32 minutes ago, aRandomBoardGamingDude said:

you're seriously questioning the logic of someone overlooking and forgetting about a fictional character's least memorable kills? rofl

Not arguing. Just pointing out that just because the audience didn't know the names of the living people Obi-Wan's killed does not mean they don't count as him killing them.

Obi-Wan's directly snuffed out the lives of quite a lot of living beings in his younger days.

30 minutes ago, aRandomBoardGamingDude said:

is it bad that I really hope you are right? Like if you're right, I'm gonna re-watch the first season and then watch the episode he dies in to make it a more rewarding view.

For some reason though I feel like Disney likes Ezra alot more than they should and they think he is important to the target audience? or something. It just seems like Disney wouldn't greenlight scrapping their audience's proxy character at any point in the show. To me that means it's more likely Ezra will die in a comic/video game, and honestly that would not be rewarding.

I don't think that it is bad, because I hope that he, Kanan and Ashoka will die aswell, because of continuity reasons.

But your reasons are kinda douchey
I didn't mind Ezra, he was annoying, but he was appropiately annoying and I see alot of character growth in him.
Maybe that will help me dealing with children and teens when I start working^^

43 minutes ago, Ghost XV15 said:

Mate, Luke is the last Jedi.
Ezra will not survive up to Episode 4

Just like how Ahsoka couldn't survive to ROTS?

19 minutes ago, Sithborg said:

Just like how Ahsoka couldn't survive to ROTS?

That is in my opinion something else entirely.

It was never stated that all of the Jedi were killed after Order66.
The Jedi as an organisation? Yes they were destroyed, most of them were hunted down, but during Rebels Vader is obviouly still hunting the Jedi, however it becomes clear that is hunt is comming to an end (to focus on the rebellion?)
Furthermore Ahsoka was not part of the Jedi Order at the point of O66, which gives her an Edge (kinda negated by the fact that she had half a Legion with her (still added Bonus: Rex' rebellious Nature and his Chipremoval gave her another Edge)


I think the thing with Luke being the last Jedi is that it was directly said by Yoda that he is (after Yodas Death)
Maybe they will survive until after Ep5, but I find that unlikely and they definetly won't survive until Ep6, since Disney is very keen on staying with the continuity (which I have to applaud them for)

1 hour ago, eMeM said:

I don't understand how can anyone twist destroying a planet killer of the evil empire in progress of destroying a planet into something morally ambiguous.

Because killing hundred of thousand of persons is a genocide evento if all of them are bad people.

Because killing hundred of thousand of persons, necessarily not all of them evil, (probably the DS was more populated than Yavin 4) is always a tricky question, even if you heard voices in your head compelling you to do the genocide when you pull the trigger.

Yes, it could be obvious that the death star would done lots more deaths if not destroyed. But you know, the the end does not allways justify the means, and even when it does, is allways a bit of morally ambiguous.

Even the mere term "evil empire" is highly ambiguous. I'm sure they wasn't the good guys, the Empire was quite bad indeed, but I'm not so sure they were worse than the rebels (the rebels just had less means).

Ezra doesn't need to die. He just needs to stop being a jedi. So what Yoda and Obi-Wan are saying is true.....from a certain point of view.

3 hours ago, eMeM said:

There is no point asking either of those questions. If a thing from Legends was to be brought back to canon Pablo wouldn't be allowed to reveal that on his private twitter anyway.

No, but asking shows fan interest in that thing, which could influence the decision of whether to bring it back or not.

8 minutes ago, Ghost XV15 said:

That is in my opinion something else entirely.

