Darkmoon6789

I guess replacing her bonfire with galeforce is a given? I am also assuming I should run heavy blade with this as a seal?

That actually sounds amazing, way stronger than any other version of Edelgard when it comes to pure stats. So do anyone know how long it is until release? I live in a different time zone. So I have no idea when it is supposed to drop

Also, thanks, I am hoping to get more than one, but as long as the nature isn't terrible. I will make do with one. Some people have pointed out that she has a C skill that is very useful for other armoured units. I wonder how it would do on Flame Emperor, bringer of war. You know, if they release another version of Edelgard (run an entire team consisting only of different versions of Edelgard, that would be such a meme team. I guess I could add Arvis for now. As his title is so similar

First-time Black Eagles player here, unsurprisingly, Sometimes I wonder if I would have viewed events and differently if I started with another house. I am quite happy about it but I am also a massive fan of Edelgard. I think a lot of people are so their decision makes sense. To my understanding, three houses was incredibly successful financially. If they actually released post if Dimitri immediately afterwards, but will be another hero I absolutely had to get. So it might get expensive. I hope my current stack of 90 orbs will be enough to get Edelgard, but with an 8% chance it should be. I will get exclusively green orbs until I get her

I think it is mostly due to the fact that they are immortal, any human tyrant would eventually die and be replaced, once a tyranical Nabatean gets into power, it would be very hard to get them out of there. I think Edelgard would tolerate their people within her empire, she just wouldn't be willing to give them any positions of power because of what happened in the past. Seteth at least is partwise culpable for Rhea's regime, but I don't think Flayn as much to do with it. So I think she is an innocent party. Does the same thing happen if you spare Flayn and not Seteth? I also think Edelgard has this idea that humans should rule over humans, which I think isn't entirely unreasonable, given how easily a dragon could dominate a species that are so much weaker than them. Just another case of Edelgard using her power to protect the weak from being exploited by the strong really, is she really that much different from Dimitri when it comes down to it? At the very least, I don't think that Edelgard's hatred of Nabateans is extreme enough to justify ethnic cleansing or anything like that. Therefore I think the Hitler comparisons are rather stupid. There is a huge difference between killing one dragon and killing over 6 million people, and it might be even larger than this.

Seems like her epitah in her solo ending actually is Flame Emperor, I guess that would explain it. It is kind of funny, but every single person I seen the playing the game has always guessed that Edelgard is the Flame Emperor at the end of chapter 6. If they were playing Black Eagles. Maybe it is less obvious in the other routes

Not to mention that there is no telling what Indech would do if they were present, he might be more hostile towards them than the rest if he knew about Edelgard's personal war with Rhea. Granted, I don't know if Indech actually does approve of Rhea, he might have left for a reason. I was kind of thinking that Indech does have quite a bit of knowledge about the true history of Fodlan, it Edelgard could be convinced to talk to him. She might gain a more nuanced understanding of what is going on. Still, I maintain her issues is primarily with Rhea, even if she might be under the misconception that the rest have something more to do with controlling Fodlan than is the actual truth, thanks to Rhea's propaganda and the role the Saints serve in it. If Edelgard has any hatred towards Dragonkind as a whole, it is only because of misinformation. It is about their involvement in controlling things from behind-the-scenes rather than any kind of racial hatred.

It is definitely the title, they should have called her literally anything else, what about Crimson Flower? Or maybe just leave out Flame and call her Emperor. But for me it is not a big deal, as I have already played the game. But that title is a spoiler. So I am loving this new hero overall Here's a bunch of other titles, they could have used, Edelgard, Conqueror of Fodlan, Edelgard, An Age for Humanity, Edelgard, Liberator. Edelgard, Adrestian Emperor

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

I didn't even know that you could access the Indech paralogue on Crimson Flower, doesn't it require Dimitri? I just think that Edelgard really doesn't have a that much exposure to Nabateans other than Rhea, and she doesn't know their full history. Her view of them could very much in the different if she knew the full story and I think it would be. Seteth and Flayn would primarily be guilty by association with Rhea. But Edelgard would probably not be so harsh on Flayn if she knew her better. Still, she is merciful towards even Rhea as Edelgard spares her life in the other routes, which is certainly more mercy than Rhea would give her if the situation was reversed. You have to remember that Edelgard don't actually know the true history of Fodlan and what actually happened with the Red Canyon and Nemesis. I don't actually think that Edelgard is that hated at all, she has plenty of very loyal supporters and people who love her character. It is just that her detractors are also very vocal. But I am uncertain if they are really all that many, even the ones who doesn't agree with her usually at least think she is a well written character

