Quote Originally Posted by Veloran View Post
No, the idea is correct. When we're dealing with a moral quandary which entails the destruction of one world for the sake of creating another one, inevitably everything that happens in that latter world is relevant to the question. For an example related to your hypothetical, look at Yotsuyu, someone who resorted to countless horrible deeds after being abused by the people and circumstances she was born to. Obviously, the conditions that made her who she was never would have happened in the ancient world. Similarly, anytime in the future there's some evil done by mankind against itself, there will always be the lingering sentiment that something else was destroyed specifically to enable this to happen. So whenever we look back and judge the ancient conflict, we're weighing it against the consequences of the world we have now.
Fair point. I do agree that Venat - and Hermes - are to blame for pretty much everything bleak that has every happened in the game's story. It's a consequence of trying to tie everything together instead of allowing each piece of the puzzle to thrive as its own thing. It rids various characters and factions of their agency.

I'd also note that nobody is under any obligation to approve of Venat's actions and the strange insistence that Venat is being 'attacked' for engaging in genocide is - quite frankly - bizarre to me. More so the deceptive attempt to pretend as if those of us criticising her have not consistently said 'let's agree to disagree'.