The Characterization of the Three Lords

[Darkmoon6789]

3 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Hard agree with @Crysta. Edelgard feeling bad for doing something doesn't absolve her of her crimes. It just doesn't. You don't get to murder my mother and then just say "Well I feel really bad about doing it so it's okay", that's not how that works. Is there anything she can do about that? ... No, probably not. It's just something she, and you two, are going to have to live with.

Pretty much, but helping the world even a little bit will help. It doesn't really matter to me if she is absolved or not, as I don't deal in that type of justice. But the concept of a character who is good at heart who has done bad things because she was convinced it was necessary for the greater good and struggle with guilt over it is quite fascinating and in my mind quite sympathetic. 

Still, can you blame me for thinking that sentences like "guilt doesn't absolve her of her crime" is an argument for punitive justice? It really freaking sounds like it. In the eyes of rehabilitative justice. It is pretty unimportant what makes the act okay or not, what is more important is what they will do in the future. The primary reason we lock criminals away in the first place is to prevent them from harming more people and hopefully be reintegrated into society if it is at all possible (it isn't always with unrepentant criminals, but here is where feeling guilty is an important factor, guilt make them a lot more likely to be possible to rehabilitate).

I would actually argue that if in the hypothetical example, your mother's killer was caught and sent to prison, served their sentence and because they felt guilty, was successfully rehabilitated. You would be in the wrong for seeking vengeance against them once they were released. I might not have done any different in this case, it is always tempting to want to inflict suffering on someone who killed one of your loved ones. But I recognise it as the dark impulse it is, and I will never argue what I was doing in getting revenge would be a good action. 

 
 

4 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

I think it's a bit much to compare this to World Wars, which is a MUCH higher level of war than what Edelgard's war is about. However, it's not like designing a new form of government is done overnight. An entrenched system of nobility that's been around for 1200 years isn't easily dismantled. So Edelgard spent years, dedicated to reforming things and improving the lives and livelihood of the people of Fodlan. 

Cause the thing is, that's all she CAN do. She can't bring the dead back to life. All she can do is work for the future she made the sacrifices for. People had suffered, and they'll need to learn to heal from this. That's how people have been. They experience war, and sometimes wonder if it was ever worth it, and then just cope with the losses because that's all anyone can do. 

The end justify the means or not has been a contested debate done by philosophers across history. We STILL have not yet reached a conclusive answer. Cause history has proven on both sides to have a point in matters regarding it. 

The simple reason is that there's a time where the ends do justify the means, and other times that they do not. Cause just as taking violent action can make people suffer, taking a morally righteous action can still make people suffer. 

Cause at times, results DO matter. If the morally righteous actions don't get results, then the morally righteous actions isn't so morally righteous. It's just as bad. 

You talk about the victims of war, but what about the victims that suffered under the oppressive system that didn't get reformed for them? They would do the same thing in regards to what you said. Just spit at the morally righteous action because they would develop their own hatred. 

I think you are speaking sense, it is the more pragmatic way of looking at it. Which is essentially what I am saying, thinking in terms of crimes, guilt and vengeance will not actually help anyone. 

Because of this awful situation, people will die no matter what, it is essentially about picking your poison. But I do think that to focus only on your own personal moral purity while people suffer is not necessarily good at all. Edelgard uses to take responsibility and actually tries to fix things while sacrificing her own moral perfection to do so. I do believe that this is more or less required of a ruler. It is your job to make tough decisions like this and remaining pure is often impossible during times like these

[omegaxis1]

4 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

None of that means you get to dismiss all the bad shit she did as "UWU Edelgard is an innocent flower who feels bad about what she did so it makes it all okay". No. Two things being bad doesn't make either of them good. You can debate which of them was worse until you're blue in the face, the fact of the matter is that they're both bad and need to be acknowledged as such. It was not okay for her to start a war. Obviously you have no idea what war entails, the decades or centuries of suffering that it can leave whole nations with. What the people not sitting in a palace or away from the combat experience. You may argue that sometimes war is necessary and maybe it is, but that does NOT make it okay and it does not make the aggressor right to declare war.

I didn't say that. I did not say any of that, at all. Please don't misunderstand me. 

What I am saying is that after the war, Edelgard does her best to make sure that the people can live better lives in the new system. There are bound to be resistances, some that hate her for the sake of holding a grudge, but all Edelgard can do is work for the future. The dead are dead. They won't ever come back, and it's a bitter pill to swallow. She's made her choice, and now she has to live with that guilt.

All she can do is make it so that the lives she took were not for nothing. 

That's what I'm saying. 

[Crysta]

1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:

I think it's a bit much to compare this to World Wars, which is a MUCH higher level of war than what Edelgard's war is about.

It's a multi-nation war that envelopes most of the known in-game world, and the ramifications of the previous epic war are still very pertinent in the present time. The difference is the amount of nations involved and it largely being limited to Fodlan as far as I can tell (though what Fodlan does certainly affects, say, Sreng and Almyra - so you can feasibly even make an argument against that).

5 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

However, it's not like designing a new form of government is done overnight. An entrenched system of nobility that's been around for 1200 years isn't easily dismantled. So Edelgard spent years, dedicated to reforming things and improving the lives and livelihood of the people of Fodlan.

Realistically there would be a great amount of growing pains and civil unrest that aren't really addressed in the CF ending, too. Realistically it would also not be a 100% perfect system, and its flaws would similarly cause strife. Establishing a world religion and writing mythology also isn't something easily erected in the first place, so yes, it takes a lot to undo it.

You're right, she can't reverse the life she's taken. She made the commitment to deal with that. I'm not actually demanding anything from her. I think it's pretty clear you feel she's justified and I'm not really going to change your mind, but I'm saying there's plenty of room to disagree with her reasoning and how she decides to do the things she does.

All the results matter. Not equally, mind you, but it all kind of bleeds together.

[Blackstarskywalker]

56 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Crimes like waging a continent spanning war for instance. Helping the Agarthans, who she knows do awful things to people because they did it to her and her family, allowing them to turn people into crest beasts. Her feeling "bad" about doing these things does not change that she did them and the ends do NOT justify the means. If she or you think that the result was worth it, I want you both to go to the victims of a war and tell them that it's okay that their loved ones died because it was "worth it in the end". No. Most of them would spit in your face and for good reason.

The Agarthans viewed her as a tool, and she viewed them as a means. Did she remove them? Yes, it is clear in most of the ends of her route. So she was a good ruler, improved society and eliminated the agarthans. So the sacrifices were worth it (as ugly as it reads).

Just as Rodrigue's sacrifice was worth it if Dimitri became a good king.

[Darkmoon6789]

2 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

I didn't say that. I did not say any of that, at all. Please don't misunderstand me. 

What I am saying is that after the war, Edelgard does her best to make sure that the people can live better lives in the new system. There are bound to be resistances, some that hate her for the sake of holding a grudge, but all Edelgard can do is work for the future. The dead are dead. They won't ever come back, and it's a bitter pill to swallow. She's made her choice, and now she has to live with that guilt.

All she can do is make it so that the lives she took were not for nothing. 

That's what I'm saying. 

Agreed, but I would also like to add that if war might be necessary, then the necessary war is the right decision, aggressor or not. Not necessarily morally right or are pure, but the right decision, given the circumstances. It is almost impossible to know if it was the right decision or not, but she is stuck with this decision now regardless of the best she can do is keep moving forward and do as much good as she can.

The real trick here is to not let the violence turn into a cycle, it needs to end with the end of the war. But there will inevitably be some uprisings. It might be a long process, but hopefully eventually the world would be better. The thing is that holding on to grudges and vengeance will inevitably create a cycle. Edelgard needs to prioritise dealing with those who can't let go of the past. One way to do so is to prove to the people of Fodlan that her rule isn't that bad. 

