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

[The Skarzs]

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.

I agree. In real life, that's more often than nought the case. However, it seems it was necessary to keep those lines between good and bad in the books pretty clear-cut.

[Wylder Treejumper]

It should be kept in mind, however, that these characters are not human; the effect being they are far more susceptible to the influence of nature than that of nurture. In addition, there are certainly instances where people from horrible circumstances rise far above them, and where people of high standing have fallen into a moral abyss. These are two exceptional characters, so it is not fair, perhaps, to judge them by "averages"- especially as I would say they are more typical than not of the Redwall universe.

[Jetthebinturong]

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.

I agree. In real life, that's more often than nought the case. However, it seems it was necessary to keep those lines between good and bad in the books pretty clear-cut.

I don't feel like it was necessary, the books would have been far more interesting had Tagg been an antagonist and Veil been a protagonist. The Taggerung is probably my second least favourite Redwall book for its treatment of Tagg.

[Ashleg]

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.

I agree. In real life, that's more often than nought the case. However, it seems it was necessary to keep those lines between good and bad in the books pretty clear-cut.

I don't feel like it was necessary, the books would have been far more interesting had Tagg been an antagonist and Veil been a protagonist. The Taggerung is probably my second least favourite Redwall book for its treatment of Tagg.

Indeed, if a black and white world was what Brian was going for than if he had made Tagg a villain it would've at least shown that bad things do happen and that sometimes even people you do thing you can trust have a chance of not being as nice as they seem.

[The Skarzs]

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.

I agree. In real life, that's more often than nought the case. However, it seems it was necessary to keep those lines between good and bad in the books pretty clear-cut.

I don't feel like it was necessary, the books would have been far more interesting had Tagg been an antagonist and Veil been a protagonist. The Taggerung is probably my second least favourite Redwall book for its treatment of Tagg.

I meant necessary to the author. But yeah.

It should be kept in mind, however, that these characters are not human; the effect being they are far more susceptible to the influence of nature than that of nurture. In addition, there are certainly instances where people from horrible circumstances rise far above them, and where people of high standing have fallen into a moral abyss. These are two exceptional characters, so it is not fair, perhaps, to judge them by "averages"- especially as I would say they are more typical than not of the Redwall universe.

Nothing was hinted to in the books that anyone felt "the call of nature", so the influence of nature, from what we know, is minimal. Of course it's said that it's "in vermin's nature" to be the way they are, but honestly, that's a bit of a lame excuse.

[Wylder Treejumper]

It should be kept in mind, however, that these characters are not human; the effect being they are far more susceptible to the influence of nature than that of nurture. In addition, there are certainly instances where people from horrible circumstances rise far above them, and where people of high standing have fallen into a moral abyss. These are two exceptional characters, so it is not fair, perhaps, to judge them by "averages"- especially as I would say they are more typical than not of the Redwall universe.

Nothing was hinted to in the books that anyone felt "the call of nature", so the influence of nature, from what we know, is minimal. Of course it's said that it's "in vermin's nature" to be the way they are, but honestly, that's a bit of a lame excuse.

And yet, the truth? "Instinct" may not be explicitly pointed out in the book, but as a rule vermin are always evil, and woodlanders are always good. The few outliers can be considered aberrations, they are statistically insignificant in any case. Yet, Taggerung itself makes a pretty good case for the idea that, in Redwall, nature trumps nurture. Aside from that, there are few reasonable explanations for the plotline of the book. In Tagg's case especially, Brian seems to be following  the regular course of the books, though I feel it would have been better and more reasonable if Veil had come out on the order of Blaggut, Grubbage, Romsca, or perhaps that scoundrel Yoofus Lightpaw. Something on the order of Orkwil Prink's exile and journey would have been appropriate, I think.

[Dannflower Reguba]

       Might I make a pointed reminder that this conversation is about the masses of woodlanders who seem to care little for the vermin they've slain. Meanwhile, we've drifted off on anomalies that have next to nonexistent importance when compared to gigantic numbers against them (abnormalities are less than 20, beasts in the observable pool are tens of thousands). We've clearly established that the nature of Redwall characters is very clear cut into good and bad (with few exceptions), and that the bad is almost always (if not always) the first to act. On the principle of self defense, I doubt they would care a whole lot in the moment most of the time (I probably wouldn't either). It doesn't matter what our view of how their nature is set up is. The stories behind two random individuals don't matter. I've yet to see any sort of counter-argument related to the facts that actually have an impact (seeing as no one has quit talking about Tagg and Veil since my first post).

[Wylder Treejumper]

Pointed reminder taken. I'll go set up a new thread for this...

[Sanddunes]

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. =)

Some of my favorite characters are vermin that are good. The problem with vermins are they are all three of those things at once and if they are any other thing Brian kills them off especially leaders

[Ashleg]

My favorite characters always die, no joke.

[Sanddunes]

My favorite characters always die, no joke.

Sometimes the most interesting characters don't live very long

[Ashleg]

And that's a problem.

[Sanddunes]

And that's a problem.

Sometimes because you want to know more about them.

[Ashleg]

See.

[The Skarzs]

You need to let the reader know a lot about them, make them their friend. . . And THEN kill them to make it ALL THE MORE DEVASTATING HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH.