Moash

[Frustration]

Just now, Invocation said:

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

Again domination, just a different form.

[Use the Falchion]

On 4/17/2020 at 8:28 AM, Frustration said:

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

 

A couple of reasons. But before that, we must understand that any villain may be relatable to one person but not another. For example, I find Killmonger in Black Panther VERY relatable and understandable (which is probably a better term to use than relatable), but I can neither comprehend why people like or sympathize with Kylo Ren and Loki to the degree that they do, nor can I understand the characters themselves in relation to their actions, and as such they're some of my most hated villains of all time. 

But why do I like relatable villains...? Because in many cases they are proactive. The problem with many heroes/protagonists is that they are reactionary or at least non-revolutionary. They either like the status quo or have morals that won't let them change the status quo too much. In those cases, the villains end up being those who dislike the status quo due to some deficit or flaw that has personally hurt them. That pain can be relatable to many people. Thus, a villain becomes right in intentions and wrong in methods, and it's up to the hero to fuse the two together in order to create a better society. 

Simply put, relatable villains can help push society to a healthier state in storytelling, or at least facilitate healthy character development.* 

Note that this is not ALWAYS the case, but in many stories, the side of "good" is the law, no matter how corrupt it is. In One Piece, our heroes are seen as villains by the world because they break the law and are pirates, despite doing far more good than evil. In Mistborn, Kelsier and his crew are revolutionaries and while we see them as good, they do destroy a lot and they do bring about the end of the world. Wax even notes that he'd take Kelsier and his crew down had he lived in the time of the Final Empire, or had they lived in his era. Dominic Toreto's crew in The Fast and the Furious is always in need or pardons for something, no matter how many times they save the world or are let free. But just because the side of "good" is the law, doesn't mean that morality is on that same side.

Another reason is that relatable villains can be complex, reflecting the more nuanced world we live in. At a certain age, people want to hear about good and evil less and less, because the world we live in doesn't entirely reflect that. Corruption and power abuse as stand-ins for evil work, sure. But saying "X is evil because he/she/it is evil," stops being helpful at a certain point. The Fire Lord is evil because he's a power-hungry, manipulative, narcissistic, abusive man who needs to be stopped before the whole work is destroyed or conquered, and exploring those reasons opens up the door for more nuanced storytelling. 

Now in terms of Moash, while I don't find him relatable, I do find him understandable to a degree. People he loved died due to Elhokar's incompetent and bigoted leadership. We saw time and time again how terrible of a king Elhokar was, and we knew that Moash's dislike with the king was justified. But we also knew that Moash wouldn't have fixed things, not really; and Moash didn't see how Elhokar had changed in the end (...and even if he had, Moash wouldn't have cared). 

But where Moash loses all relatability is at the end of the book, killing a king because he was told to. Moash has killed two kings, and yet is still a slave to new masters, despite the weapon he holds. As such, Moash serves as a nice foil to Kaladin (in terms of responsibility, experience, and power-set) and Dalinar (in terms of responsibility and the fact that Dalinar holds no weapons yet is the master of his own fate and leader of the Radiants, while Moash has some of the most powerful weapons on Roshar and is still a slave/servant to new masters). 

*Note that Kylo Ren and Loki fail to do this, and as such, their relatability comes off as an excuse or skin-deep justification for their baser desires (revenge, lust, and power). 

 

Edited April 20, 2020 by Use the Falchion

[Wyndle88 he/him]

Kaladin hit rock bottom when he decided to jump of a chasm before his powers manifested. Moash hit rock bottom when he became a slave again to Fused even after getting his own Shards. Kaladin hates the greed Shards bring to a person. One is normally elevated upon becoming a Shardbearer. It is automatically makes him a land owner as well. I'm sure Moash was also allocated a piece of land when Kaladin have the shards to him in WoR.

So every opportunity he is given to redeem himself, he ends up for lack of a better word plunges more into the dark side. 

Once enslaved by the Fused, he is appreciated for display of Passions. But otherwise is left alone bby the Fused unless they have a specific task he has to perform.

He has become so uncaring towards the world that he is the only human inside Kholinar without supervision by Fused and even stabs a Herald which he asks Ahu.

 

Everyone knows the Heralds were the good guys and helped humans in the past. Their religion revolves around it. But then to kill a Herald shows a serious lack of care from Moash.

 

With the Essence of Jezrien captured in the Sapphire, Odium now has the perfect Leader in a gemstone.

[jamesbondsmith He/him]

14 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

A couple of reasons. But before that, we must understand that any villain may be relatable to one person but not another. For example, I find Killmonger in Black Panther VERY relatable and understandable (which is probably a better term to use than relatable), but I can neither comprehend why people like or sympathize with Kylo Ren and Loki to the degree that they do, nor can I understand the characters themselves in relation to their actions, and as such they're some of my most hated villains of all time. 

 

I could see why Killmonger would do the things he did, but it infuriates me to no end how people use villains' tragic pasts to justify their villainous actions. This happens with so many stories, and I'm hoping that any Moash redemption arc isn't just a 'grandma and grandpa died so it's ok that you went on a murder spree'.

I found Kylo Ren (or at least the concept of him) incredibly interesting, as he's the same kind of Darth Vader fanboy we have in the real world, except he lives in a universe where Vader was a very real dictator. I can't think off the top of my head the kind of parallels we might have in the Stormlight Archive, except perhaps someone modelling themselves on Dalinar as the Blackthorn, rather than Dalinar as the Bondsmith.

[Use the Falchion]

29 minutes ago, jamesbondsmith said:

I could see why Killmonger would do the things he did, but it infuriates me to no end how people use villains' tragic pasts to justify their villainous actions.

Yeah Killmonger's interesting because on one hand, though, he's absolutely right when he says Wakanda has the power to help out minorities around the world, and their reluctance to do so makes them just as guilty; on the other hand, he's wrong because conquering people isn't the ONLY way to help the world. And he's not the only person in the movie to make that point, nor is he the first. 

But at the end of the day Killmonger was a hurt little boy turned into a cruel man, screaming at the world for all of the injustices it brought him, and used that pain as an excuse to deal out even more pain.

There's also the fact that 

Spoiler

Killmonger was simply using his birthright to challenge the throne. 

 

33 minutes ago, jamesbondsmith said:

I found Kylo Ren (or at least the concept of him) incredibly interesting, as he's the same kind of Darth Vader fanboy we have in the real world, except he lives in a universe where Vader was a very real dictator.

I mean...far right extremist groups that idolize past regimes still exist today (and the fact that RJ turned them into a laughing stock because HE doesn't feel threatened by them annoyed me). And that's why I liked him in TFA and respect his arc in TLJ. I wanted to see what Skywalker, unmarred by lost limbs and in control of an empire could do. Alas...

 

35 minutes ago, jamesbondsmith said:

except perhaps someone modelling themselves on Dalinar as the Blackthorn, rather than Dalinar as the Bondsmith.

I have a feeling that Gavilar may end up being that sort of person, in a strange sort of way. 

[Frustration]

16 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

A couple of reasons. But before that, we must understand that any villain may be relatable to one person but not another. For example, I find Killmonger in Black Panther VERY relatable and understandable (which is probably a better term to use than relatable), but I can neither comprehend why people like or sympathize with Kylo Ren and Loki to the degree that they do, nor can I understand the characters themselves in relation to their actions, and as such they're some of my most hated villains of all time. 

But why do I like relatable villains...? Because in many cases they are proactive. The problem with many heroes/protagonists is that they are reactionary or at least non-revolutionary. They either like the status quo or have morals that won't let them change the status quo too much. In those cases, the villains end up being those who dislike the status quo due to some deficit or flaw that has personally hurt them. That pain can be relatable to many people. Thus, a villain becomes right in intentions and wrong in methods, and it's up to the hero to fuse the two together in order to create a better society. 

Simply put, relatable villains can help push society to a healthier state in storytelling, or at least facilitate healthy character development.* 

Note that this is not ALWAYS the case, but in many stories, the side of "good" is the law, no matter how corrupt it is. In One Piece, our heroes are seen as villains by the world because they break the law and are pirates, despite doing far more good than evil. In Mistborn, Kelsier and his crew are revolutionaries and while we see them as good, they do destroy a lot and they do bring about the end of the world. Wax even notes that he'd take Kelsier and his crew down had he lived in the time of the Final Empire, or had they lived in his era. Dominic Toreto's crew in The Fast and the Furious is always in need or pardons for something, no matter how many times they save the world or are let free. But just because the side of "good" is the law, doesn't mean that morality is on that same side.

