What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

Honestly, moral relativism.

Well this thread went in a disturbing direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

So then if a garlean came up to us and offered to be killed for the garlean empires crimes it’d make everything a-ok?

---

The point is that Merlwyb indicates that she regrets and wants to make amends for the wrongs she's done. To be completely honest, I think offering to kill yourself to make up for past wrongs is the coward's way out. But my point is that the game did something. The Garlean government/military were still doing the exact same thing they always did, and it ended up destroying their own country.

At any rate, I'm not particularly interested in seeing the thread be dragged off course every few pages. Nor am I going to stand for weird gaslighting aimed at those who like Garlemald or the Ascians. Which - as has been pointed out many times throughout the thread - has been a problem for near enough a decade within this game's community.

Also, Merlwyb was encased in heavy plot armour and allowed to stick around and change her ways. A luxury most antagonists are not afforded and a large part of the reason why the likes of the Scions are considered to be boring by many. Having more antagonists change course would be appreciated - and easily put them in line with the likes of Beatrix, Seifer, Rufus, Golbez and various other antagonist characters who opposed the self proclaimed 'good guys' yet didn't end up being unceremoniously killed off without the opportunity to walk a different path.

Even then, it's debatable as to how horrid Merlwyb's supposed crimes even were. Pretty much every nation in existence in both the real world and Etheirys is built on conquest and land acquisition. Often due to necessity at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Nor am I going to stand for weird gaslighting aimed at those who like Garlemald or the Ascians. Which - as has been pointed out many times throughout the thread - has been a problem for near enough a decade within this game's community.

---

Not what "gaslighting" means, but okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Also, Merlwyb was encased in heavy plot armour and allowed to stick around and change her ways.

---

If they did that with the Garleans, that would have been fine. I have no problem with villains redeeming themselves. I actually really like post-ARR Gaius as a character, even though I still think he was a horrible person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Not what "gaslighting" means, but okay.

---

Given that both myself and others posting within this thread have dealt with weird personal attacks and death threats for expressing fondness for both the Ascian and Garlemald story over the years that we've played this game, I'm actually well aware of what gaslighting consists of.

I'm referring to comments such as this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Nothing is wrong with "liking" Garlemald per se, but you and Aveyond both do have a pretty strong romanticization of the country and its militarism that goes well beyond just a "villains are cool" viewpoint.

---

A deliberate attempt to attribute something deeper than what is actually there to justify standing upon a podium to lecture everybody about complex ideological issues. You do you, though not everybody posting here wants to drag such issues into everything. They just want to appreciate a cool story at the end of the day.

I'd even argue that it's not even relevant to the thread itself, which is primarily about the actual and perceived issues with Endwalker's story. Policing people's personal tastes and preferences does not serve to make for a healthy discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Given that both myself and others posting within this thread have dealt with weird personal attacks and death threats for expressing fondness for both the Ascian and Garlemald story over the years that we've played this game, I'm actually well aware of what gaslighting consists of.

I'm referring to comments such as this:

---

So you DON'T know what gaslighting is.

Gaslighting is the attempt to make someone doubt their own memory or mental faculties through deception.

What I did was make an observation. It's a fact that you romanticize the country. You proceeded to defend them by doing just that: romanticizing their actions as non-villainous. So you basically proved what I claimed to be correct.

I repeat: you can feel free to like what you like. But others are also free to not agree with your reasons.

Admittedly I skimmed the past few pages but it seems my name was brought up because I happen to like Garlemald, seemingly by a poster who derailed the thread at least twice in the past with tangents having to do with real world cultural influences about Australia and more recently, Japan. There isn't anything particularly complicated about why I like Garlemald:

I like snowy places. I like places associated with Magitek in several Final Fantasy games, I just think they're interesting. (Especially when this game didn't give me a San d'Oria to root for early on, and then proceeded to turn Ishgard into republic.) I enjoy their militaristic aesthetic. Black, red, and gold color motifs made for a strong impression. A lot of Garlean characters are more fleshed out than their Eorzean city-state leader counterparts.

I literally do not care that they invade countries. There is no nation state in FFXIV that is wholly innocent. Garlemald as a snowy empire veiled in darkness made me want to explore it and discover what other mysteries it may have had in store. I think I started to get more into them around the time the game expanded upon Roaille's role as a spy and the scene where Varis spit on his grandfather's grave, offering us our first view of the Garlean Imperial Palace. That's when I knew they meant business, and what initially sold me on Varis as a character early on.

I'm not interested in apologizing for liking the Empire's vibe, its characters, or being able to understand the motivations underlying the actions those characters take. They provided a lot of entertainment and made good use of screentime, or at least they were until the writers decided to wrap everything up so quickly. Now I have to wait and see what will keep me invested in the story moving forward, because the gods, Ascians, and magitek empire have exited the plot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

So you DON'T know what gaslighting is.

Gaslighting is the attempt to make someone doubt their own memory or mental faculties through deception.

What I did was make an observation. It's a fact that you romanticize the country. You proceeded to defend them by doing just that: romanticizing their actions as non-villainous. So you basically proved what I claimed to be correct.

I repeat: you can feel free to like what you like. But others are also free to not agree with your reasons.

---

This is not the point of this thread. Please drop the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

This is not the point of this thread. Please drop the subject.

---

If someone replies to me or posts something about what I did or didn't say, I'm going to answer.

That besides, we are talking about the fate of Garlemald, which is directly about the plot of Endwalker.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the topic of the Empire. I tend to agree with Aveyond and Theodric on how I approach such factions in a game, and at the end of the day, the discussion is more a case of given that the developers were intent on rendering their motives sympathetic, and also given that they played such a huge role so far, would an entire expansion have been better suited to that end? I'd say yes. Ilsabard is a vast territory as well, and it'd be interesting to see something like the Bozja story given more screentime and possibly more coherent writing. Their plot threads were running in parallel until Elidibus exited the scene anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

If I went Full Self-Indulgence, Final Fantasy XIV basically would have turned into Ancient Fantasy XIV after 5.0, and my personal ideal dream version of 6.0 would probably also be deeply disliked by a lot of people, so.

---

Same. The Ancients have a lot of fans though, so the only people who should hate it are the ones who aren't crazy about them. However, I have to deal with the Scions at length who I'm not crazy about, so. :P My main issue with there not being a Garlemald expansion is that would imply 7.0 was probably going to be devoted to the Ancients, which if that were the case I feel robbed. :(

It's hard to be excited about the 'new adventure' since all my favorite characters and lore have been done away with now. Endwalker only had a happy ending if you're a Scion fan, as an Ancient fan I think it ended terribly.

Quote:

---

In regards to "fixing" EW, the lowest effort, and probably most plausible version, is literally to just let go of the need to make us like Venat. Let us question her, cut or heavily alter the montage, allow those with the right to hate her and be angry with her to hate her and be angry with her, and call it a day. This would correlate with making some of the more questionable, broader themes go down easier, too. EW would still be messy, but not significantly moreso than any of the other expansions I've enjoyed.

---

Yeah, Venat really needed to be treated no differently than Emet was in ShB. I still would've been unhappy about how EW turned out, but I probably would've been less enraged about it had the narrative not fawned all over her and insisted on everyone loving and praising her when fact of the matter is she's one of the game's primary antagonists. Anyone who doesn't believe that needs to just write down everything she's responsible for on paper and see how that stacks up against the other villains in the series. Just because she didn't do it out of malice doesn't make her good. Everything Thordan did was for the benefit of mankind as he saw it, but there's no debate that he was a villain.

