Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic

[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]

So in that case in our real world if you have dictators that want to use genocide they are also correct?

To what end?

If you can only see it as wrong, then you are simply viewing things through a moral absolutist lens.

Considering that not everyone can agree on what is truly moral and what is not, then how can there possibly be a truly absolute morality?

[Alleo]

To what end?

If you can only see it as wrong, then you are simply viewing things through a moral absolutist lens.

Considering that not everyone can agree on what is truly moral and what is not, then how can there possibly be a truly absolute morality?

I looked the term up a bit more and interestingly its about the cultures itself. So can we really claim this term for solo people? Can we really say that in the morality of the Ancient ones Emet and the Ascians actions would be right?

What if the Ancients morality also includes not murdering sapient beings? This would make Emet the bad guy and wrong in their culture too. And seeing how quite a few reacted (enough to create Hydealyn) then I doubt that murdering all those beings on the shards would count as right for them...and again we cant ignore their part of the plan that includes whole souls thus people that are alive even in their warped view. Souls that would be their own people too just with the missing memories. I have a really hard time seeing their culture being fine with that.

So no I dont see the story as showing us that both sides are right. They hit us over the head with the message that we should walk on for those that come after. Heck they made a mini arc about this very theme with Thancred himself.

There are stories out there that show this moral construct in a good way (Attack on Titan for example) but this game is imo not one of them.

lmao, that was my first post in this thread, and aimed at no one. On a videogame forum, about a videogame character, specifically a topic on how that videogame character is not all that tragic. If I had said "I love Emet-Selch", would I have been policed? Would I have gotten such concern for my health? Thanks, really, but I don't need it. I only have 38 posts on these forums, after all.

If it helps, I promise you, should Alisae do a fraction of what Emet-Selch did in the future, you will see me here questioning her--provided I am asked to call her a hero, and not a villain.

Yeah I doubt that the term "health" would have come up if we all just said something positive about his actions. I mean its seemingly normal that people say that they miss character x but when someone goes into a deeper discussion about the faults of a person and if that makes him a bad person even in the standards of the ingame morality then its not healthy? Isnt it not healthly too to post about games at all?

Stories are written to create emotions in us. All those people crying tears when something sad happens in a video game, movie or book must be unhealthy too because those are not real people, right?

So ive always felt the plan they had for reviving all of their civilization was not really thought out. We ARE the souls of the Amaurotines, fragments of them as theyve very plainly told us. If you feed our aether to Zodiark what exactly are you bringing back? You think hes just going to give up all the power he gains from souls and release them back? The sacrificed life forces originally are what allowed him to even take form and Emet wants ALL of them back. Now Emet admits that all the ascians were tempered if you talk to him in the Solar after one of the cutscenes so im not sure if this has some bearing on his ability to think of these angles because Zodiark would want resurrection and wouldnt want that kind of questioning.

I agree with that thus I believe that they might have never made this plan if they had not been tempered.

I mean these people sacrificed themselves willingly so that their rest of their city can live on. Instead of just accepting their sacrifice they suddenly turn around after everything is done and talk about the plan and if we take what Hythlos says as true then it were the Ascians who created that plan to beginn with after everything was save. So the people that got tempered created a plan that would give their "god" (and its interesting that Lahabrea calls him a god even though Zodiark is a construct of their own making thus 100% no god) more aether. It could be that it was part of their own grief to do that but at the same time they already knew death and at least in the short story its made clear that they had no problem with death. And suddenly that changes?

In the end Emet seemingly only cares about those lost souls while either ignoring or not caring about the consequence of now sacrificing the source people too after all the rejoinings happened. These people would have souls from ancient beings which includes people from Amaurot and also those that survived the calamity...that means he wants to sacrifice the people that the other sacrificed their life for so that they can live on..he is trampeling on the wishes of those that gave their life to protect the few that would survive it..and its not like it would have been the end of their race. They know what children are. They could have reproduced and since the also had a lifestream at that time, the people that died in the calamity would have been reborn with time. And at the same time they could have made those that are used as fuel for Zodiark into heroes that will be remembered forever.

[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.