On Themis [6.4 SPOILER]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

To clarify: The memories seemed to come from the memory crystal that started all this. Erich and Lahabrea were etched onto random souls, but with Themis she somehow pinned down the actual one, probably because he died very recently, which is why he remembered the events of the not-as-distant past when Lahabrea didn't. Which... yeah, actually doesn't make a lot of sense, since he'd be off in the First's aetherial sea. Hydaelyn was still alive at the time, maybe she moved him like she did Minfilia and Emet and just didn't say anything. Or maybe Athena did it (she mentioned he was proving more difficult, after all), although I'm not sure why she'd have gone through the effort.

---

I think it'd be mighty horrendous of Hydaelyn to not have moved his soul as well, so I think it's that.

I don't think it's inappropriate for discussions about the Ancients and their broader writing to burst their containment thread in this situation. We're talking about the end of the storyline of a character who lies at the absolute epicenter of the Sundering plotline, and specifically the tragic aspect on top of that. Even if some people are looking for a fight, it's difficult to do that without touching the poop.

Timeline mechanics and potential timeline-hopping aside - I think it's a little silly to argue them, because if the writers want something to happen, they make it happen, even if prior described as "can't" or "impossible", period -

If the point being made is "the Warrior of Light has always been selfish and fundamentally operating from a principle of 'screw you, got mine'," I guess there's not a lot that can be said to that beyond a shrug. I suppose so - I can't really disagree with that characterization particularly after how these raids played out. Having that made crystal clear is just, again, a large part of what's pushed me beyond the line of "I just don't care about this game anymore." Especially when so much of this game and its writing is obviously centered around making sure the Warrior of Light is almost completely beloved and admired as the pinnacle of heroism by those around them, and I can't find it in me to bother attempting to mentally bridge this gap anymore.

It is what it is.

As I've said previously, I don't see the time travel mechanisms as inconsistent, because the one time it resulted in a split rather than a loop is also the one time that the time traveller was both in possession of all the facts and determined to (and successful in their efforts to) change reality rather than maintain it.

It's a working theory with a small sample set, but we're yet to have an example that disproves it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yuella

Both Lahabrea and Emet-Selch never apologized for trying to bring back the unsundered world. Lahabrea admitted it was hypocritical for the Ascians to wipe out lives to bring back theirs but he said he'd do it without a second thought because it's his duty.

---

They didn't apologise, no, but the characters' general handwaving of everything they endured owing to Hydaelyn's decision, up to and including the writers subtly implying Lahabrea jumped off a cliff harder than he might otherwise have owing to Athena/ the auracite's influence than anything else, and having Emet-Selch, a man previously destroyed by what the years since did to him suddenly turn around and go "oh lol Hydaelyn, you got me good! I guess your way worked best, huh!" just felt like an indirect way of affirming the protagonists' actions, and it is weird to me given what it put them through and what it cost them. Their whole background and how the events from the Final Days through to the present day shaped their characters felt thoroughly disregarded, and a token throwaway bit they toss in at the end of a long string of really bizarre writing didn't really mitigate any of that on my end. Like, their just... being very okay with the fact their world did not survive in the Aitiascope coupled with the WoL conveniently ducking any questions as to how that happened so we could have our Ancient allies on our side was just an expected suspension of belief pushed too far for me, especially when they do bother to go to such lengths to display their disgust at their future actions.

(Also, did past-Lahabrea actually know about the future?)

I think the intention was just for past-Lahabrea to be very observant and, bluntly, picked up via that observation, intuition, and our Vibes that we were fundamentally operating at cross-purposes, even if he didn't know the specifics or the details. In that framework, I appreciate that he more or less stood his ground and stated that he was unwavering in his own purpose.

The convolutions the writing went through to Not Talk About The Sundering were just hilariously transparent to me. I'm not inclined to point the finger at the Pandaemonium writer himself, since he's probably working under a higher directive as far as Don't Talk About It (oh man, was the presentation of Athena and her mindset interesting, though, in that regard), so when I talk about how I loved the "characterization," it's more learning what kind of personalities this group of people had and their interpersonal dynamics, not the ridiculousness of them being conveniently manifested and shoehorned around so we never have to discuss the incredibly legitimate and valid reasons they have to hate us and be bitter about their fates. I loved seeing Lahabrea's grumpy, blunt forms of gruff kindness, such as when he shot Claudien down when Claudien attempted to talk to him from an Erichtonios place, and Themis is beyond charming; I love the layers to his personality, so that he went beyond just "cute sad kid" and carries some serious swagger and weight to him as one of the leaders of the world, while maintaining a bit of childish mischievous and playfulness at the same time as being an obviously very compassionate, thoughtful, and loving person.

Erich's arc with his mother and his agency was also just great, and while the way the wider plot of EW as a whole was handled was beyond weaselly, I also admired the guts of carrying that bitter, ugly, raw edge to his self-contained emotional arc to the very end. I think the writing underscored enough that Athena was Athena, even with the space rock - the space rock fundamentally just empowered Athena into a world-ending boss threat we could punch. But the fundamental horror, as this was always the story, at its core, of a damaged family - that she just has absolutely no love in her heart and only ruthlessness for her ambitions was completely her, on her own - stood well enough that the space rock factor didn't bother me, and I went into this petrified that they would compromise or ruin Athena's glorious evil. She's still my wife.

(Also, I think it's a little funny that even the Absolute Worst and Most Evil Ancient wouldn't have become a serious threat on a wide scale if not for the intervention of an Alien Space Rock, but you know, the society and its people are just fundamentally rotten and had to be put down, everything was for the best, etc, etc. Endwalker!)