She can definitely be her own worst enemy, especially when it comes to her ridiculous stubbornness in refusing to surrender, no matter how dire the situation. I sometimes wonder if she could have actually survived in verdant wind especially if it wasn't for her own insistence to die. Still, I do believe that there are multiple reasons for why she does this, one of them is the reason stated that she believes that her death will prevent more unnecessary casualties. The second is that she is afraid that her enemies will put her in a cell in similar conditions at Thales used to keep her in. The third reason is that she is the kind of person who believes it is noble to die for your cause. There is also a possibility that she chooses to die out of not being able to handle the guilt of all the lives lost in the war. If she knows that their deaths was for nothing, only through victory could she justify these casualties as meaningful. So choosing to die is in a way, are taking responsibility for the lives lost in the war, many has died for her and she is willing to do the same. The question is if her fears of being treated badly by Claude or Dimitri if she loses and surrenders are founded or not. I don't actually think so, it is pretty obvious to me, but by this point in time, neither Claude or Dimitri have an actual grudge against her, so it is mostly down to Edelgard being psychologically scarred from her previous experiences. She actually makes reference in Azure Moon to that she feels that Edelgard actually died many years ago in that cell, she pretty much has no fear of death because she has no other reason to live other than her cause. She kind of seems depressed and suicidal. "Even if one clings to their faith, the goddess will never answer them, countless souls will be lost that way, living without purpose., I can be counted towards those who have died that way as well. But that is why I must change the world on the behalf of the silent and weak." As for the arrogance and self-righteousness, Edelgard actually describes herself as arrogant in her introduction, but what kind of truly arrogant person does that? She also says this particular line during the debate with Dimitri in Azure Moon: "Maybe it is self-righteousness, but it doesn't matter, someone needs to take action and put a stop to this world's endless bloodstained history" Edelgard seems quite self aware of her flaws. And she has a point, you can't truly expect doing nothing to have any real effect on solving the problems of Fodlan. Which in my view is essentially what Dimitri is suggesting, that the ruler should do nothing, even if they have the power to change things. So in my view Dimitri's adherence to his own values blinds him to the truth of the situation. They are the same in this manner, both are absolutely convinced they are in the right. There is also one more thing, with Edelgard that I should mention, you remember this line? "These sacrifices will allow us to create the future will never need sacrifice again, it may seem contradictory but it is the only way". Just another statement that shows Edelgard's self-awareness when it comes to the contradictions in her own philosophy. It is just that she believes that it is only contradictory on a surface level and that in reality, her methods are the only method she believes will work. I honestly feel really sorry for Edelgard, even if I believed she was wrong. I do think she has a good heart, and for that reason, she is not deserving of the hate she gets. Edelgard might look bad at the surface level, which is usually why some people hate her in the story as well, they just look at how things seem on the surface, but once you go deeper, you will realise that Edelgard isn't who she first appears to be. The ironic thing is that it does seem like the harm she causes to Fodlan is actually motivated by caring too much about people. Which is why she is such a tragic figure. Even when she wins she will have to deal with the burden of having so many deaths on her conscience for the rest of her life. Something that is eating her alive, due to the fact that she isn't a bad person at heart.

For me green obviously, assuming Edelgard is green, but I don't think any axe users aren't green. I will look into what else I might need once I fulfil my primary objective.

Well, I am ecstatic. Time skip Edelgard is probably my favourite version of the character and I am a fanatic when it comes to Edelgard. The only drawback about this is that I can't let this opportunity has been by so I am willing to spend a pretty ridiculous amount of money to get this hero. If people wonder why characters like Edelgard are so often chosen it is probably because it probably earns them quite a lot of money from people like me. So what would be an optimal setup for this particular hero? Flame Emperor Edelgard that is, not to be confused with Flame Emperor, Bringer of War, or Arvis, Emperor of Flame. Freaking ridiculous amount of Flame Emperors. Someone mentioned galeforce? I am guessing keeping most of her abilities is fine. I would be tempted to inherit her C skill to the Flame Emperor. If I get any spares. That is if this would be effective, their movement problem is probably at the unit's biggest weakness. Uncertain if I should do that or just merge the spares with Edelgard Flame Emperor. Someone mentioned the idea of having Rhea as a mythic hero in the future, would love that, especially if she is displaying her full glory rather than being just another holy caster. Anyone who has played three houses probably knows what I mean with Rhea's full glory.

