Darkmoon6789
-
Posts
747 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Darkmoon6789
-
-
3 minutes ago, Some Jerk said:
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
-
8 minutes ago, daisy jane said:
If i remember correctly.
(hiding it just to be fair)
In Golden Deer - you have no idea. it's literally, you play chapter 11, and then you find out and Claude's basically like. "the eff" and that was my reaction.
I played blue lions like right after - there are hints. Dimitri sort of figures it out before you do, but it's sort oflike he's hoping it's not the case (obviously) hence his psychotic break after the reveal.
in Black eagles, I remember Edelgard is like doing everything in her power not to tell you what's up. (I mean by this point - you know so the shock is diluted) - but there are a lot of scenes that if you are... eagle-eyed (teehee) you could maybe figure it out before chapter 11.
So it ranks from
"the whole hell?"
to
"I didn't want to believe it"
to"you didn't want to see it"
which is i think is amazing. it's still a really big thing whenever i get there. (I just hate playing Black eagles route, so i never really remember it)
Edelgard seems to love me. I have her at +3 (for someone who has never actively gone for her). I figure as long as Edelard doesn't share with Gunnthra, she'll be someone i wouldn't mind long-terming adding merges to, because i think she'd be interesting to have and I think she's unique - but at the same time I wouldn't cry if i didn't get her, where as Dimitri is an obvious given, as is Claude.good luck trying to nab her
SpoilerFor me the reveal that the Flame Emperor was Edelgard changed how I looked at the Flame Emperor, and their previous actions. I actually guessed her identity on the title, I knew she was the heir to the Empire, she had the crest of flames and she has previously expressed wanting a revolution in her support with Dorothea. Which meant I believed the Flame Emperor completely that they disapproved of her allies actions at Remire village, and I would have joined them then if the game let me. But that is because I already knew who they were and I trusted Edelgard, and that trust never wavered, even as she declared war. There are a lot of clues to what is going on with Edelgard in the monastery. If you pay attention, if you read the books in the library. You can pretty much come to the conclusion that Edelgard is a puppet of Arundel due to the hold he is implied to have over the Imperial Royal family. Of course, there's even more evidence to Arundel being sketchy if you play the Blue Lions
The real twist for me wasn't the identity of the Flame Emperor, but that they weren't the Saturday morning cartoon villain they first appeared to be.
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
-
17 minutes ago, daisy jane said:
It was a complete surprise in Golden Deer, and they kinda give you hints in Blue Lions.
First-time Black Eagles player here, unsurprisingly, Sometimes I wonder if I would have viewed events and differently if I started with another house.
3 minutes ago, daisy jane said:Yeah there is that. not to mention there are other Legendaries they can toss in there in between.
again. it being Edelgard now makes all the sense in the world to me. Big name, super popular, and again capitalizing on the newest game. I don't even really want to play the CYL game because ... well okay, I think it was obvious the 3H Lords would win, but these are done months in advance, so it would have had to be in the works before CYL 4 voting. Same with Alm (who also released in April, and got a Brave variant a few months later - after being completely vanished for like 2 years - last year really was Year of Alm, being a Meta changer, getting a brave alt, and having one of the best duo skills period).
For me. the longer they postpone Dimitri and Claude is the happier my orb savings will be.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
-
12 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:
Good catch. Here's her convo with Seteth, in VW20 and SS19:
Seteth: Edelgard! Return Rhea! Release your grip on Fódlan!
Edelgard: If you strike me down, they will return. I cannot permit what you desire. You are a child of the goddess. You must not be allowed power over the people!So it does appear that she's of the mind that the "children of the Goddess" will, by their very nature, exploit humanity. Which I certainly disagree with, but it's understandable in the light of Rhea's past deeds, and the relationshipbetween Nabateans and the Church. It is possible for Byleth to spare Seteth and Flayn in CF15, but we are told they go into hiding.
