Something to consider that I hope seemed odd to more than just me.

[Ashleg]

I believe the shrew science you are talking about is in Salamandestron. And shrews are more brave and battle hardened than Abbey beasts. When abbey chaps kill, they get very emotional from what I have seen. One if the most tragic scenes was when the cellar hog in rakkety tam killed a stoat with a hammer, and broke down crying and apologizing to the slain beast's corpse.

Haven't read that one yet. Might be why......

[Captain Tammo]

Also, guys, keep in mind that Redwall is set in medieval times (if you want to compare it to human history). Death was commonplace back then and there wasn't a whole lot of value to a life. Seeing dead people and people getting killed was tragic in some circumstances, but pretty commonplace in a lot of places. I mean, public executions were huge town events that everyone came out to watch!

[The Skarzs]

Sometimes it was the only time people had to celebrate too.

[Mari]

I love the Redwall series, but they're very black and white, I'd say. It's easy to tell who's evil and who's good. (As they are children's books.) Species have their own set formulas for personalities and Brian Jacques didn't often steer from these (and when he did, the results were fantastic iirc). Mice are  a bit more versatile than the others, squirrels and otters are brave, hares tend to be sassy and well-mannered, shrews are passionate, etc. Vermin however are bloodthirsty, cowardly, and tough only in numbers. The exceptions are leaders of the hordes. That's why I love the idea of a more-rounded vermin character, a character who isn't 100% evil all the time. I had a roleplay about to start revolving around one of my vermin characters, perhaps I'll give it a try here. =)

[Dannflower Reguba]

Well, we did see what segregation, discrimination, lies and propaganda could do rather awfully here in the US. People had it really ingrained in their minds that blacks weren't real people, and would easily kill them, allow them to suffer, and not give a, what was it you said, a flying cow, about them.

Just look at the Jim Crow laws, that stuff was horrible. Good, respectable people came up with that sort of stuff, simply because they had been taught from birth that blacks were lesser beings.

So if segregation and race discrimination was potentially allowed to go on long enough then the woodlanders, so called goodbeasts, might not even consider the vermin type real animals with real lives, and *Cheesy moment* real feelings.

I mean they even call them vermin. That's an almost blatant Redwall version of the 'N' word.

So maybe Woodlanders have a messed up view of vermin, and I gotta say, vermin never really helped their case very much with all the attacks and villainy they do.

       You're missing one very critical point here, instigation. Back when the slave trade was the big (horrible) thing that it was, how did it work? The traders would sale their courses, picking up people who had been taken from their homes against their will. In the case of Redwall, why do the woodlanders have preconceived notions that vermin are evil? Because the vermin are rising up against them. So where's the difference? It's in who started it, the slave trade was made possible by the kidnappers who went inland to obtain the slaves. A Redwall equivalent would be the woodlanders going out to purposefully kidnap and enslave the vermin, but we don't see that happening do we? Nay, quite the opposite, the view must be turned around to compensate. Let's say, for illustration, that the slaves represent the woodlanders instead. The "slaves," wouldn't be to friendly with the "slavers," and probably wouldn't be too upset about killing one that was actively trying to take away their family.

       It's really all about perspective, you have to understand both mindsets, the WHY behind everything (this is really the key to understanding just about everything). In this case, we see that the vermin consistently (almost to the point of always) seek to destroy, enslave, pillage, plunder, etc. all for personal gain, and with little regard to anybeast except them self. This contrasts very sharply with the woodlander's hospitable nature, more often than not wishing the best for all around them (let us remember Dingeye and Thura, two vermin who were allowed sanctuary in Redwall despite being vermin, they might've been good too, if it weren't for their incident with the bow). Does this always ring true? Of course not, we could go on about Tugga Bruster vs. Blaggut, but the point's been made. The vermin in the Redwall world represent all that is evil, and they've done practically nothing to fight this stereotype (enter Veil Sixclaw, given every opportunity to be different, but followed in the footsteps of vermin he never even knew). 

