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

[Vyrerus]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here or if you have the meanings of words mixed up.

The definition of an antagonist is the foe of the protagonist. It has nothing to do with morality. Hydaelyn is not opposed to the WoL or the other way around. You can have an evil protagonist but a heroic antagonist. There's plenty of video game examples out there like that.

The Ancients are not the protagonist of the game. She was certainly a foe to them, but we are not them, and our lives as well as all of those in the remaining unjoined worlds depended on defeating the Ascians. Worlds that, as corny as is is to say, were treated with unconditional love by Hydaelyn. Her motivations as written in the EW MSQ may be stupid as hell and the writers introduced a bunch of nonsense where there didn't need to be any, seemingly just to make everything fit the song Answers, but it doesn't make her an antagonist since she has never done anything but help our character defeat our foes and the game never treats her as one.

The level 89 trial is a battle to the death against her to change her will. Her will being that we run away, since we haven't proven we're better than her until then. She was literally our foe, even if it was contrived.

[MikkoAkure]

The level 89 trial is a battle to the death against her to change her will. Her will being that we run away, since we haven't proven we're better than her until then. She was literally our foe, even if it was contrived.

A trial to prove ourselves that we can save the Star doesn't suddenly make her an antagonist. Surely you all have consumed enough stories to know what a protagonist is and what an antagonist is and I'm surprised that I have to explain myself.

If you boil down the meaning it can mean "adversary", but in the context of an actual story, the antagonist is typically the chief enemy of the protagonist who needs to be defeated to resolve the main conflict of the story.

We go through the same exact "trial to prove ourselves in a fight to the death" against Hraesvelgr at Sohr Khai. Does that make Hraesvelgr an antagonist? No, because like Hydaelyn, it was a test of our worth before they helped us fight the actual antagonist and they were always on our side.

Hydaelyn was never written as the antagonist of the story, no matter how much you don't like her. I like Emet-Selch more than Venat but I still have the presence of mind to know he was an antagonist and that Venat is a supporting character to the protagonist.

[Theodric]

A character can easily shift from 'protagonist' to 'antagonist' at a moment's notice. I think Vyreus is correct.

I also think individual players are free to draw their own conclusions about whether or not a particular character is a 'protagonist', 'antagonist' or even both. The writers can certainly try and guide people to draw certain conclusions though asking people to pretend as if genocide is a heroic act is a stretch for many and not really something the writers have any right to demand.

I believe the writers have also admitted to not having a grand plan in mind when it came to many aspects of the story. I'm a bit confused as why this is pointed out when it comes to the Garleans and Ascians but somehow Hydaelyn is pushed as 'never' being written to be an antagonist. We don't know that and many players spoke up over the years to claim that they found her to be suspicious, creepy and needlessly vague.

[MagiusNecros]

Venant turns man mortal over a belief and recieves hate.

Man upstairs turns man mortal over a apple recieves love.

Man kind making no damn sense

Priceless

Note: Just some sarcasm dont take it seriously..

Following the actual Eorzean perspective. Hydaelyn did screw everyone over for better or worse by committing atrocities and keeping her followers in the dark for thousands of years and the populace still has their adoration for her. So it very much still is a "the gods are awful but we still love them". Similar to the if you do this bad thing then this supernatural entity is going to send you to hell to either raging fire at best and freezing cold at worst forever. Because he loves you.

The inhabitants of the world with the exception of maybe beast tribes are tempered in all but name to her and rightfully so because through her sundering everyone is a creation of Hydaelyn.

Is Venat evil? No. But did they act of desperation and commit terrible acts? Yes.

There might have been a more positive outcome had Venat shared what happened and didn't lie/obfuscate to everyone for 12,000 years while leeching off Zodiark as her own personal Aether Battery for 12,000 years.

And she could have given everyone adores her as this epitome of good.

It's only the WoL that finally realizes through dialogue choices if you so choose that Venat is not telling the truth or being honest to the point they cannot trust them anymore.