Another reason is that relatable villains can be complex, reflecting the more nuanced world we live in. At a certain age, people want to hear about good and evil less and less, because the world we live in doesn't entirely reflect that. Corruption and power abuse as stand-ins for evil work, sure. But saying "X is evil because he/she/it is evil," stops being helpful at a certain point. The Fire Lord is evil because he's a power-hungry, manipulative, narcissistic, abusive man who needs to be stopped before the whole work is destroyed or conquered, and exploring those reasons opens up the door for more nuanced storytelling. 

Now in terms of Moash, while I don't find him relatable, I do find him understandable to a degree. People he loved died due to Elhokar's incompetent and bigoted leadership. We saw time and time again how terrible of a king Elhokar was, and we knew that Moash's dislike with the king was justified. But we also knew that Moash wouldn't have fixed things, not really; and Moash didn't see how Elhokar had changed in the end (...and even if he had, Moash wouldn't have cared). 

But where Moash loses all relatability is at the end of the book, killing a king because he was told to. Moash has killed two kings, and yet is still a slave to new masters, despite the weapon he holds. As such, Moash serves as a nice foil to Kaladin (in terms of responsibility, experience, and power-set) and Dalinar (in terms of responsibility and the fact that Dalinar holds no weapons yet is the master of his own fate and leader of the Radiants, while Moash has some of the most powerful weapons on Roshar and is still a slave/servant to new masters). 

*Note that Kylo Ren and Loki fail to do this, and as such, their relatability comes off as an excuse or skin-deep justification for their baser desires (revenge, lust, and power). 

 

Personally I only see motive as important when the actions a person has are good, Thanos thought he was saving the world but it just made him seem stupid that he didn't think 'hey with infinite power I could just double the resources in the universe and get the same result'. Motive is how you make the Protagonists rival bad, by making them only do good because it gives them money or what not. But and here is the important part that is my opinion on how I like things to say that it is impossible for a villain to have an interesting motive and be turned to evil because of it would be presumptuous, which is what annoys me about people saying villains need to think they are the hero, that's what they like but not the only way to make it work.

1 hour ago, jamesbondsmith said:

I found Kylo Ren (or at least the concept of him) incredibly interesting, as he's the same kind of Darth Vader fanboy we have in the real world, except he lives in a universe where Vader was a very real dictator. I can't think off the top of my head the kind of parallels we might have in the Stormlight Archive, except perhaps someone modelling themselves on Dalinar as the Blackthorn, rather than Dalinar as the Bondsmith.

I found him to be a bratty teenager with no emotional control that had no right to be a master of the darkside, and wasn't threatening from the instant he took his mask off, but that's me. On terms of the concept of someone modeling themselves after a former dark lord, I think that the whole: Morgoth - Sauron - Saroman dynamic might be more to your liking.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Frustration

[Use the Falchion]

3 hours ago, Frustration said:

Personally I only see motive as important when the actions a person has are good, Thanos thought he was saving the world but it just made him seem stupid that he didn't think 'hey with infinite power I could just double the resources in the universe and get the same result'. Motive is how you make the Protagonists rival bad, by making them only do good because it gives them money or what not. But and here is the important part that is my opinion on how I like things to say that it is impossible for a villain to have an interesting motive and be turned to evil because of it would be presumptuous, which is what annoys me about people saying villains need to think they are the hero, that's what they like but not the only way to make it work.

And I have to disagree. I think motives must always be taken into account in order to properly dole out justice and whatnot. It's because of these motives as a hero or villain that the society of the story - that our own morals, views, and philosophies - can be challenged and ultimately sharpened (ideally with both determination and compassion). Moash's original anger was justified, and while Kaladin's actions may not have been right for society, they were right for him. And in turn, Elhokar learned to become a better leader for the time he was allowed to. 

Killmonger was created by the sins of T'Challa's father. He was abandoned due to Wakanda's strict non-interference policy. If Killmonger hadn't challenged T'Challa, Wakanda wouldn't have opened its borders and started to help the world become a better place by the end. 

Thanos' goal wasn't for the characters in the world, or at least not in the way he intended. It was for us, reminding us that overpopulation IS a real concern we will have to face, and how we face that and the loss of resources will shape what our world becomes...and clearly genocide is not the answer. Speaking of Thanos...

I always interpreted Thanos' destroying half the universe as 1) the ramblings of a narcissistic, futurist (like how Tony, once he got the idea of a "suit of armor around the world" couldn't stop himself from trying to make it); Thanos doesn't want to save the day and go home. He wants to save the day, be praised and thanked, and THEN go home. When he doesn't get the recognition and realizes no one is actually grateful, he decides to start over from scratch. 

And 2) I honestly think Thanos DID think about doubling the resources. In his mind, even if he doubled the resources, they'd still run out. It's stalling the inevitable (or stalling him, as he is fond of conflating himself was inevitability?), and nothing would change. Heck, if this pandemic has reminded us of anything, it should be that society rarely changes unless something big and desperate pushes it to. So instead of doubling it, Thanos halves the universe and says "this is a lesson, think better about your resource use now." Sort of like like "give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime." The problem was (...overlooking the mass genocide and murder part for a moment) that he was trying to teach a lesson that nobody else even knew was being taught. The only ones that did were those who faced him, and they rightfully called him out on the insanity of his plan. 

I'm not trying to justify his plan by any means, but I don't think the answer is also as simple as "double the resources." 

3 hours ago, Frustration said:

I found him to be a bratty teenager with no emotional control that had no right to be a master of the darkside, and wasn't threatening from the instant he took his mask off, but that's me.

That was part of the point though, Kylo was an Anti-Vader. He wasn't a master of the Dark Side, nor did he ever claim to be. He was the leader of the Knights or Ren. Admittedly, the reason he went to the Dark Side was very weak and not fully fleshed out (much like the world surrounding the Sequel Trilogy as a whole), but I found his lack of emotional control fascinating. He threw tantrums, destroyed property (but rarely anyone on his side unlike his grandfather), and was more powerful than any other canon Force User we'd seen up to that point. And then he did the unthinkable and killed the Emperor stand-in, accomplishing what his grandfather couldn't. Dark Side doesn't mean "in control all the time," nor should villains be limited to that. The range we get in our villains is what makes them fun. 

I will also contest that it wasn't when Kylo took off the mask that was when he lost his threatening nature, it was the fact that Kylo had never won a battle against his enemies. Three times he fought Rey, and all three times he lost. It stopped being interesting after the second fight, because she had so thoroughly beaten him by that point. 

[Turos]

Moash is foil to Kaladin. Moash will turn out to be an anti-hero and likely try to sacrifice himself. Kaladin will then step in and sacrifice himself to give Moash another chance, then Moash will be the stand-in leader of the Windrunners. Place your bets!

[Frustration]

1 hour ago, Turos said:

Moash is foil to Kaladin. Moash will turn out to be an anti-hero and likely try to sacrifice himself. Kaladin will then step in and sacrifice himself to give Moash another chance, then Moash will be the stand-in leader of the Windrunners. Place your bets!

No, please no that would be awful and goes against Moash being on Odiums side.(and ruins my Kaladin head-cannon)

[jamesbondsmith He/him]

11 hours ago, Turos said:

Moash is foil to Kaladin. Moash will turn out to be an anti-hero and likely try to sacrifice himself. Kaladin will then step in and sacrifice himself to give Moash another chance, then Moash will be the stand-in leader of the Windrunners. Place your bets!

Maybe, if the theory that the 4th ideal is about letting others make the sacrifice, this is how Kaladin swears it. Moash sees he's done wrong, and opts to make the ultimate sacrifice to fix it. Kaladin is there, but lets Moash make the sacrifice and redeem himself.

[Subvisual Haze]

14 hours ago, Turos said:

Moash is foil to Kaladin. Moash will turn out to be an anti-hero and likely try to sacrifice himself. Kaladin will then step in and sacrifice himself to give Moash another chance, then Moash will be the stand-in leader of the Windrunners. Place your bets!

Personally I think that by being the one who killed Jezrien and by using his Honorblade, Moash now has the potential to take up Jezrien's place in the Oathpact.  Going to Damnation and willingly being tortured to hold back the Fused for a couple years (thus explaining the time gap between the front and back 5 Stormlight books) would be a pretty great form of penance for Bridge 4's prodigal son.

[NameIess]

1 hour ago, Subvisual Haze said:

Personally I think that by being the one who killed Jezrien and by using his Honorblade, Moash now has the potential to take up Jezrien's place in the Oathpact.  Going to Damnation and willingly being tortured to hold back the Fused for a couple years (thus explaining the time gap between the front and back 5 Stormlight books) would be a pretty great form of penance for Bridge 4's prodigal son.

The fused don't go back to Braize when they die, so that wouldn't work.

