正文翻譯
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯：凌☆♂宇 轉載請注明出處

是壞人：31票，占比26％
不是壞人：89票，占比74％

評論翻譯
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻譯：凌☆♂宇 轉載請注明出處

Personally, I don''''t think he''''s that bad of a guy. In the novel, he just seems really evil because he''''s the antagonist (I''''m not saying he was a virtuous guy by any means, but I just don''''t think he was evil.) But still, he greatly respected both Liu Bei and Guan Yu, and even lamented Guan Yu''''s death after Sun Quan (out of the 3 rulers, I definitely dislike Sun Quan the most :P) had him executed. He never wanted to fight Liu Bei either, but when it becomes obvious that someone''''s in the way of your goal, what can you do? :P He also seemed pretty loyal to the Han.?

就我個人而言，我不認為他是個壞家伙。在小說中，他被描述的很邪惡，只是因為他是劉備的對手(我不是說他是一個善良的人，我只是不認為他是邪惡的)，但他仍然十分敬重劉備和關羽，甚至在孫權處死關羽之后(在這三位執(zhí)政者中，我最不喜歡孫權了)，他還為關羽的死而悲嘆。他也沒想把劉備當做敵人，但如果換做是你，你發(fā)現(xiàn)有人擋了你的路時，你又會怎么做呢?另外，從某種意義上來講，他對漢室也還算是忠誠。

I hate to say it, but during war, I think one has to be cold-hearted and obxtive sometimes. Cao Cao wasn''''t such a nice guy, but he was a very firm and good leader. Liu Bei was a very nice guy, but he was only an average leader, nothing remarkable. I''''d say Sun Quan was about an average a leader as Liu Bei, as his father and brother already did a lot of the work for him, and he did just as many bad things as Cao Cao did, which is why I don''''t like him.?

有一句話，我一直不太喜歡，但也不得不承認它很有道理——在戰(zhàn)爭中，領導者必須以大局為重。 曹操不是一個好人，但他是一個好的領導者。劉備是一個好人，但他只是一個普通的領導者。至于孫權，我認為他和劉備一樣，也是個普通的領導者，只是因為他的父親和哥哥已經為他打下了很好的基礎。但他做的壞事和曹操一樣多，所以我不喜歡他。?

I disagree that he is always portayed as evil from the game perspective. Sure, he had his bad ways, especially regarding his plotting from the Han court, but really seems to be just a darker version of the hero Liu Bei.?

我不太同意在三國游戲中，總是把曹操描述成一個反派角色。當然，他的確做了很多壞事，尤其是他想從漢廷手中奪權，但他和劉備其實是相似的，只不過手段要更陰暗些罷了。?

The way I think of it, if Cao Cao was evil, why did he reject the title of Emperor? He was loyal to the Han until the end of his life. Another thing is that Cao Cao drew men of great honor and dignity and worth to him (Zhang Liao, Xu Huang, Dian Wei etc). How could such an evil tyrant have such honor following him? I don''''t condone everything that Cao Cao did, but I can condone the fact that he never claimed to be virtuous. Liu Bei, on the other hand, did claim to be virtuous but he did many deeds that were wrong. I hate a hypocrite.

如果曹操是一個邪惡的壞人，那么他為什么不篡位自己當皇帝呢?因為他是忠于漢室的。另一方面，曹操自己能招攬到許多很有聲望、品德崇高、能力超群的人(如張遼、徐晃、典韋等)。如果他是一個邪惡的暴君，怎么會有這么多人追隨他呢?曹操做的許多事的確讓人無法寬恕，但他也從來沒有聲稱自己是個善良的人。另一方面，劉備自稱是賢明君主，但他卻犯了許多錯誤。我討厭偽君子。

And another thing, Cao Cao was a brilliant military leader. If you took all strategists out of the picture, Liu Bei wouldn''''t stand a chance against Cao Cao''''s military genius (actually, Liu Bei was pretty stupid in this area). For this, Cao Cao also gains my respect. In my opinion, Sun Jian would have made the best ruler out of everyone. Ah! Woe to the Han, that a man such as Sun Jian would die so early!!! :cry:?

