Rewritten MSQ - Garlemald and EW

[Raoabolic]

I doubt my comment will sway the tide, but genuinely don't get this mentality.

The Sundering is a morally murky activity, fine. I doubt many people would contest that. Yoshi-P and the writers don't contest that. But I don't get the point of acting like Hydaelyn is a supervillain who only cares about herself and nothing else. For goodness' sake, Primals made from the Ascian's machinations (including Ramuh) talk about her as if she's a good person. Midgardsormr vouches for her acts of kidness. She saves the Warrior of Light from death at least twice in the opening arc of the game. And that's with the expectation that one day they are going to kill her for the sake of a better world once they're strong enough.

It's fine to not like her, especially for the Sundering, but at least dislike her as presented in the game, not based on some caricature that resulted from twisting the lore to fit fanfiction.

That's true but where is the line drawn between good will and ensuring your plan works? It's just called being pragmatic, pragmatism isn't necessarily a sign of a good person.

[Jojoya]

That's true but where is the line drawn between good will and ensuring your plan works? It's just called being pragmatic, pragmatism isn't necessarily a sign of a good person.

An action that is morally wrong can still lead to good (the stealing bread from the rich to feed the starving quandary).

Yes, Venat's actions did harm.

The Ancients were also about to do harm. They were going to sacrifice all the newly created life without its consent. How is that morally better than what Venat did?

Was this a no-win situation where the only way out was to do something morally wrong?

What we're lacking is the story of what would have happened if the Sundering had not occurred. Would it have had a happy outcome or would their salvation have been shortlived? We received a few hints that things may not have turned out for the better though we can't truly know what was in the minds of the writers.