Again, I do have to wonder why it's only comments opposing Emet-Selch's actions that are "policing", particularly when the topic of this thread is why he is NOT all that tragic. And, I mean:

Quote Originally Posted by Theodric View Post
Whether or not somebody is a hero is very much a matter of perspective and personal interpretation. You don't consider him to be one? Fine, but it really shouldn't 'bother' anybody for others to look on him fondly. He's a fictional character in a fantasy setting. People consume entertainment to be entertained and that accounts for all sorts of different tastes. I'm sure there's characters that you like that others don't - it's just how the world works.
Here you are telling me how I, personally, should react to the term "hero" being applied to Emet-Selch, when I said that it bothered me. Me, as in, me personally. That sort of looks like policing in itself, with maybe just a touch of bias.

As Alleo said, no one is saying you can't like this villain. Like away! But someone can like a villain and also accept what they did to earn that title, and understand when other people hold them accountable, regardless of their reasoning.
I've played most of the other games. And in the end, there is never a question that villains doing monstrous things (by the perspective of the playable cast, which pretty much always mirrors our own world) must be stopped, because the things they are doing are monstrous. Sometimes Square glosses over the magnitude of their deeds, like dropping the plate on Sector 7, if the characters involved prove popular. Sometimes, they have sympathetic reasons. But that doesn't change the fact what they did was wrong, and they couldn't be allowed to keep doing it.

We don't play Ancients, or Ascians in XIV. We play the people the Ascians are threatening with death. Good thing the writers ultimately know the Ascians are wrong, or this MMO would have been over before ARR was even finished, and Lahabrea wouldn't have had nearly as much fun.

And really, "emotionally charged phrases"? It's listing what the character actually did, lmao. Why would other words be used when those are accurate? If his actions (is that better than "atrocities"?) sound harsh, that might be because they are.

Though I would still be morbidly curious to hear anything in his list there spun in a positive light. But I expect his acts will just keep being brushed off by the "moral relativism" phrase, without any real effort to prove how they can be relative, even by game lore standards.