There are several points where it does come across that Themis (especially in the end scene) and Lahabrea are clearly making a Deliberate Choice to not delve into the ugliness in how they and the WoL will be/have been are cross purposes, for the sake of papering things over out of kindness to the WoL and to a degree for Themis, attempting to soothe himself after being tortured for milennia and losing everything. I'm a bit of a sucker for that kind of thing, but I also acknowledge, yes, it's also totally writer cowardice to spare the player, the writers themselves, and make the Warrior of Light universally beloved and praised by everyone, as is always the primary agenda.

In a vacuum for the characters themselves, it made me love Lahabrea and Elidibus more, because they are truly good, kind people, while hating that they ever even had to do something like that - and meanwhile didn't help much with my growing disgust at the Warrior of Light at happily accepting the offered kindness at the expense of their own feelings and agency and skipping away untroubled, leaving them to their horrible fates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

...the Warrior of Light at happily accepting the offered kindness at the expense of their own feelings and agency and skipping away untroubled, leaving them to their horrible fates.

---

The one thing we have learned, as observers to the story, is that there is no averting that fate. They have been through it, and the fact that we are here in the modern day of the story proves that they have already been through it.

It's even touched on here as a "well, it happened, we're here and now we need to pick up the pieces and save this world now" – and on our final visit to the past, are under direct instructions from Lahabrea to not tell his past self anything.

From the WoL's perspective, if they chose to interfere, they would not prevent that suffering from happening, but would create a second world that is going to have its own new array of suffering, while at the same time cutting themselves off from (and for all they know, potentially destroying) their original world and all their friends. And they still would have not actually saved the Ascians from what they went through.

It was – barely – acceptable to do that to the 8UE timeline when they genuinely thought the world was going to be destroyed and everyone would be wiped out either way. But doing that to a living world wouldn't be heroic at all.

Plus, we're simply locked into the game as well as a narrative. We can't abandon this game setting for a new timeline.

I'll admit, I did enjoy Erich's final moments with his mother. That was a nice finish to his saga, even if his sudden reconciliation with his father having a rod re-inserted somewhere personal back in the past was a little less so. When it comes to Lahabrea, I like him best when he's at his most obnoxious (I love the unapologetically no-nonsense, abrasive types, particularly in a cast as mild-mannered as we often seem to find ourselves) and sort of branching off of that, his most uncomfortable, and in that respect I feel kind of cheated by the lack of any real confrontation between him and Athena especially (though it being more of Erich's thing wasn't the worst trade-off, I suppose.) I'm also sad we never got to see him at his most capable a la a full on Hades moment, given the repeated call-outs across the story for a while now at how powerful he was supposed to actually be, so his writing this patch took a bit of a downturn for me overall.

Themis is... complicated. I do like him, but unlike Emet-Selch I find the link between present-day him and past him to be too tenuous to fully connect the two. I know what you mean in terms of giving him a little more presence as a leader making sense, but... I personally enjoyed his previous characterisation as being more earnest, softly-spoken and in awe of what was around him. I felt he ended up a bit too "Alphinaud'd" for my liking, and we already have enough precocious youngers in the story, as charming as he is. Perhaps seeing him amongst the ranks of Azem and Emet might have brought that forward a little more? Who knows. My biggest problem, though, was the immediate dismissal of where his character actually ended up in 5.3/ 6.0 and choosing to have his final farewell as his authentic "self" being more or less a copy of who he is in the Panda storyline. It goes back to my original post and wound up souring me on his appearance this tier, unfortunately. I just couldn't buy into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

(Also, I think it's a little funny that even the Absolute Worst and Most Evil Ancient wouldn't have become a serious threat on a wide scale if not for the intervention of an Alien Space Rock, but you know, the society and its people are just fundamentally rotten and had to be put down, everything was for the best, etc, etc. Endwalker!)

---

I was always interested in the concept of an "evil" Ancient and what danger their powers might have posed in the hands of such a person, but I guess the answer is: not a lot?

It's kind of weird, isn't it, how they go out of their way to justify Venat's actions with these laboured, long-winded metaphors on perfection-induced existential apathy and societal stagnation when a much more solid basis for her argument was right there.

I understand what you mean by Themis - I also appreciated he was allowed to go out on a mostly bitter note (while still upholding his duty to save the world) in 6.0. I'm sentimental and sappy enough, though, that after getting to know and fall in love with this exceedingly good, brave, wonderful kid, the thought of him dying alone in bitterness and pain now just kills me, so that his papering things over was also partially for his own sake - so he can go out telling himself that He Did Good, He Saved The World After All, even if it's affected and forced and the equivalent of an emotional bandage over a gaping wound - made me swallow it a little easier. As part of the larger whole, though, I totally feel the annoyance that everyone now just has to Approvingly Accept the state of the world's salvation being built on the mass corpses of undeserving people. Themis in 6.0 was a bit of the last holdout.

I still wouldn't have appreciated an argument that the Ancients were just too dangerous and powerful to be allowed to live - their powers are inborn, after all, and the Sundered are responsible for their fair share of Apocalyptic Innovations themselves - but yeah, it at least would have been much more straightforward than the vague backwards convoluted gymnastics that EW ultimately went with. I laughed a little in a sort of hysterical broken way, at Erich's righteous counter to Athena's argument - that her plans to ascend to godhood in order to erase her people, those gross and flawed Ancients, and remake them into something better was for the greater good - were still unacceptable to do at the expense of the currently living. Good lord.

