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

[Darkstride]

I've found Zenos to be one of the least interesting characters so far. He has no depth, as much as they've put him in the middle of things. He feels very "generic Final Fantasy villain" to me.

[YianKutku]

You misunderstand, the Edax Test is a meant to be a measure of the writing. Perhaps it would be better if I edit my signature even through this results in me committing a double negative.
"Can the Antagonist progress the story if they destroy the Protagonist? If the Antagonist cannot, then they are not well written." The Alien in Alien is barely written as it remains largely an unknown, but it is not necessarily a bad antagonist, just not a well written one. The Alien in Alien is appropriate for a horror movie, but what makes Ash so great is that Ash is a well written antagonist. And we know full well what would happen if Ash, and by extension The Company had won because it was a detailed part of the story.

To be specific, the difference seems to be that the Edax Test is meant to be applied to individual pieces of work, to measure that specific work's quality of writing.

Whereas the Bechdel Test is meant to be applied to trends among multiple works, and is irrelevant when applied to singular works.

[Iscah]

A philanthropist giving money to someone can be seen by some as a selfless act, but you have to take into account who is receiving that money and what they do with it. A philanthropist giving money to a somnus addict is actively helping destroy a life quite likely for their own amusement. Not so selfless anymore. Just look at how "selfless" Teleji Adeleji was.

A philanthropist he was however. He handed out money to the needy, a selfless act by your own definition, so that they could rebel against the people they hated who slighted them, who held them back, who refused to help them, who refused to help their homeland... and he wanted gone for different reasons. He was all about helping those less fortunate.

Same thing with a somnus addict. You give them money they get more somnus, it takes intervention to save them from their addiction, which would be a selfless act. Feeding their addiction to watch them self destruct is not.

I think you're confusing what a philanthropist is with something that a philanthropist might do.

A philanthropist - literally "lover of mankind" - would by definition be giving money or assistance to others out of good intentions and genuine concern. Nanamo is a much better example of the mindset that the label implies.

Teledji Adeledji is acting to give the illusion that he is a philanthropist, a good person who is concerned for the wellbeing of refugees and the poor - when it's all just a front and he is actually doing it to further his own selfish plans.

It's not the act, it's the intention behind it.

[LineageRazor]

The reason we can argue until we're blue in the face is because Zenos is not well written.

Actually, the reason we can argue until we're blue in the face is because what we're arguing about is SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. Different people have different ideas about what constitutes good writing. As evidenced by this very thread, some find Zenos to be a very compelling character. You and I do not; we care about the story and are worried that it will be lessened by setting the guy up to be the primary antagonist - but that does not mean that they are WRONG, or that you and I are RIGHT. The Edax Test, no matter how you edit and re-edit its text, is fundamentally nothing more than an expression of your personal opinion, and one I believe to be unhealthily wrapped up around a specific instance. Perhaps you'd change your mind about the test if you found the right story to use as a counter-example, or perhaps not. Regardless, your test is applicable to you and you alone. Others may agree with it, but that is purely a matter of their opinions meshing with yours, and not indicative of any kind of fundamental truthfulness of the test. The Bechdel Test, for its part, is purely objective. Any two people reading a work will give you the same answer as to whether it passes or fails (barring weird fringe cases, like having one of the women be a hallucination by the other, or something). They may disagree on what the results of that test MEAN, but the test itself is entirely divorced of personal opinion.

The supporting examples you've provided also seem to be trending toward the questionable assertion that "well written" is equivalent to knowing so much about the character that we can accurately predict what they will do upon achieving their goals. Readers don't always have that kind of omniscient viewpoint, nor is it a requirement for a work of literature - or the antagonist within it - to be well written. Very compelling antagonists can be developed, for instance, by knowing only what the protagonist knows about them (which, of course, is the general rule in stories told in the first-person). The protagonist could be biased, or outright incorrect in what they know, or they might not know the antagonist well at all. In such a situation the reader, too, will be biased or incorrect about what the antagonist would do if they destroyed the protagonist. It's not the author's obligation to tell the reader what the villain had for breakfast, nor does failing to do so lessen the quality of the character.

You could argue that early in an antagonist's development, that character is not well-written, but as the character develops it BECOMES well-written - but I feel this is basically just redefining the term to support your case. It may be irrelevant in Zeno's case, as the writers SEEM to have already laid all of his cards on the table (I would argue that there is room for further character development, myself), but when stated as a general rule for all works of literature, it becomes tougher to swallow.

