Yea, I mean, aside from all the pesky genocide of all the other shards he contributed to, and how he doesn't view anyone on The First as even actually being people, including your character, sure, I guess he's not a bad person.Quote:
Originally Posted by EtherRose
And no, I don't think the WoL and company would willingly destroy entire worlds with millions or even billions of people to "save their friends".
Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic
Printable View
-
11-15-2019, 12:19 PMShofie
-
11-15-2019, 05:49 PMLersayilIts a matter of perspective then, and we have to agree to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puksi
Emet never dismissed the fact that we struggle, and that his position towards us is unjust from our view. He argued with us. He presented his case and evidence, and refuted our arguments. His very shtick was, that if an individual or a race as a whole proved to be worthy enough to replace his people, he would go with it. His criteria were harsh but he did have the option in place, and it didn't require a full amaurotian soul to clear them either. Thats the very thing that happened in the Tempest: we championed the cause of our people against his plans and the resurrection of his people, he accepted the challange (basically making him the champion / hero of his race) and we won. And in the end, he accepted that.
I can sympathize with and respect an intelligent monster without agreeing with him, while also actively fighting him. I could pity him too for his circumstances, but pity is also an insult, coming from a position of superiority. A twisted monster, victim to circumstance, functioning on feelings and instinct instead of reason? Its hard to respect or sympathize with that.
People argue that they would never do the same thing in his place; killing possibly billions over millennia, and I would usually agree. But many of these people forget that in this case there IS a tangible difference between an Amaurotian and a shard dweller. Is it significant enough to dismiss the lesser as "living"? Now that can be up for debate, but apparently for Emet the line is at 9/13 souls. For a run of the mill 1/13 soul shard dweller Emet is not unlike a lesser lovcraftian monster in comparison. Its hard to imagine such a difference between two sentient races in the real world, and thus we argue from the viewpoint of the one closer to us.
For me and many others, imagining such a viewpoint is enough to answer: maybe we wouldn't be better.
tldr; Choosing your own fate, no matter how horrible the choices are; if well reasoned enough, I can respect. Having no choice or freedom of will, leading to tragedy? That only begets pity from me. -
11-15-2019, 07:03 PMPuksiSo, the intelligent monster who robbed a woman of her bodily autonomy and enslaved her unborn child to their grand scheme deserves respect, while their victim--who was made a twisted monster by this respectable individual--only receives the insult of pity, because the intelligent monster stacked the deck to make certain that victim could never be anything but a pawn. The intelligent monster is the one who took away their choice and freedom of will, with the intent of making them bring about tragedy, yet it's the victim who has no "saving grace", while the intelligent monster's atrocities against the lessers ain't even no big deal. My goodness, you'd better believe we're going to "agree to disagree".Quote:
Originally Posted by Lersayil
-
11-15-2019, 08:02 PMAlleoA very warped moral compass, seeing how he sees anyone without a complete soul not even as alive (which makes it quite interesting that he made children with these "puppets") and thus easily killed. I mean he really has children, his own made being and he uses them the same as everything else, tools to get his people back. At the same time he takes away any free will of the people he possesses. Lets remember that the body he had used when he was still "alive" as Solus was the body of a real living being. Who had his own dreams, memories, loved ones and soul. He takes it over and uses the body for his own tasks. He uses the people who might fell in love with the "body" or the person before he took over and makes children with them...its just utterly creepy. How would they feel if they found out that they have slept and loved someone that took over their beloved person? And its not even a short possession..he kinda took Solus live away by being in that body until the end. He makes "friends" with people knowing that he is turning them into puppets for his own goals and that lots of them will die for that. He is taunting people like Thancred with his possession by Lahabrea. He is ready to delete us from history and destroying our soul even though we have the soul of one of his good friends from before the sundering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lersayil
He is ready to sacrifice even complete souls at the end..the argument of the people then not being alive does not count..so he fully plans omnicide for the whole source after already killing billons of other lives. This will include the whole souls of Ancient ones and even people from Amaurot..all of that to maybe get back people that have willingly sacrificed themselves so that life can go on. He is stomping on their sacrifice.
In the end he is also tempered. And even if it might function a bit different to normal tempering, he is doing all of this in the will of Zodiark. There is a nice scene with the Ascians in ARR (?) where they praised Zodiark just like a lot of other tempered do. And if tempering functions just a bit like the normal one does...then any understanding is not really true. Heck he makes us a trial and we beat the dungeon and he is still like: Yeah not enough. It would never be enough because that would take him away from Zodiarks path.
