Death unto Dawn page up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeanneOrnitier

Character deaths aren't some sort of requirement for a good story.

---

Seeing as how the end of shb and 5.3 went, i’d disagree with that statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erendis

I cared about Haurchefant a great deal and that's why his death had a huge impact on me. On the other hand I did not have enough time to get attached to Moenbryda so her death did nothing to me.

---

The thing with Moenbryda is that even though she wasn't around for that long, her importance isn't the impact she personally had on us but the impact she clearly had on the people who knew her within the story. We might not personally feel sad but we can see that her friends miss her deeply and continue to think and talk about her. Urianger in particular, of course, but Yda took it particularly hard at the time as well, and now we have Mikoto talking about her as well. Even Krile mentions her in the Eureka storyline.

The sadness doesn't come from her death, and I don't feel sad about her directly, but I do towards the other characters when we see them reacting to her death.

Even for Haurchefant, I'm not sad about him anywhere near as much as I'm sad for Edmont and Francel and all the other characters that you can speak to in the wake of his death who are clearly affected by it. Our own character included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

How is that tension high though, if nothing comes out from it? If we know that everything’s going to be okay and everyone is going to survive, what’s the point then?Theres no tension just because he says oh i’m gonna end the world. But we face no consequences from it which, considering ishgard housing is coming in 6.1, already kind of proves nothing significant is gonna happen lol.

---

If you're told at the start "nobody is going to die" then that kills the tension, but (for all that people complain) there is still a fair chance that somebody will. It's still a possibility up until the credits roll and you can relax and be glad that everyone was okay in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Seeing as how the end of shb and 5.3 went, i’d disagree with that statement.

---

I'm not sure what you mean? ShB and 5.3 are widely praised as the highest points in the story and yet the only deaths were the villains, who you fully expect to die. It rather proves my point, you don't need to kill people off for a story to be good and emotional.

I'm not saying "a character dying makes a story bad", that would be absurd, just that it isn't some metric you need to check off a list in order to be considered a good story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeanneOrnitier

I'm not sure what you mean? ShB and 5.3 are widely praised as the highest points in the story and yet the only deaths were the villains, who you fully expect to die. It rather proves my point, you don't need to kill people off for a story to be good and emotional.

I'm not saying "a character dying makes a story bad", that would be absurd, just that it isn't some metric you need to check off a list in order to be considered a good story.

---

Both end of ShB and 5.3 relied on random plot armor and plot holes to prevent character deaths (both involving graha). If you need to rely on random plot armor just to prevent a character from dying, that’s bad writing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Both end of ShB and 5.3 relied on random plot armor and plot holes to prevent character deaths (both involving graha). If you need to rely on random plot armor just to prevent a character from dying, that’s bad writing.

---

The crystal memory transferrence had already been established prior, it didn't come out of nowhere. That's not plot armor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeanneOrnitier

The crystal memory transferrence had already been established prior, it didn't come out of nowhere. That's not plot armor.

---

I’m talking about Graha’s plot armor at the end of ShB where it was stated numerous times and even shown in Kholusia, the farther he is from the tower the weaker he is. Yet somehow after being shot and dragged away the farthest from the tower he’s ever been, he can accomplish a feat he was only able to do after failing 5 times whilst full power with the tower (summon WoL).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

Except one of the main themes of the story is loss and learning to let go. It's disingenuous to make that a major factor of the narrative only to have everyone close to the main character survive everything all the time no matter the odds or how bad the situation is.
Would Thancred's arc in ShB work if Minfilia was still alive inside Ryne and could just speak through her whenever she wanted? Would anyone really care a fraction as much about Haurchefant if he was still just sitting in Camp Dragonhead making cameos during holiday events? You shouldn't just kill characters left right and center, but when it's narratively appropriate characters absolutely SHOULD die.

---

Absolutely. Though I will say I never really did care for Haurchefant at all at least in part because the writing tried too damn hard to make you like him and make him feel important to you in some way. The way the game forced you to interact with him in the way they did actually turned me off of liking him.

