[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

3 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Congrats, you've answered why some people simply can't like Edelgard.

The simple fact of the matter is that no matter how justifiable and "purely intentioned" you view Edelgard as, people are going to disagree and read her actions differently. She's not a purely good character and at this point it seems a lot like you're making excuses for her and trying to make her out to be a lot more lily white than she actually is.

What she did still matters. Arguably more than her hang ups. She doesn't like that she had to start a war but she did it anyway and will trample anything in her way to achieve her goals. Her not liking it does NOT change that she still did it. Also I disagree with her goals being noble in the first place, they come across instead as arrogant and selfish to me. If I knew Edelgard was planning a continent spanning war that was going to spit in the face of people's sovereignty and lead to thousands if not millions of deaths (of innocent men, women, and children, let's not fool ourselves about what war entails), and the loss of so many other people's livelihoods I would have killed her on the spot.

None of this means I don't like her as a character, but I could never support her. Also I would like to point out that at some point you need to take a step back and see if your strict defense of Edelgard might be having the opposite effect of what you want. It is with me.

You don't have to like her, in fact, I know already that it is usually pointless trying to change people's minds, as most people are already set in their beliefs and nothing you can say or do will change that. It is more important to me that I speak the truth as I see it, rather than go out of my way to change anyone's mind.

I could understand the argument that killing Edelgard would be pragmatic because you believe that doing so will save lives. Though I don't personally believe that this will in fact prevent the war. Because at the end of the day, this war is not Edelgard's alone. It is a continuation of a conflict that started a long time ago between the Agarthans and the Nabateans. Ancient grudges die hard you know. It also doesn't change the fact that the current system is responsible for quite a bit of suffering and I do not think that peaceful means of changing it will ever work. 

We might want to accept it as fact that our choices might literally be between stagnation and religious tyranny, and a continental war with a massive cost that leads to liberation. At the end of the day, the war does improve Fodlan whenever Edelgard wins or loses. I guess it is up to each individual to ask yourselves if it is worth it or not. But let's not kid ourselves and pretend there really was another way to create such massive sweeping changes in such a short period of time. The Flame Emperor isn't really a person as much as they are an idea. Any person wronged by the crest system could potentially become the next person who set out to do whatever is necessary to change things. Killing Edelgard will not do anything to change the fact that the crest system is really crappy and that people will take up arms against it in the future.

I think it is just that your own moral convictions don't allow you to accept that the sacrifice of thousands might be necessary to achieve a greater good. I would guess you can't think that as you think that doing so is condoning these sort of actions and you just can never do that. Which is a lot like Dimitri, he just sees the death and suffering in the now and thinks that nothing could ever be worth it. Fair enough, but I think that is ultimately denying an uncomfortable truth because you can't handle its implications. I just think that such a view lacks a long-term perspective. 

But at the very least, I prefer people to dislike Edelgard for things she has actually done other than for untrue nonsense. She is neither racist nor a fascist, but she did undeniably start a war. Think of that what you wish.

52 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

The biggest irony I always found in 3H is that whether Edelgard wins or loses the war, Edelgard accomplishes what she wanted, which is for Fodlan to change and the people to open their eyes. 

It just marks the case that Edelgard is always the true victor in the end. 

People might demonize war and such, but war has been a reason people has experienced forms of growth. Every FE game has shown how people tend to mature more as a result of tragedy or suffering. Ike grew as he did cause Greil was killed by the Black Knight, forcing Ike to mature more. Marth forced himself to become stronger as a result of the tragedy he experienced, and throughout the war, he matured in learning that there's more to war than just an enemy. 

Hell, we have this rather silly contradictory behavior where we criticize wanton deaths and such, but we want stories with adventures or such to have some form of tragedy in them. We want people to die and suffer, because that is to help the main character develop. 

Anime have children be orphaned cause it makes the character force themselves to grow up or just be sad and pitiful.

War brings about tragedy, but it also becomes an opportunity to grow more. 

It reminds me of what Thórr says in FEH for the first Mjölnir's Strike.

The belief that you never needed war for that is a bit of a fallacy. Fodlan's remained stagnant for 1200 years. Very FEW people ever wanted something to change. 

Hell, the game even shows how peaceful approaches ends in utter failure. 

1) Ionius IX wanted to push a power centralization policy, and corrupt nobles opposed him, eventually teaming with the Agarthans and overthrowing him, resulting in Edelgard's torture and the Agarthans gaining control of the Empire.

2) Lambert had SOME form of change happening that was considered "radical/revolutionary" and made many enemies among nobles, who believed his changes were wrong, and thus teamed up with the Agarthans to assassinate him, resulting in Dimitri's descent to madness. 

Few people believed in changing things up, but many don't in the form of the nobility, who feared losing power or these changes causing problems for their nation. 

So if the world simply won't change peacefully, then it will be forced to change through violence. 

Even if we buy into those that say that Edelgard's system will fail, humans will still pick up the pieces and learn from this. It will be recorded in history, and people will use that knowledge to form something better in the future.

Edelgard left a mark in history, just as Edelgard has left a mark onto players. 

I mean, geez, we have so much debates about her being right and wrong that whether you love or hate her, she left quite the damn strong impression on people.

Well said, ultimately, I don't think the game actually takes a stance on whenever Edelgard is right or wrong. There is no evidence presented in game that reform through non-violent means is even possible at all, in fact, you did bring up examples of people have tried this in the past and failed. 

While it is possible to see three houses as a commentary on the tragedy of war, I think it actually goes far deeper than that. It is a commentary on the tragedy of the human condition and the reality of politics. It comments on the nature of change, the sacrifice, it often requires and asked the question whenever the cost is actually worth it. It's brilliance is in that it doesn't actually beat you over their head with one stance or another. It isn't just a moral cookie on how war is always bad and never justified, the message is far more complex than that.

At the end of the day, if you want to leave your mark on history, it is inevitable that not all people will like you. The stronger your impact the stronger the controversy. Individuals like Edelgard will create a strong response whenever positive or negative, by their very nature.  The reason I like her so strongly is the same reason that someone might hate, Edelgard is a character that actually dares to stand for something and something meaningful. 

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

42 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Your environment isn't really a valid reason to eschew responsibility for your actions. Kronya doesn't get a pass for harming people because she grew up in a harsh environment. Refusing to blame, or thinking two parties are equally to blame, kind of works against any attempt to think critically about something. And I find it's normally what people say when they don't really want to accept that there is, you know, usually meaningful degrees.