I just honestly wish the story of endwalker felt like how it was made out to feel, I will admit I'm anti vanat because she is a bad friend and I am emotionally attached to emet-selch like many other characters but taking how i feel out of it. Endwalkers story didnt feel good at all, it felt like i was watching some crappy pg-13 movie that borderlines around stuff, and makes you have no emotional attachments.

To this day, I still feel emotional attached to the little slyph that died in the walking sands, I still cry for niddhogs sad story, I still feel bad for papalymo (believe thats how his name was spelled) hell I even feel bad for bahamut, and his lover. I was emotionally engaged with emet, with almost all big named ascians, outside lahabread. But there was no reason no rymh to get attached to any of the endwalker characters that matter. I mean god damn I even cried for ryne when we left the first.. every expansion from reborn to shadowbringers felt like it should for the theme and for the story..

but endwalker I felt numb during up to the very end, and WE DIDNT EVEN GET TO ANSWER ZENOS QUESTION... it should have let us answer him at the end that bothers the hell out of me


I was invested in other expansions even though i sided with villians more so than the "heros" but endwalker I didnt care for if anything i was reliefed to get the trash over with thats all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nekokaori

WE DIDNT EVEN GET TO ANSWER ZENOS QUESTION...

---

Which question are you referring to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Which question are you referring to?

---

was it a gift or a curse this life, and what of us after our fight with him that both our characters and he enjoyed at the end of the world (is the question im refering to, where ur both there in your time of dying.. that felt like a huge slap in the face we didnt even get to answer slightly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nekokaori

was it a gift or a curse this life, and what of us after our fight with him that both our characters and he enjoyed at the end of the world (is the question im refering to, where ur both there in your time of dying.. that felt like a huge slap in the face we didnt even get to answer slightly

---

Did we enjoy it though? We have the option of "That I cannot deny." But I very much just wanted to make him go away at that point.

Eh, we wouldn't have been able to answer it honestly. Just like "Are you glad you joined the Scions?" It's not like you can say no.

I wish Ishikawa would've brought more of the DRK themes into the MSQ with the WoL questioning if they're doing the right thing, feeling overwhelmed with everyone relying on them all the time, etc. Endwalker in particular would've been an apt time for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

Did we enjoy it though? We have the option of "That I cannot deny." But I very much just wanted to make him go away at that point.

---

honestly i enjoyed it personally, I know alot of people hate him but on many levels i understand and feel for him the most.. and i wish I could have had the chance to enjoy our date with him without being in some nameless imperial body

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

Eh, we wouldn't have been able to answer it honestly. Just like "Are you glad you joined the Scions?" It's not like you can say no.

I wish Ishikawa would've brought more of the DRK themes into the MSQ with the WoL questioning if they're doing the right thing, feeling overwhelmed with everyone relying on them all the time, etc. Endwalker in particular would've been an apt time for it.

---

we could have said no though, we could of been like this has been hell i just wanted to explore and adventure i mean honestly im not glad we joined the scions personally

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nekokaori

honestly i enjoyed it personally, I know alot of people hate him but on many levels i understand and feel for him the most.. and i wish I could have had the chance to enjoy our date with him without being in some nameless imperial body

---

Not trying to disagree, but I felt like the point of that was to freak us out, not endear us to him.

I've always felt that a good compromise for any given dialogue option would be to split things into at least three choices. One would be positive, one negative and the third indifferent. If need be we could have a fourth for a joke option, though the lack of dirty jokes similar to those present in the ARR era have caused me to roll my eyes when the game's newer 'humour' comes into play. It's very safe and inoffensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

Not trying to disagree, but I felt like the point of that was to freak us out, not endear us to him.

---

its okay if you disagree, I know a majority will its just how i feel about it dont feel bad if u disagree. In storys where people come in from different aspects we will all have different views and feelings to things. I just wish the devs could see and understand that and allow us ALL to have an experience for how we feel even if its a meaningless box, if u know its something like with zenos a option would be nice to have

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

I've always felt that a good compromise for any given dialogue option would be to split things into at least three choices. One would be positive, one negative and the third indifferent. If need be we could have a fourth for a joke option, though the lack of dirty jokes similar to those present in the ARR era have caused me to roll my eyes when the game's newer 'humour' comes into play. It's very safe and inoffensive.

