Moash, and the fans who hate him

[Frustration]

Moash hate is more people being upset about how he made them feel than his actual actions.

Yeah, I said it.

[+Oltux72]

2 hours ago, Frustration said:

Moash hate is more people being upset about how he made them feel than his actual actions.

Yeah, I said it.

Correct. Elhokar deserved to die and he was a combatant,

[Frustration]

3 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Correct. Elhokar deserved to die and he was a combatant,

Which is the vast majority of what upset them, but no one cares about Jezrien who was a drunk, enfeebled non-combatant.

[Jash]

16 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

Correct. Elhokar deserved to die and he was a combatant,

This is so valid. It was literally a war. Moash is just on the other side at this point. 

18 hours ago, Frustration said:

Moash hate is more people being upset about how he made them feel than his actual actions.

Yeah, I said it.

I think this could be true for a lot of people, although I do like some of the comments from others here. It feels to me like (I hope that guy doesn't come back, but) Catelyn hate in the ASOIAF fandom; they just like Tyrion so they were pissed she falsely accused him, and it was...basically personal and then they tried to make the logic for their hate of her form there. So...I could say that be the case for Moash as well for a lot of fans. Something I've always felt too, is they keep saying Moash betrayed Kaladin, which in a way he did. But in a way, Kaladin betrayed Moash. He agreed to Moash's plan. He went along with Moash's plan. Then he essentially backed out last second and fought him. Moash could have certainly seen that as a betrayal, although since we have his PoV, I guess he didn't. 

[Jash]

On 6/12/2021 at 4:45 PM, Honorless said:

Catelyn is my favourite PoV character too! It's a shame she's so hated by the Asoiaf community for trusting Petyr (whom she grew up with) & her miscalculation with trading hostages (which I think it made sense from Westerosi cultural perspective). The only point against her is her neglect of Jon but again I can kind of understand where she's coming from there.

Also, I should have replied to this specifically. Agreed, they seem to not cut her any slack for...you know, not knowing things that we only knew because we have other character's PoVs. She trusted her childhood friend and her sister (who she didn't realize had dived into...a whole lot of things, since she had last seen her). I also think the Jon thing is hard to know how to read, because to her Jon was a representation of Eddard breaking his vows to her (although I am of the mind that is not the case, but I digress, she thinks it); so it makes it confusing, but she does treat him badly, which did make me sad...since she was my favorite character. Hey, everyone has flaws right? My favorite character in TSA is probably Shallan and she has had her own questionable moments as well, haha (or should I say Veil?)

[Green Hoodie Mistborn]

9 hours ago, Jash said:

This is so valid. It was literally a war. Moash is just on the other side at this point. 

I think this could be true for a lot of people, although I do like some of the comments from others here. It feels to me like (I hope that guy doesn't come back, but) Catelyn hate in the ASOIAF fandom; they just like Tyrion so they were pissed she falsely accused him, and it was...basically personal and then they tried to make the logic for their hate of her form there. So...I could say that be the case for Moash as well for a lot of fans. Something I've always felt too, is they keep saying Moash betrayed Kaladin, which in a way he did. But in a way, Kaladin betrayed Moash. He agreed to Moash's plan. He went along with Moash's plan. Then he essentially backed out last second and fought him. Moash could have certainly seen that as a betrayal, although since we have his PoV, I guess he didn't. 

God yeah, I'd hate if that one guy who had a different POV of that series were to come back to this discussion. 

I love ASOIF fwiw. Yes I know GRRM says that his stories are about the human heart in conflict with itself, but don't get it twisted, that series is about power at the end of the day. I purposefully wasn't responding in a long drawn out detailed fashion to individual characters and my view points on each and every one of them because this is a Sanderson site, not ASOIF site. 

I hate Moash because he's a terrible person who despite repeatedly being offered a chance to stop doing the things he's doing decides that he'd rather triple down on this hateful evil actions. I don't need comparisons to other people to determine how I feel about him. My feels for Dalinar or Kaladin or any other character in no way has to impact how I feel about Moash. There are voidbringers in RoW who are more relatable and less hateful to me in their choices and actions than Moash. 

My hate for Moash is not based on a single event or action of his but a culmination of all his choices and lack of self reflective choice. 

[RedBlue]

10 hours ago, Jash said:

On 12/06/2021 at 10:30 PM, Oltux72 said:

Correct. Elhokar deserved to die and he was a combatant,

This is so valid. It was literally a war. Moash is just on the other side at this point. 

I read that scene differently.

First off, I think ‘deserved to die’ is harsh for Elhokar. He was doing his best and was never acting from malice. 

Also, Elhokar was a (kind of) combatant in a war and different moral standards are in play during a war, but Moash didn’t kill him because he was an enemy combatant. Moash killed him because of a personal grudge, and then proceeded to ignore all of the other enemy combatants - he even saluted at Kaladin. What Moash did was not remotely about the war, so wartime rules don’t apply in this case.

