Moash, and the fans who hate him

[Quick Ben he/him]

1 hour ago, Bejardin1250 said:

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

You are coming across as very naive and imo, and your views on the subject are very black/white and simplistic. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by Quick Ben

[Honorless he/him]

2 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

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

This is a terrible representation of systemic oppression to begin with. It's not dealing with casteism at all but "elevating" those people to the level of their "former" oppressors

Elhokar didn't just accidentally sentence them to life imprisonment & Moash to literal death by slavery, but when the truth came out to him, he let them rot out of potential embarrassment. After all that, what does Moash get? He gets to become his bodyguard, the person who was behind all of that. Not out of malice but sheer disregard and a vast gap in power.

[Frustration]

4 hours ago, Quick Ben said:

You are coming across as very naive and imo, and your views on the subject are very black/white and simplistic. 

So a view on Morality that isn't yours is naive?

There is nothing Naive about Black and White Morality, anymore than there is about any other method of judgement, and I'm tired of the sigma around it.

[Quick Ben he/him]

@Frustration

No, different views on morality then mine are not naive. But several comments were made that were naive.

6 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

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

 

Killing is always extreme especially when there’s another answer 

 

Maybe you can say all he wanted was retribution

Then he is evil

 

*Extended gaps between each statement for clarity

The above statements, are naive imo, if you dispute that then fair enough, I was giving my opinion, you are free to give yours.....

Edited June 15, 2021 by Quick Ben

[Jash]

7 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Good people do good things, no matter the incentive 

I mean, but they don't. Good people are effected by society. Good people are shaped by who raised them. Good people can be misled or be fed propaganda. No one is above the effects that society have on how we form our morality or world views. There is no such thing as a perfectly morally just person, or to use your more simplistic language, a "good person". 

7 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Killing is always extreme especially when there’s another answer 

Is it though? Like, it is easy to say that, but what if you killing one person saves many others. What if you killing certain people, could end massively suffering and death for hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people. I personally don't have that power, but...if I did, I can honestly say I am not sure what I would do. I can see that corporations have caused massive hurt, pain, and death in our society. What if I could stop them by taking our certain people? I have to admit I would consider it. I don't think your statement is true, it's too simple to exist in any real society, in which every action you take could have a morally complex result. 

7 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Then he is evil

Than who is evil? Moash? Like Moash had the...potential to be a Malcom X esq figure, someone who takes the opposite approach of Kaladin (the MLK esq figure) toward social issues. There is a famous quote from Muhammad Ali, let me get it, hold on, 
“My conscience won’t let me go shoot my brother, or some darker people, or some poor hungry people in the mud for big powerful America,” he said. “And shoot them for what? They never called me n*****, they never lynched me, they didn’t put no dogs on me, they didn’t rob me of my nationality, rape and kill my mother and father. … Shoot them for what? How can I shoot them poor people?" “Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on Brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights? No I’m not going 10,000 miles from home to help murder and burn another poor nation simply to continue the domination of white slave masters of the darker people the world over. This is the day when such evils must come to an end. I have been warned that to take such a stand would cost me millions of dollars. But I have said it once and I will say it again. The real enemy of my people is here. I will not disgrace my religion, my people or myself by becoming a tool to enslave those who are fighting for their own justice, freedom and equality. If I thought the war was going to bring freedom and equality to 22 million of my people they wouldn’t have to draft me, I’d join tomorrow. I have nothing to lose by standing up for my beliefs. So I’ll go to jail, so what? We’ve been in jail for 400 years.”

My point here is, to Moash, he never, not once, sees Elhokar as anything other that a representation of the injustice of Alethi society. He thinks by killing him, he is doing the morally right thing. Now, by the time we get to the end of Oathbringer, he has lost himself in misery, depression (I would say), and no longer acts like a person with a need for moral justifications. But earlier, I saw these justifications as valid. We know Elhokar, because we have multiple viewpoints of Elhokar from different viewpoint characters. Moash doesn't. He had personal vengeance he fought for, but I would argue he also throughout the books had a similar sentiment to the above quotes from Mohammad Ali. Why should he fight the Parshendi when his enemy was right here, in his own society? The truth is, I actually wish, like really wish, we could get this kind of mindset from a major viewpoint character. It would be great to see someone who both agreed with someone like Kaladin, but also had major moral qualms with Kaladin's way of approaching and solving the issues. I want to be clear. I love Kaladin, I think his approach...is bordering on angelic. He isn't a perfect person, but he certainly has a stong ability to forgive, and a strong ability to look past the surface of people. Most people can't do that though, and there is also an argument (whether I agree with it or not) that we shouldn't have...to forgive those that oppress us. That it shold be up to them to beg our forgiveness while making sweeping changes, and if they don't....then why should we be on their side, or work within their system? I haven't read the 4th book, for all I know Moash goes off the deep end, and everything I say here is more my imagined version of Moash and not who he actually is...but it's who I wish he was. I want a character like this. I want someone who disagrees so strongly with his societal norms that he joins the Parshendi, and tries to work with them toward a better society. I want the Moash who began to train the Singers he was left with. I want the Moash who stood up with and protected the Singer who was being whipped, and said don't be like the humans. Dont' be like us. That was powerful storming crap, all right. And it's crap that ain't a whole lot different than what Kaladin did. There is a reason Kaladin liked Moash the most. There is a reason he related to Moash the most. The potential for Moash to be like Kaladin is right there. He is a mirror. and perhaps, just maybe, the difference in their life experiences is also the reason for where they are now. Kaladin had strong parental figures who loved him. Moash's parental figures were murdered by his society. If you honestly think...like straight up, whatever country you are from. Let's say a governor wanted your parents gone. So...they just locked them up, and they died in prison. And then the leader of your country covered that up. Seriously, straight up seriiously. YOu wouldn't want to kill that person? Like, honestly, I think anyone who answers this question as "no"....is lying. Sorry, that's my opinion. At best you can say, I'm not sure what I would do, or I hope I would do the right thing. But I doubt most of us have that experience, and I doubt most of us can honestly know how we would act if we were in Moash's shoes. 