It was never stated that all of the Jedi were killed after Order66.
The Jedi as an organisation? Yes they were destroyed, most of them were hunted down, but during Rebels Vader is obviouly still hunting the Jedi, however it becomes clear that is hunt is comming to an end (to focus on the rebellion?)
Furthermore Ahsoka was not part of the Jedi Order at the point of O66, which gives her an Edge (kinda negated by the fact that she had half a Legion with her (still added Bonus: Rex' rebellious Nature and his Chipremoval gave her another Edge)


I think the thing with Luke being the last Jedi is that it was directly said by Yoda that he is (after Yodas Death)
Maybe they will survive until after Ep5, but I find that unlikely and they definetly won't survive until Ep6, since Disney is very keen on staying with the continuity (which I have to applaud them for)

And Yoda was being completely super honest, and not trying to manipulate Luke into a desired outcome. Ezra likely won't complete his training, leaving him in a similar spot to Leia.

47 minutes ago, Derpzilla88 said:

Not arguing. Just pointing out that just because the audience didn't know the names of the living people Obi-Wan's killed does not mean they don't count as him killing them.

Obi-Wan's directly snuffed out the lives of quite a lot of living beings in his younger days.

Also Obi-Wan didn't exactly stick around to check their pulses after he cut them down, and evidently lightsabers are only fatal when the plot requires them to be (what killed Maul isn't exactly documentation of his most serious injury from lightsaber). So my joke works even better now cause after he learns about Vader, if it's before his confrontation with Maul, at that point he might very well be wondering about every Mando and Clone he ever struck down in his younger days.

1 minute ago, Sithborg said:

And Yoda was being completely super honest, and not trying to manipulate Luke into a desired outcome. Ezra likely won't complete his training, leaving him in a similar spot to Leia.

I understand what you are saying, but as far as force-wielding, Ezra is waaaaay more apt than Leia. Leia (as far as we know) hasn't even used the force acitvely. Where as Ezra is a Jedi in every sence besides offical Jedi knighthood, because the order is gone.

Luke isn't the one to beat Vader because of Power. Same would apply to Leia as well.

35 minutes ago, Draconis Hegemonia said:

Because killing hundred of thousand of persons is a genocide evento if all of them are bad people.

Because killing hundred of thousand of persons, necessarily not all of them evil, (probably the DS was more populated than Yavin 4) is always a tricky question, even if you heard voices in your head compelling you to do the genocide when you pull the trigger.

Yes, it could be obvious that the death star would done lots more deaths if not destroyed. But you know, the the end does not allways justify the means, and even when it does, is allways a bit of morally ambiguous.

Even the mere term "evil empire" is highly ambiguous. I'm sure they wasn't the good guys, the Empire was quite bad indeed, but I'm not so sure they were worse than the rebels (the rebels just had less means).

Look up the definition of genocide. Hint: it's not about killing a lot of people quickly.

If destroying the Death Star was evil, so was sinking Yamato or Bismarck.

If nobody have posted it yet, I reccomend this review - it points out a lot of details, that I've missed while watching Twin Suns for the first time.

ttp://www.ign.com/articles/2017/03/18/star-wars-rebels-twin-suns-review

It allowed me to look on the episode's events from a different, more conscious point of view.

11 minutes ago, eMeM said:

Look up the definition of genocide. Hint: it's not about killing a lot of people quickly.

If destroying the Death Star was evil, so was sinking Yamato or Bismarck.

Yes, yes, or nuking Japan. You got the concept.

Evil actions, I'm not pretty sure, is complex... God actions, no, I don't say neither.

Yes, the kind of things you could put under " morally ambiguous", like nuking a nearly a million people with a torpedoo.

OK then. Should have let Bismarck sink merchant ships and the Death Star terrorize the Galaxy.

21 minutes ago, eMeM said:

OK then. Should have let Bismarck sink merchant ships and the Death Star terrorize the Galaxy.

No, that would be alzó something unambiguous.

Ambiguous is when is no so easy to be sure if you should sink 500 bismarcs killing all the crew in the process, or nuking two populated cities (you need 4 of each Hiroshima and Nagasaki two equal the Death Star destruccion body count).

If you can't find even the smallest shadow of doubt about it. Congratulations! Loots of people consider your way of see the life something very desirable.