By the way, Fodlan doesn't seem to be that big and the soldiers involved in the battles doesn't seem to be all that many. So I think people usually royally overestimate the casualty. It will be no one near the number of casualties as World War II. Edelgard's reliance on elite strike teams in Crimson Flower also probably royally minimised casualties. She also pretty much never went after civilians. The most major problems are whatever the Agarthans were doing.

[ordinaryunits]

On 5/2/2020 at 10:44 PM, Darkmoon6789 said:

Agreed, but I would also like to add that if war might be necessary, then the necessary war is the right decision, aggressor or not. Not necessarily morally right or are pure, but the right decision, given the circumstances. It is almost impossible to know if it was the right decision or not, but she is stuck with this decision now regardless of the best she can do is keep moving forward and do as much good as she can.

The real trick here is to not let the violence turn into a cycle, it needs to end with the end of the war. But there will inevitably be some uprisings. It might be a long process, but hopefully eventually the world would be better. The thing is that holding on to grudges and vengeance will inevitably create a cycle. Edelgard needs to prioritise dealing with those who can't let go of the past. One way to do so is to prove to the people of Fodlan that her rule isn't that bad. 

By the way, Fodlan doesn't seem to be that big and the soldiers involved in the battles doesn't seem to be all that many. So I think people usually royally overestimate the casualty. It will be no one near the number of casualties as World War II. Edelgard's reliance on elite strike teams in Crimson Flower also probably royally minimised casualties. She also pretty much never went after civilians. The most major problems are whatever the Agarthans were doing.

I think that Edelgard is metaphorically the "killer of god" within the context of the story and there is a necessity for someone to tear down degenerating institutions to allow for the creation of new institutions, its the dynamic nature of life. So in that way Edelgard does serve a profound purpose, but I think that she doesn't really consider the ramifications of the "death of god" and exactly how to create and perpetuate her new system. Edelgard misinforms her fellow black eagles throughout the war in crimson flower and hubert actively does more unsavory things to keep the empire running. After the agarthans destroy Arianrhod she tells the army that it was the church who committed such atrocities because she believed that it was better for them not to know about the agarthans yet. And hubert shows in his supports with ferdinand and shamir that he actively defies Edelgard's orders and commits cruel, yet pragmatic acts to ensure that her power is stable. I think that these issues create a political system that seems shaky in its foundation at best and I think that Edelgard doesn't really care, her goal is to get rid of the crest system as it was at the beginning. And as you said she does serve a purpose in doing that, but I think that because she is so focused on destroying the old system that she's not properly equipped to create a new one.

I also found the discussion around sacrifice interesting because it shows a distinctive dichotomy between edlegard and dimitri. Edelgard takes up a traditional matronly role as a protector and advocate for the people in her political work, while Dimitri takes a more paternal role as a leader figure who seeks to embolden the people to make the right decisions of their own accord. Because edelgard fits that matronly leadership style she fights to liberate the oppressed people because they don't have the ability to do it themselves and ultimately makes decisions that don't embolden the people, but leave them in relative ignorance to real state of the new Adrestian government. You can argue that it might change after the war, but the precedent has been one of misinformation from Edelgard and Hubert. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can certainly have its flaws. Because Edelgard creates a system where everyone is told what the leadership views as necessary it creates a population that isn't knowingly virtuous and without the proper authorities to enforce their normative values the system would collapse. Rhea's flawed system only worked so long because she was able to Shepard her narrative and to control the situation for millenia. Dimitri's view is different in that he tries to emulate his paternal figure of rodrigue in empowering people to make the right decisions. While giving everyone the capability to make proper decisions of their own accord can create a more deliberately and knowingly virtuous population, it can also give people the freedom to make the "wrong decisions". Both Edelgard and Dimitri's political systems have their merits, but they're both subject to degeneration and impermanent, so that can leave the question of what's acceptable to reach these ends?