[Bejarden he/him]

8 minutes ago, Jash said:

Seriously, straight up seriiously. YOu wouldn't want to kill that person? Like, honestly, I think anyone who answers this question as "no"....is lying. Sorry, that's my opinion. At best you can say, I'm not sure what I would do, or I hope I would do the right thing. But I doubt most of us have that experience, and I doubt most of us can honestly know how we would act if we were in Moash's shoes. 

Of course any sane person would want retribution 

But that doesn’t make it right

9 minutes ago, Jash said:

Is it though? Like, it is easy to say that, but what if you killing one person saves many others

In an extreme situation extreme answers are needed

here it was just a revenge plot that would throw an entire kingdom into potential chaos

10 minutes ago, Jash said:

mean, but they don't. Good people are effected by society. Good people are shaped by who raised them. Good people can be misled or be fed propaganda. No one is above the effects that society have on how we form our morality or world views. There is no such thing as a perfectly morally just person, or to use your more simplistic language, a "good person". 

I saw this a lot that I was “simplifying” the situation 

I’m actually not, im laying some the facts and then casting a verdict 

Are there shades in the guilty side? Of course, some people are worse than others 

But if you took all the people on Roshar Moash would be in the bottom tier

6 hours ago, Quick Ben said:

You are coming across as very naive and imo, and your views on the subject are very black/white and simplistic. 

Moashs side doesn’t matter because all he wanted was vengeance

He was ready to kill a king when all the leaders were on a voyage that would take weeks throwing Alethkar into chaos 

Morality is a black/white in most cases

Is the man good or bad?

If you want to delve deeper you can, find motives and other things…

But at the end of the day the answer remains the same

6 hours ago, Honorless said:

This is a terrible representation of systemic oppression to begin with. It's not dealing with casteism at all but "elevating" those people to the level of their "former" oppressors

He was in a position of power

End of story

6 hours ago, Honorless said:

Elhokar didn't just accidentally sentence them to life imprisonment & Moash to literal death by slavery, but when the truth came out to him, he let them rot out of potential embarrassment. After all that, what does Moash get? He gets to become his bodyguard, the person who was behind all of that. Not out of malice but sheer disregard and a vast gap in power.

Roshone was banished because of what happened, and I would say that Elhokar had a talk to about what happened

But why do you give Moash the right to his vengeance and is an excuse for killing

But Elhokar doesn’t get slack for making a mistake when he was in an extremely pressuring scenario 

[Honorless he/him]

7 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

He was in a position of power

End of story

Sure, that works.

Elhokar was in a position of power and he abused it

End of story

7 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Of course any sane person would want retribution 

But that doesn’t make it right

In an extreme situation extreme answers are needed

here it was just a revenge plot that would throw an entire kingdom into potential chaos

I saw this a lot that I was “simplifying” the situation 

I’m actually not, im laying some the facts and then casting a verdict 

Are there shades in the guilty side? Of course, some people are worse than others 

But if you took all the people on Roshar Moash would be in the bottom tier

Moashs side doesn’t matter because all he wanted was vengeance

He was ready to kill a king when all the leaders were on a voyage that would take weeks throwing Alethkar into chaos 

Morality is a black/white in most cases

Is the man good or bad?

If you want to delve deeper you can, find motives and other things…

But at the end of the day the answer remains the same

He was in a position of power

End of story

 

Roshone was banished because of what happened, and I would say that Elhokar had a talk to about what happened

But why do you give Moash the right to his vengeance and is an excuse for killing

But Elhokar doesn’t get slack for making a mistake when he was in an extremely pressuring scenario 

The same Elhokar who tried to sentence Kaladin to death for accusing a Lighteyes?

If morality is a black/white in most cases, then Elhokar is bad.

Of course killing people isn't right but as you said, of course any sane person would want retribution for such a thing. And it wasn't even malice. Moash and his family were just bugs that got crushed.

And then Roshone did the same to Kal & Tien.

Why would I give Elhokar slack for this? Because it's the culture. Done, slack given. What's the narrative done to address this culture? Nada.

[Bejarden he/him]

3 minutes ago, Honorless said:

Sure, that works.

Elhokar was in a position of power and he abused it

End of story

Moash was in a position to do something better

So was Elhokar and he was trying to do better

Moash was a bodyguard just as much as Kaladin and he probably knew this also

5 minutes ago, Honorless said:

The same Elhokar who tried to sentence Kaladin to death for accusing a Lighteyes?

 

He’s spoiled and was in a rage he backed off immediately on that

6 minutes ago, Honorless said:

Why would I give Elhokar slack for this? Because it's the culture. Done, slack given. What's the narrative done to address this culture? Nada.

Moashs entire Arc is to address these things and it’s addressed wonderfully if you would actually pay attention 

Brandon does not need to fix these things because he created a common cause that United those factions

7 minutes ago, Honorless said:

And it wasn't even malice. Moash and his family were just bugs that got crushed.

Nobody said Elhokar was a good man but he was trying to do better

thats is a difference 

Moash is not trying to do better

[Honorless he/him]

11 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Moash was in a position to do something better

So was Elhokar and he was trying to do better

Moash was a bodyguard just as much as Kaladin and he probably knew this also

He’s spoiled and was in a rage he backed off immediately on that

Moashs entire Arc is to address these things and it’s addressed wonderfully if you would actually pay attention 

Brandon does not need to fix these things because he created a common cause that United those factions

Nobody said Elhokar was a good man but he was trying to do better

thats is a difference 

Moash is not trying to do better

Wonder what would've happened if the bodyguard told the king that the king was responsible for a lot of past grievances for that bodyguard. Demotion at the very least.

