What alignment are the Three Houses characters?

[meteorblade]

My reasoning is that she is really the visible main antagonist in all routes but her own, and you here from different characters what she's doing. Like if you're playing Silver Snow and you do Bernie and Petra's paralogue, they're trying to keep brigid under their thumb and are actually there persuading Petra's grandfather.

In Verdant Wind, she's not seen as severe as she is in other two, whereas in her own route, things are set up that she's stopping the war herself and you have Rhea basically using Dimitri and setting Fhirdiad on fire while there's people still there.

[haarhaarhaar]

26 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

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?

Interesting question - I normally take it as a good-aligned character prioritises life before everything. So Edelgard is defeated once, and then uses the Crest Stone instead of surrendering. There is no future where she could continue to lead the Empire as a monster. So not only is she basically ceding power to TWSITD (losing sight of her own goals, and giving into to actual genocide-mongers) she is also choosing a kamikaze attempt to kill Byleth and Dimitri (and theoretically everyone else if she were to actually win), even though nothing productive can now come of this transformation. She has lost sight of her objectives at this point (CF reveals that she still preferred angry Dimitri to TWSITD) and decided to spitefully kill everyone. The action is evil-aligned, because it chooses destruction over being constructive.

EDIT: Again I haven't played AM, so I can't vouch for whether she does anything else evil or not on that route. But even if Hegemon isn't on the same level as Fhirdiad (which it isn't), one significantly evil action is enough to make a character evil by DnD moral standards.

Compare that with Dedue. He is not the only character in that chapter to pull a transformation (depending on how you play the level) and he may not even transform depending on what happens. But assuming that he does, he does it with Crest Stones passed to him by Rhea (Dimitri doesn't have any and expresses surprise when Dedue does this, showing it wasn't his order) for the sake of protecting Dimitri. I haven't played AM so I don't know a ton about how he appears on that route, but in CF his loyalty to Dimitri doesn't waver, and he transforms in an attempt to protect Dimitri/stall Edelgard. There is still potentially hope of them winning the battle at this point - Rhea and the Church of Seiros fighters are alive, and there is potential for plenty of reinforcements. Other Blue Lions aside from Dimitri may be alive too. Dedue is acting in self-sacrifice at this point, so it's pretty difficult to type him as evil here (even if you think CF Dimitri is evil, which I don't think he is).

26 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

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

I think the key here is that for DnD good alignments, the ends do not justify the means. I agree with what you're saying, but you can't be retroactively 'good'. Edelgard's actions even in CF constitute plunging everyone into war, letting allies turn people into monsters, betraying a ton of people etc. etc. While a lot of it is justifiable (I don't wanna start the Edelgard debate again) it doesn't make her good in CF (by DnD standards).

Edited April 28, 2020 by haarhaarhaar

[Darkmoon6789]

6 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Interesting question - I normally take it as a good-aligned character prioritises life before everything. So Edelgard is defeated once, and then uses the Crest Stone instead of surrendering. There is no future where she could continue to lead the Empire as a monster. So not only is she basically ceding power to TWSITD (losing sight of her own goals, and giving into to actual genocide-mongers) she is also choosing a kamikaze attempt to kill Byleth and Dimitri (and theoretically everyone else if she were to actually win), even though nothing productive can now come of this transformation. She has lost sight of her objectives at this point (CF reveals that she still preferred angry Dimitri to TWSITD) and decided to spitefully kill everyone. The action is evil-aligned, because it chooses destruction over being constructive.

Compare that with Dedue. He is not the only character in that chapter to pull a transformation (depending on how you play the level) and he may not even transform depending on what happens. But assuming that he does, he does it with Crest Stones passed to him by Rhea (Dimitri doesn't have any and expresses surprise when Dedue does this, showing it wasn't his order) for the sake of protecting Dimitri. I haven't played AM so I don't know a ton about how he appears on that route, but in CF his loyalty to Dimitri doesn't waver, and he transforms in an attempt to protect Dimitri/stall Edelgard. There is still potentially hope of them winning the battle at this point - Rhea and the Church of Seiros fighters are alive, and there is potential for plenty of reinforcements. Other Blue Lions aside from Dimitri may be alive too. Dedue is acting in self-sacrifice at this point, so it's pretty difficult to type him as evil here (even if you think CF Dimitri is evil, which I don't think he is).

I think the key here is that for DnD good alignments, the ends do not justify the means. I agree with what you're saying, but you can't be retroactively 'good'. Edelgard's actions even in CF constitute plunging everyone into war, letting allies turn people into monsters, betraying a ton of people etc. etc. While a lot of it is justifiable (I don't wanna start the Edelgard debate again) it doesn't make her good in CF (by DnD standards).

Wait, so you haven't actually played AM? Are you sure you understand the Hegemon thing to make the correct interpretation of that in that case?

I saw it has nothing more than a desperate gamble to win and then hopefully revert back to her normal form. Did you ever watch the scene of Edelgard having the debate with Dimitri before the speech of the capital? Does Edelgard usually want to kill people out of spite? 

She did definitely lose sight of herself, but I don't think it is as bad as you claim. It was also an act of self-sacrifice, just as with Dedue, I think you are blatantly consistent with considering the fact that the different when they aren't. They are both desperate gamble to win and carry the exact same risks. 

I also used to have the misconception that Edelgard was a lot worse in AM before I actually played it, after which I realise that this claim was greatly exaggerated. I would recommend actually going through it. Though I have to admit I did feel cheated that I had been essentially lied to for so long

Also about the retroactively good thing, there is a thing called redemption, if someone becomes a better person by a later point. It is there later alignment that counts as their actual alignment, not the one from the past

[haarhaarhaar]

14 minutes ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Wait, so you haven't actually played AM? Are you sure you understand the Hegemon thing to make the correct interpretation of that in that case?

I saw it has nothing more than a desperate gamble to win and then hopefully revert back to her normal form. Did you ever watch the scene of Edelgard having the debate with Dimitri before the speech of the capital? Does Edelgard usually want to kill people out of spite? 

She did definitely lose sight of herself, but I don't think it is as bad as you claim. It was also an act of self-sacrifice, just as with Dedue, I think you are blatantly consistent with considering the fact that the different when they aren't. They are both desperate gamble to win and carry the exact same risks. 

I also used to have the misconception that Edelgard was a lot worse in AM before I actually played it, after which I realise that this claim was greatly exaggerated. I would recommend actually going through it. Though I have to admit I did feel cheated that I had been essentially lied to for so long

Also about the retroactively good thing, there is a thing called redemption, if someone becomes a better person by a later point. It is there later alignment that counts as their actual alignment, not the one from the past

Yep my knowledge is definitely limited (have seen Youtube clips of a couple scenes/battles, but I haven't watched the whole route). As I understood it, she is only capable of reverting to her normal form through being defeated, as what happened with Miklan and Aelfric. Aelfric is the more relevant example, as he is a Crest-bearer like Edelgard.

The fact that she throws her dagger at Dimitri suggests spite, and she isn't self-sacrificing because her goal of establishing a meritocracy dies when she does (as she herself and Hubert both say in their supports) - her monster transformation is a death-like state. EDIT: Just to clarify this point, because she is the leader, her self-sacrifice would only make sense if she were saving her subjects, which she isn't. Her soldiers are dying for her, not the other way around.

For the record, I quite like Edelgard, and personally think she is both a great character and a moral one. And while I can't speak for what she does or doesn't do on AM as a whole, the rigid rules governing DnD alignments suggest to me that her endgame actions make her evil-aligned on that route. 

Redemption exists, and it's possible (also depending on what pairing you choose) that the epilogue redeems her to the people she has wronged the most, like Byleth. But it doesn't change her moral alignment in the actions of the game (which is what I assumed we were discussing). Even if she counts as lawful good when she is Emperor of Fodlan (which she probably does), that doesn't make her lawful good before that has happened, during the game itself. She isn't evil-aligned on CF, it's just that the bar DnD sets for the good alignment is fairly high.

Edited April 28, 2020 by haarhaarhaar

[Silver-Haired Maiden]

1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

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.

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.

Excuse me, did you just try to argue that Asmodeus isn't evil? Just because someone "provides a necessary service" does not make them NOT EVIL. We're talking about a figure that tortures, executes, sacrifices, and who was evil before ever becoming the ruler of the nine hells. He wants power. He wants control. Just because he recognizes the Abyssal threat does not make him not evil. HaarHaarHaar is right about D&D morality, in D&D the ends do not justify the means. Evil actions are still evil actions no matter your intentions and your DM comment is still a bit erroneous as there are actual rules. The DM can choose to discount those rules but they still exist in canon.

I'd also like to point out that, by D&D alignment standards, very few people would fall under true neutral. It's also important to recognize that just because someone may do a couple of things that are outside a defined morality, that doesn't make them not that morality if the majority of their actions are otherwise. That being said, I don't actually like the morality alignment system because it feels a bit too rigid and I tend to prefer the systems that have more options beyond the standard 9.

Anyway, I guess I'll give a few of my own opinions.

Edelgard: Lawful Neutral
Dimitri: Lawful Good (I don't count PTSD based mental breaks as permanent morality)
Claude: Chaotic Good

Hubert: Lawful Neutral
Dedue: Lawful Neutral leaning Lawful Good
Hilda: Neutral Good

Rhea: Lawful Neutral
Seteth: Lawful Good
Flayn: Neutral Good

Now here's the interesting thing, I don't consider the Agarthans Lawful Evil. They're all Neutral Evil, self serving a**holes.
 

[haarhaarhaar]

 

4 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

I'd also like to point out that, by D&D alignment standards, very few people would fall under true neutral. It's also important to recognize that just because someone may do a couple of things that are outside a defined morality, that doesn't make them not that morality if the majority of their actions are otherwise. That being said, I don't actually like the morality alignment system because it feels a bit too rigid and I tend to prefer the systems that have more options beyond the standard 9

I think I'm in agreement with you that the DnD morality system is very inflexible.

I would also say that it's really prescriptive - for a character to be aligned a certain way all of their actions must be governed by their alignment (or so I'm told). As in, because a character is lawful good, therefore they do X, and would only do X instead of Y or Z in a given situation. Not the other way round, where " because this character does X thing, and lawful good characters also do X, therefore this character must be lawful good". At least, that's how it's supposed to work in theory. Of course, real people never actually act like that, and everyone understands that, which is why no DM would nag a player about it unless something fell seriously outside of the alignment their character has.

But the 'cosmic forces' that exist in DnD, and indeed the characters your DM plays as, are supposed to only act as their alignment dictates. 3H doesn't have those 'cosmic forces' that embody DnD alignments, and that's kind of the point - all their characters are flawed, good characters do bad things and vice versa, so DnD alignments in 3H are never gonna be completely accurate anyway, even if they are supposed to be in DnD.

4 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Now here's the interesting thing, I don't consider the Agarthans Lawful Evil. They're all Neutral Evil, self serving a**holes.

I can see that, but it's definitely up for debate. If the Agarthans hate the Nabateans and scheme against them because they aren't human, then that makes them lawful evil. If they are just using that as an excuse to grab power, that's neutral evil. But we never really find out exactly what kind of society the Agarthans wanted to make, or if they wanted a society at all - just that they hated Nabateans and loved tinkering with crests and magic items. Their villainous motivations and goals aren't very fleshed out on any route, but we have to assume they want control from the shadows in CF, and are willing/forced to fight for control in the open in VW. I'm leaning towards lawful evil for those routes at least, because it seems like their primary goal is eradicating Nabateans and their helpers from human society, and power over Fodlan is a secondary goal, or a means to their ends.

[Darkmoon6789]

5 hours ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Yep my knowledge is definitely limited (have seen Youtube clips of a couple scenes/battles, but I haven't watched the whole route). As I understood it, she is only capable of reverting to her normal form through being defeated, as what happened with Miklan and Aelfric. Aelfric is the more relevant example, as he is a Crest-bearer like Edelgard.

The fact that she throws her dagger at Dimitri suggests spite, and she isn't self-sacrificing because her goal of establishing a meritocracy dies when she does (as she herself and Hubert both say in their supports) - her monster transformation is a death-like state. EDIT: Just to clarify this point, because she is the leader, her self-sacrifice would only make sense if she were saving her subjects, which she isn't. Her soldiers are dying for her, not the other way around.

For the record, I quite like Edelgard, and personally think she is both a great character and a moral one. And while I can't speak for what she does or doesn't do on AM as a whole, the rigid rules governing DnD alignments suggest to me that her endgame actions make her evil-aligned on that route. 

Redemption exists, and it's possible (also depending on what pairing you choose) that the epilogue redeems her to the people she has wronged the most, like Byleth. But it doesn't change her moral alignment in the actions of the game (which is what I assumed we were discussing). Even if she counts as lawful good when she is Emperor of Fodlan (which she probably does), that doesn't make her lawful good before that has happened, during the game itself. She isn't evil-aligned on CF, it's just that the bar DnD sets for the good alignment is fairly high.

I have a very different understanding of the dagger scene, just look at Edelgard's expression before she throws the dagger, there is no hatred in the rise or expression. I think it is pretty clear that the only reason she does this is the same as the reason she chooses to die in verdant wind, she is just trying to force the military to kill her and she knows that the only way he will do this at this point is if she attacks him. Edelgard fears captivity more than death and knows that they both can't coexist in Dimitri's New World as she would never be able to stand living in a world where her vision did not come to pass. That dagger has symbolic value and by giving it back to Dimitri in this fashion. She is essentially telling Dimitri to practice on path in life without her as her attempt to do so has failed. What she says in verdant wind also still rings true, as long as she is alive, people will continue to fight and die for her, the fastest way to end the war is through her death.

I can't be certain, but I think the implication is that these crest beast forms if they do indeed revert upon defeat would also revert at the end of the battle. Still, I would agree that Edelgard didn't really think this through, as they don't think being able to return from this is guaranteed, and is more likely she is willing to take the risk. As a final gambit to win.

You did say yourself that one action doesn't change your alignment as a whole and. This is literally the only action that Edelgard does in Azure Moon that comes anywhere close to being evil. Otherwise she is pretty much the exact same as in verdant wind, she was willing to have a respectful debate with Dimitri, just a day prior, and she did even thank him and called him a dear friend for having given her that dagger that make sure she never lost her heart throughout her intense hardships. With this in mind, I really doubt Edelgard holds any real grudge against Dimitri. But it is a common misconception that Azure Moon Edelgard is more evil, but I don't think it holds true actually playing through that route. Unlike Dimitri, she never actually let this conflict become personal for her, she just recognises that they have an irreconcilable view about what direction the future should take so they have no choice but to battle. It is also worth pointing out that the lit role last thing she does before transforming is to tell her followers to not get close to her because she can't guarantee what she will do after transforming. Which does show some concern over safety. Seems to also suggest that she does intend the transformation to be temporary.

5 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Excuse me, did you just try to argue that Asmodeus isn't evil? Just because someone "provides a necessary service" does not make them NOT EVIL. We're talking about a figure that tortures, executes, sacrifices, and who was evil before ever becoming the ruler of the nine hells. He wants power. He wants control. Just because he recognizes the Abyssal threat does not make him not evil. HaarHaarHaar is right about D&D morality, in D&D the ends do not justify the means. Evil actions are still evil actions no matter your intentions and your DM comment is still a bit erroneous as there are actual rules. The DM can choose to discount those rules but they still exist in canon.

I'd also like to point out that, by D&D alignment standards, very few people would fall under true neutral. It's also important to recognize that just because someone may do a couple of things that are outside a defined morality, that doesn't make them not that morality if the majority of their actions are otherwise. That being said, I don't actually like the morality alignment system because it feels a bit too rigid and I tend to prefer the systems that have more options beyond the standard 9.

Anyway, I guess I'll give a few of my own opinions.

Edelgard: Lawful Neutral
Dimitri: Lawful Good (I don't count PTSD based mental breaks as permanent morality)
Claude: Chaotic Good

Hubert: Lawful Neutral
Dedue: Lawful Neutral leaning Lawful Good
Hilda: Neutral Good

Rhea: Lawful Neutral
Seteth: Lawful Good
Flayn: Neutral Good

Now here's the interesting thing, I don't consider the Agarthans Lawful Evil. They're all Neutral Evil, self serving a**holes.
 

My intention was actually to point out a flaw in my own interpretation of alignment as Asmodeus intentions sure doesn't make him anything but the embodiment of lawful evil, especially as this is what he represents cosmically. But one thing with Asmodeus is that he is really can good at arguing his points and like a true devil. He usually points out that the mortals that make a pact with him and his followers are to blame for her own fate as the terms of the contract was stated when they signed it and it is their own greed and desire for power that condemns them to their future fate. The interesting thing with devils is that they never lie outright, but like a lawyer is often deceptive in their phrasing, so you need to pay close attention to exactly what they are saying. Asmodeus is evil, but he is a very interesting type of evil, and he always keeps his word. So I still argue he is the lesser evil. Compared to the Demon Lords of the abyss, who just represent destruction for the sake of destruction. 

I actually very seldom enforced alignment in game as they usually don't think it is very important, other than as a general framework for what your character is usually like. But most truly interesting characters do break this mould no real person really does stay in one alignment all the time. They do tend to go all over the place. Depending on the situation. 

I actually think the Agarthans are chaotic evil because of their destructive methods and the fact that in their obsession with vengeance. They don't care about what methods they need to use to get revenge at the church. Their general influence is to spread conflict, discontent and chaos across the continent and they don't seem to actually care about building something new after the war is done. Unlike Edelgard. But I guess we don't truly know what we would do if we did achieve a victory. But I do suspect it would involve the genocide of basically all people on the surface world to make room for the Agarthans to dominate alone. They actually have quite a lot of similarities to the drow. Now that I think about it

[haarhaarhaar]

6 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I have a very different understanding of the dagger scene, just look at Edelgard's expression before she throws the dagger, there is no hatred in the rise or expression. I think it is pretty clear that the only reason she does this is the same as the reason she chooses to die in verdant wind, she is just trying to force the military to kill her and she knows that the only way he will do this at this point is if she attacks him. Edelgard fears captivity more than death and knows that they both can't coexist in Dimitri's New World as she would never be able to stand living in a world where her vision did not come to pass. That dagger has symbolic value and by giving it back to Dimitri in this fashion. She is essentially telling Dimitri to practice on path in life without her as her attempt to do so has failed. What she says in verdant wind also still rings true, as long as she is alive, people will continue to fight and die for her, the fastest way to end the war is through her death.

Yep I had a completely different interpretation (especially in the fact of her throwing the dagger, rather than any other way of handing it back). Not to say yours isn't valid though - maybe if I play through the entirety of AM I might take it more in this manner.

To be honest I'm still not convinced about turning into Hegemon being justifiable - she could have done it on VW too, but she only does it in AM. The point of her dying to end the war and save lives also doesn't work because Empire remnants actually rise up in the VW epilogue - her death might be symbolic, but whether she lives by surrendering or dies doesn't change the suffering Fodlan has already undergone or the fact that two sides of a war can't be reconciled so easily, and people she was responsible for will still die for her.

