Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havenchild

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.

---

These new beings were mostly stuff without souls anyway and I mean normal people create items too mostly just not on that scale and with less power.

And I am not sure if he is a hero now for his people. Maybe back then the Ascians were seen as heros that stopped the calamity, but would people be really happy with what they have become? Lets not forget that the sacrifice they wanted will include complete souls at the end too, souls which might have belonged to ancient beings, heck might have even belonged to Amaurotines (as our does at least). These people that sacrificed themselves also had loved ones and friends. What if they find out that to undo their willing sacrifice, Emet and the other have destroyed former friends and family of them? What if they are on the side of those Ancients that summoned Hydealyn because they dont want further sacrifices? He might be a hero to some but I doubt his race would stand behind them like that. Especially if those are not tempered.

Ardbert and his friends did morally grey actions and were stopped. They redeemed themselves by eiher giving Minfilia the aether of themselves as fuel or in case of Ardbert, by sacrificing his own being after suffering for 100 years. And even when they were still trying to cause a calamity (which in their eyes would have at least saved the souls of the people on the first) they did not like it. Emet and the others dont care for us. They dont even see us as being alive. Lahabrea stood there and laughed when Bahamut was unleashed. They unlike the WoDs are not doing this but hating every second of it, they outright dont care or find it even amusing..thats the big difference. And the WoDs did then try to help which is also another difference between them and the Ascians.

Emet even says that we should turn and then punish the sinners that wronged them. And I was like: What? The sundered races had no hand in the demise of the ancient ones. They are just living in a world that they are born into. They did not go to an outright war and they just fighting against bad enemies to save their life. And the WoLs also only exist to stop the Ascians and their rejoinings.

Another example:

Beware Attack on titan recent manga spoilers!! (Chapter 123)

The island ,who is seen as the devils by outsiders but who are only people living with the danger of becoming titans and who did nothing wrong because all was centuries ago, is planned to be destroyed by the outside world. The outside world fears these devils and are quite racist towards everyone that has blood of this other race in them, even if they lived beside the other people for years. At the same time we have the main characters from that island that wanted to be free and that wanted to defeat the titans only to see that there are humans alive outside their land. They wanted to make peace with them but noticed that it wont be possible.

Well the main character now let a horrible weapon loose with the intention of killing of everyone outside the island to protect his friends. Its either them being killed of (which is also at least 1 million innocent people) or the rest of the world. There is no good side in this conflict anymore. Both side are trying to use genoicide. This is the morally grey that you can then use to stick to any side. Or which you then can use to argue for any of them. Heck there are people saying that they can understand the main character and that it is the only solution left after peace was not an option, but that it makes him still a bad person. He will still kill millions of innocent people. This is a great case of showing that sometimes there is no true good and bad. Here you can argue about "being the hero in their own perspective", especially in messed up world like they have. And here you can even in a way root for the main character and his plan because his motivations are shown, his want to stop it and to make peace, and the horrible way a lot of the higher ups in the rest of the world behave. But you can clearly also argue against him and be right with that too. This is imo a beautiful and realistic way.

FF14 is not like that imo. We are the hero. And even if the Ascians have motivations for their doings, they are still shown in the bad light. Their people are death, their age is done. Yet they dont give up on that and use genocide to get to their goal which they might not even reach..(since its not even save that those souls will be back) You can still like them of course and I also like Emet as a character. But this is no tragic hero. Because in the rules and morality of this planet they are doing something wrong. Its not the people that killed their friends and people and are not trying to kill the rest of it like its in AoT..no their people are gone and a part of their people even disagreed with it. Their time is over and they could have accepted it and lived peacefully along side the new life, helping them with watching over the planet. There is a peaceful solution (theoretically..not sure if its possible thanks to tempering) and the people are not pointing weapons at them and want them gone just because they are Ancient ones. Heck if they had accepted the sacrifice way back before the sundering, then Hydealyn would not have been summoned, their race could have grown back since there were a few that survived and the new races could have lived along side them. But they did not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puksi

snip

---

Hmm. Some good points there, and hard to argue with most of it, since I'm not exactly the target audience.

I see this as them finally figuring out how to write a good villain. Our villains were kinda 2 dimensional so far, and even when they had good intentions, we quickly undermined them, since we've had kind of the same goals... just working towards them better in every way.

Personally, I don't see them romanticizing what Emet did or showing him in a better light than he is. People took a liking to his charisma and intellect, sure. But hammering home his deeds any more than they already did would be almost as heavy handed as when they tried to redemption arc Fordola.

Actually, I have the sneaking suspicion they are working in these EX lines and such as extra explanation, because the writers think people didn't read far enough behind the lines in the last chapter with him.

Not sure I agree with you on Vauthry though. The card doesn't specify the type of corruption, and Titania became a raving lunatic from the effects of being a Lightwarden. Vauthry is... more or less functioning as a human, just with a horrible personality (and eating) disorder and a partly sineater physiology. And we know for a fact that he's been fed stories and visions of grandeur since childhood, so I still cant shake the feeling that its not entirely the lights fault.

It's also harder to emphasize with him, since he's basically a giant selfish manchild. Sure you can pity him for becoming such, but his actions are mostly backed by feelings, not logical thought.

I'd argue that Vauthry was very much a victim, since he was corrupted before he was even born. It did bother me a bit that the Warrior of Light didn't seek to correct the record in the same way that he did where the Warriors of Light were concerned but it isn't at all surprising that he didn't seek to do that. After all, the protagonists are very prone to bias and flaws of their own, sometimes not looking at the greater picture in an objective manner. They also often don't think twice about seeking vengeance on behalf of a slain ally only to criticise and prevent others from doing the exact same thing at a different point in time. That is most evident with the potential option to threaten to cut out Zephirin's heart after he slays Haurchefant (even though he did as much to prevent one of his own companions from being harmed).

It just so happens that such plot elements aren't really acknowledged or explored to any significant degree. In no small part, I suspect, due to the inability to account for every potential player reaction to each event. Thankfully a lot of things are open to personal interpretation. Which means that more players should simply agree to disagree when it comes to subjective elements of the game's lore and the age old issue that is which character is 'better'.

I'd consider Vauthry to be along the same lines as Ysayle. Both of them had a special power bestowed upon them and they both screwed up in regards to how they chose to use that power. Ysayle just managed to redeem herself whereas Vauthry did not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puksi

He 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.

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.

---

For the time being we're stuck with "unreliable narrators". As I said, we don't even know how tempering functions on higher beings. I don't think they necessarily did know of it - their experience was in summoning Primals that consumed the entire life force of an ancient, but which nonetheless would pale in comparison to the power of either Zodiark or Hydaelyn. Emet put it as "naturally" but that is with the benefit of hindsight. So far, all we have is player head canon that they brought their fate onto themselves... on the basis of nothing but speculation... and that tempering functions in the same way as it does on mortals... which we don't really know, either. All we really do know is that they saw it necessary to summon a gigantic Primal to spare their world after something emerged which knew how to hijack their creation powers to spawn monstrosities (and a short story suggesting the Lifestream had begun to behave in odd ways, for reasons that are entirely unclear.)

