Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic

[Brinne]

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying as it is difficult to understand you.

During the Amaurot dungeon those creatures aren't spawing in response to Zodiark being summoned. That is a result of the creation magics running amok and making their worse fears manifest. They summon Zodiark to cease that destruction and prevent it from completely destroying everything.

In fairness, the "ancient civilization causes their own destruction via hubris" is such a well-worn trope in so much fantasy and sci-fi it's not surprising peoples' instinct would be to project that onto this situation, even if the writing was clearly meant to subvert that exact idea and present the Amaurotines as largely innocent victims and kind people.

[Avidria]

snip

I think what made this story interesting is that there are shades of gray in each side of it. I personally think G'raha and Emet's actions do parallel each other, but that there are differences that make the difference (wow words) between one being what I'd call heroic and the other being villainous - or at best highly misguided good intentions.

There's still a lot of questions unanswered tbh but here's how I see it...

Emet is actively working to destroy all current life to revive people who have been dead for quite some time. The current life is different from what he grew up with, different from that he clearly loved and cared about, and in his eyes unworthy of carrying on his people's legacy.

To boil it down, G'raha was part of a plan that involved abandoning the present to give the past a second chance - which is where the similarities hit, because you could essentially boil that down to "abandoning the past and eliminating current life to give those who died a second chance." Same end goal pretty much, the key difference being that the future/current world he abandoned was already doomed anyway. They were all going to die, and the Ascians were more than likely going to succeed in bringing about the rejoining.

He wasn't scorning the present because he thought the past was more worthy of existing. He was leaving the present behind because he saw no future for anyone there, and saw hope for making a better future by changing the past. Not even a better future for himself either, I might add. He fully intended to die for the sake of that future, for the sake of the WoL and everyone else.

I won't argue that his was objectively the "right" choice, or claim that he's above any reproach or criticism for making it. But I think there is definitely a difference between him and Emet... beyond the obvious in Emet's goals being a bit less compatible with the WoL's than G'raha's. :P

[Theodric]

It isn't explicitly stated whether Vauthry's mother went along with the plan or not. It could have gone either way. In the grand scheme of things, she's a very minor character who is unlikely to be mentioned again unless there happens to be something written about her in the next edition of the lore book. Sure, the writers could have fleshed her out a bit more along with everybody else related to the Eulmore portion of Shadowbringers but that can be said about a great many characters and there's only so much time and resources to go around.

As an aside, I'd like to extend a warm welcome the new faces to the forum within this thread! It's always wonderful to see new posters pop up, especially when it comes to discussing the game's story and characters.

[LittleArrow]

I think you may be in the minority, OP, in regards to relating with his character. In general, I've never seen this community rally behind a character more than Emet in regards to a villain. No one was offering sympathy to Nidhogg in losing his sister. I didn't see people posting about how sad they were for Fordola (much to my dismay... she is probably my fave char in the game now ). I always see people pointing to Emet as being a very well rounded character.

However, I do agree with you. I felt terrible for Emet, but I never once felt it justified any of his actions. I think the writers are incredible at persuading the player to become emotional, and leave logic at the door. If you look at this logically, honestly, Emet is a tantraming child someone who cannot move past his grief and thus is very destructive in his melancholy.

Spoilers:

It is heavily implied that the ancients caused their own destruction due to overuse of creation magic. They were arrogant in not helping stop the catastrophe before it became so terrible they had mass killings of their own people. Honestly, the ancients failed. They grew too big for their own breeches. Imo, they fought their fight, lost, and offered a beginning to the next generation. I'm totally on the side of the 14th member. That doesn't make their loss any less tragic or as if they deserved their entire civilization to fall. Just stating from a logical point of view, it makes sense logically why their society failed looking back at the series of events that led upto. This fall was preventable.

The ascians, including Emet, always just seemed like the sore loser. The ascians could have brought incredible good in the world, but instead they just kept hanging onto the fact they lost and just wanted to ruin it for everyone else. I chalk this upto the fact they were tempered by Zodiark, and yes they wanted to save their people, but they just couldn't accept loss.

I think Emet is an emotional character. Yes, we can all sympathize and even empathize with him, but that doesn't mean he's right or his character isn't a mass murdering monster. So, I agree, the character could have had more backstory instead of saving it until the end for the big reveal - but he was the villain. Ardbro was so well developed b/c he's the secondary protagonist. Of course he'll have more writing and development. That's not bad writing, that's just the nature of the characters and how the writer wanted to use them.

