When are we supposed to stop fighting?

[Veloran]

Most religious systems in universe don’t seem to worshipping Hydaelyn are they? The only actions we have record of are Her efforts to stop the calamities, but other events not so much. In fact, given the lack of any record of Her communicating directly with the Sundered, She seemed to stay out of a lot of things entirely.

Hydaelyn is venerated practically whenever she was referenced earlier in the game, Minfilia explicitly prayed to her and the Zodiac Braves clearly revered her as well. Moreover she directly communicated with the sundered all the time in the form of her visions and calls to those with the Echo. And need I remind you when she interceded to save WoL or Krile's lives? I'd say that's providing her self-described "supreme goddess" powers to stop hardship and loss.

Sure, but if you already have to Sunder the world to weaken Zodiark, seems like you’re accomplishing both.

You don't have to sunder the world to sunder Zodiark. The world wasn't just sundered as a consequence of sundering him, she did so intentionally.

She knew enough to develop an entirely new form of magic for the purpose of imprisoning him, giving Hydaelyn that power and betting everything on it.

We have no idea if the sundering ability was specifically made by Venat, or if she made use of an existing concept. Regardless WoL literally tells her what she'll do, the point is she doesn't actually know the circumstances of what happened, if the world survived due to something WoL simply didn't know about. It was a complete hail mary - IE bad strategy.

A reminder that in each timeline

We have no idea if there were any other timelines. WoL told Venat that Zodiark continued to work until he was killed, the point is that she was acting in the dark as to how or why

There are several presumptions we are making here. First is that weakening Zodiark necessarily means weakening the laws he’s established.

He's weaker when we fight him. His laws are aetherical in nature and the currents protecting the world naturally would have lost 13/14ths density along with everything else. There is every reason to seriously doubt the efficacy of his shield after he's sundered.

Imprison Zodiark, gather aether, and buy humanity time to recover from the Sundering and reaffirm their lives in the face of inevitable oblivion. Then, with the resources and technology developed, take the fight to Meteion.

Her "plan" was "I'll try and maintain the status quo forever, and if that doesn't work run away with whoever I can, but maybe if someone comes along and wants to go for it I'll let them do it if they beat me in a fight."

Once again, if Hydaelyn had lost or the fight was never fought in the first place then it is the position of Venat and her group that the world was doomed. Igniting a conflict under that circumstance would not be counterproductive, and what do ya know you know it turned out to be correct.

It's the position of extreme ecological activists that the world is doomed if the human population isn't reduced and the exploitation of the environment isn't stopped. Is it justified - Not to mention productive, intelligent strategy - to bomb cities to stop people from living their self-centered, self-destructive lifestyles?

[KageTokage]

There are honestly just too many ifs and maybes involved with whether or not Venat laying bear the truth of the Final Days in advance would've done much good for me to concern myself with it.

Even if the Ancients knew and accepted Meteion existed before the Final Days arrived, the question of how they'd actually choose to respond is nebulous at best.

They may chosen to weave a ward against the coming flood of dynamis in advance, but would that have even been possible without sacrifice on the same level as what it took to summon Zodiark, and would they simply accept those losses were they necessary?. Would they even bother trying to address the problem at its source if they had managed to protected themselves from it, albeit not necessarily for eternity?

They could have potentially fought back by engineering creations that were able to manipulate dynamis, but by necessity these new lives would also need the mental/emotional fortitude to avoid turning or otherwise succumbing against the flood of negativity present in Ultima Thule, and how would their makers go about granting them such, ill-accustomed to hardship as they were?

[Veloran]

They could have potentially fought back by engineering creations that were able to manipulate dynamis, but by necessity these new lives would also need the mental/emotional fortitude to avoid turning or otherwise succumbing against the flood of negativity present in Ultima Thule, and how would their makers go about granting them such, ill-accustomed to hardship as they were?

The same way Venat did, by creating an environment engineered for that purpose.

[KizuyaKatogami]

The example that Sanderson gives in the lecture that Valorian linked contrasts Helm's Deep and Pelennor Fields in the Lord of the Rings as a means of illustrating the principle. The same solution is used to resolve both of them (army shows up, we win). The difference is that Helm's Deep has a victory condition placed upfront (survive for five days). This, he argues, is the reason why the former feels satisfying, while the latter feels like Deus Ex Machina.

