Tired of Zenos (spoilers)

[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.

[Unholychinchilla]

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.

This is why I said "End of all things" instead of just "apocalyptic". From what we can tell the goal of the Telophoroi isn't to end the world to remake something else as in the Man of Steel example (That was the Unsundered's goal and why we were fighting them). What we look to be facing in EW is a full on "destroy everything so absolutely nothing is left" type apocalypse. There can be nothing after that because that's the point of it. The question is why or if we're a being misled.

That said your point was more of Zenos' personal story and if he did kill the WoL there is a story still left. Simply put, what happens to the hunter without the hunt? How would Zenos respond to the emptiness that would almost certainly follow the death of his most beloved enemy? Imagine if we were actually killed, only to be somehow resurrected later by Zenos so he could have his hunt again.

I don't really feel having a villain whose motivation is centred on the protagonist is innately a bad thing, especially here when said protagonist is pretty much our only vehicle for interacting with that story. If the WoL dies permanently, our involvement in the story is over, regardless of if it would continue.

A story that continues without the audience is ultimately pointless. That's where Man of Steel differs. It's a movie so it doesn't need Superman to involve the audience, it can continue without him. FFXIV can't really do that without becoming an different product to the one advertised.

[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.

[Edax]

Every fiction is manufactured conflict.

No. Conflict can occur naturally in fiction. Not everything must be contrived in fiction. It is up to the caliber of the writing to not making everything coincidental and artificial. When characters are well enough written, the story writes itself.

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.

Zeno's motivation isn't related to the story. He's as motivated to fight the WoL as the poacher NPCs in the Shroud. Yes the WoL doesn't get to choose who they face, the writer does. Which is why I'm discussing the writing.

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.

There should be no conflict if Zenos has resigned himself to die. None of this is natural. Even in undeath, Zenos' character has not undergone any change, there really isn't anything stopping him from committing suicide yet again.

[Bright-Flower]

Zenos and Yotsuyu are both characters that I wouldn't have 'too' much issue with if they had stayed dead. (Zenos coming back to life and Yotsuyu 'never found the body' to come back with amnesia.)

However, while I didn't care for Zenos in the past, there is a chance this could turn me around. I didn't like Emet-Selch in the SB patches but 5.0 made him one of my favorite FF antagonists of all time. 5.2 and 5.3 took Elidibus from being boreing to being, if not quite as good as Emet-Selch, at least enjoying him a good deal. So it's possible 6.0 will turn me around on zenos.

Part of my issue, though certainly not the only thing I didn't like, with him in 4.0 was he was a poor choice of antagonist for that expansion. In an expansion about about rebellion, inspiring hope against the empire, fighting for liberty etc...the antagonist was bored of his job and the plot in general. An antagonist only focused on the protagonist can work, but Zenos would have worked better as a recurring rival type or a 'dragon' to another 'big bad' to use tv tropes terms. Having the primary antagonist not interested in the war or the greater stakes of the plot IMO was a misstep. Imagine if Thordan didn't really care about the Dragonsong War or Ishgard and was only interested in showing up the WOL or something. Or if Emet-Selch had no personal investment in the Shadowbringers plot and just wanted to mess with our heads.

In 6.0, if whatever Zenos and Fandaniel's plan turns out to be is something that Zenos has an investment in, something he wants to bring about, that may end up suiting him better than the war story in 4.0 did.

[linayar]

No. Conflict can occur naturally in fiction. Not everything must be contrived in fiction. It is up to the caliber of the writing to not making everything coincidental and artificial. When characters are well enough written, the story writes itself.


Zeno's motivation isn't related to the story. He's as motivated to fight the WoL as the poacher NPCs in the Shroud. Yes the WoL doesn't get to choose who they face, the writer does. Which is why I'm discussing the writing.



There should be no conflict if Zenos has resigned himself to die. None of this is natural. Even in undeath, Zenos' character has not undergone any change, there really isn't anything stopping him from committing suicide yet again.

He was resigned himself to die, but he was mad that somebody took his body. Then he found out about the WoL and Hydaelyn/Zodiark/Ascian and now he has further purpose in life. It's natural that, as you continue living, you can find more things to look forward to and you begin making more plans.

[EgilTheStressedMage]

Zenos is also a legitimate sociopathic scumbag whom everyone I ever played with in Ala Mhigo looked forward to tearing his head off and I look forward to actually killing him in 6.0. I don't want to feel sorry for this clown, I want to destroy him. Also hopefully get to slay "Asahi" as well. I have always loved remorseless sickening villains who think they're above God and loved when they died horrible but completely deserved deaths, sometimes fates far worse.