曹操還是一位杰出的軍事領袖。如果把兩人手下的謀士們都排除在外，劉備在曹操這個軍事天才面前毫無勝算(事實上，劉備在軍事方面的確相當愚蠢)。單是在這方面，曹操就值得我們尊敬了。 在我看來，孫堅應該是所有人當中最好的統(tǒng)治者。唉！像孫堅這樣的人會如此短命，真是漢朝的不幸?。】迆?

just like Liu Bei really - a hero of the time. Anything he could do to further his conquest and bring peace and prosperity back to the Han people. I wish the DW series would stop painting Cao as excessively evil and make someone like Sun Quan evil instead?

曹操就像劉一樣，是一個真正的時代英雄。他所做的一切都是為了更好的統(tǒng)治這個國家，為漢人帶來和平與繁榮。我希望真三國無雙系列不要再丑化曹操了，孫權才是應該作為反派的那個人。

We are not talking about history or the book, simply the game...

我們討論人物的好壞，如果不是基于史實和小說，而是基于真三國無雙這款游戲的話……

The game shows Cao Cao as evil no matter how you look at it, it does show his son as even worse however. Of all the characters shown as bad Guys I would rank it like this:

在游戲中，曹操是個壞人，他的兒子比他還要壞。在所有的反派角色中，我給他們做了一個排序:

1 Dong Zhou: He''''s basically made into the worst chauvanist and most disresepctful person possible

1 董卓:他被塑造成了一個暴君和最不講禮節(jié)的人 。

2 Sima Yi: especially in DW5 he is drawn as extremely manipulative and just waiting for the right time to turn traitor.

2 司馬懿:在真三國無雙中，他被描繪成一個一直等待著時機的野心家。

3 Cao Pi: MAde into a character who is extremely full of himself, and has no respect for any of the rival nations. Additionally he is charecterized as not really caring about the Wei dynasty as much as he''''s just trying to make a name for himself. In his ending movie he very directly gives Sima Yi permission to do whatever he wants after he dies.

3 曹丕:他被塑造成一個極端自負，不尊重任何敵國的人。此外，曹丕也不在乎魏國，他只在乎自己的名聲。在曹丕的結局CG動畫中，他允許司馬懿在他死后做任何想做的事情。

4 Cao Cao: Very Questionable kind of guy. He just does what''''s neccessary to succeed at his goals. Besides directly opposing Liu Bei, his followers (especially at Chang Ban) will always question whether or not they really have to kill civillians, to which he always replies, "do whatever is neccessary"

4 曹操:他是個很多疑的人，他所做的一些都只是為了實現(xiàn)自己的目標而已。除了討伐劉備以外，他的追隨者們(尤其是在長坂坡)還會質疑他們是否真的要殺害平民，而曹操總是回答說:“當斷則斷?！?br/>
5 Lu Bu: More of a troublemaker then anything, He is drawn by Diao Chan as a greatly misunderstood man, that, despite the fact that he saved China from Dong Zhou, is hated by everybody, for something that he did in his past.

5 呂布:他是一個很會惹是生非的人，在貂蟬口中，他一直在被人誤解，盡管他殺死了董卓，但他的一系列行為卻依舊讓人不齒，所以所有人都恨他。

6 Zhang Jiao: more dissillusioned then anything. He thinks and deeply believes he is doing the right thing, but crosses the line when lives are expended.
That''''s how I rate the people interpreted as vilains by Dynasty Warriors.?

6 張角:他是最清醒的人。他深信自己在做正確的事情，但當他感覺自己大限將至的時候，就做了些不那么理智的事。
這就是我對這些反派們的評價，而這些人在真三國無雙之中是被描述成十足的壞人。

Evil or not I think nobody can denie that Cao Cao was a great man, prolly the greatest ruler and figure during the 3 kingdoms era. Cao Cao''''s someone who''''s always looking towards the bigger picture, his method may sometimes seems cruel but they are effective and for the greater good of the land and people.

我想沒有人能否認曹操是一個偉人，他是三國時代最偉大的統(tǒng)治者。 曹操是一個總能著眼于大局的人，他的方法有時可能看起來很殘忍，但確實十分有效。他所做的一切都是為了國家和人民的利益。

Anyways, for my part I make my assessment of Cao Cao based on his own assessments of the leaders of the time. By the time of Cao''''s and Liu Bei''''s meeting, there were only two true heroes - those two. With the end Gongsun Zan and the fall of the Han loyalist rally, Cao was the one best able to end the choas and stabilize the nation for years to come - a title he held alone until Chibi. Cao''''s ways were not always admirable, but perhaps that is not the point - he always acted for the "greater good", that being the sake of China. Liu Bei was the same. So I say that both were champions for "good" and heroes of China.

