More Unpopular Fire Emblem Opinions

[MCProductions]

Would disliking weapon weight count? If it does, I hate weapon weight.

I prefer Awakening/Fates open to interpretation world building to Tellius/Jugdral's "explain EVERYTHING" world building

Hector is the worst unit wise of the 3 FE7 Lords

I love Avatars and the marriage system, but I don't like the same sex options existing as I feel they don't belong in a FE setting.

Nohrrin is my 3rd favorite lord

I prefer my lord characters to be like Roy as a unit.

Awakening and Fates being too "anime" isn't a problem exclusive to them, FE has been "anime" since at least FE3 which was literally turned into a anime.

[kantoorfarina]

just something I think could add to the discussion about the morality of the pre-Sonia Black Fang: There's a Villager in the first chapter where you fight Linus that mentions how the people in that village used to be poor and starving, while the governer would host a delicious feast there every night for nobles only. Ever since the Black Fang killed him, the town has been much better off. I'm pretty sure the pre-Sonia Black Fang only killed people like that, who really needed to die before dozens of starving villagers did.

Also, I think this counts as an unpopular opinion since I haven't seen anything but praise for Mustafa: I don't think Mustafa was well written. He didn't have any real motivation for his actions or any reason to feel bad for him like Selena does, the only reason he served Gangrel was because he and his family would die if he didn't and the only reason you would ever feel bad for him is because "he had a wife and kids :(((((". I get that it's not a really fair comparison considering he only gets one chapter of character development and screentime, but still.

Edited June 12, 2016 by kantoorfarina

[Rezzy]

just something I think could add to the discussion about the morality of the pre-Sonia Black Fang: There's a Villager in the first chapter where you fight Linus that mentions how the people in that village used to be poor and starving, while the governer would host a delicious feast there every night for nobles only. Ever since the Black Fang killed him, the town has been much better off. I'm pretty sure the pre-Sonia Black Fang only killed people like that, who really needed to die before dozens of starving villagers did.

Also, I think this counts as an unpopular opinion since I haven't seen anything but praise for Mustafa: I don't think Mustafa was well written. He didn't have any real motivation for his actions or any reason to feel bad for him like Selena does, the only reason he served Gangrel was because he and his family would die if he didn't and the only reason you would ever feel bad for him is because "he had a wife and kids :(((((". I get that it's not a really fair comparison considering he only gets one chapter of character development and screentime, but still.

To be fair, Mustafa was a glorified one-off boss, while the others had most of their respective games to get character development.

[MCProductions]

To be fair, Mustafa was a glorified one-off boss, while the others had most of their respective games to get character development.

Not only is he a glorified one off boss, he's a damn memorable one off boss. And unlike the likes of Batta or Damas, he's memorable for what he actually does as a character than one line of dialouge.

[Rezzy]

Not only is he a glorified one off boss, he's a damn memorable one off boss. And unlike the likes of Batta or Damas, he's memorable for what he actually does as a character than one line of dialouge.

I agree, it's just hard to show more nuanced motivations with only 4-5 lines of dialogue. It would have been nice to see him in more chapters. Maybe they could have scrapped the Valm arc to spend more time in Plegia.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

Once again, they're all professional killers who are making moral judgements on who it's okay to kill. They're evil.

But... this is literally your army in any Fire Emblem game. Your group is...

1) Professional - it's their job, be they Archer, Mercenary, Knight, etc.

2) Killers - they attack people, they kill them unless they're Nohrrin

3) Who are making moral judgements on who it's okay to kill - you go to war because you morally judge your side to be right, and because you think its okay to kill those who stand in your way. Even if they're trying to kill you, you still make the moral judgement that it's okay to kill them.

When analyzing whether a killing is evil or not, we must look at the reasons for that killing. I would assert, for instance, that killing people needlessly (as Hans does), or simply to increase one's own power (as Nergal does), or to bring about the end of the world (as Validar does), is pretty damn evil. But I would also assert that not every killing is evil. It is not evil for Lyn to kill Lundgren, because in doing so, she saves her grandfather's life. It is not evil for Ephraim to kill Orson, because he is an inept and corrupted ruler who allows the people of Renais to suffer. And it is not evil for a Black Fang assassin to kill a noble who coercively deprives his peasantry of their possessions and food, because doing so betters the lives of many who were suffering.

