  And certain characters will behave differently depending on route, and very occasionally on recruitment. So, based on their behaviour in one route, they may have a different DnD alignment to what we see of them in a different route. 

A good example might be Nader (am gonna avoid big controversial names, don't need rehashes of the same arguments) who is also from Almyra, a nation not subject to the faux-Christianity of Fodlan.

If you're on VW, he's chaotic good - committed to fighting, and so doesn't take advantage of Claude, but not above trickery and deceit for his aims, as well as being brash and disrespectful to other potential authority. If you play CF and kill Claude, he's technically lawful neutral - he fulfils his agreement with Claude, but commits himself to avenging Claude's death. If you don't kill Claude, he's chaotic neutral - his personal relationship with Claude means he fights for him, but will act for his own benefit at all times, and does not display any 'traditional' kind of honour. 

Anyway, other less controversial alignments:

Shamir - true neutral

Manuela - chaotic good

Hanneman - neutral good

 

 

[Darkmoon6789]

32 minutes ago, Benice said:

I agree with all of these, except perhaps chaotic neutral for Edelgard, as I believe in the player's handbook, the ideal "the ends justify the means" is neutral. However, I don't really want to go too much into that because we don't need Edelgard story discussion No. 567356389728126529

I guess I'll pitch in some more:

Alois: Chaotic good.

Kronya: Chaotic good evil

Dorothea: Chaotic neutral

Gatekeeper: Lawful good.

At least I can accept chaotic neutral, but this would also mean that Rhea is also lawful neutral for the exact same reason. Though I would argue that in Crimson Flower Edelgard did slowly go towards chaotic good, even if she wasn't previously. After the end of the war, she would be mostly benevolent. 

I am actually more interested in debating whenever Hubert is lawful evil or lawful neutral, was creating him as a character in pathfinder, I am honestly stumped over what alignment to give him. Granted, maybe I should go with lawful evil, just because I think he would be willing to use evil aligned spells. 

Any reason Dorothea isn't chaotic good?

Would you say Ferdinand is a lawful good?

[haarhaarhaar]

1 minute ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Hubert is lawful evil or lawful neutral

I think CF Hubert is lawful neutral - if a servant is lawful evil, then the person he serves probably has to be evil. But for other routes where Edelgard's alignment is more controversial, I could definitely see him typed as lawful evil. I guess his typing depends on how you take Edelgard.

Dorothea starts out chaotic neutral I'd say, but furthering her supports with certain people (like Ferdinand) turns her into chaotic good (she lets go of some of the hatred/pain of her past, and with it becomes fairer). 

[darkblade2814]

to me:

Edelgard (all routes): chaotic evil

Demitri in that order in AM (other routes, he stops at chaotic evil): Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil, Chaotic Neutral, Neural good

Claude (all routes): Neutral good

Yuri (all routes): Chaotic Good

Seteth (all routes): Lawful good

Fylin (all routes): Neutral good

Hubert (all routes): Lawful evil

Dedue (all routes): Lawful Neutral

Hilda (all routes): Neutral good

Balthus (all routes): Chaotic Good

Thales (all routes): Neutral Evil

Rhea (all routes): True Neutral, except for CF where she is chaotic evil

Edited April 25, 2020 by darkblade2814

[eclipse]

This is a reminder that "Chaotic Stupid" isn't an alignment (even if it should be for certain DnD players), and I will be handing out warnings for such things.  Retroactively.

Edited April 25, 2020 by eclipse

[darkblade2814]

6 minutes ago, eclipse said:

This is a reminder that "Chaotic Stupid" isn't an alignment (even if it should be for certain DnD players), and I will be handing out warnings for such things.  Retroactively.

comment edited

[Darkmoon6789]

6 minutes ago, eclipse said:

This is a reminder that "Chaotic Stupid" isn't an alignment (even if it should be for certain DnD players), and I will be handing out warnings for such things.  Retroactively.

It is usually used to describe players that can't play chaotic neutral properly and just do whatever they want regardless if it makes any sense or not. As someone who frequently plays chaotic neutral characters. I do usually mind the stigma around this alignment.  

Most characters I play of this alignment are usually some kind of thrillseeker who care about their own enjoyment first and foremost, but don't go out of their way to hurt other people or helping them. 

