Honestly, the endless discourse over "Who is most most justified in their genocides - Emet Selch, Venat or Hermes" really is incapsulated well in that one Alpha and Omega post-EW quest, where when given option you can choose which of three was "justified", or say that they were all justified in their own ways or... Say that all three were wrong. Hydaelyn is not supposed to be 100% sympathetic, she is only portrayed so because she is our ally. Same with how Emet Selch is not supposed to be fully villanous in EW, but he is portrayed negatively due to being an enemy. Hell, even the most evil character in the game - Zenos - is given a somewhat more sympathetic light purely for joining our side for a time. Gaius Baelsar is forgiven despite his countless crimes because he helps us fight a common foe. Etc, etc. Game's portrayal of characters primarily revolves around "us vs them", not around how good or bad or morally grey they are. Throughout the game we had allies good, allies evil and allies grey. Hydaelyn/Venat is meant to be a grey ally. Not evil villain, not hero who did no wrong. I think the portrayals of her as either pure good or pure evil are ignoring good chunks of her character. Such as the fact that she herself recognizes that what she's done is NOT good, yet she sees it as necessary evil. Same for the other two - Emet Selch and Hermes. All did what they believed for the best, despite knowing full well that what they did was horrible. All three of these characters are meant to be grey; and leave player drawing their own conclusions on whose philosophy they align with more. The game never presents true 'right' option for this specific conundrum, because the intent is to show there isn't one. And yet Hydaelyn will be looked on favorably, because ultimately, she was a guide and a protector for us and our allies, Hermes will be looked on as a man who wanted to find meaning and failed, and Emet Selch will be looked as a respectable enemy who fought for what he truly believed in until the very end. Because from perspective of our protagonist and our side of the story, thats what they were. Thats why their portrayals are the way they are. Not the 'they are portrayed good because writers are trying to make them appear good' nonsense.