You're right, it's hard to find a revolutionary who doesn't kill civilians. That's why a violent revolution should be a method of last resort. Abraham's methods are not necessary to end the Deathly Regiment and depose Hucksteen. Geming Chu is trying to do the same thing nonviolently and democratically. But even if they were necessary, I repeat, necessary evil is still evil.
Look, the alignment system doesn't leave much room for moral ambiguity. Abraham is certainly a much more complex figure than, say, John Manuelito. But if committing evil actions without remorse--which Abraham certainly does--is not enough to count as "evil," quite frankly I don't know what does.
(As a final note, the civilian deaths were only "legitimate collateral damage" if [a] Abraham's revolution is the only way to stop the Deathly Regiment and [b] sealing the Lands Below is necessary for the success of the revolution. Neither of those has been demonstrated.)
no subject
Look, the alignment system doesn't leave much room for moral ambiguity. Abraham is certainly a much more complex figure than, say, John Manuelito. But if committing evil actions without remorse--which Abraham certainly does--is not enough to count as "evil," quite frankly I don't know what does.
(As a final note, the civilian deaths were only "legitimate collateral damage" if [a] Abraham's revolution is the only way to stop the Deathly Regiment and [b] sealing the Lands Below is necessary for the success of the revolution. Neither of those has been demonstrated.)