Rich on Emet-Selch FFXIV Endwalker

by



🙂

RichWCampbell,Rich,richw,campbell,Asmongold,Asmon,Zackrawrr,asmonbald,baldFFXIV,FF14,Final Fantasy 14,Final Fantasy XIV,Final Fantasy XIV Online,FFXIV Online,Final Fantasy 14 Online,Twitch,WoW,World of Warcraft,Endwalker,boss,fight,Stormblood,Heavensward

source

43 thoughts on “Rich on Emet-Selch FFXIV Endwalker”

  2. There are very few people that feel remorse when killing a bee and we even have entire business that revolve around exterminating them. The problem is, humans are only humans when you look at them from the point of view of a human. If you look at them from the point of view of an Ascian then humans are vermin. If you look at them from the point of view of certain animals, humans are dangerous predators.

    Reply

  6. I hate the Ascian apologists tbh. NOTHING makes his genocides acceptable. It doesn't matter that he didn't view it as murder, it doesn't matter that many people would have done the same to save the ones important to them, it doesn't matter that he later helped us. It doesn't matter that he suffered for a long time and that makes it emotionally understandable. He killed hundreds of millions of people, ffs.

    Don't get me wrong, he's one of my favourite characters too, but holy shit, stop trying to negate the terrible stuff he's done. It's not only wrong, it's also a disservice to the complexity of his character.

    Reply

  7. Alot of ppl like how the enemy is portrayed in every walks of life.
    Ex:naruto had pain
    Dbz had Cell
    Spiderman have venom
    I think villain when made right are awesome. I might not like what they doing but boy are they doing it in style.

    Reply

  8. You’re suppose to feel for Emet obviously, the tragedy of it all being that circumstances could not have been different from what had to be done. What gets me the most is how a subset of people would unabashedly become Zodiark apologists and claim that Hydaelyn was evil thus missing the point of it all. I get it we didn’t get the whole story, but we didn’t get the whole story and started making snap judgements without coming to any concrete conclusions. I don’t know that conceit was just mind boggling to me.

    Reply

  9. Emet-Selch has layers and layers of reasoning and emotions built into him. It's nearly impossible for me to hate. Y'shtola even at a later point has a side dialogue that points out the recreation of his Amaroutine brethren calls them children, yet when we travel to Elpis we're dehumanized into soulless familiars and addressed as "it'. Multiple ancients remark how breaking us would just be an unfortunate collateral when helping them with their troubles.

    For every crap he gave to the source, there was always a driving reason and a part of him that was self-aware. He's half mad by the time we meet him in ShB and understandably so. He's an AMAZING character. Tsundere and genocidal as shit.

    Reply

  11. Emet-Selch is likable, has good motive, works really hard to achieve it, seems to respect others.
    I know a guy who has none of that, also is evil to the core and yet…
    FRIEZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply

  19. Ignoring the whole clear argument of “liking not meaning agreeing”, Emet did explain that you as a species aren’t equal to even a fraction of him. It’s not genocide when you step on an ant hill; it’s a different set of morals between different species. The only reason you don’t like it is because you are a literal inferior species and don’t like the idea that his morals can’t mesh with your own. From a storytelling point of view, it’s interesting logic that works; it’s just wrong overall.

    Reply

  33. someone criticises an aspect of a final fantasy character and final fantasy players be like
    Emet-Selch has layers and layers of reasoning and emotions built into him. It's nearly impossible for me to hate. Y'shtola even at a later point has a side dialogue that points out the recreation of his Amaroutine brethren calls them children, yet when we travel to Elpis we're dehumanized into soulless familiars and addressed as "it'. Multiple ancients remark how breaking us would just be an unfortunate collateral when helping them with their troubles. You’re suppose to feel for Emet obviously, the tragedy of it all being that circumstances could not have been different from what had to be done. What gets me the most is how a subset of people would unabashedly become Zodiark apologists and claim that Hydaelyn was evil thus missing the point of it all. I get it we didn’t get the whole story, but we didn’t get the whole story and started making snap judgements without coming to any concrete conclusions. I don’t know that conceit was just mind boggling to me. Ignoring the whole clear argument of “liking not meaning agreeing”, Emet did explain that you as a species aren’t equal to even a fraction of him. It’s not genocide when you step on an ant hill; it’s a different set of morals between different species. The only reason you don’t like it is because you are a literal inferior species and don’t like the idea that his morals can’t mesh with your own. From a storytelling point of view, it’s interesting logic that works; it’s just wrong overall. Emet-selch is my favourite character BECAUSE he is a maniac who tried to destroy worlds – i wouldn't say he was genocidal because genocide specifically refers to the eradication and murder/oppression of a specific ethnic group based on the grounds of a superficial superiority (this is also why people who say theres a 'white genocide' are incorrect, because nobody is 'erasing' their existence or oppressing them, we are just asking for others to be given the same oppourtunities and access to things which have been the foundation of 'white privilege' – asking for equality forces people to confront their 'whiteness'. when you've been given special privileges, giving others the same access to oppourtunities can feel like a form of oppression. it isn't, its just evening the playing field and allowing EVERYONE to have the same rule book). Emet-selch's destruction was without disdain for any one specific sect of the human races, or anyone with a specific skin colour inside of those human races. emet-selch was destroying everyone for the purpose of returning to the past. i would say that emet's motives are far more like others trying to destroy the progress we make in order to return to a 'past' that never truly existed, or is unsustainable and would never have been able to continue existing in the way it was. the whole reason the planet was sundered was because the ancient's way of thinking was unsustainable. they couldn't handle the sheer grief and sorrow and begged for zodiark to save them, to remove the woes and suffering that would only continue to be perpetuated by sacrifice / loss of life. the desperate attempts to avoid sorrow instead of confronting it is another factor that continues the pain rather than letting it heal. Emet-selch is my favourite character because he is a philosophical question – 'if you were faced with the same gut wrenching sorrow, would you do the same thing i had done?' and we answer in shb with 'no, because we have suffered, and we will face it, just like we are facing yours. and we will win. if we die trying, so be it, but it is better to die trying than to never have tried at all.' much like venat poses the philosophical question of 'will you confront the end of the world, or will you run away?' both are the same question posed in reverse. if you wish to run away, the star will die just like it did in emet-selch's time. if you fight, you risk everything, but there is still the small sliver of hope that you succeed. and you have to reach for it, and it's an active effort to reach for it. it isn't easy, it will never be easy. And 'easy' is unsustainable. it is harmful to everyone including ourselves, even if it is comfortable or allowing us to remain ignorant to the world's truths that surround us – including the injustices that people continue to ignore. because ignoring it, being willfully ignorant, means that you don't have to face your own hand in what has happened. you have to face the grief, the sorrow, the guilt and the shame and not let it swallow you alive.

    Reply

  34. *Big Endwalker spoilers!!*

    I think another point people seem to forget, though if they haven't finished Endwalker/gotten through a good chunk of it yet they wouldn't know, is that Hydaelyn acknowledges what she did to mankind to split them caused huge amounts of suffering and pain, even though she knew she had to do it to them because they wouldn't have been able to save themselves in the end. Emet Selch did not know this, and instead went from what I assume was a near perfect society where they were literally playing god every single day, to losing everyone he cares about as well as watching those who were left get shattered.

    It's stated in Shadowbringers he tried for lifetimes to live among them, but I imagine seeing how much suffering, hate, and general unease left him feeling more and more desperate to have what he had back back, until the point it completely consumed him. I'm not an apologist, I'm looking at the context of the story as a fictional setting rather than reality. I know I and most other people would be horrified if we were told we weren't meant to live and were a mistake, and we needed to give up our existence and die so a shard of our soul could go back to its original form. It sounds insane, and even if it happened, would 'we' still exist? Probably not. Even the Exarch died in the First, it's his memories and experiences that were given to G'raha [which he clarifies in Endwalker]. SOMA is a good horror game that plays with this idea more.

    What Emet Selch wants is what he believes is correct, he knows how things were before, and even though Hermes caused all of these problems because he was too emotionally immature to be doing what he was doing, and didn't think things through when playing with something as delicate as emotions, I do think what he was asking of his society was correct. And I think, even though it caused mass amounts of suffering, what Hydaelyn did saved mankind because they were certainly on the brink of a mass extinction like what was happening on other planets, you can see it with how Zodiark was created, and you can see it in how they were so nonchalant about their creations. I judge Emet Selch based off of what I know about his people.

    I can empathize with Emet's struggles and even feel bad for the emotional turmoil he experienced, but I can't sympathize with him or his actions, because it isn't what I would do, or what I believe is right. I think that is the difference, and a lot of people forget there is a difference. Emet unfortunately just needed to experience a little sonder, and never did while he was alive.

    TL;DR; Emet Selch was in the wrong and we needed to stop him because the people living now are real with their own lives, emotions, and desires, but you're allowed to empathize with a fictional character's circumstances, especially when you see the context leading up to their decisions. Empathizing is not the same as justifying or even sympathizing.

    Reply

Leave a Comment