[Spoilers] I’m irrevocably Unimpressed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SturmChurro

Maybe I need to touch up on the lore, if that is the case. This is what discussion is for!

As the saying goes, "it was doomed from the start!" I didn't know hydaelyn was summoned without sacrifice, either way both were flawed. Problem with the ascians is they are tempered and will serve in the end at Zodiark's will. Even if they succesfuly brought back the old Zodiark would just demand more and more sacrifice, and more and more calamities would just happen. However, I think hydaelyn tempers others in kind as well. I don't consider either good or evil, but I think they both need to go.

---

Actually, I think she was created with sacrifice - though it doesn't specify how many.

What Hythlodaeus said was "There were, however, those who disagreed with this plan. They argued that enough had been sacrificed to Zodiark - that this new world should belong to the lives newly born. These dissidents surrender their life energies in the creation of Hydaelyn, an incarnation of their opposing belief."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enla

My kingdom for ten characters. D:

Those lives were willing and ultimately needlessly sacrificed because the Ascians couldn't let go. Zodiark as explained in the story isn't all consuming, there's really nothing there that states he /needs/ constant sacrifices or to be kept in check. Just that his powers require sacrifice if called upon. While not outright stated it's pretty firmly hinted that the Amaurotines and the Star would likely have been fine had they not tried to bring back the dead. That act of planned genocide is the only reason Hydaelyn was brought in in the first place.

They weren't going to sacrifice their own people. It's very clearly stated they were going to kill OTHERS to bring back the dead. Those people were not willing and had no knowledge of them essentially being cultivated to die.

---

do emotes count? ;):):p:(:o

Yes, they couldn't let go of their creation magicks so calamities just kept happening, and Zodiark required sacrifice's to quell them. None of what I said about them is justifying their actions either, just from their point of view.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avidria

Actually, I think she was created with sacrifice - though it doesn't specify how many.

What Hythlodaeus said was "There were, however, those who disagreed with this plan. They argued that enough had been sacrificed to Zodiark - that this new world should belong to the lives newly born. These dissidents surrender their life energies in the creation of Hydaelyn, an incarnation of their opposing belief."

---

Okay, I thought I remembered that line. I was starting to doubt my memory on some of the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avidria

Actually, I think she was created with sacrifice - though it doesn't specify how many.

What Hythlodaeus said was "There were, however, those who disagreed with this plan. They argued that enough had been sacrificed to Zodiark - that this new world should belong to the lives newly born. These dissidents surrender their life energies in the creation of Hydaelyn, an incarnation of their opposing belief."

---

Ah, there we go! Thank you for confirming.

That just adds more 'Oh no' to the whole thing. Was it the original souls of the 'scions' who did this? Was it the original soul of the WoL? We know that only one of the 14th left, so we can assume that they were the one who started it as they're the 'strongest' ones. So, we have those who are willing to die for those who are going to be unwillingly sacrificed. That's sad yet beautiful at the same time.

Also, have to keep in mind that these new souls were also more than likely considered 'children' to them... so they were willing to sacrifice children to bring back an ageless people who brought on their own demise, while these new souls had done nothing wrong. They're innocent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SturmChurro

do emotes count? ;):):p:(:o

Yes, they couldn't let go of their creation magicks so calamities just kept happening, and Zodiark required sacrifice's to quell them. None of what I said about them is justifying their actions either, just from their point of view.

.

Okay, I thought I remembered that line. I was starting to doubt my memory on some of the story.

---

Yeah, I went back to look myself haha - was like hold on a second...

Let me see if I can get screenshots...
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...56/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...91/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...40/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...58/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...88/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...76/unknown.png

Edit just to clarify I didn't screenshot the entire conversation here ^^ just the parts about who was sacrificing what for who

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SturmChurro

-snip-

---

OUR EMOTES SHALL DROWN OUT THE SKY.

And ah! My bad I misread. Apologies about that! ^^

Mfw ascians plans are confusing.

I'm actually really confused about how they thought this plan would work. So they created Zodiark. He saved them and became part of the star. They sacrificed themselves once to fill the star with life and then planned to fill it with vitality so they could sacrifice even more to bring back those who had died giving him life...

