Is Thrawn Evil?

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2002-07-30 01:17am

Concession as in generally people get punished for attempted murder, nimrod.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-07-30 01:22am

Do I care? Mr bean was the one who claimed that Thrawn would allow people to retire, I asked for one, one sitation of proof. So by everyone's logic, it would seem an assumption is true without proof, so by this reasoning then the assumption that he would never allow retirement is just as valid as the assumption that he would! And where does that get us?

And really Lusankya what would be the point of reading about a Admirals' life during peace times; dear diary today I played two rounds of golf with the Emperor and Lord Vader, and I have the sneeky suspicion that they might have cheated...

Red herring, pointless and irrelevant.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2002-07-30 01:27am

You're taking defection and calling it "retiring". Are you just too stupid to recognise the difference?

A defector is often more dangerous than other enemy soldiers because of the information they posess.

Mr Bean has already pointed out an example of THrawn allowing someone to retire to you. If you want to be picky, it was actually a defection, but because the defector was simply setting up shop in a small area and was remaining more or less neutral in the conflict, Thrawn simply let him be.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-07-30 01:34am

Tst-tst sticks and stones Lusankya, my point still stands, he doesn't allow retirement in any was shape or form. I never claimed that he did, and it is still not proven, no need to get angry at me for that point. And as for Thrawn being generous, I believe that it was made clear enough in Dark Force, and again in Visions of the Future, that Thrawn wanted Mara's cooperation, and that he would have it one way or another...

You're taking defection and calling it "retiring". Are you just too stupid to recognise the difference?

Learn how to read and then how to comprehend, and then you might get away with calling me stupid... I never stated in any way shape or form that anyone was allowed to retire by Thrawn, defection or otherwise. If you have somehow managed to find some way my works could be interpratated in any other way then quote it. No I am serious, please do... If I am wrong, I will apologise.

AL · Post by AL » 2002-07-30 01:43am

Thrawn was a perfect soldier. He is not evil. He belives in the idea of a galaxy under imperial control. Was the Roman empire evil, or were the evil and corrupt leaders of Rome evil? I would say the leaders were evil not the empire itself. Thrawn, had he beaten the New Republic would have been a perfect dictator.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-07-30 01:48am

Who enslaves worlds and kidnaps childern, not evil?

Evil Sadistic Bastard · Post by **Evil Sadistic Bastard** » 2002-07-30 01:52am

Thrawn was a shrewd person. But I don't believe he was evil. He didn't waste his men's lives on fruitless causes, and in fact his tactics ensured that more of them survived. Apparently, he had shields installed on the TIEs (correct me if I'm wrong), and he rated missions based on how many losses they had taken. Of course he may have used some people as cannon fodder, but if you consider that evil, then what of allowing the larger body of men to sustain greater losses?

Anyway, what I really want to say is that Thrawn wasn't malicious or anything. I mean, to him, the Rebels would have been evil (giving arbitrary freedom to races that don't deserve it, weakening the government, etc.) I'm not taking sides here, just saying what I think.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2002-07-30 03:55am

Mr Bean, can you get that Quote that Crown so desperately desires? I would, but I don't have the book. I've just been quoting you for a while (you being percieved as a better source than the heretic Crown).

Is it in Tales from the Empire? I've heard that it's basically an excuse for a pile of THrawn stories, but I don't like reading short stories, so I've never gotten around to buying it.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-07-30 11:10am

Originally posted by Lusankya
Mr Bean, can you get that Quote that Crown so desperately desires? I would, but I don't have the book. I've just been quoting you for a while (you being percieved as a better source than the heretic Crown).

Still having trouble reading and comprehending are we? Well let me try it again; You said and I quote;

You're taking defection and calling it "retiring". Are you just too stupid to recognise the difference?

Now just in order to clear this up, you are claiming that I am claiming that defection and retirment are the same things, and that I am too stupid to recognise the difference. Right? That is what you were implying correct?

