Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic

[Puksi]

"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)_/‾

[Xion136]

[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...

[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

[Puksi]

@ 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?

[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.

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.

[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.

[Berteaux_Braumegain]

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.

[Theodric]

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.

[Alleo]

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.

[Theodric]

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.