Elhokar was trying to do better, that's true but how would Moash know that? All Moash saw was a man responsible for taking everything from him trying to kill the person who saved Moash. An arrogant, spoiled, inconsiderate, drunk man. And even if he did, what then? Would that undo everything that happened to Moash? Forgiveness is not owed.

"Brandon does not need to fix these things because he created a common cause that United those factions"

He does not need to address the social issues with obvious parallels to society irl because he can just shove that under the rug because there's a villain everyone has to fight. That's... very problematic.

This has been pointed out multiple times now, are you even reading any of my posts or are you just reacting to the fact that my views are not similar to yours?

Moash hasn't got a chance to try to do better. He had an entirely realistic reaction to literal imprisonment without any due judicial process and slavery/death sentence. Then he got indoctrinated into Odium's side. And then [RoW spoilers]. Narratively, it's still quite possible for him to have a redemption arc. I'm not entirely sure this would happen though, which is what is kinda problematic about how Moash and Kaladin's arc is written. Moash is having multiple kick the dog moments and has become a lightning rod for the community's hatred. Kaladin is constantly picked on for assuming all Lighteyes are bad. When he's literally a former conscript and a former slave. That's really problematic.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Honorless

[Quick Ben he/him]

9 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Moash was in a position to do something better

So was Elhokar and he was trying to do better

Moash was a bodyguard just as much as Kaladin and he probably knew this also

He’s spoiled and was in a rage he backed off immediately on that

Nobody said Elhokar was a good man but he was trying to do better

thats is a difference 

Moash is not trying to do better

What difference does it make that Elhokar was "trying" to do better ? You keep saying this, but what difference do you think it makes ?

Because fact is it makes no difference.

It is actually irrelevant that Elhokar is trying to do better..

 

[therunner he/him]

10 hours ago, Jash said:

My point here is, to Moash, he never, not once, sees Elhokar as anything other that a representation of the injustice of Alethi society. He thinks by killing him, he is doing the morally right thing.

It has been a while since my read of tWoR, but I don't think he sees him like that at all? My read was the he wanted to kill him for two reasons

1. Vengeance (the personal motivation)
2. Elhokar's incompetence as king (Graves strengthen this motivation, and Moash used this to justify why the killing would be 'right')

He does not really seem to care about the oppression of others in these moments, only about who wronged him. I might be misremembering somethings, so please correct me if that is the case.

Additionally, in Oathbringer he does not seem to have problem with Singers enslaving people, and only steps in to protect Singers. The act of protection does him credit, but why did he not try to help others who were human?

1 hour ago, Honorless said:

Wonder what would've happened if the bodyguard told the king that the king was responsible for a lot of past grievances for that bodyguard. Demotion at the very least.

Except Moash was not 'just' a bodyguard, at that point he was light-eyes of 4th dahn, socially outranked Kaladin and was officially only step below Amaram in social hierarchy for example. The plate and the blade were his, and even if he was no longer bodyguard they would make him very desirable (Shardblade costs the same as some small kingdoms).

He also did not need to go to king first, he could have gone to Dalinar first, the man he thought would make better king.

1 hour ago, Honorless said:

Elhokar was trying to do better, that's true but how would Moash know that? All Moash saw was a man responsible for taking everything from him trying to kill the person who saved Moash. An arrogant, spoiled, inconsiderate, drunk man. And even if he did, what then? Would that undo everything that happened to Moash? Forgiveness is not owed.

I completely agree with this, Moash was not privy to the same conversations Kaladin was so he would not know how Elhokar doubts himself and that he genuinely wants to do better. But even if he was, he need not forgive Elhokar at all.

1 hour ago, Honorless said:

He does not need to address the social issues with obvious parallels to society irl because he can just shove that under the rug because there's a villain everyone has to fight. That's... very problematic.

While there are parallels, there are also obvious differences that make 1-to-1 comparison flawed I think.

For one, the lighteyes/darkeyes divide has roots in Heralds and Knight Radiants, who would be leading people by virtue of their powers and Oaths and who would be among the morally 'better' people on Roshar. Knights Radiant as an institution existed for over 4000 years, that kind of time leaves cultural mark. This social structure would then provide the basis for Shardbearers to become leaders (as they would get light-eyes) and by virtue of their power they would start noble houses leading to system we have today.  This does not make the system just, but unlike our history there used to be a reason to think lighteyes person was in some sense 'better'.

Additionally there is a way of social mobility, either by claiming a Shardblade or by amassing wealth. The second one will not cause elevation to light-eyes, but in practice wealthy enough dark eyes have power over poorer light eyes. With return of Radiants there is now another way up the social ladder.

1 hour ago, Honorless said:

Moash hasn't got a chance to try to do better. He had an entirely realistic reaction to literal imprisonment without any due judicial process and slavery/death sentence. .

There was no death sentence or imprisonment without judicial process, they were in prison awaiting trial and died there due to their advanced age. The were there for too long because Elhokar forgot about them it seems, which is obviously horrible, but it is neither death sentence nor slavery. It is criminal neglect not murder.

1 hour ago, Honorless said:

Kaladin is constantly picked on for assuming all Lighteyes are bad. When he's literally a former conscript and a former slave. That's really problematic.

That is because Kaladin is literally racist against all lighteyes, he judges them all based on their eye color and they need to prove themselves to him that they are in fact not bad people. Not to mention his reaction to finding out that his eyes are light when he summons Syl blade. As a traumatized person his reaction is understandable, but that does not change it.