After all Venat played God and didn't give anyone a choice. In her mind Sundering was based around forcing others to accept her ideology and to save a subset of denizens(by splitting their souls) to avoid total extinction.

As a result Emet and the Convocation couldn't devise a plan to counteract Hermes machinations.

The fact that the Ancients could end the World and split it up as they did to begin with is ridiculous powercreep out of nowhere and is just bad writing IMO.

Venat showed her crowning Frieza achievement of being able to destroy an entire world but utterly failed to catch a bird on her flying doggo.

Through Venat's neglect to make the truth laid bare to protect their planet many of the Ancients were driven to madness and then had 2 very different ideals going against each other being Venat and Emet + Convo.

To the point that the methods of both Venat and Emet were morally wrong to Azem the Traveler who opposed both of them or refused to take a side.

By and large it makes for an interesting turn of events.

[MikkoAkure]

A character can easily shift from 'protagonist' to 'antagonist' at a moment's notice. I think Vyreus is correct.

We fight her for 15 minutes and she's up front about the test. We don't go there seeking a fight and in the immediate aftermath she gives us everything we need. It's a bit silly to suggest that she goes from "supporting character" to "antagonist" to "supporting character" in the span of a lunch break just because you want to call her "antagonist".

I also think individual players are free to draw their own conclusions about whether or not a particular character is a 'protagonist', 'antagonist' or even both. The writers can certainly try and guide people to draw certain conclusions though asking people to pretend as if genocide is a heroic act is a stretch for many and not really something the writers have any right to demand.

I believe the writers have also admitted to not having a grand plan in mind when it came to many aspects of the story. I'm a bit confused as why this is pointed out when it comes to the Garleans and Ascians but somehow Hydaelyn is pushed as 'never' being written to be an antagonist. We don't know that and many players spoke up over the years to claim that they found her to be suspicious, creepy and needlessly vague.

Morality has nothing to do with "antagonist" and "protagonist". As I said before, you can have villainous protagonists and heroic antagonists. In a story where we have only 1 point of view character everything happens to, the morality of the characters can be left up for interpretation, but not the role they fulfill in the story. The WoL is the protagonist of FFXIV, and the enemies we face in each expansion are the antagonists. Hydaelyn is never once set up as the main enemy we have to beat in order to resolve the story. We have a quick trial to test our power to save the world and then it's done.

Even without a grand plan, it's hard to walk back a faction wanting to kill everyone and tries to kill you over and over before they make an attempt at communication or explaining themselves versus the being that protects you from them.

[Vyrerus]

A trial to prove ourselves that we can save the Star doesn't suddenly make her an antagonist. Surely you all have consumed enough stories to know what a protagonist is and what an antagonist is and I'm surprised that I have to explain myself.

If you boil down the meaning it can mean "adversary", but in the context of an actual story, the antagonist is typically the chief enemy of the protagonist who needs to be defeated to resolve the main conflict of the story.

We go through the same exact "trial to prove ourselves in a fight to the death" against Hraesvelgr at Sohr Khai. Does that make Hraesvelgr an antagonist? No, because like Hydaelyn, it was a test of our worth before they helped us fight the actual antagonist and they were always on our side.

Hydaelyn was never written as the antagonist of the story, no matter how much you don't like her. I like Emet-Selch more than Venat but I still have the presence of mind to know he was an antagonist and that Venat is a supporting character to the protagonist.

Poor example. Sohr Khai was literallly not battles to the death. Explicitly stated by the moogle first boss. We also don't succeed in killing Hraesvelgr. Sure he says that he needs to fight with us seriously, but it was to make sure we could withstand the full might of a Great Wyrm. Which he clearly wasn't using, since Nidhogg is much more powerful, and Hraesvelgr had to give us one of his Eyes after proving ourselves in Sohr Khai as well.

But yes, it does make Hraesvelgr a minor antagonist. Forget not that he gave Nidhogg one of his eyes so that he could enact the Dragonsong War. This caused us to face many dragons as antagonists. Some of who would later become good and help us.