Absent any major revelations to come about their motives, I'm fine with viewing him as both heroic and tragic - and their rationale for not viewing lives following the Sundering as equivalent to theirs makes sense, whether those on the other side of the coin accept it or not. They're not obliged to, but it does render it a contest of wills rather than some done to death Manichean good/evil struggle. If they do reduce it to nothing but tempering, I'd find it pretty cheap, but whatevs. I'd rather they found a way to keep Zodiark around, even if his faithful end up extinct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lersayil

Not sure I agree with you on Vauthry though. The card doesn't specify the type of corruption, and Titania became a raving lunatic from the effects of being a Lightwarden. Vauthry is... more or less functioning as a human, just with a horrible personality (and eating) disorder and a partly sineater physiology. And we know for a fact that he's been fed stories and visions of grandeur since childhood, so I still cant shake the feeling that its not entirely the lights fault.

It's also harder to emphasize with him, since he's basically a giant selfish manchild. Sure you can pity him for becoming such, but his actions are mostly backed by feelings, not logical thought.

---

His situation is exactly what befell Titania, a living being overwhelmed by a Lightwarden--except he was corrupted before he was even born, and it was done to him deliberately. Apparently in the Japanese dialogue, he even shared a speech pattern with Titania's to show he is similarly "off"? Y'shtola also noted the Lightwarden had "taken control" of him.

I am always confused when people say Vauthry should somehow have been able to have free will in his behavior, as you are saying now. Literally no other character in the game corrupted by even a lesser Sin Eater does. Not Titania, not Tesleen, not the Afflicted, and in the end, almost not the Warrior Of Light. So why would Vauthry be the sole exception to the rule?

Because "giant selfish manchild"? Because "eating disorder"? That is a shallow gauge of why he should be worthy of sympathy for a plight he never chose for himself, like the other end of the spectrum of people in this thread trying to excuse Emet-Selch because he is charismatic. Based on other corrupted characters, what you are seeing of Vauthry in the MSQ is likely not even his own nature, but rather a warped parody through the lens of a Lightwarden. If Titania is any indication, without corruption Vauthry would have been a positive peach.

But the writers didn't seem to care enough to give any nuance to the Eulmore arc, and instead really seemed to push for that frankly distasteful and lazy reaction. For no legitimate reason, we are asked to believe that Vauthry should be condemned for corruption he never consented to, that the truth of his stolen life isn't worth speaking, that he should bear the blame of Emet-Selch's atrocities, because he is "ugly"--while Emet-Selch should be recalled fondly, as heroic even, because "charisma". I don't know about you, but I left that line of thinking back in grade school.

the line of good and evil has become blind to us. let take are own world for example there are 7.7 billion people on are earth now let suppose we had 13 of are earths and some race came along and decide to wipe all 13 of them out to save they own which they themselves had destroyed by they own hubist. 93 billion live lost to they desire for save they own world. in same sense this what Emet-Selch and those like him want to do first it is selfish it put they own desire over the live they want wipe out. there example people in are own history doing simalir thing that emet-selch did the great leap forward 56 million by china. to me it easy to realize Emet Selch as villian because what he spot and I understand the difference between good and evil but that line may be get confused to others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puksi

snip

---

You misunderstand. I don't dismiss Vauthry because he's ugly. I dismiss him, because I see no saving grace in him. He is warped and beyond repair, and his actions are controlled by base emotions. I PITY him for what made him this way. I do not in any way sympathize with him. I am not arguing that he had a choice, or free will in the matter. I am however suggesting, that his personality was warped by more than just the light. Titania went berserk instantly after she became a Lightwarden. For Vauthry to completely lose it, it took quite a few years, and before Mt Gulg he was able to function reasonably in a human society. Other humans devolve instantly into base monsters on contact with a greater sineater. Clearly there are special circumstances at play in his case?

Emet on the other hand doesn't get a pass because he is smooth or charismatic. He gets a "pass" because he has a greater goal and a grand plan to achieve it. He has a moral compass. He acts out of necessity and a desire to save his people, not due to malice. He can argue the finer points of his philosophy, and does what he does due to a chain of thoughts and logical decisions based on his situation. He can be argued with to a point, and understands your side of the story without completely dismissing it. That earns a certain amount of respect, and makes him a good villain.

As for the thinking I left in grade school? People are defined by more than the worst thing they did while alive. Intent, motivation and reasons matter. One does not balance out the other, but both should be remembered, lest we learn little from history. Should he be remembered as a hero? To his people, maybe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lersayil

snip

---

Emet-Selch did completely dismiss our side of things, though? The player character's loved ones, and the billions of lives he already snuffed out were not worth those he lost, he said as much just before the Amaurot dungeon unlocked. We are insects, and he uses us to further his ends however he sees fit, right up to deceiving who knows how many partners to sire children with, children he then also uses for his own purposes. Ascians have never been above cruelty. That moral compass aside, the writers could have used a lot of other ways and words to paint the tragedy of the Amaurotine than calling him a hero. We the player are not his people, the Minstreling Wanderer technically is supposed to be of the First, there is zero reason why he could or even should be seen as such from our point of view. Pity him? Sure. Sympathize with him because we also would totally murder billions of people under the right circumstances, and he words his plan to murder billions more so well? Not so much.

There is one special circumstance with Vauthry: Emet-Selch. He corrupted Vauthry to be a stopgap against the Light overtaking the First too quickly, and hidden in a Hume, it's safe to assume it would be much easier to convince the people of the First to "cease fighting and abandon their ambitions". (Though why Emet-Selch simply didn't just give the power to the Mayor is beyond me.) How he managed to "bring hither a Lightwarden" in the first place to do this isn't explained, and I'd be surprised if it ever was, but since the Ascians needed the flow of Light slowed, it's reasonable to assume they could make certain it would not reach full power until they needed it to.

There is really no doubt that the Warden was corrupting him both physically and mentally long before Crown Of The Immaculate, though, unless there are other fifteen/twenty-foot-tall Humes chilling somewhere we haven't seen yet--Humes that have necks that can twist 360 degrees like the Exorcist (and are disproportionately long when not scrunched), Humes that can digest silverware. That he could function in society is questionable. His speech pattern being meant to indicate he was "off" aside, those Philia-grade tantrums were not a sign of a healthy mind. He was isolated in the Emergent, he never left it, and the citizens of Eulmore seemed happy to accept anything he did, so long as it benefited them in the end. The trial's music is even titled "Insanity".

