StarDestroyer.Net BBS

There seem to be varying opinions on this.

I'm inclined to think that he was good, and those things he did that we would construe as evil were merely because his priorities differed from ours.

Thrawn was loyal to a totalitarian regime. Is that necessarily evil? That's one of those giant burning questions, isn't it? I think the question of whether Thrawn was evil has to be linked to the question of whether the Empire was evil.

Even if the Empire can be shown to be evil, we must then ask if Thrawn's actions were evil or merely obedient, which brings up the old question about whether "just following orders" is a worthy justification.

It depends on your definition of "evil". Some say that "evil" is simply anything that threatens their personal or national interests (at least they're honest). Others define "evil" in terms of the supernatural, as in religious definitions of the term (a subject for another forum). But I think most people define "evil" in terms of causing injury to people, ie- causing human suffering. While we may disagree on whether it's "evil" to maintain certain forms of government or violate certain principles, I submit that any decent human being would agree that it's evil to beat a young child to death (for example).

Unfortunately, it gets a hell of a lot more complicated when you start dealing with whole groups of people, ie- nations. When nations are involved, people will often transform morality into an abstract concept, so that it is more important to promote "democracy and freedom" than to stop human suffering (in fact, some will argue that it is perfectly reasonable to cause vast amounts of human suffering in the interests of freedom and democracy). The definition of "evil" becomes pretty murky once you start messing around in this territory.

Ultimately, people will probably end up resorting to "community standards" definitions, ie- evil is defined relative to expectations (this is like "war crimes", which are defined relative to the standard for the bizarre notion of "civilized warfare").

So ... what were Thrawn's actions? Did any of them violate the accepted standards for the conduct of war in his part of space? I seem to recall that Thrawn was generally an honourable combatant, and his tactics were generally designed to minimize civilian casualties and capture territory intact, rather than causing maximum destruction. In that respect, from a humanistic standpoint of "within the context of war, did he minimize human suffering", one would have to conclude that he was actually a good guy.

Originally posted by Darth Wong
So ... what were Thrawn's actions? Did any of them violate the accepted standards for the conduct of war in his part of space? I seem to recall that Thrawn was generally an honourable combatant, and his tactics were generally designed to minimize civilian casualties and capture territory intact, rather than causing maximum destruction. In that respect, from a humanistic standpoint of "within the context of war, did he minimize human suffering", one would have to conclude that he was actually a good guy.

Well yes he did do that... He also;

• kept an entire race in indentured servitude by lying through his teeth and keeping them on the edge of starvation.
• had an active pollicy of kidnap and re-distribution of infants as 'presents' to his partners in conquest.
• tried to subvert an galctic government into his own empire!
• orders the death of smugglers who might be able to reveal his secrets while they are being treated for injury in Coruscant

No he wasn't evil, he was just mis-understood, right

Seriously though, I think that we all have a soft spot for Thrawn, because he was just so cool!

Crown wrote:kept an entire race in indentured servitude by lying through his teeth and keeping them on the edge of starvation.

I forgot about the Noghri. Was that his fault? Or was that merely the continuation of Darth Vader's orders? Did his actions cause any deaths or injuries among the Noghri, as opposed to merely maintaining them in the state Vader left them?

had an active pollicy of kidnap and re-distribution of infants as 'presents' to his partners in conquest.

This I did not know about. When did he do this? Keep in mind that I have a very foggy recollection of the novels; I primarily pay attention to the movies and any directly related materials such as novelizations, ICS's, etc.

tried to subvert an galctic government into his own empire!

Why is that evil?

orders the death of smugglers who might be able to reveal his secrets while they are being treated for injury in Coruscant

They're criminals. It's no great loss. May I remind you of how we regard drug runners today?

Seriously though, I think that we all have a soft spot for Thrawn, because he was just so cool!

