On Themis [6.4 SPOILER]

[Anonymoose]

I don't want to be rude, but this post, while well-written, kind of comes across as trying to make a point to a strawman. A lot of it doesn't even really feel relevant to the discussion that was being had in this thread.

At the risk of becoming a broken record, the disagreement most people still posting about this stuff have isn't that they're unhappy the Ascians were wrong; obviously they were only ever going to be sympathetic villains at best, and even Shadowbringers made that clear.

The problem is that the writers created a scenario that was predicated upon lionizing the wholesale destruction of a group of people. Whatever they were trying to do thematically with that destruction is kind of irrelevant. Obviously this wasn't done with malicious intent - they wrote themselves into a corner by having to justify the Sundering post-hoc without, like you say, making the player feel foolish or like a villain, and through the subplot about the WoL and Venat's relationship across time. But it still comes across as morally dissonant. Or to put it more simply, the issue is not that the Ancients died or that the Ascians were bad, the issue is why, or rather how those elements of the plot were framed by the text.

Whether or not you agree that element is problematic is another matter, of course.

I think there's a big gap between "having different perspectives" and "being rude", no worries. I actually hate just as much when people who share my perspective are rude about different perspectives.

I think this matter is just a lot more or less of an issue to people based on what they wanted, which causes the two to become entwined a bit. For one example, several Final Fantasies include a historical society that collapsed and made way for the way things are now. If you didn't identify with them, that's just part of history. In FFXIV, they accidentally made them too identifiable, I think. Especially by introducing time travel and first-person interactions.

If you don't identify with them, it becomes more of a case of "we live now, they lived then, they're dead, we're not, they want us to die to undo our world and everything we know and love, and we don't want that" and from that perspective a lot of the story looks different.

I don't mean to dismiss people who see it differently, they're entitled to that perspective. It's just that I also believe that the writers are entitled to not go in that direction. The writers are entitled to their perspectives. And I'm entitled to mine. We all get a free opinion, I'm just not on board with "my opinion is correct, and your opinion means you can't read" posts - or people who present any expression of different perspective as it necessarily being an example of that binary.

And that's where a lot of the dead horse beating comes in. It's not everyone, not by a long shot. But it's enough to keep the pattern recurring.

Very Clumsily Worded Addendum:

I think another part of the problem is that people tend to make assumptions about who (dis)agrees with who over what and why. I think that contributes. I think some people who share my perspective are cherry-picking and dismissing info. I think some people who have a different perspective do, too. I think some are supporting their different perspective quite well. It's possible to come to a conclusion I agree with using support I think is unsound, and vice versa. I think people assuming this of each other also keeps the convection current a-churnin'.

[Lurina]

I think this matter is just a lot more or less of an issue to people based on what they wanted, which causes the two to become entwined a bit. For one example, several Final Fantasies include a historical society that collapsed and made way for the way things are now. If you didn't identify with them, that's just part of history. In FFXIV, they accidentally made them too identifiable, I think. Especially by introducing time travel and first-person interactions.

Yes, I think this is it exactly. It's all about the framing.

I feel what makes the Ancient plot not work compared to something like - I dunno, the Terrans in FF9? That's kinda a similar situation...? - is that we're actively encouraged to get to know and empathize with them on a personal level, and not only the key actors on both sides of the event leading to their destruction, but random NPCs just going about their day-to-day lives. This destroys the ability for a lot of people to perceive it as some distant fable of the setting's background, and not judge it from the same lens as any other event in the contemporary setting. The entire plotline is, to a tremendous degree, a victim of its own success.

Anyway, it's not like I expect the writers to change anything, though it was nice of them to extend what felt like an olive branch to a degree with the Omega quests. At the risk of being pretentious, I think the flaws in fiction are ultimately their own consequence.

I think another part of the problem is that people tend to make assumptions about who (dis)agrees with who over what and why. I think that contributes. I think some people who share my perspective are cherry-picking and dismissing info. I think some people who have a different perspective do, too. I think some are supporting their different perspective quite well. It's possible to come to a conclusion I agree with using support I think is unsound, and vice versa. I think people assuming this of each other also keeps the convection current a-churnin'.

I agree. I think one of the reasons this discussion is so toxic is because of the assumptions people make to try to sort everyone into Zodiark-fan and Hydaelyn-fan tribes, when it's not really that simple at all. I find a lot of the sentiments from people who didn't like Endwalker or the Sundering plot point miss-aimed or frustrating, as I'm sure a lot of fans do about its other defenders too. And I'm certain a lot of disagreement is predicated on assumptions about what the person they're talking to actually believes.

Edit: Sorry, I realized after a little while that I likely missed your point here. To be clear, I responded that way to your post because it came across as a sort of general address to the thread, and the content felt a little out of tune in that respect. But of course I can't know your actual intent, so my mistake if I had the wrong idea.