No matter who is more logical, better spoken, or has the biggest plan, it still doesn't change the fact the writers chose to condemn one of Emet-Selch's victims far harder than they did Emet-Selch himself. I mean, it's great if this is a sign they are learning to write more nuanced villains. But they're going to have to spread that around to everyone to be more convincing, and not make it seem like it's just a case of the fandom darlings having a license to kill be heroic.

Idk maybe I'm the only one but I don't think Vauthry would have been soooo different from what he is. The driving line of that point being his father, seemingly having an already distasteful personality in both prejudice and hubris. Would a child raised under that setting of Eulmore be so different? I somehow doubt that. I'm sure the Lightwardens affect is a contributing point more so to the domination aspect of Vauthry but probably wouldn't change the elements he would likely inherit from his parents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havenchild

Idk maybe I'm the only one but I don't think Vauthry would have been soooo different from what he is. The driving line of that point being his father, seemingly having an already distasteful personality in both prejudice and hubris. Would a child raised under that setting of Eulmore be so different? I somehow doubt that. I'm sure the Lightwardens affect is a contributing point more so to the domination aspect of Vauthry but probably wouldn't change the elements he would likely inherit from his parents.

---

You would think that may be so, child of privilege and all, but then the game gives us folks like Nanamo ul Namo, Aymeric de Borel, Lue-Reeq, Cid nan Garlond, etc. so I am liking the odds of that not being the case lmao. And I'd be more inclined to call his father the negative influence, though the spin in the latest patch is Dad was actually the "good old days" of Eulmore. The writers gave his mother no say whatsoever in the situation so ‾\_(ツ)_/‾

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EtherRose

Personally i don't think Emet was a bad person at all. Considering if you actually read every line throughout the expansion and the way he acted and his facial expressions. Yes what he was trying to do was "Evil" but like he said before you entered the last dungeon "You would do the same" in trying to save your people. I really enjoyed Shadowbringers, it was a damn good roller coaster.

---

Yea, I mean, aside from all the pesky genocide of all the other shards he contributed to, and how he doesn't view anyone on The First as even actually being people, including your character, sure, I guess he's not a bad person.

And no, I don't think the WoL and company would willingly destroy entire worlds with millions or even billions of people to "save their friends".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puksi

snip

---

Its a matter of perspective then, and we have to agree to disagree.

Emet never dismissed the fact that we struggle, and that his position towards us is unjust from our view. He argued with us. He presented his case and evidence, and refuted our arguments. His very shtick was, that if an individual or a race as a whole proved to be worthy enough to replace his people, he would go with it. His criteria were harsh but he did have the option in place, and it didn't require a full amaurotian soul to clear them either. Thats the very thing that happened in the Tempest: we championed the cause of our people against his plans and the resurrection of his people, he accepted the challange (basically making him the champion / hero of his race) and we won. And in the end, he accepted that.

I can sympathize with and respect an intelligent monster without agreeing with him, while also actively fighting him. I could pity him too for his circumstances, but pity is also an insult, coming from a position of superiority. A twisted monster, victim to circumstance, functioning on feelings and instinct instead of reason? Its hard to respect or sympathize with that.

People argue that they would never do the same thing in his place; killing possibly billions over millennia, and I would usually agree. But many of these people forget that in this case there IS a tangible difference between an Amaurotian and a shard dweller. Is it significant enough to dismiss the lesser as "living"? Now that can be up for debate, but apparently for Emet the line is at 9/13 souls. For a run of the mill 1/13 soul shard dweller Emet is not unlike a lesser lovcraftian monster in comparison. Its hard to imagine such a difference between two sentient races in the real world, and thus we argue from the viewpoint of the one closer to us.

For me and many others, imagining such a viewpoint is enough to answer: maybe we wouldn't be better.

tldr; Choosing your own fate, no matter how horrible the choices are; if well reasoned enough, I can respect. Having no choice or freedom of will, leading to tragedy? That only begets pity from me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lersayil

snip

---

So, the intelligent monster who robbed a woman of her bodily autonomy and enslaved her unborn child to their grand scheme deserves respect, while their victim--who was made a twisted monster by this respectable individual--only receives the insult of pity, because the intelligent monster stacked the deck to make certain that victim could never be anything but a pawn. The intelligent monster is the one who took away their choice and freedom of will, with the intent of making them bring about tragedy, yet it's the victim who has no "saving grace", while the intelligent monster's atrocities against the lessers ain't even no big deal. My goodness, you'd better believe we're going to "agree to disagree".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lersayil

Emet on the other hand doesn't get a pass because he is smooth or charismatic. He gets a "pass" because he has a greater goal and a grand plan to achieve it. He has a moral compass. He acts out of necessity and a desire to save his people, not due to malice. He can argue the finer points of his philosophy, and does what he does due to a chain of thoughts and logical decisions based on his situation. He can be argued with to a point, and understands your side of the story without completely dismissing it. That earns a certain amount of respect, and makes him a good villain.

---

A very warped moral compass, seeing how he sees anyone without a complete soul not even as alive (which makes it quite interesting that he made children with these "puppets") and thus easily killed. I mean he really has children, his own made being and he uses them the same as everything else, tools to get his people back. At the same time he takes away any free will of the people he possesses. Lets remember that the body he had used when he was still "alive" as Solus was the body of a real living being. Who had his own dreams, memories, loved ones and soul. He takes it over and uses the body for his own tasks. He uses the people who might fell in love with the "body" or the person before he took over and makes children with them...its just utterly creepy. How would they feel if they found out that they have slept and loved someone that took over their beloved person? And its not even a short possession..he kinda took Solus live away by being in that body until the end. He makes "friends" with people knowing that he is turning them into puppets for his own goals and that lots of them will die for that. He is taunting people like Thancred with his possession by Lahabrea. He is ready to delete us from history and destroying our soul even though we have the soul of one of his good friends from before the sundering.

He is ready to sacrifice even complete souls at the end..the argument of the people then not being alive does not count..so he fully plans omnicide for the whole source after already killing billons of other lives. This will include the whole souls of Ancient ones and even people from Amaurot..all of that to maybe get back people that have willingly sacrificed themselves so that life can go on. He is stomping on their sacrifice.

In the end he is also tempered. And even if it might function a bit different to normal tempering, he is doing all of this in the will of Zodiark. There is a nice scene with the Ascians in ARR (?) where they praised Zodiark just like a lot of other tempered do. And if tempering functions just a bit like the normal one does...then any understanding is not really true. Heck he makes us a trial and we beat the dungeon and he is still like: Yeah not enough. It would never be enough because that would take him away from Zodiarks path.