Either way, it was extremely effective, almost to a frightening level. Seeing some posts agree with any form of mass murder in this story is really kinda of offputting. So, the writer did get what they wanted. I wouldn't call that bad writing at all.

[Alleo]

No I dont find Ardbert and Emet to be the same.

First Ardberts world was either: Not save them and their souls would be lost forever thanks to the flood of light (or turned into beasts) or cause a calamity and at least keep the peoples soul existing. The method to get there was told by the Ascians (which kinda forget to mention that there are other solutions to stop it) and even though it was a horrible solution and they needed to be stopped and the game as you pointed out did not try to spin their actions as something good. At that point in time they were enemies.

Emets situation is different. First these people sacrificed themselves willingly to give their world and the lifes on it a chance to live. Then instead of honoring their wishes they decided to somehow get them back even though its probably not possible because their souls were used as fuel. I doubt you can get that back. On top of that there were enough Amaurotines at that time that were against that too but the Ascians stood above those wishes and in turn Hydealyn was summoned. Now he plans to sacrifice not only the shards but later whole souls of the source people which includes ancient ones too.

You bring up the millions of people (which wont be that much) that Ardbert would have killed yet what about the billions of lifes that Emet and his group already killed and planned to kill? I am not saying that just because it was less amount of people dieing in makes the WoDs better but I am saying that Emet in that case was even worse because they already killed of more people than anyone ever did.

Renda was taunting and they were behaving that way because they tried to tell themselves that it was all worth it because if they did not they would fail and not save their whole planet. They never saw us as lesser beings (Emet does not even see us as alive) just that in their eyes it was a necessary evil. They never liked it and as soon as they truly saw a better path they took it. And afterwards most of them gave their lifes to stop the flood and Ardbert suffered for his actions for over 100 years..always feeling guilty for what they have done and wanting to do better. Thus his answer that he can finally feel proud. If he is now only feeling proud (after saving his world without another world suffering) then doesnt that tell that he did not feel proud before that?

Its interesting how you can believe that Emet really treid to find a way to stop, even though he is tempered and even after we pass his test at the end he still is like: But not enough, yet completely condem the WoDs and Ardbert as even worse then him even though they have not only talked about changing but did change! Ardbert is the reason why we did not turn and he gave his own sense of being for that. He shows feelings of regret, despair and does not look down on others. None of that counts for Emet because he only cares for those that are already lost. So yes these points make the WoD into much better people than the Ascians and they count as heroes to their world because they did help with stopping it and yet can still count as morally grey at the same time.

[Brinne]

First Ardberts world was either: Not save them and their souls would be lost forever thanks to the flood of light

Wait, and this is different from the Ascians, how? From Emet's point of view, the Ascians are worse than dead, their very essences and personhoods have been destroyed, ripped apart, and used as resources to create something else. The original Ascians, unless they are Rejoined, are similarly lost forever. His former best friend is gone, their very existence replaced by a bunch of misaligned pieces. How is this not the same situation, in a lot of ways?

What other solutions were there that the Ascians could have proposed, exactly? The one miracle that Urianger painstakingly orchestrates involves summoning Hydaelyn and begging her to save the First. You really think that would have worked out for Emet and the Ascian's situation? Hey, god who destroyed our world, give it back, please!

No, the game did not spin their actions as good, but neither did they spin them as pure evil, or black, or unforgivable, once their circumstances were laid out. The strongest statement the game gives after the situation is laid out is Alphinaud lamenting that the WoD are struggling with "an impossible choice." Ardbert's resolution has him declaring that he can finally be proud of what they had done to try to save their people. There is no indication that they ever regretted their actions. When challenged, they REAFFIRM their actions, that they are dead-set determined to carry it out, and Ardbert's character arc in Shadowbringers is about "being proud of himself" regarding it.

Emets situation is different. First these people sacrificed themselves willingly to give their world. . .

I think it's a little presumptive to argue on the part of dead people, whose deaths we are benefiting from, as far as what they would have wanted. Furthermore, the Ancients who were destroyed via Sundering were certainly not willing. In either case, it's not absolute, but every indication we get from the game so far indicates that the Ancients also want to live, they want a future, they want their world restored. They say as much when their Shades are summoned, Emet draws power from their wishes, hopes, and prayers to live, and he's connected directly to the Underworld. And no, as far as we understand, the plan was not actually to sacrifice Ancients, but the "new life", whatever that means - we don't know yet.

