[Spoilers] Why Zenos is the most important character moving forward

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nalien

-----

---

This 100%.

Also lmao Zenos is the savage player who reams you out when you can't keep up but loves nothing better than a smooth victory showcasing their skill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

I agree and disagree here haha. I agree that WoL going "might makes right" would not become Zenos. If anything, he'd become Gaius. I don't think right even enters the equation for Zenos. Morality is irrelevant for him. If we are going to go into antitheses (which he is, but Zenos is hardly the only antithesis) the way Zenos foils the Warrior of Light comes from the ability to connect with and draw strength from others versus an entirely selfish and isolated strength. One involves being nurtured into power through connection, the other treats others as fuel.

---

I've seen this story told better in Bleach. Zaraki Kenpachi fights with his own strength while Ichigo fights using the strength of his allies and his zanpakuto. Zaraki starts off bored because he's reached the top but becomes excited at the prospect of confronting the protagonist because it's about the first real confrontation he'll have in a long time. The big difference in execution here is that Zaraki makes a serious effort to advocate his own ideology and try and convince the protagonist that he is correct. After the confrontation, Zaraki loses but he isn't necessarily shown to be incorrect since we are shown enough of his backstory to see that he clawed his way to the top from nothing using only his own strength. He earned his position and he's one of the most powerful characters in the series so at least we understand there is merit to his words and that he cannot be outright dismissed. He even follows a kind of warrior's code so you can understand why Zaraki has loyal followers whereas you cannot with Zenos. Zenos is rude, uncharismatic, dismissive, selfish, indulgent and seemingly nihilistic. Who would follow this guy? Even the Nihilists from the The Big Lebowski would loath this guy.

And wisely, Tite Kubo did not make Zaraki the villain. Zaraki is not the type of character that can handle the master villain role. He's not a planner or administrator and his philosophy of person strength just means he's work alone. Carrying out any kind of master plot would just run counter to his character. And this is the problem with Zenos. The moment Zenos became Emperor, is the moment all his failings as a leader and administrator destroy his ability to execute any plans to confront the Warrior of Light without it contradicting his character or common sense. Heck, using Black Rose would contricit his character because he wants to fight.
https://66.media.tumblr.com/b2b91f70...txd6vj_500.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

TV tropes is for superficial craft elements in storytelling and does not reflect good or bad storytelling on a structural level in any consistent way. Most of what I'm typing here is purely shooting the shit with fellow fans, but on this one point in particular seriously. It's actually a pretty big craft problem in writing right now that people keep latching onto surface elements without necessarily knowing underlying reasons for why something does or doesn't work. It's the difference between say, a top tier mangaka who has studied everything from anatomy to paneling to graphic design and so forth versus an amateur who tries to copy the mangaka without understanding those things at all and just sees "big eyes".

---

While tropes in of themselves are not bad, using Deus ex machina and Diabolus ex Machina are very poor ways to drive a conflict. Take the most famous duel in Japanese history: it was between Musashi and Kojirō, a contest of their own swordsmanship skills. That story could easily be ruined by giving Musashi the holy powers of the Archangel Gabriel and Kojirō given the powers of demon Mephistopheles. The problem here is that Musashi and Kojirō are no longer fighting using their own skills nor are there character experiences having any kind of impact on the outcome. It has essentially become a fight whose outcome is dictated at random by the writer since there no metric for holy/demonic powers, much like an anime beam struggle. If the story was about Musashi and Kojirō, then the writer has ruined it by making it a confrontation between Gabriel and Mephistopheles instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Having a character as a chosen one or with a remarkable ability, whether good or bad, doesn't automatically become bad storytelling. The Echo occurs within worldbuilding, isn't exclusive to one person, and comes with costs. The WoL has been incapacitated by it multiple times, Fordola who couldn't turn it off got hit worse. Zenos operates the same way a good chunk of real life people do and even the concept of him artificially implanting something that would put him in another person's point of view is crazy unpredictable and kind of revolutionary. We have no idea what this will do long-term for Zenos' character development.

---

I do have a problem with "chosen one" narratives, it robs characters of the agency. It is bad writing because it's the cheapest way to make an ordinary person special and to be given special treatment. Often times you can just rename chosen one narratives as "the good guy wins".
The problem with Zenos having the Echo now is that the writers have essentially made Zenos immortal. Zenos for some reason cares only for the thrill of the fight...but he cannot die and therefore his fight has no personal stakes. On top of that, the Warrior of Light cannot kill Zenos and thus cannot resolve the situation until the writer says so. Classic Diabolus ex Machina: they can't let the villain die so they just made him immortal to prolong the story. We have to wait for the writer to invent some Deus Ex Machina to kill Zenos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Not every character needs to be driven by angst and personal demons. This includes villains. I'm saying this as someone who loves angst, personal demons, and villains. I'll even go a step further--there are ways to tell stories where characters remain static and the drama comes from seeing how they impact those around them. There are even ways to tell stories with no conflict at all, and the most prominently successful cases of this method come from Japan.

Zenos undergoes an arc from being directionless and desperately seeking purpose for himself to finding that purpose in an opponent capable of overcoming him. Someone who can truly challenge him and make him strive. He went from valuing no one to valuing someone for the role they fulfill in his life. It's a very, very simple arc, which fits with the fact that he has huge elements of human identity missing from his personal development. This is not missing in the sense of "writers couldn't be bothered to fill it in" but in the sense of "some people lack the ability to conceptualize X and have to fill and adapt to that in other ways".

---

You are absolutely right, not every character (and by extension the villain) needs a character arc. Frieza being a famous example. The problem here is that Frieza had no staying power, once he was defeated in DBZ, he no longer had a place in the story. When Frieza gets revived as robo-Frieza, he was only useful as a dps-check. If a villian never changes, if a villian cannot be reasoned with and if the villain doesn't even have a viable idology to try and convert people with, then they are one dimensional. Batman's Joker doesn't need an arc because he's driven by ideology. He's trying to prove a fundamental point about society and to change it. Zenos isn't trying to prove anything or change anything, he just wants to experience "fun".

Zeno's only arc it seems is that he went from complete inaction to confronting the protagonist. Generally speaking confronting the protagonist is the bare minimum that an antagonist must do. His ideology is: fight is fun. It's almost caveman in its lack of dimension. We might as well be fighting a immortal caveman.
Grynewaht
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/...20170329123812

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

And with all this, seriously no one's gotta personally like Zenos but being a kind of character you don't prefer doesn't make him a technically ineffective character. Liking or disliking something is totally divorced from whether that thing is good craftsmanship. He's actually within a character type that is rarely done well and the level that the team has managed to do this consistently right is a very rare exception in media.

---

He's not a well written character. As I've said, he has no real ideology or philosophy to push, he has no strength that can be explained and he goes through no real arc. There's no reason for the WoL to listen to him because he's insane. He doesn't even make other characters go through arcs either. He's about as effectual as a Grynewaht. He's just a boss to confront that gets to live because the cut scene says so despite all logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

All this stuff they're doing is coming from a very meticulous and deliberate place. If this isn't your favorite kind of character, don't worry there'll be others and he won't be in the spotlight forever. I just think it's important to give a little respect to the devs here, same way I'd give respect to say Bladerunner even though I can't seem to sit through it lol.

---

Hey at least I can acknowledge that Bladerunner jump started a new genre of film. A whole generation of films can after that can be attributed to Bladerunner cinematography. But we can still acknowledge that Bladerunner had very poor writing, they couldn't even agree on whether Decker was a replicant, which just created chaos in the story. If Decker was a replicant, it's a bad story and if Decker wasn't a replicant, it's still a bad story. It comes down to the writer, director, studio execs and actors not even agreeing with what story they were trying to tell, so they ended up not really telling a story that says anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidalutz

You honestly know what would make my day?

if when the story continued we got a cut scene with Gaius just lopping off Zenos head completely so we were through and done with the most overwhelming one dimensional villain since the Emperor of Final Fantasy II Hrrm... wait maybe thats it Everyone pull out your blood swords..

---

The problem of that of course is that the writers have made Zenos immortal and they also setup an Imperial Cloning Facility. Killing Zenos is meaningless to the narrative now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Zenos undergoes an arc from being directionless and desperately seeking purpose for himself to finding that purpose in an opponent capable of overcoming him. Someone who can truly challenge him and make him strive. He went from valuing no one to valuing someone for the role they fulfill in his life. It's a very, very simple arc, which fits with the fact that he has huge elements of human identity missing from his personal development. This is not missing in the sense of "writers couldn't be bothered to fill it in" but in the sense of "some people lack the ability to conceptualize X and have to fill and adapt to that in other ways".

---

I wouldn't say Zenos was at all directionless. He knew all along EXACTLY what he wanted. Dialogue in the game indicates that this was exactly why he appointed Yotsuyu to Doma, why unleashed the Skulls on Ala Mhigo. He oppressed the people in order to try to dig out someone willing to fight back, to force the emergence of a hero. The Hunt long predated the Warrior of Light. His entire life was a fruitless search for a worthy opponent. Directionless implies that he did not know what he wanted, but he very much did.

Really, the extent of his character arc was going from "looking for a worthy opponent" to "FOUND a worthy opponent". In fairness, this DID result in a radical policy change for the guy, wherein he lost all interest in paying lip service to Garlean high command and was far less interested in prodding the downtrodden in the hopes that one would rise up and try to bite him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

The moment Zenos became Emperor, is the moment all his failings as a leader and administrator destroy his ability to execute any plans to confront the Warrior of Light without it contradicting his character or common sense. Heck, using Black Rose would contricit his character because he wants to fight.

---

I don't think Zenos's goal was to become emperor, nor do I think he HAS become Emperor. His goal was to stop his father from unleashing the Black Rose and possibly killing Zenos's quarry, not to take the throne himself. It's also very unclear that Garlean rules of succession would just hand the throne over to the guy - there was a civil war the last time an emperor died, after all.

Now that Varis is dead (if he's dead), that goal has likely succeeded. I doubt Zenos cares at all about what becomes of Garlemald at this point, whether they declare a new leader or destroy themselves through civil war. In fact, I'd guess he's all about the civil war - with no clear leader, the Garleans would be focused on themselves and far less likely to deploy chemical weaponry elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LineageRazor

I don't think Zenos's goal was to become emperor, nor do I think he HAS become Emperor. His goal was to stop his father from unleashing the Black Rose and possibly killing Zenos's quarry, not to take the throne himself. It's also very unclear that Garlean rules of succession would just hand the throne over to the guy - there was a civil war the last time an emperor died, after all.
Now that Varis is dead (if he's dead), that goal has likely succeeded. I doubt Zenos cares at all about what becomes of Garlemald at this point, whether they declare a new leader or destroy themselves through civil war. In fact, I'd guess he's all about the civil war - with no clear leader, the Garleans would be focused on themselves and far less likely to deploy chemical weaponry elsewhere.

