FFXIV is just FFTA from the other perspective

[Lauront]

I completely agree with this.

But prepare yourself to be harangued by a number of people who remain convinced that 'good' and 'evil' are absolutes and that we represent the former whilst the Ascians are entirely the latter. Similarly Zodiark is entirely evil, according to them, whilst Hydaelyn is entirely good.

I wonder how much the writers regret using the darkness metaphor for the Ascians initially since it plays so much into the hands of the absolutists. I guess they did their best to show us 'Light as evil' in ShB but an age-old trope is still an age-old trope.

Indeed, that's how I see it too. Even with so much unknown, people are still grasping at ways for Zodiark to fit their definition of "evil" (and my take is that I don't think absolutist views make much sense in this respect). Although at this point I am still concerned they'll just reduce it to tempering, which is just another flavour of "zodiark bad", which would be a pity and require overly convenient excuses for Hydaelyn... assuming she did not temper.

To get more to the point, the theme of XIV thus far has not been one of accepting a harsh reality / truth over comfortable lies. It's mostly been about letting go of the past and moving forward, despite the pain that can bring; every antagonist is driven, on some level, by a past slight they refuse to let go of or forgive, while the main motivation of the protagonists is to create a better future for everyone.

One need look no further than Emet-Selch / Hades to see this; he is the culmination and (to a degree) final boss of the Hydaelyn / Zodiark conflict arc, driven entirely by his desire to recreate the past. He is called out on this by the protagonists at the climax of Shadowbringers and doesn't offer a rebuttal.

A rebuttal would be pointless, because it's true - it's more of a "so what?". His plan is explicitly to re-create the world of the past because they consider it so superior - someone brought up they seem to have no attachment to the ruins; well, yes, it's the world itself they want back. They clearly have no urge to just give up in favour of beings which are not equivalent to lives before the Sundering - his short story even shows a parallel in how he pitied the phoenix he snuffed out, and the mortal lives he's made an attempt to co-exist with but finds fragile and lacking. Up to the point Hythlodaeus recounts, you have the disagreement over whether the sacrificed should have been brought back (because it's only due to them the world even still exists), or should the new life be allowed to continue; that in turn led to the world being shattered. Perfectly understandable disagreement where you can have two sides take a different stance without the other necessarily being "evil". Certainly, from the perspective of the protagonists, the Ascians are an existential threat, and to the latter, the protagonists an obstacle in restoring their world.

Whatever the main point or theme of the story, they wrote it knowing that people would sympathise with one or another character, and that this would vary by personal perspective, as per Oda's comments during the JP fanfest. Possibly because they know it is in the nature of the beast (RPGs) that they will often offer up a choice between sides and perspectives, that their players will be accustomed to such an approach, even if it is not on offer here and whatever main theme there is.

The only real question is how does tempering affect them at this point, because if it strips them of their own motivations, it will all reduce to Zodiark's will/the usual Primal imperative... I still hope SE avoid that route as I'd find it rather lame.

I also wonder if they're going to pick up on the sundered state of the world being a threat to it in and of itself - Oda mentioned this makes it unstable, and it's clear it does even based on what we know, not to mention that it means the Source and its inhabitants are potentially weaker relative to all the other worlds which were not sundered (depending on what base level it started at.) There may be aspects to this we don't yet know, e.g. how it affects the Lifestream, the effect on these worlds of being seemingly hermetically sealed off from the rest of the universe and experiencing different passage of time, Hydaelyn's apparent inability to monitor what's going on within them, and so on.

After finishing the Shadowbrigners MSQ if this was a game where the player had branching choices like a lot of aRPGs I'd be joining the Ascians.

Same here.

That said, if it's all just down to tempering, I'll lose interest in the whole thing and wait for them to move onto something else. Of course, if they were writing it for such the type of game you mention, they would likely take a different approach, and who knows, maybe the current plotline will ultimately entail the end of not just one but both of the eldest of Primals...

[SannaR]

I want to say that Hydaelyn just recently has been unable to monitor what is going on due to something blocking her ability to take in aether and or slowing down the process. We learn this back when we go to the Antitower where we got told even before she saved us from Ultima Weapon that she had been fairly weak and that after she was so weak she had to ask Minfilia to become her voice. If Hydaelyn tempered anyone she sure seems to be unlike any other primal we know as so far her thing is to let all of the worlds go do their thing to the point where she seems totally fine with people not knowing she exists. I mean it's like I said we don't know when exactly Emet and the other 12 were tempered right after they summoned Zodiark or if it was some time afterwards. Which throws into question if their whole hey we want our friends back plan is theirs or if it's Zodiark manipulating them from the start just so he can get more aether. I would really like to believe that if the Ascians weren't causing all kinds of trouble we'd still have most of the worlds just going along acting like it's just another Tuesday. I say most because I'm not sure if the 13th shard was ever really stable since we have almost no info on how fast it got tipped too far and at what point did they realize their mistake.