我對曹操的印象很大程度上受到了他“煮酒論英雄”的影響。當曹操和劉備這兩人相遇的時候，曹操眼中真正的英雄只有兩個——就是他自己和劉備。隨著公孫瓚和其他一些漢朝?；庶h的覆滅，曹操成了最有能力掃清這個亂世并在接下來的幾年里一統(tǒng)天下的人——直到赤壁之戰(zhàn)前。他的手段并不怎么令人欽佩，但這并不是重點——他的行為是為了整個國家的利益。而劉備也和他一樣。 所以我說，他們都是偉人，都是英雄。

In SGYY (not in real history) Liu Bei is a leader who continally shows ambition to restore the Han, but also has the ambition to be compassionate to everyone who is of similar mind. He constantly does things which actually undermine his plans in order to show his benevolence, (like when he''''s trying to stay best friends with Liu Zhong in Shu and his generals are trying to do away with him, also when he''''s refusing the different gifts which are given to him- Liu Biao offering his city and kongming constantly trying to parsuade him to become emporer). I feel though, on the other hand, that Cao Cao was simply ambitious to the point of being outrageously selfish, surplanting the emporer''''s power, killing the empress and installing his own kin into the court in order to gradually userp the throne of Han and start his own line as a new dynasty.

在三國演義中(不是在真實的歷史中)，劉備是一個領導者，他想要匡扶漢室，并且有自己的野心，但他也尊重其他有野心的諸侯們。他仁慈的行為經常破壞他自己的計劃,(劉備在蜀中想要和劉璋友好相處，但他手下的將軍們卻想要搶奪劉璋的地盤。劉備還拒絕了劉表提供給他的城池，孔明多次勸說他稱帝也被他否決了)。 另一方面,曹操也同樣有野心，但他卻自私到了極點。他蠶食皇帝的權力，殺死了皇后，在朝廷中安插自己的親信來把控朝政，讓整個朝廷成為他的囊中之物。

Hmm Cao Cao is kind of paranoid...i say it''''s a common when people achive to high position, it''''s harder to them to let it go. he become very suspicious..afraid that someday someone will killed or coup de etat him. The other regard of Cao Cao''''s mistake decision (besides Xu Zhou''''s incident) is he ordered Xun Yu to killed himself. Cao Cao become blind and hunger of power. He saw Xun Yu as an obstacle. He did not see what Xun Yu have done in the past. i admired Xun Yu. besides Jia Xu, he''''s Wei top stategists.

嗯……曹操變的有些被害妄想……我覺得這是一個很正常的現(xiàn)象，當人們取得了較高的地位，就很難放棄。曹操因此變得很多疑，害怕早晚有一天，會有人殺死自己。 曹操所做的另一個錯誤決定(除了徐州事件之外)是他賜死荀彧。曹操對權力的渴望讓他變得盲目，他把荀彧看作是一個障礙，而忽視了荀彧以前對他的幫助。我很喜歡荀彧，他是除了賈詡之外，魏國最高明的政治家。

I''''ve seen this thread a number of times and have always held off from posting in it because it''''s always so difficult to fit a living, breathing human being into a stereotype of "good" or "evil". But after thinking about it for a bit, I''''m ready to weigh in. Yes, some of Cao Cao''''s policies had beneficial results for China. The North and Central areas of the country were strengthened and recovered more quickly from the ravages of the civil war; and yes, a strong, central authority - no matter that it was usurped - helped stabilize the situation. My assessment of Cao Cao then is this: he was profoundly disturbed by the ineffectuality of the Latter Han government, their chaos, corruption and general uselessness. Cao Cao definitely seems to have been shaped strongly by an early experience with a government that had little control and was full of excess and disorder. However, he ended up by taking his mania for control and order too far - it became more than just a noble goal and became a sort of mania. The agricultural camps, with displaced families and population, the slaughter in Xu province, the growing desire for more honor and recognition for himself - he became full of himself, and over-enamored of himself and his own accomplishments. Evil, on examination, is essentially selfishness taken to the extreme. Cao Cao certainly meets that criteria, I think. He upon the innocent populace of Xu province and coerced the death of a great and faithful adviser.

