What made vermin go bad?

[Faiyloe]

I have been rereading The Sable Quean and there is a prime example of vermin wonderland inequality in that book. near the beginning of the book a young stoat named Globby snuck into redwall. All he wanted was to find some food. he had no intention of hurting anyone at all. He was just hungry. And when he is cause what dose the skipper do. Beat him with an oven paddle, right in front of the abbess, and the abbes let him!. If that had been a "goodbeast" he would never have dream of doing something like that. 

if you haven't read the book yet don't read this

Sure he kills Tollum latter but it was an accident. All he wanted was to leave the abbey in peace. He was scared and trapped in a corner. Anyone would have acted the way he did.

[close]

Threw out the entire book he gave no indication that he bared any ill will on anyone, good or bad. He was just some one caught up in a bad situation.

[Sanddunes]

I have been rereading The Sable Quean and there is a prime example of vermin wonderland inequality in that book. near the beginning of the book a young stoat named Globby snuck into redwall. All he wanted was to find some food. he had no intention of hurting anyone at all. He was just hungry. And when he is cause what dose the skipper do. Beat him with an oven paddle, right in front of the abbess, and the abbes let him!. If that had been a "goodbeast" he would never have dream of doing something like that. 

if you haven't read the book yet don't read this

Sure he kills Tollum latter but it was an accident. All he wanted was to leave the abbey in peace. He was scared and trapped in a corner. Anyone would have acted the way he did.

[close]

Threw out the entire book he gave no indication that he bared any ill will on anyone, good or bad. He was just some one caught up in a bad situation.

That's because to most woodlanders a good vermin is a dead vermin so basically they're prejudice

[The Skarzs]

Indeed.

Faiy and I are writing a fanfic that touches on this, actually.

[LT Sandpaw]

I have been rereading The Sable Quean and there is a prime example of vermin wonderland inequality in that book. near the beginning of the book a young stoat named Globby snuck into redwall. All he wanted was to find some food. he had no intention of hurting anyone at all. He was just hungry. And when he is cause what dose the skipper do. Beat him with an oven paddle, right in front of the abbess, and the abbes let him!. If that had been a "goodbeast" he would never have dream of doing something like that. 

if you haven't read the book yet don't read this

Sure he kills Tollum latter but it was an accident. All he wanted was to leave the abbey in peace. He was scared and trapped in a corner. Anyone would have acted the way he did.

[close]

Threw out the entire book he gave no indication that he bared any ill will on anyone, good or bad. He was just some one caught up in a bad situation.

There's something to breaking and entering with the intention of theft that might've added to Skipper's reaction. Most "goodbeasts" wouldn't bother sneaking over the walls, they'd just walk up to the front gate and ask to be let in. It might have some prejudice involved but I think most people would react in similar ways if someone broke into their home and tried stealing their food. Especially if that food would be willingly handed over if you just asked politely. Whether there was an intention to hurt someone or not the punishment for the crime doesn't change.

[Grond]

I have been rereading The Sable Quean and there is a prime example of vermin wonderland inequality in that book. near the beginning of the book a young stoat named Globby snuck into redwall. All he wanted was to find some food. he had no intention of hurting anyone at all. He was just hungry. And when he is cause what dose the skipper do. Beat him with an oven paddle, right in front of the abbess, and the abbes let him!. If that had been a "goodbeast" he would never have dream of doing something like that. 

if you haven't read the book yet don't read this

Sure he kills Tollum latter but it was an accident. All he wanted was to leave the abbey in peace. He was scared and trapped in a corner. Anyone would have acted the way he did.

[close]

Threw out the entire book he gave no indication that he bared any ill will on anyone, good or bad. He was just some one caught up in a bad situation.

There's something to breaking and entering with the intention of theft that might've added to Skipper's reaction. Most "goodbeasts" wouldn't bother sneaking over the walls, they'd just walk up to the front gate and ask to be let in. It might have some prejudice involved but I think most people would react in similar ways if someone broke into their home and tried stealing their food. Especially if that food would be willingly handed over if you just asked politely. Whether there was an intention to hurt someone or not the punishment for the crime doesn't change.

But that is where you see a difference in the nurture of vermin vs. good beasts. Assuming that stoat mostly grew up interacting with other vermin, he couldn't just go up to the abbey door and ask for food. Think about it he sees a fortified building full of beasts he had never met before. In vermin society if you went up and knocked on the door and it was filled with members of another horde/group he would probably be faced with three choices: 1) Death, 2) Being Enslaved, 3) He might be pressed into joining that horde in question. He just wanted food so he snuck into the abbey to get it and not be subjected to one of the above faiths. He had no clue that the Redwallers would just give him food if he asked for it. He probably never in his life dealt with a group/society like the one found at Redwall.

