Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[Tehmon]

Let's be real, humankind would never meet whatever requirements Emet required of them, making all of his tests just means of coping and justification, keeping him on his massmurdering path to bring back his world and his people. WoL being able to hold in all the light was a completely illogical nonsense test as well that Emet probably knew WoL would fail. And even if it hadn't, ultimately there was no reason for the scions and the WoL to ever assist him in anything. Emet said so himself, if they wouldn't become allies, they would be killed (unless I'm remembering wrong). Either way, Emet revealing that after the rejoinings all the people left would be sacrificed nonetheless just proves that there was no alliance to be had with Emet/the ascians. Even Endwalker-Emet says it pretty clearly: '' the future you seek is not the past we loved '', thus making it very clear that it was never about whether the people would prove themselves worthy, but that they wanted the past and it's people back, not a new race of powerful people. At least, that is my interpretation.

Regardless, I can believe that Emet did feel awful about his actions, but ultimately none of his grievances or woes would matter in the long run. His path was chosen no matter how hard he tried to stray... but then one has to wonder about the final fight versus Emet, if it was Emet knowingly being sloppy, careless and needlessly antagonistic because he didn't want continue anymore and needed WoL to bring him down for good. Either way, he had nothing to lose at that point. Either kill WoL for good and continue bringing back your world, or get defeated and finally get put to rest, potentially knowing that the future isn't it god awful hands in the end.

Was it a battle of WoL and Emet, or the battle of the Emets? The Emet who is tired and just wants to quit, and the Emet who wants his people and world back no matter the cost.

[Brinne]

Let's be real, humankind would never meet whatever requirements Emet required of them, making all of his tests just means of coping and justification, keeping him on his massmurdering path to bring back his world and his people. WoL being able to hold in all the light was a completely illogical nonsense test as well that Emet probably knew WoL would fail.

Even if all the textual interviews put forth that, again, he was really trying in good faith to believe in humanity, but was simply betrayed over and over every time he tried, aren't enough for you - this falls apart when, like, the premise of our victory over him IS that humanity met his requirements, and finally passed his tests. Emet-Selch destroyed the white auracite and maintained his selfhood in the Aetherial Sea. He didn't have to accept defeat at the end of The Dying Gasp. He did, because he finally felt like we had passed. The question of "can the WoL contain the light" isn't nonsense when you understand Emet's concern about humanity having both the morality, sense of responsibility, and the base capability to protect the Star. Emet does not know the cause of the Final Days. For all he knows, it could start again at any moment. Even if they had the will, would the Sundered humanity be capable of powering Zodiark or something like him? This is important to him.

Also, Emet is literally contemptuously beating himself up for believing in us after Innocence:

I put my faith in you. Let myself believe that you could contain the light.

This is consistent with nuances that can probably only be noticed in hindsight, like his flash of a sincere smile when the Warrior of Light returns safely from eating a Lightwarden.

And even if it hadn't, ultimately there was no reason for the scions and the WoL to ever assist him in anything.

I would hope, from a "heroic" perspective, that the reason would be: find a nonviolent solution to a tragic conflict that would hopefully save all the people Emet wants to save, that prior to speaking with him we didn't realize were in a Need To Be Saved state, without hurting anyone else. Seems like a pretty good reason to me, if we understand that was Emet's ideal dream outcome as well.

Either way, Emet revealing that after the rejoinings all the people left would be sacrificed nonetheless just proves that there was no alliance to be had with Emet/the ascians.

Yes, after we failed the test, and he didn't see any other recourse (if the WoL didn't manage to put him down in his phantom Amaurot) but to go ahead with the original plan that he'd spent the entire expansion trying to find an alternative for.

Even Endwalker-Emet says it pretty clearly: '' the future you seek is not the past we loved '', thus making it very clear that it was never about whether the people would prove themselves worthy, but that they wanted the past and it's people back, not a new race of powerful people. At least, that is my interpretation.

The context of this quote is him accepting the validity of the future the WoL seeks and that, nonetheless, he himself doesn't belong there or want to be there. This is contingent, inherently, on his acceptance of the outcome - which he states, just prior to this line you quoted. He accepts the outcome, and doesn't intend to challenge it further.

Regardless, I can believe that Emet did feel awful about his actions, but ultimately none of his grievances or woes would matter in the long run. His path was chosen no matter how hard he tried to stray....

I would say they wound up critically mattering, because Emet's wavering and waffling set up almost all of the conditions for his defeat (and therefore the Ascians') in Shadowbringers. None of the actual actions he took within the entire expansion did anything except eventually contribute to his own death. Again, this is the fundamental point of the character and his role in Shadowbringers. You can do what the WoL did: accept the situation for what it is and do what you have to do, but refuse to look away from it as the "great and terrible thing" it is, recognizing the humanity of your opponents and still showing kindness and compassion to them where you are able - or you can do what Emet did, which is Cope Hard, tell yourself their cause was less worthy anyway, they're objectively worse people so it's fine (which leads to a spiral of being capable of more and more cruelties) - or you can go even further than even Emet, the good old "well, clearly, they're so Other that attempting to reason with or see humanity in them to begin with is pointless."

[thegreatonemal]

Your entire argument hinges on this new approach being nonviolent with the rejonings. That is not correct. He does not want to fight us if he does not have to. He wants us to help him with destroying the shards. He clarifies this during his introduction. He had just considered killing us all but then comments that's what Lahabrea did and it got him killed. He phrases it as us surviving the remaining calamities, which no one would say if they were wanting people to live. When we fail his test and thancred asks if we had passed and said no to helping you what then. "Then I simply kill you all." Wouldn't it be something like "Then I'll find somebody who will." He was using us as the standard of all mankind so surly he could have found someone. But that was never his aim if we say yes, then we find a away to use all that light to bring about the rejoining. If we say no, he kills us, all the light is freed and the First is back to what it was before we went around trouncing lightwardens willy-nilly, ripe for the rejoining.

[Brinne]

Your entire argument hinges on this new approach being nonviolent with the rejonings. That is not correct. He does not want to fight us if he does not have to. He wants us to help him with destroying the shards. He clarifies this during his introduction.

Once again:

he really thought that by joining hands with humans, he could have found a different solution to the methods that he and the Ascians had taken up until that point.

Or if you want something directly from the game:

Mayhap there is another way. One which does not require bloodshed…

I understand that's sort of difficult to process that, yes, we killed a person who did indisputably try to reach out to us in good faith, in hopes for some kind of nonviolent reconciliation. But that is what happened. Obviously, as a whole, the situation is more complex - the Scions had extremely good reasons to distrust Emet-Selch given their history, his own obnoxious behavior and difficult personality wasn't exactly optimal towards beginning to win that trust, so I am absolutely not saying the Scions are bad or wrong for being reluctant to meet him at the table - Emet-Selch dug his own grave on several levels on that front. However, the truth remains, again to use Yoshida's own words, that on its own, his intent was, indeed, "pure" and he truly did want to "trust and believe in" the new humanity.

So there's no real reason to try to distort the facts of what happened or the mindset of the person we killed or what he was actually hoping to accomplish. Shadowbringers asks us to accept the situation for what it truly was - tragic, great, and terrible all at once - and in that way, look for ways to honor and uplift the fallen, not disparage them in order to justify ourselves. Emet-Selch still drew a hard line in the sand that we had to "prove ourselves worthy" if the situation remained a question of only one group or the other being allowed to live. That caused us to need to fight him, in the end, to protect ourselves and the world we know. He also was truly, sincerely hoping to find some other way "that did not involve bloodshed" if we were able to "prove ourselves worthy" and were willing to join forces. This can be true at the same time as "we still had to kill him to survive because we didn't meet his conditions and rejected those conditions as justifications for our deaths" is also true.

[thegreatonemal]

Once again:



Or if you want something directly from the game:



I understand that's sort of difficult to process that, yes, we killed a person who did indisputably try to reach out to us in good faith, in hopes for some kind of nonviolent reconciliation. But that is what happened. Obviously, as a whole, the situation is more complex - the Scions had extremely good reasons to distrust Emet-Selch given their history, his own obnoxious behavior and difficult personality wasn't exactly optimal towards beginning to win that trust, so I am absolutely not saying the Scions are bad or wrong for being reluctant to meet him at the table - Emet-Selch dug his own grave on several levels on that front. However, the truth remains, again to use Yoshida's own words, that own his intent was, indeed, "pure" and he truly did want to "trust and believe in" the new humanity.

So there's no real reason to try to distort the facts of what happened or the mindset of the person we killed or what he was actually hoping to accomplish. Shadowbringers asks us to accept the situation for what it truly was - tragic, great, and terrible all at once - and in that way, look for ways to honor and uplift the fallen, not disparage them in order to justify ourselves. Emet-Selch still drew a hard line in the sand that we had to "prove ourselves worthy" if the situation remained a question of only one group or the other being allowed to live. That caused us to need to fight him, in the end, to protect ourselves and the world we know. He also was truly, sincerely hoping to find some other way "that did not involve bloodshed" if we were able to "prove ourselves worthy" and were willing to join forces. This can be true at the same time as "we still had to kill him to survive because we didn't meet his conditions and rejected those conditions as justifications for our deaths" is also true.

That's your interpretation of what that means. It could just as easily mean "Get more people like Varis, who are willing to help with causing the calamities." Your job is to demonstrate that he means a peaceful nobody dies way of rejoining. Which you cannot do.

Again, I went over that it refers to not fighting us specifically, not bloodless rejoinings. Again your job is to show he wanted bloodless rejoining. Not your interpretations of what he the devs might have meant. Proof. Because there is plenty to the contrary, I've gone over some of it with you already.

Emet is a tragic figure that's true but we killed someone who would not, could not stop his plan of mass murder of multiple worlds. That's it. What Shadowbringers asked of us was to put ourselves in his shoes and we did but Y'stola said it best. "You've murdered millions, and that we cannot abide." You can empathize with him and in the same breath say he was wrong.

[Brinne]

Emet is a tragic figure that's true but we killed someone who would not, could not stop his plan of mass murder of multiple worlds. That's it. What Shadowbringers asked of us was to put ourselves in his shoes and we did but Y'stola said it best. "You've murdered millions, and that we cannot abide." You can empathize with him and in the same breath say he was wrong.

Ah, okay. We’ve reached the point, especially with Yoshida’s quotes, especially in their full context, of “there’s no common ground in what we believe these words to literally point blank mean,” so I guess we’re at an agree-to-disagree impasse. I don’t think Yoshida’s statement about Emet’s hopes leaves any ambiguity with the specifications “different from the methods the Ascians have taken so far by joining hands with humans.” Gaining human cooperation to continue performing the Rejoinings as they always have is exactly the methods they have taken so far, so that reading makes no sense to me, and I don’t really want to get engaged in a “what is the precise definition of this translated word” drag-out, exhausting fight.

snip

I would disagree entirely on the "level of dissonance" being the same, on a few levels.

Fundamentally, I would again repeat that there is a huge inherent framing difference between “an antagonist we fight and kill because we oppose and want to stop their plans” and “a protagonist we fight and kill out of her own wishes, in accordance to her plan.” Even if you argue they are sympathetic and the WoL is given reactions that indicate sympathy the player may not feel, they are still opposed to the Ascians. They are not, and never are, opposed to Venat. They are happy to go along with her goals and methods.

