Do not forget that Zodiark tempered Emet. Consequently everything he did was driven at the core by Zodiark's will.
Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic
Printable View
-
11-13-2019, 05:18 PMTeraluna
-
11-13-2019, 05:31 PMAnselmet
To us Emet Selch is evil, but from his pov we are evil. Hell, if more of his people were around they would most likely feel the same about the WoL. We are more or less the giant barrier stopping his people from returning and living once more. On the flip side, we are interrupting his efforts because we don't want to be a sacrifice for a race that is mostly extinct. There is no winning here because Emet Selch and the other Ascians will always feel the need to restore what they lost due to Zodiarc's tempering. I think that is why I sympathize with Emet Selch. It's because if I were in his shoes and I lost everything I held dear I would do anything to get them back. But unlike Emet Selch I would move on and realize that I should instead help the races that replaced my people and let the past go. Emet Selch cannot do that due to his tempering and that is where my sympathies lie.
-
11-13-2019, 05:33 PMAnnihilism
Why Would You Say Something So Controversial Yet So Brave?
-
11-13-2019, 06:41 PMReynhartMost of motives are based on a point of view. I'm not really sure killing beastmen so that they won't summon their primal again is not really noble from their point of view, especially since they summon it by fear of being killed.Quote:
Originally Posted by HyoMinPark
Is that noble to use a bug bomb if your house is crawling with insects ? From his point of view, that's what humans are and did since they only have a fragment of a soul compared to him yet have taken the whole world. After all, those insects only look for a place to live. -
11-13-2019, 06:51 PMMuseTravellerI feel like people are forgetting this part way too often.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teraluna
Even if he wanted to embrace different route, even though he did try, he did eventually feel the disappoitnment and the desperate need to restore his people which was likely due to being tempered by Zodiark.
He even noted that - he and those who summoned Zodiark got tempered and everything and all they do and will do will be to restore Zodiark. So it's not farfetched to imagine every time he would sway from the goal, Zodiark would influence his will to get him back in line.
That part I do find quite tragic about him. -
11-13-2019, 06:58 PMLersayilTo be fair, our idea of what tempering is still very vague. We also have very little idea of what Zodiarks and Hydaelyns motivations are, if there are any. It's possible they are just mindless automatons that are doing their job based on pre-programmed tenets.Quote:
Originally Posted by MuseTraveller
-
11-13-2019, 09:54 PMAlleoOf course its pure speculation right now but seeing how Emet does not like us as the new stewards and Hythlo hinting that other Ancients wanted to give the planet in the hands of the new life, really makes its quite hard to believe that we are talking about plants here. And seeing how only Ancient ones existed and the new races had to come from somehwere (since they must have existed before the sundering to be on these shards) then there is imo a high chance that the new life that was created after the calamity were the new races thus sapient beings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lersayil
And I also never said that them bringing their own doom was a fact so of course its still speculation. But at least with all the information we have right now its a good possibilty just like its a good possibility that there was an outside force. (But still kinda telling how helpless they were in the face of danger and how easily their magic could go out of control) I am not even blaming them for that. Things like that can happen all the time to all civilisations and did happen in our history too. I am a bit doubtful if the Zodiark plan was the best plan at hand and if they might have been too blind to see some other reasons (or maybe took too long to get one). But even that would still have been fine (minus the tempering part) but anything after that? That was their full own doing.
Its also not about creation magic being bad, its about using it too much without giving back. And they are not perfect beings. They have the same emotions as we do, they seemingly had enough problems in the world to create souls that wont pass on because of their immense anger and when doom was upon them they talked about it but seemingly did not do much. So it could simply be the case that they either did not notice is because it was happening at a very slow pace of a long amount of time or they were just blind to it. Even in our world most of us do know that certain problems will happen if we dont change our way of living. Does not stop us from still doing them.
About time traveling: Seeing how the exarch believed that he would fade away after the change was done and was suprised that it did not happen (which still could mean that the bad one was ereased but he remains there because of being a paradox and bound to the tower), I would take a guess and say that most of those working with that knew that there was a high risk of being ereased from existance. Heck even Emet himself talks about time travel like that because he wanted to have a world with no need of heroes and that we would be gone from that. So he too believed that the old time line will be overwritten. And so for me it makes sense that these people knew at least the huge amount of riks of doing that and still did it. I mean would it change the sacrifice of the ancient ones to summon and keep Zodiark fueled if later down the line they would have been brought back? No imo it would not. And thus I still see this as an example for a big sacrifice in the name of creating a better future for others.