There is also another term, lawful stupid that the first two players playing paladins in a really annoying fashion. I did make a character once just to make fun of this trope, a holy knight so devoted to his code of conduct that he will never lie, or retreat, regardless of the situation. Died giving his life in honourable combat. 

31 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

I think CF Hubert is lawful neutral - if a servant is lawful evil, then the person he serves probably has to be evil. But for other routes where Edelgard's alignment is more controversial, I could definitely see him typed as lawful evil. I guess his typing depends on how you take Edelgard.

Dorothea starts out chaotic neutral I'd say, but furthering her supports with certain people (like Ferdinand) turns her into chaotic good (she lets go of some of the hatred/pain of her past, and with it becomes fairer). 

The way I see it Hubert pretty much always is a darker character than Edelgard, he is pretty much always the person who suggested some of Edelgard's more controversial decisions and frequently goes behind her back to do to do what he knows she wouldn't approve of, because he believes that it is necessary to protect her. For that reason, I do think his alignment could be separate from Edelgard. All honestly I do not see much of a difference in Edelgard's morality between routes, she is at her best in Crimson Flower, but she is always well-intentioned and noble to some extent. Her basic nature doesn't actually change as much between routes as I was originally led to believe. I don't think she is ever evil, but she does have evil allies. It kind of depends on what you think about guilt by association. 

(Seems that I am unable to not talk about Edelgard, typical of me really)

What about Jeritza? I originally considered him chaotic evil but I have later changed my mind, he is actually incredibly loyal, follows orders without question and seeks to fight only worthy opponents. A friend of mine actually pointed out that he pretty much never slaughter civilians for the sake of it, he kills soldiers who are fighting back. This is the reason he never attacks you first in the first mission you encounter him, he doesn't consider you worthy yet but will and himself if attacked. So my final conclusion is lawful neutral. Either that or lawful evil, but he isn't really out for himself, but he does slaughter quite a lot of people with no issues, lawful evil characters actually frequently are quite honourable and do have a code of conduct.

[eclipse]

Just now, Darkmoon6789 said:

It is usually used to describe players that can't play chaotic neutral properly and just do whatever they want regardless if it makes any sense or not. As someone who frequently plays chaotic neutral characters. I do usually mind the stigma around this alignment.  

Most characters I play of this alignment are usually some kind of thrillseeker who care about their own enjoyment first and foremost, but don't go out of their way to hurt other people or helping them. 

There is also another term, lawful stupid that the first two players playing paladins in a really annoying fashion. I did make a character once just to make fun of this trope, a holy knight so devoted to his code of conduct that he will never lie, or retreat, regardless of the situation. Died giving his life in honourable combat.

Playing DnD literally and stupidly is in the hands of the player, not the characters.  Since FE characters are pre-written, their motivations are out of the player's hands, hence why it's not appropriate for a topic like this.

I haven't chimed in with my thoughts, because it's a bit more complicated than that.  Some like Rhea have certain obvious components (lawful), but someone like Claude needs a little more thought (I'm leaning towards "chaotic" for him, given his general disregard for the rules).

[Benice]

1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

At least I can accept chaotic neutral, but this would also mean that Rhea is also lawful neutral for the exact same reason. Though I would argue that in Crimson Flower Edelgard did slowly go towards chaotic good, even if she wasn't previously. After the end of the war, she would be mostly benevolent. 

I am actually more interested in debating whenever Hubert is lawful evil or lawful neutral, was creating him as a character in pathfinder, I am honestly stumped over what alignment to give him. Granted, maybe I should go with lawful evil, just because I think he would be willing to use evil aligned spells. 

Any reason Dorothea isn't chaotic good?

Would you say Ferdinand is a lawful good?

Rhea is definitely Lawful Neutral too.

For Hubert, probably Lawful Evil. Your choice, though.

I chose Dorothea to be chaotic good because she can be rather...Vindictive or not well-meaning. Perhaps I misunderstand her character?

Ferdinand is absolutely Lawful good.

[Slumber]

I would say Hubert is Lawful Neutral to a tee. He will do whatever needs to be done so that Edelgard can see her dreams come true. He himself is a bit of a dick, but yeah. If Edelgard needed him to pet every puppy in Fodlan, he'd do it. If Edelgard needed him to kill every puppy in Fodlan, he'd do it.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Slumber

[Crysta]

My hot takes -

Edelgard = Would put her more on the lawful pole than the chaotic one, oddly enough. While the main conflict of the game is centered on her attempting to subvert an entrenched and corrupt system, her answer is to bring the whole of Fodlan under her own system because she believes it's better. Mind you, it more than likely is, but that is not a solution chaotic characters are likely to choose. A meritocracy is not a democracy. I think she may be an awkward Lawful Neutral who makes her personal code the law of the land and favoring a strong, organized government... just with her at the top.