EDIT: Ah, I also wanted to add, re: Themis, that I think his final final scene, after he's done talking to the Warrior of Light, and notes/summarizes what just happened: "history is written by the winners," also helped me with it a lot, because it still has that trace of acknowledgment that this entire situation is utterly awful and unfair. I don't know what the end of that bit with the light implies, but I do know that if that's the rule we're operating under in terms of this Resigned Acceptance, then what I want to do is to take Themis's hand and stand at his side to help smash that rule to pieces, but I'm not going to hold my breath (or hold onto anything in particular at all, lol) in terms of hope or faith in this writing team along those lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

I'm not going to hold my breath (or hold onto anything in particular at all, lol)

---

https://i.gifer.com/HOTc.gif

But yeah, I get it. I've just moved beyond feeling much sadness over it anymore and channel my emotions into my resentment at the writing team at this point, lol. Pandaemonium was my last hope the Ancients might? Catch? A break? but I... really didn't put much stock into it, and I genuinely feel for people who hoped for some justice on behalf of their favourite characters, only for the devs to offer succor in the form of making the Ancients see sense in what happened to them, in place of... literally anything else.

Athena was clearly intended as a cautionary tale about the flaws in Ancient society in the way Hermes was, but hilariously enough all it really did was make him seem more deranged. As for who else she might draw comparisons to? ...perhaps best saved for another thread. Hah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

The one thing we have learned, as observers to the story, is that there is no averting that fate. They have been through it, and the fact that we are here in the modern day of the story proves that they have already been through it.

It's even touched on here as a "well, it happened, we're here and now we need to pick up the pieces and save this world now" – and on our final visit to the past, are under direct instructions from Lahabrea to not tell his past self anything.

From the WoL's perspective, if they chose to interfere, they would not prevent that suffering from happening, but would create a second world that is going to have its own new array of suffering, while at the same time cutting themselves off from (and for all they know, potentially destroying) their original world and all their friends. And they still would have not actually saved the Ascians from what they went through.

It was – barely – acceptable to do that to the 8UE timeline when they genuinely thought the world was going to be destroyed and everyone would be wiped out either way. But doing that to a living world wouldn't be heroic at all.

Plus, we're simply locked into the game as well as a narrative. We can't abandon this game setting for a new timeline.

---

Unfortunately for you, what the Ironworks of 8UC did is seen as heroic and the right thing to do. Both by the game and the players. So if that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what else.

And frankly, I don't really buy they thinking "oh no mankind is finished", when we don't know if Black Rose reach lands outside of Eorzea. But regardless, it's still a living world where people born, live, and die. The Ironworks should've forge ahead instead of seeking salvation on a different timeline they created.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kozh

Unfortunately for you, what the Ironworks of 8UC did is seen as heroic and the right thing to do. Both by the game and the players. So if that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what else.

And frankly, I don't really buy they thinking "oh no mankind is finished", when we don't know if Black Rose reach lands outside of Eorzea. But regardless, it's still a living world where people born, live, and die. The Ironworks should've forge ahead instead of seeking salvation on a different timeline they created.

---

I mean they still have to forge ahead the short story they put out reveals that world didn't vanish so that timeline still exist, nothing we did saved that timeline nor erased it which possibly means we weren't the WoL from that time line & Graha ended up travelling to the wrong timeline since our timeline has Zenos who stops Black Rose which means Zenos probably stayed dead in Black Rose time line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord_Umbra

I mean they still have to forge ahead the short story they put out reveals that world didn't vanish so that timeline still exist, nothing we did saved that timeline nor erased it which possibly means we weren't the WoL from that time line & Graha ended up travelling to the wrong timeline since our timeline has Zenos who stops Black Rose which means Zenos probably stayed dead in Black Rose time line.

---

Well they're forced to forge ahead when all is said and done and turns out they weren't erased. My point is, if they decided to forge ahead since the start, they won't be looking at means to time travel and "let history be unwritten".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kozh

Unfortunately for you, what the Ironworks of 8UC did is seen as heroic and the right thing to do. Both by the game and the players. So if that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what else.

And frankly, I don't really buy they thinking "oh no mankind is finished", when we don't know if Black Rose reach lands outside of Eorzea. But regardless, it's still a living world where people born, live, and die. The Ironworks should've forge ahead instead of seeking salvation on a different timeline they created.

---

We do know that Black Rose reached outside Eorzea because the cutscene where the 8UC is brought up by Urianger, he mentions that Black Rose spread throughout the Empire too and then it killed the soil itself. He also says the subsequent violence spread to "every corner of the world" and nations ceased to exist in "an age of endless war" so it was truly a worldwide calamity.

The people of the Ironworks decided that their world was doomed, and it very well could be in the long run since the Ascians are free to run amok and Hydaelyn has less power in that timeline. It's in that backdrop that they decided to throw a light to the past to make a new timeline. In the original timeline, the Ascians will probably eventually complete the Rejoining and Emet-Selch, Hythlodeus, and Elidibus would be reunited and free to hold hands and skip into the sunset if that's what you're looking for.

I almost agree with both sides of this - my anger with the Exarch never stronger than the disapproval of condemning the 8UE and the sop wasn’t for my WoL being saved but that his time-travel plan also reversed the Ascians’ obliteration of the First. Fantasy Absurd Utilitarian Math where two planets saved is better than one (and fourteen planets full of diversity better than one.) I count the Shards as equally valuable as the Source, so yes, Hydaelyn’s backup Moon Escape plan was as much a non-starter as me pretending Rejoinings were remotely something to desire.

The mind-boggling hypocrisy of that combat line in the Hades fight “our tragedy shall not be repeated” when the Ascians had erased all existence and memory of not just one world but done so at least seven times and counting meant that as upset at the seeming sacrifice of the 8UE made me feel paled to what the Convocation did and was planning to do. Why to this day Emet’s plea to ‘Remember Us’ makes me snort because that was a quid pro quo courtesy he was actively denying others and to us. That while it was not the intended reason that he saved Cylva and Unukalhai, I give gratitude that Elidibus plucking two people from the 13th inadvertently allowed, through our actions in the Warring Triad and Ardbert’s mercy, some memories of the 13th survived. (Then 6.2 happens…) Like how the Crystal Tower kept Future Ironworks alive in their recordings. And that if it wasn’t for the Ascian-caused Calamities, the Source would have the records of the UnSundered predecessors same as The First.