(Also if you say that you dont count the bad time line because they were still doomed: Then why are we counting the ancient ones? They were only doing that sacrifice too when their world was doomed and they would have truly died anyway. So doesnt that mean that this race also has not done anything to show that they are better if we look at it like that? Heck when the bad events happened all over their world and other cities got destroyed they stood there and only discussed about helping them or not x))
Would they? Hytho pointed out that it was the convocation (thus those tempered by Zodiark) that gave the idea of bringing back their lost ones after all was done by using the new life and this create such a big divide between their races for the first time ever. That does not sound like evey ancient one would have been for that. And what about those that sacrificed themselves? Would they be happy in being back (if they even can be back) while knowing that billions of life was destroyed for it? Including the split souls of their own people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Anselmet
-
11-13-2019, 11:28 PMLersayil
Fair points in there, only addressing the ones I disagree with on some level.
Nothing we know currently about creation magic implies that it had a price other than aether and a proper idea, blueprint or image for the thing you want to do (cant recall the specific word they used). It was stated that the Amaurotians supplied that aether in full from their own reserves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alleo
There is a bit of difference between the two. The future Source was effed. No matter what they did they had no way out, no way to save themselves. The Amaurotians did. They died so the rest of THEIR society would live on. The Exarch and company just tried to make something good from their already certain doom. Its to be applauded, but its an easier decision to make, than sacrificing 75% of your people willingly to buy the rest a future. Just imagine the uproar, arguments and public disrest if we as a race would have to result this. I imagine many volunteering for their loved ones, but 75% is a heavy number.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alleo
If true I agree with you. I would also think that they made the story a lot more boring with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alleo
For now we can only speculate, since we didn't get many specifics about that post-Zodiark pre-Hydaelyn period. If Zodiark turns out to be a bad guy that brainwashed the Amaurotians, or the post-Zodiark Amaurotians just turn out to be selfish bastards, it would majorly undermine the sympathy they we're trying to build towards them sofar. -
11-14-2019, 12:57 AMShori
^-^ I liked Emet as did most. His motive was innocent even if his actions evil. He didnt consider the life on the shards as real life forms and was trying to piece everything back together to get what he considered to be real life. Some of the things that were said by him and by the shade who recognised our soul point to the fact there is far more than what we already know and that we are being prepared to mourn.
-
11-14-2019, 01:17 AMLaurontThat's just head canon. Nothing has been confirmed to that effect. The way the entire phenomenon arose caught them completely off guard. If anything, Amaurot indicates they were very cautious in how they used creation magic. So where are you getting this from?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMightyMollusk
The short story with Hades implies something had gone awry with the Lifestream - we can but speculate whether this is linked to Amaurot's predicament and whether Creation magics were at fault in any sense.
It's speculation on her part, as is throwing in the figure "billions". It's not known when the plan was formulated to add in a third stage which would restore their fallen - but the desire is nonetheless understandable, as they are the only reason the world still existed afterwards. If the departure from the Convocation as a result of this came before the summoning of Zodiark, tempering as an excuse makes no sense. If it was after, it might, but like you say, it significantly erodes the value of the story and just makes it "big bad god made me do it". It also does not jive with what we now know of darkness as a form of energy - it is not born out of negative or evil emotions, nor does it even stem from selfishness, but various elements in an energetic state. Thus, there isn't even really a reason Zodiark would need to be evil, simply as a result of being darkness aligned. There's always the possibility the beings in the world he was helping rescue somehow corrupted his nature but I doubt it. So it'd just reduce to tempering, "just because".Quote:
Originally Posted by Lersayil
As matters stand, we don't really know how tempering affects the ancients, given their huge aetheric reserves, nor do we know how it'd affect someone with the Echo - or whether it somehow ties into it. Some people want this to be an awfully convenient story that resolves to Zodiark tempering the Ascians and somehow, Hydaelyn not tempering her summoners and her summoning having caused no resulting issues. Maybe it will be but like you, I'd find that boring.
I still wonder if there is something to Lahabrea's comments about how aetheric and physical laws will continue to be warped whilst Hydaelyn is there. -
11-14-2019, 04:17 AMsarehptarNormally I wouldn't respond to anything on a thread like this, but I'm an English teacher and I about busted up laughing at this summary... The Tempest is a comedic romance, not a traditional Shakespearean tragedy, and what happened to Amaurot definitely does not map to the plot of The Tempest, which is not about a powerful wizard's powers going awry at all? (In fact, it's about a wizard using his power/enslaved spirits to seek justice against those who wronged him... which has shades of Zodiark seeking vengeance against Hydaelyn to it...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Enkidoh
If anything, Emet probably qualifies as an analog for The Tempest's Ariel or Caliban, magical beings who have been enslaved to serve the powerful wizard Prospero--sometimes these two agree to the things they are asked, but sometimes they are forced to act against their own will in Prospero's quest to return himself to his former glory. Ariel and Caliban together can be seen as an analogy for the way Emet views himself--as the "good" spirit--versus how we, the heroes, view him--as the "evil" spirit.