That may be part of it, but I still believe that he took as many actions as one could reasonably expect (ie- within the framework of Imperial procedure and pre-existing orders) to minimize the destructive impact of his conquests, and that this counts for something.

Originally posted by Darth Wong

I forgot about the Noghri. Was that his fault? Or was that merely the continuation of Darth Vader's orders? Did his actions cause any deaths or injuries among the Noghri, as opposed to merely maintaining them in the state Vader left them?

Whether or not it was his idea, he specifically told Mara Jade that he rules the Empire now, not some long dead Emperor and certainly not her, so he kept the Noghri in their perpetual state of bondage to suit his purposes and goals, therfore I assign that as his responcabillity. And his responce to Palleon when talking about the Noghri comandos ability to captue Leia was something to the effect of; "We will eventually get her, before we run out of Noghri." so yes I do believe that his actions caused the deaths of Noghri who were serving him only because of the lie he kept going.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
had an active pollicy of kidnap and re-distribution of infants as 'presents' to his partners in conquest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This I did not know about. When did he do this? Keep in mind that I have a very foggy recollection of the novels; I primarily pay attention to the movies and any directly related materials such as novelizations, ICS's, etc.

When he tried to kidnap Leia, and then later Leia and her new-born twins, so that he could present them to C'boath.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tried to subvert an galctic government into his own empire!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why is that evil?

Because he wasn't exaclty running for government and trying to convince them that he was a better candidate for protecting them, he just tried to attack and conquer them.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
orders the death of smugglers who might be able to reveal his secrets while they are being treated for injury in Coruscant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


They're criminals. It's no great loss. May I remind you of how we regard drug runners today?

I will admit that this was a bit of a weak post, mainly because the smuggler in question was Mara Jade, and I have a soft spot for her. However we have a pesky little thing called due-proccess, and he never once showed that he was bound by it at all.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seriously though, I think that we all have a soft spot for Thrawn, because he was just so cool!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That may be part of it, but I still believe that he took as many actions as one could reasonably expect (ie- within the framework of Imperial procedure and pre-existing orders) to minimize the destructive impact of his conquests, and that this counts for something.

I unequivocally agree with you! However I am a bit of a cynic and I believe that this more demonstrates on how apt he was at showing a good PR face. Just like Napoleon and other great generals of our time. And as I said before, Thrawn always maintained that he was the head of the Empire, ero the buck stops with him

And I just realised that I can not spell!

Crown wrote:And his responce to Palleon when talking about the Noghri comandos ability to captue Leia was something to the effect of; "We will eventually get her, before we run out of Noghri." so yes I do believe that his actions caused the deaths of Noghri who were serving him only because of the lie he kept going.

Well, those were assassins under his command. I was referring to the Noghri population at large. I suppose one could say that Thrawn should have been helping them, so he's not a highly moral man. But is he "evil"? That's the other extreme, and I have trouble with that.

When he tried to kidnap Leia, and then later Leia and her new-born twins, so that he could present them to C'boath.

Oh, you were referring to that specific case? It's a bit of a stretch to call that an "active policy" of infant kidnapping, isn't it? That was one very specific case. It's not good, but if you look at the things that nations routinely do in order to serve their national interests, it's unremarkable.

Darth Wong wrote:Why is that evil?

Because he wasn't exaclty running for government and trying to convince them that he was a better candidate for protecting them, he just tried to attack and conquer them.

You are saying that anything which is undemocratic is evil. I don't see why that should be the case. I am glad to live in a democracy and I think it's the best system, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that democracy is "good" and everything else is "evil" by definition.

I will admit that this was a bit of a weak post, mainly because the smuggler in question was Mara Jade, and I have a soft spot for her. However we have a pesky little thing called due-proccess, and he never once showed that he was bound by it at all.

Why should he be bound by it? He's not American. Again, you seem to be saying that "our system = good" and "other systems = evil". That does not follow, unless you are prepared to justify it somehow.

I unequivocally agree with you! However I am a bit of a cynic and I believe that this more demonstrates on how apt he was at showing a good PR face. Just like Napoleon and other great generals of our time. And as I said before, Thrawn always maintained that he was the head of the Empire, ero the buck stops with him

Does it matter what his motivations were? All that matters to me is that his conquests came at an extraordinarily low cost in bloodshed, which has to count for something. He conquered entire worlds with a mere handful of casualties on either side, which is simply remarkable.

My Lord if I may...

Originally posted by Darth Wong
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Crown:
And his responce to Palleon when talking about the Noghri comandos ability to captue Leia was something to the effect of; "We will eventually get her, before we run out of Noghri." so yes I do believe that his actions caused the deaths of Noghri who were serving him only because of the lie he kept going.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, those were assassins under his command. I was referring to the Noghri population at large. I suppose one could say that Thrawn should have been helping them, so he's not a highly moral man. But is he "evil"? That's the other extreme, and I have trouble with that.

The point that I made originally is that the 'assasins under his command' were only serving him because of a lie he was perpetualting in order to have their service. And in my 'Collins Dictionary' evil is defined as; morally wrong. Does a lie and an act of slavery seem morally right?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When he tried to kidnap Leia, and then later Leia and her new-born twins, so that he could present them to C'boath.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh, you were referring to that specific case? It's a bit of a stretch to call that an "active policy" of infant kidnapping, isn't it? That was one very specific case. It's not good, but if you look at the things that nations routinely do in order to serve their national interests, it's unremarkable.

Once again, does that make it right? Here in Australia, we are already dealing with our own problems of the stolen generation and the arrogance that caused it to come about. However even in treating this as a specific case, and I will humbly submit that it was not at any time an active policy of infant kidnapping as I originally posted, dramatics on my part, the fact that there was no remorse shown doesn't exaclty speak volumes on his moral character. And again I will make the corelation between morals and the state of good and evil.

If I may my Lord, you are a farther, if a leader of a country targeted your children for kidnapping, in order to prevent them from achieving their potential as seen by you, would you not think of that leader as evil?

You are saying that anything which is undemocratic is evil. I don't see why that should be the case. I am glad to live in a democracy and I think it's the best system, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that democracy is "good" and everything else is "evil" by definition.

Yes, I too live in a democracy, however how could it be argued that the forced cooperation of another population through conquest be good?

Why should he be bound by it? He's not American. Again, you seem to be saying that "our system = good" and "other systems = evil". That does not follow, unless you are prepared to justify it somehow.

It once again demonstrates he's moral standing. She wasn't even under his government or authority. She was someone who could ruin his plans, thus she was a target. No matter where you live, no one could argue that this is okay! Am I alowed to murder anyone who applies for the same promotion as me, just because there is a chance that they may be able to get it instead of me?

Does it matter what his motivations were? All that matters to me is that his conquests came at an extraordinarily low cost in bloodshed, which has to count for something. He conquered entire worlds with a mere handful of casualties on either side, which is simply remarkable.

My Lord, the ends never justify the means. And what motivates a persons actions can mean the difference between manslaughter charges and calculated muder. Yes he accomplished these remarkable feats, however the question we must ask is; if his tactical brilliance was not able to accomplish these feats, then would he have resulted to more extreme measures? Measures that would be more easily construded as evil?

I believe the answer is yes. He stated that there was one time when he wasn't able to accruately use a species art in order to subdue/beat them, however he was finally making inroads and beging to understand them now. When Pellaeon mentioned that it could come in handy in the future, Thrawn responded; "I doubt it, I ended up slagging their entire planet."

I will concede that we do not know in what context Thrawn acted in this manner my Lord. However if one takes the position that he had no use for them and thus destroyed them out of hand, I believe that it speaks volumes about his character.

My Lord I humbly submit that while evil might be too far a stretch for you, good should also be just as hard to attain.