He also blames the mortals for what happened with the Ancient even though the calamity was not their fault, the sundering was not their fault either..they are just living in a world they are born with and that they as a majority now occupy. The ascians are the strange ones that are trying for something which they imo have no right to do. Its like if some ancient civiliation that got destroyed by something gets back up and says to us in the real world: "We once lived, were great and we hate your lifes and want to rule again, so we are going to kill you." Would you really say that this is great motivation and logical reasons? Or a good moral compass? I dont.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puksi

So, the intelligent monster who robbed a woman of her bodily autonomy and enslaved her unborn child to their grand scheme deserves respect, while their victim--who was made a twisted monster by this respectable individual--only receives the insult of pity, because the intelligent monster stacked the deck to make certain that victim could never be anything but a pawn. The intelligent monster is the one who took away their choice and freedom of will, with the intent of making them bring about tragedy, yet it's the victim who has no "saving grace", while the intelligent monster's atrocities against the lessers ain't even no big deal. My goodness, you'd better believe we're going to "agree to disagree".

---

I presume therefore that you agree - since we're looking at people and events in black and white terms because moral relativism isn't acceptable - that Ardbert and the other WoLs from the First are also monsters since they were prepared to sacrifice whatever was necessary to restore their world and people? Similarly G'raha Tia is also a monster as are those in the Ironworks who helped him since they destroyed everyone alive in the future by changing the past? (As a footnote to this, I'd like to add it's made very clear in the OMG short story that the large majority in the future did NOT agree with G'raha's solution and did not wish to be destroyed by it)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puksi

snip

---

Yeah thats the basic gist of what I'm saying save for one point. What he does to the people of the shards is a big deal. To us. I belittle what he did to Vauthry because its basically inconsequential compared to the rest of his sins. A drop in the ocean. Even if I set aside my standing about the lights corruption on his personality vs his upbringing, I still would stand by that.

And in that case, yes. I feel as sorry for Vauthry as Titania. I pity the entity they were before they got corrupted. I do not empathize with the monster they became. And if you are right, Vauthry was a monster from birth.

Also, I respect his goals, motivation, determination and intellect. Not his genocide.

And hey, there is nothing wrong with disagreements, as long as neither of us goes out to commit inter-dimensional racial purging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

snip

---

No offense but there are a lot of assumptions in your post. We know he used Varis as a puppet, but nothing about his other children or family. We don't even know the specifics about him as Solus and when he took over, even if it isnt a body he created for himself. I may recall incorrectly, but I think he used the words "lived, loved, fought and died with" when he described having a mortal life. He didn't really say much about his feelings on his mortal families. We just know that after each life, he was disappointed with the races and moved on with his plans

We still have no idea what tempering is, or how it affects people (not to mention amaurotians), other than some recent patch theories.

He doesn't blame or hate the new races at all. He sees them as unworthy, fleeting imitations of what a proper life is... and due to how the plot is written its hard to argue with that, because it is technically true. When you have such a difference in standing, experience and values, its hard to acknowledge both sides of the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elladie

I presume therefore that you agree - since we're looking at people and events in black and white terms because moral relativism isn't acceptable - that Ardbert and the other WoLs from the First are also monsters since they were prepared to sacrifice whatever was necessary to restore their world and people? Similarly G'raha Tia is also a monster as are those in the Ironworks who helped him since they destroyed everyone alive in the future by changing the past? (As a footnote to this, I'd like to add it's made very clear in the OMG short story that the large majority in the future did NOT agree with G'raha's solution and did not wish to be destroyed by it)

---

I don't think you understand if you will sacrifice your lives to prevent such destruction the the need of few out way the need of many as spock would say. if we send graha back past to prevent all that was lost then it would worth. in same way if we send someone to prevent the holocaust sorry for my really life refrer then would we not do it.

I have say fantasy and reality are linked.

p.s. I feel by drawn on really life historical event to explain this helpful.

the Ardbert and his fellow warrior of light were told by ascian to bring about the flood. Hydylian send Minflira back to prevent it. interest when people compare Hydylian to Zodark strange how Hydylian would risk her voice to prevent more life lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savagelf

I don't think you understand if you will sacrifice your lives to prevent such destruction the the need of few out way the need of many as spock would say. if we send graha back past to prevent all that was lost then it would worth. in same way if we send someone to prevent the holocaust sorry for my really life refrer then would we not do it.

---

I understand very well that people are using one argument to say that the Ascians, and Hades in particular, are irredeemable and untragic villains, but then denying that the exact same argument applies to Ardbert and co, and G'haha and co. Which is exactly what you just did, proving that one's perspective is what determines who is the villain and who the hero

this argument basic on one's perspective is dangerous one for you let me again use really life, hiltor killed million of jew by his perspective he may believe he what he was doing was right. right and wrong are basic on to me biblical morality not on are understand of are perspective. what hiltor did was wrong. now let use Gra'hra did for example he and Ironwork realize they could prevent million for died by change the cross of history which in Spock the need of few. to prevent death of million only they need to do is put their live as the sacrifice.

the western for many year have basic right and wrong biblical morality of what god have view as right and wrong. long came Pro-modernism this concept of right and wrong became mudder because right and wrong wasn't be taught base biblical morality it now a question one truth not on something that have been there for two thousand years.

is it one perspective that murder is wrong if your the murderer

@savage elf
It's a little hard to understand your English, but I think you're saying that G'raha is right to kill thousands of people in the future to save the people in the past? How is that justifiable under anyone's absolute morality? If it's murder, and murder is absolutely wrong under all circumstances, then G'raha is wrong. He ignored all the people in the future who tried to stop him doing what he did and erased them from existence by going back to change the past. How is that okay but Hades is not okay?

Just to clarify, I am not talking about G'raha sacrificing himself, I am talking about the thousands of people in the future he destroyed with his actions. In the OMG short story, people attack the Ironworks base to try and stop him because they know what he is planning will kill them. How is that any different from us attacking Hades to stop him carrying out his aims to restore the past?

"I'm no saint, or savior. Just another sinner."

The guilt driving the Warriors Of Darkness may be similar to the guilt driving Emet-Selch, but I don't recall a point in that patch where they felt what they were doing was just, or even forgivable, and I especially don't recall the Ascians telling them the truth, that the Rejoining would not save their world at all. (The Ascians, lying? Gasp! I clutch my Ondo pearls.) Ardbert bade us to not take the path he and his friends had chosen, after we defeated them--never once did the narrative push the WoL's world and the people of it were insects without consequence. Far from it, actually. And then the Warriors Of Darkness gave themselves--again--to save both worlds.

As for the OMG story, I recall that Cid's plan to create an alternate timeline where the WoL lived was embraced by the majority, and it was only after that they acted? G'raha Tia didn't disappear from our timeline at the end of ShB because apparently the old timeline became separated from the new. (Why the Ascians in all their superiority didn't try a similar thing is likely plot convenience, but it's a nice touch, we "lessers" achieved something that they, despite their arrogance, could not.)

