Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic

[Lersayil]

...but his subsequent actions are objectively monstrous.

Square should've revisited General Leo for inspiration if they wanted to do a tragic adversary that would let them toss the word "hero" around.

Objectively monstrous to us. And I don't think anyone tossed the hero tag around in-game.

I have no idea why anybody is trying to spin Emet as any kind of a hero.

Anyone who does so is probably misguided, but not outright wrong. Remember the old saying: every good villain is a hero of his own story. Emet might not define himself as a hero, but does things that he believes to be right and justified. And its not like he doesn't stop and question his deeds every now and then either. He mentioned regularly "testing" the new races if they are worthy enough to give up his quest. And he basically does so with us, as he could've (arguably) easily won just by not confronting us in the Tempest.

The most concise explanation is made by Emet himself:

"Buy yes, moral relativism and all that. Case in point - I do not consider you to be truly alive. Ergo I will not be guillty of murder if I kill you."

(possibly my favorite line from him overall too)

[Puksi]

Objectively monstrous to us. And I don't think anyone tossed the hero tag around in-game.

Except the Minstreling Wanderer did? The entire description of Hades EX does?

I'm not really inclined to take the character's "moral relativism" line as words to live by when he is the one responsible for all the atrocities in question, and the writers seem to have a lot of trouble with consistency on the matter of "moral relativism". Shadowbringers presents the jarring situation where the narrative pushed far harder to dehumanize one of Selch's victims -- Vauthry -- while entirely excusing Selch for his creation, going so far as to imply it was "heroic" for him to corrupt an unborn baby (without seeking the mother's consent, no less). Why is that?

On a MUCH smaller scale of destruction in comparison, Zephirin killed Haurchefant in the name of the greater good of Ishgard, but I don't recall ever being told he was a tragic hero for it. In fact, I was given the option of wanting to tear his heart out -- and no one popped in to say WELL UHM ACTUALLY

Yet here we are in this thread, being asked by some to not only consider Emet-Selch heroic by his standards, but by ours as well, lmao. IttyBitty has a solid point, I sincerely doubt there would be nearly the defense of Emet-Selch's actions were he not "Foxy Grandpa". It's lazy writing to excuse the evils of one character and condemn the same evils of another based on whether or not the character is meant to be a fandom darling.

[Lersayil]

snip

The Hades EX description is weird I agree. But then its possible they mean it as a "hero and champion to his people". You know, one mans hero is another ones villain? Gonna check the japanese text, since this piqued my interest.

Not sure what you mean about the moral relativism line. Its not an excuse. Its a matter of fact statement without malice (which does make it more scary on some level if you assume that his reason of not seeing us as people might hold any amount of truth). Also, by envoking moral relativism at all, instead of just dismissing us outright, he indirectly acknowledges our side of the coin too.

Not sure how much of Vauthry was his fault. He infused him with light... but was his personality a result of that? Or of a bad upbringing? Guess we'll never know. Compared to the millions of lives he ruined, I don't think Vauthry would be that high on the list.

Comparing Zephirin to Emet aint exactly fair, as one had a whole expansion to thrive, while the other is basically a faceless mook henchman at best. Try it with Zenos. Most people hate him, and I would argue that his chara and design is much more fan-bait than Emet. A well defined and vaguely sympathetic backstory with large impact on the greater story can do wonders.

Anyways, fans gonna fan, and I dont think the more rabid fans that see him as a hero bother to even argue the finer points of his morality.

EDIT: went over the japanese Hades EX description. The song is mentioned as the other "Requiem to the Hero". I presume this also refers to Emet (also reference to Stormblood possibly?). The rest of the text basically rewords what the minstrel said at the english unlock about the Night's Blessed tradition: its implying that Emet naming himself Hades instead his seat name before the battle carried great meaning and determination on his part. Paraphrasing a lot, but I'm too lazy to write up a proper translation. The word "hero" is still used in the songs name, but the rest is mostly fluff and doesn't really polish up Emet as the english text.

Full text for the interested:

異世界の詩人が詠んだのは、もうひとりの「英雄への鎮魂歌」。
彼は、与えられた責務を示す座ではなく、真の名を明かし、名乗り、戦った。ならば、
闇を奉ずる「夜の民」の風習に従い真の名を以て葬送の儀式を執り行なおうこれは、その強き想いを身に刻み、
忘れぬための戦いなのだ。

[Puksi]

snip

It could be they meant "hero" in a sort of squint sideways and think symbolically way, but apparently enough people took the wording at face value that Yoshi-P had to remind us the Ascians killed billions, and calling Hydaelyn the evil one was shortsighted--so I would count that as a failure of the writers in conveying their intent. There were better ways of expressing how tragic the Amaurotines' fate was.

The "moral relativism" line definitely conveyed how little Emet-Selch thought of the lives he was seeking to destroy, but since the writers were pushing for sympathy for him, it also sounded a bit like excusing him. It certainly was taken that way by some players.

And the writers are very selective who gets that sympathy, even if they do equally horrible things. I wouldn't say Zephirin was a nameless mook, but Zenos has no higher motivation than relieving his "boredom". Thordan, then? He was the driving force behind much of Heavensward, he thought his actions were just for the preservation of Ishgard, but there was never any doubt in the narrative that he was wrong. After he and the mooks were dealt with, there was no mention of any of them being heroic in their efforts, no requiems to commend them for it. All that, and their atrocities don't even put a dent in the scope of what the Ascians committed.

The writers also seemed to try a similar sympathy thing with Fordola in Stormblood, but that went over like a lead balloon, thankfully.

TL;DR: The charisma of an antagonist is all well and good, but the writers shouldn't really lessen the impact of the evils they do for the sake of it.

As for Vauthry, quoting the Innocence Triple Triad card, he was "corrupted by the power of a Lightwarden whilst he was yet a babe in the womb". Considering how a Lightwarden twisted Titania from a benevolent ruler to everyone's favorite trial, it seems a very safe bet that Vauthry's actions were entirely of Emet-Selch's making. It was established that no one short of the WoL could resist the corruption of a Lightwarden, and it was only by Hydaelyn's blessing that we resisted it for as long as we did. Trying to hold Vauthry responsible is like blaming Thancred for the massacre at the Waking Sands.

But the writers, although they showed the player the truth of the situation by the Echo, never allow us to reveal it to anyone. Instead, we are simply made to smile and nod as usual when the driving narrative of Eulmore even in patch was "man, Vauthry sure was evil". The writers hold one of Emet-Selch's victims to a higher standard of conduct than Emet-Selch himself, and there seems to be no actual reasoning for it except they favored him. So for me, at least, it felt very not heroic to remain silent on that situation alone, yet be nudged by the narrative to convey sympathy towards the actual cause of the evil. Not just sympathy, either, but to accept the narrative that he was heroic.

[Whalaqee]

I felt he was tragic.

1) He and a small ragtag team are the last vestiges of a once great culture.
2) Many of the ones from this culture he lived with died or were split across several worlds.
2) He is an immortal who experienced the loss of a parent outliving their own children and their children's children several times over.
3) He is an immortal who lost any spouse he formed a true connection with.
4) He tragically dies to the WoL and his last wish is for him and his kind to be remembered by us.
5) He also creates tragedy onto others by causing umbral eras to occur from both the shard and the source that would be affected.

Now one actually caring about the above is different than acknowledging tragic elements within the character.

[Enla]

Zenos confuses me personally, because as he's written he's your bog standard 'force of nature' archetype that is there to provide a suitable impediment to our heroes but never meant to stand as an ideological foil. For however boring he was in Stormblood he played his role pretty well and had they left him dead following the climax of 4.0 nothing of value would honestly have been lost from the story. Yet I guess someone on the writing team really likes him, or the fanbase feedback was better than I thought, because not only did they bring him back they're trying to set him up as some odd foil to our Warriors of Light - while still keeping his old, archetype in place with very little being expanded upon that we've thus seen. Which don't get me wrong, if they expand his character and do it well I'll happily retract my current impression of him. But right now he's just kinda 'there' and is more interesting as meme fodder than as an actual character.

I think Zenos' deficiencies stand out more because Emet Selch /is/ a proper foil for our characters. His ideals stand in direct opposition to our own, and yet he is written in such a way that many a people could easily see themselves falling into his shoes if put through similar circumstances. He's both an enemy, monstrous in his ideals and tempered so that he cannot even see his own folly, and yet also a cautionary tale for our heroes about how the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. While it's still too early to see how his actions have fully shaped the Scions and the Warrior of Light, I'd be amazed if his influence isn't felt for many more story beats to come. Unlike a lot of the other villains which just kinda petered out and have turned into something of an 'in-joke' within game lore and in the fandom, like Lahabrea and especially Asahi.

[Havenchild]

Emet-Selch, imo, is indeed a tragic villain. While perhaps the Ascians lead to their own destruction with their unchecked hubris, they equally were trying to spur on progress for their people with creating new beings and things (granted it also sounds like it was a d*** measuring contest for them too).

Regardless, Emet-Selch is in a quite dubious situation. He is a hero for his people and is devoted to bringing them back after the climatic events and sacrifices that took place. All of those sacrifices of family and friends to summon Zodiark, to only lead to their inevitable downfall anyway with Hydaelyn coming in and stopping Zodiark anyway. His actions are still evil and terrible but they are fueled with passion and countless amounts of time to see this through. To bring back and save his people.

It's ironic that some people here consider Ardbert a hero but not Emet-Selch when in the 3.0+ arc, he and the then WoD were doing the exact same thing and they didn't care what they destroyed if it meant they could save their home.

And that's what makes it tragic, characters driven to terrible circumstances when they want to, in fact, save others. The evil acts in between aren't hidden but the emotion evoked from the circumstances helps us sympathize. Because in most cases, lots of people would probably do the same. I think the PC resonates with this to an extent.

Think about your family and friends. I'd imagine, if a lot of you faced similar circumstances, you would easily choose to fight anyone to save those important to you, if you could. That is the feeling Emet-Selch and characters like him latch onto.

By proxy, Emet-Selch is not unlike Dhaos from the Tales of Phantasia, trying to fight back against inevitable circumstances.

[Bobkitty]

The tragedy was that he survived the sundering and had to remember the sacrifice his people made and live with the guilt/shame that was his failure to save them for centuries to come. This became his driving force to ensure their sacrifices were not in vain which over time has essentially turned him into an extremist - although to a degree his desire may have also been twisted by Zodiark so that he would always view the god as the "be all end all".

I'd wager he's willfully blinded himself to the idea that the new mortal beings are also alive just so he would not give up on his people (an idea he has considered multiple times). But only at the end of the line did he finally realize and make peace with this.

"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

[Alleo]

Emet-Selch, imo, is indeed a tragic villain. While perhaps the Ascians lead to their own destruction with their unchecked hubris, they equally were trying to spur on progress for their people with creating new beings and things (granted it also sounds like it was a d*** measuring contest for them too).

Regardless, Emet-Selch is in a quite dubious situation. He is a hero for his people and is devoted to bringing them back after the climatic events and sacrifices that took place. All of those sacrifices of family and friends to summon Zodiark, to only lead to their inevitable downfall anyway with Hydaelyn coming in and stopping Zodiark anyway. His actions are still evil and terrible but they are fueled with passion and countless amounts of time to see this through. To bring back and save his people.

It's ironic that some people here consider Ardbert a hero but not Emet-Selch when in the 3.0+ arc, he and the then WoD were doing the exact same thing and they didn't care what they destroyed if it meant they could save their home.

These new beings were mostly stuff without souls anyway and I mean normal people create items too mostly just not on that scale and with less power.

And I am not sure if he is a hero now for his people. Maybe back then the Ascians were seen as heros that stopped the calamity, but would people be really happy with what they have become? Lets not forget that the sacrifice they wanted will include complete souls at the end too, souls which might have belonged to ancient beings, heck might have even belonged to Amaurotines (as our does at least). These people that sacrificed themselves also had loved ones and friends. What if they find out that to undo their willing sacrifice, Emet and the other have destroyed former friends and family of them? What if they are on the side of those Ancients that summoned Hydealyn because they dont want further sacrifices? He might be a hero to some but I doubt his race would stand behind them like that. Especially if those are not tempered.

