Shirai Kurokochan TRUTH NUKE

It is a cause for celebration—or perhaps not—that Ruonava is dead.

Her death in the current version is an indisputable fact, yet whether she lives or dies is not the main point. I have always believed that good characterization matters more than mere survival.

For a long time, I’ve been sharing news about Ruonava’s death in the channel. It wasn’t because I hated the character; quite the opposite—I genuinely liked her. That’s precisely why I shared such unpleasant news early on: to mentally prepare everyone. Of course, I had a selfish motive, too: if I could generate enough buzz, perhaps there was a chance she might survive. Clearly, the community’s affection for the character since version 7.0 has spontaneously spawned a wealth of fan creations and discussions, so I feel I’ve achieved my goal.

However, as I said at the start, whether the character lives or dies ultimately doesn't matter—because her characterization has already been botched.

When I first shared news of Ruonava’s death, I had already learned that her character design and background had undergone drastic changes. I worried then that this might lead to inconsistent behavior or even ruin the character entirely, which is why I decided to post warnings in advance. The original concept for Ruonava was defined by the comments made by Zhongli’s and Ruonava’s voice actors during the FES event, the portrayal in the version 5.0 Natlan storyline, and early lore texts like the "Grim Reaper’s Moon-Oracle Medallion."

In reality, I didn’t rush to judgment regarding these characterization issues; I waited for the content to actually go live before evaluating it. Now, it seems I can finally put those anxious thoughts to rest.

Rationally speaking, there is no need to overreact when a long-running work alters a character’s design, changes original plans, or revises the lore. Such adjustments are inevitable and commonplace in long-form storytelling; it is best to view them with a level head. Take, for instance, the major overhaul of "The Knave" (Arlecchino)—dropping her in as a replacement for the previous holder of the title; or the various inconsistencies in the Harbingers' voice lines that required retroactive patching; or the insertion of the massive "Song of the Empty Moon" update—content not originally in the "Teyvat Chapter Storyline Preview: Travail"—simply to flesh out the world-building and lore. All these changes were, at the very least, constructive, logical, and served a clear purpose.

In contrast, I fail to see who benefits from the changes to Rhinedottir’s characterization, what purpose they serve, or what kind of character they are meant to shape. The only ones who benefit are those harboring twisted, sordid, and malicious whims.

Here, I’d like to quote two statements from writer Li Menggan:
"I’m so excited—let me tell you a tragic story: the pen is in someone else's hand."
"Being a screenwriter without too many constraints is truly the happiest job—hahaha."

The writers have defiled our love. They are just like Rhinedottir—the one who cast the fatal curse upon Khaenri'ah. They lack compassion, yet they derive pleasure from the act. They alter character designs like this and watch as countless people in the community scream and tear their hair out in frustration; they are genuinely delighted. They mock the suffering of others from the bottom of their hearts, and they are utterly indifferent to that suffering.

Reflecting on it, does this storyline actually make me angry or disappointed? I don't think it stirs up such strong emotions. It feels like looking at a blank sheet of paper—would a blank sheet of paper really provoke an emotional reaction in you? That is exactly how I feel about Rhinedottir’s storyline. She exists merely as a "tool-character" villain to drive the plot forward. As for her inner characterization, almost nothing remains beyond the facial expressions and final words in the closing CG—a mere minute and a half—leaving players to fill in the rest with their own imagination.

However, just because a blank sheet of paper doesn't make me angry doesn't mean there isn't a problem with the writing. It is like handing in a blank sheet of paper on an exam. She is one of the illustrious "Four Shades," mentioned as early as Version 2.4, appearing in 5.3, and finally getting a visual design in 6.0—only to be treated in such a slapdash, perfunctory manner. Honestly, is there really that much difference between how this character and La Signora were written?

Before both of them were actually released as playable characters (or met their ends in the story), the community spent ages churning out essays—thousands of words analyzing artifacts and lore—to explain La Signora’s past, her history with Rostam in Mondstadt, and arguing that kicking Venti was somehow justified... but what was the point? After all that analysis, the character was just unceremoniously slashed to death like a disposable plot device; there was no real character development. Most of the "characterization" for La Signora was cobbled together later just to sell new banners or "ships," resulting in writing that felt schizophrenic. They did damage control when The Knave (Arlecchino) was released, did it again for The Damslette and The Marionette, and now they’re doing it for Odette—finally wrapping it all up. A single character getting retconned and patched up from version 2.0 all the way to 7.0? *Genshin Impact* really does have a master plan, doesn't it?

