Moash, and the fans who hate him

[Quick Ben]

7 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

He could have changed things in Althekar, like the systems of government 

Tgere are only like 100 shardbearears in Alethkar when you are one of those you are very powerful 

 

7 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Why is it justice to kill Elhokar?

what did it change?

Did it make him feel better did it give him closure?

No, he went off the deepend

Revenge killing is not justice 

By killing Elhokar he actually removes any chance of getting true justice, which is stopping this from happening to anyone else

I personally believe that killing helps nothing and is petty and bad, but that’s my opinion 

He wanted justice for his grandparents, by eliminating the one ultimately responsible he got them justice. 

The point wasnt to make him feel better, point was to get justice for his family.

Revenge killing isn't justice ? For someone in Moashs position killing him is the only justice he can get.

If you have justification for killing someone like Moash had, then it is the right thing to do, 

[+Oltux72]

21 hours ago, RedBlue said:

Agree with both of these. Something that strikes me about this thread is that it seems there are two separate debates going on, that often get mashed together. 

One is the question of whether regicide is morally justified in the political context of OB.

The other is whether vigilante murder is justified in the context of Moash’s personal circumstances.

This observation is true, but incomplete. Many of us are considering the second question moot as soon as the first is answered positively.

21 hours ago, RedBlue said:

I think these are different moral questions, since Moash’s motivation was entirely personal. He doesn’t care about the politics, the quality of Elhokar’s rule or the wider ramifications of killing a king, and he’s not associated with a political organisation at the time.

That is a nice can of worms. It more or less denies objective justification.
 If something is right, how can it become false because you like to do it?

 

[Bejarden]

4 hours ago, Honorless said:

I'm surprised that the kick thing comes up that often tbh, it came up in the Moash thread I created as well. I read it as him shoving Gavinor away with his foot. Regardless, he literally speared his father's face twice right in front of him, so why does the kick supersede something like that in the minds of so many readers?

Yeah I don’t really think the kick was that bad

 

41 minutes ago, Quick Ben said:

 

He wanted justice for his grandparents, by eliminating the one ultimately responsible he got them justice. 

The point wasnt to make him feel better, point was to get justice for his family.

Revenge killing isn't justice ? For someone in Moashs position killing him is the only justice he can get.

If you have justification for killing someone like Moash had, then it is the right thing to do, 

Why is it justice to kill someone? What does it accomplish 

You destabilize an empire you make yourself a traitor, and your family is still dead

And what do you mean he couldn’t do anything from the position he was in?

As I said before, and I can’t stress enough, he was one of the most powerful men in the entire world, Frustration said there were only 25 blades in Alethkar Moash has the 26th

How is that a position of weakness?

He could have changed something, he could have made a difference.

But he through it all away.

And for what? Petty revenge 

Maybe this disagreement is that I think it is not ok to kill someone for so called “justice” 

[Quick Ben]

53 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Why is it justice to kill someone? What does it accomplish 

Why Is it Justice ? I'm not sure if this is a genuine question being honest. 

Reason is simple, his grandparents were wrongly imprisoned and left to die because of the pettiness of a lighteyes and an inept fool who allowed it to happen. 

Is it not justice that the people responsible for that are punished ? And how should taking a life in that manner be punished ? By taking the lives of the ones responsible.

57 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

 You destabilize an empire you make yourself a traitor, and your family is still dead

First off he didn't destabilise anything because Dalinar had made him a puppet by then, secondly fact he was king is almost irrelevant because the key fact is he was the one responsible not that he was king.

59 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

And what do you mean he couldn’t do anything from the position he was in?

As I said before, and I can’t stress enough, he was one of the most powerful men in the entire world, Frustration said there were only 25 blades in Alethkar Moash has the 26th

How is that a position of weakness?

So you you imagine, if Moash had approached Elhokar and Dalinar, explained what happened and they said "sorry' then that makes it ok ? Dalinar even thought so little of it all he remarked of it was "the roshone" affair, and you honestly think that an apology is enough when your family gets murdered ? Seriously?,

1 hour ago, Bejardin1250 said:

And for what? Petty revenge 

Maybe this disagreement is that I think it is not ok to kill someone for so called “justice” 

For justice.

Put yourself in Moashs shoes, your only family is murdered, you can get them Justice by eliminating the ones responsible, or you can see if they say sorry, what would you do ? I'm guessing you'd except the apology of the man responsible for killing your family since that's what your arguing, correct ?

[Bejarden]

12 minutes ago, Quick Ben said:

Put yourself in Moashs shoes, your only family is murdered, you can get them Justice by eliminating the ones responsible, or you can see if they say sorry, what would you do ? I'm guessing you'd except the apology of the man responsible for killing your family since that's what your arguing, correct ?

Im saying he should use his power to change Alethkar instead of throwing it all away 

12 minutes ago, Quick Ben said:

Reason is simple, his grandparents were wrongly imprisoned and left to die because of the pettiness of a lighteyes and an inept fool who allowed it to happen. 

 

Key word is inept 
Elhokar was under extreme pressure and wasn’t even king when this happened

He did not deserve to die

Anyway I think I’ve said all there is to say so I’m gonna back out of this

Edited June 17, 2021 by Bejardin1250
Took out a few words

[Thaidakar the Ghostblood]

okay, so Moash killed Elhokar with good reason, his grandparents, and Elhokar was a bad king for putting them in prison, but Everyone has mistakes, our mistakes define us, we can do better after that. Elhokar was on journey of becoming a better person, Moash on the other hand does nothing about his mistakes and buries himself in his mistakes.

[Honorless]

2 hours ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

okay, so Moash killed Elhokar with good reason, his grandparents, and Elhokar was a bad king for putting them in prison, but Everyone has mistakes, our mistakes define us, we can do better after that. Elhokar was on journey of becoming a better person, Moash on the other hand does nothing about his mistakes and buries himself in his mistakes.

Moash didn't even know that Elhokar was trying to change. Last he saw of him, he was drunk and irresponsible, getting saved by the person whom he tried to sentence to death at the arena. When did Moash ever get a chance to do some introspection? He was a slave in Bridge 4, then the Diagram approached him with their conspiracy, after that he was even more traumatized and in a mental haze after it all went wrong, then Odium indoctrinated him.

[Brightness Warrior]

Okay, I don't have the attention span to read the whole thread from the beginning, so I'm just gonna address the fact that two wrongs don't make a right. Vengeance is NOT Justice. It is pettiness. There IS another way to resolve differences without resorting to murder. (I am not trying to diminish the traumatic events in anyone's lives or excuse Elhokar's past actions.)

Also this:

On 6/16/2021 at 10:14 PM, Jash said:

the wounds of slavery and killing of your family members don’t just leave you. They will always stick with you.

A true statement. However, what happened in the past will not change, no matter how many people you kill. The only way to beat your person demons is to stand up, brush yourself off, and heal. Scars can be marks of your failures - or proof of all the things that didn't kill you - depending on your mindset.

[Jash]

7 hours ago, Brightness Warrior said:

Okay, I don't have the attention span to read the whole thread from the beginning, so I'm just gonna address the fact that two wrongs don't make a right. Vengeance is NOT Justice. It is pettiness. There IS another way to resolve differences without resorting to murder. (I am not trying to diminish the traumatic events in anyone's lives or excuse Elhokar's past actions.)

Also this:

A true statement. However, what happened in the past will not change, no matter how many people you kill. The only way to beat your person demons is to stand up, brush yourself off, and heal. Scars can be marks of your failures - or proof of all the things that didn't kill you - depending on your mindset.

This is kind of that “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” I see a lot of people say to struggling people attitude. I think it is a flawed logic, and even if you yourself have managed to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, that doesn’t mean everyone else can. Some people just can’t. Some people have no family members, no friends, and no mental health care (In case no one has noticed, Moash literally is alone. Yes, he had bridge 4. But he is lien that person who pushes away those who care for him most. And notice how much most bridge 4 members hate him now. Not one of them tries to reach out to him. Anyways, he is alone besides I guess…Khen? And he is no longer in a sane or logical state of mind. He is lost) At no point in this did I say …Moash is perfect, or that even I would do what he did (in fact I believe I explicitly said that I would not do what Moash did), but rather I think we…who have not been slaves or had our grandparents killed by the state, have no right to judge how others who have, react. Moash is a broken man. There is no questioning that. By the end of OB, he looks like a shell of what he once was (and I have no idea how he’ll look after RoW). 

