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

[Cleretic]

As for Emet-Selch, I think what pissed him off regarding the sundered isn't their inability to reach technological milestones (especially since as you say, such progress was frequently trashed by their side anyway) but the way they allow their base instincts of greed, selfishness, malice, and violence to dictate their actions and create widespread destruction and tragedy. It's basically anathema to what the Ancients believed in and how they operated, so his disdain isn't really surprising.

First of all: Again, their fault. Like, if that were truly his point, he's weakened it by intrusion. Real 'stop hitting yourself' energy there.

Second of all: Our trips into Elpis and (especially) Pandaemonium have shown that Ancients can absolutely be greedy, selfish, malicious and violent, and in fact, I would argue that every single Ascian we've met was all four of those. You could argue perhaps that Amaurot was better set up to counteract those, but I would argue otherwise and point to Pandaemonium; they were pretty ripe for a bad actor to do some real damage.

Honestly, with this point I've never seen anything resembling evidence that Ancients were actually smarter than sundered people (and the writers can write 'smarter species than humans' fairly convincingly; the dragons, the Omicron and the Ea come to mind, although they had their own problems), but I have seen ample evidence that Emet would lie to both us and ourselves to make the Ancients look better and like more of a tragic loss, and us as worse.

[Brinne]

I have seen ample evidence that Emet would lie to both us and ourselves to make the Ancients look better and like more of a tragic loss, and us as worse.

I mean, they were. They were absolutely a tragic loss.

Putting aside things like how inherently absurd it is to blame three ghost wizards for the totality of mankind’s vices, it continues to be very strange to me how much of a sticking point pointing at one of the sole survivors of what was a total eradication and erasure of his people (who is now four years real-time dead himself) and yelling “your dead race wasn’t as smart as you think they were!” I mean… okay, I guess. Are the Ancients less worth mourning if they weren’t as super smart as he claims, somehow? Are the Sundered less worth defending if they were?

The important thing to understand about Emet (it somehow always returns to Emet, even following a patch where he wasn’t even mentioned…) is that his rationalizations don’t even matter that much in the end, because none of it is the actual core reason he’s doing what he is, which is simply love and duty. The rest is fluff he layers on top to make it easier for himself because he hates it.

[SpectrePhantasia]

First of all: Again, their fault. Like, if that were truly his point, he's weakened it by intrusion. Real 'stop hitting yourself' energy there.

What do you think Emet-selch meant by 'measured your worth?' Him having a hand in Calamities doesn't take away from his point about the Sundered's nature. Unless you're about to tell me the Ascians are behind every catastrophe that's ever occurred in Sundered history. If anything, he has *more* of a point, because the strategies that he used to cause Rejoinings-- that of forming governments that collapse under the corruption of the Sundered who participate in it, worked both of the times he did it. It's quite literally the fact they are so easily exploitable in causing violence that he has a problem with.

The "Ascians" as we know them are hollowed out husks who've endured 12,000 years of suffering and obsession. Why would you use them, of all people, to judge what Emet is saying about their society in it's prime? People like Athena were dangerous *because* they were exceptional. The Ancients were ill prepared for the kind of person who would cause widespread destruction, because its not something that they oft contended with in their society. For the Sundered, that is Tuesday.

[Cleretic]

The important thing to understand about Emet (it somehow always returns to Emet, even following a patch where he wasn’t even mentioned…) is that his rationalizations don’t even matter that much in the end, because none of it is the actual core reason he’s doing what he is, which is simply love and duty. The rest is fluff he layers on top to make it easier for himself because he hates it.

Well, the thing with Emet in these discussions is that he's such a huge part of the framing of Amaurot. All of our learning about Ancient society in Shadowbringers either came directly from him, or were very directly connected to him (namely, Anamnesis only coming up because it wasn't Emet-curated), and his presence casts a shadow over what we learn in Endwalker, not just by way of him literally being there in Elpis, but through us inevitably comparing what we see to what he's said before. Even the parts unrelated to Emet become related to Emet, because he's our big initial touchpoint for them, so the inevitable thing we compare it to is 'what Emet said'.

And when Emet is not the most reliable source for several reasons, I find it important to interrogate his stated perspectives rather than just take it as a given. Emet always worked an angle, he was never just giving the unvarnished truth, so when he's the only source for a claim I think it's fair to call it into question. There's plenty of other sources I'd give similar scrutiny, but when it comes to Amaurot, Emet's the one that always comes up.