我之前已經看過這個帖子很多次了，但我不太愿意回帖，因為要把一個活生生的人歸入“好”或“壞”的刻板印象是很難的。但是我考慮了一會兒之后，還是決定寫點什么。 曹操的一些政策對整個中國而言是有益的。國家的北部和中部地區(qū)得到了良好的治理，并更快地從內戰(zhàn)的破壞當中恢復過來;一個強大的集權政府——不管它是否被曹操篡奪了——它都穩(wěn)定了局勢。 我對當時的曹操的評價是:他對東漢政府的無能、混亂、腐敗和無能深感不安。

曹操的性格顯然是在早期經歷的影響下形成的，當時的東漢政權已經名存實亡，諸侯割據(jù)，狼煙四起。然而，他對權力和秩序的渴望最終還是變質了——他從最初是為了追尋一個崇高的目標，到后來變的是對權利極端的狂熱。他屠殺了徐州百姓，使無數(shù)人流離失所，而這都些都源于他內心深處日益膨脹的野心——他成為了一個極度自私、自戀、自大的人。 事實說明，邪惡的本質，就是自私到了極點。我認為曹操當然符合這個標準。他對無辜的徐州百姓犯下了不可饒恕的罪行，他還導致了一位漢朝忠臣的死亡。

Cao Cao''''s actions may have had a lot of good consequences for China in the long run, but that was largely accidental - to me, his aims seem to have been more motivated by self-interest - that the great Cao Cao had staved off disorder and restored peace. Sometimes even a bad decision can have good results, but that doesn''''t mean we should praise the decision. Cao Cao was not a monster or a caricature - he was a human being, and he does show sympathy for others at times. But his ambition eventually becomes the dominant aspect of his personality, at least insofar as history records him, and given the atrocities he committed I have to side with the "Cao Cao is bad" side of the argument. It isn''''t that simple, of course, but in the end that''''s where I have to place him.?

從長遠來看，曹操的行為可能對中國產生了很多好的影響，但這在很大程度上是偶然的——對我來說，曹操避免了混亂，恢復了和平，但他的目的似乎更多是出于自身利益。有時候，即使是一個糟糕的決定也會有好的結果，但這并不意味著我們應該稱贊這個決定。曹操不是怪物，也不是漫畫人物，他是一個人，他也有同情心，但他的野心最終成為了他性格中最主要的部分，基于歷史對他的記錄，再考慮到他犯下的暴行，我不得不站在“曹操是壞人”這一邊。當然，對一個人的評判沒有這么簡單，不過我還是覺得他是壞人。?

I would say he is evil and good :wink: Because he is evil for manipulating the emperor of the Han dynasty. but he was good because he knew he could bring order and the Han dynasty was dying out so he is both depends what is the greater good/ as in a good government by Cao Cao or a loyal to an empire that has ruled for 400 years it depends how you look at it.

我覺得曹操既是善良的，也是邪惡的。 他挾持漢朝皇帝這個行為是很惡劣的。但是他也是個好人,因為他知道他完全可以改朝換代，建立新的國家，但他沒有這樣做。 在建立一個新政權，還是忠于一個已經統(tǒng)治了這片土地400年的舊帝國的選擇中，曹操做出了對自己最有利的選擇。所以，如何評判曹操，取決于你從哪個角度看待他。

My opinion on Cao Cao as greatly change over time. I used to think he was a villian and an evil bastard. But now I see him in a different light. Cao Cao is like the Napoleon of China. In my view, Cao Cao is the one people looked to to put an end to the chaos in China. Anyone who wanted that done joined Cao Cao. In the beginning people saw Cao Cao as the savior of China. And he did as much as he could to do that.

隨著時間的推移，我對曹操的看法發(fā)生了很大的變化。 以前我認為他是個邪惡的混蛋。但現(xiàn)在我對他有了不同的看法。 曹操就像中國的拿破侖。 在我看來，曹操是一個想要掃平亂世的人。有很多和他有共同理想的人在追隨他。最初，人們的確把曹操看作是這個亂世的救星。而他也盡其所能地做到這一點。

I don''''t know why people judges a person simply by fictional tales on a person. Take QinShiHuang, most people regarded him as a tyrant who kills mercilessly and used hundreds of thousands into slave labour to build the great wall, burnt languages other than the Qin Language and killed Scholars who opposed him. Does that really make him bad? I personally think there is a reason to all his done, like stablilty, Uniting the entire nation as one (No different language== less division), security (Great wall to defend against Barbarians). CaoCao was no different. Although he was protraited in the novel to be rutheless, self-centered and tyrany, he was unifying the nation and bringing peace and prosprity. Regardless of how evil his intentions might be, he was doing a greater good.?

