Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic

[Elladie]

@ Puksi
In fact you do not remember the OMG short story correctly at all. The below is a direct quote from the story which clearly states that 'the vast majority' opposed Cid's proffered solution.

"The researchers of Garlond Ironworks continued to investigate the process by which Black Rose─possessed of a destructive power far exceeding its creators’ expectations─triggered the Eighth Umbral Calamity. They believed that understanding the nature of this catastrophe could reveal a means by which it might be averted entirely. Their aim was to change the past to create an alternate reality in which the Calamity never occurred─a feat rendered conceivable by their knowledge of the advanced technologies of fallen civilizations. However, many of those who would bear the burden of continued existence in a world ravaged by Black Rose failed to see this as a viable stratagem. Such responses were consistent with my projections, as it is generally the primary objective of all life-forms to secure their own survival in the here and now.
Many of Master Cid’s followers either refused to cooperate or expressed a desire to leave the Ironworks altogether. Certain former employees went as far as to appropriate equipment and supplies by force before heading into the wilderness to fend for themselves.
Although the vast majority opposed Master Cid’s radical proposition, a select few remained to lend their assistance."

By all means dismiss this as 'whataboutism': I can see that you HAVE to do so in order to maintain your high moral ground after dismissing moral relativism as you have. In contrast, I am offering the idea that everyone involved makes morally questionable decisions justified by the argument that it saves the people they specifically care about. If Hades is a monster without any redemptive possibility, so too is G'raha Tia, and Cid and indeed the Warrior of Light/Darkness. All are fighting very specifically for something at the expense of something else, the relative merit of either option depends on the perspective of the observer.

OMG's remarks about the objective of all life-forms in the here-and-now being to ensure their survival, makes the importance of perspective in determining morality very clear. There is no difference, we are all fighting for the same thing, and we will generally do what we must. A few individuals may see themselves as rising above this, as content to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. It is what the Amaurotines thought they were doing in sacrificing themselves to summon Zodiark. It's what G'raha thinks he is doing. The people in the future - the vast majority - would disagree with him.

I suppose it's reassuring to have so much moral certainty but it's built on misinterpretation and misinformation. Most of the folks in the story are only heroes to the people they fight for. They're villains to the rest

[Puksi]

@ Puksi

By all means dismiss this as 'whataboutism', I see that you have to do so in order to maintain your high moral ground after dismissing moral relativism as you have. In contrast, I am offering the idea that everyone involved makes morally questionable decisions justified by the argument that it saves the people they specifically care about. If Hades is a monster without any redemptive possibility, so too is G'raha Tia, and CID, and indeed the Warrior of Light/Darkness. All are fighting very specifically for something at the expense of something else, the the relative merit of either option depends on the perspective of the observer

Don't stop quoting the story there. For the alternative past part, which is separate from their (frankly doomed) timeline, as confirmed by G'raha Tia's continued presence (and even The Rising event, really):

During this period, one loyal scholar noted that while preventing the disaster may not solve all of the problems that had afflicted the world of the past, the one dubbed the “Warrior of Light” would still be alive. The various members of the team each had their own personal connection with the deceased, and the notion of creating an alternative past in which their hero survived the Calamity met with unanimous approval.

The coming together of many different people for the Warrior Of Light's sake, because their deeds had impacted so many lives in a positive way:

In addition, by presenting their plan as an attempt to save the Warrior of Light rather than a bid to rewrite history, they were able to gain the support from survivors of many different species and subgroups. Representatives from various settlements came to donate resources and foodstuffs to Garlond Ironworks, despite possessing barely enough to sustain themselves. Many of them were also acquainted with the Warrior of Light, some even claiming to have been beneficiaries of the late hero’s acts of philanthropy.

It details other allies, but the post limit is 3000 characters.

If "moral high ground" means stating the coldblood murder of billions is bad, tricking "insects" into bed to manufacture children as fodder for your big cosmic chess game is bad, manipulating and outright abusing those children to make sure they serve their purpose is bad, corrupting unborn babies in the womb against the will of their mother is bad, condemning other races as lessers while you do everything you accuse them of and worse is bad, then yes, I will definitely be sticking with that moral high ground. Regardless of the casual use and overuse of the word "hero" in the English translation, I am at least relieved Yoshi-P is willing to remind the rabid fanbase that the Ascians are wrong.

You want Hades to have "redemptive possibility". Yet you also try to excuse him of all these willful atrocities as "a matter of perspective". Which is it to be?

[Elladie]

You want Hades to have "redemptive possibility". Yet you also try to excuse him of all these willful atrocities as "a matter of perspective". Which is it to be?