Anyway, yes, death isn't necessarily the be all and end all of storytelling. It's more that it's sort of the final cost and a form of ultimate consequence for the choices made by the WoL and others. The biggest issue with death in FF14, though, is that they have decided to play so fast and loose with it with way too many cases of characters "dying" but then coming back for one reason or another. I wouldn't personally feel that death is a necessity in the storyline if the writers themselves would stop bringing it up and using the potential of it as motivation/punishment. It's like when you're out with your friend and they keep talking about how amazing this new dessert restaurant is but they never say where it is or what it's called. You wouldn't care at all about the amazing desserts at this awesome new restaurant if your friend didn't keep bringing it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderShinryu

Absolutely. Though I will say I never really did care for Haurchefant at all at least in part because the writing tried too damn hard to make you like him and make him feel important to you in some way. The way the game forced you to interact with him in the way they did actually turned me off of liking him.

Anyway, yes, death isn't necessarily the be all and end all of storytelling. It's more that it's sort of the final cost and a form of ultimate consequence for the choices made by the WoL and others. The biggest issue with death in FF14, though, is that they have decided to play so fast and loose with it with way too many cases of characters "dying" but then coming back for one reason or another. I wouldn't personally feel that death is a necessity in the storyline if the writers themselves would stop bringing it up and using the potential of it as motivation/punishment. It's like when you're out with your friend and they keep talking about how amazing this new dessert restaurant is but they never say where it is or what it's called. You wouldn't care at all about the amazing desserts at this awesome new restaurant if your friend didn't keep bringing it up.

---

I agree, and I also think the amount of baiting where it's expected there's not going to be any follow-through - and then there isn't - doesn't help, either.

I normally say that Y'hstola, as the mascot for FFXIV, is downright immortal because they wouldn't kill her off since they need her for spin-offs. Which only makes her SEVERAL fake-outs infuriating instead of concerning (when she "sacrificed" herself in Rak'Tika I was fully prepared for her to return before the 5.0 story ended, didn't expect her to return before the RAK'TIKA story ended).

Funny enough, Dissidia Opera Omnia throws that justification out the window and ACTUALLY makes the main cast killable.

The game takes place (initially) in the World of Respite, where the heroes (and villains) of different worlds are taken to rest. While most of the cast have had their memories taken, some of them, like Aerith, remember their journeys, and that they're dead. This even turns into a plot point in Act 2 when both Lyse and Papalymo remember his sacrifice, giving them closure IN ANOTHER GAME. The XIV cast are kind of unique in that their game, and thus their stories, are still ongoing, so the DFFOO team just... has more issues writing around them.

Thereby making it so even characters who die in XIV can still show up in spin-off games, removing their immunity. That said, I'm not a fan of death for death's sake, or random death for "shock value", but at the same time I'm getting tired of the fake-outs just because characters are fan-favourites. And of the "consequences" the Scions have suffered, only Thancred's has stuck in any way (since he now needs someone to imbue his ammo with aether, making his "lone infiltrator" thing riskier, Y'shtola's blindness is MENTIONED to be draining her, but that hasn't been an impediment yet).

Bottom-line: The story team doesn't HAVE to kill off characters to tell a story, but they should commit if they're heading in that direction or the "sacrifices" feel cheap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyuDragnier

Here's hoping our old friends from the Brotherhood of Ash show up in an extra scene or if you get some extra dialogue with them.

---

As someone who likes to go around to see if anyone even remotely relevant has dialog updates after each patch*, yeah that would be nice. (and hopefully "and more" on the patch notes includes Allied Tribe quests too).

* I may not have encountered everyone, but it seemed like there wasn't much reaction to 5.4 outside of Camp Overlook. (sadly there's still several people who are close to the city state leaders or the scions who are still stuck in "heavensward mode")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeanneOrnitier

The crystal memory transferrence had already been established prior, it didn't come out of nowhere. That's not plot armor.

---

I'd argue that it is when it's consistently made out to be a big, risky affair stacked up on top of other big, risky affairs but none of the established limitations ever come into play on any meaningful level.

Personally I don't care for most of the characters that exist to fawn over the Warrior of Light. At the very least, I'd like to see G'raha injured and quietly retired. Much like Zenos, he's overstayed his welcome for me.

I have a feeling that's a significant amount of bias involved, at any rate. Very few people want their favourite characters to be killed off, injured or made to be wrong in any major capacity - and as such, so many settings and writers have effectively been held hostage by their fans.

I just want a return to the consequence levels of ARR and HW. That was the peak of the game's writing for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

\Personally I don't care for most of the characters that exist to fawn over the Warrior of Light. At the very least, I'd like to see G'raha injured and quietly retired. Much like Zenos, he's overstayed his welcome for me.

