Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

I certainly can't speak for Brinne, but I guess an acknowledgment that your, ah, fervent defense of a cold-blooded murderer for personal reasons isn't any different in form than anyone else's defense of a different cold-blooded murderer. Without the implying they are some how fascist or assault apologists along the way. :)

---

This. So much this.

The person you are replying to really doesn't get that people are not defending Hades, they're objecting to the double standard being so strongly espoused here. And they don't seem to understand that clinging to this double standard nullifies any points they try to make. It makes me very sad to see this kind of moral certitude in people; it is the kind of thing that leads to discrimination and scapegoating. Understanding that people in real life are shades of grey doesn't mean letting them off the hook when they do something objectionable, but it does mean that forgiveness, reconciliation and restitution are possibilities. Folk who can't accept this in fiction - when it's so clearly demonstrated as to be impossible to miss unless you're missing it deliberately - fill me with despair for the world.

I'm old and I've learned this lesson the hard way.

I think you may be in the minority, OP, in regards to relating with his character. In general, I've never seen this community rally behind a character more than Emet in regards to a villain. No one was offering sympathy to Nidhogg in losing his sister. I didn't see people posting about how sad they were for Fordola (much to my dismay... she is probably my fave char in the game now :( ). I always see people pointing to Emet as being a very well rounded character.

However, I do agree with you. I felt terrible for Emet, but I never once felt it justified any of his actions. I think the writers are incredible at persuading the player to become emotional, and leave logic at the door. If you look at this logically, honestly, Emet is a tantraming child someone who cannot move past his grief and thus is very destructive in his melancholy.

Spoilers:

It is heavily implied that the ancients caused their own destruction due to overuse of creation magic. They were arrogant in not helping stop the catastrophe before it became so terrible they had mass killings of their own people. Honestly, the ancients failed. They grew too big for their own breeches. Imo, they fought their fight, lost, and offered a beginning to the next generation. I'm totally on the side of the 14th member. That doesn't make their loss any less tragic or as if they deserved their entire civilization to fall. Just stating from a logical point of view, it makes sense logically why their society failed looking back at the series of events that led upto. This fall was preventable.

The ascians, including Emet, always just seemed like the sore loser. The ascians could have brought incredible good in the world, but instead they just kept hanging onto the fact they lost and just wanted to ruin it for everyone else. I chalk this upto the fact they were tempered by Zodiark, and yes they wanted to save their people, but they just couldn't accept loss.

I think Emet is an emotional character. Yes, we can all sympathize and even empathize with him, but that doesn't mean he's right or his character isn't a mass murdering monster. So, I agree, the character could have had more backstory instead of saving it until the end for the big reveal - but he was the villain. Ardbro was so well developed b/c he's the secondary protagonist. Of course he'll have more writing and development. That's not bad writing, that's just the nature of the characters and how the writer wanted to use them.

Either way, it was extremely effective, almost to a frightening level. Seeing some posts agree with any form of mass murder in this story is really kinda of offputting. So, the writer did get what they wanted. I wouldn't call that bad writing at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elladie

This. So much this.

The person you are replying to really doesn't get that people are not defending Hades, they're objecting to the double standard being so strongly espoused here. And they don't seem to understand that clinging to this double standard nullifies any points they try to make. It makes me very sad to see this kind of moral certitude in people; it is the kind of thing that leads to discrimination and scapegoating. Understanding that people in real life are shades of grey doesn't mean letting them off the hook when they do something objectionable, but it does mean that forgiveness, reconciliation and restitution are possibilities. Folk who can't accept this in fiction - when it's so clearly demonstrated as to be impossible to miss unless you're missing it deliberately - fill me with despair for the world.

I'm old and I've learned this lesson the hard way.

