Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic

[Savagelf]

through I think Emet-Selch is good lesson to all, if he was really we be accurse him of being racist. here is a suggest take everything you know about Emet-Selch and put him into today political climate and ask your self is he a good guy.
when you doing you have realize he on same level as hiltor was, like hiltor he view his race as supreme like hiltor he want mass gencidal of any race he viewed as infer to his'. In this way the question whether he a hero will be pretty easy answer. Good and evil is easy question when line a villian up with histrocial figure. I agree with the op that he wasn't a tragic.

[Theodric]

I'd argue that Vauthry was very much a victim, since he was corrupted before he was even born. It did bother me a bit that the Warrior of Light didn't seek to correct the record in the same way that he did where the Warriors of Light were concerned but it isn't at all surprising that he didn't seek to do that. After all, the protagonists are very prone to bias and flaws of their own, sometimes not looking at the greater picture in an objective manner. They also often don't think twice about seeking vengeance on behalf of a slain ally only to criticise and prevent others from doing the exact same thing at a different point in time. That is most evident with the potential option to threaten to cut out Zephirin's heart after he slays Haurchefant (even though he did as much to prevent one of his own companions from being harmed).

It just so happens that such plot elements aren't really acknowledged or explored to any significant degree. In no small part, I suspect, due to the inability to account for every potential player reaction to each event. Thankfully a lot of things are open to personal interpretation. Which means that more players should simply agree to disagree when it comes to subjective elements of the game's lore and the age old issue that is which character is 'better'.

I'd consider Vauthry to be along the same lines as Ysayle. Both of them had a special power bestowed upon them and they both screwed up in regards to how they chose to use that power. Ysayle just managed to redeem herself whereas Vauthry did not.

[Savagelf]

the line of good and evil has become blind to us. let take are own world for example there are 7.7 billion people on are earth now let suppose we had 13 of are earths and some race came along and decide to wipe all 13 of them out to save they own which they themselves had destroyed by they own hubist. 93 billion live lost to they desire for save they own world. in same sense this what Emet-Selch and those like him want to do first it is selfish it put they own desire over the live they want wipe out. there example people in are own history doing simalir thing that emet-selch did the great leap forward 56 million by china. to me it easy to realize Emet Selch as villian because what he spot and I understand the difference between good and evil but that line may be get confused to others.

[Havenchild]

Idk maybe I'm the only one but I don't think Vauthry would have been soooo different from what he is. The driving line of that point being his father, seemingly having an already distasteful personality in both prejudice and hubris. Would a child raised under that setting of Eulmore be so different? I somehow doubt that. I'm sure the Lightwardens affect is a contributing point more so to the domination aspect of Vauthry but probably wouldn't change the elements he would likely inherit from his parents.

[Puksi]

Idk maybe I'm the only one but I don't think Vauthry would have been soooo different from what he is. The driving line of that point being his father, seemingly having an already distasteful personality in both prejudice and hubris. Would a child raised under that setting of Eulmore be so different? I somehow doubt that. I'm sure the Lightwardens affect is a contributing point more so to the domination aspect of Vauthry but probably wouldn't change the elements he would likely inherit from his parents.

You would think that may be so, child of privilege and all, but then the game gives us folks like Nanamo ul Namo, Aymeric de Borel, Lue-Reeq, Cid nan Garlond, etc. so I am liking the odds of that not being the case lmao. And I'd be more inclined to call his father the negative influence, though the spin in the latest patch is Dad was actually the "good old days" of Eulmore. The writers gave his mother no say whatsoever in the situation so ‾\_(ツ)_/‾

[Savagelf]

this argument basic on one's perspective is dangerous one for you let me again use really life, hiltor killed million of jew by his perspective he may believe he what he was doing was right. right and wrong are basic on to me biblical morality not on are understand of are perspective. what hiltor did was wrong. now let use Gra'hra did for example he and Ironwork realize they could prevent million for died by change the cross of history which in Spock the need of few. to prevent death of million only they need to do is put their live as the sacrifice.

the western for many year have basic right and wrong biblical morality of what god have view as right and wrong. long came Pro-modernism this concept of right and wrong became mudder because right and wrong wasn't be taught base biblical morality it now a question one truth not on something that have been there for two thousand years.

is it one perspective that murder is wrong if your the murderer

[Elladie]

@savage elf
It's a little hard to understand your English, but I think you're saying that G'raha is right to kill thousands of people in the future to save the people in the past? How is that justifiable under anyone's absolute morality? If it's murder, and murder is absolutely wrong under all circumstances, then G'raha is wrong. He ignored all the people in the future who tried to stop him doing what he did and erased them from existence by going back to change the past. How is that okay but Hades is not okay?

