Hentient

Moash

154 posts in this topic

24 minutes ago, Frustration said:

The humans won, it's their land now, has been for thousands of years.

The obvious problem with recognizing the right of conquest (while it is the practical choice) is the question why it now ought to be illegal to have a second round. "Why do rebellions always fail" - "Because they stop being rebellions if they succeed"

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2020 at 1:00 PM, Frustration said:

But we can feel it, you know deep down when something is wrong, ignoring that voice, that tells you when your doing something your not supposed to is what constitutes evil.

Never mind, I’m getting into this discussion after all and I’m doing it late! 

This has already been touched on, but human minds are fallible. Even ignoring the possibility of outside influence pretending to be that deep-down something, I’m sure there have been many people who have done things most people would consider to be evil that they considered to be completely right. There are also mental disorders. My brain is constantly sending me this is wrong on the most primal level signals...but I’m not evil if I ignore it and don’t backtrack to press my hand up against a wall that I barely brushed. 

On 5/26/2020 at 8:41 AM, Oltux72 said:

And in giving the Bridge 4 salute Moash told Kaladin that he was killing ex-slaves in the name of the man under whose ultimate authority the members of Bridge 4 had been killed. A message that reached the intended goal. 

I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say here, care to explain? 

0

Share this post


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

 I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say here, care to explain? 

To a certain degree Kaladin has betrayed Bridge 4. All the men Bridge 4 lost were lost in the name of revenge for Elhokar's father. They were killed under Elhokar's rule and laws. And Kaladin keeps killing the Parshendi who are an equivalent of Bridge 4. If the Alethi were to retake Kholinar, the slaves would go back to being slaves. This pure admiration for Kaladin and condemnation of Moash is not rational. Moash made very valid points.

Kaladin's actions can be justified by the actions of Dalinar Kholin. But that is not an obvious conclusion. It is a matter of personal preferences. A Windrunner's perspective. Not even a Radiant's perspective. A Skybreaker would see it differently.

0

Share this post


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

This pure admiration for Kaladin and condemnation of Moash is not rational. Moash made very valid points. 

I will agree with that. It’s in part, I think, because people love the protagonist and hate someone who kills a secondary (arguably tertiary) character. Emotions play a huge part in how people read things, which isn’t necessarily bad! It just is. 

However, I’ve gotta disagree that Elhokar ultimately killed some of the men in Bridge Four. To me, that blame lies with Sadeas and with the listeners who shot them. If you start going too far backward down the path of blame, any stopping point becomes arbitrary. Why blame Elhokar when he’s doing it because his father was killed by Szeth? Or instead of it being Szeth’s fault, we call out the listeners again, for ordering him to do it? Or the Stone Shamanate for making him Truthless and forcing him to keep his word, or whoever in that society taught him that his honor was the most important thing in that scenario. Or Eshonai, who prompted the Council to stop Gavilar, or Gavilar himself for prompting her. We can go on, and on, and on, and at some point you really just need to focus on the individuals who were closest to the crime.

Sadeas sent Bridge Four out onto the Shattered Plains to die. The Parshendi killed them. They chose to obey Sadeas and his officers and carry the bridge into battle. I’m not saying it was a good choice, I don’t even know if they could have lived or escaped any other way, but we can’t take their agency away from them in this - the bridgemen had the ability to decide whether or not to run the bridge, and they all did it. They definitely get way less blame than other individuals, and I’d personally put the most on Sadeas, but in the end it doesn’t matter. I don’t think you can really pin this on Elhokar. 

Also, Moash was definitely not trying to convey any of that with his salute, I don’t think? That doesn’t make any sense to me at all. Besides, Kaladin had already realized who it was that he was fighting and was already breaking down over that and related matters before Moash even showed up. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2020 at 8:46 AM, Oltux72 said:

The obvious problem with recognizing the right of conquest (while it is the practical choice) is the question why it now ought to be illegal to have a second round. "Why do rebellions always fail" - "Because they stop being rebellions if they succeed"

The obvious problem with not recognizing the right of conquest is that it invalidates almost every civilization since the dawn of time.

7 hours ago, AonEne said:

Never mind, I’m getting into this discussion after all and I’m doing it late! 

This has already been touched on, but human minds are fallible. Even ignoring the possibility of outside influence pretending to be that deep-down something, I’m sure there have been many people who have done things most people would consider to be evil that they considered to be completely right. There are also mental disorders. My brain is constantly sending me this is wrong on the most primal level signals...but I’m not evil if I ignore it and don’t backtrack to press my hand up against a wall that I barely brushed.

the part in yellow mis-characterizes what I said and we both know it.