The thing about the murder of Elhokar, is maybe….from Moash’s perspective, it could be his only avenue of justice. Keep in mind, from his perspective, Elhokar will CONTINUE to do what he did to his grandparents. We know as readers that that is not true. But Moash doesn’t. Could you claim that killing Hitler would be a start toward justice? Putting someone like Dalinar in charge could lead to even more justice. I believe strongly on social justice, that the only way toward real justice is to make society benefit as many people as possible, and to get rid of injustices within that society (such as in our book, light eyes being treated better than dark eyes). Saying it is petty to take out an unjust King, is…reductive at best. Killing Hitler would not be petty. Killing Stallin would not be petty. Like horribly unjust dictators quite frankly, should be taken out if you ever want any hope of justice. Again, we know that Elhokar is not like those people, but was Gavilar? Maybe. Is that how Moash sees Elhokar? Probably.

See, by the way, this is something the fans are skirting around. Kaladin gets his revenge on Amaran. What if Amaran had really regretted killing Kaladin’s squad?  Would you all have forgiven him as easily as you forgave Elhokar? I doubt it. Authors conveniently often give heroes excuses to get their revenge. This is common in American media. They often take the choice to give leniency away from the hero. Kaladin can’t let Amaran go because he is controlled by…something, trying to kill him. It’s so easy to speak of forgiveness when we know a character is changing. What of Amaran? What of Sadeas?  Where was their forgiveness? I don’t see fans lining up to call Adolin selfish. (I like Adolin, a note) 

And by the way, I agree with what you said about personal healing. However, that doesn’t always mean offering forgiveness to those we hate. I will never forgive the woman who raped me when I was young and naive and far too drunk, however that does not mean Iet that hold me back. I forgave myself for being naive. I forgave myself for not knowing or understanding. I healed my scars and my wounds and trauma. But I still didn’t and never will, forgive her. Granted I don’t need a revenge on her. I just don’t care about her. If you watchrd Avatar, remember when Katara didn’t forgive her mother’s killer, but also didn’t kill him. That is how I feel about this woman. I agree with you partially, but also not completely. And I still, STILL, think Moash may get his redemption and change himself. We’ll see. I think Moash has acted wrong. I still like him. I want the best version of Moash to exist and I want him to realize that Kaladin’s methods, and not his own, are the the true way toward self healing. But he has to decide that on his own. 

I think that one of the problems in this thread is the assumption that because we don’t hate Moash, we approve of his actions. Yet, I don’t think I’ve seen anyone doing that. We understand him, we don’t approve his actions. Just like y’all understand Elhokar or Dalinar or any other flawed character in these great books. 

[Jash]

I think this topic has probably died, but I was wondering : How do all of the people here that hate/dislike Moash feel about Taravangian. Something tells me he has less haters, and I am intrigued to hear your answers if you like him and not Moash. So if you dislike Moash and like Taravangian, why? Let me know if you can. 

[Bejarden]

49 minutes ago, Jash said:

I think this topic has probably died, but I was wondering : How do all of the people here that hate/dislike Moash feel about Taravangian. Something tells me he has less haters, and I am intrigued to hear your answers if you like him and not Moash. So if you dislike Moash and like Taravangian, why? Let me know if you can. 

Taravangian is trying to do what’s right for his people, as he is required to do. He even says himself that he is evil but he doesn’t care, because that’s what kings are meant to be.

I respect Taravangian for doing what he thought was the best thing to do, and not just for himself; for his entire kingdom.  And he even saved the coalition once by becoming king of Jah Kavad.

Bottom line: Taravangian is doing what he thinks is best, selflessly. Moash in my opinion was not but let’s not get dragged into that discussion again.

Jash what do you think about Taravangian?

[Honorless]

Taravangian is a very nice demonstration of the difference between being selfish and being self-centred, imo. He isn't selfish, but by god, he's self-centred. He seems incapable of giving any true consideration to the viability of worldviews dissimilar to his own. His mind is made up, it's his way or no way. I don't hate him though. Hopefully, he can still change.

Edited June 23, 2021 by Honorless

[+Oltux72]

4 hours ago, Jash said:

I think this topic has probably died, but I was wondering : How do all of the people here that hate/dislike Moash feel about Taravangian. Something tells me he has less haters, and I am intrigued to hear your answers if you like him and not Moash. So if you dislike Moash and like Taravangian, why? Let me know if you can. 

Do I live in Kharbranth? Sorry for the flippant remark.

4 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Bottom line: Taravangian is doing what he thinks is best, selflessly. Moash in my opinion was not but let’s not get dragged into that discussion again.

That observation is correct. I cannot see how it would be controversial.

3 hours ago, Honorless said:

Taravangian is a very nice demonstration of the difference between being selfish and being self-centred, imo. He isn't selfish, but by god, he's self-centred. He seems incapable of giving any true consideration to the viability of worldviews dissimilar to his own. His mind is made up, it's his way or no way. I don't hate him though. Hopefully, he can still change.

Not entirely. The members of the Diagramm are entitled to their own interpretations. Taravangian is just no democrat. You can have your own opinions, if you can back them up. You are just not entitled to an opinion merely by having a heartbeat.

[Jash]

6 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Jash what do you think about Taravangian?

I don't think he is selfless at all. I think he is, in fact, 100x more selfish than Moash. Everything Moash has done (thus far) is on a very small scale. Taravangian literally caused a war which led to widespread death in huge numbers. Much like Tywin Lannister in ASOIAF, he acts like he is doing "What is best for his people" when in reality he is an egomaniac despot that led to thousands, if not even millions, of deaths (what is the population of Roshar like?) I think both characters acted selfishly, but thus far only one has led to widespread destruction and death. I find it weird when people just take someone's own logic as fact. It reminds me of something I saw David Tennant (the actor) say in an interview once. No one thinks they are the bad guy. They always have reasons and excuses for what they do. They always paint themselves as the hero. However, I can't say either that I completely hate him. He did after all, presumably curse himself to not feel compassion when he is smart, which led...to all these problems of "logically" causing widespread death. I don't know, I certainly feel more compassion for Moash than him though. Most of Moash's sufferings was brought on by external factors (say like a leader who decides he is the judge, jury, and executioner and making excuses for why war is necessary, for example). Most of Taravangian's suffering is brought on by his own flawed decision making and arrogance. (or should I say other people's suffering, because mostly he causes other people to suffer, not himself or his people). You know, one could claim that Mao was "doing what he thought was right" or Stallin or other despots who led to mass death. 

7 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Bottom line: Taravangian is doing what he thinks is best, selflessly. Moash in my opinion was not but let’s not get dragged into that discussion again.

My opinion, Moash was trying to do what he thought was best...but he is also broken by the end of Oathbringer...so at that point maybe just trying to do whatever gave him the least amount of pain. However, earlier, I think he was trying to do what was right/best. You are merely more convinced by Taravangian's reasonings than Moash's. They both acted selfishlessly. They both had excuses for why they were really doing what was right. You chose to believe one character and not the other. I think they are both kind of selfish, and I think they both believe their own crem dung. 

[Bejarden]

12 minutes ago, Jash said:

Taravangian literally caused a war which led to widespread death in huge numbers.

Taravangian motives was to make himself King of Jah Kavad and have them join the coalition thus saving them from Odiums clutches and opening the door for others to join. 
Taravangian was never in it for himself, he gains nothing in being a leader during war. He is only trying to save his people. He’s never struck me as power hungry

I personally believe that Taravangian made the right choice with what he did: the hard choice He set out to save a kingdom from the upcoming storm and did.

16 minutes ago, Jash said:

You are merely more convinced by Taravangian's reasonings than Moash's.

Moash reasons were about him. Taravangian was about his kingdom, that is the difference 

 The fact that we don’t agree on Moash’s motives is an important piece and thus this will lead to no resolution 

[RedBlue]

11 hours ago, Jash said:

I think this topic has probably died, but I was wondering : How do all of the people here that hate/dislike Moash feel about Taravangian. Something tells me he has less haters, and I am intrigued to hear your answers if you like him and not Moash. So if you dislike Moash and like Taravangian, why? Let me know if you can. 

I’m not sure if you classify me as a Moash hate/disliker (I think he’s 100% in the wrong but I have some sympathy for him). I feel a very similar way about Taravangian. I think he’s absolutely in the wrong, but I have sympathy.

Of the two of them, if I had to pick I would say I have more sympathy for Taravangian, because of the difference in their motivations. 