[Frustration]

11 hours ago, Jash said:

I mean, but they don't. Good people are effected by society. Good people are shaped by who raised them. Good people can be misled or be fed propaganda. No one is above the effects that society have on how we form our morality or world views. There is no such thing as a perfectly morally just person, or to use your more simplistic language, a "good person". 

A good person, a truely good person would stand for what is right, even if the whole world was against them.

10 hours ago, Honorless said:

Sure, that works.

Elhokar was in a position of power and he abused it

End of story

The same Elhokar who tried to sentence Kaladin to death for accusing a Lighteyes?

If morality is a black/white in most cases, then Elhokar is bad.

Of course killing people isn't right but as you said, of course any sane person would want retribution for such a thing. And it wasn't even malice. Moash and his family were just bugs that got crushed.

And then Roshone did the same to Kal & Tien.

Why would I give Elhokar slack for this? Because it's the culture. Done, slack given. What's the narrative done to address this culture? Nada.

Ok first off Ehokar's statis on good vs evil doesn't mater, Stalin is still evil, even if he fought Hitler.

Second off just because the story isn't addressing what you feel it should doesn't give you the right to say someone else's judgement of a situation is invallaid

I care more about a random blade of grass than how Alethi culture is hanndled so long as it's consistent, I just want to skip to the next fight., why is your desire for the narative more important than mine?

2 hours ago, Honorless said:

Wonder what would've happened if the bodyguard told the king that the king was responsible for a lot of past grievances for that bodyguard. Demotion at the very least.

How fortunate Elhokar doesn't have that ability as they are Dalinar's guard.

2 hours ago, Honorless said:

"Brandon does not need to fix these things because he created a common cause that United those factions"

He does not need to address the social issues with obvious parallels to society irl because he can just shove that under the rug because there's a villain everyone has to fight. That's... very problematic.

I would prefer he didn't, the more separation between my entertainment and reality the better, I read to get away from polotics, not dive in deeper.

27 minutes ago, therunner said:

It has been a while since my read of tWoR, but I don't think he sees him like that at all? My read was the he wanted to kill him for two reasons

1. Vengeance (the personal motivation)
2. Elhokar's incompetence as king (Graves strengthen this motivation, and Moash used this to justify why the killing would be 'right')

He does not really seem to care about the oppression of others in these moments, only about who wronged him. I might be misremembering somethings, so please correct me if that is the case.

You are entirely correct, Moash only cared about himself there.

[Jash]

10 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

here it was just a revenge plot that would throw an entire kingdom into potential chaos

Did you read the book, Moash was very clear in the fact that he wanted Dalinar in charge, and not Elhokar. He didn't think it would throw the Kingdom into chaos, but instead he thought things would get better without Elhokar. You can disagree with him, but you can't deny that is what he said thought (we didn't have his pov at that time, so I guess we don't technically know if he believed that, but I have no reason to doubt that is how he thought). When he finally does kill Elhokar, it's in a battle situation, in which he is on the other side. Granted, he targeted Elhokar, but..he was in fact at war and Elhokar was an opposing soldier. 

10 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

He was in a position of power

End of story

No he wasn't. End of story. I don't remember if this was in this book, or a different one, but...the point of the quote was something along the lines of, "If someone can so easily treat you differently and kindly for arbitrary reasons, coudn't they just as easily take it away." Point here is Moash does not have the support system that ACTUAL privilege would give him. He does not have the actual privileges of a light eyes, like being seen as honorable without having to do anything, or having connections to get what he wants done politically. And again, we are talking him as compared to a King, so even if he was born 4th dahn, we are still talking about a position where he was not in a position of power. You have a very weak understanding of how racism works in society I would guess. Most people with real power will still consider Moash as a "darkeyes", yeah some randos will call him "Brightlord", but...no, he does not have the usual trappings of power that come with being born light eyes. A good comparison for our real world would be a person of color who appears white. Mike Bibby and Jason Kidd are both white basketball players who have one parent who is black, they are often called black, and the announcers often mentioned they about their black parent. Society wants to remind everyone that despite appearing white, they were really black. Trust me, that wasn't a coincidence, that is how systematic racism works. Finally, Moash is a human being. We form our self worth and identity based on how we are raised. Moash could never be "truly" light eyed, because he was raised dark eyed. He lived the vast majority of his life dark eyed. Saying his decision to take out the King should be somehow changed by his "position of power" is...insanity by the way. Who cares? Like, it doesn't ...matter to that plot line at all. If Moash had still be seen as dark eyed, but somehow got a shard blade, the same exact plot could have happened. Like identical. I'm confused why this is a focus of what you are discussing, as it is incredibly un-important. 

10 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

But why do you give Moash the right to his vengeance and is an excuse for killing

But Elhokar doesn’t get slack for making a mistake when he was in an extremely pressuring scenario 

Wow, that is not the same lol. You have a very black and white way of thinking it appeared in other posts, but..this post reveals hypocricy. Like obviously Elhokar's actions are less justified than Moash's. He simply used his position of power to get rid of an incovenient human being like Moash. That's [redacted] dude. Like, Moash didn't hurt him. He hurt Moash for no flipping reason, because he could. Good lord, use your same black and white logic here. Or don't, and be called a hypocrite I guess. No sweat off my back. 