As to the other part I have already touched on mental disorders, and preexisting knowledge, so I see no reason to repeat myself.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one of the differences between Moash and Kaladin. Both are doing what they believe to be correct, but are being fueled by different emotions. Kaladin is motivated by his love of his friends and family. We also see that Kaladin struggles with his actions and even though he recognizes the necessity of his actions he hates that he had to take them. Moash in the other hand is fueled by his anger at light eyes and especially Elhokar. We never see him question whether his actions are right or wrong or how they will affect others. His only regret is that he went against bridge 4, not that he killed a man he was supposed to protect. This may just be because he gets less page time, but I don't like that he doesn't question his actions and he refuses to accept responsibility for the actions that he has taken

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the primary difference between Kaladin and Moash is that Kaladin is self questioning where as Moash just wants an answer good enough to justify his actions.  The fact that he happens to find a good answer in some cases does not make him a good person.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Moash as a character and feel sorry for him as a person. He's been through a lot, and I can't say that if I was in his circumstances that there would be a zero percent chance that I would do the same thing. I would like to think I wouldn't, but I don't know for certain, and that's without me growing up in an Alethi society or actually being exposed to any of his hardships.

1

Share this post


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

The part in yellow mis-characterizes what I said and we both know it. 

Does it? How? 

9 hours ago, Nellac said:

Moash in the other hand is fueled by his anger at light eyes and especially Elhokar. 

I do think he was fueled by his love for his family at first as well. His grandparents raised him, and he clearly loved them. But that got twisted over time - revenge does that; it’s not good - and now he’s acting on emotion. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, AonEne said:

However, I’ve gotta disagree that Elhokar ultimately killed some of the men in Bridge Four.

The same Elhokar who made his High Princes compete on gem hearts alone, thus rewarding Torol Sadeas for treating bridge men as consumables?

21 hours ago, AonEne said:

To me, that blame lies with Sadeas and with the listeners who shot them.

You are literally correct. To you. It is a matter of personal philosophy.

Elhokar did not shoot the arrows. Yet, do you blame them for defending their home in a war? Torol Sadeas only then? If we were to judge Elhokar he'd end up in the category of aiding and abetting.

21 hours ago, AonEne said:

Also, Moash was definitely not trying to convey any of that with his salute, I don’t think? That doesn’t make any sense to me at all.

All that as a philosophical discussion, hardly. As a "Hey Kal, how does it feel to have switched sides? Who made that uniform you wear, a slave maybe ?" Yes, he did. Moash is capable of complex, abstract thought and tends to use that capability from time to time.

21 hours ago, AonEne said:

Besides, Kaladin had already realized who it was that he was fighting and was already breaking down over that and related matters before Moash even showed up. 

You cannot explain Moash to read Kaladin's mind. Or care about it, really.

14 hours ago, Frustration said:

The obvious problem with not recognizing the right of conquest is that it invalidates almost every civilization since the dawn of time.

Yes. But then you need to be aware that you end up with a world view of a 19th century imperialist, not what we would see as the dominant view of the late 20th and early 21st century. Which is fine. You just cannot expect different people on a different world in a different epoch to perfectly share your world view. But then they will act accordingly.

10 hours ago, Nellac said:

Kaladin is motivated by his love of his friends and family.

Well, no. I have to dispute that. If it were the answer, Bridge Four would have marched away and left the Kholin army to the Parshendi to wipe out.

0

Share this post


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

The same Elhokar who made his High Princes compete on gem hearts alone, thus rewarding Torol Sadeas for treating bridge men as consumables?

You are literally correct. To you. It is a matter of personal philosophy.

Elhokar did not shoot the arrows. Yet, do you blame them for defending their home in a war? Torol Sadeas only then? If we were to judge Elhokar he'd end up in the category of aiding and abetting. 

Yes, I’ve never said it’s anything other than a personal philosophy and a form of logical thinking. It’s one way of looking at things, as is yours. 

I don’t blame them for defending themselves. I also don’t blame Elhokar for making mistakes in his kingship. I personally think it’s a really roundabout way of looking at things to say that him having the highprinces compete for gemhearts (which was not all they did, and not all his decision) led to the dehumanization of Bridge Four. Sadeas didn’t really care about the gemhearts in the long run; he certainly didn’t disregard them, and he did go after them, but his overarching goals weren’t “get more money”. The bridge crews had already been enslaved and were being treated badly. If Sadeas didn’t have a need for bridge crews, he’d’ve found some other potentially dangerous thing to do with them. 