I have some sympathy for Moash because he’s had such a rough go of it, and he has very valid grievances. I very much enjoy reading his parts. But I don’t see how his actions in WoR or OB are morally justifiable. 

 

35 minutes ago, Green Hoodie Mistborn said:

My hate for Moash is not based on a single event or action of his but a culmination of all his choices and lack of self reflective choice. 

That’s an interesting way of looking at it. Genuine question (not one of those rhetorical ‘gotcha’ questions): would your opinion of Moash change if he started making better choices in future books, or is he too far gone in your opinion? Where was the point of no return for you?

[+Oltux72]

10 hours ago, RedBlue said:

I read that scene differently.

First off, I think ‘deserved to die’ is harsh for Elhokar. He was doing his best and was never acting from malice. 

Grading for effort is for elementary school. Elhokar was at the very top and he bent or even broke the rules.

(Scadrial)

Spoiler

The best coverage on the topic is actually Tindwyl's lecture on how to be a king.

 

10 hours ago, RedBlue said:

Also, Elhokar was a (kind of) combatant in a war and different moral standards are in play during a war, but Moash didn’t kill him because he was an enemy combatant. Moash killed him because of a personal grudge, and then proceeded to ignore all of the other enemy combatants - he even saluted at Kaladin. What Moash did was not remotely about the war, so wartime rules don’t apply in this case.

They do. There is no requirement that you exclude personal reasons. Elhokar took up the sword. That he did so while somebody who had personal reasons to hate him was a cruel twist of fate. Then he died by the sword, like the guards and parshmen he had cut down

10 hours ago, RedBlue said:

That’s an interesting way of looking at it. Genuine question (not one of those rhetorical ‘gotcha’ questions): would your opinion of Moash change if he started making better choices in future books, or is he too far gone in your opinion? Where was the point of no return for you?

 

You may argue that he has betrayed the human race. That is inexcusable and irredeemable an act. There is no point in saying that Moash is a nice or even sensible man. He isn't. But, again, Elhokar deserved to die. And so does, in principle, Dalinar. If some Herdazian or a relative of somebody from Rathalas took a dagger and kept stabbing until he runs out of Stormlight, there is no point in morally blaming them, unless, again, you wish to see the act as treason.

You just cannot say that by saying sorry and doing better your prior acts are erased. And Elhokar, even clearer than Dalinar, murdered people it was his duty to protect. If you put yourself above the law as king, then you live or die by the sword. Moash is either irredeemable as a traitor or merely an enemy, who requires no redemption.

 

[Bejarden]

Kings, are by nature, above the Law

Love it or hate it that was the political system in Alethkar 

Someone isn’t deserving of death because they made a mistake 

Moash had an “in” with Kaladin so he could talk to Elhokar about it, maybe it would have even worked but it probably wouldn’t have

he didn’t even try

9 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

You just cannot say that by saying sorry and doing better your prior acts are erased. And Elhokar, even clearer than Dalinar, murdered people it was his duty to protect. If you put yourself above the law as king, then you live or die by the sword. Moash is either irredeemable as a traitor or merely an enemy, who requires no redemption.

 

That is actually exactly what Redemption is

someone who did a bad thing and now is trying to do better, genuinely 

Elhokar was in middle of his since book 2 and Dalinar started his years and years ago

This does absolve them from past mistakes, because now they’re trying to do better 

Redemption is a fundamental piece of the Knights Radiant,

Journey before destination 

Even if you made a mistake don’t give up it will get better, you will get better

[+Oltux72]

6 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Kings, are by nature, above the Law

Love it or hate it that was the political system in Alethkar 

True, but not Moash's moral problem. Now, what do you want? A moral judgement?  That is simple. E killed M's grandparents. M killed E. Frontier style, but basically just.

We drop all this talk of law and thus, sic semper tyrannis. Fine by me.

6 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Someone isn’t deserving of death because they made a mistake 

Well, no. At some point you are judged by the consequences of your actions, if you seek power. Meaning well is no excuse for a king.

6 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

That is actually exactly what Redemption is

Yes, that is the definition. That does not make it right, though. Or acceptable to those who were wronged.

6 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

This does absolve them from past mistakes, because now they’re trying to do better 

No, it does not. Moash's grandparents are still dead.

6 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Redemption is a fundamental piece of the Knights Radiant,

Journey before destination 

Even if you made a mistake don’t give up it will get better, you will get better

Well, partially. A Skybreaker would certainly not see it that way. Moash, however, is no Knight Radiant. There is no point in blaming him for not acting like one. He never claimed to be one, never wanted to be one. He wanted retribution and took it. He did not kill Gavinor. He just executed an eye for an eye. A right that any member of the Kholin family would have claimed. Against a king who had no problem with making war, wanted people's head merely for insulting him and so on.