[AceOfCakez]

I really hope we put a final end to him at the end of the Shadowbringers patches. Hoping for a well written villain on part with Emet-Selch in the next expac.

[Edax]

Actually, the reason we can argue until we're blue in the face is because what we're arguing about is SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. Different people have different ideas about what constitutes good writing. As evidenced by this very thread, some find Zenos to be a very compelling character. You and I do not; we care about the story and are worried that it will be lessened by setting the guy up to be the primary antagonist - but that does not mean that they are WRONG, or that you and I are RIGHT. The Edax Test, no matter how you edit and re-edit its text, is fundamentally nothing more than an expression of your personal opinion, and one I believe to be unhealthily wrapped up around a specific instance. Perhaps you'd change your mind about the test if you found the right story to use as a counter-example, or perhaps not. Regardless, your test is applicable to you and you alone. Others may agree with it, but that is purely a matter of their opinions meshing with yours, and not indicative of any kind of fundamental truthfulness of the test. The Bechdel Test, for its part, is purely objective. Any two people reading a work will give you the same answer as to whether it passes or fails (barring weird fringe cases, like having one of the women be a hallucination by the other, or something). They may disagree on what the results of that test MEAN, but the test itself is entirely divorced of personal opinion.

Craftsmanship is measured objectively, not subjectively. Everyone has different ideas on what constitutes good writing but we understand that most 5 years olds aren't capable of making objectively good writing. This is why writing is taught in school because it is an objective skill. We can identify the lack of Zeno's characterisation or his lack of relation to the story objectively. Whether you enjoy Zenos is subjective. How you feel about Zenos is subjective. But how well written Zenos is can be measured. The story should be mechanically sound.

The supporting examples you've provided also seem to be trending toward the questionable assertion that "well written" is equivalent to knowing so much about the character that we can accurately predict what they will do upon achieving their goals. Readers don't always have that kind of omniscient viewpoint, nor is it a requirement for a work of literature - or the antagonist within it - to be well written. Very compelling antagonists can be developed, for instance, by knowing only what the protagonist knows about them (which, of course, is the general rule in stories told in the first-person). The protagonist could be biased, or outright incorrect in what they know, or they might not know the antagonist well at all. In such a situation the reader, too, will be biased or incorrect about what the antagonist would do if they destroyed the protagonist. It's not the author's obligation to tell the reader what the villain had for breakfast, nor does failing to do so lessen the quality of the character.

Very well compelling antagonists can be developed in a story and used effectively, but the absence in writing of that antagonist disqualifies it as "well written". How the protagonist perceives an antagonist, would be character development of the protagonist, not the antagonist. With a 1st person perspective, the antagonist could be a hallucination that might not even physically exist. But in cases like this, what your looking at is the psyche of the protagonist.

You could argue that early in an antagonist's development, that character is not well-written, but as the character develops it BECOMES well-written - but I feel this is basically just redefining the term to support your case. It may be irrelevant in Zeno's case, as the writers SEEM to have already laid all of his cards on the table (I would argue that there is room for further character development, myself), but when stated as a general rule for all works of literature, it becomes tougher to swallow.

I'm sure fundamentally you are right in that I have no authority over literature. I only sought to provoke a thought experiment.

[Keever]

Craftsmanship is measured objectively, not subjectively. Everyone has different ideas on what constitutes good writing but we understand that most 5 years olds aren't capable of making objectively good writing. This is why writing is taught in school because it is an objective skill.

Craftsmanship/art is not always measured objectively, that is an absurd assertion. Art and music are not measured objectively. Children in school learn how to write with good grammar and to use a style that gets their points across--they're not usually graded how how compelling they are at storytelling, because that's subjective.

This level of prescriptivism in writing criticism is absolutely absurd.

Something being "well-written" from a narrative standpoint is absolutely subjective. If a reader finds a character or story element effective and compelling in their narrative role, then from that reader's perspective the writer was successful at writing it. That means that the writer did a good job. That means it's well-written, in that reader's opinion. You are equating "lots of details" with "good writing", which is laughable. You hold up your preferred style of narrative as the supreme form of narrative, which shows an alarming lack of perspective and insight.

Music is not "badly composed" if it does not conform to Baroque-era rules of counterpoint. Visual art is not "badly drawn" if it is not very finely detailed. And so it goes with writing.

[Edax]

Craftsmanship/art is not always measured objectively, that is an absurd assertion. Art and music are not measured objectively. Children in school learn how to write with good grammar and to use a style that gets their points across--they're not usually graded how how compelling they are at storytelling, because that's subjective.