---

I agree 100% with G'raha. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say that his continued presence in the story behaving the way he does sets an example for players who do not know better to think that kind of behavior is okay. It's not. He's basically a creep who won the friend lottery because he was powerful. That kind of behavior is unhealthy and uncalled for. He needs to go.

All I really want from G'raha is to have him exorcised. Kick the Exarch out of him. Maybe have the incident shatter the pedestal he keeps the WoL on, while they're at it, and put some tension between him and the Scions. And I say that as someone who genuinely liked the Exarch as a character back when Shadowbringers launched. 5.1-5.4 kind of ruined him for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kesey

I agree 100% with G'raha. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say that his continued presence in the story behaving the way he does sets an example for players who do not know better to think that kind of behavior is okay. It's not. He's basically a creep who won the friend lottery because he was powerful. That kind of behavior is unhealthy and uncalled for. He needs to go.

---

This sounds really farfechted. I mean, sure, there are simple folks out there, but to take an example of NPC behavior and use it to communicate/behave around other players? This sounds veeery absurd to me. Those people may have other, more serious, underlying issues. Not because one NPC is extreme-fawning over the WoL. That's simple power fantasy setting.

I agree in general that some people, myself included, have double-standard in applying the "character x has overstayed their welcome". I wish it for Zenos but not for the Scions *shrugs*. One thing I never understood is the "Kill character x because I don't like them." I've seen it in other MMOs as well (GW2: Taimi and Braham) and most "reasoning" was just childish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kesey

I agree 100% with G'raha. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say that his continued presence in the story behaving the way he does sets an example for players who do not know better to think that kind of behavior is okay. It's not. He's basically a creep who won the friend lottery because he was powerful. That kind of behavior is unhealthy and uncalled for. He needs to go.

---

I don't see an issue with G'raha because my character seems to reciprocate the relationship. It's not just one-way him showering us with compliments while we remain disinterested.

Haurchefant, on the other hand, is downright creepy to us a few times - moreso in the Japanese script with the English downplaying it, but there's one bit in post-ARR where we actually look unsettled or scared by what he's saying to us. They seem to have backed away from that take on him but it still creeps me out every time I get a character up to that point in the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mahoukenshi

This sounds really farfechted. I mean, sure, there are simple folks out there, but to take an example of NPC behavior and use it to communicate/behave around other players? This sounds veeery absurd to me. Those people may have other, more serious, underlying issues. Not because one NPC is extreme-fawning over the WoL. That's simple power fantasy setting.

I agree in general that some people, myself included, have double-standard in applying the "character x has overstayed their welcome". I wish it for Zenos but not for the Scions *shrugs*. One thing I never understood is the "Kill character x because I don't like them." I've seen it in other MMOs as well (GW2: Taimi and Braham) and most "reasoning" was just childish.

---

I just want him dead because he has as much plot armor as yshtola. We don’t need another yshtola in the group. Especially since with him, his plot armor has come at the expense of any plot consistency.(see:end of ShB)

Haurchefant's biggest issue was not being consistent across all languages. He's praised as a hero and chivalrous individual but he was anything but - would he have sacrificed himself if he didn't have the hots for the Warrior of Light? Maybe...maybe not. I don't have a huge problem with the trope he represents, mostly because I've played a lot of JRPG's and become rather desensitised to such things. I can definitely appreciate how it came across as creepy and unwelcome, though.

At the end of the day, tastes differ. I don't consider G'raha to be worthy of the position of 'close friend' when there's other characters who the Warrior of Light has spent more time with who are artificially kept at a distance. At the very least, we need colder dialogue options that allow us to decline unwanted intimacy from specific characters.

Alisae's underage, for starters. Furthermore, my Warrior of Light isn't even into women...or overly feminine men, for that matter.

The likes of Hien and Thancred are more aligned with my personal tastes and those of my character as well - I appreciate when we get a little time spent with either and it's always vague enough to allow for people to 'ship' each character with the Warrior of Light if they so wish.

So I think they should dial things back when it comes to Alisae and G'raha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kesey

I agree 100% with G'raha. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say that his continued presence in the story behaving the way he does sets an example for players who do not know better to think that kind of behavior is okay. It's not. He's basically a creep who won the friend lottery because he was powerful. That kind of behavior is unhealthy and uncalled for. He needs to go.

