Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic

[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?

[Elladie]

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?

I'm interested to see where I have excused anyone from anything, please could you quote those sections back to me?

At no point have I ever said anything about Hades not doing some terrible things. Nor have I argued that we shouldn't have killed him. In the circumstances as they played out, we had no choice. My argument was rather aimed at the moral absolutism you claim to embrace but refuse to apply to other characters, apparently for the rather simple reason that you like them and you don't like Hades? You also appear to be attacking both those who do like Hades character and the writers who created him. Most of the characters in this tale, including our own, do very morally questionable things, but you're not holding any of them to the same standards. That's my objection to what you're saying.

I'd also like the point out that G'raha Tia's actions MAY have created two timelines - we don't actually know yet - but he certainly didn't know in advance that they would since he expected to die. So why isn't he a monster who intended to condemn thousands of people to oblivion regardless of their wishes on the subject?

I am just asking you to use the same moral standards for everyone, but you don't seem to want to. Or to agree that yours is just a point of view that differs from other points of view in the matter of Hades as a character and that both are equally valid.

[Puksi]

I'm interested to see where I have excused anyone from anything, please could you quote those sections back to me?

You called my speaking against his atroci--his actions--"taking the moral high ground", and "moral absolutism", strongly implying that somehow anything I listed could be not monstrous in a certain context, presumably for that "redemptive possibility". That seems to be the problem anyone has with my posts, that I call what he did wrong ? And now it's "attacking the writers"--really? As for countering other posters who counter me, I was unaware the only acceptable form is to offer unquestioning admiration of this character in a thread whose premise is "he's actually not all that tragic guys".

In lore context alone, then, as I said, I am morbidly curious. In what context would any of the actions I listed be right by the standards set down by the writers' narrative? (or any narrative, really, I can't think of any myself.) If you want to leave out the whole murder of billions bit under the phrase "moral relativism" somehow, then where does that leave us with the willful, remorseless manipulation and deception of people--"insects"--he feigned to care about? Using unwitting partners for breeding fodder? Scorning the children he sired through that deception because they too are "insects" who failed to live up to his lofty standards, standards he himself fails to uphold? Using an unwilling mother and her unborn child to incubate a monster meant to destroy what little of their world he didn't already destroy?

You left off pressing on the subject of Ardbert and company since the narrative did not claim they were right, so that's a start I guess? Regardless of the "gotcha" you are trying to make with Cid and G'raha Tia, it seems disingenous to compare a doomed world, with a a fraction of doomed survivors, placed in an impossible and hopeless situation because of the Garleans, who are even a thing because of Emet-Selch--to the Ascians' willful destruction of billions of lives who were NOT in a doomsday setting, and how many worlds are we up to again?

The Ascians made certain that Black Rose timeline, with however many people on it--the story is unclear and even a bit convoluted how many, and how much time had passed--was going to die. Nature as the Ascians twisted it was going to take its course. And the narrative took the weight of Cid and G'raha Tia's decision into account. They moved to save billions at--very arguably--the cost of a doomed few.

Emet-Selch acted in the reverse, destroying the lives of billions who were NOT doomed to die for the sake of the few he deemed worthy of existence.

Health check: Still fine, but goodness, I am confused.

[tokinokanatae]

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".

This obviously gets you very emotional. I understand. However, rather than trying to imply that people that have a different opinion than you are morally deficient, it would be better to think about what Emet-Selch's actions actually were in this situation:

1. Emet was not the one that "robbed a woman of her bodily autonomy"

   We know very little about Mama Vauthry, except that she was pregnant. There were three people in the room in that scene and only one of them showed excitement over grafting her unborn child to a sin eater--and neither she, nor Emet-Selch, were that person.
   I know it's very popular in some corners of fandom to assume that if an Ascian is in a scene, personal responsibility is tossed out the window, but all Emet-Selch did was make an offer. There was always the choice not to take him up on it--unless you can point to something concrete in the game that shows that Emet-Selch was prepared to create Vauthry by force?
   

2. There is no indication that Vauthry's monstrous actions were because he was part sin eater

   Sin eaters are mindless. They hunt people down because they need their aether to live. We never once see sin eaters torturing people because of this. When they do hang on to vestiges of their humanity, they attempt to continue to do positive things for people--like the Cardinal Sins continue to attempt to help people like they did in life--or carry on their last actions they were doing before they got turned. This means that Vauthry's monstrous actions in the game are not because of his sin eater tendencies, but because of his human half.
   Emet didn't force Vauthry to use the sin eaters en masse to attack and murder innocent people in Lakeland, nor did Vauthry being partially a sin eater force him to fly over the decimated Lakeland troops, crowing about what he did. No other sin eater engages in these actions. They are the actions of a human being, and Emet-Selch did not raise Vauthry to be the human being he is in the game.

