What lore do you ignore?

[ZavosEsperian]

This is why I regret that a good deal of this was glossed over in a condensed, non-literal "walk down memory lane" scene instead of a concrete, explicit example or two to prevent people from disregarding it and running with whatever impressions / theories they most wanted to preserve, anyway.

Herein lies the real issue when it comes to how Venat is interpreted, at least in terms of the events between the end of Elpis up to the point she elects to choose the path of sundering Etheirys. There is a distinct lack of “showing” regarding the events between those two points in time which, in turn, requires the person going through the content in question to have to make a logical leap in how those events played out. Logical leaps, by nature, requires a level of thinking by the reader to piece together the missing elements, which in turn is the origin of various headcanons. Words on a page in fiction make use of literal, figurative, and, in cases where deception is involved, misleading language where the reader must determine the meaning of the words both in the moment but also in retrospect.

Further compounding this would be the climax of these events, which is defined by Venat, now Hydaelyn, sundering Etheirys along with all the life on it. From the perspective of the Ancients, such an act would be regarded by us as an act of genocide where, per the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Venat would be guilty as per the definition of genocide and what crimes constitute it. For sake of brevity, I will provide the relevant sections below regarding Venat and, to a lesser extent, her followers:

Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
[sections d and e not relevant]

Article 3 defines the crimes that can be punished under the convention:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
[c is not relevant]
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Articles 2-3

Genocide is the absolute steepest charge that can be levied against someone via the ICC and is universally condemned. As such, acts in fiction which parallel what is defined as genocide can cause people to view whichever character is committing to act as evil, regardless of the outcome, as the use of genocide as a means to an end is universally condemned.

On the flip side, we are role playing as the Warrior of Light, who requires the sundering to occur in the first place to even exist. All beloved characters who side with the Warrior of Light, barring Venat, also require the sundering to exist.

It should then be with no great shock to us there is such a division in how the sundering, let alone Venat’s character by proxy due to being the one who perpetrated the act, can be interpreted. This fault lies squarely on the writers themselves due to not recognizing what they are potentially portraying, and would constitute them not having a good sense of media literacy for failing to address these concerns in a way where the audience cannot misinterpret the message, for better or for worse.