In terms of whether or not Emet qualifies as a tragic character, if we're talking in classic Greek dramatic traits, then yes, he probably does, because one of the central elements of a tragic hero is that their own flaws contribute to the tragedy they're stuck in. Characters in tragedies exhibit "fatal flaws" which contribute to their falls from grace. As you mention, hubris itself is a fatal flaw, and Emet's pride in his people and belief that his people's way of life is superior is what contributes immensely to his inability to allow Amaurot to fade into the past--he cannot accept the current races as the new inheritors of the star in part because of his overbearing pride and otherwise flawed character. Thus, he orchestrates the collapse of his own dream by failing to embrace change. Likewise, there's also tons of dramatic irony in that he insists his people were superior to the current races because of their peaceful and self-sacrificing ways... while he himself embraces violence to achieve his goal. The very fact that he can't fully identify the paradox/disconnect between what he's aiming for and his means of achieving that goal is what creates the tragedy. Tragedy also thrives on an element of inevitability--Emet cannot choose any other path than the one he ended up on in the game, in part because he's tempered and in part because he's just a flawed character, as I mentioned before. He was always going to end exactly where he did, and the conflict between himself and the WoL was unavoidable. Those indeed are all the really necessary ingredients for tragedy, at least in traditional terms.
A better topic might have been "Emet is unforgivable" which is probably an easier argument to win... -
11-14-2019, 04:23 AMcakesphere
lmao this kind of low-tier anti bait doesn't even phase me at this point
Here for the popcorn tho
I leave bait of my own - if you don't consider Emet-Selch a tragic villain, you failed reading comprehension so badly that SE had to come out and say he was tragic, just for you. -
11-14-2019, 05:12 AMMakedaBasically Emet-Selch is a figure who's responsible for more death than... sorry for the Godwin... Hitler... and he goes emo on us.Quote:
Originally Posted by 15725462
I'm just sitting there having a Glorious Bastards moment and waiting to exact some justice...
As a PLAYER I wanted him to stay because he was a well written villain unlike Xenos. As my character I'm more like "lets just waste this demonic beast and make the multiverse a better place for it..."
It really didn't matter how tragic his story was... look at his body count and disregard for all life save that he felt was superior (there's another Godwin moment BTW)...
After all... Hitler had a tragic life... AND was a very EMO artist too boot... NOBODY feels sorry for that guy except for the people who deserve the same fate...
Being Emo and Tragic doesn't justify mass slaughter...
My character: waste the bastard
Me as a player: this is good writing, give me more of this please, toss Xenos on the pile of 'past expansions' PLEASE... -
11-14-2019, 06:11 AMPuksi
That the narrative tries to paint Selch as a "hero" actually really bothers me. A well-written villain? Definitely. I feel sympathy for the fate of Amaurot, to be sure. But Selch and his cronies? No. In fact, the one real time I felt heroic in this expansion was blowing a hole through him.
It's not only the deaths of untold numbers of people and creatures. The writers meant to show sympathy for him, I guess, when he rattled on about breaking bread and siring children and such, but the fact all of that was done under false pretenses (with beings he readily calls "not really alive" or just animals) is extremely squicky. The siring children part especially, I think there's a term for it, and it definitely isn't "heroic"? We never once are asked by the narrative to consider how twisted that is, consider the people who unwittingly lived a lie with him, were used by him as breeding fodder. We are only asked to feel bad for his feefees.
The writers also completely ignore the implications of his character when he spoke over Vauthry's mother to discuss the fate of her body with her husband, while she just stood silently there looking frightened. He corrupted a helpless infant in the womb. He's wearing either a corpse or an unwilling meat puppet from the First that he altered to suit his fancy. Yet I've seen the fanbase dehumanize and vilify Vauthry more than I have ever seen Selch taken to task, although Selch had free will to make his choices, and Vauthry had no choice or chance since before he was born. And the writers never let us set the record straight on this part, they just let us smile and nod as everyone goes on what a horrid evil person Vauthry was.