On 5/2/2020 at 10:37 PM, Blackstarskywalker said:

The Agarthans viewed her as a tool, and she viewed them as a means. Did she remove them? Yes, it is clear in most of the ends of her route. So she was a good ruler, improved society and eliminated the agarthans. So the sacrifices were worth it (as ugly as it reads).

Just as Rodrigue's sacrifice was worth it if Dimitri became a good king.

I think the key distinction that can make Edelgard's sacrifices ethically ambiguous is that she sacrifices other people, while rodrigue sacrificed himself. So if its ok to sacrifice the lives of others to greater ends, I'm left wondering how far this line of reasoning would extend. Is it ok for me to sacrifice some person who has well functioning organs to give all of their organs to people who need organ donations to live? Because more people would be saved in the process making it a collective good to the detriment of one individual. Ultimately the people fighting in the war don't entirely know what they're fighting for and don't entirely consent to sacrificing their lives in such a conflict, but Edelgard believes that she is doing it in her best interests. I'm not making any claim on the ethical legitimacy of Edelgard's war, I'm only asking questions that make it more morally grey than you might have thought it as previously.

[Blackstarskywalker]

56 minutes ago, ordinaryunits said:

I think that Edelgard is metaphorically the "killer of god" within the context of the story and there is a necessity for someone to tear down degenerating institutions to allow for the creation of new institutions, its the dynamic nature of life. So in that way Edelgard does serve a profound purpose, but I think that she doesn't really consider the ramifications of the "death of god" and exactly how to create and perpetuate her new system. Edelgard misinforms her fellow black eagles throughout the war in crimson flower and hubert actively does more unsavory things to keep the empire running. After the agarthans destroy Arianrhod she tells the army that it was the church who committed such atrocities because she believed that it was better for them not to know about the agarthans yet. And hubert shows in his supports with ferdinand and shamir that he actively defies Edelgard's orders and commits cruel, yet pragmatic acts to ensure that her power is stable. I think that these issues create a political system that seems shaky in its foundation at best and I think that Edelgard doesn't really care, her goal is to get rid of the crest system as it was at the beginning. And as you said she does serve a purpose in doing that, but I think that because she is so focused on destroying the old system that she's not properly equipped to create a new one.

I also found the discussion around sacrifice interesting because it shows a distinctive dichotomy between edlegard and dimitri. Edelgard takes up a traditional matronly role as a protector and advocate for the people in her political work, while Dimitri takes a more paternal role as a leader figure who seeks to embolden the people to make the right decisions of their own accord. Because edelgard fits that matronly leadership style she fights to liberate the oppressed people because they don't have the ability to do it themselves and ultimately makes decisions that don't embolden the people, but leave them in relative ignorance to real state of the new Adrestian government. You can argue that it might change after the war, but the precedent has been one of misinformation from Edelgard and Hubert. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can certainly have its flaws. Because Edelgard creates a system where everyone is told what the leadership views as necessary it creates a population that isn't knowingly virtuous and without the proper authorities to enforce their normative values the system would collapse. Rhea's flawed system only worked so long because she was able to Shepard her narrative and to control the situation for millenia. Dimitri's view is different in that he tries to emulate his paternal figure of rodrigue in empowering people to make the right decisions. While giving everyone the capability to make proper decisions of their own accord can create a more deliberately and knowingly virtuous population, it can also give people the freedom to make the "wrong decisions". Both Edelgard and Dimitri's political systems have their merits, but they're both subject to degeneration and impermanent, so that can leave the question of what's acceptable to reach these ends?

I think the key distinction that can make Edelgard's sacrifices ethically ambiguous is that she sacrifices other people, while rodrigue sacrificed himself. So if its ok to sacrifice the lives of others to greater ends, I'm left wondering how far this line of reasoning would extend. Is it ok for me to sacrifice some person who has well functioning organs to give all of their organs to people who need organ donations to live? Because more people would be saved in the process making it a collective good to the detriment of one individual. Ultimately the people fighting in the war don't entirely know what they're fighting for and don't entirely consent to sacrificing their lives in such a conflict, but Edelgard believes that she is doing it in her best interests. I'm not making any claim on the ethical legitimacy of Edelgard's war, I'm only asking questions that make it more morally grey than you might have thought it as previously.

