Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic

[Puksi]

snip

It 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.

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.

[Lersayil]

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.

[Puksi]

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.

[Lersayil]

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.

[Puksi]

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.

[Lersayil]

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.

[Puksi]

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".

[Alleo]

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.

[Lersayil]

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.

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.

[Alleo]

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.

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.