我不知道為什么很多人會僅通過虛構的故事來判斷一個人。以秦始皇為例，大多數(shù)人認為他是一個殘酷殺戮的暴君，命令成千上萬的奴隸建造了長城，燒毀了除秦語以外的其他語言，殺死了反對他的學者。這真的讓他成為一個暴君了嗎？我個人認為他所做的一切都是有目的的，比如維護國家穩(wěn)定，統(tǒng)一整個國家(統(tǒng)一的語言會讓國家不那么容易分裂)，保證人民安全(建造抵御北方匈奴人的長城)。 曹操也不例外。盡管他在小說中被描繪成一個自私、自利、專制的人，但他卻統(tǒng)一了國家，為人民帶來了和平與繁榮。不管他的意圖有多邪惡，他都在做一件偉大的善事。

Uniting the land under one rule is a very strange thing to do, (to me especially) because I''''m an English man, Europe is a bunch of seperate countries with seperate ideals and seperate languages, it doesn''''t make us all enemies though. Europeans generally are good friends and can trade and everything with each other, without the need to destroy the other cultures in question. I know that in the past different European countries tried to take over each other and destroy their dieties and languages, just for territory, power and empire, but luckily none of them really suceeded, meaning that we can all appreciate difference in culture, language and prosper together without the need to kill each other just because one and other are different. Burning other people''''s languages is unacceptable, as is murder. If Qin was such a wonderful man who could get people to follow him, and make people believe in united systems, and a united China, then those other countries would have simply given up and joined him, knowing that it was the logical, and the right thing to do. But it wasn''''t- He destroyed many facinating cultures and ideals which were just contradictory to what he thought.

把一片土地統(tǒng)一在一個國家下是一件很奇怪的事情，(尤其是對我來說)因為我是一個英國人，歐洲是一群分離的國家，有著不同的理想和不同的語言，但這并不會讓我們彼此之間成為敵人。歐洲人之間通常都是朋友關系，他們可以互相貿易，不需要破壞其他文化。我知道在過去的某些年代，一些歐洲國家試圖攻占并摧毀其他國家的文明，只是為了獲得更大的領土，擁有更大的權力，建立更大的帝國。但幸運的是沒有人真正的成功。也就是說，我們可以做到欣賞不同的語言和文化并共同繁榮，而不需要因為文化的差異性而殺死對方。 焚燒他人的語言是不可接受的，屠殺也是如此。如果秦國是一個十分了不起的國家，那么它自然能得到別國人民的尊崇，讓人們信奉一個統(tǒng)一的制度，信奉一個統(tǒng)一的中國，那么其他國家也就會放棄抵抗，成為秦國的一部分，這是合乎邏輯的，也是明智的選擇。但事實并非如此，秦國摧毀了許多令人著迷的文化和理想，僅僅因為這些文化和理想都與秦國的理念背道而馳。

I''''m not here to talk politics and about human rights about the present time, but about the ancient war-torn China. If you experience war for everyday of your life, with Barbarians at the north raiding your homes, and warlords constantly attacking each other for their own benefits, what would you hope? Unification is one of the most important things for a country especially in the Asian nation. Stand together you grow stronger and have your identity. If some foreign nations are divding your country, say making English into little pieces, what would you do?

我們現(xiàn)在談的不是基于當今的政治和人權，而是在飽受戰(zhàn)爭蹂躪的古代中國。試想一下，如果你每天都經歷戰(zhàn)爭，北方的野蠻人襲擊你的家園，軍閥們?yōu)榱俗约旱睦娌粩嗷ハ喙シ?，你會希望什? 統(tǒng)一是每個國家，尤其是亞洲國家最重要的事情之一。只有國家統(tǒng)一，才能使國力更加強大，民眾才會彼此認同。如果一些國家正在瓜分你的國家，比如把英國分成小塊，你會怎么做?

