Quote Originally Posted by Rulakir View Post
Late to the party, but the sacrifices were not a factor for Venat, in fact, she consumed the souls of her own followers to become Hydaelyn which is more than what Zodiark did. According to the LL Q&A, her motivations were a combination of believing the Ancients would always be their own downfall and believing them incapable of defeating Meteion without the ability to manipulate dynamis. The problem is that, much like Hermes, these were solvable problems had she bothered to discuss her concerns. Instead, she formed a rebellion, lead a coup, usurped Zodiark as the 'will of the star', and perpetrated a cultural genocide so none but those who escaped the sundering could oppose her.
I think the idea that they would always be their own undoing might be a bit more credible than you might think.

I think I've said this before, but the one credible indictment of Ancient society is that it could produce people like Hermes and Venat. It's highly probable that they wouldn't be the first people who saw themselves fit to judge the entire culture over deep, fundamental ideological differences. And considering those two had the means to destroy the world- one of which wasn't even that high up on the social ladder yet- it does seem less like a contrivance and more like an inevitability that some fuckhead would decide to do it again in the future. It would've taken a fundamental restructuring of Ancient society to stop another Hermes, and for all we know, that might've just made it more likely for another Venat to rise up and garner support, which they likely couldn't have done anything about.

That's why I liken Venat's actions to an act of ruthless utilitarian calculus. There are plenty of scenarios in which they could've resulted in better outcomes than had she not done anything, as heinous as they were.

That just ends up making Venat an even bigger hypocrite though, and doesn't negate the rest of your post.