6 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

You did say yourself that one action doesn't change your alignment as a whole and. This is literally the only action that Edelgard does in Azure Moon that comes anywhere close to being evil.

I think the issue you're referring to is one I mentioned in my comment to Silver-Haired Maiden - DnD alignments are absolute, but 3H characters are not. So if Edelgard commits one evil action, she by default can't be a good character in DnD, and even her being lawful neutral is unlikely (if a lawful cause ever motivates you to take lives unnecessarily, that's a lawful evil action). Obviously feel free to disagree whether that's what she actually does, or talk about how moral you find her personally. But DnD alignments are pretty rigid, and if you allow that she has committed an evil action, then that is pretty likely to make her evil-aligned.

To be clear, the reverse is not true - for someone to be DnD good-aligned, all their actions are supposed to be good. By 3H standards, that means the vast majority of actions have to be good rather than all of them, but it still means none of them can be evil.

Similarly, neutral-aligned characters can only perform good-aligned or evil-aligned actions if they happen to match up exactly to whatever code they follow. That seems like the debate we're having, and all I'm saying is that transforming into Hegemon doesn't fit with a neutral outlook on that route, because it isn't a good idea, it actually doesn't help her fulfil her goals, and is motivated by a stubborn refusal to do the right thing/save her remaining soldiers and surrender when she's defeated the first time. Given that we've already established she isn't good-aligned in AM, that only leaves evil alignment. Whether it's fair to describe her as actually evil (in real terms, not DnD ones) is the sort of debate that's been done to death on these forums.

[Darkmoon6789]

56 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Yep I had a completely different interpretation (especially in the fact of her throwing the dagger, rather than any other way of handing it back). Not to say yours isn't valid though - maybe if I play through the entirety of AM I might take it more in this manner.

To be honest I'm still not convinced about turning into Hegemon being justifiable - she could have done it on VW too, but she only does it in AM. The point of her dying to end the war and save lives also doesn't work because Empire remnants actually rise up in the VW epilogue - her death might be symbolic, but whether she lives by surrendering or dies doesn't change the suffering Fodlan has already undergone or the fact that two sides of a war can't be reconciled so easily, and people she was responsible for will still die for her.

I think the issue you're referring to is one I mentioned in my comment to Silver-Haired Maiden - DnD alignments are absolute, but 3H characters are not. So if Edelgard commits one evil action, she by default can't be a good character in DnD, and even her being lawful neutral is unlikely (if a lawful cause ever motivates you to take lives unnecessarily, that's a lawful evil action). Obviously feel free to disagree whether that's what she actually does, or talk about how moral you find her personally. But DnD alignments are pretty rigid, and if you allow that she has committed an evil action, then that is pretty likely to make her evil-aligned.

To be clear, the reverse is not true - for someone to be DnD good-aligned, all their actions are supposed to be good. By 3H standards, that means the vast majority of actions have to be good rather than all of them, but it still means none of them can be evil.

Similarly, neutral-aligned characters can only perform good-aligned or evil-aligned actions if they happen to match up exactly to whatever code they follow. That seems like the debate we're having, and all I'm saying is that transforming into Hegemon doesn't fit with a neutral outlook on that route, because it isn't a good idea, it actually doesn't help her fulfil her goals, and is motivated by a stubborn refusal to do the right thing/save her remaining soldiers and surrender when she's defeated the first time. Given that we've already established she isn't good-aligned in AM, that only leaves evil alignment. Whether it's fair to describe her as actually evil (in real terms, not DnD ones) is the sort of debate that's been done to death on these forums.

But if Edelgard had just given back the dagger, Dimitri would have never killed her, which is her goal at this point. Edelgard really don't want to live. Reason I think my interpretation is correct is because of what she says, before dying in verdant wind, the same reasoning likely applies here as well. But if you only play Azure Moon . I can see why you you would think it was spite. But I try to take more into account than what I see in this route. When it comes to what you say about verdant wind, if this is correct, it just means that Edelgard was mistaken that her death would lead to a quick round to the war, but the argument isn't mine, it is exactly what she says when she asked Byleth to kill her

Personally, as a GM, I will do pretty much never change a players alignment to evil just because of one act, it would be required to be a pattern in order to qualify. Just like one good act wouldn't make it an evil aligned character suddenly good, in order for an alignment shift to occur. It need to be a persistent pattern. Sure, the act itself would still be lawful evil, but that doesn't mean her character as a whole is. If you think overly strict interpretation of the alignment system does restrict intriguing character concepts, there is a reason why penalties for alignment shifts has been removed in later editions, being so strict about them was pretty much never a good idea. Absolute or not, alignment is still somewhat dependent on the interpretations of the given GM. But when it comes to evil alignments, lawful evil is somewhat interesting as it still often includes some level of honour compared to neutral and chaotic evil press, you can almost say that their lawfulness somewhat keeps very evil check. This is even true of Asmodeus, who never goes back on a deal. There is also no way Dimitri is still lawful good if all it takes is one act of evil to shift, he has done way too much evil crap throughout his route. So very few characters in the game would actually be good aligned. I generally think it is near completely impossible for any character to never slip up and do a single evil act, depending of course on the severity of said act. 

I do also think the alignment system is pretty bad at measuring degrees of evil, as I definitely think that Rhea's action of burning down the kingdom's capital is a way more evil action than transforming into the Hegemon Husk. Edelgard could have done something similar, but her desperation move was different and far less destructive. (But it is possible to argue that Hegemon is lawful evil while burning down the capital is chaotic evil, chaotic evil usually ranking us worse when it comes to degrees of evil)

If we put it like this, if I was a divine judge, I would show mercy on Edelgard as I think she is ultimately quite selfless and not at all deserving of hell (that is the nine hells) , but the devil bureaucrats would probably try to argue that her soul is their property anyway and they are pretty adept at interpreting the letter of the law to benefit themselves, and they are definitely the type to argue that her final act in azure moon means her soul belongs to them. This is assuming that Edelgard wouldn't join them willingly as she could very well be convinced by Asmodeus arguments that what they are doing is necessary to protect law and order in the multiverse from the Demons. It is actually question if the good aligned gods are the ones who decide where souls go or if they technically owe certain souls to Asmodeus. Thanks to ancient contracts. That is pretty much the true nature of lawful evil, evil that has found a way to make itself a legitimate part of the ordered multiverse. Would remorse affect the final outcome? Because Edelgard does have a lot of remorse and she never liked inflicting so much suffering, which is what I think truly separates her from a true evil character.

But as you say, it is usually quite challenging to put an alignment on characters that originate outside of Dungeons & Dragons as the alignments aren't usually enough to describe characters who are not of a moral absolute, but it is fun to try to fit them in anyway. The main reason I ask this is because I am making a pathfinder campaign, set in Fodlan, so I am pretty much required to give them some alignment, but as it is set after Crimson Flower, I think I will be going with lawful good for Edelgard, especially now as she has learned from her past mistakes and is now pretty adverse to war and conflict due to being sick of it. In fact, the path I intended to explore for her was one of regret in questioning if what she did was truly the right thing. You did at least manage to convince me of one thing, you're probably right in that Edelgard is probably lawful. Maybe I shouldn't use the alignment system at all, and the setting as it have a distinct lack of God's judging the souls unless we count Sothis. Who I am quite sure it is not actually capable of doing such a thing.

By the way, did you ever discuss what alignment Crimson flower Edelgard falls into? She is better here than everywhere else, I think you said lawful neutral? 

I genuinely feel that discussing good and evil outside of the alignment system is pointless because of its subjective nature, at least the alignment system has a defined definition of good and evil, regardless of how little sense it makes when trying to apply it to reality. 

Also, what class would best suit Byleth? I was thinking Paladin, which would basically force them into lawful good because I am using Pathfinder (basing this on their unique class). Would this be accurate for their alignment? Byleth really isn't that well-defined, but I think they would be good, regardless of route.

[haarhaarhaar]

10 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

But if Edelgard had just given back the dagger, Dimitri would have never killed her, which is her goal at this point. Edelgard really don't want to live. Reason I think my interpretation is correct is because of what she says, before dying in verdant wind, the same reasoning likely applies here as well. But if you only play Azure Moon . I can see why you you would think it was spite. But I try to take more into account than what I see in this route. When it comes to what you say about verdant wind, if this is correct, it just means that Edelgard was mistaken that her death would lead to a quick round to the war, but the argument isn't mine, it is exactly what she says when she asked Byleth to kill her

It's not like I'm that opposed to this interpretation, but it would have been just as easy for her to kill herself with the dagger. The act of throwing it is inherently aggressive, even if it wasn't intended to kill, and off the back of turning into Hegemon (which I agree is not the level of burning Fhirdiad, but is still evil) does her no favours. 

My point about her dying was that her death wasn't a noble act and doesn't save lives, regardless of what she intended it to be. Her intentions are important, sure, but her dying doesn't redeem her life. The difference is in VW she has relatively less to atone for.

10 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

There is also no way Dimitri is still lawful good if all it takes is one act of evil to shift, he has done way too much evil crap throughout his route. So very few characters in the game would actually be good aligned

Silver-Haired Maiden makes a point about mental breaks not counting as part of your alignment, which is arguably what has happened to Dimitri in AM. It's the same for Rhea in SS endgame. I think it's fair to excuse Dimitri from an evil alignment on those grounds (though obviously if there is evidence for him committing evil actions while completely grounded and sane, that's a different story).

And yeah I would agree, very few characters in 3H are actually good-aligned, and that's OK, and I think that was the purpose of the writing - to get us to care about a bunch of flawed individuals, and understand all (or most) of their perspectives, regardless of how good we found them.