How would that work? How can he give the lives back when it would weaken him? How would feeding him more vitality work when he is the star at that point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gwenorai

Mfw ascians plans are confusing.

I'm actually really confused about how they thought this plan would work. So they created Zodiark. He saved them and became part of the star. They sacrificed themselves once to fill the star with life and then planned to fill it with vitality so they could sacrifice even more to bring back those who had died giving him life...

How would that work? How can he give the lives back when it would weaken him? How would feeding him more vitality work when he is the star at that point?

---

Yeah that confuses me a bit too...

...unless you interpret it to mean living creatures on the star - plants, animals, maybe even people. The way Hythlodaeus says that Hydaelyn's summoners believed the world should "belong to the lives newly born" is a little unsettling in its implications. It feels like he's saying the plan was to sacrifice those newly born lives - though maybe I'm just reading into it that way.

There's definitely more to this story, and definitely things we don't know. I honestly can't wait to see what else they might tell us about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avidria

Yeah, I went back to look myself haha - was like hold on a second...

Let me see if I can get screenshots...
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...56/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...91/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...40/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...58/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...88/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...76/unknown.png

Edit just to clarify I didn't screenshot the entire conversation here ^^ just the parts about who was sacrificing what for who

---

:o:):D;):rolleyes::(:eek::cool: words

Looks like I am wrong then, to an extent. The ascians wanted to sacrifice large amounts of people up to the point that they would sacrifice the new to bring back their old. Neither primal is good or evil, that is for sure. The ascians are definitly in the wrong even when it comes to their own people. I wouldn't call them good guys ever, I do understand how they view the world(s) as they are though. Any life that isn't one of their old is a worthy sacrifice to bring back their dead even if their souls were whole again. That means they are unmistakably the "bad guys". But again, from their point of view, the original sacrifices would have paved the way for tne "new" life to be "cultivated", so they should be sacrificed to bring back those who made the continuation of the world possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gwenorai

Mfw ascians plans are confusing.

I'm actually really confused about how they thought this plan would work. So they created Zodiark. He saved them and became part of the star. They sacrificed themselves once to fill the star with life and then planned to fill it with vitality so they could sacrifice even more to bring back those who had died giving him life...

How would that work? How can he give the lives back when it would weaken him? How would feeding him more vitality work when he is the star at that point?

---

He would be trading the original sacrificed souls for the new sacrificed souls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avidria

Yeah that confuses me a bit too...

...unless you interpret it to mean living creatures on the star - plants, animals, maybe even people. The way Hythlodaeus says that Hydaelyn's summoners believed the world should "belong to the lives newly born" is a little unsettling in its implications. It feels like he's saying the plan was to sacrifice those newly born lives - though maybe I'm just reading into it that way.

There's definitely more to this story, and definitely things we don't know. I honestly can't wait to see what else they might tell us about this.

---

I like characters, big juicy characters...

But even then the living creatures on the star would be a part of him. When folks die now they return to Hydaelyn in the lifestream. So if, he was the 'daddy' crystal at that time then everything would be tied to him thy the lifestream. Those lives are already entwined with him - their aether is his aether. Unless it meant that by killing a portion of the life their aether would return to Zodiark, he would 'supposedly' use it to bring back those dead ascians... and thus weaken him further because each ascian has immense aether and can constantly create. It just seems so very confusing!

I look forward to see how this went about and how they could even think it was okay to even consider. I want to hear Zodiark and hear his 'thoughts' on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gwenorai

I like characters, big juicy characters...

But even then the living creatures on the star would be a part of him. When folks die now they return to Hydaelyn in the lifestream. So if, he was the 'daddy' crystal at that time then everything would be tied to him thy the lifestream. Those lives are already entwined with him - their aether is his aether. Unless it meant that by killing a portion of the life their aether would return to Zodiark, he would 'supposedly' use it to bring back those dead ascians... and thus weaken him further because each ascian has immense aether and can constantly create. It just seems so very confusing!

I look forward to see how this went about and how they could even think it was okay to even consider. I want to hear Zodiark and hear his 'thoughts' on this.

---

:p:o:D:mad::cool::rolleyes::( All these emotions

For sure. I hope we get to have an actual conversation with Zodiark! I feel like Zenos is going to try to steal, or utilize his power somehow so he can duel you. That's at least what I got from the very end from zenos's dialogue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SturmChurro

:p:o:D:mad::cool::rolleyes::( All these emotions

For sure. I hope we get to have an actual conversation with Zodiark! I feel like Zenos is going to try to steal, or utilize his power somehow so he can duel you. That's at least what I got from the very end from zenos's dialogue.

---

10/10char pls

Yes, this is what I thought! It does make me wonder if this happens then how much energy would Zodiark have left? Enough to maybe bring life back to the first and reverse the damage done?

It is ascians fault to begin with cuse they did NOTHING to save themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gwenorai

I like characters, big juicy characters...

But even then the living creatures on the star would be a part of him. When folks die now they return to Hydaelyn in the lifestream. So if, he was the 'daddy' crystal at that time then everything would be tied to him thy the lifestream. Those lives are already entwined with him - their aether is his aether. Unless it meant that by killing a portion of the life their aether would return to Zodiark, he would 'supposedly' use it to bring back those dead ascians... and thus weaken him further because each ascian has immense aether and can constantly create. It just seems so very confusing!

I look forward to see how this went about and how they could even think it was okay to even consider. I want to hear Zodiark and hear his 'thoughts' on this.

---

Hmmm... :eek:

There's got to be something more to it... that life was created in the first place by sacrificing Amaurotine lives, so maybe it's some kind of equivalent exchange? When there's enough life on the planet to be an equal trade for the Amaurotines who sacrificed themselves without wrecking the planet, maybe then it would work? Hythlodaeus did say they'd do it "when the time was right," but didn't really elaborate on what that would actually mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johaandr

It is ascians fault to begin with cuse they did NOTHING to save themselves.

---

I don't follow...?

Their leaders were devising a way to save them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mario710

Someone please help me understand why the bad guys are never allowed to win?

Something seemed awfully wrong about the way Emet-Selch was taken out. By all accounts, he should have won.

I mean, are Ascians even evil?

---

I think the Ascians are evil. No qualm about hurting innocents is the very definition within my set of morality.

However, Gaius in Praetorium legit made some good sense and he has never committed atrocity in his pursuit of conquest. Those that oppose him do so on political and not moral grounds. So I can agree that it doesn't make sense to side against him simply because 'Imperialism bad'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaethra

I think the Ascians are evil. No qualm about hurting innocents is the very definition within my set of morality.

However, Gaius in Praetorium legit made some good sense and he has never committed atrocity in his pursuit of conquest. Those that oppose him do so on political and not moral grounds. So I can agree that it doesn't make sense to side against him simply because 'Imperialism bad'.

---

I mean he willingly fought for an empire that had genocide campaigns against various beastmen.

Ah, yes, slaughtering all filthy subhumansancients in order to bring back the master race no less is plainly, PLAINLY, A VERY GOOD THING. That people can actually take the Ascian's words and believe in them so wholeheartedly is frankly concerning.

Should have figured this sort of trash would have popped up after Varis's tripe in 4.5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mario710

I mean, are Ascians even evil?

---

The Ancients failed to diagnose their calamity and then sundered their world in 13 pieces. Emet-Selch considered these idiots to be "perfect" and decided it was worth drowning the rest of the worlds in an ocean of blood to resurrect the very people who cause the problem he's spend millenia trying to fix. He's evil. If he had his way, he'd commit mass genocide to resurrect the ancients with the Rejoining, then the ancients would repeat the cycle and sunder their world into pieces again. Emet-Selch's attempt at mass genocide would be for nothing. He's evil.

I feel like the Convocation's plan to sacrifice new lives to revive the old might even be a betrayal of those people's intentions. They willingly gave their lives for the planet's restoration - and now this small group of people in power (who have been tempered by Zodiark when they first summoned Him) decide "well, why don't we take all that new life and sacrifice it to bring back the original people?"

Basically Zodiark will keep asking for sacrifices until there are non left to satisfy his hunger, natural selection will just weed out the ones that are making things worse, which eventually restores balance to the world until some idiot who has 0 zero street smarts/common knowledge decides to wreck the planet again because they have a "higher education" (A.K.A. god complex) than the "pathetic common savages" (A.K.A. the silent majority that are struggling because of the privileged minority that have a god complex) and all life as we know it will end because Zodiark will now stop at the planet and will just consume everything in the universe... at least in context of the game world...