3. The scene in question was trying to tell you something important about Emet-Selch's mindset...

   ...and that thing is not ASCIAN BAD or VAUTHRY INNOCENT VICTIM. It shows that--much like the rest of his actions the entire expac--Emet-Selch deliberately seeks out people that will allow him to further his goals, but he always frames it as a choice. Not because it isn't a real choice, but because it is. That way, when they make the wrong one, he's more justified in his disgust in humanity and continuing on his current path. Emet-Selch both does and doesn't want to be surprised by our actions. It's a shame that in the case of Vauthry's family, they did exactly what he expected.

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.)

Your, ah, recall doesn't match the game itself. In the original Warriors of Darkness arc, Urianger very clearly explains that the WoD are trying to bring on a Calamity to merge their world's souls into the Source's lifestream. Or, as Alisaie put it:

Then...if the Warrior's of Darkness succeed, everyone in their world will die?

Ah, but you say! Clearly Ardbert and his merry band didn't know. Why, you'd bet your Ondo pearls they were ignorant--misled by those vile Ascians. Except, um, not quite:

However, this fate may yet be preferable to the alternative, for if the First were to fall to transcendent Light in the manner the Warriors of Darkness described, it would give way unto a void wherein none may know either life or death.

Far better to die, they reason--for in death there is life. The essence of a soul which returneth unto the Source may be born anew. Saved. Such, at least, is their belief, I surmise.

So what was that about them not understanding what the Rejoining would do to their world (and ours)? Seems pretty well informed to me. Ardbert even says as such the first time we see him again in Shadowbringers, just in case you forgot.

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.

Oh? This is how you describe "breeding fodder"?

Yet in spite of himself, when he cradled the newborn in his arms and stroked that downy hair, he could not help but hope. For what, he could not be certain, but he hoped nonetheless. It made little difference in the end, for his son had succumbed to some absurd illness and returned to the Underworld long before his time.

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.

This is getting long enough, but I didn't want to let this go without addressing it. Nothing you quoted says anything about them wanting to erase themselves. They wanted to create a version of the past where the WoL lived. It doesn't say "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, even if it meant their own demise."--which is what G'raha theorized would happen if he succeeded.

Generations of people deleted against their will, because a minority decided that the past was superior to the present? Hmm, sounds familiar. Wonder where I heard that one before...

[Puksi]

BIG SNIP.

I'm happy to see my posts are bringing new people to the forums!

1) Vauthry's mother wasn't the one who was asked, and unborn Vauthry wasn't asked at all. You could argue they talked her into it later, but she was fearful, and Vauthry was still given no choice, so there's that. Emet-Selch still did it, he was the one with the Lightwarden and the power to do so. I'm not sure how this argument is supposed to absolve him of that.

2) Vauthry was corrupted with a Lightwarden, like Titania. Titania was not mindless, but was still warped into a murderous parody of what they were before the Lightwarden overtook them. Vauthry was clearly corrupted physically by the Lightwarden--Humes aren't fifteen to twenty feet tall, they can't do an Exorcist with their necks or eat silverware--and they don't come with a second face embedded in their chest. He also certainly seemed to be affected mentally as Titania was. Apparently their speech patterns in Japan are similar, something that implies the speaker is "off"?

And then there was Yoshi-P's interview where he said he would like us to consider, "was Vauthry just a friend of the sin eaters, or was he being controlled by someone". Considering Emet-Selch did not give him a choice to be a pawn, and Cylva also said raising the Cardinal Virtues had to be the idea of the Ascians, my bet is on "controlled by someone".

On the Cardinal Virtues, they were mindlessly acting out what they did in life, and were apparently a danger to the living. That doesn't sound like they were helping anyone.

3) More cutscenes to rewatch, thanks for pointing that out. That really doesn't change that the writers still pushed it was not the path to take, though. The game has been fairly consistent in the message of coldblooded murder being not nice.

4) Emet-Selch felt hope, for what? It says he didn't know, and I don't see the word love mentioned anywhere. Hope that the baby would live up to his test? That the baby would succeed in the plan he had for it? Did the baby's mother know who her partner really was, and what he really intended? Did they know that ultimately they were "insects", not worth what he lost? Did any of them, in all those thousands of lifetimes of his? Varis certainly seemed keenly aware he was a disappointment.

5) The Source in the Black Rose timeline was dying. Not as in "these people are going to die of old age anyway", as in, the planet itself was failing to sustain the survivors.