It's interesting to see what was done to Vauthry and his mother is tut-tutted away as "inconsequential", when their lives were just as important as any of Emet-Selch's other victims. Don't dismiss them, contemplate what was done to them fully, embrace that it was Emet-Selch who committed such an atrocity, because every other life Emet-Selch and his cronies have taken was just as important as theirs, and I am sure they are not the first to meet such an end at Ascian hands.

What happened to Emet-Selch's people was a tragedy, likely beyond anyone's control. The destruction he then inflicted on billions was fully intentional, fully avoidable, he did it without ever once feeling guilt for any of those he murdered, and he wouldn't have stopped until only those he deemed worthy were alive again. (Not ALL Ancients, mind you. Just the ones he deemed worthy.) He earned that hole we punched through him. (I'm sure he only used Varis in all those years of never telling any of his partners they were actually worthless insects he would sell to Zodiark for one corn chip. Really. I am absolutely convinced that was the first and only time. And I just know he felt bad about it! So bad, he didn't stop. He never mentioned "love" for us "lessers", by the way. The line was "I have broken bread with you, fought with you, grown ill, grown old! Sired children and yes, welcomed death's sweet embrace." "Love" was mentioned for his own people. Not us. We are breeding fodder for his machinations, at best. Do I really need to elaborate on why THAT is not "moral"? Spoiler: there's a word for THAT atrocity, and it isn't "hero".)

Emet-Selch, so heroic and righteous he needs all these attempts at whataboutism to excuse him--and it still doesn't really work! Huh. ‾\_(ツ)_/‾

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puksi

[I] that was the first and only time. And I just know he felt bad about it! So bad, he didn't stop. He never mentioned "love" for us "lessers", by the way. The line was "I have broken bread with you, fought with you, grown ill, grown old! Sired children and yes, welcomed death's sweet embrace." "Love" was mentioned for his own people. Not us. We are breeding fodder for his machinations, at best. Do I really need to elaborate on why THAT is not "moral"? Spoiler: there's a word for THAT atrocity, and it isn't "hero".)

Emet-Selch, so heroic and righteous he needs all these attempts at whataboutism to excuse him--and it still doesn't really work! Huh. ‾\_(ツ)_/‾

---

How do I like this a thousand times over?! Spot on in Everything! Literally!


I would rather not have nodded to him when he asked me to remember him. I'd rather have been far harsher if allowed...

@ Puksi
In fact you do not remember the OMG short story correctly at all. The below is a direct quote from the story which clearly states that 'the vast majority' opposed Cid's proffered solution.

"The researchers of Garlond Ironworks continued to investigate the process by which Black Rose─possessed of a destructive power far exceeding its creators’ expectations─triggered the Eighth Umbral Calamity. They believed that understanding the nature of this catastrophe could reveal a means by which it might be averted entirely. Their aim was to change the past to create an alternate reality in which the Calamity never occurred─a feat rendered conceivable by their knowledge of the advanced technologies of fallen civilizations. However, many of those who would bear the burden of continued existence in a world ravaged by Black Rose failed to see this as a viable stratagem. Such responses were consistent with my projections, as it is generally the primary objective of all life-forms to secure their own survival in the here and now.
Many of Master Cid’s followers either refused to cooperate or expressed a desire to leave the Ironworks altogether. Certain former employees went as far as to appropriate equipment and supplies by force before heading into the wilderness to fend for themselves.
Although the vast majority opposed Master Cid’s radical proposition, a select few remained to lend their assistance."

By all means dismiss this as 'whataboutism': I can see that you HAVE to do so in order to maintain your high moral ground after dismissing moral relativism as you have. In contrast, I am offering the idea that everyone involved makes morally questionable decisions justified by the argument that it saves the people they specifically care about. If Hades is a monster without any redemptive possibility, so too is G'raha Tia, and Cid and indeed the Warrior of Light/Darkness. All are fighting very specifically for something at the expense of something else, the relative merit of either option depends on the perspective of the observer.

OMG's remarks about the objective of all life-forms in the here-and-now being to ensure their survival, makes the importance of perspective in determining morality very clear. There is no difference, we are all fighting for the same thing, and we will generally do what we must. A few individuals may see themselves as rising above this, as content to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. It is what the Amaurotines thought they were doing in sacrificing themselves to summon Zodiark. It's what G'raha thinks he is doing. The people in the future - the vast majority - would disagree with him.

I suppose it's reassuring to have so much moral certainty but it's built on misinterpretation and misinformation. Most of the folks in the story are only heroes to the people they fight for. They're villains to the rest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elladie

@ Puksi

By all means dismiss this as 'whataboutism', I see that you have to do so in order to maintain your high moral ground after dismissing moral relativism as you have. In contrast, I am offering the idea that everyone involved makes morally questionable decisions justified by the argument that it saves the people they specifically care about. If Hades is a monster without any redemptive possibility, so too is G'raha Tia, and CID, and indeed the Warrior of Light/Darkness. All are fighting very specifically for something at the expense of something else, the the relative merit of either option depends on the perspective of the observer

---

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

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

The coming together of many different people for the Warrior Of Light's sake, because their deeds had impacted so many lives in a positive way:

In addition, by presenting their plan as an attempt to save the Warrior of Light rather than a bid to rewrite history, they were able to gain the support from survivors of many different species and subgroups. Representatives from various settlements came to donate resources and foodstuffs to Garlond Ironworks, despite possessing barely enough to sustain themselves. Many of them were also acquainted with the Warrior of Light, some even claiming to have been beneficiaries of the late hero’s acts of philanthropy.

It details other allies, but the post limit is 3000 characters.

If "moral high ground" means stating the coldblood murder of billions is bad, tricking "insects" into bed to manufacture children as fodder for your big cosmic chess game is bad, manipulating and outright abusing those children to make sure they serve their purpose is bad, corrupting unborn babies in the womb against the will of their mother is bad, condemning other races as lessers while you do everything you accuse them of and worse is bad, then yes, I will definitely be sticking with that moral high ground. Regardless of the casual use and overuse of the word "hero" in the English translation, I am at least relieved Yoshi-P is willing to remind the rabid fanbase that the Ascians are wrong.

You want Hades to have "redemptive possibility". Yet you also try to excuse him of all these willful atrocities as "a matter of perspective". Which is it to be?

Fictional characters do not need to be held to the same standards as individuals within the real world, nor does everything need to play out in such a way as to allow every last little detail to be accounted for. I dread to think what some of you would do to some of the earlier Final Fantasy games if you happened to get your hands on them.

A lot of us have fond memories of cool antagonists and rivals. That they weren't simply imprisoned or put to the sword made them interesting. That some of them were slain but happened to have sympathetic reasons for doing what they did was also pretty neat.