10 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I do also think the alignment system is pretty bad at measuring degrees of evil, as I definitely think that Rhea's action of burning down the kingdom's capital is a way more evil action than transforming into the Hegemon Husk.

Agreed. The alignments don't measure degrees of evil or good, just whether someone is evil or good. Kostas is nowhere near as evil as Thales, but both are evil-aligned.

10 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

By the way, did you ever discuss what alignment Crimson flower Edelgard falls into? She is better here than everywhere else, I think you said lawful neutral?

Yeah I said lawful neutral. You spend more time with her in CF than other routes, but I don't think that reveals that she's good-aligned, just that you understand more of her personal code and objectives etc. She's 'better' in that Byleth is with her, so she is more comfortable in letting down personal boundaries, but I don't think Byleth has made her morally better than she is in VW. I think she would have done the same in VW or SS (had she won) as CF, the only exception being AM where she would have been tearing everyone up as Hegemon till TWSITD put her down and made one of their own impersonate her. The fact that her personal code allows for betrayal, lying, and allowing evil to exist and act in her name is what stops her alignment from ever being good (DnD standards, not mine).

11 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Also, what class would best suit Byleth? I was thinking Paladin, which would basically force them into lawful good because I am using Pathfinder (basing this on their unique class). Would this be accurate for their alignment?

Paladin makes sense to me based on Byleth's canon proficiencies (sword, faith, brawling), but maybe Byleth is neutral good? The epilogues have her become Archbishop/advisor to Edelgard/whatever, but if she takes a position of power it's normally because a partner has asked her to or she's felt forced into it, rather than voluntarily because she wants to change and lead the world. Which suggests to me neutral rather than lawful good? Although perhaps you could be creative with Byleth's race in order to allow for a Paladin class that is neutral good? I'm not too sure tbh.

[Darkmoon6789]

10 hours ago, haarhaarhaar said:

It's not like I'm that opposed to this interpretation, but it would have been just as easy for her to kill herself with the dagger. The act of throwing it is inherently aggressive, even if it wasn't intended to kill, and off the back of turning into Hegemon (which I agree is not the level of burning Fhirdiad, but is still evil) does her no favours. 

My point about her dying was that her death wasn't a noble act and doesn't save lives, regardless of what she intended it to be. Her intentions are important, sure, but her dying doesn't redeem her life. The difference is in VW she has relatively less to atone for.

Silver-Haired Maiden makes a point about mental breaks not counting as part of your alignment, which is arguably what has happened to Dimitri in AM. It's the same for Rhea in SS endgame. I think it's fair to excuse Dimitri from an evil alignment on those grounds (though obviously if there is evidence for him committing evil actions while completely grounded and sane, that's a different story).

And yeah I would agree, very few characters in 3H are actually good-aligned, and that's OK, and I think that was the purpose of the writing - to get us to care about a bunch of flawed individuals, and understand all (or most) of their perspectives, regardless of how good we found them.

Agreed. The alignments don't measure degrees of evil or good, just whether someone is evil or good. Kostas is nowhere near as evil as Thales, but both are evil-aligned.

Yeah I said lawful neutral. You spend more time with her in CF than other routes, but I don't think that reveals that she's good-aligned, just that you understand more of her personal code and objectives etc. She's 'better' in that Byleth is with her, so she is more comfortable in letting down personal boundaries, but I don't think Byleth has made her morally better than she is in VW. I think she would have done the same in VW or SS (had she won) as CF, the only exception being AM where she would have been tearing everyone up as Hegemon till TWSITD put her down and made one of their own impersonate her. The fact that her personal code allows for betrayal, lying, and allowing evil to exist and act in her name is what stops her alignment from ever being good (DnD standards, not mine).

Paladin makes sense to me based on Byleth's canon proficiencies (sword, faith, brawling), but maybe Byleth is neutral good? The epilogues have her become Archbishop/advisor to Edelgard/whatever, but if she takes a position of power it's normally because a partner has asked her to or she's felt forced into it, rather than voluntarily because she wants to change and lead the world. Which suggests to me neutral rather than lawful good? Although perhaps you could be creative with Byleth's race in order to allow for a Paladin class that is neutral good? I'm not too sure tbh.

Is it possible that I underestimate just how noble a lawful neutral character are allowed to be? Maybe the fact that I am working from the Pathfinder definitions also makes a difference. I would give post-war Edelgard, the lawful good alignment if it wasn't for its focus on making evil pay, it just isn't something  Edelgard is usually much focused on. 

http://legacy.aonprd.com/ultimateCampaign/campaignSystems/alignment.html

Quote

 

"Lawful Good

Justice is all. Honor is my armor. He who commits a crime will pay. Without law and truth, there is only chaos. I am the light, I am the sword of righteousness. My enemy shall pay in the end. Right is might. My soul is pure. My word is truth.

Core Concepts: Duty, fairness, honor, property, responsibility, right, truth, virtue, worthiness

A lawful good character believes in honor. A code or faith that she has unshakable belief in likely guides her. She would rather die than betray that faith, and the most extreme followers of this alignment are willing (sometimes even happy) to become martyrs.

A lawful good character at the extreme end of the lawful-chaotic spectrum can seem pitiless. She may become obsessive about delivering justice, thinking nothing of dedicating herself to chasing a wicked dragon across the world or pursuing a devil into Hell. She can come across as a taskmaster, bent upon her aims without swerving, and may see others who are less committed as weak. Though she may seem austere, even harsh, she is always consistent, working from her doctrine or faith. Hers is a world of order, and she obeys superiors and finds it almost impossible to believe there's any bad in them. She may be more easily duped by such imposters, but in the end she will see justice is done—by her own hand if necessary."

 

Yeah, I have to admit this really doesn't sound like Edelgard, more like Dimitri really. 

Quote

 

"Lawful Neutral

Order begets order. My word is my bond. Chaos will destroy the world. Respect rank. I live by my code and I'll die by my code. Tradition must continue. Order is the foundation of all culture. I am my own judge.

Core Concepts: Harmony, loyalty, order, organization, rank, rule, system, tradition, word

A lawful neutral character admires order and tradition, or seeks to live by a code. He might fear chaos and disorder, and perhaps have good reason to do so from past experience. A lawful neutral person is not as concerned about who rules him so much as how secure he and his compatriots are, and finds great solace in the normality of society. Such a character may admire the strongest of leaders and punishments if they keep order, and he may support wars against other nations even if his own country is a brutal invader—his only concern is the rightness of the military action.

A lawful neutral character who follows his own code never breaks it willingly, and may become a martyr to defend it." 

 

While not a perfect fit for Edelgard, her dislike of traditions is actually more chaotic in nature than lawful. But that part about supporting wars even if their own country is the invader as their only concern is the rightness of the military action is right on the money for Edelgard. So is the part about following their own code, never breaks it willingly and may become a martyr to defend it. This is all Edelgard in a nutshell. So looking at the Pathfinder definition of the alignments, you're definitely right. She is in fact lawful neutral. The only reason I have doubt is the tradition part. But I guess no character will fit perfectly into an alignment definition.

All this strange thing is that when it comes to judging what is good and evil outside of Pathfinder and Dungeons & Dragons, I don't actually consider the lawful good stands to be necessarily any more objectively right or good than the stance of lawful neutral. This is primarily because lawful good as such an overzealous attitude towards justice, but in extreme cases, I do think it actually ironically leans towards being an evil in its own right. According to my personal morality. It seems like lawful neutral still has a very strong dedication to her own personal code.

Considering using the Grey Paladin archetype for Byleth is that would allow them to be a Paladin and use neutral good instead of lawful good. 

By the way, did Hegemon actually lead to the death of even a single innocent person? I don't actually think so, as I never saw her attack her allies, it is unclear how much control she has in that state, but it does seem to be more than a regular crest beast. I have theorised in the past that crest stones contain the souls of dead dragons (considering that Byleth having a stone in their heart leads to them being directly connected to the soul of Sothis) and that transforming into a crest beast is actually a form of possession by the spirit. They are often violent as they are vengeful towards humanity due to being murdered. Hegemon would be in reality a combination of Edelgard and the rage of a dead Dragon. 

[Crysta]

I don't think Edelgard is naturally opposed to tradition: it's just a particular religion and it's tenets she dislikes and fights, and it's largely due to her personal suffering at that society's hands. She gets rid of the nobility because they are responsible for the suffering of her family. That said, there is still an Emperor in her world, even after she leaves the position - there just isn't an Archbishop.

EDIT: Boarmitri is supposed to be treated as another faucet of his character as a whole instead of just a years-long mental break but I honestly hate it because of inconsistencies such as these lol

Edited April 30, 2020 by Crysta

[Darkmoon6789]

56 minutes ago, Crysta said:

I don't think Edelgard is naturally opposed to tradition: it's just a particular religion and it's tenets she dislikes and fights, and it's largely due to her personal suffering at that society's hands. She gets rid of the nobility because they are responsible for the suffering of her family. That said, there is still an Emperor in her world, even after she leaves the position - there just isn't an Archbishop.

EDIT: Boarmitri is supposed to be treated as another faucet of his character as a whole instead of just a years-long mental break but I honestly hate it because of inconsistencies such as these lol

If the Boar is a genuine part of Dimitri's personality. That would also imply he has a sadistic side and actually enjoys inflicting suffering on those he deems deserving. Which would mean he genuinely has a part of him that is extremely dark. He is still motivated by a lawful good philosophy however. That doesn't necessarily mean that the Boar is a good person. I guess it is more like Dimitri usually represents the better aspects of the lawful good alignment like protecting the innocent and upholding law and tradition to the benefit of the people. The Boar represents the dark side of lawful good, the desire to eradicate and punish what they consider to be evil. 

