Thats my point though, and the same goes for everything else in the game. But in regards to the scions, why is it that in the expansion dealing with loss and sacrifice they get off scot-free. They get to come back from "death." Theyre immune to despair. Now to be clear, i didnt think they were going to die in UT,it was painfully obvious they wouldnt, but thats why i find it funny when people try to act like killing a character off or giving them consequences is bad for the plot, but somehow the constant death baiting and fakeouts isnt. Its a prime example of a double standard, especially when it also contradicts the expansions themes. The main cast is exempt from it for this expansion and has been for quite some time now.
A bit unrelated but...that whole line of not wanting to be left dead when there is a way to bring them back. That sounds an awful lot like a certain group of Ancients doesnt it?
Right, just as people have said they had plans for yshtola and thats why she didnt die in shb yet what did she do of substance again? Oh right very little, you could take her out of the story and nothing would change. My question is though, why even have yshtola bring it up in the first place? That line could not exist and nothing would change, so why bring it up if it amounts to nothing. Its no different than with you talking about Emet lol.
I wouldnt have minded if they ended the arc with that though, would have been a nice way of tying up that suffering is necessary, knowing of loss and sacrifice, and starting anew on a new adventure to honor those that had sacrificed themselves so that we may continue to walk the earth. Or even if one or two had died or had some permanent injuries/negative effects for doing so, at least we'd know the scions arent exempt from the final days. We can always say the writers may have plans for x y z, because as we know now they dont pre plan so much, they go with the flow. So in that case they could write around killing someone off just as easily as without.