What do you think Emet-selch meant by 'measured your worth?' Him having a hand in Calamities doesn't take away from his point about the Sundered's nature. Unless you're about to tell me the Ascians are behind every catastrophe that's ever occurred in Sundered history. If anything, he has *more* of a point, because the strategies that he used to cause Rejoinings-- that of forming governments that collapse under the corruption of the Sundered who participate in it, worked both of the times he did it. It's quite literally the fact they are so easily exploitable in causing violence that he has a problem with.

I should say that I don't judge the Ancients as a society by the Ascians circa the Seventh Astral Era; that's absolutely in bad faith, and if you thought that was my intention, I misrepresented my own views. I more meant that, if Shadowbringers-Emet thought that about the sundered people (that sentence was more just an example by Lynaxia than text, though), he was at that point very hypocritical given both his own actions and those of his colleagues.

But I think Emet claiming he 'measured our worth' is more post-hoc justification on his part than actual reasoning. He and the other Ascians were going to perform the Calamities regardless, and maybe at some point early on they felt bad about that, but by the time we meet him in Shadowbringers he's well and truly too far down that road to be swayed. His way of testing us (as in, the WoL and Scions) was an inherently rigged game we couldn't have possibly won, and by the developers' own admission in interviews he had no plan for if we succeeded; he wasn't truly looking for us to prove him wrong, he was fishing for evidence he was right.

[Lurina]

But I think Emet claiming he 'measured our worth' is more post-hoc justification on his part than actual reasoning. He and the other Ascians were going to perform the Calamities regardless, and maybe at some point early on they felt bad about that, but by the time we meet him in Shadowbringers he's well and truly too far down that road to be swayed. His way of testing us (as in, the WoL and Scions) was an inherently rigged game we couldn't have possibly won, and by the developers' own admission in interviews he had no plan for if we succeeded; he wasn't truly looking for us to prove him wrong, he was fishing for evidence he was right.

Emet was looking for victory or suicide-by-WoL. Yoshi-P outright suggested that he set up the situation so they'd be cured of the light if they overcame him.

Like Emet himself said earlier, at any point he could have just left. He was there for his quest to be vindicated or to be over.

[tokinokanatae]

Emet always worked an angle, he was never just giving the unvarnished truth, so when he's the only source for a claim I think it's fair to call it into question.

So what is the end result of this supposed "angle" you keep bringing up as self-evident? If you think he's deliberately obfuscating something about Ancient society, then what is he hiding and what are his goals in doing it?

[Cleretic]

So what is the end result of this supposed "angle" you keep bringing up as self-evident? If you think he's deliberately obfuscating something about Ancient society, then what is he hiding and what are his goals in doing it?

I actually wouldn't call it 'deliberate obfuscation', because that's not the main thing he does. Emet's more in the game of selective divulging of information, choosing what he reveals, how, and when to have the most dramatic and emotional effect while just... quietly dancing around the things that don't help his case.

In regards to Amaurot and the Ancients int his respect, 'what he's hiding' is, I think, actually just more of the general imperfections of Ancient society rather than any greatly damning smoking gun. When he discusses Amaurot he wants to paint them as essentially 'perfect angel' victims, both materially and morally, to really accentuate that whole 'we didn't deserve what happened to us' element. This might also be why his retelling of the events around it casually skips over everything between Zodiark's first summoning and Hydaelyn's summoning, and doesn't really bring up any dissent; he wants to ignore the parts that don't look so good for him, and also paint Hydaelyn as essentially an illegitimate rogue faction, or at least one whose reasonings don't matter enough to talk about.

One could argue he doesn't need to do that, and the facts stand on their own; an unfortunate death is always an unfortunate death, even if the victim wasn't a perfect angel. And that's not wrong; remember that the Garlemald zone in Endwalker was by and large a tragedy, and if Ul'dah exploded tomorrow, only the most heartless response would be 'good riddance to the Syndicate'. But, well, that's what Emet did, and Elpis and Pandaemonium showed it; he glossed over a lot, partially because of knowledge gaps but largely because some of those facts didn't look great for him. And from an out-of-game storytelling perspective it was probably the right move, too; we're ultimately people reading a story, and if a big-time villain is telling us about where he and all his other big-time villain friends came from, the writers have to work a little harder to make those people sympathetic and tragic than they would if, say, Y'shtola told us about her family.

