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

[Theodric]

It's exactly why I think that a broader variety of viewpoints need to be brought to the forefront and pushed as acceptable. I'm honestly getting pretty tired of reading things along the lines of 'Venat had no option but to...' in response to any suggestion that murdering her own people and then lying about it was a pretty messed up thing to do. I really don't understand what was so hard about having someone be disgusted with it all and very sternly call it out during the MSQ's.

That aside, the game has players from many different countries, backgrounds, belief systems and personal experiences. Trauma is regrettably not something few have dealt with though many players have experienced it and I'm pretty weary of it being pushed that Hermes was 'totes relatable111' when that simply isn't the case. At least Ishikawa acknowledged that most people would not agree with or like him.

[YukikoKurosawa]

At least Ishikawa acknowledged that most people would not agree with or like him.

Than why did she even write him?

[Brinne]

Than why did she even write him?

This might sound weird, but a writer's perspective is going to be a little different from a general audience's perspective. I have no problem understanding Ishikawa on this level, personally.

For example: when I'm constructing story ideas (regardless of if they actually get written, I'm your classic lazy procrastinator), I find a pattern that a lot of my protagonists struggle with a flaw of Passivity. I am fully aware that, generally, most audiences find this repulsive as a character trait and most characters that explore it get a pretty large hatedom if their media catches on. But the writer's heart wants what it wants, and I still love the characters I've formed around that idea and wouldn't compromise them.

Or, for the aforementioned "my favorite character of all time," when details were first revealed about them in the story, there was so much hate directed toward them in the fanbase because a lot of their psychology wasn't necessarily something a general audience could immediately relate to - but for those of us who could, it became so meaningful to us that there may have been multiple weeks-long exchanges of fifteen-page essays obsessing over this character. The author obviously poured a ton of heart and soul into that character and their nuance, because they felt it was something worth exploring and sharing, regardless of if a majority of people would find it "likable."

It's not really as simple as "if you think people won't like this character, then change them." Especially since I would imagine Ishikawa figured, mostly correctly, that liking or hating Hermes wasn't going to be a make-it-or-break-it aspect for most people in the overall story.

[jameseoakes]

This might sound weird, but a writer's perspective is going to be a little different from a general audience's perspective. I have no problem understanding Ishikawa on this level, personally.

For example: when I'm constructing story ideas (regardless of if they actually get written, I'm your classic lazy procrastinator), I find a pattern that a lot of my protagonists struggle with a flaw of Passivity. I am fully aware that, generally, most audiences find this repulsive as a character trait and most characters that explore it get a pretty large hatedom if their media catches on. But the writer's heart wants what it wants, and I still love the characters I've formed around that idea and wouldn't compromise them.

Or, for the aforementioned "my favorite character of all time," when details were first revealed about them in the story, there was so much hate directed toward them in the fanbase because a lot of their psychology wasn't necessarily something a general audience could immediately relate to - but for those of us who could, it became so meaningful to us that there may have been multiple weeks-long exchanges of fifteen-page essays obsessing over this character. The author obviously poured a ton of heart and soul into that character and their nuance, because they felt it was something worth exploring and sharing, regardless of if a majority of people would find it "likable."

It's not really as simple as "if you think people won't like this character, then change them."

I think the problem is, is that the story seems to expect us to like him but then he's nothing but a slimy creep which makes some of the bits feel really bad

[Lauront]

Than why did she even write him?

If the character stimulates you to think about things in a certain way, or gets a certain reaction out of you, they can act as a useful writing tool in that way. I am no writer, and I can't say I am a huge fan of him or even the intended (?) messaging behind him (other than "grow up and stop being so self-centered if you want your one-sided best and first ever hostage friend to notice you"), but I appreciated Zenos in that sense in EW. I think she was aiming to prompt some 'deep thinking' with Hermes but he was under-developed, the civilisational backgrop against which they were trying to demonstrate these points was poorly suited to it and so it came across as relentlessly pretentious and self-indulgent. At least in my eyes.

[Teraq]

I think she was aiming to prompt some 'deep thinking' with Hermes but he was under-developed, the civilisational backgrop against which they were trying to demonstrate these points was poorly suited to it and so it came across as relentlessly pretentious and self-indulgent. At least in my eyes.

Exactly. I tend to like the "humans are bastards" misanthropic villains, but the premise of the trope sort of has to involve a tragic backstory that would justify it, or at least showing me that humans are actually bastards.

I'm just seeing gentle weenwoons wrapped in snuggies living happy lives creating and debating things and attempting to use their natural powers in the best way they can, and this one dude who appears to feel extreme empathy for arcane entities but can't be bothered to talk to people around him while being weirdly anxious about death for an immortal guy.

Oh, I suppose you could try... but that would largely undermine the sympathy of much worthier villains.

[jameseoakes]

Exactly. I tend to like the "humans are bastards" misanthropic villains, but the premise of the trope sort of has to involve a tragic backstory that would justify it, or at least showing me that humans are actually bastards.

I'm just seeing gentle weenwoons wrapped in snuggies living happy lives creating and debating things and attempting to use their natural powers in the best way they can, and this one dude who appears to feel extreme empathy for arcane entities but can't be bothered to talk to people around him while being weirdly anxious about death for an immortal guy.

Oh, I suppose you could try... but that would largely undermine the sympathy of much worthier villains.

They didn't seem interested in putting any effort into, so he comes off as little more than a creepy man....

[AwesomeJr44]

Than why did she even write him?

Cause she wanted a sad man in her story, so she wrote sad man. But that wasn't enough. You see, she also wanted some KFC chicken while writing the story, so because she couldn't have any, she gave sad man a chicken nugget. But then the sadness of the man infected the chicken nugget, and it became sad chicken nugget. But then chicken nugget got sadder because she didn't wanna be sad, so chicken nugget because mad. Chicken nugget looked around and decided that everyone else should die because they're eating McDonalds and Burger King, and not buying any chicken nuggets from KFC. Sad, now mad chicken nugget became uber tier depressed chicken nugget and started poisoning the food of everyone else so that they'd all die. Everyone died because they didn't eat chicken nuggets. The end.