*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[Lurina]

Yes, absolutely. You can argue that as 'it's because she won', or that it's because we ended up benefiting from it, and yes, neither of those are wrong.

But the main evidence I put forward on this one is that Emet-Selch comes back from the literal dead and says that her plan worked and his wouldn't have. If you want an unbiased, in-universe testimony as to the relative strengths of both plans, that's the best you'll find: that the guy pushing the other plan, when liberated from the shackles of his own life and granted effective omniscience on specifically this subject, directly says that hers was better, even if he's still mad about it.

I keep being told that Emet-Selch always told the truth. So presumably his words have a lot of weight, and in his final moments, he put them on her side.

EDIT: ...Ironically, that does provide an answer for the topic title. We did join Emet, it's just that we weren't the one crossing the floor.

I think people have started to overhype Emet's 'agreement' with Venat in that scene a bit. He says that his plan wouldn't have taken humanity to Ultima Thule. He also says that he still disagrees with Hydaelyn and that he stands by his actions, with quite a bit more emphasis than the former sentiment.

Admitting a plan is effective at accomplishing its ultimate objective isn't the same as endorsement. If someone rounded up everyone with a criminal record in a city and shot them, then you could certainly say that other means wouldn't have been as effective at preventing crime, but I doubt you'd agree with it. Emet would evidently prioritize the survival of the Ancients and trusting some future generation to solve the Final Days problem another way, over a definitive resolution at the total expense of his people.

[Cleretic]

I think people have started to overhype Emet's 'agreement' with Venat in that scene. He says that his plan wouldn't have taken humanity to Ultima Thule. He also says that he still disagrees with Hydaelyn and that he stands by his actions.

Honestly, the thing is that there's two arguments being had, and it's never entirely clear which one any one person is having.

1. If Hydaelyn was factually wrong, that her plan was flawed and bad and she should've gone back to the drawing board.

2. If Hydaelyn was morally wrong, that her plan made her perform an evil act that cannot be forgiven.

...except that, in truth, point 1 is not actually in contention according to the story itself. It's made clear in no uncertain terms that her plan worked and no others would have, and that scene with Emet is part of that. The argument of 'was she right to do it' is the intended and still open point of debate, and is an interesting one when taken as it's supposed to be, but because of a number of people--to be completely frank--not actually reading the story they said they finished, or just flat-out trying to pick fights, it gets difficult to have that discussion because it's not clear when we're having it versus when we're dealing with someone who's decided they can outsmart the story itself.

I'm tired, in all honesty. I love talking lore, but over the past month-and-a-half a lot of 'talking lore' has been focused on a single part of the story and people not really getting it. I really want us all to just... move on, but it isn't exactly happening very fast.

[Lyth]

If the future doesn't suffice, how about the past? When Azem tells Emet about the future in Poieten Oikos, even then he has the clarity to describe his future self as a 'megalomaniacal madman.' What's probably most deeply upsetting for Emet was that he instantly recognizes how easily he could become that selfsame monster down the road out of a sense of duty to his brethren.

The reason why we killed Emet was not because our society and culture was intrinsically superior to his, but because we wanted to survive. The people that he loved were in the past. Ours are in the present. This was the central point of Shadowbringers. It's heartbreaking rewatching the scene where Azem impales him on Bravura. But he still needed to be stopped, and given a second chance, I don't think that either would have wavered from their course.

[Lurina]

Honestly, the thing is that there's two arguments being had, and it's never entirely clear which one any one person is having.

1. If Hydaelyn was factually wrong, that her plan was flawed and bad and she should've gone back to the drawing board.

2. If Hydaelyn was morally wrong, that her plan made her perform an evil act that cannot be forgiven.

I'm not sure how this connects with my post, because I wasn't arguing either of these. I was just saying that your read of Emet saying her plan "was better" was reductive, because the opinion he expresses is that it was effective at its specific goal but still unacceptable to him. This is completely distinct from any commentary on other characters or the story itself.

I guess you might've seen it before the edit and got the wrong idea; sorry about that if so.

[MikkoAkure]

Emet would evidently prioritize the survival of the Ancients and trusting some future generation to solve the Final Days problem another way, over a definitive resolution at the total expense of his people.

If Emet-Selch wanted the Ancients back, then he would have let Elidibus finish the Rejoinings instead of directly interfering and allowing us to permanently kill him.

[Jandor]

I think people have started to overhype Emet's 'agreement' with Venat in that scene a bit. He says that his plan wouldn't have taken humanity to Ultima Thule. He also says that he still disagrees with Hydaelyn and that he stands by his actions, with quite a bit more emphasis than the former sentiment.

He says: 'Our methods would not have brought mankind this far.'

[Nilroreo]

Yes, absolutely. You can argue that as 'it's because she won', or that it's because we ended up benefiting from it, and yes, neither of those are wrong.

But the main evidence I put forward on this one is that Emet-Selch comes back from the literal dead and says that her plan worked and his wouldn't have. If you want an unbiased, in-universe testimony as to the relative strengths of both plans, that's the best you'll find: that the guy pushing the other plan, when liberated from the shackles of his own life and granted effective omniscience on specifically this subject, directly says that hers was better, even if he's still mad about it.

I keep being told that Emet-Selch always told the truth. So presumably his words have a lot of weight, and in his final moments, he put them on her side.