Dimitri = I find Dimitri is the lord who defers to traditional authority the most when he's not in his boar state. I think he goes from Lawful Good in White Clouds, borderline Chaotic Neutral/Evil when he's in boar mode, then into Neutral Good when he gets out of it and finally needs to start thinking about things. I don't think he'd support a corrupt system no matter how old it is, but he still defaults to "there must be a reason why it's a tradition!" in White Clouds.

Claude = Claude is chaotic good and doesn't even like government when he's the one running it. Which is why he promptly leaves when he wins. 

[Darkmoon6789]

37 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Playing DnD literally and stupidly is in the hands of the player, not the characters.  Since FE characters are pre-written, their motivations are out of the player's hands, hence why it's not appropriate for a topic like this.

I haven't chimed in with my thoughts, because it's a bit more complicated than that.  Some like Rhea have certain obvious components (lawful), but someone like Claude needs a little more thought (I'm leaning towards "chaotic" for him, given his general disregard for the rules).

Chaotic good also sounds about right for a Claude. The way I see it, the difference between the three good alignments is between favouring different concepts above others. Lawful good favours security and justice, which often leads them down and eye for and eye form of justice often focusing on punishing and eradicating evil for the sake of protection. Neutral good is usually more about valuing redemption and someone's right 

to to improve themselves and become a better person in the future. They are usually more pacifistic and abhore the use of violence, they often disliked the Justice motivated cruelty of the lawful good alignment and the willingness of chaotic good to sacrifice lives for the sake of freedom. 

Chaotic good value freedom above all, even life, while a chaotic neutral character carries about their own personal freedom, a chaotic good character wants to ensure the freedom of all people. Which can often lead them down a path where they fight systems, they find oppressive. Chaotic neutrals are less likely to do this as their concern is just for themselves. Chaotic good characters however are more likely to try to do wide sweeping changes for the sake of an ideology. If they do have the improvement of people's lives at heart. This is why I believe that Edelgard is chaotic good. 

Note that while someone has a good alignment, that doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. It is fully possible for even good alignments to be a danger. Lawful good can sometimes descend into a type of moral absolutism, tolerating no moral flaw and punishing even minor infractions harshly. And as established, chaotic good can oftentimes lead to social upheaval as they try to fight against what they see as oppression. 

It should also be noted that I was willing to give characters. I don't exactly agree with the lawful good alignment, because I believe that that is the actual truth. With Claude a guess I considered his unwillingness to start a conflict would want to neutral good. Granted, this is just my understanding of the alignments as they have a tendency to be quite subjective.

16 minutes ago, Crysta said:

My hot takes -

Edelgard = Would put her more on the lawful pole than the chaotic one, oddly enough. While the main conflict of the game is centered on her attempting to subvert an entrenched and corrupt system, her answer is to bring the whole of Fodlan under her own system because she believes it's better. Mind you, it more than likely is, but that is not a solution chaotic characters are likely to choose. A meritocracy is not a democracy. I think she may be an awkward Lawful Neutral who makes her personal code the law of the land and favoring a strong, organized government... just with her at the top.

Dimitri = I find Dimitri is the lord who defers to traditional authority the most when he's not in his boar state. I think he goes from Lawful Good in White Clouds, borderline Chaotic Neutral/Evil when he's in boar mode, then into Neutral Good when he gets out of it and finally needs to start thinking about things. I don't think he'd support a corrupt system no matter how old it is, but he still defaults to "there must be a reason why it's a tradition!" in White Clouds.

Claude = Claude is chaotic good and doesn't even like government when he's the one running it. Which is why he promptly leaves when he wins. 

That take also makes sense. I did consider putting boar Dimitri in chaotic evil because of how destructive he is, but he is still following a motivation that is more common for lawful good, as he is technically trying to take vengeance, not for himself but because he thinks the dead requires it. But he is also kind of completely insane. Dimitri of all characters tends to go all over the place, I do think is good side to win out in the end, whenever that is lawful good or neutral good. Maybe he is the neutral good, as I mentioned earlier, I usually classify someone as such, if they are opposed to conflict and desire redemption for evildoers rather than vengeance.

Edelgard especially is very difficult to classify, I find it interesting just how many different interpretations there are when it comes to her alignment. Probably proving how much up to personal interpretation it really is. Thing is with Edelgard, it doesn't seem to me that she has much desire is to be emperor as much as she feels it is her obligation to do so, which is a reason she usually abdicates the throne whenever she gets the chance. It seems that she rather want to live a normal life, in that sense she isn't that different from Claude. It is more that she desires someone to be on top, but she seems more than willing to give that power to someone else if she feels like she can trust one with that power. The main reason I considered her chaotic is really her opposition to tradition and methods in achieving her goals, revolutions are usually linked to the chaotic good alignment. I guess you can say she is chaotic during the war and settles into lawful after it. But I definitely think that Edelgard's intentions firmly puts her in the good alignment. But that is because I don't consider it impossible for a good character to have destructive influence on the world, they just have to believe that what we are doing is right. Edelgard is just one of these characters, but it is very difficult to put an alignment on and showing the limits of that system.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Darkmoon6789

[haarhaarhaar]

57 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

What about Jeritza? I originally considered him chaotic evil but I have later changed my mind, he is actually incredibly loyal, follows orders without question and seeks to fight only worthy opponents. A friend of mine actually pointed out that he pretty much never slaughter civilians for the sake of it, he kills soldiers who are fighting back. This is the reason he never attacks you first in the first mission you encounter him, he doesn't consider you worthy yet but will and himself if attacked. So my final conclusion is lawful neutral. Either that or lawful evil, but he isn't really out for himself, but he does slaughter quite a lot of people with no issues, lawful evil characters actually frequently are quite honourable and do have a code of conduct.

Hmm I don't take Chapter 4 into consideration hugely, simply because in Maddening he acts like any other enemy and comes at you if you step in range (although in fairness he claims he doesn't take orders from the boss of that chapter, so his AI on Maddening is probably an example of gameplay mechanics trumping story reasoning). I take your point though, and I think it's fair to say Jeritza has layers, at least. On the one hand, there is his consistent desire to fight strong and interesting people, and his unbending loyalty to Edelgard. On the other, there is the (potentially fake) rumours of him kidnapping innocent village women (as well as actually kidnapping Flayn) and the stabbing of Manuela. The fact that you learn so much more about him and his interactions in CF (like apologising to Manuela), to the point where you may even want to type his personalities separately, means that CF may have to stand on its own. But I can definitely see lawful neutral for Jeritza on other routes, especially given his interaction with Caspar in his paralogue (assuming Caspar defeats him).

One of my issues with 3H is the treatment of TWSITD as the big bad - their entire purpose is to be so unconscionably evil that the player finds nuance in all the other characters. As a result they are responsible for the vast majority of the bad things that happen across any route you take, directly or indirectly. But from the point of view of this thread, I'm wondering which non-TWSITD characters would be typed as evil. Who else in 3H would fall under the evil alignment?

 

[SSbardock84]

• Edelgard- Chaotic Good
• Dimitri- Neutral Good and Chaotic Evil for the two Dimitris
• Claude- Somewhere between Chaotic Good and Neutral Good
• Rhea- Lawful Evil, probably is Chaotic Evil in CF

Edited April 26, 2020 by SSbardock84

[Darkmoon6789]

1 hour ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Hmm I don't take Chapter 4 into consideration hugely, simply because in Maddening he acts like any other enemy and comes at you if you step in range (although in fairness he claims he doesn't take orders from the boss of that chapter, so his AI on Maddening is probably an example of gameplay mechanics trumping story reasoning). I take your point though, and I think it's fair to say Jeritza has layers, at least. On the one hand, there is his consistent desire to fight strong and interesting people, and his unbending loyalty to Edelgard. On the other, there is the (potentially fake) rumours of him kidnapping innocent village women (as well as actually kidnapping Flayn) and the stabbing of Manuela. The fact that you learn so much more about him and his interactions in CF (like apologising to Manuela), to the point where you may even want to type his personalities separately, means that CF may have to stand on its own. But I can definitely see lawful neutral for Jeritza on other routes, especially given his interaction with Caspar in his paralogue (assuming Caspar defeats him).

