Zodiark's Codex entry what do we think about it?

[Lurina]

But I think Emet claiming he 'measured our worth' is more post-hoc justification on his part than actual reasoning. He and the other Ascians were going to perform the Calamities regardless, and maybe at some point early on they felt bad about that, but by the time we meet him in Shadowbringers he's well and truly too far down that road to be swayed. His way of testing us (as in, the WoL and Scions) was an inherently rigged game we couldn't have possibly won, and by the developers' own admission in interviews he had no plan for if we succeeded; he wasn't truly looking for us to prove him wrong, he was fishing for evidence he was right.

Emet was looking for victory or suicide-by-WoL. Yoshi-P outright suggested that he set up the situation so they'd be cured of the light if they overcame him.

Like Emet himself said earlier, at any point he could have just left. He was there for his quest to be vindicated or to be over.

[tokinokanatae]

Emet always worked an angle, he was never just giving the unvarnished truth, so when he's the only source for a claim I think it's fair to call it into question.

So what is the end result of this supposed "angle" you keep bringing up as self-evident? If you think he's deliberately obfuscating something about Ancient society, then what is he hiding and what are his goals in doing it?

[Brinne]

Well, the thing with Emet in these discussions is that he's such a huge part of the framing of Amaurot. All of our learning about Ancient society in Shadowbringers either came directly from him, or were very directly connected to him (namely, Anamnesis only coming up because it wasn't Emet-curated), and his presence casts a shadow over what we learn in Endwalker, not just by way of him literally being there in Elpis, but through us inevitably comparing what we see to what he's said before. Even the parts unrelated to Emet become related to Emet, because he's our big initial touchpoint for them, so the inevitable thing we compare it to is 'what Emet said'.

It was four years ago. Yes, Emet was a major character in Elpis's MSQ, but personally speaking, I didn't really have a problem doing the majority of content in the zone that didn't involve him, interacting with the actual Ancients doling out quests and NPC text, and coming to my own conclusions. My reasons for enjoying the Ancients and the vast majority of Ancient characters has essentially no relationship with the framework Emet-Selch laid out, other than the very basic starting point of "this (extremely flawed, to put it mildly) guy loved these people a lot."

Likewise with Pandaemonium. I like Emet-Selch a great deal, but I somehow managed to thoroughly enjoy that questline and its characters without quietly obsessing over how to compare their every word and deed against Emet-Selch's Grief-Fueled Words From Four Years Ago in a storyline that doesn't involve him whatsoever. To me, it was obvious Pandaemonium especially was indifferent and uninterested in that entire conversation. So no, I thoroughly disagree that literally everything about a fictional race of people becoming a referendum on him is 'inevitable.' Someone's personal fixation, maybe, sure.

It just seems rather grim to put forth that it's 'inevitable' that any content related to this whole broad fantasy civilization, that's wildly popular with the fanbase at that, can't be experienced without it primarily becoming about finding Ammo to never, ever stop sticking it to one expansion villain.

One could argue he doesn't need to do that, and the facts stand on their own; an unfortunate death is always an unfortunate death,

Yeah, but. You're not doing that. Instead there's a priority towards shadowboxing a character who died years ago to keep picking at any tiny flaws you can find within the dead loved ones he spoke well of, for Reasons. In terms of "a little weird," not gonna lie, this is probably up there with "a littlest weirdest."

When he discusses Amaurot he wants to paint them as essentially 'perfect angel' victims, both materially and morally, to really accentuate that whole 'we didn't deserve what happened to us' element.

Uh. After all your comparisons to Emet-Selch and the Ascians to real-life instances of racism, are you really unironically invoking "they were no angels" rhetoric?

[Lunaxia]

First of all: Again, their fault. Like, if that were truly his point, he's weakened it by intrusion. Real 'stop hitting yourself' energy there.

Humans being assholes to each other is not the fault of the Ascians, lmao. They exploited it to create the conflict necessary to incite a rejoining, but they're not responsible for basic human nature.

Second of all: Our trips into Elpis...

Nowhere did I say that the Ancients couldn't be any of those things. One of the NPCs in Amaurot even acknowledges the existence of such thoughts. What I said was "the way humans allow those instincts to control them." Above all, the Ancients believed it was of paramount importance to overcome the impulses of greed and selfishness that might give rise to conflict to work together for a better world.

Honestly, with this point...

