帝弓 referred to here predates Lan's arrival. So it's likely 帝弓 was a heroic title that got transferred to Lan. It's unlikely Lan was involved in the Flaming Catastrophe. Not sure were "Lan's Emanator" interpretation is coming from, since there logic seems to stem from both being called 帝弓 but acknowledgement of godhood was a much later event. Also 「帝弓司命」这一尊号的诞生，是远早于「巡猎」作为星神正式出现的。 (Source)
The myth is that the hero ascended to become Lan...but that's like...myth.
Since we're talking about the time after 帝弓派 became the main religion after the 600 year religious struggle for supremacy on Xianzhou, I would hardly categorize the actions after the first war as picking a fight, since the initial war was absolutely brutal. Picking a fight implies Xianzhou is instigating the conflict, but it was the Abundance races that attacked Xianzhou first. Could Xianzhou have taken a more defensive stance? Sure. Are they seeking vengeance? Definitely. But "picking a fight" is not how I would characterize what happened.
breaking free from something still indicates that there was something to break free from
And I'd argue Dan Heng breaking free from social expectations, his own confusion about his self worth, the unfair burdens placed upon him (all vague concepts that can be fulfilled with story beats such as getting kicked out of the clan, being used as a scapegoat, wrongful accusation due to being framed, etc.) is the answer. It doesn't have to only be "sins of a past incarnation".
Impact 3rd expies in HSR. They generally have similar personalities, the same looks, and sometimes even similar relationships. But their different backstories is what makes these characters distinct from one another as their own character.
The existence of expies just proves my point of the existence of an intrinsic core to the character. The fact they are recognized as having the same personalities and appearance, thus are expies rather than new original character means fandom acknowledges the transference of this core identity. They keep the same name because despite the setting being different, their identity is acknowledged as being the same. Since the purpose of these expies are meant to draw in fans of the original, if expies are not recognized as the same character then the entire promotional strategy wouldn't exist.
Much like how Peter Parker in Sony's Spiderman is different from the Peter Parker of MCU's Spiderman (actor, romantic interest, social circle, even age), but are both recognized as valid interpretations of Peter Parker the character. Both are In Character. They aren't the same person to be sure, but they are the same character. No one is going to argue that just because MCU Peter Parker isn't friends with Osborn or that he fails to get together with MJ, this invalidates MCU's version of Peter Parker and only Sony's version is the one true Peter Parker.
So no, you don't have to like an AU version, but that doesn't make the interpretation OOC, which is what we're discussing whether the character remains the same.
Afterwards, the story has become an AU, but that has nothing to do with the story's quality or enjoyment
But I see no reason why AU at time of publication is functionally different at affecting enjoyment compared to becoming AU after the fact. In other words, you're attributing the lack of enjoyment to AU (specifically deviation from canon characterizations) but the logic you're explaining to me isn't backing up that attribution.
no subject
According to timeline, Lan descended year 4000. Flaming Catastrophe occurred year 3400, which is mostly resolved by 帝弓 who gave up his body in a deal:
帝弓 referred to here predates Lan's arrival. So it's likely 帝弓 was a heroic title that got transferred to Lan. It's unlikely Lan was involved in the Flaming Catastrophe. Not sure were "Lan's Emanator" interpretation is coming from, since there logic seems to stem from both being called 帝弓 but acknowledgement of godhood was a much later event. Also (Source)
The myth is that the hero ascended to become Lan...but that's like...myth.
Since we're talking about the time after 帝弓派 became the main religion after the 600 year religious struggle for supremacy on Xianzhou, I would hardly categorize the actions after the first war as picking a fight, since the initial war was absolutely brutal. Picking a fight implies Xianzhou is instigating the conflict, but it was the Abundance races that attacked Xianzhou first. Could Xianzhou have taken a more defensive stance? Sure. Are they seeking vengeance? Definitely. But "picking a fight" is not how I would characterize what happened.
And I'd argue Dan Heng breaking free from social expectations, his own confusion about his self worth, the unfair burdens placed upon him (all vague concepts that can be fulfilled with story beats such as getting kicked out of the clan, being used as a scapegoat, wrongful accusation due to being framed, etc.) is the answer. It doesn't have to only be "sins of a past incarnation".
The existence of expies just proves my point of the existence of an intrinsic core to the character. The fact they are recognized as having the same personalities and appearance, thus are expies rather than new original character means fandom acknowledges the transference of this core identity. They keep the same name because despite the setting being different, their identity is acknowledged as being the same. Since the purpose of these expies are meant to draw in fans of the original, if expies are not recognized as the same character then the entire promotional strategy wouldn't exist.
Much like how Peter Parker in Sony's Spiderman is different from the Peter Parker of MCU's Spiderman (actor, romantic interest, social circle, even age), but are both recognized as valid interpretations of Peter Parker the character. Both are In Character. They aren't the same person to be sure, but they are the same character. No one is going to argue that just because MCU Peter Parker isn't friends with Osborn or that he fails to get together with MJ, this invalidates MCU's version of Peter Parker and only Sony's version is the one true Peter Parker.
So no, you don't have to like an AU version, but that doesn't make the interpretation OOC, which is what we're discussing whether the character remains the same.
But I see no reason why AU at time of publication is functionally different at affecting enjoyment compared to becoming AU after the fact. In other words, you're attributing the lack of enjoyment to AU (specifically deviation from canon characterizations) but the logic you're explaining to me isn't backing up that attribution.