And if it turns out the Ancients do truly wish to live, and are in anguish over their fate, what then? Does that make Emet's actions more acceptable to you?

I'm a little baffled at the implication that "we don't know if it would have worked to fully restore them" (when we've SEEN people successfully returned from the dead in both the Allag story and in the Alchemist quests) is used to argue moral superiority over "yeah, they'd still be dead, but at least they'd be dead but a part of them would EXIST kinda-sorta" I'm honestly not sure how to reconcile that, since it seems blatantly obvious to me that the latter is more questionable than the former, whereas to you it seems the opposite. Different perspectives, I guess!

You bring up the millions of people (which wont be that much) that Ardbert would have killed . . .

Uh, yeah, that's literally putting forth that the WoD's mass slaughter of innocents is more acceptable than Emet's because to save their world they were required to commit less numerical slaughter. This seems. A very strange basis to argue a morality case around, to me. Like. The footnote of (that wouldn't be that much) after "the millions of people Ardbert would kill" is kinda. Strange.

Renda was taunting and they were behaving that way because they tried to tell themselves that it was all worth it because if they did not they would fail and not save their whole planet.

Wait, so you immediately come to the conclusion that Renda was being sadistic and cruel was a coping mechanism, because she didn't have a choice or else their planet would be destroyed, but you take Emet's barbs - Emet, whose entire arc in Shadowbringers is taking a whole lot of unnecessary trouble to "seek a path of lesser tragedy"; "perhaps there is another way that requires less bloodshed"; and then having a meltdown when he's disappointed, at pure face value?

As far as Ardbert's suffering afterwards goes, there is an entire sequence in Kholusia where Ardbert himself feels the need to make the point that as much as he has suffered - suffered to a point he almost lost himself completely to madness - it is NOTHING compared to what Emet has been through. The man says this himself.

The "feeling proud" part only comes at the end of his arc in Shadowbringers, as a direct response to seeing how much the people of the First truly wanted to live. In other words, Ardbert was not wrong for doing everything in his power that he could to respond to their wishes and live. The feeling proud is based on that - because Ardbert was in such despair over the following century he thought at times it would have been better to just let the First be destroyed - not predicated on atoning or regretting his actions on the Source.

Its interesting how you can believe that Emet really treid to find a way to stop. . .

Once again, this is literally Emet's entire arc in Shadowbringers. He was trying to find justification to stop - which is not a trivial matter, since he views his attempts to save his people as a sworn duty to them. He was legitimately upset when we failed to contain the Light, and berates and gets angry at himself for "letting himself believe in us" - just like he was furious at himself for his "slip" in letting himself care for his dead son as Solus. That's Emet's tragedy. He has doubts about his path, he flirts with those doubts, and then rages against the world and himself when actually, everyone and the sundered worlds live down to his expectations after all. He both wants to be proven right, and wants to proven wrong, about us. And throughout Shadowbringers, all the actions he took because he let himself doubt and waver and reconsider led to his downfall, in the end.

Ardbert really did not meaningfully change in the way you are suggesting. His goal was always to save his world and protect the people in it. Our goals ended up aligning near the end, so it worked out, and he supported us. The only thing that changed was his self-hatred for "being the man who caused the Flood" - not for "being the man who murdered so many innocents on the Source."

I mean, I appreciate your reply, but the generous interpretation of Ardbert's mass-murdering crew and very negative one of Emet's mass murder kind of only clarifies the idea that there's a double standard happening here - because Ardbert wound up doing something to help us, personally, out, right? And Emet didn't? (You know, asides from feed us lots of information and save Y'shtola's life.) Is that the real criteria? They certainly share the conviction of saving their worlds and the people they see as depending on them at all costs, even if it means killing swaths of innocent people, and there is no indication of that changing for either of them.

For what it's worth, I love Ardbert a lot, understand where he was coming from, and happily accept the game's final designation of him as a "hero", in spite of everything. I also accept the game's designation of Emet as a hero. I can accept that while understanding that they both did awful, horrible, no good, very bad things. Both of them, for largely the same reasons. That's all there is to it.