Art and music are measured objectively. There's a reason art education and music education exists, because they are skills to be learned. If you want to say people measure their feelings in music, then fine, that's subjective. But the art of music and art of art is a skill.

Something being "well-written" from a narrative standpoint is absolutely subjective. If a reader finds a character or story element effective and compelling in their narrative role, then from that reader's perspective the writer was successful at writing it. That means that the writer did a good job. That means it's well-written, in that reader's opinion. You are equating "lots of details" with "good writing", which is laughable. You hold up your preferred style of narrative as the supreme form of narrative, which shows an alarming lack of perspective and insight.

The movie Gladiator was compelling but how many people truly walked out of movie theaters talking about how "well written" it was? Compelling ≠Well Written
Real life can be compelling and real life doesn't even have to follow story structure, it doesn't even have to be written. I think you're confusing "Not Well Written" with "Bad" and "Well Written" with "Preferred Style of Narrative".

When you see bad filmmakers make movies with no plot structure, it's not subjective that the story becomes incomprehensible and thus "badly written". "I liked it" can be the subjective opinion of the reader, but "well written" requires criteria. If a plane cannot fly because of it's design, to say it is "badly engineered" is not subjective. We don't judge the effectiveness of machine based on "feelings" just as we understand that stories or art are not entirely based in "feelings". This is why movie critics exist. I'm not interested in Roger Ebert's subjective personal feelings on a movie, I'm interested in the quality of the movie. He wasn't always objective, but it isn't other people's subjectivity that people are interested in when deciding what movie to see. If a reviewer wasn't "bored" the 4th time watching a film, that subjective information is worthless to the goal of learning about the quality of a film. But if the critic is doing their job right, they will discuss the quality of the film using what is quantifiable.

[Cilia]

I stepped out because I figured continued argument was futile, but I did not step down.

The "Edax Test" is simply using your own arbitrary criteria for what constitutes a well-written antagonist, and trying to make it a hard and fast rule. In this case it's "is related to the myth arc," it seems. Zenos is wholly unrelated to that, so he is deemed "poorly written." (Given as Nidhogg also has nothing to do with the myth arc and him destroying us wouldn't advance said myth arc, does that make him poorly written as an antagonist? If not, how so?)

Zenos' narrative purpose is not to advance the myth arc. His narrative purpose is to serve as the PC's foil, and perhaps their shadow archetype (the former is tenable, the latter is dependent on whether or not you accept Zenos after his rant in the Royal Menagerie). He is not the most complex or interesting character, but that does not mean he is poorly written. Zenos is a sociopath, behaves pretty realistically for one in fiction, and has the writing to fit. What about him is poorly written, beyond his lack of relevance to the myth arc?

Everyone's a critic. The quality of a film (or whatever) is subjective, beyond production values. That's why review aggregator sites exist; they determine the approximate objective quality of a film by taking a large number of reviews, determining how many are positive and negative, and giving a score based on that. However that is only approximate; you could still end up disliking a film with a good score and loving one with a bad score. Arthouse films tend to do well with critics, but laypeople usually don't care for them; blockbuster films tend to do poorly with critics, while laypeople tend to like them. (And before anyone says "But Marvel...", other than the Avengers duology closing out Phase 3 I've found it quite pedantic as of late despite high marks from critics and audiences alike.) It's subjective.

Trying to pass off your own subjective criteria as to what constitutes a well-written antagonist as objective truth is just self-aggrandizement. I must ask: what is objectively bad about Zenos' writing? (And myth arc relevance != quality.) What he has captures his character quite well if not perfectly. What is lacking?

[Edax]

Trying to pass off your own subjective criteria as to what constitutes a well-written antagonist as objective truth is just self-aggrandizement. I must ask: what is objectively bad about Zenos' writing? (And myth arc relevance != quality.) What he has captures his character quite well if not perfectly. What is lacking?

Objectively, he's not an antagonist compatible with the Hydaelyn vs Zodiark main storyline because his goals and actions are unrelated to it. And objectively, his character does not parallel the protagonist in any meaningful way, so he cannot reflect or shadow the protagonist. The FFXIV story was never setup in the beginning to be about "combat high". As main antagonist, he doesn't fit into the FFXIV story.

If Zenos was actively shaping the main storyline, or if Zenos character actually paralleled the protagonist in a significant way, then we could have said he objectively fit the story better. Objectively, characters should actively integrate into a story, instead of derailing it into tangents.