Thrawn certainly is a true villain. He's loyal to the chiss (and by proxy the Empire) to a fault. A non-true villain wouldn't have committed multiple genocides.
I assume he'll pitch to everyone that the real threat are the Grysks and they should join him in combating them but they won't.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
What were his genocides?Originally Posted by zitothebrave
I'm in my 50s and I still watch them.
zitothebrave (07-14-2023)
I mean going off legends he was complicit in the Genocide of the Noghri. BUt I guess while technically not genocide, willing fireing on the people of lothal is beyond ****ed
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Yeah, the shelling of Lothal was out of character for the canon Thrawn. The guy that's the protagonist of his own book series is not a true villain. He is not capricious and doesn't throw away lives unnecessarily.
Thrawn is lawful neutral. He's willing to do brutal things but only when the calculus of the overall benefit, especially the benefit of an orderly society, justifies it. It makes him a very complicated and compelling character.
I think the novels paint thrawn as the hero because it's from his perspective. No one is the villain of their own story. Similar things happened in the Tarkin book.
I see thrawn as Lawful Evil. The calling card of Lawful evil is often the ends justify the means and that's just more or less Thrawn's goal. Vader is also Lawful Evil. Palpatine is Neutral Evil.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
I'd argue the ends justify the means is more of a trait of lawful neutral. Maybe even lawful good.
Lawful evil characters don't worry about the justification of means. They will use any means to advance their goals and do so without a second thought.
Tarkin is a great example of lawful evil. He uses the establishment to give himself power to enact his evil will. The benefits of using the Death Star cannot justify the killing of billions. Tarkin doesn't care. He only cares that his goals are advanced.
Lawful neutral is more about pure calculus. But there are also plenty of lawful good characters who have altruistic goals and are willing to do awful things if the good achieved is greater than the cost. They're the kind who would torture a criminal to find out the plans for a future terrorist attack.
There's an argument that Thrawn is lawful good. He doesn't act for personal benefit but for the benefit of all. He's willing to use brutal tactics if doing so will benefit the greater good.
I see Thrawn as more lawful neutral though. He's not really altruistic enough to be lawful good. He more acts out of a dedication to order.
There's no argument that Thrawn is Lawful GOod. Obi Wan is Lawful Good, Yoda is Lawful Good.
Lawful Neutral is not ends justify the means. Lawful Neutral is more that they believe the law above all else. Think like the John Wayne gunslinger. I would argue Tarkin and THrawn are basically the same. I see Lawful Neutral are especially the clone troopers, or storm troopers themselves, many of the senators in the republic, etc.
When you look at the traditional D&D alignment which those things are made of, the Lawful NEutral person has their own personal moral code. A lawful neutral person wouldn't have bombarded the people of Lothal, would a lawful neutral person say
""Terms are not always as they seem, Commander. They are called slaves, but they may in fact be indentured servants. They may be prisoners working off their sentence. They may have sold themselves into slavery as a means of repaying debts to others on their world. I have seen all those situations at times."
Like not evil people don't justify slavery, not evil people don't use their skills to better the evil empire.
I get the meme of the Empire wasn't evil, from a certain perspective, etc. but the Empire was ran by literally a true evil person. It's means were evil. It's methods were evil, etc.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
There is plenty of argument for Thrawn to be lawful good, especially when you read the recent Thrawn books.
Lawful good doesn't mean the character is above anything resembling a bad act. It has to do with intent. You can have lawful good villains. They actually make fantastic and complicated villains. If you've seen Good Omens, think Gabriel. He's absolutely a lawful good character but he's willing to let the entire world burn to achieve the greater good of permanent victory over the forces of evil. He legitimately believes the best good that can be achieved for everyone is to win Armageddon. His intent is benevolent but it carried him to try to bring about atrocities.
So would a lawful good person bomb Lothal? Absolutely. They are not above bad acts to achieve a greater good, especially when not acting would work against the system they are dedicated to uphold. Thrawn, in the books at least, upholds a code of honor and works hard to protect an orderly society. He doesn't do this out of selfish aims or a desire to see bad results, just the opposite. He's frequently selfless and wants to see a galaxy of orderly peace and prosperity.
He could also be lawful neutral. A lawful neutral person doesn't usually concern themselves with labels like "good" or "evil." They only care about the establishing and upholding law and order. I think the traditional example is a judge who applies the law the same regardless of who is in his court. That the law might be wrong and could send an innocent man to the gallows is not the lawful neutral judge's concern. That the law is correctly applied is the concern.
As to your slavery example, the lawful neutral person might not care if slavery exists so long as it is conducted within the law. Someone working off a prison sentence might be "good" while someone being oppressed might be "evil" but the lawful neutral person doesn't care so long as the orderly society allows it.