[Ashleg]

How about Julian, Gingivire, Ashleg, and Groddil?
((No. Stop laughing. I didn't just say that for the sake of it. ))

Julian and Gingivire, cats, both worked willingly against the other vermin in order to help the heroes.
Though Ashleg himself did some bad things ((stop--laughing!)) he realized in the end that Tsarmina was evil and fled the scene.
Groddil never did anything evil as far as I can remember, and in fact he came across as a good guy being forced to work for the wrong side.
He even celebrated in the end when Ungatt Trunn died.

There's also Flinky, the stoat who wanted his band to just settle down and mind their own business.
Then Blaggut and Grubbage come into play, not to mention that the ferret, Romsca, managed to form a bond with the Abbot before her death...
((And in Veil's case, it doesn't help that the Woodlanders named an infant secretlg after the words "evil" and "vile", does it? That, my friends, is not cool. Sawney Rath was a vermin who adopted a Woodlander and he went and made Tagg feel like a star all the time, even if they had different veiwpoints. No wonder they grew up to be how they were?))

[Dannflower Reguba]

       How many vermin have you named? 8-9, how many are in the Redwall books? tens of thousands (maybe over a hundred thousand). The number of exceptions practically doesn't even exist in the light of how many vermin were hell bent on murder and plunder. Also, Groddil and Ashleg don't particularly count as they both exhibited a willingness to do evil, fleeing more for personal safety than anything else. Romsca's debatable, but I'll give it to you (I prefer the mindset that she did have a change of heart, the scene has significantly more depth that way). The first cat we ever saw was good (also notice the lack of wild before the mention), Gingivire's turn was unexpected, but his father wasn't particularly bad to begin with either. Tsarmina was the bad apple, also keep in mind that Redwall and Mossflower were both early in the series, from that point onward, cats were pretty much just straight evil. Veil is also a word used to describe something that's hidden, which Veil was certainly hidden from the vermin. Sawney Rath ordered the murder of Rillflag to obtain a child he tried to rear as a vermin, and also attempted to force him to skin a living beast (some star he was). Veil has no excuse to be evil (other than personal decision to follow the nature of vermin), and Tagg was good despite being hampered by his upbringing (active choice to follow the nature of woodlanders).

       Nothing changes the clear cut fact that vermin are evil 99% of the time, so exercising caution is well advised! If man were to break into my home, and I was holding a gun, I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger, why? Because the likelihood of the stranger in my home wanting to do something other than harm or theft is almost non-existent. If he died as a result, the fault would lie with him for doing something he shouldn't have. The woodlanders have been far more gracious than that with the vermin they've come across, so questioning their moral compass based on the fact that they don't all feel remorse when trying to protect themselves and their families is beyond unfair.   

[Jetthebinturong]

Groddil never once wanted or tried to do anything evil. He was basically Trunn's slave.

Veil's morality makes no logical sense, and nor does Tagg's. The ideas of nature vs nurture are whacked in the Redwall series. Even if Veil was naturally "evil" and Tagg was naturally "good," their upbringings should trump those natures.

[Ashleg]

No, no, I know what Veil means, but don't you remember that poem they wrote about him?
And I wasn't saying that Sawney was good. I was saying that he treated Tagg great whilst in turn all the Redwallers except Bryony were quick to pin everything against Veil, so he became resentful against them.

The cats being from early on doesn't matter on where they stand, either.

Veil did save Bryony, so I'd say he did have a little turnaround there!

[Dannflower Reguba]

       I still wouldn't allow the dibbuns to be around him unsupervised. (Not trying to say Groddil's bad, but he's less trust worthy than examples like Blaggut and Grubbage, hence why I don't count him as highly as I do some others)

       But they didn't, and that's kind of the point (as well as one of the reasons why good and evil are so clear cut in the series). Their nature is so much a part of who they are that those who stray from it are few and far between, hence the discussion over the last couple of posts. One could make an argument about conscience in this case, for Veil, you can't really teach conscience. For Tagg, Martin was seen to be a guiding presence in his life, which could help to shorten the disparity between the two. This is more speculation than opinion, and the topic's certainly open to a certain amount of interpretation. But the fact remains that this is inline with the way the woodlanders act in relation to vermin (basically the point of this topic).