---

While I agree that Zenos would be less than keen to take the throne, the reason for the previous civil war was because Solus (Emet) did not name an heir apparent at any point. There wad no clear successor so the two with greatest claims over the throne went to war. This is not the case with Varis and Zenos. We are told early on in SB that Varis named Zenos his heir. Looking back on this info, this was definitely to secure the throne at the current moment by getting rid of any hints of ambiguity like what followed the death of Solus, rather than Zenos being worthy.

The Bechdel Test, is a measure of the representation of women in fiction. It asks whether a work features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man. The requirement that the two women must be named is sometimes added.

Now I'm completely making this up but:

The Edax Test, is a measure of how well written an antagonist is. It asks:

Can the Antagonist progress the story if they kill the Protagonist? If not, then the Antagonist is poorly written.

I believe Zenos fails this test. If he kills the Protagonist, he loses all motivation and his function in the story becomes obsolete.

Conversely, Emet would be able to continue the story if the Warrior of Light became a Sin Eater since that was a small part of his grand plan. His motivations don't revolve around the Warrior of Light and he has enough development to continue the story without him/her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GenericMagus

But that's the same thing as us. While we earned the power, we're still given the Echo and Blessing of Light from up high, we didn't earn it until we had one turned off by Migardsomr to say that we earned it, but we're still given it at the start to stand high above all instead of earning it.

---

We did earn the blessing of Light. It was us doing great deeds that gave us the crystals and thus seemingly the blessing. And when that blessing was banned by Middy we were not weaker after that. We also seemingly work quite hard ingame if the job quests are canon so its not like we learned the job and be done with it, we have to train and put ourself at the limits.

Players might see their own character that way but the story makes sure to show that the canon WoL is not that kind of character. We simply care for the people and even though we are a hero with many deeds we still take care of minor tasks even if some starts to annoy us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

The Bechdel Test, is a measure of the representation of women in fiction. It asks whether a work features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man. The requirement that the two women must be named is sometimes added.

Now I\\'m completely making this up but:

The Edax Test, is a measure of how well written an antagonist is. It asks:

Can the Antagonist progress the story if they kill the Protagonist? If not, then the Antagonist is poorly written.

I believe Zenos fails this test. If he kills the Protagonist, he loses all motivation and his function in the story becomes obsolete.

Conversely, Emet would be able to continue the story if the Warrior of Light became a Sin Eater since that was a small part of his grand plan. His motivations don\\'t revolve around the Warrior of Light and he has enough development to continue the story without him/her.

---

Will try to answer the rest properly in a bit, but the Bechdel test and similar are exactly what I mean about superficial systems of evaluation. As a professional and as someone who has examined these types of tests in detail--using either as a serious system of evaluation gives the impression of not having the essentials down yet. Criteria like these act as skill handicaps and distract from fundamental issues of form. They're somewhat arbitrary shortcuts and (for the Bechdel Test) ideologically driven. This is totally divorced from craftsmanship.

I know I've been speaking in somewhat objective terms, and lean toward formal while talking shop. Reading less terse is something I still have to work on sometimes lol. With no faces and resumes on lodestone, stuff like that can raise the question of "what makes you think YOU know better???"

Since I prefer to be just another random player, there's plenty of room not to take me at my word. But I do have over a decade of expertise in pretty notable arenas when discussing this. Didn't intend to come across as mean or dismissive, just had a moment of blending my professional life and my fan life. Only mentioning background at all here because seems like it might help clarify a bit.

A big part of why I defend the devs is because I'm in the same sort of area as them. Not identical, but significant overlap. There is plenty I don’t know about their specific work, but when I look at them I see colleagues. The level of skill and (frankly) care for fans they’ve been exhibiting is off the charts and not something that can be taken lightly or for granted.

There was a point I used these kinds of tests while learning too. Imo it's very normal and doesn't reflect badly on a personal level or anything. I'd argue it's really important to stop though to keep growing as a creator. Might be able to explain a little addressing other points?

Still wanna invite questions and challenges to stuff I say, I’ll do my best to be clear with replies!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Will try to answer the rest properly in a bit, but the Bechdel test and similar are exactly what I mean about superficial systems of evaluation. As a professional and as someone who has examined these types of tests in detail--using either as a serious system of evaluation gives the impression of not having the essentials down yet. Criteria like these act as skill handicaps and distract from fundamental issues of form. They're somewhat arbitrary shortcuts and (for the Bechdel Test) ideologically driven. This is totally divorced from craftsmanship.

---

While the Bechdel test is not a hardline test of quality, it does highlight a specific problems. Star Wars may be well made, but that does not change the fact that the original movie only had 2 women in it within a cast of hundreds. The reason why Star Wars fails The Bechdel Test highlight a problem that most people perhaps have perhaps not considered before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

With no faces and resumes on lodestone, stuff like that can raise the question of "what makes you think YOU know better???"

---

I do not cook. That does not mean I'll tolerate bad food because of it. Nor does it mean I cannot have an opinion on the food despite lacking profession credentials. I can live by having a standard.

Now if you can refute my Edax Test, then I'll perhaps come out wiser then I was before. You need not be a professional to expose any flaws in my logic.

I know a lot of people hate on Zenos, but he's always been one of my favorite villains for reasons that may surprise people though I hope some share this feeling as well! We've fought against Ascians and otherworldly entities bent on manipulation, destruction, and grandiose plots to warp and reshape reality itself. But Zenos? Zenos doesn't want any of that. He just wants to fight and kill strong opponents and that's always been his hook from day one. As far as villains go, I find Zenos to be refreshingly... I want to say "honest" for lack of a better term. He's completely transparent about who he is, what he wants, and what he's about. In a story full of liars and manipulators, I actually love the fact that we have a villain with such a simple goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khalithar

I know a lot of people hate on Zenos, but he's always been one of my favorite villains for reasons that may surprise people though I hope some share this feeling as well! We've fought against Ascians and otherworldly entities bent on manipulation, destruction, and grandiose plots to warp and reshape reality itself. But Zenos? Zenos doesn't want any of that. He just wants to fight and kill strong opponents and that's always been his hook from day one. As far as villains go, I find Zenos to be refreshingly... I want to say "honest" for lack of a better term. He's completely transparent about who he is, what he wants, and what he's about. In a story full of liars and manipulators, I actually love the fact that we have a villain with such a simple goal.

---

Was Grynewaht your favorite villain too? He was all those things and more.

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/...20170329123812

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

While the Bechdel test is not a hardline test of quality, it does highlight a specific problems. Star Wars may be well made, but that does not change the fact that the original movie only had 2 women in it within a cast of hundreds. The reason why Star Wars fails The Bechdel Test highlight a problem that most people perhaps have perhaps not considered before.


I do not cook. That does not mean I'll tolerate bad food because of it. Nor does it mean I cannot have an opinion on the food despite lacking profession credentials. I can live by having a standard.

Now if you can refute my Edax Test, then I'll perhaps come out wiser then I was before. You need not be a professional to expose any flaws in my logic.

---

Having two women talk to each other about something other than a man is a flawed principle for evaluation, inherently unequal in its criteria, and eliminates the possibility of treating women as default with as much respect, attention to quality, attention to detail, and focus on individual identity compared to men. It misses the forest for the trees and diminishes potentially brilliant works and characters for something ultimately insignificant. Men are not subjected to any version of this test and would not have their quality called into question if they failed to meet such criteria.

Having a quota for representation and potentially lowering the bar for representation because meeting that quota takes priority over telling the story effectively hurts representation. This is because a flood of forced, lower quality stories teaches audiences to associate representation with low quality. It's good to include a wide variety of characters across demographics because they offer a broader range in life experiences and perspectives, but they should fit the work and they should have some purpose within the work beyond existing as representation. Anything less is dehumanizing and ultimately hurts representation because the audiences WILL notice what you're doing. The path to success comes from sincere enthusiasm and being treated as normal or nothing. Because there are people capable of delivering that enthusiasm and the depth that comes with normalcy. The more they get drowned out by token characters, the more stigma goes to the represented group.

There is room for stories about just men. There is room for stories about just women. There is room for stories about men and women together. So on and so forth. The arena for sharing stories is open to anyone who chooses to tell them and can tell them well enough. It must remain that way rather than fall to identitarian censorship. That censorship just breeds resentment and further division while limiting options instead of expanding them.

You do not cook. You can understand basic things like there shouldn't be a cockroach on top of your food. You know you like the taste of some things but not others. If you go into a high end restaurant, order something prepared in a way you're not used to and don't like, then tell the chef they did it wrong and don't know what they're doing--you are in the wrong there. You don't have to like the food prepared. It isn't the fault of the chef and doesn't mean something was wrong with the food. If you want to evaluate the technical quality of an unusual food in a high end restaurant, you better know damn well what you're talking about.

Writing is not all about your feelings and how much you do or don't like something. There are different forms of writing between genres and according to whether a work draws from empathy with its characters or wish-fulfillment using stand-ins for the reader. It is ignorant to use the same criteria you would use on I don't know, Paradise Lost, for a bodice ripper.

I can refute your Edax test not only for Zenos but for a number of other characters. Zenos is obvious and easy but doesn't address your entire principle being flawed.

Zenos killing the Warrior of Light doesn't mean anything more than he needs a new rival and the Warrior of Light no longer meets his needs. It's just that simple. He does not care one bit about the Warrior of Light as an individual person, as I've said repeatedly in this and other threads. He cares about someone being strong enough to beat him. It could be literally anyone and he would be just as excited. Right now, the person he found is the Warrior of Light. If the Warrior of Light is dead, he needs to resume his search. He won't mourn us as a person. He'll mourn that the role is empty again. He is driven by very few, very simple desires but he will pursue them ruthlessly and remorselessly. There are people like that. Part of how empathy-based fiction operates involves reflecting the human experience in some way, shape, or form. This is a type of human experience. It operates with clear and understandable cause and effect motives. It is shaped by the environment it interacted with from birth and a series of experiences, all effected in-turn by born personality. It is nature and nurture both, consistently and cohesively.

We could easily have a story about the Scions struggling to deal with Zenos as he searches for new quarry while trying to fill the void left behind the Warrior of Light.

Now lets try a hypothetical villain who fails your Edax test. Lets say that the arc of this villain involves them deteriorating over time. Like Macbeth. Lets say that the villain begins as a person of decent or middling morality, but extremely low self-worth coupled with isolation. The villain is treated to a small kindness by our hero. They latch onto that and spiral deeper and deeper into obsession. Eventually they can no longer imagine life without the hero. They stalk the hero, kill competition for the hero's attention, kidnap the hero and keep them in a basement.

The hero tries to escape and, in the scuffle that follows, the villain kills them by mistake.

The absolute lack of self-worth remains, but now added to this the villain also realizes that this one person who did them a kindness, who let them feel for a while like maybe they were worth kindness, is dead. And it's their fault.

Villain commits suicide.

Boom. Technically fine character and variations off of this concept have been around for centuries. Character is tragic, has a clear arc, has motivations throughout.

Characters do not become ineffective because they are personally weak. This is part of the human experience too, and knowing that it is a possibility furthers suspense across the board because it lets audiences know that it is possible for heroes to fail. This lends weight to every victory. It's why it's important that we as the Warrior of Light lose to characters like Zenos and Ran'jit. It's why it matters that the Fuath nearly drowned us and Emet-Selch nearly turned us into an unstoppable sin eater. When you never fall and never experience vulnerability or weakness, you not only lose perspective and dramatic tension--you lose the sense of humanity that allows audiences to relate and invest. Because human beings are sometimes weak and sometimes fail. It's part of why heroes who manage to succeed despite this threat are so inspiring. They're willing to face those stakes.

I've been seriously trying to be nice to you with this. As I said before, I don't care if you don't like Zenos. This is a measurable craft and it does have objective elements not related to mechanics like spelling or grammar. Your feelings and individual preferences will not make you more right about technique.

The point of "The Bechdel Test" is to point out a specific problem: the number of times two women are talking about men in a way that doesn't have to do with romance happens far, far less in fictional works (especially film) then all the times they do talk about men in the context of romance. If you have women talking about men in ways that has nothing to do with romance... then great! That is a non-stereotypical way for women to talk about men! But nine times out of ten, romance is the context we see women discussing men in or worse, women never talk to each other without men around in the first place. The point is less about what the answer is and more how] the question is answered.

Edax's "Antagonist" Text does much the same thing. It honestly isn't just about if the Antagonist can progress their plans if they destroy the Protagonist (although if they can't, that is a really huge issue right off the bat). It has a lot to do with why the Antagonist can or cannot progress their plans. Zenos just happens to have bad or unsatisfactory answers and reasoning for the entire question while other villains in FFXIV don't.

BTW, can I borrow that question in other forums Edax? It's a great one to ask about a lot of unsatisfactory villains to see how it is answered and why they are so unsatisfactory...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khalithar

I know a lot of people hate on Zenos, but he's always been one of my favorite villains for reasons that may surprise people though I hope some share this feeling as well! We've fought against Ascians and otherworldly entities bent on manipulation, destruction, and grandiose plots to warp and reshape reality itself. But Zenos? Zenos doesn't want any of that. He just wants to fight and kill strong opponents and that's always been his hook from day one. As far as villains go, I find Zenos to be refreshingly... I want to say "honest" for lack of a better term. He's completely transparent about who he is, what he wants, and what he's about. In a story full of liars and manipulators, I actually love the fact that we have a villain with such a simple goal.

---

I personally liked Zenos a lot as a villain and interesting personality, until it came to the whole taking the power of Primals thing. First Shinryu and now most likely he's looking towards absorbing the powers of Hydalean or Zodiark just to fight us. He went from an honest villain with an honest goal of fighting the strongest opponent purely for the hunt and the thrill, to another standard ff villain with a convoluted goal that makes little sense.

He'd be far more interesting if he wanted to fight us with his own strength. To reach the heights purely on his own.

The issue with the "Edax Test" is that it operates under the assumption that the villain has a plan.

Villains like Zenos do not have plans. Zenos is like the Joker - a dog chasing cars, who wouldn't know what to do if he caught one. He doesn't have a plan or plot beyond getting a satisfying fight. He can't "progress the story if he wins" because he has no stake in the overarching mythos driving everyone else.

As a character, Zenos is very boring; as a plot element, decidedly less so. (Pointing out which was the reason this thread was made.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Having two women talk to each other about something other than a man is a flawed principle for evaluation, inherently unequal in its criteria, and eliminates the possibility of treating women as default with as much respect, attention to quality, attention to detail, and focus on individual identity compared to men. It misses the forest for the trees and diminishes potentially brilliant works and characters for something ultimately insignificant. Men are not subjected to any version of this test and would not have their quality called into question if they failed to meet such criteria.

---

Like I said, the Bechdel test is not a hardline test of quality, it does highlight a specific problems. Understanding why A New Hope fails the Bechdel test highlights that A New Hope has a gender ratio difference of over a 99%. You talk about reverse the Bechdel test, well in the opening scene of A New Hope, a male Stormtrooper tells Vader that the plans are not in the main computer. So you have 2 men talking about something other then a woman, so it passes the reverse Bechdel Test in the first minutes of the movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Having a quota for representation and potentially lowering the bar for representation because meeting that quota takes priority over telling the story effectively hurts representation.

---

Which is why you shouldn't use quotas. The fact that A New Hope only has 2 women can be traced back to the script and the writing of George Lucas. A sacrilegious as it sounds, Star Wars could have had a better script.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Having a quota for representation and potentially lowering the bar for representation because meeting that quota takes priority over telling the story effectively hurts representation. This is because a flood of forced, lower quality stories teaches audiences to associate representation with low quality. It's good to include a wide variety of characters across demographics because they offer a broader range in life experiences and perspectives, but they should fit the work and they should have some purpose within the work beyond existing as representation. Anything less is dehumanizing and ultimately hurts representation because the audiences WILL notice what you're doing. The path to success comes from sincere enthusiasm and being treated as normal or nothing. Because there are people capable of delivering that enthusiasm and the depth that comes with normalcy. The more they get drowned out by token characters, the more stigma goes to the represented group.

There is room for stories about just men. There is room for stories about just women. There is room for stories about men and women together. So on and so forth. The arena for sharing stories is open to anyone who chooses to tell them and can tell them well enough. It must remain that way rather than fall to identitarian censorship. That censorship just breeds resentment and further division while limiting options instead of expanding them.

---

Here you are objectively wrong. Passing the Bechdel Test does not require quotas, censorship or forced diversity. A well written story should be capable of passing that test on it's own merits without "forcing" anything. As you say, there is room for stories about men and women so why even mention "identitarian censsorship"? It's a huge leap to even link the idea that 2 women talking to each other in a movie about something other than a man is tantamount to censorship. The two concepts don't correlate at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

You do not cook. You can understand basic things like there shouldn't be a cockroach on top of your food. You know you like the taste of some things but not others. If you go into a high end restaurant, order something prepared in a way you're not used to and don't like, then tell the chef they did it wrong and don't know what they're doing--you are in the wrong there. You don't have to like the food prepared. It isn't the fault of the chef and doesn't mean something was wrong with the food. If you want to evaluate the technical quality of an unusual food in a high end restaurant, you better know damn well what you're talking about.

---

The problem with your scenario here is that I am not talking to the chef. We are both consumers of product in this forum. I am not talking directly with the creator. As you say, I can point out if there's a cockroach on my plate. You can defend the chef but when you demand my résumé, you've overstepped your bounds. I do not need professional credential to critique a product. A critic only needs to be capable of criticizing something. We don't need to encourage the Brie Larson school of gatekeeping where critics need to be a specific race, gender or profession to "count".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Writing is not all about your feelings and how much you do or don't like something. There are different forms of writing between genres and according to whether a work draws from empathy with its characters or wish-fulfillment using stand-ins for the reader. It is ignorant to use the same criteria you would use on I don't know, Paradise Lost, for a bodice ripper.

---

Then your not being objective. If a bodice ripper cannot match the standard of Paradise Lost, then it is not as well written. To abandon the objective standard to say otherwise would be an appeal to emotion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Zenos killing the Warrior of Light doesn't mean anything more than he needs a new rival and the Warrior of Light no longer meets his needs. It's just that simple. He does not care one bit about the Warrior of Light as an individual person, as I've said repeatedly in this and other threads. He cares about someone being strong enough to beat him. It could be literally anyone and he would be just as excited. Right now, the person he found is the Warrior of Light. If the Warrior of Light is dead, he needs to resume his search. He won't mourn us as a person. He'll mourn that the role is empty again. He is driven by very few, very simple desires but he will pursue them ruthlessly and remorselessly. There are people like that. Part of how empathy-based fiction operates involves reflecting the human experience in some way, shape, or form. This is a type of human experience. It operates with clear and understandable cause and effect motives. It is shaped by the environment it interacted with from birth and a series of experiences, all effected in-turn by born personality. It is nature and nurture both, consistently and cohesively.

---

What you just described isn't a story. As you say, if Zenos wins, he stops caring. If he stops caring, there's no story. How is Zenos any different then Grynewaht, both in personality or function in the story? You can technically tell a story about a human that does nothing, but most would objectively agree that would be a bad story. If Zenos wins, the plot ends because he has no plot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

We could easily have a story about the Scions struggling to deal with Zenos as he searches for new quarry while trying to fill the void left behind the Warrior of Light.

---

But they wouldn't. Zenos does not care about the Scions. Zenos would have no reason to ever get out of his chair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Now lets try a hypothetical villain who fails your Edax test. Lets say that the arc of this villain involves them deteriorating over time. Like Macbeth. Lets say that the villain begins as a person of decent or middling morality, but extremely low self-worth coupled with isolation. The villain is treated to a small kindness by our hero. They latch onto that and spiral deeper and deeper into obsession. Eventually they can no longer imagine life without the hero. They stalk the hero, kill competition for the hero's attention, kidnap the hero and keep them in a basement.

The hero tries to escape and, in the scuffle that follows, the villain kills them by mistake.

The absolute lack of self-worth remains, but now added to this the villain also realizes that this one person who did them a kindness, who let them feel for a while like maybe they were worth kindness, is dead. And it's their fault.

Villain commits suicide. Or villain goes on to try and find a substitute because they can no longer exist alone and becomes a serial kidnapper.

---

If the antagonist commits suicide, then the story is over. Destroying the protagonist meant the antagonist could not progress the story. Becoming a Serial Kidnapper would likely not have anything to do with the story leading up to that point. Unless it was a villain protagonist from the very start, then the story has been broken.

Either you are describing a scenario in which the story has ended and a completely new one has taken its place...or the Antagonist has successfully progressed the story after they destroyed the protagonist because they are well written. Edax Law upheld.

Also your scenario is quite reminiscent of the Amazing Spiderman. Electro's motivations completely revolved around Spiderman. If Electro succeeded and killed Spiderman, the story could no longer progress because Electro would no longer have any purpose. This is a film famed for its poor writing. Electro is not the objective standard for a well written villain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Boom. Technically fine character and variations off of this concept have been around for centuries. Character is tragic, has a clear arc, has motivations throughout. You can switch to focus on a sibling of the villain, or a new victim, or a police officer looking into the crime. Good stories can shift focus to even a background character and make them feel like the protagonist.

---

Game of Thrones story survived the death of it's protagonist by the antagonist because it was well written. The Lannisters did not exist purely to oppose Ned Stark, they had their own motivations that continued after the protagonist was executed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Characters do not become ineffective because they are personally weak. This is part of the human experience too, and knowing that it is a possibility furthers suspense across the board because it lets audiences know that it is possible for heroes to fail. This lends weight to every victory. It's why it's important that we as the Warrior of Light lose to characters like Zenos and Ran'jit as the Warrior of Light. It's why it matters that the Fuath nearly drowned us and Emet-Selch nearly turned us into an unstoppable sin eater. When you never fall and never experience vulnerability or weakness, you not only lose perspective and dramatic tension--you lose the sense of humanity that allows audiences to relate and invest. Because human beings are sometimes weak and sometimes fail. It's part of why heroes who manage to succeed despite this threat are so inspiring. They're willing to face those stakes.

---

I don't know what this is a reply to. I made no criticisms of physical weakness. Red herring?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

This is a measurable craft and it does have objective elements not related to mechanics like spelling or grammar. Your feelings and individual preferences will not make you more right about technique.

---

I agree we should hold this story to an objective standard. It is a shame that you have taken my objective statements and examples about the story and implied they were subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cilia

The issue with the "Edax Test" is that it operates under the assumption that the villain has a plan.

Villains like Zenos do not have plans. Zenos is like the Joker - a dog chasing cars, who wouldn't know what to do if he caught one. He doesn't have a plan or plot beyond getting a satisfying fight. He can't "progress the story if he wins" because he has no stake in the overarching mythos driving everyone else.

As a character, Zenos is very boring; as a plot element, decidedly less so. (Pointing out which was the reason this thread was made.)

---

But in the Dark Knight, the Joker did have a plan and he was most certainly the main antagonist. The bank heist was planned, hostage situation, letting himself get captured was planned and the boat bombs were all planned. And all the plans were tied together so that the Joker could push his ideology onto Gotham. It was all in a bid to show Gotham that they were all as ugly as himself. When the Joker said he was a dog chasing cars, he was lying to Harvey Dent. If the Joker killed Batman, then the Joker would continue to erode society of Gotham. Enough of the Joker's motivations have been established that the story could continue to run until Gotham had tore itself apart like as Bane intended. We could potentially see that the Joker was right and Batman was wrong because he had an affect on all the characters around him. If a less well written character like say the Scarecrow had killed Batman, then yes the story no longer progress because Scarecrow doesn't have any motivation beyond making people scared. What would Scarecrow do if he killed Batman? Spray someone with fear gas and then go home? -shrug-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ObsidianFire

BTW, can I borrow that question in other forums Edax? It's a great one to ask about a lot of unsatisfactory villains to see how it is answered and why they are so unsatisfactory...

---

Go ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

------

---

The confrontation in Bleach wasn't better. You liked it more. These are completely different things. Frankly, I find it weird, less believable, and less human that someone who supposedly lives for the challenge of a fight specifically because the rest of reality is unfulfilling would be invested in ideology or converting others to it. Reality being unfulfilling extends to other people.

Zenos commands loyalty because he leads people in combat and rewards people based on merit. He does not care if his soldiers are Ala Mhigan, or Doman, or Garlean, or anything else. They could be purple people eaters for all he cares. If they can fight well, take direction, and strive for better the way he does then they have a place by his side. This is not something that can be taken for granted in Garlemald and the gesture goes a long way, particularly with people like Fordola and Asahi. Having the heir to the empire itself treat you like an equal to any other soldier based on your abilities is a huge deal when others of status would have denied opportunity out of hand.

Warriors code does not by itself make a good character, a good leader, or a good villain. Being morally or philosophically correct doesn't either. Those both fall under things you like rather than things that are technically good. Given that Zenos is a serial killer and has no empathy, of course regular nihilists like characters from the Big Lebowski wouldn't like him. And frankly, not all nihilism is the same either.

The story about Zenos undergoing training as a kid comes from The Chronicles of Light, in book form. It is canon. You keep referencing him not working for power. The story literally shows him doing just that.

Neither Deus ex Machina nor Diabolus ex Machina were even employed in Stormblood unless you count Hildabrand, which was for absurd humor. I was referring to the very practice of using shortcut terminology to articulate a critique, which gets very sloppy very quickly and hinders communication through vagaries.

Deus ex Machina and Diabolus ex Machina both require a random event that is not in keeping with normal functions of the narrative universe to dramatically change the outcome of a situation. The sole explanation for their occurrence comes from the storyteller going "because I said so". This is not the case even remotely for either the Warrior of Light or Zenos. Both use established in-universe mechanics that apply to characters outside of themselves and reach positions of influence as a result of choices made, with said choices coming from clear motives that stem from life experiences. Dramatic and unusual events do not qualify by themselves. The example you provided would involve breaking dramatically with the terms of the narrative universe established while involving zero motive for Gabriel and Mephistopheles. If there was a battle occurring in a world where angels and demons were established previously, where it was understood as possible to share power in the way described, and there was some means or motivation behind the occurrence--there is zero issue between two human warriors having a Gabriel versus Mephistopheles fight. It could even have a historical bent to it for something weird and campy as long as the rest was built up adequately.

Dismissing chosen one narratives actually limits human experience and agency. They can be executed well or poorly, but when executed well they can offer unique insight to how being forced into a position of tremendous responsibility can wear a person down and what it takes to endure despite that. It also offers a look at how the chosen one manages free will and how their personality and choices ultimately make being a chosen one less something imposed from outside and more something that they choose because the alternative isn't acceptable in their own eyes. They are chosen because their identity, personality, and values have shaped them into the person who feels driven to carry out the role despite obstacles and sometimes terrible costs. The Warrior of Light qualifies for this.

A well done character would be able to display agency even locked alone in a cell for the entire story with no means of escape. A good writer could execute that.

Zenos will probably need to be dealt with like an Ascian and/or he will encounter character development that pushes him to removing his artificial Echo himself. Alternatively, the Resonant can be defeated using means that haven't been explored in the plot yet. We don't know everything about how he even got an artificial Echo, let alone the mechanics of aether in Eorzea. We only just learned about the souls of dead children lingering as pixies.

You're not correct about Joker or about staying power in static villains. Joker tries to push an ideology in Christopher Nolan's series. This is not his primary or entire existence. Sometimes Joker is light and campy. Sometimes Joker remembers his past differently moment to moment, has the same lingering emptiness and lack of direction Zenos has, and tries to both find meaning by becoming a symbol. The way he treats Batman in these incarnations is essentially the same way Zenos treats the Warrior of Light: Bruce Wayne is irrelevant and doesn't matter. He doesn't want to know about Bruce Wayne, he wants a fellow symbol in Batman. Likewise for the personal identity of the Warrior of Light. Some versions of the Joker just don't care about other people and think it's fun to commit horrible acts in funny ways and see how people freak out about something he sees as not a big deal.

The Joker stays because he is very good at foiling against Batman both personally and symbolically when there is an overarching theme within Batman about the relationship between being a person and being a symbol. For FFXIV the WoL is developing a gallery too, and the villains we've encountered frequently look at different pieces of the WoL's character or WoL's mission. How things could go wrong with different priorities or circumstances.

You still miss the point of Zenos and what he's trying to do.

It's not about fun. It never has been. He doesn't need to try to change the world or society. Sometimes stories are about people trying to connect to others. Sometimes those people fail.

Zenos, again, is someone who has zero value for personal connection. He doesn't care if he gets sung a lullaby every night by a mother trying to love him. The lullaby accomplishes nothing and he doesn't even see a person looking at his mother. He doesn't see someone with as much consciousness as him, and even if she does have that it doesn't really matter to his life except that she thinks to feed and take care of him while he's an infant who can't take care of himself.

Zenos does not get fulfilled by receiving praise and it doesn't upset him to be reprimanded. That requires investing in another person's identity. He is a purely self-oriented and physical creature. Nothing else is necessarily real to him. There is nothing to do and no direction in that. He does like challenging himself, but if the challenges are all predictable then it's easy to finish and the challenge goes away. At least with a challenge he's working toward something, he has a goal. The reason it's combat for him is because combat offers stakes, unpredictability, a possibility of death. Suddenly, instead of nothing and certainty there's suspense. He has to actually try, and if he fails there are consequences that could change things irrevocably. That tension plus adrenaline and the need to push himself toward a goal offer direction. More than fun, it's an escape from an existence he considers empty.

And again. There are people like that in the real world.

If you need a look at the world according to Zenos, life is empty and meaningless in itself. People fade and die and there are no threads tying one person's experience to another. The only meaning that can be found comes from the challenges you find for yourself. Some of these challenges take the form of beasts. Some take the form of people, who are essentially the same thing. And if a beast can give him the gift of meaning and direction, that's something to be treasured.

How caveman.

He literally pushes both Asahi and Fordola through insane development arcs, and he is indirectly responsible for the arcs of countless others from the witness to his slaughter of an entire Doman resistance squadron to Ilberd and Yotsuyuu.

Bladerunner is well-written and has a tremendous amount of thought poured into it on both literal and non-literal levels. This spans not only the world but the characters themselves. It isn't remembered only for being first or for an aesthetic only. I'm completely astounded you don't see the relevance or shift in meanings between Decker being a replicant or not a replicant given he spends the whole movie killing replicants who seem more human than him. Do you not realize that there are statements to made in stories told through ambiguity and that "can't decide" is a deliberate open-ended question to the audience?

Based on your response to Khalithar, you seem to actively want to put down anyone who sees something in a character you personally don't like. It doesn't help your case, especially since you don't seem to understand that non-intellectual and sometimes humorous characters like Grynewaht can also be tragic and horrifying.

I'm honestly hoping that if anything, he ends up just being another tool for the Ascians and that Elidibus ends up being the bigger problem in 6.0.

The latter has been present since the early days of ARR and I really want to see him get a resolution as good as, if not better then Emet-Selch did.

Zenos is you, the player. You spend all your time roaming this world, spending every day killing and nearly being killed yourself. You do this for fun, to momentarily escape from the meaninglessness of your existence. For all the lofty motives you have have as the Warrior of Light, you cannot escape the fact that you and Zenos are kindred spirits. He's simply more honest about it.

The finale of 6.0 will be the single greatest 1v1 in video game history. Get hype for the Crystalbowl.

Ech, nevermind. I've no desire to "debate" with someone who flings their "experience" around on a completely subjective matter like this. Even less interested when a one-note villain like Joker is brought into the discussion, but I mean, it is a thread about Zenos, so birds of a feather and all that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

-----

---

The standard of even employing a test like the Bechdel test as a requirement, for anyone, is nonsense. Having two women in a movie isn't inherently a problem. Having two men in a movie isn't inherently a problem. If there are two movies about women or made by women when more women than that are capable and interested in making movies, that's a problem. Derailing conversations and plots from what they otherwise might have been focusing on just so you can tell everyone you passed the Bechdel test is ridiculous and does a disservice to the work. The idea that female characters who are otherwise fully fleshed out and well-developed are somehow diminished because they didn't talk to each other about something other than a man is absolutely sexist. Men who are under those same circumstances in reverse, Star Wars or otherwise, would not be considered diminished in that manner. As a basic observation of how much something does or doesn't happen without judgment it's fine, but the number of people who use it that way is minuscule.

I think it's funny you assume I find Star Wars to be high quality and I think it's hysterical that you think you are in the slightest position to talk about objective correctness when you didn't read the words I wrote or even your own post.

Quotas would be brought up in instances where people are voicing complaints about how many of X or Y demographic appear in a piece of media. Which you did, even in your reply, citing two women in A New Hope. A well-written story does not need to force women into a story where it doesn't make sense for them to be or in a capacity that derails from the story. Same for men. Same for anyone. I personally don't think Star Wars is particularly well done. It's a very archetypal story and resonates with a lot of people successfully because of that. It doesn't do anything particularly complicated or groundbreaking, it has issues with how it references Asian cultures throughout, and it's somewhat limited in approach. It's fine for what it is, but certainly not technical mastery.