The current Thrawn is in no way a lawful evil character. Take the Nightswan affair. Thrawn had a meeting with him to extend an offer to avert the impending bloodshed at the Creekpath complex. When it was rejected, Thrawn let him leave. Compare that to how Tarkin would have acted. He might have set up a meeting with Nightswan but he would have immediately had him arrested and tortured for information. Tarkin then would have massacred the entire Creekpath complex. No way a lawful evil character does what Thrawn did there.
When it comes to alignment in storytelling, it is based on the idea of a cosmic good, the empire is cosmic evil. It's clear.
You're making some heavy leaps of judgement of "from a particular point of view" and trying to apply it.
Slavery is inherently wrong. It's clearly portrayed that way in Star Wars as well. In canon it's described as evil.
In a world where torture is technically against the law, a lawful evil person wouldn't torture.
I mean you can argue him to Lawful Neutral, but he's no where near lawful good.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
I think the problem is that he's given lots of lawful good traits as he's the protagonist in that book series. He's trying to protect the galaxy from a great evil (the Grisk), he follows a warrior code of honor, he tries to avoid unnecessary bloodshed, he works hard to support and protect his underlings, etc. This is necessary as Thrawn had to be at least somewhat likable to carry a book series as the protagonist.
Ultimately I'd put him as lawful neutral. He doesn't really concern himself whether what he's doing is good or evil. His goal is simply to preserve the orderly society as it exists. He doesn't try to oppress people or exploit the system to increase his own power and wealth. But he's also, as you note, willing to do evil things and support evil institutions so long as it serves the existing order.
It will be interesting to see what they do with him in Ahsoka. I just hope they don't make him some mustache twirling villain like Tarkin. I'm personally hoping to see him turn on the Empire as he's ultimately loyal to the Chiss. He has to be out of the Imperial picture by the time of the sequel trilogies. As we saw in The Mandalorian, all of the Imperial remnants were willing to follow Thrawn so there's no way he could have been there in the sequels and not been part of them. Having him turn would be a great way to remove him from the Empire while still leaving him on the shelf to use in future projects.
If Mando season 4 turns into a movie, that’s laughable on Disney’s part
Maybe, depends on what their plans are. IMO the best case scenario for them is to get this movie **** moving fast. People are going to lose interest in the Mandoverse as it is. Not to say you can't bring those characters in for other things, but I think we're into the final few seasons. Also I feel like Pedro Pascal wants to be done.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
I agree. One of the great things about Mando is its long form story telling. You'd lose that in the transition to the big screen.
Also, it's one of the things that's been propping up Disney+. Considering Disney's streak at the box office, making a movie out of it isn't a great idea.
Last season it felt like they had 3 days with Pedro Pascal and they crammed everything they could into those days.
Apparently, from what I am hearing, there is a fear Jon Favreau and Dave Filoni will not be able to make two seasons of Disney+ shows that are prerequisites for Dave Filoni’s Star Wars theatrical film. A question being floated is if they can take the main story of Star Wars: The Mandalorian‘s fourth season and edit those scripts into a film that will release after the Rey film. This would effectively give Filoni two theatrical Star Wars films produced by Jon Favreau. We would lose the fourth season of The Mandalorian on Disney+ for now, but we would instead experience that story as a theatrical film that would lead into Dave Filoni’s original film concept a year or so later.
Okay.Ashoka already doesn’t Make sense
What doesn't make sense? It seems pretty clear to me overall. Only kind of off thing so far is some backstory bits we'll be getting at some point I'm sure on the new dark side users.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Ahsoka has a lot of Filoni in it. Lots of mystic star wars. Remember he's the one who introduced Nightsisters, World Between Worlds, etc. into the canon.
Stage is set as well for every "major" character to have an equal villain foil. Ahsoka has Baylan Skoll, Sabine, his apprentice, Ezra, the former inquisitor, and Hera, Lady Morgan, all before the ultimate hurdle of Thrawn's machinations.
Some of my favorite parts, Clancy Brown also returning to play his Rebel's Character. In my head forgot he played Ryder. Lothal in general. Lothal was a cool world design and it looked great with ILM's muscle creating it, the night sister's temple, wish more time was spent there, that set design was amazing, and of course Sabine's armor, always a highlight from Rebels, seeing it on the screen was awesome. Of course honorable mention goes to the modern star wars tradition of having big name stars voice droids with David Tennant with a strong turn as the Jedi droid who's name I should look up because it is just off enough I haven't remembered it yet.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
I've lost track of the whole Star Wars' universe/canon/whatever, but I watched the first two episodes of Ahsoka and it looks like it will be a pretty decent stand-alone. I enjoyed the first season of Andor and look forward to the second. I'm not that deep into the universe to discern what contradictions might exist, so missteps that would drive a set of fans crazy don't register with me. I think I can see where the plot of Ahsoka is going, but given the star power involved, I think it's going to be a decent ride.
Always great to see Clancy Brown. One of my favorite actors.
Last edited by 50PoundHead; 08-24-2023 at 11:59 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote