Zodiark's Codex entry what do we think about it?

[Brinne]

Ryne is not a child, she is described as a young woman – and Emet is trying to horrify them and convey the horror he felt. If he was trying to protect her poor childish sensibilities then surely he wouldn't have picked her to creep out with a duplicate?

It's not really about sparing them - it's about him not making himself needlessly vulnerable by delving with extreme graphic detail into a horrifying, traumatic experience he had. Emet is demonstrably a very emotionally defensive sort at the same time he's trying to appeal to the Scions, which is what makes a lot of his behavior throughout Shadowbringers so interesting because of the resulting self-sabotage. But yeah, getting into debates over the precise nuances of Emet-Selch's characterization and his internal war with himself, as far as this context goes, is almost certainly a non-starter (I have been down this road before, lol!) It just comes down to "Do we take his direct POV as written in third-person or his dialogue simplifying things to an outside party as more reliable, if we're going with the 'he's unreliable' slant to justify dismissing one or the other'?" and how inherently silly it is to use a take by Emet-Selch to dismiss... a different take written around Emet-Selch.

Either we accuse him of being inaccurate in one of those two passages or we accuse him of it in the other. All points considered, I think inaccuracy in the non-FFXIV story to be more likely.

We know he's partially inaccurate in the Crystarium explanation. We know his demonstration never reflected the full scope of the physical reality of the Sundering as far back as 5.0 itself. People can take the interpretation they like, but I dunno, I'm more inclined to go with the one that hasn't already been demonstrated beyond doubt to be inaccurate, the one reflected in direct description and not second-hand dialogue, and the one written at least two years more recently to show events that, as of the writing of 5.0, the writers have fully admitted they didn't have the details or background fully planned out or in mind.

Let me put it this way. An FFXIV fan decides to try out the Nier crossover because they heard, as advertised, it's about Emet-Selch and it's written by Ishikawa herself. When they read it, are they going to accept what it shows as perhaps an updated portrayal of the Sundering, or go into convolutions about how it doesn't precisely match up with a piece of exposition from 2+ years ago, so clearly this means that what Ishikawa has written is just Emet being nonsensical, and what a waste of time this all was, just shows more of Emet being overdramatic about what happened, etc, etc?

Do you really think the latter take is what Ishikawa had in mind when she personally wrote this story after Endwalker?

[Iscah]

But anyway, idk what you guys even want. Nier collab is written by Ishikawa, the Word of God, basically. While it contains some pf emet’s perspective (which, yes, is bias), the rest are historical depiction that don’t contradict any info from shb. One other thing to remember, the souls are particularly important for the Ancients. Would it be far fetched to you to consider that when emet said the sundered are “malformed creatures”, it’s not only due to their physical appearance but also because of the souls?

Perhaps you could phrase those ideas as a theory suggestion rather than an accusation? I don't think I've seen anyone in all this time propose that it might be to do with how Emet perceives the souls rather than the bodies of the sundered, and it actually seems quite plausible to help resolve the difference.

As far as I've seen, discussions of the NieR story seem to revolve around "look, he really said they were really malformed creatures in this isolated story written by Ishikawa, even though the part of FFXIV also written by Ishikawa described it differently".

It's Emet's word against Emet's, Ishikawa's word against Ishikawa's, in a part of the story that the game repeatedly shies away from examining in enough detail to verify which version is true.

[tokinokanatae]

Either we accuse him of being inaccurate in one of those two passages or we accuse him of it in the other. All points considered, I think inaccuracy in the non-FFXIV story to be more likely.

This is predicated on assuming you think both versions are incompatible, which is very strange to me, I must admit.

Do you honestly picture the Sundering as Emet-Selch going about his day until, suddenly, lightning flashes and he is surrounded by coworkers exactly 1/14th the size they were prior, with no other differences? Come on, now.

Your failure of imagination in regards to what 1/14th of a person's faculties would look like is your own problem. It's not a narrative inconsistency.

[Kozh]

Perhaps you could phrase those ideas as a theory suggestion rather than an accusation? I don't think I've seen anyone in all this time propose that it might be to do with how Emet perceives the souls rather than the bodies of the sundered, and it actually seems quite plausible to help resolve the difference.

As far as I've seen, discussions of the NieR story seem to revolve around "look, he really said they were really malformed creatures in this isolated story written by Ishikawa, even though the part of FFXIV also written by Ishikawa described it differently".

It's Emet's word against Emet's, Ishikawa's word against Ishikawa's, in a part of the story that the game repeatedly shies away from examining in enough detail to verify which version is true.

/shrug I didn’t accuse anyone, if someone feel that way, that’s on them sorry to say.

Idk, seems to me the discussion is more often about how the nier story is outright biased and should not be considered canon, rather than discussion about malformed creatures.

I genuinely don’t get why people become so technical and literal about the terms used in Nier story. It’s malformed because sundered and unsundered is proven to be different biologically. It’s malformed because the sundered is weaker than the unsundered. It’s malformed because they could no longer use creation magic. It’s not trying to say the sundered looks like a blob monster.