If you aren't absollutety sure about doing it or not, well, you have a moral ambiguity.

3 hours ago, ViscerothSWG said:

I searched his recent twitter history and there are a couple questions (unanswered) that included photos. So there must have been something offensive in the question the gunboat guy posted. Without seeing the tweet, it's just hearsay that it was deleted and blocked without reason. I'd also wonder how many times previous that guy tweeted the question to Pablo. Maybe it's not the first time, which would then be spam. Point being, Pablo did nothing wrong.

I was the one asking him. That was my first question ever, and I was asking not if or when it was going to be brought back to canon, but if he could talk about the causes or reasons that make a EU ship attractive for the new canon.

Link .

Perhaps he saw the flavor text in the picture and immediately discarded the question and blocked me thinking I was a spammer or something. I'm not hurt or anything. I guess the guy has a job and doesn't have time to read long posts in Twitter. I don't know.

4 hours ago, flyboymb said:

Somebody from the Gunboat thread sent Pablo a Twitter with a screenshot of the Gunboat's stat page from the X-Wing Strategy Guide and asking whether there was any chance to bring it back since both the TIE Defender and Delta Class Stormtrooper Transport had been brought back to canon. No rage, no demands, just a simple question.

Guy was promptly blocked from Pablo's Twiitter feed. We discussed the possible reasoning behind this, whether the screenshot was perceived as spam (a stretch), whether he was asking about something that was actually coming down the pipes (why not just confirm or deny rather than block?), or whether the guy was just being a butt.

Thing is, whether he's dealing with irate fans or not, he's still a representative to a company and a face of a rather lucrative industry. If he's letting challenges to his nerd cred or personal feelings allow him to be condescending to fans, then that is bad for business and considering how strict Disney is with the dressed up characters at their parks, I doubt they see Pablo as too important to lose compared to the dollars of fans that he's even potentially angered out of spending their money on the franchise. But this is all speculation as I haven't seen any direct evidence of him acting this way. He likely has all kinds of stipulations placed on what he can and can't and is just playing things safe.

He's said many times on his twitter not to send him blocks of text to bypass the twitter character limit. He probably took one look at that screenshot, saw the wall of text with the gunboat on it, and rather than take the valuable time to read the thing, blocked the guy who violated Pablo's biggest rule abput tweeting at him.

33 minutes ago, Azrapse said:

I was the one asking him. That was my first question ever, and I was asking not if or when it was going to be brought back to canon, but if he could talk about the causes or reasons that make a EU ship attractive for the new canon.

Link .

Perhaps he saw the flavor text in the picture and immediately discarded the question and blocked me thinking I was a spammer or something. I'm not hurt or anything. I guess the guy has a job and doesn't have time to read long posts in Twitter. I don't know.

I guess you didn't mean to bypass the Character limit, but was misunderstood and I feel sorry for you.

If I had a Twitter Account I would ask him again (in your place) without the picture, just to be sure! (I don't even know the Gunboat)

Seems like every hundred or so pages someone brings up the Death Star and equates the morality of destroying it to the morality of destroying a planet.

One big difference:

Everyone on the Death Star was military . Maybe not soldiers, but cooks, haircutters, typists, and researchers, all of them were on a valid military target. They'd all taken an oath of some kind knowing that their deaths might be the result - even if they didn't actually THINK it would, what with the invincible battle station they were on.

When a six-year-old looks up at the night sky of Alderaan and says, "What's that new green star, Mommy?" in the moments before evaporating under a massive beam of energy, she's not a military target, and neither is her mom or her family. Not only that, there is no declared war to give even the flimsiest excuse to her death. It's just, "Well, I don't think Dantooine is a good example, so erase this Core World with billions of people on it."

14 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

Seems like every hundred or so pages someone brings up the Death Star and equates the morality of destroying it to the morality of destroying a planet.