Blaming Moash for killing Elhokar is based on sympathy. It is basically justice by popularity.

[Quick Ben]

Personally I think Moash as a character and his arc is easily understandable, i fail to see why anyone hates him, and any one who hates Moash and even Amaram as well actually and loves Dalinar is plain and simply a hypocrite (sorry but its true)

Also this notion of just because you attempt to atone for past deeds absolves you from said deeds is nonsense. 

In reality if your a mass murderer, of innocents no matter what you do, you are irredeemable. So if in SA somehow who does this is irredeemable both in book and to majority of readers, then everyone else by same token is redeemable.

Also Moash character arc is far more realistic then Kaladins own in my opinion. 

[therunner]

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

True, but not Moash's moral problem. Now, what do you want? A moral judgement?  That is simple. E killed M's grandparents. M killed E. Frontier style, but basically just.

Except that Elhokar didn't kill Moash's grandparents. His choice of advisor, inexperience and neglect led to their deaths, yes, but from what we see there was no intent to kill them there, only to 'help' someone he considered his friend by removing his business rivals.

Of course this is of little solace to Moash, but that distinction is important I think. If Moash sought vengenace on Roshone, the instigator of the actions that led to his grandparents deaths, I would have easier time accepting his actions. But instead he goes after someone who is in his reach and who he swore to protect.

 

Personally, while I do dislike Moash to some extent (because he seems to be just stubbornly digging himself deeper), his outrage on this injustice is understandable. Had he had someone to talk to about his grienences with Elhokar before splinter of The Diagram recruited him, I think he easily could have been Windrunner (or maybe Skybreaker, depending on how he would choose to grow) on par with Kaladin, which is what makes him so frustrating to me.

[Jash]

On 6/14/2021 at 9:06 AM, Green Hoodie Mistborn said:

God yeah, I'd hate if that one guy who had a different POV of that series were to come back to this discussion. 

I've never heard someone use PoV in that way, but I guess it makes sense lol. Yes, I didn't want you to come back, because you are wrong and you said..you didn't want to engage with me on this topic. You are allowed your opinion, but it's a bad one, lol. I met lots of Tywin-stans/Tywin lovers who think like you as well. Some of us read the series with nuance. Some of us were you I guess. The series is not about gaining and maintaining power, you're just wrong. The books have an aspect of the power gaining/maintaining in the plot, but it is not..the overarching main theme of the writing. Again, perhaps if you only read Lannister (not Jaime) and....non Theon, Greyjoy PoV's, you could come away with that opinion, but...a majority of the characters are not falling under the umbrella you've decided the books fall under. As I was able to discuss with others, to my delight (It was quite fun interacting with them, glad you came if only for that reason). Like, did you take Cersei's opinion on the matter as a fact of life in that universe? A hint : GRRM's characters often don't think like he does, lol. He took real history, wove it with fantasy and character developement, and wrote an excellent series that simply takes place in a different universe in a time of instability. The series, however, is not about..that game of thrones. It is about the internal struggle within the characters heads, it is about what it means to have power (as a moral question, not about...how to gain it), and it is about the complexity of making decisions once you have that power. I would guess the series will end with in fact, the power game you speak of being rebuked by GRRM, as well as a rebuke of war in general. Oh, that is another theme, the cost of war, and what it means. Go read Brienne of Tarth's section of AFfC's one more time. GRRM loves writing about that. Oh, and it's about politics in an ancient Kingdom, which...again, would be reductive to call that, ...how to gain power and maintain it. Davos doesn't give a crap about gaining power, yet his parts are distinctly political, so are Eddard's, and Jon's. Politics is more complicated than...I sadly assume you think they are. 

On 6/14/2021 at 9:06 AM, Green Hoodie Mistborn said:

I love ASOIF fwiw. Yes I know GRRM says that his stories are about the human heart in conflict with itself, but don't get it twisted, that series is about power at the end of the day. I purposefully wasn't responding in a long drawn out detailed fashion to individual characters and my view points on each and every one of them because this is a Sanderson site, not ASOIF site. 

I am not getting anything twisted. It's not. That isn't what GRRM writes about. No. Maybe you watched the TV show first or something, and that is how you got things twisted. You, sir/ma'am, are the one who has gotten things twisted. And no, I can't imagine why anyone would not want to talk to someone who talks in such a black and white, I am the King who is always right, like you do. lol. Perhaps, like Moash, you should try to be more self reflective. The great thing, is, wait for it, I'm the OP of this!!! Oh my goodness, and I obviously wanted to discuss comparisons between the series, didn't I!!! So, good news, as you aren't the King of this forum, and I am in fact, talking about TSA and comparing characters from that series with ASOIAF, I am....shocker....allowed to do that. Maybe, ...engage with this if you want to, and if you don't want to, you don't have to. LIke others clearly did enjoy engaging with this. You don't have to engage with content you don't like. I, and others here, did want to engage with the content. And no, I don't want to engage with someone who just keeps telling me they don't wnat to engage with the thing...they also simultaenously engaging with, all while telling me how stupid I am for thinking the things I think^^. 

