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

[Absimiliard]

Honestly?
I think the "no one was really good" "twist" has become so commonplace, it's now the trope/cliche.

Reddit had a thread of people praising Myths of the Realm (saw it completely opposite of the threads here on the topic), and one of the things people were talking about is how refreshing it was to have gods that were actually good guys for once, not some various shade of gray or secretly evil.

I've seen a similar discussion with people that like the "edgy" versions of Superman telling off people that like the "pure good guy" versions as somehow unable to appreciate something better. But I think people, especially in uncertain and chaotic times (like the ones we live in) like to see good guys that are just genuinely good guys.

I don't think "everyone was wrong" is a compelling story, and it's certainly not brave or risky or fresh; it's been done so much, it's the common thing/trope/cliche at this point. For example, Venat being "the good guy" the whole time after all when everyone thought they were going to do a twist and make her "secretly evil the whole time" was refreshing since the "secretly evil the whole time" is so overdone that everyone was expecting it.

I'm not certain, but I think some of the opposition to Venat being good (NOT ALL, just let me make that clear, but SOME) was due to people that were so absolutely ready for that, their expectation was subverted and they weren't able to process "No, she was actually genuinely good the whole time". That's how cliche and un-interesting/un-creative the "secretly evil the whole time" has become. It's like the bad guy in the first Harry Potter or the bad guy who was Ares in Wonder Women were both obvious from the start since modern media doesn't tend to have good guys that are actually that good, so we know when we first are introduced to them they're going to be the bad guy.

I think NOT doing the "everyone was wrong" story was the braver and more creative, less cliche move at this point.

Good being good and evil being evil are by and far the norms in modern storytelling. Rarely do we see stories acknowledge the hero could just as easily have been a villain were it not for the story being told from their perspective/side.

The above aside, I might note people have a tendency to root for the underdog since it's something they themselves can relate to. This is why you see more people favoring villains or hoping for a more morally grey story these days. We know going into almost any given story the "good guys" will be vindicated and the "bad guys" will most likely die. It's tiresome, and an increasing number of people have grown weary of it. It's got nothing to do with making something edgy. It's simply about relatability and seeking hope. Hope not everyone sees in watching protagonists repeatedly trounce everything in their path without the least bit of consequences, let alone introspection as to whether or not what they're doing is even right.

For my part? I for one do not get a message of hope from seeing antagonist after antagonist crushed beneath the "righteous" heels of their "moral betters." If anything, it serves as a rather blatant reminder for some as to the fact most people are powerless - their ambitions, even their very lives hold no meaning or value to those with real power. Our society is for the most part ruled by those at the top, for it is they whose voices are heard and in turn influence even concepts such as right and wrong by directing the greater whole. There is no parity to speak of. You could spend your whole life fighting for what you believe is right and never make a dent. You might also be forced to watch as this thing you wholeheartedly believe to be right is perceived as outright villainous, because your betters have deemed it such. Where's the hope in that?

Rarely invoked though it is, allowing the villains of a story to have a point provides some semblance of parity and allows people to be more open and honest in their favoring of the "bad guy." In turn, allowing the good guys to be flawed - potentially gravely so -- brings things back down to earth. It adds more substance than simply "unga bunga, me good, you bad, me curbstomp now." It gives you something to think about. After all, truly well-written villains are indeed the heroes of their own stories. If that's the case, then why can't the opposite be true? Why shouldn't the heroes be the villains of their opposition's story once in a while? Protagonists don't always have to be in the right.