The truth of the matter is that polarising characters are usually the most interesting, probably why Edelgard and Dimitri are my two favourite characters from this game. While I do believe that Edelgard is at heart a good person, it is her playing a role usually reserved for villains that makes her interesting. She might have been a bit harsh when it came to the death of Byleth's father, but I think ultimately what she said rings true. Plus, it is implied that she leaked to the location of the killer, if you talk to her in the monastery during this time she says that she will do anything to make sure Byleth gets their revenge, and I don't think she is lying. Edelgard likes Byleth and is probably feeling guilty about her involvement in their father's death. Her helping dealing with Kronya is her way to make up for it, not with just pretty words, but with action and her advice is actually something that is useful when it comes to coping. It is essentially: "sitting in here for all eternity moping will solve nothing, in order to honour your father's memory you need to take action. Eventually you have no choice but to move on " When it comes to Lonato. I interpreted this as what she is saying is that the militia that died for their lord fought for him willingly and therefore their choice and their sacrifice should be respected. I do not think Lonato forced them to fight for him, they took up arms willingly, like many would do for Edelgard at a later date. The sacrifices she is talking about isn't people she forces to fight for her, but the ones who do so willingly. Edelgard greatly respects those who die fighting for what they believe in, it is yet another reason she prefers to go out the same way. As you can see most detractions when it comes to her can also be interpreted as a positive if you look at it in another light As for the Agarthans, she probably would have taken them out first. If she wasn't convinced by Hubert to join up with them instead. Still Hubert was the one who eliminated the Agarthans in the end (even in verdant wind), he knew what he was doing from the beginning. Their alliance was a bid for them to buy some time and find out more about their enemy, while simultaneously furthering another goal of theirs. This tactic has its drawbacks, especially in the PR department, but I am not entirely certain that Edelgard could have taken on the Agarthans before the war as she and Hubert needed some time to consolidate their own power within the Empire and locate the base of the Agarthans. It is pretty hard to fight an enemy, you have no idea where they are at. Plus Edelgard pretty much always had their strings attached to her since her father was reduced to a puppet ruler, she is probably the Lord with the least ability to make a move against them. But Hubert knew what he was doing and he even planned for the eventuality of him and Edelgard being defeated and setting up a reserve plan to screw over the Agarthans if this was to happen. I guess what I am trying to say is. While Edelgard could have made a move against them earlier, I don't think she could have won. Which makes her alliance, the more pragmatic decision, and it should never be mistaken for her ever supporting the Agarthans or approving of what they have been doing Edelgard is neither a typical hero nor a typical villain, she is a truly unique specimen I have seen nowhere else, she does ultimately strive for the greater good, and in her own route. She does achieve her goals. But always at a great cost. What makes her morally grey is debating whenever or not the price was worth the result. I can't tell you the answer to that, because I don't think there is an objective answer. I just know that Edelgard did what she thought was right, and in so doing, she caused some damage along the way. By the way, I do find your comments quite insightful as you do seem to see both sides of the argument

Pretty much, the fact that people are so divided about her does pretty much prove that Edelgard is morally ambiguous. Even if people always will feel that their interpretation is right, ultimately the only truth we can reach is the consensus. Working with Agarthans is a devil's bargain, but one I am not sure how much choice she has in making. The main thing that bothers me is that I at least wish that people could dislike Edelgard for things she actually does, instead of absurd personal interpretations like her being racist. It always kind of angers me when I read something like that because Edelgard actually isn't that far removed from Claude when it comes to her opinion on foreigners. I do think it's rather silly to act as if she tried to enforce some kind of Holocaust on the Dragons as well, the only dragon you have to kill in Crimson flower is Rhea and she was offered a chance to surrender, and Edelgard doesn't kill her anywhere else in the game, instead choosing to imprison her. It isn't about her being a dragon, it is Rhea wielding power like a tyrant that Edelgard has a problem with. It just seems to me that a lot of Edelgard haters just don't understand her as a character. If I were judging the souls of the characters of this game, I would actually show mercy on Edelgard because I don't think her general nature is bad, and I would show the same mercy to Rhea and Dimitri. They are all guilty of inflicting quite a bit of harm on the world, but neither of the three are beyond redemption. For me it isn't about their acts, it is about the nature of their character

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.