On 6/14/2021 at 9:06 AM, Green Hoodie Mistborn said:

I hate Moash because he's a terrible person who despite repeatedly being offered a chance to stop doing the things he's doing decides that he'd rather triple down on this hateful evil actions. I don't need comparisons to other people to determine how I feel about him. My feels for Dalinar or Kaladin or any other character in no way has to impact how I feel about Moash. There are voidbringers in RoW who are more relatable and less hateful to me in their choices and actions than Moash. 

My hate for Moash is not based on a single event or action of his but a culmination of all his choices and lack of self reflective choice. 

Moash indeed, has little self reflection. I hope, or think, or want, him to be more self reflective in the future. I think that would make for an interesting character arc. However, everyone is allowed to dislike Moash. I made this topic because I simply, wanted to understand why they did have those feelings, and I would say it's been quite successful, as I now understand their thoughts better. I personally, I know shockingly, related to Moash. I am currently frustrated with the state of our world, now none of my relatives were killed in inhumane ways, but...there are people dying in inhumane ways in our society right now, due to leaders putting them in cages and ignoring them. And I have to admit, the leader of which I"m speaking, I'd quite like to stick a sword in his chest^^, so yeah, I get Moash. 
Please, feel free to not engage with me if you don't want to talk about ASOIF. I hate the popular technique online these days, respond to someone then say you don't want to talk about whatever you've said to them. Then. Don't. Post. Anything. If you don't want to talk about ASOIAF, stop talking about ASOIAF here. Please, feel free to stop. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by Jash

[+Oltux72]

2 hours ago, therunner said:

Except that Elhokar didn't kill Moash's grandparents. His choice of advisor, inexperience and neglect led to their deaths, yes, but from what we see there was no intent to kill them there, only to 'help' someone he considered his friend by removing his business rivals.

Advisor is the key element here. Once you claim supreme power, you reap supreme responsibility.

(Scadrial)

Spoiler

Tindwyl really explains that in her lectures

In Alethkar a king decides. The advisor suggests. The king is free to take or refuse that advice, yet thereby he assumes responsibility.

2 hours ago, therunner said:

Of course this is of little solace to Moash, but that distinction is important I think. If Moash sought vengenace on Roshone, the instigator of the actions that led to his grandparents deaths, I would have easier time accepting his actions. But instead he goes after someone who is in his reach and who he swore to protect.

Well, at some point do you have to make up your mind. Is Moash bad because he is a traitor, breaking his promise to protect, or is he bad because Elhokar had entered the path of redemption?
If the former, why can you like Kaladin, who broke his word to Moash? And why do you deplore Dalinar for burning Rathalas? They were traitors. Why don't you deplore Zahel as a murderer?

 

[therunner]

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

Advisor is the key element here. Once you claim supreme power, you reap supreme responsibility.

In Alethkar a king decides. The advisor suggests. The king is free to take or refuse that advice, yet thereby he assumes responsibility.

I disagree with that, is every puppet king responsible for actions done in his name?

Elhokar was reasonably in control (and was not yet king, only prince), but was still poorly advised and the deaths seem to be accidental, not intentional. Supreme power changes nothing about the fact that those deaths were not intentional on Elhokar's part, is neglect punishable by death?

EDIT: I don't mean to say that Elhokar carries no responsibility, I just think that the primary responsibility lies with Roshone, and Elhokar's part is comparatively minor. He should suffer some consequences, but I think death is too much. At the very least he should abdicate the throne.

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

Well, at some point do you have to make up your mind. Is Moash bad because he is a traitor, breaking his promise to protect, or is he bad because Elhokar had entered the path of redemption?

If the former, why can you like Kaladin, who broke his word to Moash? And why do you deplore Dalinar for burning Rathalas? They were traitors. Why don't you deplore Zahel as a murderer?

 

I made up my mind already, in my mind Moash is primarily bad because of his repeated betrayals and because he keeps doubling down on it. If he were to change his behavior for the better, I would start thinking him good. To some extent I perceive him as similar to Dalinar after Rathalas, with the difference being that Dalinar sought refuge in alcohol and Moash in void of Odium (and that Dalinar never repeated his actions). I would imagine that void of Odium would be harder habit to kick, but if he manages that, alone or with help, and start trying to be better I would wholeheartedly support that.