As character motivations are revealed and changed, so changes their role in the story. Sometimes this results in a plot twist, other times not.

Venat became an antagonist when she didn't just give us the Meteion crystal.

Also it doesn't help your case to switch from the more flexible version of antagonist in one post, and then switch to a hardline Greek tragedy definition in the next.

[MikkoAkure]

Poor example. Sohr Khai was literallly not battles to the death. Explicitly stated by the moogle first boss. We also don't succeed in killing Hraesvelgr. Sure he says that he needs to fight with us seriously, but it was to make sure we could withstand the full might of a Great Wyrm. Which he clearly wasn't using, since Nidhogg is much more powerful, and Hraesvelgr had to give us one of his Eyes after proving ourselves in Sohr Khai as well.

But yes, it does make Hraesvelgr a minor antagonist. Forget not that he gave Nidhogg one of his eyes so that he could enact the Dragonsong War. This caused us to face many dragons as antagonists. Some of who would later become good and help us.

I was just pulling close examples from the same story we've been talking about. We're told to fight seriously but you're insane if you thought we were going to kill moogles or that Hraesvelgr wasn't going to stop the fight before dying. Considering we know it's a test, just like with Hydaelyn, and everyone is on the same side, Hraesvelgr is not an antagonist. I wouldn't mark him as one for giving his dying brother one of his eyes either.

Also it doesn't help your case to switch from the more flexible version of antagonist in one post, and then switch to a hardline Greek tragedy definition in the next.

I didn't switch anything up. I didn't think "foe of the protagonist" needed to be clarified before because I thought it was an understandable concept, but then people took that and and suggested that anyone we fight in a battle is an antagonist.

There are some characters who actively switch their role in the story. Nero for example goes from 100% trying to stop us, to being on our team more or less, to basically being a full contributing member but pretending he's not. But we don't see the characters treat Hydaelyn any differently from ARR to the end of EW and is never maligned by anyone after the fact.

[Katish]

I don't think Venat an antagonist, because:

- 1: We do not know how the WoL thinks of her.
- 2: The way we gather who antagonists are in this story is that, an antagonist usually involves other people's mindset in play or some other independent element.
- 3: She is not opposed to the WoL, just how the world is in general.

Being an antagonist goes both ways between protagonist and antagonist...if you don't know the mindset of one, look to the other...if the other does not oppose then that person is not the antagonist. Anything else would be speculation. And someone who brought up her "will", her will does not contribute to what she actually thinks either. For all we know, she could have wanted to be bested to see the fate of humanity overcome whatever was thrown at them (which would make more sense given how she reacted after) and that is conflicting with the obligation to being herself, or saving everyone she created. A continuous fight from the ages, so to speak.

Tl;dr? Someone can be antagonistic but not be an antagonist.

[Vyrerus]

But we don't see the characters treat Hydaelyn any differently from ARR to the end of EW and is never maligned by anyone after the fact.

Most of the cast cannot interact with Hydaelyn with any regularity. For some of them, this was their first interaction with her, ever. Even the WoL who gets the most interactions with her is basically forced to just listen to her lie and vague speak in every story event till now.

In her trial she was supposedly fighting us with intent to kill, so that it'd be a true test. It's not a friendly sparring match like you're making it out to be. Which really just chocks up another lackluster quality of Endwalker. The Scions weren't even breathing hard afterwards, and none of them even got minor wounds.

Stories are wide and varied. In some stories, antagonistic forces don't even need to be people.

Imagine we were allowed to actually lose to Hydaelyn and have the story progress. What happens? We get on Crystal Mommy's Moon and ride off to god knows where. That is the outcome we oppose. Again, if Hydaelyn wasn't ever an antagonist, then she would not have fought us.

[KariTheFox]

Where did it say Hydaelyn had any intent to kill the scions? She said she was going to use all of her strength to overcome them and give them instructions to flee the planet if they were unable to defeat her. Her quote if you hit enrage is "Flee, you have been found wanting." and then the fight ends.

It'd be kinda hard to force the scions to flee if they were all dead.