Maybe I'm reading your statement too literally, but I maintain that, under the standards by which you define evil, the player character (and their army) becomes evil. And I simply don't believe this to be the case, in (most) Fire Emblem games. I don't think evil can be as simply and neatly defined, or motivations pigeonholed quite as snugly as seemed to be your original suggestion.

Just my thoughts, thanks for reading.

[Etrurian emperor]

I agree, it's just hard to show more nuanced motivations with only 4-5 lines of dialogue. It would have been nice to see him in more chapters. Maybe they could have scrapped the Valm arc to spend more time in Plegia.

That was probably the intention. Have the first game be all about the war with Plegia and Walhard would be the big focus in the sequel before Grima revives.

And then they found out Fire emblem would most likely get canceled so they meshed the whole story in one game.

[Moblin Major General]

But... this is literally your army in any Fire Emblem game. Your group is...

1) Professional - it's their job, be they Archer, Mercenary, Knight, etc.

2) Killers - they attack people, they kill them unless they're Nohrrin

3) Who are making moral judgements on who it's okay to kill - you go to war because you morally judge your side to be right, and because you think its okay to kill those who stand in your way. Even if they're trying to kill you, you still make the moral judgement that it's okay to kill them.

When analyzing whether a killing is evil or not, we must look at the reasons for that killing. I would assert, for instance, that killing people needlessly (as Hans does), or simply to increase one's own power (as Nergal does), or to bring about the end of the world (as Validar does), is pretty damn evil. But I would also assert that not every killing is evil. It is not evil for Lyn to kill Lundgren, because in doing so, she saves her grandfather's life. It is not evil for Ephraim to kill Orson, because he is an inept and corrupted ruler who allows the people of Renais to suffer. And it is not evil for a Black Fang assassin to kill a noble who coercively deprives his peasantry of their possessions and food, because doing so betters the lives of many who were suffering.

Maybe I'm reading your statement too literally, but I maintain that, under the standards by which you define evil, the player character (and their army) becomes evil. And I simply don't believe this to be the case, in (most) Fire Emblem games. I don't think evil can be as simply and neatly defined, or motivations pigeonholed quite as snugly as seemed to be your original suggestion.

Just my thoughts, thanks for reading.

Establishment vs. Mercenaries. Mercs often are really self-righteous, something even Ike and Greil are guilty of. Combine that with slowly being twisted by something that isn't human, and the Black Fang doesn't seem all that good anymore. There are only three lords in the entire series that make morally questionable decisions, and technically, only one of them, that being Sigurd, is ever punished for it, albeit in a roundabout way.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

Establishment vs. Mercenaries. Mercs often are really self-righteous, something even Ike and Greil are guilty of. Combine that with slowly being twisted by something that isn't human, and the Black Fang doesn't seem all that good anymore. There are only three lords in the entire series that make morally questionable decisions, and technically, only one of them, that being Sigurd, is ever punished for it, albeit in a roundabout way.

Thank you for reading, and sharing your thoughts!

I mean, I guess I would say that whether a killing, or series of killings, is carried out by an Establishment (presumably state?) or Mercenary body does not necessarily have a bearing on the morality of the situation. Heck, my interpretation of the abusive noble is that he is protected in his abusive actions by the law (that is, having the right to take whatever he wants from his peasants), although I admit the legality of his actions are left hazy. In fact, in almost every Fire Emblem game you are at least aided by a Mercenary force (such as Dieck's, or Gerik's) and go against an Establishment villain who is clearly evil (such as Zephiel, or Lekain).

As for self-righteous... what the hey, I would argue that monarchy itself is self-righteous. As in, "I have a right/duty to rule due to the circumstances of my birth." Ike has strong convictions, such as in regards to the treatment of laguz by his fellow Crimeans, but even if this makes him self-righteous, I don't see how that brings him close to evil in his actions.

I do agree, though (if this is what you're saying), that by the time we face the Black Fang in FE7, they are evil. In that, Nergal is using it as a vehicle to gather quintessence and generally wreak havoc. But, my point of disagreement is whether the pre-Nergal Black Fang was evil. Mr. the Prussian believes it was, I believe it was not.

Just curious, who are the other Lords who make morally questionable decisions, in your opinion? I can think of Corrin and Micaiah, at the very least.

