Quote Originally Posted by noob View Post
Is it really good people if they have "killing all the people" in their to be done list?(unless they only plan to destroy the earth without killing the people living on it and that it is needed for making so that the people are not killed ex: a tyranid infestation situation: you destroy the planet because all the people on it died or evacuated and you do not want the tyranids to use the weight of the planet as their own weight)
I think not.
It is not because their operating protocol starts by doing good things that their intentions are good.
If you do a cosmology with the people that will do evil later fighting the people that do evil now then of course you want to get rid of both sides.
I only still own one book of the trilogy, but IIRC:

• Destroying both sides is not implied to be possible.

• Team evil is sufficiently bat-**** evil that a win by team good looks to be preferable to a win by team evil, even to those who die. There is such a thing as a fate worse than death.

• The readers on not told anything about this ficton's afterlife, but the fires might well know.

• The death toll from destroying the earth is not specified. Despite your use of quote marks, "killing all the people" is your words, not mine. I didn't rule out survivors, and neither does the trilogy.

The information in the trilogy is consistent with the destroying the earth being good. Since the fires are consistently portrayed as good, it follows that, in this trilogy, destroying the earth is good, or at least consistent with being good.