Watching the writers push the narrative of "hero" onto that sort of person felt like a slap in the face, or at least as immersion-breaking as a gigantic Talos. -
11-14-2019, 06:30 AMTheodricWhether or not somebody is a hero is very much a matter of perspective and personal interpretation. You don't consider him to be one? Fine, but it really shouldn't 'bother' anybody for others to look on him fondly. He's a fictional character in a fantasy setting. People consume entertainment to be entertained and that accounts for all sorts of different tastes. I'm sure there's characters that you like that others don't - it's just how the world works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puksi
-
11-14-2019, 07:03 AMPuksiEnjoying a well-written villain is one thing. Trying to paint the evil they do in a positive light within the actual context of the story is another, though I would be morbidly curious how even a fraction of his atrocities could be explained away as "heroic". It sounds about as convincing as when Blizzard skewered frightened civilians fleeing their village on pikes and tried to call it "morally grey".Quote:
Originally Posted by Theodric
-
11-14-2019, 07:08 AMAlleoIts Ysthola who believes that they have such huge amount of aether that they only used it themselves. She can be right but also wrong. And we know that people must have existed that had less aether because methods existed to help them "craft" stuff. Maybe some of those started to use the aether of the planet or maybe not. In the end up until they decided to sacrifice more after their planet was save, I could go with them. After that they went horrible wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lersayil
Well the source might have still lived on for a couple of centuries or not but in the end they sacrificed themselves so that others can life, just like Amaurotines did that. I also dont think its easier to make because there is nothing in the game that says that the source would have been gone the next day either. It was certainly in a very bad place since it did not get better after 200 years but we dont know if they would have died out. So they still made the decision to sent someone back with the knowledge that in the next second they might all be death and not remembered. While at least the surviving Amaurotines could mourn and remember the heroes that saved them. (I would also say that if doom would stand directly at the door of our city, which is when they started to react, that quite a lot of people would sacrifice themselves to give at least some of their loved ones a chance. )
Exactly. Just because he believed himself to be the hero of his own story does not make him one. He talks about his race but people of his race were against his plan. I really doubt that he would truly be seen as a shining hero to those. And if those sacrificed people came back and found out that they got back because their tempered members of their races killed billions of lifeforms over a huge amount of time, I really wonder if they would be fine with that. I mean those (which are the majority of the ones from Amaurot) did not even know about this plan so had no vote in it. But if even the surviors were split on this then those might be too. And on top of that I am not quite sure if they would like the idea of being tempered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puksi
Sometimes villians no matter the motive will still be villians. You can enjoy them and like them but he is really not a hero in any way. Heck I really like his character but I would never see him as someone morally good. And even Yoshida in an interview pointed out that just because the ascians have reasons to do their stuff does not change the fact that they have just destroyed whole words to get to their goal. -
11-14-2019, 07:13 AMTheodricIt's simply a matter of looking at it from the perspective of the characters themselves, the context of the overall story and whatever relevant statements are made by the development team. They clearly intended to make him into a tragic, sympathetic hero who was fated to be cut down by another. They succeeded at that and quite a lot of people read into him in the same manner. Some, such as yourself, do not. Which is fine - I just don't understand the need some have to try and stifle support of the official narrative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puksi
-
11-14-2019, 07:22 AMAlleoAnd if you only look at the perspective of the characters themselves then someone like Zenos is a hero too! Seeing how he sees life, he is quite right in what he does and is not evil at all. And no he was never meant to be seen as tragic hero. Even Yoshida made it clear afterwards that the Ascians are still the bad guys. Just now bad guys with at least some motives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theodric
-
11-14-2019, 07:26 AMPuksiIt's interesting how a dissenting opinion against Selch's handling is "stifling support of the official narrative", while supporting it is "perspective and personal interpretation". Yoshi-P plainly said we should not forget the Ascians have murdered millions, they just do not stress it enough in the actual context, just as they didn't stress at all the skeevy nature of Selch lying to an untold number of partners--excuse me, "animals"--to make little pawns for his game. But then again, Square also let a character who bought a child and pressed her into prostitution off scot-free as part of the Doman Liberation Front. I suppose that one must surely be "heroic" himself. Somehow. ‾\_(ツ)_/‾Quote:
Originally Posted by Theodric
-
11-14-2019, 07:48 AMBright-Flower
Intent and execution also don't always line up.
SE probably intended for the first two Zenos fights for example to feel intimidating and hopeless but they only felt tedious to me and failed to impact any sense of dread. Authorial intent only gets you so far because the impression one tries to give doesn't always work out. -
11-14-2019, 07:50 AMTheodricI think you're deliberately missing my point, given that Zenos has never been presented as a sympathetic character or a hero. Emet-Selch had actual motives and plenty of tragedy in his life. He simply wanted to bring back his loved ones and restore his homeland - no matter the cost. I think a lot of characters would do the same in his position and of those who claim otherwise, a significant portion would be lying to themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alleo
-
11-14-2019, 08:05 AMLauront
It was always clear they had motives - they were just opaque. However, from their perspective they did not want to see their world and all the souls in it enervated (also why they don't see any lifeforms resulting from this as equivalent to what once was), and probably see Hydaelyn as parasitic on aether intended for Zodiark and restoring their fallen, so I can understand why they are willing to take the drastic actions they engage in. Whatever led to the disagreement that culminated in Hydaelyn's summoning, the fragmented world that came after is something they wish to reverse. Granted the writers could just insert tempering as the cause behind it all, as poor a decision as I'd consider that to be, but for now it's up in the air.
