[Spoilers] Why Zenos is the most important character moving forward

[Edax]

I've seen this story told better in Bleach. Zaraki Kenpachi fights with his own strength while Ichigo fights using the strength of his allies and his zanpakuto. Zaraki starts off bored because he's reached the top but becomes excited at the prospect of confronting the protagonist because it's about the first real confrontation he'll have in a long time. The big difference in execution here is that Zaraki makes a serious effort to advocate his own ideology and try and convince the protagonist that he is correct. After the confrontation, Zaraki loses but he isn't necessarily shown to be incorrect since we are shown enough of his backstory to see that he clawed his way to the top from nothing using only his own strength. He earned his position and he's one of the most powerful characters in the series so at least we understand there is merit to his words and that he cannot be outright dismissed. He even follows a kind of warrior's code so you can understand why Zaraki has loyal followers whereas you cannot with Zenos. Zenos is rude, uncharismatic, dismissive, selfish, indulgent and seemingly nihilistic. Who would follow this guy? Even the Nihilists from the The Big Lebowski would loath this guy.

And wisely, Tite Kubo did not make Zaraki the villain. Zaraki is not the type of character that can handle the master villain role. He's not a planner or administrator and his philosophy of person strength just means he's work alone. Carrying out any kind of master plot would just run counter to his character. And this is the problem with Zenos. The moment Zenos became Emperor, is the moment all his failings as a leader and administrator destroy his ability to execute any plans to confront the Warrior of Light without it contradicting his character or common sense. Heck, using Black Rose would contricit his character because he wants to fight.

The confrontation in Bleach wasn't better. You liked it more. These are completely different things. Frankly, I find it weird, less believable, and less human that someone who supposedly lives for the challenge of a fight specifically because the rest of reality is unfulfilling would be invested in ideology or converting others to it. Reality being unfulfilling extends to other people.

I objectively explained why that confrontation and character is better. To dismiss all that and just claim I subjectively "I like it more" is awfully dismissive and disrespectful.

Zenos commands loyalty because he leads people in combat and rewards people based on merit. He does not care if his soldiers are Ala Mhigan, or Doman, or Garlean, or anything else. They could be purple people eaters for all he cares. If they can fight well, take direction, and strive for better the way he does then they have a place by his side. This is not something that can be taken for granted in Garlemald and the gesture goes a long way, particularly with people like Fordola and Asahi. Having the heir to the empire itself treat you like an equal to any other soldier based on your abilities is a huge deal when others of status would have denied opportunity out of hand.

This is nearly non-existent in the story. Zenos also does not treat anyone as an equal.

Warriors code does not by itself make a good character, a good leader, or a good villain. Being morally or philosophically correct doesn't either. Those both fall under things you like rather than things that are technically good. Given that Zenos is a serial killer and has no empathy, of course regular nihilists like characters from the Big Lebowski wouldn't like him. And frankly, not all nihilism is the same either.

I never claimed warrior codes made good characters.

The story about Zenos undergoing training as a kid comes from The Chronicles of Light, in book form. It is canon. You keep referencing him not working for power. The story literally shows him doing just that.

Which makes that a different story, outside of Stormblood and Shadowbringers. Perhaps if I engaged in the story outside of FFXIV he becomes a well written character, but as presented in the story of FFXIV itself he is poorly written.

Deus ex Machina and Diabolus ex Machina both require a random event that is not in keeping with normal functions of the narrative universe to dramatically change the outcome of a situation. The sole explanation for their occurrence comes from the storyteller going "because I said so". This is not the case even remotely for either the Warrior of Light or Zenos. Both use established in-universe mechanics that apply to characters outside of themselves and reach positions of influence as a result of choices made, with said choices coming from clear motives that stem from life experiences.

No, they do not require a random event. The Ulitma Weapon was destroyed through the result of Deus ex Machina. The goddess Hydaelyn literally stripped the Ultima Weapon of its power to let the WoL win the fight, when he/she could not do so with their own established powers or life experience. God in the machine resolved the conflict of AAR and it was never established that Hydaelyn could rip god powers out of machines.