I think that a more virtuous system is the one that gives more freedoms, and gives importance to merit and knowledge. Edelgard believes that the weak can stop being weak, if people have the opportunity to develop as a full individual.

The units that participate in the crimson flower route, the majority have an active role in the fight against the Argathans (it is what their respective endings say). I imagine that some of them would be upset with Edelgard because she lied to them, others will understand the reasons that she had. 

[ordinaryunits]

On 5/4/2020 at 6:04 PM, Blackstarskywalker said:

I think that a more virtuous system is the one that gives more freedoms, and gives importance to merit and knowledge. Edelgard believes that the weak can stop being weak, if people have the opportunity to develop as a full individual.

The units that participate in the crimson flower route, the majority have an active role in the fight against the Argathans (it is what their respective endings say). I imagine that some of them would be upset with Edelgard because she lied to them, others will understand the reasons that she had. 

I think that you could infer that the creation of a more freer society was created in eliminating the crest hierarchy, but its left unclear as to what exactly is going to replace it. And in the absence of a definitive system I would defer to the actions of edelgard and hubert throughout the course of the war as to how the society will function. And their actions tell me that while their society will be free of oppression through the crest hierarchy, it will have its own problems in the form of a controlling and protecting new government. Definitely not the worst outcome, but not the best either.

[omegaxis1]

7 minutes ago, ordinaryunits said:

I think that you could infer that the creation of a more freer society was created in eliminating the crest hierarchy, but its left unclear as to what exactly is going to replace it. And in the absence of a definitive system I would defer to the actions of edelgard and hubert throughout the course of the war as to how the society will function. And their actions tell me that while their society will be free of oppression through the crest hierarchy, it will have its own problems in the form of a controlling and protecting new government. Definitely not the worst outcome, but not the best either.

Well, that's why Edelgard and Constance's support comes in handy, where Edelgard better explains it, and it becomes clear why noble houses remain nobles for the time being:

Quote

Constance: Forgive me, Your Majesty, but you promised that House Nuvelle would be restored. Yet you work toward a future with no place for the noble houses of old. Granted, in your unified Fódlan, the acting lord for each territory will come from noble stock. But in the long term, your system will replace the nobility. Our role will change significantly.

Edelgard: That's exactly right. There will no longer be lords who inherently rule over a particular territory. Instead, nobles will act as government officials, working for the people in exchange for a salary. Officials will be selected from the general populace as well, bringing an end to the very concept of social standing. All will rise and fall by their own merits. 

And this is better assisted by Ferdinand's proposal to Edelgard:

Quote

Ferdinand: Hm. I have something I would like to say to you too. Certainly, we must recognize the commonfolk who strive for greatness and attain it. But for those of us born into nobility, things are more complicated. From birth, nobles must excel. If we do not, we will be forced out of our houses. This environment breeds superior individuals, and they, in turn, recreate the rigorous environment for their own children. Without that cycle, there would be no political elite guiding the world towards prosperity.

Edelgard: Heh, so you're saying that the kind of world I'm striving to create is wrong?

Ferdinand: I would not go so far as to say your way is "wrong." Just that another way might be better. If you insist upon undoing the nobility, then we must build something in its place. We can provide free education for all, and then select the highest-performing students for more intensive training and tutoring. I truly believe that people are products of their environment.

Edelgard: Finding a way to educate the people... Interesting. I'm impressed by how much thought you've given this. No matter what shape the world takes, I'm sure I'll always need people like you by my side. People with strong principle

Edelgard's system is one that requires education to become more widespread for society, so that commoners can learn to become more independent, as the primary reasons why nobility always have the advantage, even without Crests is that they are more educated and know things more. It's the reason why schools exist. Without education, jobs and climbing up the ladder of success is a seriously difficult task.