All that said, I'd hardly say that I just described all of Emet. Something that really adds to his complexity is that he works so many angles over the course of Shadowbringers; it would be very possible (and perhaps not even a bad idea if you had the time) to go scene-by-scene for him and ask 'what is Emet trying to accomplish in this scene', because that actually changes constantly and yet he's never really contradictory in doing so. In some scenes he's trying to be conciliatory, sometimes he's trying to get information, or sometimes he's genuinely trying to help; in other times he's going raw scare tactics, or trying to sow doubt and distrust, or even, as Lurina said, trying to goad us into killing him.

So yeah, asking 'what's Emet's angle' actually requires very complicated answers, especially if we're talking about something that gets elaborated on across multiple scenes. Not because he's lying or hiding the truth in any of them (although he might be personally misinformed or in denial sometimes), but because he's choosing his words and what cards he reveals every single time; we need to constantly take the source of the information into account.

[Brinne]

Well, the thing with Emet in these discussions is that he's such a huge part of the framing of Amaurot. All of our learning about Ancient society in Shadowbringers either came directly from him, or were very directly connected to him (namely, Anamnesis only coming up because it wasn't Emet-curated), and his presence casts a shadow over what we learn in Endwalker, not just by way of him literally being there in Elpis, but through us inevitably comparing what we see to what he's said before. Even the parts unrelated to Emet become related to Emet, because he's our big initial touchpoint for them, so the inevitable thing we compare it to is 'what Emet said'.

It was four years ago. Yes, Emet was a major character in Elpis's MSQ, but personally speaking, I didn't really have a problem doing the majority of content in the zone that didn't involve him, interacting with the actual Ancients doling out quests and NPC text, and coming to my own conclusions. My reasons for enjoying the Ancients and the vast majority of Ancient characters has essentially no relationship with the framework Emet-Selch laid out, other than the very basic starting point of "this (extremely flawed, to put it mildly) guy loved these people a lot."

Likewise with Pandaemonium. I like Emet-Selch a great deal, but I somehow managed to thoroughly enjoy that questline and its characters without quietly obsessing over how to compare their every word and deed against Emet-Selch's Grief-Fueled Words From Four Years Ago in a storyline that doesn't involve him whatsoever. To me, it was obvious Pandaemonium especially was indifferent and uninterested in that entire conversation. So no, I thoroughly disagree that literally everything about a fictional race of people becoming a referendum on him is 'inevitable.' Someone's personal fixation, maybe, sure.

It just seems rather grim to put forth that it's 'inevitable' that any content related to this whole broad fantasy civilization, that's wildly popular with the fanbase at that, can't be experienced without it primarily becoming about finding Ammo to never, ever stop sticking it to one expansion villain.

One could argue he doesn't need to do that, and the facts stand on their own; an unfortunate death is always an unfortunate death,

Yeah, but. You're not doing that. Instead there's a priority towards shadowboxing a character who died years ago to keep picking at any tiny flaws you can find within the dead loved ones he spoke well of, for Reasons. In terms of "a little weird," not gonna lie, this is probably up there with "a littlest weirdest."

When he discusses Amaurot he wants to paint them as essentially 'perfect angel' victims, both materially and morally, to really accentuate that whole 'we didn't deserve what happened to us' element.

Uh. After all your comparisons to Emet-Selch and the Ascians to real-life instances of racism, are you really unironically invoking "they were no angels" rhetoric?

[Lunaxia]

First of all: Again, their fault. Like, if that were truly his point, he's weakened it by intrusion. Real 'stop hitting yourself' energy there.

Humans being assholes to each other is not the fault of the Ascians, lmao. They exploited it to create the conflict necessary to incite a rejoining, but they're not responsible for basic human nature.

Second of all: Our trips into Elpis...

Nowhere did I say that the Ancients couldn't be any of those things. One of the NPCs in Amaurot even acknowledges the existence of such thoughts. What I said was "the way humans allow those instincts to control them." Above all, the Ancients believed it was of paramount importance to overcome the impulses of greed and selfishness that might give rise to conflict to work together for a better world.

Honestly, with this point...

