Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic

[Just-Communication]

Good discussion. (where are the spoiler tags?)

Just want to put down some observations. From what little I remember of the time spent in Amaurot, the city and society gave me the impression of being driven by calculation and logic. Or, if I were to describe it in a single word, cold. Speaking with the NPCs and reading their bubble text made me feel like something was off and I think it had to do with what I can only describe as a lack of emotion. Not heartless, mind you, but the general idea that all can be resolved with calm, rational discourse.

Granted we only saw a very tiny segment of society but the closest comparison I can think of is if it were a community of scientists focused on personal development and research. Placing greater import on sound experimentation, qualitative data and results of trial and error versus being driven by base urges, bias or moral indignation stemming from illogical thought processes.

I think the storytellers were trying to make this very clear. For example, there was a quest that had you test a creation meant for children. It produced these blobs that attacked you and, after dispensing with them, the quest giver expresses surprise at the outcome but there was no indication of remorse, shock or guilt that it could have endangered the children.

Or that instance where they had conjured up a creature that just flew around bashing its head against the walls. It reminded me of that Jurassic Park dialogue where the character points out that they're so busy trying to see if they can do something they don't stop to ask whether they should do it.

That is the kind of society I saw and that Emet-Selch comes from. If it can be rationalized, then it is worth doing or trying, regardless of the morality of those actions - my guess being morals tend to have more to do with feeling than cold, hard facts. Given this presentation I feel less of a connection with their society versus, say, Ardbert and the First or G'raha and his timeline. I am inclined to believe we are meant to be disturbed by it.

While it can be said that Emet-Selch was driven by duty, the same could also be said of those who opposed his vision of the future, whose actions I presume led to the formation of Hydaelyn. The NPC we speak to in Amaurot who somehow deduced that not all was as it seemed and that Emet-Selch was involved - if this is the same individual that Emet briefly envisioned when the WoL was joined by other champions, then I would argue that they, too, were driven by a sense of duty.

By extension, we, the supposed champions of Hydaelyn, are the torchbearers of their legacy and, despite being only a fraction of what the inhabitants of Amaurot used to be, exhibit surprising potential when working together. To me it's not about good or evil or whether Emet should be considered a hero; we are two sides of the same coin - products of decisions, driven by our own needs and desires.

While the story played out as an epic battle, if everything that transpired was simply a hypothetical debate between two associates in Amaurot, then I believe, at the very end, Emet-Selch would realize he had lost the argument. Possibly to forces that cannot be explained by logic and reason alone.

[MrThinker]

Good discussion. (where are the spoiler tags?)

Spoiler tags are denoted by [ hb] and [ /hb] without the spaces.

While it can be said that Emet-Selch was driven by duty, the same could also be said of those who opposed his vision of the future, whose actions I presume led to the formation of Hydaelyn. The NPC we speak to in Amaurot who somehow deduced that not all was as it seemed and that Emet-Selch was involved - if this is the same individual that Emet briefly envisioned when the WoL was joined by other champions, then I would argue that they, too, were driven by a sense of duty.

In regards to this specific NPC:

The real Hythlodaeus was once a very close friend of Emet-Selch, enough so that Emet would be able to more accurately reconstruct him among the countless other Ancients. It has been confirmed by the Banri Oda, the head of the Lore team, that Hythlodaeus and the person Emet briefly sees in us are 2 different people.

[Elladie]

It will be very interesting to see where we go from here.

I was NOT expecting the turnaround in the presentation of the Ascians - specifically Hades who does seem to have something of a different trajectory from Elidibus and definitely from Lahabrea - although I enjoyed it very much. Hades dragged me kicking and screaming from loathing to fascination, and I very much salute his writer; she did a fantastic job. I do hope we get more of pre-terminus Amaurot as we move through ShB. And my head is spinning from trying to focus on our true antagonist now because I really don't know which way to look.

Will we end up making some kind of alliance with Elidibus? Not going to lie, I dislike Elidibus (think he's a snake) as much as I dislike Lahabrea, but they have both been presented in a very two-dimensional way up to this point. There hasn't been any hook to hang the possibility of sympathy/understanding/redemption upon with either of them, Lahabrea particularly was just a cackling villain from a melodrama. So I'm interested to see where things go with Elidibus. Also to learn more about Zodiark/Hydaelyn: I have a pet theory that the two of them should never have been divided (based on what Ramuh says about Light and Dark) so maybe our solution will be finding away to merge the two. I can imagine the Ascians won't like that at all. Be interesting if we find a way to untemper Elidibus so we can work with him to find a solution.

