Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic

[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".

[Elladie]

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)

[Savagelf]

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.

[Elladie]

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

[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.