Wind-Up Moenbryda Description

[miragedive]

With regards to the Wind-Up Moenbryda minion, I feel the description isn’t appropriate considering the context and development we’re given for her relationship with Urianger in Endwalker. Not only does it feel insulting to their beautiful dynamic and her memory, it also feels degrading to Urianger who clearly respects Moenbryda far more than this description would let on. Please consider changing it to be more appropriate!

The description currently reads as follows: This anatomically accurate representation of Moenbryda was secretly crafted by none other than Urianger immediately following the untimely passing of his beloved companion. What he did with it before it passed to your hands is a tale best left untold.

[Sylfaire]

I agree, especially since the translations in other languages make no such mention of... anything like that.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...nbryda_minion/

[KaitoAsaha]

With regards to the Wind-Up Moenbryda minion, I feel the description isn’t appropriate considering the context and development we’re given for her relationship with Urianger in Endwalker. Not only does it feel insulting to their beautiful dynamic and her memory, it also feels degrading to Urianger who clearly respects Moenbryda far more than this description would let on. Please consider changing it to be more appropriate!

The description currently reads as follows: This anatomically accurate representation of Moenbryda was secretly crafted by none other than Urianger immediately following the untimely passing of his beloved companion. What he did with it before it passed to your hands is a tale best left untold.

So I went to the reddit thread about this same thing and I like how the change only needs to happen based on either the true intent when this description was made, or where your mind is at when you read it. Personally I'm a fan of one response that mentions he went out of his way to have multiple outfits for it and crafted miniature weapons to coordinate with the outfits while carrying it on his person, in a bag. Maybe he held it close when reading a book, to recapture those very same moments from their childhood? All easily things best left untold if left to Urianger.

I mean.. you can either think he did something inappropriate with the minion, or think he did very wholesome things with it, which may seem out of character(?), and would make that a tale best left untold. The latter can easily be my headcanon, as it's more likely something along those lines for this character.

Tldr; all depends on where your head is at, but ultimately I feel the description is fine. That's just me though. It doesn't have to allude to something vile, but could just as easily be referring to something heart warming and wholesome.

[miragedive]

So I went to the reddit thread about this same thing and I like how the change only needs to happen based on either the true intent when this description was made, or where your mind is at when you read it. Personally I'm a fan of one response that mentions he went out of his way to have multiple outfits for it and crafted miniature weapons to coordinate with the outfits while carrying it on his person, in a bag. Maybe he held it close when reading a book, to recapture those very same moments from their childhood? All easily things best left untold if left to Urianger.

I mean.. you can either think he did something inappropriate with the minion, or think he did very wholesome things with it, which may seem out of character(?), and would make that a tale best left untold. The latter can easily be my headcanon, as it's more likely something along those lines for this character.

Tldr; all depends on where your head is at, but ultimately I feel the description is fine. That's just me though. It doesn't have to allude to something vile, but could just as easily be referring to something heart warming and wholesome.

Normally I would agree to leave things up to interpretation, but considering the tone of the description and also the trend in that sort of "phase" for slyly inserted jokes, it seems painfully obvious that it's not exactly wholesome. Especially when, looking at the Reddit post above, the JP text translates to something along the lines of: A magical doll modeled after Moenbryda. Urianger created this doll by himself in secret in order to sort out the feelings he did not realize he had until after her death. No doubt the doll's gentle expression is a recreation of what he saw on her face whenever she looked at him.

[KaitoAsaha]

Normally I would agree to leave things up to interpretation, but considering the tone of the description and also the trend in that sort of "phase" for slyly inserted jokes, it seems painfully obvious that it's not exactly wholesome. Especially when, looking at the Reddit post above, the JP text translates to something along the lines of: A magical doll modeled after Moenbryda. Urianger created this doll by himself in secret in order to sort out the feelings he did not realize he had until after her death. No doubt the doll's gentle expression is a recreation of what he saw on her face whenever she looked at him.

I read the same and it just comes off as it being a matter of where your head is at. I see him sorting his feelings out via wholesome methods, which would better align with the character that we've come to know. Ultimately it depends on what the translation team was going for with this, or someone more official will need chime in, though this seems like a nothing sort of request. I respect your opinion though.

[Iscah]

I've been meaning to make a post about this. It was already an unpleasantly innuendo-laced description when Urianger was just that weird guy in the corner who delivers wordy exposition sometimes, but now that he's a really active and developed character it's even worse. It doesn't fit with how he's portrayed and it seems disrespectful to both him and Moenbryda.

The writers have revised text before where they've realised it's inappropriate, and I hope they'll at least consider this one.

I mean.. you can either think he did something inappropriate with the minion, or think he did very wholesome things with it...

As a general rule, if there's an innocent and a "naughty" reading to be found in the same text, it's highly unlikely that you're supposed to take the innocent reading as the truth.

You can't seriously look at the claim that what someone did with an "anatomically accurate" doll is a "tale best left untold" and say that the reader should give equal weight to the possibility that this was a wholesome incident.

[Snazzington]

Urianger is a man of secrets, what- you think he jacked off to it by the English description? It'd be pretty embarrassing if one found out that the dude poured his heart out to the doll and decided to... you know, NOT tell the WoL or anyone else on the matter.
Its best left untold, cause grief is very personal. Anatomically correct- because he was very close to her and he's a guy who takes in the details.
Its like saying "A picture of Minfillia owned by Thancred, the frames of the picture seems to still be wet" and suddenly someone just goes "OH HE DID IT TO THE PICTURE!" instead of just understanding that he might have just looked at it and cried on it to pass on grief.

[Rongway]

Anatomically correct- because he was very close to her and he's a guy who takes in the details.

"This perfectly detailed representation" would say that much better without being perverse.

Let's not pretend it isn't purposely suggestive or that whoever localized it didn't understand what they were implying. The word choices scream an intent to direct the reader's mind to the perverse. There is no context in English-speaking cultures where one makes a point to pair "anatomically correct" with a phrase equivalent to "don't ask about it" where someone doesn't intend either (a) to make a joke of the perverse or (b) to be unironic about the sexuality of the situation.

[Snazzington]

Well I'm not pretending to be innocent, I just honestly don't see a problem with it.
like its never been an issue, up until I found this thread,
and seeing the context and the characters related- I just find it weird how you'd even find the preverse "details" inside the description when the character in question is by far no where NEAR that type of desperation nor defilement.
Like, look at Urianger, and look at the description- he'd be the dude to say how something doth be anatomically correct.
I'm literally looking at this in universe, without throwing some real world context into it.
like if this really bothers people, then why aren't there more threads talking about the multiple usages of "Bossom" and "Breast" but take offence that "anatomically correct" was used with "Best left unspoken".


Oh whats the point... everyone will be inclined to look at the more preverse side at this point anyways.

[Rongway]

why aren't there more threads talking about the multiple usages of "Bossom" and "Breast" but take offence that "anatomically correct" was used with "Best left unspoken".

Bossoms, breasts, and anatomical correctness are not on their own perverse. But when you pair one with an obvious bait like "What he did with it before it passed to your hands is a tale best left untold", you are directing the reader to interpret the previous phrase in a perverse context. There are only two possible conclusions from the choice to phrase the description like this:

A) The writer is being intentionally perverse.
or B) The writer is incompetent.

If we assume the writer is competent, then they must have chosen their words to purposely lead the reader to a perverse conclusion.

Oh whats the point... everyone will be inclined to look at the more preverse side at this point anyways.

Because it's purposely perverse.