Is Thrawn evil in canon?
I was recently rewatching Rebels and came across this scene-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51gcEVBd6i8
Just seems brutal as ****. Almost sadistic. So it got me wondering if canon Thrawn is intended to be more on the evil spectrum?
Originally posted by BeelzebubThis.
Not evil, imo. Just brutally efficient. Some of his actions might be perceived as evil but the intention behind them likely isn't.
There was a problem with the craftsmanship of Imperial vehicles that were being produced at that factory. Sacrificing one worker so the rest could see what would happen to them if the vehicles they assembled continued malfunctioning was the most efficient means of immediately bolstering the overall production quality of that factory. After all, if the workers continued producing subpar equipment, they would essentially be committing suicide.
That said, Thrawn is not 'evil' in the conventional sense -- he is actually portrayed as an exceedingly honorable warrior/tactician in the canon novelizations. However, with a few rare exceptions, he doesn't view people as people, per se(be them Imperial or enemy) -- he views them as assets that can be used/manipulated to help him achieve his desired results for the Emperor. If some of those assets have to die in order for said results to be achieved in the most direct and efficient way possible, then so be it. He has no real attachment either way.
Originally posted by Galan007Doesn't that still make him evil though?
This.There was a problem with the craftsmanship of Imperial vehicles that were being produced at that factory. Sacrificing one worker so the rest could see what would happen to them if the vehicles they assembled continued malfunctioning was the most efficient means of immediately bolstering the overall production quality of that factory. After all, if the workers continued producing subpar equipment, they would essentially be committing suicide.
That said, Thrawn is not 'evil' in the conventional sense -- he is actually portrayed as an exceedingly honorable warrior/tactician in the canon novelizations. However, with a few rare exceptions, he doesn't view people as people, per se(be them Imperial or enemy) -- he views them as assets that can be used/manipulated to help him achieve his desired results for the Emperor. If some of those assets have to die in order for said results to be achieved in the most direct and efficient way possible, then so be it. He has no real attachment either way.
It's all perspective. Is doing what's right for your people at all costs inherently evil? No. But you can do things that would be considered 'evil' to reach that end goal.
Tbh, whenever a villain is doing something for other people/the greater good of a certain group, be it family, species, planet etc. - whether the right method or not - I don't see them as particularly bad.
Exactly.
There is rarely ever any malicious intent behind Thrawn's actions. He simply provides results in the most effective, efficient, and direct way possible. Does that make him 'evil' in the same sense as Palpatine, Vader, or even Tarkin? Absolutely not.
With that being said, Thrawn does not advocate killing for the sake of killing(as most Imperial figureheads do.) He actually prefers to take his enemies alive whenever possible/practical.
Originally posted by Darth ThorUmm this has actually happened many, many times in civilized history...and more times than not the military officiants in question had very evil intent behind what they were doing.
So any other qualified military commander on Earth during wartime would start randomly killing his own soldiers if there was a traitor among them?
But I want to keep this discussion in the realm of SW. Not RW.
Originally posted by Mendax
Umm this has actually happened many, many times in civilized history...and more times than not the military officiants in question had very evil intent behind what they were doing.
Key part underlined.
Of course massive loads of atrocities happen in war times. But point is we still accept them as atrocities, and have a code of conduct we support even during war times.
For example its well known during war times there are many cases of rape, even from the so called civilised sides. But we still accept that as an awful crime.