Unfortunately, it’s difficult to elaborate on that without skirting RoW spoiler territory. (I mean, I could make broad statements about their reasons and what makes both of them tick, but it would be frustrating to try to explain what I mean without getting into specifics.)

When you’ve finished reading RoW, maybe you can make a sequel to this topic in the spoiler boards? It would be fun to discuss this topic in the context of the full story so far.

[Jash]

8 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Moash reasons were about him. Taravangian was about his kingdom, that is the difference. 

I think I failed to make this more clear. I think trying to save your own people while betraying the rest of humanity is selfish. Nationalism is selfish. People who say, will defend a random neighbor from attack, but will turn a blind eye if the neighbor is a different skin color than them, are selfish (also hypocrites if they claim to always defend people). Your assumption is that nationalism can be selfless. I don’t think it can be. If there was say an alien invasion of Earth, and let’s say…Taiwan made a deal with the aliens that they could kill and occupy every area of Earth and gave them inside secrets to help them do it in order to save Taiwan, I know…every other human nation would think Taiwan was selfish. I think the problem here is, for whatever reason, people imagine themselves in a position of power like Taravangian. Y’all probably have more in common with Moash though. Powerless. You would end up as the pawn Taravangian sacrificed “selflessly” not the random, comparatively tiny, percent of pepppe he saved. And trust me as you died, knowing it was Taravangian’s fault, you wouldn't think he was selfless. 

[+Oltux72]

4 hours ago, Jash said:

I think I failed to make this more clear. I think trying to save your own people while betraying the rest of humanity is selfish. Nationalism is selfish.

Technically true, if you see it at the group level. However, this applies to all forms of loyalty, if you think it through.

 

[Jash]

23 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

Technically true, if you see it at the group level. However, this applies to all forms of loyalty, if you think it through.

I mean, but...no it doesn't. At least not in the way we are talking about. Like let's say this. I'm now a part of the 17th Shard fandom right? Now let's pretend, that I make a deal with some weird criminal group that wants to corrupt and delete all other fandoms. Every single one. Except 17th Shard. And I give them information and help set up all the other fandoms so they will be destroyed by the virus. Yes, that would be selfish. You are not understanding that he betrayed the entire human race. If you choose nationalism and screw over other humans beings, that is selfish. Loving 17th Shard doesn't make me selfish. Being complicit and in fact, being a main factor in destroying all other fandoms so I can still be on 17th Shard (actually I guess I die, but 17th shard still exists) is selfish. 
Man I could make multiple examples like this. Like, I like the NBA. I cheer for the Toronto Raptors. Being a Toronto Raptors fan is not selfish. Now let's say I cheer for other players on other teams being injured, if only so it benefits the Raptors. Now I'm a bad fan. I'm selfish. Or I pay the refs so that the Raptors can win and the other teams lose. Again. this is selfish. Being a Raptors fan doesn't make me selfish, but actively hurting the other teams in the NBA so the Raptors can benefit would make me selfish. Are you getting it yet? Like I got examples a plenty. Patriotism isn't selfish. Nationalism is selfish. Nationalism by it's very nature prioritizes your people's wants and needs over other people's wants and needs. Having pride in your country and being patriotic is another thing entirely. An example. A patriotic person might celebrate the mixing of cultures in their country, their diversity could be part of what makes their country great. A nationalistic country often attempts to separate people based on race or ethnicity, they often seek to distance themselves from other peoples. Thinking your people are superior and deserve more than other people is how you get ideologies like Nazism. Honestly, I don't want this to get more heated, so this is the last I will respond to you on this, but I think Taravangian is selfish, and I think you just believe the bullcrap he spews (he believes it too, his purpose in the narrative is to be believed, so that isn't on you). Again, Moash has reasons for being selfish. Taravangian has reasons for being selfish. You like/respect Taravangian's reasons, and don't like/respect Moash's reasons. That's fine, but I do not agree he is selfless at all. Egotistical and selfish (even if, it is in your opinion for an honorable reason). 

[+Oltux72]

18 minutes ago, Jash said:

I mean, but...no it doesn't. At least not in the way we are talking about. Like let's say this. I'm now a part of the 17th Shard fandom right? Now let's pretend, that I make a deal with some weird criminal group that wants to corrupt and delete all other fandoms. Every single one. Except 17th Shard. And I give them information and help set up all the other fandoms so they will be destroyed by the virus. Yes, that would be selfish. You are not understanding that he betrayed the entire human race.

