MSQ

[Theodric]

Bringing him into the story, slowly killing him off, then killing him off, then bringing him back only to kill him again seems...unnecessary. And it is for that reason I wouldn't be surprised at all if they did do it.

To me, it'd just be correcting what should have happened back in 5.3.

They pretty much hinted in a recent interview that they had two different endings in mind, but went with the 'nicer' one because of Covid-19. Which doesn't sit well with me since they've backtracked on lasting consequences at key moments even before the pandemic hit and many of us fell in love with the single player Final Fantasy games in the first place because they weren't afraid to be bold and have genuinely shocking events play out.

That aside, the character just comes across as a weird and creepy to me. Clingy individuals are annoying to deal with and the lack of an inability to tell him to back off and keep things strictly professional bothers me. We're forced to be overly cordial with many other characters that we might want to get closer to, so it baffles me that of all the possible characters to push a deep friendship/romance with they chose G'raha.

[Vahlnir]

To me, it'd just be correcting what should have happened back in 5.3.

They pretty much hinted in a recent interview that they had two different endings in mind, but went with the 'nicer' one because of Covid-19. Which doesn't sit well with me since they've backtracked on lasting consequences at key moments even before the pandemic hit and many of us fell in love with the single player Final Fantasy games in the first place because they weren't afraid to be bold and have genuinely shocking events play out.

Whether you or anyone else liked it or not, this is path they took his character. I don't see them "correcting" it now. He's probably here to stay. I do wish they would be more bold when it comes to character deaths, but they've shown time and again that if a character is resurrected or if they faked their own deaths or if they've gone MIA...they aren't going anywhere. I'm not asking for Game of Thrones levels of character deaths, but man...I do wish that there would be more actual consequences in the story. With a story that deals with so many threats from so many places they keep things more G than PG 13 most of the time.

[Theodric]

Whether you or anyone else liked it or not, this is path they took his character. I don't see them "correcting" it now. He's probably here to stay. I do wish they would be more bold when it comes to character deaths, but they've shown time and again that if a character is resurrected or if they faked their own deaths or if they've gone MIA...they aren't going anywhere. I'm not asking for Game of Thrones levels of character deaths, but man...I do wish that there would be more actual consequences in the story.

Maybe.

Though I know quite a few people, some who even liked G'raha, who have found his current arc and behaviour to be grating.

Y'shtola might be the 'mascot' character but she's much more inoffensive. It's silly how often she's evaded death, though she actually appears to exist as her own character and isn't reliant on hero worship. At the very least, I do hope the writers dial back G'raha's familiarity with our character.

Single-player games also have a definite end. I don't know, maybe it's because of ASoIaF, but killing significant characters doesn't really have as much meaning to me any more, especially when the story continues, like in an MMORPG.

The deaths in Saving Private Ryan were impactful to me because that's the only glimpse into their lives that I see. Had the movie had a sequel and continued the story of the surviving people, it would've made the deaths a waste to me (note, any real life effect notwithstanding). If there is more use to a character, then use them, don't just kill them for shock effect. There is nothing that needs to be corrected in 5.3.

The problem with ASOIAF is that it was originally planned to end on book three, I believe. Then it was extended again and again - and still isn't finished - to the point where it lost a lot of the initial charm and too many intriguing characters were eliminated. Given how rare character death is in FFXIV, I don't see that being a problem here.

[linayar]

The problem with ASOIAF is that it was originally planned to end on book three, I believe. Then it was extended again and again - and still isn't finished - to the point where it lost a lot of the initial charm and too many intriguing characters were eliminated. Given how rare character death is in FFXIV, I don't see that being a problem here.

Yeah, it could definitely be shorter.

With FFXIV, while we rarely have main character deaths, we also have few main characters as well. Again, instead of death, I much prefer the Lyse/Ryne treatment if they want to remove a character from being a main character. Put them aside, and if there is more story to be told, bring them back, then put them away again as needed.

[Lauront]

Whether you or anyone else liked it or not, this is path they took his character. I don't see them "correcting" it now. He's probably here to stay. I do wish they would be more bold when it comes to character deaths, but they've shown time and again that if a character is resurrected or if they faked their own deaths or if they've gone MIA...they aren't going anywhere. I'm not asking for Game of Thrones levels of character deaths, but man...I do wish that there would be more actual consequences in the story. With a story that deals with so many threats from so many places they keep things more G than PG 13 most of the time.

The problem IMO is inherent in their approach - they wait to see how a character is received, bide their time and then if they're sufficiently popular or serviceable to an upcoming plot point, they bring them back. Unless they have a firm action plan in mind and commitment to definitively kill off a character, and don't leave it up to interpretation if they're "dead" or not, the temptation will remain there and will continue to do so unless they revise their approach. They probably don't really even see it as an issue.

With that said, I think they should cut their losses sooner rather than later, and irrespective of whether a character is brought back or not, if they are not working, find a way to exit them. Best done by introducing a new character in parallel who can take the mantle and then a decision can be made between the two. Sunk costs, and all that.

I mean, the only entity there after Thordan was Nidhogg. I don't recall ANY mention of Lahabrea's soul or consciousness remaining in the eyes. Heck, we offed THREE Primals (counting Estinihog) with them; if Lahabrea's essence had still been in the eyes, you'd think he would have body hopped into the very tired Estinien, or that Zenos would have mentioned it after taking over Shinryu.

I don't think Lahabrea will be a physical presence in Pandemonium, but rather that it'll deal with his legacy. Not unless Lahabrea's character is heavily reworked in EW.

I'm basing it off Ishikawa's answer in the stuff from here.

Had his soul been destroyed before that point, she could've just said it, and yet she didn't. She just said he's in a similar situation to an Ascian trapped in an auracite and is implying that the auracite is less important than holding their soul still before striking it with the blast of aether. In conjunction with the fact that the white auracite method results in their "expulsion" to the Aetherial Sea (presumably to eventually be reborn), it follows that simply piercing the eye, which he was apparently within, is not going to suffice to destroy his soul, either, if a more comprehensive method cannot even do that. Just to clarify what I am addressing, it is not the consciousness - it is the notion that their souls are destroyed via the white auracite method. They're not, even if the EN version of What Little Gods Are Made Of gives the vague impression of it. Quite frankly we've no idea how his soul would be affected by what it's been through, so how his consciousness has been affected, whatever remains of it, is an unknown.

With that said, I don't disagree that that is an approach they could take with Pandaemonium. My theory on it is that it ultimately will provide a venue for the "what if" fight with Zodiark, since MSQ trials probably don't suffice to do a being of such power justice. I'm not particularly bothered by how they undertake further exploration of his character. However, his story did feel incomplete, especially with what we've learnt of him in Amaurot, so I'd like more of him, and possibly a proper boss fight, even if it's still a "what if" based on memory of him.

[linayar]

many of us fell in love with the single player Final Fantasy games in the first place because they weren't afraid to be bold and have genuinely shocking events play out.

Single-player games also have a definite end. I don't know, maybe it's because of ASoIaF, but killing significant characters doesn't really have as much meaning to me any more, especially when the story continues, like in an MMORPG.

The deaths in Saving Private Ryan were impactful to me because that's the only glimpse into their lives that I see. Had the movie had a sequel and continued the story of the surviving people, it would've made the deaths a waste to me (note, any real life effect notwithstanding). If there is more use to a character, then use them, don't just kill them for shock effect. There is nothing that needs to be corrected in 5.3.