I feel like what to do with Aelia has parallels to the whole thing of "why do they keep locking up the Joker* in DC comics tbh.
Systemically, summary execution because you decided someone is too dangerous or criminal to live is wrong. In this situation, we trust Neve. We trust Rook. We know that Aelia really is a danger. But if everyone gets to apply that logic because we made an exception for Neve, then we quickly get into even worse territory that's going to be turned against the Shadows and especially non-humans in Tevinter, especially Qunari.
It's not even about whether the Venatori deserve to die. It's about who gets to decide who's executed without trial, who gets to decide who's beyond redemption or rehabilitation, and would you trust a random stranger with that choice, etc.
I get that at a zoomed out level.
But in a specific character and situational level, we know there is no justice system to speak of, there's no safety net, there's no way to ensure that this time Aelia actually stays in her cell.
And we're coming off of the experience of Zara with her underwater torture medical experiment prison, her pile of hundred of corpses and her her pool of blood, her deliberate release of demons into the general population. And of Aelia kidnapping the weakest and poorest off the streets, using their blood as fuel and their minds as puppets, of her desire to "improve the world" by removing free will from everyone else. Not to mention the Venatori attempting to sacrifice an entire Dalish clan, the Grey Warden Demon army in Inquisition, etc.
So if you're looking at this not through a "systemic precedent" lens and more through a "I need to protect these people's victims right here and right now, and I need to make sure they can't cause this massive amount of pain and death again"... The math feels very different.
Much like with the DC fandom and Batman vs Joker, I don't think you're ever going to get a unified consensus out of everyone. Because it's going to depend so much on how you prioritize, what you believe is possible in the short and long term, and which potential sacrifice you think is more important because you're risking something ethically either way.
But it is really interesting to me as a moral quandary in a way that Lucanis & Illario doesn't hit because that's less openly framed as a moral issue and more of a personal one for Lucanis himself.
Although you can have the argument about prioritizing Lucanis's ability to forgive vs Antivan security, and I've seen it framed that way. I just wouldn't argue it's framed that way in the text.
It does make it an interesting contrast with Neve though. Because Neve and Lucanis both have healthier life paths for choosing the merciful option. And I want Neve to have that brighter sense of hope, that strong friendship with Rana, to not have to dirty her hands and make herself less than her ideals, which she inevitably will have to do by becoming the leader of something like the Threads.
But my first impulse would be to kill Aelia, even though that worsens things for Neve. (Though I've never actually needed to choose since...you know, Rook de Riva player.) Whereas I typically choose to spare Illario because of the interpersonal dynamic between the Dellamortes and Lucanis's need to heal.
Arguably, that could have just as disastrous consequences for Antiva if things go wrong.
But because the framing of Neve + Aelia is always as much as about the way she is a macro level threat to Minrathous as it is her personal harm done to Neve, it doesn't feel the same as the Lucanis + Illario decision, which is consistently framed not as Illario's betrayal of Treviso and Antiva to a hostile power, but as an interpersonal betrayal.
I don't even know where I'm going with this. It's just interesting to me.