I guess that Edelgard is really a good fit for lawful neutral then. Though I still have a feeling that she is more merciful than I would usually expect from a lawful neutral. As to me. A character like Judge Dredd who uphold the law, regardless if the law is good or evil is a more pure representation. Edelgard is actually concerned over if the law is morally right or not. But it is the best way to find the medium between her good nature and intentions and her willingness to go quite far to achieve her goals.

[haarhaarhaar]

14 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

By the way, did Hegemon actually lead to the death of even a single innocent person? I don't actually think so, as I never saw her attack her allies, it is unclear how much control she has in that state, but it does seem to be more than a regular crest beast. I have theorised in the past that crest stones contain the souls of dead dragons (considering that Byleth having a stone in their heart leads to them being directly connected to the soul of Sothis) and that transforming into a crest beast is actually a form of possession by the spirit. They are often violent as they are vengeful towards humanity due to being murdered. Hegemon would be in reality a combination of Edelgard and the rage of a dead Dragon. 

Not more so than any other Crest Beast ever actually does during the course of any route (with the exception of Miklan actually, although obviously his transformation is involuntary). The overwhelming majority of Crest Beasts you fight can be killed without themselves killing anybody in the relevant level. I don't think there's any dispute, however, that the reason you fight Crest Beasts is because they are capable of and inclined towards massive destruction - whether they end up doing it or not is besides the point. For what it's worth, I consider beast versions of characters (transformed Miklan, transformed Dedue, Hegemon, Umbral Beast, but not Rhea because she's Nabatean and can control it) as having no alignment, because they have little to no rationality. Edelgard does better on that front than some other beasts (she can form words etc.), but not by much (Maurice talks a lot more fluently than she does, for example). The reason that Edelgard herself is evil is because she knows what turning into Hegemon means, including its destructive potential, and does it anyway. Whether she kills anyone as Hegemon or not is secondary.

Your headcanon is quite interesting - how does the Chalice of Beginnings fit into it? What is the principle behind Crest-bearing humans turning into beasts at all, and is it different to non-bearers? How were Sitri and Byleth were created without the possession occurring straightaway? Sorry that's probably a topic for a different thread, but it'd be cool to explore.

[Darkmoon6789]

25 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Not more so than any other Crest Beast ever actually does during the course of any route (with the exception of Miklan actually, although obviously his transformation is involuntary). The overwhelming majority of Crest Beasts you fight can be killed without themselves killing anybody in the relevant level. I don't think there's any dispute, however, that the reason you fight Crest Beasts is because they are capable of and inclined towards massive destruction - whether they end up doing it or not is besides the point. For what it's worth, I consider beast versions of characters (transformed Miklan, transformed Dedue, Hegemon, Umbral Beast, but not Rhea because she's Nabatean and can control it) as having no alignment, because they have little to no rationality. Edelgard does better on that front than some other beasts (she can form words etc.), but not by much (Maurice talks a lot more fluently than she does, for example). The reason that Edelgard herself is evil is because she knows what turning into Hegemon means, including its destructive potential, and does it anyway. Whether she kills anyone as Hegemon or not is secondary.

Your headcanon is quite interesting - how does the Chalice of Beginnings fit into it? What is the principle behind Crest-bearing humans turning into beasts at all, and is it different to non-bearers? How were Sitri and Byleth were created without the possession occurring straightaway? Sorry that's probably a topic for a different thread, but it'd be cool to explore.

The way I saw it. The reason Edelgard goes through with the transformation is basically out of solidarity to her troops. Many have become crest beasts for her and her cause, so she sees it as nothing more than right that she should make the same sacrifice. It is fully possible she hadn't fully thought through the implications, it happens sometimes with her, especially when she is desperate. Desperate people sometimes doesn't make the best decisions or fully think through their actions. I also don't think there is evidence that Hegemon is uncontrollable or that she will rampaging kill civilians after the battle, I think there is a reason that Hegomon appear far more human than any other crest beast, it does seem to distort her personality, but she still seems to have a semblance of control. We also don't know if a method to reverse it was prepared if she did win the battle. If it can be reversed by being defeated. There are probably other methods. So sorry, I will not consider are evil because of this. I know the transformation is shocking the first time you see it, considering it an evil act is almost a gut reaction, but I don't think it is a logical one. The actual harm caused is a factor that shouldn't be ignored, especially when judging someone after the fact. The fact that no innocents did get hurt is a major factor that could be used in her favour. It is also a pretty last-minute act, which would still mean that Edelgard for most of Azure Moon would still be lawful neutral. Edelgard literally thanks Dimitri for giving her that dagger just before the battle for the capital. She quite obviously isn't spiteful and doesn't hold a grudge against Dimitri. 

I also think that Hegemon only really exists because Azure Moon needed a final boss that was something beyond the regular Edelgard, it seems inconsistent for Edelgard to do something like this, considering how much she usually values her humanity. Maybe the Agarthans talked her into it. There is also the fact that there is mostly Agarthan troops during the Palace mission, something that isn't in the case in verdant wind.

As for the possession theory, I have no idea why it reacts differently with humans with a crest and those without it. But when it comes to Byleth. I would guess it is because Sothis is far more sane than the others, for whatever reason, and haven't lost herself to rage. The chalice of beginnings is all about reanimation, so it wouldn't surprise me if it combined the countless souls of the sacrificed into one being. I don't really understand that artefact completely, I just know that it definitely doesn't do what it was designed for This supposed holy artefact is blood magic and necromancy of the worst kind. Granted, so are crests and crest stones. I don't actually know why I crest on reacts the way it does to the crest of flames in particular. But it is worth pointing out that it has been hinted at being capable of reanimating the bearer as a type of revenant when it comes to Nemesis. Which makes me wonder if this also applies to Edelgard. Which would mean that despite her best attempts to die, it is possible that her crest would eventually bring her back in a similar state such as Nemesis. Poor girl, death would probably be better.

Speaking of Nemesis, I am assuming he would be chaotic evil? He is basically a bandit and unlike in Rhea's Falls history, he was to my understanding by no point a hero. 

[haarhaarhaar]

 

2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

So sorry, I will not consider are evil because of this. I know the transformation is shocking the first time you see it, considering it an evil act is almost a gut reaction, but I don't think it is a logical one.

Hmm it sounds like we're beginning to go round in circles. I can definitely see where you're coming from, and I'm not super opposed to this interpretation anyway. It also might simply be a case of me not having played AM, thus giving Edelgard shorter shrift than she's due on that route. But I'm still not convinced that her alignment isn't lawful evil on AM, and we may have to agree to disagree.

2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

It is fully possible she hadn't fully thought through the implications, it happens sometimes with her, especially when she is desperate. Desperate people sometimes doesn't make the best decisions or fully think through their actions.

I agree that she's desperate by this point too (and so prone to making mistakes). But the extent of Edelgard's desperation/fear is not a debilitating mental condition (like, say, madness). Those things can impact your reason negatively, but I don't believe that they do in this case to a significant enough extent that this action should be dismissed when considering her morality. There is no way on earth that she had not already considered what she would do if she lost, especially since by this point she knows her back is against the wall. Turning into Hegemon was and never would have been the correct answer given her motivations and goals (at the point of AM endgame, she wants to defeat/win over Dimitri then destroy TWSITD, even though many of her most loyal followers are dead). It isn't a DnD-good action, and it doesn't fit with her code.

2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I also don't think there is evidence that Hegemon is uncontrollable or that she will rampaging kill civilians after the battle, I think there is a reason that Hegomon appear far more human than any other crest beast, it does seem to distort her personality, but she still seems to have a semblance of control. We also don't know if a method to reverse it was prepared if she did win the battle. If it can be reversed by being defeated. There are probably other methods.

Back to Hegemon, I think the opposite of your claim is true, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that Hegemon is a wholly rational agent functioning under Edelgard's will, or that there is a peaceful way to undo a Crest beast transformation. We fail to see such a method anywhere else on any route, and even defeat as a method isn't clear. Edelgard and Aelfric are odd ones out - Miklan reverts to his original body but also dies. Dedue dies (though when he dies depends on other decisions you make). The students in Ch. 9 die. Just surviving after being transformed into a Crest beast is an achievement, and Edelgard displaying even rudimentary consciousness is even more amazing. Note that even Dedue's monster form seems to suggest hints of controlling aggression too (he and the other monsters on this chapter don't attack Faerghus soldiers despite not having been tamed like TWSITD-allied beasts are, or however it is that Almyran forces control giant birds). However, what little consciousness she does show (limited speech faculty, basically) does not encourage me to believe she is thinking, or capable of having an alignment as Hegemon. Maurice is an outlier as a human-turned-Crest Beast with assumedly full consciousness. The fact that he has never been able to undo his transformation independently is a big clue that it can't be undone from within. And you can also assume that it's taken Maurice more than a few minutes to become fully conscious because he's had a thousand years to do it (and we know that around the time he first transformed he was a rampaging monster who did take a lot of lives).

2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

The reason Edelgard goes through with the transformation is basically out of solidarity to her troops. Many have become crest beasts for her and her cause, so she sees it as nothing more than right that she should make the same sacrifice.

This doesn't make sense. If anything, it is an insult to her troops' sacrifice to turn into a monster herself, because it is basically throwing away her life. Her troops died because they believed the Empire and Edelgard and the cause was worth dying for. Edelgard, the Empire, and her cause are one and the same - when she dies, they die with her. Her duty was to survive and accomplish her goals to make their deaths meaningful, so if self-sacrifice or a mistaken notion of solidarity was her motivation then it was misguided at best. Lawful neutral would have run if possible, or surrendered to stay alive while looking for an escape. Lawful evil are the types who value personal pride above or within fulfilling their codes, or who are blinded by the enemy in front of them to the point where they are willing to disrespect the lives of those that have died before them.

2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

The actual harm caused is a factor that shouldn't be ignored, especially when judging someone after the fact. The fact that no innocents did get hurt is a major factor that could be used in her favour.

My 'actual harm' point still holds, because the issue I am scrutinising with that argument is not whether Hegemon is evil or destructive, but whether Edelgard is evil for choosing to become a monster with the potential to kill people. I have shown her motivations for doing this to be neither good nor in line with her purported personal code - by process of elimination this leaves only an evil alignment. If she killed people as Hegemon it would of course be an issue, and Edelgard the person would be morally culpable. Take the analogy of a gun manufacturer. From a DnD perspective, they aren't inherently evil. But if they sell guns with the awareness that those guns are going to be used to kill people, they take on some moral responsibility for those deaths. If they put a Gatling gun in the hands of someone desperate who has willingly discarded reason and is willing to take lives even though by the time they get the Gatling gun they will accomplish nothing meaningful by fighting further, they take on even more moral responsibility, because the potential of lives lost is that much higher. Whether, in the end, the desperate Gatling gunner kills anyone or is prevented from doing so by authorities, has nothing to do with the evil of the gun manufacturer. Edelgard knows that her action is evil, and does it anyway. That makes her DnD alignment evil, because neutral characters wouldn't commit evil actions unless their personal code forces them to (which it doesn't here). 

2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

It is also a pretty last-minute act, which would still mean that Edelgard for most of Azure Moon would still be lawful neutral.

It should be said that of the evil alignments, lawful evil isn't that far from its neutral counterpart anyway. A big difference between them is that lawful evil characters are in a way more driven, and take what they want methodically, whereas lawful neutral characters tend not to be as intensely committed to particular ways of being or acting. I imagine lawful evil could still explain what Edelgard does on AM before endgame, though I'm not gonna commit to that claim because I can't offer you evidence yet without playing AM or watching the entirety of it (which I'd rather not do).

Moreover, your alignment is supposed to be what underpins your rationality in DnD. So for evil characters, their evil nature means that the range of actions they have to choose from are predetermined by their outlook on life. That doesn't mean they exclusively and all the time do moral wrong - evil alignments still sleep and do other neutral activities, for example. It just means that either their goals fall into the class of things that DnD considers evil, and/or the actions they take for those goals involve the class of things DnD considers evil. Neutral characters too perform only actions as according to their code, but in their case other types of actions, regardless of being good or evil, aren't normally relevant (although given a balanced choice between a good and evil action, they will prefer to do a good one). In DnD they are often not found at the centre of conflicts, and normally only fight as their personal ideals dictate, or for general self-benefit. All this isn't a totally accurate picture of real life, it's just how prescriptive DnD alignments create a picture of characters, as defined and generated from their moral outlook. The "DM is subjective" argument is legitimate, for a game of DnD, but this isn't. In fairness to you, I'm not working from the Pathfinder definitions, I'm working from the DnD wiki pages on alignments, so that might be part of why our wires keep getting crossed on this.

2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Edelgard literally thanks Dimitri for giving her that dagger just before the battle for the capital. She quite obviously isn't spiteful and doesn't hold a grudge against Dimitri. 

I'm not arguing with the symbolism of the dagger, only with her act of throwing it, instead of any other way of returning it/losing her life. I think the entire scene has a lot of imagery and motivation to unpack outside of this thread (like the synergy of this scene with CF Ch. 17), but all I will say is that failing to let go of her pride by attempting to injure Dimitri and so forcing Dimitri to kill her instead of surrender, that just isn't something a neutral character would do because they'd be more emotionally capable of taking a reasonable course of action. It's not my main point though, so I'm not fussed about discarding it.

2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

I also think that Hegemon only really exists because Azure Moon needed a final boss that was something beyond the regular Edelgard

This is probably true, but nonetheless it's the evidence we have to work with, and unlike, say, auxiliary battles, I don't think we can cleanly divide the gameplay elements from the plot aspect of Hegemon.

2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Maybe the Agarthans talked her into it. There is also the fact that there is mostly Agarthan troops during the Palace mission, something that isn't in the case in verdant wind

Unlikely. Although we know little about her relationship with the Agarthans on AM, if other routes are a benchmark then she isn't likely to trust any of their advice.

2 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Speaking of Nemesis, I am assuming he would be chaotic evil?

Yeah I have a feeling he's either chaotic or neutral evil by DnD standards, I'm not sure which. Nemesis certainly isn't compassionate, but the boundary between neutral and chaotic evil seems to be that neutral have more impulse control. I'm basing that on the guidelines for DnD 5e alignments. So it depends whether you think he retained his bandit-ness all the way through, or was a bit craftier than some characters give him credit for.

[Silver-Haired Maiden]

I feel this is relevant to this topic. Warning for language.

 

[Darkmoon6789]

1 hour ago, haarhaarhaar said:

 

Hmm it sounds like we're beginning to go round in circles. I can definitely see where you're coming from, and I'm not super opposed to this interpretation anyway. It also might simply be a case of me not having played AM, thus giving Edelgard shorter shrift than she's due on that route. But I'm still not convinced that her alignment isn't lawful evil on AM, and we may have to agree to disagree.

I agree that she's desperate by this point too (and so prone to making mistakes). But the extent of Edelgard's desperation/fear is not a debilitating mental condition (like, say, madness). Those things can impact your reason negatively, but I don't believe that they do in this case to a significant enough extent that this action should be dismissed when considering her morality. There is no way on earth that she had not already considered what she would do if she lost, especially since by this point she knows her back is against the wall. Turning into Hegemon was and never would have been the correct answer given her motivations and goals (at the point of AM endgame, she wants to defeat/win over Dimitri then destroy TWSITD, even though many of her most loyal followers are dead). It isn't a DnD-good action, and it doesn't fit with her code.

Back to Hegemon, I think the opposite of your claim is true, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that Hegemon is a wholly rational agent functioning under Edelgard's will, or that there is a peaceful way to undo a Crest beast transformation. We fail to see such a method anywhere else on any route, and even defeat as a method isn't clear. Edelgard and Aelfric are odd ones out - Miklan reverts to his original body but also dies. Dedue dies (though when he dies depends on other decisions you make). The students in Ch. 9 die. Just surviving after being transformed into a Crest beast is an achievement, and Edelgard displaying even rudimentary consciousness is even more amazing. Note that even Dedue's monster form seems to suggest hints of controlling aggression too (he and the other monsters on this chapter don't attack Faerghus soldiers despite not having been tamed like TWSITD-allied beasts are, or however it is that Almyran forces control giant birds). However, what little consciousness she does show (limited speech faculty, basically) does not encourage me to believe she is thinking, or capable of having an alignment as Hegemon. Maurice is an outlier as a human-turned-Crest Beast with assumedly full consciousness. The fact that he has never been able to undo his transformation independently is a big clue that it can't be undone from within. And you can also assume that it's taken Maurice more than a few minutes to become fully conscious because he's had a thousand years to do it (and we know that around the time he first transformed he was a rampaging monster who did take a lot of lives).

This doesn't make sense. If anything, it is an insult to her troops' sacrifice to turn into a monster herself, because it is basically throwing away her life. Her troops died because they believed the Empire and Edelgard and the cause was worth dying for. Edelgard, the Empire, and her cause are one and the same - when she dies, they die with her. Her duty was to survive and accomplish her goals to make their deaths meaningful, so if self-sacrifice or a mistaken notion of solidarity was her motivation then it was misguided at best. Lawful neutral would have run if possible, or surrendered to stay alive while looking for an escape. Lawful evil are the types who value personal pride above or within fulfilling their codes, or who are blinded by the enemy in front of them to the point where they are willing to disrespect the lives of those that have died before them.

My 'actual harm' point still holds, because the issue I am scrutinising with that argument is not whether Hegemon is evil or destructive, but whether Edelgard is evil for choosing to become a monster with the potential to kill people. I have shown her motivations for doing this to be neither good nor in line with her purported personal code - by process of elimination this leaves only an evil alignment. If she killed people as Hegemon it would of course be an issue, and Edelgard the person would be morally culpable. Take the analogy of a gun manufacturer. From a DnD perspective, they aren't inherently evil. But if they sell guns with the awareness that those guns are going to be used to kill people, they take on some moral responsibility for those deaths. If they put a Gatling gun in the hands of someone desperate who has willingly discarded reason and is willing to take lives even though by the time they get the Gatling gun they will accomplish nothing meaningful by fighting further, they take on even more moral responsibility, because the potential of lives lost is that much higher. Whether, in the end, the desperate Gatling gunner kills anyone or is prevented from doing so by authorities, has nothing to do with the evil of the gun manufacturer. Edelgard knows that her action is evil, and does it anyway. That makes her DnD alignment evil, because neutral characters wouldn't commit evil actions unless their personal code forces them to (which it doesn't here). 

It should be said that of the evil alignments, lawful evil isn't that far from its neutral counterpart anyway. A big difference between them is that lawful evil characters are in a way more driven, and take what they want methodically, whereas lawful neutral characters tend not to be as intensely committed to particular ways of being or acting. I imagine lawful evil could still explain what Edelgard does on AM before endgame, though I'm not gonna commit to that claim because I can't offer you evidence yet without playing AM or watching the entirety of it (which I'd rather not do).