---

It's really not like Shadowbringers is remotely subtle about what it's trying to get at. It's been baked deeply into it from the beginning. Since before its release, once you realize that one of the title song's "two heroes" is Emet-Selch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tank Role Quest

To define oneself in opposition to the other--an other bereft of complexity or nuance, wholly devoid of redeeming qualities. A villain. Indeed, there is a comfort and certainty in hatred...

But it is a false and fleeting comfort. Bought with lies we tell ourselves about who we are, what we must be, what we must do. And never you mind the cost--if anything, the more we offer up in sacrifice, the better! Do you not see? Brandon was right to hesitate. To doubt. The unwavering blade cares not whom it serves nor who it cuts.

---

ShB is really remarkably thematically well-woven and consistent, and it drives in its thesis of a situation where the idea of "villain" (a Jet-Black Villain, even!) is a fantasy construct used for comfort in a situation where sacrifice and violence is inevitable. Again, I don't think FFXIV as a whole puts forth that there ARE no black and white situations. They've been very clear we're meant to see Zenos as a pure villain. But in the scope of Shadowbringers and its three focus characters, this thesis is explored by all of them in different ways. Ardbert has been discussed, where he does some arguably irredeemable evils (again, literally driving a child to madness) - but the emphasis falls on his grief, pain, and good intentions, and that people who would paint him as a villain are wrong. Vauthry is shown as having childlike tantrums and screaming over, and over, and over again that WE ARE VILLAINS - because he refuses to move from his comfort zone, refuses to challenge his own way of thinking, question himself. G'raha Tia tries to (unconvincingly) play the role of villain for his plan in order to give us comfort about his sacrifice for the sake of us continuing to live.

But in a way, we're able to save G'raha Tia by seeing past his silly ruse and refusing to accept it at face value.

And, personally, I think we "save" Emet in the same way, in his final moments, by acknowledging him and letting him know that even though he has lost, and he believed that meant he would be enshrined as a villain - no, we're not playing that game. We see him as he is, and are able to let go of that comfort needed to justify what we've done - that great and terrible thing.

Shadowbringers! Is good!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

Snip!

---

I'd love to know where it ends, the goalposts have moved again.

Emet-Selch didn't just give Vauthry "the power to attack people with Sin Eaters". He corrupted that unborn baby with the full power of a Lightwarden.

I have no idea what Lightwarden mobility has to do with anything, but Titania wasn't sealed away be their choice. I'm sure they would have loved to play outside.

Titania was "ruling" Il Mheg in a similar vicious fashion, apparently, before they were sealed. It's not a stretch to say Vauthry could do the same, within the context of the role the Ascians gave him to play.

TL;DR: You seem to be trying to hold Vauthry to a higher standard than Emet-Selch, even though Emet-Selch made him what he was without giving him a choice.

And finally, we've reached the (ironic) goalpost of "Emet-Selch was Tempered by Zodiark". No one is saying you can't enjoy a villain even if they have done monstrous unforgivable things, by the way. I like a lot of villains who have. Games need villains. I enjoyed this upgrade from Lahabrea in Shadowbringers, Ascians have needed it since ARR. But I'm still not going to try to say the horrid things they do could be anything but horrid, and I'm not going to call them a "hero".

We've reached an impasse here. In fact, we probably reached it a while ago, and some of the posts lately are barely about the character at all, but rather the fact I won't call what the Ascians have done a "matter of perspective". You'll find a lot of theorycrafting in the Lore forum on Emet-Selch's Tempering (and Tempering in general), though. ‾\_(ツ)_/‾ Have fun!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

What I am confused about is how our actions on the first prevents the 8th on the source. Crystal kitty didn't go into a whole lot of detail about that that I can recall.

---

We have to remember that the short story took part shortly after the calamity and there people began to help Cid when it was mentioned that this plan could save us. We touched so many people with our actions that they were ready to help with that plan. But it was at that time only a plan! Cid left it for the future generation to decide if that would be worth it or not. They did not right after a calamity decide to change the future.