Thats fair, But I will clarify that my gripe was never directed towards Hydaelyn's actions, it's directed at the writers. Unlike most characters throughout this story, she had the privilege of hiding behind the games central theme and using it to vindicate her actions. We're unironically led to believe that Life when devoid of hardship is bound for oblivion one way or another because the game says so. We make parallels between the Ra-La guys and the ancients and say "You see those guys? that's what the ancients will become if left to their own devices" because the game says so.

When Emet says they couldn't have gotten this far, sure we can take him at his word, despite the fact that things have only ever escalated as far as they have because of lack of foresight on their part. Hydaelyn never told the ancients what the true cause of the final days were but no need to concern ourselves with what could've been, after all, the ancients were likely bound for oblivion anyways because that's what the game wanted us to believe. IMO, It's perfectly reasonable to assume that Emet after having been brought back to life likely having regained his memories from KH would be furious that a friend would abandon her own people out of fear that one guy would've refused to help, or that the convocation would've supposedly dismissed her claims (as if she'd have a reason to lie about something like that), despite him investigating Hermes after being warned of him by us, a complete stranger.

I'm honestly impressed that after the efforts ShB made towards shedding light at the true nature of this conflict and injecting some much-needed nuance into the Ancients/Ascians endeavors, EW would just strip that all away to leave us with the notion that their survival would've been detrimental for everyone involved, Including themselves. Even ARR with its borderline one dimensional villains managed to formulate a more compelling consequence for the alliance's decision to stand against the Garleans and not strictly frame it as the singular "right" decision.

[Lurina]

If the future doesn't suffice, how about the past? When Azem tells Emet about the future in Poieten Oikos, even then he has the clarity to describe his future self as a 'megalomaniacal madman.' What's probably most deeply upsetting for Emet was that he instantly recognizes how easily he could become that selfsame monster down the road out of a sense of duty to his brethren.

You should watch the scene again. What he finds objection to isn't the morality of his actions, it's his escapist instability and self-destructive behavior at the end of Shadowbringers, where he undermines his own plans out of love for the Warrior of Light by inviting them to his underwater lair, and that he'd disrespect his loved ones by creating simulacrums of them. The idea that he'd wane in his dedication to his duty.

He says outright: "But I would never forsake my duty! I would never forsake my brethren!"

If Emet-Selch wanted the Ancients back, then he would have let Elidibus finish the Rejoinings instead of directly interfering and allowing us to permanently kill him.

This is also a little reductive. There are a lot of ways you interpret the moment at the end of 5.3. It could be that his love for Azem specifically surpasses the rest of the Ancients, and he chooses to save them over loyalty to his cause. It could be that he realizes that the plan is doomed without him and wants to put Elidibus out of his misery rather than condemning him to suffer on completely alone. It could be that, even if he still would have done things differently, he believes that by defeating him and holding the convictions they do so strongly, the Warrior of Light has earned a chance to create a different future.

That third idea is emphasized in his final lines in Endwalker, where he accepts that you have won and therefore the world belongs to you, but that he will never let go of his ideals and belief in the future he wanted to create.

He says: 'Our methods would not have brought mankind this far.'

Yeah, I know. I was just paraphrasing in saying he admits that his plan would not have given mankind this chance to defeat Meteion.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Really? The fact that we went back to Elpis to begin with, by making us directly experience a slice of ancient society makes those people and their culture more a tangible reality and less an abstract concept. This "humanisation" of the ancients by making them real characters gives the human cost of the sundering an interactable face. What's the Stalin quote, One death is a tragedy but a million is a statistic, by making us interact with the ancients it turns a statistic into a tragedy, after all isn't that what your arguing, that its a tragedy?

Hydaelyn/Venat even outrights tells us, in our conversation in the aetherial sea, that what she did wasn't morally right decision, wasn't an ethical action but that it was a necessary one. Now you can argue that of course she would say that, she needed to say that to make us do what she wanted and fair enough, but she still admits her actions weren't morally right but were necessary. That is one definition of morally grey, doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.

In the end that is the problem, not moral ambiguity, but that, as far as I can tell, you and others like you don't see it as a necessary act and therefore only see an "evil" individual not being brought to justice.

Edit: This doesn't mean your not allowed to have your opinion, just that for some people the game hasn't done enough to justify Venat's actions.

The problem people have though is that, although venat herself what she did wasn’t just or good or what have you, the narrative paints that in a very different light and paints her as some benevolent hero meanwhile actual benevolent heroes who did what they could to help get 0 recognition.

[OhNooo]

If someone rounded up everyone with a criminal record in a city and shot them, then you could certainly say that other means wouldn't have been as effective at preventing crime, but I doubt you'd agree with it.

This got me to thinking about Minority Report and that whole deal of "you're going to commit a crime in the future so I'm gonna put you down now." I feel like I've been hearing that sort of thing a lot especially in the Dead Ends dungeon where people like to say the ancients would've ended up like the star without strife. It doesn't sit well with me at all to say "well you're gonna end up like this other planet so I'm going to judge you right now." What's to stop anyone from disapproving of the way any society lives and taking matters into their own hands? Judging you because you just don't have just the right amount of suffering needed to not focus on the meaning of life so much that you want to die (because you're too busy paying bills and taking care of your family to contemplate it?). That means that anyone can look at a society and find them lacking, and as long as that person ends up winning in the end, then it doesn't matter what suffering that society goes through in the end.

Also the time travel elements really made me feel like we basically had no choice in anything. We were always gonna go back in time and everything was always gonna end up where it is now. So then if everything is fated to happen, we really are just puppets.