Now the skipper's reaction to attack him was warranted. He did not know what the stoat's true intentions where or how he would react if another weaker Redwaller had discovered him. But only to to the extent to get the stoat apprehended and neutralized as a threat- i.e. bound or restraint him. The Skipper though it seemed went out of his way to beat and in a way torture the stoat. Which he likely wouldn't have done if he was a good beast caught stealing. The skipper would have likely used much less force- just what was necessary to get them restrained.

Which doesn't make sense. Taggerung and Outcast go against all logic. Nature does not trump nurture when it comes to personality

Not necessarily. Both nature and nurture play a role when it comes to personality or anything else. But apart from that its also not so clear cut to look at the 2 environments in a dichotomy- in that one was good and the other was bad. Despite the fact that Redwall as a whole is a much nicer environment than the Juskarath clan. Veil's childhood or upbringing wasn't particularly good. There is indication that throughout his childhood at least some of the Redwallers treated him with suspicion and he would be the first one to be blamed when things went wrong- despite an absence of proof that he actually did it. He was also not a particularly well respected member of Redwall- in fact he might have been the least respected creature in Redwall. Furthermore the fact that Byrony was both over bearing and extremely lenient when it came to punishment-probably made him spoiled and immature- that he believed he could get away with everything and that he didn't fully grasp the consequence of his actions. Finally he also appears to have had some disorder i.e. cleptomania- hence the stupid petty thefts he did.

Now while Tagg was raised by vermin- the Juskarath clan, he did not necessarily have a bad childhood or upbringing. Ever since he was kidnapped by the Juskarath he was respected and treated fairly well because he was the Taggerung and the adopted son of their chieftain Swaney Rath. This respect would only grow as he got older and his skill as a warrior surpassed that of anyone else. Tagg's childhood was also a fairly peaceful time- the Juskarath did not fight any skirmishes or go on any raids so Tagg was not forced to kill anyone. It is also unlikely that as a result of his skill that any other clan member would bully or mistreat him. Rath was also an ok father and it seems for most of the time they lived together he treated Tagg pretty well and there was some level of mutual respect. Rath was also somewhat of a "nice" vermin leader in that he warned Gruven I before he killed him and gave him the chance to back down. He was also, for a vermin leader, very tolerant of Antigra. Tagg left him because in the period leading up to that he wanted to make Tagg a killer and have him skin a fox alive- a particularly gruesome death that shocked even the other Juskarath. This led to Tagg leaving him because of the fact that he was more averse to killing and had a much nicer personality than even most Redwall or good beast warriors but also that despite his upbringing as a Juska he was never before forced to kill any beast. If Rath had accustomed Tagg to killing from a younger and more impressionable age it is not of the question that he may have turned out differently.

[The Grey Coincidence]

Indeed.

Faiy and I are writing a fanfic that touches on this, actually.

I'm trying to do something similar on FF.Net, a 'reply' to Taggerung and Outcast of Redwall. A study of sorts on the nature of Abbeybeasts and vermin.
But I should probably start with a 'hello everyone I'm obsessed with vermin!'

[Ashleg]

Hello, you, so am I!

[The Grey Coincidence]

I don't know why, but they just stick out as the natural favourites.
I don't feel they ever 'went bad' though, it's just the natural dog eat dog instincts that make them mean-ish, that and they probably live in fear of other bands.etc and are therefore mistrustful. It's just a combination of factors.

[The Skarzs]

Indeed.

Faiy and I are writing a fanfic that touches on this, actually.

I'm trying to do something similar on FF.Net, a 'reply' to Taggerung and Outcast of Redwall. A study of sorts on the nature of Abbeybeasts and vermin.
But I should probably start with a 'hello everyone I'm obsessed with vermin!'

Crud, we better get ours done first, then!

[The Grey Coincidence]

Haha, don't worry I don't copy.
Tho I would like to read it!

[The Skarzs]

Stick around, then!

Can you give a link to your fanfic?
Actually, you may get more people to read it if you post it on the fan fiction board on this forum.

[The Grey Coincidence]

I think I'll do both. The link is here, but as you suggested I also started writing it on the fanfiction boards here.
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/12679554/1/Black-and-White

[a crumb]

Welcome to the forum, The Grey Coincidence


So, I want to suggest a couple things for sake of discussion.

...I think grey characters were always a mistake. The entire concept of species misalignment (and the singular morally ambiguous Veil) strikes me as an attempt at addressing a question that is just destined to open a series of more boxes with more unanswerable questions. It's like Klingon cosmetics in Star Trek. Just don't start poking at an obvious glaring issue, because you'll just unleash an ever more bizarre, untenable debate.

The Redwall universe possessing a black-and-white morality as it does makes any chipping at that foundation, or introducing caveats, risk a spiraling situation wherein readers might want more moral variance when Redwall is fundamentally not about moral ambiguity. Trying to sort out an apparent exception spotlights the whole fundamental incompatibility between our beautiful world, and Redwall's simplicity. Bryony concluded that Veil was evil. I'm inclined to agree. But why was that a plot to begin with? Why are we highlighting that evil beasts are evil? That is merely why they are vermin.