But for the UnSundered World - yes frankly as my WoL in-universe as well as myself this tiny sliver was and would never be more important than the rest of the game, its universe, and characters. And that Unsundered World, at least the little bit we interacted with? It was like Eulmore under Vauthry or Ishgard during the Dragonsong War without a large cast of interesting conflicting NPCs- a place that I immediately wanted to reform or at least not leave it functioning as it was when I entered. So sharing what info the WoL had to give them a chance or at least to plant the seeds to save their future generations without stranding ourselves in the past was what I wanted and expected. Because if I was to stay in a branching preSundered Timeline? I’d demand and work towards some cataclysmic alteration to that society and their powers which ultimately the Sundering fulfilled if to a slightly more extreme extent. I have no interest in a ‘Tales from’ outlining a branching timeline where Venat was able to carry out a plan to forestall the Final Days without the summoning of Zodiark and thus Hydaelyn, but if so, for that new setting to ring true and have appeal, for me it would have to be a world where Amaurotine society is no longer pretending that they can have a paradise where death is always a beautiful choice and that their overriding purpose is whims of creation magic under the label of ‘will of the star’.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

All of this is also true of Elidibus... but despite this, the game never turns that same critical eye to Themis. Even in Anabeisos, when we don't have the argument of 'he hasn't done those things yet', because it is confirmably exactly Elidibus, who already did those things. We basically just skip over the many times when he tried to destroy our world (and sometimes us specifically), with the casual wave-away of 'oh he wasn't all there', and... no, that doesn't fly with me, especially because he's the reason he was in that state in the first place. If the game wants me to look at a villain as a sympathetic person, it needs to not ignore the villainous things they did, and while they did well with that with Lahabrea, 'ignore the villainous things' was exactly what they did with Elidibus.

---

I'm pretty sure they never look at Themis that way due to the various circumstances behind it. Originally he became the heart of Zodiark to save the world. Then he basically was recreated out of Zodiark to act as a mediator and set the world on its rightful path, as he always did as Emissary. He wasn't even openly villainous to us until the end of Stormblood, as before he took over Zenos it felt like he was just a passive force moving pieces on the chessboard. When we see him again in Shadowbringers, we find out about what he is, and Y'shtola even points out that his will may likely not even be his own, but instead the will of the souls that were sacrificed to create Zodiark. All of this gives him a bit more leeway, because it's very possible that he wasn't even in full control of himself.

Basically Lahabrea proved that it was all him when he fused both his halves together. Everything we have seen of Themis paints him in a kinder light, and makes him feel less like a villain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyuDragnier

The best kinds of tragedies in fiction are the ones you can't stop. They hit emotionally harder, and they make you develop feelings for the characters in a strong manner. Personally I think it's the best way to end his and Lahabrea's characters off. You understand them completely, know how they were as people, and helps you come to terms with why things had to end the way they did.

---

Perhaps you are correct in this assertion. If I might offer a counterpoint, however.... The best outcomes are when you prevent the tragedies of the past from repeating, or even outright preventing said tragedies in the first place. Visions of a time never to be, I suppose.

The primary flaw with the writing of the 8UE situation is that the writers didn't go hard enough. The timeline-overwriting plan needed to hinge around the idea that there simply was no stopping or undoing the impact of Black Rose – it needed to not be a destructive historical event but an ongoing process that would freeze the whole world and spread to the shards as well, so they rushed to give the people of the past a second chance before all was irreversibly lost.

Unfortunately, they didn't do that. They held back and then tried to undo it altogether with An Unpromised Future. They confused their own storywriting and undermined their own point.

They tried to be less brutal and actually made it worse.

---

Meanwhile, I go into our visits to the past with the prospect of the time loop first and foremost. Yes, it would be nice to have the freedom to tell the whole truth and save the ancients from their fate, but that is inherently impossible. There is no mere "planting the seed to save their future generations" and then retreating to your own timeline – if you've changed it, you've changed it, and still not actually undone the suffering that has already happened.

In fact, given that we cannot undo the suffering experienced so far by the ancients in this timeline, then I would argue that the best thing we can do for them is to make sure we stick around in this timeline to bring about a happy ending to what they were trying to achieve. If we vanish off into a second timeline and abandon this one, all that they went through up to now was for nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

Meanwhile, I go into our visits to the past with the prospect of the time loop first and foremost. Yes, it would be nice to have the freedom to tell the whole truth and save the ancients from their fate, but that is inherently impossible. There is no mere "planting the seed to save their future generations" and then retreating to your own timeline – if you've changed it, you've changed it, and still not actually undone the suffering that has already happened.

In fact, given that we cannot undo the suffering experienced so far by the ancients in this timeline, then I would argue that the best thing we can do for them is to make sure we stick around in this timeline to bring about a happy ending to what they were trying to achieve. If we vanish off into a second timeline and abandon this one, all that they went through up to now was for nothing.

---

Why would this timeline be doomed when meteion has been defeated? The ultimate boss has been defeated, the world has been saved and the sundered got their happy ending. What prevents us to give the alternate timeline the chance to prevent all those tragedies? Also what happy ending exactly we can achieve for them? Etheirys being saved is like a consolation prize, the Ancients are no more. The real elidibus died crying. Real Laha died knowing he failed his son. Only emet has a bit of catharsis but only because the game butcher his character into more WoL wank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyuDragnier

I'm pretty sure they never look at Themis that way due to the various circumstances behind it. Originally he became the heart of Zodiark to save the world. Then he basically was recreated out of Zodiark to act as a mediator and set the world on its rightful path, as he always did as Emissary. He wasn't even openly villainous to us until the end of Stormblood, as before he took over Zenos it felt like he was just a passive force moving pieces on the chessboard. When we see him again in Shadowbringers, we find out about what he is, and Y'shtola even points out that his will may likely not even be his own, but instead the will of the souls that were sacrificed to create Zodiark. All of this gives him a bit more leeway, because it's very possible that he wasn't even in full control of himself.