But he didn't. He preserved it. His deal, if it is kept, will make sure that the human race (as he understood it), survives. You can, or rather must, argue that he betrayed the rest of Roshar in the coalition. In fact he himself is clear on that point.

Now, that raises another point. Are the Iriali traitors to the human race?

18 minutes ago, Jash said:

If you choose nationalism and screw over other humans beings, that is selfish. Loving 17th Shard doesn't make me selfish. Being complicit and in fact, being a main factor in destroying all other fandoms so I can still be on 17th Shard (actually I guess I die, but 17th shard still exists) is selfish. 
Man I could make multiple examples like this. Like, I like the NBA. I cheer for the Toronto Raptors. Being a Toronto Raptors fan is not selfish. Now let's say I cheer for other players on other teams being injured, if only so it benefits the Raptors. Now I'm a bad fan. I'm selfish. Or I pay the refs so that the Raptors can win and the other teams lose. Again. this is selfish. Being a Raptors fan doesn't make me selfish, but actively hurting the other teams in the NBA so the Raptors can benefit would make me selfish. Are you getting it yet?

I get it, but you are wrong. The example you are citing clearly are breaking the rules of sportsmanship. Hence you are obviously bad.
But that is not loyalty. If they are your team, you are rooting for them to win (albeit in playing by the rules) against the odds. In other words, you are desiring an unfair outcome. If not for bad luck, the other team would have won.

18 minutes ago, Jash said:

Like I got examples a plenty. Patriotism isn't selfish. Nationalism is selfish. Nationalism by it's very nature prioritizes your people's wants and needs over other people's wants and needs. Having pride in your country and being patriotic is another thing entirely. An example. A patriotic person might celebrate the mixing of cultures in their country, their diversity could be part of what makes their country great. A nationalistic country often attempts to separate people based on race or ethnicity, they often seek to distance themselves from other peoples. Thinking your people are superior and deserve more than other people is how you get ideologies like Nazism.

Again, a patriot is supposed to sacrifice for his country, but not for other countries. Again his country does not deserve this. Patriots are making preferences which cannot be justified by fairness.

18 minutes ago, Jash said:

Honestly, I don't want this to get more heated, so this is the last I will respond to you on this, but I think Taravangian is selfish, and I think you just believe the bullcrap he spews (he believes it too, his purpose in the narrative is to be believed, so that isn't on you). Again, Moash has reasons for being selfish. Taravangian has reasons for being selfish. You like/respect Taravangian's reasons, and don't like/respect Moash's reasons. That's fine, but I do not agree he is selfless at all. Egotistical and selfish (even if, it is in your opinion for an honorable reason). 

Well, no. The point being is that a morality based only on good and bad is impossible. Loyalty is a value of its own.

Let's go to the old time trolley problem. Suppose you have decided to actually throw the lever. Now the spouse of the single person you would sacrifice shows up and shoots you dead to stop you. Is that a crime? Of course not. But what is the justification?
We cannot say that your action is wrong, therefore you needed to be stopped. Now we have the spouse of one of the ten people you would save shove you aside and the bullet misses. Do we have a case of a murderous spouse saving you here? This does not work. People have attachements and conflicting interests. Loyalty is a laudable attribute. Both of the spouses are right and a determination of who should prevail cannot be made based on justice and fairness.

[therunner]

5 hours ago, Jash said:

 Yes, that would be selfish. You are not understanding that he betrayed the entire human race. If you choose nationalism and screw over other humans beings, that is selfish.

...

... I think Taravangian is selfish, and I think you just believe the bullcrap he spews (he believes it too, his purpose in the narrative is to be believed, so that isn't on you). Again, Moash has reasons for being selfish. Taravangian has reasons for being selfish. You like/respect Taravangian's reasons, and don't like/respect Moash's reasons. That's fine, but I do not agree he is selfless at all. Egotistical and selfish (even if, it is in your opinion for an honorable reason). 

You are misrepresenting Taravangian's intentions, he never betrayed human race he wanted to save human race the only way he thought possible. Based on vision of a Future (or however he created Diagram) he became convinced that side of Honor cannot win the Final Desolation, and he (future seeing Taravangian) devised a plan to save as many humans as possible. His plan was to get Odium to agree to spare his subjects in exchange for joining his side, and to then become king of everything (see him becoming king of Jah Kaved), so that every single person on Roshar is his subject. If his plan worked he would have saved hundreds of millions of people.

