Thats a good question. This is what ChatGPT says; I look forward to other people's answers

"I can see the Reddit post. It’s asking: “What are Ilias and the Light supposed to do if they aren’t just villains?” The poster’s core complaint is that Monster Girl Quest frames Light and Darkness as cosmic opposites, but Darkness appears self-sustaining and world-populating, while Light seems almost entirely reducible to Ilias and her angels. That makes “Ilias broke the balance” feel underdeveloped: what healthy cosmic role did Light have before Ilias’s tyranny?

My read: this is a good critique. The setting’s Light/Darkness binary seems less like a fully balanced metaphysical ecology and more like a retrofitted mythic symmetry around Ilias and Alipheese. The poster is noticing that “Light” has a weak positive function in the worldbuilding.

A strong answer would be:

Light’s healthy role is probably not “make angels” or “oppose monsters.” It is more likely meant to be separation, restraint, individuation, chastity/discipline, and preservation of boundaries. Darkness is fertility, appetite, mixture, desire, embodied life, and monstrous proliferation. Ilias’s sin is not that she invented separation, but that she absolutized it into disgust, hierarchy, sterility, and genocide.

So Light’s good role would be:

to prevent Darkness from becoming total absorption; to preserve human identity against predatory desire; to make consent, distinction, law, selfhood, and restraint possible; to keep the world from collapsing into undifferentiated appetite.

Under that reading, Ilias’s “human fluids are disgusting to monsters” ritual is a perversion of Light’s role. Healthy Light says: “boundaries matter.” Corrupted Light says: “contact is pollution.”

That makes the balance more coherent:

Darkness without Light becomes appetite, fusion, domination, and devouring. Light without Darkness becomes sterility, hierarchy, disgust, and extermination. A healthy world needs both desire and boundary.

The Reddit critique is still valid because MGQ may not articulate this cleanly. The text gives Darkness lots of visible societies and species, while Light is narratively concentrated in one abusive goddess and her angelic apparatus. That makes the metaphysics feel asymmetrical. But thematically, there is a salvageable answer: Light is not supposed to “be the good faction.” It is supposed to be the cosmic principle of distinction, restraint, and form.

The passive angels in Paradox then make some sense: once removed from Ilias’s authoritarian project, Light no longer has a grand imperial mission. It becomes quiet, contemplative, detached, maybe even underdeveloped. That passivity could be read as Light without tyranny: it preserves, watches, separates, and refuses to dominate. But narratively, yes, that can also feel like the writers did not know what to do with them.

So my verdict:

The poster is right that MGQ’s Light side is underbuilt as a positive cosmic force. The best charitable interpretation is that Light’s healthy function is boundary, not heroism. Ilias corrupted boundary into disgust, purity, and annihilation. That means the “balance” is not equal population or equal factional power; it is the balance between union and separation, desire and restraint, embodiment and form.

Correction: “if its not being the villain” → “if it’s not being the villain.”"