Talk:Thrawn/@comment-25432067-20170801152558

Ok. So I just carried out a major edit of this article, however, I am faced with a conundrum. The Thrawn book has revealed A LOT of information about the character that we never knew, even in comparison to Legends. As it turns out, he is NOT as evil as he may appear to be at times in Rebels. He has a motivation that is not out of loyalty to the Empire. As a matter of fact, he does not even really like the Empire at all, and only used it as a means to represent his homeworld, which is under threat by some unknown force (which many believe is Snoke). In fact, although he has gained the support of Palpatine, Thrawn sees his actions as an infiltration of the imperial ranks, and he only does what is necessary to advance his career to better give his people a chance by amassing as much influence as he can.

He shuns civilian casualties, believes the emperor and many officers to be evil, and tries to employ the most effective strategies that would limit collateral damage. He does things he most effective way and not the easiest way. He has an ethical code he follows and does not believe in mindlessly killing people for failure. He inspires courage into his crew and encourages them to give feedback without fear of repercussion. He punishes traitors (as he did in that one episode of Rebels), but we all know, from a legal perspective, that it was technically justified on his part. Thrawn is selfless, loyal, and has a moral compass, even if he is ruthless. He simply believes in efficient results, which is expected of the ideal military commander from a historical perspective as it pertains to military science.

That being said, even though he serves a clearly evil regime, he is most certainly not "bad" as the article says he is in the alignment section. He fits the more "lawful neutral" role to put it in RPG lingo. That being said, saying "bad" is too confusing and simplified. I feel that we should change it to something else, like "neutral". The only problem with that is that he is still quite antagonistic towards our rebel friends, even though he "likes" them technically in the respectful sense. In order to clarify that he is not evil, what would be a potentially appropriate replacement for "bad" in order to clarify a proper alignment? Or is that not an option due to some wiki policy?