I personally think she is morally grey. I don't see anything in the game as set in stone one way or another. But rather open to interpretation. Yes she did save us from Ultima. But the situation around minfilia even now doesnt sit right. That said, the difficulty with XIV is that it sometimes changes direction and retcons things/ re-positions things which change how they can be viewed and interpreted. Arr is a case and point for this as a lot of the "truths" there are seen now through a completely different lens.
With the ancients, there really isnt enough to say that the ancients didnt give "familiars" the choice of life. They seemed to test them to make sure the addition wouldnt have adverse effects on the star. Something incidently most countries do with non native animal introductions. At no point during Elpis was the WOL treated as an inanimate object. Most assumed we were there to learn, and treated us respectfully. Which is why i kind of think that saying the ancients wouldnt give us as choice on life is eroneous at best simply because the limited base of information we have doesnt give enough credence to this. Hermes, Emet and Hytho went out of thier way to try to assist the sky snake creation that had regressed. If im being honest, i think the ancients approach was flawed, but ultimatly had the right intentions. They forbade inbuing souls onto the creations because it would cause suffering to said soul if that creation had to be destroyed. Their missive being to test if its of benefit to the star makes sense, as why would you release something that would just go and kill for no reason (as the wolf beast did that was then destroyed) The moral quantdry of whether they should have been creating the monsters in the first place is one that does interest me, but even venar did this so its not as though she was opposed to the whole notion. Setting out the timescales from elpis to the sundering would give ground to say, actually this can be viewed as different because she took x actions or they had x chances. Ultimatley though, i think the ancients were all dealing with an existential crisis they were wholly unprepared for. So its not about looking at venar and saying I really dislike this character and im going to bend canon to prove shes nefarious. Its more looking at her actions and the context and the situation and saying, I can see what motivated to do what she did, but im not 100% convinced that she made the right choice.
After all, most great antagonists in literature are those that are trying to do something they believe they either have no choice to or that is the right thing to do, but their methods are wrong. Ilberd and Raubarn ar are prime example. Both wanted to free Ala Mhigo from oppression. But their methods were completely different. Raubarn was playing a long game of trying to get Ul'dah to support. Ilberd in his desperation chose to sacrifice those he was ment to liberate to a primal thinking it would be the solution to starting the liberation. He wasnt wrong of course, it did do what he wanted, but the cost was heinous.
I do not think what Venat did was the best option given reasons stated above, and i do think Elpis frames the narritive in a way that makes her actions seem just. But i honestly think she was just as desperate those who summoned Zodiark. Neither side was right and neither was wholly wrong i think that is the point of the story.



Reply With Quote