I think it is simply disingenuous to pretend that Zenos is in a similar spot to them, when his goal is literally to amuse himself and there is currently precious little to suggest his backstory will mirror Yotsuyu's. The purpose he appears to be serving is little more than having the hubris to allow the authors a way to bring Zodiark into the story through means besides Elidibus. -
11-14-2019, 08:27 AMPuksiHe is an unreliable narrator at best, but Emet-Selch's dialogue implied they knew they would become thralls of Zodiark to some degree, didn't it? In either case, they certainly still had free will when they chose to become so. He's no Zenos, his base motivation was sympathetic, but his subsequent actions are objectively monstrous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lauront
Square should've revisited General Leo for inspiration if they wanted to do a tragic adversary that would let them toss the word "hero" around. -
11-14-2019, 08:33 AMIttyBitty
I have no idea why anybody is trying to spin Emet as any kind of a hero. He's tragic, sure. But tragedy and sympathy does not a hero make. He's stuck trying to bring back a world that is long gone in the hope it'll bring back what he remembers. Doing so requires genocide. There is nothing heroic about that no matter how you spin it.
But I guess Foxy Grandpa can do no wrong because him sassy and make a joke and doesn't afraid of anything. Gotta stan the genocidal geriatric! Don't get me wrong, he's a good character! Very well written. Possibly the best part of Shadowbringers. If the circumstances were different, a character like him could have been a good addition to the regular cast! But the chips didn't fall that way. His motivations are repugnant, no matter how "noble" they may seem on the surface. He's not, in any way, a good character.
Zenos is just a terrible, boring character all around. He was by far the least compelling part of Stormblood, and remains as such because his motivation as presented is so hopelessly shallow that even a puddle looks like the Mariana Trench by comparison. -
11-14-2019, 10:59 AMGeminaThe sense of dread is felt by your supporting cast, who are in total disbelief that even you stood no chance against the crown prince. When you're character who has been so heavily relied on and used as a weapon to take down the biggest threats up to this point fails to deliver, that hopelessness transfers over to everyone in the Reach. The next course of action didn't even involve Zenos at all. They were just like, "Let's go where he isn't."Quote:
Originally Posted by Bright-Flower
I am not quite sure what people were expecting out of Zenos. But it feels like the disappointment is very similar to that expressed from his father, in which case for all intents and purposes, he is doing what he's supposed to be doing. Zenos has been established as a threat to anyone who gets in the way of his objective, so he is a wildcard as we clearly see at the conclusion of 5.0. He's one dimensional for sure, but so is Jaws and Jason Voorhees. While I wouldn't put them in the category of greatest villains either, what is common with them is when they're around, they are seriously giving everyone in their vicinity a really bad day.
Maybe I'm just a sucker for narcs, but he's pizza to me. Of course he's not on the same level or near it with someone like Emet, but he still keeps me entertained. The only time I found him boring was when he, himself was bored out of his mind. -
11-14-2019, 03:56 PMWhalaqee
I felt he was tragic.
1) He and a small ragtag team are the last vestiges of a once great culture.
2) Many of the ones from this culture he lived with died or were split across several worlds.
2) He is an immortal who experienced the loss of a parent outliving their own children and their children's children several times over.
3) He is an immortal who lost any spouse he formed a true connection with.
4) He tragically dies to the WoL and his last wish is for him and his kind to be remembered by us.
5) He also creates tragedy onto others by causing umbral eras to occur from both the shard and the source that would be affected.
Now one actually caring about the above is different than acknowledging tragic elements within the character. -
11-14-2019, 04:39 PMZelGreywardsI'm wondering if part of Hydaelyn's reason for splitting the world was because it in some way could/would prevent whatever caused the Terminus from acting out again. Sort of like what was done in Final Fantasy V to seal the power of the void (splitting the world in two with the rift caught between them.) In rejoining the worlds the Ascians may well be at risk of allowing the vague source of the catastrophe to act out again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fynlar
That said, with it being a noise my mind wanders to Zenos and his "Resonance." He seems to intend to bend Zodiark to his will (and has already shown to be capable of taking control of creations such as Shinryuu) so part of me wonders if what he and his researchers have tapped into isn't entirely the Echo but maybe also a bit of something else. The Echo itself is also somewhat suspect because of the reference to the noise that caused creation magicks to rebel.
On yet another side note, I got to wondering about the First Worm in The Burn (the incredibly massive worm skeleton toward the end.) That "First Beast" in Amaurot was a worm, but it was only as big as we were despite everything in the city being much larger by comparison to everywhere else. I'm wondering if that first worm skeleton might not be the remains of the ACTUAL "First Beast" that spawned during the catastrophe.