Back then, nobles held all the education for themselves, because it's their birthright to be educated because they are meant to know how to run things. But Edelgard's system changes it so now everyone will receive the same education, where only the talented ones will rise above. 

[ordinaryunits]

5 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Well, that's why Edelgard and Constance's support comes in handy, where Edelgard better explains it, and it becomes clear why noble houses remain nobles for the time being:

And this is better assisted by Ferdinand's proposal to Edelgard:

Edelgard's system is one that requires education to become more widespread for society, so that commoners can learn to become more independent, as the primary reasons why nobility always have the advantage, even without Crests is that they are more educated and know things more. It's the reason why schools exist. Without education, jobs and climbing up the ladder of success is a seriously difficult task.

Back then, nobles held all the education for themselves, because it's their birthright to be educated because they are meant to know how to run things. But Edelgard's system changes it so now everyone will receive the same education, where only the talented ones will rise above. 

You bring up some interesting points with Edelgard's supports with Ferdinand, but I also think that her support with him can work inversely as well. Edelgard really hadn't considered what if any value could be salvaged from the noble system and hadn't really thought through the particular details of creating a new world; her main concern was to end the church's regime. While meritocracy can be good there can be meritocratic systems that have issues. What is viewed as valuable in a meritocracy can be bad, in that there could be a meritocratic system that rewards people who are deceptive or violent. It's impossible to say what Edelgard's new world would value in particular because she herself doesn't rightly make that clear. Education is a tool that can lead to improved freedom and social mobility in society, but it could also have a negative component should certain information be censored or changed. Edelgard and hubert have acted in ways that would lead me to believe that they wouldn't really have a transparent regime in the way that they would conduct themselves during the war. 

I agree that meritocracy is good, but its also important to think about what would be of merit in Edelgard's system.

[ordinaryunits]

On 5/2/2020 at 5:49 PM, kittykatie said:

Obviosously spoilers up ahead: yeah a lot of people give edelgard hate but she is a well written character. if u don't play her route she is just another pawn in Those Who Slither in the Dark. She thinks she is using them when they are really using her. also, she doesn't even remember dimitri until in the blue lion route he gives her the dagger back, so his obsession with her is also a result of Thales manipulating him. I do think she cares for him and kills him to put him out of his misery 😕 Though I think she has some regret, this is probably due to the professors guidance. she is a lot harsher in every other route.

Dimitri in every other route except his own is also a lost cause and needs you to see the light and regain sanity. He has the biggest case of survivors guilt ive ever seen and I honestly enjoyed his supports with felix (become a gravekeeper lol) Blue lions is my favorite route so I may be biased but it seems like the happiest ending to me. Plus I like how the timeskip reunion dimitri is in the dark and you are in the light! and with claude he is in the light showing that claude really doesn't need the professor lol.

Claude is interesting and most people just make him to be a silly memelord when he is actually very cunning and manipulative but for a good cause. He reminds me of the fourth lord Yuri who is the lord of Ashen wolves. Both are charming and attractive and definitely use this to their advantage. But yuri will definitely kill while Claude avoids bloodshed. While claude is in less need of the professor as the other two, byleths guidance does cause him to trust people and let his guard down.

 

I honestly wonder why Edelgard doesn't remember him at all for most of the game. Seeing as they had a unique relationship, it could have been her just moving past it, but it could also be a comment on how relationships can be imbalanced.

Blue lions is also my favorite route so I'm a bit biased too, but I think the reason why I enjoyed the route so much was because of Dimitri's character growth and his interesting views on the world. Sometimes I think it can be hard to relate to dimitri's worldview because of how dark he is in azure moon, but I think that his dual nature is what makes him one of the best characters in the game.

And I agree that Claude is charming and manipulative, it was fun to try and read in between the lines of some of the things that he would say and do throughout the game.