---

i agree completely that that sentiment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

I've always felt that a good compromise for any given dialogue option would be to split things into at least three choices. One would be positive, one negative and the third indifferent. If need be we could have a fourth for a joke option, though the lack of dirty jokes similar to those present in the ARR era have caused me to roll my eyes when the game's newer 'humour' comes into play. It's very safe and inoffensive.

---

What’s funny is that’s usually how it’s supposed to go i think. However the one time bias became blatantly obvious was in 5.3 with Elidibus, where both dialogue options we have towards him are inherently negative. Which came off as extremely strange to me(and another reason why i think 5.3 is the worst story patch), because we have the dialogue option in SB to “accept” Zenos. Yet for some reason at the end of 5.3, even after all we’ve learned of the ancients and their struggles, our only two options are basically your people are dead, get over it, i’m gonna kill you next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nekokaori

its okay if you disagree, I know a majority will its just how i feel about it dont feel bad if u disagree. In storys where people come in from different aspects we will all have different views and feelings to things. I just wish the devs could see and understand that and allow us ALL to have an experience for how we feel even if its a meaningless box, if u know its something like with zenos a option would be nice to have

---

Honestly, no. I can't get behind that. Not for Zenos. I liked him in StB because he was just a crazy antagonist. It was easy to enjoy his presence because he was simply an obstacle. This story showed more of his character and gave him the smallest amount of growth and very strongly solidified that all he wants is to fight with his life on the line while also putting someone else's life on the line. That's not a character I want to have a chance of having a nice sit down with, that's someone I want to destroy. Additionally if you pick the middle dialogue option with him he continues to assume you are denying "what we are" and if you pick the third option he is just happy that you want to kill him. The dude is messed up and I don't want him coming back at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

I've always felt that a good compromise for any given dialogue option would be to split things into at least three choices. One would be positive, one negative and the third indifferent. If need be we could have a fourth for a joke option, though the lack of dirty jokes similar to those present in the ARR era have caused me to roll my eyes when the game's newer 'humour' comes into play. It's very safe and inoffensive.

---

Yep, it really annoys me whenever someone the game has deemed a "villain" turns up and I am only given two or three negative options to respond to them with. Same with my only being able to respond with three different versions of the positive to those deemed to be "heroes". When Zenos showed up at the end I was laughing so hard at the absurdity of the moment and was, frankly, happy to see him. At least this was someone I knew wouldn't be a handicap in a fight like the Scions are. Yet all I can say is "I don't want your help!" and "If it comes to it, I won't save you" Nyaaaaahhh. Where's my option to say "Hey, thanks, we can settle our differences later"? Or when I was forced to kill Emet-Selch where was my option to say "I understand why you are doing this and I wish it didn't have to end this way". Always forced to be combative and never empathetic when it actually matters.

Beginning to think that maybe it's time I focused on single-player games where I can at least imagine that my character has a bit more agency when it comes to development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

Honestly, no. I can't get behind that. Not for Zenos. I liked him in StB because he was just a crazy antagonist. It was easy to enjoy his presence because he was simply an obstacle. This story showed more of his character and gave him the smallest amount of growth and very strongly solidified that all he wants is to fight with his life on the line while also putting someone else's life on the line. That's not a character I want to have a chance of having a nice sit down with, that's someone I want to destroy. Additionally if you pick the middle dialogue option with him he continues to assume you are denying "what we are" and if you pick the third option he is just happy that you want to kill him. The did is messed up and I don't want him coming back at all.

---

okay ill give u example although it vexs me, In wow everyone gives sylvanas shit for actions but personally and for many people we can relate to her character after we learn all her story both her and her story attachs to people.

