[Spoilers] I’m irrevocably Unimpressed

[Iscah]

First thing, fiction is fiction. What this means is the writer(s) are justified to put a character in the story through whatever bliss, trial, hell, or whatever they wish. Not only are they justified, but as the content author, what they do within their own story is righteous. They can do no wrong and should not be judged by outsiders for it. Critiqued perhaps, but not judged. For example, if they were to kill off Thancred. They'd be justified and righteous for doing so. If it was because he broke his neck from tripping on his shoelaces, then we can critique the decision as being anticlimatic over dying in glorious battle. But we should not judge them for making the decision to kill him off if they so desired.

Of course you don't judge the author for killing a character as part of their narrative.

But you do (and are intended to) judge a character for killing another character within the story - an actual person on the same level of reality as them.

[Kaethra]

Of course you don't judge the author for killing a character as part of their narrative.

But you do (and are intended to) judge a character for killing another character within the story - an actual person on the same level of reality as them.

What is the purpose of doing so? You cannot hold them accountable for it. Especially if the author decides that they win and were right.

[Iscah]

What is the purpose of doing so? You cannot hold them accountable for it. Especially if the author decides that they win and were right.

Because it's how you (well, certainly I) engage with a story. Judge whether you like a character or not. Decide whether their worldview is the one that you want to see victorious in the end.

This isn't some thought exercise, it's seeing the story that the author is trying to tell.

If they author decides that the "villains" are right and has them win in the end, that's how the story goes. It doesn't change the impression that they're villains (which you acquire by judging their actions) and it will probably mean that I personally don't enjoy the story much.

I still can't see how any of it equates to "you don't need to bring morals into it because it's only fiction". Unless the author is deliberately writing from a moral standpoint they don't personally agree with, their personal views will inextricably influence the stories they write - and their readers views will influence whether they agree with the characters' actions or not.

You can still read and even enjoy a well-written story from a viewpoint you disagree with, of course. But that isn't the same thing as saying you'd only disagree with it in reality but you're fine with those views being portrayed as "right" and acceptable in fiction.

---

To turn back the the specifics of the discussion: I can understand why the Ascians would want to restore their world. And I felt pity for Emet, especially in those last moments - "I will remember", my character promised him.

All the same, I cannot condone his actions in any way. That he can tell a person to their face that they're worthless and less than human and everything they have been through means nothing. I can understand why he feels that way but cannot approve of it. It tells me he is uncompassionate, when compassion is a trait I value highly, and places no value on the lives of people unlike himself. He has closed his eyes to the new lives going on around him, insisting only the old ones matter.

I can understand, I can wish it turned out differently, but there is no way I can agree with his intent to sacrifice countless lives for the few he once knew.

If a character with such intentions was presented as the protagonist, unless extremely convincingly done, they would still be a villain. I could appreciate it as a well-written story, but not think it was the right thing to do.

There's a clear narrative in this game of the conflict between moving forward and appreciating life as it is, versus dwelling in the past. The heroes speak earnestly of life as we know it - imperfect, fleeting and beautiful, where every life matters and every person should do their best to care for one another. These are ideas that echo my own thinking, and I am glad every time the protagonists express them. These are the people that I want to be victorious - because that is the outcome that will be a "good ending" to the story for me, and I love this world and characters too much to hope for anything else for them.

[Vercinotrix]

To turn back the the specifics of the discussion: I can understand why the Ascians would want to restore their world. And I felt pity for Emet, especially in those last moments - "I will remember", my character promised him.

All the same, I cannot condone his actions in any way. That he can tell a person to their face that they're worthless and less than human and everything they have been through means nothing. I can understand why he feels that way but cannot approve of it. It tells me he is uncompassionate, when compassion is a trait I value highly, and places no value on the lives of people unlike himself. He has closed his eyes to the new lives going on around him, insisting only the old ones matter.

I can understand, I can wish it turned out differently, but there is no way I can agree with his intent to sacrifice countless lives for the few he once knew.

If a character with such intentions was presented as the protagonist, unless extremely convincingly done, they would still be a villain. I could appreciate it as a well-written story, but not think it was the right thing to do.

There's a clear narrative in this game of the conflict between moving forward and appreciating life as it is, versus dwelling in the past. The heroes speak earnestly of life as we know it - imperfect, fleeting and beautiful, where every life matters and every person should do their best to care for one another. These are ideas that echo my own thinking, and I am glad every time the protagonists express them. These are the people that I want to be victorious - because that is the outcome that will be a "good ending" to the story for me, and I love this world and characters too much to hope for anything else for them.

More eloquently put than I bothered to, but pretty much this.

[Granyala]

On the other hand, we've already defeated Lahabrea, and he shouldn't be any more powerful than him...

The way I understood it: yes, he should have been. Lahabrea was only the speaker after all. I'm sure there were differences in power between Ascians as well.

To turn back the the specifics of the discussion: I can understand why the Ascians would want to restore their world. And I felt pity for Emet, especially in those last moments - "I will remember", my character promised him.

All the same, I cannot condone his actions in any way.

Of course we cannot. We can understand, we can empathize we can even try to negotiate but ultimately he forced us into a "me or you" position. Both parties gave their all in the fight for the right to exist and we were victorious.

That doesn't mean I have to feel good about this victory.
To be frank: it feels hollow... draining... sour. I can't but help wish that there had been another way. I find it befitting that they seemed to keep the changed victory animation where Ifalna merely closes her eyes for a brief moment instead of going the usual "yay!".

Imho, feeling like that about an antagonist is good writing.