Sorry for the tangents. I've been sitting on these for a while and felt that a discussion of Emet-Selch and the Ancients was a good place to bring some of them up. -
11-14-2019, 05:12 PMLersayilObjectively monstrous to us. And I don't think anyone tossed the hero tag around in-game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puksi
Anyone who does so is probably misguided, but not outright wrong. Remember the old saying: every good villain is a hero of his own story. Emet might not define himself as a hero, but does things that he believes to be right and justified. And its not like he doesn't stop and question his deeds every now and then either. He mentioned regularly "testing" the new races if they are worthy enough to give up his quest. And he basically does so with us, as he could've (arguably) easily won just by not confronting us in the Tempest.Quote:
Originally Posted by IttyBitty
The most concise explanation is made by Emet himself:
"Buy yes, moral relativism and all that. Case in point - I do not consider you to be truly alive. Ergo I will not be guillty of murder if I kill you."
(possibly my favorite line from him overall too) -
11-14-2019, 06:09 PMEnla
Zenos confuses me personally, because as he's written he's your bog standard 'force of nature' archetype that is there to provide a suitable impediment to our heroes but never meant to stand as an ideological foil. For however boring he was in Stormblood he played his role pretty well and had they left him dead following the climax of 4.0 nothing of value would honestly have been lost from the story. Yet I guess someone on the writing team really likes him, or the fanbase feedback was better than I thought, because not only did they bring him back they're trying to set him up as some odd foil to our Warriors of Light - while still keeping his old, archetype in place with very little being expanded upon that we've thus seen. Which don't get me wrong, if they expand his character and do it well I'll happily retract my current impression of him. But right now he's just kinda 'there' and is more interesting as meme fodder than as an actual character.
I think Zenos' deficiencies stand out more because Emet Selch /is/ a proper foil for our characters. His ideals stand in direct opposition to our own, and yet he is written in such a way that many a people could easily see themselves falling into his shoes if put through similar circumstances. He's both an enemy, monstrous in his ideals and tempered so that he cannot even see his own folly, and yet also a cautionary tale for our heroes about how the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. While it's still too early to see how his actions have fully shaped the Scions and the Warrior of Light, I'd be amazed if his influence isn't felt for many more story beats to come. Unlike a lot of the other villains which just kinda petered out and have turned into something of an 'in-joke' within game lore and in the fandom, like Lahabrea and especially Asahi. -
11-14-2019, 07:55 PMAlleoAnd it does not matter because there are people out there who feel sympathetic to him. So if they look at it from his perspective alone then he is right, which is exactly your argument. (Which means people can never have a true discussion because most characters always believe that they are right) One cant just go around and suddenly say that it does not count for character x just because they are not shown in a great light. If you are allowed to argue in this case for one character, then its possible to do so for everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theodric
And no I would not and I am also not lying to myself. I have people that I lost to death but as most people do, we learn to live with it. I would feel horrible getting those loved ones back by sacrificing others. Because I understand that these people that died also have loved ones..and I am not sure if those that came back would be fine with it..I would not be fine with living again, while knowing that this meant unknown amount of death..
Emet is also a bit blind in that regards because he just simply only cares about the 75% that are in Zodiark..but not only are those that sacrificed themselves those who survived the original attack but it was also only one city..Emet is only caring about those..not those that died in Amaurot from the calamity itself, not of those that survived it all and got split, not of those much higher amount of ancient ones that had no chance at all because Amaurot only did something when it was at their door step. We are from Amaurot and thus its quite clear that the souls of those ancient ones are reborn again..which means that probably a lot of people that are living on the source and shards are ancient beings. He does not care about those. His plan was not to bring the souls together and then at least let other Ancient and Amaurotines survive. No his goal will include his people too, one of them (us) even being someone he really knew and yet was ready to even go so far as to destroy our whole existance so that we would have never been born again.
And SE made it clear with the stances of the Scions, with showing Thancreds resolve in letting Minfilia go and giving the new life Ryne a chance at having a life, that they are on the side of letting go of the past. Hades is slain in a brutal way with the scions coming in and Thancred splitting the crystal so that Hades is hit with who knows how many shards which will probably hurt quite a bit. He is the monster in that stiuation, Ysthola calls him a being from hell and the whole scene is shown as us being the good ones. Only we listen to him when he finally understands and let go, the rest only cares if we are alright. This is not the sign of someone being shown as a tragic hero. -
11-14-2019, 07:56 PMTeralunaTaking the Jaws example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gemina
Sure Jaws was good in a one dimensional aspect, but this type of villain tires out pretty quickly after the first event. Jaws 2/Jaws 3 etc were all 'been here done this' low interest experiences. This mirrors the Zenos story arc to date.
We beat Zenos......Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water - 'oh look there's another Zenos' ....and so on.
