Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic

[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