[Alleo]

What other solutions were there that the Ascians could have proposed, exactly? The one miracle that Urianger painstakingly orchestrates involves summoning Hydaelyn and begging her to save the First. You really think that would have worked out for Emet and the Ascian's situation? Hey, god who destroyed our world, give it back, please!

No, the game did not spin their actions as good, but neither did they spin them as pure evil, or black, or unforgivable, once their circumstances were laid out. The strongest statement the game gives after the situation is laid out is Alphinaud lamenting that the WoD are struggling with "an impossible choice." Ardbert's resolution has him declaring that he can finally be proud of what they had done to try to save their people. There is no indication that they ever regretted their actions. When challenged, they REAFFIRM their actions, that they are dead-set determined to carry it out, and Ardbert's character arc in Shadowbringers is about "being proud of himself" regarding it.

I think it's a little presumptive to argue on the part of dead people, whose deaths we are benefiting from, as far as what they would have wanted. Furthermore, the Ancients who were destroyed via Sundering were certainly not willing. In either case, it's not absolute, but every indication we get from the game so far indicates that the Ancients also want to live, they want a future, they want their world restored. They say as much when their Shades are summoned, Emet draws power from their wishes, hopes, and prayers to live, and he's connected directly to the Underworld. And no, as far as we understand, the plan was not actually to sacrifice Ancients, but the "new life", whatever that means - we don't know yet.

And if it turns out the Ancients do truly wish to live, and are in anguish over their fate, what then? Does that make Emet's actions more acceptable to you?

I'm a little baffled at the implication that "we don't know if it would have worked to fully restore them" (when we've SEEN people successfully returned from the dead in both the Allag story and in the Alchemist quests) is used to argue moral superiority over "yeah, they'd still be dead, but at least they'd be dead but a part of them would EXIST kinda-sorta" I'm honestly not sure how to reconcile that, since it seems blatantly obvious to me that the latter is more questionable than the former, whereas to you it seems the opposite. Different perspectives, I guess!



Uh, yeah, that's literally putting forth that the WoD's mass slaughter of innocents is more acceptable than Emet's because to save their world they were required to commit less numerical slaughter. This seems. A very strange basis to argue a morality case around, to me. Like. The footnote of (that wouldn't be that much) after "the millions of people Ardbert would kill" is kinda. Strange.

Wait I did not say that the Ascians had other solutions I said that the Ascians gave the WoDs only one solution even thoughth other solutions would be possible (but that would go beyond their goals) Also theoretically the Ascians with their problems could have simply accepted the sacrifice and live on. Just like our characters and the scions move on after death. Even some of the old Amaurotines were for this and I wonder how much of that wish to even save those they lost came from being tempered and Zodiark needing more aether.

About their actions: That was my point. The WoD count as morally grey. Their actions were not good but also not done out of pure evil intentions. And when another path was shown to them they took it. Afterwards Ardbert has done anything after suffering for lots of years to save his world without destroying another. They are morally grey.

The Ascians only care about their lost people. They dont care about us, they even look down on us. They have already destroyed billions of lifeforms and made on shard into the void. They are ready to sacrifice the souls of ancient ones even those from Amaurot only to get the sacrifices back. And you say that people came back from the death but were did one ever came back with the help of a primal? We have not a single case of primals bringing them back completely to live. (And how would that even happen if the souls are in the primal and used as fuel) The twins grandfather was still just a "ghost" and never really alive, the daugther of the queen was brought back by Lakshmi as an empty shell. Which death do you mean that came back from the death by a primal and was completely normal and stayed alive?

No I dont think their actions would be better if they would be in anguish over it because I doubt that they are even alive. And they knew what they were doing. The Amaurotines who survived it all and choose to side with the Ascians may not have liked it but ironically they too will be killed of as a sacrifice when the source is complete. Wonder if they like that? (And yes the original plan was to sacrifice the new life, but now they said that they plan to sacrifice the whole source when everyone is complete again. This inlcudes people like us that does have the souls of ancient ones. Its nearly 100% confirmed that those are also reborn)

And no I am saying that in the whole view of things the WoDs are better than Emet because they choose to no go through that slaughter when they saw a different path. They were also fighting for people that are still alive and for the souls that still can be saved. Its their redemption, especially with Ardbert in Shadowbringers that changes them from our villians to tragic heroes with a moral grey nuance.