[blah the Prussian]

But... this is literally your army in any Fire Emblem game. Your group is...

1) Professional - it's their job, be they Archer, Mercenary, Knight, etc.

2) Killers - they attack people, they kill them unless they're Nohrrin

3) Who are making moral judgements on who it's okay to kill - you go to war because you morally judge your side to be right, and because you think its okay to kill those who stand in your way. Even if they're trying to kill you, you still make the moral judgement that it's okay to kill them.

When analyzing whether a killing is evil or not, we must look at the reasons for that killing. I would assert, for instance, that killing people needlessly (as Hans does), or simply to increase one's own power (as Nergal does), or to bring about the end of the world (as Validar does), is pretty damn evil. But I would also assert that not every killing is evil. It is not evil for Lyn to kill Lundgren, because in doing so, she saves her grandfather's life. It is not evil for Ephraim to kill Orson, because he is an inept and corrupted ruler who allows the people of Renais to suffer. And it is not evil for a Black Fang assassin to kill a noble who coercively deprives his peasantry of their possessions and food, because doing so betters the lives of many who were suffering.

Maybe I'm reading your statement too literally, but I maintain that, under the standards by which you define evil, the player character (and their army) becomes evil. And I simply don't believe this to be the case, in (most) Fire Emblem games. I don't think evil can be as simply and neatly defined, or motivations pigeonholed quite as snugly as seemed to be your original suggestion.

Just my thoughts, thanks for reading.

Nope, there's a clear difference. The Black Fang are assassins. They kill because they choose to. No matter how much of a dick the person they're killing is, it's always them who are the aggressors. There is a clear difference between that and killing an enemy soldier on the battlefield. And, while individual Black Fang killings might not be evil, the group overall is, for their vigilantism.

Edit: So to be clear, I object to the whole "kill in cold blood and with no trial" thing they have going on.

Edited June 15, 2016 by blah the Prussian

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

Nope, there's a clear difference. The Black Fang are assassins. They kill because they choose to. No matter how much of a dick the person they're killing is, it's always them who are the aggressors. There is a clear difference between that and killing an enemy soldier on the battlefield. And, while individual Black Fang killings might not be evil, the group overall is, for their vigilantism.

Edit: So to be clear, I object to the whole "kill in cold blood and with no trial" thing they have going on.

Thank you for reading and replying! I hope I wasn't too aggressive or rude in my original reaction to your post. I've just been playing Blazing Sword as of late, so the question of the Black Fang's morality is a topic high on my thoughts right now.

As far as the Black Fang killing without a trial goes - we may have differing interpretations of the legal and political scenario in Bern at the time. My impression was that the murdered noble, despite his cruel actions, was not actually doing anything illegal. Or, that even if his acts were illegal, he had enough money and/or clout to evade justice. I'd compare it to the "cruel slaveholder", who is free to beat, even kill, his slaves without needing any sort of justification (not that there ever was a moral justification, of course, for such actions). In this regard, the Black Fang is dispensing justice the only way they know how - through murder.

Having said that, even considering the described system, perhaps it would have been possible to stop the noble's corrupt and cruel actions short of murder. Perhaps they could have "disappeared" him, by kidnapping him and leaving him on a deserted island somewhere, for instance. And I'll further admit that my interpretation is very generous to the Black Fang. If it were instead possible for the Black Fang to depose the noble through legal channels, then I think that it would have absolutely been morally better for the Fang to do so.

Even under such a scenario, however, I would hesitate to call the Black Fang "evil" for committing murder. Here, I think the motivation for assassination matters. If the Fang killed the noble in order to enrich themselves, and alleviating the suffering of the local peasants/townsfolk was merely a side effect, then I think their actions would be evil. If, however, the Fang killed the noble in order to make life better for those suffering under his thumb, regardless of benefits to themselves, then I would not call such an act evil, because it came from a benevolent motive. Then again, perhaps both of these description miss the Fang's motive - there is a good chance that they were motivated by the belief that the noble was morally deficient and not worthy of life (which, correct me if I'm wrong, seems to be your initial take on the motive). In which case... well that's not a noble motive, but I don't know if it was an obviously evil one either.