Zenos reached his position by being born. To say Zenos "reached positions of influence as a result of choices made" is not true.

If there was a battle occurring in a world where angels and demons were established previously, where it was understood as possible to share power in the way described, and there was some means or motivation behind the occurrence--there is zero issue between two human warriors having a Gabriel versus Mephistopheles fight. It could even have a historical bent to it for something weird and campy as long as the rest was built up adequately.

That would still be bad writing, the character with development are being sidelined for a fight using the power of characters with no development. To bring it into the FFXIV world, Hydaelyn and Zodiark don't have characters, they aren't well developed and their powers are entirely nebulous, so to use their powers in the a conflict between the WoL and the Ascians would be bad writing. This robs the protagonist and antagonist of their agency and the fight's outcome is no longer dictated by either of them.

Dismissing chosen one narratives actually limits human experience

No it doesn't. Destinies don't exist in actual human experience.

You're not correct about Joker or about staying power in static villains. Joker tries to push an ideology in Christopher Nolan's series. This is not his primary or entire existence. Sometimes Joker is light and campy. Sometimes Joker remembers his past differently moment to moment, has the same lingering emptiness and lack of direction Zenos has, and tries to both find meaning by becoming a symbol. The way he treats Batman in these incarnations is essentially the same way Zenos treats the Warrior of Light: Bruce Wayne is irrelevant and doesn't matter. He doesn't want to know about Bruce Wayne, he wants a fellow symbol in Batman. Likewise for the personal identity of the Warrior of Light. Some versions of the Joker just don't care about other people and think it's fun to commit horrible acts in funny ways and see how people freak out about something he sees as not a big deal.

The Joker being light and campy during certain scenes didn't change his role in The Dark Knight. You don't know if Joker is misremembering his past, he could be lying about his past. You don't know if he has the same lingering emptiness, he never says that in the Dark Knight. By saying "he treats Batman in these incarnations" implies that you mean the Joker in different stories. The Joker is physically a different person depending on what Batman series you are watching. What Jared Leto does has no bearing on the writing of The Dark Knight.

The Joker stays because he is very good at foiling against Batman both personally and symbolically when there is an overarching theme within Batman about the relationship between being a person and being a symbol. For FFXIV the WoL is developing a gallery too, and the villains we've encountered frequently look at different pieces of the WoL's character or WoL's mission. How things could go wrong with different priorities or circumstances.

The Joker is the antithesis of Batman. They have opposite ideologies and the both actively try to shape Gotham.
Zenos is not the antithesis of the Warrior of Light. Zenos is entirely passive, waiting to react to events.

You still miss the point of Zenos and what he's trying to do.

It's not about fun. It never has been. He doesn't need to try to change the world or society. Sometimes stories are about people trying to connect to others. Sometimes those people fail.

Zenos, again, is someone who has zero value for personal connection. He doesn't care if he gets sung a lullaby every night by a mother trying to love him. The lullaby accomplishes nothing and he doesn't even see a person looking at his mother. He doesn't see someone with as much consciousness as him, and even if she does have that it doesn't really matter to his life except that she thinks to feed and take care of him while he's an infant who can't take care of himself.

Zenos does not get fulfilled by receiving praise and it doesn't upset him to be reprimanded. That requires investing in another person's identity. He is a purely self-oriented and physical creature. Nothing else is necessarily real to him. There is nothing to do and no direction in that. He does like challenging himself, but if the challenges are all predictable then it's easy to finish and the challenge goes away. At least with a challenge he's working toward something, he has a goal. The reason it's combat for him is because combat offers stakes, unpredictability, a possibility of death. Suddenly, instead of nothing and certainty there's suspense. He has to actually try, and if he fails there are consequences that could change things irrevocably. That tension plus adrenaline and the need to push himself toward a goal offer direction. More than fun, it's an escape from an existence he considers empty.

And again. There are people like that in the real world.