What i hate and what angers me about both players and devs is they ignore the fact some of us who play have struggles mental health or very similar to certain characters are outcast and when you just sum it up to THIS GUY IS CRAZY LETS KILL HIM and ignore everything and even little hits about things.. it just annoys the shit out of me

For me it wasnt enough death in the story. I felt HW and SHB had more death and consequences than EW. The pacing was ok and music was great. But everytime they made it seem like something was high risk or had serious consequences they make everything ok and only throw away characters that we dont even meet get killed off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nekokaori

honestly i enjoyed it personally, I know alot of people hate him but on many levels i understand and feel for him the most.. and i wi

---

I found him really dull during SHB, but I enjoyed Zenos in SB and I thought his final fight was about as good as he was going to get. I don't tend to fawn over him as the "mirror" (to the player - it's pretty forced, IMO) character in the way some people do, and I didn't think the philosophical stances he took were the most coherent, but stripping away the "mirror" stuff, I think if he was properly executed as a character and not competing with so many other antagonists and big themes, I would probably have enjoyed him more. He was at least a break from all the saccharine moments in EW.

I like the aesthetic of darkness in the game - part of why I like the Ascians and Voidsent so much, and why I wish we could've been given more of a chance to interact with Zodiark beyond his defeat, and I liked Zenos's edgy aesthetics too. He looks somewhat off to me, and admittedly they did a better job of rendering his model in Dissidia, but they fixed some of that in EW. I'm one of those people who likes the trope of a protagonist with the typical anime "villain" demeanour and flashiness, so I sometimes get annoyed at Yoshi's insistence of the WoL being a goody-two-shoes type... although I hope RPR will begin to break that barrier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

Honestly, no. I can't get behind that. Not for Zenos. I liked him in StB because he was just a crazy antagonist. It was easy to enjoy his presence because he was simply an obstacle. This story showed more of his character and gave him the smallest amount of growth and very strongly solidified that all he wants is to fight with his life on the line while also putting someone else's life on the line. That's not a character I want to have a chance of having a nice sit down with, that's someone I want to destroy. Additionally if you pick the middle dialogue option with him he continues to assume you are denying "what we are" and if you pick the third option he is just happy that you want to kill him. The did is messed up and I don't want him coming back at all.

---

Yeah, I agree with that as well. He's no real mirror to the character, and even if you take him as one to the player, it's not something that necessarily works. As Theodric said, more options on that front would've helped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

What’s funny is that’s usually how it’s supposed to go i think. However the one time bias became blatantly obvious was in 5.3 with Elidibus, where both dialogue options we have towards him are inherently negative. Which came off as extremely strange to me(and another reason why i think 5.3 is the worst story patch), because we have the dialogue option in SB to “accept” Zenos. Yet for some reason at the end of 5.3, even after all we’ve learned of the ancients and their struggles, our only two options are basically your people are dead, get over it, i’m gonna kill you next.

---

The goal there was to have the player emulate Emet-Selch, even as they came to understand Elidibus and the Ascians better, but the entire thing ended up feeling unduly petty, IMO. I didn't care for it, either, when we're able to take a sympathetic approach to less sympathetic antagonists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nekokaori

okay ill give u example although it vexs me, In wow everyone gives sylvanas shit for actions but personally and for many people we can relate to her character after we learn all her story both her and her story attachs to people.

What i hate and what angers me about both players and devs is they ignore the fact some of us who play have struggles mental health or very similar to certain characters are outcast and when you just sum it up to THIS GUY IS CRAZY LETS KILL HIM and ignore everything and even little hits about things.. it just annoys the shit out of me

---

I want to be very clear. When a character has done a bad thing and then I learn a reason for them doing that bad thing, I don't forgive them for it. The bad thing is still bad. If they can maybe get a redemption arc I can potentially be ok with them, but they would need to very carefully redeem that bad action. Urienger is an example of this for me. I hated that he kept lying to us and going behind our backs. I was really happy that we got to actually explore that frustration in EW cause that dude has been driving me crazy since the end of HW.