It was 200 years later when the source was still messed up generations after the calamity that these people who never knew us still went through with that while knowing that they might never be born again if the past changes. I doubt that they would have done that if the source was on its way to get better. No it was said that even the soil turned bad thanks to the weapon so I guess that they have hold out all these years but it never got better. We cant say if most people or not were for that but it was not Grahas fault either. He was awoken by the generations 200 years later and got involved in their plan. It was not his one that he did over the heads of the others.

Why it helped with our calamity? Because each calamity was only that worse because of a rejoining. Black rose could have still happened but then it would have just killed of the people were it was used. With the rejoinings it was able to spread a long way and even was able to affect the land itself. Thus a calamity was created. By saving the first any use of it would have been not that devastating and since the weapon was only used by the Ascians for a calamity, it was right now not even used at all.

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.

---

As far as the story tells us Graha never existed on the first in the bad future. Thus none of the scions got called, all of them (and the WoL) were probably helping with the battle against Garlemald and even just the WoL alone being there could have changed the course. We are told that Eorzea was winning the battles and throve Garlemald back and it was then that they used the weapon. IMO this means that we all probably died when it was done. In the new timeline Graha pulled the scions into the first which already made the battle worse but at the end also pulled us in. Thus instead of winning the battles its a stalemate right now, thus no need to use the weapon and on top of that we also saved the first too.

Edit:

I am also not sure what the talk about double standards here means. So people are not allowed to think that what Emet wants to do and did is horrible and monsterous if they at the same time still see the WoDs as good people? I do believe that the WoDs fall into the more grey situation while Emet remains to be in the black one, no matter how many say that we should see this from moral relativist point. (Which I wonder if we even can do since we simply dont know what the whole society of theirs would think about this sacrifices) Why do I see it like that? Because before they came to us they always tried to do what was the best for the people living on the first. Then when it all went down horrible (thanks to the ascians again..) they killed themselves and hoped to find a solution. This solution was bad and of course we did everything to stop it. (And they were our enemies in that regards) But unlike Emet who keeps with his plans they took ours and tried to save their world without endangering ours. And they suffered for it too, especially Ardbert..and on top of that they never saw us as lesser beings and they regret their actions. These are the differences between these characters. The nuance that a lot of people want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

they killed themselves and hoped to find a solution. This solution was bad and of course we did everything to stop it. (And they were our enemies in that regards) But unlike Emet who keeps with his plans they took ours and tried to save their world without endangering ours. And they suffered for it too, especially Ardbert..and on top of that they never saw us as lesser beings and they regret their actions. These are the differences between these characters. The nuance that a lot of people want.

---

Wait, what are you saying? Alphinaud recaps outright with, I quote, "you would doom our world to save yours?" And it's later clarified that they know that causing a calamity, tormenting and slaughtering untold amounts of people, wouldn't even save their world, just merge their souls with our Lifestream so that their people would at least still 'exist', even if they were dead.

Ardbert and the others were completely onboard with massacreing the unrelated innocents of the Source to preserve some vague fragment of their world. They go around intentionally driving the beast tribes to despair and desperation with the goal of forcing them to summon more and more Primals. Ga Bu's parents were murdered directly because of this, and Ga Bu went insane. Urianger suggests to Ardbert that he go murder us to speed up the Calamity and Ardbert agrees readily. Renda Rae laughs and gloats and taunts about almost murdering Alisaie!

They never say they regret their actions. When we confront them, and beat them down in the duty, they have a heroic rallying cry among themselves about how they cannot stop, will not stop, for the sake of the people that they left behind. (Sound familiar?) The only relent when Hydaelyn agrees to intervene and save their world in a way that doesn't necessitate a Calamity. Without that miracle, they would have never stopped.

