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

[CrownySuccubus]

Particularly when Emet-Selch could simply change course. It never is implied to have warped their decision making at the time.

In ShB, Emet-Selch directly makes the case that since Zodiark tempered him, he cannot change course. He specifically used it in the context of the Ascians existing solely to obey Zodiark's will.



Like many things, EW changed or ignored this, and we're told Tempering was something that the Ascians deliberately created AFTER the Sundering.

We know that Emet tried to change course, but couldn't for what he felt were justified reasons. But did he come to that conclusion because (according to himself) he was tempered, or were those attempts to fight off the tempering that failed, and he simply justified them later?

It's a chicken-or-egg dilemma.

[Lunaxia]

I can understand feeling that way... [...]

I really wish they would stop openly admitting how much they make up and retcon things on the fly, as much I admire their honesty it doesn't really do much in terms of giving me faith in their writing.

But I disagree with your premise they couldn't "walk back on" the direction they've taken or that it would have had a negative impact, because they blatantly can and did to rapturous applause in Shadowbringers with the Ascians already. There, they planted the seed that Hydaelyn is a possibly unreliable narrator, and whichever avenue they might have taken with it, be it good, bad, or well-intentioned but misguided, they allowed adequate space for it without necessarily seeming like a last minute plot twist. Unless you think Shadowbringers itself felt that way, in which case that's fair enough, but you can't deny it certainly worked for them. Personally, though I enjoyed what Shadowbringers added to the story, and thought his final scene was beautifully done, I didn't take as readily to Elidibus' sudden transformation into a sympathetic hero. Two or so poorly paced patches didn't feel like enough breathing room for me to suddenly buy into it after the passive role he had taken since ARR, and though I didn't dislike it, I felt almost an expectation to feel similar emotions to what Emet invoked (where he had the benefit of being a much newer character) that I just didn't have. It made me glad we met him again in Endwalker and they subtly reinforced some of the defiance that always underlined the Ascians, particularly after making Emet suddenly rather at peace with the person who was the source of all the suffering inflicted upon him.

On the topic of Zodiark, I don't think it's said anywhere that the souls wouldn't have been returned to them. It doesn't change the fact that no, they could never have returned exactly to the world and the lives they once had, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve as much a chance as anyone else. I agree on the need for more details surrounding Zodiark and what happened post-Final Days, though, it's all very vague at the moment, and a lot of the for-and-against on this subject relies heavily on things we just don't know.

In ShB, Emet-Selch directly makes the case that since Zodiark tempered him, he cannot change course. He specifically used it in the context of the Ascians existing solely to obey Zodiark's will.

I wanted to talk about this, actually. At one point, I definitely believed this was what they were trying to imply, but it seems as if they discarded that thread and ended up handwaving tempering as a "minor tug" that would not have affected their actions and choices to any great degee and made it a matter of personal devotion to their world? I noticed a few potential plot points seem to have been set up and then later abandoned, perhaps when they decided to make one expansion over two.