I will try to answer the other questions as succinctly as possible, to not derail the thread

1. I like Kaladin despite breaking his word to Moash, because that very word constituted betrayal on Kaladin's part. He was talked into breaking his oath, and eventually turned from that path. Also Kaladin did not tell Moash to give up on justice, he tried to convince Moash to seek justice on the true instigator, Roshone, and that they should do it the right way, not by betraying people. Moash refused.
2. I deplore Dalinar for burning Rathalas because he hurt people who had nothing to do with decisions of lords of that city. Those people were not responsible for rebellion at Rathalas, and so did not deserve to be punished. You could argue that a lot of those people tacitly supported the rebellions, but children and others did not, yet were still hurt by Dalinar's action. If Dalinar burned only Tanalan to death, I could kind of see that, but would still consider it too far, as it would be unnecessarily brutal.
3. Which murder of Zahel do you mean?
   Spoiler

   Shashara? We did not see what happened. I am not disputing he killed her, but his given reason is prevention of creation of more Nightbloods which sounds reasonable.

   Arsteel? Again we did not see that, so I cannot judge those actions.
   His actions is Manywar? Comparable to Dalinar let's say, but he seems to have left that life behind and in Warbreaker was trying to prevent bloodshed, if I remember correctly.

   Zahel is someone I remain neutral on, especially now when he is hunted by Azure.

    

Edited June 14, 2021 by therunner
spelling

[Bejarden]

7 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

True, but not Moash's moral problem. Now, what do you want? A moral judgement?  That is simple. E killed M's grandparents. M killed E. Frontier style, but basically just.

We drop all this talk of law and thus, sic semper tyrannis. Fine by me.

 

Elhokar did not kill Moashs grandparents, he made a mistake and that resulted in their deaths 

Is that bad? Yes is it deserving of Capital punishment without explanation or trying to reason? Absolutely not

Society demands that some people are given extra slack because of the responsibilities they have. If you want to fix something murder is not the answer because it is just that: Murder

Order is needed someone who just wants to help himself is not deserving to be in society

Quote

Well, no. At some point you are judged by the consequences of your actions, if you seek power. Meaning well is no excuse for a king.

Meaning well is the ultimate excuse

A king cannot be expected to be perfect and if he is being manipulated then you have to understand that there is more to life than just killing for things that happen in the past

Quote

No, it does not. Moash's grandparents are still dead.

And killing Elhokar didn’t bring’em back did it? 
So now we have a dead king a still angry Moash and a city in terror

Quote

Well, partially. A Skybreaker would certainly not see it that way. Moash, however, is no Knight Radiant. There is no point in blaming him for not acting like one. He never claimed to be one, never wanted to be one. He wanted retribution and took it. He did not kill Gavinor. He just executed an eye for an eye. A right that any member of the Kholin family would have claimed. Against a king who had no problem with making war, wanted people's head merely for insulting him and so on.

The Knights Radiant are an example of moral truth

Moash went against it and did something evil: Killing someone trying very very hard to be better

There is no excuse

Redemption is a key concept in society without it only chaos can ensue

Moash does not believe this and/or does not care

either way he’s worthy of all the contempt  he gets and then some

Quote

Blaming Moash for killing Elhokar is based on sympathy. It is basically justice by popularity.

Patently false

Elhokar tries to do better 

Moash tries to do whatever makes him feel better regardless of the consequences 

It’s pretty clear who I should root for

[Quick Ben]

4 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Elhokar did not kill Moashs grandparents, he made a mistake and that resulted in their deaths 

Is that bad? Yes is it deserving of Capital punishment without explanation or trying to reason? Absolutely not

Society demands that some people are given extra slack because of the responsibilities they have. If you want to fix something murder is not the answer because it is just that: Murder

Order is needed someone who just wants to help himself is not deserving to be in society

Meaning well is the ultimate excuse

A king cannot be expected to be perfect and if he is being manipulated then you have to understand that there is more to life than just killing for things that happen in the past

And killing Elhokar didn’t bring’em back did it? 
So now we have a dead king a still angry Moash and a city in terror

The Knights Radiant are an example of moral truth

Moash went against it and did something evil: Killing someone trying very very hard to be better

There is no excuse

Redemption is a key concept in society without it only chaos can ensue

Moash does not believe this and/or does not care

either way he’s worthy of all the contempt  he gets and then some

Patently false

Elhokar tries to do better 

Moash tries to do whatever makes him feel better regardless of the consequences 

It’s pretty clear who I should root for

Its past 1am here, so I may not articulate my views on this very well, but i shall try.

I'm sure you noticed the "darkeyes" are what you would call oppressed by the "lighteyes", they pretty much can live and die at there whim, darkeyes can rise so far but still can be shut down by a light eyes easily.