Secondly, not all dissonance is created equal. This is not the first time I have felt dissonance toward the story – by all means, ask me how I felt about the Scions in ARR, or Hien in Stormblood (spoilers: they’re terrible.) But those were still, when it came down to it, things I could accept and still have fun with the game. Venat crosses a threshold in both the sheer atrocity she committed, the story’s naked apologism regarding it, the impact on the other characters, and once again, how utterly foundational and inescapable it is to the very fabric of the lore and setting. The WoL liking a character I might not feel the same way about isn’t a big deal, even if I might roll my eyes at it and move on. The WoL actually apparently being on board with “genocide was the right decision and actually necessary for the greater good, and the person who committed it is a good person I feel warmth for specifically because they did it” is in a completely different universe altogether.

The suggestion that “I felt some form of dissonance and I was still fine and didn’t complain, so no one else should complain either” is also pretty disingenuous in and of itself. If something about the story bothers them – again, speaking for myself, to the point where the game is in danger of completely breaking for me, storywise – they have the right to speak up and provide the information about their response to the team, even if you didn’t feel inclined to. Frankly, in prior cases of dissonance, I didn’t bother speaking up because I didn’t care enough. Maybe there are others who feel differently, but I love this game and want to be able to keep loving the game. That’s it. I never wanted to be this uncomfortable with the Hydaelyn plotline. As I’ve posted before, I was practically begging and was eager to LOVE her as a character. I guarantee I am not singling out Venat for any particular reason, whether it because she was opposed to the Ascians (G'raha Tia's visceral dislike for Emet-Selch is literally my favorite thing about him, and I was cheering on Tiamat for basically cussing them out, because both characters absolutely have the right to feel that way), because she is a woman, or any other reason. I promise that I really, really did not want to end up here!

Going more into the text itself, though, the idea that the game "carries water" in a similar way for both sets of characters (Venat vs the Unsundered) only holds if we're looking purely at sympathetic, “positive” signifiers in the text. Yes, the Warrior of Light has positive responses to both of them. Yes, both sides are described as heroic and sympathetic, only doing what they believe is right.

However, there is also the question of the other direction a story can communicate its framing of a character’s actions: not just how it comments on them positively, but also negatively. The in-game criticisms in terms of making room, narratively, for you to understand the situation and how the story wishes for you to see them. Looking at what the Unsundered get after their equivalent "reveal" as Elpis in Venat and learning she had good intentions, knowing basically all the information about them, what they were trying to do, and why, we still get:

Elidibus's actions, methods, and mindset being condemned in very strong terms:

Elidibus. So fixated were you on my memories of the future, you failed to heed the lessons of the past.

Your obsession blinded you to the true nature of this tower─this beacon of hope for mankind.

Created to serve as a reservoir for the limitless energy of the heavens! To harness and bind the boundless─not unlike white auracite!

Your ill-begotten power, obtained by exploiting that which is best in us... I shall have it, your soul and all!

In-game characters who we are meant to see as sympathetic/heroic allies being able to voice (completely understandable) hatred, antipathy, and skepticism toward them:

Accursed Ascians! Vile minions of Darkness! Again you would profane the memory of my beloved, and strip our children of their freedom, their dignity! Are there no depths to which you will not stoop!?

To which Estinien chimes in:

Your children’s pain means nothing to them. They laugh at your kind’s suffering. But tears will not right this wrong. Nor will lamentations see the perpetrators punished.

Estinien had also, prior to this, pointed out the various wrongdoings of the Ascians:

When Tiamat and her kin fought against the Allagan Empire, both sides were but dancing to the tune of the Ascians. And it was the same in Ishgard, where they stoked the fires of conflict between man and dragon from the shadows. All that the Ascians touch turns to ash, and thus have you made it your mission to fight them.

When did anyone in the game, especially relative to the equivalent period where we already understood the Ascians’ sympathetic motives, extend this kind of language and criticism towards Venat, let alone coming from our allies and friends as we recruit them to continue opposing the Ascians?