As others have said I do hope the story doesn't end up being Bad god v Good god: hopefully the 'fact' - allegedly - that they're both primals throws that ending out of the window

[Lersayil]

It will be very interesting to see where we go from here.

I was NOT expecting the turnaround in the presentation of the Ascians - specifically Hades who does seem to have something of a different trajectory from Elidibus and definitely from Lahabrea - although I enjoyed it very much. Hades dragged me kicking and screaming from loathing to fascination, and I very much salute his writer; she did a fantastic job. I do hope we get more of pre-terminus Amaurot as we move through ShB. And my head is spinning from trying to focus on our true antagonist now because I really don't know which way to look.

Will we end up making some kind of alliance with Elidibus? Not going to lie, I dislike Elidibus (think he's a snake) as much as I dislike Lahabrea, but they have both been presented in a very two-dimensional way up to this point. There hasn't been any hook to hang the possibility of sympathy/understanding/redemption upon with either of them, Lahabrea particularly was just a cackling villain from a melodrama. So I'm interested to see where things go with Elidibus. Also to learn more about Zodiark/Hydaelyn: I have a pet theory that the two of them should never have been divided (based on what Ramuh says about Light and Dark) so maybe our solution will be finding away to merge the two. I can imagine the Ascians won't like that at all. Be interesting if we find a way to untemper Elidibus so we can work with him to find a solution.

As others have said I do hope the story doesn't end up being Bad god v Good god: hopefully the 'fact' - allegedly - that they're both primals throws that ending out of the window

Elidibus was always rather... nebulous in his goals and character. He had this Emet esque policy of talking over fighting up to heavensward, and up until the warriors of darkness arc, he was pushing a balance theme.

Seems very much opposed to us since, and I think the last time he mentioned balance between light and dark was pre SB. Not even sure he will be our (final?) antagonist in the ascian arc. Anways, hope they continue with the Emet level writing in their villains.

My personal theory is that we get rid of both Zodiark and Hydaelyn, and then somewhere down the line, come face to face with whatever caused the original cataclysm.

[Avidria]

You know, thinking about it, I have a different reason I don't really see Emet as a hero. Or heck, why I don't even really want to.

You know what I felt like this expansion did for the Ascians? Who were previously almost exclusively evil villains bent on destroying us for uhh (evil) reasons I guess?

It humanized them.

Emet-Selch, at the end of the day, is a man. He's a flawed man who's suffered horrible things, been through more than anyone should ever have to, and who's done absolutely horrible things for a cause he felt was just at a cost he felt was justified. He didn't see himself as the Villain beyond playing the role to us, and I don't think he saw himself as a hero either - or not the traditional glorious kind of hero if he did. He wanted his perfect world back, a world that was better than this one, a world that didn't need the likes of us *heroes* who'd disappointed him again and again to keep it held together.

He wasn't just the Villain. He was a *person.* And that's what I loved about him.

That's how my WoL would remember him.

[tokinokanatae]

SNIP

It is sort of a fun question, isn't it? How does the game define "being a hero" and how do we slot into the equation as compared to other heroic figures, like Ardbert or G'raha--or Emet-Slech, though I know you choose not to define him as such.

Like Elladie said before about enjoying Emet-Selch while not necessarily being "pro-Ascian", I was thinking about what that means as far as the game as a whole goes.

The Amaurotines are almost universally gentle and thoughtful, while still managing to run a gamut of unique personalities. They're not the typical "lofty immortals" or "innocent children" achetypes we tend get when it comes to lost civilizations. They feel like "us" but with the bad bits sort of sanded off, for lack of a better term. (I don't think it's a design coincidence that they live in what appears to us to be a modern city either.)

So, when Emet talks about "a better way", I agree that he's not talking about stopping the Ardor in any way, shape, or form--except in removing the violent aspects. What if all of us could just--for example--go to sleep one day and wake up in what's fundamentally paradise? Part of the reason I'm not really pro-Ascian either is the sheer breadth and cruelty of their plan, but if you can remove that aspect then is it still "wrong"?

It's interesting, because we can see from Through His Eyes that while Emet-Selch can be viciously hateful, he also has a sense of empathy that I find difficult to match in another NPC (Nanamo, perhaps?). Hell, halfway through his invective-laden speech to us as we fail to contain the Light, he pauses and you can see him reach out in the way that would spell his own doom, offering us a place to turn "with dignity". I'm sure he meant that in good faith, too.

It's fascinating to think about what that empathy could be like without all the trauma he experienced. I think Emet-Selch might have the most "heroic" base personality of any other character in the game, were he not twisted by that suffering.

[Brinne]

It is sort of a fun question, isn't it? How does the game define "being a hero" and how do we slot into the equation as compared to other heroic figures, like Ardbert or G'raha--or Emet-Slech, though I know you choose not to define him as such.