Ardbert is the same as Emet. Heck, you could argue that Ardbert was more extreme than Emet, because Emet was legitimately considering and trying to find a justification for stopping. (Clearly, my WoL should have looked utterly disgusted and said "you're proud of killing innocent people, trying to kill millions more, and destroying Ga Bu's life?" in the Shadowbringers scene where Ardbert smiles and says he can finally feel proud of himself for his role in helping preserve the First!) But unlike Ardbert, Emet never had the benefit of a Hydaelyn ex Machina bailing him out of his impossible situation.

No I dont find Ardbert and Emet to be the same.

First Ardberts world was either: Not save them and their souls would be lost forever thanks to the flood of light (or turned into beasts) or cause a calamity and at least keep the peoples soul existing. The method to get there was told by the Ascians (which kinda forget to mention that there are other solutions to stop it) and even though it was a horrible solution and they needed to be stopped and the game as you pointed out did not try to spin their actions as something good. At that point in time they were enemies.

Emets situation is different. First these people sacrificed themselves willingly to give their world and the lifes on it a chance to live. Then instead of honoring their wishes they decided to somehow get them back even though its probably not possible because their souls were used as fuel. I doubt you can get that back. On top of that there were enough Amaurotines at that time that were against that too but the Ascians stood above those wishes and in turn Hydealyn was summoned. Now he plans to sacrifice not only the shards but later whole souls of the source people which includes ancient ones too.

You bring up the millions of people (which wont be that much) that Ardbert would have killed yet what about the billions of lifes that Emet and his group already killed and planned to kill? I am not saying that just because it was less amount of people dieing in makes the WoDs better but I am saying that Emet in that case was even worse because they already killed of more people than anyone ever did.

Renda was taunting and they were behaving that way because they tried to tell themselves that it was all worth it because if they did not they would fail and not save their whole planet. They never saw us as lesser beings (Emet does not even see us as alive) just that in their eyes it was a necessary evil. They never liked it and as soon as they truly saw a better path they took it. And afterwards most of them gave their lifes to stop the flood and Ardbert suffered for his actions for over 100 years..always feeling guilty for what they have done and wanting to do better. Thus his answer that he can finally feel proud. If he is now only feeling proud (after saving his world without another world suffering) then doesnt that tell that he did not feel proud before that?

Its interesting how you can believe that Emet really treid to find a way to stop, even though he is tempered and even after we pass his test at the end he still is like: But not enough, yet completely condem the WoDs and Ardbert as even worse then him even though they have not only talked about changing but did change! Ardbert is the reason why we did not turn and he gave his own sense of being for that. He shows feelings of regret, despair and does not look down on others. None of that counts for Emet because he only cares for those that are already lost. So yes these points make the WoD into much better people than the Ascians and they count as heroes to their world because they did help with stopping it and yet can still count as morally grey at the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

First Ardberts world was either: Not save them and their souls would be lost forever thanks to the flood of light

---

Wait, and this is different from the Ascians, how? From Emet's point of view, the Ascians are worse than dead, their very essences and personhoods have been destroyed, ripped apart, and used as resources to create something else. The original Ascians, unless they are Rejoined, are similarly lost forever. His former best friend is gone, their very existence replaced by a bunch of misaligned pieces. How is this not the same situation, in a lot of ways?

What other solutions were there that the Ascians could have proposed, exactly? The one miracle that Urianger painstakingly orchestrates involves summoning Hydaelyn and begging her to save the First. You really think that would have worked out for Emet and the Ascian's situation? Hey, god who destroyed our world, give it back, please!

No, the game did not spin their actions as good, but neither did they spin them as pure evil, or black, or unforgivable, once their circumstances were laid out. The strongest statement the game gives after the situation is laid out is Alphinaud lamenting that the WoD are struggling with "an impossible choice." Ardbert's resolution has him declaring that he can finally be proud of what they had done to try to save their people. There is no indication that they ever regretted their actions. When challenged, they REAFFIRM their actions, that they are dead-set determined to carry it out, and Ardbert's character arc in Shadowbringers is about "being proud of himself" regarding it.

Quote:

---

Emets situation is different. First these people sacrificed themselves willingly to give their world. . .