Lol you're not talking to the chef and you're not getting cockroaches. You're literally doing the equivalent of complaining that you don't like your perfectly executed soufflé to a professional food critic as a random customer who likes desserts but has never had a soufflé and certainly doesn't know how to make them. Anyone can give a critique but if your critique is uninformed and demonstrates an absolute lack of awareness, you deserve to be called on that. It has nothing to do with credentials or identity politics. I mentioned my experience because I was talking objectively, and I wanted to let you know that it was because I have a weird background most people are very unlikely to have. It is a dramatically different situation than it would have been if I didn't have that. I literally invited more challenges and questions because I wanted to show that regardless it's important to go on merit of arguments and explore a lot of options.

What I had been trying to tell you gently before was that you are coming across as inexperienced and are talking to someone who has moved well past what you're doing and has managed to use that to get a position of some rank through the merit of my work. This is my job, which I earned over a long period of time after extensive study that covered and went beyond the points you're referencing.

I do understand the approach you're using. Part of why I've bothered trying to explain this is because I also understand why it's wrong. At first I seriously wanted to help you as someone who's been there, and as someone who's seen professionals just get mean in situations like this. At this point, because you've been rude repeatedly and don't seem to have the humility to recognize your likes and dislikes are not objective, I'm just addressing the points in case it helps someone else. After that I plan to turn in.

For what it's worth, there's more for me to learn too. I learn important things on the job every day, from all kinds of people. I don't expect this to stop anytime soon. I also know what knowledge I've established as solid, how, and why. And I know from having gone through this that what you're proposing does not work and offers a scope that is neither broad nor deep enough to be truly effective.

You have zero grasp of how standards of quality shift according to the tradition and purpose of a work, and with your comment on Paradise Lost versus bodice rippers have just demonstrated that you are in fact a one trick pony. And more than that, you're unfortunately the kind of one trick pony who is too inflexible to perform a really unique or impressive trick.

You can have an objective set of criteria that is employed for wish-fulfillment. You can have an objective set of criteria used for literary fiction, and a different set for upmarket, and another set for commercial. All of these subcategories can also be applied to things like Science Fiction, Fantasy, Romance, Women's Fiction, Historical Drama, Thrillers, Horror, the works. There needs to be an in-depth understanding of each category and how they operate in order to effectively gauge how successful a work is within that category. To judge a piece that draws from wish-fulfillment on how well it builds empathy and literary technique is stupid. It misses the entire point of works in that vein while acting to homogenize the way stories are evaluated in a manner that is uninformative and ultimately ineffective.

Again, laughing because of course there's a story for Zenos. The way he finds his next worthy opponent is by creating more strife to inspire others to rise against him the way the Warrior of Light did. He's hardly going to stop moving just because the role is empty again. If anything, succeeding once is likely to encourage him to keep going with his methods because clearly something went right. And the Scions getting involved would be because they would never sit back and let Zenos continue wreaking havoc that way, even if none of them are worthy in his eyes.

Grynewaht was motivated by anger, frustration, and a desire to prove himself in the eyes of others as someone who was treated with disrespect constantly. He took it to a point of extreme self-mutilation that ultimately ended in death. The self-mutilation parallels with Zenos' suicide, but not only is Zenos' status and indifference to the opinions of others a huge difference (note that it doesn't matter what answer is given to his invitation to while away the hours together, which is specifically because you're not a person to him so much as a role)--it's also extremely significant that he kills himself because he has never worked so hard or exerted so much power in his life only to have his opponent endure everything and win. He has meaning and direction, and can't imagine being happier or pushing harder than he had in that moment. He gave everything he had and wanted to end with that feeling forever.

One death was despair, the other was triumph.

There is an extremely famous and critically acclaimed story by I believe Proust, about a man rolling over in bed. There's another story by Kafka that was highly experimental and again, critically acclaimed, about a small burrowing creature. No other living things exist in that story. It is absolutely possible to tell a story about a character doing nothing well. You just probably wouldn't like it.

Antagonist committing suicide would fail your test but tell a powerful story about human despair. Ending the story with the suicide does not mean the story no longer works or that the villain is an ineffective character. Likewise, if the other route is taken and the villain tries to kidnap more people there is still room for a story to be told. Clearly you've never seen Psycho if you don't think there's a story to be told where the protagonist is murdered by a serial killer lol.

There is too much to be said about Amazing Spider-Man 2. What I'll leave that point at is that Electro was never the reason that movie struggled.

There wasn't even a single protagonist in Game of Thrones and it's silly to argue as such. It is a massive fixture that the plot operates through multiple protagonists.

Reread. Personal weakness is not physical and this is no red herring, you just weren't paying attention.

You are too narrow-minded and surface-level to have a realistic grasp on what would be an effective objective evaluation of storytelling technique. You think it's a shame I pointed out spots your subjectivity is showing, I think it's a shame you've cut yourself off at the knees like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

I've seen this story told better in Bleach. Zaraki Kenpachi fights with his own strength while Ichigo fights using the strength of his allies and his zanpakuto. Zaraki starts off bored because he's reached the top but becomes excited at the prospect of confronting the protagonist because it's about the first real confrontation he'll have in a long time. The big difference in execution here is that Zaraki makes a serious effort to advocate his own ideology and try and convince the protagonist that he is correct. After the confrontation, Zaraki loses but he isn't necessarily shown to be incorrect since we are shown enough of his backstory to see that he clawed his way to the top from nothing using only his own strength. He earned his position and he's one of the most powerful characters in the series so at least we understand there is merit to his words and that he cannot be outright dismissed. He even follows a kind of warrior's code so you can understand why Zaraki has loyal followers whereas you cannot with Zenos. Zenos is rude, uncharismatic, dismissive, selfish, indulgent and seemingly nihilistic. Who would follow this guy? Even the Nihilists from the The Big Lebowski would loath this guy.

And wisely, Tite Kubo did not make Zaraki the villain. Zaraki is not the type of character that can handle the master villain role. He's not a planner or administrator and his philosophy of person strength just means he's work alone. Carrying out any kind of master plot would just run counter to his character. And this is the problem with Zenos. The moment Zenos became Emperor, is the moment all his failings as a leader and administrator destroy his ability to execute any plans to confront the Warrior of Light without it contradicting his character or common sense. Heck, using Black Rose would contricit his character because he wants to fight.
https://66.media.tumblr.com/b2b91f70...txd6vj_500.gif

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

The confrontation in Bleach wasn't better. You liked it more. These are completely different things. Frankly, I find it weird, less believable, and less human that someone who supposedly lives for the challenge of a fight specifically because the rest of reality is unfulfilling would be invested in ideology or converting others to it. Reality being unfulfilling extends to other people.

---

I objectively explained why that confrontation and character is better. To dismiss all that and just claim I subjectively "I like it more" is awfully dismissive and disrespectful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Zenos commands loyalty because he leads people in combat and rewards people based on merit. He does not care if his soldiers are Ala Mhigan, or Doman, or Garlean, or anything else. They could be purple people eaters for all he cares. If they can fight well, take direction, and strive for better the way he does then they have a place by his side. This is not something that can be taken for granted in Garlemald and the gesture goes a long way, particularly with people like Fordola and Asahi. Having the heir to the empire itself treat you like an equal to any other soldier based on your abilities is a huge deal when others of status would have denied opportunity out of hand.

---

This is nearly non-existent in the story. Zenos also does not treat anyone as an equal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Warriors code does not by itself make a good character, a good leader, or a good villain. Being morally or philosophically correct doesn't either. Those both fall under things you like rather than things that are technically good. Given that Zenos is a serial killer and has no empathy, of course regular nihilists like characters from the Big Lebowski wouldn't like him. And frankly, not all nihilism is the same either.

---

I never claimed warrior codes made good characters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

The story about Zenos undergoing training as a kid comes from The Chronicles of Light, in book form. It is canon. You keep referencing him not working for power. The story literally shows him doing just that.

---

Which makes that a different story, outside of Stormblood and Shadowbringers. Perhaps if I engaged in the story outside of FFXIV he becomes a well written character, but as presented in the story of FFXIV itself he is poorly written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Deus ex Machina and Diabolus ex Machina both require a random event that is not in keeping with normal functions of the narrative universe to dramatically change the outcome of a situation. The sole explanation for their occurrence comes from the storyteller going "because I said so". This is not the case even remotely for either the Warrior of Light or Zenos. Both use established in-universe mechanics that apply to characters outside of themselves and reach positions of influence as a result of choices made, with said choices coming from clear motives that stem from life experiences.

---

No, they do not require a random event. The Ulitma Weapon was destroyed through the result of Deus ex Machina. The goddess Hydaelyn literally stripped the Ultima Weapon of its power to let the WoL win the fight, when he/she could not do so with their own established powers or life experience. God in the machine resolved the conflict of AAR and it was never established that Hydaelyn could rip god powers out of machines.

Zenos reached his position by being born. To say Zenos "reached positions of influence as a result of choices made" is not true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

If there was a battle occurring in a world where angels and demons were established previously, where it was understood as possible to share power in the way described, and there was some means or motivation behind the occurrence--there is zero issue between two human warriors having a Gabriel versus Mephistopheles fight. It could even have a historical bent to it for something weird and campy as long as the rest was built up adequately.

---

That would still be bad writing, the character with development are being sidelined for a fight using the power of characters with no development. To bring it into the FFXIV world, Hydaelyn and Zodiark don't have characters, they aren't well developed and their powers are entirely nebulous, so to use their powers in the a conflict between the WoL and the Ascians would be bad writing. This robs the protagonist and antagonist of their agency and the fight's outcome is no longer dictated by either of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Dismissing chosen one narratives actually limits human experience

---

No it doesn't. Destinies don't exist in actual human experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

You're not correct about Joker or about staying power in static villains. Joker tries to push an ideology in Christopher Nolan's series. This is not his primary or entire existence. Sometimes Joker is light and campy. Sometimes Joker remembers his past differently moment to moment, has the same lingering emptiness and lack of direction Zenos has, and tries to both find meaning by becoming a symbol. The way he treats Batman in these incarnations is essentially the same way Zenos treats the Warrior of Light: Bruce Wayne is irrelevant and doesn't matter. He doesn't want to know about Bruce Wayne, he wants a fellow symbol in Batman. Likewise for the personal identity of the Warrior of Light. Some versions of the Joker just don't care about other people and think it's fun to commit horrible acts in funny ways and see how people freak out about something he sees as not a big deal.

---

The Joker being light and campy during certain scenes didn't change his role in The Dark Knight. You don't know if Joker is misremembering his past, he could be lying about his past. You don't know if he has the same lingering emptiness, he never says that in the Dark Knight. By saying "he treats Batman in these incarnations" implies that you mean the Joker in different stories. The Joker is physically a different person depending on what Batman series you are watching. What Jared Leto does has no bearing on the writing of The Dark Knight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

The Joker stays because he is very good at foiling against Batman both personally and symbolically when there is an overarching theme within Batman about the relationship between being a person and being a symbol. For FFXIV the WoL is developing a gallery too, and the villains we've encountered frequently look at different pieces of the WoL's character or WoL's mission. How things could go wrong with different priorities or circumstances.

---

The Joker is the antithesis of Batman. They have opposite ideologies and the both actively try to shape Gotham.
Zenos is not the antithesis of the Warrior of Light. Zenos is entirely passive, waiting to react to events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

You still miss the point of Zenos and what he's trying to do.

It's not about fun. It never has been. He doesn't need to try to change the world or society. Sometimes stories are about people trying to connect to others. Sometimes those people fail.

Zenos, again, is someone who has zero value for personal connection. He doesn't care if he gets sung a lullaby every night by a mother trying to love him. The lullaby accomplishes nothing and he doesn't even see a person looking at his mother. He doesn't see someone with as much consciousness as him, and even if she does have that it doesn't really matter to his life except that she thinks to feed and take care of him while he's an infant who can't take care of himself.

Zenos does not get fulfilled by receiving praise and it doesn't upset him to be reprimanded. That requires investing in another person's identity. He is a purely self-oriented and physical creature. Nothing else is necessarily real to him. There is nothing to do and no direction in that. He does like challenging himself, but if the challenges are all predictable then it's easy to finish and the challenge goes away. At least with a challenge he's working toward something, he has a goal. The reason it's combat for him is because combat offers stakes, unpredictability, a possibility of death. Suddenly, instead of nothing and certainty there's suspense. He has to actually try, and if he fails there are consequences that could change things irrevocably. That tension plus adrenaline and the need to push himself toward a goal offer direction. More than fun, it's an escape from an existence he considers empty.

And again. There are people like that in the real world.

If you need a look at the world according to Zenos, life is empty and meaningless in itself. People fade and die and there are no threads tying one person's experience to another. The only meaning that can be found comes from the challenges you find for yourself. Some of these challenges take the form of beasts. Some take the form of people, who are essentially the same thing. And if a beast can give him the gift of meaning and direction, that's something to be treasured.

How caveman.

---

What you describe is a person, not a well written antagonist. An well written antagonist cannot merely meet the criteria "There are people like that in the real world." to be well written. My Grandmother had Alzheimers. It crippled her before she died. Yes, "There are people like that in the real world.", but that does not mean she could suddenly be included in a story and be a well written antagonist. An antagonist must perform critical functions in a story, something my beloved Grandmother could not do due to her incapacitation. Being realistic is not the primary metric of being a well written antagonist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Bladerunner is well-written and has a tremendous amount of thought poured into it on both literal and non-literal levels. m completely astounded you don't see the relevance or shift in meanings between Decker being a replicant or not a replicant given he spends the whole movie killing replicants who seem more human than him.

---

Because Bladerunner is badly written. If Decker is a replicant, then his learning that his entire life was a lie via the unicorn origami provokes no reaction. Apparently Decker just doesn't care that he's a Replicant. Or he's human and for some reason his partner can see Decker's dreams for unexplained reasons. Then you have the cut of the movie that doesn't even have the unicorn scene, which changes the context of the entire film. And why sent a Replicant to hunt a Replicant if he is so human like as to be a complete disadvantage? And if Decker is a Replicant, it just becomes a story of Replicants fighting Replicants, loving Replicants and escaping with Replicants, completely detached from the human audience. Because they did not commit, the story loses meaning. Filmmakers and audience members can't even agree on what's canon with all the different film versions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

There is too much to be said about Amazing Spider-Man 2. What I'll leave that point at is that Electro was never the reason that movie struggled.

---

This is a red herring. Electro is a badly written character. The film's success is completely unrelated to that objective fact. Or are we to consider the Transformers movies as masterpieces of writing because those movies did well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Based on your response to Khalithar, you seem to actively want to put down anyone who sees something in a character you personally don't like. It doesn't help your case, especially since you don't seem to understand that non-intellectual and sometimes humorous characters like Grynewaht can also be tragic and horrifying.

---

I didn't put down Khalithar. I asked him a question so that I may better understand his position. I do not like your insinuations about my personal character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

You are too narrow-minded and inexperienced to have a realistic grasp on what would be an effective objective evaluation of storytelling technique. It's a shame you've cut yourself off at the knees that way.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

I've been seriously trying to be nice to you with this.

---

You have failed yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

The standard of even employing a test like the Bechdel test, for anyone, is nonsense. Having two women in a movie isn't inherently a problem. Having two men in a movie isn't inherently a problem. If there are two movies about women or made by women when more women than that are capable and interested in making movies, that's a problem. Derailing conversations and plots from what they otherwise might have been focusing on just so you can tell everyone you passed the Bechdel test is ridiculous and does a disservice to the work. The idea that female characters who are otherwise fully fleshed out and well-developed are somehow diminished because they didn't talk to each other about something other than a man is absolutely sexist. Men who are under those same circumstances in reverse, Star Wars or otherwise, would not be considered diminished in that manner.

---

I disagree. Like I said, the Bechdel test is not a hardline test of quality. I REPEAT: it is a measure of the representation of women in fiction. It asks whether a work features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man. It has nothing to do with diminished characters, it is a representation metric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Lol you're not talking to the chef and you're not getting cockroaches. You're literally complaining that you don't like your perfectly executed soufflé to a professional food critic as a random customer who likes desserts but has never had a soufflé and certainly doesn't know how to make them.

What I had been trying to tell you gently before was that you are coming across as inexperienced and are talking to someone who has moved well past your level and has managed to use that to get a position of some rank through the merit of my work. This is my job, which I earned over a long period of time after extensive study that covered and went beyond the points you're referencing.

---

I did not literally "complain that I didn't like a perfectly executed soufflé to a professional food critic." You are being dishonest and you have thrown your own professional credentials into doubt.
Attacking my personal character using fictional scenarios is not the conduct of a professional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ObsidianFire

The point of "The Bechdel Test" is to point out a specific problem: the number of times two women are talking about men in a way that doesn't have to do with romance happens far, far less in fictional works (especially film) then all the times they do talk about men in the context of romance. If you have women talking about men in ways that has nothing to do with romance... then great! That is a non-stereotypical way for women to talk about men! But nine times out of ten, romance is the context we see women discussing men in or worse, women never talk to each other without men around in the first place. The point is less about what the answer is and more how] the question is answered.

Edax's "Antagonist" Text does much the same thing. It honestly isn't just about if the Antagonist can progress their plans if they destroy the Protagonist (although if they can't, that is a really huge issue right off the bat). It has a lot to do with why the Antagonist can or cannot progress their plans. Zenos just happens to have bad or unsatisfactory answers and reasoning for the entire question while other villains in FFXIV don't.

BTW, can I borrow that question in other forums Edax? It's a great one to ask about a lot of unsatisfactory villains to see how it is answered and why they are so unsatisfactory...

---

Didn't Bechdel herself say the test was a terrible measure of anything?

Anyway, if Zenos successfully killed the WoL, a new can of worms opens. Zenos has lost his only worthy quarry and the only person he considered a friend, and having given up any pretense of satisfaction with ruling territory, he has no reason to care about any kind of public order and would either kill himself or start walking around the world hunting everything that breathes. The Empire likely dies at that point, as the only heir to the throne has walked away from it, leaving every noble house, faction, and legion to fight each other to the end to try and claim the crown. By the estimation of Urianger, the Exarch, and Elidibus, the death of the WoL would swiftly plunge Eorzea(at a minimum) into chaos, leaving the Source primed for the 8th Umbral Calamity. The story still progresses if the protagonist dies, even if it's not Zenos's personal story that does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

You have failed yourself.

---

Lol hardly. There's a thing called "past tense" you should look into. I changed my mind about being nice well into our conversation because you established yourself as rude, closed-minded, sloppy, and ignorant. And I'm not sorry I changed my mind either. :D

Good luck!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daralii

Didn't Bechdel herself say the test was a terrible measure of anything?

Anyway, if Zenos successfully killed the WoL, a new can of worms opens. Zenos has lost his only worthy quarry and the only person he considered a friend, and having given up any pretense of satisfaction with ruling territory, he has no reason to care about any kind of public order and would either kill himself or start walking around the world hunting everything that breathes. The Empire likely dies at that point, as the only heir to the throne has walked away from it, leaving every noble house, faction, and legion to fight each other to the end to try and claim the crown. By the estimation of Urianger, the Exarch, and Elidibus, the death of the WoL would swiftly plunge Eorzea(at a minimum) into chaos, leaving the Source primed for the 8th Umbral Calamity. The story still progresses if the protagonist dies, even if it's not Zenos's personal story that does.

---

I believe Bechdel said it was never meant to be a measure of feminism, but rather a cultural barometer. It certainly isn't a measure of quality. The Hobbit book doesn't suddenly become badly written because it contains no living female characters in it. The Bechdel test merely exposes that The Hobbit is not very representative of women, which is an objective fact.

And by my made up Edax Law, it wouldn't be Zenos (the antagonist) progressing the plot, but rather the other characters (like the Scions) doing so because they are better written. Functionally Zenos gives up being an antagonist and becomes a side character instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

I've been seriously trying to be nice to you with this.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Lol hardly. There's a thing called "past tense" you should look into. I changed my mind about being nice well into our conversation because you established yourself as rude, closed-minded, sloppy, and ignorant. And I'm not sorry I changed my mind either. :D

Good luck!

---

At least you tried.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShinShimon

Zenos is you, the player. You spend all your time roaming this world, spending every day killing and nearly being killed yourself. You do this for fun, to momentarily escape from the meaninglessness of your existence. For all the lofty motives you have have as the Warrior of Light, you cannot escape the fact that you and Zenos are kindred spirits. He's simply more honest about it.

The finale of 6.0 will be the single greatest 1v1 in video game history. Get hype for the Crystalbowl.

---

Strange because I go around the world to gather and craft most of the days. I dont do savage, I dont even do most of the ex raids and I dont care much about being the best. You might be right that he shows a certain type of player but even more exaggerated but thats not everyone. And its not the canon WoL either. He/she takes great risks to save others (having a nice fight is a great side effect) and the realm. He/she would never just slay someone out of boredom or just because.

Man some of you really get a bit heated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

Lol hardly. There's a thing called "past tense" you should look into. I changed my mind about being nice well into our conversation because you established yourself as rude, closed-minded, sloppy, and ignorant. And I'm not sorry I changed my mind either. :D

Good luck!

---

Just because one side is getting rude does not make it right to get rude yourself ^^;. Edit: And I went back and reread Edax posts and I see no rudeness there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

Just because one side is getting rude does not make it right to get rude yourself ^^;. Edit: And I went back and reread Edax posts and I see no rudeness there.

---

Slept on this whole thing.

I still hold the arguments I debated on, but you're right that I shouldn't have gotten rude. And frankly, I regret mentioning where I was coming from with background too. It took things in a direction that did more bad than good. Normally wouldn't have brought it up.

I've been in a position where it's generally taken as a given that I know what I'm talking about because of the nature of the job and how difficult it is to get. I started talking from the place of someone who gets paid to do this kind of thing and where the idea of someone questioning expertise in that context would be considered insane and hugely insulting between the work itself and what it takes to get there.

That said, no one in forums had a reason to know.

I initially spoke from that position of "I know I'm an authority on this" that goes with the position, which was a mistake. I mentioned background because it was already done and I thought talking with authority as someone who (for all anyone else knew) had no claim to it would come across as diminishing or insulting. The kinds of argument holes I see going on are not unusual at all, and most people have no idea on the other stuff. I've been able to learn it specifically because of the weird situation. Edax's arguments are things I've held, considered, or otherwise encountered before. I really do get how someone could reach those conclusions. Initially I was trying to say "don't feel bad or like you missed something common knowledge, most people seriously don't know and the reason I'm asserting I do only comes after having gone to a lot of unusual lengths to make sure".

Repeatedly claiming objectivity while also repeatedly missing entire arguments, in the middle of debating someone who really might have learned something you hadn't considered before, was pretty rude. I only became comfortable talking about objectives comparatively recently, and the idea of going up to a person whose life and livelihood revolves around the subject under discussion and saying they are objectively incorrect seems crazy to me. Disagreeing and debating is one thing. Challenging is fine. The immediate and total dismissal under those circumstances came across like telling a medical doctor you knew more about medicine than them because of webmd or something. It's different from going up to a doctor and saying "I saw this on webmd, isn't this a possibility?"

There's a misconception in a lot of areas that storytelling requires as much background and skill as being a Wallmart greeter (nothing wrong with being one), is completely subjective, and is completely based on feelings. There have been huge problems tied to this approach to the point of having ruined lives tied to this profession. Getting where I am has been a huge deal and it's important to me to try and make things better to try and reduce the extreme consequences going on and help get more good stories circulating.

Me snapping was partly because I brought some baggage to this, and honestly some of it was pride on my end that I should have been better about.

Good grief, so many walls of text to skim through.

Let it be known that I am not in support of Zenos. I find him a dreadfully boring villain. However, I object to the "Edax Test". "Man vs Man" is one of the classic conflicts in literature, and the Antagonist is not cheapened simply because his goals are centered on the Protagonist. The story doesn't HAVE to continue, once the Antagonist has achieved their goal, just as many stories end when the Protagonist achieves their goal.

There have been many great stories in literature that feature an Antagonist who is singularly focused on the Protagonist. Javert from "Les Miserables" is one good example; he was obsessed with Valjean to the point where he completely fell apart when he realized that the Valjean he had been chasing was not the villain he thought he was. "Othello" is another classic with such a villain - Iago's entire drive is to destroy Othello, and when he succeeds, the story ends. This doesn't stop him from being an extremely nuanced and interesting character.

The Edax Test feels like it was tailor-made to provide a sort of faux legitimacy for declaring Zenos to be a terrible character. And while I don't disagree that Zenos is not very compelling, the reasons suggested by the Test are only part of the reason why, and taken on their own do not indicate poor quality of character outside of Zenos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LineageRazor

Good grief, so many walls of text to skim through.

Let it be known that I am not in support of Zenos. I find him a dreadfully boring villain. However, I object to the "Edax Test". "Man vs Man" is one of the classic conflicts in literature, and the Antagonist is not cheapened simply because his goals are centered on the Protagonist. The story doesn't HAVE to continue, once the Antagonist has achieved their goal, just as many stories end when the Protagonist achieves their goal.

There have been many great stories in literature that feature an Antagonist who is singularly focused on the Protagonist. Javert from "Les Miserables" is one good example; he was obsessed with Valjean to the point where he completely fell apart when he realized that the Valjean he had been chasing was not the villain he thought he was. "Othello" is another classic with such a villain - Iago's entire drive is to destroy Othello, and when he succeeds, the story ends. This doesn't stop him from being an extremely nuanced and interesting character.

The Edax Test feels like it was tailor-made to provide a sort of faux legitimacy for declaring Zenos to be a terrible character. And while I don't disagree that Zenos is not very compelling, the reasons suggested by the Test are only part of the reason why, and taken on their own do not indicate poor quality of character outside of Zenos.

---

Conversely I would say Javert is not a well written antagonist. He's a parody of law enforcement taking to an almost comical extreme. Victor Hugo was a politician and was not above creating unrealistic characters to make a political point. Hugo wanted to show Jean Valjean being unable to escape his criminal past by literally having his prison guard tail him through the years. The result is that he is literally obsessing over a man who stole out of need and then commits suicide when he sees that person who stole out of need be nice. Javert was based off a real life Vidocq, but Vidocq never arrested anyone who stole out of need. Inspector Javert was basically a propaganda strawman being turned into a literary figure. "Les Miserables" isn't about obsession and we never learn why the antagonist would obsess over something to trivial and pointless. And the reason is probably because Hugo was taking shortcuts, so he created a superficial antagonist that could not exist outside of the world of the protagonist.

"Les Miserables" is a great musical, but as many others have pointed out, there are problems with its narrative, what with very thinly written romance/unrequited love plots and Cosette being the face of the series despite not really doing anything in the story.

I will admit to not having seen Othello though.

Contrary to most people here I think Zenos is the villain we need. If you hate him and want him to die then he's doing his job. Many of the single player FF games used the same kind of arch nemesis, one that is a true black lunatic with no redeeming qualities, killing indiscriminately, allied to nobody, too powerful to defeat in our first encounters with them, gradually amassing power on their journey to reach a zenith of evil power which they achieve in their final form. This is a very FF antagonist. Important to note that his story is in progress so there may be revelations that alter your perception of him a bit.

Unless there's some character building with Zenos moving forward, he still is a bland and flat character. When we meet him, all he cared about was The Hunt. Now, he's stronger and considers the WoL his friend and rival, but he overall still cares about The Hunt. His only backstory was that he was so skilled and talented that he became bored of the world. That's it. Ironically, it made him a boring character to follow. He would have made a great sub boss than main villain kind of like Vauthry who was pretty one sided.

A quick note about might makes right isn't more about control, but rather the power he has over people, those who are only worthy to his whims he uses them as tools. It's might makes right in regards to constant challenge to entertain and to prove superiority.

Spoiler - I don't have anything juicy to contribute, other than I have zero interest in this 'test' and happen to be one of those who actually do very much enjoy Zenos as a villain.

What galls me is this constant use of Grynwhat like he's even remotely comparable to Zenos. One is so totally enured to emotion and completely devoid of anything other than a self-desire, without even a shred of care (and barely any true loyalty) for the Empire despite being one of its most prominent figureheads -- and another is a comedically used (albeit slightly tragic) yes-man of low intellect out to prove himself and settle a grudge out of loyalty to Yotsuyu. Zenos doesn't even have the capacity to know what a grudge feels like, let alone hold one. This isn't a vengeance/revenge angle, unlike Grynwhat, who got the story-build that was appropriate for a dungeon boss (ie. just enough, but not a lot). Zenos is 300% Grynwhat when you dissect his personality (or lack of, which is actually part of it).

It is like comparing an apple to a lime. I mean, they're both green fruits afterall. Might as well just call them the same thing.

Quote:

---

Zenos also does not treat anyone as an equal.

---

Hello, my name is Fordola. I'm an Ala-Mhigan, somehow in an Empire regiment at the behest of a bored leader who'd sooner be challenging himself rather than sitting in a throne room listening to reports and politics. Those reports and politics are being uttered by the mouths of borderline racists/purists who see no value in me whatsoever, yet through a strong and determined personality, I stood up for myself and offered suggestions that would be in-line with my leader's goal. He was most pleased, politely offering me the floor and maintaining my position as a regiment leader, despite it galling everyone else in the room.

3rd person aside (as well as any moments where chain-of-command had to be upheld - ie. Zenos ordering Fordola to do things, thus break the 'equal' point), Zenos goes against a lot of what the Empire would normally be attributed for, simply because he has little to no value in their way of thinking and values that strength and determination far more than their actual ideal. An otherwise shamed Scientist was brought into his direct/secret confidence and seemingly treated very well. Fordola, even after failing, wasn't just allowed to maintain her post (despite tension from everyone else) but the first to become test-subject thanks to showing a semblance of the strength he values. There was no care or consideration for race, creed, ideology, any of that -- just like he himself couldn't give a damn about those things.

Another contrary is the WoL/D themselves, starting when Zenos is first defeated in Ala Mhigo dungeon. Hell, the entire story revolves around him initially looking at you like you're an incessant pest, building until he's legitimately thrilled that you are capable of standing up to him, so much so that he sees you as a frenemy. He doesn't even consider us an enemy any more, just the target of his desire to feel something. In his twisted head, you are an equal (if not a better), and has not insulted or demeaned you since. Hell, he was so enamoured that he borderline proposes friendship (possibly more).

Meanwhile, "DIE, DIE, DIE, MORE, MORE, MORE, WE GO TOGETHER!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RopeDrink

Spoiler - I don't have anything juicy to contribute, other than I have zero interest in this 'test' and happen to be one of those who actually do very much enjoy Zenos as a villain.

What galls me is this constant use of Grynwhat like he's even remotely comparable to Zenos. One is so totally enured to emotion and completely devoid of anything other than a self-desire, without even a shred of care (and barely any true loyalty) for the Empire despite being one of its most prominent figureheads -- and another is a comedically used (albeit slightly tragic) yes-man of low intellect out to prove himself and settle a grudge out of loyalty to Yotsuyu. Zenos doesn't even have the capacity to know what a grudge feels like, let alone hold one. This isn't a vengeance/revenge angle, unlike Grynwhat, who got the story-build that was appropriate for a dungeon boss (ie. just enough, but not a lot). Zenos is 300% Grynwhat when you dissect his personality (or lack of, which is actually part of it).

It is like comparing an apple to a lime. I mean, they're both green fruits afterall. Might as well just call them the same thing.

---

I would argue that Grynwhat is very comparable to Zenos. Both are antagonists whose stories revolve almost entirely around the Warrior of Light. Conveniently to the story, they have completely devoted themselves into fighting the Warrior of Light. As Khalithar said, "He's completely transparent about who he is, what he wants, and what he's about. In a story full of liars and manipulators, I actually love the fact that we have a villain with such a simple goal." This describes them both. Whether or not either of them know what a grudge is does not make a well written main antagonist. If Grynwhat got what he wanted, he would no longer have a story. If Zenos got what he wanted, he would no longer have a story. They might as well be vegetables to the function of the story if they killed the Warrior of Light.

Yes they both have slightly different personalities but could you imagine Grynwhat becoming the main antagonist? Killing the Emperor and swearing to hunt the Warrior of Light down? Would the story be any different? They're both thugs that seek a confrontation of the protagonist for it's own sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RopeDrink

Hello, my name is Fordola. I'm an Ala-Mhigan, somehow in an Empire regiment at the behest of a bored leader who'd sooner be challenging himself rather than sitting in a throne room listening to reports and politics. Those reports and politics are being uttered by the mouths of borderline racists/purists who see no value in me whatsoever, yet through a strong and determined personality, I stood up for myself and offered suggestions that would be in-line with my leader's goal. He was most pleased, politely offering me the floor and maintaining my position as a regiment leader, despite it galling everyone else in the room.