The elephant in the room is that Odium visited him to make a deal on day when Taravangian was very stupid, so he only managed to get Odium to agree to spare Kharbranth, but saving only this city was never his goal, in fact this was a failure of his and he was not particularly happy about achieving only this.

Tarvangian's entire motivation is based around helping as many people as he can, first by making Kharbranth center of learning and medicine, and then by asking Cultivation literally for 'capacity to save humankind'. Obviously he wants to do it on his terms and that makes him unsavory (and quite self-centered), but you cannot say he is selfish when his entire motivation is to help others.

Edited June 25, 2021 by therunner

[Jash]

16 hours ago, therunner said:

Tarvangian's entire motivation is based around helping as many people as he can, first by making Kharbranth center of learning and medicine, and then by asking Cultivation literally for 'capacity to save humankind'. Obviously he wants to do it on his terms and that makes him unsavory (and quite self-centered), but you cannot say he is selfish when his entire motivation is to help others.

Moash also claims his motivation is to get rid of a tyrant who is hurting his citizens. His motivation is to help people, according to his own words. 

So, again, like I don’t think this concept is hard to understand, but I’ll say it again. You accept and believe Taravangian’s reasonings and justifications for why he is doing horrible things. You don’t accept of believe Moash’s reasonings and justifications for doing horrible things. Not complex. You believe Taravangian’s horse rust. Because he is an awful person. I want to make that clear. He is murderous despot. He is a monster. I believe Moash’s horseshit. I think Moash actually thinks he was doing what was best. You can think Moash is full of rust. I can think Taravangian is full of rust. But a note : Number of wars started by Moash : 0; Number of wars started by Taravangian : 1. Number of people murdered by Moash : 1. Number of people murdered by Taravangian : Countless. Just so many.  

The fact that y’all have more excuses and understanding for an actual tyrant than like an ordinary dude disturbs me to no end. 

[Honorless]

Hmm... addressing a bit of subtext here that's often present in these types of arguments, a bit late but it's better to clear the air. Let's throw out the veneration we have for the idea of logic over emotion and neutrality over picking sides

A lot of our decision making is emotional rather than logical, we're not machines. An emotional argument isn't inherently weaker than a logical argument. For a lot of people, emotion dictates their stance and logic dictates their arguments for that stance. But the two are not inherently different things either, it's not like you can't be both at the same time, we're not Taravangian. 

The entire point of any political argument isn't achieving some platonic idea of fairness but the people. Being socio-politically neural or apolitical isn't inherently a better stance, one does not have the moral high ground by being apolitical. For many, being apolitical isn't a stance, it's a privilege. Not everyone is in a position to be unaffected by these things.

 

Now, back to the topic at the current time, comparing Taravangian and Moash. If we go by their actions, not their motivations for their actions then Taravangian is more evil than Moash by the sheer no. of atrocities he's committed. If we go by their motivations then it's more difficult to say, at least for me. I've always been of two minds on the idea of "for the greater good". The only difference is one is seeking to do good via what he considers necessary evil and the other is trying to cut out what he considers evil. I get why some people look at Taravangian more positively, I look at Taravangian more positively (and Moash too) but if you shift the lens a bit, both are out for blood. Now, with something as big as the survival of humanity, I get where Taravangian is thinking but it's still problematic that he thinks he's solely responsible and capable of thinking for the entirety of the human race, deciding who gets to live and who becomes sacrifices.

 

That being said, I'm not surprised that the reaction to Moash is so divisive. There's an element of... catharsis to it for a lot of readers. Think revenge thriller films but for racism rather than sexism or feminism. I think this would've looked a lot more clear-cut if this happened with Amaram and Kaladin rather than with the more complicated situation of Elhokar and Moash.

Moash's plotline also deals a lot with indoctrination which I'm surprised we haven't discussed as much.

Edited June 26, 2021 by Honorless

[therunner]

1 hour ago, Jash said:

Moash also claims his motivation is to get rid of a tyrant who is hurting his citizens. His motivation is to help people, according to his own words. 