[Elladie]

To reiterate the main point - which really does seem to be going unnoticed, or ignored, or something - no one is asking anyone to say 'wow the Ascians are the good guys after all!'.

People are merely pointing out that the 'good guys' are a matter of perspective. Both sides have done questionable things, motivated by goals that they sincerely believed in. Both sides seems to have adopted a belief that the end justifies the means. They are both as bad - or good - as each other, at least based on what we currently know.

Arguing that killing millions is tolerable because it's just the population of one planet, not 13, is ...well ...words escape me frankly ...

[RicaRuin]

Arguing that killing millions is tolerable because it's just the population of one planet, not 13, is ...well ...words escape me frankly ...

If that refers to the FFTA parallel, once again, nobody is truly killed. They are just transported to a dream world with changed memories and appearance and later transported back.

Edit: Ignore my point, just realised you were referring to the Source post 8th Calamity.

[Cilia]

To reiterate the main point - which really does seem to be going unnoticed, or ignored, or something - no one is asking anyone to say 'wow the Ascians are the good guys after all!'.

People are merely pointing out that the 'good guys' are a matter of perspective. Both sides have done questionable things, motivated by goals that they sincerely believed in. Both sides seems to have adopted a belief that the end justifies the means. They are both as bad - or good - as each other, at least based on what we currently know.

Arguing that killing millions is tolerable because it's just the population of one planet, not 13, is ...well ...words escape me frankly ...

Most people acknowledge that the game goes for a more morally complex storyline (i.e. there is no BBEG); pointing this out (again) seems somewhat redundant.

And when given a choice of damnations, most people will argue that the lesser of the two evils (from their perspective) is the better path. If the course of action taken by the protagonists is so objectionable, what would you suggest they do differently?

[Elladie]

Most people acknowledge that the game goes for a more morally complex storyline (i.e. there is no BBEG); pointing this out (again) seems somewhat redundant.

And when given a choice of damnations, most people will argue that the lesser of the two evils (from their perspective) is the better path. If the course of action taken by the protagonists is so objectionable, what would you suggest they do differently?

Thank you, Cilia, I think you see where I am coming from.

I don't suggest the protagonists do anything differently (if by protagonists you mean the WoL/WoD and the Scions). Alphinaud tries his hardest to find an alternative, bless him, almost right up to the last battle. But Hades really gives them no choice. They have to defeat him since there is no viable alternative.

What I do object to is the denial of the moral complexity, the demonisation of Emet Selch and Zodiark in particular, and the refusal to acknowledge the very real parallels between Emet and G'raha Tia

[Cilia]

Thank you, Cilia, I think you see where I am coming from.

I don't suggest the protagonists do anything differently (if by protagonists you mean the WoL/WoD and the Scions). Alphinaud tries his hardest to find an alternative, bless him, almost right up to the last battle. But Hades really gives them no choice. They have to defeat him since there is no viable alternative.

What I do object to is the denial of the moral complexity, the demonisation of Emet Selch and Zodiark in particular, and the refusal to acknowledge the very real parallels between Emet and G'raha Tia

I apologize if this comes across as patronizing to anyone but to differentiate:

The protagonist is the central character of a story. Their efforts to achieve some goal is what the story is about.

An antagonist is a character that stands in opposition to the protagonist. Their efforts go toward stymieing the protagonist.

A hero is, by modern ideals, someone who gives of themselves for others. Their goals typically center around aiding and protecting others, often at great personal cost.

A villain is someone who takes only for themselves. They don't care about what happens to other people so long as their desires are fulfilled.

Thus, the hero and protagonist role are not always one and the same, nor are the villain and antagonist role. To use the most blatant example from media this crowd is likely to be familiar with, let's look at the manga Death Note; the protagonist is a megalomaniac who uses a magical notebook that kills anyone whose name he writes in it to force his ideals onto the world, while the antagonist is a quirky but undeniably heroic detective tasked with stopping the protagonist once his actions become too high-profile... but the megalomaniac serial killer is still the protagonist, despite clearly being a villain.

