I agree, but I think most dark siders do. Malgus for example has his own philosophy, that perpetual war is the only way to make yourself strong, he really believes in the Sith Code and simply believes that is the way it should be done. I don't feel he just wants power, but perhaps purpose. Vader has a very complex psychology and Revan is an example of just what you are saying. But we have to remember that 'evil for evil's sake' is often actually just power-hungry and for some people that's a motive enough.

Personally I have to say that saying "he's just power-hungry" and not explaining why he wants so much power is still just bad character-making. It shouldn't be motive, it should be the result from some other thing. For example, I have to take you away from SW-world and give a look for a character called Rumpelstiltskin in Disney's Once Upon a Time -series.

I think that is an excellent example of a character who wants power, but still have an actual motive to want it.

I think the dark and light sides of the Force are very important to Star Wars, and I think they allow for more complex kinds of 'evil'. It also allows people to exist within the 'evil' sphere and not necessarily be evil. Malgus and Marr for example aren't exactly evil, they are Sith, but they still provide the fairytale antagonistic.

I also think that dark and light side of the Force are important to Star Wars, but I don't think that it should be "side a is full of light-side users and good and side b is full of dark side users and evil". Imo ds/ls should be used to decribe individual people, not excuse the slaughtering of the people in the other side of the war. I've actually read a few books from that legacy-area, and I don't remember much about them, but I remember that Jacen Solo was showing clear signs of dark side and was still fighting in the Republic's side. And I really like that the dark side is handled like that, so people in both sides of a conflict can have people from light and dark side - the difference might be in the way these are treated (i.e. at side A people get worried if someone shows the signs of dark side while at side B people couldn't care less).

I actually came up with an idea to this last night when I couldn't sleep (I get all my great ideas at 4 o'clock at night when I can't sleep, lol). I don't think "good vs. bad" is needed in Star Wars, but I do believe that some kind of "we vs. them" is. Now, before you get confused, let me explain.

While every story has 2 sides, it is very Star Wars like to tell the story biased to one side. Thrawn trilogy is a good example: even though Thrawn nor Pellaeon is as extremely evil as Sidious was, the reader still does get a push towards the New Republic. They're not necessarily much "better" than the other side, but they are shown in a little different light. We are only told about the Empire when there's something plot-related happening in there, or maybe to give us little deeper look into some character's personality here and there. But with New Republic, we are told so many life's little things. We see those characters joking to each other, hear all about their worries and can relate their feelings. We have this scene where Luke Skywalker is on the rooftop drinking hot chocolate and really missing Ben, but we don't have a single page where Thrawn would stare to the emptiness of space and miss the loved ones he have lost.

While none of the people are actually so "good" or "bad", the other side gets the "good guy treatment", making them look as symphatetic and realistic people as possible, and the other side gets "the bad guy treatment", so the characters in there are only shown in scenes that are related to the plot or just plain tell us about the personality of the character. It doesn't give you the moral compass to say these guys are bad and should be destroyed, but gently guides you to think that neither side is that bad, but you still don't want the people getting the "bad guy treatment" to have the final win, because they are so much harder to symphatize with.

The fastest way to realize what I'm talking about is to first read the Thrawn trilogy: Thrawn gets the bad guy treatment there, he's a cold, effective leader of the Empire and is constantly causing trouble to the characters we are lead to symphatize with. Then pick up Outbound Flight. There we don't only see an effective leader: we see a person who's interested in new people and languages, happy to see his brother and gets tired after a lot of work and asks permission to sit down when talking with Car'das. In there, Thrawn absolutely gets the good guy treatment, the reader is slowly lead to symphatize with Thrawn.

And this is what SW to me should be. Not that the other side is bad, but that we are shown what side we are supposed to be and still have the tools to defend ourselves if we happen to like the other side better.

Personally I have to say that saying "he's just power-hungry" and not explaining why he wants so much power is still just bad character-making. It shouldn't be motive, it should be the result from some other thing. For example, I have to take you away from SW-world and give a look for a character called Rumpelstiltskin in Disney's Once Upon a Time -series.

