Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deusteele

When G'raha started to pull scions to the First, he changed who was where when they were there and what they had done. For whatever reasons this prevented Zenos from stopping the Black Rose somehow. Since the First was always leaking Light aspect aether onto the Source and the scions weren't on the First to stop the aether flowing onto the Source it turned the Black Rose into the necessary calamity to allow for a Rejoining.

I find it amusing that players will so readily take the Ascian's side after ShadowBringers. He really didn't tell us anything that Lahabrea or the Voice of the Mother hadn't already told us. He just gave us an admittedly biased view on the events from his perspective. But because he smiled and made a few jokes rather then speaking down at us he's alright? I don't see much about how tragic Lahabrea was, or how we are in the wrong for stopping him back in ARR.

---

And really, there was never a time I felt he wasn't talking down to us. He was pretty backhanded. Especially with the talk of his tests of our worth, that gave me the impression of someone saying "why did you make me hurt you?" after beating you. ‾\_(ツ)_/‾

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puksi

And really, there was never a time I felt he wasn't talking down to us. He was pretty backhanded. Especially with the talk of his tests of our worth, that gave me the impression of someone saying "why did you make me hurt you?" after beating you. ‾\_(ツ)_/‾

---

A refreshing change of pace. The story would be very boring if every single character fawned over the Warrior of Light on a constant basis. Of course, a lot of people desire just that with their self inserts but thankfully the writers balance things out nicely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puksi

And really, there was never a time I felt he wasn't talking down to us. He was pretty backhanded. Especially with the talk of his tests of our worth, that gave me the impression of someone saying "why did you make me hurt you?" after beating you. ‾\_(ツ)_/‾

---

The only time I got the feeling he wasn't was with his final words. This is just my interpretation, so take it as you will, but the fact that the very last thing he said to us was a request to remember "us" - not "me," "us," - speaks to a level of respect that he didn't show much of at any point before us. Giving us the time of day was one thing, but actually passing on the memory he's spent this whole time trying to protect says a lot imo. I mean, he could've just been like "this doesn't change anything, the others are still out there, your efforts are futile blah blah blah." But he didn't.

...unless I misread and you're talking about Lahabrea, in which case yeah he was an all around jerk pretty much the whole time we knew him. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

A refreshing change of pace. The story would be very boring if every single character fawned over the Warrior of Light on a constant basis. Of course, a lot of people desire just that with their self inserts but thankfully the writers balance things out nicely.

---

I definitely appreciate when the writers showcase that treating others as lesser creatures isn't good, and calling them things like "savages", "beastmen", and "insects" isn't right. I also appreciate how they make sure to show we are not inferiors to those that think we are. It's very uplifting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avidria

The only time I got the feeling he wasn't was with his final words. This is just my interpretation, so take it as you will, but the fact that the very last thing he said to us was a request to remember "us" - not "me," "us," - speaks to a level of respect that he didn't show much of at any point before us. Giving us the time of day was one thing, but actually passing on the memory he's spent this whole time trying to protect says a lot imo. I mean, he could've just been like "this doesn't change anything, the others are still out there, your efforts are futile blah blah blah." But he didn't.

...unless I misread and you're talking about Lahabrea, in which case yeah he was an all around jerk pretty much the whole time we knew him. :P

---

To be fair UNLEASH ULTIMAAAA is a highlight of my Praetorium runs but he really is lmao

But yeah, the last scene was well-written, and I would want to remember them. They were innocent of the atrocities the Ascians later committed in their name, and the writers weren't pushing for us to forgive Emet-Selch for his atrocities. (though I will always question the English translation's use of "hero" for the EX without better specifying the terms)

You're free to read into it however you wish. The writers do a great job leaving such things open to personal interpretation and often highlight the hypocrisy of the protagonists, especially in regards to discrimination.

