Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic

[Alleo]

Hmm, I was more saying that the WoDs didnt do the whole 'torture' thing to the Kobolds themselves, but then I realised the only reason we knew Garuda was being summoned at Xelphatol was because Alisaie listened in, otherwise the WoD would have killed her silently, and may have indeed done this multiple times to the the other tribes w/o getting the Eorzean Alliance to notice, so I can concede the Ga Bu point to you.

Then we are responsible for every single summoning too because we do defeat their gods which surely does make them fear us.

If they are at fault even though we do not see this ingame then Limsa is at fault for Ga Bu too. Since they were the first to go against their established peace.

About Emet: Does he really actively look for another path? He gives us a final test and we do it. And yet its still not enough. I doubt he truly ever gave the people a chance. He was biased against them from the very start and I have a hard time seeing him being truly genuie here. He probably has such high standards that people simply cant achieve. Is that fair? I can be somehwere and give people a challenge they simply cant win and afterwards voice my disappointment over them but I never really gave them a chance either. Also lets not forget that he was tempered. Was it ever even possible for him to stray from his path?

The difference to Ardbert accepting it or not is for me: They were still able to save them. I could agree more if the flood already made another "void" out of it and they were just doing it even though its too late (kinda like the Ascians). But the shard was still there, people were still fighting. It was not a lost cause. That is the difference imo. If they came and said that it was over and they would still force a rejoining then I would call them out exactly like I do the Ascians. But their path was different to them.

And again I am not even saying that their first actions were good. No if they had stayed the way and never been in shadowbringers I would count them more towards tragic enemies. But it was their actions afterwards that puts them above Emet and his Ascians.

[Lersayil]

About Emet: Does he really actively look for another path? He gives us a final test and we do it. And yet its still not enough. I doubt he truly ever gave the people a chance. He was biased against them from the very start and I have a hard time seeing him being truly genuie here. He probably has such high standards that people simply cant achieve. Is that fair? I can be somehwere and give people a challenge they simply cant win and afterwards voice my disappointment over them but I never really gave them a chance either. Also lets not forget that he was tempered. Was it ever even possible for him to stray from his path?

Just to chirp in: its never quite explicitly stated, but he gives us multiple tests during our travels. We fail some, pass some, and by the end we collected enough brownie points with him to pose us his final test: killing him.

If we didn't he could've just never confront us in Amaurot.

[Brinne]

SNIP

We don't go out of our way to make the Beast Tribes suffer with the goal of making more and more Primals. We don't directly cooperate with people who are looking to drive them to their likely deaths by triggering a Calamity. You could question some of our methods, and what we choose to expend our energy towards in trying to help, but let me put it to you this way:

When Ga Bu went insane with grief, screaming for his parents, and that grief summoned Titan? That is exactly what Ardbert and co. wanted to happen, exactly what they wanted to MAKE happen. The precise outcome they wanted.

And trust me, I'm happy to throw in my agreement that Limsa is also responsible for Ga Bu and sucks thoroughly. I mean, if you really want me to, I can rant at length about that too!

I'm honestly sort of baffled at the question of "did Emet actually look for another path" because, again, that is literally his entire arc in Shadowbringers. The entire thing, every second of his screentime, up until we fail to contain the final Lightwarden. I am really at a loss as to how one would miss that the entire twist presented with Emet's character - because the entire cast never once trusts him, always thinks he's suspicious, always assumes he's probably trying to lie and manipulate - is that actually, he was completely sincere the entire time in wanting to cooperate and find another way. It's stated! Like! In black and white! In the text! There is no other way to explain his actions once we see what he's capable of and what he can do. He could have never bothered with any of it, never bothered talking to us, helping with Y'shtola and giving us information - just let things play out, and he would have won. You can argue that his standards might have been unfair for whatever reason - Emet is a conflicted character who simultaneously wants contradictory things - but he had a big scene where he is literally having a furious meltdown on Mt. Gulg about how he truly wanted to believe in us!

Emet's actions in giving us a chance, over and over, is what led directly to his death. You know, the death scene where he accepted the outcome graciously. If he had just left things alone - both in general and in inviting us to Amaurot - or if he HAD just gone ahead and killed us outright, which he shows he was more than capable of, everything would have been perfect for him. But because he was internally conflicted and faltered, he gave us the tools to eventually destroy him.

Maybe there's "doubt", because Emet seems cast in the position of villain because he ends up opposed to us, because once again, it is comforting to us to think that that there was never any chance for reconciliation, that he was always just messing with us, that he was just acting in bad faith, there was no chance to win him over, no point in doubting or considering the humanity of our enemy. I have to reiterate again that the entire point of Shadowbringers, stated outright, is driving in that that is not true, and it is destructive to give into the temptation to think like that, even if you still do what you have to do.