People root for all sorts of different characters in fiction for all sorts of different reasons. Please stop trying to police how other people read into subjective and very complicated moral issues.

Emet-Selch was very much a hero to his people. Yes, he did bad things - but given that his very civilisation, culture and people were at stake it's at least somewhat understandable as to why he would go so far in an effort to try and restore things to how they once were. He had to be stopped from the perspective of those living on the Shards for obvious reasons, though it is very much a case of different heroes clashing and one emerging victorious.

Let's not beat around the bush, though. Some of you are never going to look at things from the perspective of the relevant characters themselves without bias being present. It's easy to tell as much by the odd emotionally charged phrases being thrown about.

There's nothing 'rabid' about Emet-Selch's fan base. In fact, everybody outlining his sympathetic qualities has been perfectly civil throughout this thread. Again, he's a fictional character in a fantasy game. He isn't real. Different people have different tastes and wants when it comes to the entertainment that they consume. They also root for different characters and factions.

There's absolutely no reason not to just shrug and agree to disagree. It's pretty creepy that some of you act like anyone who roots for or feels sympathy for a well written antagonist is in need of re-education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lersayil

No offense but there are a lot of assumptions in your post. We know he used Varis as a puppet, but nothing about his other children or family. We don't even know the specifics about him as Solus and when he took over, even if it isnt a body he created for himself. I may recall incorrectly, but I think he used the words "lived, loved, fought and died with" when he described having a mortal life. He didn't really say much about his feelings on his mortal families. We just know that after each life, he was disappointed with the races and moved on with his plans

We still have no idea what tempering is, or how it affects people (not to mention amaurotians), other than some recent patch theories.

He doesn't blame or hate the new races at all. He sees them as unworthy, fleeting imitations of what a proper life is... and due to how the plot is written its hard to argue with that, because it is technically true. When you have such a difference in standing, experience and values, its hard to acknowledge both sides of the argument.

---

There is no assumption in possessing. I doubt a person would have given him his body for the rest of his life and we know with Varis that the people around Solus had no idea that he was not a human. In the short stories we have a short view from Emets side and he describes seeing his first born Garlean son as the first hopeful feelings he had, but at that time he already had sired more children.

Also strange how he can love something which is not even alive in his eyes. And again these people did not know he was an Ascian.

Yes he blames them, at least in the german version. When we are about to turn he says that we should be his weapon to punish the sinners that have hurt his people. And what gives him the right to decide that we are unworthy? Because there was once someone with more power? Because of the races not being nearly immortal? Strange how that race of unworthy beings are now having people in it that can destroy Ascians, that can defeat things like Omega or Midgardsorm. Beings that managed to use time travel which is something even the Ascians never achieved? When they new more about the crystal tower than Emet who let it be built?

What about the Garlean people? Are they lesser people to us because they cant use magic at all?

In the end before the sundering people were already against that too. People with whole souls, people who would be alive at that point and directly from his race. And at the end of their goal they would mass sacrifice a source with people with complete souls and yet he still would not care.

About Ardbert and his group: I already posted about that in this thread but the two big differences between them: They felt horrible about this at every way while the Ascians show not a single bit of remorse. And when they were shown a better way they took it and tried to redeem themselves afterwards. His friends turned their aether in to stop the flood and Ardbert after suffering for 100 year gave up his soul part to us.

A note: OMG story was when Cid was still alive, at that time they only made a plan for a possible time travel and left it for the future generation to decide if they want to do it. People were first not willing to help them in any ways but after they have heard about this maybe helping us they came and helped because we touched their lifes a lot. 200 years after that, the world was not better, seemingly might have even died somewhere. It was then, generations later, thus with people that probably had no emotional attachment to us, that they decided to use the plan. I do believe that this was done because there was no hope of it ever getting better. So in that way they were more like the original Amaurotines who saved their planet. We dont know if people wanted it or not, that is pure speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Fictional characters do not need to be held to the same standards as individuals within the real world, nor does everything need to play out in such a way as to allow every last little detail to be accounted for. I dread to think what some of you would do to some of the earlier Final Fantasy games if you happened to get your hands on them.

A lot of us have fond memories of cool antagonists and rivals. That they weren't simply imprisoned or put to the sword made them interesting. That some of them were slain but happened to have sympathetic reasons for doing what they did was also pretty neat.

.

---

No they dont need to if the story it play in has different standards (but in a discussion your own values will be part of it because that just how we work) but FF14 world is quite similiar to ours. Heck its often even more idealistic and good than ours, especially when it comes to people somehow forgiving bad things in quite a short amount of time.

In FF14s own lore murdering is bad, using genocide is bad, using chemical weapons is bad. One scientist was sentenced to death because of his horrible tests on living being even when his memories were gone. The scions and our character are kinda the moral compass the story is going with. And they are shocked and against the things that the Ascians do. Minfilia who needed to be reborn and take over these young girls was devasted about her actions and did not want to do it. You may want to take away our morality so you can argue better in favor of those characters you like, but you cant ignore the ones ingame. And they are like ours in that way.

Genocide / omincie is bad and horrible and one should let go of the past and walk forward to make a path for those that follow after.

And nobody ever said that you cant like characters. I like emet selch as a character himself. But he is no rival, he is no tragic hero. He is a villian and for some a monster. For others he is tragic, for others he is not. Nobody is taking away your right to like them. And again, you can have reasons but that does not magically take away your actions. The beauty of characters like Emet is that he can have reasons but still be the bad guy until the end. Where he does not get a talk and turn around and everything is fine. Were he can be someone that is not your cartoon evil villian but who is still not good. Who we will kill and not need to feel bad about it but can still also feel sad on why it had came that way.

I loved Caius in FF13-2. He was a great villian. Just like Emet he had his reasons and you could understand him but he still needed to be stopped.

In the end you are also not unbiased. Nobody is, especially not about game characters they like or dont like. So a topic like that will always be subjective and will probably never have a full agreement either. And I think some might find it a bit creepy how fast some people are ready to forget the actions the character did as long as he is in some way a bit sympathetic or funny or charismatic. You can of course still argue like that, but one should be ready to have people disagree with it.

My take on it is that what Hades did to Vauthry alone is pretty bad, let alone what his puppet-mastering of Allah and Garlemald caused. He's done a lot of things that are bad and inexcusable.

However, his motivation is understandable and his desire to have his people at least be remembered is benign enough to honor given that one person's misdeeds shouldn't reflect upon the whole race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

You are also not unbiased. Nobody is, especially not about game characters they like or dont like.

---

There's plenty of people out there who are lacking in bias when it comes to something as trivial a matter as a video game's story and the characters residing within it. I don't have any emotional stakes in the story. I don't lose my mind if a character engages in 'wrong think' or does something 'problematic'. I simply enjoy observing how the characters interact with one another and learning/reacting to their motives.