Blame is a complicated thing to discuss. In the end, I think intentions matter, and I try to keep it as simple as possible. I could say Taln is at fault for the Desolation because he broke. For many reasons, I don’t. 

20 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

All that as a philosophical discussion, hardly. As a "Hey Kal, how does it feel to have switched sides? Who made that uniform you wear, a slave maybe ?" Yes, he did. Moash is capable of complex, abstract thought and tends to use that capability from time to time. 

To be blunt, you’re making a bit of a leap there. We have no evidence that that’s what he was saying, nor that he felt any ill will toward Kaladin - in fact, we have a bunch of evidence that suggests otherwise. As always you’re welcome to headcanon what you like, but from the way Moash does the salute to his thinking before and afterward, I don’t believe it’s reasonable to assume that’s what he is attempting to convey to Kaladin. 

20 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

 

You cannot explain Moash to read Kaladin's mind. Or care about it, really. 

 

I’m confused about this point, if he didn’t care how it was received then why would he be doing it? And on the writing side of things, it would seem somewhat strange of Brandon to give Kaladin that moment, then have Moash try to induce it in him while he’s clearly breaking down on the ground. 

0

Share this post


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

Does it? How?

There is a huge difference between a compulsion, and one's knowledge of good and evil.

0

Share this post


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

There is a huge difference between a compulsion, and one's knowledge of good and evil.

Yes, but they’re both coming from something deep within you that tells you you’re doing wrong. My point was that it’s hard to tell what that feeling really is. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

29 minutes ago, AonEne said:

Yes, but they’re both coming from something deep within you that tells you you’re doing wrong. My point was that it’s hard to tell what that feeling really is. 

That's kind of the point of life, discerning truth from fiction, right from wrong, good from evil.

Edited by Frustration
0

Share this post


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

That's kind of the point of life, discerning truth from fiction, right from wrong, good from evil.

That may or may not be one of the points of life, but my point still stands - it’s hard to tell, so you can’t really say that people all know. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2020 at 6:41 PM, Frustration said:

That's kind of the point of life, discerning truth from fiction, right from wrong, good from evil.

I don't understand how you expect people can distinguish truth from fiction when they are coming from the same place.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stealing? bad.

stealing something back that was stolen from you? also bad?

 

what you fail to understand @Frustration is that good and evil are not defined. neither in our world nor in Roshar.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, trav said:

stealing? bad.

Yes

22 minutes ago, trav said:

stealing something back that was stolen from you? also bad?

Not really stealing at that point is it?

23 minutes ago, trav said:

what you fail to understand @Frustration is that good and evil are not defined. neither in our world nor in Roshar.

What you fail to understand @trav is that I understand morality and given enough knowledge of a situation I can tell you the best course of action. Who where actually had to think about whether Kaladin should kill Elhokar? We all knew it was wrong. And no one blames him for killing the Parshendi because that wasn't.

0

Share this post


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

What you fail to understand @trav is that I understand morality and given enough knowledge of a situation I can tell you the best course of action. Who where actually had to think about whether Kaladin should kill Elhokar? We all knew it was wrong. And no one blames him for killing the Parshendi because that wasn't.

Do you think what Jasnah did in Kharbranth was wrong?

0

Share this post


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

Not really stealing at that point is it?

Arguably not, if you take it from the thief. But if he sold it or you take it from his heirs?

I wouldn't go as far as denying objective good and bad. But clearly there are questions debatable or not covered by it.

2 hours ago, Frustration said:

What you fail to understand @trav is that I understand morality and given enough knowledge of a situation I can tell you the best course of action. Who where actually had to think about whether Kaladin should kill Elhokar? We all knew it was wrong.

We do not know that. In fact, if Elhokar weren't his nephew, Dalinar would have done exactly that. Finding a whole conspiracy ready to risk their lives for it very much suggests that killing Elhokar would have been a good thing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, The_Elsecaller said:

Do you think what Jasnah did in Kharbranth was wrong?

Killing the theives? No not really, the first one was just asking for it and she had no way to capture them.

27 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Arguably not, if you take it from the thief. But if he sold it or you take it from his heirs?

That wasn't part of the scenario<_<

And I'm going to give you a no on taking it from an innocent buyer, an heir would be no different from them(most of the time) but in both cases I think you could just work it out between parties.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

OK, the thing about Moash to me (and I"m sure I've posted it before, perhaps not in this particular thread) isn't about Kaladin being more righteous than him with their oaths. They're both oathbreakers with respect to their vows to Elhokar as king, in Dalinar's service as Bridge Four when all the bridge crews had accepted his command of them, and Kaladin admitted as much in his confrontation with Moash.

