Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic

[Shori]

^-^ I liked Emet as did most. His motive was innocent even if his actions evil. He didnt consider the life on the shards as real life forms and was trying to piece everything back together to get what he considered to be real life. Some of the things that were said by him and by the shade who recognised our soul point to the fact there is far more than what we already know and that we are being prepared to mourn.

[cakesphere]

lmao this kind of low-tier anti bait doesn't even phase me at this point
Here for the popcorn tho

I leave bait of my own - if you don't consider Emet-Selch a tragic villain, you failed reading comprehension so badly that SE had to come out and say he was tragic, just for you.

[Makeda]

It seems FFXIV team is pushing for players to *'feel the essence of grieve and sadness'* of Hades, that the song Invincible highlights his emotions, (see the new post about the lyrics of the song of Invincible and how it's supposed to make us feel the essence) and while I do get that he's meant to be portrayed in a very tragic way
...
He was an amazing villain, but I shall ever remember him as the sassy smart guy who lost because somehow 9/14th of a soul is more powerful than a whole soul? Plot armour?

But then we have Ardbert and when they show how he's actually a good soul and everything he did, even back in 3.0+ story, once you play 5.0, you see his sacrifices, his pain, his constant repetition of how despite doing as told, everything failed, seemed more effective than Hades. Both though failed to create a scarring level tragedy that tragic villains create. You can't feel sorry for someone just because they say "I've been through shit", you have to let the players *experience* what it's like to be in his own shoes.

Basically Emet-Selch is a figure who's responsible for more death than... sorry for the Godwin... Hitler... and he goes emo on us.

I'm just sitting there having a Glorious Bastards moment and waiting to exact some justice...

As a PLAYER I wanted him to stay because he was a well written villain unlike Xenos. As my character I'm more like "lets just waste this demonic beast and make the multiverse a better place for it..."

It really didn't matter how tragic his story was... look at his body count and disregard for all life save that he felt was superior (there's another Godwin moment BTW)...

After all... Hitler had a tragic life... AND was a very EMO artist too boot... NOBODY feels sorry for that guy except for the people who deserve the same fate...

Being Emo and Tragic doesn't justify mass slaughter...

My character: waste the bastard

Me as a player: this is good writing, give me more of this please, toss Xenos on the pile of 'past expansions' PLEASE...

[Puksi]

That the narrative tries to paint Selch as a "hero" actually really bothers me. A well-written villain? Definitely. I feel sympathy for the fate of Amaurot, to be sure. But Selch and his cronies? No. In fact, the one real time I felt heroic in this expansion was blowing a hole through him.

It's not only the deaths of untold numbers of people and creatures. The writers meant to show sympathy for him, I guess, when he rattled on about breaking bread and siring children and such, but the fact all of that was done under false pretenses (with beings he readily calls "not really alive" or just animals) is extremely squicky. The siring children part especially, I think there's a term for it, and it definitely isn't "heroic"? We never once are asked by the narrative to consider how twisted that is, consider the people who unwittingly lived a lie with him, were used by him as breeding fodder. We are only asked to feel bad for his feefees.

The writers also completely ignore the implications of his character when he spoke over Vauthry's mother to discuss the fate of her body with her husband, while she just stood silently there looking frightened. He corrupted a helpless infant in the womb. He's wearing either a corpse or an unwilling meat puppet from the First that he altered to suit his fancy. Yet I've seen the fanbase dehumanize and vilify Vauthry more than I have ever seen Selch taken to task, although Selch had free will to make his choices, and Vauthry had no choice or chance since before he was born. And the writers never let us set the record straight on this part, they just let us smile and nod as everyone goes on what a horrid evil person Vauthry was.

Watching the writers push the narrative of "hero" onto that sort of person felt like a slap in the face, or at least as immersion-breaking as a gigantic Talos.

[Theodric]

That the narrative tries to paint Selch as a "hero" actually really bothers me.

Whether or not somebody is a hero is very much a matter of perspective and personal interpretation. You don't consider him to be one? Fine, but it really shouldn't 'bother' anybody for others to look on him fondly. He's a fictional character in a fantasy setting. People consume entertainment to be entertained and that accounts for all sorts of different tastes. I'm sure there's characters that you like that others don't - it's just how the world works.

[Puksi]

Whether or not somebody is a hero is very much a matter of perspective and personal interpretation. You don't consider him to be one? Fine, but it really shouldn't 'bother' anybody for others to look on him fondly. He's a fictional character in a fantasy setting. People consume entertainment to be entertained and that accounts for all sorts of different tastes. I'm sure there's characters that you like that others don't - it's just how the world works.

Enjoying a well-written villain is one thing. Trying to paint the evil they do in a positive light within the actual context of the story is another, though I would be morbidly curious how even a fraction of his atrocities could be explained away as "heroic". It sounds about as convincing as when Blizzard skewered frightened civilians fleeing their village on pikes and tried to call it "morally grey".