It's rather easy to demonize Emet-Selch and the Ascians (though somewhat less so Zodiark), given what their actions lead to. Even if one does not consider Emet-Selch a villain (given his actions are driven by devotion to his people and homeland rather than pure personal desire and satisfaction), the mindset needed to consider his actions "good" is utterly alien. Most notably at one point he justifies the destruction and genocide he and his kind bring by dehumanizing the people killed as a consequence ("By my values you are not really alive, therefore I am not guilty of murder if I kill you," paraphrased). His goals may be sympathetic, but the actions Emet-Selch takes to realize those goals are so destructive to the current world(s) and their inhabitants it's impossible to consider him heroic even if you sympathize with him.

Even if one does not consider him a villain (and that's fair), Emet-Selch is still the main antagonist of Shadowbringers; his efforts are bent toward completing the 8th Calamity, something the protagonists (the Warrior of Light and Scions) are doing everything in their power to prevent. Vauthry serves as his heavy until the final act, but everything the protagonists need to stop or bring down can be traced back to Emet-Selch: Garlemald, Black Rose, the Sin Eaters, and Vauthry are all products (or byproducts) of his scheming to collapse shards and visit Calamities upon the Source. (To say nothing of Allag.)

Empathizing with Emet-Selch (and the rest of the Ascians) is fine - but do not forget that this is a guy who saw no value in extant life and personally collapsed two alternate realities, killing all of the people who lived in them as well as a great many people on the Source, all for the sake of nostalgia.

I don't really see any parallels between Emet-Selch and G'raha, other than their desire to right a perceived wrong and their affection for the Warrior of Light. Their methods of doing so are very different, and again play into the past / future theme in Shadowbringers: Emet-Selch wants the Warrior of Light to return to their past self (implicitly his friend mentioned in "Through His Eyes" and commonly believed to be the missing fourteenth member of the Amaurotine Conclave), G'raha's actions are bent toward giving their current self a future (as they originally died in the 8th Calamity). Emet-Selch also seeks to destroy what currently exists to do so, while G'raha instead spins a new fate from whole cloth. ("Go back to the way things were" vs. "forge a new path.")

[Palibun]

It's way more complicated than you're making it out to be

Ivalice was just a dream, and Marche knew that A. No one would die, and B. It was better not to live in a dream, even if it would hurt Mewt, his brother... and i guess Ritz even if her motivation was stupid.
Everyone in FFXIV is alive and well, Emet, while i dont think is 100% evil, is still killing people for a somewhat selfish goal. If anything Emet is more like Mewt, he wants to charge the world in his image and cant understand that whats happened happened.
Marche was doing the right thing where as Emet is misguided, big difference. The Ascians in general are pretty misguided, after all they kept killing themselves for Zodiark.

[Eggpop]

Snip because word limit ;_;

Please don't put words into my mouth. I'm not asking you to side with G'raha Tia either, but that equalizing Emet-Selch/Ascians and G'raha Tia/post 8th calamity people is simplifying the two sides under a blanket of 'moral relativism'. Those two are not equal, and having an opinion of viewing Ascians as the greater evil/villain does not mean people are biased towards one side and condone 'noble sacrifices'. With that said...

The biggest difference between the Ascians and the post 8th calamity Source is that latter at least had a population native to the Source making conscious decision to determine the fate of their world, while the former had 3 Ancients deciding the fates of thus far 7 worlds unknown to their population. Not only that, the post 8th calamity people acknowledged the weight of their decision involving countless present and potential lives living in their timeline, while the Ascians never held these causalities (of greater number) to the same level as they should have. And to reiterate, people of post 8th calamity made sacrifice towards the preservation of present and future lives of the Source and its surviving shards, while the Ascians will continue the death toll further to specifically bring back the Ancients that offered their aether to Zodiark, not their entire civilization (which didn't turned out to be as perfect as Emet-Selch wanted to remember them as).

The complexity of the Ascians, or Emet-Selch in particular, comes from their flawed human nature that drives them to perform horrendous acts, which we can sympathize with- not because of moral relativism. Continuing pointless deaths via instigating and encouraging conflicts, and intentionally unbalancing aether of each world to an unnatural catastrophic level; all of this allowed by the apparent Ascians' internal logic of racial superiority that grants them the rights and absolution of all moral consequences. Not once had G'raha Tia nor the post 8th calamity people ever made light of their action like the Ascians have, and the game itself makes this contrast clear.

Just to make it clear again, I also think death is still death no matter the cause. Anyway this is just my opinion, and it's perfectly fine to sympathize with the Ascians (because I do too). I just don't think using G'raha Tia and the post 8th calamity people as an argument against people who views Ascians as villains (which is fine too, btw) makes sense.

[Alleo]

Arguing that killing millions is tolerable because it's just the population of one planet, not 13, is ...well ...words escape me frankly ...