One big difference:

Everyone on the Death Star was military . Maybe not soldiers, but cooks, haircutters, typists, and researchers, all of them were on a valid military target. They'd all taken an oath of some kind knowing that their deaths might be the result - even if they didn't actually THINK it would, what with the invincible battle station they were on.

When a six-year-old looks up at the night sky of Alderaan and says, "What's that new green star, Mommy?" in the moments before evaporating under a massive beam of energy, she's not a military target, and neither is her mom or her family. Not only that, there is no declared war to give even the flimsiest excuse to her death. It's just, "Well, I don't think Dantooine is a good example, so erase this Core World with billions of people on it."

The considerable special distinction between a "military" (thus: valid, under basically any conditions) target and "civilian" (thus: invalid, under at the very least modern circumstances of warfare) target...isn't something I think everyone is fully on-board with.

Particularly, perhaps, given so much of modern conflict blurring a number of arguable boundaries around those topics...which gets politically-charged, quickly.

29 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

Seems like every hundred or so pages someone brings up the Death Star and equates the morality of destroying it to the morality of destroying a planet.

Not by me at all.
Quite the opposite, I find pretty exemplar the dichotomy between blowing the Death Star in a military raid (or a terrorist one, according who look at it), and destroying a full planet just to impress a lady.

Destroying pacefull planets for the lol -> Plainly bad, evil, no moral ambiguity.

But even if the Empire is not known precissely for only use voluntary crew members (I think we even have a film about it), and in nearly a million souls inside, probably not everyone of them deserve death... Destroying space station with a million souls -> Not so evil, not good either, so we get some moral ambiguity here...

But it's simpler than that, killing one, two or 10000 "cooks, haircutters, typists, and researchers, all of them were on a valid military target" have some moral ambiguity even in the best possible case. Is perfectly possible that is not an act of pure evilness, there could be "reasons", but even with a papal sanction it have moral ambiguity.

On the other side, killing a child just because you feel it funny, or destroying an entire planet full of little childs, have no moral ambiguity at all, is bad, no ambiguity, just bad. Even if you really really need to impress the rest of the potentialy rebelious planets, and stop insurgence before it happens, even if you really really think that with this action you could be saving several times the lives you kill... No, bad boy, bad boy, a pacefull planet without warning, out of war... Or evento after warning, evento during a war, killing entire olanets is allwais evil. Clearly no moral ambiguity here at all (maybe except killing the planeta killer in self defense).

So not equates.

5 hours ago, ViscerothSWG said:

I searched his recent twitter history and there are a couple questions (unanswered) that included photos. So there must have been something offensive in the question the gunboat guy posted. Without seeing the tweet, it's just hearsay that it was deleted and blocked without reason. I'd also wonder how many times previous that guy tweeted the question to Pablo. Maybe it's not the first time, which would then be spam. Point being, Pablo did nothing wrong.

Answering questions like that are probably never going to happen anyway. You can't say no, as the future is fluid. And you can't say yes, either for spoiler reasons or because the story group just doesn't know yet.

Well, seeing as the guy showed his Tweet and there isn't anything remotely offensive about it, I'd say hearsay can be discounted along with much of your other speculations. How could Pablo have done things the right way? Six words 'I can't answer questions like that'. It isn't a definite affirmative or negative, and it isn't blowing off a fan because he didn't ask a question to your liking. Customer service isn't limited to mindless peons manning phones. If a higher-up is a blowhard, as many here have stated Pablo as being, then the money that walks away is lost just as permanently as if a minimum wage crony had done it. Don't believe me? Ask Paul Feig.

2 hours ago, Underachiever599 said:

He's said many times on his twitter not to send him blocks of text to bypass the twitter character limit. He probably took one look at that screenshot, saw the wall of text with the gunboat on it, and rather than take the valuable time to read the thing, blocked the guy who violated Pablo's biggest rule abput tweeting at him.

If his time is so valuable then he should probably hire somebody to weed through all the tweets and give him the stuff that legitimately needs answering and reply with a handful of authorized responses to the bulk remainder. The guy has chosen to use his personal account to answer company questions. If he isn't representing his business well in doing that, maybe somebody else should do so instead.