 

10 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

I saw this a lot that I was “simplifying” the situation 

I’m actually not, im laying some the facts and then casting a verdict 

Are there shades in the guilty side? Of course, some people are worse than others 

But if you took all the people on Roshar Moash would be in the bottom tier

How so? lol. What makes you any authority on how to judge others as either good or evil? The reason people are calling you naive or that you are simplifying the situation is...because you are. This is the most....like non-redemptive viewpoint on crime I've seen in awhile. Assumptions you make here : 1. Moash can't change or seek redemption. This is a strange assumption considering like half of our main cast is seeking redemption form past "wrong" actions. 2. Shades to the guilty side? Shades to the guilty side? There is no...guilty side dude. That isn't how a society works. The reason we see you as black and white is that you don't understand that there are SHADES TO PEOPLE NO MATTER WHAT SIDE THEY ARE ON. Elhokar is guilty, by your own logic. Can't be redeemed and is "in the bottom tier" of Roshar. Dalinar shouldn't havve been redeemed and is, even more of a "bottom tier" person than Elhokar or Moash by your lofic. Bottom teir. Lol. This isn't a list of the best basketball players. There are no tiers of good and bad people. Good lord. I want to remind you that we know, like absolutely in this plot that the humans brought Odium to Roshar. We know the first desolation was caused by....humans. And we know that the humans stole the land from the Singers. Like...I want to make this very clear to you. If the humans are allowed to exist on the land they stole, than the Singers are also allowed to kill them and take it back. 3. Your assumption that Moash is "bottom tier" is also an assumption of what people would do in Moash's situation, which is a big jump. For one, Moash had unusually awful injustices done to himself and his family. For another, because of Kaladin, Moash was given an unusual opportunity to revenge said injustices. One that I think...quite frankly, a lot of people would take if given the opportunity. Also, like...the entirety of Sadeas's army is worse than Moash. Like, maybe almost every Alethi light eyes who allows all the crappy injustices to happen are worse than Moash, if you ask me. Like, if I was to actually tier good and bad actions, I'd say perpetrating an unjust society is right on the top of my list for what would make you "lower tier". 

[Frustration]

3 minutes ago, Jash said:

No he wasn't. End of story. I don't remember if this was in this book, or a different one, but...the point of the quote was something along the lines of, "If someone can so easily treat you differently and kindly for arbitrary reasons, coudn't they just as easily take it away." Point here is Moash does not have the support system that ACTUAL privilege would give him. He does not have the actual privileges of a light eyes, like being seen as honorable without having to do anything, or having connections to get what he wants done politically. And again, we are talking him as compared to a King, so even if he was born 4th dahn, we are still talking about a position where he was not in a position of power. You have a very weak understanding of how racism works in society I would guess. Most people with real power will still consider Moash as a "darkeyes", yeah some randos will call him "Brightlord", but...no, he does not have the usual trappings of power that come with being born light eyes. A good comparison for our real world would be a person of color who appears white. Mike Bibby and Jason Kidd are both white basketball players who have one parent who is black, they are often called black, and the announcers often mentioned they about their black parent. Society wants to remind everyone that despite appearing white, they were really black. Trust me, that wasn't a coincidence, that is how systematic racism works. Finally, Moash is a human being. We form our self worth and identity based on how we are raised. Moash could never be "truly" light eyed, because he was raised dark eyed. He lived the vast majority of his life dark eyed. Saying his decision to take out the King should be somehow changed by his "position of power" is...insanity by the way. Who cares? Like, it doesn't ...matter to that plot line at all. If Moash had still be seen as dark eyed, but somehow got a shard blade, the same exact plot could have happened. Like identical. I'm confused why this is a focus of what you are discussing, as it is incredibly un-important. 

Yes, he was, whether or not they accept him is irrelivent, he is bassically an army at that point, you don't need them to accept you, you can force them to.

What's a fifth Dahn going to do about it?

[Honorless he/him]

1 hour ago, therunner said:

Additionally, in Oathbringer he does not seem to have problem with Singers enslaving people, and only steps in to protect Singers. The act of protection does him credit, but why did he not try to help others who were human?

Except Moash was not 'just' a bodyguard, at that point he was light-eyes of 4th dahn, socially outranked Kaladin and was officially only step below Amaram in social hierarchy for example. The plate and the blade were his, and even if he was no longer bodyguard they would make him very desirable (Shardblade costs the same as some small kingdoms).

He also did not need to go to king first, he could have gone to Dalinar first, the man he thought would make better king.

I completely agree with this, Moash was not privy to the same conversations Kaladin was so he would not know how Elhokar doubts himself and that he genuinely wants to do better. But even if he was, he need not forgive Elhokar at all.

While there are parallels, there are also obvious differences that make 1-to-1 comparison flawed I think.

For one, the lighteyes/darkeyes divide has roots in Heralds and Knight Radiants, who would be leading people by virtue of their powers and Oaths and who would be among the morally 'better' people on Roshar. Knights Radiant as an institution existed for over 4000 years, that kind of time leaves cultural mark. This social structure would then provide the basis for Shardbearers to become leaders (as they would get light-eyes) and by virtue of their power they would start noble houses leading to system we have today.  This does not make the system just, but unlike our history there used to be a reason to think lighteyes person was in some sense 'better'.

Additionally there is a way of social mobility, either by claiming a Shardblade or by amassing wealth. The second one will not cause elevation to light-eyes, but in practice wealthy enough dark eyes have power over poorer light eyes. With return of Radiants there is now another way up the social ladder.

There was no death sentence or imprisonment without judicial process, they were in prison awaiting trial and died there due to their advanced age. The were there for too long because Elhokar forgot about them it seems, which is obviously horrible, but it is neither death sentence nor slavery. It is criminal neglect not murder.

That is because Kaladin is literally racist against all lighteyes, he judges them all based on their eye color and they need to prove themselves to him that they are in fact not bad people. Not to mention his reaction to finding out that his eyes are light when he summons Syl blade. As a traumatized person his reaction is understandable, but that does not change it.

He did have a problem with it, he does say to himself that they were supposed to be better.

I agree, he could've gone to Dalinar. I'd still be a bit iffy about it because that still shows his lack of agency within the system due to not being established and sheer power gap.