Edelgard isn't forced to do anything, and the actions she does commit to are not always smart or noble. And it's perfectly fine for someone to not like her for them.

tl;dr this isn't really logical. Very few comparisons in general are equally bad, good, or meaningful. You don't need to try to be objective, I guess, but I can't say I find this argument and the generalization it comes with compelling at all.

This is kind on the opposite end of the spectrum, though? It's exaggerating her good traits to a needless degree and kind of miring whatever is actually being argued. It's less annoying because there's a lack of dumb Hitler references, but not every argument needs paragraphs and paragraphs about how good Edelgard is and how much you like her and what your relationship with her means and why you feel the way you do.

Uh, do you think the goons she hired to go after Dimitri and Claude just wanted to be friends? We can argue about what her true motivations for using Kostas were, but they weren't wielding nerf bats. Multiple assassinations are carried out when she ascends her throne. She's perfectly willing to hurt people to achieve her goals, and not necessarily against people who have personally wronged her.

Her detractors aren't often interested in being fair, but it cuts both ways.

The whole bandit incident is a really odd one, and if assassination was actually the intentions it is one of her most stupid plans in the entire game. I personally more believably theory that it was a scheme to scare away the old professor and to let Jeritza take his place. It is specifically mentioned that her old professor ran away when the bandits attacked, that it was originally a nearby town that was attacked and that Edelgard, Dimitri and Claude kind of wandered off on Claude's request and encountered the bandits in the woods. So I very much doubt that scenario was part of the original plan. Especially not Edelgard almost dying, if it was idle to know what she was thinking with putting out an assassination order on herself. It is actually quite funny how close she comes to killing herself in this situation. Not sure if this is bad writing or really subtle writing. 

And yes, you usually do take care of political dissidents with assassination as that might actually prevent open war and save lives in the long run. It is no sense killing a lot of people when killing one person will also do it. If the intention was actually to kill Claude and Dimitri. This might also be a move that would make the future war easier, and would save lives in the long run. There in mind that this is less of a defence of these actions and more of an explanation of why she probably did it. Also, I was under the impression that most of the nobles who opposed her were put in prison rather than killed, which happens to Duke Aegir. The people who were killed were probably attempting to start a rebellion or was killed to prevent them from doing that, probably by Hubert. The truth is that being in monarch is messy business, and sometimes you are required to commit a lesser evil to prevent a greater one. Yes, I am saying that assassination is totally an acceptable tactic for a monarch. I also very much doubt that she did any of these actions just for the pleasure of killing, it is more of a ends justifying the means thing. 

Edelgard is well aware of the cost of war, and that sometimes a lesser evil is necessary to prevent a greater one. But whatever damage she does she always have a greater goal in mind for doing so. She isn't someone who kills for sport. I cannot help think that most people have a very naive idea in mind when it comes to leaders with perfect morals who never do anything wrong. That is a straight up impossible in that position, especially during a war. The only thing she would accomplish by not doing what is necessary is getting herself killed. 

You should also bear in mind that while I am in this to defend Edelgard, everything I say are my true beliefs. But I also think that for me arguing against her is like the defence lawyer making the argument for the prosecution. Yet, I have admitted she isn't flawless and I have even listed what I think those flaws are. Is that not enough? 

Yes, Edelgard isn't perfect, what do you argue should be done about it? Should she be executed for her crimes in some vain attempt at vengeance? However, many people she has killed directly or indirectly, this is irrelevant to me regardless of who we are talking about. As long as they show this many redeeming qualities. Society has a bad habit of reducing people down to their crimes in order to use it as an excuse not to feel empathy. No victim is ever helped by encouraging their most bloodthirsty attitude. I hate me attitude of infinite culpability, the idea that every individual need to pay for every single thing they did wrong in their entire life. That logic just leads to every single person on earth being condemned. I think it is usually better to try looking at the situation and do what is necessary to prevent as much harm as possible on a grand scale. 

Whenever she wins or loses the war, Edelgard is a person and not a monster, and deserves to be treated as a human being. It would be hard to convince her to not die in the first place if she loses, but if that is going to be done. She needs to be treated well. I would usually argue for rehabilitation of criminals, but Edelgard is a difficult case because she technically doesn't need rehabilitation as there is nothing wrong with her, her sense of empathy is fully functioning and she is more than remorseful over the deaths she caused. If anything, she needs therapy to find a reason to live and to deal with her past trauma. Maybe she can actually find a way to deal with the crest system while working with say Dimitri or Claude. 

I don't care what many people on the continent would think of her getting off scotch free. I think the entire attitude about criminals "getting away with it" if they aren't treated cruelly enough needs just go. If a person can find redemption and get into a situation where will never harm anyone again in the future, I do actually think a former victim of theirs is wrong for demanding vengeance. 

Not that I actually expect anyone in Fodlan to have such a mature understanding of justice, it is simply impossible in a word like theirs. But ideally that is what I think should be done in a perfect world. I hope we can at least agree that Edelgard is ultimately good enough that she does ultimately deserve a happy life.

When it comes to Kronya . I don't necessarily say you should give her a pass (but I have already told you what I think of vengeance). But ultimately in war. I do think her actions are allowable as she technically just assassinated an enemy commander. We as happened to be personally affected by this as Jeralt is Byleth's father. It is understandable that they would take it hard. Even desire vengeance. But ultimately it may have a right to kill Kronya, not because vengeance is right, but because the law of war work both ways. The thing is, anyone you assassinated on any side is a family member of someone, this is as true for Dimitri/Byleth killing Randolph to Kronya killing Jeralt. Both is the exact same action. But morally speaking, while I think assassinating/killing an enemy in war is allowable, killing your own ally to fuel a spell definitely isn't. A willing sacrifice would be one thing, but Kronya isn't willing at all. And there is no excuse for crap like Remire village, the tragedy of Duscur (assassination, fine, encouraging genocide, definitely isn't). Neither is the crap they did to Edelgard and her family. 

Sorry for all the long posts. I very easily get into this type of debate. It isn't just Edelgard, I have very strong opinions on justice and rehabilitation in general, which is directly tied to the concept of guilt.  Which relates to Edelgard. I asked think trying to demonise her is a bad excuse to deny her humanity. Not saying that you are doing that, but I have seen it. I hope I have been able to make my philosophy clear. I am also not saying that Kronya was a good person, she enjoyed killing way too much for that.