Yeah, I think that's a key piece of the puzzle that's missing and leads to confused conversations about the issue of Emet being labelled a "hero." What does "hero" actually mean, in the context of FFXIV?

I can talk at length about the horrible things he's done, and even how outright cruel he can be particularly in moments of triumph, but fundamentally, I think the game presents to us is that whatever awful things Ardbert, G'raha, and Emet (and ourselves!) have done, it is fundamentally not for themselves. In spite of the gloating and taunting, I don't doubt that Ardbert took absolutely no pleasure in hurting and killing the people of the Source - it probably did make him feel sick - but he felt that he had to, because he had sworn to protect the people of his world. He could not abandon them. He refused to abandon them.

Emet, I think, is largely the same. (Number, perhaps, to the idea of causing pain because of what he's been through, but as he demonstrated through Shadowbringers, not completely numb.) It's interesting that I see a lot of discussion that, consciously or unconsciously, frames his core motivations as basically selfish - "he wants his loved ones back, he can't get over the past." I think that's absolutely an emotional factor, but it's not the primary driving factor, either.

Emet does these horrible things, but he is driven by a sense of duty - he is basically a selfless person. We see through his characterization that he is TIRED, what he does is described as a "terrible burden"; the game references his actions as "not forsaking his duty" or "his peoples' hopes and dreams", and the Minstrelling Wanderer heavily implies that, if it comes down for his own sake, Emet mostly just had a death wish. But he still fought with absolutely everything he had and then some, to his agony, to save the people who were depending on him.

In that sense, even beyond the general idea of "advancing his peoples' cause", I can accept Emet as a hero. He suffered for the sake of his people and worked himself to the death for them. What was actually motivating him in the end, stripping everything else away (and yes, so much of that is awful) - was a desire to save people who deserved to be saved.

It's fascinating to think about what that empathy could be like without all the trauma he experienced. I think Emet-Selch might have the most "heroic" base personality of any other character in the game, were he not twisted by that suffering.

The game demonstrating Emet's capacity for empathy and sympathy towards people that he tries to actively and forcefully tell himself he should feel nothing but disgust for adds so much to his story and why he was such a striking character to so many people, and I think it leads to part of why it's hard to reconcile, if he sincerely felt and was capable of those things, why he still chose to cut us down. Well, that's why he's paralleled with people like Ardbert and G'raha, and why we're presented with such a sympathetic, heartrending depiction of Amaurot - and still make the choice to leave them to their fates.

I think there's a ton to be said about Emet's internal complexes about heroes and villains and how he cannot stop talking about it throughout his Shadowbringers arc - I agree that he doesn't see himself as a hero, but he's genuinely upset at being cast as a villain, too, and he wrestles in general with the concept of heroes, period.

It's another interesting parallel to Ardbert and G'raha - G'raha who talks about how he dreamt of being a hero like in the stories he read as a child, but realized it was impossible for him, and Ardbert's bitter talk about "this world has had its fill of heroes" and Emet's bitter line about "my world will have no need of heroes" ("There were never any heroes," in Japanese). I think the game is, on top of many other things, asking us to define what heroism actually means instead of taking it as a given.

[Fynlar]

I'm honestly sort of baffled at the question of "did Emet actually look for another path" because, again, that is literally his entire arc in Shadowbringers. The entire thing, every second of his screentime, up until we fail to contain the final Lightwarden. I am really at a loss as to how one would miss that the entire twist presented with Emet's character - because the entire cast never once trusts him, always thinks he's suspicious, always assumes he's probably trying to lie and manipulate - is that actually, he was completely sincere the entire time in wanting to cooperate and find another way. It's stated! Like! In black and white! In the text! There is no other way to explain his actions once we see what he's capable of and what he can do. He could have never bothered with any of it, never bothered talking to us, helping with Y'shtola and giving us information - just let things play out, and he would have won. You can argue that his standards might have been unfair for whatever reason - Emet is a conflicted character who simultaneously wants contradictory things - but he had a big scene where he is literally having a furious meltdown on Mt. Gulg about how he truly wanted to believe in us!

Never bought this, by the way, regardless of how he tried to sell it. Still don't. He came across as just that little bit too excited, too eager to see us fail in the end, for me to truly believe he ever wanted us to succeed. If that was really what he wanted, he could have gone about it far better, and far more believably.

[cakesphere]

Oh my lord. I come back to this dumpster fire of a thread and look who it is.

Thought I recognized you from another site, poorly dressed Viera.

Incredible. Amazing. Small world. Opinion discarded. Into the garbage it goes.
They argue in bad faith, nothing to see here.