Zenos has a backstory very similar to an abused child. I know that, and it's very disturbing. I can feel bad for him off that, but it in no way forgives his actions at all. He wants to kill people and have fun doing so. I have no ability to empathize with that. Also if you'd like to talk about mental health struggles, the body hijack could very easily be seen as a sexual assault scenario. I'm really not interested in entertaining the idea of having a date with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawPaw

Where's my option to say "Hey, thanks, we can settle our differences later"? Or when I was forced to kill Emet-Selch where was my option to say "I understand why you are doing this and I wish it didn't have to end this way". Always forced to be combative and never empathetic when it actually matters.

---

Even Preach was asking why he couldn't respond with, "Let's get a drink after this!" to Zenos.

The thing that bothers me most about the dialog options for Emet and Elidibus is that for Hermes, the person responsible for the Final Days and one of the biggest arses in the series, we get to say, "Next time we'll find it together." It wasn't until EW we got to say sorry to Elidibus and I'm blanking on when we get to say anything to Emet that isn't us being a smart aleck or just looking sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

Urienger is an example of this for me. I hated that he kept lying to us and going behind our backs. I was really happy that we got to actually explore that frustration in EW cause that dude has been driving me crazy since the end of HW.

---

I can't stand Urianger because of this. He would've been kicked off my team and yet I'm forced to endlessly put up with his duplicity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

I want to be very clear. When a character has done a bad thing and then I learn a reason for them doing that bad thing, I don't forgive them for it. The bad thing is still bad. If they can maybe get a redemption arc I can potentially be ok with them, but they would need to very carefully redeem that bad action. Urienger is an example of this for me. I hated that he kept lying to us and going behind our backs. I was really happy that we got to actually explore that frustration in EW cause that dude has been driving me crazy since the end of HW.

Zenos has a backstory very similar to an abused child. I know that, and it's very disturbing. I can feel bad for him off that, but it in no way forgives his actions at all. He wants to kill people and have fun doing so. I have no ability to empathize with that. Also if you'd like to talk about mental health struggles, the body hijack could very easily be seen as a sexual assault scenario. I'm really not interested in entertaining the idea of having a date with him.

---

and that is an acceptable view point, I dont agree but i understand how u feel with it. All I'm saying is they need to stop only seeing that single point of view and accept some of may see differently and giving us a option to give our reaction with how we view, is a reasonable request..

Personally if someone is hurt by someone I believe they have every right to massacre everyone of them like niddhog had that right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nekokaori

and that is an acceptable view point, I dont agree but i understand how u feel with it. All I'm saying is they need to stop only seeing that single point of view and accept some of may see differently and giving us a option to give our reaction with how we view, is a reasonable request..

Personally if someone is hurt by someone I believe they have every right to massacre everyone of them like niddhog had that right

---

More dialogue options? Ok, sure. Nidhogg had the right to kill an entire group of people because their ancestors killed one of his kin? Absolutely not.

Edit: I understand why Nidhogg was furious. I get why he was doing what he was doing, but no. Just no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Derio

For me it wasnt enough death in the story. I felt HW and SHB had more death and consequences than EW. The pacing was ok and music was great. But everytime they made it seem like something was high risk or had serious consequences they make everything ok and only throw away characters that we dont even meet get killed off.

---

Honestly, I can't like this post enough. There wasn't enough death, and it does contradict some of my earlier and initial sentiments. But when I think back to ShB, they hit really hard with ramping up the stakes when they gave the death of Tesleen. It was an off-character, but ultimately it set the stakes early on. This was the highest points of ShB for me.

