Quote Originally Posted by Cleretic View Post
Your argument seems to be predicated on the notion that the Sundering 'created a world of suffering and misery'--thereby implying that the world before it wasn't. But even if you take the view that the Ancient world was without suffering (a view that doesn't hold thanks to short stories and Pandaemonium), she wasn't the one that broke that. Meteion did. By the time of the Sundering, three quarters of the population was either sacrificed or dead from the Final Days, the surviving population was divided, some amount of it was tempered, and who knows what other problems had sprung forth in the aftermath; paradise had already burned. And if you do think that the Ancient world had problems, then Venat's crime was... not immediately solving them?

Venat says she 'created a world of suffering' as a condemnation of herself, but it doesn't really hold. Her reasoning is actually something akin to me thinking I'd be a terrible mother because I'd be bringing a child into a world that I don't think will treat it well; I'd feel guilt for the pain that results, but that doesn't make me guilty.
My point point with the world of suffering was that Venat actively creates a scarcity world to actively force strife and suffering on the population. That's the the whole ponit of the sundering to make a species that has to endure short hard lives where misfortunate means death (remember the children in Ishgard freezing to death)

Also with respect to Venats actions I just don't know what you are trying to get at, I mean jumping to genocide as your solution to any problem is monstrous in the extreme, I don't get how you can hate characters like Emet the way you do and then be fine saying things like genocide are solutions to problems. This is my problem with Venat, it's not so much what she does, it's how the game bends over backward to say outright one of the most heinous things possible is acceptable if you other the victims enough