She literally begs for Byleth to kill her, while stating that only her death would immediately end the fighting across the continent, making the case for why the future of Fodlan lies across her grave. In every route she essentially chooses to die, she could have survived in any route if she really wanted to, it is just that she prefers dying for the cause, then leaving the rest of her life in captivity. She fears that more than anything because of her past

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. 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

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

I am actually rather confused of why Azure Moon Edelgard would have a different alignment than the rest. The Hegemon thing is more reckless than evil in my eyes, even if it is able it is also literally the only such action does in the entire game and it isn't anywhere near as bad as Rhea burning down the capital of the kingdom. I could be wrong but I don't even think Hegemon actually attacks her allies. The one who seems to bear the brunt of the sacrifice is Edelgard herself, there is no guarantee she would survive such a transformation. But it is essentially the same thing that Dedue does in Crimson Flower, is he also of evil alignment? The alignment in Dungeons & Dragons technically corresponds to cosmic forces, that much is correct. Good would be defined by the good aligned gods as a unit, there are also forces that basically manifest the evil alignments. Though hilariously enough under my interpretation Asmodeus, the ruler of the nine hells and basically the embodiment of lawful evil might not actually be evil aligned as it does seem like he does truly believe that he is providing a necessary function for the universe and does what he thinks is necessary to fight against the threat posed by the Demons. Asmodeus is all about order and tries to corrupt mortal souls in order to send them to hell. So he can use them as foot soldiers in the eternal war to protect the multiverse from the Demons. So he actually doesn't have the worst of motivations. When it comes to Edelgard, I think the absolute best version of her is at the end of Crimson Flower. I do think that Edelgard as a future ruler of Fodlan would probably be a lot more benign than she has been previously. As it is very likely that she would develop a reluctance to go to war ever again because of her previous experiences . She is also more in touch with her emotions by now. And is capable of great acts of kindness and mercy. So for this version, I would say lawful good Still, I would argue that alignment that very nature is subjective as it is ultimately the GM who is the arbiter of what counts as what alignment. But it is fun to discuss these things. But would totally be the type of GM would remove the Paladin's powers for killing orc children thinking it was okay because orcs are all of the chaotic evil alignment. Same with slaughtering a village full of Tieflings, don't care if they have the blood of devils or demons, killing someone because of their species is an evil act.

Doesn't doing what you believe is right automatically qualify you for the good alignment? At least that is my reading of the alignment system. This would apply both to Edelgard and Rhea, but I do feel that Rhea is the darker character of the two. I actually can't decide whenever the Archbishop is lawful good, lawful neutral or lawful evil. The only reason I don't think she is lawful evil is that she does believe she is protecting the world from another catastrophe, but her authoritarian policies does make this a good fit otherwise. But lawful evil also kind of have a requirement of someone using law and order to benefit themselves above others, so it isn't a perfect fit. So you would say that Edelgard has different alignments, depending on the route? I am not so sure myself as I didn't actually notice a major difference in her other than how much she trusts other people, with Crimson flower Edelgard being the only one truly capable of opening up and trusting other people with her true feelings. She usually tries to bury her emotions and be self-reliant in order to get done what she feels needs to be done. Crimson flower Edelgard, unlike her azure moon counterpart is capable of putting her trust in other people, and doesn't consider relying on others a negative. But is this difference enough to change her alignment? I actually barely see Edelgard in non-Crimson flower routes so it is hard to judge how different she truly is from such little interaction. But I can say one thing for sure, she is always noble, well-intentioned and self-sacrificing. Traits I associate with good. I really put down Edelgard as chaotic because of her opposition to tradition and questioning the ruling authority of the land, she just doesn't respect the rank given by birth. But it is also possible to argue that she is indeed lawful, just a different kind of lawful from Rhea as they both believe in law and order, but have different ideas about what that order should be. Still I have mentioned elsewhere how similar I think she is to Claude. Maybe she is either neutral good or true neutral as she has aspects of law and chaos. Maybe her Crimson flower counterpart is a variant of the good alignment and in other routes either lawful neutral, true neutral or chaotic neutral. The only version I would accept as evil is Hegemon Edelgard thanks to some of the things she says in this form, but as she wasn't like this previous to the transformation I am willing to bet that the transformation itself distorted her thought pattern, Edelgard even warns her followers before she goes through with it to keep their distance from her as she can't guarantee what she will be like during the transformation. So this isn't really her and even here, she still has a glimmer of good intentions.

