Compare Zaroff’s and Rainsford’s points of view on the hunt. How does this tension contribute to the moral stakes of the story? Cite evidence from the story in your response.

Both are pretty flat characters. They are both unbelievable in the context of real life. They were both smart, intelligent hunters. Strategy was a part of their everyday lives, but Zaroff took strategy just a bit further when he decided to make it about a game..... placing Rainsford as the most important piece on the board. Zaroff makes no destinction between hunting animals and humans while Rainsford draws the line at hunting humans. This, of course, serves as the basis for one of the themes of the story: Does an animal being hunted feel and differently than a human being hunted.
Zaroff is cruel and unfeeling; Rainsford has a sense of humor and he's witty. We like Rainsford, and yet in the end he is just as cold and cruel as the man who dragged him into the game.