Hentient

Moash

154 posts in this topic

Okay I wanna take a second to talk about Moash. 

I know a lot of people hate him but I think that the story would be less without him. He just adds so much to the story, and too be honest I really hope he doesn't have have a come back arch. Well written villains are the best characters in my opinion. What makes villains scary are when they are relatable- and moash is. Hes what Kaladin would have become without syl, and that makes him terrifying.

I think he would be an incredible side villain. Better then Amaram, because everyone hates Amaram, but Moash used to be bridge four and we know why he's bad, which makes him all the better to be a villain.

But think about a big fight (Physical) between kaladin and Moash- It would be so amazing. Their dialogue in the fight would be so powerful. They reluctantly start to fight, kaladins fighting to protect Urithiru, and Moash is fighting at odiums command, but neither want to fight each other. Moash is trying to explain himself- not excuse himself because he knew it was wrong, just explain. But kaladin relates so hard to Moash and that what makes it so hard to fight him. Moash is trying hard to beat Kaladin, to prove to himself that he is better than kaladin, and that kaladin is wrong to protect those he hates. During the course of the fight, Moash starts to shift from explaining himself, to anger at kaladin because he knows Kaladin is right. And then Moash starts to beg Kaladin for forgiveness, because he wants to be part of bridge four again. As the fight comes to an end, Kaladin realizes whats really going on with moash. He pins moash down with syl, holding the spearhead to Moash's neck. Then kaladin says:

"Moash, I forgive you. I. forgive. you."

Then he walks away. He flies back to Urithiru. Moash stays there, sitting at the sight of his defeat, broken. Kaladin forgave him. The problem with Moash is he cant forgive himself. He knows what he did was wrong, but he wont go back to bridge four because he hasn't made peace with himself. He continues to fight with odium, but now he knows that he could leave, and go back to kaladin, but he doesnt. And that what makes him a powerful villain, because he wants so badly to be back with his brothers in bridge four but he wont go because he doesnt feel like he deserves it. 

I dont know, I find him to be one of the most interesting characters in the stormlight archive. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Hentient said:

Okay I wanna take a second to talk about Moash. 

I know a lot of people hate him but I think that the story would be less without him. 

I'm indifferent to Moash so I disagree.

1 hour ago, Hentient said:

Well written villains are the best characters in my opinion. What makes villains scary are when they are relatable- and moash is. Hes what Kaladin would have become without syl, and that makes him terrifying.

I have to object, while good villans are amazing, being relatable is not the keystone to a good one, Morgoth from the Silmarilion is the most unreliable dude you can imagine, but he's my favorite antagonist, ever. I prefer villans that impose awe, fear, or hatred. But hey to each their own.

0

Share this post


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

I think he would be an incredible side villain. Better then Amaram, because everyone hates Amaram, but Moash used to be bridge four and we know why he's bad, which makes him all the better to be a villain.

Moash is honest. And it continues to amaze me how many people are ditching a principled opposition to monarchism, as soon as they get Dalinar.

I am afraid Moash will have to be held back for the culmination in book #5. In general this war needs a strategic decision. Is it Odium vs. Honor or Human vs. Parsh? The decision can be avoided only up to a point. The question is who will make it. If it is to be the one who would pay for it, it would be Jasnah. She, however, is capable of grasping the consequences of both decisions.

1

Share this post


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

 And it continues to amaze me how many people are ditching a principled opposition to monarchism, as soon as they get Dalinar.

Do you think that monarchy is inherently bad?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Frustration said:

Do you think that monarchy is inherently bad?

It has the obvious drawback that you are chosing you leader based on a genetic lottery.

4

Share this post


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

It has the obvious drawback that you are chosing you leader based on a genetic lottery.

That is one form of monarch, and yes it's biggest weakness. But no governing system is flawless so saying that because it has one makes it bad. The largest problem with Monarchs is succession. How do you keep power and insure a good leader, which we can't do in our world, but on Roshar we have a way to tell good people from not, a Bondsmith monarchical system would in my opinion be one of the best possible governing strategies.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, Frustration said:

That is one form of monarch, and yes it's biggest weakness. But no governing system is flawless so saying that because it has one makes it bad. The largest problem with Monarchs is succession. How do you keep power and insure a good leader, which we can't do in our world, but on Roshar we have a way to tell good people from not, a Bondsmith monarchical system would in my opinion be one of the best possible governing strategies.

Gavilar was on the Bondsmith path, and he was actively working to bring about a desolation. Sure, it was for what he thought were good reasons, but one of those reasons was essentially a Vorin theocracy. I'd say actively causing a disaster that kills 90% of the population disqualifies you from being a 'good leader'. 

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jamesbondsmith said:

 

Gavilar was on the Bondsmith path, and he was actively working to bring about a desolation. Sure, it was for what he thought were good reasons, but one of those reasons was essentially a Vorin theocracy. I'd say actively causing a disaster that kills 90% of the population disqualifies you from being a 'good leader'. 

On the path and 5th Ideal are two very separate things. He's hardly a better man than he was when he united Alethikar.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Frustration said:

On the path and 5th Ideal are two very separate things. He's hardly a better man than he was when he united Alethikar.

The thing is, creating and ruling a theocracy are perfectly valid interpretations of 'guiding' and 'pious', as far as I can tell. We also don't know how much of Dalinar's oaths were personalised for him. At least three other orders have oaths that are personalised for each Radiant around a theme. Gavilar certainly united people, even if it was by bloodshed. If the third ideal's 'if I fall I will rise again a better man' was a little add-on in the same way that Teft's requires him to protect those he hates, especially himself, then perhaps simply taking responsibility for reprehensible actions would be enough for Gavilar to advance. Much like how Thanos kills half the universe to protect the other half, and he takes responsibility for the death toll without shying away from the fact that it needed to be done (or so he thought).

I'm just really concerned about Gavilar being a potential Bondsmith when he is trying to start such a devastating war, when as far as I recall Dalinar's maturing from his previously monstrous characterisation is what helped him onto the path.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jamesbondsmith said:

The thing is, creating and ruling a theocracy are perfectly valid interpretations of 'guiding' and 'pious', as far as I can tell. We also don't know how much of Dalinar's oaths were personalised for him. At least three other orders have oaths that are personalised for each Radiant around a theme. Gavilar certainly united people, even if it was by bloodshed. If the third ideal's 'if I fall I will rise again a better man' was a little add-on in the same way that Teft's requires him to protect those he hates, especially himself, then perhaps simply taking responsibility for reprehensible actions would be enough for Gavilar to advance. Much like how Thanos kills half the universe to protect the other half, and he takes responsibility for the death toll without shying away from the fact that it needed to be done (or so he thought).

I'm just really concerned about Gavilar being a potential Bondsmith when he is trying to start such a devastating war, when as far as I recall Dalinar's maturing from his previously monstrous characterisation is what helped him onto the path.

You have to remember that the Stormfather is looking for literally anyone who is even close because of Honor's command, so I'm going to point towards the Radiants 200+ year rule in peace as my example.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just find it funny that people hate him.

This is a world where the literal embodiment of God's own Hatred resides. What'd ya think you'd feel towards people influenced by his ideology?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Moash may have different ideals, but that does not make him evil. his character is relatable and that is what counts most to me.

Edited by trav
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason for why I dislike Moash (don’t hate, but dislike) is his inability to see beyond himself and let go of grudges. He is whiny, selfish and doesn’t even try to make the world better. He has been confronted with choices that would allow him to let go and move on time and time again, and yet he just keeps on being bad because that is so much easier in the moment. If you look at other villains in the series, most of them are out for something more than themselve. Taravangian and Graves wants to save humanity, Amaram wants to restore Vorinism, Sadeas, at least sometimes, wanted to build a strong Alethkar. But Moash only wants to help himself, and that has been his objective from day 1.

1

Share this post


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

The reason for why I dislike Moash (don’t hate, but dislike) is his inability to see beyond himself and let go of grudges. He is whiny, selfish and doesn’t even try to make the world better. He has been confronted with choices that would allow him to let go and move on time and time again,

Moash did try to make the world better and it got him a betrayal from his best friend, who had given him his word.

And no, Darkeyes keep being opprossed in eastern Roshar and letting go would just perpetuate that injustice.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

Moash did try to make the world better and it got him a betrayal from his best friend, who had given him his word.

Moash tried to kill Elhokar for personal revenge. He was not out for Sadeas, whose every action was horrific, or Szeth, who was whacking kings all over Roshar. He wanted the one guy who had indirectly wronged him by being incompetent. Graves was there to make the world better, but I dont buy that Moash was.

 

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, trav said:

Moash may have different ideals, but that does not make him evil. his character is relatable and that is what counts most to me.

Why do you want to relate to your villans? To see good in them, or do you not like the ones that watching them die gives you a smile?

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Moash a lot.  Both as a complex and conflicted character as well as a tragic chracter I can sympathize with and be angry at simultaneously.  I'm not even sure I would term him a villain so much as simply an antagonist (a bit like Hrathen's narrative role in Elantris).

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Subvisual Haze said:

I like Moash a lot.  Both as a complex and conflicted character as well as a tragic chracter I can sympathize with and be angry at simultaneously.  I'm not even sure I would term him a villain so much as simply an antagonist (a bit like Hrathen's narrative role in Elantris).

