Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic

[tokinokanatae]

Vauthry roamed around free, Titania did not. Vauthry did not attack Lakeland because he was a sin eater, he attacked them because they weren't doing what he wanted them to do. His actions have nothing to do with Emet-Selch. The only thing Emet-Selch gave him was the power to use sin eaters to attack people, he did not coordinate Vauthry's attacks for him.

Where does it end? Emet-Selch was tempered by Zodiark. Surely he can't possibly be blamed for any atrocities he commits, right?

[Lersayil]

...

Where does it end? Emet-Selch was tempered by Zodiark. Surely he can't possibly be blamed for any atrocities he commits, right?

Oh god, please no. I know you said it ironically here, but this explanation (just by mentioning it) makes me cringe inside a bit. This is still a possible direction the writers could take the story in, and it would devalue SO much of the happenings in ShB (not to mention Emet as a character). Pinning the whole thing on Zodiark (even partially) would excuse Emet of all his actions, and kick us back into the comfortable, but ultimately boring world of binary morality.

[Rosenstrauch]

Oh god, please no. I know you said it ironically here, but this explanation (just by mentioning it) makes me cringe inside a bit. This is still a possible direction the writers could take the story in, and it would devalue SO much of the happenings in ShB (not to mention Emet as a character). Pinning the whole thing on Zodiark (even partially) would excuse Emet of all his actions, and kick us back into the comfortable, but ultimately boring world of binary morality.

It gets worse: As a primal, Zodiark's actions, ideals, and even consciousness are shaped by what his summoners wished for him to be when they created him. So taking this train of thought to its logical extreme, not even Zodiark can be held responsible. He can't be blamed for tempering the Ascians, as whether or not it was a design quirk or intentional, he was made to do so by the Ascians. And the Ascians can't be held responsible for what he does because he tempered them, stripping their free will. Everyone gets a free pass!

[Lersayil]

It gets worse: As a primal, Zodiark's actions, ideals, and even consciousness are shaped by what his summoners wished for him to be when they created him. So taking this train of thought to its logical extreme, not even Zodiark can be held responsible. He can't be blamed for tempering the Ascians, as whether or not it was a design quirk or intentional, he was made to do so by the Ascians. And the Ascians can't be held responsible for what he does because he tempered them, stripping their free will. Everyone gets a free pass!

Yeah, that would be worse than I was imagining. Though I guess it would tickle my absurdist tendencies...

But what if Zodiark was designed to temper? Wouldn't that make the amaurotians reprehensible? Since they also would've designed the tenets Zodiark would impose on the tempered?

[Puksi]

Snip!

I'd love to know where it ends, the goalposts have moved again.

Emet-Selch didn't just give Vauthry "the power to attack people with Sin Eaters". He corrupted that unborn baby with the full power of a Lightwarden.

I have no idea what Lightwarden mobility has to do with anything, but Titania wasn't sealed away be their choice. I'm sure they would have loved to play outside.

Titania was "ruling" Il Mheg in a similar vicious fashion, apparently, before they were sealed. It's not a stretch to say Vauthry could do the same, within the context of the role the Ascians gave him to play.

TL;DR: You seem to be trying to hold Vauthry to a higher standard than Emet-Selch, even though Emet-Selch made him what he was without giving him a choice.

And finally, we've reached the (ironic) goalpost of "Emet-Selch was Tempered by Zodiark". No one is saying you can't enjoy a villain even if they have done monstrous unforgivable things, by the way. I like a lot of villains who have. Games need villains. I enjoyed this upgrade from Lahabrea in Shadowbringers, Ascians have needed it since ARR. But I'm still not going to try to say the horrid things they do could be anything but horrid, and I'm not going to call them a "hero".

We've reached an impasse here. In fact, we probably reached it a while ago, and some of the posts lately are barely about the character at all, but rather the fact I won't call what the Ascians have done a "matter of perspective". You'll find a lot of theorycrafting in the Lore forum on Emet-Selch's Tempering (and Tempering in general), though. ‾\_(ツ)_/‾ Have fun!

[tokinokanatae]

Emet-Selch didn't just give Vauthry "the power to attack people with Sin Eaters". He corrupted that unborn baby with the full power of a Lightwarden.

You keep saying that, but what does it mean to corrupt "that unborn baby with the full power of a Lightwarden"? Because in game, it seems to mean we have a Lightwarden that can:

• Choose whether or not to turn people into sin eaters.
• Communicate well enough to lead an army and talk to normal people.
• Maliciously direct sin eater attacks without any danger to people he's deemed worth protecting.
• Change into a more powerful sin eater form still capable of controlling his own actions.

There would have been very easy ways to show that Vauthry suffers for these advantages, but the game doesn't go into them, either due to a lack of time, or--less charitably--because they don't exist. This isn't to say Emet-Selch's actions weren't horrific, they just don't make Vauthry's choices in the game not his own.

Titania doesn't "rule in a similar fashion", the game itself points that out:

"That is unacceptable! Unacceptable, I tell you! If the king is set free, none here will be safe!"

"Ordinarily, when a living being turns into a sin eater, it loses everything about its mind that defined it. However, the king has retained some of their instincts. This manifests in the desire to play and be free. So strong is that desire, it often leaks through the seal to invade our consciousness."

In other words, Titania is a mindless menace that simply retains vestigial instincts, like all other people who are turned. They are not administrating their kingdom, they just mindlessly feast on its inhabitants, as much a "ruler" as Storge.

