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

[CrownySuccubus]

Also, we have to keep in mind it’s their customs, it’s their beliefs who are we to critique that?

The fact that Magnai is considered a creep even within his own culture makes this argument a non sequitir.

soyboy

LMFAO

What?!

[Brinne]

LMFAO

What?!

Not going to lie - I get the impression this is fundamentally a lot of peoples' problem with G'raha, and most everything else is looking for more reasonable-sounding justification after the fact. I mean, you don't need it, folks. You are totally entitled to dislike G'raha based on his personality, appearance, and mannerisms. It's just not reflective of hypocrisy or flawed writing or much else beyond "it doesn't appeal to my tastes." Which you are free to say!

[CrownySuccubus]

Not going to lie - I get the impression this is fundamentally a lot of peoples' problem with G'raha, and most everything else is looking for more reasonable-sounding justification after the fact. I mean, you don't need it, folks. You are totally entitled to dislike G'raha based on his personality, appearance, and mannerisms. It's just not reflective of hypocrisy or flawed writing or much else beyond "it doesn't appeal to my tastes." Which you are free to say!

Aveyond-Dreams, at the very least, directly cited that as his problem with Gr'aha, and that he wouldn't object as hard to someone with a "traditionally masculine look" (and no hairpins) pining over his character.

[Midareyukki]

Not going to lie - I get the impression this is fundamentally a lot of peoples' problem with G'raha, and most everything else is looking for more reasonable-sounding justification after the fact. I mean, you don't need it, folks. You are totally entitled to dislike G'raha based on his personality, appearance, and mannerisms. It's just not reflective of hypocrisy or flawed writing or much else beyond "it doesn't appeal to my tastes." Which you are free to say!

On one hand, everyone's a critic.

On the other hand, when your character breaks established lore, pushes boundaries even in fiction with nary any consequence and is consistently portrayed as a loveable bean who can do no wrong other than "tries too hard", that's not really a well-written character. That's a Mary Sue.

Because let's not kid ourselves, most of the Scions are flat, and it's not like FF14 has a story meant for anything majorly deep. But at least:
- Thancred had his Minfilia obssession
- Urianger had his underhanded shady methods that made people question his credibility and loyalty
- Alphinaud had all of Post-ARR
- Alisaie had her passivity and later extreme impulsivity
- ARR and HSW pre-character development Estinien

Now, what flaws do G'raha and Y'shtola have?
- G'raha works himself to exhaustion and bleeds just to please his heroes, but it all worked out fine anyway
- Y'shtola's penchant for using spells that should have killed her but haven't

At least recognize the game's flaws when they're this glaring. Tastes are one thing. I prefer Red Alphi to Blue Alphi, for example. And I do think G'raha is cool, love it when he takes leadership. We all have biases. But that's not really denying poor writing or at least poor character structure.

Unless, of course, you're one of those people who think bad writing is still subjective and Mary Sue-esque characters are perfectly fine. In which case, there's no argument to be made there, you'll settle for anything.

[Brinne]

Unless, of course, you're one of those people who think bad writing is still subjective and Mary Sue-esque characters are perfectly fine. In which case, there's no argument to be made there, you'll settle for anything.

???????????????????????????????

[Midareyukki]

???????????????????????????????

If you're that simple, then let me spell it out for you:

It means it doesn't matter how low things get, you'll always accept it because "Someone will enjoy it"\"It's subjective".

And that's just not an argument. You can't even have an argument when the answer is a fallacy like that.

Beauty isn't always in the eye of the beholder.

[Brinne]

If you're that simple, then let me spell it out for you:

It means it doesn't matter how low things get, you'll always accept it because "Someone will enjoy it"\"It's subjective".

And that's just not an argument. You can't even have an argument when the answer is a fallacy like that.

Beauty isn't always in the eye of the beholder.

Since just repeating a line of question marks would probably be sort of gauche, this time I guess I will go with:

ahahahaha what

[Midareyukki]

Since just repeating a line of question marks would probably be sort of gauche, this time I guess I will go with:

ahahahaha what

Oh look, my conditional clause resolved to positive. I rest my case.

QED.

[CrownySuccubus]

- G'raha works himself to exhaustion and bleeds just to please his heroes, but it all worked out fine anyway.

See, the issue I have with most of the people saying this in the thread is that, the way it's said, it comes across more like sour grapes than a legitimate argument about inconsistency or double standards. One of the major themes of FFXIV is that the Scions are slowly becoming more experienced and "wiser" during their journeys and avoid making the same mistakes. So, the argument of "X character suffered Y hardship but Z character didn't" doesn't quite resonate. Gr'aha is a relative latecomer to the Scions and hasn't been through the same number of expansions to make sacrifices and mistakes, and as a latecomer, he's also surrounded by Scions who have improved their adventuring credentials and have considerably more resources.

So, with all that in mind, this comes across less like a double standard and more like, "My grandma died when there was no vaccine for COVID, so it's a double standard that other people can get vaccinated and live."

Or, in the context of FFXIV, "This character I liked better suffered and/or died because the Scions failed to save them, so how come I don't get to watch Gr'aha Tia die?"

[Midareyukki]

See, the issue I have with most of the people saying this in the thread is that, the way it's said, it comes across more like sour grapes than a legitimate argument about inconsistency or double standards. One of the major themes of FFXIV is that the Scions are slowly becoming more experienced and "wiser" during their journeys and avoid making the same mistakes. So, the argument of "X character suffered Y hardship but Z character didn't" doesn't quite resonate.

True, though at the same time it's a matter of consistency.

At least when it comes to G'raha, because let's be real here, he did undergo a trial. He had to spend 100 years in a dead world, hailed from another dead world he wanted to save, had to endure not only the problems of that world but also see the rise of a nation that would undo his hard work, then when he managed to summon his heroes it took a massive toll on him (and the procedure wasn't even done right, plus Y'shtola not trusting him due to him being so secretive), and then not only having to endure torture at the hands of Emet, but also having to deal with Elidibus. Oh and the only way to get everyone back safely was to draw on his blood while his body was on the verge of going the King Midas route.

Y'shtola... did things I guess?

But the fact remains that all of his "hardships" were noble. They weren't a result of his personality flaws. The worst there was him exerting himself for the sake of others, which was brushed down to a bad habit that ultimately just got better. He did all the things he was met to do with no real consequence. His body became crystal, sure, but we just transplant him into his younger self, so all's well and good. There was no real gravitas to him, and that alone didn't exactly push for character development.

It's not so much "oh others had to go through hardship, why can't this person" and more "this guy has no flaws, and his hardships have a foregone conclusion, so he doesn't exactly have a character development other than a mild character growth". Because really most of his growth is off-screen. The rest is just him being more open, trusting and idolizing people less.

Plus, it is fair to contrast him to other characters. That's a healthy thing: that's how we can determine what characters have gone through the most vs those who didn't. So we know who to give a break and who is next in line to be tested. Because otherwise, what, do we really need another speech from Alphinaud about how far he's come? Because we know all too well by now. Let G'raha undergo his trials and explore his flaws. Without a foregone conclusion.

I can't believe this has now turned into the G'raha malding thread. *sigh*

Is this directed at me? Because I'm not malding, I'm just hoping G'raha gets more spotlight. And just admitting to the problem in the writing of an otherwise solid character. You wish the rest of the thread was this okay with him.