As for individual killings possibly being okay, but general vigilantism making them evil... I guess I'd say that I don't think vigilantes, or vigilantism, are inherently evil. They certainly can be, but then again, vigilantes may have benevolent motives, and their actions an overall positive effect, when the legal system in place fails to enact real justice.

As for the "aggressor" part, you have a point - namely, that the noble did nothing (explicitly described) against any members of the Black Fang. Meanwhile, many Fire Emblem protagonists have either been forced from their homes (Marth, Magvel twins) or otherwise goaded into justifiable opposition by an antagonist (Nergal kidnapping Elbert, Gangrel trying to kidnap/kill Emmeryn). But the identity of the aggressor, I think, actually changes based on your scale of vision. When Marth sets off from Talys in Shadow Dragon, he does so not as a defensive act, but an offensive one - not to preserve the lives of himself and those with him, but to reclaim his homeland. True, Marth is fighting against those who took his kingdom and kidnapped/killed his family - but the actual campaign he initiates is an offensive, motivated from his own sense of conviction and willingness to kill to achieve his aims. Perhaps I am twisting this definition beyond its usual context (I claim no expertise on the lingo of wartimes), but I would call Marth, and those who fight alongside him, justified aggressors in this context. And I certainly don't think his general campaign was evil.

Anyway, these are my thoughts. ...Hm, I took waaay longer writing it out than I expected to, or that it should have. Thank you for reading, and I welcome further conversation on the point. Although, perhaps it has gotten too far off-topic (my bad), and continuing through Private Messenger (if you [or anyone else] wishes to discuss the topic further) would be a better alternative. Then again, I am fairly new here, so I would welcome any advice or direction on the proper context in which to continue discussion.

[blah the Prussian]

Nah, it's still fine to talk about the Black Fang, as the opinion that they were still bastards prior to Sonia and a regal appears unpopular. Regardless, I'm not talking about assassinating this one noble. There are specific circumstances which can make murder justified, like the ones you listed. However, there is no way those circumstances apply in every Black Fang hit. Effectively, they are making judgements on what counts as a corrupt noble, and then killing him or her. It seems to me that that would lead to innocents dying, and this kind of terrorism isn't truly the way to bring about change. That comes from improving the law. To use the slavery example, the only slave rebellion in history that succeeded was Haiti, and it succeeded through outright genocide of all White people. Changing the law, meanwhile, did succeed with no genocide needed. The same applies to the Black Fang. Finally, the difference between them and FE protagonists is that the Lords are all also fighting for countries, if that makes sense, and thus are fighting within the framework of their country's laws. Admittedly I am a legalist, but it's my belief that breaking the law once, no matter how justified, legitimizes further illegal acts. It's better to change it than violate it.

[Levin's Scarf]

Revelation is flawed but it's not the Antichrist that people claim it to be. I really don't think it deserves the sheer amount of salt it's been getting lately.

I find the GBA games to be just okay. In my opinion not much stands out about them.

I'm actually fine with FE4's massive maps. It makes the whole thing seem like a major conflict than a small skirmish.

I don't get the hype about Severa/Selena. She's a bitch.

[ChibiToastExplosion]

I don't get the hype about Severa/Selena. She's a bitch.

"Loser!"

(pls don't be mad it's her quote I'm not trying to be mean. But your quote sums up how I feel about genealogy. Only genealogy isn't a bitch, it's just boring).

I love Selena, more than I loved Severa. Fates makes me never want to play Awakening pretty much ever, because if I play a 3DS FE it's either conquest or SD

[Levin's Scarf]

"Loser!"

(pls don't be mad it's her quote I'm not trying to be mean. But your quote sums up how I feel about genealogy. Only genealogy isn't a bitch, it's just boring).

I love Selena, more than I loved Severa. Fates makes me never want to play Awakening pretty much ever, because if I play a 3DS FE it's either conquest or SD

I want to give Selena/Severa the benefit of the doubt, but personality-wise she's irritating and she pretty much remains that way. She's a decent unit, but if she was a real person I would have a hard time getting along with her.

[Lord Tullus]

My opinions:

- Marisa is Actually a good character because of the reasons explained in ALL her supports.

- Binding blade has a more interesting cast than Fates Conquest. (Still like Peri and arthur)

- FE1's Chapter 1 map is one of the best designed beginning chapters in all of Fire Emblem, and I believe that Everyone who plays Fire Emblem should play it, at least when one starts out.