Yep. Ironically, it's on Dimitri's route that the paralogue is trickiest to activate, requiring two out-of-house recruits rather than one. The rationale for excluding Edelgard and Hubert isn't made explicit - does Linhardt think that they would try to kill Indech? Or conversely, that Indech would refuse to cooperate with the leader of an anti-Church movement? His precaution does pay off, but I love the idea of giving The Inexhaustible to a weirdly-built Edelgard or Hubert, and them having no clue where this weapon came from.
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.
-
4 minutes ago, daisy jane said:
Honestly, I don't think they are gonna run the 3H lords back to back to back like people are expecting. I would reckon one would be released in December. maybe one in the summer, for 1/2 anniversary if they wanted to. but i don't think IS would shoot their bullets like that. (If i had to guess - it would be Now - December - April. hitting the big money spending months)
Honestly, I can't remember what Edelgard's epitaph is at the end of 3H. I know that Dimitri is Tempest King & Saviour King. I will say as someone who hasn't played Radiant Dawn, basically any character they release spoils the game for me just a tiny bit more (I mean Brave Micaiah etc flat out did it for me). I am always careful about spoilers (when taking about any game) because I do believe it doesn't matter if it's 1 year, or 13 years if you are new to the franchise or for some games (Ie: Genealogy etc and you don't emulate) you simply don't know, so you wouldn't know.
I think for an example - I am a big Doctor Who Fan (well, used to be). but i remember when it first came out i was like meh i'm not gonna watch it, so i watched the Regeneration scene of the 9th and 10th Doctor, and i was like "cool, they blow up." no context, no real big thing. But then when i actually watched the show, I was afraid that It was gonna be ruined for me because i knew what happened. but when watching and getting the whole build up to the moment - i was completely emotional.
The Reveal of the Flame Emperor was a massive "THE EFF" moment, and I do think revealing it here the way they did will kind of lose the 😮 factor that you got when you got to chapter 11 and found out. But i also think (again) when you get the whole scope of the story, while someone may know - it will still be shocking..
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
-
45 minutes ago, Alistair said:
Indech's paralouge requires Lindhardt and Leonie in Part II. I think in Crimson Flower it's available after the conquest of Deirdru, and neither Hubert nor Edelgard can be deployed there (because Lindhardt doesn't want them finding out about Indech).
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. -
6 minutes ago, SuperNova125 said:
The problem is not Edelgard getting a Legendary version now, the problem is the title for me at least. Also knowing the patterns of IS with the female and BE bias and when also considering that so far all monthly heroes have been Male (Lif, Chrom, Bramimond) it becomes pretty apparent as to who would be the first 3H legendary. This means that the other two will arrive soon enough, I expect the next Legendary to be either Claude, or they could move Peony to make a place for Dimitri in June and August goes to the last one of them. August however can be a filler (hopefully Seliph) as during that period the Lords will receive the Brave alts.
About Edelgard as a unit I have been thinking of how to make her more consistent. I am wondering, how will Brave axe be one her supposing she has around 40 to 43 (when considering that a random seasonal had 43, she does deserve that Akt stat with a super boon as she is a Legendary that could appear again in September). Brave axe, Galeforce, her base kit and Heavy blade can give her the consistency she might lack allowing her to kill and activate the special effectively as depending on OHKOing the foe isn't the best thing.
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
-
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.
-
1 hour ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:
The question of "is Edelgard species-ist?" is, I think, an interesting one that the game doesn't really answer either way. How much should be read into the music for CF's ending cutscene being called "A World for Humanity", or the fact that she and Hubert can't be fielded on the Indech paralogue? If she knew Flayn and Seteth's true identities, would she treat them any differently? It's hard to tell, when all the Nabateans she interacts with are her foes for political reasons. Edelgard almost certainly isn't racist (considering her bond with Petra, and the mutual respect they share on either side of battle), and she probably isn't species-ist (but even if she is, you could make the case that it's justified by her sample size of one Nabatean). Either way, though, I agree that it's not a strong case to make against her.
It's an interesting way of framing things. I don't believe Edelgard (nor Rhea, Dimitri, and Claude) are "bad at heart", and certainly wouldn't "wholly condemn" any of them. At the same time, though, I tend to judge people more by their actions, than by what I perceive their character to be. For example, while both Claude and Edelgard express a desire to rule a united Fodlan, I have harsher feelings on Edelgard choosing to invade the Alliance, than I do on Claude's actions before or after the invasion. Granted, it's a move that pays off for her in the end, and gives us a couple really cool maps, so I'll let it slide, haha.