Assuming that this is correct then here is my reply, again I quote;

Originally posted by Crown
Learn how to read and then how to comprehend, and then you might get away with calling me stupid... I never stated in any way shape or form that anyone was allowed to retire by Thrawn, defection or otherwise. If you have somehow managed to find some way my works could be interpratated in any other way then quote it . No I am serious, please do... If I am wrong, I will apologise.

Now I make easy for you... Quote me, where I say retirement = defection. Not books, not other people, me. If you claim I am too stupid to say that retirment = defection, show me where I have said this.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-07-30 11:44am

The officer in question did not defect he indeed retired
Or do you think that System Governer and Captian of a ISD are the same things?

Face it he did indeed reitre/leave the miltary
He kept a title he liked even though he did not deserver it but the Prince-Admiral did indeed retire

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-07-30 12:01pm

After a PM asking me to look in on the recent posts in this thread, I have observed that there is a fundamental disagreement over the definition of evil.

Crown obviously believes that someone is "evil" if he has ever done anything which is morally questionable or bad. It is a black/white definition; either you're as pure as the driven snow or you've done something bad and you're evil. By that definition, Thrawn is evil. Mind you, by that definition, every military leader in history (yes, including the righteous military leaders from the righteous God-fearing USA) has also been evil.

Many others seem to believe that someone is "evil" if he has exceeded the accepted norms for his role in life. Since Thrawn is a military officer, many actions such as bombing of civilians and covert ops undertaken against individual leaders (and perhaps even their families) in an enemy government are normal, and so do not qualify as proof of "evil". Instead, in order to show that he is "evil", one must show that he has acted with malice above and beyond the norm, such as showing blatant disregard for the welfare of his men, slaughtering civilians unnecessarily or for distinctly non-military reasons (eg- Nazi death camps), disregarding conventions for humane treatment of prisoners (eg- Nazi death camps again), etc.

The two definitions are in conflict, hence this debate strikes me as unresolvable. Just my $.02

David · Post by **David** » 2002-07-30 01:04pm

Just my $.02

Is that Canadian or American?

Evil Sadistic Bastard · Post by **Evil Sadistic Bastard** » 2002-07-30 06:41pm

Darth Wong has a good point. To decide whether someone is evil, we have to define "evil", otherwise we could take Luke and say he was evil, because he killed hundreds upon thousands of people when he blew up the Death Star. IMO, evil is very perspective-dependent, because most of the good villains actually believe they are doing the right thing.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2002-07-31 01:07am

Crown obviously believes that someone is "evil" if he has ever done anything which is morally questionable or bad. It is a black/white definition; either you're as pure as the driven snow or you've done something bad and you're evil. By that definition, Thrawn is evil. Mind you, by that definition, every military leader in history (yes, including the righteous military leaders from the righteous God-fearing USA) has also been evil.

Hell, everyone's evil if you use this definition.

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2002-07-31 02:29am

Try billions dead with the death star, and you'd be closer to the truth.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-07-31 03:05am

consequences wrote:Try billions dead with the death star, and you'd be closer to the truth.

For Grand Moff Tarkin? For Emperor Palpatine?

Oh, pardon me. I thought we were talking about Thrawn here. And last time I checked, Thrawn wasn't on the Death Star.

Besides, as ugly as it sounds, the mass-murder of civilians in wartime is considered perfectly acceptable. Now, unless you'd like to reclassify the Allies in WW2 as "evil" ...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-07-31 03:08am

Darth Wong wrote: Besides, as ugly as it sounds, the mass-murder of civilians in wartime is considered perfectly acceptable. Now, unless you'd like to reclassify the Allies in WW2 as "evil" ...

Only if it's being done by the WINNING SIDE.

Why was Doenitz in the dock at Nuremberg along with Goering
"for waging aggressive war", etc, and not "Bomber Harris" or
Curtis LeMay?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-07-31 03:21am

Darth Wong wrote: Besides, as ugly as it sounds, the mass-murder of civilians in wartime is considered perfectly acceptable. Now, unless you'd like to reclassify the Allies in WW2 as "evil" ...

Ah yes, Herr SS-Sturmbannfuhrer M. Wong, you are to take command of Einsatzgruppen A in Russland, replacing SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer O. Ohlendorf,
due to your views on mass murder of civilians in wartime.

Are you sure you want to go down this path?

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-07-31 03:29am

Okay we have just entered a circular and moral argument that probably will not be solved. So in an effort at trying to get back on my original points I will say this;

Thrawn continued to keep the Noghri enslaved and on the brink of starvation in order to retain their services. He threatened Noghri non-combatants, well if you could consider any Noghri as non combatant.
Ordered the abduction of new born Jedi twins, in order to present them as 'gifts' to C'boath, when he knew they would totally mind-rapped, without showing the slightest hint of remorse.
Offered the same deal to Mara.
Slagged an entire homeworld of a species, when his military genius failed him.
He allowed his troops minds to be invaded and cotrolled by an insane Jedi Master, and somehow I don't believe that they all had to sign a permision form before hand.

Now all of these points are from the original trilogy by Zahn, these are more than morally wrong actions on his part!

And as my last point, he was the god-damn-villian of the piece, of course he was evil!

. But seriously, those facts for me sum it all up, and please don't try the old But he cared for his troops! routine. Unlike the Emperor and Vader, he needed to cultivate loyalty not fear, because fear leads to anger, anger leads to stabing him in the back through his command chair and killing the sucker!

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2002-07-31 04:16am

my aplogies for my lack of clarity, i was referring to luke killing billions

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2002-07-31 07:44am

2 and 3 can be considered sad but necessary acts in a war. Two babies is a real small price to pay for peace, sick as it might sound. Besides, they are children of the enemy. It is morally questionable, but let me ask you, if you really think throwing two babies and one Mara Jade into the hands of a sicko would allow you to bring peace and harmony to a chaotic galaxy bleeding from its cahos, would you do it?

For 4, IIRC Zahn provided NO details other than he couldn't make it work and he eventually destroyed their world. No one ever said he did it in rage. You don't even know anything about that particular species other than they make some kind of art that was a bit over Thrawn's head at the time, and he did show remorse for that one.

To take an analogy from a Chinese Legend (RTK), once the great Zhuge Liang tried to go into Babarian land (paraphrasing here). He tried to do his campaigns with fewest losses, but once, a bunch of goons in rattan armor (supposedly near impenetrable to normal weapons of the era) forced him to annihilate the lot of them with fire. Despite his final brutal means, most people still consider Zhuge Liang a good guy to the best of my knowledge. And yes, he did feel remorse too.

For five, he originally intended to give them a small stimulant to increase their combat efficiency in critical situations and to enhance communications. It wasn't exactly in his plans that C'baoth would or could control everyone. As for me, if there was a small stimulant that would increase my soldiers fighting efficiency by a full forty percent, I'll definitely have it administered.

Only 1 is truly questionable. But hey, you can say this is a contract, survival resources for commandoes. It is a poor deal, but no one said that a deal that's offered has to be good. It isn't my fault that you didn't know the fair market price for your services! Mean, dishonest, but not really that evil.

Speaking personally, I don't think you should not place value on whether the book intends to make him a villain. That's a very crappy argument.

Imagine a SW book. It is the story of a prosperous Imperial sector after the Battle of Endor, maintained lovingly by a fine Moff with a fully augmented Sector Group. He is somewhat harsh, and does not tolerate revolts well (but then few leaders do). But he had never done anything (at least that you know of) before now that could be considered atrocious or truly evil. In fact, if you objectively analyze it and ignore the bias in the book, you may even come to the conclusion it is a damn fine place to live.

And he's content to just care for and defend that Sector (as far as objective analyzes go), as it was his duty, and besides, he kind of liked the Sector...

But the book has to set him up as the villain. The book makes a deliberate effort to villify him to the subjective mind. He is lambasted for not merely surrendering. The Rebels are glorified subjectively, but objectively THEY invaded and THEY subjected many worlds to pain of planetary invasion.

Rampant speculation on the part of Rebel officers of perceived wrongs (but those were never really verified and remain purely thoughts printed out solely to affect you subjectively) are printed. Any Rebel death was made so utterly TRAGIC, while an Imperial death was necessary and he was dumb to have chosen the wrong side. You know that kind of drill...

