What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

[jameseoakes]

Again, I think this is a translation/cultural disconnect on the notion of "purity".

English-speaking cultures would likely equate "purity" with something akin to the Christian God, Jesus, angels or...at the very least...a child innocent in the ways of the world. However, in Japanese, the concept of "purity" has a LOT of different words that can be used which can mean anything from "innocent" to "undistracted". The term which is most commonly used, however, is Makoto. To quote TvTropes: "[Makoto] means "pure (heart/mind/soul/motives)". It basically means a mind free of distractions, unnecessary thoughts, doubts, or fallacies and is mostly used in the context of hard work, loyalty, determination, and intense emotion. Makoto, while considered a "good" thing, is not limited to good intentions. For example, a villain completely dedicated to villainy, a Fully-Embraced Fiend, a Knight Templar fanatically and self-righteously obsessed with a cause, or someone making destructive knee-jerk decisions would be demonstrating makoto. Their dedication is "pure"; their goals, not so much."

That definition (and especially that last part, about making knee-jerk decisions) is what I get the sense was meant to apply to Hermes. I think the developers wanted to portray Hermes as someone who was guided by his heart and what he thought was the right thing. Hermes let nothing else distract him from his goal. He isolated himself from other Ancients, conducted his experiments in secret, and skirted around the protocols set by his own facility and the Convocation because he was 100% positive that what he was doing was the only proper course. Even when confronted with the knowledge of how wrong he was, Hermes rebels simply not to go back on his word to Meteion that he would hear her report fully, and his final action is predicated by a desire that he MUST have the final answer he sought even if it risks destroying all life as we know it to get them.

Makoto is one of those traits that looks good on a hero (for example, a battle manga protagonists who NEVER GIVES UP and keeps fighting from PURE DETERMINATION), but looks terrible on an anti-hero or morally-gray character. Because it's more about being "determined" or "loyal" than it is being actually correct...but really, it's the exact same trait and the only difference is whether the story rewards it or not.

All the above being said, I have gone AT LENGTH to tell people how much I despise Hermes as a character and will never, EVER give him a pass or ever say that Venat is "worse" than he is. Hermes can rot for all I care. I know what the writers were going for with him, but in doing so, they also demonstrated why there are certain moral frameworks I can never agree with.

That's a good counter point, I guess I still really struggle with how they are trying to push Hermes as in any way virtuous, I really struggle with that line of reasoning especially as the game as often been a lot harsher on characters with much better arcs to explain why there are on a villainous path. I just don't understand how the writers want him to be seen given the character they actually wrote

[CrownySuccubus]

That's a good counter point, I guess I still really struggle with how they are trying to push Hermes as in any way virtuous, I really struggle with that line of reasoning especially as the game as often been a lot harsher on characters with much better arcs to explain why there are on a villainous path. I just don't understand how the writers want him to be seen given the character they actually wrote

Put simply, they were trying to make the Emet-Selch lightning strike twice.

From post-6.0 interviews, it seems that the writing team were completely gobsmacked by how Emet-Selch wound up as such a popular villain. I don't know what kind of antagonist they thought they were writing, but apparently they "accidentally" wrote one of the most compelling, sympathetic, charismatic and entertaining villains in all of videogames and had no idea exactly how they did it.

You can tell from their confusion that people didn't receive Hermes nearly as well. They directly asked "Why does everyone have so much sympathy for Emet-Selch and not Hermes?"

I think they feel that because Hermes' surface-level character is that of a confused, sensitive and emotional mess, that people would be more understanding of the lengths he went through. But they failed to realize two things: first, that Hermes is also portrayed going behind the backs of his fellow Ancients, abusing the resources of Elpis for his own ends, throwing a tantrum when criticized about his past actions, directly CHOOSING to abet the destruction of entire world, and then violate the minds and agency of everyone who tries to stop him, while ALSO allowing himself to escape direct consequences by disguising himself as one of the victims. All of this, to a LOT of players, effectively erases all sympathy that you could have for Hermes' fragile personality and mental state. He comes across more as a sociopathic manchild than a desperate cry for help.

The second thing they forgot is: Hermes f---ked over the fan-favorites, Emet-Selch, Venat and Hythlodeus. Trying to make Hermes a popular character by having him be the entire SOURCE of Emet-Selch's torment and emotional anguish wasn't so much of an "uphill battle" as it was trying to climb up a metal wall with no handholds and a titanium ceiling.

[jameseoakes]

Put simply, they were trying to make the Emet-Selch lightning strike twice.

From post-6.0 interviews, it seems that the writing team were completely gobsmacked by how Emet-Selch wound up as such a popular villain. I don't know what kind of antagonist they thought they were writing, but apparently they "accidentally" wrote one of the most compelling, sympathetic, charismatic and entertaining villains in all of videogames and had no idea exactly how they did it.

You can tell from their confusion that people didn't receive Hermes nearly as well. They directly asked "Why does everyone have so much sympathy for Emet-Selch and not Hermes?"

I think they feel that because Hermes' surface-level character is that of a confused, sensitive and emotional mess, that people would be more understanding of the lengths he went through. But they failed to realize two things: first, that Hermes is also portrayed going behind the backs of his fellow Ancients, abusing the resources of Elpis for his own ends, throwing a tantrum when criticized about his past actions, directly CHOOSING to abet the destruction of entire world, and then violate the minds and agency of everyone who tries to stop him, while ALSO allowing himself to escape direct consequences by disguising himself as one of the victims. All of this, to a LOT of players, effectively erases all sympathy that you could have for Hermes' fragile personality and mental state. He comes across more as a sociopathic manchild than a desperate cry for help.

The second thing they forgot is: Hermes f---ked over the fan-favorites, Emet-Selch, Venat and Hythlodeus. Trying to make Hermes a popular character by having him be the entire SOURCE of Emet-Selch's torment and emotional anguish wasn't so much of an "uphill battle" as it was trying to climb up a metal wall with no handholds and a titanium ceiling.

Yeah I just struggle to see how they thought Hermes would do that you do a great job going through the issues. I find Hermes to be a creepy slimy man, even not taking into account his direct actions in the amount of death he caused. I just really struggle with how the writers thought Hermes would be well received it just boggles my mind.