On Themis [6.4 SPOILER]

[Ayche]

It is probably better to just accept the words in the text sometimes. When the bible says that god had to drown the world and spare only Noah and his ark, are you going to buy that?
But even if you question it, outside of the pleasures of literature debate, the myth is unyielding in its narrative. Sodom and Gomorrah deserved to die, all of them. No compromise. That is the will of the storytelling.

[Cleretic]

Come on now, you cannot in good stead claim on the one hand to reject certain Ancients because the story treats them and/ or their actions too generously, and then go on to cite Venat as a good example of a character receiving adequate in-universe criticism because of some purported vague moments of self-reflection on the other. Even in good faith, that's just flat out denial, lol.

I've told you before that I don't claim Venat to be a particular favorite of mine; I hope that you're raising this more as a request for more information than as an attack because of that, because I'm going to treat it like it was just a 'please explain'. I don't like Venat in large part because in pretty much all Elpis scenes, she's just not particularly interesting in the same way as Pandaemonium Themis. She falls into that 'bland, inoffensive and nice' role, and kind of only breaks out of that right as Elpis ends. Those moments of self-reflection, coupled with what she actually did (and how, similar to Lahabrea, she sees as real bad but also that she has to do it--and later, find a way to personally accept the fact she did), is a big part of what makes her interesting.

...but so is the fact that, again, Emet spent a whole damn expansion tearing her down. Venat's self-reflection probably wouldn't have been enough for me by itself, but it also wasn't by itself; I think one of the best possible dynamics for this sort of counterbalance when plausible is 'culprit vs. victim', and that's pretty close to exactly the dynamic seen with Emet's attacks on Venat.

EDIT: One way to look at this is to go 'what more could the writers have reasonably done to sell this', and with Venat my belief is that no, they did everything reasonable; anything further would've either overdone the point, broken the pacing, or weakened other elements of her story. Meanwhile with Themis my belief is yes, they could've sold this better (or at least, more to my liking), and it wouldn't have taken much.

[Lurina]

"But it's for us, they did it for us, they love us!" is also something the writers have figured out is the quickest way to get a character to appeal to the audience, no matter what the actions or behaviors were otherwise. If it was done for us, it must have been loving and heroic in some capacity. You mentioned G'raha, but there are obviously, um, several others. And I can easily included even some of the characters I really like who are included to deploy this trick - Themis and Erich, just recently! - and not just the one who, ah, definitely can't be compared to Athena.

This is it, ultimately, yeah.

Whenever there's ambiguity around a character or the writers are cognizant of the fact they're writing a plot beat that might be controversial or contradict with their other messages, they gloss over it by having that character be motivated by love for the player character.

G'raha. Zenos. Venat. And yes, Emet-Selch, even if I like him.

Their cheat for having us accept characters and their roles in the story even even when we might feel visceral objection to them is to frame their actions as done, to one degree or another, out of devotion to us. The intent is that we're so moved personally that we'll forget that G'raha broke the rules of both how time travel is supposed to work in setting and the message about accepting the past that the story otherwise espouses, that Venat and Emet are both mass murderers in a way that renders some of their scenes bizarrely atonal and the worldbuilding surrounding the former especially odd, and that Zenos is a psychopath who condemned an entire country to die in agony because he was bored and does not really deserve a cool quasi-redemption arc.

Again, the world itself is ultimately there to soothe the ego of the player. Nothing else the characters do matters in comparison.

Furthermore, ultimately... this is fiction, and as much as I love a good emotional investment, there's only so much effort I want to put in to getting indignant on behalf of a fictional race that the writers don't want to defend because they've written themselves into a corner.

It's just a shame.

[Lunaxia]

I've told you...