The use of Azem's soul crystal in Ultima Thule is very deliberately set up. Y'shtola tells you before she makes her sacrifice that you can use the soul crystal to summon them all back. However, she tells you that you can't do that, because it would reset all of the dynamis effects that your companions' sacrifices are sustaining. That's the victory condition right there. There's another critical piece of information that you have from earlier that tells you how the conflict will be resolved, namely that line from Hyth:

'Perhaps when our time comes to return to the star, we shall remember these days that we have lost.'

Which the writers deliberately make a point of reminding you mere moments before Azem makes the critical move.

Now imagine what happens when we take away these elements. We never hear anything about how the soul crystal can or cannot be used, and we aren't given any reason as to why Emet would have his memories back. Then the use of Azem's crystal loses its impact. For magic to be effective as a storytelling device, the readers need to know the constraints to solve the problem.

Its not just that though that im getting at. Its everytime we resort to some kind of deus ex machina to succeed and come out with 0 consequences which happens quite a lot. Another event that comes to mind is graha at the end of 5.0. We're told all throughout shb the farther he is from the tower,the weaker he gets. Yet somehow despite being the farthest away hes ever been from the tower for DAYS, he can accomplish a feat 7 times that he could barely do once whilst under the full effects of the tower. Plot hole for the sake of having no consequences. Then we have everytime we use the azem crystal to summon people to our side. Theres the fact despite there being an entire plot thread of yshtola's life slowly sapping away, shes able to survive being stabbed by zenos and using flow again with 0 consequences. It's constant plot armor to keep them alive. I dont see how this is any better or different that using time to let us help the ancients.

[_Koneko_]

The journey will never end ours is a eternal quest as stated by venat forever to travel once you stop fighting you die just like every civilization meteion found total unity seems to end in death too if you lose your goals you end up in a bad end so to stop is to invite your own demise

this is the fate you accepted when you accepted the crystal of azem there no retirement plan as emet tells you i think that's fine though the problems of the world will never truly be solved there will always be forces the opposes us because this a mmo and there will always be the next MSQ or Raid

[Lyth]

...

What makes Pelennor different is the fact that, from the point that Aragorn recruits the ghosts prior to the battle, the protagonists have a bigger army and the conflict is non-existant. The problem posed is: 'How do we win against a bigger army?' and the solution is 'We actually had a bigger army all along.' The ghosts are free to show up at any point, because there's no constraint attached, and so there is no real conflict. What makes Helm's Deep different is that the critical condition set up before the fight is 'If you hold out for five days, you will win.' The tension comes from whether or not they can hold out for long enough.

...

The other uses of Azem's crystal have been as a ludonarrative device to explain the duty finder/party finder. The primary conflict at the climax of 5.0 is really centered around you and Ardbert. By the time that G'raha makes a move you've already won from a plot perspective; the only thing that remains is to queue up and find seven other party members to fight Emet. You can take G'raha out from the picture completely and the conflict's resolution remains unchanged. A better example for you would have been to reference the Seat of Sacrifice, where you counter Deus Ex Machina with Deus Ex Machina. Elidibus arbitrarily banishes you to another dimension on a whim (why not just do this earlier), and then you arbitrarily use Azem's soul crystal to summon Emet and summon you back. You can say that that sequence was a bit underwhelming, but it's really just a ludonarrative device to set up a quicktime event. I think that if the soul crystal gets used for routine plot problem solving, then they'll have to come up with some more restrictions on its use.

Plot armor is a different issue entirely. The reason why writers are reluctant to sacrifice major characters is because they have story potential. You can do it at any point for the sake of easy drama and the name of 'realism', but you're trading a short term gain for a long term loss. If you're going to do it, you have to be smart about it. They still can kill off any Scion that they like. It's just a question of what kind of a story they want to tell through it. I think that had Zenos killed off Y'shtola, you would have automatically forced him into being this season's primary antagonist. I think that route was open to them when they were initially writing Stormblood, but I think that the end result that we have here was a better writing decision overall.

From a season 2 standpoint, if they wanted to go with a front and center primary villain (perhaps the vengeful soul of the Warrior of Light who was killed on the 13th by Igeyorhm?) then you'd have a good reason to kill off a Scion in order to set up a grudge (a common enough writing decision in a Final Fantasy game). But there's no point in killing major characters off for the sake of killing them off. The writer needs a good reason for doing so.