Agreed on this one! Part of what I really like in Edelgard as a character is her respect for the beliefs of others, including her opponents. She doesn't try to force others to change their beliefs - had she the hypothetical opportunity to save lives by "brainwashing" her enemies into no longer opposing her, she almost certainly would not do so. She values the will of the individual highly, which I think plays into her "people aren't as strong as you think" conversation with Dimitri on Azure Moon. He sees more value in people sharing beliefs, relying on one another, and partipating in institutions such as the Church, than in being totally independent and self-assured. At least, that's how I read their dichotomy, if that makes any sense.
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
-
7 minutes ago, Crysta said:
In their dialogue she acknowledges that Claude's ideals are not far removed from her own but she can't entrust Fodlan to him because he isn't familiar with the history of Fodlan like she is. She outright refuses to surrender after Claude literally pleads for her to do so.
Self-righteousness and arrogance are pretty much why she has to die in that route. The recycled cutscene is cool, but... she's her own worst enemy a lot of the time.
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.
-
9 minutes ago, catsorbet said:
At the top of my head:
- Early on, she confesses to you that she would have no issues sacrificing her own citizens, because a sacrifice for the greater good is not one in vain. This is technically true, but in the end she starts a war, which would obviously bring a lot of sacrifice and death. Though she is seen honoring the fallen on all routes.
- She is the least sympathetic after you lose your father, I saw this as too cold, I was like whoa girl. But considering she saw the deaths of her whole family, this is likely how she learned to cope.
- In all other routes, the war is negatively affecting everyone. Dimitri lost his home, was framed for murder, and spent 5 years in isolation. Claude has to deal with the Alliance on the verge of collapse, with attacks likely from imperial loyalists. Not to mention the merchants, monks, and citizens who come to the monastery to get food and have a place to stay. The war destabilizes the whole continent.
However, there are counter points, she starts the war because she wishes to eradicate the church as she sees them as the ones to blame, and they partially are with their outdated system of nobility in which titles are inherited and not earned. However it was TWSITD who set the way for the insurrection of the seven, caused the tragedy of duscur, and tortured Lysithea's family. The church is bad and stunts creative growth, so she has a point, but I feel like she should have dealt with the agarthans first?
And also, Dimitri is also a pretty polarizing character.
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
-
2 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:
I'll agree with those who say Edelgard isn't the "most hated", but she is a character whom people have strong feelings on. I think this "divisiveness" is actually a sign that IS succeeded in creating a true morally-gray character. In fact, I quite like her as a character, both in her own route and in those where she plays the antagonist.
At the same time, though, I don't really agree with Edelgard on a personal level. While she was right to find fault with the Church, I still see choosing to work with Those Who Slither as something of a devil's bargain, that only paid off in her favor because the postscript tells us Thales choked to death on the idiot ball. Had she confided the truth behind Twistid in the Church, and the other house leaders, it might have been possible to eliminate a group that literally tortures people to death. Then Edelgard could take the throne and make internal reforms, without imposing her system on other nations.
For what it's worth, I understand why Edelgard didn't go such a route, and why she believed that fixing the world through a war was her duty. Strangely enough, I really enjoy the Crimson Flower route - not because I support Edelgard, but because I love how every battle has weight, how much it differs from other routes, and how it shows the magnitude of effort and sacrifice that must be made, when one wishes to change the world through war. It feels like the "blood-stained path" Edelgard speaks of, brought to life.
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
-
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.