The Harbingers' character designs keep changing, their voice lines contradict each other, and they have to rely on adding new lines later to patch the holes—yet you still have die-hard fans in the community bending over backwards to defend them. Here’s a little inside scoop: there’s a character in 8.0 who’s essentially a counterpart to La Signora; that’s why they keep trying to patch her lore—it’s all just setup for that. After all, they wouldn't lift a finger unless there was profit in it, right? Haha.

That said, setting aside that unprecedented, clown-like spectacle of La Signora’s final moments—is the characterization of "Rhonava" actually any better? Sure, she didn't lose her composure as badly as La Signora did before dying, but her actions were a hundred times more monstrous and inhumane. Yet, the writers didn't dedicate enough screen time to explain *why* she developed that kind of mindset. It’s exactly like the situation with La Signora back in the Inazuma arc, where the writing fell flat because the story was too rushed.
I’m not talking about right or wrong, or good versus evil; at the very least, La Signora’s characterization was consistent. She died pursuing the Tsaritsa’s ideal of a new world, using any means necessary. You might condemn her methods—just as The Captain did—but the character remained true to her core identity.

I don't think there's anything wrong with how The Doctor (Il Dottore) is written, either; he’s simply a man driven to madness and death by his pure, unadulterated thirst for knowledge. Is Ruonawa’s characterization more "complete" simply because her story spanned from the game's launch through version 6.6? But is two versions' worth of main story really insufficient to properly flesh out a character? The writing for the "Moon-Hunting Hunter" proves otherwise. Consider Leilier—who shares the same narrative template and Authority of Death as Ruonawa; she stands out as one of the game's best short-arc villains, with a character arc and internal transformation executed to perfection.

So, what about Ruonawa? Was she a blindly loyal figure who died serving the "Heavenly Principles"? No. While there are plenty of such tragic, blindly loyal characters in fiction, Ruonawa wasn't one of them; the writers themselves dismantled her characterization, causing the image built up by the voice actor and the community to collapse overnight.

Was she someone who drove herself mad—and to her death—in pursuit of self-actualization? No—just look at the barrage of scathing, "true-damage" insults the protagonist hurled at her.

Was she a pitiable soul whose twisted nature stemmed from hidden hardships or suffering? Perhaps serving an inscrutable tyrant like the "Heavenly Principles" for eons created a stifling, oppressive existence. Yet, I feel the writers failed to dedicate enough narrative space to these crucial aspects of her character. Consequently, from most perspectives, she comes across as nothing more than a misanthropic lunatic—a run-of-the-mill, third-rate villain.

Some say she’ll return in version 7.3, and they’re right. But a character's survival isn't always what matters most. Countless works feature characters who sacrifice themselves and exit the story in deeply moving ways, or villains who—even in defeat and death—retain a fully realized, consistent personality that leaves a lasting impression on the audience.
Asmoday and Istaroth will eventually become playable characters, though that likely won't happen for years. Since even deceased characters can be brought back to drive sales, characterization is paramount.

Death itself isn't the issue; what is truly intolerable is when writers deliberately overturn an established character just to indulge their own whims. As the saying goes, the pen that writes the story is not in our hands.
However, the person holding the pen should not use it to wantonly ruin characters who have already been fully established—overturning all the groundwork laid for their personalities simply to indulge a perverse narrative whim. Turning a character into a mere tool to toy with readers' emotions renders all past promotional copy, interviews, and community expectations nothing more than expendable fodder. This is no longer a matter of poor writing; it is a sign of disrespect toward the character and the players who have invested their feelings in them.

Ultimately, characters are written by the game designers. Engaging in infighting or heated debates with fans of other characters only generates buzz for the developers; don't make a spectacle of yourselves just to give the actual culprits a laugh. The only ones who should be in your crosshairs are the game designers.

Many people have lashed out at other game characters or picked fights with other fans because of Ruonawa, but targeting virtual characters is utterly pointless. Squabbling among players only leads to meaningless infighting.
Infighting solves nothing; no amount of arguing will alter the established plot, and "winning" a debate against another player won't make a character playable.

At the end of the day, the storylines for Ruonawa and every other character originate with the designers. Players tearing each other apart over personal preferences is exactly the kind of engagement the developers love to see.
If you don't want the real culprits to watch you with amusement, you need to identify the true target. The sole instigator—the root cause of the problem—has been the game designers who wrote this material in the first place.