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

22 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Dimitri and Claude aren't fixated on "keeping their hands clean" - ergo their reputation - they simply don't believe as strongly as she does that she has to wage war to achieve the same ends. They didn't go through the same stuff she did, so this is pretty understandable and you can't really fault them for thinking that way. She has had to endure a long journey for her views to calcify the way they have.

And speak for yourself, yo. I obviously don't possess the same emotional investment you do in a fictional character, I can at least try to be objective about the stuff I love lol.

It just feels like every flaw poked at is instead turned into how it's not really her fault, there's some sympathetic reason that makes it justified, or it's actually a good thing... and I'm inevitably like 'uh, no'.

Aren't we all technically products of our environment? Using the Kronya example again, is it really her fault she was raised in the most awful society in all of Fodlan and brainwashed from birth to hate surface dwellers? She is who she logically should be given how she was raised and what is happened to her up to this point. The same logic applies to 'Dimitri, Claude, Edelgard and everyone else. Free will is an illusion, I don't truly believe the that we have any real choice but to be who we are. Therefore, throwing around blame is pointless. It doesn't matter if something is her fault or not. Kronya needed to be killed, not because she deserves to die, but because she needed to die, she was an enemy and whenever who she is is her fault or not. It doesn't matter. Only what is necessary matters. The same logic applies to Edelgard, Dimitri, Rhea. It is not about if some flaw of theirs make it so they are not worthy of life, by justify killing any of them. It is because in the situation it becomes a necessity to create a better world and minimise risks in the future. The only one of those three I am uncertain needed to die in the route they do die is Edelgard. It is less that she needs to die and more that she insisted on it. But once she attacks Dimitri it does fall into the realm of necessity.

I think one reason I am so defensive Edelgard is partwise out of habit, because I am so used to people demonising Edelgard every opportunity, so I instinctively try to weigh it out by sending her in as positive a light as possible. I do legitimately believe she is often unfairly maligned. And the fact that her friends are often called fascists is straight up untrue and unfair. If anything shatters the idea that Edelgard is some kind of tyrant. It is a quote that the most recent version of Edelgard made in heroes:

"I will create a world where all people are free, regardless of their bloodline"

That is fairly unambiguous, Edelgard's goal is freedom for all people. Doesn't actually mean what she is doing will actually work, but that is her intent. This is from a official source no less. But it doesn't seem to matter how obvious she makes her intent, people will call her fascist regardless and I don't think this is fair to her. I get the impression that some people are so desperate to paint her as a villain that they will ignore the obvious fact. Sorry if that kind of thing can make me a bit defensive when it comes to her. 

I also frequently get the feeling that a lot of people use someones flaws as an excuse to not feel any sympathy for someone and argue that they deserve nothing but suffering. Edelgard makes mistakes and she is flawed, but I think this tendencyof humanity to believe hat just because someone is flawed. That makes them undeserving of happiness. Despite her flaws. I think that Edelgard is worthy of sympathy because she often times do have understandable, sympathetic, and even noble reasons for her actions. 

I don't care one bit for the philosophy that says that justice demands an eye for an eye, I don't care if someone says that her victims require justice and that justice can only be achieved by the suffering of the people that wronged them. I don't care what these supposed voices of the dead, say, no one actually benefits from adding additional cruelty to the world. It is probably a primary reason why the justice philosophies of both boar Dimitri and Rhea is something I find revolting. Rhea really showed how cruel and sadistic she really is in the scene after the Flame Emperor reveal if his side with her. She has absolutely zero compassion or understanding for Edelgard, she doesn't even attempt to understand why she would do something like that, the instant she goes against the church. She is worthy of torture, death and eternal torment in the afterlife. I don't think it is possible to react any worse than that. It makes me flat out and doubt the claim that Cyril makes that Rhea is compassionate.  (Still the game manages to make me feel sorry for Rhea, because it is really good at doing that.)

When it comes down to it, Edelgard doesn't need to be perfect, she just needs to be less crappy than everyone she's up against (I don't think Claude counts as a true adversary as there simply isn't any hard feelings between them as there is with Dimitri and Rhea). All I will say that I have never seen Edelgard perform any action motivated by malicious intent, if she does something it is never with the goal to hurt someone. If people die that is a means to an end, never an end to itself. And Edelgard's ends is always the same thing. She pretty much never succumbs to the idea that vengeance is righteous. Most of her flaws is more connected to a lack of judgement, being straight up mistaken if something is necessary or not, or doing something recklessly stupid because she is stubborn. 

I guess what I am trying to say is that all evidence points to Edelgard being pretty impeccable when it comes to her motivations. It is when it comes to methods that the flaws start showing. But even then I don't think the war itself was necessarily one of them. But she did make a bunch of tactical errors along the way that made things worse than they had to be, most of them coming from her lack of trust.

(Even Hegemon is ultimately motivated by winning the war, and winning the war is something she wants to do because she wants to bring freedom to Fodlan. Making even her worst act ultimately having a good motivation. But it doesn't prevent this act from being brainless, stupid and reckless and I don't think she truly considered the implications of doing this. She can't have because if she did she would realise that this doesn't accomplish her goal, even if she does win, and she would never do it. Why would she do something knowing that it wouldn't lead towards her goal? I don't buy spite towards Dimitri as the motivation for this or the dagger. She was pretty none-spiteful, just some scenes prior and she has never become spiteful like any point in the game, so why would she start now?)

So I guess I can summarise with that. I am overly defensive of Edelgard because I am not used to her detractors being anywhere close to fair. But things have improved since I came to this site. Most people here have a more nuanced opinion. It is just that old habits die hard. Just know that I really enjoy these discussions and that is why I keep having them, I just take any excuse to talk about her.

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

1 minute ago, Crysta said:

My point is just that Edelgard isn't a pure white rose covered in blood who is only motivated by virtue and unselfish goals. Like, not even close. She has her own flaws and hang-ups and they shouldn't be overlooked if you really want to fairly analyze and respect her as a character. Dimitri's issues are a lot more extreme and I have significantly more issues with him as a ruler and protagonist, so I'm not going to allege they're the same, either. They're similar in the ways most people in general are similar.

I'm more or less trying to break the pedestal you put her on lol.

 

 

The covered in blood part is kind of important. Edelgard isn't perfect, but no one really is. Never denied the floors and hangups, but they are never a hindrance for my love of her. 

