Death unto Dawn page up

[Kesey]

I'm not 100% on the details, but a lot about Heavensward was hastily put together, because they hadn't expected the major success that came with ARR. So I don't think it was as planned as Stormblood or Shadowbringers.

Hmmm, it was convenient though that they found Yda and Papalymo last when we were well on our to Ala Mhigo. And that Thancred walked back in to save Alisaie so she could join the scions. And Urianger was suspiciously absent to force an encounter with the warriors of darkness, or that Y'shtola was back in time for Master Matoya. No one came back to just come back. They literally walked back in when they needed to advance the plot.

SE was not ready for the success. They were ready with the story and patches because they plan this in advance. If it's the hasty patch work you claim, it wouldn't have played out so seamlessly.

[Vyrerus]

stop espousing philosophy and anime tropes at us.

No, I don't think I will.

Again, when you kill characters it removes them from the story permanently. As you just pointed out, it gives more room for other characters to take the stage and grow. Since all of the Scions are from Sharlayan, having one of them get killed by the bad guys as the world is set to end would probably be the impetus to have us journey to Sharlayan and start bringing out the big guns. The forbidden/secret knowledge and technology of Sharlayan to match the stakes that were just raised by the character death. Why not just go there, because the world is at stake? Oh, I don't know, because the world is always at stake in FFXIV. In the original timeline before G'raha and future Ironworks did their thing, the Scions and most of the world got to experience Black Rose, and we hear nothing of Sharlayan being moved to not be neutral.

Also I find it funny that to you, one of the prime reasons for character death is just an, "excuse." You've already assumed the position that my talking points, or anyone with them, do not have merit. If you get to decide how much worth my words have before I write them, then why should I try to fulfill your checklist of what you think is important? All I meant by, "I think people are making up the other side's thoughts" is that people are basically building, "Strawmen." In this case the strawman is the idea that everyone who wants characters to die just wants death for death's sake as many people keep insisting in this thread.

[Kesey]

No, I don't think I will.

Again, when you kill characters it removes them from the story permanently. As you just pointed out, it gives more room for other characters to take the stage and grow. Since all of the Scions are from Sharlayan, having one of them get killed by the bad guys as the world is set to end would probably be the impetus to have us journey to Sharlayan and start bringing out the big guns. The forbidden/secret knowledge and technology of Sharlayan to match the stakes that were just raised by the character death. Why not just go there, because the world is at stake? Oh, I don't know, because the world is always at stake in FFXIV. In the original timeline before G'raha and future Ironworks did their thing, the Scions and most of the world got to experience Black Rose, and we hear nothing of Sharlayan being moved to not be neutral.

Also I find it funny that to you, one of the prime reasons for character death is just an, "excuse." You've already assumed the position that my talking points, or anyone with them, do not have merit. If you get to decide how much worth my words have before I write them, then why should I try to fulfill your checklist of what you think is important? All I meant by, "I think people are making up the other side's thoughts" is that people are basically building, "Strawmen." In this case the strawman is the idea that everyone who wants characters to die just wants death for death's sake as many people keep insisting in this thread.

Asking you for evidence is challenging you to participate in the conversation, instead of taking the obstinate path of "No, I don't think I will."

[Vyrerus]

Asking you for evidence is challenging you to participate in the conversation, instead of taking the obstinate path of "No, I don't think I will."

You're an argumentative sort. And again, pedestaling yourself and your opinions. Not really someone I want to converse with.

[KizuyaKatogami]

It's pretty easy to dismiss the other side of the argument when you've convinced yourself they're making it up...

Again, if you kill anyone you lose the potential to keep telling stories with them, so death has to be super impactful (Haurchefant), move the plot (Moenbrydia), cutoff future scenarios of their storytelling (Nidhoggs attack would play out differently if Lady Iceheart was around, plus create a more complicated relationship with all primals going forward). Papalymo's death accomplished all of these points by stalling Shinryu, loosing a Scion who had been there from the beginning with Gridania players, and gave Lyse the freedom to go to Doma. Papalymo most importantly would be in the way of Lyse expanding as a character and in Stormblood, so his potential story telling going forward with the plot was diminished, and though heartbreaking, was necessary.

Currently, beyond the argument that "Death is necessary" do I hear any kill the scion supporters saying more than death is a great motivator. How does Y'shotla biting the bullet before going to Thavnairia advance the plot? Or Thancred or Urianger dyeing before Endwalker takes us to the Empire? Or if the big city is Sharalayan killing one of the twins or G'hara before we go there? If you are going to support the death of beloved characters justify it in context of the story, stop espousing philosophy and anime tropes at us.

And if I'm still not clear and seem to be making this up to you, I'm specifically asking you for evidence on how killing anyone will advance the story (plot) significantly and you can't use the excuse that the death will affect the remaining characters emotionally and force them to act because that is a given any time a character dies.

My question is, how does giving characters random plot armor to keep them alive help make the story more fluid instead of more convoluted?

[Kesey]

My question is, how does giving characters random plot armor to keep them alive help make the story more fluid instead of more convoluted?

Are you confused by the story with all the current scions in the plot? If the answer is no, then it is not convoluted.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Are you confused by the story with all the current scions in the plot? If the answer is no, then it is not convoluted.

Kind of yeah? I’m confused why they contradicted an entire plot point at the end of ShB just so that Graha could survive lol.

[Kesey]

Kind of yeah? I’m confused why they contradicted an entire plot point at the end of ShB just so that Graha could survive lol.

Do you think that a guy who woke up in the destroyed future, who gave up his entire life to travel back in time to let you know how to avert said future, deserves to live a normal life in the future he saved?

It's not a contradiction, it's a second chance.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Do you think that a guy who woke up in the destroyed future, who gave up his entire life to travel back in time to let you know how to avert said future, deserves to live a normal life in the future he saved?

It's not a contradiction, it's a second chance.

Um, if it comes at the cost of a coherent plot then no he doesn’t. There’s that wholesome crap lol. “doesn’t he deserve to live.” If they wrote it that way yes. But his feat at the end of ShB goes against the literal one plot point they established for him. It doesn’t matter if someone has the opinion of whether he deserves to live or not because then we fall into the rabbit hole of does the antagonist deserve to live or not.

[Kesey]

Um, if it comes at the cost of a coherent plot then no he doesn’t. There’s that wholesome crap lol. “doesn’t he deserve to live.” If they wrote it that way yes. But his feat at the end of ShB goes against the literal one plot point they established for him. It doesn’t matter if someone has the opinion of whether he deserves to live or not because then we fall into the rabbit hole of does the antagonist deserve to live or not.

It's the same rabbit hole of if death should happen or not too.

The plot hole you're referring to isn't a plot hole because there is a current youthful G'hara on the source when the events on the First transpire. Since soul transference to go back requires the Exarch's blood and a body on the source, the only part of the theory that was unproven was if the Exarch going to his old body would the young soul on source would except the old soul from the First. And it worked. So, without breaking any established rules, G'hara is saved from death.