ND103

I'm not sure I agree with all of this one, but I like it!

Well I get what you're saying intellectually. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree! Different strokes and all that Ultimately both have their uses, and obviously we are all going to have a preference of what we'd like to see...

@TheTraveler that's fair if you don't see it as full cooperation.. agree to disagree? @Elend Venture - you, sir, are baiting me with all the right words there. That's kinda the problem with any absolutes innit.. you have to apply some things consistently no matter how ridiculous they become in any given context. Now I don't know how I'd react if one person I trusted gave me one version of events and another have me a different one. But if one of those had just done the impossible for my sons (which I don't actually have come to think of it), they're not going to prison. And if the other one flatly refused to even help, stood by and watched. Well actions speak louder than words. But again, I don't know till I'm in that position right? And it's unlikely to come up in my life. Since you mention non-absolute chains of command, one of the earlier examples of that in 'modern' military history would be one Napoleon. That went well didn't it? Without organisation large organisations would be ineffective at best. Of course if you disband all the armies, and disband all large organisations entirely, that wouldn't be a problem would it? There's that word you used, anarchy Now I'm not saying that will happen irl. Or that it should. Nor am I saying I live my life trying to make that happen.. of course I don't, I'd have the teeth kicked out of me, and I don't even believe in physically fighting back. But much like Kal, there's a lot more to me than my anti authoritarian stance. So I try not to live by any 'absolutes' and instead make up my mind on individual incidents and people and characters as they happen. In this instance, I decided that Dal, whom I'd never really had that much respect for, was just not a leader I would follow. And I decided that Kal, who until then I'd had respect for, I didn't anymore cuz he would give in to that chain of command and accept whatever even though he knew what he was saying was the truth. The exact same 'high level' things could happen very differently in a different context and I might choose to make a very different call that appeals under that different context. And these characters could go on to do something else which makes change my mind about respecting them too. And all I really have to do is analyse every event for itself, consider it's context and decide what makes sense as a response in that event. I'd be highly inconsistent, to an outside observer, but I'd be true to myself (shrug).

I mean... Irl I'm a pacifist and I'd happily disband all armies if they'd let me? So... Not a fan of military chains of command. Which has nothing to do with me enjoying violent revolutions in my stories, and wanting at least some disobedience of authority from the characters so... Also maybe if Dalinar didn't want the military chain of command to be broken he should've (and I quote lift) fed his armies more. Or you know. Trusted that the man who twice did the impossible to save him and his family wasn't lying. Trusted him enough to not throw him in jail for the truth. That's kinda my problem with an absolute chain of command. The onus is on the lower ranks to follow. Not the top of the chain to lead.

Well since you bring up civil disobedience and so on. Here's something Gandhi did believe in. Non compliance. He didn't fight the English but he didn't just go along quietly to jail either. And in jail he still refused to shut up about it. As for the violent ones not having any impact or all being short-lived, their deaths actually had a very strong nationalistic and patriotic impact on the population at the time. They were definitely an equal part of that struggle as anyone else. I'm not saying Kal fighting his way out of there was the answer. But there were plenty of ways to not cooperate. Could've just said if you want to arrest me feel free but here's my resignation. And I imagine those thousand former slaves I've been training will join so... We'll have that offer of a purse and a chance to walk away now. Enjoy your struggles with the parsh, and the coming desolation. ciao! The Gandhian thing in that scenario would've been to say ok. You arrest me but I still ain't gonna change what I'm saying. And I'm definitely not working for you if I ever get out. And I'll be going on a hunger strike (which would've felt weird in this universe, but well). Now that I am actually sitting down and reading this thread again, I didn't even mean to imply the violent option should've been taken. But my annoyance mostly was with the complaince. In my mind, if you are going to risk your life in this situation to guard that of someone else, and that someone would jail you for the truth, you don't serve them. You simply don't.