Once again, the comparative "sympathy" toward their actions would be glorifying Emet-Selch's creation of the Garlemald empire, emphasizing how hard and sad it was for him to build and enact Imperialism for the sake of the those he loved. That building the Garlemald Empire and then abusing it was "a hard, but necessary decision for the greater good." The game does not do this. Garlemald is not glorified; it continues to be portrayed as horrific and harmful, and Emet’s cruel sabotage and then abandonment of them continues to be left exactly what it was. Emet's process in doing harm in general is not glorified, the way he leaves victims behind - only the genuine love for his people that fuels his feeling the need to go that far, and his hopes in finding a way to not have to continue going down that path.

I would also make a distinction between "the reasons for [x] are sympathetic" and "most people would do [x] if they were in the same position" - and "choosing to do [x] is right and necessary." The story takes the former approach with Emet and Elidibus, while still portrayed their actions as wrong and needing to be stopped, that people have the right to protest against and stop them. It takes the latter with Venat – at least up until the Omega quests. A mass-murderer I can easily find to be "sympathetic," but you're going to have a hell of a time selling me on "they were right."

No, we killed someone who previously tried to reach out to us in good faith (though we couldn't confirm that at the time) but has since apparently abandoned that approach, shot all our friends in front of us and is now directly trying to kill us. Past good faith doesn't count for much at that point.

I have said before and will continue to say I do not blame the Scions whatsoever for not trusting Emet, that he went about trying to communicate he was acting in good faith like an absolute idiot, and they had every right to fight back and kill him once things had gone to shit. What is frustrating is seeing the arguments, because it did come to that, that Emet-Selch obviously never was extending good faith and never truly had hopes for humanity and wasn’t really interested in finding another way, which is completely untrue. Once again, “he was genuinely hoping for another way and was truly, sincerely rooting for us to pass his judgment” and “we still had to kill him because we didn’t accept his conditions and judgment as valid (even if he was being sincere about them and his hope we would meet them)” can both be true.

We absolutely had every right to fight back against and kill Emet-Selch to protect ourselves. That is also part of why I loved Shadowbringers and its invocation of the bitter tragedy of having to commit a “great and terrible thing” to protect what’s important to us. He did a lot of horrific things in the name of saving his people, and no one is obligated to give him a pass for that. But that means there’s no need to try to further muddy things by pretending Emet-Selch was worse and more malicious than he actually was. As harshly as I criticize Venat, it's textual that her intentions were good, she was acting out of a sense of love, and she truly did not believe there was any other way to save the world. Anyone who argues she did what she did out of actual malice is wrong.

[EaraGrace]

Even if you argue they are sympathetic and the WoL is given reactions that indicate sympathy the player may not feel, they are still opposed to the Ascians. They are not, and never are, opposed to Venat. They are happy to go along with her goals and methods.

So ultimately the issue you have is that Venats actions, that you feel are unjust, create dissonance not because how the narrative treats them, but because they are not in opposition to our own goals? That has no bearing on narrative dissonance. One can write Venat off as evil or wrong and still have no cause to undo her actions.

Secondly, not all dissonance is created equal..

With all due respect I think you are completely wrong on this. The apologism the game offers the Ancients is just as egregious. The fact that men who buried billions because they didn't believe they were human and wished to bring about their ideal world are framed as "understandable" says it all. The only response we give to Emets arguments in SHB is that we are here and that gives the right to fight. We don't argue that its wrong for him to kill and slaughter to bring back his friends. Hell, even after everything they did we are still encouraged to befriend the man possessing the corpse of dead hero who intends to slaughter an entire world for no reason other than he misses his friends! All one has to do is look at the way the Scions treat Emet in Ultima Thule to see the problem. You are understating the level of narrative dissonance the game brings about in those moments.

Frankly, in prior cases of dissonance, I didn’t bother speaking up because I didn’t care enough.

