ZenBossanova

How to (and how NOT to) redeem Moash

84 posts in this topic

14 minutes ago, Wander89 said:

 

I don't think anyone is saying that Dalinar was or wasn't doing the honourable thing. I agree with @Karger that Dalinar, Moash, Kaladin all do what they think is honourable, even though we may perceive a different idea of it.

I see that, which is why I said that Moash has a warped sense of honor in an earlier post.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019/6/22 at 1:46 AM, Oltux72 said:

Why would Moash assume that Odium has a champion at all or that he is higher in the pecking order than the magical Fused? He, as an alien among SIngers?

No. he knows that they need somebody to do the dirty and dangerous work. But at least they are honest. Kaladin did renege on his word to him and he had a fully valid point when he avenged his grandparents or tried to.

 

Spoiler

I mean... the original Odium's champion was reserved for Dalinar, a human (though a socially influential one) , and Moash was offered a honorblade plus a new name.

Also he had done his revenge, he killed the king but hadn't find peace from that. He didn't even try to stop and reflect there-- he went on killing another one because order.

I am quite fond of Moash's character as one who made opposite choices along the path to Kaladin, as they diverge further, I wish they will end up in very different places instead of Moash becoming a Singer's Kaladin (please don't) or get to redeem somehow by sacrifice for/ helping/ saving the main group etc.

Sometimes I just have random plot ideas that sounds cool to me but probably won't make sense in the book.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, QuantumSpren said:

Are you saying that what Dalinar did with the rift was honorable???

Sure absolutely. Just ask the Stormfather.

1 hour ago, QuantumSpren said:

He would be the first to say that it wasn't and he had been looking for forgiveness throughout his entire arc.

It was cruel and excessive. Not dishonorable. This is the whole point of splitting Adonalsium. Honor is not good.

1 hour ago, QuantumSpren said:

And Moash killing the king while he is on a path to radiance is not honorable, it is revenge plain and simple. If revenge like Moash did was honorable kaladin would have killed roshone instead of just punching him.

Revenge is very close to the core of honor. If you reject revenge, you reject honor.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Sure absolutely. Just ask the Stormfather.

It was cruel and excessive. Not dishonorable. This is the whole point of splitting Adonalsium. Honor is not good.

Revenge is very close to the core of honor. If you reject revenge, you reject honor.

I think we'll have to disagree here.

The Stormfather was attracted to Dalinar by his search for redemption (as shown by his third oath) not his heinous act in the first place. Killing innocent children just to get revenge on certain people is not honorable in the slightest. Justice is a part of honor not revenge. That is why there is an entire radiant order that is based on Justice. What happened in the rift was revenge not Justice.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
52 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Revenge is very close to the core of honor. If you reject revenge, you reject honor.

This concept sounds familiar to me. Are you talking about a specific, academic definition of honor?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wander89 said:

 

I don't think anyone is saying that Dalinar was or wasn't doing the honourable thing. I agree with @Karger that Dalinar, Moash, Kaladin all do what they think is honourable, even though we may perceive a different idea of it.

I don't think Moash does think he's honorable at this point. I think he probably does feel like killing the king was for his grand parents, but throughout his time with the singers he thinks about bridge 4 and says he doesn't deserve them, he thinks he should step up and do more for Kaladin's group of singers but doesn't and hates himself for it. I think at this point he doesn't like who he is or feel he's honorable, but he's accepted that it's not his fault and given it to Odium. 

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cfphelps said:

I don't think Moash does think he's honorable at this point. I think he probably does feel like killing the king was for his grand parents, but throughout his time with the singers he thinks about bridge 4 and says he doesn't deserve them, he thinks he should step up and do more for Kaladin's group of singers but doesn't and hates himself for it. I think at this point he doesn't like who he is or feel he's honorable, but he's accepted that it's not his fault and given it to Odium. 

You know, I completely get that. He's got such conflicting views that I feel perhaps at one point he did think his was honourable yet sought out revenge accepting that this is all he has left to do.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can say that revenge is a toxic form of honor. 

Remember, the Shards aren't good by themselves. Preservation could be just as deadly as Odium. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ZenBossanova said:

I think we can say that revenge is a toxic form of honor. 

Remember, the Shards aren't good by themselves. Preservation could be just as deadly as Odium. 

And honestly (Mistborn spoiler) 

Spoiler

Ruin

And cultivation have a lot in common (especially if you believe Odium) 

Spoiler

What with being about change and not necessarily in a good direction for all of the characters. 

Although it's typically thought that Cultivation is making changes to improve the situation, and obviously was somewhat aligned with Honor. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously people like to discuss what honor actually is. On Roshar the point is to a large extent moot, because there is an authority that has defined honor: the Shard Honor

And there we get a clear message: oaths are the core concept. They must be kept, no matter what. You can apparently disagree on what your oath means, but you must act according to your convictions. Hence, if you accept somebody's loyalty in exchange for yours, the deal is done. You must protect them, or, if it is too late, avenge them. Mercy is not an option.

Odium states that he is bound by the spirit of an agreement rather than the letter like Honor, so we could discuss what exactly constitutes an agreement, but it is clear that a promise is a promise. Likewise it is unclear whether a threat counts as an oath (unless formally declared so), as you don't make it to somebody. That raises the interesting question on what happens if you make a promise that conflicts with another promise, for example you promise two people the same thing.

Swearing loyalty to somebody, however, is an oath. There is just no way around this. The letter of the promise counts. There is just no way Honor would ever blame you for insisting a promise be kept or inflict the customary punishment if it is not. In fact, if you see a threat as an oath, revenge is no longer optional. In no case could it be dishonorable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Obviously people like to discuss what honor actually is. On Roshar the point is to a large extent moot, because there is an authority that has defined honor: the Shard Honor

And there we get a clear message: oaths are the core concept. They must be kept, no matter what. You can apparently disagree on what your oath means, but you must act according to your convictions. Hence, if you accept somebody's loyalty in exchange for yours, the deal is done. You must protect them, or, if it is too late, avenge them. Mercy is not an option.

Odium states that he is bound by the spirit of an agreement rather than the letter like Honor, so we could discuss what exactly constitutes an agreement, but it is clear that a promise is a promise. Likewise it is unclear whether a threat counts as an oath (unless formally declared so), as you don't make it to somebody. That raises the interesting question on what happens if you make a promise that conflicts with another promise, for example you promise two people the same thing.

Swearing loyalty to somebody, however, is an oath. There is just no way around this. The letter of the promise counts. There is just no way Honor would ever blame you for insisting a promise be kept or inflict the customary punishment if it is not. In fact, if you see a threat as an oath, revenge is no longer optional. In no case could it be dishonorable.

I for one would not allow the Shard Honor to dictate to me what is honorable.  The fact that the vessel holding the shard of binding chose to interpret the intent of that shard as honor does not mean that he was correct.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure Moash's story will not be ended abruptly. Brandon has done a lot to set him up.

On 6/20/2019 at 4:39 PM, Rainier said:

Redemption? Nah, Moash did nothing wrong. He doesn't need redemption! He's a hero!

....I may have agreed if he hadnt killed Jezrien. I cheered when he killed the king but killing some random civilian for no reason other than being ordered to?

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Nymeros said:

 

....I may have agreed if he hadnt killed Jezrien.

 

Yeah ... there is an argument by some moral/ethical perspectives for killing Elhokar being defensible, at least given the situation as of Words of Radiance. One can argue the legitimacy of the Alethi monarchy in the first place; Elhokar just inherited it from Gavilar, who got it by conquest rather than any kind of consent of the governed. (Of course, if you go back far enough, every place was conquered from somebody...)

But turning to Odium's side and killing Jezrien, that's clearly over the line into real evil.

(And anyway, by the time Elhokar actually got killed, he'd realized his failings and took steps to resolve them, by giving higher authority to Dalinar... So even there...)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2019 at 10:42 PM, Karger said:

I for one would not allow the Shard Honor to dictate to me what is honorable.  The fact that the vessel holding the shard of binding chose to interpret the intent of that shard as honor does not mean that he was correct.

That touches a point. The holder has an influence. But the Shard has a core component you cannot undo. In a world which has Shards, morality and values leave the realm of philosophy and enter, at least partially, the realm of empirical natural science.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole discussion just reinforces my belief that Moash is a wonderfully written character. Even when I think he makes the wrong choice, his reasoning makes sense to me. I can understand him. If he gets a redemption, I hope it is as powerful as Dalinars--though it will definitely be fewer words. If he doesn't get redeemed I am fine with that as long as I can still see his point of view, as long as his actions have consequences, and as long as he gets to have a highly emotional face off with Kaladin. It will be what the Stars Wars prequels were going for but completely failed at.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

But the Shard has a core component you cannot undo. In a world which has Shards, morality and values leave the realm of philosophy and enter, at least partially, the realm of empirical natural science.

How?  To the best of my knowledge their is no shard of good or evil.  The shards are like natural forces.  Morality is subjective.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2019 at 2:54 AM, cometaryorbit said:

Yeah ... there is an argument by some moral/ethical perspectives for killing Elhokar being defensible, at least given the situation as of Words of Radiance. One can argue the legitimacy of the Alethi monarchy in the first place; Elhokar just inherited it from Gavilar, who got it by conquest rather than any kind of consent of the governed. (Of course, if you go back far enough, every place was conquered from somebody...)

But turning to Odium's side and killing Jezrien, that's clearly over the line into real evil.

(And anyway, by the time Elhokar actually got killed, he'd realized his failings and took steps to resolve them, by giving higher authority to Dalinar... So even there...)

I liked Elhokar.....but the dudes a murderer. He got what he deserved.

6 hours ago, Singer said:

This whole discussion just reinforces my belief that Moash is a wonderfully written character. 

Yes. Hes easily one of the most realistic characters. Ive met Moash before....many times. I find the hatred people feel towards him to be mind bottling.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Karger said:

How?  To the best of my knowledge their is no shard of good or evil.  The shards are like natural forces.  Morality is subjective.

As a whole yes. But if you say such a thing like "Our actions sre driven by impartial honor", you are now open to experimental verification.

7 hours ago, Nymeros said:

I liked Elhokar.....but the dudes a murderer. He got what he deserved.

Exactly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Nymeros said:

Yes. Hes easily one of the most realistic characters. Ive met Moash before....many times. I find the hatred people feel towards him to be mind bottling.

I think if he were a poorly written, unrealistic character he would be less polarizing. He would be a fairly universal "meh". I understand why people hate him, but I also understand him and his path. That is why he is great!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

As a whole yes. But if you say such a thing like "Our actions sre driven by impartial honor", you are now open to experimental verification.

Not realy.  What you are realy say is that the vessel that holds the shard of binding can't find fault with your claim.  However said vessel is not impartial omnipotent all knowing or otherwise infallible.  Even the shards themselves are capable of errors in judgement as they are still directed by sentient "human" "brains."

19 hours ago, Nymeros said:

I liked Elhokar.....but the dudes a murderer. He got what he deserved.

Murder is a legal definition.  You could claim that he killed unethically but I the actual cause of the deaths you are referring to was incompetence not evil intent.  By this logic you should also call most presidents (including the current one and previous ones like Washington and Lincoln) Murderers.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Karger said:

Murder is a legal definition.  You could claim that he killed unethically but I the actual cause of the deaths you are referring to was incompetence not evil intent. 

This. If he executed them, then absolutely. But no, he just imprisoned them and they died in there. I don't think you're supposed to agree with Moash, especially in Oathbringer where Elhokar is obviously making an attempt to better himself and become a better king

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Karger said:

Murder is a legal definition.  You could claim that he killed unethically but I the actual cause of the deaths you are referring to was incompetence not evil intent. 

Elhokar threw elderly people into a dungeon to make his buddy happy, ignored their right to a trial, and left them to rot. I don't see how it's a matter of his competence. He legitimately just didn't care about their lives, and it was unethical as well as unlawful. Would you prefer I say involuntary manslaughter rather than murder? Truly a pointless distinction for the purposes of this discussion. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Karger said:

Not realy.  What you are realy say is that the vessel that holds the shard of binding can't find fault with your claim.  However said vessel is not impartial omnipotent all knowing or otherwise infallible.  Even the shards themselves are capable of errors in judgement as they are still directed by sentient "human" "brains.

I think it's somewhere in between. It's not just the Vessel - the Vessel can influence the interpretation/behavior of the Shard, but within limits; its nature will ultimately shine through. ("Ati was a kind and generous man...") The Shards are people, but they are also cosmic forces whose nature is refined, but not ultimately defined, by the minds that hold them.

However, none of the Shards appear to correlate to good and evil as such. Odium is probably the closest to evil as a concept, but he doesn't define the entirety of evil, and could probably be at least semi-positive if combined with the appropriate other Shard(s). I'd say that Devotion, Endowment, and perhaps Honor represent aspects of good, but none are entirely good in isolation from the rest, and certainly none embody the entirety of goodness.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Karger said:

Not realy.  What you are realy say is that the vessel that holds the shard of binding can't find fault with your claim.  However said vessel is not impartial omnipotent all knowing or otherwise infallible.  Even the shards themselves are capable of errors in judgement as they are still directed by sentient "human" "brains."

Easy in principle. Reassign the Shard after each question and record the answer. Do this a significant number of times and compare to control groups. Not nice and not very practical, but imaginable. The Shard has spoken. Moral questions get an objective, albeit limited, answer.

7 hours ago, Karger said:

Murder is a legal definition.  You could claim that he killed unethically but I the actual cause of the deaths you are referring to was incompetence not evil intent.  By this logic you should also call most presidents (including the current one and previous ones like Washington and Lincoln) Murderers.

Elhokar failed his duty to his subjects. Under Vorinism they had rights, which he was dutibound to uphold. He decided not to do so. That resulted in the the death of his subjects. Whoever avenged them was within his rights and laudable.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

Elhokar failed his duty to his subjects. Under Vorinism they had rights, which he was dutibound to uphold. He decided not to do so. That resulted in the the death of his subjects. Whoever avenged them was within his rights and laudable.

Shenanigans.  Under Vorinism they had they rights to an inquest which they lost out to via legal menoverings no laws were broken.  Most rulers fail their "duty" to their subjects at several points in their careers and vengeance is never laudable humans figured that one out thousands of years ago.  It is also worth noting that Elhokar never made a similar mistake.  Dalinar imitatively knew what Kaladin was talking about.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.