What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

[Nilroreo]

I didn't view Thordan as bad.

Thordan had imo probably the least forced sympathetic backstory. He wasn't purely bad, but rather frustrated with the crappy hand has been dealt.

He had the misfortune of being born and raised into a position of leadership presiding over a nation built on deceit and betrayal, and he understood very well that Nidhogg had every right to feel the way that he did. He figured they would never be forgiven for his ancestors transgressions, and he couldn't afford to spill the beans on the true nature of this conflict and risk creating more Dravanian sympathizers out of his own numbers. So he took the easy way out and chose to wash his hands of all the baggage dumped on their generation by just killing all dragons and sparing anyone else from having to linger on this issue any longer.

Ilberd I feel is another really underappreciated one. Guy just wanted his land liberated from garlemalds clutches by any means neccessary and didnt care how history would remember him. His speech about Renouncing any attachment he may have had towards his discouraged countrymen and having no reservations over using their lives to fuel his rebellion still gives me chills.

I usually love sympathetic antagonists, but thanks to ShB & EW I'm over it.

I don't mind them usually, though I've never been a fan of excessive sympathy to the point where the story practically begs you to forgive them (literally every demon slayer villain). Emet, like Ilberd doesnt care what you think of him and doesnt ask for sympathy. But Hermes jumping from this incredibly compassionate man with an unparalleled lust for life to complete nihilist with the story painting him as a victim of his surroundings instead of the deranged madman he really is is really something.