I'm not sure I see where you're coming from regarding her being the player character's mom and savior - the Loporrits excepted, she didn't create any of the modern races. They're either sundered Ancients, their creations, or creations of Zodiark. And the fact her actions "created" the world as it is now doesn't establish any intrinsically maternal relationship. The world we live in today would not exist in a remotely recognizable form if it weren't for Augustus Caesar creating the foundation for western civilization, but I have to admit I don't harbor any real paternal feelings for him, nor do I see why anyone inherently would. Lots of things good and bad have happened over the course of history that I wouldn't exist without; at least 6 of my great-grandparents were directly involved in a fascist regime. This doesn't mean I don't judge them for those actions, and I don't see why the people of Etheirys would think differently.
Remember that Venat was just some lady, not an actual goddess. The story hammers in ad infinitum that Primals aren't really divine.
But all of this is really beside the point. Even if we dismiss the characters reactions, the quest journal has no relationship to Hydaelyn, and it still stans her pretty hard. At a certain point, it feels clear to me that what you're seeing is the perspective of the writers.
It only creates that impression if you single out that section of the quote. While I admitted in my reply to you it is a little ambiguous about the "pre-existing" creatures, the final line draws a clear distinction between humanity and the new life. If the Ancients intended to sacrifice other members of their own species, there would not be a tension about whether to hand over the world to that new life or not.
And you're one to talk about distortion. You still haven't answered why you thought I wanted Emet to succeed.
That's fine. Like I said, it feels like you played a different game to me, but everyone has experiences with media that. As Heinlein said, man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal; people have an emotional response and work backwards.
I did say "might not", though, so I think you might've got a little mad at me in that first paragraph for nothing. If you really did go back and review a bunch of the older journal dialogue and arrived at the same conclusion, then fair enough, I guess.