I'm interested to see where I have excused anyone from anything, please could you quote those sections back to me?

At no point have I ever said anything about Hades not doing some terrible things. Nor have I argued that we shouldn't have killed him. In the circumstances as they played out, we had no choice. My argument was rather aimed at the moral absolutism you claim to embrace but refuse to apply to other characters, apparently for the rather simple reason that you like them and you don't like Hades? You also appear to be attacking both those who do like Hades character and the writers who created him. Most of the characters in this tale, including our own, do very morally questionable things, but you're not holding any of them to the same standards. That's my objection to what you're saying.

I'd also like the point out that G'raha Tia's actions MAY have created two timelines - we don't actually know yet - but he certainly didn't know in advance that they would since he expected to die. So why isn't he a monster who intended to condemn thousands of people to oblivion regardless of their wishes on the subject?

I am just asking you to use the same moral standards for everyone, but you don't seem to want to. Or to agree that yours is just a point of view that differs from other points of view in the matter of Hades as a character and that both are equally valid.

[Puksi]

I'm interested to see where I have excused anyone from anything, please could you quote those sections back to me?

You called my speaking against his atroci--his actions--"taking the moral high ground", and "moral absolutism", strongly implying that somehow anything I listed could be not monstrous in a certain context, presumably for that "redemptive possibility". That seems to be the problem anyone has with my posts, that I call what he did wrong ? And now it's "attacking the writers"--really? As for countering other posters who counter me, I was unaware the only acceptable form is to offer unquestioning admiration of this character in a thread whose premise is "he's actually not all that tragic guys".

In lore context alone, then, as I said, I am morbidly curious. In what context would any of the actions I listed be right by the standards set down by the writers' narrative? (or any narrative, really, I can't think of any myself.) If you want to leave out the whole murder of billions bit under the phrase "moral relativism" somehow, then where does that leave us with the willful, remorseless manipulation and deception of people--"insects"--he feigned to care about? Using unwitting partners for breeding fodder? Scorning the children he sired through that deception because they too are "insects" who failed to live up to his lofty standards, standards he himself fails to uphold? Using an unwilling mother and her unborn child to incubate a monster meant to destroy what little of their world he didn't already destroy?

You left off pressing on the subject of Ardbert and company since the narrative did not claim they were right, so that's a start I guess? Regardless of the "gotcha" you are trying to make with Cid and G'raha Tia, it seems disingenous to compare a doomed world, with a a fraction of doomed survivors, placed in an impossible and hopeless situation because of the Garleans, who are even a thing because of Emet-Selch--to the Ascians' willful destruction of billions of lives who were NOT in a doomsday setting, and how many worlds are we up to again?

The Ascians made certain that Black Rose timeline, with however many people on it--the story is unclear and even a bit convoluted how many, and how much time had passed--was going to die. Nature as the Ascians twisted it was going to take its course. And the narrative took the weight of Cid and G'raha Tia's decision into account. They moved to save billions at--very arguably--the cost of a doomed few.

Emet-Selch acted in the reverse, destroying the lives of billions who were NOT doomed to die for the sake of the few he deemed worthy of existence.

Health check: Still fine, but goodness, I am confused.

[tokinokanatae]

So, the intelligent monster who robbed a woman of her bodily autonomy and enslaved her unborn child to their grand scheme deserves respect, while their victim--who was made a twisted monster by this respectable individual--only receives the insult of pity, because the intelligent monster stacked the deck to make certain that victim could never be anything but a pawn. The intelligent monster is the one who took away their choice and freedom of will, with the intent of making them bring about tragedy, yet it's the victim who has no "saving grace", while the intelligent monster's atrocities against the lessers ain't even no big deal. My goodness, you'd better believe we're going to "agree to disagree".

This obviously gets you very emotional. I understand. However, rather than trying to imply that people that have a different opinion than you are morally deficient, it would be better to think about what Emet-Selch's actions actually were in this situation:

1. Emet was not the one that "robbed a woman of her bodily autonomy"

   We know very little about Mama Vauthry, except that she was pregnant. There were three people in the room in that scene and only one of them showed excitement over grafting her unborn child to a sin eater--and neither she, nor Emet-Selch, were that person.
   I know it's very popular in some corners of fandom to assume that if an Ascian is in a scene, personal responsibility is tossed out the window, but all Emet-Selch did was make an offer. There was always the choice not to take him up on it--unless you can point to something concrete in the game that shows that Emet-Selch was prepared to create Vauthry by force?
   