He also blames the mortals for what happened with the Ancient even though the calamity was not their fault, the sundering was not their fault either..they are just living in a world they are born with and that they as a majority now occupy. The ascians are the strange ones that are trying for something which they imo have no right to do. Its like if some ancient civiliation that got destroyed by something gets back up and says to us in the real world: "We once lived, were great and we hate your lifes and want to rule again, so we are going to kill you." Would you really say that this is great motivation and logical reasons? Or a good moral compass? I dont. -
11-15-2019, 08:33 PMElladieI presume therefore that you agree - since we're looking at people and events in black and white terms because moral relativism isn't acceptable - that Ardbert and the other WoLs from the First are also monsters since they were prepared to sacrifice whatever was necessary to restore their world and people? Similarly G'raha Tia is also a monster as are those in the Ironworks who helped him since they destroyed everyone alive in the future by changing the past? (As a footnote to this, I'd like to add it's made very clear in the OMG short story that the large majority in the future did NOT agree with G'raha's solution and did not wish to be destroyed by it)Quote:
Originally Posted by Puksi
-
11-15-2019, 08:58 PMLersayilYeah thats the basic gist of what I'm saying save for one point. What he does to the people of the shards is a big deal. To us. I belittle what he did to Vauthry because its basically inconsequential compared to the rest of his sins. A drop in the ocean. Even if I set aside my standing about the lights corruption on his personality vs his upbringing, I still would stand by that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puksi
And in that case, yes. I feel as sorry for Vauthry as Titania. I pity the entity they were before they got corrupted. I do not empathize with the monster they became. And if you are right, Vauthry was a monster from birth.
Also, I respect his goals, motivation, determination and intellect. Not his genocide.
And hey, there is nothing wrong with disagreements, as long as neither of us goes out to commit inter-dimensional racial purging.
No offense but there are a lot of assumptions in your post. We know he used Varis as a puppet, but nothing about his other children or family. We don't even know the specifics about him as Solus and when he took over, even if it isnt a body he created for himself. I may recall incorrectly, but I think he used the words "lived, loved, fought and died with" when he described having a mortal life. He didn't really say much about his feelings on his mortal families. We just know that after each life, he was disappointed with the races and moved on with his plansQuote:
Originally Posted by Alleo
We still have no idea what tempering is, or how it affects people (not to mention amaurotians), other than some recent patch theories.
He doesn't blame or hate the new races at all. He sees them as unworthy, fleeting imitations of what a proper life is... and due to how the plot is written its hard to argue with that, because it is technically true. When you have such a difference in standing, experience and values, its hard to acknowledge both sides of the argument. -
11-15-2019, 09:44 PMSavagelfI don't think you understand if you will sacrifice your lives to prevent such destruction the the need of few out way the need of many as spock would say. if we send graha back past to prevent all that was lost then it would worth. in same way if we send someone to prevent the holocaust sorry for my really life refrer then would we not do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elladie
I have say fantasy and reality are linked.
p.s. I feel by drawn on really life historical event to explain this helpful.
the Ardbert and his fellow warrior of light were told by ascian to bring about the flood. Hydylian send Minflira back to prevent it. interest when people compare Hydylian to Zodark strange how Hydylian would risk her voice to prevent more life lost. -
11-15-2019, 10:19 PMElladieI understand very well that people are using one argument to say that the Ascians, and Hades in particular, are irredeemable and untragic villains, but then denying that the exact same argument applies to Ardbert and co, and G'haha and co. Which is exactly what you just did, proving that one's perspective is what determines who is the villain and who the heroQuote:
Originally Posted by Savagelf
-
11-15-2019, 10:37 PMSavagelf
this argument basic on one's perspective is dangerous one for you let me again use really life, hiltor killed million of jew by his perspective he may believe he what he was doing was right. right and wrong are basic on to me biblical morality not on are understand of are perspective. what hiltor did was wrong. now let use Gra'hra did for example he and Ironwork realize they could prevent million for died by change the cross of history which in Spock the need of few. to prevent death of million only they need to do is put their live as the sacrifice.
the western for many year have basic right and wrong biblical morality of what god have view as right and wrong. long came Pro-modernism this concept of right and wrong became mudder because right and wrong wasn't be taught base biblical morality it now a question one truth not on something that have been there for two thousand years.
is it one perspective that murder is wrong if your the murderer -
11-15-2019, 10:45 PMElladie
@savage elf
It's a little hard to understand your English, but I think you're saying that G'raha is right to kill thousands of people in the future to save the people in the past? How is that justifiable under anyone's absolute morality? If it's murder, and murder is absolutely wrong under all circumstances, then G'raha is wrong. He ignored all the people in the future who tried to stop him doing what he did and erased them from existence by going back to change the past. How is that okay but Hades is not okay?
Just to clarify, I am not talking about G'raha sacrificing himself, I am talking about the thousands of people in the future he destroyed with his actions. In the OMG short story, people attack the Ironworks base to try and stop him because they know what he is planning will kill them. How is that any different from us attacking Hades to stop him carrying out his aims to restore the past?