Pretty much, Edelgard even states in her paralogue that she desires diplomatic relations with Almyra, she even pretty much makes the claim that the only reason conflict with Almyra exists is due to the church's harmful attitude towards those of a different religion and culture. I definitely imagine that in Crimson flower that both Edelgard and Claude would get along well in the future as leaders of their respective nations. I am uncertain if she would go as far as open the borders completely, but I do believe that Claude and Edelgard would work together against prejudice and strengthen the ties between the two nations. You know, the only thing that prevents me from making the claim that verdant wind is the best ending is that there is such a ridiculous number of major characters who dies in this route. Dimitri, Edelgard, and Rhea all perish which are the highest out of any path. A drawback that has nothing to do with how good the ending state of the world is. I think it accomplishes pretty much the same as Crimson flower does with more of an emphasis on uniting the world instead of just Fodlan. But Crimson flower only has the deaths of Dimitri and Rhea. If you assume the minimum number of possible deaths is what really occurred. I also think that a world that is both Edelgard and Claude in it is better than just Claude alone. One thing I have realised is that the church seem to propagate conflict with the world outside of Fodlan. Thanks to its beliefs. Which means that the war might indeed lead to less conflict with other nations in the future as both Claude and Edelgard makes changes to minimise the risk of such aggression. Edelgard really doesn't seem interested in conquering any more than the kingdom and the alliance. I do think a post-war Edelgard would also likely be sick of war and want to avoid it in the future. Plus, I really love the idea of Edelgard as the Emperor of Fodlan and Claude as the king of Almyra being close friends in this future

Good point, I guess the alliance couldn't put themselves entirely behind Edelgard without first going to war with itself, granted they seemed to do that a lot anyway. I kind of forgot about that. This is also the reason why I think the alliance is better off being part of the Empire, just think about it, does it really benefit the common people that the alliance is ruled by a council of lords rather than a single monarch? It just creates a nation constantly in conflict with itself, the common people, slaves to the whims the likes of of Acheron and Gloucester. I don't think unity is always bad and the Leicester alliance could benefit from a more stable rule, especially under a benevolent Emperor like Edelgard. It is unfortunate, but if you are right, I guess Edelgard made the right decision in not trying to make an alliance with Claude.

I actually do think that Edelgard could possibly convinced Claude to join her with the right arguments. One of my friends did point out that one problem Edelgard have is that she usually assumes someone won't understand and don't even bother explaining herself properly. most of the time. Edelgard and Claude actually do have a lot in common. They even have similar views on Almyra. The thing is that if Edelgard had the support of the alliance from the beginning, the war would be less costly as her forces would be more overwhelming and win the war faster. But maybe her alliance with the Agarthans made an alliance with Claude impossible, and it wouldn't be easy for her to get out of her association with them. While I do think the versions of Edelgard in all routs are very similar when it comes to their morality. I have noticed one primary difference between the version in Crimson flower and in other places. Edelgard says this in Azure Moon: "if the people are weak. It is only because we are too used to relying on others instead of on themselves" Comparing this to Crimson flower Edelgard when she says this: "when humanity stand strong and people reach out for eachother, there is no need for God's". One version of Edelgard to understand the value on relying on others and the strength that can provide. Azure Moon Edelgard has really no one she really trusts and therefore is more self-reliant. Which is also why she has trouble trusting people and really opening up to them about her motivations and what she really feels. I think that Azure Moon Edelgard is making the assumption that no one will understand and therefore doesn't even try to make them understand. This changes if Byleth actually shows them, but they do trust her, and becomes the emotional pillar she can lean against. While it might be too late to prevent possibly unnecessary casualties during the war, Crimson flower Edelgard do learn to trust over the course of the story, and this will benefit as Emperor of Fodlan in the future. Maybe if she were like this at the start of the story. Maybe things would be different. The fact that this Edelgard actually trusts people might make all the difference.

Kind of completely forgot about Kostas. I think he would be either neutral evil or chaotic evil. As for Metodey I do question why Edelgard employ him. He doesn't exactly make her side look good. I do have some sympathy for Miklan however, due to his past, but I guess he is a bandit. But I get the feeling he wouldn't be the same person. If he was born with a crest. The thing is that for me for someone to qualify for an evil alignment someone need to not only be willing to kill they must also enjoy the act of killing and bringing suffering to others. Which disqualifies any person who dislikes seeing or is disturbed by war and death from being evil. Which is actually most of this game's cast. As a general rule, the truly evil aligned characters seems to be very minor, with the exception of the Agarthans. I guess harming someone for the sake of furthering personal power would also be evil. Most of the corrupt Empire nobility would probably be lawful evil. The exception being Arundel, who is much more destructive and therefore chaotic evil. Aelfric is actually quite hard to qualify, his motivation is technically the sacrifice and absolutely insane number of people in order to revive his old crush. Doesn't seem that he cares about the consequences, as long as he gets his way. But they would argue his desire to resurrect Sitri at the expense of other lives is far more selfish than the likes of Edelgard, who doesn't do what she does just for herself. I get the impression he once was lawful good, but his selfish motivations are very much neutral evil.