It's the personal betrayal that is the worst. Moash owed Kaladin not his life, his training, and the very Shards he used to attack the man who he'd said would be "my Captain, forever".

If he was going to put his vow of revenge on Elhokar above his allegiance to Kaladin - it did predate it, after all - that's one thing. But then, lay down those Shards and say so.

I mean, let's say Kaladin was late by just enough time in swearing the Third Ideal to revive his bond with Syl. Moash burns out his eyes with the Shardblade that Adolin gave Kaladin, for deeds Moash had no part in, and that Kaladin then gave to him. That should scream DO NOT DO THIS to anybody with a shred of personal honor.

Then what? Was Moash going to flee the warcamps with Graves and go Full Diagram? I don't think so. (He didn't even know about the Diagram at that point, right?) He and Graves were still planning on making it look like the Assassin in White did it all, to pave the way for Dalinar to become King.

Which means Moash was planning on returning to Bridge Four, lying the whole while about what happened to Kaladin, and very likely being given command of Bridge Four by now-King Dalinar as a full Shardbearer who was known as Kaladin's most trusted and most capable man.

Are you still defending Moash's decisions and actions as "not evil"? Or at least, not wrong? Seriously?

Even Moash himself regrets them later. You might say that in the heat of the moment - he had not expected to encounter Kaladin at the palace while going after Elhokar, after all - he let his deep-rooted desire for revenge, so close at hand, overpower him and lead him to do what he would later consider actions he should not have taken.

Him killing Elhokar at Kholinar with a spear after fleeing Bridge Four, that is different from what happened back at the palace.

Edited by robardin
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, robardin said:

OK, the thing about Moash to me (and I"m sure I've posted it before, perhaps not in this particular thread) isn't about Kaladin being more righteous than him with their oaths. They're both oathbreakers with respect to their vows to Elhokar as king, in Dalinar's service as Bridge Four when all the bridge crews had accepted his command of them, and Kaladin admitted as much in his confrontation with Moash.

It's the personal betrayal that is the worst. Moash owed Kaladin not his life, his training, and the very Shards he used to attack the man who he'd said would be "my Captain, forever".

If he was going to put his vow of revenge on Elhokar above his allegiance to Kaladin - it did predate it, after all - that's one thing. But then, lay down those Shards and say so.

I mean, let's say Kaladin was late by just enough time in swearing the Third Ideal to revive his bond with Syl. Moash burns out his eyes with the Shardblade that Adolin gave Kaladin, for deeds Moash had no part in, and that Kaladin then gave to him. That should scream DO NOT DO THIS to anybody with a shred of personal honor.

Then what? Was Moash going to flee the warcamps with Graves and go Full Diagram? I don't think so. They were still planning on making it look like the Assassin in White did it all.

Which means Moash was planning on returning to Bridge Four, lying the whole while about what happened to Kaladin, and very likely taking command of Bridge Four as a full Shardbeared who was known as Kaladin's most trusted and most capable man.

Are you still defending Moash's decisions and actions as "not evil"? Seriously?

..... Oh, are you talking to me?

Well yes Moash is evil, I just don't think he's evil enough to get the kind of hate he does, TLR doesn't get this much hate, neither does Amaram. I personally have close to zero feeling for Moash, and don't get why everyone feels the need to compare him to Kaladin. I also feel his worst crime was killing Jezrien.

0

Share this post


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

..... Oh, are you talking to me?

Well yes Moash is evil, I just don't think he's evil enough to get the kind of hate he does, TLR doesn't get this much hate, neither does Amaram. I personally have close to zero feeling for Moash, and don't get why everyone feels the need to compare him to Kaladin. I also feel his worst crime was killing Jezrien.

Eh, Jezrien had long ago abandoned his duty as a guardian of mankind. You might say it was a kind of military execution for desertion, though of course that's not the reason Odium gave him the order.

Amaram and TLR both believed what they were doing was right - not in a purely selfish way, though self-aggrandizement was certainly a goal along the way, but for The Greater Good. Moash never pretended that getting rid of Elhokar was about the Greater Good - well he did try that line on Kaladin, who called him out on it, and he admitted it was really about personal revenge.

And TBH, I am hoping for a redemption arc for Moash. My "hate" for Moash is not just for what he's done, but why he's done it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, robardin said:

Him killing Elhokar at Kholinar with a spear after fleeing Bridge Four, that is different from what happened back at the palace.

Elhokar was a combatant. I am sorry, but he entered combat with a blade in his hand. Arguably Jezrien also fell into that category. He was still part of the oathpact.

1

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.