It's fascinating to see in what ways the world of Aramán and that of Exandria diverge on the fate of the gods. In Cooldown, Brennan describes the two settings as "perpendicular" in their depiction, and goes on to elaborate (and I will quote directly here but I recommend watching it if you can - the full piece starts around 17:30 or so but my quote begins around 18:50):
"But also, I think that we've got, you know, more will come out in the lore and history of this world, but the Shapers, first of all, there's way less. There's seven of them, and there were not necessarily a group of Betrayers and a group of Primes opposed to each other. A much smaller group of gods who themselves who themselves were I think way more archetypally a little bit more like like Greek gods or Norse gods in some ways where you're like 'You guys are really powerful and not always great.' You know, like, in terms of their morals were not like - they did some fucked up stuff, to the point where mortals were like 'Well, the orcs figured out how to do it, we should probably do it.' And off they went."
With that information about Aramán and how it differed dramatically from Exandria, I think it's worth looking at what little we know of the world materially as it exists in Dol-Makjar. I know multiple people have pointed out that, funnily enough, a godless city - seat of the revolution - still has unknown rigid restrictions on arcanism to the point that it was used as the grounds for Thjazi's execution (whereas in Vasselheim it was merely frowned upon.) There is still clearly notable inequality in the world, the afterlife is indeed an area of debate and concern, and the door to faerie has been shut for reasons that are unclear. There have been, per the timeline, multiple wars within that 70 year span. And Lady Aranessa's point, that the Candescent Creed creates a divinity without a voice or perspective to be used by a powerful house is deeply in conversation with the idea both that cults will flourish in the absence of the gods, and in Exandria's lack of organized religion. Indeed, in a world where the gods could speak directly to anyone, organized religion becomes much harder for the unscrupulous to exploit - you can claim the gods want everyone to give you power, but if the gods disagree, they'll let the people know - whereas the Candescent Creed is, demonstrably, being used as a purely political tool.
I suspect, given what we know of the Shapers and that casual summary in Cooldown, the decision to kill them was not made lightly but was made with conviction, and was almost certainly the one that was best for the world. [I say almost certainly because it's only interesting if there is a faint shadow of doubt, but from everything we know, I believe it was the right choice for Aramán], but I do wonder whether these complications or potential were considered as justified outcomes (which, I should stress, I think is valid given the Shapers' description) or if situations were so dire that cosmological implications did not even come up. And I do think, intentionally or no, that it is in conversation with how in Exandria, the situation came to a head only because of an alien entity and one of the most powerful mortals, politically and magically, exploiting that for his own gain, rather than as the will of the people; and that the majority of the point of view characters had little interest in considering cosmological implications nor the will of the people, but were motivated entirely, like Ludinus, by personal grievance. It seems that in Aramán, many people chose to stand with the orcs - that this was genuinely a revolution, rather than an instigated crisis. And in turn, this makes the cosmological and political consequences, similar as they may be to Exandrian ones, far more acceptable.
I have complicated feelings about the concept of intent in TTRPGs and D&D - on the one hand, outcome is generally more important than intent, and many TTRPGs deliberately introduce a random element, but on the other, to deny the importance of intent in storytelling is to deny the idea of storytelling as craft. However, I think that with regards to worldbuilding, the intent of Exandria and Aramán is the differentiator. Exandria grew from Stillben; it expanded at first to tell a story that would best suit Vox Machina, and then became much more of a conversation between DM and player with the Mighty Nein, who both engaged with Matt's initial outlines of Wildemount and helped delineate them. By the time of Campaign 3, the world was mostly built out, and because of its inheritance from Vox Machina and the Mighty Nein and its focus on them, it was in many ways ill-suited to tell the story Matt wished to tell.
Aramán is not inherently better as a setting, but it is a setting designed specifically to tell its own story. Exandria grew organically at the angle it did, and Aramán was purposefully constructed at that perpendicular. Neither is better, but the rebuttal has an advantage over the initial argument, if only for the knowing of that argument.
