The State of the Ascians (Assume Spoilers as of TODAY)

[Veloran]

The thing is, that question of whether it would be ethical to do it is irrelevant. By intent or by accident, the star was sundered and the practical question is that now that it is broken, would it be less harmful to repair it or to let the shards continue to exist? "Repair" involves inflicting a great deal of pain and suffering upon the people of the shards, and doesn't resolve the perceived threat of Zodiark.

I don't think the ethics of the original situation are irrelevant. The reasoning behind the Anyder summoning Hydaelyn in opposition to Zodiark is important - If the beliefs in the necessity of their course were flawed somehow, then the entire chain of events and current circumstances of the world become extremely questionable. After all, we've dealt with countless tribes that have summoned their Primals out of the belief that doing so was necessary for their survival, but we've killed them all regardless because the long-term consequences of those summonings couldn't be borne. If their perception of the threat of Zodiark was simply born out of fear, Hydaelyn's summoning was no different from those we've encountered in the past. And this is especially pertinent, because we know for a fact that back then, when the decision was being made, Azem did not support the summoning of Hydaelyn. You didn't believe it was the right thing to do. So it seems like even back then, the PC's stance on the summoning of Primals was the same that it is now - No good can come of it.

As for the pain and suffering inflicted through reparation, we need to look at the situation and decide whether the ongoing circumstances are better or worse than the costs necessary to revise course. I think if we look at it over time, the sacrifices needed in the moment are far outweighed by the overall suffering that have occurred to now and will occur in the future. That's just my belief based on what we now know, but again it doesn't necessarily mean Hydaelyn is "evil".

She could be malevolent and that could be revealed in future,

I don't believe she's malevolent. I think she's very misguided, and in turn misguiding others. For example, Minfilia. I don't think the art is showing Hydaelyn "evilly capturing" her, but is visually representative of Minfilia being entwined with something like thorned chains. She did as Hydaelyn willed out of faith, but that faith was misplaced and born out of ignorance. Can we really say that if she had known what we do now, she would have chosen the same path, and given up her freedom to act as Hydaelyn's mouthpiece? This is why I said "Pictured: Informed consent". Because in order to truly give consent on something, especially your own freedom, you need to really know what you're doing and why.

So if you think people blinding having faith in an ideal makes them a slave to it... than the ideal we represent to people is the biggest slave-driver in the entire game. We have that much influence that a truly mind-boggling amount of people will do whatever they think will live up to that ideal.

But in fact, that ideal is not the truth. The closest thing to the ideals of WoL is fighting for salvation without sacrificing others. This was the conclusion of both you and Alphinaud in 3.2 and 3.3, to reject more sacrifices for the greater good, and instead resolve to try to save everyone even if you might fail. I think this is exactly why Azem rejected the summoning of both Zodiark and Hydaelyn, because both of them could only offer sacrifice and death. And in the ancient past you might have failed to find a solution, but that doesn't mean one still can't be found.