Sharlayan origins and the Endwalker Trailer

[Veloran]

I feel like this one is forcing the evidence to fit the idea; and G'raha / Exarch never joined the "Dark" side anyway. Regardless, this is an argument made in hindsight, and hindsight is 20/20.

In terms of the staff, yes. But the parallelism is basically spelled out in the story itself.

Hydaelyn was in no way responsible for the Flood of Light or using it to her advantage.

Maybe. Back in Heavensward she said that she would go to the First to absorb the Light and save the world, but in Shadowbringers we learn that she merely sent Minfilia and forestalled the Flood. And the fact that she seems to demonstrate some amount of futuresight in regards to Ardbert renders the entire situation somewhat questionable. But, that's just an aside. It's true that people presumed a turn against Hydaelyn on the basis of "Light = Hydaelyn", but ultimately Shadowbringers was about combating the Light and WoL was saved by Darkness in the end. Note that nowhere in the section I'm responding to there was Hydaelyn mentioned, it was merely talking about the relation to Darkness.

particularly Elidibus, who in his final moments finally understands the schism in Amaurotine society he summoned himself to mend couldn't be fixed. "We had disagreements in the past before, always fleeting. But not this time. Not this time."

What? Do you mean to say that you took that quote to suggest he's talking about still fixing that conflict now, in the modern day? It seemed to me very clearly to be his reminiscence of how he felt all the way back then, which he is recalling because his memories were finally restored. And the "But you are not here to see it" struck me as referencing his fellow Convocation members who had been lost, as he was clutching their crystals, not the opposing Hydaelyn faction.

Hypothesis: Even if Endwalker revealed that Venat made mistakes and tough decisions but ultimately meant well, most of the people you're talking about here will still take a "See, I told you she was an irredeemable monster." victory lap.

Its weird to me that many of the same people who will argue in defense of the Ascians also seem to want Venat to have flaws so they can make her out as an irredeemable monster. Seems contradictory to me.

The reason this comes off as a silly point is that Venat is nothing but the flipside of the Ancient coin. Someone who committed genocide and manipulates history, except where the Ascians "meant well" for themselves, she "meant well" for (supposedly) "us". So when the developers literally go as far as to explicitly state that there is no good or evil between the two sides yet there is still the insistence that she is more morally righteous, obviously there will be a reaction in the opposite direction.

I mean, to say that people "want [Venat] to have flaws" implies from the outset that there is a belief that she lacks flaws and opinions to the contrary are merely villainization.

Good call. I was conflating Venat as Hydaelyn, and also Minfilia talking to the Warriors Of Darkness as Hydaelyn, and I shouldn't have. I do believe Venat is Hydaelyn enough that they can be considered the same being, but I should not have assumed the same for Word Of The Mother Minfilia.

And double-checking the dialogue, it's also not explicitly contrition and humility, so I must have inserted that reading into my memories. It's certainly more humble than anything the Ascians have ever said, so I do think my reading is accurate, but I've made lore arguments using exact quotes before, so it would be unfair for me to rely on personal interpretation here.

Frankly, I would not say that any incarnation of Hydaelyn has expressed humbleness all that much. Regret maybe. But whether Hydaelyn herself, Venat, or Minfilia as the Word, every time it's a full belief in the cause, no matter the consequences, and her servants must serve and her enemies must die. Of course you can say "well, she had good reasons", but I can hardly say it's ever in the realm of humility.