Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic

[Lauront]

@ 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

Agreed. AFAIC, ethics ultimately can only be formulated (given a foundation) between individuals and groups with common aims, which in turn results on prohibitions on certain activities within said groups because the outcome of this is deemed to be mutually/socially beneficial. These prohibited actions happen, by and large, to overlap with what we're evolutionarily predisposed to recoil at, due to a sense of empathy and a desire for reciprocity. This works when there is a mutuality of objectives in place (e.g. within the same species), and obviously those who violate said social compacts can be ostracised, imprisoned and so on as a deterrent, but it is essentially a form of social compact, with purely internal terms of reference.

Trying to claim that certain higher beings should just roll over and give up because their world was shattered and the aether from it diluted, and that they should value the lives that came thereafter as equivalent to what they lost, and that they're wrong if they don't so, is in the end, nothing but an opinion. I have no problem with granting that both sides have a strong rationale for their actions, and are champions/heroes of their cause and villains to those whom they obstruct. Certainly, there are consequences in that either will face opposition in standing up for what they believe and in this case there is very little room for the two sides to reconcile their aims, as things stand.

The writers are, of course, free to have their own view on whom they support, and which side is "wrong", as are other fans, but that alone doesn't sway me much. That said, the writers certainly have it in their power to add twists and turns which may change my view as things go on, but that could also be in the form of losing interest in the specific subplot if it's something dull like slavish tempering being the ulimate cause.

[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.

[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.

[Puksi]

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:

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.

[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?

[Theodric]

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.

Yes, it shouldn't bother you - for the simple reason that it isn't healthy to get overly invested in a fictional setting in the first place. Hence the push by myself and others for the approach of simply agreeing to disagree on the matter. I've already stated multiple times that I'm fine with people not considering him to be a hero. I'm simply expecting them to have the decency not to shame or swarm those who do consider him to be one. They're not doing anything wrong. They don't need to change their opinion on the subject.

The game has gone to great lengths to show that there's two sides to almost every story. Hydaelyn isn't a pleasant place for most people to live after all.

I think Alisae is a screeching, shrill harpy. Each time I see her open her mouth I roll my eyes. That doesn't mean that I'm going to ignore her contribution to the story and the themes tied to her just because she happens to rub me the wrong way. I don't think it's unfair for the antagonists to be given the same treatment.

[MomomiMomi]

I can already feel the ad hominems so I feel I should probably clarify that what a person argues does not necessarily reflect how they feel or what they believe. I could believe someone who is being genocidal is completely wrong and bad. But to his people, he might be a hero.

I can even disagree with myself on what is right and what is wrong. I believe it is wrong to kill animals. But if there's a pest, and I do not kill it, there will be even more of them. And they will have to be killed, if not by myself, then by someone else. What is the "good" choice to make, here?

[Puksi]

Yes, it shouldn't bother you - for the simple reason that it isn't healthy to get overly invested in a fictional setting in the first place.

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.