Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic

[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.

[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.

[Alleo]

...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.

Not in that case, in my post I was talking about bias. You said that a lot of people are too biased to talk about the perspective of the characters themselves why you ourself have talked about how you see from the characters eyes. Also if you are also biased why bring it up. The consquence I pull from that is that you see us as biased that somehow cant see the real deal while you can. If I read that wrong then sorry but then I also wonder why you would bring up bias anyway because everyone is biased. Some more than others but everyone is not 100% objective about a character, especially not about a game they play themselves.

You clearly played a different game than me, then. The entire expansion's story was about moral relativism. They are not simply "the bad guys." The whole story was about offering their view and showing why they are not simply bad guys.

Haven't bothered to read this whole thread so don't know if it's been brought up, but one of the biggest points that drives home that the expansion is about moral relativism is when you're in Amaurot: the debate house.

Two Amaurotines are discussing morality in regards to another... civilization I think? It's on the brink of extinction. If I remember correctly, one suggests that they should be saved, and the other suggest that it is wrong to save them.

These words came from Yoshida himself who said in an interview that people should not forget that the Ascians have killed millions of people, even if they have reasons for that. In that very same interview he also says that people should not jump to conclusion about Hydealyn because we only heard the Ascians side of this.

So no even for him they are the bad guys. Not cartoonish anymore thanks to getting some motivations but still villians.

I am also not sure if we should take what the Amaurotines discussed as positive. For me these quests and dialogues in the cities showed me that these people were not as perfect as Emet wanted us to believe it. They are in many ways just like us. And I do believe that the people in FF14 would be able to achieve similiar states of "peace" if they would not have calamity like events resetting them each time they are more advanced.

The discussion between those two NPCs could also easily show that they were in such a state that they were not able to do something about this until it was at their own door steps (which is what happens).

My problem with moral relativism: Before the sundering there were already Amaurotines against the plans of the Ascians (who at that time were already tempered). So how can we even say that their view is not wrong when even some people from that time thougth it would be wrong? In the end in the now existing worlds where their race does not live anymore, they views are wrong. They may not thing of themselves that way but the people living in these worlds dont agree with what they believe. So they are the baddies. And if they are a hero now for their own race (which right now does not exist) is not even known. They will 100% not be seen as that by everyone.

[MomomiMomi]

I am also not sure if we should take what the Amaurotines discussed as positive. For me these quests and dialogues in the cities showed me that these people were not as perfect as Emet wanted us to believe it. They are in many ways just like us. And I do believe that the people in FF14 would be able to achieve similiar states of "peace" if they would not have calamity like events resetting them each time they are more advanced.

It's not about positive or negative. You're still not getting the point, it seems. You are simply looking at things as black and white. Good and bad. Right and wrong.

The whole point of the debate house scene is that there is no right answer. They are both correct. Both answers are valid.

[Alleo]

It's not about positive or negative. You're still not getting the point, it seems. You are simply looking at things as black and white. Good and bad. Right and wrong.

The whole point of the debate house scene is that there is no right answer. They are both correct. Both answers are valid.

So in that case in our real world if you have dictators that want to use genocide they are also correct? Because from their point of view they are right.

[MomomiMomi]

And they have made it clear that the Ascians are the bad guys and that them having reasons does not change it.

You clearly played a different game than me, then. The entire expansion's story was about moral relativism. They are not simply "the bad guys." The whole story was about offering their view and showing why they are not simply bad guys.

Haven't bothered to read this whole thread so don't know if it's been brought up, but one of the biggest points that drives home that the expansion is about moral relativism is when you're in Amaurot: the debate house.

Two Amaurotines are discussing morality in regards to another... civilization I think? It's on the brink of extinction. If I remember correctly, one suggests that they should be saved, and the other suggests that it is wrong to save them. It all depends on the viewpoint you are taking.