2. There is no indication that Vauthry's monstrous actions were because he was part sin eater

   Sin eaters are mindless. They hunt people down because they need their aether to live. We never once see sin eaters torturing people because of this. When they do hang on to vestiges of their humanity, they attempt to continue to do positive things for people--like the Cardinal Sins continue to attempt to help people like they did in life--or carry on their last actions they were doing before they got turned. This means that Vauthry's monstrous actions in the game are not because of his sin eater tendencies, but because of his human half.
   Emet didn't force Vauthry to use the sin eaters en masse to attack and murder innocent people in Lakeland, nor did Vauthry being partially a sin eater force him to fly over the decimated Lakeland troops, crowing about what he did. No other sin eater engages in these actions. They are the actions of a human being, and Emet-Selch did not raise Vauthry to be the human being he is in the game.

3. The scene in question was trying to tell you something important about Emet-Selch's mindset...

   ...and that thing is not ASCIAN BAD or VAUTHRY INNOCENT VICTIM. It shows that--much like the rest of his actions the entire expac--Emet-Selch deliberately seeks out people that will allow him to further his goals, but he always frames it as a choice. Not because it isn't a real choice, but because it is. That way, when they make the wrong one, he's more justified in his disgust in humanity and continuing on his current path. Emet-Selch both does and doesn't want to be surprised by our actions. It's a shame that in the case of Vauthry's family, they did exactly what he expected.

The guilt driving the Warriors Of Darkness may be similar to the guilt driving Emet-Selch, but I don't recall a point in that patch where they felt what they were doing was just, or even forgivable, and I especially don't recall the Ascians telling them the truth, that the Rejoining would not save their world at all. (The Ascians, lying? Gasp! I clutch my Ondo pearls.)

Your, ah, recall doesn't match the game itself. In the original Warriors of Darkness arc, Urianger very clearly explains that the WoD are trying to bring on a Calamity to merge their world's souls into the Source's lifestream. Or, as Alisaie put it:

Then...if the Warrior's of Darkness succeed, everyone in their world will die?

Ah, but you say! Clearly Ardbert and his merry band didn't know. Why, you'd bet your Ondo pearls they were ignorant--misled by those vile Ascians. Except, um, not quite:

However, this fate may yet be preferable to the alternative, for if the First were to fall to transcendent Light in the manner the Warriors of Darkness described, it would give way unto a void wherein none may know either life or death.

Far better to die, they reason--for in death there is life. The essence of a soul which returneth unto the Source may be born anew. Saved. Such, at least, is their belief, I surmise.

So what was that about them not understanding what the Rejoining would do to their world (and ours)? Seems pretty well informed to me. Ardbert even says as such the first time we see him again in Shadowbringers, just in case you forgot.

He never mentioned "love" for us "lessers", by the way. The line was "I have broken bread with you, fought with you, grown ill, grown old! Sired children and yes, welcomed death's sweet embrace." "Love" was mentioned for his own people. Not us. We are breeding fodder for his machinations, at best.

Oh? This is how you describe "breeding fodder"?

Yet in spite of himself, when he cradled the newborn in his arms and stroked that downy hair, he could not help but hope. For what, he could not be certain, but he hoped nonetheless. It made little difference in the end, for his son had succumbed to some absurd illness and returned to the Underworld long before his time.

Don't stop quoting the story there. For the alternative past part, which is separate from their (frankly doomed) timeline, as confirmed by G'raha Tia's continued presence (and even The Rising event, really):

During this period, one loyal scholar noted that while preventing the disaster may not solve all of the problems that had afflicted the world of the past, the one dubbed the “Warrior of Light” would still be alive. The various members of the team each had their own personal connection with the deceased, and the notion of creating an alternative past in which their hero survived the Calamity met with unanimous approval.

This is getting long enough, but I didn't want to let this go without addressing it. Nothing you quoted says anything about them wanting to erase themselves. They wanted to create a version of the past where the WoL lived. It doesn't say "The various members of the team each had their own personal connection with the deceased, and the notion of creating an alternative past in which their hero survived the Calamity met with unanimous approval, even if it meant their own demise."--which is what G'raha theorized would happen if he succeeded.

Generations of people deleted against their will, because a minority decided that the past was superior to the present? Hmm, sounds familiar. Wonder where I heard that one before...

[Puksi]

BIG SNIP.

I'm happy to see my posts are bringing new people to the forums!

1) Vauthry's mother wasn't the one who was asked, and unborn Vauthry wasn't asked at all. You could argue they talked her into it later, but she was fearful, and Vauthry was still given no choice, so there's that. Emet-Selch still did it, he was the one with the Lightwarden and the power to do so. I'm not sure how this argument is supposed to absolve him of that.