The Ascians do not believe their cause is a lost cause any more than Ardbert and the others did - they believe LESS, because they truly believe they are fighting for the lives of their loved ones and the world to flourish, whereas Ardbert and crew understood that no matter how many people they killed, their world would stay dead - and that their cause is "a lost one" versus anyone else's to save a situation that seems hopeless is an inference/assumption from your part that has nothing to do with what motivates the characters in-universe.

And once again the only reason they "didn't stay the way" they were in HW is because they literally had a Deus ex Machina thrown at them that Emet was not lucky enough to have. You are saying that the Warriors of Darkness are morally superior because they had opportunities, out of sheer luck and good fortune, that others did not. That's very, very iffy to me.

[Puksi]

he was completely sincere the entire time in wanting to cooperate and find another way.

"Angel Of Truth", of course he was sincere, by his terms. He had a track record of leaving out little details.

"Another way" for him still involved the same tactics the Ascians had been employing the entire time, the tactics we were fighting against. The ultimate path was not changed. If the WoL and party had passed the test but refused to agree with the Rejoining, Emet-Selch plainly stated he would kill us. Literally nothing would change his path, he was just offering us a chance to join the slaughter. If anything he seemed fixed on getting his former friend to come back to the fold, which may have been sympathetic were he not above killing them (again) if they did not. At no time was this a matter of "prove yourself, and we will spare the rest of the shards and fade". The Ascians still fully intended on adding to the body count. "Agree with me or I'll kill you" really isn't sympathetic--and agreeing with him, ultimately, was the only way we would be found worthy.

For speculation, if he is Tempered to have no true free will of his own and is compelled to take this course and no other, then that is some next-level tragedy on top of Amaurot. (there was a theory floating around that the Auracite somehow UNtempered him right before his death that was particularly sad.)

The thing is, no one I have responded to here wants it that way. They don't want him to have a fake will, and maybe fake personality, like he's already wearing a body not his own. For Emet-Selch to be Tempered is pitiful, it's a copout, it's a "bitter, broken binary". They want him to have chosen to do these things with a clear mind, and maybe even without remorse because it's really not wrong in the first place somehow--in fact, it's "heroic". I don't recall the WoD narrative, especially with Ga Bu, being framed as forgivable or right by any means, the writers even made sure to frame the Elder Kobold himself as horrifying for going that far, and Merlwyb has repeatedly been called out for the Lominsans' dealings with the Kobolds in general (including by Varis, of all people). The OMG story was presented as a heavy, desperate gambit, not heroism either, though the writer framed it as Omega learning what hope for the future is. The game is also pretty clear in framing the Ascians' methods as wrong, and regardless of the motivation or however sympathetic it may be, they needed to be stopped. What Vauthry was doing was wrong, that's why we had to stop HIM, regardless of the fact Emet-Selch created him for that purpose.

The difference there is one is heavily implied by the game to have had no real choice--why did the narrative stress "corruption" and "creating", and why would Yoshi-P (and Y'shtola if I recall) use the term "controlled", if all Emet-Selch did was give a "gift" to a free-willed individual (unborn baby) to run with?--and posters here want the other one to be COMPLETELY in control. Yet the one who may be without free will is the evil one doing evil deeds, while Emet-Selch not only did NOTHING wrong, what he did was "heroic", though he did the same things and more, far more times, and on a much grander scale.

I pointed out a long way back that Thordan and the Heaven's Ward had goals they believed they were right in also, for Ishgard's sake. But the game never implied they were right in their methods, or should not be stopped, and they certainly were never called "heroic" for it. I maintain Square needed to be a little more specific with that term. Hero to the Unsundered? Surely, though for some reason the term was never used for Lahabrea and the rest. Hero to the Ancients? Not all of them, no. Hero to the countless people the Ascians have murdered? Why would he be? Hero to our WoL, who has lost so much in their pitiless games? Again, why? Are they implying his methods are heroic? Then why does the entire framework of the story revolve around how they are not?

And I will say again, no one is saying villains can't be enjoyed, no one is saying their motivations can't be sympathetic. But you don't have to excuse their actual actions to do that.

[Avidria]

You know, thinking about it, I have a different reason I don't really see Emet as a hero. Or heck, why I don't even really want to.

You know what I felt like this expansion did for the Ascians? Who were previously almost exclusively evil villains bent on destroying us for uhh (evil) reasons I guess?

It humanized them.

Emet-Selch, at the end of the day, is a man. He's a flawed man who's suffered horrible things, been through more than anyone should ever have to, and who's done absolutely horrible things for a cause he felt was just at a cost he felt was justified. He didn't see himself as the Villain beyond playing the role to us, and I don't think he saw himself as a hero either - or not the traditional glorious kind of hero if he did. He wanted his perfect world back, a world that was better than this one, a world that didn't need the likes of us *heroes* who'd disappointed him again and again to keep it held together.

