We need to find some ground rules we all agree on for how to proceed with this mission, so we all know within what bounds we are finding solutions, and so we all know that, outside of those bounds, apparent "solutions" will not be pursued; at least, not without everyone agreeing to reconsider the issue.
So... some proposed rules, approximately in order of priority:
Mission Specific:
1. Any assassinations should be done in as obvious a fashion as possible, so as to remove all possible doubt that the targets were anything but regular mortals.
2. We should do everything possible to avoid giving any side an advantage through unwittingly playing into their strategy.
3. We should avoid creating an exploitable power vacuum, by defeating one faction without having some means to keep the other sides from gaining ground in the removed faction's absence.
4. We should avoid disinformation campaigns; it just stokes the paranoia of zealots, and you will lose the rational when the truth is inevitably uncovered
5. We should prioritize exposing the truth behind their various acts of fraud in as obvious and easily understood way as possible, so their pitiful followers will go back to their regular everyday lives.
In General:
1. In case of "them or us", we're prioritizing "us".
2. In case of "them or bystanders", we're prioritizing "bystanders".
3. In case of "them or legitimate authorities", we're prioritizing "legitimate authorities".
4. In case of "them or pesky meddlers", we're prioritizing "pesky meddlers".
5. In case of "them or nosy busybodies", open question.
6. In case of "them or authoritative wannabes", open question.
7. In case of "them or their fawning idiot cultists", we're prioritizing "their fawning idiot cultists".
8. In case of "them or the mission", we're prioritizing "the mission".
9. In case of "the mission or us", we're prioritizing "us".
10. In case of "the mission or bystanders", we're prioritizing "bystanders".
11. In case of "the mission or legitimate authorities", we're prioritizing "legitimate authorities", unless they've accepted the risks of our mission taking priority.
12. In case of "the mission or pesky meddlers", we're prioritizing "pesky meddlers".
13. In case of "the mission or nosy busybodies", we're prioritizing "the mission".
14. In case of "the mission or authoritative wannabes", we're prioritizing "the mission".
15. In case of "the mission or their fawning idiot cultists", we're prioritizing "the mission".
So... some proposed rules, approximately in order of priority:
Mission Specific:
1. Any assassinations should be done in as obvious a fashion as possible, so as to remove all possible doubt that the targets were anything but regular mortals.
2. We should do everything possible to avoid giving any side an advantage through unwittingly playing into their strategy.
3. We should avoid creating an exploitable power vacuum, by defeating one faction without having some means to keep the other sides from gaining ground in the removed faction's absence.
4. We should avoid disinformation campaigns; it just stokes the paranoia of zealots, and you will lose the rational when the truth is inevitably uncovered
5. We should prioritize exposing the truth behind their various acts of fraud in as obvious and easily understood way as possible, so their pitiful followers will go back to their regular everyday lives.
In General:
1. In case of "them or us", we're prioritizing "us".
2. In case of "them or bystanders", we're prioritizing "bystanders".
3. In case of "them or legitimate authorities", we're prioritizing "legitimate authorities".
4. In case of "them or pesky meddlers", we're prioritizing "pesky meddlers".
5. In case of "them or nosy busybodies", open question.
6. In case of "them or authoritative wannabes", open question.
7. In case of "them or their fawning idiot cultists", we're prioritizing "their fawning idiot cultists".
8. In case of "them or the mission", we're prioritizing "the mission".
9. In case of "the mission or us", we're prioritizing "us".
10. In case of "the mission or bystanders", we're prioritizing "bystanders".
11. In case of "the mission or legitimate authorities", we're prioritizing "legitimate authorities", unless they've accepted the risks of our mission taking priority.
12. In case of "the mission or pesky meddlers", we're prioritizing "pesky meddlers".
13. In case of "the mission or nosy busybodies", we're prioritizing "the mission".
14. In case of "the mission or authoritative wannabes", we're prioritizing "the mission".
15. In case of "the mission or their fawning idiot cultists", we're prioritizing "the mission".