Ardbert's Party vs the Scions Analysis

[Kazhar]

It doesnt make sense to call a nation antagonistic, Because they were neutral. Those 2 words clash.
Even with what you mentioned, it doesnt make sense to call them Antagonists, because they isolated themselves.

I see no contradiction, as the story unambiguously presented said neutrality as a bad thing that needed to change, and which the Circle of Knowing acted directly in opposition of. The source of the conflict between Louisoix and Fourchenault was that neutrality, in the former's view, made Sharlayan indolent and wouldn't lead to progress.
And they were not exactly passive in their neutrality, (even if we ignore the actual assassins) as they actively tried to prevent their people to intervene in the Garlean invasion, despite the horrible implications it had.
How are they not an antagonist force when they were, at the root of the entire story, obstacles to the protagonists plans? Again The Circle of Knowing, which half the protagonists are coming from, was created to act against Sharlayan's policy. This is the textbook definition of being an antagonist.

[Iscah]

How are they not an antagonist force when they were, at the root of the entire story, obstacles to the protagonists plans? Again The Circle of Knowing, which half the protagonists are coming from, was created to act against Sharlayan's policy. This is the textbook definition of being an antagonist.

This. Their political neutrality just means that they will not start wars with other nations within the setting; it does not have any direct relationship to whether they could be regarded as antagonists versus the protagonists of the story.

Even being "neutral" has different meanings for different countries. Kugane is neutral and equally welcomes all nations to trade and have embassies there. Sharlayan equally tells all other nations to go away and leave them alone.

[Zanarkand-Ronso]

And they were not exactly passive in their neutrality as they actively tried to prevent their people to intervene in the Garlean invasion, despite the horrible implications it had.

Thats...exactly what Neutrality is. They didnt want to get involved.
Implications or not, they stayed in their lane and didnt take either side.

I see no contradiction, as the story unambiguously presented said neutrality as a bad thing that needed to change, and which the Circle of Knowing acted directly in opposition of. The source of the conflict between Louisoix and Fourchenault was that neutrality, in the former's view, made Sharlayan indolent and wouldn't lead to progress.

How are they not an antagonist force when they were, at the root of the entire story, obstacles to the protagonists plans? Again The Circle of Knowing, which half the protagonists are coming from, was created to act against Sharlayan's policy. This is the textbook definition of being an antagonist.

Ok so if we just go by the actual Definition of Antagonist..then sure I concede; Sharlayn does have a Conflicting interest.
But typically in story-telling that word is used to describe a Villain, which Sharlayn was not. Even Fourchenault wasnt really a Villain.
The Sharlyans knew things we didnt, and were operating on a "World Saving" project behind the scenes. Their whole operation was on Knowledge and preserving it. And they didnt want to do anything that could destroy that, such as taking a side and participating in the battles and politics outside of their Island. Of course, like anything and everything, there will be outliers of different beliefs, such as Louisoix and his followers

So I guess using the definition Sharlayn was Antagonistic towards the Scions.
But were not Antagonists in itself. They weren't a Villain.