I didn't claim anywhere that she's your favourite character, but there is some extreme bias going on there regardless of where your preferences lie. You dismiss, in your own words, "basically every Ancient" as not receiving adequate criticism, when the entirety of Endwalker goes out of its way to lampoon their perspective on life and way of living as ultimately flawed, harmful and deserving of what eventually befalls them. Then you highlight Azem (who gets called out for being a goofy, thoughtless, renegade pain in the ass as much as being highlighted for their heroics) and Elidibus (who we repeatedly clash with and come up against over several patches) in particular as further cases, before utilising Emet-Selch - derided and ignored by the cast and at that point treated as a villain within the story, who gets his entire worldview held to account at the climax of the story - and his resentment towards Hydaelyn as a viable replacement for the ridiculous lack of protest or any real examination the enormity of her actions receives anywhere else in the game. It feels like you're picking and choosing comments out of context as you see fit to serve your argument here, and it's already a stretch when there's such little comment on Venat overall as it is.

yikes

Wow.

[Lurina]

Themis (as opposed to Elidibus, who is sort of a different mashup entity) works as a character despite not really having many interesting flaws because he puts the other actors involved in the Sundering into relief, IMO. He is the one Ancient who espouses their ideology of caring for the world and its inhabitants above individuals or personal beliefs with complete sincerity, and is first on the sacrifice chopping board. He's an idealist, which is even physically visible in his boss arena, showing Amaurot on a sunny day in contrast to the usual nighttime depictions.

You need an innocent to put the sins of others into context.

[Cleretic]

Themis (as opposed to Elidibus, who is sort of a different mashup entity) works as a character despite not really having many interesting flaws because he puts the other actors involved in the Sundering into relief, IMO. He is the one Ancient who espouses their ideology of caring for the world and its inhabitants above individuals or ideology with complete sincerity, and is first on the sacrifice chopping board. He's an idealist, which is even physically visible in his boss arena, showing Amaurot on a sunny day in contrast to the usual nighttime depictions.

You need an innocent to put the sins of others into context.

See, that does track as for why Themis is like that, especially for the first two legs of Pandaemonium (I'd argue Elpis itself was probably supposed to have Hythlodaeus in that role). I hadn't really thought about that before. I still don't find that character very interesting as a result, but I can respect that in some ways he's sort of the 'moral straight man' of that story.

It just makes me feel like he was even more of a missed opportunity in Anabeisos, though. In that he's not only serving a different role (albeit unwillingly) while the Sharlayan scientists generally fill his original role, but also that he's in a weird state where he's, to try to simplify his situation into something a bit more 'human', a good and moral person who's suddenly become conscious of the fact he did really terrible things. That feels far more interesting than him just being back to the way he was and brushing the Elidibus stuff aside; maybe P11 is instead fueled by his grief and remorse, but him getting to go back to 'how it used to be' to finish closing the Athena case, and maybe an off-screen word with the scientists while we're off seeing the Hegemone scene, gives him a space to better come to terms with it.

[Lunaxia]

Oh, you misunderstand. I think most of the major Ancients actually do receive adequate criticism...

Okay, I'm a little more on your page now. Ironically, it looks like we're at similar destinations, but take different roads to get there.

The main issue is, you want the option to be able to call out Elidibus for his role in the story prior to EW, and not have the WoL automatically predisposed to being amicable towards him. I can appreciate and understand that (despite being at odds with it, considering I want him to be permitted to be hostile here.) You also dislike that he's been stripped of his "Ascian phase", which I'm actually in full agreement with, but my own issues with it are a little different; I don't see it as his being "cleansed", per se, nor do I ultimately find him undeserving of sympathy or a better ending because of his past, so in that respect I don't agree. To me, Themis' involvement in the story as Elidibus is a different kettle of fish to the likes of Lahabrea and Emet-Selch, and consequently he shouldn't really be held under the same microscope that they are. From a story perspective, I think he got enough grief for his actions as we dealt with him in ShB, and that's kind of all been put to rest as far as I'm concerned. Lahabrea, on the other hand, was more "unfinished business" if you like, so addressing his role in our future felt appropriate.

As for the other Ancients, there are some things I'm on board with, others not so much; Venat was still let off really lightly in the narrative compared to the likes of the Ascians, and yes I'm going to swerve dangerously close to that argument by equating the two sides; Emet-Selch giving story exposition and really the only acknowledgement of her actions outside of the Mother Hydaelyn bubble (which he later goes on to praise) with the air of a grudge just doesn't compensate for the lack of comment that the scale of her deeds actually warranted. Azem doesn't receive much in the way of harsh criticism, but they are remarked to have been censured previously for their approach and numerous characters remark on the absolute chaos they wreak, tinged with both affection and exasperation, so to me it's reasonably balanced. Highlighting the keywardens in Pandae also feels a little mean, lol, since the poor guys like as not were just looking up to their superiors.

Emet-Selch in Elpis is enough of a misery to be walking evidence of his own flaws (as much as I'm fond of them), but... I don't disagree at all that some of his post-sundering actions don't get enough light thrown on them. I actually got into a debate a while back at how kindly the story suddenly takes to treating him, and the gymnastics they employ to avoid mentioning his hand in Garlemald in particular, so I'm with you there at least!

[Denishia]

I agree that Themis/Elidibus felt very awkwardly shoehorned into the present timeline Anabeisos - he worked in the first two tiers as the outside straight man and supportive friend for Erichtonios when the meaty core of this raid's story was the toxic familial history and relationships of the Lahabreas. It's why having the original plot MacGuffin crystal be a memory crystal of both Erichtonios and Lahabrea worked (and an interesting counterbalance to the Heart of Sabik as memory for Athena and Lahabrea). But the 6.3 fanservice fight and placing our conclusion scenes with Elibidus in the current day Source's Aetherial Sea instead of in the past or one the First as to keep the raid in just two locations required some painfully clunky 'Athena did it' handwaves and a memory Elidibus with a characterization that feels muddled.

[Brinne]

I actually got into a debate a while back at how kindly the story suddenly takes to treating him, and the gymnastics they employ to avoid mentioning his hand in Garlemald in particular, so I'm with you there at least!

Hey, that was a good time! Uh. Assuming you're referring to your discussions/debates with me. If not, just, ignore this post and I'll quietly go back to cheerfully making use of that report button!

I don't have much to add to this point except agreeing with you that I'm much more interested in a basic framework where we're the ones who wronged Themis and need forgiveness, in a way, and I got a bit more of that sense from his final scene than I think you did, which is why it probably went down for me a bit better. And yeah, that 5.3 was harsh enough on Elidibus (G'raha is harsh) that I can't bring myself to be concerned with it anymore. 5.3 also basically ended with the recognition/revelation on the part of the WoL of his "true nature" (a young person who truly, sincerely, just loved his friends and wanted to help save the world) to the point we were given the option afterwards to say "I don't know if I did the right thing" in regards to putting him down, so our relative friendliness to him seemed perfectly consistent to me.

There comes a point where I start feeling pretty weird about a need to berate all members we know of a particular race and make sure we hold them properly morally accountable for all their terrible, awful, no good, very bad crimes, especially when they're all already dead, and, as we're reminded in Anabesios, they're the ones who are the "losers" in the "I want to save the world and those I love"-off with us and therefore don't get to "decide history" after they've already lost everything.

[Lurina]

(I'd argue Elpis itself was probably supposed to have Hythlodaeus in that role)

Between this and your above assessment of him, I think you've misunderstood Hythlodaeus's character. He's pleasant, but if you pay attention to the way he behaves, he's obviously only motivated by his intense love for specific people and is otherwise largely apathetic to what's going on around him. When he's planning to have Emet-Selch train the charybdis, he expresses no compassion for the animal or even for Hermes, only how it will be neat if Emet does it and how it'll make him happy since he always likes playing the hero in the long term. And then during the rest of the Elpis, while Emet is trying to reach out to Hermes in his unconstructive tsundere way, Hythlo still shows virtually no interest in him and just worries about Emet's feelings being hurt. He's even low-key mean a couple times.

He's also pretty clearly depressed. He constantly puts himself down and negatively compares himself to his friends, and one of this revival quotes is even "You shouldn't have. No, really."

I think he's the most interestingly characterized NPC during the Elpis arc, even more so than Hermes, because so much is unspoken.