What I'm saying is that as a player, you have to realize OOC that what other people "know" is likely to be vastly different than what you "know".
First, your character would know that a treaty was signed and broken within 2 months. Stripped of all player-provided information, that is what he knows.
You're still approaching this from the viewpoint that the absolute truth of what Melhed did is wrong. That there is no other possible viewpoint, and that *everyone* must see it the exact same way. If they don't then they're dishonorable.
Not the exact same way. But breaking a treaty is at it's very core a dishonourable act. It's going back on the word you gave. You may have a ton of reasons for doing so but then we've left the realm of truth and entered that of perspective.
And seriously, I am not denying the very concept of perspective but it does seem like you're denying convention and truth both. We can mutter about all the details but breaking a 2 month old treaty is exactly what Melhed did. You can say they've heroically risen up against their evil oppressors but if so, they did that through breaking the treaty. And so aside from all perspective and the negative connotation of those words, that is a clear-cut fact. And thus the truth that all of our characters can observe.
What I would hate is for the convention in BM to have become that breaking treaties is all right. Which goes hand in hand with "we're all just realpolitking Machiavellians" and "they backstab eachother on GoT all the time". That is why I do seem to care like you said.
Treaties are broken all the time, it happens, it's a necessity. But that doesn't mean that the IC perception of such events should be that it is all right as long as it benefits you. That's one way to play, not everyone's. And as I tried to show you from giving my perspective, it's one that leads down a path that I believe to be detrimental to the game. Hence why I spoke against this sort of opportunism. Which this also is. It's not because the word "perspective" comes into play that the dictionary is thrown out of the window.
If all you're really saying is that character should have an opinion on Melhed's actions ... Then I'm just confused. Of course they will. I don't know what made you think that people's characters would *not* have an opinion.
The whole reason for this discussion I thought was Noldorin's post about the rulers being fine with Melhed's actions, as if it did not matter what Melhed did as long as they joined their side. Abandoning their character's personality for a strategical win. You said they had a different perspective, I warned against taking this to the extreme, Chénier threw in a "who cares" and here we are.