Just to clarify, I am not talking about G'raha sacrificing himself, I am talking about the thousands of people in the future he destroyed with his actions. In the OMG short story, people attack the Ironworks base to try and stop him because they know what he is planning will kill them. How is that any different from us attacking Hades to stop him carrying out his aims to restore the past?

[Savagelf]

@savage elf
It's a little hard to understand your English, but I think you're saying that G'raha is right to kill thousands of people in the future to save the people in the past? How is that justifiable under anyone's absolute morality? If it's murder, and murder is absolutely wrong under all circumstances, then G'raha is wrong. He ignored all the people in the future who tried to stop him doing what he did and erased them from existence by going back to change the past. How is that okay but Hades is not okay?

Just to clarify, I am not talking about G'raha sacrificing himself, I am talking about the thousands of people in the future he destroyed with his actions. In the OMG short story, people attack the Ironworks base to try and stop him because they know what he is planning will kill them. How is that any different from us attacking Hades to stop him carrying out his aims to restore the past?

he save the people that you agrue that he killed see he go back to past to prevent their death that would come for people fight over resource that slowy become less and less not only save them but he prevent a fall of nations. see time travel is interest thing here G'raha by prevent the 8th umber he has save million include the very people that attack the Ironworks. the difference it Hades destroy Million in pursuit think he would save million yet that hasn't been prove. Zodark could be as I am theorical a deity that consume life aether has become addict to it. notice that every time they gave life aether to Zodarck it made the problem worst.

what was taught for this expansion was the dangerous of shade of grey belief because ascian are able excuse they they where one decide to make Zodarck by this they chosen they action creator they god and feed they god not make thing better. each part of expansion show us how they action made them more evil and not less seem and how they action can be excused them. good and evil is difference between life and death.

[Elladie]

@ Savage Elf

But he DOESN'T save those people in the future. By changing the past, he prevents them even existing, and they did not support him doing this.

Now it has been suggested that events ended up in a second time line being created which may turn out to be true. In which case they didn't cease to exist but they are still doomed to deal with the desperate consequences of the Eighth Calamity. So G'raha hasn't helped them at all, he's just abandoned them. More importantly, G'raha had NO IDEA this would happen. He carried out his plan expecting to die himself but knowing FULL WELL he was ending everyone in the future. I think you misunderstand how far in the future that is, it's not just a couple of months, it's many years later, generations later. All those people go POOF and cease to be, and G'raha knew that. He still chose to do it.

Please explain how that's any different to Zodiark/Hydaelyn/the Convocation/the Ascians actions? All of them chose a path to follow that saved one thing at the cost of another

[Puksi]

"I'm no saint, or savior. Just another sinner."

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.) Ardbert bade us to not take the path he and his friends had chosen, after we defeated them--never once did the narrative push the WoL's world and the people of it were insects without consequence. Far from it, actually. And then the Warriors Of Darkness gave themselves--again--to save both worlds.

As for the OMG story, I recall that Cid's plan to create an alternate timeline where the WoL lived was embraced by the majority, and it was only after that they acted? G'raha Tia didn't disappear from our timeline at the end of ShB because apparently the old timeline became separated from the new. (Why the Ascians in all their superiority didn't try a similar thing is likely plot convenience, but it's a nice touch, we "lessers" achieved something that they, despite their arrogance, could not.)

It's interesting to see what was done to Vauthry and his mother is tut-tutted away as "inconsequential", when their lives were just as important as any of Emet-Selch's other victims. Don't dismiss them, contemplate what was done to them fully, embrace that it was Emet-Selch who committed such an atrocity, because every other life Emet-Selch and his cronies have taken was just as important as theirs, and I am sure they are not the first to meet such an end at Ascian hands.

What happened to Emet-Selch's people was a tragedy, likely beyond anyone's control. The destruction he then inflicted on billions was fully intentional, fully avoidable, he did it without ever once feeling guilt for any of those he murdered, and he wouldn't have stopped until only those he deemed worthy were alive again. (Not ALL Ancients, mind you. Just the ones he deemed worthy.) He earned that hole we punched through him. (I'm sure he only used Varis in all those years of never telling any of his partners they were actually worthless insects he would sell to Zodiark for one corn chip. Really. I am absolutely convinced 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)_/‾