There's the "kill vermin on sight" idea that some fans have brought up over the years. This asks that, if vermin are evil, shouldn't they be exterminated? I could almost swear there's an old parody out there depicting a eugenics program in a future Mossfower. Which highlights my point -because even thinking through a nature v. nurture, moral acceptance of murder in the name of pragmatism ect. are products of not accepting the simple morality at face value. This is not a universe set up for exploring the issue without things like odd moral problems and allegations of racism cropping up. I can think back years ago of insufferable know-it-alls in the ROC having "fun" with this whole dynamic.


Redwallers, more so in the early books, seem open to the idea of good, or at least tolerable, vermin. Mortimer can totally wrap his head around negotiating in good faith with Cluny, a couple foxes can be brought into the Abbey, a bunch of vermin can be performers in Mattimeo, two vermin can be allowed inside in Salamandastron with simple promises ect. I'm not sure this ever wholly went away, but I am really curious at what it might imply. You could never see certain goodbeasts accepting the idea of a good vermin. Grubbage probably needed the Abbey to survive among goodbeasts – no Long Patrol could take him in, I'd think. Abbeybeasts seem conditioned to be more trusting of pretty much anyone, if it takes persuading every time I can think of it happening.

Do you guys think that gray characters, in terms of species misalignment, seem to increase or decrease as the books go on over the years?  Also, does the moral spectrum, as observed by in-universe characters, seem to polarize? In other words, does the idea of trustworthy/harmless vermin disappear form Redwallers as the series goes on? The opposite position, the attitude of "the only good vermin is a dead vermin", finds its exemplars among goodbeasts here and there (hi Skor!). Does that attitude become more common?

What interests me most is when Jacques, who explicitly made the series morally straightforward, decided to pose the conundrum of Veil. To recycle some Ask Brian material that we've probably all read before that is nonetheless relevant, there is this question: "Will you ever have any really good vermin or bad woodlanders in any of your stories?"
To which Jacques replied: "The goodies are good and the baddies are BAD, no grey areas."

I have no idea when that question was asked. The interesting thing is the specific use of 'vermin' and 'woodlander' in the question, meaning the answer doesn't really leave room for any type of gray character. There's also the answer to whether Jacques saw Veil as a good guy: "As to Veil and his final motives, I deliberately left that for the reader to decide. I have had many opinions and the jury is still out."

[The Skarzs]

Thought-provoking post, crumb. I like it.

I'm going to go ahead and write my own thoughts on your paragraph of questions. (Book spoilers!)

Do you guys think that gray characters, in terms of species misalignment, seem to increase or decrease as the books go on over the years?  Also, does the moral spectrum, as observed by in-universe characters, seem to polarize? In other words, does the idea of trustworthy/harmless vermin disappear form Redwallers as the series goes on? The opposite position, the attitude of "the only good vermin is a dead vermin", finds its exemplars among goodbeasts here and there (hi Skor!). Does that attitude become more common?

As the books go on chronologically, it seems like gray vermin are less and less, while the occasional woodlander doing vermin-like things increases: The vole stealing Martin's sword and killing and eating a bird, the crazy hedgehog trying to use the young ones as slaves, the very vermin intolerant Rogue Crew. . . Vermin don't get better, but there seems to be more goodbeasts doing bad things.

The moral spectrum does seem to polarize more as the series went on, from what I can tell. To start: Mossflower, one of the earliest chronologically- Martin finds a rat and was willing to help him before finding he was dead. Mercy, if backed by a strong threat, is shown to the remaining vermin from Kotir, by Long Patrol no less. Outcast of Redwall- Veil growing up in Redwall. Bellmaker- Allowance of Blaggut and Strapp into Redwall. Finnbarr may have shed a tear as he thought of how many deaths there would be should the Shalloo sink. Redwall, Mattimeo- Your above examples with Cluny and Slagar.
After this, there seems like a time of even pegging when it comes to tolerance. I'm not sure if there's a transition between this and The Rogue Crew, but in this last book, there is open disdain and wanton destruction of vermin, mostly by the otters themselves, but not contested by the Long Patrol hares, nor by the Redwallers if I remember right.
We also don't hear "the only good vermin is a dead one" up until somewhere in the middle of the series.



I have a question now:
Are vermin more tolerant of woodlanders, or vice versa?

[Ashleg]

Vermin are more tolerant of Woodlanders because they'll go after anybeast they don't like; it's not species-specific. Woodlanders, on the other paw, have a predisposed disposition to vermin.

About otters and badgers being more on the murderous side: they're mustelids, as are most vermin. Keep that in mind.