So... I will point one thing out up front: I'm not debating this point from where I think Shiplord morality lies, because that would just be speculation. As a rhetorical technique, I'm describing an extreme -- but internally consistent -- stance to demonstrate that the right perspective can explain a lot. I have, indeed, been trying rather hard to point out that this is extreme, and that I don't expect anyone to agree that it is actually in line with something we consider to be "moral."
And I'm doing this because over the history of PW and SC, lots of people have just jumped to the notion that the Shiplords are irredeemable monsters with no excuse who deserve nothing more than oblivion. And while you may have a point about what kind of story Snowfire isn't telling, he's also not telling a story of paladins questing to slay demons. To truly appreciate the story being presented, to understand the depth of the conflict and the scope of the history, to reflect upon the deeper tragedies instead of just the surface horror, you have to -- at least for a moment -- separate yourself from your own opinions and biases to try to see how a mostly-rational actor could reach this conclusion without it being a blatant, inexcusable mistake.
Okay. In that case, I think you're carrying a lot of holdover sentiments from other discussions with other people who had different opinions, and projecting them onto me, because what you're apparently arguing against doesn't align well with what I'm trying to say.
The thing is... you say:
"separate yourself from your own opinions and biases to try to see how a mostly-rational actor could reach this conclusion without it being a blatant, inexcusable mistake."
That word 'mostly' does a LOT of the heavy lifting.
Because if you want to talk about how the Shiplords are understandable, about how they could in some relatable, comprehensible way have tragically fallen into this endless cycle of abusing the rest of the galaxy forever...
The one thing you
DON'T want to do is try to make this be about how dispassionately they "calculated" a solution to their answers.
Quite the contrary, you are
VERY much looking for the tragedy itself, the special nightmare of racial trauma, indoctrination, or misinterpreted experience that led them to truly believe that there was no other choice and that they needed to harden themselves to make Hard Decisions.
Because an open-minded and flexible race choosing this course above all others is almost inevitably
LESS relatable and sympathetic than a traumatized and dogmatic race doing the same in the wake of other disasters and traumas that have mutilated their ability to explore the alternatives.
...
If you want a story like this to end in the conclusion "the Shiplords did the best they could and the best they could was
this," you have to create a plausible mechanism for
how that happened. One that isn't tantamount to saying "the Shiplords were right and if there's a different way to preserve the galaxy now, it's only because humanity pulled an outside context miracle out of a hat."
The more you make the Shiplords' choices contingent on them just having calmly done math, the harder it is to make that happen. Because while you may say morality is by nature subjective, most forms of plausible moral calculation are at least
compelling to other people who share similar axioms. To make someone who has simply performed calculations seem to be
wrong, you have to base their calculations on truly bizarre moral axioms.
And bizarre axioms ("individual suffering does not matter and also burning a species' infrastructure and killing 90% of a species' adults is functionally no different from forcing a child to take their medicine against their will") do not serve the intended purpose of making the Shiplords seem tragic. It just makes them seem like dogmatic alien assholes who are willing to brutalize the galaxy forever rather than consider listening to anyone else.
...
The setting isn't going to prove the Shiplords objectively correct. Nor could it; morality by its nature is subjective, and what is or is not moral or ethical fundamentally depends on what you believe ought to be valued rather than on any facts about things that exist. Morality is not, after all, encoded into the laws of physics. However, what the story should show is how tragedies can lead good intentions astray, how from a certain point of view in some circumstances the best option you can come up with may still be a bad option.
But if you want this result, you need the Shiplords' intentions to be
recognizable as good. And you need for them to have a clearly recognizable comprehension that what they are doing is, if not
wrong in the sense that they shouldn't do it, at least
bad some more general sense.
There are two ways to make a villain tragic.
One is to make them
pitiful, so that when you see past their facade, you realize that they are no longer fearsome and formidable, but instead seem weak and wretched.
The other is to make them
self-aware, so that they know they have become villains, have betrayed old expectations and values, have done things that they regret.
...
Gollum is an excellent example of the former- his story works hard to drive home just how
pitiable his condition is, and how he didn't become a vicious lying slinking cannibalistic backstabber because he was born that way. Gollum is rarely if ever aware of how degraded his condition is, but when you have some knowledge of how he came to be that way, it's hard not to feel sympathy- he's the victim of forces he could never have hoped to control or withstand.
Darth Vader is an excellent example of the latter- Vader
knows that he's destroyed nearly everything he ever cared about, and damned everything he grew up with, all for effectively nothing except the service of an emperor who ultimately sees him as a powerful but expendable tool. He cannot perceive any real choice other than to go on doing as he is doing, but doing what he does never stops being painful to him.
Now, the trick is, these approaches are incompatible.
A villain who is persistently coded as pitiful must be conspicuously flawed and lesser-than in important ways. The story must create situations in which the villain is effectively helpless so that the pitiful nature of what has happened to them can be visible. And the villain must themselves be written as very much the victim of some other, more powerful extant force in the story.
A villain who is persistently coded as powerful (like Vader) can never really be
pitiful, because their power makes them fearsome or at least worthy of a lively caution and respect. This gives them at least partial agency in nearly any situation.
...
The problem is that the Shiplords are more like Darth Vader than like Gollum. We're never going to
pity them because they are just plain too strong. Like Darth Vader they have the raw power to accomplish almost anything they want that raw power
can accomplish, unless directly thwarted by powerful heroes. And unlike Gollum, we quite simply do not and cannot have them at our mercy as a whole. So it's hard to get enough breathing room and control of the situation to really
see the pitiable aspects of their character.
This means that to successfully make the Shiplords a tragic villain, we have to find a form of tragic downfall that
works for powerful villains. Something that is compelling and doesn't just make them look like gigantic-scale bullies writ large. And, importantly, something that does not require their
starting point to be repugnant to the viewer- they may have become something we find repugnant, but there has to be an understandable reason for it.
And quite frankly, "racial trauma stops them from considering better solutions to the problem of preserving life in the galaxy from existential Secret-abusing threats" is a
MUCH less repugnant, non-bullying solution to this problem than "they just dispassionately did the math from their own weirdly reasonable if alien axioms and decided it was the right thing to do."