I really don't understand this refusal to acknowledge what's already been pointed out as being right there in the narrative because of a singular grudge against a character who has actually been shown to be truthful more often than not merely because he's bitter over the fact his entire race was put through a metaphorical meat grinder, but if you insist, then let's review:

What Emet-Selch was unconditionally right about:
- Hydaelyn and Zodiark being primals.
- The existence of the Ancients.
- The differences between mortals and the Ancients at least insofar as the soul and their individual lifespans.
- The Ancients' core beliefs.
- The Final Days, and what it entailed.
- Zodiark's summoning.
- The sundering, and the way the mechanics of sundering actually works.
- The rejoinings and the Ascians' MO.

What Emet-Selch categorically lied about:
- ???

Yes, Emet-Selch is "racist", if you like (air quotes because as Brinne, I think, pointed out in a previous post, the entire situation is such a strange and fantasy-limited hypothetical scenario that applying a real-world term with its own connotations seems a bit ill-fitting, but nonetheless, he's clearly heavily biased against them.) But in terms of basic fact, time has now proven that most of the time he was actually telling the truth, so constantly using his mortal prejudice to deny arguments built on the foundation of the information he provided us is really just a cop-out at this point.

[Cleretic]

Sorry for using that 'perfect angel' speech--I know that's loaded language, I just ultimately don't have any other way to describe it; Emet was indeed glossing over the flaws of Amaurot to make them seem more flawless. As I said, their story doesn't get less tragic because they weren't flawless (And I would argue they become more believable in doing so), but that was what he was doing; he only presented what he saw as the positives.

What Emet-Selch categorically lied about:
- ???

Here's the thing: he doesn't lie. He doesn't just straight-up say things that aren't true. (Well, not to us; there was that time he lived for most of a century stealing a Garleans' identity for the purposes of making a totalitarian empire.) I have never said he lies, what I've said is we have to recognize he's selective and manipulative about the truth.

A quick, few-minutes-of-thought shortlist of the things he's dodged that I'd say are actually pretty important:

• The actual nature of Ancient life and society; that whole 'they weren't perfect no-problems angels' thing.
• The fact Zodiark was sacrificed to more than once. (We learned that form Fake Hythlodaeus, who's sort of a rogue agent)
• The nature of said sacrifices RE: how voluntary they were and all that.
• Any mention of any dissent to the Zodiark plan beyond 'and suddenly Hydaelyn happened'. (His description of what Hydaelyn was angling for doesn't seem quite right either, but I'll chalk that up to him not actually knowing.)
• ...in fact, anything at all about the period between Zodiark and Hydaelyn's summonings.
• Just any information whatsoever about how they landed on the Rejoinings as a strategy.
• The Thirteenth, and how they plan to do that.
• How many sacrifices to Zodiark will be made over the course of/following the Rejoining plan.
• The part where we don't get to survive any of those Rejoinings.
• The part where they made primals actively temper, which... y'know, colors things, but I admit isn't as close to the subjects he talks about as the rest.

Again, he doesn't lie about any of this, I think you'll agree; what he does is basically drive the conversation and divulging of information such that he never has to acknowledge the truths that go against the argument and narrative he's building.

And remember: this is even something the characters in the story recognize: the reason we go to Anamnesis is entirely because the Scions recognize that we only got one, heavily curated part of the Ancient story, and we can't just take Emet's word as law.

Venat literally speaks of the Ancients in similarly glowing terms! Do you think she has an angle when she talks about the people she loves so much?

Exactly, yes. In Elpis Venat's fairly open, but also has nothing to hide (like Elpis-Emet, actually), while as Hydaelyn she's very selective about information and is absolutely working an angle. Specifically, she poses as a deity that only speaks on its own terms, meaning that she's not really open to questioning and can and does open and close communication for her own reasons. Hell, need I remind you that she hides significant amounts of information from both us and Sharlayan for her own ends?

I would argue for exactly the same skepticism of Hydaelyn's information as Emet, for exactly the same reasons; while everything she says is true, she doesn't tell us the whole truth. (But Hydaelyn also doesn't have nearly as many scenes, so it doesn't come up nearly as often.)

EDIT: Also, on the subject of the Amaurot DMV: I would argue that yes, that was indeed part of the outlook he was trying to communicate. Because if I learned anything about Emet from the Elpis MSQ, it was that he is a HUGE stickler for the rules of Amaurot. I can fully and wholeheartedly believe that he thinks that a perfect and aspirational society has orderly yet inevitable wait times at the DMV.

[Brinne]

Sorry for using that 'perfect angel' speech--I know that's loaded language, I just ultimately don't have any other way to describe it; Emet was indeed glossing over the flaws of Amaurot to make them seem more flawless. As I said, their story doesn't get less tragic because they weren't flawless (And I would argue they become more believable in doing so), but that was what he was doing; he only presented what he saw as the positives.

He’s describing people he loved who were unjustly murdered. Why the heck would he do anything else? If I saw all of my family and friends gunned down or what have you and spoke of them afterwards, do you think I would be all, “but for the sake of being fair and balanced, I will now go into details about why they also kinda sucked.”

You get WHY “they were no angels” is loaded speech beyond the literal words, right? (That you’re still using, by the way.) That it’s about a form of especially weaselly victim blaming (usually racially targeted) by insisting we’re not “talking enough about the victim’s checkered past or unsavory character” because it’s more beneficial and comfortable to the majority to convince themselves no real injustice happened here, or it at least wasn’t a big deal, nothing to get worked up over? To subtly paint the victim as being a justified target of violence?

EDIT: Also, on the subject of the Amaurot DMV: I would argue that yes, that was indeed part of the outlook he was trying to communicate. Because if I learned anything about Emet from the Elpis MSQ, it was that he is a HUGE stickler for the rules of Amaurot. I can fully and wholeheartedly believe that he thinks that a perfect and aspirational society has orderly yet inevitable wait times at the DMV.

Literally one of the first things we see Emet do in Elpis is bend the rules so as to better accommodate Hermes’s sensitive feelings. Every single time you’re in a cutscene using Azem’s crystal to summon party members, that is a direct result of Emet breaking the rules of Amaurot.

[Lunaxia]

...

But the point was that he does or could lie, purely on the basis that he has the motive to do so, which is then used as justification to disregard everything he told us as unreliable despite it being evident that he was telling the truth about pretty much everything all along. So rehashing the same argument to use that against him and anything he might have told us just doesn't work.

Pulling at straws by listing the times he didn't delve into the absolute details of what we spoke to him about to highlight how untrustworthy he is doesn't seem fair either, not only because it's a little unrealistic to expect unremittent exposition from both a character and story point of view, but you forget that he openly invited us to question him, and expressed frustration when we took no interest in him. You accuse him of withholding information, but we also didn't ask.

• The actual nature of Ancient life and society; that whole 'they weren't perfect no-problems angels' thing. I don't know anyone who talks about loved ones they're grieving for (who were summarily wiped from existence) only to add an addendum of "I guess they could kind of be assholes once in a while too."
• The fact Zodiark was sacrificed to more than once. (We learned that form Fake Hythlodaeus, who's sort of a rogue agent) Highly subjective, given that Phantom Hyth was Emet-Selch's creation. It's not exactly relevant, either: a lot of Ancients died to save the world, that's more or less the jist of it.
• The nature of said sacrifices RE: how voluntary they were and all that. The original topic of debate, which I believe the ShB narrative does treat as being voluntary. Hold onto your perception if you like; I don't agree with it.
• Any mention of any dissent to the Zodiark plan beyond 'and suddenly Hydaelyn happened'. (His description of what Hydaelyn was angling for doesn't seem quite right either, but I'll chalk that up to him not actually knowing.) Not only does Phantom Hyth expand on this, but Emet-Selch also goes into a little more detail on it in his side dialogue when you question him outside of the ShB quests.
• ...in fact, anything at all about the period between Zodiark and Hydaelyn's summonings. See above.
• Just any information whatsoever about how they landed on the Rejoinings as a strategy. Logic would dictate the world would need to be whole again to return it to their desired image. But we also didn't ask.
• The Thirteenth, and how they plan to do that. He did talk about the Thirteenth, and openly admitted they messed up there. Presumably it wasn't of too much consequence, or they probably wouldn't still be trying to rejoin the worlds?
• How many sacrifices to Zodiark will be made over the course of/following the Rejoining plan. He told us that in Amaurot: the remaining inhabitants of the Source following the calamities were to be offered as sacrifices.
• The part where we don't get to survive any of those Rejoinings. He mentioned this in Kholusia: that should we manage to survive, we would be "their equal."
• The part where they made primals actively temper, which... y'know, colors things, but I admit isn't as close to the subjects he talks about as the rest. I don't really see how that's relevant. It seems obvious to me that Zodiark's ability to temper was an accident, personally.

I don't know, it's like you are bending over backwards to refute anything he has to say in order to make the Ancients look worse than they actually are, and to what end, I can't fathom, unless it's to attempt to somehow justify the fate meted out to them. And I would really hope not, because such a line of thinking puts you squarely in the same box you're criticising the Ascians for.

[Tehmon]

It's not really sundered nature, it's the mortality and their innate talents (or lack thereof). You take away ancient quasi-immortality and the ability to create whatever and we'll see how conflict-free the ancient world stays as. I mean, we will never know, but you can't sit there and say that the innate talents (immortality, creation magics) that ancients have don't influence their way of life and their relatively peaceful paradise that they created.

