You won?t see me trying to defend the quagmire that is the continuity of all of Star Wars, from ESB contradicting ANH on.
It just further proves my overall point that post Disney Star Wars has no trouble crushing the OT to tell its nonsensical stories. The idea that there were two Jedi running around with the rebel alliance just a few years before ANH, contradicts everything that comes after it.
We definitely have room for some common ground on this section of your post.
With that said, I?m still not sure of what your point is. Yoda and Obi Wan were 2 well known Jedi and enemies of the Emperor which made them enemies of the galaxy. Whichever way you slice it, they would have some degree of difficulty operating in public without being mobbed by bounty hunters, stormtroopers, and whomever else. It?s also been fairly well established in the current canon Marvel comics that Obi Wan?s primary goal was watching over Luke anyway.
If Kenobi was that prone to being identified as a Jedi outlaw, why would he be so intimately familiar with Mos Eisley - a galactic hotspot for bounty hunters, scum, and villainy? And hanging out in such a nondescript outfit as his Jedi robes, no less.
So my point is that Kenobi and Yoda would have been in equal danger of Imperial persecution as they were willing for Luke to be on his own. The fact that Kenobi has an actual verbal exchange with sandtroopers should be enough proof that Imperial troops probably haven't been prioritizing Jedi-spotting for a while (if they ever were at all). It's things like wielding a lightsaber that would draw that sort of attention. So, Kenobi and Yoda could've been doing the same things that Ezra and Kanan were doing since canon has both of them still aiding the Rebellion while pursued by Imperial Inquisitors. But they obviously sidelined themselves instead, and not just for a year or two.
I'm not sure how the logic of being outlawed exiles forced to stay away from the fight can be considered all that compelling given all the context I'm describing from the OT and post-Disney content. It's just a shoddily-constructed recontextualizing of Obi-Wan and Yoda that the PT perpetrated on the lore. But once it was added there, I think it sets a precedent that isn't as dissimilar to Luke as you'd like to make it seem.
And as to our potential common ground from earlier, I suspect we'll see Kenobi further exposing himself to Vader and/or other Imperial scrutiny in his upcoming titular Disney+ series. Maybe you and I can agree that this won't be a good thing when it comes to facilitating the most cohesive saga possible. I'm certainly expecting a bunch of unfortunate contradictions to spring up relative to the original OT inferences and overt story points.
It?s a pretty big leap to compare that to the most hopeful character in Star Wars going off to hide on an island all by himself because...failure.
I disagree because I never saw Luke as being impervious to guilt and other emotional weight that could supersede his hope and optimism. I don't believe that he was portrayed as so much the archetype that many try to paint him as. He was primarily impulsive and emotion-driven, and his loyalties to family made him conflicted (and perhaps even tormented). Had he somehow walked away from DS2 having failed to redeem his father, I don't think the Luke you'd see after that would fit the model of eternal hope, optimism, and perseverance. As Gary Kurtz noted before he passed away, Luke was originally intended to have an Eastwood-esque departure into the sunset that would've been more bittersweet and melancholy. That squares with his OT characterization for me.
There are other less important instances that cement his impulsiveness and shifts in attitude. When mind tricks aren't working on Jabba, Luke tries to shoot him with a blaster. When he's trying to avoid a violent conflict with his father, a reference to his sister makes him lash out with contrary vengeance. When he's stuck on Dagobah, he says things like "We'll never get out of here now." When assured of what the Force can do, he retorts with "You want the impossible."
I get that Luke is something different to different fans, but I assure you that my perception of him has been concurrent with 40 years of religiously following Star Wars. I'm not in any way contorting things to fit what I would otherwise perceive as unjust characterization in the ST. If you can understand that, perhaps you can allow that filmmakers might've had a different take on Luke than you without it meaning that they didn't love the movies, or didn't understand the character. Either way, I suspect we're just killing time here and not moving the needle in either direction.