[KizuyaKatogami]

snip

I agree that there needs to be a good reason for doing so, as characters shouldn’t be killed off just to be killed off, however there’s comes a point
where we need to stop and look and see where are any of these stakes coming from at this point. Why have we lost more to the garleans and the uldah banquet than we did against….two literal apocalypses. We fought two unsundered in ShB and came out completely unscathed. We stopped an entire apocalypse that once decimated the whole planet completely unscathed. At this point nothing is a danger to any of the protagonists. They just get rid of any danger to them, why else do you think yshtola’s life sapping plot line has just been dropped? I mean you get to a point where when you don’t kill anyone off some characters just have no place. Yshtola literally didn’t do anything this expansion until Ultima Thule. You can take her out of the story and nothing would change. It especially doesn’t help when the themes of this expansion are about loss but it’s hard to relate that to the protagonists when they never lose. Ever since stormblood the story has been completely one sided in favor of the protagonists whether it be them always succeeding or it being a case of x is okay when the protagonists do it, it’s only bad when the antagonists do it.

[Lyth]

It really depends on the story that they're trying to tell.

For example, they very easily could have had Emet kill G'raha when he shoots him in Shadowbringers. He was channeling some serious Ardyn energy from his first appearance, and that moment would have had exactly the same shock value. Emet would still be a fantastic villain if they went this route. But it would also have made him irredeemable. You couldn't simply bring him back in Endwalker and expect to be new old friends. Likewise, the section where Zenos possesses Azem's body and attacks their friends would have been a perfect opportunity to kill someone off. It creates all sorts of angst about whether or not you're responsible for your friend's death. I'm certain that the writers were aware of the opportunity, which is why they deliberately teased it. But doing so would have locked Zenos into the final villain role, and that's not the story that they wanted to tell this time around. And I'm fine with that - Sephiroth did that story better the first time.

I think that a main part of the story of Endwalker was to show Hermes and Meteion that their perspectives were flawed. That's why, even Amon at the end of his journey has his doubts, and why you have the option of offering both him and Meteion respectively the opportunity to find an answer together in the future. You're not going to do that if they just killed your friend. Killing off a Scion makes the plot darker and edgier, but it comes at a cost.

If you want to contrast this with Heavensward, a lot of the central focus was around how the Dragonsong War was perpetuated by the grudges of certain individuals. You were never going to redeem Thordan and his Knights, which is why they could kill off Haurchefant. It fits with the overarching theme of vengeance in war, and blood spilt for blood.

[tokinokanatae]

I agree that it’s not necessary to kill off a Scion for stakes, but I do also agree with the assertion that it feels as though nothing “too bad” can happen to the core cast, either.

The body snatching by Zenos is actually a perfect example. I don’t NEED Zenos to kill G’raha or Alisaie, but he also could have done more than just grin menacingly in your body, too. He could have severely injured Alisaie, for example. She puts a huge premium on “fighting” as her useful contribution to the party, and it would have been interesting to see her deal with a situation where that’s taken away from her during a time when she’s desperately needed. (Or, you could do the same for G’raha if that’s your preference, but I think it would be more interesting with her)

Likewise, scenes like G’raha’s goodbye in the Tower in 5.3; Thancred collapsing after his battle with Ranjit; Y’shtola’s dive off the cliff, and the entirety of Ultima Thule could have been directed less like death scenes. Have the tension be the “possibility of death if things aren’t resolved quickly”—maybe things start fading as they progress through Ultima Thule so that the player understands that the characters won’t be able to sustain a path or oxygen or anything else until the area is finally stabilized by Hythlodeaus and Emet-Selch.

That’s why the scene of G’raha being kidnapped ultimately works where these others don’t. The tension comes from the ambiguity of his status while he’s in the hands of someone disinterested in whether he lives or dies.

[Absimiliard]

There's also something to be said for a lack of consequences. While how a bad situation is handled is very important, so too is the understanding that things can be taken away permanently. We knew in Ultima Thule that every single Scion would return unharmed, because at this point SE has demonstrated a complete lack of interest in terminating any one of them. No amount of appropriately handled writing of a given situation is going to leave anyone on the edge of their seat once they've figured out this simple truth, and by this point I figure nearly everyone has.