It's definitely uplifting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puksi

But yeah, the last scene was well-written, and I would want to remember them. They were innocent of the atrocities the Ascians later committed in their name, and the writers weren't pushing for us to forgive Emet-Selch for his atrocities. (though I will always question the English translation's use of "hero" for the EX without better specifying the terms)

---

For what it's worth, from the Japanese player's perspective, Emet has always been explicitly referred to as a hero. He is also called a hero in the Japanese version of the EX fight, and going as far back as the official Japanese lyrics to Shadowbringers - the ones all JP players would refer to - "one brings shadow, one brings light" gets translated to "one hero brings shadow; a different hero brings light." It's very clear it's referring to Emet and WoL, respectively. And even in the English version, defeating Emet is described in-game via the journal as "a great and terrible thing."

I think it was always clear that Shadowbringers meant to present the final battle as a case of hero versus hero. The theme runs through the entire storyline, asking us to question our concepts of heroism and villainy - presenting Ardbert, who was willing to doom one world to save his own when he was first introduced and only stopped because he was given an alternative, not because he was convinced it was wrong. G'raha has been discussed in doing essentially the same thing as Emet (and I think it's a bit off to handwave off his actions as "those people would have died anyway" - since that matches up nicely with Emet's reasoning about the drastically reduced lifespans and quality of life of the Shards.) The role quests talk at length about how casting the opposite side as a pure "villain" for one's own comfort is actually bad and wrong.

Emet-Selch himself has an obvious, deep complex about being seen as a villain from the moment he introduces himself to the Scions, and it's continually brought up. I find the WoL rejecting his bitter, broken binary of "one of us must be the hero and one of us must be the villain" and accepting both of them as heroes to be really uplifting, myself.

when the last dungeon was happen and the dialoge with one people wait at clerk Hyd something

when they where creator Zodarck and right new laws of unverse the monster begain to spawn because the unverise was unraveling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puksi

So, 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".

---

This obviously gets you very emotional. I understand. However, rather than trying to imply that people that have a different opinion than you are morally deficient, it would be better to think about what Emet-Selch's actions actually were in this situation:

1. Emet was not the one that "robbed a woman of her bodily autonomy"

   We know very little about Mama Vauthry, except that she was pregnant. There were three people in the room in that scene and only one of them showed excitement over grafting her unborn child to a sin eater--and neither she, nor Emet-Selch, were that person.
   I know it's very popular in some corners of fandom to assume that if an Ascian is in a scene, personal responsibility is tossed out the window, but all Emet-Selch did was make an offer. There was always the choice not to take him up on it--unless you can point to something concrete in the game that shows that Emet-Selch was prepared to create Vauthry by force?
   

2. There is no indication that Vauthry's monstrous actions were because he was part sin eater

   Sin eaters are mindless. They hunt people down because they need their aether to live. We never once see sin eaters torturing people because of this. When they do hang on to vestiges of their humanity, they attempt to continue to do positive things for people--like the Cardinal Sins continue to attempt to help people like they did in life--or carry on their last actions they were doing before they got turned. This means that Vauthry's monstrous actions in the game are not because of his sin eater tendencies, but because of his human half.
   Emet didn't force Vauthry to use the sin eaters en masse to attack and murder innocent people in Lakeland, nor did Vauthry being partially a sin eater force him to fly over the decimated Lakeland troops, crowing about what he did. No other sin eater engages in these actions. They are the actions of a human being, and Emet-Selch did not raise Vauthry to be the human being he is in the game.

3. The scene in question was trying to tell you something important about Emet-Selch's mindset...

   ...and that thing is not ASCIAN BAD or VAUTHRY INNOCENT VICTIM. It shows that--much like the rest of his actions the entire expac--Emet-Selch deliberately seeks out people that will allow him to further his goals, but he always frames it as a choice. Not because it isn't a real choice, but because it is. That way, when they make the wrong one, he's more justified in his disgust in humanity and continuing on his current path. Emet-Selch both does and doesn't want to be surprised by our actions. It's a shame that in the case of Vauthry's family, they did exactly what he expected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puksi

The guilt driving the Warriors Of Darkness may be similar to the guilt driving Emet-Selch, but I don't recall a point in that patch where they felt what they were doing was just, or even forgivable, and I especially don't recall the Ascians telling them the truth, that the Rejoining would not save their world at all. (The Ascians, lying? Gasp! I clutch my Ondo pearls.)