Thank you for saying that!

That's an interesting way to look at it. How does Vorinism and it's dogma of "the fallen Radiants" fit into it, in your opinion then?

The social mobility wasn't really much. How would one hope to defeat a Shardbearer? How would a Darkeyes hope to contest a Lighteyes that they were the one who claimed the Shards within that twisted power structure? It is all still very problematic because of the social strata, people's birth decide their station. I think you're seeing this as more meritocratic than it really is. It's just propaganda and false hope.

Yeah, they were in prison without trial... that's a problem. Even our older cultures often showed more leniency to people accused of crimes if they had severe physical problems instead of throwing them into a dungeon.

And racism against Darkeyes still exists. Distrust against oppressors or people who have power over you isn't a sign of bad character, it's just common sense. And Kaladin did give them all a second chance and reflect on his reactions to them. This is problematic because we don't have a single scene of any of the many, many Lighteyed cast/caste members reflect on their inherent racism. Dalinar and Shallan have problematic reactions, and the readers are meant to notice it, but the characters themselves do not ever reflect on it. The fact that Kaladin was a freed slave is just completely glossed over. Why introduce this systemic racism in the narrative and tie so much of the first book and Kaladin's character arc around it, only to do nothing with it. It feels like invalidating all the discourse about inequality that the book itself raised.

It isn't about a Lighteyes being good or bad. It's about someone being put into a position where their only available option is relying on someone's continued goodwill. That is a very demeaning position to be put into, to put it very lightly.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Honorless
removed spoilers

[Jash]

11 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Moashs side doesn’t matter because all he wanted was vengeance

Again, no, he doesn't. Did you read the book? He wanted Dalinar put in charge. He thought society would be better off without Elhokar. You are giving your viewpoint of the world to Moash, but it is not a viewpoint he shares with you. I have great news for you : People have different viewpoints on the same set of events. Like, people don't think the same way you do. Including Moash, he thinks Elhokar is bad for society and how it runs. You are taking away parts of his motivation merely because you disagree with them, or...don't understand them. 

 

10 hours ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Moash is not trying to do better

He helped the group of Singers and tried to defend them. Did anyone else (besides Kaladini) do that in our story? I actually agree that Moash has not attempted to be above revenge when it comes to lighteyes, but he has gone above and beyond for the Singers. Perspective is a big thing. Moash is also lost in depression, obviously, after he failed in his assassination attempt. These books deal a lot with mental health issues and how they can effect your ability to "do better". The fandom seems pretty ready to understand our main characters in this department, and even characters like Teft. But what about Moash. He isn't okay y'all. Again, I hope, or want, or whatever, that Moash does end up trying to do better, to defend rather than to take. I very much hope that is where Moash is going. That he was brought to his lowest point, much like Kaladin in book 1, only to be built back up and re-discover an identity that helps people rather than hurts them. 

 

2 hours ago, Honorless said:

"Brandon does not need to fix these things because he created a common cause that United those factions"

He does not need to address the social issues with obvious parallels to society irl because he can just shove that under the rug because there's a villain everyone has to fight. That's... very problematic.

Moash hasn't got a chance to try to do better. He had an entirely realistic reaction to literal imprisonment without any due judicial process and slavery/death sentence. Then he got indoctrinated into Odium's side. And then [RoW spoilers]. Narratively, it's still quite possible for him to have a redemption arc. I'm not entirely sure this would happen though, which is what is kinda problematic about how Moash and Kaladin's arc is written. Moash is having multiple kick the dog moments and has become a lightning rod for the community's hatred. Kaladin is constantly picked on for assuming all Lighteyes are bad. When he's literally a former conscript and a former slave. That's really problematic.

Yes, yes and yes 100. So so so so so problematic. I sincerely hope Brandon Sanderson does indeed deal with those societal issues, and doesn't sweep them under the rug like some of those in the fandom want him to. Also 100 to what you said about Moash having a possible redemption arc. Also 100 to Moash and Kaladin's hatred of all light eyes being seen as....so bad, when they have good reasons to feel that way. They were slaves, put in a situation that was suppossed to be basically guaranteed a death sentence, and was..for many of their friends. Did anyone read book 1? Most of the Alethi light eyes were completely okay with this situation, and the few that were against it (Dalinar) were like...kind of passively against it. That is awful, y'all. And it's all been...forgotten in book 3 from every viewpoint character except 1 : Moash. 

[Honorless he/him]

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

A good person, a truely good person would stand for what is right, even if the whole world was against them.

Ok first off Ehokar's statis on good vs evil doesn't mater, Stalin is still evil, even if he fought Hitler.

Second off just because the story isn't addressing what you feel it should doesn't give you the right to say someone else's judgement of a situation is invallaid

I care more about a random blade of grass than how Alethi culture is hanndled so long as it's consistent, I just want to skip to the next fight., why is your desire for the narative more important than mine?

How fortunate Elhokar doesn't have that ability as they are Dalinar's guard.

I would prefer he didn't, the more separation between my entertainment and reality the better, I read to get away from polotics, not dive in deeper.

Heh, how inspiring that first line is, I think Imma take it as encouragement on this thread

Ok, sure. I'm discussing my views on Elhokar with someone because I have different views on Elhokar, and they in turn are doing the same. If it's a closed case to you, that's completely fine. You don't have to excuse yourself from that discussion to us, you can just ignore those parts completely.

I'm not saying someone's judgement is invalid because a story that they didn't write isn't addressing what I feel it should. I'm not invalidating anyone's judgement. They aren't my responsibility. I'm questioning their interpretation of the story because we both took out separate things from reading the text. We got separate things because our experiences are different, with life and with literature. Literature doesn't spring from some sort of fantasy, unbounded to reality. It stems from the author's imagination, yes and their experiences from life. You really cannot divest literature from reality.