One of my issues with 3H is the treatment of TWSITD as the big bad - their entire purpose is to be so unconscionably evil that the player finds nuance in all the other characters. As a result they are responsible for the vast majority of the bad things that happen across any route you take, directly or indirectly. But from the point of view of this thread, I'm wondering which non-TWSITD characters would be typed as evil. Who else in 3H would fall under the evil alignment?

 

In my opinion, absolutely no one but I don't give out evil alignment that lightely. 

Edelgard? Absolutely not, I am honestly confused why anyone considers her evil, while you can think what you want about war and whenever that was truly necessary. It doesn't change the fact that she didn't conquer out of a sense of personal power and glory, she legitimately thought that she would improve the lives of the majority of Fodlan. Characters of evil alignment and don't have that type of motivations.

Hubert? Maybe, as we have already talked about, I am uncertain.

Jeritza? sticking with lawful neutral for now

Rhea? Maybe, but yet again. She ultimately has good intentions. Only her Crimson Flower counterpart, I would say is evil

I guess it depends on who you consider to be truly part of the Agarthans. 

A would probably consider every single person involved with approving the experiments done on Edelgard to be evil. Like Duke Aegir. And whoever ordered the massacre on the people of Duscur are evil, I don't care if they killed the king, genocide is still overkill. Am I forgetting someone?

[Dandy Druid]

I hope I'm doing this right, but I'll do the Golden Deer. I'm up for critique.

Claude - Chaotic Neutral

Hilda - Neutral Good

Lorenz - Lawful Neutral

Lysithea - Neutral Good

Raphael - Chaotic Good

Ignatz - Neutral Good

Marianne - True Neutral?

Leonie - Lawful Neutral

Balthus - Chaotic Neutral

[Crysta]

Boarmitri strikes me as more chaotic neutral than evil because he's operating on impulse more than in alignment with any set moral code, but he clearly thinks there's good and evil if his speech about the thieves is any indication. It bleeds into evil when it's clear he's willing to throw the lives of his friends away as long as he gets what he wants.

Rhea is only chaotic evil at the end of CF, when she's at absolute rock bottom. Otherwise I'd put her under the same alignment as Edelgard. They're both comfortable with authority and law when they're the ones arbitrating it, but they both are sincerely doing what they believe is best. They also both prefer having control and doing things themselves, too, which is another mark against Chaotic imo.

They're both willing to step down and forfeit their positions to a worthy successor should they present themselves, but no sooner than that.

EDIT: Yuri's a former Chaotic Neutral turned Chaotic Good.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Crysta

[haarhaarhaar]

11 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

In my opinion, absolutely no one but I don't give out evil alignment that lightely

It's interesting you say that, because as I now understand it pretty much all characters who are happy to kill for any reason that isn't the protection of more lives, self-defence, or in service to an honourable cause (normally self-sacrifice/binding circumstances) belong to an evil alignment in DnD. So looking through FE3H characters there are:

Part I minor villains like Kostas, Miklan and Metodey would be considered evil (neutral, chaotic and lawful respectively).

Then there's VW Dimitri, who goes through a lot of the pain of AM Dimitri but with none of the salvation (and is pretty vicious along the way) - I'm not sure if he counts as an evil alignment, but there's a case for it.

DnD evil alignments don't normally count failure to prevent evil as an evil itself, and that is arguably what preserves Catherine (who at least tries to stop Rhea) as neutral in CF. Cyril in CF is basically amoral - Rhea is his morality, but I'm still undecided on whether that's enough to treat him as evil-aligned or not. Gilbert is harder to judge on that route - he should have the most reason to stop Rhea, but isn't even in the cutscene where Rhea decides to burn Fhirdiad. So Cyril and Gilbert in CF could be argued as evil.

Potentially Aelfric? I think he technically would count as an evil alignment, but depending on if his plan was to murder the Ashen Wolves or just drain a lot of their blood. 

Some of the parent characters, and paralogue villains? Gloucester might be (given Ignatz/Raphael paralogue), Mercedes' stepdad (he seems uncontroversially evil-aligned, but isn't TWSITD I'm pretty sure), Ingrid's suitor (Ingrid/Dorothea paralogue), arguably Maurice, and yeah the leaders of houses Aegir, Vestra and Varley. 

I've probably missed a few - are there others?

 

EDIT: How would people type Nemesis? (I mean original, not VW) Does he count as an evil alignment?

Edited April 26, 2020 by haarhaarhaar

[Darkmoon6789]

11 hours ago, haarhaarhaar said:

It's interesting you say that, because as I now understand it pretty much all characters who are happy to kill for any reason that isn't the protection of more lives, self-defence, or in service to an honourable cause (normally self-sacrifice/binding circumstances) belong to an evil alignment in DnD. So looking through FE3H characters there are:

Part I minor villains like Kostas, Miklan and Metodey would be considered evil (neutral, chaotic and lawful respectively).

Then there's VW Dimitri, who goes through a lot of the pain of AM Dimitri but with none of the salvation (and is pretty vicious along the way) - I'm not sure if he counts as an evil alignment, but there's a case for it.

DnD evil alignments don't normally count failure to prevent evil as an evil itself, and that is arguably what preserves Catherine (who at least tries to stop Rhea) as neutral in CF. Cyril in CF is basically amoral - Rhea is his morality, but I'm still undecided on whether that's enough to treat him as evil-aligned or not. Gilbert is harder to judge on that route - he should have the most reason to stop Rhea, but isn't even in the cutscene where Rhea decides to burn Fhirdiad. So Cyril and Gilbert in CF could be argued as evil.

Potentially Aelfric? I think he technically would count as an evil alignment, but depending on if his plan was to murder the Ashen Wolves or just drain a lot of their blood. 

Some of the parent characters, and paralogue villains? Gloucester might be (given Ignatz/Raphael paralogue), Mercedes' stepdad (he seems uncontroversially evil-aligned, but isn't TWSITD I'm pretty sure), Ingrid's suitor (Ingrid/Dorothea paralogue), arguably Maurice, and yeah the leaders of houses Aegir, Vestra and Varley. 

I've probably missed a few - are there others?

 

EDIT: How would people type Nemesis? (I mean original, not VW) Does he count as an evil alignment?

Kind of completely forgot about Kostas. I think he would be either neutral evil or chaotic evil. As for Metodey I do question why Edelgard employ him. He doesn't exactly make her side look good. I do have some sympathy for Miklan however, due to his past, but I guess he is a bandit. But I get the feeling he wouldn't be the same person. If he was born with a crest.

The thing is that for me for someone to qualify for an evil alignment someone need to not only be willing to kill they must also enjoy the act of killing and bringing suffering to others. Which disqualifies any person who dislikes seeing or is disturbed by war and death from being evil. Which is actually most of this game's cast.  

As a general rule, the truly evil aligned characters seems to be very minor, with the exception of the Agarthans. I guess harming someone for the sake of furthering personal power would also be evil. Most of the corrupt Empire nobility would probably be lawful evil. The exception being Arundel, who is much more destructive and therefore chaotic evil. 

Aelfric is actually quite hard to qualify, his motivation is technically the sacrifice and absolutely insane number of people in order to revive his old crush. Doesn't seem that he cares about the consequences, as long as he gets his way. But they would argue his desire to resurrect Sitri at the expense of other lives is far more selfish than the likes of Edelgard, who doesn't do what she does just for herself. I get the impression he once was lawful good, but his selfish motivations are very much neutral evil. 

[meteorblade]

I find Edelgard changes too much depending on the route, but overall I'd say true neutral, she does what she believes is right.

Dimitri: Lawful good to a fault, Dedue states that the reason Dimitri suffers so much is his kindness and trust. He trusts very easily and can't handle negative situations well. This is why he changes so much in the timeskip, he's consumed by his trust in Edelgard, his only family, being broken. He gets himself consumed by his own negative thoughts and his perceived purpose in life.

Claude: Chaotic good. Questions authority and the ways of the world. Not above an odd scheme but doesn't want to kill anyone, cares for his allies.

Rhea: True neutral or lawful evil. She does what she thinks is right, however this includes forcing an entire continent in a closed system where disobedience is met with harsh punishment. She hates humans for what Nemesis did while knowing that he was deceived by TWSITD

Yuri: Chaotic neutral or true neutral. He will lie and cheat, but he does it only out of necessity, his gang are just people stealing to survive and he was willing to commit murder to protect those he cares about. However he's not a bad person, he wants to do all he can to help others like him.

[Darkmoon6789]

10 minutes ago, catsorbet said:

I find Edelgard changes too much depending on the route, but overall I'd say true neutral, she does what she believes is right.