But TL;DR version is long term life goes on if WoL and friends win, but if Ascians win everything in the universe dies before Ascians can even relish in their victory...


I personally prefer the former over the latter...

At the end of the day it all comes down to perspective. There really is no right and wrong here. For any of the shards to exist the source had to be fractured and what was there to; basically, die. For Emet's memory of the source to exist all the shards must in essence die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyssahtyn

Ah, yes, slaughtering all filthy subhumansancients in order to bring back the master race no less is plainly, PLAINLY, A VERY GOOD THING. That people can actually take the Ascian's words and believe in them so wholeheartedly is frankly concerning.

Should have figured this sort of trash would have popped up after Varis's tripe in 4.5.

---

Ah, the worst sort of literary critic. The sort that acts as if supporting a fictional character or faction is equal to doing so in the real world. To say nothing of the deliberate overlooking of nuance - of which there is much to be found in FFXIV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mario710

Seriously, I cannot believe genocide of all things was brought into this. Did any of you not read the story? We are not actually alive.

The rejoining absolutely should happen. We are fragmented souls? If all the shards rejoin the source, then we become whole? Are you ok with being a ghost?

Is it genocide to delete your entire portfolio of dead family members?

---

Keeping things hidden for spoilers

Correction. Our soul is rejoined into that of another and essentially merged into one being. We, the person we currently are now, would cease to exist. It would be the equivalent of your soul merging with all of your siblings to form one "perfect human". All of your individuality would be gone. You and them wouldn't be the same.

We were essentially fighting for our individuality; Emet fighting for a bygone world he viewed a Utopia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Ah, the worst sort of literary critic. The sort that acts as if supporting a fictional character or faction is equal to doing so in the real world. To say nothing of the deliberate overlooking of nuance - of which there is much to be found in FFXIV.

---

By all means feel free to explain the "nuance" in the wholesale genocide of countless peoples in the pursuit of the possible resurrection of a dead race. Furthermore, explain the nuance in "She [Hydaelyn] simply cannot be trusted. She's a Primal. A false deity. A parasite to be cut out so that the reins of history can be firmly placed into the hands of man for better or for worse", since you're so keen to always drag out your haughty shield of "nuance".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyssahtyn

By all means feel free to explain the "nuance" in the wholesale genocide of countless peoples in the pursuit of the possible resurrection of a dead race.

---

Sure, here you go:

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...=1#post5071522

From the lead developers own mouth, no less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Sure, here you go:

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...=1#post5071522

From the lead developers own mouth, no less.

---

The only relevant thing to my first question in that interview basically amounts to "Emet-Selch has his reasons". If that is your standard for "nuance", then I question your standards and how you have the gall to call me "the worst kind of literary critic". Furthermore, that does not even answer my question to begin with in its partial relevance. I asked you, the user Theodric, to explain the "nuance" in the wholesale genocide of countless peoples in the possible resurrection of a dead race. I did not ask for the developers' answer. The expectation is that you use your own words. Additionally, you neglected to address my second question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyssahtyn

The only relevant thing to my first question in that interview basically amounts to "Emet-Selch has his reasons". If that is your standard for "nuance", then I question your standards and how you have the gall to call me "the worst kind of literary critic". Furthermore, that does not even answer my question to begin with in its partial relevance. I asked you, the user Theodric, to explain the "nuance" in the wholesale genocide of countless peoples in the possible resurrection of a dead race. I did not ask for the developers' answer. The expectation is that you use your own words. Additionally, you neglected to address my second question.

---

The interview answers all of your questions, though. You implied that it was 'concerning' that people believed the Ascians and felt sympathy for their plight. It isn't concerning at all by any measure because...it's fiction. It's really that simple. You're free to read into it as you so please, though so too are others and the lead developer intended the character in question to be a tragic and sympathetic figure. I'd say it proved to be quite the success.

The motives and history of various characters and factions is what makes a story fascinating to me. I enjoy compiling the facts and figuring out why they do what they do - and compelling antagonists are in abundance in FFXIV and the series as a whole.