The thing is, when you love someone, complete objectivity is impossible. I am not even completely certain why I love Edelgard so much, I guess she is just very likeable and sympathetic. The thing is that because I understand why she is doing what she's doing. I never blamed her for it. I don't even believe in judgement to begin with, so it is pretty difficult for me. My personal philosophy is also all about doing what is necessary. Something that aligns very closely to her views. 

I don't think Edelgard's flaws makes her a bad person, I think it just makes her human. And humanity makes someone relatable, beyond all else, what Edelgard is, is human. She is the stubborn spirit of the young revolutionary who would do whatever it takes to make the world the better place, whenever it works or not there is something about that. That is truly inspiring to me. 

I kind of think that people today are too keen on doing nothing in face of the world's problems, we have been convinced that being a pacifist and avoiding conflict at all cost is always the right position. I have started to question that, how could we ever hope to make a difference if we don't actually take action? Even if things don't go entirely right. At least we can say we tried. It doesn't always involve killing people or starting wars, but the type of idealistic dedication that Edelgard stands for is the type that actually brings forth change. 

My biggest problem with the other Lords is that neither could accept the truth that sometimes in order to change things for the better, that change sometimes can't be entirely clean. Peaceful reforms doesn't always work. Dimitri and Claude are more focused on keeping their hands clean rather than actually doing what they need to do to realistically actually accomplished their dream. One of my principles is that regardless of how hard something is to accept, the truth is the truth regardless if it is pretty or not, and the truth sometimes isn't pretty. By focusing on accomplishing positive change instead of their own moral purity, Edelgard's bloodstained hands are purer than any of them, for she alone was willing to sacrifice her own image and risk being perceived as a villain to do what she thought was right.

I know this might seem contradictory, but is that I really feel. Here's another one of those truths at our hard to accept , but that I think is actually the truth. Being a flawed human being is purer, more honest and more beautiful than being perfect. Being flawed is required for empathy, a perfect being cannever feel empathy towards others as they cannot understand what it is like to have flaws. The lack of true empathy makes perfection monstrous and flawed but well-meaning beings beautiful. We can never feel for  perfect being, and they can never feel for us. 

Edelgard could never be as lovely as he is if she wasn't flawed, the fact that she makes mistakes is part of her beauty

Sorry about my rambling. I don't know how much sense it truly makes to try to put love into words. 

Dimitri is also a truly beautiful character in the way that he has darkness, but overcomes it. He would not be a compelling character if he started out perfect, always acted perfectly and ended up being perfect. Same with Edelgard, in her case the obstacle she overcomes is her lack of trust. The other routes showing the tragedy of what would happen to her if she doesn't overcome this flaw. But without the journey, she wouldn't be human

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

42 minutes ago, Crysta said:

I don't imagine it's terrifically easy for someone struggling with trauma to acknowledge that their brain is actively plotting against them. Warped reality is still going to be perceived as reality to them, and it makes it just as understandable as "well she has trust issues so she can't bring herself to do that clearly reasonable thing".

She doesn't really die to stop the war, and she knows it will continue afterward. The Slitherers are still very there, and if it wasn't for Hubert - the one willing to be the gracious loser - they would definitely have the upper hand over Byleth/Claude. She dies because she promised not to give up, not out of noble sacrifice.

I think they are both definitely sympathetic. But keeping a promise not to give up is in a way noble, stubborn, yes, but noble. She thinks she owes it to her dead siblings. I guess in that sense. She is very similar to Dimitri. Both are doing what they are doing, not really for themselves, but because they think that their perished relatives would want something like this. Some kind of notion that don't have a right to live for themselves anymore and must do something that would please the dead. 

I swear, the more I examine things. The two of them seems more similar than different, and neither ever really so it. Both Edelgard and Dimitri are motivated by something tragic that happened to them in the past, something they have trouble letting go of. As well as a compulsion to fulfil a promise they feel they made to those who died. With Edelgard, I think that promise expanded with time to all who died for our during the war. She feels it is dishonouring their memory to back down. 

Like I said, very much like Dimitri, minus the vengeance. 

I guess one factor is that Dimitri's target is Edelgard, someone I really care about, I went with Black Eagles first and ran Crimson Flower, I was already more than attached to Edelgard on experiencing Dimitri's story. Maybe it would be different if he was my first Lord. But I knew from the beginning that Edelgard wasn't worthy of his hatred, given the circumstance. It is amazing that I feel anything for him at all. 

At the end of the day boar Dimitri is the representation of the concept I hate the most in the world, the idea that evildoers must suffer for justice to occur. It is sadistic and self-righteous. However sorry I feel for Dimitri, it is muddled by the fact that I will never ever approve of these type of actions, even a little bit. I am glad he recovered from this darkness. The truth is that if I personally witnessed what he planned to do with Randolph. I would have killed him on the spot. Not out of hatred, but because I would be worried about what he would do in the future. If I didn't know the future already I would be worried, he would do the same to Edelgard. Killing is one thing, but torture? I could never allow that. 

Edit: 

One of my principles is to never suspend with empathy for anyone regardless of what they might have done, but the one thing that really challenge this principle is people saying someone does serve to have something bad happen to run. However much I would hate a rapist . I would hate them even more if the said the victim deserved to be raped. 

Heck, I am even capable of feeling empathy for Kronya. Not sure why, I just don't hate her any more than I hate Dimitri. But it is a case where I could justify killing her in revenge, in the end it is basically war and killing your enemy in war is fine. The put it like this, she might killed Jeralt, we care because he was the father of the protagonist. But every person Dimitri killed is the relative of someone as well, someone is bound to have the same personal reaction to their death. Does being personally affected make it any worse? I guess this also applies to any person who dies in the war, which could be attributed to Edelgard. At least Edelgard feels bad about killing people, Boar Dimitri and Kronya doesn't (however redeemed Dimitri does feel guilt, which is part of why he is a better person). 

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

9 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Yes, the death themselves are what I'm referring to, since you stated that they made you like Edelgard more and I was kind of ??? You could make the argument that Dimitri is similarly suicidal in his murder hobo endings, and he's operating on behalf of other people too (though they're ultimately just voices in his head - he doesn't really perceive it that way), and there isn't an Edelgard death that isn't essentially worthless.

I definitely feel sorry for him, is linked to the voices in his head. But what the voices are telling him to do is no better than the voices in a serial killer's head, telling them to kill. The malicious brutality of the voices of these ghosts makes me feel this goal isn't admirable in the slightest. Quite the opposite, vengeance is one of the most destructive principles in the world, and it creates an infinite cycle, something that Dimitri eventually realised when Fleche tried to kill him. He should have never listened to the voices, they don't want what is best for him or anyone really.