This guy is all about power. He wants to have power, he needs to have power. But this is not just because "it is like that". This is because he used to be weak and a coward, and everyone looked down on him. His wife left him because he was a coward, and he felt he couldn't protect his son because he was weak and a coward. Then there was an opportunity to get great amount of power and he took it. The problem is, now he's powerful, but he's still a coward. But no worries, he's more powerful than anyone, so no one can hurt him. Power makes him feel safe. And that's why he always wants to have more power.

 

I also think that dark and light side of the Force are important to Star Wars, but I don't think that it should be "side a is full of light-side users and good and side b is full of dark side users and evil". Imo ds/ls should be used to decribe individual people, not excuse the slaughtering of the people in the other side of the war. I've actually read a few books from that legacy-area, and I don't remember much about them, but I remember that Jacen Solo was showing clear signs of dark side and was still fighting in the Republic's side. And I really like that the dark side is handled like that, so people in both sides of a conflict can have people from light and dark side - the difference might be in the way these are treated (i.e. at side A people get worried if someone shows the signs of dark side while at side B people couldn't care less).

 

I actually came up with an idea to this last night when I couldn't sleep (I get all my great ideas at 4 o'clock at night when I can't sleep, lol). I don't think "good vs. bad" is needed in Star Wars, but I do believe that some kind of "we vs. them" is. Now, before you get confused, let me explain.

 

While every story has 2 sides, it is very Star Wars like to tell the story biased to one side. Thrawn trilogy is a good example: even though Thrawn nor Pellaeon is as extremely evil as Sidious was, the reader still does get a push towards the New Republic. They're not necessarily much "better" than the other side, but they are shown in a little different light. We are only told about the Empire when there's something plot-related happening in there, or maybe to give us little deeper look into some character's personality here and there. But with New Republic, we are told so many life's little things. We see those characters joking to each other, hear all about their worries and can relate their feelings. We have this scene where Luke Skywalker is on the rooftop drinking hot chocolate and really missing Ben, but we don't have a single page where Thrawn would stare to the emptiness of space and miss the loved ones he have lost.

 

While none of the people are actually so "good" or "bad", the other side gets the "good guy treatment", making them look as symphatetic and realistic people as possible, and the other side gets "the bad guy treatment", so the characters in there are only shown in scenes that are related to the plot or just plain tell us about the personality of the character. It doesn't give you the moral compass to say these guys are bad and should be destroyed, but gently guides you to think that neither side is that bad, but you still don't want the people getting the "bad guy treatment" to have the final win, because they are so much harder to symphatize with.

 

The fastest way to realize what I'm talking about is to first read the Thrawn trilogy: Thrawn gets the bad guy treatment there, he's a cold, effective leader of the Empire and is constantly causing trouble to the characters we are lead to symphatize with. Then pick up Outbound Flight. There we don't only see an effective leader: we see a person who's interested in new people and languages, happy to see his brother and gets tired after a lot of work and asks permission to sit down when talking with Car'das. In there, Thrawn absolutely gets the good guy treatment, the reader is slowly lead to symphatize with Thrawn.

 

And this is what SW to me should be. Not that the other side is bad, but that we are shown what side we are supposed to be and still have the tools to defend ourselves if we happen to like the other side better.

Despite this, I feel its important to have moral ambiguity in between, gradients of good and bad. The underworld is a good area in which this can come about, smuggler, bounty hunters, crime lords, Mandalorians - there not evil and there not necessarily good, and although many of them fit into the category of protagonist and antagonist their is a lot of room for flexibility, and those roles can easily be reversed.

And as a said before, the same room for flexibility can be found in the primary factions. For example in SWTOR, not everyone in the Republic are paragons of light, some of them aren't even good, and then same can be said of the Sith Empire. So while the Republic represent 'good' and the Empire 'evil' (I think I prefer the terms light and dark) you can see light in the Empire and dark in the Republic and as such can sympathize with both parties.