---

The way you describe him there reminds me of Zenos for a moment. :D

Graha and Alisae to me always felt like hero worship and idolization but not flat out romantic attraction, but I suppose it's vague enough it could be interpreted that way too.

So... what I'm seeing in this thread is that a character absolutely has to die to make the story meaningful, but just killing a character wouldn't have any meaning.

Cool. Cool, cool, cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Equitable_Remedy

So... what I'm seeing in this thread is that a character absolutely has to die to make the story meaningful, but just killing a character wouldn't have any meaning.

Cool. Cool, cool, cool.

---

Or the protagonists can just have...yknow, consequences? So that the story isn’t completely one-sided like ShB is where none of the protagonists have faced any consequences and quite literally everything has gone their way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Equitable_Remedy

So... what I'm seeing in this thread is that a character absolutely has to die to make the story meaningful, but just killing a character wouldn't have any meaning.

Cool. Cool, cool, cool.

---

The point about character deaths have been dancing around this thread so let me try to clarify a few things:

A character death will cut off potential story telling avenues in the future. The author of the story has to decide when that time has come. Also bringing a character back from the death cheapens the death and can be very damaging to the integrity of the story trying to be told.

At the same time, deciding that the story telling avenues around that a character are complete, the character's death will have to move the story forward. Characters cannot be killed without impacting the plot enough to move the story forward. If this isn't met then there is no reason to kill the character.

The sentiment that a death is long over due is a logical fallacy, as both points above need to be met before killing a character. So any 5.5 or 5.55 or Endwalker deaths must be impactful enough to move the plot (and I think we can speculate a few characters who could meet this example) but also would be cut out of the season 2 story which starts in 6.1 (which is too early to call as we don't even have the sliver of a cliffhanger to even judge yet).

Also lets not confuse the "threat of death" which is used to create suspense and also move the plot. A great example of "threat of death" was when the scions bodies were soulless on the source while they were in the first and those bodies could die to kill them. This was to create suspense, because if we think about it hard enough the whole thing falls apart if all the scions die because the main cast is gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kesey

Also lets not confuse the "threat of death" which is used to create suspense and also move the plot. A great example of "threat of death" was when the scions bodies were soulless on the source while they were in the first and those bodies could die to kill them. This was to create suspense, because if we think about it hard enough the whole thing falls apart if all the scions die because the main cast is gone.

---

The whole thing doesn't fall apart, because the Scions weren't called all at once, and those who have been out of their bodies the longest are also the first to show symptoms of the connection fraying. It was unlikely that the whole group would be lost - even that they would die if it happened - but there was still tension as to what might happen and when.

(Though they kind of broke it at the end by having everyone resolved and ready to go and then... "hey let's do a victory lap of Norvrandt!")

We can really highlight things going the protagonist's way, when Varis was informed that the Scions were defenseless, Zenos came calling. Elidibus was literally going to perform a raid on the Rising Stones in Zenos's body and kill'em all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

We can really highlight things going the protagonist's way, when Varis was informed that the Scions were defenseless, Zenos came calling. Elidibus was literally going to perform a raid on the Rising Stones in Zenos's body and kill'em all.

---

It just makes things so boring/full imo. Like i’m not even really asking for people to die, but just for there to be some long lasting consequences. There’s no reason for there to not be any consequences whatsoever in the expansion advertised to be the grittiest and darkest of them yet, where we face off against the strongest almost godlike foes yet, but it ends up being the safest expansion. Like what sense does that make?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

It just makes things so boring/full imo. Like i’m not even really asking for people to die, but just for there to be some long lasting consequences. There’s no reason for there to not be any consequences whatsoever in the expansion advertised to be the grittiest and darkest of them yet, where we face off against the strongest almost godlike foes yet, but it ends up being the safest expansion. Like what sense does that make?

---

But to play devil's advocate, let's think of this way: If we don't loose a member of the main cast so they can all face the grittiest and darkest expansion together against a godlike foe, then they all can experience it differently and create many avenues of storytelling instead of pigeon-holing some of the cast and limit their ability to tell the story.

I would argue that keeping them alive will present the best option for the storytelling to not be boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kesey

But to play devil's advocate, let's think of this way: If we don't loose a member of the main cast so they can all face the grittiest and darkest expansion together against a godlike foe, then they all can experience it differently and create many avenues of storytelling instead of pigeon-holing some of the cast and limit their ability to tell the story.

I would argue that keeping them alive will present the best option for the storytelling to not be boring.

---

But then where’s the threat? Where’s the suspense of what’s happening to them if we know they’re going to be okay. A story shouldn’t be one-sided, especially because in the case of ShB, in order to keep a certain character alive, they had to rely on half-assed plot armor which completely contradicted the story elements. If it’s something that makes them contradict their own points they wrote in the story, then that should be dealt with. Look at HW. The deaths were impactful to many but it wasn’t forced or anything like that. There were actually consequences for the protags that shaped them. ShB has none of that and it’s no wonder ShB also has less overall character development barring a couple of the scions (Thancred and Alphinaud most notably).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kesey

But to play devil's advocate, let's think of this way: If we don't loose a member of the main cast so they can all face the grittiest and darkest expansion together against a godlike foe, then they all can experience it differently and create many avenues of storytelling instead of pigeon-holing some of the cast and limit their ability to tell the story.

I would argue that keeping them alive will present the best option for the storytelling to not be boring.

---

To play devil's advocate's advocate, what if they kill someone old to make room for someone new, while also presenting us with better fleshed out shows of grieving from those we know will feel it most? No story is really diminished by character death, only by the writer's ability to tell around and beyond it with who remain.

When you write in death, it's to show that there are consequences for the heroes. Lasting ones. You get to write things like trauma, heartbreak, sorrow, recurring dreams, and the like. You also get to show the death, honorable or otherwise. Sudden or sacrifice. With your boots on, or quietly in the middle of the night.

I suspect we're in for a couple, because it will allow them to write the protégé style characters as the mentors come 6.1. If none of the characters we have now ever die, then how are we going to take whatever new threat that comes our way seriously, at all? Because they exposit that we should? Because they blow up towns that we've seen blown up by lesser threats? Make us feel the threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

I suspect we're in for a couple, because it will allow them to write the protégé style characters as the mentors come 6.1. If none of the characters we have now ever die, then how are we going to take whatever new threat that comes our way seriously, at all? Because they exposit that we should? Because they blow up towns that we've seen blown up by lesser threats? Make us feel the threat.

---

The characters don't have to die. Death is one predictable avenue. There are plenty of ways to write characters off without it.

Example, look at Thancred. He lost his aether controlling abilities. Now what happens if he loses a leg or ends up badly hurt in a fight that leaves him near crippled and almost dead? He's effectively written out of the story. He can no longer spy for us, he can no longer fight by our side. His entire role as a Scion is no longer possible, and he has to leave the main story and be replaced by another.

Another example, Y'shtola and Urianger. They're our resident expert mages and lore experts. Imagine if you will that the actions occurring in EW effect the First and we need somebody there who can hold the aether together, and whichever goes would be able to make the trip body and all, but wouldn't return? One of them would be removed from the main squad permanently without death.

We don't need there to be death to remove characters, we have other avenues to create believable circumstances that rob us of our team members permanently and make it threatening. If any Scion were to be removed from the equation permanently in any of these circumstances, we've felt the threat, they're not coming back, they can't help us anymore. I wouldn't be surprised if the last dungeon of EW has only the Trusts of G'raha, Alphinaud, Alisaie, and Estinien left due to the other members getting permanently removed due to circumstances, with G'raha being permanently removed after the final dungeon is complete. Leaving us with the only members able to continue into 6.1 being Alphinaud and Alisaie, and maybe Estinien if he officially joins the Scions.

Quote:

---

If none of the characters we have now ever die, then how are we going to take whatever new threat that comes our way seriously, at all? Because they exposit that we should? Because they blow up towns that we've seen blown up by lesser threats? Make us feel the threat.

---

Imo, that's not the problem of characters dying or surviving, but rather the age old problem of ever stronger escalating threats (i. e. threats with a stronger and stronger "power level"). We'll have been squashing world-ending foes left and right, esp. at the end of EW. So the EW post-game needs to make a new start with new dangers that are somehow equally (or more) threatening than a re-enactment of the literal Final Days if the plot isn't depowering us somehow. Technically, every regular dungeon visit afterwards shouldn't be threatening at all (ignoring from a player pov of "everything is faceroll-easy lolz"), unless the Final Days will uncover some age-old sealed dungeons with somehow more threatening stuff in it.

