Quote Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus View Post
That's why they said "it wouldn't be morally justified". Doing bad things to stop people from doing arguably worse things create a much more decent gray area. It's still morally ambiguous, but at least it would be better than what we got.
Right. Though they're specifically the way that they are because they're the ones who lost out the most as a consequence of the Sundering, thus the example doesn't really work for me. Especially the implication that it'd be 'less morally grey' to genocide a bunch of Garleans over the Ancients as if one group is more worthy than the other of existence.

Which in turn is why my stance has consistently been that it makes sense for the Sundered to do everything possible to avert their destruction, whereas the Unsundered have the right to do the same thing.

At the end of the day, the story was perfectly willing to rewrite large swathes of the story's existing rules in order to justify keeping certain characters around. If they really wanted to go for an 'uplifting' ending for the story then they could have found some way to carve a third path forward where both sides benefitted from the resolution instead of one losing everything.