And there is the point I'm trying to make. This isn't the narrative doing something it hasn't in the past. This is about whether one personally finds the dissonance too much, which is ultimately based on subjectivity. The latitude of acceptance after all varies from person to person.

Maybe there are others who feel differently, but I love this game and want to be able to keep loving the game. That’s it. I never wanted to be this uncomfortable with the Hydaelyn plotline. As I’ve posted before, I was practically begging and was eager to LOVE her as a character. I guarantee I am not singling out Venat for any particular reason, whether it because she was opposed to the Ascians (G'raha Tia's visceral dislike for Emet-Selch is literally my favorite thing about him, and I was cheering on Tiamat for basically cussing them out, because both characters absolutely have the right to feel that way), because she is a woman, or any other reason. I promise that I really, really did not want to end up here!

I don't need you to justify your feelings, your allowed to feel as you wish. But understand that the extensive changes others advocate for, that I believe you to argue for, run counter to what I wish to see from this game and would in fact run counter to the things others would as well. I'm sure an understanding can be met, and believe me I actually do appreciate the way the Omega quests try's do just that. But the extent of change to which you apparently feel is necessary would take away a huge part of the story that I enjoy.

Looking at what the Unsundered get after their equivalent "reveal" as Elpis in Venat and learning she had good intentions, knowing basically all the information about them, what they were trying to do, and why, we still get:

Elidibus's actions, methods, and mindset being condemned in very strong terms:

Which was immediately preceded by a moment where the game draws a direct parallel between Graha himself and Elidibus in all the ways you mentioned.

...Elidibus spoke in similar terms, you say? How curious.

I cherish the time I spent with you and the others. What I wouldn't give to return to those halcyon days...

Chasing ancient secrets, overcoming trial after trial with the aid of like-minded comrades...

And what remarkable comrades they were. In such company, I felt as if I were a character in the epic tales that had stirred my heart as a boy. As if my dream had come true...

It hadn't, of course, for I was no hero. Neither then nor after. Though the world to which I awakened, and the First were beset with myriad problems, I rarely knew how best to play my part.

There was, however, one thing of which I was certain: that I could not bear to let those dear to me meet a tragic end.

You are given plenty of reason to view Graha's statement as ironic or downright hypocritical.

When did anyone in the game, especially relative to the equivalent period where we already understood the Ascians’ sympathetic motives, extend this kind of language and criticism towards Venat, let alone coming from our allies and friends as we recruit them to continue opposing the Ascians?

So to you the only acceptable solution would be an ally, a named and voiced character, who knows what we know, condemning Venat for what she did.

Ok. I'm not opposed to that. If that's all then I think that's personally fine. Renaming minions, rewriting the Unending Codex however, is too much,

Once again, the comparative "sympathy" toward their actions would be glorifying Emet-Selch's creation of the Garlemald empire, emphasizing how hard and sad it was for him to build and enact Imperialism for the sake of the those he loved.

We get an entire short story saying just that. Do you genuinely believe that the scene where we are informed of his dead son, who died to the Sundered's "fraility," wasn't the writers "emphasizing how hard and sad it was for him to build and enact imperialism for the sake of the those he loved." Hell the whole Nier side plot is exactly that as well! Nothing but I do what I do for the ones I love to which characters give sad faces to.

I would also make a distinction between "the reasons for [x] are sympathetic" and "most people would do [x] if they were in the same position" - and "choosing to do [x] is right and necessary." The story takes the former approach with Emet and Elidibus, while still portrayed their actions as wrong and needing to be stopped, that people have the right to protest against and stop them. It takes the latter with Venat – at least up until the Omega quests. A mass-murderer I can easily find to be "sympathetic," but you're going to have a hell of a time selling me on "they were right."

And yet the game did just that by giving a voiced character the opportunity to say they would do the exact same thing as Emet if they were in his shoes.