This could have been applied to the post-ROTJ era. For example the Imperial Remnant, without the Sith they simply don't work. I feel its necessary to inject some 'evil' into them, I would have had that take the form of the Sith. However these Sith would not sit well with the Imperials, and be eventually overthrown. I also would have done events like the Second Galatic Civil War differently, were neither party seems good and 'good' is always switching sides. Instead both parties should have been 'bad' - the Galactic Alliance corrupt to the extremist of senses (perhaps led by a corrupted Jacen Solo), and instead of the Conferation of whatever the Imperial Remnant led by a resurgent Sith party (perhaps Lumiya, not as Jacen's master). In such a situation the Jedi (led by Luke and representing good) would choose neither side and be forced to abandon both parties and fight both. Ending with the reformation of the Republic or whoever and the destruction of the Remnant who would likely have fallen prey to infighting, or attempted to overthrow the Sith. This I feel would have made for a better story, and one still with moral ambiguity.

And with the Sith-Imperial War. I would have scrapped the Fel Empire completely, and the Imperial Knights. And instead had the One Sith as a pure, Sith faction taking over whatever government is in power. Destroying much of the Jedi and leaving Cade Skywalker, a rogue Jedi, to reconcile himself with his destiny and save the galaxy. Oh and take away Krayt's stupid armour, wipe out all traces of the Vong entirely![/color]

I think in part we'll have to agree to disagree. Because although 'we vs them' is an effective way of storytelling, I still feel that good vs bad is needed. Perhaps I'm just a traditionalist but I feel when you take that away, you take away the myth and the magic of Star Wars that I find so compelling.

 

Despite this, I feel its important to have moral ambiguity in between, gradients of good and bad. The underworld is a good area in which this can come about, smuggler, bounty hunters, crime lords, Mandalorians - there not evil and there not necessarily good, and although many of them fit into the category of protagonist and antagonist their is a lot of room for flexibility, and those roles can easily be reversed.

 

And as a said before, the same room for flexibility can be found in the primary factions. For example in SWTOR, not everyone in the Republic are paragons of light, some of them aren't even good, and then same can be said of the Sith Empire. So while the Republic represent 'good' and the Empire 'evil' (I think I prefer the terms light and dark) you can see light in the Empire and dark in the Republic and as such can sympathize with both parties.

 

This could have been applied to the post-ROTJ era. For example the Imperial Remnant, without the Sith they simply don't work. I feel its necessary to inject some 'evil' into them, I would have had that take the form of the Sith. However these Sith would not sit well with the Imperials, and be eventually overthrown. I also would have done events like the Second Galatic Civil War differently, were neither party seems good and 'good' is always switching sides. Instead both parties should have been 'bad' - the Galactic Alliance corrupt to the extremist of senses (perhaps led by a corrupted Jacen Solo), and instead of the Conferation of whatever the Imperial Remnant led by a resurgent Sith party (perhaps Lumiya, not as Jacen's master). In such a situation the Jedi (led by Luke and representing good) would choose neither side and be forced to abandon both parties and fight both. Ending with the reformation of the Republic or whoever and the destruction of the Remnant who would likely have fallen prey to infighting, or attempted to overthrow the Sith. This I feel would have made for a better story, and one still with moral ambiguity.

 

And with the Sith-Imperial War. I would have scrapped the Fel Empire completely, and the Imperial Knights. And instead had the One Sith as a pure, Sith faction taking over whatever government is in power. Destroying much of the Jedi and leaving Cade Skywalker, a rogue Jedi, to reconcile himself with his destiny and save the galaxy. Oh and take away Krayt's stupid armour, wipe out all traces of the Vong entirely![/color][/color]

Okay, as I have said, I'm not too familiar with the area of Cade Skywalker or Lumiya, Have read 2 books with Lumiya there and 0 with Cade Skywalker, but I do admit these plots you recommend do sound very interesting. But with Vong and The Imperial Remnants, I have to strongly disagree.