I kind of wish Edelgard didn't feel the need to die like this, she could have survived if she wanted to. But her intention is to die to save lives, rather than to add more corpses to the pile. A major reason I like Edelgard more than Dimitri is that she never killed out of some misguided idea that people deserve to die, authorities always been about the necessity. She has never by any point convinced herself that most of the soldiers that died against her deserve death. In my mind her goals, an attitude are infinitely better. 

But that she never want to live on is a sign that she might be suffering from a major depression and the course was just a distraction that kept her from having to deal with her mental trauma. She is a beautiful flower that deserve to blossom and live, not wilt away and die. I guess the same applies to Dimitri, wish he wouldn't lose himself to absolute darkness, because that is what vengeance is. It is an evil that is easy to mistake for good, and therefore it is among the most dangerous, and it brings suffering on an unparalleled level. But on some level Dimitri seem to recognise that this side of him is monstrous and therefore it does refer to himself as a monster.

What I see in Edelgard isn't darkness, it is light, she is a white rose covered in blood, the blood might obscure her true purity, but it is still there. Necessity stains you, but is not all-consuming like vengeance, it doesn't reach your inner nature, nor does it tell you that anyone deserve anything. 

These two were similar in many ways, but their goals are not

[Week Five: Who Is Your Favorite Golden Deer Character?]

1 minute ago, Bk1234 said:

Week Four Poll Posted!!!!

Week Three Results: Unfortunately, Lorenz and Lysithea (😭) have been eliminated! 

This week (WEEK FOUR) we will be eliminating ONE character! Make sure to continue to vote for your favorite!

You can also comment down reactions to poll results, predictions for future polls, and why you voted for the character.

Your Top 3... Claude, Hilda, and Marianne! 

It is a shame that Lysithea was eliminated, I guess I am going Claude now

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

1 hour ago, Crysta said:

Not sure how Edelgard refusing to give up her own fruitless quest and dying is more self-sacrificing and noble than Dimitri refusing to give up his own.

Depends on which Dimitri we are talking about. At the end of Azure Moon, he might have more or less the same level of nobility. But with other versions of Dimitri, his cause is vengeance and is the cause. I think vengeance is entirely worthless. Nothing will ever be accomplished by adding more people to the pile of dead bodies. Edelgard cause is far more worthwhile as it is actually about helping other people rather than a personal desire for vengeance.

But if you mean the part where Dimitri rushes out trying to kill Edelgard in verdant wind and dying as a consequence, perhaps has one thing in common, it is kind of pointless, even if both these people wouldn't see that way. At the end of the day. Edelgard's goals only have value if she succeeds, as otherwise these sacrifices are for nothing. Dimitri's goals of revenge are worthless whenever he fails or succeeds. He isn't even targeting the people actually guilty for the tragedy

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

9 hours ago, ordinaryunits said:

I think that Edelgard dying in every route except for her own pretty fitting for her character for her stubborn and self righteous behavior talked about above, but I do think that's what makes her character and the other lords for that matter so compelling. And I think what's interesting about the story is that all three lords are equally sympathetic and understandable in their goals to where the lords can all be interesting and relatable to people with different fundamental values. Even though people can make differnt arguments for which of the three houses has the best goals and endings I don't think that anyone can argue that Those Who Slither in the Dark have anything redeemable or good about them lol.

I agree Hubert is a really fun character because even though he's really slimy I think that he certainly has redeeming qualities that can make him somewhat sympathetic. His voice is also ridiculously brooding and I can't help but be entertained by it consistently. There's almost a sort of contrast between his depraved side and his more dorky side, that you'll see a lot when he's legitimately simping for edlegard. I think it would be interesting to compare and contrast him and dedue because they perform similar roles for their lords, just having some key differences in the characteristics that make them distinct.

Honestly, most of Edelgard's deaths actually made me like her even more, as she always dies willingly. It is just another thing that shows her noble and self-sacrificing nature. Dimitri usually dies recklessly pursuing vengeance or by refusing to let go of his hatred. They are both tragic and their own right, especially as Dimitri dies, never knowing the true culprit behind the death of his father.

The only thing good I can say about the Agarthans is that they might have been wronged by the Nabateans first, not that this really excuses anything they have done since. I also feel sorry for certain members as it is obvious the leadership cares nothing for even their own people, and that most are probably just brainwashed by cult leaders like Thales to hate the surface dwellers. They can still not help but to have certain sympathy for Kronya when I see the horror in her eyes as she is betrayed by Solon

[What alignment are the Three Houses characters?]

38 minutes ago, Crysta said:

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

5 minutes ago, Crysta said:

I'm sure she'd like them dead, but that doesn't amount to much when it doesn't result in action. She doesn't take additional measures to ensure they are defeated if she loses, because she doesn't think she'd lose. If Hubert hadn't prepared for that possibility, Byleth and Claude would be flying in a post-war Fodlan blind with an enemy in the shadows, and they will persist for much longer and do more damage. Her inability to surrender and help, or die but warn them, would have endangered Fodlan further if it wasn't for Hubert.

All three lords have notable character vices that make them less than ideal leaders. Edelgard's is pride. I don't think her death is actually out of character, tbh. She's not acting rationally because she's not a rational person 100% of the time like a normal person, and this flaw was established very early in the game.

 

It is just more evidence of how amazing Hubert is. 

And it wouldn't be necessarily out of character for her, what I was arguing is that it is a mistake

[Why Edelgard von Hresvelg is the most hated girl?]

49 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Given how Indech and Maquil respond to the war by just sitting on their butts the entire time and Maquil even scoffing at the notion of landing a hand I doubt they care much about what happens to Rhea. If Edelgard doesn't bother Indech then Indech likely wouldn't bother Edelgard regardless of what she does to Rhea. 

I don't think Edelgard would easily accept anything Indech tells her. She's deeply distrustful of the Nabateans and in general she doesn't really like changing her mind or people disagreeing with her. And if she snaps down a cute girl like Flayn for being a Nabatean then she'd certainly not be any quicker to trust the words of a giant turtle. Also I don't think Indech would be able to convince anyone even if he wanted too. According to Seteth he's really shy and introvert, not the type to have lengthy discussions about history with anyone. Maquil would be a more effective conversation partner but he has no desire to speak with anyone. 