Moreover, your alignment is supposed to be what underpins your rationality in DnD. So for evil characters, their evil nature means that the range of actions they have to choose from are predetermined by their outlook on life. That doesn't mean they exclusively and all the time do moral wrong - evil alignments still sleep and do other neutral activities, for example. It just means that either their goals fall into the class of things that DnD considers evil, and/or the actions they take for those goals involve the class of things DnD considers evil. Neutral characters too perform only actions as according to their code, but in their case other types of actions, regardless of being good or evil, aren't normally relevant (although given a balanced choice between a good and evil action, they will prefer to do a good one). In DnD they are often not found at the centre of conflicts, and normally only fight as their personal ideals dictate, or for general self-benefit. All this isn't a totally accurate picture of real life, it's just how prescriptive DnD alignments create a picture of characters, as defined and generated from their moral outlook. The "DM is subjective" argument is legitimate, for a game of DnD, but this isn't. In fairness to you, I'm not working from the Pathfinder definitions, I'm working from the DnD wiki pages on alignments, so that might be part of why our wires keep getting crossed on this.

I'm not arguing with the symbolism of the dagger, only with her act of throwing it, instead of any other way of returning it/losing her life. I think the entire scene has a lot of imagery and motivation to unpack outside of this thread (like the synergy of this scene with CF Ch. 17), but all I will say is that failing to let go of her pride by attempting to injure Dimitri and so forcing Dimitri to kill her instead of surrender, that just isn't something a neutral character would do because they'd be more emotionally capable of taking a reasonable course of action. It's not my main point though, so I'm not fussed about discarding it.

This is probably true, but nonetheless it's the evidence we have to work with, and unlike, say, auxiliary battles, I don't think we can cleanly divide the gameplay elements from the plot aspect of Hegemon.

Unlikely. Although we know little about her relationship with the Agarthans on AM, if other routes are a benchmark then she isn't likely to trust any of their advice.

Yeah I have a feeling he's either chaotic or neutral evil by DnD standards, I'm not sure which. Nemesis certainly isn't compassionate, but the boundary between neutral and chaotic evil seems to be that neutral have more impulse control. I'm basing that on the guidelines for DnD 5e alignments. So it depends whether you think he retained his bandit-ness all the way through, or was a bit craftier than some characters give him credit for.

The reason I am trouble of considering Edelgard as any form of evil is because that alignment pretty much requires selfish motivations. While Edelgard's motivations are always altruistic and self-sacrificing. Sure, her methods are often extreme, but that is why a neutral alignment might be the way to reconcile these two sides of her. I would actually give her lawful good if it wasn't for the fact that lawful good is so unbending in its principles and so focused on hunting down evil. That just isn't Edelgard. I think she is a good person, but she just doesn't really share the values of lawful good. I think people often underestimate just how little Edelgard cares for her own life and well-being and how much she prioritise the well-being of the people of Fodlan. That just isn't an evil alignment in any way, and one act doesn't change this. Alignments are usually a guideline for how a character usually acts, but there will always be deviations from said alignment for any well-developed character. So it is more important house. She usually acts rather than how she acted this one time. Basically, we shouldn't judge someone on an outlier that doesn't confirm to what they are usually like. Bare in mind that I am definitely referring the Pathfinder definitions as I think they are more detailed and more accurate. They are probably closer to alignment definitions in earlier editions. You are right that lawful evil isn't all that bad. As far as evil alignments are concerned. But it is usually designating someone who is using the law for personal gain, but still adheres to a strong code of conduct. I am not 100% sure it would work for an individual whose primary motive is to better the lives of people on the continent at the expense of herself

I do think you should probably play Azure Moon as I am uncertain of how much of it you have really seen in person. The truth is that Edelgard makes very minimal appearances and it is mostly focused around Dimitri and his obsession with vengeance. The only time we really do see Edelgard is at Gronder and later her negotiation with Dimitri where she is very respectful and courteous. People just a tendency to overexaggerate when it comes to this route. In particular, for some reason. 

The idea that people remain entirely within one alignment at all times is rather silly when it comes to real people anyway, most jump all over the place. Depending on the situation. A friend of mine actually linked me another definition of the alignments that makes a lot more sense and is more of a description of personal values rather than a morality judgement. I think one problem is that the evil alignments just have so much baggage, but evil isn't necessarily always accurate to their actual meaning.

http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html

Edit: Oh, and there is one more thing should address. Edelgard is seldom comfortable with evil actions, even the war is something she feels immense guilt over, she refers to the blood that flows at her feet as the burden constantly, and she is known for placing flowers on the graves of the fallen in person, in an act of mourning. That to me makes all the difference, but she feels so strongly about it is a sign that she do care. But like she says, she does believe that her path will lead to the least suffering in the long run.

Edited April 30, 2020 by Darkmoon6789

[haarhaarhaar]

2 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

I feel this is relevant to this topic. Warning for language.

Unironically hilarious video (and lol far more relevant than I wish it was)

1 hour ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

The reason I am trouble of considering Edelgard as any form of evil is because that alignment pretty much requires selfish motivations. While Edelgard's motivations are always altruistic and self-sacrificing. Sure, her methods are often extreme, but that is why a neutral alignment might be the way to reconcile these two sides of her. I would actually give her lawful good if it wasn't for the fact that lawful good is so unbending in its principles and so focused on hunting down evil. That just isn't Edelgard. I think she is a good person, but she just doesn't really share the values of lawful good. I think people often underestimate just how little Edelgard cares for her own life and well-being and how much she prioritise the well-being of the people of Fodlan. That just isn't an evil alignment in any way, and one act doesn't change this. Alignments are usually a guideline for how a character usually acts, but there will always be deviations from said alignment for any well-developed character. So it is more important house. She usually acts rather than how she acted this one time. Basically, we shouldn't judge someone on an outlier that doesn't confirm to what they are usually like. Bare in mind that I am definitely referring the Pathfinder definitions as I think they are more detailed and more accurate. They are probably closer to alignment definitions in earlier editions. You are right that lawful evil isn't all that bad. As far as evil alignments are concerned. But it is usually designating someone who is using the law for personal gain, but still adheres to a strong code of conduct. I am not 100% sure it would work for an individual whose primary motive is to better the lives of people on the continent at the expense of herself

I do think you should probably play Azure Moon as I am uncertain of how much of it you have really seen in person. The truth is that Edelgard makes very minimal appearances and it is mostly focused around Dimitri and his obsession with vengeance. The only time we really do see Edelgard is at Gronder and later her negotiation with Dimitri where she is very respectful and courteous. People just a tendency to overexaggerate when it comes to this route. In particular, for some reason. 

The idea that people remain entirely within one alignment at all times is rather silly when it comes to real people anyway, most jump all over the place. Depending on the situation. A friend of mine actually linked me another definition of the alignments that makes a lot more sense and is more of a description of personal values rather than a morality judgement. I think one problem is that the evil alignments just have so much baggage, but evil isn't necessarily always accurate to their actual meaning.

http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html

Edit: Oh, and there is one more thing should address. Edelgard is seldom comfortable with evil actions, even the war is something she feels immense guilt over, she refers to the blood that flows at her feet as the burden constantly, and she is known for placing flowers on the graves of the fallen in person, in an act of mourning. That to me makes all the difference, but she feels so strongly about it is a sign that she do care. But like she says, she does believe that her path will lead to the least suffering in the long run.

Silver-Haired Maiden has made me notice exactly how much of this thread we've taken up discussing this one thing. I think it's a fun discussion, and I also think your argument is grounded and interesting, but we have basically made this into another Edelgard thread, and so I'm happy to move off the topic if you are and accept that neither of us are likely to change the other's mind at the moment - though of course my mind may genuinely change when I do a full AM run. To be clear, playing AM has always been the plan, as I've freely said earlier on this thread, but it probably won't happen anytime soon as I need to finish my current CF run first. The points that I've quoted above from you are generally ones that either one of us has discussed earlier in this thread, though, and we really are retreading old ground. I'm perfectly happy to accept that your interpretation is a valid one, even if I personally disagree with it (and unfortunately I still do). But I'm probably gonna call this discussion here.

One point we definitely both agree on is the invalidity of DnD alignments in pretty much everything (other fictional worlds, the real world etc.).Trying to stick only to what DnD alignments make of her character has been exhausting, so I just wanted to leave my actual opinion here. Very briefly, I find Edelgard the character is a moral character on all routes (as opposed to being immoral, or amoral). Terms like good and bad in a moral sense tend to be relative and unhelpful, so I'll try not to use them. I like her in all routes, she is a far more persuasive and interesting FE villain than the likes of Medeus and Grima, has a compelling ideology, and I can make sense of the majority of things that she does, which is a huge success for any main character as far as I'm concerned. Minus all the Flame Emperor hijinks that just feels like bad twist writing. I am overall a big fan of hers, and she is so far my favourite of the lords, although I preferred Claude's gameplay (and am willing/hoping to be surprised by Dimitri).

As for some other random character alignments (lol what this thread was supposed to be)

Anna: chaotic neutral

Jeralt: ?? I thought neutral good originally but as I typed it out I became unsure. Maybe a true neutral, or a lawful neutral?

Judith: Chaotic good. The main reason I chose chaotic over neutral is because of her disregard of expectations about how nobles ought to act, but I could definitely see an argument for neutral.