Elhokar

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Frustration said:

Elhokar

In the original WOK draft was going to be killed by Dalinar because Dalinar recognized what a terrible King he was and how dangerous that would be for the kingdom in a time of great strife.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Subvisual Haze said:

In the original WOK draft was going to be killed by Dalinar because Dalinar recognized what a terrible King he was and how dangerous that would be for the kingdom in a time of great strife.

Meaning.....?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Frustration said:

Why do you want to relate to your villans? To see good in them, or do you not like the ones that watching them die gives you a smile?

 

It can arguably make the quality of the character better, but that isn't a rule. A lot of people say that the best villians are the ones that think their heroes,

 

Hence why Thanos is one of everyone's favourite MCU charater.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BrightLordSwageas said:

It can arguably make the quality of the character better, but that isn't a rule.

I was asking why Trav like relatable villains I am aware of the argument, and it's one I don't understand. If you like relatable villains Why?

 

0

Share this post


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

I was asking why Trav like relatable villains I am aware of the argument, and it's one I don't understand. If you like relatable villains Why?

 

The idea is that it makes them seem more realistic. A villain that just wants to blow up the world simply because he can doesn't make sense and is something that people have no idea how to truly understand. On the other hand, someone who is angry because they've lost grandparents seems a whole lot more real and is something that most people are able to relate to. They might not be able to feel the same anger as this person because their grandparents weren't killed, but they know of the pain that can come from such an event. Even if someone hasn't lost a loved one they can imagine, to some degree, what it would be like if they lost them. Moash's anger and outrage is a very natural reaction to the situation he is in.

Now, I don't think what Moash did was correct. I think it is the first basic instinct to being in the situation he is in, but that doesn't make it right. In my opinion, the best people are those who are able to overcome their natural reactions. Most of our lives are spent learning what is right and using our moral compass to overcome our natural impulses. For example, a natural instinct when you see someone with something you want is to try and take it. This is why kids take stuff from other kids because they want it. As people we grow up we learn that it's not right to steal and so we overcome that natural instinct and become better. Moash and Kaladin are seen to have similar situations in WoR. Both have men of power that have ruined their lives and both have the ability and chance to kill them. Kaladin could have used stormlight and gone in and killed Amaram basically any night. Moash had the opportunity to go in with his plate and blade and assassinate the king. Kaladin took the better path and pushed back his natural instincts in favor of his own moral compass. Moash simply went with that natural reaction and tried to kill the king.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Nellac said:

The idea is that it makes them seem more realistic. A villain that just wants to blow up the world simply because he can doesn't make sense and is something that people have no idea how to truly understand.

Have you never played a game where you had more power than anyone else? Or more skill I should say. What is the first thing you do? You dominate it's just natural you don't need a reason and might not even know why you do it.  That I see as better villainy I don't care about the backstory because that makes them less imposing, someone who kills because they like killing is far more scary than a dude out for revenge. In my opinion.

32 minutes ago, Nellac said:

The idea is that it makes them seem more realistic. A villain that just wants to blow up the world simply because he can doesn't make sense and is something that people have no idea how to truly understand. On the other hand, someone who is angry because they've lost grandparents seems a whole lot more real and is something that most people are able to relate to. They might not be able to feel the same anger as this person because their grandparents weren't killed, but they know of the pain that can come from such an event. Even if someone hasn't lost a loved one they can imagine, to some degree, what it would be like if they lost them. Moash's anger and outrage is a very natural reaction to the situation he is in.

Now, I don't think what Moash did was correct. I think it is the first basic instinct to being in the situation he is in, but that doesn't make it right. In my opinion, the best people are those who are able to overcome their natural reactions. Most of our lives are spent learning what is right and using our moral compass to overcome our natural impulses. For example, a natural instinct when you see someone with something you want is to try and take it. This is why kids take stuff from other kids because they want it. As people we grow up we learn that it's not right to steal and so we overcome that natural instinct and become better. Moash and Kaladin are seen to have similar situations in WoR. Both have men of power that have ruined their lives and both have the ability and chance to kill them. Kaladin could have used stormlight and gone in and killed Amaram basically any night. Moash had the opportunity to go in with his plate and blade and assassinate the king. Kaladin took the better path and pushed back his natural instincts in favor of his own moral compass. Moash simply went with that natural reaction and tried to kill the king.

Um ok.

0

Share this post


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

What is the first thing you do? You dominate it's just natural you don't need a reason and might not even know why you do it.

Your experiences are not universal. When I get too powerful in a game I just try to see how many things I can get to attack me at once and how long it takes for them to kill me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.