[Wyndle88 he/him]

On 22/04/2020 at 0:05 AM, Nameless said:

The fused don't go back to Braize when they die, so that wouldn't work.

I thought it was said somewhere that the Fused tortures the Heralds. Am I correct?

[Karger he/him]

On 4/21/2020 at 2:35 PM, Nameless said:

The fused don't go back to Braize when they die, so that wouldn't work.

19 minutes ago, Wyndle88 said:

I thought it was said somewhere that the Fused tortures the Heralds. Am I correct?

The fused do go back to Braize(and torture the Heralds).  If we modify this theory slightly it works.  Perhaps it can only be done by a person who has the potential to live up to/ follow the path of Jezerian.  A fused can't they can't change and are to Odium aligned and the Parsh probably can't because they lack any self understanding.  Only a human who understands leadership.

[NameIess]

1 hour ago, Karger said:

The fused do go back to Braize(and torture the Heralds).  If we modify this theory slightly it works.  Perhaps it can only be done by a person who has the potential to live up to/ follow the path of Jezerian.  A fused can't they can't change and are to Odium aligned and the Parsh probably can't because they lack any self understanding.  Only a human who understands leadership.

 

1 hour ago, Wyndle88 said:

I thought it was said somewhere that the Fused tortures the Heralds. Am I correct?

The fused don't go back to Braize anymore, the Stormfather said in OB that they are reborn in the everstorm.

[Karger he/him]

Just now, Nameless said:

The fused don't go back to Braize anymore, the Stormfather said in OB that they are reborn in the everstorm.

The fused normally do.  The everstorm catches them and puts them back on roshar.  Kind of like a cheat code respond point.

[NameIess]

16 minutes ago, Karger said:

The fused normally do.  The everstorm catches them and puts them back on roshar.  Kind of like a cheat code respond point.

Exactly. In order for the heralds to work, the Everstorm would have to be destroyed.

[Karger he/him]

10 minutes ago, Nameless said:

Exactly. In order for the heralds to work, the Everstorm would have to be destroyed.

Does that matter to the theory though? 

[NameIess]

5 minutes ago, Karger said:

Does that matter to the theory though? 

Well, you would have to include the Everstorms destruction in the theory.

[Karger he/him]

Just now, Nameless said:

Well, you would have to include the Everstorms destruction in the theory.

True however I am not sure how Roshar will function with the Everstorm still around. 

[trav]

On 16.4.2020 at 4:12 PM, Frustration said:

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

 

the only thing that makes Moash a "villain" is your perception. why do you believe that Moash is evil?

his motivations are just differnt. instead of dropping his weapons and moping he accepted that humans are the evil force that needs to be fought.

its a huge part of the book that the lines between evil and good are not just blurred, but only a matter of perception. so are the oaths.

[Aminar]

You can hate a character and appreciate what they do for a story. Obviously the story wouldn't be as good without Moash, he caused such an emotional impact that it's been an ongoing meme for years. That's a hallmark of exceptional writing. It's a transcendent moment of storytelling. None of us are saying F Brandon for writing the scene because the scene is good. The payoff is huge.

[Frustration]

6 hours ago, trav said:

the only thing that makes Moash a "villain" is your perception. why do you believe that Moash is evil?

Are you honestly saying murder isn't evil? Please explain.

 

6 hours ago, trav said:

his motivations are just differnt. instead of dropping his weapons and moping he accepted that humans are the evil force that needs to be fought.

its a huge part of the book that the lines between evil and good are not just blurred, but only a matter of perception. so are the oaths.

You mean instead of getting off his butt and actually doing something on his own, he does whatever the fused tell him. Also why is Moash not evil but humanity is?

Edited May 7, 2020 by Frustration

[AonEne he/him]

8 minutes ago, Frustration said:

Are you honestly saying murder isn't evil? Please explain.

Also why is Moash not evil but humanity is?

I'm not getting involved in this argument, but good and evil are generally considered to be opinions. Not everyone is going to have the same views, so if you're talking philosophy, let's all respect each other.

[Frustration]

1 minute ago, AonEne said:

I'm not getting involved in this argument, but good and evil are generally considered to be opinions. Not everyone is going to have the same views, so if you're talking philosophy, let's all respect each other.

Generally and individually are different, I have religious reasons to believe that good, and evil, are real and separate. 

I respect others right to a different opinion, but if you honestly think that there is no such thing as morality, I have to ask you how civilization exsists.