And finally, we've reached the (ironic) goalpost of "Emet-Selch was Tempered by Zodiark".

But you haven't explained how that's different...? I mean, I'm personally all for holding Emet-Selch accountable for his actions--tempered or not--both the good and the bad, but if we're talking about things that potentially affect your will, it seems odd that tempering doesn't provide mitigation from your perspective. Simply repeating what I said doesn't actually make any point except acknowledging that I've made one.

I'm sorry you feel that we've found an impasse; that's very unfortunate as I've enjoyed challenging common assumptions about Emet-Selch's actions in regards to Vauthry and how the narrative treats people that are his parallel in the narrative. If this conversation has become frustrating and upsetting for you, I definitely won't blame you if you want to take a breather, though.

[Puksi]

If this conversation has become frustrating and upsetting for you, I definitely won't blame you if you want to take a breather, though.

Again, thanks for the concern, but I'm still fine.

This is at an impasse because first, the parts of the conversation that are not circular involve you moving the goalposts. For example, on the subject of Emet-Selch's corruption of Vauthry: "Emet-Selch gave a choice to refuse" (Not to Vauthry)>"The corruption wouldn't affect Vauthry" (Gives many examples of how Sin Eater corruption, let alone corruption by a Lightwarden, terribly affects literally every other character in the game who has been afflicted by it, including Yoshi-P's hint of "was someone controlling him")>"That's not accurate, the Cardinal Virtues were reliving helping people" (Brendan's Virtue massacred Wright)>"Lightwardens don't talk" (Hello, Titania, no I will not guess which one)>"Vauthry doesn't change people into Eaters he can't really be affected by the Lightwarden" (this one honestly made me laugh)>"Okay, Vauthry changes people into Eaters, but at his discretion" (this one made me laugh too, actually)>to now, "Titania acts on instinct" (As though Vauthry's instinct is not to carry out the scheme the Ascians made him for, and would somehow render him unable to speak in those terms).

Second, and related, is that you continue to ignore points I bring up, such as Brendan's massacre of Wright, or that Emet-Selch would freely offer that child of his up to Zodiark if whatever that "hope" he had failed, or that the doomed Black Rose timeline was not only dying of unnatural causes, but would not be given the unlikely chance to recover by--you guessed it--the Ascians. They still have a bunch of Calamities left to deliver, and now they are behind schedule, and the survivors were barely able to survive, let alone try to stop them.

There isn't nearly enough insight on Emet-Selch's Tempering, unlike the effects of Sin Eater corruption, to hazard any reasonable guess as to what may be really happening there. I do recall him saying he would do it whether he was Tempered or not, so there's that, but he is an unreliable narrator at best.

Lastly, there's this:

Without the implying they are some how fascist or assault apologists along the way.

Stating the atrocities Emet-Selch committed are bad, and countering replies that insist they are not (under certain circumstances that, again, no one wants to clarify), is not calling anyone either of those things. I'm not the only one who finds his deeds offputting by far. I mean, I'm glad you're enjoying challenging "misconceptions" about his actions, but you haven't convinced me, and you're not going to this way. But I'm glad my posts got you started posting on the forums, so again, have fun!

[tokinokanatae]

I understand that it's frustrating when you're a fan of one character and think people are being unfair to them because of the actions of another character. I definitely don't think you're a bad person for wanting to defend Vauthry, but if we can't even agree that he has has a degree of intelligence and volition beyond Titania, then we must have played very different games.

To me, Emet-Selch's horrific sin against Vauthry's personhood when he grafted the Lightwarden to him was not making him into a mindless puppet, it was making it so that Vauthry's end would have been the same no matter what sort of person he chose to be. Even if Vauthry had been a good leader and sought to do no harm to anyone, upon his death, he would have doomed his world. That Vauthry's existence meant his world's doom doesn't mean that Vauthry himself had to be corrupt and cruel, any more than the game makes clear that Emet-Selch needing to kill billions to bring about the Ardor means he finds pleasure in doing it. The factors that made Vauthry corrupt and cruel are the circumstances in which he was raised, not the circumstance in which he was born.

I thought my responses were clarifying points in a mutual debate, so I'm sorry--it seems that I was being hard to follow and confusing instead. I hope the above simplifies my perspective enough.

Emet-Selch would freely offer that child of his up to Zodiark if whatever that "hope" he had failed, or that the doomed Black Rose timeline was not only dying of unnatural causes, but would not be given the slim chance to recover by--you guessed it--the Ascians. They still have a bunch of Calamities left to deliver, and now they are behind schedule, and the survivors were barely able to survive, let alone try to stop them.

All of this is inference without textual support. I mean, I can tell you what I think of your headcanons, but I can't place them on the same level as canon without clear evidence that what you're surmising is true.

Emet-Selch was never put in the position of offering his son to Zodiark, just in the position of giving into the temptation of seeing "new life" as something other but a lesser mirror, only to have that feeling snatched away when his son died. Would he offer up his son? Probably. He wouldn't be the first hero in the game to sacrifice innocent lives.

The "doomed Black Rose" timeline lasted for hundreds of years after Black Rose originally spread, like every other Calamity. There has to be life to sacrifice for the Ascians' plan to work in the first place, unless you agree with the theory they were going to sacrifice trees and plants?

I mean, I'm glad you're enjoying challenging "misconceptions" about his actions, but you haven't convinced me, and you're not going to.

Yes, you're absolutely right. I guess I'll just have to console myself with the game agreeing with me RE: Emet-Selch's heroism instead, LOL.