Dimitri: Lawful good to a fault, Dedue states that the reason Dimitri suffers so much is his kindness and trust. He trusts very easily and can't handle negative situations well. This is why he changes so much in the timeskip, he's consumed by his trust in Edelgard, his only family, being broken. He gets himself consumed by his own negative thoughts and his perceived purpose in life.

Claude: Chaotic good. Questions authority and the ways of the world. Not above an odd scheme but doesn't want to kill anyone, cares for his allies.

Rhea: True neutral or lawful evil. She does what she thinks is right, however this includes forcing an entire continent in a closed system where disobedience is met with harsh punishment. She hates humans for what Nemesis did while knowing that he was deceived by TWSITD

Yuri: Chaotic neutral or true neutral. He will lie and cheat, but he does it only out of necessity, his gang are just people stealing to survive and he was willing to commit murder to protect those he cares about. However he's not a bad person, he wants to do all he can to help others like him.

Doesn't doing what you believe is right automatically qualify you for the good alignment? At least that is my reading of the alignment system. This would apply both to Edelgard and Rhea, but I do feel that Rhea is the darker character of the two. I actually can't decide whenever the Archbishop is lawful good, lawful neutral or lawful evil. The only reason I don't think she is lawful evil is that she does believe she is protecting the world from another catastrophe, but her authoritarian policies does make this a good fit otherwise. But lawful evil also kind of have a requirement of someone using law and order to benefit themselves above others, so it isn't a perfect fit.

So you would say that Edelgard has different alignments, depending on the route? I am not so sure myself as I didn't actually notice a major difference in her other than how much she trusts other people, with Crimson flower Edelgard being the only one truly capable of opening up and trusting other people with her true feelings. She usually tries to bury her emotions and be self-reliant in order to get done what she feels needs to be done. Crimson flower Edelgard, unlike her azure moon counterpart is capable of putting her trust in other people, and doesn't consider relying on others a negative. But is this difference enough to change her alignment? I actually barely see Edelgard in non-Crimson flower routes so it is hard to judge how different she truly is from such little interaction. But I can say one thing for sure, she is always noble, well-intentioned and self-sacrificing. Traits I associate with good. 

I really put down Edelgard as chaotic because of her opposition to tradition and questioning the ruling authority of the land, she just doesn't respect the rank given by birth. But it is also possible to argue that she is indeed lawful, just a different kind of lawful from Rhea as they both believe in law and order, but have different ideas about what that order should be. Still I have mentioned elsewhere how similar I think she is to Claude. Maybe she is either neutral good or true neutral as she has aspects of law and chaos. Maybe her Crimson flower counterpart is a variant of the good alignment and in other routes either lawful neutral, true neutral or chaotic neutral. 

The only version I would accept as evil is Hegemon Edelgard thanks to some of the things she says in this form, but as she wasn't like this previous to the transformation I am willing to bet that the transformation itself distorted her thought pattern, Edelgard even warns her followers before she goes through with it to keep their distance from her as she can't guarantee what she will be like during the transformation. So this isn't really her and even here, she still has a glimmer of good intentions.
 

[haarhaarhaar]

I think the exact issue with DnD is that there aren't supposed to be subjectively good alignments. You can have personal codes, but if that personal code doesn't align with a specific idea of moral good (stuff like always be kind to others, all life is sacred, causing pain to others ought to be avoided at all costs etc.) then you're technically a neutral character. If anything, I swing the opposite to @Darkmoon6789 in that I'm wary of giving any character a good alignment unless they are genuinely uncontroversial goody two-shoes types, or show a very consistent commitment to helping people/saving lives because it is 'the right thing to do' (rather than because of taking orders etc.). I don't think that a character who believes that they are doing the right thing and does it is good-aligned, unless what they believe is right maps exactly onto DnD moral goodness. A lot of FE3H characters are 'good' that still don't fall into the DnD good alignment.

So both Edelgard and Rhea are at best neutral on all routes, and potentially evil by my count. Their aspirations are certainly noble most of the time (which is what would keep them at neutral) although in their respective worst moments they choose to spite Byleth at the cost of more lives (Hegemon is a danger to everyone, Rhea burns Fhirdiad even though it's likely she loses). Even if you can justify those things, the actions themselves are evil-aligned. Their respective views of an ideal society also both inherently don't match the 'good' alignment - Edelgard basically creates a continent-wide junta, Rhea is a control-freak wielding religious doctrine. 