@Ashleg: Were they wrong to pin the things on the very beast who literally did all of the wrong things? The fact is they weren't wrong, and in the case of Tagg I repeat, Sawney tried to force him to skin another beast alive! He was manipulative in this despite the fact that he may have shown some sort of affection for the otter. Also, I would like to point out quickly that Sawney's reason for treating Tagg so highly was the status of the Taggerung, and that was it. I don't recall anything personal stemming from pure relationship so much as the importance of roles.

My point with the cats is that Jaques changed their stance after the first few books, meaning that the early cats (in written order) are hardly fair to count. Veil may have saved Bryony at the very very end, but his statement leaves his moral position kind of gray, and his life up to that point doesn't help his case.

[Ashleg]

Page 38 in Taggerung clearly showed that Sawney loved Tagg, whether it be due to his rank or not.
He tried to force Tagg to do that because, like I said, Sawney's not a good guy and I never thought he was.
He does express more good qualities, though, and he could've just as easily resented Tagg for being an otter despite also having the mark of the Taggerung. But I don't think that came up once.

How old was Veil supposed to be?
Early twenties by the time he was exiled, right?
If he was stealing stuff inside the Abbey whilst still a Dibbun and they always blamed him before anybeast else (like the book made it out to seem), then why the heck was it him? Because he was a ferret. Plenty Woodlander Dibbuns through the series do things like that but it isn't treated as "Oh, you're a squirrel so you must've been the one to steal it."
And as he got older, he kept it up because there was some kind of scorn there.
The attempted poisoning of that one character was really the only thing he did that was "evil". Otherwise, he seemed like an angsty teenager.

[Dannflower Reguba]

       Sawney's actions were born of a desire to have the Taggerung in his control (hence the manipulation later on), any sort of loving facade he may have showed was simply because of the power that otter brought him. We know Sawney's character, and his character bars from believing that he has any capacity to actually love, despite how deceptive one of his actions might be. Why the heck was it him? Because it was him! He was guilty of the crimes he was accused of! The blame being set on him was entirely justified by his actions, and the difference between Veil and the dibbuns is that he was malicious. There's no excuse for his actions, and blaming it on the woodlanders who rightly accused him of being the thief that he most certainly was, is irresponsible. Malicious should be substituted for angsty, he tried to kill an inhabitant of Redwall Abbey, a vile, evil act that was punished far more graciously than it would have in Sawney's or Swartt's camp.

[Wylder Treejumper]

The generally accepted punishment for attempted murder is death; it is just to condemn murderers. It is illogical and, indeed, immoral to suggest that it is wrong to punish people for their actions. The laws of nature and nature's God require that people reckon with the consequences of their actions, regardless of their intentions or the mutability of their character. Justice requires it, and mercy cannot rob justice.

[Ashleg]

I feel like this is a court case, what the flyin' heck...

He later felt guilt for it, though, a trait many vermin wouldn't have expressed anything close to.
There's many people, I've read, who think that Veil was good as well.
He could've very easily teamed up against Bryony instead of saving her.

Did I ever say it was wrong to punish people for their actions? Heeeeck no! >.<
But I do believe that everyone deserves a second chance, and even though Veil threw away many chances, he died for his adoptive mother whom didn't seem very phased by it.

[Wylder Treejumper]

I haven't read Outcast in a long time; but my perception was that Veil should have been remembered as a bad person who's last act happened to be good.

In any case, this topic is about vermin and woodlanders in general, not about whether Veil was evil or good- I don't think we have enough information to decide that anyways.