Now, Imperial Remnants. Not so bad anymore, are we. Funny thing is, this is how I have always seen the Empire, now other people are just forced to see it like this, too. The sith just removed the excuse for killing imperials because "they are so darksided!". Now everyone can see that the imperials are mostly just actual, normal people who just have different kind of beliefs. They have been that the whole time, but now they are just shown in that light. The last thing I would want is a sith to mess things up again and give people again an excuse to think that imperials are bad because their leader is bad. Tbh I like the Empire, and I think I should have the right to like it. Because when we skip the crazed sith leading them, they're just actual people with nice uniforms and the idea that i.e. democrazy just doesn't work.

With Vong, now, I don't actually like them, but they have their roots too deep to be removed. They've been around for a ridicously long time. The chiss knew about them before attack of the clones. Sidious either knew about them, too, or Doriana was bluffing when he claimed something like that in Outbound Flight. Main reason Thrawn ever joined the Empire seemed to be that he wanted to "protect his people", and I have a strong guess from whom he wanted to protect his people from. People have been joining the Empire of the Hand after they were shown what horrors there are in the edge of the galaxy (I smell Vong here, too). Also, there have been a theory that Thrawn actually attacked New Republic because he believed that if the Vong would came, no way New Republic would be ready for them. The galaxy would be eaten alive.

So, Vong may not be the most star wars-like thing there is, but they couldn't be removed without affecting a lot of other things.

Now, Imperial Remnants. Not so bad anymore, are we. Funny thing is, this is how I have always seen the Empire, now other people are just forced to see it like this, too. The sith just removed the excuse for killing imperials because "they are so darksided!". Now everyone can see that the imperials are mostly just actual, normal people who just have different kind of beliefs. They have been that the whole time, but now they are just shown in that light. The last thing I would want is a sith to mess things up again and give people again an excuse to think that imperials are bad because their leader is bad. Tbh I like the Empire, and I think I should have the right to like it. Because when we skip the crazed sith leading them, they're just actual people with nice uniforms and the idea that i.e. democrazy just doesn't work.

 

With Vong, now, I don't actually like them, but they have their roots too deep to be removed. They've been around for a ridicously long time. The chiss knew about them before attack of the clones. Sidious either knew about them, too, or Doriana was bluffing when he claimed something like that in Outbound Flight. Main reason Thrawn ever joined the Empire seemed to be that he wanted to "protect his people", and I have a strong guess from whom he wanted to protect his people from. People have been joining the Empire of the Hand after they were shown what horrors there are in the edge of the galaxy (I smell Vong here, too). Also, there have been a theory that Thrawn actually attacked New Republic because he believed that if the Vong would came, no way New Republic would be ready for them. The galaxy would be eaten alive.

So, Vong may not be the most star wars-like thing there is, but they couldn't be removed without affecting a lot of other things.

I believe that would make for a more interesting story that better suits the universe.

As for the Vong, this is a suggestion for if we could start the EU again. I very much feel the Vong have been shoe horned into everything. For example apparently the Empire was building all those massive fleets because of the threat of the Vong, be we know that's never what Lucas intended. The Vong seem to just be a fear factor on the edge of the galaxy, and excuse for the actions of various characters and factions.

Well another thing to think about. There are many other books that show besides the jedi good vs evil. Look at the X-wing Series. I think that series probably the best post ROTJ books out there. Kinda fills in the gaps between ROTJ and the thrawn trilogy.

But in the aspects between good and evil, it can shift into a very grey murky area. Look at Anakin Skywalker/Vader. Went to the dark side to save the woman he loved. His intentions were good but what he did...well road to hell is paved with good intentions. But those very same feelings for love and family is what SAVED him. Jolee Bindo said it best. Love can damn you and it can save you.

Some men like Palpatine are Megalomaniacs. Some fight for a cause that shifts week to week. Han Solo, Lando Calrissian and to a point Leia.

Then you simply have those who fight for a cause or because ordered to. Wedge[up to a point], Ackbar, Soontir Fel.

I don't think that Star Wars focuses mainly on Good vs Evil but the whole rainbow between good and evil.

I don't think that Star Wars focuses mainly on Good vs Evil but the whole rainbow between good and evil.

Concerning with the Imperial Remnant. I am inclined to agree with you. However my biggest gripe if that when it becomes a battle between the Republic and Remnant, their is no good or evil. The writer can make you more sympathetic towards one cause but ultimately its just a battle over political beliefs, nothing mythical. I would reintroduce the Sith, however not as before. Instead have these new Sith attempt to claim leadership over the Empire, their Sith, they likely believe it is their right. However the Imperials are tired of their dark side overlords who seem to cause nothing but trouble, so the Sith are overthrown and the Imperials turn on them. Meanwhile the Republic is battling both factions.

 

I believe that would make for a more interesting story that better suits the universe.

 

As for the Vong, this is a suggestion for if we could start the EU again. I very much feel the Vong have been shoe horned into everything. For example apparently the Empire was building all those massive fleets because of the threat of the Vong, be we know that's never what Lucas intended. The Vong seem to just be a fear factor on the edge of the galaxy, and excuse for the actions of various characters and factions.

Now, with the Empire, I don't think you should concern sith with them anymore. Not all all. However, I do have to agree that it's nice to see a sith or other dark side user here and there, but Empire has suffered enough from those. I like that one with no clear evil and good. Tbh is there was a sith in the area of New Republic vs. Imperial Remnants, the only place I could deal with it would be either a. nothing to do either side or b. New Republic's problem. But better this way. It wouldn't feel natural to force another sith to run around the Empire. Let there be war between these two and eventually, peace - because now, without the sith, there's the possibility of peace. It feels like a natural progression to how things should go. Forcing a sith in because of "well, it's star wars, there has to be a sith somewhere!" wouldn't feel anything but maybe a little...childish to me.

Now, case Vong. I actually like the idea that there's something scary in the edge of the galaxy and the species (i.e. chiss) that live near the edge, are scared of it and maybe have fought it. And that is might attack the galaxy some day. However, there are a few problems with the Vong. As you said, it's an overused excuse. I actually do like the idea that Thrawn is worried about the Vong, his people live near the edge of the galaxy. It's like living next door to a serial killer when there's no police to call. But I don't think Vong should be used as an excuse to everything that happens. "Well, the Vong are coming" can be used as an excuse in your own mind when creating a huge fleet of battleships when you don't want to admit that you just want to have overpowered military.

But I don't think that's some one and only reason why Sidious would build a big fleet, and tbh, I don't think that's the only reason Thrawn attacked the New Republic. It might have been one of the reasons, but probably (Especially in the case of Sidious) it wasn't even the biggest reason. Not to mention that even though some of the things Lucas did have had to be given excuses (like that fail with parsecs, Kevin J. Anderson did a nice safe there I believe, or at least that's when I first heard about the thing that Han would have actually went through the Kessel route so close to a black hole that it should have been impossible.) BUT, I don't think people should start saying "Oh, Sidious was actually a nice guy after all!". He wasn't that nice in the movies. Instead of trying to change his personality to a protector of the galaxy, authors should focus on making his character work i.e. telling why he has the personality he has.

Also, tbh I don't like the fact that Vong come from another galaxy. Something in it just rubs me wrong. Some alien warlord like Nuso Esva would have been much more interesting.

Now, with the Empire, I don't think you should concern sith with them anymore. Not all all. However, I do have to agree that it's nice to see a sith or other dark side user here and there, but Empire has suffered enough from those. I like that one with no clear evil and good. Tbh is there was a sith in the area of New Republic vs. Imperial Remnants, the only place I could deal with it would be either a. nothing to do either side or b. New Republic's problem. But better this way. It wouldn't feel natural to force another sith to run around the Empire. Let there be war between these two and eventually, peace - because now, without the sith, there's the possibility of peace. It feels like a natural progression to how things should go. Forcing a sith in because of "well, it's star wars, there has to be a sith somewhere!" wouldn't feel anything but maybe a little...childish to me.

Now, case Vong. I actually like the idea that there's something scary in the edge of the galaxy and the species (i.e. chiss) that live near the edge, are scared of it and maybe have fought it. And that is might attack the galaxy some day. However, there are a few problems with the Vong. As you said, it's an overused excuse. I actually do like the idea that Thrawn is worried about the Vong, his people live near the edge of the galaxy. It's like living next door to a serial killer when there's no police to call. But I don't think Vong should be used as an excuse to everything that happens. "Well, the Vong are coming" can be used as an excuse in your own mind when creating a huge fleet of battleships when you don't want to admit that you just want to have overpowered military.

 

But I don't think that's some one and only reason why Sidious would build a big fleet, and tbh, I don't think that's the only reason Thrawn attacked the New Republic. It might have been one of the reasons, but probably (Especially in the case of Sidious) it wasn't even the biggest reason. Not to mention that even though some of the things Lucas did have had to be given excuses (like that fail with parsecs, Kevin J. Anderson did a nice safe there I believe, or at least that's when I first heard about the thing that Han would have actually went through the Kessel route so close to a black hole that it should have been impossible.) BUT, I don't think people should start saying "Oh, Sidious was actually a nice guy after all!". He wasn't that nice in the movies. Instead of trying to change his personality to a protector of the galaxy, authors should focus on making his character work i.e. telling why he has the personality he has.

 

Also, tbh I don't like the fact that Vong come from another galaxy. Something in it just rubs me wrong. Some alien warlord like Nuso Esva would have been much more interesting.

Perhaps not Sith, but dark siders. After all there are many sith adepts and acoytles left over from the old Empire, it would have been interesting to see a conflict in leadership between them and the Empire. And perhaps eventually becoming a threat to both the Republic and the Empire who band together to destroy them. In that context I feel the 'Empire turned good' would be much more effective, and it would also demand a reconciliation of differences between Empire and Republic to fight a common threat.

Nah. "Common threat" is a pretty overused cliche. Also, I don't like the idea that "Empire turned good". Empire didn't turn into anything, the leaders just changed. People like Pellaeon have been in their ranks all the time. Maybe a dark side user wouldn't have harmed to story too much, but tbh, what I have read, I have liked. And it would just...make things too easy. I really liked how Pellaeon finally swallowed his pride and decided that it's Empire's time surrender to the Republic. Just like "there's a sith in there, wanna stop this war and start a war against that?" would just make it too easy for everyone. It was a great moment when Pellaeon decided that it's time to give up. Some common enemy would have taken something away from that moment.

And hey, there was always Joruus C'baoth! Hilarious little guy, wasn't he?

I like the idea. I think its more the zergish nature of the Vong that puts me off, they just seem to swarm the galaxy like a plague wrecking everything. Like a metaphorical trashing of the Star Wars universe. And yeah, I also dislike them coming from another galaxy. I think the reason is because Star Wars is very much centered around a single galaxy (a long time ago in a galaxy far far away) and to expand that to other galaxies just seems wrong. I think the concept of the Chiss on the other hand is a great idea, and something along those sort of lines may have worked better.

I'm a big fan of the chiss and Thrawn in particular, as you probably have already noticed. ^^ But anyway, the Vong had a lot of potential, but it wasn't imo done as greatly as it could have been done. People destroying everything for the sake of destroying isn't any more better than evil for the sake of evil, and it should be left to bad horror movies. Also, it would have been nice that the Vong would have been some alien race that was living in the edge of the galaxy, with some actual purpose to try to conquer the galaxy. I haven't heard that there would be anything else than the Vong that would have came from another galaxy, and I don't like that Vong came from there. Just a little too big of a exception.

To be honest with you if I could save just a few things from the POST ROTJ EU it would be the Following

• Boba Fett surviving the Sarlacc and Escaping
  
• Kyle "Mother Forcing" Katarn
  
• Admiral Thrawn
  
• .......I guess that's it really.
  

If Disney were abort the rest of the EU and I was able to save these three from the purge. I'd be one happy Fan. To be honest with you I favor the The Clone Wars Era EU over the ROTJ EU, which would explain why I detest when The Clone Wars series used to copy and paste it's version of what happened over something I considered to be superior. Something serious is over written by something a bit more softer because the show is sometimes marketed towards a younger audience just because the show is higher on the canon scale then Dark Horse's Republic: Clone Wars. Oh dear there I go ranting again. Excuse me while i go mourn my Non Canon ARC Trooper Alpha.