I am still uncertain why they are not allowed to show up on that mission as however much Edelgard and Hubert dislike dragons I am not certain it would be as bad with someone completely unconnected to Rhea and the church. At least with Flayn. Edelgard at least tolerates them going into exile instead of the getting killed, I am convinced that she does indeed know about that and doesn't care as long as they are out of the way

[What alignment are the Three Houses characters?]

40 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

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

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

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

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

Anna: chaotic neutral

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Mercedes is pretty much definitely neutral good.

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

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

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

[What alignment are the Three Houses characters?]

1 hour ago, haarhaarhaar said:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html

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

[What alignment are the Three Houses characters?]

25 minutes ago, haarhaarhaar said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

["Ask Fire Emblem Heroes Questions and Get Them Answered Here" Thread]

29 minutes ago, XRay said:

 

I prefer Edelgard over Edelgard: Flame Emperor. Edelgard is easier to use due to better mobility. FE!Edelgard does have a niche in being able to Galeforce twice per turn though.

She sucks as a support unit compared to Eir and Peony, and she is horrible as a combat unit compared to Altina.

Personally, I lean towards trying to make her better as a support unit, so I gave my Naga Chills. I also recommend Life and Death so she can draw Chills away from her teammates.

You can also try to make her a more competent combat unit. In this scenario, I would just give her a standard Player Phase skill kit, with Reposition, Moonbow, any A that boosts Atk/Spd, Desperation, and any Sacred Seal that boosts Atk/Spd.

I would just stick with her default skill kit, but swap out Bonfire with Galeforce and add in Reposition and Heavy Blade Sacred Seal.

If you do not need the double Galeforce, you can also just turn her into a dual phase unit instead using Moonbow/Ruptured Sky and Quick Riposte Sacred Seal. This allows her to double on Enemy Phase, and "double" on Player Phase via Galeforce from Raging Storm.

 

One thing I really like so far with Edelgard Flame Emperor is that both her defence and the resistance is really high, so she doesn't really have a weakness when it comes to defences. It is really just her speed being awful that is kind of bad. I also really like how raging storm allows her to move and attack twice, this could be ridiculous with galeforce. But this is assuming she will be able to kill with only one attack in most cases. Doesn't armoured stride cancel out her mobility problems however? I usually use either version of Edelgard on her own anyway. I think this is the only time I have seen any unit have high values in both resistance and defence.

[What alignment are the Three Houses characters?]

56 minutes ago, Crysta said:

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

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

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

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

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

30 minutes ago, Crysta said:

I didn't say it was hindrance. But sympathy can be blinding in it's own way.

I don't think her arrogance is a slight, minor problem. I do think she views it that way, though. It ultimately leads to her death and could have potentially did even more harm if it wasn't for Hubert.

The stubbornness doesn't help, but I don't think it's the greater flaw. "She never gives up!" is almost commendable, right?

When does Claude take it personally lol? It's not like he gets incredibly offended when she tells him off - he acknowledges that there's much he still needs to learn - but there's nothing he can do at that point other than kill her and be done with it.

There really isn't much of an argument to be made about Claude being unable to comprehend a history lesson; it is sheer arrogance on her part. He learns more than she does in the next two chapters, and there's really nothing suggesting he can't simply learn from her, but we can't be having cooperation happening now can we.

The dictionary defines it as "confident of one's own righteousness, especially when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others." Imo self-righteous people can have doubts sometimes, but they believe their viewpoint is not only correct but the only correct way, and are outright dismissive of evidence going contrary to that. She is dismissive of Claude's ability to lead Fodlan because he was not born and raised there, and doesn't know the 'true' history of Fodlan like she does. There are no such presumptions on his end.

Yeah but I'm not talking about them.

I explained it in another thread. I crossed it out because this really isn't the place for that discussion, but I like being cheeky.

God Emperor Byleth prevents VW from being the best, imo. We also have no idea what Crest-related reforms are implemented in that ending, or in any other ending, for that matter.

As for what Claude intended to do to move his plans forward without Edelgard attacking or Byleth being there, it is pretty clear even throughout VW that he anticipates having to go up against Rhea/the Church and that isn't likely to go peacefully. He doesn't get the chance to really develop whatever plot he was concocting before Edelgard strikes, and it's unrealistic to expect a literal newcomer to hatch and enact a world-upending scheme in a couple of years no matter how talented he may be. He isn't even the leader of the Alliance yet at that point lol. Whatever he intended to do was gonna happen much later, and the political landscape may have been different.

She never gives up is commendable until it is put in a context where you extend a war way beyond the point you actually had a chance to win, simply because you are unable to accept defeat. By all logic, she should surrender once the Imperial Palace is surrounded. But Edelgard is the type who insists the go down fighting.

I should also probably address the whole thing with Hubert having a contingency plan, while Edelgard probably didn't plan for a losing I do believe that Hubert did what his mistress would probably want even if she wasn't aware of it. If Edelgard were to lose I believe she definitely would want the Agarthans out of the picture. Hubert made sure that Edelgard's will would be done even beyond the grave

One thing I found rather interesting, with Edelgard is that she is apparently willing to clear out the rubble from the ruins of the monastery, even after becoming emperor. If Byleth tells her to. The Emperor doing work like that cannot be considered anything other than humble. If she is arrogant. It is in the "I have no doubt that my ideals are right" sort of way, rather than a "interacting with commoners is beneath my station and I shouldn't sully my hands with menial labour " type of arrogance.

I actually have a lot in common with Edelgard, which might be why I relate to her so strongly. I am also fairly secure in my beliefs and there are some things I am so sure of I don't even consider the possibility that I might be wrong. I also don't have much faith in people in general, but on the other hand, this world has given me very little reason to trust the judgement of others. I can relate to Edelgard in this regard, to be honest, if I were to give up on my belifs in certain things I would no longer be myself, so I think it is likely that Edelgard ties her ideology so much into her identity that her unshakeable confidence in her ideals is tied to her self-confidence in the general. 

I actually do believe that Claude and Edelgard should have worked together, especially if Claude intended to go to war with the church later anyway. So I believe Edelgard is actually wrong in this case, she could probably teach Claude a few things as you suggest. They could even make an arrangement to rule Fodlan together. But Claude doesn't even stay in Fodlan, so their conflict is even more unnecessary. They have literally no reason to be fighting other than Edelgard being stubborn (and possible pressure from the Agarthans, it would be so much easier to achieve a compromise if they didn't exist). Still, if Claude planned to attack the church anyway, what is his problem with Edelgard's methods? It is just that he wasn't ready to move to this stage of his plan yet and he was annoyed with Edelgard for screwing up his carefully laid plans? If this is true Claude and Edelgard or even more similar than I originally thought, other than Claude being a better tactician. 

13 minutes ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

I do not see how her death by stubbornness or arrogance can generate more damage, or is leaving Fodlan to it fate. The one who defeats her and kills her (at her request) is Byleth (both SS and VW). It is not that she thinks that she is leaving fate in the hands of him or Claude, but being the victors it is obvious that they are capable of facing the threat of Thales.

Her death at VW may be bad writing, because I don't see any point in it. In SS and AM if it makes sense

The only reason Edelgard actually dies in verdant wind is literally because she insists on it. Which is why I call  her stubborn, she is literally dead set on dying for her cause. She doesn't actually have that much of a reason to be fighting Claude. It is pretty much irrelevant which of the two wins because their ideals are so similar. I sometimes wish that there was an option to spare Edelgard like there is this Claude in Crimson Flower. I don't actually think Edelgard has die as often as she does in the story. Just imagine if she actually played a role in fighting Thales in verdant wind. I don't actually believe that she has to die because of her crimes or something stupid like that. 

I also kind of love how respectful Edelgard and Claude are to each other. If you spare him in Crimson flower. Claude even wishes Edelgard good luck. It just seems that things will work out better if Edelgard is winning, most of her flaws also only really comes into play when she is losing. 

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

16 minutes ago, Crysta said:

I'm willing to believe her first and foremost reason for not surrendering to Claude is because she legitimately believes he's an unfit ruler, and that reveals an uglier side to her personality - not one that can be easily dismissed due to her trauma or trust issues. Her preferring to go down with the ship is fine and in character, but killing her doesn't actually end the conflict so she's... kind of wrong? And I'm pretty sure she knows it's not the end of it; Hubert is the one who warns Claude about the Slitherers. Losing doesn't really cross her mind, so she had no interest in a contingency plan to help save Fodlan even if she wasn't the savior. That's... not great.

Plenty of arrogant people do that? The key is that because they're arrogant, they believe it's justified and not that big of a flaw.

I don't think she's as self-aware as she thinks she is. Most people aren't.

She has serious personality flaws and they are ultimately what lead to her downfall in Verdant Wind. I'm more interested in judging her fairly, opposed to sympathetically.

crimson flower is still the best ending tho

 

Edelgard is allowed to be wrong and she is allowed to have flaws. I don't see that as a hindrance for sympathy, rather the opposite. It is hard to have sympathy for a perfect being that never make mistakes, but just because personality flaws is what makes someone seem human as we can see parts of our own flaws in the flaws of a character. There is a reason why the Mary Sue is one of the most hated types of characters as they lack what the audience need to relate to them.

But I would personally say that Edelgard's biggest flaw is stubborness rather than arrogance, she might be slightly arrogant, but it isn't so bad as her being a straight up narcissist. The actual problem. Most of the time is that once she's set her mind to something there is no changing it, it is very hard to change her mind and she pretty much never gives up, regardless of how bad things look. Claude shouldn't take it personally that she considers him unfit to rule Fodlan, Edelgard, pretty much doesn't trust anyone else to rule Fodlan at all, as she thinks she is the only one who knows what must be done. There is an argument to be made here, though, how could someone born outside of Fodlan understand its problems, as well as a native? But they wouldn't let that Edelgard doesn't have the same issue with him ruling Almyra as that is a nation he would know better than her.

What is the exact definition of self-righteousness? If it is the belief, there is absolutely no way that you are in the wrong and that you are in the right, then I might agree. But does this really preclude you from actually being right? I think it only denotes inflexibility in thought, in that they are just too sure of themselves. Still, Edelgard has shown that she has doubts sometimes, but she still feels like she can't back down, this comes back to her stubborn nature again.

She does have plenty of positive traits as well, some even tied into her flaws, on the other end of her stubborness. She is very confident and brave. She has also shown to have an incredibly strong sense of empathy, which is why she can't back down from fixing the injustices of the world. She is also very unselfish and self-sacrificing, if she was selfish, she wouldn't have bothered with trying to change the world in the first place. But these positive traits can also be a drawback in the wrong situation.

I do find her death in verdant wind to be mostly unnecessary and due to her own stubborn nature rather than anything else.

Also, do you mean what you say that you think Crimson Flower is the best ending? I also think that the ending of verdant wind is pretty good. But I can't help but think that Edelgard's death was unnecessary and that the world would benefit for having Edelgard and Claude in it. 

15 minutes ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

I also remember Claude's dialogue in CF, that he wanted to become the ruler of Fodlan. Undoubtedly he did not want to make the first move, he wanted to wait for conflicts to break out and take advantage of the situation. In some cases he would use diplomacy, in others war is inevitable. Regardless of the route, the war that begins Edelgard is the trigger for things to improve in Fodlan in the future.

Claude's method is the best? I don't know, I also think like you that inaction can only perpetuate and worsen bad situations

I think my number one question would be, what method? Neither Claude or Dimitri ever specified a method for dealing with Fodlan's problems. They just call Edelgard's method wrong without ever providing a practical alternative. What was Claude going to do? Talk Rhea out of not showing respect for the cultural differences between Fodlan and Almyra because they don't worship the goddess? The only reason Rhea ever listen to reason at all is because of something Edelgard did, her time in captivity changed her.  The old Rhea kills anyone who questions the church

How could Claude's method be better when I don't know his method? I kind of wish the game elaborated on his intentions a bit further, we know his goals, but not what he intended to do about it. 

[Why Edelgard von Hresvelg is the most hated girl?]

2 minutes ago, Blackstarskywalker said:

There is no solid basis for claiming that Edelgard is racist, speciesist, xenophoba, or ethnocentric. You have to pay close attention to her dialogues. He is a person with a very liberal thought.

Pretty much, I would actually say that when it comes to policy that Edelgard is actually very similar to Claude, the disagreement comes down to methods, as Claude thinks Edelgard's way of achieving her goals is to extreme.

I think it is ultimately Edelgard's dislike of traditions keeping people down that makes her quite liberal in comparison to most of the feudal world she inhabits. What she and Claude having common is that are both willing to question the system, Dimitri is far more conservative in comparison to the other two as he is all about preserving traditions he think people need to survive. Edelgard is all about breaking traditions for the greater good, destroying the old system and creating a new one better one. Claude wants to do the same thing, but not through war. 