You beginning to see the problem of basing it off the book's position? The man was set up as the villain, but anybody with a real brain can he's the good guy and the Rebels are invading morons.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-07-31 10:40am

Originally posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki

2 and 3 can be considered sad but necessary acts in a war. Two babies is a real small price to pay for peace, sick as it might sound. Besides, they are children of the enemy. It is morally questionable, but let me ask you, if you really think throwing two babies and one Mara Jade into the hands of a sicko would allow you to bring peace and harmony to a chaotic galaxy bleeding from its cahos, would you do it?

This is just soooo wrong! How could you ever justify the kidnapping of two babies who's sole prospect of a future is to be mind-rapped into whatever twisted image C'boath wanted?! And that twisted image line is straight from Thrawn's lips, and he eventually went on to say it will be a while before they could ever pose a threat to me IIRC. Dude he was sentencing them to death!

For 4, IIRC Zahn provided NO details other than he couldn't make it work and he eventually destroyed their world. No one ever said he did it in rage. You don't even know anything about that particular species other than they make some kind of art that was a bit over Thrawn's head at the time, and he did show remorse for that one.

Irrelavant, all along in this thread I have read from everyone how Thrawn goes out of his way to minimize civilian casualties, and how that's a good thing in his favour. To slag a planet, means to totally BDZ it, if I am right about this, that usually means zero survivours. While I have stated that we don't know the context of this incident, I feel that it is a pretty safe assumption that civilians were killed in this action. And I would remind everyone that one does not need to slag an entire planet in order to eliminate them as a threat, you just have to bomb them into the stone age and then blockade them.

For five, he originally intended to give them a small stimulant to increase their combat efficiency in critical situations and to enhance communications. It wasn't exactly in his plans that C'baoth would or could control everyone. As for me, if there was a small stimulant that would increase my soldiers fighting efficiency by a full forty percent, I'll definitely have it administered.

Fair enough, only this was not a small stimulant, nice euphemism, he allowed their minds to be directly controlled and affected by someone else! And I will save you the time required to find the appropriate references; Attacking Nomad City the first time C'boath was acting as a CPU. And that little cloaked ships under the planetary shield stunt he pulled, that required a little more than small stimulation!

Only 1 is truly questionable. But hey, you can say this is a contract, survival resources for commandoes. It is a poor deal, but no one said that a deal that's offered has to be good. It isn't my fault that you didn't know the fair market price for your services! Mean, dishonest, but not really that evil.

A contract based on a lie!A lie that led to the deaths of numerous Noghri for at least three generations!. A lie that continued to poison and destroy their world!

Speaking personally, I don't think you should not place value on whether the book intends to make him a villain. That's a very crappy argument.

And I did say;

And as my last point, he was the god-damn-villian of the piece, of course he was evil! . But seriously

i.e. It was a bit of a joke. However why is it a crappy argument? The book is the medium from whence we view this character. The whole point of the book is to display to us these characters and analyse them! The book is not written in either perspective, it's not written by a Rebel General's memoirs, not written by Luke or Leia, or Mara or Thrawn. It's written as an insiders observation, in the third person if you will, it has no bias what-so-ever, except if you consider the fact that all we see is the Empirals doing bad things and thus it's bias.

The book is like a documentary, and it clearly shows Thrawn doing what he is doing without jugement, however he is clearly the villian. Honestly sometimes I wonder.

You beginning to see the problem of basing it off the book's position? The man was set up as the villain, but anybody with a real brain can he's the good guy and the Rebels are invading morons.

I seriously hope that you are joking, or you are in need of some serious help. Just tell me if you are please, I am starting to worry now...

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2002-07-31 07:22pm

Yes he is. But I'm of the kind that believes that most great ends (in this case pacifying a galaxy) can justify the means. I understand now that YOU wouldn't throw away two babies to save a galaxy, but personally I would, if I really believe that it is a pretty big part of my WORKABLE plan to save the galaxy.

