本論文聚焦於《三國演義》中，曹魏麾下而獲得正面評價的忠義人物。在小說「擁劉反曹」的基本敘事傾向下，為蜀漢鞠躬盡瘁如趙雲、關羽、諸葛亮，或者棄暗投明如黃忠、嚴顏、姜維等，自然受到了小說家及評點者的讚揚，但是為曹魏出生入死，是否也能擔得起「忠義」的稱許？值得探究。例如第 6 回，曹操脫離盟軍獨自追擊董卓失敗，險難中為曹洪所救，贄評認為：「曹洪者，操之忠，漢之賊也」，如何理解「忠操」與「賊漢」之間的道德角力？像這樣的舉止在古代正統觀下，到底應該怎樣評判？類似的人物，還包括典韋、許褚、張遼、龐德等，都是「士為知己者死」的貫徹者，其行為只能歸類於「為虎作倀」的狹隘道德牢套之中嗎？小說家紀錄其人的故事，並獲得了「逆臣手下偏有忠臣」的歎喟，背後似乎隱藏著某種春秋之筆，則「人臣」（操之忠）與「從賊」（漢之賊）之間，其道德光譜亦頗有值得推敲之處。本論文探討曹魏人物在原作、評點及後世讀者接受之「忠義」評價，如何對「善／惡」疆域產生衝擊。

This thesis focuses on the loyal ministers of Cao Wei in “Romance of the Three Kingdoms” questioning the fine line between good and evil. Under the thought of ‘Support Liu Bei, oppose Cao Cao’, Zhao Yun, Guan Yu and Zhuge Liang dedicating their lives to Shu Han, while Huang Zong, Yan Yan and Jiang Wei defected to Shu Han from their original nations were praised by the novelist and the critics. Besides, should those who contributed to the traitor Cao Cao be called loyal ministers? In Chapter 6, Cao Cao was attacked while he was pursuing Dong Zhou alone and finally rescued by Cao Hong. The critic Li Zhi claimed that Cao Hong was not only a loyal minister to Cao Cao but also a traitor to the Han Dynasty. How to explain the morality of a character who remained loyal to Cao Wei and mutinied against Shu Han under the orthodoxy of the novelist? The author of the novel lamented that such great ministers as Dian Wei, Xu Zhu, Zhang Liao, Pang De and so on were the stalwart supporters to rebels like Cao Cao suggesting the complex relationship of morality and loyalty. Thus, the thesis focuses on how the ministers of Cao Wei in the novel, the critical annotations and the reviews of readers challenge the traditional moral boundaries