Basically Lahabrea proved that it was all him when he fused both his halves together. Everything we have seen of Themis paints him in a kinder light, and makes him feel less like a villain.

---

Oh, I fully understand why the writers take the direction they do with Themis. It just doesn't work for me, and a big part of that is the lack of criticism of him.

I'm still figuring out and putting words to exactly what my feelings on this are, but I think there's certain characters that really need some form of in-universe opposition, criticism or contrast to work. Basically every Ancient is in that category, I think because both their overall setting, and their often VERY high-minded ideals and goals, make them seem so overwhelmingly perfect that I want to reject them unless there's some opposition to it; it's too flat otherwise.

Azem's actually a perfect example. Hearing about them from Fake Hythlodaeus, then from Emet's short story, then from Real Hythlodaeus, then from Emet directly and then from Venat, the image being painted was frustratingly flawless, it felt like the writers were trying too hard to make me like them. I only stopped constantly rejecting Azem when Lahabrea came around, and very clearly hated them and objected to their nonsense; that made Azem far more real and likeable to me, because there's a character pointing out flaws.

Several Ancients provide that opposition to themselves; Lahabrea's whole thing in Anabeisos was him doing that, basically going 'I hate what I've learned I'm gonna do, but I also know that I will absolutely do it and not feel bad about it'. Hermes lays bare a lot of his own flaws in a less direct way, and Venat manages to be her own biggest critic even in a game where Emet-Selch got a whole expansion to attack her. Other times, it's someone else in the story who throws the mud, occasionally indirectly; again there's Lahabrea with Azem, and I would argue that's a big thing Amon-Fandaniel did for Emet-Selch (although I would also separately argue there wasn't enough of).

I don't feel Themis/Elidibus gets that crucial, contrasting opposition; he's just presented as nice, good and heroic, but who had something tragic and pitiable happen to him. This actually makes me dislike him for much the same reason I dislike G'raha Tia and Real Hythlodaeus: because he becomes this particularly overbearing blandness that you get from a character who's had all the objectionable edges filed off. And ironically, it's that sort of depiction that makes me object to and reject a character harder than anything.

I had a much more positive response to 5.3 Elidibus than I had towards Pandaemonium Themis because of that. 5.3 Elidibus basically destroyed himself for what he thought was right, and sees himself as a hero for it even as he tries to destroy a planet for the good of, at that point, no living soul but himself. Throwing that away completely as 'he wasn't actually in control'... well, no. You've taken away everything I found interesting about him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kozh

Why would this timeline be doomed when meteion has been defeated?

---

In this very immediate example, Claudien would have woken up Athena and we wouldn't be here to stop her.

How many more threats loom?

This world exists now and we are here to protect it.

Or we could go off and create a second world and leave this one to its fate after all that so many people have done to protect it? No thanks.

The world is never permanently "saved", it is only ever saved from a specific threat while many more lurk ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

(Also, I think it's a little funny that even the Absolute Worst and Most Evil Ancient wouldn't have become a serious threat on a wide scale if not for the intervention of an Alien Space Rock, but you know, the society and its people are just fundamentally rotten and had to be put down, everything was for the best, etc, etc. Endwalker!)

---

See, that's what they should have done isn't it? Made it so that Athena covertly seized control of the Convocation and infected the Ancient governance with her mad ideals. I full believe she could do it, too. And it would have worked wonders as to give us a legitimate, believable reason as to how and why we should condemn an entire people for the potential sins of the few. Not that such a thing would have fooled all parties, mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaxia

It's kind of weird, isn't it, how they go out of their way to justify Venat's actions with these laboured, long-winded metaphors on perfection-induced existential apathy and societal stagnation when a much more solid basis for her argument was right there.

---

I've come to see the writing of Pandaemonium as very, ah, disjointed? I suppose the terminology I would use would be that. I don't see much evidence that they'd given too much thought as to how the parallels between Athena and Venat truly made the Mothercrystal look. But it is what it is, I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

In this very immediate example, Claudien would have woken up Athena and we wouldn't be here to stop her.

How many more threats loom?

This world exists now and we are here to protect it.

Or we could go off and create a second world and leave this one to its fate after all that so many people have done to protect it? No thanks.

The world is never permanently "saved", it is only ever saved from a specific threat while many more lurk ahead.

---

1) Okay, let's just say "wait until Athena has been dealt with". Would that be satisfactory for you?

2) Why do we have to think about the possibility of future threats when we don't even know what the future holds?

3) WoL isn't immortal, the people should learn to defend themselves. Aren't they the superior race with Dynamis deus ex machina who got approved by hydaelyn?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

Oh, I fully understand why the writers take the direction they do with Themis.

---

Come on now, you cannot in good stead claim on the one hand to reject certain Ancients because the story treats them and/ or their actions too generously, and then go on to cite Venat as a good example of a character receiving adequate in-universe criticism because of some purported vague moments of self-reflection on the other. Even in good faith, that's just flat out denial, lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TowaIsBestGirl

I've come to see the writing of Pandaemonium as very, ah, disjointed? I suppose the terminology I would use would be that. I don't see much evidence that they'd given too much thought as to how the parallels between Athena and Venat truly made the Mothercrystal look. But it is what it is, I suppose.

---

The previous patches were fine, but the final tier caught the Endwalker disease and tried too hard to make a Very Deep and Meaningful Message in lieu of constructing a coherent story with substance behind it that holds up to analysis. Fanservice 1, narrative 0.