It's more important, and yes, it is more important, because a kick-ass fight is just a kick-ass fight. And a piece of literature handling complex social issues is literature handling complex social issues. By all means concentrate on what you like. I'm not sure why you feel so attacked by the fact that the latter is what I'm more interested in? I care more about the latter than any fight, why is your desire for the narative more important than mine? Why did you feel the need to question why certain things are important to me? If these discussions aren't important to you at all, then why are you here? What gives you the desire or right to invalidate or question my desires? Why are you so upset?

I never did specify whose bodyguard Moash was. Besides, as you yourself said, Elhokar being good or bad apparently does not matter.

Wanting to use media to get away from irl politics is understandable. Harping on people who do want to discuss those things when it does fall under the aegis of literary discussion does not. You may excuse yourself if you do not find said discussions to your taste.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Honorless

[Frustration]

14 minutes ago, Honorless said:

He did have a problem with it, he does say to himself that they were supposed to be better. It's also notable that in RoW, ******

Spoilers

2 minutes ago, Honorless said:

Heh, how inspiring that first line is, I think Imma take it as encouragement on this thread

Ok, sure. I'm discussing my views on Elhokar with someone because I have different views on Elhokar, and they in turn are doing the same. If it's a closed case to you, that's completely fine. You don't have to excuse yourself from that discussion to us, you can just ignore those parts completely.

I'm not saying someone's judgement isn't invalid because a story that they didn't write isn't addressing what I feel it should. I'm not invalidating anyone's judgement. They aren't my responsibility. I'm questioning their interpretation of the story because we both took out separate things from reading the text. We got separate things because our experiences are different, with life and with literature. Literature doesn't spring from some sort of fantasy, unbounded to reality. It stems from the author's imagination, yes and their experiences from life. You really cannot really divest literature from reality.

It's more important, and yes, it is more important, because a kick-ass fight is just a kick-ass fight. And a piece of literature handling complex social issues is literature handling complex social issues. By all means concentrate on what you like. I'm not sure why you feel so attacked by the fact that the latter is what I'm more interested in? I care more about the latter than any fight, why is your desire for the narative more important than mine? Why did you feel the need to question why certain things are important to me? If these discussions aren't important to you at all, then why are you here? What gives you the desire or right to invalidate or question my desires? Why are you so upset?

I never did specify whose bodyguard Moash was. Besides, as you yourself said, Elhokar being good or bad apparently does not matter.

Wanting to use media to get away from irl politics is understandable. Harping on people who do want to discuss those things when it does fall under the aegis of literary discussion does not. You may excuse yourself if you do not find discussions to your taste.

I'll condess this down to one answer

I'm here for the purpose of the thread, which is why People hate Moash, and to a lesser exent is he evil.

Everything else is off topic and I would like to move back.

[Jash]

49 minutes ago, therunner said:

It has been a while since my read of tWoR, but I don't think he sees him like that at all? My read was the he wanted to kill him for two reasons

1. Vengeance (the personal motivation)
2. Elhokar's incompetence as king (Graves strengthen this motivation, and Moash used this to justify why the killing would be 'right')

He does not really seem to care about the oppression of others in these moments, only about who wronged him. I might be misremembering somethings, so please correct me if that is the case.

Yes. He was pretty clear in his viewpoint that light eyes are unjust, and that Elhokar is particularly unjust, as well as being incompetent. Do I have to fetch quotes? He talks over and over again about how unjust light eyes are, and how Elhokar in particular is unjust. Like, I thought this one wouldn't get much argument to be honest, I thought it was pretty clear how Moash viewed Elhokar as a representation for his hatred of all light eyes. I suppose it does require a little analysis. Most people won't come out and say something like that. He wanted revenge on Elhokar yes, but...also against all light eyes. 

59 minutes ago, therunner said:

Additionally, in Oathbringer he does not seem to have problem with Singers enslaving people, and only steps in to protect Singers. The act of protection does him credit, but why did he not try to help others who were human?

This is by far my biggest problem with what you said. What? Who has protected the Singers, at any point in these books? Kaladin. Moash. that's it. If your logic is, everyone who is okay with other people enslaving people, then indeed, every single light eyes in Roshar is bad. If every person who doesn't help singers in addition to humans is bad, then literally everyone except Kaladin in our entire book is bad. You are just being tribalistic with this sentence. Like come on yo. He chose the Singers over humans. He has the same logic as you, I guess, just he chose a different side.  Why does he have to help everyone? No one else does? No one else is given this same standard. Tell me about all those times Dalinar or Adolin stopped Sadeas or other bright lords from having slaves (other than when they directly knew those slaves and those slaves helped them live). Tell me about all those times Shallan stopped and helped every Parshman slave. Tell me about all those time that any single character in this entire series stood against the enslavement of Parshmen, storm, even Kaladin. Come on, that is a ridiculous standard to have. Ridiculous. If you give that standard to Moash, then apply it to everyone and realize apparantly, by your standard, except Kaladin in this story, flipping everyone isn't good enough. 

[Honorless he/him]

27 minutes ago, Frustration said:

Spoilers

I'll condess this down to one answer

I'm here for the purpose of the thread, which is why People hate Moash, and to a lesser exent is he evil.

Everything else is off topic and I would like to move back.

Damn, I forgot this wasn't in the RoW spoiler forums

Update: spoilers removed, thanks for pointing that out

Those are very tightly related things, you can't pass moral judgement on a character and put the context of moral philosophy into a box marked "irl stuff, do not touch". It's a hot button issue, it's going to be contentious. Take a break if it gets too much.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Honorless

[Frustration]

Just now, Honorless said:

Damn, I forgot this wasn't in the RoW spoiler forums

Those are very tightly related things, you can't pass moral judgement on a character and put the context of moral philosophy into a box marked "irl stuff, do not touch". It's a hit button issue, it's going to be contentious. Take a break if it gets too much.

I'd rather just switch examples to Jezrien and call it a day, but that works.

[Honorless he/him]

1 minute ago, Frustration said:

I'd rather just switch examples to Jezrien and call it a day, but that works.

Yup, that was bad. I'd still argue about indoctrination. Also... ugh spoilers, you know what in RoW. OP, plz quickly finish RoW so we can discuss more! So def a lot of bad stuff.

My point that making Moash so damn evil is problematic representation still stands though

[Frustration]

I'm with Honorless on this one

Read RoW

[Jash]

1 hour ago, therunner said:

Additionally there is a way of social mobility, either by claiming a Shardblade or by amassing wealth. The second one will not cause elevation to light-eyes, but in practice wealthy enough dark eyes have power over poorer light eyes. With return of Radiants there is now another way up the social ladder.

Man, just when I think I'm done replying to you. .....Yo, this comparison is like saying "pull up your own bootstraps" to people of color in the States in the 1960's, and trust me MLK has a lot of quotes on that, if you'd like me to share them with you. Basically, it's ridiculous. You are just excusing inequality. Also, no, they don't. Just like rich black people in our own society still face racism, rich dark eyes will still experience racism in Alekhar,..that one was laughable..as obviously this society is more unjust than our own, and yet still people making an excuses for it. Another way up the social ladder lol. Societies shouldn't have social ladder yo. That is unjust. People having advantages from birth over other people because the color of their skin or eyes is....BAD. Do we need to pull up a elementary level textbook on why racism is bad here? 

 

1 hour ago, therunner said:

There was no death sentence or imprisonment without judicial process, they were in prison awaiting trial and died there due to their advanced age. The were there for too long because Elhokar forgot about them it seems, which is obviously horrible, but it is neither death sentence nor slavery. It is criminal neglect not murder.

Wowza. Woweeweewooo. Holy father of storms. Whew. Yeah, I don't know. This is shocking. I assumed most people reading these books would have at least some similarities about injustice to the author. Apparently not. How do I even begin? This is worse yo. This is worse. This is worse than murder. Improsining people without a trial and letting them die in jail ...is worse than murder. Murder has reasoning behind it. It treats the person murdered as human. This is callously treating human beings as animals...heck for me, not even animals, like weeds. to be plucked and disregarded. "It's not murder." Yes it is. I don't give a crap what Alethi or any other society has to say on this. It's murder. They were murdered. Maybe don't go try to justify someone murdering people. It's a bad look. 

1 hour ago, therunner said:

That is because Kaladin is literally racist against all lighteyes, he judges them all based on their eye color and they need to prove themselves to him that they are in fact not bad people. Not to mention his reaction to finding out that his eyes are light when he summons Syl blade. As a traumatized person his reaction is understandable, but that does not change it.

That's not racism. Racism involved systems of oppression. Kaladin is oppressed. He is from the an oppressed minority. He can't be racist. He can be prejudice, but not racist. A definition of racism for ya : prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized. (take particular note of that last part) Oh, and of course he didn't want to be a light eyes. He didn't want to be one of the people who had so callously disregarded he and other dark eyes his entire life. Whew, there are so many problems with this, and I don't feel like diving into a lesson on systematic racism right now. So, I'm out on this topic. 

[Jash]

50 minutes ago, Frustration said:

A good person, a truely good person would stand for what is right, even if the whole world was against them.

There is no such thing as a "truly good person". How society shapes us is how we know what is right or wrong. People can make moral judgements about their society by learning a different set of what is right or wrong, but...no, no one can truly be said to be absolutely and perfectly just/morally superior to others. That isn't existing. My hero, Martin Luther King, Jr. was an amazing, spectacular person, who stood against injustice. However, he was not perfect. No one is. Importantly, no one should have to be held to that standard to be called good. Stand for what is right. You mean, like standing against Parshman enslavement. Please point me to the part where people stood against that. I'd like to go ahead and see it. That would, after all, be what a "truly good" person would do right? Oh, how abut standing against slavery as a general rule. Please point to the part of the book where any alethi light eyes does that? I'd like to see that section of the book. It would make me feel so much better to know how good everyone was. Or, perhaps, are people all complex, and there is no such thing as a truly good person. 

 

54 minutes ago, Frustration said:

I would prefer he didn't, the more separation between my entertainment and reality the better, I read to get away from polotics, not dive in deeper.

Ah yes, what fiction is famous for...not dealing with social issues or politcs...wait.....wait a second, are you saying TSA has a ton of politics and a lot of discussion of society and social issues in it? Wait, it does doesn't it. Already. Oh, and discussions on race and oppression aren't "politics", they are something that "a truely good person would stand for", you know...standing against injustice in society is a great example of something a truly good person should do (I quoted you by the way), so I do hope we get to see some truly good people fighting against injustice in our book.
In character as a light eyes : Sure as heck wouldn't want discussions on slavery to get in the way of our fashion magazines or what kind of wines will we enjoy in our storm shelters, ah good chum? 
For someone who seems set on what truly good people should or should not do, you are awfully callous about discussions on inequality or injustice in society. I personally think a truly good person would care about those things, and not dismiss them as politics. Just my opinion though. Yes, I repeated myself here, I couldn't quite get exactly what I said right. I didn't want to insult you or attack you, merely apply the same logic you had toward Moash and people like Moash toward people in power, and with the ability to ignore injustices becasuse they don't effect them. I would go ahead, and say the reason Moash is so angry, has a lot to do with a similar attitude among Alethi light eyes toward the injustice he experiences.