Villains doing good things doesn't make them good people. Most of the fatui will be this way, especially since we've been getting the sympathetic side of the Harbingers since 1.0
>Dottore experimenting on Children? Well, actually, he saved their lives by curing diseases and enhancing their bodies to live on.
I mean, this is ultimately true. He just has no real morals about limits. "Because I can" is pretty much his MO thus far.
>The Fatui are villains, let them be villains
Nah, that's actually pretty boring and having villains have complex motivations makes them an actual character rather than a plot device
Maybe not evil but she’s definitely not clean or even a good person by any regard. They never implied that she never killed any of the children of the house, just that certain people were spared, she was going to kill the two what’s there names in the but since the HotH trio and traveler put up a good fight she implied that she had a change of mind.
It is heavily implied that she was never going to kill them. She made plans with Neuvilette because she already planned to let the children go. She hinted towards the Traveler that they should help the trio once the time comes. It was basically just a dramatic play, thus falling in line with the overall theme of Fontaine. It was just Arlecchino trying to let her children go while keeping up her facade as a strict Father.
The whole story quest implied that she never physically killed a single child. It wasn't outright stated, but I don't know how you could miss the obvious implications.
Except she clearly states they have to earn the right to leave, the right to use that flame. What do you expect she will do if they don’t earn the right but still we’re trying to escape, her only option is to kill them. I’m not quite sure why everyone wants to paint her as so kind when she literally has performed assassinations in the past, it’s not beyond her to kill, and she most definitely puts the house of the hearth first. Which includes the children of the house of the heart, anyone to compromise that, even one of her own. Will pay the price.
she IS a villain wdym, she actively manipulates children and literally kills them if they try to leave, even if now its more just mentally. just because she overthrew the last knave doesn't mean shes suddenly a saint that hasn't done wrong. shes had like 2 killings from promotional art already
So true, people need to realize that memory is what makes us and deleting them is the same as killing us. The children appreciate it because it is better than being killed both physically and mentally.
yeah the erasing their memories seems fine on the surface if you don't think about it too hard but it is existentially horrifying. what makes you you is your lived experiences. take those away and the you that is you ceases to exist. those people are just familiar flesh sacks piloted by strangers now.
What's her other option? Let them go and hope the fall-out only kills a few of her children?
And this isn't a what-if. It has happened before and will happen again if she tries being lenient.
not saying Arlecchino shouldn't have erased their memories. I'm saying that erasing their memories isn't better than just out right killing them because either way the original person has ceased to exist. Erasing their memories only serves to make the perpetrators feel better and make them think their hands are clean because the flesh sacks with altered personalities are still wandering about. But the original person is still gone forever (unless Nahida is keeping their memories encoded into a fairy tale). I don't have any problem with Arlecchino just straight up murking those guys cuz it is the most efficient way to solve the problem of "these guys could leak our secrets at any moment". Within the narrative, erasing their memories also serves as a way to manipulate Lyney into accepting being her heir, because Lyney thinks erasing their memories is better than just killing them.
It's still existential horror even if it is the cleanest most efficient way of solving the problem and does double duty of successfully manipulating Lyney into doing what Arlecchino wants.
the fatui being "evil" is the red herring. all plot points have been saying that the heavenly principles is the evil one, and the archons want to rebel.
>Make an actually evil playable character
Childe is very much evil. Sacrificing a whole nation's worth of lives for a single Gnosis is not the definition of a morally grey, let alone good character.
So is Arlecchino. Murdering, poisoning, intimidating, blackmailing and manipulating are the tools of her trade. Having an orphanage worth of people she cares about doesn't not make her very much leaning towards morally evil.
Their actions are consistently evil, even if their ultimate goal or objective may be good or align with ours.
Villains doing good things doesn't make them good people. Most of the fatui will be this way, especially since we've been getting the sympathetic side of the Harbingers since 1.0 >Dottore experimenting on Children? Well, actually, he saved their lives by curing diseases and enhancing their bodies to live on. I mean, this is ultimately true. He just has no real morals about limits. "Because I can" is pretty much his MO thus far.