No, Thrawn is *not* evil. Actions he has done were merely neccessities to accomplish his military objectives. Any good military commander will do as Thrawn has done.

Thrawn is a man who will do anything to achive his goals yet always keep an eye open to keep those actions as limited as possbile
(Like when he attaked Convoys he Destroyed the ESCOURTS and left the non-combatants alone)

I never tried to kill Mara. Frame her though yes.

Oh and in VOTF, Mara and Luke thought if they brought a clone of Thrawn back to the NR, he'd be executed.

I don't think that Thrawn was evil because I think that all of his motives were understandable. I think that the primary prerequisite for being an evil person is this: are you trying to do more harm than good. Thrawn was clearly trying to kill a great many people, but it wasn't like he was going to enslave entire worlds the way that Vader and Palpatine did. He wasn't into torturing people, and I think that an Empire under Thrawn would have enjoyed many of the benefits that the people of the NR were allowed to partake in. The Chiss certainly were not unhappy with him. When people became Roman citizens, yes, they lived under someone else, but their quality of life usually rose. I don't think that Thrawn was evil because I do not see evil intentions behind his actions. Instead I think that he was trying to do what was best for the people he cared about.

Thrawn could be evil when it was required, but generally I get the feeling he was just loyal to what to him was a goverment much stabler than the Old or New Republic and he probably knew about the Yuuzhan Vong already and that the Empire that would be required to protect the galaxy.

He wasn't pure evil like Palpy but he sure as hell wasn't a good guy. Grey area case for certain.

Thrawn cares about his troops. Plus, Pellaeon said in VOTF that all Thrawn wanted was order.

If I may my Lord, you are a farther, if a leader of a country targeted your children for kidnapping, in order to prevent them from achieving their potential as seen by you, would you not think of that leader as evil?

I seem to recall the American government having a similar problem with a young Cuban boy a couple of years back. Certainly he was eventually allowed to return to CUba with his father, but there was also strong support for him to be allowed/forced to stay in America with other relatives. Do you call those who wanted to keep him from his father "evil"?

And don't say "But America is a democracy and Cuba is a dictatorship." I think that for the purposes of this debate, we shouldn't call any particular government type good or evil. After all, a benevolent dictatorship is theoretically better than democracy, it's just that human nature won't allow it to succeed.

And here's a little brain teaser for you: Are Vulcans evil? They hold to the belief that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, and in Thrawn's case may have decided that the best course of action was to reward Joruus C'Boath with the two Jedi twins, if it would help them in their objective.

Yes, I too live in a democracy, however how could it be argued that the forced cooperation of another population through conquest be good?

So I suppose the Allies were being evil when we forced the cooperation of the Japanese and the Germans through conquest in World War II....

It once again demonstrates he's moral standing. She wasn't even under his government or authority. She was someone who could ruin his plans, thus she was a target. No matter where you live, no one could argue that this is okay! Am I alowed to murder anyone who applies for the same promotion as me, just because there is a chance that they may be able to get it instead of me?

All governments perform assassinations during war. Let us just pretend, for a moment that we're in a war. SOmeone high up in the military defects and takes out citizenship for the other side. They have a lot of sensitive information, but haven't given it all out yet. We know they're not going to return to our side, and being an enemy citizen, they're no longer "under our authority." What do we do? An assassination is much simpler and more likely to succeed than capture. Any government that wouldn't try to kill this person wouldn't deserve to exist, it would be that stupid.

I have a feeling this stemmed from another thread were myself and a ship that can talk were arguing about Thrawn. First off, my opinion, that way if I put some points out and convince myself that I was wrong, I don't totally make an ass out of myself. An ass yes. A complete ass, no. My opinion, Thrawn is evil. In the Hand of Thrawn duology, Zahn may have muddied the water, but make no mistake, that blue skinned red eyed bastard was evil. The Thrawn trilogy has no weight, no bearing if he wasn't. The first books to start the ball rolling for Star Wars has to have an evil guy running the show. Thrawn, evil. Evil, Thrawn. Where's my crayola?