He wasn't just the Villain. He was a *person.* And that's what I loved about him.

That's how my WoL would remember him.

[tokinokanatae]

SNIP

It is sort of a fun question, isn't it? How does the game define "being a hero" and how do we slot into the equation as compared to other heroic figures, like Ardbert or G'raha--or Emet-Slech, though I know you choose not to define him as such.

Like Elladie said before about enjoying Emet-Selch while not necessarily being "pro-Ascian", I was thinking about what that means as far as the game as a whole goes.

The Amaurotines are almost universally gentle and thoughtful, while still managing to run a gamut of unique personalities. They're not the typical "lofty immortals" or "innocent children" achetypes we tend get when it comes to lost civilizations. They feel like "us" but with the bad bits sort of sanded off, for lack of a better term. (I don't think it's a design coincidence that they live in what appears to us to be a modern city either.)

So, when Emet talks about "a better way", I agree that he's not talking about stopping the Ardor in any way, shape, or form--except in removing the violent aspects. What if all of us could just--for example--go to sleep one day and wake up in what's fundamentally paradise? Part of the reason I'm not really pro-Ascian either is the sheer breadth and cruelty of their plan, but if you can remove that aspect then is it still "wrong"?

It's interesting, because we can see from Through His Eyes that while Emet-Selch can be viciously hateful, he also has a sense of empathy that I find difficult to match in another NPC (Nanamo, perhaps?). Hell, halfway through his invective-laden speech to us as we fail to contain the Light, he pauses and you can see him reach out in the way that would spell his own doom, offering us a place to turn "with dignity". I'm sure he meant that in good faith, too.

It's fascinating to think about what that empathy could be like without all the trauma he experienced. I think Emet-Selch might have the most "heroic" base personality of any other character in the game, were he not twisted by that suffering.

[Brinne]

It is sort of a fun question, isn't it? How does the game define "being a hero" and how do we slot into the equation as compared to other heroic figures, like Ardbert or G'raha--or Emet-Slech, though I know you choose not to define him as such.

Yeah, I think that's a key piece of the puzzle that's missing and leads to confused conversations about the issue of Emet being labelled a "hero." What does "hero" actually mean, in the context of FFXIV?

I can talk at length about the horrible things he's done, and even how outright cruel he can be particularly in moments of triumph, but fundamentally, I think the game presents to us is that whatever awful things Ardbert, G'raha, and Emet (and ourselves!) have done, it is fundamentally not for themselves. In spite of the gloating and taunting, I don't doubt that Ardbert took absolutely no pleasure in hurting and killing the people of the Source - it probably did make him feel sick - but he felt that he had to, because he had sworn to protect the people of his world. He could not abandon them. He refused to abandon them.

Emet, I think, is largely the same. (Number, perhaps, to the idea of causing pain because of what he's been through, but as he demonstrated through Shadowbringers, not completely numb.) It's interesting that I see a lot of discussion that, consciously or unconsciously, frames his core motivations as basically selfish - "he wants his loved ones back, he can't get over the past." I think that's absolutely an emotional factor, but it's not the primary driving factor, either.

Emet does these horrible things, but he is driven by a sense of duty - he is basically a selfless person. We see through his characterization that he is TIRED, what he does is described as a "terrible burden"; the game references his actions as "not forsaking his duty" or "his peoples' hopes and dreams", and the Minstrelling Wanderer heavily implies that, if it comes down for his own sake, Emet mostly just had a death wish. But he still fought with absolutely everything he had and then some, to his agony, to save the people who were depending on him.

In that sense, even beyond the general idea of "advancing his peoples' cause", I can accept Emet as a hero. He suffered for the sake of his people and worked himself to the death for them. What was actually motivating him in the end, stripping everything else away (and yes, so much of that is awful) - was a desire to save people who deserved to be saved.

It's fascinating to think about what that empathy could be like without all the trauma he experienced. I think Emet-Selch might have the most "heroic" base personality of any other character in the game, were he not twisted by that suffering.

The game demonstrating Emet's capacity for empathy and sympathy towards people that he tries to actively and forcefully tell himself he should feel nothing but disgust for adds so much to his story and why he was such a striking character to so many people, and I think it leads to part of why it's hard to reconcile, if he sincerely felt and was capable of those things, why he still chose to cut us down. Well, that's why he's paralleled with people like Ardbert and G'raha, and why we're presented with such a sympathetic, heartrending depiction of Amaurot - and still make the choice to leave them to their fates.

I think there's a ton to be said about Emet's internal complexes about heroes and villains and how he cannot stop talking about it throughout his Shadowbringers arc - I agree that he doesn't see himself as a hero, but he's genuinely upset at being cast as a villain, too, and he wrestles in general with the concept of heroes, period.