[Theodric]

Enjoying a well-written villain is one thing. Trying to paint the evil they do in a positive light within the actual context of the story is another, though I would be morbidly curious how even a fraction of his atrocities could be explained away as "heroic". It sounds about as convincing as when Blizzard skewered frightened civilians fleeing their village on pikes and tried to call it "morally grey".

It's simply a matter of looking at it from the perspective of the characters themselves, the context of the overall story and whatever relevant statements are made by the development team. They clearly intended to make him into a tragic, sympathetic hero who was fated to be cut down by another. They succeeded at that and quite a lot of people read into him in the same manner. Some, such as yourself, do not. Which is fine - I just don't understand the need some have to try and stifle support of the official narrative.

[Alleo]

It's simply a matter of looking at it from the perspective of the characters themselves, the context of the overall story and whatever relevant statements are made by the development team. They clearly intended to make him into a tragic, sympathetic hero who was fated to be cut down by another. They succeeded at that and quite a lot of people read into him in the same manner. Some, such as yourself, do not. Which is fine - I just don't understand the need some have to try and stifle support of the official narrative.

And if you only look at the perspective of the characters themselves then someone like Zenos is a hero too! Seeing how he sees life, he is quite right in what he does and is not evil at all. And no he was never meant to be seen as tragic hero. Even Yoshida made it clear afterwards that the Ascians are still the bad guys. Just now bad guys with at least some motives.

[Puksi]

It's simply a matter of looking at it from the perspective of the characters themselves, the context of the overall story and whatever relevant statements are made by the development team. They clearly intended to make him into a tragic, sympathetic hero who was fated to be cut down by another. They succeeded at that and quite a lot of people read into him in the same manner. Some, such as yourself, do not. Which is fine - I just don't understand the need some have to try and stifle support of the official narrative.

It's interesting how a dissenting opinion against Selch's handling is "stifling support of the official narrative", while supporting it is "perspective and personal interpretation". Yoshi-P plainly said we should not forget the Ascians have murdered millions, they just do not stress it enough in the actual context, just as they didn't stress at all the skeevy nature of Selch lying to an untold number of partners--excuse me, "animals"--to make little pawns for his game. But then again, Square also let a character who bought a child and pressed her into prostitution off scot-free as part of the Doman Liberation Front. I suppose that one must surely be "heroic" himself. Somehow. ‾\_(ツ)_/‾

[Avidria]

That the narrative tries to paint Selch as a "hero" actually really bothers me. [snip]

Watching the writers push the narrative of "hero" onto that sort of person felt like a slap in the face, or at least as immersion-breaking as a gigantic Talos.

Rolling into the party mega late here but... when does the story ever paint him as a hero? I didn't get that impression at all. There's absolutely nothing heroic about anything he does, and I don't recall him ever even claiming to be heroic at any point. His (almost) final words to us were something along the lines of making a world where heroes aren't needed - he seems to have come to detest the very concept of the hero.

I didn't feel like they ignored the implications of what Emet did to Vauthry and his mother. That whole segment was horrifying. What he did to them was horrifying, there's no denying that, and I didn't get the impression that the story was trying to.

What the writers did was give Emet motives and drive, reasons for his choices and actions - ends that he felt justified his means. He's committed countless atrocities, for a cause he felt justified that cost. I've said it before somewhere on here, but I genuinely didn't get the impression that he honestly believed all those lives were worthless. Maybe I was reading into it, but I think a far more interesting interpretation is that Emet had to convince himself that they were worthless. Because if they were worthless, then the wholesale slaughter of millions doesn't mean much - they were just ants, after all, so he doesn't have to face what he's done or what he's become. From our (character's) view, that's probably full on delusional and arguably evil, but that reasoning is what makes him an interesting character imo. He's a villain, and a monster, but he's a monster who thinks he's right.

At the end of the day Emet's death was necessary, but imo his story - his people's story - absolutely is tragic.

Edit to add a bit: What got from the story was that Emet was an ancient, bitter, angry old man who'd convinced himself he had no choice but to carry the weight of his peoples lives and memories on his shoulders, and that the only way to honor that memory and to restore the world he'd lost was to utterly destroy the new one that had been created. What happened to his people was horrific, and he's suffered horrible loss, and if taken entirely by itself his goal could even be called noble - to bring his people back to life. His logic is twisted, warped by the belief that his people are better, more valuable, more perfect, and that the new life of the new world is unworthy to take up their mantle. And the impression I got was that the writers were saying yes - this is horrible, and tragic, but this does not justify his actions. His people are not better or more valuable - they are just as flawed and imperfect, just as capable of mistakes and bad choices and hubris and arrogance, as we are. Emet-Selch is wrong. That's the message I got from his story. Not that he should be hailed as a hero.