Jash

You should read “The Dispossed” if you haven’t. It doesn’t treat Anarchism as a Utopia, but rather I think shows a semi realistic interpretation of how it could look in real life. It’s far from perfect, but to be quite honest, I still came away from the book wanting it. I do think an Anarchist society could exist in real life, as it…does. Most tribal societies look more like anarchy than capitalism. I, however, think in order for an advanced civilization to exist this way, there will need to be many steps in between, with some of the first steps being the very realization that we don’t have to live this way. We can have a society that’s main goal is the happiness for the majority of its citizens and not to make as much money as possible. I think new modes of government, perhaps even that we can’timagine, will start cropping up relatively soon (think next100 years). Capitalism has already failed, we just have yet to realize it. As we start having food shortages, climate change starts causing even more problems than now, and we have more disease outbreaks like corona, people are going to start realizing that capitalism does not properly respond to these kind of events, and in fact…causes them. As a history major, I sense we are on tbe brink of a major shift in our how our societies work, and the societies that survive to the next stage will be the ones that care about their citizens the most, not the more predatory ones.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_degree_murder Extreme Indifference to Human Life The third main type of second-degree murder occurs when a victim dies as a result of the perpetrator's extreme indifference to the value of human life. Generally speaking, extreme indifference means an utter disregard of the possibility that an act will kill someone. Going back to Adam and Bill, imagine that instead of hitting Bill over the head with a shovel, Adam grabs his gun and wildly fires toward a crowd of neighbors that have gathered to observe the argument between Adam and Bill. Adam didn't necessarily mean to kill anyone, but also didn't give any thought to the harm that his actions could cause to people in the crowd. This demonstrates Adam's extreme indifference to human life. If one of Adam's bullets struck and killed anyone in the crowd, then Adam has probably committed a murder in the second degree. Definition of Second degree murder. Also, I tagged Cornell Law, which had a similar definition. Also, Frustration, do not reply to me or quote me again. I no longer want to communicate with you. Please do not message me.

Lol. I literally quoted from US law. Are you arguing against...actual US law's definition of second degree murder? I just want to be clear. Are you calling, the United States law that I quoted, incorrect, and think that you, ...a random dude know better about it...then...the...law, by definition? Whew. I don't know. I think I'm out. I can't talk to someone who argues against the actual law. Hint : Type second degree murder, and then either US Law, or choose a specific state (or if you are from another country, try that), and read the definition. Many US states would consider, say, leaving your child in the car, and then they are dying as....second degree murder (hint hint, that is the same as what Elhokar did). Negligence is when you accidentally endanger someone's life when you had no plan to. See, Elhokar knew that Moash's grandparents were weak of health, and he ignored and was negligent of that situation. It isn't the same as manslaughter. For an example in real life, if I hit someone with my car, I would be commiting manslaughter. However, if I was drunk while doing that, I think that often ends up being second degree murder. The point is, if something you have done directly led to you endangering someone else's life, it can end up defined as second degree murder, and not manslaughter. Again, go read actual law. Like, you aren't fighting with me, you are fighting with actual law. So, I'm done. Go fight with the lawyers of whom I quoted this from.

I was thinking that it might be interesting to just talk about the things that frustrate us in the series, hopefully people can just share their opinions without much disagreement, so I'll suggest as the OP, that we all only tag others to agree with them lol. Some people will write things that frustrate them, that you like..but...just ignore it. I want this to be like a free place to complain without having to fight people about it! So, I'll start. 1. As my previous topic stated, I want Moash to be a more major PoV. I want him to be presented in a more gray light, and I want him to have nuanced opinions on things. 2. I want the Jasnah and Shallan relationship to develop more. I loved their interactions in The Way of Kings and the beginning of Words of Radiance. I understand that Sanderson wanted Shallan to mature passed a wardship, but...their relationship could have developed as they became more equals. After all, in real life, I still talk to many people who at one time were teaching me things. Relationships often continue, although changed, past the point of wardship. 3. Give me more Singers! I loved Eshonai's chapters in Words of Radiance, and the little we got of Venli and Rlain in Oathbringer. Give me more! Also, add more nuance to them. I am hoping, and no spoilers, that the Listeners who disappeared at the end of WoR might return at a later date (I believe it included Eshonai's Once Mate. Wow, can't exactly remember, but there was a big group that disappeared). 4. Not exactly a complaint, but give me more of Bridge 4. Loved Moash, Teft, Rock, Lopen, Rlain, Skar, and Sigzil's PoVs. I just want more of these amazing characters. 5. Another non-complaint, as it was solved at the end of Oathbringer. Shallan choosing Adolin made since. Please, Kaladin fans don't attack me. I like, and relate to Kaladin more than Adolin...however, he just made more sense for Shallan. They had better chemistry. Now, don't get me wrong : I wanted Shallan and Kaladin to become FRIENDS, not lovers, and thought that made more sense even in how they interacted. Anyways, it ended up going that way to my surprise (most media wouldn't have gone that way, thank you Sanderson for having Shallan make the sensible choice!). 6. More dark eyes, or people from lower rungs of society. I enjoy the parts that take place looking at those without power and privilege more than those who do. I liked Shallan in TWoK before she had much power. I liked Kaladin in TWoK for the same reason. Enjoyed Bridge 4 PoVs in Oathbringer for that reason. Eshonai and Venli could also go in this catergory. What I liked most while reading TWoK is I felt like Kaladin was a character who wouldn't get a voice in most books or movies. I think Sanderson also excels in writing these characters and making their mundane tasks or lives so interesting to read. The chapter from Rock's PoV might be my favorite in the entire book, and all he did was cook and talk to people and carry a bridge. Sanderson made every word count. Anyways, my complaint is just I want more of that. I love the overreaching plot of this book, but I think more common people having a voice wouldn't hurt the story that much. Many of Bridge 4 could be around the action. Other radiants who have come from harder backgrounds as well. I think that's all I can think of now. Anyways, don't get this wrong. Second favorite series I've ever read. Think I've never cried as hard as when Kaladin first helps Hobber and Dabbid. Like, I broke down. Or later when Skar first comes to join Kaladin, Rock, Teft, and Dunny around the fire, and I broke down again. I think Sanderson has created real beauty in his words. I just wish...I wish there was more of it, and less of the overarching plot. The moments that hit me the hardest were not the ones where we learned about lore, or had some hard political conundrum, it was when two friends were there for each other, or real human compassion existed in a place where everything attempted to stamp it out. Anyways, hope to see some of your complaints as well, and I will only be replying with positive comments. Hope everyone can follow my lead for this one topic^^.

I love this explanation for how discussions work, that is somehow necessary on a forum to discuss things. People being angry you disagree with their opinions. One of the guys above also stated that I was "this is you promoting your opinions", I was like..yes, that is how having opinions works lol. I feel like too many people think they can just state their opinions as facts, and if anyone disagrees with them, that is...not allowed or something; while at the same time presenting others opinions as like propaganda or something. It is a very confusing double standard. Sorry, I just saw this after already reading your more recent post as well (which I agree with).

I assume you mean "you" as a general you, and not me, since I agree with you haha. I'll look up Red Rising^^. I also love Ursula K. Le Guin, and like every single one of her books deal with politics and social issues...in a heavy heavy way. The Dispossed is about an Anarchist planet, and made me realize I didn't even know what Anarchy was, because our society presents it as something it is not (A note for those who don't know. The Hobbits in Lord of Rings look more like what actual Anarchists want then like..The Purge, or whatever else popular media presents them as); and The Left Hand of Darkness...has just so much going on. Different modes of government, notes on Totalitarianism being bad (let's be honest, that combined with the plug for anarchy probably means Le Guin herself was a left wing libertarian), the main group of humans have no gender in the book (and how she represents each of the characters is just spectacular). Anyways, there is so much of sci fi and fantasy, including most....i would guess, of the award winning books that DO deal with social issues effecting the real world. A note on Harry Potter - I found how everyone treated Hermoine on the elves to be......disappointing at best, and out rightly and obviously morally wrong at worse. But JK Rowling is...not someone I respect very much due to recent events, even though I did enjoy Harry Potter to an extent (Long live Animorphs as the superior series). A note, Hermoine is a good character, the problem is how JK Rowling presents the issue as something to be laughed at by everyone except Hermoine.

"Promoting your opinions" - Yes, that is I guess...what we are all doing. Like all the time, in every aspect of our lives. Discussing inequality in society shouldn't be political. If you think it is political, I think it will be hard for us to come to any sort of agreement. Sociology is not the same as Politics, hence why they have different departments in most Universities. Granted they have overlap, I'm not denying that, but no..I don't think saying, "Racism exists" or "Inequality exists" or "systematic racism is bad" should be political. I think everyone should just agree about it. And I don't think it should be controversial to make these statements. Also, to shortly reply to your other things : Am I not allowed to be sarcastic here? I use sarcasm as a means to not become angry. It can be difficult when speaking on something you are passionate about, so I am sorry if my sarcasm was rude. I will try in the future to limit it (as I hopefully did above). I want to also say I don't know how to talk about Moash's issues with his society, without making it political. I think that the reason you find it easy to dismiss him is also you not wanting to address the injustice he faced. I think you have to think about injustice when discussing how someone could end up like Moash. I don't think I involved modern politics that heavily. I used them merely to talk about the politics of Roshar, and was focused on that. Like. For example, in the first book. Go back and read a chapter from Dalinar's perspective, then immediately one form Kaladin's. It is pretty hard to look at their circumstances, how little Dalinar cares about the injustice Kaladin is facing while he is...talking to Sadeas about something else, and not feel...a deep feeling of injustice. Like. Kaladin is literally on the edge of death in every chapter in the early and middle parts of that book. Dalinar mentions he doesn't agree with Sadeas using bridges the way he does, but won't try to push the issue. It's...infuriating. I can understand why Moash would be angry. I can understand why a "truly good" person would be angry. Anyways, it seems like you have a stong bias for the light eyes, that...you are kind of going along with their mode of thinking, and I think that I, and Moash, would be frustrated by that. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought. - From the dictionary. They died in prison. They were therefore killed. You are usinig the like US legal definition of murder, but murder has a defintion in English outside the legal paramaters, and different coutnries define murder in different ways. Also, and this is from a website dealing with law, the definition of second degree murder in most places : Typically, second-degree murder is defined as murder that is not premeditated, or murder that is caused by the offender's reckless conduct that displays an obvious lack of concern for human life. In other words, Elhokar, even by US law, would have committed second degree murder by legal definition. Also, here is the question, I actually don't remember...what did Elhokar say about it? Did he just forget them, or did he actively "forget them" because it was inconvenient to remember them. If it is the latter, I'd call that premeditated, which would make it legally 1st degree murder. Your definition of murder seems limited, even by US standards. Now, and this is important, I am stating my definition of murder. I think I said above, it is my definition. You can't tell me I am wrong about what I consider it, as I consider it murder. Period. I think Elhokar forgot them because they were inconvenient, and I think that makes it murder.

First, I want to note I appreciated many of the points you made in your reply. I think I should acknowledge you made some good points. I don't agree with them all, but I can see your logic on many of them, even if I have a different opinion. To specifically mention something I agreed with you on, it would be Moash as it has to do with slavery. I think it is a complex issue, but I do think you made a good point there. I'm sorry, I"m being lazy to quote over and over. So much work. That however, does not include this section. You are correct that systemic racism and racism are different, however in a lot of dictionaries and encyclopedias it is becoming more and more common to consider racism as something that someone must have power, to be prejudice and inact injustice against, those they are being racist to. Your example of someone living in China is apt. I live in Korea, so I happen to have some very real world opinions on this. I have struggled with what I think personally, and also seeing how that is applied to society as a whole. So I guess I would say, I think that the neo-nazi could still be racist, because he is still not from China. He wasn't raised in China, and so has come from a different system. There is also an argument that because of Western culture and colonization that ....no matter what white people have benefits anywhere they go, which....is true. Here in Korea, there are just certain luxuries that white foreigners get that other foreigners do not, and I would guess that is the case in most countries in our modern world. I guess I personally think there should be a separation between the word for someone being prejudice based on skin color, and those who have power to make another person's life actively worse through injustice, which is why I would say Kaladin, as a dark eyes living in a completely light eyes control world, cannot be racist, but instead prejudiced based on eye color. Hmmm, but I do think it is fair, we could be talking about the same things, while simply using different definitions. So, from your perspective, racism means something different, and I will say the definition is currently a little unclear. Some things I read seem to suggest it must involve injustice and discrimination, and some seem more similar to your definition. Oh, and by the way, this is one thing I do disagree with the progressive side on (I think it's obvious I'm progressive here), which is I do think white people can experience racism in...a place like China, or Korea. They have to be in a situation where they are not in power though, so there are only a few countries in the world wehre I really think a white person can experience (my definition, not yours) racism. A note : I am married to a Korean woman, and we have had a lot of discussions on this very thing. It is so complicated, and I totally understand being confused. I feel confused too, about it. I just don't think Kaladin can be racist. Prejudice based on eye color, yes, but not racist. It's just different. As to your thought experiment by the way, I've traveled a lot in southeast asia (tickets are cheap from Korea) and boy, oh boy can white people still be racist in Asia lol. Acting like every southeast Asian is there servent, literally acting like characters of the light eyes like Sadeas in real life, they can definatily still be racist despite being in the minority. Power does funny thing, especially perceived power. Rich white tourists are seen as powerful, even if in reality they shouldn't be. Another note, minority has two definitions, one is less in number, but the other refers to a disadvantaged group. In other words, someone can be a minority despite being the majority in that country. Think : South Africa. I think people do usually say "minority group" or "disadvantaged group" instead of just minority, but in reality just being a majority does not make you the group in power. While as in Korea, I do feel very much disadvantaged, like a minority group, it did not feel that way in Thailand or the Philippines at all....they just...treat me respectively. It's uncomfortable actually for me. Oh one more, if you imprison someone, then forget about them and they die, than that isn't simple imprisonment. It is murder. For example, people hate me using ASOIAF, but let's say Tyrion jumped form the Sky Cells due to losing his mind, at the Eyie. I'd call Lysa a murder, too. Imprisonment is not murder, imprisoning someone until they die of malnourishment is murder.

Actually, I would argue a lot of fantasy and sci fi BETTER deal with political issues and social issues than fiction set in a modern world. I'll give a great example, have you watched Avatar : The Last Airbender or The Legend of Korra. Both exist within societies that are unjust. However, the injustice in Avatar is dealt with. We know it is wrong, it is a major and overwhelming theme within the narrative of the show. Even better, we see individual fire nations citizens have been brainwashed and are not, by their very nature, evil. I love it. However, Korra failed in this regard hard. Unable to deal with the fact that capitalism has a lot of issues with injustice, it just skirted those issues and instead had villains for a season (often being strawman like arguments for other modes of government) so to avoid dealing with the issue of injustice in Korra's world. ASOIAF, which I mentioned before, talks and deals with issues of injustice, in fact so do most of GRRM's books, which are both fantasy and sci fi books. Another of my favorite shows/books. The Expanse has heavy implications of what we do about injustice in society and definitely is meant to be compared to our very real society and the injustices happening here. Another series I'm currently reading, the Broken Earth series by N.K. Jemison, also deals with these topics heavily with a lot of allegory to racism in the real world. I would actually argue most of the people around me who enjoy fantasy and sci fi enjoy it for the exact opposite reason than what you have stated. They love that it deals realistically with injustice and social issues, something most things set in a modern world are unwilling to deal with because then they would have to admit something is wrong with our modern world, something Hollywood is heavily invested in not doing (Hollywood loves capitalism, lol). I actually don't think it is possible to talk about the injustice on Roshar without comparing it to the real world. Also, I think I've mostly stayed within the world of Roshar, and not talked much about real world issues. Am I wrong? Because I quoted Mohammad Ali, or mentioned MLK? I sincerely hope you, and everyone reading this, would see MLK as a hero, and that is politically controversial to say so.

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. 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.

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? 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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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".

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". 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. 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.

I've never heard someone use PoV in that way, but I guess it makes sense lol. Yes, I didn't want you to come back, because you are wrong and you said..you didn't want to engage with me on this topic. You are allowed your opinion, but it's a bad one, lol. I met lots of Tywin-stans/Tywin lovers who think like you as well. Some of us read the series with nuance. Some of us were you I guess. The series is not about gaining and maintaining power, you're just wrong. The books have an aspect of the power gaining/maintaining in the plot, but it is not..the overarching main theme of the writing. Again, perhaps if you only read Lannister (not Jaime) and....non Theon, Greyjoy PoV's, you could come away with that opinion, but...a majority of the characters are not falling under the umbrella you've decided the books fall under. As I was able to discuss with others, to my delight (It was quite fun interacting with them, glad you came if only for that reason). Like, did you take Cersei's opinion on the matter as a fact of life in that universe? A hint : GRRM's characters often don't think like he does, lol. He took real history, wove it with fantasy and character developement, and wrote an excellent series that simply takes place in a different universe in a time of instability. The series, however, is not about..that game of thrones. It is about the internal struggle within the characters heads, it is about what it means to have power (as a moral question, not about...how to gain it), and it is about the complexity of making decisions once you have that power. I would guess the series will end with in fact, the power game you speak of being rebuked by GRRM, as well as a rebuke of war in general. Oh, that is another theme, the cost of war, and what it means. Go read Brienne of Tarth's section of AFfC's one more time. GRRM loves writing about that. Oh, and it's about politics in an ancient Kingdom, which...again, would be reductive to call that, ...how to gain power and maintain it. Davos doesn't give a crap about gaining power, yet his parts are distinctly political, so are Eddard's, and Jon's. Politics is more complicated than...I sadly assume you think they are. I am not getting anything twisted. It's not. That isn't what GRRM writes about. No. Maybe you watched the TV show first or something, and that is how you got things twisted. You, sir/ma'am, are the one who has gotten things twisted. And no, I can't imagine why anyone would not want to talk to someone who talks in such a black and white, I am the King who is always right, like you do. lol. Perhaps, like Moash, you should try to be more self reflective. The great thing, is, wait for it, I'm the OP of this!!! Oh my goodness, and I obviously wanted to discuss comparisons between the series, didn't I!!! So, good news, as you aren't the King of this forum, and I am in fact, talking about TSA and comparing characters from that series with ASOIAF, I am....shocker....allowed to do that. Maybe, ...engage with this if you want to, and if you don't want to, you don't have to. LIke others clearly did enjoy engaging with this. You don't have to engage with content you don't like. I, and others here, did want to engage with the content. And no, I don't want to engage with someone who just keeps telling me they don't wnat to engage with the thing...they also simultaenously engaging with, all while telling me how stupid I am for thinking the things I think^^. Moash indeed, has little self reflection. I hope, or think, or want, him to be more self reflective in the future. I think that would make for an interesting character arc. However, everyone is allowed to dislike Moash. I made this topic because I simply, wanted to understand why they did have those feelings, and I would say it's been quite successful, as I now understand their thoughts better. I personally, I know shockingly, related to Moash. I am currently frustrated with the state of our world, now none of my relatives were killed in inhumane ways, but...there are people dying in inhumane ways in our society right now, due to leaders putting them in cages and ignoring them. And I have to admit, the leader of which I"m speaking, I'd quite like to stick a sword in his chest^^, so yeah, I get Moash. Please, feel free to not engage with me if you don't want to talk about ASOIF. I hate the popular technique online these days, respond to someone then say you don't want to talk about whatever you've said to them. Then. Don't. Post. Anything. If you don't want to talk about ASOIAF, stop talking about ASOIAF here. Please, feel free to stop.

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

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

Haha, yeah, I figured I could do the multiple quote thing. This is actually very similar to the ASOIAF fandom I'm part of, where I've used that function. I guess, I felt like each of the people I responded to were so different, I wanted separate posts, plus just not using the ASOIAF website in awhile so didn't think about it. Oh, and Davos, yes, another great example. I was shocked by the other poster's opinion on the matter, as I thought it was incredibly inaccurate. I thought comparing the two series characters would be natural.

I wanted to reply more to this. Sadaes is almost too evil for ASOIAF, but it's possible, he reminds me of Petyr Baelish a lot actually. However, Baelish has more nuance than Sadaes I would say, also Baelish is more rapey. So rapey. What group do you mean that is doing what is "right", the Skybreakers? If you do mean that order, I would argue they are extremely gray in their motivations (not knowing what is right and wrong almost on a personal level, choosing instead to follow others concepts), and I'd argue many orders in ASOIAF are similar such as the Knight's Watch or the King's Guard, who have dedicated themselves to the protection of the "realm" rather than their own person moral standards. Also, Brienne of Tarth. Let's pretend Brienne of Tarth had magical powers, and like Kaladin, was kind of the first to have these magical powers. If Brienne could found an order, it would absolutely be pressed into doing what was right regardless of how wit effected the individuals. This is Brienne's entire arc!!! Now, here is the thing, you obviously just don't like ASOIAF or understand it, as you've badly misunderstood it. I however, do like it, it and TSA are my two favorite series, and I find them easy to compare. Both book series have excellent world building, excellent character development, and both seem to focus on "the human heart in conflict", all three of our main PoV's are alwasy in conflict within themselves, in BOTH SERIES! Also, individual characters have many things in common, Jon Snow and Kaladin jump out at me for example. Both are in an awkward in between section of being born with some privileges, but their lack of privilege being shoved in their face as well. Both end up being thrust into roles in which they do have power. Both are obsessed with doing what is right for the most amount of people. Both are betrayed. Ooo, so many similarities! !!!Oh!! Both like redheads!!!! lol, sorry I'm reaching on that last one. Anyways, you may not like comparing the two characters or series, but I do, and I believe I'm allowed to ....do as I like? Right?

I am sorry, but this is just plainly wrong. Like, obviously you didn't like ASOIAF, or maybe you didn't even read it (and just watched the shows, and so are making assumptions from there), but...no, this is just false. It is not mainly a series about power, keeping power, and winning power; at all. All of the characters in ASOIAF have deep moral quandaries, even Tyrion (who without spoilers, it is difficult to get into, but I think is unquestionably going down a pretty similar path to Moash in TSA). Catelyn Tully could care less about obtaining power. She tries to make the best decisions that benefit and protect her family, whether she succeeds or not. Robb Stark wants to punish the Lannisters for what they did to Eddard. We sadly don't get his PoV, but I almost garuntee he struggles with what is right or wrong. Jon Snow, again, one of the three characters who have the most PoV's, basically the Kaladin of that series, ALWAYS struggles with what to do. He is thrust into a position of power due to being a good leader, but does not love it or something. He wants to do what is right for the greatest number of people. Daenerys Targaryen, does have a series part of her life surrounding getting power, I have to admit, however, she also thinks a lot about what is right and wrong, and tons of moral questions in her head. She is constantly thinking about what is right, what is wrong, what she should do, how she should do it, etc. Arya Stark, although spends large sections of the book jsut trying to survive, does worry about others and attempt to protect them. I don't want to give up too much, but she eventually does start to go Moash's direction as well, but again, I believe it is written that way. We aren't meant to see her actions as "right". Samwell Tarly is always trying to do what is right and protect people around him. Jaime Lannister is famous for making the slow change toward doing the most good for the most people, trying to avoid doing the wrong thing. He does worry about how is he is seen by others, but......so does Shallan, lol. Cersie and Tywin, and I'd say Stannis, are all obsessed with power, but Stannis also thinks about what he thinks is right and wrong. Theon spends some time thinking about power, but...down deep he just wants to be loved, and .....saw getting power as a way to get that love from his father. Oh, the other Greyjoys, I don't know...I don't like them, never have, I suppose they are mostly power hungry. Arianne Martell too, although I'd say Quentyn Martell, much like Theon, is more lookign for approval from others especially his father, and trying to do what is "right for Dorne". Barristan Selmy wants to serve the most just ruler, and do, again, what is right for the most people. How you could read those books, and come away thinking it was just a story about getting and mainting power is beyond my understanding, also, PS, the main characters of Stormlight Archive ALL HAVE POWER. Dalinar is perhaps the most powerful person in all of Roshar, and we have his PoV dude/dudette; he admits to wanting to be in charge on multiple occassions, and has trouble giving up any of his power to anyone else. He kept saying he would respect Elhokar's rulership, and literally never did to his death. It'd be like if Eddard had ignored everything Robert said and just did what he wanted. Like, I'd say Dalinar is way more invovled in winning power and keeping power than Eddard. Shallan spends a signifigant part of the first two books moving up the rungs of society, and on purpose. Did you read her PoV? lol. Like, I like Shallan, but she certainly wanted more power. She also ignores Jasnah once she returns as she feels she already has the power, and doesn't need to learn anything more. Kaladin, much like Jon Snow, I would say does not seek power, however he takes it when it is given to him. He uses it well, but I also think Jon Snow uses his power well. Navani was born and exists in a powerful place. Jasnah is the flipping Queen now. Perhaps most of main characters don't think about maintaining power because they all freaking have it already. I suppose if GRRM had written the story exclusivily from people who already held power's point of view, it would have been a very differnet series. Again, like my favorite parts of TSA being Kaladin, and Bridge 4 sections that mostly exist outside the power structure, I also like those parts of A Song of Ice and Fire. Theon's PoV in A Dance with Dragons deals with power 0 times, as Theon has none. Catelyn, who is my favorite PoV, rarely if ever talks about power. My second favorite PoV, Brienne of Tarth (who has the second most PoV's in book 4, and is also a big part of Jaime's PoVs in book 3 and Catelyn's in book 2), also ..literally never thinks about power. She spends her entire time thinking of what is right and wrong, and trying to do the most right (particulary for Catelyn's family). Like, George RR Marting himself has said what the books are actually about, so here you go : "I've always agreed with William Faulkner—he said that the human heart in conflict with itself is the only thing worth writing about. I've always taken that as my guiding principle, and the rest is just set dressing." - George RR Martin. This is what he writes about, and also, by the way, what Brandon Sanderson writes about. I would say the most important aspect of all of the PoV's : Dalinar, Kaladin, Shallan, Venli, Szeth, Eshonai, etc; is the human heart in conflict with itself. Granted, Sanderson has an overaching enemy, something the GRRM's books lack, hence why the series can indeed be more focused on fighting for what is right for the greatest number of people. But lets actually consider, much like The Starks are lookign out for what is right for The North and the Riverlands, withouc considering other lands that much, aren't the characters in TSA also thinking that way when it comes to the Singers? Like, with the notable exception of Kaladin, most of them don't really question that they need to be in this war. Just like those in ASOIAF think. The truth is Odium is a convenient excuse, but a lot, a lot of the people in Roshar would not accept if Dalinar was like, "The Singers keep all territory they currently hold, and humans keep all territory we currntly hold." I actually think the nuance of having more and more Singers PoV's is something Brandon Sanderson does better than GRRM, I want to note this, however, I think the convenience of having an overarching evil controlling your enemy is something that is weaker than GRRM's more nebulous writing. I think in reality, in real life, there are no good guys or bad guys and everyone exists on a spectrum. It makes things much harder, including for apparently people like yourself who have so badly misunderstood ASOIAF. Badly misunderstood.

You might be right, haha. Like, it is quite possible I am wrong about where the character is going. I did make a lot of assumptions based perhaps more on how I would write the character than how Brandon Sanderson would write the character. I just assumed at some point Moash would make a turn back toward less selfish, and more selfless, actions. But again, I could be wrong.

This would make sense if you hadn’t have said even if Moash attempts redemption, you will still hate him. I think he has that potential through what I have read so far. I see Dalinar’s character arc as a pretty clear statement that ANYONE can find redemption through doing the right thing and attempting to atone for their mistakes. Which to be quite honest, I agree with. No one is un-redeamable. They can always start making the right decisions, and I actively hate American tv shows and movies always killing off characters as you describe, while trying to reach their redemption. I much prefer in Japanese anime where they actually reach a point of redemption, and don’t need to die. I guess I am a bit like Kaladin, as I don’t believe in punishment, I believe that turning the other cheek is the right thing especially on an individual level. If you’ve watchrd Avatar, the scene where Zuko apologizes to his Uncle and his Uncle’s instant forgiveness is my moral view on how to treat those who realize they were wrong and start the long and hard road towaed making up for what they have done and doing the right thing. I think if you hate Moash for killing Elhokar, and that sort of vengeance behavior, but want him to die as vengeance for his actions…isn’t that the same storming thing? Like don’t we uplift Kaladin for forgiving Roshone…who didn’t even really attempt to atone for what he did?

I agree the series have different tones, but you seem to think Tywin/Tyrion are the only characters in the series. The series as a whole, and GRRM’s writing as a whole is not Macheveliian (although Tywin is). Many people are concerned with doing the right thing : Eddard, Jon Snow, Daenerys, Brienne of Tarth, Samwell Tarly, storm even Jaime Lannister; all spend time either directly pursuing a greater good or their own standards of what is morally right. Other characters like Sansa and Arya kind of don’t think about the right things, but through necessity for their own survival. Characters like Catelyn or Robb attempt to lower the amount of bloodshed. Catelyn in particular looks for ways toward peace. Like, with the exception of Tywin/Tyrion/Cersie, most of the rest of the central cast is not dismissing the greater good. I mean Jon Snow on his own should be a great enough argument against this though about ASOIAF, he has the second most PoV chapters I believe, and spends his entire arc trying to and thinking about the greater good.

Dalinar murdered entire families, including children. He burned an entire city. Considering we know from Kaladin, that soldiers could be as young as 12-14 (Tien), we can also assume that Dalinar killed literally countless amounts of children. I think hating Moash no matter what, and liking Dalinar would be hypocritical, to be quite honest. Again, to the point I have read, Moash hasn’t done anything even approaching the evils Dalinar has committed.