So, again, like I don’t think this concept is hard to understand, but I’ll say it again. You accept and believe Taravangian’s reasonings and justifications for why he is doing horrible things. You don’t accept of believe Moash’s reasonings and justifications for doing horrible things. Not complex. You believe Taravangian’s horse rust. Because he is an awful person. I want to make that clear. He is murderous despot. He is a monster. I believe Moash’s horseshit. I think Moash actually thinks he was doing what was best. You can think Moash is full of rust. I can think Taravangian is full of rust. But a note : Number of wars started by Moash : 0; Number of wars started by Taravangian : 1. Number of people murdered by Moash : 1. Number of people murdered by Taravangian : Countless. Just so many.  

The fact that y’all have more excuses and understanding for an actual tyrant than like an ordinary dude disturbs me to no end. 

No, to me Taravangian shows both through his thoughts and through his actions that he does actually care about people, he is 'just' terrifyingly utilitarian.

Moash rarely even in his thoughts cares about others, he does have some better moments (trying to help Kal in his own way, helping those Singers) but those are exceptions for him not the rule.

So yes, I am more likely to buy Taravangian reasoning because he consistently acts according to it, Moash does not.

 

My general point on Taravangian vs Moash, is that for Taravangian the deaths are a side effect, not the goal, which is exactly as bad as it sounds. Goal is to save as many people as possible, and the deaths he causes are to him justifiable. Moash in contrast has death as his goal, he wants Elhokar dead and no one can convince him otherwise, even when they offer him other options. In this they are actually very alike, as Dalinar also offered Taravangian other option, but he turned him down.

Taravangian is someone for whom ends justify the means 100%, destination over journey if you will. This is and should be horrifying, yet I think that to some extent ends over means is reasonable position, especially if you are faced with potential extinction of mankind. If your choices are horrible crimes to save anyone vs everyone dying, what is the more moral choice?

Moash to me is someone who does not even have a journey, he just does what he wants at the moment. For example, ff he was killing to help people, why did he not plan to kill Sadeas? He was much more harmful to darkeyes than Elhokar ever was, yet Moash still chose to focus on Elhokar (and again there is the issue of him ignoring Roshone).

 

Personally I would have loved to see a version of SA were it was Elhokar that survived but joined Odium like Amaram, and Amaram joined side of Honor. If it happened after WoR, Kaladin would be forced into difficult position (duty vs desire) and would also need to grapple with the fact that Moash was right about Elhokar.

 

EDIT: @Honorless In what way does Moash plotline deal with indoctrination? I am unsure what you mean and would appreciate if you could elaborate

Edited June 26, 2021 by therunner

[Honorless]

3 hours ago, therunner said:

EDIT: @Honorless In what way does Moash plotline deal with indoctrination? I am unsure what you mean and would appreciate if you could elaborate

Moash does get a systematic breakdown of his sense of self and ability to question his actions, not just taking advantage of his psychologically vulnerable state but magically inducing/heightening it. It's most evident in his relationship with Odium and the Fused, but his relationship with the Diagram subset lead by Graves was also an example of this. He framed the whole assassination attempt as patriotism and revolution, he said exactly what Moash wanted to hear. We only see their relationship after the indoctrination but it's present in their interaction.

 

While we're comparing characters, can we also talk about Amaram, specifically the conclusion of his arc.

I've noticed there's a lot of discussion about Amaram becoming Yelig-Nar's host being an unsatisfying conclusion to the conflict between him and Kaladin. A sense satisfaction and schadenfreude is taken away by not letting Kaladin shank him or giving Amaram a sufficient political and social fall from grace, I agree with that but I also think that it's a pretty good conclusion to his character arc. Amaram was always meant to be wretched. Yes, he did not get a comeuppance but he became wholly responsible for his ignoble end by his own choices, in his desire to be the white knight. It consumed him figuratively and literally. His end actions proving his need for self-validation rather than genuine desire to improve the world. It was fitting. The only complaint I have here is that we did not spend much time exploring this aspect of his character after Dalinar tests him in WoR. Jasnah snubbing his character to Shallan, and Dalinar & Kaladin just... trying their best to ignore him. Which is also fitting in its own way, lol.

Another thing that comes up with this is Kaladin not getting to have revenge / remaining a hero with unsullied hands, which I think served his character arc well too, just look at RoW! But going more into that would be spoilers. RoW really did his character well, way better than I was expecting.

Edited June 26, 2021 by Honorless