Thrawn ventures to a remote planet, and forces an insane clone jedi master to do his biding. Basically taking away, his way of life for the sole purpose of Thrawn. He stages a plot to capture Luke Skywalker to present to the crazy Jedi. When said plot fails, he executes officer to make example. When plot succeeds next time, he commends officer to deceive the others into being loyal to him. (sharp thinker). Decides to calm crazy Jedi by promising two infants to him. How? By invading thier home and stealing them away. Keeps entire race of beings in enslavement to serve his own needs. How? By keeping poisened grass on the planet. Starvation, disease, the tribes elders complained to Leia that it kept thier sons away from home, dying somewhere unknown to them. (Luke cut those bastards up). When he feels elders are lying to him, he makes a demonstration and announces that he will kill them all if they don't obey him. There's plenty of examples either way you go, but to add them up and look at them, he's evil.


Hey, the evil guys rock. I want him to be the meanest son of a bitch this side of Sammy Jackson's street adress. The dude, is evil. Thrawn, evil. Evil Thrawn.

Thrawn is no more evil than great generals like Patton, Eisenhower, Sherman, or Grant. They did what was necessary to win the war, often bending the rules of society to meet their objectives. Thrawn did the same. The Noghri were simple assets to him and he used them as he saw fit. To have allies like C'Boath was like Eisenhower having allies like the Soviets. And to keep them happy and with us we gave them war material and technology. Like Thrawn promised the children. And Thrawn once C'Boath was in a point of little power would have him cloned again and the evil jedi killed.

And if you had a choice of a leader would you choose Borsk Fey'lya or Thrawn?

Originally posted by Lusankya

I seem to recall the American government having a similar problem with a young Cuban boy a couple of years back. Certainly he was eventually allowed to return to CUba with his father, but there was also strong support for him to be allowed/forced to stay in America with other relatives. Do you call those who wanted to keep him from his father "evil"?

Lusankya I believe you a wise enough to see that these two examples are two entirely different things! First the Cuban boy was rescued from the ocean, and the American state department did decide to return the boy to his father in Cuba after a lengthy and bitter court case.

Conversely Thrawn was trying to kidnap Leia's twins, and indeed her in order to present them as a gift to C'boath! Two entirely different situations wouldn't you agree?

The relatives of the little Cuban boy were arguing that in America, he would have a better standard of living and more opportunities for the future. The courts decided that the best thing for the boy was to be with his parent! These are two different things entirely!

Originally posted by Master of Ossus
I don't think that Thrawn was evil because I think that all of his motives were understandable. I think that the primary prerequisite for being an evil person is this: are you trying to do more harm than good. Thrawn was clearly trying to kill a great many people, but it wasn't like he was going to enslave entire worlds the way that Vader and Palpatine did.

That is wrong, and has already been disproven, you know that he continued to enslave the Noghri with his treacheries and lies, so please refrain from trying to 'gloss' it over.

Originally posted by Mr. Bean
(Like when he attaked Convoys he Destroyed the ESCOURTS and left the non-combatants alone)

Fallacy and you know it. Thrawn attacked;

• Lando's mining operation to steal mole miners
• Coral vander {spelling?} casino liner, yes he didn't end up actually damaging the ship, only because he managed to scare them, however IIRC he was perfectly willing to do so if they didn't
• Once again attacked Lando's mining operation to steal metals

Thrawn was more than willing to destroy and inslave an entire planet if it was something he had to do;

The Last Command, paperback page 12

"There was a long pause from the other end. DosLa was no fool, Pellaeon realized-the Ukian knew full well what Thrawn had in mind for his world. First it would be direct Imperial control of the ground/space defenses, then direct control of the food distribution system, the processing facilities, and the vast farming and livestock grazing regions themselves; and in a very short time the entire planet would have become nothing more than a supply depot for the Imperial war machine.