 

[Darkmoon6789]

40 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

Unironically hilarious video (and lol far more relevant than I wish it was)

Silver-Haired Maiden has made me notice exactly how much of this thread we've taken up discussing this one thing. I think it's a fun discussion, and I also think your argument is grounded and interesting, but we have basically made this into another Edelgard thread, and so I'm happy to move off the topic if you are and accept that neither of us are likely to change the other's mind at the moment - though of course my mind may genuinely change when I do a full AM run. To be clear, playing AM has always been the plan, as I've freely said earlier on this thread, but it probably won't happen anytime soon as I need to finish my current CF run first. The points that I've quoted above from you are generally ones that either one of us has discussed earlier in this thread, though, and we really are retreading old ground. I'm perfectly happy to accept that your interpretation is a valid one, even if I personally disagree with it (and unfortunately I still do). But I'm probably gonna call this discussion here.

One point we definitely both agree on is the invalidity of DnD alignments in pretty much everything (other fictional worlds, the real world etc.).Trying to stick only to what DnD alignments make of her character has been exhausting, so I just wanted to leave my actual opinion here. Very briefly, I find Edelgard the character is a moral character on all routes (as opposed to being immoral, or amoral). Terms like good and bad in a moral sense tend to be relative and unhelpful, so I'll try not to use them. I like her in all routes, she is a far more persuasive and interesting FE villain than the likes of Medeus and Grima, has a compelling ideology, and I can make sense of the majority of things that she does, which is a huge success for any main character as far as I'm concerned. Minus all the Flame Emperor hijinks that just feels like bad twist writing. I am overall a big fan of hers, and she is so far my favourite of the lords, although I preferred Claude's gameplay (and am willing/hoping to be surprised by Dimitri).

As for some other random character alignments (lol what this thread was supposed to be)

Anna: chaotic neutral

Jeralt: ?? I thought neutral good originally but as I typed it out I became unsure. Maybe a true neutral, or a lawful neutral?

Judith: Chaotic good. The main reason I chose chaotic over neutral is because of her disregard of expectations about how nobles ought to act, but I could definitely see an argument for neutral.

 

Well, I am really fond of Edelgard, so I usually take any excuse I can to talk about her.

Did we ever settle for an alignment or Dimitri? I think mostly lawful good, his attitude seems to match it quite well, but some of the horrific things he did. Wiley was lost on the path of vengeance (that is torturing imperial soldiers and generals, as well as killing them in a needlessly brutal and painful fashion) makes me hesitate to call him good. 

Hubert is probably lawful evil, especially if Edelgard is lawful neutral, he is definitely one step below Edelgard when it comes to the good and evil axis. He usually goes one step further than his mistress is willing to go and that is actually saying something. But on the other hand his actions in dealing with Agarthans could have very well have saved the world. The way still wouldn't really call him a villain, just someone willing to go to any lengths to protect a certain individual who cares about. I guess this is still a selfish motive?

I do think the death knight is probably lawful evil, but I am not entirely certain if Jeritza normally shares this alignment. His loyalty might make him lawful neutral. 

Mercedes is pretty much definitely neutral good.

I am uncertain about Jeralt, his defining characteristics is a distrust of Rhea and he was a mercenary for quite a while. Do we have any major examples of why you might qualify as good? Otherwise I would think some variant of neutral would work.

I might consider Rhea lawful evil, at least in certain routes. She has her good side, but she also believes in making an example of those who go against the the church, she is very quick to execute people without even interrogating them properly. She has shown a willingness to start wars for the sake of personal revenge, is willing to lie to the populous about the real history of the world to maintain control and has done so for a millennia. She willingly restricts and holds back the technological progress of humanity. She is also responsible for many screwing up experiments with what has to be necromancy in her account to revive her mother. The creation of the chalice of beginnings is hardly a good act. But she also believes that what she is doing is the best for the world. She believes that she needs to maintain order so that something like the Red Canyon will not happen again.

What alignment is Lysithea? In this case, I am not quite certain.

[haarhaarhaar]

12 hours ago, Darkmoon6789 said:

Did we ever settle for an alignment or Dimitri? I think mostly lawful good, his attitude seems to match it quite well, but some of the horrific things he did. Wiley was lost on the path of vengeance (that is torturing imperial soldiers and generals, as well as killing them in a needlessly brutal and painful fashion) makes me hesitate to call him good.

As we know I haven't seen AM, but he doesn't seem mad to me on other routes. I'd even call him lawful good on CF, but VW makes me wonder, because even though he doesn't seem insane his main appearance is the 'kill-everybody-mad-dash-to-Gronders-Field". Obviously he's not having a great time, though, so I guess I'd cut him some slack, but he probably can't be lawful good on that route.

I originally thought Hubert was lawful neutral as long as Edelgard was lawful neutral, because he does everything for her sake and in her name - but I don't think there's any way round his methodology being classified as lawful evil.

Yep the death knight is lawful evil, and Jeritza Part 2 CF is lawful neutral (Jeritza pre-part 1 probably has to be evil because he helps fuck up House Hrym and lets the Agarthans cover up his murdering House Bartels)

Mercedes is neutral good, sure.

Jeralt for me was good originally because of his innate desire to save people (in Ch.8 and 9 it's clear he is driven to do the right thing irrespective of his orders). There's also his sacrificing his life for. Rhea, but he might have been a lot more faithful then to Church of Seiros so that isn't particularly strong evidence. The fact is he also killed a ton of people as a mercenary for profit, but then again he saved Leonie's village out of kindness rather than because of potential monetary gain, so I actually really don't know. Maybe all that does suggest neutral actually.

Lysithea is lawful neutral - she is naturally kind, but not morally driven to help others. Her code is basically just a trade-off in attempting to achieve personal excellence in order to help her family down the line.

Rhea's another big one - she's never worse than in CF, which seems like lawful evil (leaving Dimitri and Faerghus to die for them despite Dimitri providing shelter for Rhea for 5 years is cold, setting fire to Fhirdiad is awful, but not chaotic because her desire isn't technically to kill Faerghus citizens, they are just collateral damage to her for killing Edelgard). But I'm frankly never tempted to type her as good - she's at most lawful neutral anywhere else. Her alignment happening to mirror Edelgard's is a little bonus I think.

[Crysta]

Dimitri's going to be the most difficult to attach a single D&D alignment to and that's why I just didn't lol

The theory that Boarmitri represents the worst of the Lawful Good alignment seems pretty solid... if it wasn't for the torture for funsies thing in AM. CF Dimitri represents Boarmitri without the psychosis muddying things and he's a lot more coherent, so that obviously is playing a big part in how he operates, but it's still hard to call a psychotic character lawful good when he's clearly getting off on being violent in his own route.

But at the same time, calling the sane Dimitri neutral doesn't feel right, either. He's clearly somewhere on the lawful/good spectrum... except when he's clearly not.

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Crysta

[Darkmoon6789]

38 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Dimitri's going to be the most difficult to attach a single D&D alignment to and that's why I just didn't lol

The theory that Boarmitri represents the worst of the Lawful Good alignment seems pretty solid... if it wasn't for the torture for funsies thing in AM. CF Dimitri represents Boarmitri without the psychosis muddying things and he's a lot more coherent, so that obviously is playing a big part in how he operates, but it's still hard to call a psychotic character lawful good when he's clearly getting off on being violent in his own route.

But at the same time, calling the sane Dimitri neutral doesn't feel right, either. He's clearly somewhere on the lawful/good spectrum... except when he's clearly not.

 

Maybe we could judge his two sides separately when it comes to alignment as he kind of has a split personality.

Regular Dimitri is lawful good while the boar at its worst is chaotic evil (even if he is still motivated by justice. His excessive sadism and violence might still put him here). Boar Dimitri does by one point also say he intends to burn the Empire to the ground. I am not sure how we would describe Crimson Flower Dimitri, he is not as good as he would be at the end of Azure Moon, he is still obsessed with vengeance above all, but he is more stable than the boar on his own route. Would excessive obsession with vengeance change his alignment? At the very least, he might no longer be chaotic. 

One thing that always puts me off with Boar Dimitri is that he actually seems to enjoy inflicting suffering upon his enemies. Edelgard just never seem to take any enjoyment from the deaths of others or their suffering. Dimitri in his regular state is also horrified by these sorts of actions committed by the other side of his personality.

[kittykatie]

just bc I love my ashen wolves to get more attention ill do them:

yuri: chaotic good. he definitely does some shady things but for the sake of others. he is like Robin hood where he exploits the rich for the poor.

constance: she has two personalities (one in the sun and one indoors) I would say her sun personality is lawful neutral while her indoor personality is chaotic neutral.

balthus: def chaotic neutral. nowhere near lawful lol. he is a good guy but doesn't really care to get involved, mostly focusing on his close pals.

hapi: neutral good. she hates the establishment but isn't that chaotic. poor gal can't trust anyone 😕 

[kittykatie]

On 5/1/2020 at 8:29 AM, Darkmoon6789 said:

Maybe we could judge his two sides separately when it comes to alignment as he kind of has a split personality.

Regular Dimitri is lawful good while the boar at its worst is chaotic evil (even if he is still motivated by justice. His excessive sadism and violence might still put him here). Boar Dimitri does by one point also say he intends to burn the Empire to the ground. I am not sure how we would describe Crimson Flower Dimitri, he is not as good as he would be at the end of Azure Moon, he is still obsessed with vengeance above all, but he is more stable than the boar on his own route. Would excessive obsession with vengeance change his alignment? At the very least, he might no longer be chaotic. 

One thing that always puts me off with Boar Dimitri is that he actually seems to enjoy inflicting suffering upon his enemies. Edelgard just never seem to take any enjoyment from the deaths of others or their suffering. Dimitri in his regular state is also horrified by these sorts of actions committed by the other side of his personality.

he is a bit like Jeritza in that way since he has a split personality. one that loves bloodlust and one that abhors it. who knew jeritza and dimitri could be so similar never thought about it until now.