- Lyre is not that hard to train, and is better than maruim. (Misspelled his name. Sorry.)

- I think the blood pact in radiant dawn is not as bad a "plot device" as everyone claims, and the devs should have put more detail into it.

- Blazing Sword and Path of Radiance are the tied for the Ideal Fire Emblem Game, and either one should be played by every newcomer to the series.

- Radiant Dawn's story is the most epic Story in any Fire emblem Game.

[Troykv]

My opinions:

- Marisa is Actually a good character because of the reasons explained in ALL her supports.

- Binding blade has a more interesting cast than Fates Conquest. (Still like Peri and arthur)

- FE1's Chapter 1 map is one of the best designed beginning chapters in all of Fire Emblem, and I believe that Everyone who plays Fire Emblem should play it, at least when one starts out.

- Lyre is not that hard to train, and is better than maruim. (Misspelled his name. Sorry.)

- I think the blood pact in radiant dawn is not as bad a "plot device" as everyone claims, and the devs should have put more detail into it.

- Blazing Sword and Path of Radiance are the tied for the Ideal Fire Emblem Game, and either one should be played by every newcomer to the series.

- Radiant Dawn's story is the most epic Story in any Fire emblem Game.

I somewhat agree with you un several of these...

But... I'm curious about what do you have to say about Marisa

[Water Mage]

My opinions:

- Marisa is Actually a good character because of the reasons explained in ALL her supports.

- Binding blade has a more interesting cast than Fates Conquest. (Still like Peri and arthur)

- FE1's Chapter 1 map is one of the best designed beginning chapters in all of Fire Emblem, and I believe that Everyone who plays Fire Emblem should play it, at least when one starts out.

- Lyre is not that hard to train, and is better than maruim. (Misspelled his name. Sorry.)

- I think the blood pact in radiant dawn is not as bad a "plot device" as everyone claims, and the devs should have put more detail into it.

- Blazing Sword and Path of Radiance are the tied for the Ideal Fire Emblem Game, and either one should be played by every newcomer to the series.

- Radiant Dawn's story is the most epic Story in any Fire emblem Game.

To be fair, Marisa wasn't never really called a bad character.

She was called a bad unit.

[Loki Laufeyson]

I don't get the hype about Severa/Selena. She's a bitch.

• Quote
• MultiQuote

YEESSSS JOIN US. She flat out sucks as a person. While a bit more tolerable in Fates, shes still a bit insufferable.

[ChibiToastExplosion]

In what is becoming an increasingly unpopular opinion, I really love and enjoy Selena.

[Dark Sage]

I think FE6 and FE12 have better maps and gameplay than Conquest.

Conquest has the best story of the three routes, even if I wouldn't call it good.

Ike is almost as bad as Corrin and Robin in some ways and the only reason why people aren't on his balls more is because he's a "badass" and yaoi

Edited June 20, 2016 by Dark Sage

[Raguna]

To be fair, Marisa wasn't never really called a bad character.

She was called a bad unit.

And even then considering it's Sacred Stones, she won't be a bad unit for long if you know what to do with her. I think it's more of a case that Joshua just completely overshadows her.

As for my unpopular opinion. Let me be able to field all my units in at least one map, an optional map in order to not cause too much chaos. It would be pretty sweet to recreate the fact that FE 4 let you field all units but the only reason no one used the others was because it was Mounted Emblem. Maybe something akin to holy blood could be installed but I'm more on the fence about that due to it making the non holy blood characters look bad.

And just for the surprise factor. I want to see another BBQ if anyone catches my drift. It would certainly amaze my mind if that was ever brought back.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

Nah, it's still fine to talk about the Black Fang, as the opinion that they were still bastards prior to Sonia and a regal appears unpopular. Regardless, I'm not talking about assassinating this one noble. There are specific circumstances which can make murder justified, like the ones you listed. However, there is no way those circumstances apply in every Black Fang hit. Effectively, they are making judgements on what counts as a corrupt noble, and then killing him or her. It seems to me that that would lead to innocents dying, and this kind of terrorism isn't truly the way to bring about change. That comes from improving the law. To use the slavery example, the only slave rebellion in history that succeeded was Haiti, and it succeeded through outright genocide of all White people. Changing the law, meanwhile, did succeed with no genocide needed. The same applies to the Black Fang. Finally, the difference between them and FE protagonists is that the Lords are all also fighting for countries, if that makes sense, and thus are fighting within the framework of their country's laws. Admittedly I am a legalist, but it's my belief that breaking the law once, no matter how justified, legitimizes further illegal acts. It's better to change it than violate it.

