Augestein

I don't particularly like res for a flaw in higher difficulties. Having potentially like... 25% res growth is pretty awful (or even worse, 20% res) with a base of 3. And your bases start in that ugly level to be hit by magical criticals and die instantly and you never really get out of it with that range for a long time. Robin's base is actually his/her worst stat outside of luck, so making it even worse doesn't seem too good.

I'll be honest. FE4 was the first one I played so I never thought it was strange. Not to mention the fact that in most SRPGs characters cannot simply heal themselves, so I'm kind of used to that sort of thing.

Shin. Better stat spread, and he has enough of everything that Sue has over him to not be harmed by the advantages Sue has over him. Plus, he looks cooler than Sue in my opinion.

Sure, but I'd rather an IP just... End than die. You know? That's just embarrassing to look at.

Gregor can instantly be promoted to a Bow Knight. So that's nice if you're into bow users.

Anna is the only one that I'd really consider. Sure, her caps are kinda lame, but Morgan will always be good, and Anna is a promoted healer that's ready to go from the start. As a unit, Anna has some nice usefulness, and pairing with Robin can KEEP her useful. You can easily pass something nice down to Morgan like Lucky 7 which could help her quite a bit when trying to level her up. As an unlock, you get thief, so you get C in swords which isn't too bad either. The rest of them require Robin to hold off way too long to really be any use. If Flavia and Basilio joined in Act 2... I'd probably hook up with them though.

FeMu: Stahl MaMu: Nowi. I wanted a dragon daughter.

The classic topic that everyone wants. I'd be fine with that. It'd be cool if Roy's hair actually changed colors based off of his mom. Although, if it's going by Awakening, only having 3 wives would be kind of lame. Maybe add a couple around Eliwood that he can go for this time around. As for Roy, instead of just doing the usual skills, I'd rather it still borrow from FE6 and FE7 ideas with the engine. So there wouldn't be some many skills slapped on the second gen if the first gen was still around. Instead, Roy could have canto to move again if Ninian was his mom. +15% critical on promotion from Lyndis, and a mount if Fiora was his mom. Doesn't really make sense for him to be a foot soldier when both of his parents are mounted fighters.

I'm fine with both. Really though, both of them have aspects I like to much to vote one over the other.

No. That's not quite right. By moral relativism, if you were moved to Nazi Germany, there would be GROUPS of people that wouldn't find it wrong to kill the Jews. This is not the same thing. In general, it's not necessarily fine to do. It's just there wouldn't be a punishment from... Nazi Germans for killing a Jew or two.

The conflicting views happen as a result of there not being an objective one. While this is not necessarily sufficient to definitively state "no objective view," it's certain far more decisive and less dismissive than trying to make an objective morality. If there was an objective view, people wouldn't have to simply agree on what they felt was right or wrong. There would be no room for argument-- whether you understood how the objectivity functioned or not. The proof lies in the fact that there exists room for people to disagree and not produce nonsensical arguments as a result of their disagreements. Simply not being able to comprehend WHY someone would feel a certain way does not somehow mean that their views are incorrect. This is the issue you're having. Without any form of perception, you cannot even begin to form any articulate opinion on morality. Because it requires one to actively be able to be within a situation, and analyze decisions on their beliefs and past and what is believed will cause less problems in the future. The reason examples are being sited is because morality is judged on literally a case by case basis and formed and shaped as a result of the various circumstances. It's not something that a person can simply make note of: sure, there are some that most people have similar beliefs on, but correlation is not causation, so all that can be observed and absorbed from here is that humans will draw similar conclusions on certain subjects. That doesn't mean that these similarities are correct. Nor does it mean they are incorrect. Like here, perhaps someone can try to help with this one: let's try assuming the position that there IS an objective morality. Now what? Where do you go from there? If there is, now what? Because if it's objective, no one should be able to argue against it without making illogical arguments and nonsensical conclusions. That's about all we can assume. And that's... Skirting into some dangerous waters there. It's an interesting thought though: the unshakable argument. Terrifying to say the least.

I say avoid swearing. Unless the character is just the type that swears or you have a bunch of foul mouthed louts as your party, I think it should be kept to a minimum. It's just... Weird when I see characters that are supposed to be lords or high born people speak with common tongues. Plus, I feel when people curse for characters that get less creative with insults and condemnations towards situations.

No, it doesn't. However, a subject that is addressed as a principles of "right and wrong," cannot be objective, because quite literally, morals are based on agreements of what people say are right and wrong. You have a set of morals that you believe in based off of your own logical conclusions based on your experiences or not. Perceptions are essentially what make morals. Without perceptions of situations and various ways that a person feels/wants things to be, there isn't morality. It requires one to actually *care* about a situation. Objective morality just sounds like madness to be honest. Note, I merely quoted this because I was responding to an earlier response from you, AND this first portion of the post I found kinda interesting.

This topic itself is a perfect example. Various backgrounds and cultures are going to add more or less weight to certain actions and principles and considering that a person cannot determine a value to them. It's not as simple as "standard logic." As even when arguing logic, there must be complete agreement on base definitions to even begin to discuss anything. Considering that societies don't necessarily equate everything of equal value, there cannot be an objective morality. Logical conclusions are drawn by situations and necessities of the society around them. So what you end up with is a different set of moralities with neither being inherently more just than the next. You want an example? Homosexuality. This is a subject that has flopped back and forth over the course of history with it being "okay" and "not okay" at various moments. Some places, like Nigeria, homosexual unions is a crime. In the United States, it's not a crime. Can they both be objectively morally just when they are polarizing opinions?

But why would you? You have a team of elites at this point.