This is reminiscent of many cultures in our own world both current and historically, so when as a darkeyes raised in this environment of systemic inequality, it is no surprise that Moash feels how he does toward Elhokar or Roshone or any and all light eyes, I'm sure you will agree with this. However saying Elhokar was mislead and trying to do better is irrelevant quiet frankly, to someone in Moashs shoes hes been beat down, abused, hes whole life, then sees his grandparents who managed to forge a niche for themselves and do well get torn down by a greedy lighteyes and a king who allowed it to happen, to someone in Moashs shoes the king and "nobles" are ultimately responsible for the systemic oppression and retribution is 100% warranted. Moash was 100% right to kill Elhokar. It is a natural thing for him to want to do and when he was able to he took the chance.

With regards betraying Kaladin, it was actually Kaladin who betrayed him, to Moash Kaladin was a kindred spirit, someone who experienced similar treatment at the hands of lighteyes who got to a position where he could strike back, had decided to, then backed out.

Given this Moash attacking Kaladin at end of WoR again makes sense. Then he had to go on the run, which started his decent, to where he is now, it's a logical natural path he took and fairly realistic, to be honest. Should he be vilified? No, in a way he did what many "heroes" and "martyrs" have done throughout history.

What is more bothersome in my opinion is how all the darkeyes who become lighteyes actually behave and act, wilfully disregarding the treatment there caste received in their own time and throughout the past, by just "becoming" lighteyes, 

So while Moashs motives, actions are realistic, and logical, it is actually Kaladins, tefts, etc that isn't, and by all accounts the darkeyes have more in common with the parshendi then they do with the lighteyes.

The issue of how darkeyes are historically treated is brushed over completely in the books, and barely mentioned and darkeyed radiants are just assimilated into lighteyed society with no thought to it and with little to no conflict which is unrealistic and the one darkeyes who acts truest to how would be in real world gets vilified, for acting the most realistic, 

[Bejarden]

I’m not saying I can’t understand where Moash is coming from

I just think he’s just plain wrong

He saw Elhokar and knew what was going on, he could have talked about it

He didn’t 

I may be in the minority here but murder is practically never the answer

Anyone character disagrees with that (I’m talking about in-world here I respect opinions that say he is right) is a “villain” sure there are shades of grey but Moash falls into that part on the sliding scale

6 minutes ago, Quick Ben said:

The issue of how darkeyes are historically treated is brushed over completely in the books, and barely mentioned and darkeyed radiants are just assimilated into lighteyed society with no thought to it and with little to no conflict which is unrealistic and the one darkeyes who acts truest to how would be in real world gets vilified, for acting the most realistic, 

I thought it was dealt with quiet heavely Brandon just doesn’t want his books to be centered around darkeye/lighteye dynamics 

It was also pretty natural for dark eye Radiants to be accepted 

When someone gains magical powers you don’t start annoying them

[Quick Ben]

5 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

I’m not saying I can’t understand where Moash is coming from

I just think he’s just plain wrong

He saw Elhokar and knew what was going on, he could have talked about it

He didn’t 

I may be in the minority here but murder is practically never the answer

Anyone character disagrees with that (I’m talking about in-world here I respect opinions that say he is right) is a “villain” sure there are shades of grey but Moash falls into that part on the sliding scale

Why would he talk about it with Elhokar?

There is no reason to, Moash wanted retribution for what happened his grandparents, and he took it, was no reason to talk.

He was 100% right to do what he did. Talking about it would not of helped anything. 

5 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

I thought it was dealt with quiet heavely Brandon just doesn’t want his books to be centered around darkeye/lighteye dynamics 

It was also pretty natural for dark eye Radiants to be accepted 

When someone gains magical powers you don’t start annoying them

Don't see how you can say was dealt with quiet heavily.

Of course it's natural for darkeyed radiants to be accepted by lighteyes, why wouldn't they be ? however it's not natural for darkeyed radiants to ignore past wrongs done to them and continue to follow the lighteyes. While or course there would be some who would, it is irrational for all to follow this line and just assimilate into lighteyed culture, that is also a pretty troubling outcome when you think of it.

[+Oltux72]

14 hours ago, therunner said:

EDIT: I don't mean to say that Elhokar carries no responsibility, I just think that the primary responsibility lies with Roshone, and Elhokar's part is comparatively minor. He should suffer some consequences, but I think death is too much. At the very least he should abdicate the throne.

We need to keep some realism here. Moash inflicting any lesser punishment on Elhokar is unrealistic.

12 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

The Knights Radiant are an example of moral truth

An example. And that is the issue. Even if we accept every order of Radiants as holding moral truth, we still see that they are radically different among orders. Who is to say that Moash is wrong?