And after the night comes the morning, as the sun rises to greet the new day. While it may already be too late to mend this dying world, there are those who would strive to create a place where the sun will shine again, not for their own sake, but for those in a past that may yet be saved.

An impossible situation, because of Black Rose, which was because of Garleans, which was because of Ascians. There would have been no need for this heavy decision but for the Ascians. And it was heavy--this was no dismissal of the survivors as "insects". Nor did their plan involve the destruction of many other healthy worlds and the billions of people living on them, or any of the other games the Ascians play. Not even UNLEASH ULTIMAAAAA.

I've got no problems calling Emet-Selch's motivation sympathetic. I will definitely argue against calling the atrocities the Ascians have committed "a matter of perspective". "Even if they have a reason and a goal, an incredible amount of people died in the process". (Look out, Yoshi-P is attacking the writers!)

Thank you also for the concern, but I still don't need it. Welcome to the forums!

[Brinne]

I've got no problems calling Emet-Selch's motivation sympathetic. I will definitely argue against calling the atrocities the Ascians have committed "a matter of perspective". "Even if they have a reason and a goal, an incredible amount of people died in the process". (Look out, Yoshi-P is attacking the writers!)!

The point people are making, I think, is that there's a double standard because you can also make that exact same statement about G'raha and Ardbert's actions (again, I must emphasize that he only stopped because he was given another way; he never stopped because he was 'wrong'. If anything, his arc in Shadowbringers was about affirming his choices, with realizing how badly his people truly did want to live, and he was not wrong to want to save them.

But we accept them as allies and fellow heroes, because their circumstances ultimately ended up with them aligned to 'our' side, and Emet's simply didn't. But fundamentally, it's pretty clear that all three characters are meant as parallels to one another, to explore what it means to be a hero, and to be cast as a villain.

I have to say, too, that it feels off to me, again, to say "okay, but it's okay to accept G'raha as a good guy and an ally because he didn't numerically massacre as many unwilling people for his agenda." I mean, it was still probably in the millions overall, sure, but Emet Selch still has a higher score, so they're totally different!

Also, thank you for pointing out that Yoshida was not actually the writer of Shadowbringers! Ishikawa wrote the script by herself and presented it in full to Yoshida when it was done, as explained by her PAX panel, and only asked for some tweaks. It's viable for Yoshida to have his own opinion and re-evalute things himself. In recent interviews, his tone has noticeably changed about Emet, becoming "we've inherited his feelings and will, and draw strength from that" in the most recent set. And the EX description of him as a hero coming from his self-insert character, of course.

[Puksi]

Snip again!

I'm not sure how I can word it more plainly: The Source of the Black Rose timeline was dying. G'raha, Cid, all of them could have done nothing at all, and the world--and everyone remaining on it--would still die. Not of natural causes, but by the death of the planet's means to sustain them. And they were placed in that impossible situation by the Ascians. The Ascians doomed them all to die, and the one chance Cid and the rest had at undoing it didn't involve destroying multiple healthy worlds to do it, either.

As for Ardbert and company, again, the narrative did not condone their methods.

On the subject of condoning methods , let me know when Yoshi-P starts saying it was okay the Ascians killed all those people. Because saying they inherited Emet-Selch's "feelings and will" isn't the same as excusing his actions--you can like a villain a lot, and still admit to the monstrous things they did. And the Minstreling Wanderer hands out all EX unlocks, I am not sure how that equals condoning Emet-Selch's actions?

I'm not sure what else you want me to say. You seem to be asking me to accept the Ascians' methods as somehow okay, and I'm not going to do that. But I'm sure there are threads about "how Emet-Selch really IS that tragic", you might find a more receptive audience there?

[tokinokanatae]

I'm not sure what else you want me to say.

I certainly can't speak for Brinne, but I guess an acknowledgment that your, ah, fervent defense of a cold-blooded murderer for personal reasons isn't any different in form than anyone else's defense of a different cold-blooded murderer. Without the implying they are some how fascist or assault apologists along the way.

[Elladie]

I certainly can't speak for Brinne, but I guess an acknowledgment that your, ah, fervent defense of a cold-blooded murderer for personal reasons isn't any different in form than anyone else's defense of a different cold-blooded murderer. Without the implying they are some how fascist or assault apologists along the way.

This. So much this.

The person you are replying to really doesn't get that people are not defending Hades, they're objecting to the double standard being so strongly espoused here. And they don't seem to understand that clinging to this double standard nullifies any points they try to make. It makes me very sad to see this kind of moral certitude in people; it is the kind of thing that leads to discrimination and scapegoating. Understanding that people in real life are shades of grey doesn't mean letting them off the hook when they do something objectionable, but it does mean that forgiveness, reconciliation and restitution are possibilities. Folk who can't accept this in fiction - when it's so clearly demonstrated as to be impossible to miss unless you're missing it deliberately - fill me with despair for the world.