It seems kind of grim to think that our world is so fundamentally helpless and fragile without this one single person that it would surely be doomed if not for our presence and constant vigilance. RIP Etheirys in about fifty years when my WoL dies of old age, I suppose.

I still think it's sort of funny to act as though, especially considering recent developments in the MSQ, that if the writers didn't feel like it, they couldn't just whip up some silly aether jargon plot device within a patch and a half (if that) that would allow us to travel back and forth between both potential timelines, if there was a will to do it. Enter Y'shtola and Urianger through our inn door, as they have god knows how many times now. "We've been doing some research with the moon rabbits, and examined the Crystal Tower and it seems there may indeed be a way..." So on and so forth.

I mean, forget the recent patches, the game has been doing this constantly for years and years. We solved Tempering with magical fairie pigs, an FFVIII reference, and a handwave. Regardless, the WoL not being assed to consider even trying to help these people, who have done so much to help and support them - even if the attempt doesn't ultimately succeed - and instead just contentedly pocket their love and friendship given under artificial pretenses, sure is a thing, and leaves me feeling a way, and that way is, ultimately, vaguely contemptuous indifference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TowaIsBestGirl

I've come to see the writing of Pandaemonium as very, ah, disjointed? I suppose the terminology I would use would be that. I don't see much evidence that they'd given too much thought as to how the parallels between Athena and Venat truly made the Mothercrystal look. But it is what it is, I suppose.

---

Some of it seemed so ridiculously overt I honestly couldn't believe it, but who knows with this writing team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

In this very immediate example, Claudien would have woken up Athena and we wouldn't be here to stop her.

How many more threats loom?

This world exists now and we are here to protect it.

Or we could go off and create a second world and leave this one to its fate after all that so many people have done to protect it? No thanks.

The world is never permanently "saved", it is only ever saved from a specific threat while many more lurk ahead.

---

You've touched here on the fundamental weakness of FFXIV's writing, going beyond the plot of Endwalker altogether - the fact that the themes and complex issues it chooses to explore ultimately exist in subservience to its nature as a power fantasy centered around a created avatar.

No story choices can ever even scratch the player's ego. The WoL can never meaningfully lose or be unable to solve a problem. The WoL can never be on the wrong side, even by accident. The WoL can never be put into a difficult position where they're asked to make a lasting personal sacrifice for the good of others.

It is taken as a given that you are the most important person in the universe, perfect and indispensable to an absurd degree that dwarfs even the writers favorites, and the narrative's underlying assumptions and moral compass bend and twist around that like spacetime around a black hole.

More fool me for even attempting to engage with a sentient mass of walking complexes. I thought that mentality died out with rage comics and copypastas, but there you go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

It seems kind of grim to think that our world is so fundamentally helpless and fragile without this one single person that it would surely be doomed if not for our presence and constant vigilance. RIP Etheirys in about fifty years when my WoL dies of old age, I suppose.

---

I've gone from treating the WoL feeling conflicted or torn up over the Ancients as basic, unspoken canon to questioning if I'm the strange one for expecting them to even care, given the writers themselves disregard them so readily and certain sections of the fanbase either view them with apathy or outright assert they got what was coming to them. G'raha et al. doing all of that [insert vague gesturing] just to save us and prevent chaos in a future timeline was suitably heroic and proportionate to the crisis at hand, but saving or preserving - even in part - an entire race wasn't even in the realms of consideration?

And lol, the tempering threat was concluded with such a whimper given how much of a plot point it was up until then that I'm still a little mad about it. It was actually a really interesting obstacle to contend with and made the dangers and story surrounding the primals, including the likes of Zodiark and Hydaelyn, that much more potent, only to take a trip to Matoya's Magic Shop and fix it with a cartoon pig.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaxia

I've gone from treating the WoL feeling conflicted or torn up over the Ancients as basic, unspoken canon to questioning if I'm the strange one for expecting them to even care, given the writers themselves disregard them so readily and certain sections of the fanbase either view them with apathy or outright assert they got what was coming to them. G'raha et al. doing all of that [insert vague gesturing] just to save us and prevent chaos in a future timeline was suitably heroic and proportionate to the crisis at hand, but saving or preserving - even in part - an entire race wasn't even in the realms of consideration?

---

For me at least, it's "well, we're here now and I'm not going to voluntarily break the space-time continuum again".

G'raha probably shouldn't have jumped ship from a world that wasn't in so bad a shape after all, and they could have made good use of the tower for their own technology. But he's here now and we can't send him back so we might as well make the most of it.

And on the flipside, the ancients WILL go through that fate whether or not we make a feel-good alternative that might blow up in our (and their) faces anyway, so I'm going to stay loyal to this reality rather than try to create a second.

"But it's for us, they did it for us, they love us!" is also something the writers have figured out is the quickest way to get a character to appeal to the audience, no matter what the actions or behaviors were otherwise. If it was done for us, it must have been loving and heroic in some capacity. You mentioned G'raha, but there are obviously, um, several others. And I can easily include even some of the characters I really like as deploying this trick - Themis and Erich, just recently! - and not just the one who, ah, definitely can't be compared to Athena.

So the answer to your question:

Quote:

---

G'raha et al. doing all of that [insert vague gesturing] just to save us and prevent chaos in a future timeline was suitably heroic and proportionate to the crisis at hand, but saving or preserving - even in part - an entire race wasn't even in the realms of consideration?

---

Yeah, basically. Screw you, got mine.

Furthermore, ultimately... this is fiction, and as much as I love a good emotional investment, there's only so much effort I want to put in to getting indignant on behalf of a fictional race that the writers don't want to defend because they've written themselves into a corner.

It is probably better to just accept the words in the text sometimes. When the bible says that god had to drown the world and spare only Noah and his ark, are you going to buy that?
But even if you question it, outside of the pleasures of literature debate, the myth is unyielding in its narrative. Sodom and Gomorrah deserved to die, all of them. No compromise. That is the will of the storytelling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaxia

Come on now, you cannot in good stead claim on the one hand to reject certain Ancients because the story treats them and/ or their actions too generously, and then go on to cite Venat as a good example of a character receiving adequate in-universe criticism because of some purported vague moments of self-reflection on the other. Even in good faith, that's just flat out denial, lol.

---

I've told you before that I don't claim Venat to be a particular favorite of mine; I hope that you're raising this more as a request for more information than as an attack because of that, because I'm going to treat it like it was just a 'please explain'. I don't like Venat in large part because in pretty much all Elpis scenes, she's just not particularly interesting in the same way as Pandaemonium Themis. She falls into that 'bland, inoffensive and nice' role, and kind of only breaks out of that right as Elpis ends. Those moments of self-reflection, coupled with what she actually did (and how, similar to Lahabrea, she sees as real bad but also that she has to do it--and later, find a way to personally accept the fact she did), is a big part of what makes her interesting.

...but so is the fact that, again, Emet spent a whole damn expansion tearing her down. Venat's self-reflection probably wouldn't have been enough for me by itself, but it also wasn't by itself; I think one of the best possible dynamics for this sort of counterbalance when plausible is 'culprit vs. victim', and that's pretty close to exactly the dynamic seen with Emet's attacks on Venat.

EDIT: One way to look at this is to go 'what more could the writers have reasonably done to sell this', and with Venat my belief is that no, they did everything reasonable; anything further would've either overdone the point, broken the pacing, or weakened other elements of her story. Meanwhile with Themis my belief is yes, they could've sold this better (or at least, more to my liking), and it wouldn't have taken much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

"But it's for us, they did it for us, they love us!" is also something the writers have figured out is the quickest way to get a character to appeal to the audience, no matter what the actions or behaviors were otherwise. If it was done for us, it must have been loving and heroic in some capacity. You mentioned G'raha, but there are obviously, um, several others. And I can easily included even some of the characters I really like who are included to deploy this trick - Themis and Erich, just recently! - and not just the one who, ah, definitely can't be compared to Athena.

---

This is it, ultimately, yeah.

Whenever there's ambiguity around a character or the writers are cognizant of the fact they're writing a plot beat that might be controversial or contradict with their other messages, they gloss over it by having that character be motivated by love for the player character.

G'raha. Zenos. Venat. And yes, Emet-Selch, even if I like him.

Their cheat for having us accept characters and their roles in the story even even when we might feel visceral objection to them is to frame their actions as done, to one degree or another, out of devotion to us. The intent is that we're so moved personally that we'll forget that G'raha broke the rules of both how time travel is supposed to work in setting and the message about accepting the past that the story otherwise espouses, that Venat and Emet are both mass murderers in a way that renders some of their scenes bizarrely atonal and the worldbuilding surrounding the former especially odd, and that Zenos is a psychopath who condemned an entire country to die in agony because he was bored and does not really deserve a cool quasi-redemption arc.

Again, the world itself is ultimately there to soothe the ego of the player. Nothing else the characters do matters in comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

Furthermore, ultimately... this is fiction, and as much as I love a good emotional investment, there's only so much effort I want to put in to getting indignant on behalf of a fictional race that the writers don't want to defend because they've written themselves into a corner.

---

It's just a shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

I've told you...

---

I didn't claim anywhere that she's your favourite character, but there is some extreme bias going on there regardless of where your preferences lie. You dismiss, in your own words, "basically every Ancient" as not receiving adequate criticism, when the entirety of Endwalker goes out of its way to lampoon their perspective on life and way of living as ultimately flawed, harmful and deserving of what eventually befalls them. Then you highlight Azem (who gets called out for being a goofy, thoughtless, renegade pain in the ass as much as being highlighted for their heroics) and Elidibus (who we repeatedly clash with and come up against over several patches) in particular as further cases, before utilising Emet-Selch - derided and ignored by the cast and at that point treated as a villain within the story, who gets his entire worldview held to account at the climax of the story - and his resentment towards Hydaelyn as a viable replacement for the ridiculous lack of protest or any real examination the enormity of her actions receives anywhere else in the game. It feels like you're picking and choosing comments out of context as you see fit to serve your argument here, and it's already a stretch when there's such little comment on Venat overall as it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thenightvortex

yikes

---

Wow.

Themis (as opposed to Elidibus, who is sort of a different mashup entity) works as a character despite not really having many interesting flaws because he puts the other actors involved in the Sundering into relief, IMO. He is the one Ancient who espouses their ideology of caring for the world and its inhabitants above individuals or personal beliefs with complete sincerity, and is first on the sacrifice chopping board. He's an idealist, which is even physically visible in his boss arena, showing Amaurot on a sunny day in contrast to the usual nighttime depictions.

You need an innocent to put the sins of others into context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

Themis (as opposed to Elidibus, who is sort of a different mashup entity) works as a character despite not really having many interesting flaws because he puts the other actors involved in the Sundering into relief, IMO. He is the one Ancient who espouses their ideology of caring for the world and its inhabitants above individuals or ideology with complete sincerity, and is first on the sacrifice chopping board. He's an idealist, which is even physically visible in his boss arena, showing Amaurot on a sunny day in contrast to the usual nighttime depictions.

You need an innocent to put the sins of others into context.

---

See, that does track as for why Themis is like that, especially for the first two legs of Pandaemonium (I'd argue Elpis itself was probably supposed to have Hythlodaeus in that role). I hadn't really thought about that before. I still don't find that character very interesting as a result, but I can respect that in some ways he's sort of the 'moral straight man' of that story.

It just makes me feel like he was even more of a missed opportunity in Anabeisos, though. In that he's not only serving a different role (albeit unwillingly) while the Sharlayan scientists generally fill his original role, but also that he's in a weird state where he's, to try to simplify his situation into something a bit more 'human', a good and moral person who's suddenly become conscious of the fact he did really terrible things. That feels far more interesting than him just being back to the way he was and brushing the Elidibus stuff aside; maybe P11 is instead fueled by his grief and remorse, but him getting to go back to 'how it used to be' to finish closing the Athena case, and maybe an off-screen word with the scientists while we're off seeing the Hegemone scene, gives him a space to better come to terms with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

Oh, you misunderstand. I think most of the major Ancients actually do receive adequate criticism...

---

Okay, I'm a little more on your page now. Ironically, it looks like we're at similar destinations, but take different roads to get there.

The main issue is, you want the option to be able to call out Elidibus for his role in the story prior to EW, and not have the WoL automatically predisposed to being amicable towards him. I can appreciate and understand that (despite being at odds with it, considering I want him to be permitted to be hostile here.) You also dislike that he's been stripped of his "Ascian phase", which I'm actually in full agreement with, but my own issues with it are a little different; I don't see it as his being "cleansed", per se, nor do I ultimately find him undeserving of sympathy or a better ending because of his past, so in that respect I don't agree. To me, Themis' involvement in the story as Elidibus is a different kettle of fish to the likes of Lahabrea and Emet-Selch, and consequently he shouldn't really be held under the same microscope that they are. From a story perspective, I think he got enough grief for his actions as we dealt with him in ShB, and that's kind of all been put to rest as far as I'm concerned. Lahabrea, on the other hand, was more "unfinished business" if you like, so addressing his role in our future felt appropriate.

As for the other Ancients, there are some things I'm on board with, others not so much; Venat was still let off really lightly in the narrative compared to the likes of the Ascians, and yes I'm going to swerve dangerously close to that argument by equating the two sides; Emet-Selch giving story exposition and really the only acknowledgement of her actions outside of the Mother Hydaelyn bubble (which he later goes on to praise) with the air of a grudge just doesn't compensate for the lack of comment that the scale of her deeds actually warranted. Azem doesn't receive much in the way of harsh criticism, but they are remarked to have been censured previously for their approach and numerous characters remark on the absolute chaos they wreak, tinged with both affection and exasperation, so to me it's reasonably balanced. Highlighting the keywardens in Pandae also feels a little mean, lol, since the poor guys like as not were just looking up to their superiors.

Emet-Selch in Elpis is enough of a misery to be walking evidence of his own flaws (as much as I'm fond of them), but... I don't disagree at all that some of his post-sundering actions don't get enough light thrown on them. I actually got into a debate a while back at how kindly the story suddenly takes to treating him, and the gymnastics they employ to avoid mentioning his hand in Garlemald in particular, so I'm with you there at least!

I agree that Themis/Elidibus felt very awkwardly shoehorned into the present timeline Anabeisos - he worked in the first two tiers as the outside straight man and supportive friend for Erichtonios when the meaty core of this raid's story was the toxic familial history and relationships of the Lahabreas. It's why having the original plot MacGuffin crystal be a memory crystal of both Erichtonios and Lahabrea worked (and an interesting counterbalance to the Heart of Sabik as memory for Athena and Lahabrea). But the 6.3 fanservice fight and placing our conclusion scenes with Elibidus in the current day Source's Aetherial Sea instead of in the past or one the First as to keep the raid in just two locations required some painfully clunky 'Athena did it' handwaves and a memory Elidibus with a characterization that feels muddled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaxia

I actually got into a debate a while back at how kindly the story suddenly takes to treating him, and the gymnastics they employ to avoid mentioning his hand in Garlemald in particular, so I'm with you there at least!

---

Hey, that was a good time! Uh. Assuming you're referring to your discussions/debates with me. If not, just, ignore this post and I'll quietly go back to cheerfully making use of that report button!

I don't have much to add to this point except agreeing with you that I'm much more interested in a basic framework where we're the ones who wronged Themis and need forgiveness, in a way, and I got a bit more of that sense from his final scene than I think you did, which is why it probably went down for me a bit better. And yeah, that 5.3 was harsh enough on Elidibus (G'raha is harsh) that I can't bring myself to be concerned with it anymore. 5.3 also basically ended with the recognition/revelation on the part of the WoL of his "true nature" (a young person who truly, sincerely, just loved his friends and wanted to help save the world) to the point we were given the option afterwards to say "I don't know if I did the right thing" in regards to putting him down, so our relative friendliness to him seemed perfectly consistent to me.

There comes a point where I start feeling pretty weird about a need to berate all members we know of a particular race and make sure we hold them properly morally accountable for all their terrible, awful, no good, very bad crimes, especially when they're all already dead, and, as we're reminded in Anabesios, they're the ones who are the "losers" in the "I want to save the world and those I love"-off with us and therefore don't get to "decide history" after they've already lost everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

(I'd argue Elpis itself was probably supposed to have Hythlodaeus in that role)

---

Between this and your above assessment of him, I think you've misunderstood Hythlodaeus's character. He's pleasant, but if you pay attention to the way he behaves, he's obviously only motivated by his intense love for specific people and is otherwise largely apathetic to what's going on around him. When he's planning to have Emet-Selch train the charybdis, he expresses no compassion for the animal or even for Hermes, only how it will be neat if Emet does it and how it'll make him happy since he always likes playing the hero in the long term. And then during the rest of the Elpis, while Emet is trying to reach out to Hermes in his unconstructive tsundere way, Hythlo still shows virtually no interest in him and just worries about Emet's feelings being hurt. He's even low-key mean a couple times.

He's also pretty clearly depressed. He constantly puts himself down and negatively compares himself to his friends, and one of this revival quotes is even "You shouldn't have. No, really."

I think he's the most interestingly characterized NPC during the Elpis arc, even more so than Hermes, because so much is unspoken.