Lilies on the grave... (HW-spoiler ahead!)

[AppropriateName8544]

Who's that Haurechfaunts you are talking about?

[Ayuhra]

I feel like it does a major disservice to the writers for people to claim that his death was 'meaningless'. People have a habit of becoming quite nasty when their favourite characters are killed off, or they sink into a state of denial. It would have made for a very dull story if we waltzed into Ishgard, changed the way the city and culture operated and then killed any and all who stood in our way. We needed to lose something precious - especially since the Archbishop and his companions were not outright villains and actually had misguided motives that could be sympathised with to some extent.

Like I said death for dramatic effect is fine but what gets people about this death is that it is the FIRST death we've seen so far that's been for drama, to make us angry, but did not further the plot. Emotion is important and no doubt we'll see more deaths like this. It does make the story and world feel more dangerous. But since this is the first such death, some fans are...not upset that he died, maybe. Just that he died how he did.

Killing off a generic 'red shirt' that we didn't care about wouldn't leave a lasting impact. What would it accomplish, exactly? Now, killing off Haurchefant...that accomplished something. People got angry, upset, some even felt happy! The fact that there's such a strong emotional connection to the character suggests that the writers did, in fact, do an excellent job.

I agree with this and mentioned as much!

On the topic of of his death...

We saw a character give her life to fuel an attack against an Ascian to which Midgardsormr rumbled "Life for death. A fair exchange. Other bargains will be struck." There is a one hundred percent chance that he is referring to the many deaths in Heavensward but it IS interesting than when you cry vengeance against the Ward you can say "Life for death. I will have Ser Zephirin's heart for what he did to Haurchefant!". I know it's grasping at wispy straws to think that means anything, it just amuses me that these are the only two cases where that weird "Life for death!" line pops up.

[Fenral]

I feel like it does a major disservice to the writers for people to claim that his death was 'meaningless'. People have a habit of becoming quite nasty when their favourite characters are killed off, or they sink into a state of denial.

Damn straight! But the one I'm most bent over is one that happened to the antithesis of what a "loss" should be, since it happened precisely to prevent any meaningful change from occurring. Moenbryda was at least handled well after the fact, and Haurchefant continued to be handled respectfully for the rest of the expansion MSQ. The rest were kind of excessive.

It would have made for a very dull story if we waltzed into Ishgard, changed the way the city and culture operated and then killed any and all who stood in our way. We needed to lose something precious - especially since the Archbishop and his companions were not outright villains and actually had misguided motives that could be sympathised with to some extent.

Death is not the only loss that can be felt, and not all costs must needs be payed in the lives of our comrades. I think it would have been much more tragic if Haurchefant had lived, but at the cost of his sight. He would never again be able to take up arms to defend Ishgard, or to see you smile...

[MilesSaintboroguh]

I don't agree that him losing the ability to fight would make the scene more tragic than his own death. He could still give emotional support, even if blinded, and everyone would be ok with that. His death is more powerful because it's someone you will never get back.

[Kaiser-Ace]

I think the wrighting mistake was killing Moon off. It was ment to be the moment that hit home the fact that sacrifices will need to be made, combine that with the Ul'dah incedent imidiatly afterward and Hauchefaunt's and Ysale's deaths were far less tragic and shocking because we were pre-desecitized to it in 2.5x.

If she hadn't died, the betrayal at Ul'dah would of hit harder (that and not anouncing it from ten malms away, seriously I knew the trator was Ilberd sincen the refugie incedent in 2.4) and the Hauchefaunt's death would have been comoleatly out of nowhere.

[Kurashiki]

Why not compromise? Have an Ascian possess his dead body's. That way still dead yet also walking around and doing stuff (though would be only a mockery of him). XD
Seriously though, I think an Ascian possessing him or becoming a primal would be dramatic (think of how your character would react) and rediculous (primal haurchefaunt? XD) respectfully. Even more seriously, I wouldn't complain at him being brought back. I liked his character and would like seeing him back.

[MilesSaintboroguh]

I don't see a point for an ascian to possess a dead body unless they seriously ran out of ideas. Death of a character should be a serious thing and stay dead, not a cheap drama card to pull out of your butt for drama's sake.

[Ayuhra]

I don't see a point for an ascian to possess a dead body unless they seriously ran out of ideas.

As of the Summoner quests Ascians possessing corpses IS a thing, to be fair. Weaker Ascians (ie Ascian of the Twelfth Chalice etc) don't have the strength to take on still living hosts.

Thus do I pose the question: could it be that the Twelfth Chalice and his black-masked brethren are not as practiced in the art of possession as their red-veiled masters? At the time of the battle, our bodies were the only available hosts nearby. Assuming that he also lacks his superiors' facility to flee to the space betwixt worlds, I suspect that our foe's sudden cowardice stemmed from an inability to force his soul into our living vessels.

Twelfth Chalice had been using a certain dead NPC as a puppet.

Not saying an Ascian will possess Haurchefant but if they wanted to play that card, they have a set up for it.

[Fenral]

His death is more powerful because it's someone you will never get back.

Death of a character should be a serious thing and stay dead, not a cheap drama card to pull out of your butt for drama's sake.

Yeah, but as it stands now, most "costs" we've paid have been human lives, but nonetheless handled like one-time charges to our bank account to be made and then forgotten. If death is supposed to be meaningful, then death should matter. Death by itself is not meaningful. When a meaningful death occurs, the story is forced to change in order to account for the loss of one of its players, and that change in course is then felt by the characters that remain, even, rather, especially when the lasting implications aren't immediately apparent.

Lots of people made George R. R. Martin comparisons to FFXIV's handling of characters since 2.5, but the fact of the matter is, the (surviving) characters in A Song of Ice and Fire are still feeling the effects of certain deaths from as early as book one, and the places where even a minor character's death becomes important after the fact are almost as dramatic as the deaths themselves.

Getting possessed by an Ascian or getting turned into a primal would both be story-altering consequences to a death that has so far served no purpose besides being a "meaningful cost" with no consequence beyond "waah, Haurchefant's dead." (That sounds sarcastic, but I'm crying, too.)

[Yshnal]

And here I thought that I was the only one visiting him from time to time... It's good to see that other players do that too, and it would be cool to have something like this, even if it gets low priority to be implemented.

As for his death being "meaningless", I don't see it that way. It's true that it was done partly to fuel our "anger" against the archbishop and the Heavens Ward, making it personal, but at the same time I think that it was meant to show us something else. Ever since the start we saw how Haurchefant supported us no matter what, when everyone else gave us their backs (for whatever reasons), and how he truly cared about us even at his own risk. Then he just didn't get wounded, he died, and he did so while protecting his friend. He did the ultimate sacrifice willingly for us; not for the Warrior of Light, but for the individual. It showed us that even if some people in Eorzea see us as a weapon/tool or as an omnipotent and nameless hero/entity that always does the right thing, there's still those that see us for what we really are: beings with needs and imperfections that sometimes also need to be helped, supported and cheered up, or better, as a true friend.

To me it teaches us why we keep fighting after all we've endured. We don't fight for the city-states, nor their leaders, nor the Scions (as an organization), nor even for the random people that we find during our adventures. Yes, we want to help them, but what keeps fueling us right now is the will to protect those that are close to us, those that are there at our side no matter what. That's what Haurchefant showed us, that regardless of how alone or how betrayed you feel you'll always have someone at your side willing to give their life for a friend. And it's worth to keep doing what we do, for them.