I really don't understand this refusal to acknowledge what's already been pointed out as being right there in the narrative because of a singular grudge against a character who has actually been shown to be truthful more often than not merely because he's bitter over the fact his entire race was put through a metaphorical meat grinder, but if you insist, then let's review:

What Emet-Selch was unconditionally right about:
- Hydaelyn and Zodiark being primals.
- The existence of the Ancients.
- The differences between mortals and the Ancients at least insofar as the soul and their individual lifespans.
- The Ancients' core beliefs.
- The Final Days, and what it entailed.
- Zodiark's summoning.
- The sundering, and the way the mechanics of sundering actually works.
- The rejoinings and the Ascians' MO.

What Emet-Selch categorically lied about:
- ???

Yes, Emet-Selch is "racist", if you like (air quotes because as Brinne, I think, pointed out in a previous post, the entire situation is such a strange and fantasy-limited hypothetical scenario that applying a real-world term with its own connotations seems a bit ill-fitting, but nonetheless, he's clearly heavily biased against them.) But in terms of basic fact, time has now proven that most of the time he was actually telling the truth, so constantly using his mortal prejudice to deny arguments built on the foundation of the information he provided us is really just a cop-out at this point.

[Cleretic]

Sorry for using that 'perfect angel' speech--I know that's loaded language, I just ultimately don't have any other way to describe it; Emet was indeed glossing over the flaws of Amaurot to make them seem more flawless. As I said, their story doesn't get less tragic because they weren't flawless (And I would argue they become more believable in doing so), but that was what he was doing; he only presented what he saw as the positives.

What Emet-Selch categorically lied about:
- ???

Here's the thing: he doesn't lie. He doesn't just straight-up say things that aren't true. (Well, not to us; there was that time he lived for most of a century stealing a Garleans' identity for the purposes of making a totalitarian empire.) I have never said he lies, what I've said is we have to recognize he's selective and manipulative about the truth.

A quick, few-minutes-of-thought shortlist of the things he's dodged that I'd say are actually pretty important:

• The actual nature of Ancient life and society; that whole 'they weren't perfect no-problems angels' thing.
• The fact Zodiark was sacrificed to more than once. (We learned that form Fake Hythlodaeus, who's sort of a rogue agent)
• The nature of said sacrifices RE: how voluntary they were and all that.
• Any mention of any dissent to the Zodiark plan beyond 'and suddenly Hydaelyn happened'. (His description of what Hydaelyn was angling for doesn't seem quite right either, but I'll chalk that up to him not actually knowing.)
• ...in fact, anything at all about the period between Zodiark and Hydaelyn's summonings.
• Just any information whatsoever about how they landed on the Rejoinings as a strategy.
• The Thirteenth, and how they plan to do that.
• How many sacrifices to Zodiark will be made over the course of/following the Rejoining plan.
• The part where we don't get to survive any of those Rejoinings.
• The part where they made primals actively temper, which... y'know, colors things, but I admit isn't as close to the subjects he talks about as the rest.

Again, he doesn't lie about any of this, I think you'll agree; what he does is basically drive the conversation and divulging of information such that he never has to acknowledge the truths that go against the argument and narrative he's building.

And remember: this is even something the characters in the story recognize: the reason we go to Anamnesis is entirely because the Scions recognize that we only got one, heavily curated part of the Ancient story, and we can't just take Emet's word as law.

Venat literally speaks of the Ancients in similarly glowing terms! Do you think she has an angle when she talks about the people she loves so much?

Exactly, yes. In Elpis Venat's fairly open, but also has nothing to hide (like Elpis-Emet, actually), while as Hydaelyn she's very selective about information and is absolutely working an angle. Specifically, she poses as a deity that only speaks on its own terms, meaning that she's not really open to questioning and can and does open and close communication for her own reasons. Hell, need I remind you that she hides significant amounts of information from both us and Sharlayan for her own ends?

I would argue for exactly the same skepticism of Hydaelyn's information as Emet, for exactly the same reasons; while everything she says is true, she doesn't tell us the whole truth. (But Hydaelyn also doesn't have nearly as many scenes, so it doesn't come up nearly as often.)

EDIT: Also, on the subject of the Amaurot DMV: I would argue that yes, that was indeed part of the outlook he was trying to communicate. Because if I learned anything about Emet from the Elpis MSQ, it was that he is a HUGE stickler for the rules of Amaurot. I can fully and wholeheartedly believe that he thinks that a perfect and aspirational society has orderly yet inevitable wait times at the DMV.