Yes depending on the situation some killing is more tolerable than others. People love to talk about nuance but nuance also includes that someone could still be mostly good while having to do hard choices which might not be perfectly great.

But lets look at the situation again (even though bringing up Graha in this discussion was off topic and has nothing to do with the OP)

Who was involved:

Ascians: The 13 people with 3 being the only ones from the old times that keep raising Ascians into the rank.
Graha Tia: Graha and an unknown amount of people. You like to pin the blame on him but he was only one of the unknown amount that decided to go through with the plan. He is the one traveling back but Cid and Nero only left plans. They did not leave a machine that Graha just has to start. And even just creating the plan needed a lot of ressources and help from people all over the world. 200 years later and in an still dieing world that would not have changed. So an unknown amount of people have agreed and worked on that plan. We simply dont know how many were behind it.

What would be the exchange:

Ascians: Death of billions of liveforms and the use of the souls of these people to maybe have the chance to save a few. They are ready to sacrifice all of us for a relative small number.
Graha Tia: The probably much smaller number of people still being alive in a dieing world 200 years later for a chance to stop the calamity thus saving a whole shard and their people and the millions of people that died directly thanks to black rose or in the years afterwards thanks to the conflict and the death soil. Also this would not sacrifice any souls.

What would the world be and could the goal be reached:

Ascians: With the 8th calamity they managed to create a world that was so bad that even 200 years later the people who had no contact with us decided that it was better that they would sacrifice themselves to change the past. Honestly I wonder if they had overdone it even. Yet with more and more calamities to rejoin the rest and the fight that would happen when they try to sacrifice the survivors, it would probably leave the world in a very bad state. Maybe this would even start another cycle of sacrifice. Its not even clear if this leads to their victory because there is a high chance that Zodiark was just using them and that their friends cant be saved. Leaving them behind on a liveless destroyed world with billions of death on their hand.

Graha Tia: If they succeed they save the planet from dieing thus it would be in a much better state. Life would continue on and the shards can still be saved from the Ascians because the WoL would still be alive to oppose them. If they fail and he cant save us then they would just kinda end were they are now and it imo would not get much worse.

Its also interesting how the Ascians use others for sacrifice while Graha Tia and the rest of his team were 100% ready to die for this cause. He is surprised that he still exist so he was fully ready to lay down his life for others. Him being there also could either mean that he is simply a paradox or that we created a new timeline and the old one would still exist.

There is also the big difference in behavior. The people did this do give everyone a chance at a good future. They sacrificed themselves and others for something which will in turn benefit more people, while the Ascians gleefully murder people for a much smaller amount of people that had sacrificed themselves willingly and who probably wont even be back. For that they are ready to sacrifice even the souls of reborn Ancient ones.

So yes Graha and a lot of other people made a hard decision that probably not everyone agreed with. But they did it to save more and in a situation where the world was still dieing and messed up. You cant really compare that to people that have killed billions over the years in the hope of getting a minority back that might leave the world in a bad state..and all while being tempered.

What I do object to is the denial of the moral complexity, the demonisation of Emet Selch and Zodiark in particular, and the refusal to acknowledge the very real parallels between Emet and G'raha Tia

Yes moral complexity exist, which is why I simply dont see the direct parallels between Emet and Graha. The subject is way more complex than to break it down to: both sacrificed people thus both are equally bad and the same. Heck I was even fine with the creation of Zodiark (until we probably find out why the 14th went away..maybe they had a better solution) and the sacrifices because it in a situation where its either total death or having most people die to at least give some a chance. The same with Hydealyn and her splitting the world (it was between that or all of the new life being used as battery..) and in that case even Graha and his team. Between a world that cant be saved to change it into something that might bring a better future for those living on it. These are similar.

But the rest of the actions? Not so much. The Ancient survived, they had a whole and healthy world. They could have rebuilt and repopulated the world again (seeing how they are kinda immortal). This is what the people sacrificed themselves for. Instead it was not enough..the Ascians were (against the wish of quite some of the surviving Ancients) not fine with it and were ready to destroy the new life. There was no need for this, no danger of the world being destroyed. This was not something good for the majority...and this was at a time where everyone still had a whole soul..so they cant even use that horrible argument to make it not like murder..thats why people imo rightfully see the the Ascians including Emet Selch as the bad guys. Because these handful of people clung so much to the past (or maybe because of their tempering) that even after surviving a calamity and having their world reborn they needed more sacrifice..stomping on the wishes of those that gave their life before that.

Its not surprising that a lot of us would not just accept all of those sacrifices, gleefully done over the ages just because they cant get over their grief..Even until the Emet never shows regret. I am quite sure that someone like that in our world would count as evil.