>>534219776
The metric was *her understanding* of what was good for the kingdom, which was clearly wrong. An example of that is that she abandoned the human metric that is a part of that in the first place. Which clearly didn't work out.
She's a bad person because her goal is inachievable by her means, yet she keeps her ideals, which lead to repeated suffering without progress. She recognizes this pattern in Zero when she was drinking with Gil & Rider, but held on to her beliefs anyway,failing to learn or change, making her responsible for monumental amounts of pain and death. You could call her noble (she sticks to her beliefs, no matter how much suffering is along the way) except she's gambling with other people's suffering in a game she can't win. Everyone around her dies for her thick headedness, just for her to fail, and cause more suffering again.
Kerry is different. He's a voluntary Angra Mainyu. He voluntarily bears the burden of the guilt of killing these people for the sake of others, and where Artoria gambles with the lives of her people, Kerry only puts himself at stake.
I think Kerry is a good person. His desire to protect others doesn't leave him a choice. If he stopped, more people would die than if he didn't. Because at the end of the day, he succeeds at saving others, where Artoria has failed.
As it stands, Kerry is a net positive. Artoria isn't. If Kerry failed to save anyone despite causing suffering and death, over and over, and become a net-negative on the world, like Artoria, he would probably kill himself as soon as he recognizes this pattern. This is the key difference. This is a courtesey Artoria doesn't have. As it stands, he's a net positive. Artoria isn't. And yet she insists to continue her cycle of suffering.
That is why I think Kerry is a better person than Artoria.