7 hours ago, Quick Ben said:

What is more bothersome in my opinion is how all the darkeyes who become lighteyes actually behave and act, wilfully disregarding the treatment there caste received in their own time and throughout the past, by just "becoming" lighteyes, 

Absolutely realistic though. We even have historic examples of freed slaves becoming slave traders.

7 hours ago, Quick Ben said:

So while Moashs motives, actions are realistic, and logical, it is actually Kaladins, tefts, etc that isn't, and by all accounts the darkeyes have more in common with the parshendi then they do with the lighteyes.

And that was exactly what Moash expressed in an admirably court way when he gave Kaladin the Bridge Four salute. And he was right. Kaladin sold out.

7 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

I may be in the minority here but murder is practically never the answer

I have no way to answer this but by a civics lecture, so I will make it at least entertaining.

Murder is always the ultimate answer. Rules that are not enforced do not exist. Rules ultimately rest on violence. Yes, we organize a civilized world by getting people to agree to the rules and heed them voluntarily. But that works only because they know that they will be protected against the minority ready to break the rules. Saying that violence is a minor exception is mistaking the mechanism for the reason.
At the end of the day (literally in this case) you can only sleep quietly in your bed because if an intruder breaks into your home to kill and roast (hopefully in that order) you and rape your pets, police will kill that intruder.

Now the kings of Alethkar have removed themselves from legal recourse. That may even be necessary. But it makes it insincere if you insist that somebody is bad for not resorting to a mild, civilized method of addressing grieveances against somebody officially above the law.

Edited June 15, 2021 by Oltux72
typo

[Quick Ben]

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

Absolutely realistic though. We even have historic examples of freed slaves becoming slave traders.

 

I wouldn't agree its realistic, simply because it's the majority and not the minority.

If was a minority who wilfully assimilated into lighteyed culture disregarding the historical treatment if their caste it would be realistic, having them all do it bar 1 (Moash) is unrealistic in my opinion. 

[therunner]

2 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

We need to keep some realism here. Moash inflicting any lesser punishment on Elhokar is unrealistic.

As a single person, yes. As a lighteyes and potential Radiant under Dalinar? He might extract something. And he could still easily seek justice on Roshone (as at that point he outranks him as 4th dahn), whom he ignores in favor of Elhokar.

Moash's refusal to work with any sort of system does not help his case at all. He did not try to seek justice in some other way, he went straight to murder.

I agree that the system is inherently unjust, but Moash never even tries to work with the system. He chooses a goal (kill Elhokar) and ignores everything else (Roshone being the instigator, options afforded to him as lighteyes etc.) I sympathize (empathize? not sure which is more appropriate) with his plight, but simply cannot agree with his chosen method.

2 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

And that was exactly what Moash expressed in an admirably court way when he gave Kaladin the Bridge Four salute. And he was right. Kaladin sold out.

No, Moash betrayed them first. He was member of Bridge Four, betrayed his sworn duty and then attacked his commanding officer nearly killing him. If he succeeded do you think the rest of Bridge Four would not be punished in some way for their failure?

Moash betrayed Bridge Fours first, and then he tried to get Kaladin to betray them as well.

2 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

Murder is always the ultimate answer. Rules that are not enforced do not exist. Rules ultimately rest on violence. Yes, we organize a civilized world by getting people to agree to the rules and heed them voluntarily. But that works only because they know that they will be protected against the minority ready to break the rules. Saying that violence is a minor exception is mistaking the mechanism for the reason.

 

At the end of the day (literally in this case) you can only sleep quietly in your bed because if an intruder breaks into your home to kill and roast (hopefully in that order) you and rape your pets, police will kill that intruder.

Now the kings of Alethkar have removed themselves from legal recourse. That may even be necessary. But it makes it insincere if you insist that somebody is bad for not resorting to a mild, civilized method of addressing grieveances against somebody officially above the law.

Murder is rarely seen as answer in any sort of civilization. Even in civilizations that used killing as a social tool, there were rules (duels etc.) that needed to be obeyed.

Even police can/should only kill when there is a clear and present danger (which there was not in case of pre-planned assasination of drunk Elhokar).

Edited June 15, 2021 by therunner

[+Oltux72]

38 minutes ago, therunner said:

Moash's refusal to work with any sort of system does not help his case at all. He did not try to seek justice in some other way, he went straight to murder.

Now, yes, Moash is socially maladjusted. Yet, do you judge people based on that, let alone their causes?

38 minutes ago, therunner said:

No, Moash betrayed them first. He was member of Bridge Four, betrayed his sworn duty and then attacked his commanding officer nearly killing him. If he succeeded do you think the rest of Bridge Four would not be punished in some way for their failure?

Indeed you can make the case that Moash is a traitor. However, firstly that does not mean that Kaladin did not switch sides. And it is not what people loath him for.