Ardbert and his friends did morally grey actions and were stopped. They redeemed themselves by eiher giving Minfilia the aether of themselves as fuel or in case of Ardbert, by sacrificing his own being after suffering for 100 years. And even when they were still trying to cause a calamity (which in their eyes would have at least saved the souls of the people on the first) they did not like it. Emet and the others dont care for us. They dont even see us as being alive. Lahabrea stood there and laughed when Bahamut was unleashed. They unlike the WoDs are not doing this but hating every second of it, they outright dont care or find it even amusing..thats the big difference. And the WoDs did then try to help which is also another difference between them and the Ascians.

Emet even says that we should turn and then punish the sinners that wronged them. And I was like: What? The sundered races had no hand in the demise of the ancient ones. They are just living in a world that they are born into. They did not go to an outright war and they just fighting against bad enemies to save their life. And the WoLs also only exist to stop the Ascians and their rejoinings.

Another example:

Beware Attack on titan recent manga spoilers!! (Chapter 123)

The island ,who is seen as the devils by outsiders but who are only people living with the danger of becoming titans and who did nothing wrong because all was centuries ago, is planned to be destroyed by the outside world. The outside world fears these devils and are quite racist towards everyone that has blood of this other race in them, even if they lived beside the other people for years. At the same time we have the main characters from that island that wanted to be free and that wanted to defeat the titans only to see that there are humans alive outside their land. They wanted to make peace with them but noticed that it wont be possible.

Well the main character now let a horrible weapon loose with the intention of killing of everyone outside the island to protect his friends. Its either them being killed of (which is also at least 1 million innocent people) or the rest of the world. There is no good side in this conflict anymore. Both side are trying to use genoicide. This is the morally grey that you can then use to stick to any side. Or which you then can use to argue for any of them. Heck there are people saying that they can understand the main character and that it is the only solution left after peace was not an option, but that it makes him still a bad person. He will still kill millions of innocent people. This is a great case of showing that sometimes there is no true good and bad. Here you can argue about "being the hero in their own perspective", especially in messed up world like they have. And here you can even in a way root for the main character and his plan because his motivations are shown, his want to stop it and to make peace, and the horrible way a lot of the higher ups in the rest of the world behave. But you can clearly also argue against him and be right with that too. This is imo a beautiful and realistic way.

FF14 is not like that imo. We are the hero. And even if the Ascians have motivations for their doings, they are still shown in the bad light. Their people are death, their age is done. Yet they dont give up on that and use genocide to get to their goal which they might not even reach..(since its not even save that those souls will be back) You can still like them of course and I also like Emet as a character. But this is no tragic hero. Because in the rules and morality of this planet they are doing something wrong. Its not the people that killed their friends and people and are not trying to kill the rest of it like its in AoT..no their people are gone and a part of their people even disagreed with it. Their time is over and they could have accepted it and lived peacefully along side the new life, helping them with watching over the planet. There is a peaceful solution (theoretically..not sure if its possible thanks to tempering) and the people are not pointing weapons at them and want them gone just because they are Ancient ones. Heck if they had accepted the sacrifice way back before the sundering, then Hydealyn would not have been summoned, their race could have grown back since there were a few that survived and the new races could have lived along side them. But they did not.

[Savagelf]

I don't see Ardbert as hero I see him tragitic anti hero who was mislead, realize that it was the Ascian who tell them how save they world. he and his friends were be used to get Ascian goals achievement. remember how it was Emet-Selch who create the final sineater. Emet-Selch has no redeem feature yes he is mutative he want make use the warrior of light to his own end see that is issue with power in corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolute. he understood the game he was play the question is do we. look how he behavior was simple in nature of his desire to control the warrior of light he want make them into ultimate sineater. he knew what was going better then the scian truthful he didn't know as much as he throught he did. Hydialyn chose her champion better the Emet-Selch realize she did. the game has not work in the ascian favor. a Genocidally cult can act to make you sympthical to the goals, it part how they control you. it was all an act till end. through I think at minutes he was died that wasn't the act anymore when your died you realize that you over play your hand. I found funny how people sympthical with those that seek they destruction maybe it just spirit of the ages.