[SpectrePhantasia]

As an aside, I have a small gripe with the narrative surrounding Emet. He was never really forced to confront the reality of what he did or acknowledge the humanity of sundered people. I think EW 6.0 would have been a better "redemption arc" (air quotes) for him if he had been.

I beg to differ. Emet was extremely aware of the reality of what he was doing, that's why he's such a bitter broken person by the time we actually get to meet him. He's at a point where he's layering his actual feelings behind several layers of dehumanization, because its the only way he can really reconcile with what his goals required. He came to acknowledge their humanity, but his duty would never allow him to do anything but suppress that feeling. Nevertheless I don't really think EW's intention was to 'redeem' Emet in any capacity, so much as it was to further humanize him. After all, he doesn't regret a single thing he's done, he says as much in Ultima Thule. That cost, heavy though it was, was the demand that saving his people required, and he'd do it again for their sake.

As for the Nier crossover, I think it is plain to see that the scene with Ryne was a low effort demonstration used for emphasis, rather than any kind of factual hardboiled depiction of what being sundered is like. It's been pointed out already that it's a bit silly to take that portrayal as exact. I see no reason why the event's portrayal and this scene can't coexist.

[SpectrePhantasia]

I put "redemption arc" in quotes for a reason and included (air quotes) in parentheses after it. I do not know how I could have made the air quotes any heavier on the page, haha.

I saw the quotes! But I'm not sure if I'd even call it anything even approaching it tbh. I guess it's more like a reaffirmation of what we already knew than anything else. I think his position as far the narrative sees him was largely unchanged from Shb to EW.

[SpectrePhantasia]

I just think that's a bit of a missed opportunity. EW tries to paint him in a more positive light, but without doing the legwork to make it feel earned. You can sort of guess at character development that might have occurred off the screen after he died and got his memories back and went "oh frick" but it's sort of funny how he tried to kill us but we blew a hole in him so we're just cool now? Because... Elpis? The same Elpis where he threw a tantrum and ran off after we told him what his future self was going to do? He did help us escape at the end (along with Hyth, while insisting that he still doesn't believe us) and helped a snake learn to fly, and we got confirmation that Azem/Emet/Hyth were really close, but yeah...

Oh don't take my defending the writing of Emet's view of his actions as a defense of 6.0's handling of him. On that, you have my complete agreement. That's sort of just a consequence of EW's writing as a whole. I, and several other people here, talked about it with far more energy back when 6.0 initially dropped, and I don't want to get into it at length here for brevity and topic's sake, but it essentially tried to have its cake and eat it too. It put fan favorite characters like Emet back on screen, but also kind of sidestepped the aspects of his character that made him who he was, or any other kind of controversial elements surrounding him in favor of just having the WoL pal around for fanservice. It's not just him either, this holds true for characters on both ends of the 'questionable deeds' spectrum, and is largely a product of wanting to keep the player comfortable in a way I don't particularly respect. Endearing us to a version of him *before* these things happened is kind of an easy out. It's just that EW for me has so many other glaring issues that Emet's handling just feels like small potatoes by comparison.

But honestly these discussions would go a lot easier for everyone if he stops being treated like the forum boogeyman for which everyone has to fixate on for any kind of discussion to occur. I recognize the irony in my doing the same, but I really don't believe he's THAT hard of a character to read, that we need to scrutinize the frame by frame of literally every word that comes out of his mouth.

[Kozh]

A really important thing to remember with Emet is that while he's usually telling a version of the truth, it's always colored by whatever his angle is. You can always trust him to be telling a version of the truth, but you should never take him exactly at his word, because his angle is never just 'tell them the full, unvarnished truth'. (Again, Mama in Nier Reincarnation is similar, although less insidious.).

But we should definitely trust Venat for saying the "unvarnished truth" right? Because she certainly never lie, right? Or that her action isn't based on what *she* thinks is right.

[SannaR]

For me the strangeness about the use of order is that it's not their style. Look at the Volcano instance where it got treated to how most people who stay during hurricanes. They didn't order anyone to leave or seem to give an ordnance for people to leave. Even when the beginnings of the Final Days started to hit other cities the Convocation again didn't give an order for people to flee the areas that already were being affected. So, to have them give an order of some kind that most obeyed probably more so out of social pressure than anything felt odd to me.

[RyuDragnier]

For me the strangeness about the use of order is that it's not their style. Look at the Volcano instance where it got treated to how most people who stay during hurricanes. They didn't order anyone to leave or seem to give an ordnance for people to leave. Even when the beginnings of the Final Days started to hit other cities the Convocation again didn't give an order for people to flee the areas that already were being affected. So, to have them give an order of some kind that most obeyed probably more so out of social pressure than anything felt odd to me.

Did the people there even answer to Amaurot? It was mentioned that Amaurot had a sister city elsewhere in the world, which means people followed different societies or countries. That volcano area may have been an area that was not under Amaurot's purview, but another's. Or it may have been under nobody's, and Azem waltzed in there because "I'm not about to let people die or lose their homes."