If you need a look at the world according to Zenos, life is empty and meaningless in itself. People fade and die and there are no threads tying one person's experience to another. The only meaning that can be found comes from the challenges you find for yourself. Some of these challenges take the form of beasts. Some take the form of people, who are essentially the same thing. And if a beast can give him the gift of meaning and direction, that's something to be treasured.

How caveman.

What you describe is a person, not a well written antagonist. An well written antagonist cannot merely meet the criteria "There are people like that in the real world." to be well written. My Grandmother had Alzheimers. It crippled her before she died. Yes, "There are people like that in the real world.", but that does not mean she could suddenly be included in a story and be a well written antagonist. An antagonist must perform critical functions in a story, something my beloved Grandmother could not do due to her incapacitation. Being realistic is not the primary metric of being a well written antagonist.

Bladerunner is well-written and has a tremendous amount of thought poured into it on both literal and non-literal levels. m completely astounded you don't see the relevance or shift in meanings between Decker being a replicant or not a replicant given he spends the whole movie killing replicants who seem more human than him.

Because Bladerunner is badly written. If Decker is a replicant, then his learning that his entire life was a lie via the unicorn origami provokes no reaction. Apparently Decker just doesn't care that he's a Replicant. Or he's human and for some reason his partner can see Decker's dreams for unexplained reasons. Then you have the cut of the movie that doesn't even have the unicorn scene, which changes the context of the entire film. And why sent a Replicant to hunt a Replicant if he is so human like as to be a complete disadvantage? And if Decker is a Replicant, it just becomes a story of Replicants fighting Replicants, loving Replicants and escaping with Replicants, completely detached from the human audience. Because they did not commit, the story loses meaning. Filmmakers and audience members can't even agree on what's canon with all the different film versions.

There is too much to be said about Amazing Spider-Man 2. What I'll leave that point at is that Electro was never the reason that movie struggled.

This is a red herring. Electro is a badly written character. The film's success is completely unrelated to that objective fact. Or are we to consider the Transformers movies as masterpieces of writing because those movies did well?

Based on your response to Khalithar, you seem to actively want to put down anyone who sees something in a character you personally don't like. It doesn't help your case, especially since you don't seem to understand that non-intellectual and sometimes humorous characters like Grynewaht can also be tragic and horrifying.

I didn't put down Khalithar. I asked him a question so that I may better understand his position. I do not like your insinuations about my personal character.

You are too narrow-minded and inexperienced to have a realistic grasp on what would be an effective objective evaluation of storytelling technique. It's a shame you've cut yourself off at the knees that way.

I've been seriously trying to be nice to you with this.

You have failed yourself.

The standard of even employing a test like the Bechdel test, for anyone, is nonsense. Having two women in a movie isn't inherently a problem. Having two men in a movie isn't inherently a problem. If there are two movies about women or made by women when more women than that are capable and interested in making movies, that's a problem. Derailing conversations and plots from what they otherwise might have been focusing on just so you can tell everyone you passed the Bechdel test is ridiculous and does a disservice to the work. The idea that female characters who are otherwise fully fleshed out and well-developed are somehow diminished because they didn't talk to each other about something other than a man is absolutely sexist. Men who are under those same circumstances in reverse, Star Wars or otherwise, would not be considered diminished in that manner.

I disagree. Like I said, the Bechdel test is not a hardline test of quality. I REPEAT: it is a measure of the representation of women in fiction. It asks whether a work features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man. It has nothing to do with diminished characters, it is a representation metric.

Lol you're not talking to the chef and you're not getting cockroaches. You're literally complaining that you don't like your perfectly executed soufflé to a professional food critic as a random customer who likes desserts but has never had a soufflé and certainly doesn't know how to make them.

What I had been trying to tell you gently before was that you are coming across as inexperienced and are talking to someone who has moved well past your level and has managed to use that to get a position of some rank through the merit of my work. This is my job, which I earned over a long period of time after extensive study that covered and went beyond the points you're referencing.

I did not literally "complain that I didn't like a perfectly executed soufflé to a professional food critic." You are being dishonest and you have thrown your own professional credentials into doubt.
Attacking my personal character using fictional scenarios is not the conduct of a professional.