1 hour ago, iamfanboy said:

Seems like every hundred or so pages someone brings up the Death Star and equates the morality of destroying it to the morality of destroying a planet.

One big difference:

Everyone on the Death Star was military . Maybe not soldiers, but cooks, haircutters, typists, and researchers, all of them were on a valid military target. They'd all taken an oath of some kind knowing that their deaths might be the result - even if they didn't actually THINK it would, what with the invincible battle station they were on.

When a six-year-old looks up at the night sky of Alderaan and says, "What's that new green star, Mommy?" in the moments before evaporating under a massive beam of energy, she's not a military target, and neither is her mom or her family. Not only that, there is no declared war to give even the flimsiest excuse to her death. It's just, "Well, I don't think Dantooine is a good example, so erase this Core World with billions of people on it."

Pretty much this explains the whole Death Star ethics situation.

Back in the day, there were no civilian or military targets. If one side's bunch of dudes with spears and horses broke through, you could expect the other side to have their huts burnt down, their women and children taken off into bondage, and the other side to use that freed up real estate to get some extra breathing room. Even if abject genocide wasn't the purpose, terrorizing the civilian populace tended to put an end to hostilities a lot faster than playing with kids gloves. We see this in the burning of York and Washington DC during the War of 1812, Sherman's March, Germany's Operation Barbarossa, and the bombing campaigns that accompanied many of the military campaigns of the 20th century to the present.

The whole concept of 'military targets' came as a form of quid pro quo. Nobody likes to see their cities burnt to the ground, their medical staff butchered, or their populations subjected to poison gas. So major powers come into agreements that if their side avoids certain actions, then the other side should avoid those same actions. The only thing binding parties to this contract is that if conflict sees one side breaking the 'rules', the other side is going to break them a lot harder in retaliation and we're back to square one.

One thing that has been pretty well constant over the millennia of warfare is that when you pick up a rifle, spear, or laser as part of an organized group, you're openly stating that you intend to use it for aggressive means. When uniforms came around, wearing your nation's colors gave that same message to the enemy. Conscription is nothing new and nobody stopped to consider the ethical implications of mowing down the various soldiers in WWI who may or may not have willingly joined their nation's armed forces.

In the end, it isn't like the Rebels could ask all people not directly involved in combat to vacate the Death Star. The station intended to destroy them all and they fought to avoid that and killed the other guys instead. In the end, that's the name of the game in any lethal conflict. I doubt anybody who thinks otherwise would stand on top of the Rebel base with their arms stretched out towards the Death Star knowing that at least they were going to die with a clear conscience.

7 minutes ago, flyboymb said:

If his time is so valuable then he should probably hire somebody to weed through all the tweets and give him the stuff that legitimately needs answering and reply with a handful of authorized responses to the bulk remainder. The guy has chosen to use his personal account to answer company questions. If he isn't representing his business well in doing that, maybe somebody else should do so instead.

He does. It's called @StarWars, and it's been pushed at multiple times for the past four years at least. Hidalgo's busy , and as already stated he had a rule: Post a link to a wall of text to get around twitter limits on his personal account, get banned from said account.

No, it's not NICE, but as Heinlein wrote a long time ago:

It is easier to deal with a footpad than it is with the leech who wants "just a few minutes of your time, please—this won't take long." Time is your total capital, and the minutes of your life are painfully few. If you allow yourself to fall into the vice of agreeing to such requests, they quickly snowball to the point where these parasites will use up 100 percent of your time—and squawk for more!

So learn to say No—and to be rude about it when necessary. Otherwise you will not have time to carry out your duty, or to do your own work, and certainly no time for love and happiness. The termites will nibble away your life and leave none of it for you.

(This rule does not mean that you must not do a favor for a friend, or even a stranger. But let the choice be yours. Don't do it because it is "expected" of you.)”