But ultimately, I feel like regardless of how I look at it I can't justify how post-story Shadowbringers got handled. I think if I'm being honest, I knew all along that it would come down to the death of Zodiark which would be the final days, but this is precisely why. In EW we spent toddling around with towers for effectively 3-to-4 levels before we got anything of substance (These towers never should've existed in the first place, and I think Fandaniel should've been teased early in ShB). This is a nuts idea but I feel like Elidibus should've been kept around, and that Zodiark should've been the 5.3 trial. It's nuts but they could have then spent onwards on 5.4 and 5.5 really setting the stage for the end, and not just playing babysit the towers until we figure it out. Doing this I feel like they could have set the stage for everything. It would be similar to ShB in this area, but the weather is what made this so impactful, I feel they could have altered the weather without being too impact on, say fishing or hunts then this would've been excellent. We could have also gotten a true redemption arc for Elidibus during the story of Endwalker, acting as a guide of sorts without necessarily needing to resort to time-travel shenanigans.

In a sense, I don't think they had enough time and space to give Endwalker, or the Final Days to be truly boggling. I wouldn't have wanted that to come at the expense of some slice of life moments, because I do think those small, and fleeting moments are integral to giving 'that reason to live on and survive'. The towers just felt so anticlimactic, and having Fandaniel introduced in the base story of ShB would've added to the intrigue of "Who is this guy?!?!", instead of amounting to Zenos' disobedient lackey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

More dialogue options? Ok, sure. Nidhogg had the right to kill an entire group of people because their ancestors killed one of his kin? Absolutely not.

Edit: I understand why Nidhogg was furious. I get why he was doing what he was doing, but no. Just no.

---

expect they desevered it they not only denyed and lied about it but every believer they called a hertic and hunted down like dogs..

when someone turns something or someone who is pure into a monster by pain I feel no pity for them getting butchered like they desever

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nekokaori

expect they desevered it they not only denyed and lied about it but every believer they called a hertic and hunted down like dogs..

when someone turns something or someone who is pure into a monster by pain I feel no pity for them getting butchered like they desever

---

You mean the church did that. And who did we remove from power in HW? I agree that Nidhogg deserved justice, but that justice does not and will not ever extend to having the right to genocide an entire group of people. Punish explicitly those responsible and not a soul more.

Eye for an eye makes the world blind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caurcas

Eye for an eye makes the world blind.

---

maybe the world would be better off blind if the the fear makes it stop causing suffering maybe its better off without eyes at all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nekokaori

maybe the world would be better off blind if the the fear makes it stop causing suffering maybe its better off without eyes at all

---

I think you misunderstand the metaphor here. "Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" more accurately means, "Making other people suffer as revenge for your own suffering just causes everyone to suffer". It is not literally about blindness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

I think you misunderstand the metaphor here. "Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" more accurately means, "Making other people suffer as revenge for your own suffering just causes everyone to suffer". It is not literally about blindness.

---

Meanwhile us just casually rendering an entire race extinct. Also i feel like it’s easy to say that when we’re in the group that suffers the least. Like it’s easy for the main cast or protagonists to say that because they weren’t the one that had to suffer all that tragedy in the first place, same goes for nidhogg and the dragons. I’m not really on either side for this but it’s important to understand the…idk what the right word for it would be. Bias is the only thing i can think of, but just the way it’s easy for people to say “hey, just move forward lul” when they’ve hardly experienced the amount of suffering and hardships as other people just comes across as rather tone deaf. I guess it just loops around to one of the many problems of Endwalker. Trying to preach about suffering and moving forward yet the main cast is never held accountable for denying that like when they mess with time to bring someone back from the dead.

I'm not defending the idiom itself. I think it sometimes applies, but not always.

Just correcting what I think may have been a misunderstanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

I think you misunderstand the metaphor here. "Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" more accurately means, "Making other people suffer as revenge for your own suffering just causes everyone to suffer". It is not literally about blindness.

---

no i got that point and mataphor so i shifted into one of my own ... god i hate mentioning this anime but

if you show them real pain they will stop causing it like pain in naruto did