Tired of Zenos (spoilers)

[linayar]

Not really. As badly written as Zod was Man of Steel, if he killed Superman, he would still terraform Earth and remake Krypton. Yes the world ends for humanity as Earth gets terraformed, but Zod has an end goal to achieve that is beyond "Kill Superman" because he wants to save his people. It would continue a plotline from Act 1 of that movie about the fate of Krypton.

But if the story is about Superman, killing Superman would end the story. Whatever happens afterward would be a new story with a new protagonist. At best, you could have an epilogue showing what happens after the death of Superman. Similarly, if they wanted to, they could continue with Zenos's story after killing the WoL, but it would be a different story than what is presently being told about the WoL.

[Edax]

But if the story is about Superman, killing Superman would end the story. Whatever happens afterward would be a new story with a new protagonist. At best, you could have an epilogue showing what happens after the death of Superman. Similarly, if they wanted to, they could continue with Zenos's story after killing the WoL, but it would be a different story than what is presently being told about the WoL.

The story isn't all about Superman though. Nearly all of Act 1 in Man of Steel takes place on Krypton and sets up Zod, Jor-El and the crisis they face. Apart from existing as a baby, Superman has no role to play in Act 1 and thus it's not really his story. If Superman died in Act 3, the story would still function because it's also Zod's story as well. Just as Superman did not need to play a role in Act 1, he would not necessarily need to play a role in Act 3 either. While Man of Steel is a poor writing example because it's extremely unclear just where the inciting incident of the movie is (along with many other problems), at the very least Zod is fleshed out enough that he can exist without the protagonist, since he already does that in the start of the movie.

[linayar]

Zod is fleshed out enough that he can exist without the protagonist, since he already does that in the start of the movie.

I don't remember the movie much, but even if act 1 is all about Zod and regardless of how fleshed out he is, the movie is not just act 1 and Zod is not the protagonist. The story can be more than simply be about the protagonist, but the protagonist is still the protagonist.

[Edax]

I don't remember the movie much, but even if act 1 is all about Zod and regardless of how fleshed out he is, the movie is not just act 1 and Zod is not the protagonist. The story can be more than simply be about the protagonist, but the protagonist is still the protagonist.

The reason I made the Edax test "Can the Antagonist progress the story if they destroy the Protagonist? If not, then the Antagonist is poorly written." is because often the antagonist isn't fleshed out enough to exist without the protagonist. In the sequel to Man of Steel, you have Lex Luther, whose every action revolves around Superman in some way. If Superman were to drop dead, the story could not continue because Lex Luther has no established motivation outside of Superman. Maybe he creates Doomsday anyway, but we wouldn't know why. Or maybe he decided to harass Batman, but we wouldn't know why.

Also there are movies like Pitch Black where the Protagonist does indeed die and the Antagonist does indeed take over. It is because both character undergo and arc so that end point is the protagonist sacrificing herself for redemption of her actions and the antagonist taking her place and saving everyone. The point of a well written antagonist is that they should have motives outside of the protagonist, otherwise the story breaks if the protagonist dies. If the protagonist cannot die for the sake of the story, than in a meta sense there are no stakes. Nidhogg would still function as a villain because his character has motivations to continue the Dragonsong War, entirely independent of whether the protagonist lives or dies. You could not say the same about Zenos, the moment the protagonist dies, you wouldn't have the first clue what Zenos would do because he has no motivation outside of the Warrior of Light.

[linayar]

The reason I made the Edax test "Can the Antagonist progress the story if they destroy the Protagonist? If not, then the Antagonist is poorly written." is because often the antagonist isn't fleshed out enough to exist without the protagonist. In the sequel to Man of Steel, you have Lex Luther, whose every action revolves around Superman in some way. If Superman were to drop dead, the story could not continue because Lex Luther has no established motivation outside of Superman. Maybe he creates Doomsday anyway, but we wouldn't know why. Or maybe he decided to harass Batman, but we wouldn't know why.

Also there are movies like Pitch Black where the Protagonist does indeed die and the Antagonist does indeed take over. It is because both character undergo and arc so that end point is the protagonist sacrificing herself for redemption of her actions and the antagonist taking her place and saving everyone. The point of a well written antagonist is that they should have motives outside of the protagonist, otherwise the story breaks if the protagonist dies. If the protagonist cannot die for the sake of the story, than in a meta sense there are no stakes. Nidhogg would still function as a villain because his character has motivations to continue the Dragonsong War, entirely independent of whether the protagonist lives or dies. You could not say the same about Zenos, the moment the protagonist dies, you wouldn't have the first clue what Zenos would do because he has no motivation outside of the Warrior of Light.

I would argue that the point of a well written antagonist is to serve the plot, just like a well written protagonist.

If the protagonist is meant to die for the antagonist to take over and continue the story, then the antagonist should be developed in such a way to make that transition seamless and cohesive. Otherwise, a what-if scenario is irrelevant if that scenario was never the point of the story.

In a video game story like FFXIV, especially an MMORPG where our character is different from one player to another and the WoL itself is a generic representation of the player character, that scenario is completely irrelevant. There is no way for Zenos to continue the story unless the game ends and they make a sequel (or the game can continue and they make a spin-off story) in another format (a book or a single-player game or whatnot). In that case, they would and still could (in 5.5 and 6.0) develop Zenos in that way.

EDIT: As far as knowing what would Zenos do if the protagonist die, that would depend on how Zenos feels about the death. If Zenos was the one who killed the protagonist after a good battle, then he might be satisfied and kill himself after having known such bliss. Otherwise, if he felt disappointed in the fight, he might continue to search for a worthy opponent or die in despair. If someone else were to kill the protagonist, then Zenos would try to kill that person for ruining his moment or to see if that person is a worthy replacement.

[Edax]

In that case, they would and still could (in 5.5 and 6.0) develop Zenos in that way.

Of they can. The problem is that all Zenos is in an obstruction to the WoL and nothing more. He's not fleshed out, he's not interesting, his motivations aren't related to the plot and his character arc stopped long ago. Sure they can keep him poorly written, no one is saying otherwise, but there should be more to an antagonist than just being a waste of time to stretch out the story. Manufactured conflict is less interesting that an organic conflict that occurs naturally.

[linayar]

Of they can. The problem is that all Zenos is in an obstruction to the WoL and nothing more. He's not fleshed out, he's not interesting, his motivations aren't related to the plot and his character arc stopped long ago. Sure they can keep him poorly written, no one is saying otherwise, but there should be more to an antagonist than just being a waste of time to stretch out the story. Manufactured conflict is less interesting that an organic conflict that occurs naturally.

Every fiction is manufactured conflict. You don't get to decide that Zenos's motivation is a waste of time or whatever because that's his motivation and the WoL doesn't get to choose who they face (outside of the player choosing not to do side quests) as they embarked on adventuring in Eorzea and beyond.

Regardless, this current conflict still occurs naturally. You have Zenos, who already resigned himself to die only to find himself alive by chance due to Ascian interference. You have Fandaniel, who exists as well due to Ascian interference and finds himself without the supervision of the Unsundered. And you have the WoL, who continues to be great, defeating enemies again and again. You put them all in the same world and of course conflict would happen by nature.