-
19 minutes ago, darkblade2814 said:
If i remember correctly, they talk before the battle, they agree it's too late to change things, and she dies because the wounds she sustains are to much, she dies asking to not be alone and regretting Byealth not siding with her (my memory is a bit faulty right now, I just woke up from an afternoon nap)
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
-
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
-
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
-
26 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:
I think the exact issue with DnD is that there aren't supposed to be subjectively good alignments. You can have personal codes, but if that personal code doesn't align with a specific idea of moral good (stuff like always be kind to others, all life is sacred, causing pain to others ought to be avoided at all costs etc.) then you're technically a neutral character. If anything, I swing the opposite to @Darkmoon6789 in that I'm wary of giving any character a good alignment unless they are genuinely uncontroversial goody two-shoes types, or show a very consistent commitment to helping people/saving lives because it is 'the right thing to do' (rather than because of taking orders etc.). I don't think that a character who believes that they are doing the right thing and does it is good-aligned, unless what they believe is right maps exactly onto DnD moral goodness. A lot of FE3H characters are 'good' that still don't fall into the DnD good alignment.
So both Edelgard and Rhea are at best neutral on all routes, and potentially evil by my count. Their aspirations are certainly noble most of the time (which is what would keep them at neutral) although in their respective worst moments they choose to spite Byleth at the cost of more lives (Hegemon is a danger to everyone, Rhea burns Fhirdiad even though it's likely she loses). Even if you can justify those things, the actions themselves are evil-aligned. Their respective views of an ideal society also both inherently don't match the 'good' alignment - Edelgard basically creates a continent-wide junta, Rhea is a control-freak wielding religious doctrine.
They are also both lawful, in that they both believe that a correct society springs from a correct ordering of societal hierarchy. The fact that they disagree on what that hierarchy entails doesn't change their lawful nature.
So Edelgard and Rhea are lawful evil in AM/CF respectively. I think madness excuses you from the normal alignment system (unless the character is permanently insane) so SS Rhea might still be neutral (and is certainly neutral in VW), and Edelgard is lawful neutral in all routes apart from AM.
I am actually rather confused of why Azure Moon Edelgard would have a different alignment than the rest. The Hegemon thing is more reckless than evil in my eyes, even if it is able it is also literally the only such action does in the entire game and it isn't anywhere near as bad as Rhea burning down the capital of the kingdom. I could be wrong but I don't even think Hegemon actually attacks her allies. The one who seems to bear the brunt of the sacrifice is Edelgard herself, there is no guarantee she would survive such a transformation. But it is essentially the same thing that Dedue does in Crimson Flower, is he also of evil alignment?
The alignment in Dungeons & Dragons technically corresponds to cosmic forces, that much is correct. Good would be defined by the good aligned gods as a unit, there are also forces that basically manifest the evil alignments. Though hilariously enough under my interpretation Asmodeus, the ruler of the nine hells and basically the embodiment of lawful evil might not actually be evil aligned as it does seem like he does truly believe that he is providing a necessary function for the universe and does what he thinks is necessary to fight against the threat posed by the Demons. Asmodeus is all about order and tries to corrupt mortal souls in order to send them to hell. So he can use them as foot soldiers in the eternal war to protect the multiverse from the Demons. So he actually doesn't have the worst of motivations.
When it comes to Edelgard, I think the absolute best version of her is at the end of Crimson Flower. I do think that Edelgard as a future ruler of Fodlan would probably be a lot more benign than she has been previously. As it is very likely that she would develop a reluctance to go to war ever again because of her previous experiences . She is also more in touch with her emotions by now. And is capable of great acts of kindness and mercy. So for this version, I would say lawful good
Still, I would argue that alignment that very nature is subjective as it is ultimately the GM who is the arbiter of what counts as what alignment. But it is fun to discuss these things. But would totally be the type of GM would remove the Paladin's powers for killing orc children thinking it was okay because orcs are all of the chaotic evil alignment. Same with slaughtering a village full of Tieflings, don't care if they have the blood of devils or demons, killing someone because of their species is an evil act.
-
10 minutes ago, catsorbet said:
I find Edelgard changes too much depending on the route, but overall I'd say true neutral, she does what she believes is right.
Dimitri: Lawful good to a fault, Dedue states that the reason Dimitri suffers so much is his kindness and trust. He trusts very easily and can't handle negative situations well. This is why he changes so much in the timeskip, he's consumed by his trust in Edelgard, his only family, being broken. He gets himself consumed by his own negative thoughts and his perceived purpose in life.
Claude: Chaotic good. Questions authority and the ways of the world. Not above an odd scheme but doesn't want to kill anyone, cares for his allies.
Rhea: True neutral or lawful evil. She does what she thinks is right, however this includes forcing an entire continent in a closed system where disobedience is met with harsh punishment. She hates humans for what Nemesis did while knowing that he was deceived by TWSITD
Yuri: Chaotic neutral or true neutral. He will lie and cheat, but he does it only out of necessity, his gang are just people stealing to survive and he was willing to commit murder to protect those he cares about. However he's not a bad person, he wants to do all he can to help others like him.
Doesn't doing what you believe is right automatically qualify you for the good alignment? At least that is my reading of the alignment system. This would apply both to Edelgard and Rhea, but I do feel that Rhea is the darker character of the two. I actually can't decide whenever the Archbishop is lawful good, lawful neutral or lawful evil. The only reason I don't think she is lawful evil is that she does believe she is protecting the world from another catastrophe, but her authoritarian policies does make this a good fit otherwise. But lawful evil also kind of have a requirement of someone using law and order to benefit themselves above others, so it isn't a perfect fit.
So you would say that Edelgard has different alignments, depending on the route? I am not so sure myself as I didn't actually notice a major difference in her other than how much she trusts other people, with Crimson flower Edelgard being the only one truly capable of opening up and trusting other people with her true feelings. She usually tries to bury her emotions and be self-reliant in order to get done what she feels needs to be done. Crimson flower Edelgard, unlike her azure moon counterpart is capable of putting her trust in other people, and doesn't consider relying on others a negative. But is this difference enough to change her alignment? I actually barely see Edelgard in non-Crimson flower routes so it is hard to judge how different she truly is from such little interaction. But I can say one thing for sure, she is always noble, well-intentioned and self-sacrificing. Traits I associate with good.
I really put down Edelgard as chaotic because of her opposition to tradition and questioning the ruling authority of the land, she just doesn't respect the rank given by birth. But it is also possible to argue that she is indeed lawful, just a different kind of lawful from Rhea as they both believe in law and order, but have different ideas about what that order should be. Still I have mentioned elsewhere how similar I think she is to Claude. Maybe she is either neutral good or true neutral as she has aspects of law and chaos. Maybe her Crimson flower counterpart is a variant of the good alignment and in other routes either lawful neutral, true neutral or chaotic neutral.
The only version I would accept as evil is Hegemon Edelgard thanks to some of the things she says in this form, but as she wasn't like this previous to the transformation I am willing to bet that the transformation itself distorted her thought pattern, Edelgard even warns her followers before she goes through with it to keep their distance from her as she can't guarantee what she will be like during the transformation. So this isn't really her and even here, she still has a glimmer of good intentions.
-
5 minutes ago, catsorbet said:
I want to talk more about Claude as I'm a few chapters from being done his route.
I feel like Claude could get along with either Edelgard or Dimitri, however it's mostly pointed out that his ideals aren't so far from Edelgards because both of them wish to rebuild the system whereas Dimitri wishes to improve it for the people. I'll be honest and say I like Claude's way of doing things the most, I like his ideals the most and his dream because he doesn't want anyone else to suffer on silly prejudices imposed with really no proof.
After the Golden Scheme, Lorenz hints to how most children in Fodlan are raised: to think the church is the only way, to get rid of dissenters, to believe that outsiders and nonbelievers are bad and wrong. How far can this really get society? Fodlan is basically closed off because of the church. This is why I want Claude to open the borders, and to be honest I don't think either Edelgard nor Dimitri would be against relations with Almyra because 1. they know Claude and 2. They both want whats best for the people, even if they think differently about what the best is. The main thing is that Claude and Edelgard don't think the church is necessary but Dimitri states it should be kept for the believers.