Those who have become highly invested in Hydaelyn are not going to accept that the other side has their own rationale for the topic and are not written to be villains, no matter who says it, not even if it’s the devs. I agree that this is the worst kind of ‘critic’ and is unable to grasp the part of the story where they 1) saw all their sacrifices undone by some Primal, which ended up consuming the aether of said sacrifices and 2) don’t consider post Sundering beings to be alive in the same sense they are, for pretty understandable reasons.

Trying to imply it’s ‘concerning’ people find their side sympathetic is just a bad faith tactic and is not going to work. If the story goes in the direction that there is much more to it, then I may reassess but frankly it’s just speculation at this point.

Read the interview, don’t read it. I doubt anyone hugely cares. You are free to ignore the nuances in the story much as people are free to ignore your uh... ‘concern’.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForteNightshade

We were essentially fighting for our individuality; Emet fighting for a bygone world he viewed a Utopia.[/HB]

---

And yet it is abundantly clear that the sundering of their world into 13 was their own doing. There's plenty of reason to think this "Utopia" would just repeat history and sundering into 13 again if it were restored. Emet is deluded, viewing his own people with dangerously rose-tinted glasses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

It isn't concerning at all by any measure because...it's fiction.

---

I don't think you even have a basic idea of what literature is. You're supposed to be concerned when you read 1984. You're supposed to be concerned when you read It Can't Happen Here. Your not suppose to disregard these books simply because they are fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mario710

I don't follow the 'genocide is bad' philosophy. It is clearly stated that we don't actually EXIST. Everyone and everything across the different shards are fragmented reflections.

Yes, genocide is awful, however, restoring a shade does not count as genocide. As Emet-Selch put it: "You are not actually alive to me."

Well, would you look at that? Guess what? He's right.

---

are you memeing right now?

you have to be memeing

Aha. Luckily for us all you’re not the arbiter of who should be concerned about what or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mario710

If your "existence" is the equivalent of a dusty old painting, then yes, genocide IS ok.

---

I'm gonna frame this post and hang it by the local landfill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

I don't think you even have a basic idea of what literature is. You're supposed to be concerned when you read 1984. You're supposed to be concerned when you read It Can't Happen Here. Your not suppose to disregard these books simply because they are fiction.

---

I'm quite well read, actually. I note that you deliberately picked out some very specific, bleak titles that just so happen to be written in a way to lack much in the way of nuance. Which is completely irrelevant in the context of FFXIV given that it is written in a way to account for nuance.

If you're looking for more settings with wonderful nuances for many of the characters then I would sorely recommend The Witcher and A Song of Ice and Fire novels. Two of my favourites, in fact!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mario710

Someone please help me understand why the bad guys are never allowed to win?
Something seemed awfully wrong about the way Emet-Selch was taken out. By all accounts, he should have won.
I mean, are Ascians even evil?

---

The reason we are fighting the bad guys is basically because they have won many times before our arrival. The ascians completely obliterated one of the shards and turned it into a blob of floating void and dark energy. Not only that but throughout Heavensward, Stormblood and now Shadowbringers, the bad guys we fight are people that have won their battles a multitude of times, otherwise the Warrior of Light wouldn't be the last resort of hope for a lot of eorzeans. I'd say a good 75% of Norvrandt is completely consumed by light and devoid of all life, if not more, and all because the bad guys have won a battle that happened over a century ago. The shard never recovered and slowly but surely kept falling further and further into decay until we arrived to help. It's all a matter of perspective. Just because the bad guys are now starting to fall one after the other, that doesn't mean that prior to our arrival they didn't had plenty of time to prevail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

I'm quite well read, actually. I note that you deliberately picked out some very specific, bleak titles that just so happen to be written in a way to lack much in the way of nuance. Which is completely irrelevant in the context of FFXIV given that it is written in a way to account for nuance.

If you're looking for more literature with wonderful nuances for many of the characters then I would sorely recommend The Witcher and A Song of Ice and Fire novels. Two of my favourites, in fact!

