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

[Halivel]

I liked that too. They didn't agree with either plan, and went off to do whatever they wanted to do. Logically I know it is because the writing staff is leaving it vague on purpose, but I appreciate that I can at least pretend Azem was out there trying to save their people until the last second. It's what I would have done in that situation. Heck, it is what I wanted to do at the end of Elpis.

Same here. My character frankly is pretty angry with Venat's decisions (although MSQ obviously wouldn't allow to show that, but who cares, it's my character, I know what he'd think, say and do in such a situation).

[BRVV]

Same here. My character frankly is pretty angry with Venat's decisions (although MSQ obviously wouldn't allow to show that, but who cares, it's my character, I know what he'd think, say and do in such a situation).

Blink twice if you are forced to aggree with Venat by the shadow Sharlayan government

[Halivel]

Blink twice if you are forced to aggree with Venat by the shadow Sharlayan government

*blinks aggressively*

[Nayukhuut]

Same here. My character frankly is pretty angry with Venat's decisions (although MSQ obviously wouldn't allow to show that, but who cares, it's my character, I know what he'd think, say and do in such a situation).

Agreed. I have basically just internalised that my character is playing nice for appearances sake, but inwardly is set in stone with his resolve to make it so another Venat never comes to pass.

That or I just go with a personal headcannon of us having been Tempered by Venat, since it is the only thing that really makes our outward actions make sense. Game likes to shut that one down, but it would absolutely explain why us and the Scions are okay with Venat doing things we would be horrified to see any other character do.

Blink twice if you are forced to aggree with Venat by the shadow Sharlayan government

Sadly the mask I wear obscures it, but I am indeed blinking twice. :P

Really sad part is that we are basically the shadow government at this point. Way more story beats than I would like have ended with our group saying we can never tell the world because of their own good and this has to be kept a secret.

[Renathras]

Good being good and evil being evil are by and far the norms in modern storytelling. Rarely do we see stories acknowledge the hero could just as easily have been a villain were it not for the story being told from their perspective/side.

We...must be watching very different media.

[Halivel]

We...must be watching very different media.

He's not wrong tho. We can occasionally get morally grey villains or supporting characters, but a morally grey protagonist is a rarity. How many times WoL was directly called out for all the atrocities they've commited over the course of the story? Once, by Varis during negotiations in Werlyt. Twice if you count "In the Cold" and the conversation we have with Fandaniel afterwards.

Emet-Selch was scrutinized for being ready to sacrifice the Source and its reflections in order to save his own world (not without reason), and then Venat was praised for doing the exact same thing because she was "a goodie" (she's not. She's just as morally grey if not worse in some aspects, the difference is that she happens to be on our side of the conflict, and the narrative excuses her actions as result of that. While the intention was obviously to make her a 100% positive character, she absolutely isn't when you actually stop for a second to think about just what she did).

Point being: it's not uncommon to see morally grey characters, that is true. The thing is, the vast majority of them are portrayed as villains. And when the same actions are commited by protagonists, more often than not you'll see them being presented as a necessarily sacrifice that they will be praised for. I've no idea what's currently going on in the sector of heroic movies since I don't like neither DC nor Marvel and don't watch them, but when it comes to games and manga - the main character and his company being directly called out of the horrors they commit is not as commonplace as you might think it is.

[ReynTime]

He's not wrong tho. We can occasionally get morally grey villains or supporting characters, but a morally grey protagonist is a rarity. How many times WoL was directly called out for all the atrocities they've commited over the course of the story? Once, by Varis during negotiations in Werlyt. Twice if you count "In the Cold" and the conversation we have with Fandaniel afterwards.

Emet-Selch was scrutinized for being ready to sacrifice the Source and its reflections in order to save his own world (not without reason), and then Venat was praised for doing the exact same thing because she was "a goodie" (she's not. She's just as morally grey if not worse in some aspects, the difference is that she happens to be on our side of the conflict, and the narrative excuses her actions as result of that. While the intention was obviously to make her a 100% positive character, she absolutely isn't when you actually stop for a second to think about just what she did).

Point being: it's not uncommon to see morally grey characters, that is true. The thing is, the vast majority of them are portrayed as villains. And when the same actions are commited by protagonists, more often than not you'll see them being presented as a necessarily sacrifice that they will be praised for. I've no idea what's currently going on in the sector of heroic movies since I don't like neither DC nor Marvel and don't watch them, but when it comes to games and manga - the main character and his company being directly called out of the horrors they commit is not as commonplace as you might think it is.

Thanos is from Marvel and his movie motivation, which is vastly different to his original marvel comic motivation, is written morally grey. And that's the antagonist for the climax villain of the entire good era of the MCU. In that same era there was also a whole movie about an internal struggle with the heroes because one of them refused to antagonize his brainwashed close friend even at the cost of having to cause collateral damage. So IDK what Renathras watches either. Maybe he only knows 90s era Disney villains.

Not to mention the first two Avengers movies had the heroes needing to learn to set aside their differences to fight the antagonist. Which at the time was getting old, but it certainly beats how Scions act.

[Renathras]

He's not wrong tho. We can occasionally get morally grey villains or supporting characters, but a morally grey protagonist is a rarity.

Off the top of my head:

Deadpool
Punisher
Venom (in some incarnations)
Ben Solo (we all knew it was coming)
Emet-Selch (and arguably all the Ascians other than maybe Fandaniel) - and he WAS treated as morally gray and not outright condemned (the climax of the story we make peace with him; then do again an expansion later)
Batman (yes, he doesn't kill, but part of his character is that he doesn't stand on the light side of the law)
A good chunk of the Marvel cast after The Snap, and half of them after Winter Soldier
Vegeta
Terminator (in T2 and T3)
Benjamin Sisko (DS9) - honestly, most of the Star Trek captains other than Picard.
Thanos himself was portrayed as "maybe he's right, but we don't like it", just like Emet.

That's just off the top of my head without actually thinking. I can easily expand this list.

Morally gray characters are more commonplace now than "true good" characters are. I can't really think of any true good main characters these days. Most are faulty in various ways, even if they're overall benevolent, and many of them come from older stories before the "subverting expectations" cliche became common, like the LotR characters (though even many of those outside of the core cast were not "true good", such as Boramir) which are from a book series written 60-80 years ago.

I do agree that a lot are anti-heroes, but quite a few are not and are the main characters and not portrayed as villains. Batman is often treated as more good than Superman, even, despite being on the shady side of things, and the moral heart of the Justice League. And many of the villains, like Emet, have their motivations explored to kind of give them a "maybe they're wrong, but they're wrong for the right reasons/circumstance and things that happened to them shaped them into what they were."

Honestly, Venat is in the Emet boat of "imperfect being trying to do what's right and choose the best of all bad options".

.

I think it's more common than you think. But it's common enough it's become the expectation rather than subverting it.

[Absimiliard]

Off the top of my head:

Deadpool
Punisher
Venom (in some incarnations)
Ben Solo (we all knew it was coming)
Emet-Selch (and arguably all the Ascians other than maybe Fandaniel) - and he WAS treated as morally gray and not outright condemned (the climax of the story we make peace with him; then do again an expansion later)
Batman (yes, he doesn't kill, but part of his character is that he doesn't stand on the light side of the law)
A good chunk of the Marvel cast after The Snap, and half of them after Winter Soldier
Vegeta
Terminator (in T2 and T3)
Benjamin Sisko (DS9) - honestly, most of the Star Trek captains other than Picard.
Thanos himself was portrayed as "maybe he's right, but we don't like it", just like Emet.

- Deadpool is nine times out of ten shown doing the right thing, and he'll probably get a pass when he doesn't if it's in one of his own comics.
- The Punisher is very much on the dark side of that scale in most stories, and his actions are addressed as such despite all the good they do. He's just a psychopath that preys on its own.
- Venom has fluctuated between anti-hero and villain for his entire existence, but his actions are nearly always portrayed as evil regardless of the potential benefits they may have.
- Ben Solo was well aware what he was doing was wrong but chose to keep doing it anyway. He butchered loads of innocent people. He then proceeded to get a pass after his five-minute redemption arc.
- Emet-Selch is condemned repeatedly in-universe for his actions. I do tend agree with the assessment of him falling under the umbrella of people who tried to make the best of a crap situation even if the story doesn't really try to paint him in that light.
- Batman is treated in-universe as a force of good nine times out of ten. Additionally, I would note lawful and good are not the same thing. One need not operate within the law to be a force for good.
- Most of Marvel's heroic cast were left broken after failing to prevent the snap, but they very much stuck to their roots. Only two of them really went off the rails, and both wound up getting back in line by the end.
- Vegeta is a genuinely good person, husband, and father by the time of Super. He is everything a fair portion of the fandom mistakenly believes Goku's selfish ass to be. His journey from one side of the spectrum to the other was fantastic.
- T2's T-800's complete lack of morality is called out infrequently, and we see it gradually become more human through its interactions with John. None the less, within the context of that franchise it is considered a purely heroic figure. I would also note the T-800 is not in fact the protagonist of Terminator 2; John Connor is.
- T3's T-850 never really overcomes its programming. Everything it does, from avoiding civilian casualties to protecting John and Katherine, is a result of its defined mission parameters. It would have been perfectly willing to mass slaughter random bystanders if that had somehow been required for the mission. The story treats it as a heroic figure. As with the prior example, the terminator was not the movie's protagonist. That role was again John Connor's.
- Thanos only received the benefit of the "maybe he's got a point" half this equation. Both versions of him were treated purely as villainous by the story.

[Turtledeluxe]

[LIST][*]The mighty Zodiark

Were you even paying attention? His summoning wasn't complete. I've never heard a single person complain about going to the moon or the trial. Not sure what you mean by filler trash aside from your post.

of the Final Days is a pet-project from an ancient which goes mad after observing countless dead world and possibly causing the death of several world by projecting negative emotions unto them, and is thus dead-set on bringing despair to every world, upon which said ancient goes mad and is now letting her run her course to test humanity if they can withstand/fight despair

Umm there's no projecting but everything else you said is right. And?? Is this account your main?

[*]Venat, who hasn't had her memory wiped + still remembers you from being in Elpis, quite apparently doesn't lift a finger to learn about Dynamis herself or to mobilize the other ancients to end Meteion then and there, and instead chooses to turn herself into Hydaelyn, sunder the world and the inhabitants, thereby forcing them to live with and face despair and gambling that their resilience against despair might be enough to face Meteion one day

Why would anyone believe Venat's story with zero evidence...? You're saying she would have successfully convinced everyone and also found a solution in time? That's incredibly doubtful and unbelievable. Secondly she had no choice but to sunder the world, that was the whole point. Did you fall asleep during the sequence where she explains (as though she did not anticipate) the world she created contained mire and plague? It wasn't some kind of test. She told Zodiark's followers off but that doesn't make it some grand scheme or test. Venat couldn't even imagine what was going to happen...that was the entire point.

How is this thread still ongoing?

Also there are reasons to dislike the story but nothing in this post makes a credible argument other than "I wasn't paying attention" or 'It was filler".