FFXIV is just FFTA from the other perspective

[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.")