Ardbert's Party vs the Scions Analysis

[Iscah]

Explained by Sharlayan emphasis on neutrality. They were isolationists by design. They were NOT tempered either, they were bound by a spell that forbade them from discussing certain topics..a spell they consented to.

There was even a cutscene to explain it. Sharlayan was NEVER antagonistic to anyone, they were isolationists dedicated to a specific ideal, and simply did not want to interact with outsiders.

NOT the same thing.

I'm not saying it was the same thing. I'm talking about the difference between what we knew before Endwalker and the speculation extracted from those fragments of knowledge, compared to the truth behind them that we now know after playing it.

In our earlier stage of knowledge, there was a lot of potential for the truth to be something quite different to what it ultimately was, and I don't think what they did was the best story choice. (Much the same sentiment as I hold towards their final explanation of the Sundering, really.)

The thing I find most frustrating about these endless arguments over whether we should like the protagonists or not, is that I actually would like to have a conversation that starts from the angle "we're here because we like (or at least tolerate) the ongoing characters of this ongoing story; what do we think of the events that happened to them here?" – that's what I want to talk about when a new chapter of the story is released. Not have to debate (yet again with the same naysayers) whether the cast is acceptable in the first place.

(Edit to be clear: I enjoyed Endwalker as a whole but there are specific plot elements that I think were badly handled.)