---

Your, ah, recall doesn't match the game itself. In the original Warriors of Darkness arc, Urianger very clearly explains that the WoD are trying to bring on a Calamity to merge their world's souls into the Source's lifestream. Or, as Alisaie put it:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alisaie

Then...if the Warrior's of Darkness succeed, everyone in their world will die?

---

Ah, but you say! Clearly Ardbert and his merry band didn't know. Why, you'd bet your Ondo pearls they were ignorant--misled by those vile Ascians. Except, um, not quite:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urianger

However, this fate may yet be preferable to the alternative, for if the First were to fall to transcendent Light in the manner the Warriors of Darkness described, it would give way unto a void wherein none may know either life or death.

Far better to die, they reason--for in death there is life. The essence of a soul which returneth unto the Source may be born anew. Saved. Such, at least, is their belief, I surmise.

---

So what was that about them not understanding what the Rejoining would do to their world (and ours)? Seems pretty well informed to me. Ardbert even says as such the first time we see him again in Shadowbringers, just in case you forgot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puksi

He never mentioned "love" for us "lessers", by the way. The line was "I have broken bread with you, fought with you, grown ill, grown old! Sired children and yes, welcomed death's sweet embrace." "Love" was mentioned for his own people. Not us. We are breeding fodder for his machinations, at best.

---

Oh? This is how you describe "breeding fodder"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Through His Eyes

Yet in spite of himself, when he cradled the newborn in his arms and stroked that downy hair, he could not help but hope. For what, he could not be certain, but he hoped nonetheless. It made little difference in the end, for his son had succumbed to some absurd illness and returned to the Underworld long before his time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puksi

Don't stop quoting the story there. For the alternative past part, which is separate from their (frankly doomed) timeline, as confirmed by G'raha Tia's continued presence (and even The Rising event, really):

During this period, one loyal scholar noted that while preventing the disaster may not solve all of the problems that had afflicted the world of the past, the one dubbed the “Warrior of Light” would still be alive. The various members of the team each had their own personal connection with the deceased, and the notion of creating an alternative past in which their hero survived the Calamity met with unanimous approval.

---

This is getting long enough, but I didn't want to let this go without addressing it. Nothing you quoted says anything about them wanting to erase themselves. They wanted to create a version of the past where the WoL lived. It doesn't say "The various members of the team each had their own personal connection with the deceased, and the notion of creating an alternative past in which their hero survived the Calamity met with unanimous approval, even if it meant their own demise."--which is what G'raha theorized would happen if he succeeded.

Generations of people deleted against their will, because a minority decided that the past was superior to the present? Hmm, sounds familiar. Wonder where I heard that one before...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savagelf

when they where creator Zodarck and right new laws of unverse the monster begain to spawn because the unverise was unraveling

---

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying as it is difficult to understand you.

During the Amaurot dungeon those creatures aren't spawing in response to Zodiark being summoned. That is a result of the creation magics running amok and making their worse fears manifest. They summon Zodiark to cease that destruction and prevent it from completely destroying everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SDaemon

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying as it is difficult to understand you.

During the Amaurot dungeon those creatures aren't spawing in response to Zodiark being summoned. That is a result of the creation magics running amok and making their worse fears manifest. They summon Zodiark to cease that destruction and prevent it from completely destroying everything.

---

In fairness, the "ancient civilization causes their own destruction via hubris" is such a well-worn trope in so much fantasy and sci-fi it's not surprising peoples' instinct would be to project that onto this situation, even if the writing was clearly meant to subvert that exact idea and present the Amaurotines as largely innocent victims and kind people.