But the alternative was for him to stand silently by and watch as his world was utterly and impossibly demolished before his eyes. And he knew that, too."

Originally posted by Darth Yoshi
Thrawn cares about his troops. Plus, Pellaeon said in VOTF that all Thrawn wanted was order.

No. READ between the lines. He was an able military commander, he didn't like wasting his troops on useless endeavours, however he was not at any time caring about what happened to them. He was like Napoleon, he could motivate, inspire, and display friendship but in the end all he cared about was his vision and his goals.

Food for thought, when Napoleon was handing out medals, he turned to one of his generals and said mockingly; "With baubles such as these, men are lead to their deaths." I think you all can find the appropriate reference in the Last Command where Thrawn displays the same qualities.

Originally posted by Lusankya
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I too live in a democracy, however how could it be argued that the forced cooperation of another population through conquest be good?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So I suppose the Allies were being evil when we forced the cooperation of the Japanese and the Germans through conquest in World War II....

No, the allies stopped a military aggresive force(s), which were invading other countries soverignty. I think you can see the difference, it is rather plain.

Let's face it people, Thrawn was, is and always will be the coolest villian ever created for Star Wars. Hell I wish I could be just like Mith'raw! However lets not forget that he was the villian and ergo evil. All everyone is saying is that yes he did bad things but he did them in a nice way so therefore he wasn't really evil ...

That is logical fallacy for example; I steal your belongings and rob you of everything you hold dear, however while I am doing this I am being really nice and therefore I am good. Ooops, someone else tries to help you, and well they are armed and I end up killing them in order for me to stay alive so that I can continue to live and continue to be nice to you while I rob you.

Over dramatic, perhaps, however it proves my point. Thrawn might have been nice when he was doing bad things, however that doesn't make him good. How can you post otherwise?

I think I will I change my sig a bit and perhaps clarify everyones opinion a little...

okay it didn't work, but it was going to be this...

Thrawn is an evil bastard...But he's our evil bastard!

Crown wrote:okay it didn't work, but it was going to be this...

Thrawn is an evil bastard...But he's our evil bastard!

lol. I think, though, that Thrawn wasn't such a bad guy. He thought that the Alliance was evil. He just had a different POV.

The people he cared about were all Imperials. They had given him a life and a duty when his own people had cast him out. That isn't wrong of him, it's just a different point of view from what we see in the movies and the other books.

Thrawn doesn't kill off his own men the way Vader does. That gives him a lot of points in my book.

Thrawn doesn't kill off his own men the way Vader does. That gives him a lot of points in my book.

He does, when Luke escapes, he orders one of his bridge crewman killed. And it wasn't his fault, he simply hadn't been given the appropriate training.



I don't think he was evil. He certainly wasn't a nice guy; he was driven to rebuild the Empire. Whether or not Palpatine knew about the Vong, the Chiss did. Knowing some honking evil is nosing around he tried to preserve order and stabilty to meet the threat. And he did it by any means necessary.

My real objections are to three things:

• Keeping the Noghri in perpetual slavery. Whether or not it was an existing policy is irrelevant. He knew and continued it. Mr Wong, I don't see how you can argue that this was not an evil act. He held a people in slavery when it was in his power to end it.
  
  Trying to kidnap (or kill) Leia's children. He was going to turn them over to C'boath (insane dark jedi) or kill them to prevent him from getting his hands on them.
  
  Abusing his troops. He allowed C'boath to mess with the minds of his ship's crew, whether they wanted it or not. In essence he allowed C'boath to mentally rape them. Plus there is the execution of a young conscript as already mentioned.

Was Thrawn evil? No. Did he do some morally repellant thing in the service of a worthwhile cause? Yes. Thrawn was so completely dedicated to his cause he didn't look at the morality of some of his actions. A lot of that is his cultural baggage. His people were raised to consider the good of thier society before all else. He simply follwed that imperative in his service to the Empire.