Ultimately, what Edelgard stands for is progress. In my mind to be a liberal doesn't mean you have to necessarily be anti-war in every context, I do think such a stance is naive. It is one way too many people in this world fall for. War is a horrible thing, but there are certain contexts where it is the right thing to do and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whenever you are the aggressor or not. What is more important is the values you stand for and what you are fighting against. I have seen it many times as my country's pacifistic nature have led to us ignoring many breaches of human rights in the name of peace. People sometimes don't understand what kind of damage inaction can cause. 

[The Characterization of the Three Lords]

7 hours ago, ordinaryunits said:

Yeah I think that Edelgard is definitely meant to be a tragic character in her disregard for her own life and her distrusting attitude. I think that her distrustful attitude is what really leads her to not ally with Claude because she doesn't have faith in his ability to lead fodlan or to understand its problems because hes from a foreign country. To me it seems like Claude and Edelgard can't get along in the long run because they both are unwilling to make the compromises necessary to move into creating a new and better world together. While Edelgard is aware of some of the issues that one could levy against her I think that she doesn't really address them and just acknowledges them without examining their implications fully. Like in the case of her recognizing that people view her as arrogant she moves dismissive it by saying there is little to be done. She's not completely deluded but I think that she's too driven to properly evaluate some of her tragic flaws; as you mentioned with her goal of changing the crest system after being tortured by the agarthans.

Also in regards to Claude I recently made a new video analyzing some of the aspects of his character and maybe it will bring up some different aspects of his character to talk about in relation to Edelgard and Dimitri

Here it is: 

 

 

Quite insightful, like always. Still, Claude shouldn't take it personally that Edelgard doesn't trust him, Edelgard doesn't trust anyone, except for Byleth and that is only in Crimson Flower. She seems to ultimately get over this problem, but by that point, it is already too late to change the past. 

The things that Claude say when Edelgard attacks the monastery also makes me think that he might have been planning to do something in the future, I am just not sure what. That is a thing I don't understand with him. In general, what could he possibly do to realise his dream without conflict? The only reason he succeeds at all is that the war creates the perfect opportunity for him to exploit the situation to his benefit. Still, he obviously is planned to do something. He even mentions at one point that he wanted to make himself ruler of Fodlan in Crimson Flower. The problem is that while both Rhea and Thales exist, conflict is inevitable. 

Close dream is a pipe dream while the church remains in power, as they do propagate the division between the people of Fodlan and Almyra.  But at the end of the day, the dreams both Edelgard and Dimitri is impossible as well, as regardless of what you do, I do not believe a future that is without sacrifice or the strong taking advantage of the week is achievable. You can do your best to minimise it, your actions might lead to a golden age for a time, but that will not last forever. Dimitri, Claude and Edelgard have one thing in common, all three of them are unable to accept that the world is and will always be a place where bad things happen sometime and there is nothing they can do to change that. 

"These are sacrifices will allow us to create a world where we will never need sacrifice again, it may seem contradictory but it is the only way."
_ Edelgard

I wouldn't say never again Edelgard, the best you can hope for is that sacrifices like these will never be necessary again for a good while. But hope to use warfare to create a future without war is ultimately impossible as there will always still be war., It is in fact impossible, regardless of methods. But hopefully there wouldn't be more war for a while. I also wonder how far she would be willing to go to maintain this peace, would she have it in her to snuff out a rebellion early before it spreads and cause another continental war? Sounds like to me that the future will still need some sacrifices. But sometimes the lesser evil must be commited to prevent a greater one. I do believe future Edelgard will likely learn from her mistakes and attempt diplomacy first, but it's not always going to work.

But back to Claude, if he likes Edelgard's goals, but not her methods, I wonder if he ever considered that his goals might not be achievable at all without drastic action. I wonder if he would have in him to do what is necessary if it came between never realising his goals at all or resort to Edelgard's methods. Honestly, the ideal scenario for him is someone else starting the conflict, and he capitalising on it, which is exactly what happened in verdant wind.

It is also interesting how all three lords spouts the value of friendship and togetherness at the end of the game, even Edelgard. She does say this as she is fighting Rhea

"When humanity stands strong and people look out for each other. There is no need for gods"

Which is very similar to what Claude is saying while fighting Nemesis. I think Dimitri says something similar in his debate with Edelgard. It seems that all of them learned the same lesson throughout the game thanks to Byleth

["Ask Fire Emblem Heroes Questions and Get Them Answered Here" Thread]

Question, how do you think Edelgard, Flame Emperor compares to Edelgard, the future? Is Edelgard, Flame Emperor still in mixed phase unit? I would guess that Edelgard, flame Emperor is more of a player phase unit, I am a bit worried about her lack of follow-up attacks against non-Dragon opponents, but combining raging storm with galeforce might make up for that. She also have so much better resistance that it is not even funny. I am guessing her basic still set works for the most part

Also, what are some good skills to give Naga? If my understanding of her is correct, she is able to make any adjacent unit count as effective against Dragons for the purposes of the benefit granted by her breath weapon, right? The only thing I am a bit iffy about always having on her is the ability that only works in aeither raids.

[April's Legendary Hero: Edelgard]

I also managed to pull Nagi twice . I really like Dragon units, they are cool. I also hope I get Naga. Not played whatever game she is from but to my understanding, they are a god. 

Is Nagi with + def or + speed preferable? I will be able to negate the penalty with a merge

Edit: also got Celica

[April's Legendary Hero: Edelgard]

You got to be kidding me, first green orb and I got Edelgard. Plus attack, minus Hp. Does the cosmos reward my affinity to Edelgard

[April's Legendary Hero: Edelgard]

6 minutes ago, silverserpent said:

oh look, Edelgard is the new Hector with all 3 forms being Axe units. Will she be sword, lance or bow for CYL? Not that I care.

Still, I'm kinda annoying that they're doing the 3H lords as Legendary Heroes already. I was hoping I'd have until next year before Legendary Dimitri comes out. As is, I only have 100 orbs saved up for CYL Dimitri right now.

Shouldn't 100 be more than enough to pull Dimitri? Assuming, of course, you don't need multiple copies for merges 

Edit: isn't Edelgard usually an axe user? Granted, it would be interesting to see a version like the build I did during my first play through with her as mortal savant. Using a levin sword