38 minutes ago, therunner said:

Murder is rarely seen as answer in any sort of civilization. Even in civilizations that used killing as a social tool, there were rules (duels etc.) that needed to be obeyed.

Again, relative rarity is not a measure of importance. Especially not when you discuss the most exeptional target.

38 minutes ago, therunner said:

Even police can/should only kill when there is a clear and present danger (which there was not in case of pre-planned assasination of drunk Elhokar).

Well, no, if there is an uprising, the army will eventually be called out. Government is fundamentally violence.

[therunner]

I think we have some fundamentally different believes on nature of justice and governance, so I don't think either will convince the other. I do find your perspective interesting so I would not mind continuing.

7 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Now, yes, Moash is socially maladjusted. Yet, do you judge people based on that, let alone their causes?

No I judge people based on their actions first, their motivations second. His social maladjustment nudged him in this direction, but at the time he was also surrounded by other more adjusted people (Kaladin, Rock, Drehy, most of Bridge Four, other soldiers) who he could have look towards for different role model. Here Kaladin plays a role in Moash's 'fall', in that he validated Moash's choices until he changed his mind (I haven't red WoR in a while so I am not sure on the exact timeline) So I do think that Kal holds some responsibility for where Moash ended up, but Moash is still the one responsible for his choices (of course we could also debate on nature of free will in setting where future sight is a thing, and sould exist in spiritual realm which is 'timeless').

11 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Indeed you can make the case that Moash is a traitor. However, firstly that does not mean that Kaladin did not switch sides. And it is not what people loath him for.

I can't speak for other people, but for me personally that first betrayal and continued doubling down on it is the primary source for my dislike of Moash. His killing of Elhokar in Oathbringer is secondary to me (but the kick was downright petty and cruel).

I personally also do not dislike Moash (at the end of Oathbringer), pity or disappointment is closer to how I felt about him. There were still hints of a good person there (his treatment of those Singers for example), and I would have loved to see him develop those positive attributes more. Alas he seems more focused on the negative attributes.

15 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Again, relative rarity is not a measure of importance. Especially not when you discuss the most exeptional target.

Good point, but it does highlight that most people would not see plain murder as socially acceptable.

For me personally, had Moash left Bridge Four (thereby divesting himself of his oath to protect the king) and then tried to kill him, I would find that more acceptable course of action. Of course, it would also not be particularly smart one, as he would lose his ease of access to target.

17 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Well, no, if there is an uprising, the army will eventually be called out. Government is fundamentally violence.

I again disagree with that. Yes, if there is uprising army will be called out, but I don't think that means that government is fundamentally violence. Government can certainly use violence to impose its will, but it is not the only tool at its disposal. (this depends on how broadly do you interpret violence).

Ideally government should be consensual contract, you divest yourself of some power (i.e. to kill whomever you like, to steal, to start your own government) in exchange for some benefits (protection from actions of other people, use of public goods like roads, etc.).

In Alethar the nobility should protect their people from bandits, or other nations for example, and guarantee some help in case of natural disasters. In exchange, people can be recruited to army and give part of their harvest/goods/money to their lord. The system has some issues (light/dark eyes divide, limited social mobility, slavery), but it still afford people some measure of justice and protection

[Bejarden]

4 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

An example. And that is the issue. Even if we accept every order of Radiants as holding moral truth, we still see that they are radically different among orders. Who is to say that Moash is wrong?

10 hours ago, Quick Ben said:

Me

and I’m the reader of my story or whatever 

4 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

Rules that are not enforced do not exist. Rules ultimately rest on violence. Yes, we organize a civilized world by getting people to agree to the rules and heed them voluntarily. But that works only because they know that they will be protected against the minority ready to break the rules. Saying that violence is a minor exception is mistaking the mechanism for the reason.
At the end of the day (literally in this case) you can only sleep quietly in your bed because if an intruder breaks into your home to kill and roast (hopefully in that order) you and rape your pets, police will kill that intruder.

Now the kings of Alethkar have removed themselves from legal recourse. That may even be necessary. But it makes it insincere if you insist that somebody is bad for not resorting to a mild, civilized method of addressing grieveances against somebody officially above the law.

Good people don’t kill other people for mistakes done 5 years ago

The civics lectures is literally about the Chais that would ensue because humanity is inherently evil

which is true for some people, and that’s why rules exist 

Good people do good things, no matter the incentive 

Is this realistic for everybody? No

Can I, personally, judge a character on his morality and his actions, Obviously yes

Also side point:

When Moash tries to kill Elhokar in WoR he is a lighteye

Of course you can persue different means of justice if your a Shardbearer

Killing is always extreme especially when there’s another answer 

Maybe you can say all he wanted was retribution

Then he is evil

I would include other things but this topic is not RoW

Edited June 15, 2021 by Bejardin1250