---

I think it's a little presumptive to argue on the part of dead people, whose deaths we are benefiting from, as far as what they would have wanted. Furthermore, the Ancients who were destroyed via Sundering were certainly not willing. In either case, it's not absolute, but every indication we get from the game so far indicates that the Ancients also want to live, they want a future, they want their world restored. They say as much when their Shades are summoned, Emet draws power from their wishes, hopes, and prayers to live, and he's connected directly to the Underworld. And no, as far as we understand, the plan was not actually to sacrifice Ancients, but the "new life", whatever that means - we don't know yet.

And if it turns out the Ancients do truly wish to live, and are in anguish over their fate, what then? Does that make Emet's actions more acceptable to you?

I'm a little baffled at the implication that "we don't know if it would have worked to fully restore them" (when we've SEEN people successfully returned from the dead in both the Allag story and in the Alchemist quests) is used to argue moral superiority over "yeah, they'd still be dead, but at least they'd be dead but a part of them would EXIST kinda-sorta" I'm honestly not sure how to reconcile that, since it seems blatantly obvious to me that the latter is more questionable than the former, whereas to you it seems the opposite. Different perspectives, I guess!

Quote:

---

You bring up the millions of people (which wont be that much) that Ardbert would have killed . . .

---

Uh, yeah, that's literally putting forth that the WoD's mass slaughter of innocents is more acceptable than Emet's because to save their world they were required to commit less numerical slaughter. This seems. A very strange basis to argue a morality case around, to me. Like. The footnote of (that wouldn't be that much) after "the millions of people Ardbert would kill" is kinda. Strange.

Quote:

---

Renda was taunting and they were behaving that way because they tried to tell themselves that it was all worth it because if they did not they would fail and not save their whole planet.

---

Wait, so you immediately come to the conclusion that Renda was being sadistic and cruel was a coping mechanism, because she didn't have a choice or else their planet would be destroyed, but you take Emet's barbs - Emet, whose entire arc in Shadowbringers is taking a whole lot of unnecessary trouble to "seek a path of lesser tragedy"; "perhaps there is another way that requires less bloodshed"; and then having a meltdown when he's disappointed, at pure face value?

As far as Ardbert's suffering afterwards goes, there is an entire sequence in Kholusia where Ardbert himself feels the need to make the point that as much as he has suffered - suffered to a point he almost lost himself completely to madness - it is NOTHING compared to what Emet has been through. The man says this himself.

The "feeling proud" part only comes at the end of his arc in Shadowbringers, as a direct response to seeing how much the people of the First truly wanted to live. In other words, Ardbert was not wrong for doing everything in his power that he could to respond to their wishes and live. The feeling proud is based on that - because Ardbert was in such despair over the following century he thought at times it would have been better to just let the First be destroyed - not predicated on atoning or regretting his actions on the Source.

Quote:

---

Its interesting how you can believe that Emet really treid to find a way to stop. . .

---

Once again, this is literally Emet's entire arc in Shadowbringers. He was trying to find justification to stop - which is not a trivial matter, since he views his attempts to save his people as a sworn duty to them. He was legitimately upset when we failed to contain the Light, and berates and gets angry at himself for "letting himself believe in us" - just like he was furious at himself for his "slip" in letting himself care for his dead son as Solus. That's Emet's tragedy. He has doubts about his path, he flirts with those doubts, and then rages against the world and himself when actually, everyone and the sundered worlds live down to his expectations after all. He both wants to be proven right, and wants to proven wrong, about us. And throughout Shadowbringers, all the actions he took because he let himself doubt and waver and reconsider led to his downfall, in the end.

Ardbert really did not meaningfully change in the way you are suggesting. His goal was always to save his world and protect the people in it. Our goals ended up aligning near the end, so it worked out, and he supported us. The only thing that changed was his self-hatred for "being the man who caused the Flood" - not for "being the man who murdered so many innocents on the Source."