3rd person aside (as well as any moments where chain-of-command had to be upheld - ie. Zenos ordering Fordola to do things, thus break the 'equal' point), Zenos goes against a lot of what the Empire would normally be attributed for, simply because he has little to no value in their way of thinking and values that strength and determination far more than their actual ideal. An otherwise shamed Scientist was brought into his direct/secret confidence and seemingly treated very well. Fordola, even after failing, wasn't just allowed to maintain her post (despite tension from everyone else) but the first to become test-subject thanks to showing a semblance of the strength he values. There was no care or consideration for race, creed, ideology, any of that -- just like he himself couldn't give a damn about those things.

Another contrary is the WoL/D themselves, starting when Zenos is first defeated in Ala Mhigo dungeon. Hell, the entire story revolves around him initially looking at you like you're an incessant pest, building until he's legitimately thrilled that you are capable of standing up to him, so much so that he sees you as a frenemy. He doesn't even consider us an enemy any more, just the target of his desire to feel something. In his twisted head, you are an equal (if not a better), and has not insulted or demeaned you since. Hell, he was so enamoured that he borderline proposes friendship (possibly more).

Meanwhile, "DIE, DIE, DIE, MORE, MORE, MORE, WE GO TOGETHER!"

---

I would argue that Zenos uses Fordola as a tool, but he does not treat himself that way. Zenos uses everyone around him as tools for his own self-gratification. Even the Warrior of Light is merely a tool for his own self-gratification. His "affection" is much like Vaulthy's short-lived affection of Alphinaud. Zenos doesn't treat anybody as he treat himself because he's the center of his own world. Does Zenos actually listen to what the Warrior of Light has to say? No. Does he care what the Warrior of Light wants? No. Does Zenos care what Zenos wants? Yes. So much so, that's his character.

This is in stark contrast to how Cid and Nero treat each other. The both are colleagues and rivals with uneven power dynamics but they both treat each other "more equal" then how Zenos treats anyone else. As I recall, it was Gaius that made Fordola a citizen and formed her Garlean militant group. Gaius gave Fordola equal legal status as himself and gave her the same chance of glory as he had, despite that taboo within the Empire. This ends up being far more respectful than Zenos ordering Fordola to kill her own men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

I will admit to not having seen Othello though.

---

You're going to maintain, then, that ANY Antagonist whose goals are entirely wrapped up in the Protagonist is poorly written? That is what is expressed by your test, and it is an extremely bold statement. I provided only two examples off the top of my head, but there are many more.

There are, additionally, plenty of examples of Protagonists who are entirely wrapped up in the Antagonist of their story - revenge plots being a common source. The goal of their story or arc is to overcome their Antagonist, with events following that more or less irrelevant. Antagonists can have the motivation for revenge, as well, and the story of how the Protagonist attempts to resist allowing the Antagonist to have that revenge can be just as compelling.

It is an old, old trope with myriad examples, and like all tropes can be executed competently or incompetently. Zenos is an example of it done badly, no doubt, but I still maintain that "The Edax Test" would find plenty of opposition in the world of literary critique!

You are welcome, of course, to have the personal blanket opinion that all such Antagonists are poorly written, but that doesn't even qualify it as a rule of thumb.

Zenos isn't even remotely like Grynwaht in any way, shape or form. This doesn't become false just because they happen to have goals that (when stripped down to barebone basics) look similar. Pretty much everything can end up this way if you're going to compress it enough.

As said, if you want to call an apple a lime because their background = green fruit, then you're not likely to be compelled by much down the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rufalus

Contrary to most people here I think Zenos is the villain we need. If you hate him and want him to die then he's doing his job. Many of the single player FF games used the same kind of arch nemesis, one that is a true black lunatic with no redeeming qualities, killing indiscriminately, allied to nobody, too powerful to defeat in our first encounters with them, gradually amassing power on their journey to reach a zenith of evil power which they achieve in their final form. This is a very FF antagonist. Important to note that his story is in progress so there may be revelations that alter your perception of him a bit.

---

And those villians are fine for one arc but I honestly take a person with motives, backround and more over someone that is just insane and kills because of that. This can be fun for a time but I dont want such a person to be the endgame for us, especially if they somehow really write that he takes out either Hydealyn or Zodiark..Zenos if you want to fight then lets do it, but please on our own strenght and not through such means.

Also you can have a good written villian that you still want to see death or still hate. I liked Caius in FF13-2 because you got to know about his motives but what he did was something one still could hate. Emet was charismatic, had his quirks and reasonings but at the end of the day for me it was him and his people or our worlds and billions of lifes and that was something I could not agree with thus he needed to die. But he was well written and you can clearly see it with the reaction in the community. Zenos itself is split, some like him, some hate him and some just want him gone because they are bored of him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LineageRazor

You're going to maintain, then, that ANY Antagonist whose goals are entirely wrapped up in the Protagonist is poorly written? That is what is expressed by your test, and it is an extremely bold statement. I provided only two examples off the top of my head, but there are many more.

There are, additionally, plenty of examples of Protagonists who are entirely wrapped up in the Antagonist of their story - revenge plots being a common source. The goal of their story or arc is to overcome their Antagonist, with events following that more or less irrelevant. Antagonists can have the motivation for revenge, as well, and the story of how the Protagonist attempts to resist allowing the Antagonist to have that revenge can be just as compelling.

It is an old, old trope with myriad examples, and like all tropes can be executed competently or incompetently. Zenos is an example of it done badly, no doubt, but I still maintain that "The Edax Test" would find plenty of opposition in the world of literary critique!

You are welcome, of course, to have the personal blanket opinion that all such Antagonists are poorly written, but that doesn't even qualify it as a rule of thumb.

---

I admit, I just made up the test. Perhaps it will stand up the scrutiny or perhaps not. I would be interested in engaging with the literary if I could ever get the chance.

You reference revenge plots, but there have been countless bad movies made about revenge. It's about the cheapest and easiest way to provide motivation and violence. But if the protagonist only exists for revenge and the antagonist only exists to be revenged upon, can we true call that good writing? John Wick was compelling, but it was not necessarily a movie with well written protagonists and antagonists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RopeDrink

Zenos isn't even remotely like Grynwaht in any way, shape or form. This doesn't become false just because they happen to have goals that (when stripped down to barebone basics) look similar. Pretty much everything can end up this way if you're going to compress it enough.

As said, if you want to call an apple a lime because their background = green fruit, then you're not likely to be compelled by much down the road.

---

If these antagonists are interchangable, then perhaps they are alike, in some way shape or form. Replace Zenos with Grynwaht and the story probably does not change. Replace Zenos with Nidhogg and the story completely changes because Nidhogg has fundamentally different motivations that don't involve the Warrior of Light. Replace Zenos with Thordan VII and the story completely change because the Archbishop had fundamentally different motivations that don't directly involve the Warrior of Light. Replace Zenos with Fordola, ect ect.

Zenos annoys me for the same reason Grynwaht annoys me. They are obstacles to the main conflict of the story and don't have good character development outside of that.

Grynwaht thinks he and the WoL are the leading conflict going on and gets incredibly frustrated that the WoL has more important things to do like freeing Doma. Zenos thinks he and the WoL are destined fighting buddies for life and can't seem to get it at all that the WoL is really more concerned with freeing Ala Mhigo. And would now be concerned with stopping the Ascians.

As a game player, those are the things in the story I care about. I don't really care about a character who is so obsessed with himself that he can't imagine other people don't view the world the way he does. Which applies to both Grynwaht and Zenos. Zenos is just a more stuborn obstacle then Grynwaht does and didn't have the decency to stay dead after he killed himself. Grynwaht is at least funny and doesn't outstay his welcome.

This is a lot different then Gaius or Regula or even Varis. None of those characters felt annoying the way Zenos did and a lot of that comes down to how all of them at least listen to what the WoL says their goals are. Do they agree with the WoL's goals? No. Do they believe the WoL is telling them the truth of how they think? Yes. Zenos outright dismisses any explanation that makes anyone out to be different then he is, and that makes him a very unlikable character to have on screen.

I'd actually go so far as to say that he might be my most unliked antagonist in the entire game to be honest. Lahabrea and the other Ascians were at least entertaining. Elidibus is fun to watch since he is so easy to play the "what did he conveniently not mention" game with. Emet-Selch is actually likable (to bad he was tempered). Gaius has some of the best thought-out reasoning for doing what he is doing and ends up effectively becoming our ally because of that same reasoning. Regula at least is an honerable enemy. Watching Varis bounce off of Solus and the responsibility of the throne is both hilarious and pitiable.

And like... I hate some of those characters for what they end up doing or planning to do in the game. But none of them cause me to think "oh no... we have to watch a cut-scene about them again... why can't we watch a cut-scene about literally any other character?" whenever they come on screen. But Zenos does, and I think it's a failing on the part of the writers that instead of him being a "love to hate" kind of character (which is what they said he is supposed to be), he has turned into a "hate that he is still in the story" kind of character.

Let me put it a different way:

Zenos --- Grynwaht

Leader --- Underling
Apathetic --- Enthusiastic
Calculated --- Reckless
Emotionless --- Emotive
Self Serving --- Serves Others
Seeks Challenge --- Seeks Vengeance
Elated by Defeat --- Infuriated by it
Intelligent and Imposing --- Dumb, Brutish Thug

The list goes on.

Even in the scene where Zenos and Grynwaht are in the same room, they are shown as total opposites - Zenos callously and emotionlessly tormenting Yotsyu with his cruelty (to display tension) while Grynwaht is constantly emotive about it, before bursting into enthusiasm at the mere tease of a chance to get his vengeance in a completely comical fashion (to lighten the scene). They don't even fight the WoL for the same reasons, let alone act in any way remotely similar. The list goes on and on to a point where one could see them as total opposites. The only unifying factors are that they a) serve the empire (to some degree) and b) are antagonists, but if the one thing required to make this not matter is "their arc involves the WoL", then this conversation will go nowhere other than disagreement-circles, because that is pretty much the fate of 99% of antagonists anyway. It is cutting corners to compress something into a pulp so they look the same to further an argument.

You can compare their goals - at least then you have some modicum of similarity (even if they are very, very far apart from one another) - but let's not pretend like they are the same character or even similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RopeDrink

I'm fine with people not seeing it the same way. Nothing wrong with that. But please, dispense with the comparisons. That's cutting corners and compressing a background to make everything look the same just to further an argument.

---

Um... nearly all literary critique basically runs on comparisons. Either by saying how different two things are or how similar they are. Or how one work does something better then another work does. Without comparisons, there could be no discussion like this.

I would say that Grynwaht is Zenos, in a different window dressing. All the ways that they are different are superficial at best. As it is, this is less a comparison of who they are as characters and more a comparison of what function they serve the plot. Which is being the lesser antagonist of the greater story... at least right now.