Didn't mean to take this long to reply. Anyway...

You definitely have a point, that the Black Fang, as a prominent league of assassins, probably were not "perfect" in choice of target. That is, they may have had the wrong information about some of their victims, leading them to kill someone who actually wasn't that big a jerk. And it's possible (even probable) that some of their assassinations included killing bodyguards or servants, whose only crimes were defending a corrupt master. So even if one particular killing was morally justified, I agree that the same does not necessarily hold for all the murders they committed, even pre-Nergal.

Wait, Haiti was the only successful slave revolt, and it ended in a genocide of whites? *Turns to Wikipedia* Shoot, you're right. And here I thought it just ended with Toussaint L'Ouverture being a pretty cool guy, and then everything was chill - clearly I need to listen to history lessons to the end. While you're right about slave revolts in particular, there certainly have been other successful violent revolutions - Algeria in 1962, Russia in 1917, and the United States in 1781, to name but a few. I would agree that trying to change the law peacefully is morally better than doing so violently, but I also believe that just isn't always possible. It's great that slavery ended in the British colonies peacefully, through proclamation. But for the same to occur in the United States, the Civil War was basically necessary. Power seeks to perpetuate power, and the Southern planting class wasn't about to sacrifice their way of life without it being taken from them.

How does this relate to Bern? Well, I'll admit it's possible that the legal system in Bern could be changed through nonviolent action. But, what happens when the peasants refuse to pay tribute to their corrupt noble? He likely has goons to send to collect taxes through threat-of-force. And, barring a government that is accountable to the will of the common folk (for instance, through voting), the state will probably side with the landed and influential noble over the relatively powerless peasant, and defend his actions. The one exceptional case I can think of is if the noble is seen as a threat to the state's power - in which case, he'll just be replaced by another possibly-corrupt, possibly-cruel person of power and connections. Of course, all of this is assuming a monarchical feudal-esque system of government, which isn't explicitly stated.

In a sense, then, the Fang create in themselves another authority, attempting to enact justice where the state's system of law allows for injustice. Perhaps their actions go beyond those they kill, too - by assassinating those who abuse their power, the Fang can prevent similar abuses by other rulers. In that way, their actions may not only establish justice through punishing wrongdoing, but also justice through deterring people from wrongdoing. Of course, even the pre-Nergal Fang probably had its flaws, and the events of FE7 shows how such a system can be abused and brought to evil.

So, I agree with you in theory - that it would be morally preferable to change the legal system to one in which the common folk have influence and abuses of power are prevented and/or punished. However, I guess I'm viewing the situation from the angle of practicality, and I question whether the Black Fang, or the commoners of Bern, could have improved their situation short of violent means.

Just my thoughts, thanks for reading!

[Water Mage]

And even then considering it's Sacred Stones, she won't be a bad unit for long if you know what to do with her. I think it's more of a case that Joshua just completely overshadows her.

Yeah, her problem is that in a game full of powerful units, she one of the units that stands out the least. There's little incentive to use her.

It also doesn't help than in both routes, she can be annoying to recruit.

[BeMine96]

I posted in the older one but, my opinion changes after a while so here we go again
This is some of what I wrote last Feb:

I actually do not care about the story of any FE game (or any game in general except for few) I just like getting the main idea of the plot and then skipping everything else. Gameplay>>>story to me.

- I liked Radiant Dawn hella lot more than PoR

Now, new things:

- I love Conquest and Awakening so much and they're my most replayed FE games.

- I disliked Birthright mainly because of the Japanese-inspired sittings and classes and I hope they don't add these stuff in the next game.

- At first I didn't mind the idea of Awakening characters in Conquest, but now I do. Such a waste. They coulda made awesome new 3 characters instead.

- My BIGGEST complaint about Fates is........ where are them green-haired characters? let's ignore Kaze cuz I don't like him....

- I hate Soleil. Idk what I exactly hate about her. Maybe it's her design or over the top personality idk.

*when I think of other stuff, I'll add 'em*