It's another interesting parallel to Ardbert and G'raha - G'raha who talks about how he dreamt of being a hero like in the stories he read as a child, but realized it was impossible for him, and Ardbert's bitter talk about "this world has had its fill of heroes" and Emet's bitter line about "my world will have no need of heroes" ("There were never any heroes," in Japanese). I think the game is, on top of many other things, asking us to define what heroism actually means instead of taking it as a given.

[Fynlar]

I'm honestly sort of baffled at the question of "did Emet actually look for another path" because, again, that is literally his entire arc in Shadowbringers. The entire thing, every second of his screentime, up until we fail to contain the final Lightwarden. I am really at a loss as to how one would miss that the entire twist presented with Emet's character - because the entire cast never once trusts him, always thinks he's suspicious, always assumes he's probably trying to lie and manipulate - is that actually, he was completely sincere the entire time in wanting to cooperate and find another way. It's stated! Like! In black and white! In the text! There is no other way to explain his actions once we see what he's capable of and what he can do. He could have never bothered with any of it, never bothered talking to us, helping with Y'shtola and giving us information - just let things play out, and he would have won. You can argue that his standards might have been unfair for whatever reason - Emet is a conflicted character who simultaneously wants contradictory things - but he had a big scene where he is literally having a furious meltdown on Mt. Gulg about how he truly wanted to believe in us!

Never bought this, by the way, regardless of how he tried to sell it. Still don't. He came across as just that little bit too excited, too eager to see us fail in the end, for me to truly believe he ever wanted us to succeed. If that was really what he wanted, he could have gone about it far better, and far more believably.

[Just-Communication]

Good discussion. (where are the spoiler tags?)

Just want to put down some observations. From what little I remember of the time spent in Amaurot, the city and society gave me the impression of being driven by calculation and logic. Or, if I were to describe it in a single word, cold. Speaking with the NPCs and reading their bubble text made me feel like something was off and I think it had to do with what I can only describe as a lack of emotion. Not heartless, mind you, but the general idea that all can be resolved with calm, rational discourse.

Granted we only saw a very tiny segment of society but the closest comparison I can think of is if it were a community of scientists focused on personal development and research. Placing greater import on sound experimentation, qualitative data and results of trial and error versus being driven by base urges, bias or moral indignation stemming from illogical thought processes.

I think the storytellers were trying to make this very clear. For example, there was a quest that had you test a creation meant for children. It produced these blobs that attacked you and, after dispensing with them, the quest giver expresses surprise at the outcome but there was no indication of remorse, shock or guilt that it could have endangered the children.

Or that instance where they had conjured up a creature that just flew around bashing its head against the walls. It reminded me of that Jurassic Park dialogue where the character points out that they're so busy trying to see if they can do something they don't stop to ask whether they should do it.

That is the kind of society I saw and that Emet-Selch comes from. If it can be rationalized, then it is worth doing or trying, regardless of the morality of those actions - my guess being morals tend to have more to do with feeling than cold, hard facts. Given this presentation I feel less of a connection with their society versus, say, Ardbert and the First or G'raha and his timeline. I am inclined to believe we are meant to be disturbed by it.

While it can be said that Emet-Selch was driven by duty, the same could also be said of those who opposed his vision of the future, whose actions I presume led to the formation of Hydaelyn. The NPC we speak to in Amaurot who somehow deduced that not all was as it seemed and that Emet-Selch was involved - if this is the same individual that Emet briefly envisioned when the WoL was joined by other champions, then I would argue that they, too, were driven by a sense of duty.

By extension, we, the supposed champions of Hydaelyn, are the torchbearers of their legacy and, despite being only a fraction of what the inhabitants of Amaurot used to be, exhibit surprising potential when working together. To me it's not about good or evil or whether Emet should be considered a hero; we are two sides of the same coin - products of decisions, driven by our own needs and desires.

While the story played out as an epic battle, if everything that transpired was simply a hypothetical debate between two associates in Amaurot, then I believe, at the very end, Emet-Selch would realize he had lost the argument. Possibly to forces that cannot be explained by logic and reason alone.

[MrThinker]

Good discussion. (where are the spoiler tags?)

Spoiler tags are denoted by [ hb] and [ /hb] without the spaces.

While it can be said that Emet-Selch was driven by duty, the same could also be said of those who opposed his vision of the future, whose actions I presume led to the formation of Hydaelyn. The NPC we speak to in Amaurot who somehow deduced that not all was as it seemed and that Emet-Selch was involved - if this is the same individual that Emet briefly envisioned when the WoL was joined by other champions, then I would argue that they, too, were driven by a sense of duty.

In regards to this specific NPC:

The real Hythlodaeus was once a very close friend of Emet-Selch, enough so that Emet would be able to more accurately reconstruct him among the countless other Ancients. It has been confirmed by the Banri Oda, the head of the Lore team, that Hythlodaeus and the person Emet briefly sees in us are 2 different people.