2) Vauthry was corrupted with a Lightwarden, like Titania. Titania was not mindless, but was still warped into a murderous parody of what they were before the Lightwarden overtook them. Vauthry was clearly corrupted physically by the Lightwarden--Humes aren't fifteen to twenty feet tall, they can't do an Exorcist with their necks or eat silverware--and they don't come with a second face embedded in their chest. He also certainly seemed to be affected mentally as Titania was. Apparently their speech patterns in Japan are similar, something that implies the speaker is "off"?

And then there was Yoshi-P's interview where he said he would like us to consider, "was Vauthry just a friend of the sin eaters, or was he being controlled by someone". Considering Emet-Selch did not give him a choice to be a pawn, and Cylva also said raising the Cardinal Virtues had to be the idea of the Ascians, my bet is on "controlled by someone".

On the Cardinal Virtues, they were mindlessly acting out what they did in life, and were apparently a danger to the living. That doesn't sound like they were helping anyone.

3) More cutscenes to rewatch, thanks for pointing that out. That really doesn't change that the writers still pushed it was not the path to take, though. The game has been fairly consistent in the message of coldblooded murder being not nice.

4) Emet-Selch felt hope, for what? It says he didn't know, and I don't see the word love mentioned anywhere. Hope that the baby would live up to his test? That the baby would succeed in the plan he had for it? Did the baby's mother know who her partner really was, and what he really intended? Did they know that ultimately they were "insects", not worth what he lost? Did any of them, in all those thousands of lifetimes of his? Varis certainly seemed keenly aware he was a disappointment.

5) The Source in the Black Rose timeline was dying. Not as in "these people are going to die of old age anyway", as in, the planet itself was failing to sustain the survivors.

And after the night comes the morning, as the sun rises to greet the new day. While it may already be too late to mend this dying world, there are those who would strive to create a place where the sun will shine again, not for their own sake, but for those in a past that may yet be saved.

An impossible situation, because of Black Rose, which was because of Garleans, which was because of Ascians. There would have been no need for this heavy decision but for the Ascians. And it was heavy--this was no dismissal of the survivors as "insects". Nor did their plan involve the destruction of many other healthy worlds and the billions of people living on them, or any of the other games the Ascians play. Not even UNLEASH ULTIMAAAAA.

I've got no problems calling Emet-Selch's motivation sympathetic. I will definitely argue against calling the atrocities the Ascians have committed "a matter of perspective". "Even if they have a reason and a goal, an incredible amount of people died in the process". (Look out, Yoshi-P is attacking the writers!)

Thank you also for the concern, but I still don't need it. Welcome to the forums!

[Lauront]

@ Puksi
In fact you do not remember the OMG short story correctly at all. The below is a direct quote from the story which clearly states that 'the vast majority' opposed Cid's proffered solution.

"The researchers of Garlond Ironworks continued to investigate the process by which Black Rose─possessed of a destructive power far exceeding its creators’ expectations─triggered the Eighth Umbral Calamity. They believed that understanding the nature of this catastrophe could reveal a means by which it might be averted entirely. Their aim was to change the past to create an alternate reality in which the Calamity never occurred─a feat rendered conceivable by their knowledge of the advanced technologies of fallen civilizations. However, many of those who would bear the burden of continued existence in a world ravaged by Black Rose failed to see this as a viable stratagem. Such responses were consistent with my projections, as it is generally the primary objective of all life-forms to secure their own survival in the here and now.
Many of Master Cid’s followers either refused to cooperate or expressed a desire to leave the Ironworks altogether. Certain former employees went as far as to appropriate equipment and supplies by force before heading into the wilderness to fend for themselves.
Although the vast majority opposed Master Cid’s radical proposition, a select few remained to lend their assistance."

By all means dismiss this as 'whataboutism': I can see that you HAVE to do so in order to maintain your high moral ground after dismissing moral relativism as you have. In contrast, I am offering the idea that everyone involved makes morally questionable decisions justified by the argument that it saves the people they specifically care about. If Hades is a monster without any redemptive possibility, so too is G'raha Tia, and Cid and indeed the Warrior of Light/Darkness. All are fighting very specifically for something at the expense of something else, the relative merit of either option depends on the perspective of the observer.