I don't care that you don't see Emet-Selch as a hero. You're absolutely free to take such a stance. At the same time, other people are absolutely free to see him as one themselves. You - and others like you - do not get to dictate how other people enjoy and engage with the story.

The game is designed in such a way as to appeal to a wide variety of tastes after all. A trend which has been pretty consistent throughout the other games in the franchise as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

There's plenty of people out there who are lacking in bias when it comes to something as trivial a matter as a video game's story and the characters residing within it. I don't have any emotional stakes in the story. I don't lose my mind if a character engages in 'wrong think' or does something 'problematic'. I simply enjoy observing how the characters interact with one another and learning/reacting to their motives.

I don't care that you don't see Emet-Selch as a hero. You're absolutely free to take such a stance. At the same time, other people are absolutely free to see him as one themselves. You - and others like you - do not get to dictate how other people enjoy and engage with the story.

The game is designed in such a way as to appeal to a wide variety of tastes after all. A trend which has been pretty consistent throughout the other games in the franchise as well.

---

Again nobody is unbiased in this. You have shown in countless of Garlean topics that you are not and its fine! Its completely normal to be biased. Its completely normal to be subjective. And I am sorry but this is a forum for this very game so it should be really normal that people like to deeply discuss the matters of story and characters within that game.

Of course we cant dictate it but we can use a dicussion forum to discuss these points and can disagree with it. If you have a stance then you must be ready to have someone that will challenge it. (On either side) And this is why most of us post evidence, things that characters have said and also why we as posters see it that way. This is not dictating, this is giving our opinon just like the other side does. And with telling us that we are biased (which implies to me that you dont see yourself as that) you are also telling us that we are wrong. So arent you trying to dictate your opinion to ours?

It appeals of course to a wide variety of taste but I am not sure what that has to do with the argument? One may have a wider range on how to interpret a story but just because tastes are different you cant just turn ingame facts around as you want. The story and characters still follow only one line and that is the one the developers have. And they have made it clear that the Ascians are the bad guys and that them having reasons does not change it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

So arent you trying to dictate your opinion to ours?

---

...no?

In what way is urging people to agree to disagree equal to trying to place one interpretation above all others? I'm genuinely curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elladie

@ Puksi
In fact you do not remember the OMG short story correctly at all. The below is a direct quote from the story which clearly states that 'the vast majority' opposed Cid's proffered solution.

"The researchers of Garlond Ironworks continued to investigate the process by which Black Rose─possessed of a destructive power far exceeding its creators’ expectations─triggered the Eighth Umbral Calamity. They believed that understanding the nature of this catastrophe could reveal a means by which it might be averted entirely. Their aim was to change the past to create an alternate reality in which the Calamity never occurred─a feat rendered conceivable by their knowledge of the advanced technologies of fallen civilizations. However, many of those who would bear the burden of continued existence in a world ravaged by Black Rose failed to see this as a viable stratagem. Such responses were consistent with my projections, as it is generally the primary objective of all life-forms to secure their own survival in the here and now.
Many of Master Cid’s followers either refused to cooperate or expressed a desire to leave the Ironworks altogether. Certain former employees went as far as to appropriate equipment and supplies by force before heading into the wilderness to fend for themselves.
Although the vast majority opposed Master Cid’s radical proposition, a select few remained to lend their assistance."

By all means dismiss this as 'whataboutism': I can see that you HAVE to do so in order to maintain your high moral ground after dismissing moral relativism as you have. In contrast, I am offering the idea that everyone involved makes morally questionable decisions justified by the argument that it saves the people they specifically care about. If Hades is a monster without any redemptive possibility, so too is G'raha Tia, and Cid and indeed the Warrior of Light/Darkness. All are fighting very specifically for something at the expense of something else, the relative merit of either option depends on the perspective of the observer.

OMG's remarks about the objective of all life-forms in the here-and-now being to ensure their survival, makes the importance of perspective in determining morality very clear. There is no difference, we are all fighting for the same thing, and we will generally do what we must. A few individuals may see themselves as rising above this, as content to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. It is what the Amaurotines thought they were doing in sacrificing themselves to summon Zodiark. It's what G'raha thinks he is doing. The people in the future - the vast majority - would disagree with him.

I suppose it's reassuring to have so much moral certainty but it's built on misinterpretation and misinformation. Most of the folks in the story are only heroes to the people they fight for. They're villains to the rest

---

Agreed. AFAIC, ethics ultimately can only be formulated (given a foundation) between individuals and groups with common aims, which in turn results on prohibitions on certain activities within said groups because the outcome of this is deemed to be mutually/socially beneficial. These prohibited actions happen, by and large, to overlap with what we're evolutionarily predisposed to recoil at, due to a sense of empathy and a desire for reciprocity. This works when there is a mutuality of objectives in place (e.g. within the same species), and obviously those who violate said social compacts can be ostracised, imprisoned and so on as a deterrent, but it is essentially a form of social compact, with purely internal terms of reference.

Trying to claim that certain higher beings should just roll over and give up because their world was shattered and the aether from it diluted, and that they should value the lives that came thereafter as equivalent to what they lost, and that they're wrong if they don't so, is in the end, nothing but an opinion. I have no problem with granting that both sides have a strong rationale for their actions, and are champions/heroes of their cause and villains to those whom they obstruct. Certainly, there are consequences in that either will face opposition in standing up for what they believe and in this case there is very little room for the two sides to reconcile their aims, as things stand.

The writers are, of course, free to have their own view on whom they support, and which side is "wrong", as are other fans, but that alone doesn't sway me much. That said, the writers certainly have it in their power to add twists and turns which may change my view as things go on, but that could also be in the form of losing interest in the specific subplot if it's something dull like slavish tempering being the ulimate cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

And they have made it clear that the Ascians are the bad guys and that them having reasons does not change it.

---

You clearly played a different game than me, then. The entire expansion's story was about moral relativism. They are not simply "the bad guys." The whole story was about offering their view and showing why they are not simply bad guys.

Haven't bothered to read this whole thread so don't know if it's been brought up, but one of the biggest points that drives home that the expansion is about moral relativism is when you're in Amaurot: the debate house.

Two Amaurotines are discussing morality in regards to another... civilization I think? It's on the brink of extinction. If I remember correctly, one suggests that they should be saved, and the other suggests that it is wrong to save them. It all depends on the viewpoint you are taking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

...no?

In what way is urging people to agree to disagree equal to trying to place one interpretation above all others? I'm genuinely curious.