Personally I thought it sucked because it was full of ridiculous power-creep. Infinitely reborn emperor, force-using droids, anything about the Yuuzhan Vong. Everything in the galaxy turns to crap, as if galactic assault automatically translates to interesting drama.

The whole thing reminds me of when I would play with Star Wars toys as a child, and couldn't come up with anything interesting to keep the story going.

I can agree some of the story lines are flawed and the focus on the jedi order is a bit much. I think the X-wing novels showed evil in humanity not just evil due to power.

Thrawn was not bad, but bad ***** I thoroughly enjoyed those novels 20 years ago, and re read them last year. I think that the old republic sagas and story lines take place 3000 years in the past so the stories are very open.

With the end of Fate of the Jedi it is time to transition to new characters and now we have the jedi order protecting Han and Leia's grand kid, the future has an upside for novels.

It will be interesting how the JJ abrams and the writers go with episode 7, since they are not doing the Thrawn story line. If they bring in the original characters it would make sense they move to the next level of leadership and the Sith vs Jedi will resume with an even greater fervor.

Thrawn was not bad, but bad ***** I thoroughly enjoyed those novels 20 years ago, and re read them last year. I think that the old republic sagas and story lines take place 3000 years in the past so the stories are very open.

Thrawn was bad, he committed Mass Genocide multiple times, that's evil. He kill several species, mostly because he could not defeat them at that time, or because they had little to offer the empire. I know it's a current trend to say has wasn't evil but pragmatic, but when you look at what he did it's evil, he could justify it to himself, and he believed in his cause, but that doesn't make it any less evil.

Thrawn believed in restoration of the empire and order.

As a character his view points he was not evil only was doing what he thought was right.

If you condemn Thrawn you have to condemn pellion as well.

Thrawn was bad, he committed Mass Genocide multiple times, that's evil. He kill several species, mostly because he could not defeat them at that time, or because they had little to offer the empire. I know it's a current trend to say has wasn't evil but pragmatic, but when you look at what he did it's evil, he could justify it to himself, and he believed in his cause, but that doesn't make it any less evil.

Actually, when asked on his facebook page, Timothy Zahn decided to follow this "trend" and said that he didn't think Thrawn was evil. As he is the creator of Thrawn's character, and the deeds Thrawn seems to be doing in his books don't seem horribly evil to me, it's completely justified to say that Thrawn wasn't all that evil.

Actually, when asked on his facebook page, Timothy Zahn decided to follow this "trend" and said that he didn't think Thrawn was evil. As he is the creator of Thrawn's character, and the deeds Thrawn seems to be doing in his books don't seem horribly evil to me, it's completely justified to say that Thrawn wasn't all that evil.

Just because he's the creator of the character doesn't mean he can define that character's morality arbitrarily. He can portray the character's perspective, and provide clarification, but at the end of the day, all he can say is that Thrawn didn't think he was evil which is a far cry from actually not being evil.

Just because he's the creator of the character doesn't mean he can define that character's morality arbitrarily. He can portray the character's perspective, and provide clarification, but at the end of the day, all he can say is that Thrawn didn't think he was evil which is a far cry from actually not being evil.

Exactly, just because he can justify it to himself doesn't diminish the evil he has committed, at the end of the day he has committed heinous war crimes. Just remember all war criminals think they are doing right by their code, it does not excuse them, nor does it not excuse Thrawn, or any other Imperial. This does not mean they can't redeam themselves though, this is always a strong theme in Star Wars.

Just because he's the creator of the character doesn't mean he can define that character's morality arbitrarily. He can portray the character's perspective, and provide clarification, but at the end of the day, all he can say is that Thrawn didn't think he was evil which is a far cry from actually not being evil.

As the creator of the character, he has also created Thrawn's personality, and in his books, I don't see Thrawn commiting too many genocides or other stuff people are blaming him from. So, these deeds will a. have to have really good explanation or b. they are simply out of character.

It's funny how people say that imperials are all bad but can redeem themselves. The rebels slaughtered a lot of imperials. When will they redeem themselves?