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

[Divinemights]

People does not seem to get that Ancient has different culture and morale code than us.
Even in our current time, you can call any one a fool that expecting Chinese or Japanese to thinks the same as North Americans.

[Lauront]

Just going to repeat what I said on the lore forum as my thoughts on it...

I thought this really undermined the arguments that her plan was "flawless".

To touch on some key points...

Hydaelyn’s summoning is stated to be different - inferior in some respects - to what the Convocation did with Zodiark, in that he could use other sources of aether aside from the soul, leaving it untouched, whereas hers consumed them wholesale. This may explain I suppose why her power waxes and wanes. Were her summoners even aware of this? They were worried about her (Venat) fading so his reference to the 5.2 scene is odd.

His answer on Venat will do little to dislodge the view that had she shared the information she had in full, a different path could’ve been forged, as it all came down to her belief about the Plenty - or more accurately, the one line summary Meteion provided. So nothing new in this respect, because the ancients continuing as they were is a function of what they were told and in turn, their reasons to believe it (or not.)

At least they concede that she agonised over the injustice of it and juxtapose it with what Emet (after 12k years of a bloody toil) did. I think it’s even worse. It confirms the supposed dispute over the morality of the sacrifices is not the main issue (indeed, this is never referenced in 5.2 or later, it is always framed by instrumentally linking these to them meeting an eventual doom) and that it came down to 1) ability to manipulate dynamis and 2) the one line she heard about the Plenty.

Mayhap she was the one really the one given to despair, like Hermes. Yoshi relates her ability to make such decisions to being an ancient and that it can be questioned in the same light as Emet’s at the end of SHB. So at least he isn’t trying to paint her as some unquestionable saint. Those ancients who had up to then had a government based on debate and reaching consensus may also disagree that her or Hermes arbitrarily deciding to end them were of a sound mind.

If the Rejoinings can be brought into question on that basis, then naturally so can the Sundering which pushed them on that path. I also dispute his claim that the ancients were so different in this regard – we see Ilberd, Vauthry, Thordan, Yotsuyu, Varis, Zenos, and yes, the 8UC Ironworks/G’raha, etc., eager to push their own vision onto mankind (or an entire timeline in the latter’s case.) As I have pointed out before, the way the sundered treat lesser life forms and their own “creations” is really not too different from the ancients, either, so let’s not be too hasty to exaggerate their differences in some key behavioural aspects.

Moreover, his answer on the timelines seems vague and non-definitive; the more interesting possibility he gives is stating perhaps Venat worked behind the timelines to avoid them going awry. How would she do this without exact knowledge? Regardless, this means she had committed to "our" timeline and she is ipso facto responsible for a lot of what happened by acting to preserve it, including the actions of the three unsundered, since she knew they’d do all this when confronted with the state of the world, with the (lack of) knowledge she left them with.

To me it makes her plan even more desperate and drastic now given that she allowed for Emet (and by extension) three unsundered to survive as part of her plan, but that this was also uncertain as part of the plan. It merely underlines that she is partly culpable for what they would do, as she knew this from the WoL and provided them zero context for it all. It is a bit frustrating that they explained their surviving their fate in this way. Ditto with the Azem question – I can say my character would’ve not damned their own people in Venat’s scheme.

At least this sounds like it’s the last of Zenos and Venat.

Some other points since they're not worth me making a separate post on:

• Their answer on the evolution of the races is all the more bizarre, because if it’s due to this, it is strange that it followed the exact same trajectory (right down to subraces) on Reflections separated through time, aetheric density and histories. But in any case, it closes off that question.
  
• The answer on the purpose of the sigils was good I thought. Aside from the general altruistic impulses of the ancients, it highlights that these seats were primarily defined by putting their power to responsible use and a signifier of the duty and responsibility they took on.
  
• It's strange that he comments that Emet and Hyth have accomplished all they wanted – surely reincarnation occurs regardless? In fact, this would suggest their souls will pass on through the cycle rather than being stuck in torment like Livia.
  
• The idea that the Blessing won’t fade is likewise odd. There are sufficient narrative devices to do away with it. Though I imagine without a primal to pour her power into it, it will now remain a simple traveller’s ward…
  
• The star’s name not spreading is intriguing – so is the intention just to wait for Y’shtola to publish her book? What will even be learnt by this all, that won’t fade in a few generations?
  
• It does seem like my hunch on the elder primals was correct – i.e. that different parts are on different reflections, so that with Zodiark’s core gone, he is finished – ditto with Hydaelyn.
  
• I found the answers on the sundered Ascians a little weak - one of the masks is a lion's. Apparently they're still around. Hopefully as something other than mere two bit villains. The time for that is past. Additionally, it's interesting that they have the names etc. for all the Convocation seats worked out and may get them one day. Hope for an unsundered AU expansion rising a bit.
  

Overall, I found some answers weak, but I was pleased that they're not forcing some "Venat is a saint" interpretation. We'll see what the short stories and Pandaemonium bring.