---

Not in that case, in my post I was talking about bias. You said that a lot of people are too biased to talk about the perspective of the characters themselves why you ourself have talked about how you see from the characters eyes. Also if you are also biased why bring it up. The consquence I pull from that is that you see us as biased that somehow cant see the real deal while you can. If I read that wrong then sorry but then I also wonder why you would bring up bias anyway because everyone is biased. Some more than others but everyone is not 100% objective about a character, especially not about a game they play themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MomomiMomi

You clearly played a different game than me, then. The entire expansion's story was about moral relativism. They are not simply "the bad guys." The whole story was about offering their view and showing why they are not simply bad guys.

Haven't bothered to read this whole thread so don't know if it's been brought up, but one of the biggest points that drives home that the expansion is about moral relativism is when you're in Amaurot: the debate house.

Two Amaurotines are discussing morality in regards to another... civilization I think? It's on the brink of extinction. If I remember correctly, one suggests that they should be saved, and the other suggest that it is wrong to save them.

---

These words came from Yoshida himself who said in an interview that people should not forget that the Ascians have killed millions of people, even if they have reasons for that. In that very same interview he also says that people should not jump to conclusion about Hydealyn because we only heard the Ascians side of this.

So no even for him they are the bad guys. Not cartoonish anymore thanks to getting some motivations but still villians.

I am also not sure if we should take what the Amaurotines discussed as positive. For me these quests and dialogues in the cities showed me that these people were not as perfect as Emet wanted us to believe it. They are in many ways just like us. And I do believe that the people in FF14 would be able to achieve similiar states of "peace" if they would not have calamity like events resetting them each time they are more advanced.

The discussion between those two NPCs could also easily show that they were in such a state that they were not able to do something about this until it was at their own door steps (which is what happens).

My problem with moral relativism: Before the sundering there were already Amaurotines against the plans of the Ascians (who at that time were already tempered). So how can we even say that their view is not wrong when even some people from that time thougth it would be wrong? In the end in the now existing worlds where their race does not live anymore, they views are wrong. They may not thing of themselves that way but the people living in these worlds dont agree with what they believe. So they are the baddies. And if they are a hero now for their own race (which right now does not exist) is not even known. They will 100% not be seen as that by everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

I am also not sure if we should take what the Amaurotines discussed as positive. For me these quests and dialogues in the cities showed me that these people were not as perfect as Emet wanted us to believe it. They are in many ways just like us. And I do believe that the people in FF14 would be able to achieve similiar states of "peace" if they would not have calamity like events resetting them each time they are more advanced.

---

It's not about positive or negative. You're still not getting the point, it seems. You are simply looking at things as black and white. Good and bad. Right and wrong.

The whole point of the debate house scene is that there is no right answer. They are both correct. Both answers are valid.

Again, I do have to wonder why it's only comments opposing Emet-Selch's actions that are "policing", particularly when the topic of this thread is why he is NOT all that tragic. And, I mean:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Whether 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.

---

Here you are telling me how I, personally, should react to the term "hero" being applied to Emet-Selch, when I said that it bothered me. Me, as in, me personally. That sort of looks like policing in itself, with maybe just a touch of bias.

As Alleo said, no one is saying you can't like this villain. Like away! But someone can like a villain and also accept what they did to earn that title, and understand when other people hold them accountable, regardless of their reasoning.
I've played most of the other games. And in the end, there is never a question that villains doing monstrous things (by the perspective of the playable cast, which pretty much always mirrors our own world) must be stopped, because the things they are doing are monstrous. Sometimes Square glosses over the magnitude of their deeds, like dropping the plate on Sector 7, if the characters involved prove popular. Sometimes, they have sympathetic reasons. But that doesn't change the fact what they did was wrong, and they couldn't be allowed to keep doing it.

We don't play Ancients, or Ascians in XIV. We play the people the Ascians are threatening with death. Good thing the writers ultimately know the Ascians are wrong, or this MMO would have been over before ARR was even finished, and Lahabrea wouldn't have had nearly as much fun.

And really, "emotionally charged phrases"? It's listing what the character actually did, lmao. Why would other words be used when those are accurate? If his actions (is that better than "atrocities"?) sound harsh, that might be because they are.

Though I would still be morbidly curious to hear anything in his list there spun in a positive light. But I expect his acts will just keep being brushed off by the "moral relativism" phrase, without any real effort to prove how they can be relative, even by game lore standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MomomiMomi

It's not about positive or negative. You're still not getting the point, it seems. You are simply looking at things as black and white. Good and bad. Right and wrong.

The whole point of the debate house scene is that there is no right answer. They are both correct. Both answers are valid.

---

So in that case in our real world if you have dictators that want to use genocide they are also correct? Because from their point of view they are right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

So in that case in our real world if you have dictators that want to use genocide they are also correct?

---

To what end?

If you can only see it as wrong, then you are simply viewing things through a moral absolutist lens.

Considering that not everyone can agree on what is truly moral and what is not, then how can there possibly be a truly absolute morality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puksi

Here you are telling me how I, personally, should react to the term "hero" being applied to Emet-Selch, when I said that it bothered me. Me, as in, me personally. That sort of looks like policing in itself, with maybe just a touch of bias.

---

Yes, it shouldn't bother you - for the simple reason that it isn't healthy to get overly invested in a fictional setting in the first place. Hence the push by myself and others for the approach of simply agreeing to disagree on the matter. I've already stated multiple times that I'm fine with people not considering him to be a hero. I'm simply expecting them to have the decency not to shame or swarm those who do consider him to be one. They're not doing anything wrong. They don't need to change their opinion on the subject.

The game has gone to great lengths to show that there's two sides to almost every story. Hydaelyn isn't a pleasant place for most people to live after all.

I think Alisae is a screeching, shrill harpy. Each time I see her open her mouth I roll my eyes. That doesn't mean that I'm going to ignore her contribution to the story and the themes tied to her just because she happens to rub me the wrong way. I don't think it's unfair for the antagonists to be given the same treatment.

I can already feel the ad hominems so I feel I should probably clarify that what a person argues does not necessarily reflect how they feel or what they believe. I could believe someone who is being genocidal is completely wrong and bad. But to his people, he might be a hero.

I can even disagree with myself on what is right and what is wrong. I believe it is wrong to kill animals. But if there's a pest, and I do not kill it, there will be even more of them. And they will have to be killed, if not by myself, then by someone else. What is the "good" choice to make, here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Yes, it shouldn't bother you - for the simple reason that it isn't healthy to get overly invested in a fictional setting in the first place.

---

lmao, that was my first post in this thread, and aimed at no one. On a videogame forum, about a videogame character, specifically a topic on how that videogame character is not all that tragic. If I had said "I love Emet-Selch", would I have been policed? Would I have gotten such concern for my health? Thanks, really, but I don't need it. I only have 38 posts on these forums, after all.

If it helps, I promise you, should Alisae do a fraction of what Emet-Selch did in the future, you will see me here questioning her--provided I am asked to call her a hero, and not a villain.