Edit: Man some of those ad hominem attacks in some posts.

[Brinne]

About their actions: That was my point. The WoD count as morally grey. Their actions were not good but also not done out of pure evil intentions. And when another path was shown to them they took it. Afterwards Ardbert has done anything after suffering for lots of years to save his world without destroying another. They are morally grey.

This is what it comes down to: yes. Ardbert took another path to save his people because he was lucky enough to have another path become available to him. Emet was NOT lucky enough to have another path open up to him, even though, unlike Ardbert, he was actively looking for one that would require less bloodshed. If Ardbert had been in Emet's position, where there was no Crystal Mom there to save his world, Ardbert would have continued being destructive and killing others without hesitation. That is no moral difference. That is a difference of circumstance. If either were in the others' situation, they would have made the same choice. They are both people who would PREFER to not have to harm others to save their people, but absolutely will if they see no other way.

Really, you talk about how the Ascians only cared about their lost people, unlike the WoD, but when do we ever see Ardbert and his company crying and feeling guilty and caring about all the people whose lives they ruined, like Ga Bu? I didn't see any of that. I saw a lot of smirking and gloating and reaffirming to themselves when the pressure was on that they WERE certain they were doing the right thing for those they loved. Because we're meant to see their traditionally heroic lines - "we will never give up the fight for the sake of those we left behind!" - to understand that they are the same as us, simply put in an awful, impossible situation we have not. Hm, considering some of Hades's final lines as he's fighting us - about how he's empowered by the hopes and dreams of his people, about how he cannot abandon them, how he won't let it be for nothing, about how he's determined to not let their tragedy be repeated - I wonder if something similar is going on there?

It's a bit strange that you would put forth "gee, the Ascians could have just gotten over their entire world and everyone they ever loved being destroyed, ripped apart, and the fact that they ever existed being erased" should have been 'another path' to dealing with their problems - but Ardbert just accepting what happened to his world isn't? I mean, he could have done that. He could have just accepted the fact that his world had ended, "their time had ended", as people love to say about Amaurot, and not taken it out on unrelated people and unrelated worlds in a desperate attempt to save it. Ga Bu sure would be a lot happier if he had done so!

Also, uh, Ardbert didn't endure that century of suffering knowingly "to save his world without destroying another." Most of his angst throughout Shadowbringers is how he was FORCED to endure that suffering for reasons he didn't understand, because Minfilia wouldn't let him rest. I feel like there's some projection of traditionally heroic qualities and a heroic/atonement arc onto Ardbert's story because it's easier to readily accept him as fitting into the hero role - again, because he winds up our ally because his goal to save his world ends up aligning with ours, whereas Emet's doesn't. And that goes back to Shadowbringers' repeated thesis about the hero/villain dichotomy often becoming a matter of illusory comfort to justify what we do against our opposition without having to feel bad about it.

[MrThinker]

Really, you talk about how the Ascians only cared about their lost people, unlike the WoD, but when do we ever see Ardbert and his company crying and feeling guilty and caring about all the people whose lives they ruined, like Ga Bu?

Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but Ga Bu's life being ruined was not the WoDs fault right? Sure, the Ascians manipulated Roaille's former spy network to get crystals delivered to the Kobolds, but the Kobolds trying to summon Titan again, and thus the sacrifices of Ga Bu's parents, is because of their feud with Limsa Lominsa.

[Avidria]

snip

Honestly that's a pretty good point. I will say though that like... The biggest thing I remembered about the WoD in that patch was that the story felt way too short and in a way almost confusing. It felt like it wasn't a complete story, like it wasn't fleshed out and ended kind of abruptly - like a plotline and set of characters wasted, all the way up until Shadowbringers. I honestly forgot Ga Bu's story was even tied to theirs. :/

Shadowbringers retelling almost makes them feel like different characters. Like looking back, after going through her role quest, it seems super bizarre that Renda Rae would be gloating over what they were doing. Their character in every flashback cutscene doesn't line up with their actions on the Source, especially considering what we know they know about what the Ascians did to their own world (based on the final role quest). It actually... Seems odd, thinking about it. I almost want to go back and rewatch their original story now to try to make sense of it.

As a side, I thought Ardbert did at least acknowledge some regret at some point, but I'd have to go back and rewatch that too probably. <.<