I'm old and I've learned this lesson the hard way.

[Brinne]

SNIP

The bit with the Source dying has already been addressed as far from a certain thing; I also want to add that we see directly in the OMG story that Cid's decision to give up on the present world is not because of some major event that concretely convinces him everything is doomed - the world continues on 200 years after he makes that decision! - but he gives up and starts making plans to rewrite the past when his personal friend, Wedge, dies.

It seems questionable to make that distinction between "people dying of old age versus dying of bad conditions" when, remember, the short lifespan that mortals have in the FFXIV universe is not their natural state. It is something Hydaelyn inflicted upon them, by means of forcing them into, relatively, "bad conditions." From the perspective of the Ascians, Hydaelyn basically inflicted upon us a horrific condition that shortened our lifespans to our equivalent of, oh, say, a year, and a year filled with lots of suffering that wouldn't exist in a state of health, either. So I don't see much of a meaningful existence between the rationale of the Ironworks to decide sacrificing the future was acceptable and the Ascians' rationale that sacrificing the mortals was acceptable.

As far as Ardbert goes, I don't remember a single time in Shadowbringers where Ardbert's past actions, and his sometimes near-gleeful attempted murder of the WoL and company, and deliberately exacerbating and exploiting the agony of the beast tribes (embodied in the form of a screaming, traumatized child) were condemned. Ardbert's narrative in Shadowbringers was entirely focused on the tragedy of how he was a hero who did his utmost, but was unfairly cast as a villain. His resolution was understanding that his desire to save his people was not wrong, and the WoL taking steps to address the injustice of Ardbert being considered a villain and bad person but explaining to those they can that he was a true hero.

Ardbert was stopped, but there was never a single point in time where the narrative has Ardbert meaningfully admit or repent for the fact that his actions on the Source against innocent people was irredeemably evil and wrong. Almost everything was about how deeply tragic it was that he was misunderstood, and how much he was suffering because of it.

You do not have to accept that what the Ascians did was okay. I don't even think that. You are free to have your personal response to their circumstances and the choices they made in response to that and those are perfectly valid. But other peoples' responses of sympathy, which are fully intended by the text, are also valid, and I don't think it's appropriate to imply that something is wrong with their morality for doing so - especially when there are clear instances in the text of parallel characters doing largely the same thing, but they and the people who connect with them don't get nearly the same amount of vitriol. Are you also angry about the story's treatment of Ardbert and G'raha as heroic figures? Even though Ardbert was directly complicit in driving Ga Bu to madness with grief, and killing his parents?

Listen, I understand the caution around "moral relativity" and making excuses for people who are doing awful things, and the resentment about the emotional labor in asking us to find sympathy for harmful people. Especially in the current cultural climate. I really do, and in many ways, I'm in the same boat.

But I don't think that's what the expansion is getting at, and it's not what I got from it. The thing it is criticizing about black and white thinking is that, even in situations where it is NOT necessarily black and white (and sometimes it is! FFXIV acknowledges that through characters like Zenos!)--and those do exist. Humans will always find conflict over resources, limitations, etc. And that is essentially what Shadowbringers is presented as: a conflict over the resource that is the right to exist. And so there is the temptation to rationalize, to CREATE a "black side" for our own comfort and enable our own actions against the competition - well, the Amaurotines deserved what they got, it was their own doing, we're the present and they're the past, so we DESERVE to live more, etc, even when that directly contradicts the text.

That's really what Emet is doing himself, whenever he forcefully disparages the Fragments. It's a situation of his people living versus ours living, so he frames things, as a cynical, damaged person, as a question of who is more worthy, who is the villain. Because no matter what happens, someone undeserving is going to lose. So to cope with that, he has to justify it, even with his entire arc in Shadowbringers being sincerely hoping you would give him a reason to stop.

This is why the real triumph of the WoL in Shadowbringers is rejecting that entire mode of thinking, that dichotomy, without rejecting reality. Learning through Ardbert, and G'raha, who in a similar position to Emet made similar agonized choices but are still considered heroes, WoL rejects Emet declaring that this is a matter of "the winner is the hero, the loser is the villain." Even while acknowledging and acting on the necessity of defeating Emet and crushing his hopes, they also acknowledge him as a fellow hero. The twist of Jet-Black Villains is that, in the end, there were no Jet-Black Villains.

It rules. Shadowbringers is Very Good.