OMG's remarks about the objective of all life-forms in the here-and-now being to ensure their survival, makes the importance of perspective in determining morality very clear. There is no difference, we are all fighting for the same thing, and we will generally do what we must. A few individuals may see themselves as rising above this, as content to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. It is what the Amaurotines thought they were doing in sacrificing themselves to summon Zodiark. It's what G'raha thinks he is doing. The people in the future - the vast majority - would disagree with him.

I suppose it's reassuring to have so much moral certainty but it's built on misinterpretation and misinformation. Most of the folks in the story are only heroes to the people they fight for. They're villains to the rest

Agreed. AFAIC, ethics ultimately can only be formulated (given a foundation) between individuals and groups with common aims, which in turn results on prohibitions on certain activities within said groups because the outcome of this is deemed to be mutually/socially beneficial. These prohibited actions happen, by and large, to overlap with what we're evolutionarily predisposed to recoil at, due to a sense of empathy and a desire for reciprocity. This works when there is a mutuality of objectives in place (e.g. within the same species), and obviously those who violate said social compacts can be ostracised, imprisoned and so on as a deterrent, but it is essentially a form of social compact, with purely internal terms of reference.

Trying to claim that certain higher beings should just roll over and give up because their world was shattered and the aether from it diluted, and that they should value the lives that came thereafter as equivalent to what they lost, and that they're wrong if they don't so, is in the end, nothing but an opinion. I have no problem with granting that both sides have a strong rationale for their actions, and are champions/heroes of their cause and villains to those whom they obstruct. Certainly, there are consequences in that either will face opposition in standing up for what they believe and in this case there is very little room for the two sides to reconcile their aims, as things stand.

The writers are, of course, free to have their own view on whom they support, and which side is "wrong", as are other fans, but that alone doesn't sway me much. That said, the writers certainly have it in their power to add twists and turns which may change my view as things go on, but that could also be in the form of losing interest in the specific subplot if it's something dull like slavish tempering being the ulimate cause.

[Xion136]

[I] that was the first and only time. And I just know he felt bad about it! So bad, he didn't stop. He never mentioned "love" for us "lessers", by the way. The line was "I have broken bread with you, fought with you, grown ill, grown old! Sired children and yes, welcomed death's sweet embrace." "Love" was mentioned for his own people. Not us. We are breeding fodder for his machinations, at best. Do I really need to elaborate on why THAT is not "moral"? Spoiler: there's a word for THAT atrocity, and it isn't "hero".)

Emet-Selch, so heroic and righteous he needs all these attempts at whataboutism to excuse him--and it still doesn't really work! Huh. ‾\_(ツ)_/‾

How do I like this a thousand times over?! Spot on in Everything! Literally!


I would rather not have nodded to him when he asked me to remember him. I'd rather have been far harsher if allowed...

[Theodric]

Fictional characters do not need to be held to the same standards as individuals within the real world, nor does everything need to play out in such a way as to allow every last little detail to be accounted for. I dread to think what some of you would do to some of the earlier Final Fantasy games if you happened to get your hands on them.

A lot of us have fond memories of cool antagonists and rivals. That they weren't simply imprisoned or put to the sword made them interesting. That some of them were slain but happened to have sympathetic reasons for doing what they did was also pretty neat.

People root for all sorts of different characters in fiction for all sorts of different reasons. Please stop trying to police how other people read into subjective and very complicated moral issues.

Emet-Selch was very much a hero to his people. Yes, he did bad things - but given that his very civilisation, culture and people were at stake it's at least somewhat understandable as to why he would go so far in an effort to try and restore things to how they once were. He had to be stopped from the perspective of those living on the Shards for obvious reasons, though it is very much a case of different heroes clashing and one emerging victorious.

Let's not beat around the bush, though. Some of you are never going to look at things from the perspective of the relevant characters themselves without bias being present. It's easy to tell as much by the odd emotionally charged phrases being thrown about.

There's nothing 'rabid' about Emet-Selch's fan base. In fact, everybody outlining his sympathetic qualities has been perfectly civil throughout this thread. Again, he's a fictional character in a fantasy game. He isn't real. Different people have different tastes and wants when it comes to the entertainment that they consume. They also root for different characters and factions.

There's absolutely no reason not to just shrug and agree to disagree. It's pretty creepy that some of you act like anyone who roots for or feels sympathy for a well written antagonist is in need of re-education.

[Berteaux_Braumegain]

My take on it is that what Hades did to Vauthry alone is pretty bad, let alone what his puppet-mastering of Allah and Garlemald caused. He's done a lot of things that are bad and inexcusable.

However, his motivation is understandable and his desire to have his people at least be remembered is benign enough to honor given that one person's misdeeds shouldn't reflect upon the whole race.