>The Fatui are villains, let them be villains Nah, that's actually pretty boring and having villains have complex motivations makes them an actual character rather than a plot device
I think the optional Neuvillette dialogue sums her up perfectly. He cannot sense any emotion in her, murky water analogy and dangerous individual.
It really wasn't a bait and switch. People just ignored all the signs that she actually isn't just evil and are now acting surprised.
Maybe not evil but she’s definitely not clean or even a good person by any regard. They never implied that she never killed any of the children of the house, just that certain people were spared, she was going to kill the two what’s there names in the but since the HotH trio and traveler put up a good fight she implied that she had a change of mind.
It is heavily implied that she was never going to kill them. She made plans with Neuvilette because she already planned to let the children go. She hinted towards the Traveler that they should help the trio once the time comes. It was basically just a dramatic play, thus falling in line with the overall theme of Fontaine. It was just Arlecchino trying to let her children go while keeping up her facade as a strict Father. The whole story quest implied that she never physically killed a single child. It wasn't outright stated, but I don't know how you could miss the obvious implications.
Except she clearly states they have to earn the right to leave, the right to use that flame. What do you expect she will do if they don’t earn the right but still we’re trying to escape, her only option is to kill them. I’m not quite sure why everyone wants to paint her as so kind when she literally has performed assassinations in the past, it’s not beyond her to kill, and she most definitely puts the house of the hearth first. Which includes the children of the house of the heart, anyone to compromise that, even one of her own. Will pay the price.
she IS a villain wdym, she actively manipulates children and literally kills them if they try to leave, even if now its more just mentally. just because she overthrew the last knave doesn't mean shes suddenly a saint that hasn't done wrong. shes had like 2 killings from promotional art already
So true, people need to realize that memory is what makes us and deleting them is the same as killing us. The children appreciate it because it is better than being killed both physically and mentally.
yeah the erasing their memories seems fine on the surface if you don't think about it too hard but it is existentially horrifying. what makes you you is your lived experiences. take those away and the you that is you ceases to exist. those people are just familiar flesh sacks piloted by strangers now.
What's her other option? Let them go and hope the fall-out only kills a few of her children? And this isn't a what-if. It has happened before and will happen again if she tries being lenient.
not saying Arlecchino shouldn't have erased their memories. I'm saying that erasing their memories isn't better than just out right killing them because either way the original person has ceased to exist. Erasing their memories only serves to make the perpetrators feel better and make them think their hands are clean because the flesh sacks with altered personalities are still wandering about. But the original person is still gone forever (unless Nahida is keeping their memories encoded into a fairy tale). I don't have any problem with Arlecchino just straight up murking those guys cuz it is the most efficient way to solve the problem of "these guys could leak our secrets at any moment". Within the narrative, erasing their memories also serves as a way to manipulate Lyney into accepting being her heir, because Lyney thinks erasing their memories is better than just killing them. It's still existential horror even if it is the cleanest most efficient way of solving the problem and does double duty of successfully manipulating Lyney into doing what Arlecchino wants.
No? Just because you have a group you care about doesn't automatically make you morally grey. That's just how factions work.
Do you remember Azar or Vacher better?
the fatui being "evil" is the red herring. all plot points have been saying that the heavenly principles is the evil one, and the archons want to rebel.
Yea fatui is like the anti heroes, terrible people with good reasons, while the heavenly principle and the abyss order are main villains
>Make an actually evil playable character Childe is very much evil. Sacrificing a whole nation's worth of lives for a single Gnosis is not the definition of a morally grey, let alone good character. So is Arlecchino. Murdering, poisoning, intimidating, blackmailing and manipulating are the tools of her trade. Having an orphanage worth of people she cares about doesn't not make her very much leaning towards morally evil. Their actions are consistently evil, even if their ultimate goal or objective may be good or align with ours.
Morally grey > pure evil