Don't try to level up everyone. Pick characters that you want to use and stick with them. It's very hard for someone to be "RNG screwed" in this one, and growths aren't even really all that important in this one at all. Bases can easily beat this entire game. So don't panic too much if a character gets a cruddy level. 34 speed is the magic number to hit to keep doubling by endgame. Skills that aren't being used should just be removed and sold for extra forging power. Fortune for instance? Good move to sell for extra cash. Finally, some characters like Tormod, Muarim and Vika leave for no real reason. None of them are really worth using.

I reiterate my statement: there isn't an objective morality.

It's just a problem in general for that game. Even the gameplay is all over the place. It's a downhill slope. The game starts out hard and gets easier. Sure, gems like 3-6 exist to challenge you again, but the difficulty is just plain in reverse. RD's plot is a mess in the regards of it reviving old plot threads that were COMPLETE from PoR and making it be the crux of what started the problems in Part 3. RD... Just didn't have enough substance to exist honestly. The problem with Awakening though is that it's problems with the plot are more readily apparent and in your face. RD's problems are problems if you played PoR primarily. I'll grant you that Part 1 is the problem... But wait, I'd blame Part 3. Personally I would have just made Part 3 "choose your side" and then crush the other team with different endings.

No. But I would say that they wouldn't be considered objectively right either. In general though, morality is one of those subjects that is influenced by culture and the presence of a society. Therefore, it's difficult to make it "objective," especially when you consider that morality is shaped and influenced by the demands of the people during certain times and moments.

Eliwood is my favorite GBA lord in terms of character and growths. Gameplay wise he's not super powerful, but he's hardly weak. Storywise, I feel like he's a good character as he doesn't have any particular obnoxious attributes and is a genuinely nice guy that never comes across as *too* nice.

No. Not even close. They are decent games, but there aren't many games that I'd say are worth $100. Neither of these are it.

Probably. The accuracy really isn't a problem. Trueblade's have 40 skill. Capping skill with Edward, like most Trueblades, is incredibly reliable, common, and with BEXP, you could force a couple of luck levels as well. I'd honestly say passed about 30 skill, any skill over that is more for criticals than actual chances to reliably hit. Perhaps not with the Tempest Blade, but considering that 30 is pretty much what you need, it just goes to show how little this actually matters in the main scheme of things outside of say... Bosses in the endgame, which aren't a huge deal because you have Alondite as an option. Also, light affinity gives Edward +9 hit as well, which helps. Vantage/Cancel I wouldn't go for anyways because that's relying off of TWO procs to happen back to back, which even before you consider the Tempest Blade's hit factored into Edward's hit is risky business. Mia nor Edward would want to be doing this. But why do we care about Edward's magic?

I know how I feel. The story is pretty much sunk from what it sounds like. The gameplay better be top-notch or it's not particularly worth a purchase. I will say this point: Star Fox Adventures sold extremely well too. And look how that's remembered by most people; not fondly. Awakening might have done well, but I'd have attributed that to advertising more than anything else. I actually SAW ads for that game. I don't think the dating sim elements were what made it sell as well, but IS disagrees, and it doesn't look like it's going away any time soon.

All of the Dawn Brigade chapters allow you to deploy everyone, so there's no reason to not use both. Wind Edges have the same might as Iron Bows. Until Leonardo gets something better, the only thing that Leonardo is over Edward is cost efficient (which isn't much of an advantage because money isn't that tight). Leonardo can get a forged bow for an advantage, but then that kinda nullfies the cost efficiency for extra damage, of which if Edward doubles Ed does more. And there are four Wind Edges in part 1 that you can get through bargains. So it's not like this is something that's super niche for Edward to do. It's not until Part 4 that they even need to compete. There, Leo is more likely to be on a team than Edward simply because Edward has to actually be used as a unit to be worth deploying, Leonardo on the other hand, can resume doing what he always did. Doing mediocre damage and not getting hit in the face because he attacks from range and giving someone +2 atk and def. It really isn't even close though. Aran also has realistic hit problems because of biorhythm that affects him in a really bad way. -10 hit is nothing to scoff at when you first get him (and more than likely, it'll be down or close to worst when you start actually using him after Chapter 3), and is a pain. And Aran doesn't exist in a world where when he gets doubled by things, he takes no damage or very little. When Aran gets doubled, he either dies or almost dies. Edward doesn't get doubled by things, like say Chapter 4's cats, meaning that Edward is actually more durable in the next chapter than Aran. Aran is absolutely wretched in Chapter 4. Meanwhile, Edward's light affinity essentially means that hit problems are never an issue, give him some defense to mitigate his defense problems, and if you gave him the dracoshield he has in the prologue, he'd be at 9 defense without getting a single point in defense. That + Struggling to double and doing so on occasion is much better than what Aran has to offer at base, and because Aran doesn't get faster, his offense never catches up, he kills less, which in turn makes him get less defense and never really be that great. Oh, and to add insult to injury, if you DO invest in Aran, he has 33 speed, which is one point shy of doubling everything you need in the endgame. Sure, you could use a Brave Lance I guess, but options are nice and the Wishblade is pretty cool. I honestly never saw what was so amazing about Aran. He reminds me of Laura. He looks great, but the game seems to not give him a chance to really shine.

But it really isn't. One is "it's actually impossible," and another one is "we didn't know how." That's hardly semantics. It's not worth arguing, but from a game design perspective, the difference is huge. Depends on what's going on. Sometimes kiting is similar to turtling because all you're doing is moving and say... Healing from the zerg rush, other times, it's actually just a strategy. Either way, I kind of find it tedious to do myself.