On a completely different perspective, I don't see any need to remove the current cast or "make way for new characters" at all.

If it actively suits the narrative for someone to leave or die, that's fine. But they don't need to move on just because they are long-term cast members - quite the opposite. They keep a consistent picture of "our character and their group of friends" who have been there since the beginning of our journey.

We might strike out on our own in 6.1, but I don't want it to be because everyone else was incapacitated in our final battle. That's unnecessary and cruel after they've come so far with us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

But then where’s the threat? Where’s the suspense of what’s happening to them if we know they’re going to be okay. A story shouldn’t be one-sided, especially because in the case of ShB, in order to keep a certain character alive, they had to rely on half-assed plot armor which completely contradicted the story elements. If it’s something that makes them contradict their own points they wrote in the story, then that should be dealt with. Look at HW. The deaths were impactful to many but it wasn’t forced or anything like that. There were actually consequences for the protags that shaped them. ShB has none of that and it’s no wonder ShB also has less overall character development barring a couple of the scions (Thancred and Alphinaud most notably).

---

Is the end of days and all existence not enough of a threat? Failure on the part of the heroes is end of all life...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

On a completely different perspective, I don't see any need to remove the current cast or "make way for new characters" at all.

If it actively suits the narrative for someone to leave or die, that's fine. But they don't need to move on just because they are long-term cast members - quite the opposite. They keep a consistent picture of "our character and their group of friends" who have been there since the beginning of our journey.

We might strike out on our own in 6.1, but I don't want it to be because everyone else was incapacitated in our final battle. That's unnecessary and cruel after they've come so far with us.

---

I agree. But I think we can easily see the older members of the scions attempting retirement, or at least play at it long enough for some other big threat to surface.

I expect Y'shotla's retirement has already been seeded when she had her goodbye moment with Runar on the First and she promised to come back when she is needed. She could be narratively trying to find her way back until it is necessary to shard hop again, taking her off the roster for a period of time while she continues her "studies."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kesey

Is the end of days and all existence not enough of a threat? Failure on the part of the heroes is end of all life...

---

Um...no it’s not a threat when we already know everything is going to be okay at the end. They kind of spoiled that with the whole Ishgard housing will be in 6.1 lol. It doesn’t have to be failure of the heroes but again, they can have consequences. Whether that’s someone dying or not, something needs to happen considering it’s literally the final expansion for this story arc. It’s like the “threat” that was supposed to be the invading wol’s on 5.3, except wow it turns out, they’re not actually attacking townsfolk or anything, and for some reason random people can take them on. There’s no sense of threat anymore. Everything is just easily solved or made to be convenient for the protagonists and it’s just dull.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyuDragnier

The characters don't have to die. Death is one predictable avenue. There are plenty of ways to write characters off without it.

Example, look at Thancred. He lost his aether controlling abilities. Now what happens if he loses a leg or ends up badly hurt in a fight that leaves him near crippled and almost dead? He's effectively written out of the story. He can no longer spy for us, he can no longer fight by our side. His entire role as a Scion is no longer possible, and he has to leave the main story and be replaced by another.

Another example, Y'shtola and Urianger. They're our resident expert mages and lore experts. Imagine if you will that the actions occurring in EW effect the First and we need somebody there who can hold the aether together, and whichever goes would be able to make the trip body and all, but wouldn't return? One of them would be removed from the main squad permanently without death.

We don't need there to be death to remove characters, we have other avenues to create believable circumstances that rob us of our team members permanently and make it threatening. If any Scion were to be removed from the equation permanently in any of these circumstances, we've felt the threat, they're not coming back, they can't help us anymore. I wouldn't be surprised if the last dungeon of EW has only the Trusts of G'raha, Alphinaud, Alisaie, and Estinien left due to the other members getting permanently removed due to circumstances, with G'raha being permanently removed after the final dungeon is complete. Leaving us with the only members able to continue into 6.1 being Alphinaud and Alisaie, and maybe Estinien if he officially joins the Scions.