---

It’s one thing to not want to live in such a world (I don't) and quite another to be able to acknowledge both parties may have a point in a given conflict, in the story, as I do in the case of the Ascians given our current understanding. I mean am I supposed to be ‘concerned’ that some folks, like myself, enjoy factions like the Sith Empire in a fantasy setting? I don’t see why.

If you (the general "you") think that implies anything about my beliefs outside the game, the more fool you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Ah, the worst sort of literary critic. The sort that acts as if supporting a fictional character or faction is equal to doing so in the real world. To say nothing of the deliberate overlooking of nuance - of which there is much to be found in FFXIV.

---

By engaging with a fictional narrative, you're accepting that it's "real" within the bounds of the story - in which case it's only natural to apply your thoughts on real morality to the characters' actions. It's how we define heroes and villains (or lack thereof) within a story - we judge them by the same criteria we would if real people acted the way they do.

It's one thing to say "I can see why the character acted this way even if I don't approve of their actions" and even empathise with them because of that, but that's not the same thing as condoning it because it's "only fiction".

Before this argument gets out of hand, lets establish some constants here.


First thing, fiction is fiction. What this means is the writer(s) are justified to put a character in the story through whatever bliss, trial, hell, or whatever they wish. Not only are they justified, but as the content author, what they do within their own story is righteous. They can do no wrong and should not be judged by outsiders for it. Critiqued perhaps, but not judged. For example, if they were to kill off Thancred. They'd be justified and righteous for doing so. If it was because he broke his neck from tripping on his shoelaces, then we can critique the decision as being anticlimatic over dying in glorious battle. But we should not judge them for making the decision to kill him off if they so desired

Next thing. It is entirely possible to like and enjoy the villains of a story. We can route for them. We can revel in their actions no matter how diabolical, no matter how depraved they might be. This doesn't make us sick, it doesn't make us evil minded, it doesn't even make us weird. These villains are works of FICTION. We enjoy the villainy and heroism alike. They are apart of a story and play just as important (if not MORE important) of a part of that story as the protagonist. We can love them, we can hate them, we can even idolize them if we wish. And again it doesn't mean anything in the 'real world' outside of us enjoying a good story.

And finally and most importantly. We should not be judging each other for enjoying the story in our own ways. There's nothing concerning about people enjoying an aspect of the story. In fact the very idea that every part of the story, hero, villain, and supporting cast has readers/players who enjoy them is a Good thing. People routing for Emet is a Good thing. That means the character has relateable emotions and desires that people can understand and resonate with. It doesn't mean people want to genocide in real life. It doesn't mean people want to hurt others if given the chance.

Fiction is Fiction.
Its not wrong to enjoy Villains.
It is wrong to judge others on their enjoyment of a story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gwenorai

I'm confused, is this an actual question?

"Why didn't square enix kill me off?" or 'Why wasn't he allowed to beat us and kill billions more?' basically?
He's already destroyed like 90% of the first and caused the void. He's done a lot of 'winning' already.

---

I agree the ascians wiped 7 of the 14 shards and nearly wiped out the 1st how much more winning do they need?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mario710

Something seemed awfully wrong about the way Emet-Selch was taken out. By all accounts, he should have won.
I mean, are Ascians even evil?

---

That's the whole point.

Apart from the fact that it still amazes me we were even able to dent that thing, I cried pretty hard when he said "remember us.... remember that we one lived".
I wanted to take his hands and tell him "Trust us, we will not squander your sacrifice." and then give him a hug until he dissipates.

Ascians are not evil in the strictest sense of the word. Their macciavellian approach may appear evil to us, since we lesser races get the short end of the stick in order to bring their civilization back but their motives are completely understandable. They had a great civilization with strict ethics. Desparation, and unfathomable suffering turned Emet-Selch cruel though he wasn't heartless about it. It is clear it weighed heavily on his conscience but he saw no other way to undo what had been done.

The more important question we have to ask: would the Ascian civilization look like what we saw in Amauroth post Zodiark? How would them being his thralls affect things?

I REALLY hope that they find another solution for Elidibus than us just whacking him too. There has to be a possibility for some form of compromize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katie_Kitty

Edgy teenager post. They want to genocide entire planets. Yes they're evil and yes they need to die.

---

A good example of missing about 99% of the background info. I suppose one edgy teenager’s response to another.