Emet-Selch Is Not That Tragic

[Elladie]

You want Hades to have "redemptive possibility". Yet you also try to excuse him of all these willful atrocities as "a matter of perspective". Which is it to be?

I'm interested to see where I have excused anyone from anything, please could you quote those sections back to me?

At no point have I ever said anything about Hades not doing some terrible things. Nor have I argued that we shouldn't have killed him. In the circumstances as they played out, we had no choice. My argument was rather aimed at the moral absolutism you claim to embrace but refuse to apply to other characters, apparently for the rather simple reason that you like them and you don't like Hades? You also appear to be attacking both those who do like Hades character and the writers who created him. Most of the characters in this tale, including our own, do very morally questionable things, but you're not holding any of them to the same standards. That's my objection to what you're saying.

I'd also like the point out that G'raha Tia's actions MAY have created two timelines - we don't actually know yet - but he certainly didn't know in advance that they would since he expected to die. So why isn't he a monster who intended to condemn thousands of people to oblivion regardless of their wishes on the subject?

I am just asking you to use the same moral standards for everyone, but you don't seem to want to. Or to agree that yours is just a point of view that differs from other points of view in the matter of Hades as a character and that both are equally valid.

[Puksi]

I'm interested to see where I have excused anyone from anything, please could you quote those sections back to me?

You called my speaking against his atroci--his actions--"taking the moral high ground", and "moral absolutism", strongly implying that somehow anything I listed could be not monstrous in a certain context, presumably for that "redemptive possibility". That seems to be the problem anyone has with my posts, that I call what he did wrong ? And now it's "attacking the writers"--really? As for countering other posters who counter me, I was unaware the only acceptable form is to offer unquestioning admiration of this character in a thread whose premise is "he's actually not all that tragic guys".

In lore context alone, then, as I said, I am morbidly curious. In what context would any of the actions I listed be right by the standards set down by the writers' narrative? (or any narrative, really, I can't think of any myself.) If you want to leave out the whole murder of billions bit under the phrase "moral relativism" somehow, then where does that leave us with the willful, remorseless manipulation and deception of people--"insects"--he feigned to care about? Using unwitting partners for breeding fodder? Scorning the children he sired through that deception because they too are "insects" who failed to live up to his lofty standards, standards he himself fails to uphold? Using an unwilling mother and her unborn child to incubate a monster meant to destroy what little of their world he didn't already destroy?

You left off pressing on the subject of Ardbert and company since the narrative did not claim they were right, so that's a start I guess? Regardless of the "gotcha" you are trying to make with Cid and G'raha Tia, it seems disingenous to compare a doomed world, with a a fraction of doomed survivors, placed in an impossible and hopeless situation because of the Garleans, who are even a thing because of Emet-Selch--to the Ascians' willful destruction of billions of lives who were NOT in a doomsday setting, and how many worlds are we up to again?

The Ascians made certain that Black Rose timeline, with however many people on it--the story is unclear and even a bit convoluted how many, and how much time had passed--was going to die. Nature as the Ascians twisted it was going to take its course. And the narrative took the weight of Cid and G'raha Tia's decision into account. They moved to save billions at--very arguably--the cost of a doomed few.

Emet-Selch acted in the reverse, destroying the lives of billions who were NOT doomed to die for the sake of the few he deemed worthy of existence.

Health check: Still fine, but goodness, I am confused.