[eclipse]

Just now, ordinaryunits said:

I honestly wonder why Edelgard doesn't remember him at all for most of the game. Seeing as they had a unique relationship, it could have been her just moving past it, but it could also be a comment on how relationships can be imbalanced.

My guess is that it was overwritten by her ensuing trauma.  She knows that dagger is important to her, but she doesn't remember why sort of deal.

[Darkmoon6789]

55 minutes ago, ordinaryunits said:

You bring up some interesting points with Edelgard's supports with Ferdinand, but I also think that her support with him can work inversely as well. Edelgard really hadn't considered what if any value could be salvaged from the noble system and hadn't really thought through the particular details of creating a new world; her main concern was to end the church's regime. While meritocracy can be good there can be meritocratic systems that have issues. What is viewed as valuable in a meritocracy can be bad, in that there could be a meritocratic system that rewards people who are deceptive or violent. It's impossible to say what Edelgard's new world would value in particular because she herself doesn't rightly make that clear. Education is a tool that can lead to improved freedom and social mobility in society, but it could also have a negative component should certain information be censored or changed. Edelgard and hubert have acted in ways that would lead me to believe that they wouldn't really have a transparent regime in the way that they would conduct themselves during the war. 

I agree that meritocracy is good, but its also important to think about what would be of merit in Edelgard's system.

Think about it like this, what does Edelgard value? That is what is merit in this case.

But there are scenes suggesting that she values people who are capable, kind and with strong principles. 

But I have considered that Huberts methods could be a problem in the future

[omegaxis1]

4 hours ago, ordinaryunits said:

You bring up some interesting points with Edelgard's supports with Ferdinand, but I also think that her support with him can work inversely as well. Edelgard really hadn't considered what if any value could be salvaged from the noble system and hadn't really thought through the particular details of creating a new world; her main concern was to end the church's regime. While meritocracy can be good there can be meritocratic systems that have issues. What is viewed as valuable in a meritocracy can be bad, in that there could be a meritocratic system that rewards people who are deceptive or violent. It's impossible to say what Edelgard's new world would value in particular because she herself doesn't rightly make that clear. Education is a tool that can lead to improved freedom and social mobility in society, but it could also have a negative component should certain information be censored or changed. Edelgard and hubert have acted in ways that would lead me to believe that they wouldn't really have a transparent regime in the way that they would conduct themselves during the war. 

I agree that meritocracy is good, but its also important to think about what would be of merit in Edelgard's system.

Having a concept down is one thing, but having the overall idea on how the government would work is different. We have to realize that unlike others, who are reforming small things, Edelgard is completely changing how things work in society. It's a brand new system that affects the lives of everyone in Fodlan. Not exactly easy to make without going through a lot of processes. That's why even after winning the war, she has to spend a long time working on reforming things. It's why nobility don't go away immediately, and it requires time before they can be siphoned out.

What is important is that introducing education to the commoners is important because commoners hardly ever could receive education unless they were lucky enough to get or be born with enough money to get it. 

Plus, given how Edelgard states that she wants her successor to be someone brilliant and kind, and how she also remarks about Caspar's older brother is like, it does seem like she doesn't seek people that would abuse things under the system. 

[Blackstarskywalker]

8 hours ago, ordinaryunits said:

I think that you could infer that the creation of a more freer society was created in eliminating the crest hierarchy, but its left unclear as to what exactly is going to replace it. And in the absence of a definitive system I would defer to the actions of edelgard and hubert throughout the course of the war as to how the society will function. And their actions tell me that while their society will be free of oppression through the crest hierarchy, it will have its own problems in the form of a controlling and protecting new government. Definitely not the worst outcome, but not the best either.

Well, of the 4 endings of the game, it seems to me that Edelgard's system is the one that will bring more benefits to Fodlan (it is my personal opinion). Apart from the supports that  put @omegaxis1, the supports with Lysithea and Hanneman are also interesting, since priority is given to magical science and research