---

Tbf, Thancred iirc hasn’t had his aether controlled abilities since HW, but he’s still been able to spy and do his job. We see that in SB so idk how he’s written out of the story. Also just a side note but i really really really hope they wouldn’t leave us with Alisaie,Alphy, and Graha. That’s like....nightmare fuel right there lmao.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mahoukenshi

Imo, that's not the problem of characters dying or surviving, but rather the age old problem of ever stronger escalating threats (i. e. threats with a stronger and stronger "power level"). We'll have been squashing world-ending foes left and right, esp. at the end of EW. So the EW post-game needs to make a new start with new dangers that are somehow equally (or more) threatening than a re-enactment of the literal Final Days if the plot isn't depowering us somehow. Technically, every regular dungeon visit afterwards shouldn't be threatening at all (ignoring from a player pov of "everything is faceroll-easy lolz"), unless the Final Days will uncover some age-old sealed dungeons with somehow more threatening stuff in it.

---

The problem is, we’ve already faced beyond powerful foes already (Hades and Elidibus), but they took away the tension and threat from both of those fights with the plot armor and plot convenience they instilled into it. That’s the problem, they introduce these powerful foes that are way beyond our power level, but instead of writing so that they have actual weight in their power and perform actions that greatly affect the protagonist side, they write it so everything goes well for the protags even if it means creating plot holes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

On a completely different perspective, I don't see any need to remove the current cast or "make way for new characters" at all.

If it actively suits the narrative for someone to leave or die, that's fine. But they don't need to move on just because they are long-term cast members - quite the opposite. They keep a consistent picture of "our character and their group of friends" who have been there since the beginning of our journey.

We might strike out on our own in 6.1, but I don't want it to be because everyone else was incapacitated in our final battle. That's unnecessary and cruel after they've come so far with us.

---

I don’t really see how it’s unnecessary or cruel. If the final battles’ stakes are that high that it results in that, that isn’t unnecessary. That’s actually having the threat have weight and consequences which i know, a lot of people are unfamiliar with after ShB. Personally i really would like to see a new cast of characters, no matter if that means the old ones dying off or what. They can only write so much for the current scions, that was made prevalent in ShB and after EW i don’t see how they could continue making more for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Tbf, Thancred iirc hasn’t had his aether controlled abilities since HW, but he’s still been able to spy and do his job. We see that in SB so idk how he’s written out of the story.

---

I mean, the result of him still doing his job is that he spends long sections of Stormblood's story offscreen because he can't teleport like everyone else does. That's a pretty big consequence when compared to Y'shtola's blindness. All that has meant is that she has to burn aether to see, which is absolutely not going to cost her anything during the scope of FFXIV's story.

There's also Minfilia, who gave up her body and soul to Hydaelyn. And while the writers took great pains to distance everything Minfilia-related from the revelation that Hydaelyn is a primal, it's not hard to believe that she was tempered all the way up to her "suicide via passing the torch" moment. And the result of that whole mess is that the writers barely used her at all, and even took steps to write their way out of using her (100 years have passed since the Flood of Light, reincarnations in name only, the aforementioned passing of the torch story focusing entirely on the character receiving the torch, etc...).

I don't think I'll ever not be bitter about that, lol. I suppose it's a bit hypocritical of me to want them to hit the undo button on that one—I'm over here advocating that they hit the redo button on the Exarch's death, after all.

I'd like to see the Scions survive 6.0, but then go their separate ways. They can be brought back into the story if needed at times (sort of like Cid and Nero) but they wouldn't be our adventuring party anymore.

And I say this as someone whose favourite character is a Scion. I also agree that there's probably not much they can do with them post-EW, but I'd like to see them get nice retirements and be happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

I don't see an issue with G'raha because my character seems to reciprocate the relationship. It's not just one-way him showering us with compliments while we remain disinterested.

Haurchefant, on the other hand, is downright creepy to us a few times -

---

For the longest time I thought Haurchefant was a serial killer. He creeped me out no end, reminded me of real life guys who have had me deeply unsettled in the past and I really wanted to keep far, far away from him. He became less creepy over time to the point I was not happy when he died, but I have no doubt in another life his tale was quite a nefarious one.

Conversely, I've never thought G'raha was a serial killer and my daughter adores him so he has a pass for now. If he ever upsets her, however, I'm coming for him.

;)

As for Death unto Dawn, part of my brain wants us, the WoL/D, to die. Sort of. But I suspect it's likely more lateral than literal and I'm not currently invested one way or another.