Off the top of my head - Bharat Singh, Chandrasekhar Azad, rajguru, batukeshwar datt, sukhdev thapar and their associates who assassinated Captain Saunders and blew up reasons among other things, Subhash Chandra Bose, Rash behari Bose, Mohan Singh (those two foundedd the Indian national army, and SC Bose led it), gurbaksh Singh dhillon,giani Pritam Singh dhillon, not the mention the other forty thousand odd members of the Indian national army in the forties.... That's ten off the top of my head, from the last twenty years of the British empire in India, without using Google but I can find the next forty... These are just the prominent ones btw, they had support from others in things like planning and so on. I don't deny that the peaceful movement led by Gandhi was useful. But these guys were at least equally important. And if you go back to the first war for Indian independence in 1857, there were a bunch more starting with the likes of tipu sultan who died waiting for reinforcements from Napoleon, Rani Lakshmi Bai, tantya tope, Nana Sahib peshwa, Rao Tula ram, umrao Jaan, Bahadur Shah Zafar who died in exile, bhakt Singh. That's 18 if you're counting. Their contribution was at the least as important as Gandhi's. Some might argue more. There's no denying things wouldn't go well for the bridgemen if kal rebelled at that point. And it worked out. But at that point, I just lost what respect I had for the man. I don't doubt that any other action would've been 'dishonorable' per the code the books seem to follow. I don't doubt that any other action would've led to pain and trouble for all involved. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't want him to do it anyway and storm the consequences.

Looks like I'm the only anti authority rebel here. I'm very much of the persuasion that if you want change, you have to take it. Historically, literally no one has said oh you've been such a good boy, here have some rights. Have some freedom. You fight for it. You challenge every slight. You demand an unreasonable standard. And maybe, if you're lucky, you get a reasonable change. Certainly complying with authority that's oppressive without cause, compromising with - not today, never gets you anywhere. It's an extreme approach. That's true. But you don't get a revolution with peace. Even Gandhi won freedom for India on the backs of much more extreme revolutionaries. For one Gandhi, India had about fifty who were happy to lead violent protests. If I had to pick one of those two, I'd never back Gandhi alone. But the guy who raised an army in Singapore (Subhash Chandra Bose iirc), him I'd back.

I mean.. that's fair. I get it.. and I respect it. He is not an easy person to like. Certainly if I went out to a pub quiz with him, I would end up in fights cuz that one just Is that controversial. So it's fair if you've got issues with him. Heck I do too. But ultimately, he's human too. So I for one forgive him. You don't, fair play! I just find it hard to think in terms of right and wrong in this context. They're all right and they're all wrong to an extent. We all are I should say. I imagine even Odium had (possibly still has) some redeeming quality somewhere... So I just think in terms of who would I root for realistically. Who might I want to have a pint with (and I can't stress this enough, doesn't mean I'd vote for them in a democracy). Moash- yeah go on then. Adolin - yeah.. Kal- nah... Szeth - Nope. Jasnah - yeah as long as it's just the one. Eshonai- yeah I could. Venli - for sure. Dalinar - maybe before the days of gav's conquest, but not really anymore. Don't like what you've done with the place... And then I see what happens to them. Did they survive the apocalypse. They doing ok? Have they done something stupid again? Has it been the last straw? Most of them are wrong in some capacity. As are most of the people I have a drink with irl. But you know. It's my peeps!

I mean.. that's fair. I get it.. and I respect it. He is not an easy person to like. Certainly if I went out to a pub quiz with him, I would end up in fights cuz that one just Is that controversial. So it's fair if you've got issues with him. Heck I do too. But ultimately, he's human too. So I for one forgive him. You don't, fair play! I just find it hard to think in terms of right and wrong in this context. They're all right and they're all wrong to an extent. We all are I should say. I imagine even Odium had (possibly still has) some redeeming quality somewhere... So I just think in terms of who would I root for realistically. Who might I want to have a pint with (and I can't stress this enough, doesn't mean I'd vote for them in a democracy). Moash- yeah go on then. Adolin - yeah.. Kal- nah... Szeth - Nope. Jasnah - yeah as long as it's just the one. Eshonai- yeah I could. Venli - for sure. Dalinar - maybe before the days of gav's conquest, but not really anymore. Don't like what you've done with the place... And then I see what happens to them. Did they survive the apocalypse. They doing ok? Have they done something stupid again? Has it been the last straw? Most of them are wrong in some capacity. As are most of the people I have a drink with irl. But you know. It's my peeps! Edit - Sorry for double posting. Internet acting weird. Can't figure out how to delete the copy either.

@Calderis to be fair, I only mentioned that we see one side. I didn't mean to imply a binary. I also didn't mean to imply the conflict is human versus singer or Odium versus whoever really. Side was really not the best word to use there! What I did mean was to say we see one perspective on this character. The one according to which he is a force of legends. A herald, a king, a god even. Not the million other nuances to the character. Not the fact that before he was a Harald, he was a man. One possibly involved with the first planet destruction event caused by his species. Certainly, in story we don't focus much on the fact that he's abandoned humanity, and just a drunk at this point in time. So his death, to me, just feels like another thing that happened. I don't feel any particular sense of tragedy at his death. I felt much more emotion at the death of eshonai than I did jezrien. As to this being Odium v everyone else and Odium being the 'wrong side'. To quote Chicago's finest wizard, Harry Dresden - we can't all be equally right. But we can all be equally wrong. Just benefit you or someone that is 'wrong' doesn't mean you're right. It's not really a binary. It's a fluid spectrum. You can be right about one thing and wrong about so many others. You can be wrong about one thing and so very right about so many others. At best odiums side is the 'more' wrong one. But is the other side entirely free of any blame, any responsibility? Short answer is we don't know. But I err on the side of probably some blame. Hatred and vengeance are ugly themes. We tend to think poorly of one who admittedly hates someone or something. We tend to think poorly of someone just cuz their motives were vengeance. Yet I am absolutely certain that we all feel like that at different points. Hatred much like every other emotion is simply a part of us. That doesn't make it wrong. Acting on your hatred itself also isn't wrong per se. For me it's too simple to say - that person is acting purely on hatred and out of a desire for vengeance so he must be wrong. That's too simplistic. Again not to say Odium is right. Just that opposing him doesn't by itself make you right either. Moash is perhaps on a wrong side. But the way I see it, the other side had four and a half thousand years to make their case and given what they came up with, they're really not better. It's really much more nuanced than that. Of course I imagine their side will win. Of course I would celebrate it if they did. Of course that's the side I would want to be on if I lived in that setting and was born human. But if I'm being entirely honest, I would know that I was fighting not out of some righteousness trip or some particular feeling of Odium is wrong and I'm right. I'd just be fighting on that side cuz it's us versus them and that's the us I was born to.

To add to what you said @Honorless - what do we even know of jezrien as a character? That he was like a divinity to humans. So? Now I'm not saying odiums the good guy in any of this. But just cuz you're opposed to him doesn't make you any better. At that point in the story jezrien is basically a drunk homeless guy who has the power to maybe do something but is wilfully, knowingly ignoring everything that's happening. Why is his death such a tragedy? Because he had a [redacted] life filled with torture? Boohoo. Moash had a crap life too. Why is jezrien's pain any worse? Because he had it for longer? Well he volunteered. Moash didn't volunteer to have his only family be killed. He didn't volunteer to be in the bridge crews. He was put there. He dealt with it anyway. Ultimately, there's pain on every side in that equation. The only reason we as an audience might think one more justified than the other is cuz we're told the story from the perspective of one side. But fundamentally, Moash acted in a very human way. As did jezrien. There's 7 books more of character development to go. For all we know, unwittingly the death of jezrien is the reason ultimately Odium falls (if that's even what needs to happen). So I don't get the hate at this stage. Not to mention, from a story perspective, if Moash didn't go down this road, it would be a worse story. If Elhokar lived there, if jezrien lived, if everyone just does what we think is the right thing to do, story would be over. And I imagine to this audience that is a much worse fate than a Moash that's just being human. If in those moments it was someone else, a random character we didn't know, would those moments really matter as much? Arguably, none of the events would've happened, if honour and cultivation had just been like - oh your planets destroyed. Boohoo. Not our problem. Or if all the shard bearers had just been like - yeah we have this cool plan that could kill adonalsium but I mean.. I've got to go check out that cool dragon band Saturday and then Sunday is Sabbath, and let's face it we want to get in early Monday to avoid the traffic so let's just pass on this whole killing adonalsium thing. But then we wouldn't have a story to read, and that would be the real tragedy

Controversial opinion time, I actually respect (grudgingly) the character of Moash. In a way, even more than the character for whom he is a foil i.e. Kaladin. Personally, I'm an atheist, and one of the reasons for that is the fact that religion as I was exposed to it at a young age, focused heavily on morality, and on an objective morality that exists whether or not we are here to experience it. That doesn't sit right with me and if anyone's interested, DM me I'll explain my views. But given I don't believe in an objective good and bad, I can look at Moash's actions and say - yeah that's fair. He said he wanted to kill the king, he explained why. his reasons, at least in a society where certain types of murder are at best frowned upon, make sense. And then he killed the king. Well yeah. Good on him. Get him a pint on me lad! Kal on the other hand. Says he wants a world where your eye colour doesn't matter. Proves himself loyal in ways that money (or shard blades) can't buy. And then gets thrown into jail cuz he's a dark eyes accusing a light eye. And upon being challenged by Dalinar for his actions says yeah ok I'll stay in jail cuz orders. That just makes me go - nope. This boy will be exactly the sort of guy that when faced with a choice between a world where eye colour doesn't matter but odium gets to win for a day or three, and a world where the human civilization can defeat odium so long as the eye colour dynamics stay exactly the same will end up saying yeah we'll fight that fight another day but you go down today Odium. And that is not my kinda hero. No sir. All of this is to say - these books have beautifully crafted a world in which the lines between heroes and villains is so subjective as to be divisive. And two people could agree on a certain 'hero' while disagreeing on other 'heroes'. The beauty is that we are forced to ask - is it so wrong that Moash did as he did. Or anyone else for that matter? And are we really applying a consistent standard for everyone or just making it up to what we want to see in the world. I guess that's the beauty and the price of writing such a genius story. We will all never agree on any individual aspect of it.

I mean... controversial opinion, but I find moash one of the more... Honest characters. He's living his truth. He's even willing to pay the price for it. He has decided Elhokar should be punished for what happened. He's handing out that punishment and he'll live with the consequences. He may be wrong by some definition. He may be doing more harm too. But there's an intellectual honesty to his character that I appreciate. It's more believable than Kal (who he is a foil for) in some ways . Ultimately, it's never as simple as here's the good guy, blow trumpet; and here's the baddie - annihilate without discrimination. There's always nuance and a lot of subjectivity to it... One man's hero is another man's devil.

I decided on a reread of WoR, and just when we get to the point where he gets arrested after the magnificent battle between 6 shard bearers, I lost respect for Kaladin. Controversial opinion perhaps, but he accepts getting arrested. He backs down from his otherwise accurate accusations against Amaram. When Dalinar challenges him to follow orders, he goes along with it. As I read that section again, about 6 years after I first read it, I couldn't help but think no. That the world doesn't accept that you're right it's their problem. You know you're right. You know that Amaram is lying. You know that he doesn't deserve the position he's at. Arguably you also know that being where he is and who he is, he'll likely influence things in a way that goes poorly. At that point he could easily have said you know what - if you think I'm lying, punish me for slander against Amaram, and enjoy the consequences that'll surely come. Or if you think I'm being honest, then do the right thing, and banish that cremling. Cuz if I go along with this, if I accept punishment for what I know is wrong, them whatever victory we get ultimately will lead to a society that's arguably no better than this one. And I'm not playing that game. Now no one knows what ramifications this could've had, but given he went along with it I just kinda lost respect for him. Especially since a few days later he says I want the lives of people like me to change cuz that's right not cuz I'm part of the aristocracy now. Anywho.. didn't really have a point besides maybe challenging some opinions about what I thought was otherwise one of the leading characters in the series so far.

Interesting debate. There's a podcast I often listen to called evil genius with Russell Kane, which actually takes real people (mostly) and tries to get a definitive answer on whether the sum total of their lives can be called evil or genius. Ultimately it's all subjective. One person's genius is another person's evil. Personally I think of it with a slightly different angle. As far as we can tell, even in the cosmere the past is immutable. Dalinar cannot change what he did at rathalas. Neither can anyone else change what they did. Yes his crimes are horrific. Yes he's trying to redeem himself. Yes other villains in the series have done far less horrific crimes but been treated worse. None of this changes the fact that at that point, at the end of oathbringer, Dalinar is doing what needs to be done in the moment. We the audience can choose to forgive or not, and can choose to deem him a villain or a hero. But if you consider his actions in the moment - he's doing as close to what he needs to do as possible (by some definitions). If he continues to do what he needs to, what possibly the whole world of Roshar needs him to, and if no one else can do those things, judgement on his past actions is pretty pointless when contrasted against the current issues they face. We can hate him, as an audience.. we can love him too. But we can't deny that having him there doing what he's doing is necessary, whatever his past.