Tired of Zenos (spoilers)

[Edax]

Yeah, but he doesn't need to be like that. As the emperor, he could've ruled better and not have a rebellion in the first place. He is evil just to serve the plot, and if he is not evil, then he wouldn't exist as a character, just like Zenos serves the plot with his obsession with the WoL.

Even if the Emperor was not evil, he would still be the antagonist. Even non-evil Emperors get rebelled against, that's just how the world works. Not everyone wants to live under an autocracy, even if it isn't evil.

I think Zeno's motivations would work better for a side antagonist. A 'dragon' or 'rival' type etc more than the big bad. Like Grynwaht in Stormblood but not played for comic relief up until the last fight.

I kind of agree. Having a Boba Fett type character that doesn't care about the main conflict can add a little bit of flavor to the world. But if you make him the main villain it get's weird, it would feel like they were fighting for the sake of having an action scene.

[linayar]

Even if the Emperor was not evil, he would still be the antagonist. Even non-evil Emperors get rebelled against, that's just how the world works. Not everyone wants to live under an autocracy, even if it isn't evil.

He may have a rebellion, but that would be a different story as the rebels would be evil and Luke would be either evil or join the Empire instead.

(Now I wish Star Wars was like that where Anakin was always good in the prequel, Jedi truly corrupt in evil way, and Luke and maybe Leia too joining their father.)

[Nothv13]

He may have a rebellion, but that would be a different story as the rebels would be evil and Luke would be either evil or join the Empire instead.

(Now I wish Star Wars was like that where Anakin was always good in the prequel, Jedi truly corrupt in evil way, and Luke and maybe Leia too joining their father.)

That's not neccessarily true either. It doesn't have to be black or white, good or evil.

[Edax]

He may have a rebellion, but that would be a different story as the rebels would be evil and Luke would be either evil or join the Empire instead.

(Now I wish Star Wars was like that where Anakin was always good in the prequel, Jedi truly corrupt in evil way, and Luke and maybe Leia too joining their father.)

No the rebels wouldn't have to be evil. Not wanting to be under an autocracy doesn't make you evil. Not every conflict needs to be lumped into a good side and evil side. For instance in an Eastern style story like Princess Mononoke, it's human outcasts fighting with the animals of the forest, both have their motivations to fight but neither side is righteous or evil.

[linayar]

That's not neccessarily true either. It doesn't have to be black or white, good or evil.

I prefer if it is. I don't trust writers trying to overcomplicate their narrative in terms of morality because usually I'll just disagree with their point of view anyway and end up seeing everybody as evil and it's not fun rooting for the least worst of the bads. It's why I hate the force alignment options in SWTOR.

And just to be clear, I think Emet is an evil character. Just because he is evil, it doesn't mean I cannot understand his reasoning, but also doesn't mean he is gray.

No the rebels wouldn't have to be evil. Not wanting to be under an autocracy doesn't make you evil. Not every conflict needs to be lumped into a good side and evil side. For instance in an Eastern style story like Princess Mononoke, it's human outcasts fighting with the animals of the forest, both have their motivations to fight but neither side is righteous or evil.

When you create a conflict unnecessarily, then you are evil regardless of your reasoning. If you do not wish to be under a certain form of government, you work within the system to secede from the empire (assuming you are part of a political entity with the same view of government) or you (individually) leave the empire.

[Edax]

When you create a conflict unnecessarily, then you are evil regardless of your reasoning.

And who is the arbiter of what conflict is unnecessary or not? Were the animals wrong to aggressively defend the forest? Were the humans wrong to try to make a living in the forest to defend themselves? And who truly started this conflict in Princess Mononoke? Who is the evil party in the conflict?

I prefer if it is. I don't trust writers trying to overcomplicate their narrative in terms of morality because usually I'll just disagree with their point of view anyway and end up seeing everybody as evil and it's not fun rooting for the least worst of the bads..

Just because you disagree with their viewpoint does not mean you should automatically see them as evil.

[linayar]

And who is the arbiter of what conflict is unnecessary or not? Were the animals wrong to aggressively defend the forest? Were the humans wrong to try to make a living in the forest to defend themselves? And who truly started this conflict in Princess Mononoke? Who is the evil party in the conflict?

That would depend on the story. I am only responding to you saying they are rebelling just because they don't like a form of government that you say is not ruled by an evil person. That means the rebellion is unnecessary.

Just because you disagree with their viewpoint does not mean you should automatically see them as evil.

It's not a matter of disagreeing. It's a matter of the conflict they are causing.

[Edax]

That would depend on the story. I am only responding to you saying they are rebelling just because they don't like a form of government that you say is not ruled by an evil person. That means the rebellion is unnecessary.

Velvet Revolutions are extremely rare, working within the system to overthrow an autocracy is not exactly realistic. Conflict is often the best option out of many bad options. That does not mean the conflict is evil.

[Edax]

That would depend on the story. I am only responding to you saying they are rebelling just because they don't like a form of government that you say is not ruled by an evil person. That means the rebellion is unnecessary.

It's not a matter of disagreeing. It's a matter of the conflict they are causing.

Yes, it is, when you default to think it's ok to just overthrow an existing government because you felt like it. That's anarchy.

Do you consider the United States definitively "evil" for overthrowing British rule? Is it really all so simple?

Surely you are aware of the Declaration of Independence, so your example is not even what we are discussing about unless we've been discussing different topics all along.

Nope, they didn't feel like just wanting to be in a different government for no reason. They felt like the ruling government was unjust. We were talking about the opposite kind of emperor.

The Declaration of Independence is the US stating their reasoning for their war of independence. It was not simply about rebelling because they felt like it.

But you said they felt the ruling government was unjust.

When you create a conflict unnecessarily, then you are evil regardless of your reasoning. If you do not wish to be under a certain form of government, you work within the system to secede from the empire (assuming you are part of a political entity with the same view of government) or you (individually) leave the empire.

Doesn't matter what I think about a historical king, but what the colonists think.

But in fictional story, if you're going to say that the emperor is not evil, then the rebels are either mislead/wrong or outright evil for trying to start a rebellion.

It depends on the story. If you're going to have a conflict with actual killing and you're expecting me to take side, then there must be good and evil, otherwise the conflict is meaningless and just a simple competition between two sides with no killing would have been a better way to frame the story.

You don't have to take sides. Princess Mononoke is fiction and you don't have to take a side in that conflict.

And FFXIV?

I cannot keep up with these moving goal posts.