You might notice that this is the ONLY situation you could bring up where he didn't do so. Yes, a BDZ meant zero survivors. But IIRC, he did not even say BDZ, he just used the word "destroying" their world. That COULD mean just bombing them into the stone age. Have you considered the drain of military resources to maintain a long term blockade? Have you considered the possibility that the citizens of that planet are building a dangerous superweapon that would threaten not only the Empire, but everyone in the Unknown Regions, and thus Thrawn assessed they were too dangerous? He might even be trying to just destroy the superweapon, but it is buried in such a way that to get at it equates the effective destruction of the planet.

Yeah, he acted as a Super Radio and Coordinator as well. You just gave me more reasons to say that the tactical and strategic advantages is worth it. He never intended for C'baoth to do more than ASSIST. Controlling wasn't in Thrawn's script AT ALL.

For the Noghri, think of it this way. They are already on the plus side of this ledger. Without the Imperials, they may all very well have died.

I know it was a joke, but I still disagree with it. You are presuming no bias in the story. I'm not quite willing to grant that assumption. The fact you are an insider does not equate you are not biased. A documentary can be biased. You know as well as I do the way something is presented can affect your perception of the event while the book can still claim being neutral.

Umm, as for the last point, I was really referring more to my hypothetical SW book to show you the bad parts about basing it off the book's position. Here's what I think of Thrawn:

He's a character in a tragedy. He has great ambition. He's willing to go far to realize it. He tries to be nice but sometimes he can't. And he has some fatal flaws in his character and judgment, and pays for it with his life. Ain't that some beautiful tragedy we are seeing here?[/b]

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2002-08-01 12:24am

Mr Sheppard,

Ah yes, Herr SS-Sturmbannfuhrer M. Wong, you are to take command of Einsatzgruppen A in Russland, replacing SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer O. Ohlendorf,
due to your views on mass murder of civilians in wartime.

Are you sure you want to go down this path?

That line of argument is just plain stupid. Wong is pointing out the fact that mass civilian casualties up until very recently was the norm in the course of a conflict. Military commanders were not disciplined because of errant shells blowing up innocent civilians, or if militarily valued targets (i.e. war industries) were targeted and incidentally civilians were killed. There is no such thing as a safe war. It seems that you're taking his argument as saying he endorses these acts of killing civilians on purpose. You have to be able to distinguish his words, acceptable does NOT mean they went out of their way to do it every time, that would be the definition of evil. (i.e. the concentration camp example)

There is a substantial difference between the concentration camps and destruction of military targets that incidentally includes the death of civilians. Even in instances where civilians were anticipated to be in the line of fire and were expected to die in great numbers, when you come right down to it, it is war and it will be done. Things like this will happen, for instance, if you knew there was some "terrorist mastermind" in the middle of say Tehran with a bio weapons lab, and you were sure he was going to use it, would you not preempt even though there is a near certainty of civilian casualties? (FYI, Tehran is the capital of Iran, and has a rather large population base) And don't give me BS about surgical precision of cruise missiles or LGBs, simply put, no one does surgery with high explosive ordinances.

Bottom line. say what you want about deaths of civilians in war, but it is an unavoidable fact. When you're in the middle of a fight, there are three sides, your side, the guys who are neutral, and the guys who are trying to kill you. You try not to get the guys who are neutral killed, but when you come right down to it, the people who matter are the ones on your side. And that's that.[/quote]

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2002-08-01 08:12pm

Technically civilians of an enemy nation are helping to kill your people as long as they are being productive members of their country, and with a months training or less could be actively shooting at your troops on the battlefield. As long as they have not provided aid to your forces, or sabotaged their own, they are an asset to the enemy. If you are being coldly logical about the matter, you should eliminate them as readily as any other resource the enemy possesses that could be turned against you.
This was the strategy used by the Allies in WWII, most notably during the strategic bombing campaigns: once they realised how difficult it was to signifigantly damage the industrial targets they deliberately attacked the civilian population. Does this make our wartime leaders evil? From a purely objective standpoint it does, but letting the other side win was seen to be a greater evil, or at least a greater threat to our interests.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Is Thrawn Evil?

Is Grand Admiral Thrawn evil?

Well Crown