This is the issue with one dimensional villains - repeatability. Yet that is precisely what is being handed to us with this character. -
11-14-2019, 09:02 PMLersayilThey kinda tried to pull a... sympathy (?) card on us before the last battle. Turns out he is just... a nihilistic, thrill seeking, bored and lonely psychopath. I can see how people didn't warm up to that excuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theodric
...personally it resonated with the mmo murder-hobo within me just enough to offer to be his friend, but they reeeally didn't do much with him until that point. -
11-14-2019, 09:06 PMPuksiExcept the Minstreling Wanderer did? The entire description of Hades EX does?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lersayil
I'm not really inclined to take the character's "moral relativism" line as words to live by when he is the one responsible for all the atrocities in question, and the writers seem to have a lot of trouble with consistency on the matter of "moral relativism". Shadowbringers presents the jarring situation where the narrative pushed far harder to dehumanize one of Selch's victims -- Vauthry -- while entirely excusing Selch for his creation, going so far as to imply it was "heroic" for him to corrupt an unborn baby (without seeking the mother's consent, no less). Why is that?
On a MUCH smaller scale of destruction in comparison, Zephirin killed Haurchefant in the name of the greater good of Ishgard, but I don't recall ever being told he was a tragic hero for it. In fact, I was given the option of wanting to tear his heart out -- and no one popped in to say WELL UHM ACTUALLY
Yet here we are in this thread, being asked by some to not only consider Emet-Selch heroic by his standards, but by ours as well, lmao. IttyBitty has a solid point, I sincerely doubt there would be nearly the defense of Emet-Selch's actions were he not "Foxy Grandpa". It's lazy writing to excuse the evils of one character and condemn the same evils of another based on whether or not the character is meant to be a fandom darling. -
11-14-2019, 10:38 PMLersayilThe Hades EX description is weird I agree. But then its possible they mean it as a "hero and champion to his people". You know, one mans hero is another ones villain? Gonna check the japanese text, since this piqued my interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puksi
Not sure what you mean about the moral relativism line. Its not an excuse. Its a matter of fact statement without malice (which does make it more scary on some level if you assume that his reason of not seeing us as people might hold any amount of truth). Also, by envoking moral relativism at all, instead of just dismissing us outright, he indirectly acknowledges our side of the coin too.
Not sure how much of Vauthry was his fault. He infused him with light... but was his personality a result of that? Or of a bad upbringing? Guess we'll never know. Compared to the millions of lives he ruined, I don't think Vauthry would be that high on the list.
Comparing Zephirin to Emet aint exactly fair, as one had a whole expansion to thrive, while the other is basically a faceless mook henchman at best. Try it with Zenos. Most people hate him, and I would argue that his chara and design is much more fan-bait than Emet. A well defined and vaguely sympathetic backstory with large impact on the greater story can do wonders.
Anyways, fans gonna fan, and I dont think the more rabid fans that see him as a hero bother to even argue the finer points of his morality.
EDIT: went over the japanese Hades EX description. The song is mentioned as the other "Requiem to the Hero". I presume this also refers to Emet (also reference to Stormblood possibly?). The rest of the text basically rewords what the minstrel said at the english unlock about the Night's Blessed tradition: its implying that Emet naming himself Hades instead his seat name before the battle carried great meaning and determination on his part. Paraphrasing a lot, but I'm too lazy to write up a proper translation. The word "hero" is still used in the songs name, but the rest is mostly fluff and doesn't really polish up Emet as the english text.
Full text for the interested:
異世界の詩人が詠んだのは、もうひとりの「英雄への鎮魂歌」。
彼は、与えられた責務を示す座ではなく、真の名を明かし、名乗り、戦った。ならば、
闇を奉ずる「夜の民」の風習に従い真の名を以て葬送の儀式を執り行なおうこれは、その強き想いを身に刻み、
忘れぬための戦いなのだ。 -
11-14-2019, 11:26 PMHavenchild
Emet-Selch, imo, is indeed a tragic villain. While perhaps the Ascians lead to their own destruction with their unchecked hubris, they equally were trying to spur on progress for their people with creating new beings and things (granted it also sounds like it was a d*** measuring contest for them too).
Regardless, Emet-Selch is in a quite dubious situation. He is a hero for his people and is devoted to bringing them back after the climatic events and sacrifices that took place. All of those sacrifices of family and friends to summon Zodiark, to only lead to their inevitable downfall anyway with Hydaelyn coming in and stopping Zodiark anyway. His actions are still evil and terrible but they are fueled with passion and countless amounts of time to see this through. To bring back and save his people.
It's ironic that some people here consider Ardbert a hero but not Emet-Selch when in the 3.0+ arc, he and the then WoD were doing the exact same thing and they didn't care what they destroyed if it meant they could save their home.
And that's what makes it tragic, characters driven to terrible circumstances when they want to, in fact, save others. The evil acts in between aren't hidden but the emotion evoked from the circumstances helps us sympathize. Because in most cases, lots of people would probably do the same. I think the PC resonates with this to an extent.
Think about your family and friends. I'd imagine, if a lot of you faced similar circumstances, you would easily choose to fight anyone to save those important to you, if you could. That is the feeling Emet-Selch and characters like him latch onto.
By proxy, Emet-Selch is not unlike Dhaos from the Tales of Phantasia, trying to fight back against inevitable circumstances. -
11-15-2019, 03:04 AMBobkitty
The tragedy was that he survived the sundering and had to remember the sacrifice his people made and live with the guilt/shame that was his failure to save them for centuries to come. This became his driving force to ensure their sacrifices were not in vain which over time has essentially turned him into an extremist - although to a degree his desire may have also been twisted by Zodiark so that he would always view the god as the "be all end all".
I'd wager he's willfully blinded himself to the idea that the new mortal beings are also alive just so he would not give up on his people (an idea he has considered multiple times). But only at the end of the line did he finally realize and make peace with this.
"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." -
11-15-2019, 03:08 AMSavagelf
I don't see Ardbert as hero I see him tragitic anti hero who was mislead, realize that it was the Ascian who tell them how save they world. he and his friends were be used to get Ascian goals achievement. remember how it was Emet-Selch who create the final sineater. Emet-Selch has no redeem feature yes he is mutative he want make use the warrior of light to his own end see that is issue with power in corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolute. he understood the game he was play the question is do we. look how he behavior was simple in nature of his desire to control the warrior of light he want make them into ultimate sineater. he knew what was going better then the scian truthful he didn't know as much as he throught he did. Hydialyn chose her champion better the Emet-Selch realize she did. the game has not work in the ascian favor. a Genocidally cult can act to make you sympthical to the goals, it part how they control you. it was all an act till end. through I think at minutes he was died that wasn't the act anymore when your died you realize that you over play your hand. I found funny how people sympthical with those that seek they destruction maybe it just spirit of the ages.
-
11-15-2019, 03:21 AMPuksiIt could be they meant "hero" in a sort of squint sideways and think symbolically way, but apparently enough people took the wording at face value that Yoshi-P had to remind us the Ascians killed billions, and calling Hydaelyn the evil one was shortsighted--so I would count that as a failure of the writers in conveying their intent. There were better ways of expressing how tragic the Amaurotines' fate was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lersayil
The "moral relativism" line definitely conveyed how little Emet-Selch thought of the lives he was seeking to destroy, but since the writers were pushing for sympathy for him, it also sounded a bit like excusing him. It certainly was taken that way by some players.
And the writers are very selective who gets that sympathy, even if they do equally horrible things. I wouldn't say Zephirin was a nameless mook, but Zenos has no higher motivation than relieving his "boredom". Thordan, then? He was the driving force behind much of Heavensward, he thought his actions were just for the preservation of Ishgard, but there was never any doubt in the narrative that he was wrong. After he and the mooks were dealt with, there was no mention of any of them being heroic in their efforts, no requiems to commend them for it. All that, and their atrocities don't even put a dent in the scope of what the Ascians committed.
The writers also seemed to try a similar sympathy thing with Fordola in Stormblood, but that went over like a lead balloon, thankfully.
TL;DR: The charisma of an antagonist is all well and good, but the writers shouldn't really lessen the impact of the evils they do for the sake of it.
As for Vauthry, quoting the Innocence Triple Triad card, he was "corrupted by the power of a Lightwarden whilst he was yet a babe in the womb". Considering how a Lightwarden twisted Titania from a benevolent ruler to everyone's favorite trial, it seems a very safe bet that Vauthry's actions were entirely of Emet-Selch's making. It was established that no one short of the WoL could resist the corruption of a Lightwarden, and it was only by Hydaelyn's blessing that we resisted it for as long as we did. Trying to hold Vauthry responsible is like blaming Thancred for the massacre at the Waking Sands.
But the writers, although they showed the player the truth of the situation by the Echo, never allow us to reveal it to anyone. Instead, we are simply made to smile and nod as usual when the driving narrative of Eulmore even in patch was "man, Vauthry sure was evil". The writers hold one of Emet-Selch's victims to a higher standard of conduct than Emet-Selch himself, and there seems to be no actual reasoning for it except they favored him. So for me, at least, it felt very not heroic to remain silent on that situation alone, yet be nudged by the narrative to convey sympathy towards the actual cause of the evil. Not just sympathy, either, but to accept the narrative that he was heroic. -
11-15-2019, 03:31 AMSavagelf
through I think Emet-Selch is good lesson to all, if he was really we be accurse him of being racist. here is a suggest take everything you know about Emet-Selch and put him into today political climate and ask your self is he a good guy.
when you doing you have realize he on same level as hiltor was, like hiltor he view his race as supreme like hiltor he want mass gencidal of any race he viewed as infer to his'. In this way the question whether he a hero will be pretty easy answer. Good and evil is easy question when line a villian up with histrocial figure. I agree with the op that he wasn't a tragic.