They are also both lawful, in that they both believe that a correct society springs from a correct ordering of societal hierarchy. The fact that they disagree on what that hierarchy entails doesn't change their lawful nature.

So Edelgard and Rhea are lawful evil in AM/CF respectively. I think madness excuses you from the normal alignment system (unless the character is permanently insane) so SS Rhea might still be neutral (and is certainly neutral in VW), and Edelgard is lawful neutral in all routes apart from AM.

[Darkmoon6789]

26 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

I think the exact issue with DnD is that there aren't supposed to be subjectively good alignments. You can have personal codes, but if that personal code doesn't align with a specific idea of moral good (stuff like always be kind to others, all life is sacred, causing pain to others ought to be avoided at all costs etc.) then you're technically a neutral character. If anything, I swing the opposite to @Darkmoon6789 in that I'm wary of giving any character a good alignment unless they are genuinely uncontroversial goody two-shoes types, or show a very consistent commitment to helping people/saving lives because it is 'the right thing to do' (rather than because of taking orders etc.). I don't think that a character who believes that they are doing the right thing and does it is good-aligned, unless what they believe is right maps exactly onto DnD moral goodness. A lot of FE3H characters are 'good' that still don't fall into the DnD good alignment.

So both Edelgard and Rhea are at best neutral on all routes, and potentially evil by my count. Their aspirations are certainly noble most of the time (which is what would keep them at neutral) although in their respective worst moments they choose to spite Byleth at the cost of more lives (Hegemon is a danger to everyone, Rhea burns Fhirdiad even though it's likely she loses). Even if you can justify those things, the actions themselves are evil-aligned. Their respective views of an ideal society also both inherently don't match the 'good' alignment - Edelgard basically creates a continent-wide junta, Rhea is a control-freak wielding religious doctrine. 

They are also both lawful, in that they both believe that a correct society springs from a correct ordering of societal hierarchy. The fact that they disagree on what that hierarchy entails doesn't change their lawful nature.

So Edelgard and Rhea are lawful evil in AM/CF respectively. I think madness excuses you from the normal alignment system (unless the character is permanently insane) so SS Rhea might still be neutral (and is certainly neutral in VW), and Edelgard is lawful neutral in all routes apart from AM.

I am actually rather confused of why Azure Moon Edelgard would have a different alignment than the rest. The Hegemon thing is more reckless than evil in my eyes, even if it is able it is also literally the only such action does in the entire game and it isn't anywhere near as bad as Rhea burning down the capital of the kingdom. I could be wrong but I don't even think Hegemon actually attacks her allies. The one who seems to bear the brunt of the sacrifice is Edelgard herself, there is no guarantee she would survive such a transformation. But it is essentially the same thing that Dedue does in Crimson Flower, is he also of evil alignment?

The alignment in Dungeons & Dragons technically corresponds to cosmic forces, that much is correct. Good would be defined by the good aligned gods as a unit, there are also forces that basically manifest the evil alignments. Though hilariously enough under my interpretation Asmodeus, the ruler of the nine hells and basically the embodiment of lawful evil might not actually be evil aligned as it does seem like he does truly believe that he is providing a necessary function for the universe and does what he thinks is necessary to fight against the threat posed by the Demons. Asmodeus is all about order and tries to corrupt mortal souls in order to send them to hell. So he can use them as foot soldiers in the eternal war to protect the multiverse from the Demons. So he actually doesn't have the worst of motivations.

When it comes to Edelgard, I think the absolute best version of her is at the end of Crimson Flower. I do think that Edelgard as a future ruler of Fodlan would probably be a lot more benign than she has been previously. As it is very likely that she would develop a reluctance to go to war ever again because of her previous experiences . She is also more in touch with her emotions by now. And is capable of great acts of kindness and mercy. So for this version, I would say lawful good

Still, I would argue that alignment that very nature is subjective as it is ultimately the GM who is the arbiter of what counts as what alignment. But it is fun to discuss these things. But would totally be the type of GM would remove the Paladin's powers for killing orc children thinking it was okay because orcs are all of the chaotic evil alignment. Same with slaughtering a village full of Tieflings, don't care if they have the blood of devils or demons, killing someone because of their species is an evil act.