In the past when there was massive strife between tribes in the regions which are now China, it''''s a different issue entirely- You are right to say that someone had to come along to change things for the better, to stop the war and hopefully live in peace. I just think it''''s really sad that it had to be brought about with slaughter, which is what Qin Shih Huang Di was responsible for. Maybe you''''re right that at the time it was impossible to use democracy or hard to avoid war, but it''''s still sad those people had to die because they were just from a different tribe than Qin himself. The other thing that I think is regretful is that to be honest Qin Shih Huang Di managed to perform a lot of reforming deeds, but didn''''t really bring peace to his land- all those people sent to the wall to die, all those people who were destroyed under the wheels of what he would say is "progress".

在過去，中國這個地方有很多的諸侯國，各國之間有大規(guī)模的沖突，這是一個與現(xiàn)在完全不同的局面。你說得對，必須有人來把局面變得更好，停止戰(zhàn)爭，讓民眾生活在和平與希望中。而我覺得非?？杀氖牵却麄兊膮s是一場屠殺，當然這也是秦始皇的責任。也許你的說法是對的，當時那個年代不可能使用民主的方式統(tǒng)一全國，也很難避免戰(zhàn)爭，但這些人卻必須要死，因為他們來自于秦國以外的國家。另一件我覺得遺憾的事是，秦始皇所做的那些改革，并沒有給他的土地帶來和平——這些人死在了修建長城的過程中，而在后人看來，這些人的死亡，卻被稱之為是一種時代的“進步”。?

The events of Cao Cao killing Lu Boshe and his family and Liu Fu prior to Red Cliffs are both fictrional events from the novel. Personally, I don''''t think Cao Cao was "bad" or "evil". The worst act I can think that he ever did was the Xuzhou massacre while leaving the campaign. He did many positive things that outweigh that, though, such as improving the quality of life for farmers and peasants in his territory, and he was very fair towards his officers, and usually tried to recruit captured officers before resorting to execution. Compared to the acts of men like Dong Zhuo or Gongsun Zan, he doesn''''t compare.?

在赤壁之戰(zhàn)前，曹操殺死呂伯奢及其家人和劉馥的事件都是小說虛構的。 就我個人而言，我不認為曹操是“壞的”或“邪惡的”。我所能想到的他做過的最糟糕的事情就是屠殺了徐州的百姓。但是，盡管曹操所犯下的罪行，他還做了更多對人民有益的事，例如他改善了他領土上的人民的生活質量、對自己手下的將領非常公正、在殺死敵軍被俘的將領前，還對他們進行招募。與董卓、公孫瓚等人的行為相比，他簡直是一代明主。

The Man was many things, including, perhaps, a usurper of the throne in all but name. But I think any designation of him as ''''evil'''' is going to have to take into account more of the psychoanalysis of the history. Intellectually and artistically speaking, Cao Wei was the most open of the Three Kingdoms (being the centre of Jian''''an-style literature and the neo-Daoist movement), and financially the most stable. Socially, the agricultural policies were designed to provide people injured displaced by war a chance to make their own lives viable again; He may have been ambitious and cunning, but I don''''t read him as a sadist.

這個人有許多缺點，盡管他沒有在名義上篡奪皇位，但他還是與篡位者沒什么兩樣。不過我認為，任何將他稱為“邪惡”的說法，都必須更多地考慮到那個時代的價值判斷。在學術上和藝術上，曹魏是三國之中最開放的(建安文學和新道家運動)國家，也是財政上最穩(wěn)定的國家。在社會方面，曹魏所實施的一系列農業(yè)政策的目的是為因戰(zhàn)爭而流離失所的人民提供了一個重新過上安穩(wěn)生活的機會;他也許野心勃勃，奸猾狡詐，但我不認為他是個暴君。?

Cao Cao is both good and bad, he does what is needed to rule the land and if that requires him to be evil so be it. But it really depends on you, some Wei-ists think that his actions are good but some Shu-ists and Wu-ists thinks he is bad, so it really depends. Gamewise he is not that bad as protrayed in the novel but I still see him as a good guy overall.?

曹操這個人，有好的一面，也有壞的一面，他所做的一切都是為了治理自己的國家。如果你站在魏國的角度，會覺得曹操的行為是好的，但如果你站在蜀國和吳國的角度，就會覺得曹操的行為是壞的。所以如何評價曹操，取決于你所站的立場。 在游戲中，他并不像小說中那么的壞。總的來說，我認為他是一個好人。