[Lurina]

The main thing here that suggests 'different nation' is just raw distance; it feels fairly unlikely that a city 'half a world away' could be in the same nation.

That's not what makes me conclude it was a different nation at all. It's that they felt it was inappropriate or conceited to involve themselves in their affairs. That line of thought doesn't really make any sense whatsoever if you're not crossing borders.

But to be blunt, the way it often keeps getting forcefully pushed - into conversations and discussions that had nothing to do with the topic, and via soft browbeating anyone who expresses potential sympathy on any level towards the Ascians as therefore sympathizing with racial supremicism or what have you - and the way it so often goes hand in hand with denigrating the Ancients themselves as a people and a culture, it comes across like it's less about actually opposing racism in principle and more about nursing a really deep-seated grudge about feeling personally insulted by Emet-Selch, especially in the context of a video game power fantasy.

For me, as a thought experiment, Shadowbringers (very gently) actually challenging the power fantasy was why it was so memorable. To ask the question, point blank, "if it isn't a given that we, the assigned protagonists, are the ones who are 'superior' by whatever measure, and who 'deserve to live' more, then what? How do we respond? What do we do?" And I absolutely loved Shadowbringers's answer for it. I don't have a problem, personally, acknowledging that there are individuals even within my own species who are better or superior than me in certain respects - athleticism, gaming skills, what have you. What many able-bodied people are able to do that I struggle with at the best of times. And sometimes, yes, even the capacity to make moral decisions, rather than self-interested ones. But that doesn't mean I don't have a right to live, just as much as anyone else.

Shadowbringers was compelling for asserting, and presenting a situation where, the only way to "win" against the question asked by Emet-Selch is to throw out the entire framework altogether. Hence why the Scions don't - can't - present any meaningful arguments against his claims of "superiority" in one realm or another - Alphinaud simply asserts that it doesn't matter in terms of being allowed to exist, and he was absolutely right.

Agreed. I think a lot of people aren't really willing to engage with, or outright reject (which to be clear is a lot better than the former - I sure reject a ton Endwalker's messages!) the thesis of Shadowbringers which it even explicitly spells out in some of the quest text: That Emet sort of had a point in some ways even while doing unforgivable things, and the situation between the Sundered and Unsundered at that point was genuinely kill or be killed, making both sides heroes to their own people - even if one is more of an anti-hero than the other.

It's also very annoying to be accused of agreeing with Emet's supremacist views every time you express sympathy for the Amaurotine's and invoke their humanity. They weren't nessecerily better people on any kind of fundamental level, but they were people, just as much as the Domans or the Sharlayans or the Ondo. If we're invoking real-world stuff here, then the background tone of these conversations always feels uncomfortably reminiscent of the Just-World Fallacy responses people can have to discussions of actual atrocity and tragedy to me, where they scramble to find ways in which the victims had it coming. A good example is the popular idea of the Rapa Nui people of Easter Island destroying themselves through devastating their own environment and turning to cannibalism, when what primarily happened is that Europeans showed up and gave them all smallpox. Or since Rome has been invoked already, we could talk about the prevailing narrative of it being destroyed by its own greed and decadence, when it was more about bad weather and having the misfortune to have overcentralized in response to military defeats right before the Migration Period.

Emet's actions were monstrous, but he was just one guy. The Amaurotines didn't really do anything wrong other than have a culture which some people consider creepy. As far as we know, they never persecuted anyone.

[tokinokanatae]

It's just such a strange way to talk about people, to me.

Like, even assuming the more negative reads--that I personally disagree with--of the Ancients are correct.

It's been pointed out that Sharlayan--in the very least--have a puffed up opinion of themselves. This has led to things like deciding they are the arbitrators of the people that will get to go on the moon ark, and the people that are the disruptive elements that will be left to a spectacularly terrible fate. (This genuinely horrified me when I read it and made me wonder why on earth Hydaelyn reached out to them in particular.)

Despite that, were a meteor to suddenly hit Sharlayan and wipe everyone there out, I don't think it would be expected of our WoL to frown and tut disapprovingly as the twins mourned the loss of their parents. We wouldn't engage them in debates about how their parents aren't worth mourning because they were part of a discriminatory society, and, really it's not a loss at all when you think about it because there are smart people in Ishgard that didn't get turned into a crater.

Emet-Selch is the survivor of a tragedy. That he then went on to do terrible things in the wake of it does not somehow negate said tragedy. It's unhelpful to try to frame the argument as, "if the Ancients weren't to-the-exact-letter as great as Emet-Selch said, then they all deserved to be ripped into fourteen pieces and die." Like, even if they were much worse than they actually are in canon, it's okay for Emet-Selch to have loved and valued them--and miss them.