I mean, I appreciate your reply, but the generous interpretation of Ardbert's mass-murdering crew and very negative one of Emet's mass murder kind of only clarifies the idea that there's a double standard happening here - because Ardbert wound up doing something to help us, personally, out, right? And Emet didn't? (You know, asides from feed us lots of information and save Y'shtola's life.) Is that the real criteria? They certainly share the conviction of saving their worlds and the people they see as depending on them at all costs, even if it means killing swaths of innocent people, and there is no indication of that changing for either of them.

For what it's worth, I love Ardbert a lot, understand where he was coming from, and happily accept the game's final designation of him as a "hero", in spite of everything. I also accept the game's designation of Emet as a hero. I can accept that while understanding that they both did awful, horrible, no good, very bad things. Both of them, for largely the same reasons. That's all there is to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

snip

---

Honestly that's a pretty good point. I will say though that like... The biggest thing I remembered about the WoD in that patch was that the story felt way too short and in a way almost confusing. It felt like it wasn't a complete story, like it wasn't fleshed out and ended kind of abruptly - like a plotline and set of characters wasted, all the way up until Shadowbringers. I honestly forgot Ga Bu's story was even tied to theirs. :/

Shadowbringers retelling almost makes them feel like different characters. Like looking back, after going through her role quest, it seems super bizarre that Renda Rae would be gloating over what they were doing. Their character in every flashback cutscene doesn't line up with their actions on the Source, especially considering what we know they know about what the Ascians did to their own world (based on the final role quest). It actually... Seems odd, thinking about it. I almost want to go back and rewatch their original story now to try to make sense of it.

As a side, I thought Ardbert did at least acknowledge some regret at some point, but I'd have to go back and rewatch that too probably. <.<

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puksi

Emet-Selch didn't just give Vauthry "the power to attack people with Sin Eaters". He corrupted that unborn baby with the full power of a Lightwarden.

---

You keep saying that, but what does it mean to corrupt "that unborn baby with the full power of a Lightwarden"? Because in game, it seems to mean we have a Lightwarden that can:

• Choose whether or not to turn people into sin eaters.
• Communicate well enough to lead an army and talk to normal people.
• Maliciously direct sin eater attacks without any danger to people he's deemed worth protecting.
• Change into a more powerful sin eater form still capable of controlling his own actions.

There would have been very easy ways to show that Vauthry suffers for these advantages, but the game doesn't go into them, either due to a lack of time, or--less charitably--because they don't exist. This isn't to say Emet-Selch's actions weren't horrific, they just don't make Vauthry's choices in the game not his own.

Titania doesn't "rule in a similar fashion", the game itself points that out:

"That is unacceptable! Unacceptable, I tell you! If the king is set free, none here will be safe!"

"Ordinarily, when a living being turns into a sin eater, it loses everything about its mind that defined it. However, the king has retained some of their instincts. This manifests in the desire to play and be free. So strong is that desire, it often leaks through the seal to invade our consciousness."

In other words, Titania is a mindless menace that simply retains vestigial instincts, like all other people who are turned. They are not administrating their kingdom, they just mindlessly feast on its inhabitants, as much a "ruler" as Storge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puksi

And finally, we've reached the (ironic) goalpost of "Emet-Selch was Tempered by Zodiark".

---

But you haven't explained how that's different...? I mean, I'm personally all for holding Emet-Selch accountable for his actions--tempered or not--both the good and the bad, but if we're talking about things that potentially affect your will, it seems odd that tempering doesn't provide mitigation from your perspective. Simply repeating what I said doesn't actually make any point except acknowledging that I've made one.

I'm sorry you feel that we've found an impasse; that's very unfortunate as I've enjoyed challenging common assumptions about Emet-Selch's actions in regards to Vauthry and how the narrative treats people that are his parallel in the narrative. If this conversation has become frustrating and upsetting for you, I definitely won't blame you if you want to take a breather, though.