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
-
1 hour ago, vikingsfan92 said:
Personally I think Claude presents as much if not more of a challenge to ally with as anyone else. For one thing the alliance as a whole is complicated when it comes to the war. They make it a point to say Claude is master of tactics just to hold the alliance together through out the timeskip. The alliance was pretty evenly split on which side to support during the timeskip so Claude outright choosing either side could result in an Alliance Civil war. So even before of any of his personal views come into play he has to somehow sell the side of his own faction that he is not pleasing with the choice on the decision. Either choice angers a ton of people in his faction and I doubt everyone is willing to give him a free pass for it.
And then he has his own personal ambitions he wants to accomplish. And I think he might not feel he can accomplish them by teaming up with either side tbh.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, ordinaryunits said:
The aspect of trust is interesting especially considering Claude and his themes, where he literally has a speech that talks about the importance of people working together to overcome their burdens in life. And i think that could also be one of edelgard's tragic flaws where she doesn't trust enough people and makes unnecessary enemies. That's probably why claude regretted the way that things turned out in the verdant wind route. Because I really don't think that edelgard and claude are too incompatible.
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.
-
11 hours ago, haarhaarhaar said:
It's interesting you say that, because as I now understand it pretty much all characters who are happy to kill for any reason that isn't the protection of more lives, self-defence, or in service to an honourable cause (normally self-sacrifice/binding circumstances) belong to an evil alignment in DnD. So looking through FE3H characters there are:
Part I minor villains like Kostas, Miklan and Metodey would be considered evil (neutral, chaotic and lawful respectively).
Then there's VW Dimitri, who goes through a lot of the pain of AM Dimitri but with none of the salvation (and is pretty vicious along the way) - I'm not sure if he counts as an evil alignment, but there's a case for it.
DnD evil alignments don't normally count failure to prevent evil as an evil itself, and that is arguably what preserves Catherine (who at least tries to stop Rhea) as neutral in CF. Cyril in CF is basically amoral - Rhea is his morality, but I'm still undecided on whether that's enough to treat him as evil-aligned or not. Gilbert is harder to judge on that route - he should have the most reason to stop Rhea, but isn't even in the cutscene where Rhea decides to burn Fhirdiad. So Cyril and Gilbert in CF could be argued as evil.
Potentially Aelfric? I think he technically would count as an evil alignment, but depending on if his plan was to murder the Ashen Wolves or just drain a lot of their blood.
Some of the parent characters, and paralogue villains? Gloucester might be (given Ignatz/Raphael paralogue), Mercedes' stepdad (he seems uncontroversially evil-aligned, but isn't TWSITD I'm pretty sure), Ingrid's suitor (Ingrid/Dorothea paralogue), arguably Maurice, and yeah the leaders of houses Aegir, Vestra and Varley.
I've probably missed a few - are there others?
EDIT: How would people type Nemesis? (I mean original, not VW) Does he count as an evil alignment?
Kind of completely forgot about Kostas. I think he would be either neutral evil or chaotic evil. As for Metodey I do question why Edelgard employ him. He doesn't exactly make her side look good. I do have some sympathy for Miklan however, due to his past, but I guess he is a bandit. But I get the feeling he wouldn't be the same person. If he was born with a crest.
The thing is that for me for someone to qualify for an evil alignment someone need to not only be willing to kill they must also enjoy the act of killing and bringing suffering to others. Which disqualifies any person who dislikes seeing or is disturbed by war and death from being evil. Which is actually most of this game's cast.
As a general rule, the truly evil aligned characters seems to be very minor, with the exception of the Agarthans. I guess harming someone for the sake of furthering personal power would also be evil. Most of the corrupt Empire nobility would probably be lawful evil. The exception being Arundel, who is much more destructive and therefore chaotic evil.
Aelfric is actually quite hard to qualify, his motivation is technically the sacrifice and absolutely insane number of people in order to revive his old crush. Doesn't seem that he cares about the consequences, as long as he gets his way. But they would argue his desire to resurrect Sitri at the expense of other lives is far more selfish than the likes of Edelgard, who doesn't do what she does just for herself. I get the impression he once was lawful good, but his selfish motivations are very much neutral evil.
April's Legendary Hero: Edelgard
in Fire Emblem Heroes
Posted
I guess replacing her bonfire with galeforce is a given? I am also assuming I should run heavy blade with this as a seal?