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

[linayar]

At that point she should have become a villain. We should have fought her.

That wouldn't make any sense. Her action benefits us and she is not against us, so we have no reason to fight her as a villain.

Or, if you're arguing that SE should have made her an actual villain that poses a danger to us just because of her past action that you disagree with, well, that's not how that works. They can, but they don't have to and they didn't.

And yes, time travel is always a tricky concept, so I'm in agreement in having none in the future. That said, I won't discount it appearing again either as it has been established, after all.

[van_arn]

That wouldn't make any sense. Her action benefits us and she is not against us, so we have no reason to fight her as a villain.

Or, if you're arguing that SE should have made her an actual villain that poses a danger to us just because of her past action that you disagree with, well, that's not how that works. They can, but they don't have to and they didn't.

And yes, time travel is always a tricky concept, so I'm in agreement in having none in the future. That said, I won't discount it appearing again either as it has been established, after all.

I agree with you on Venat. If she were squeaky clean I'd have a bit of a yuck face. I love how both Zodiark and Hydaelyn aren't either completely corrupt or completely pure.

[linayar]

I agree with you on Venat. If she were squeaky clean I'd have a bit of a yuck face. I love how both Zodiark and Hydaelyn aren't either completely corrupt or completely pure.

The simplest way I can put it is, one country's hero could be another country's villain (or even traitor).

People who want to argue that Venat is a villain for her people could make their case (though as a former Azem, someone who is clearly independent, I'd say her deciding on her own is just in her nature). But that does not translate into us having to view her as a villain. So the story, which is told from our point of view, can still accept her as being a benevolent being because of how she benefits us.

[Stachiko]

That wouldn't make any sense. Her action benefits us and she is not against us, so we have no reason to fight her as a villain.

I do feel like I've explained why but I suppose I've not been clear enough. So here you go.

Venat chose to take all of mankind's and Etheirys' future in her own hands, by herself. Her justification was a web spun to us by Square that we were forced to accept. You may have happily accepted it, I did not.

Any mortal, regardless of how good, who openly states they alone will decide the future, is immediately a villain. I admit there are situations where such a statement would not burn a hole in my heart, but this was not one. We barely knew Venat as a mortal, barely knew any of them, and yet we put all of our trust in her.

What if she had messed up? What if Zodiark somehow won? What if, what if. Who is she to decide the future of all things for generations to come? Why are we thus robbed of free will? Why were our parents, or our parents' parents, or so on and so forth robbed of their free will? She made the choice and we were forced to accept it.

Had Venat, Emet-Selch and Hythlodaeus all agreed upon a singular path, it would be different. Multiple minds as opposed to one. That's a more acceptable approach (Barely). But it didn't and Square forced us into accepting that.

Make sense? You can believe and accept it if you want. There's nothing wrong with that considering it's the narrative. I won't though. Time travel and man-driven life-creation are huge no-nos in fantasy. Square broke both.

[linayar]

I do feel like I've explained why but I suppose I've not been clear enough. So here you go.

Venat chose to take all of mankind's and Etheirys' future in her own hands, by herself. Her justification was a web spun to us by Square that we were forced to accept. You may have happily accepted it, I did not.

Any mortal, regardless of how good, who openly states they alone will decide the future, is immediately a villain. I admit there are situations where such a statement would not burn a hole in my heart, but this was not one. We barely knew Venat as a mortal, barely knew any of them, and yet we put all of our trust in her.

What if she had messed up? What if Zodiark somehow won? What if, what if. Who is she to decide the future of all things for generations to come? Why are we thus robbed of free will? Why were our parents, or our parents' parents, or so on and so forth robbed of their free will? She made the choice and we were forced to accept it.

Had Venat, Emet-Selch and Hythlodaeus all agreed upon a singular path, it would be different. Multiple minds as opposed to one. That's a more acceptable approach (Barely). But it didn't and Square forced us into accepting that.

Make sense? You can believe and accept it if you want. There's nothing wrong with that considering it's the narrative. I won't though. Time travel and man-driven life-creation are huge no-nos in fantasy. Square broke both.

I'm not treating someone as a villain on "what if" scenarios.

And what you're basically saying is that the present is affected by the actions of the people of the past. That's not going to make me want to fight people older than me just because I may not disagree with their past action (and I don't disagree with Venat's actions) when they are our allies in the present (and in the past too in the case of Venat).

Considering we started in the present, her actions ensure that our present remains where we know our place in the world and have a purpose.

So, regardless of whether her past action is disagreeable, if Venat is to be a villain, it would have to be based on her actions in our present, not the past.