Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: DrDivine.5378

DrDivine.5378

Just a question I wanted to ask for fun haha, if a charr and norn were to go 1 on 1 with each other, who do you think would win?

I hear a lot of my friends saying the norn would, which may be true considering their size and strength. I guess I just always found the charr more menacing, what do you think?

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Zaxares.5419

Zaxares.5419

Going purely by lore, it would probably be the Norn. Norn are described as being capable of defeating entire Charr warbands by themselves back during the days of GW1.

However, these days the Norn are a more sedentary race, with more and more Norn taking up professions as farmers, brewers, artisans and the like. Likewise, the Charr have better arms and armor than they did in GW1. So, all in all, it would really depend on the individuals involved.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Scoobaniec.9561

Scoobaniec.9561

Right now? Charr

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

1 on 1, it would tend to be Norn. Despite a cultural shift to more sedentary proffessions, they are still a species of giant warriors with supernatural strength. And melee weapons are still viable in todays Tyria.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Ehecatl.9172

Ehecatl.9172

Armed I might lean toward norn. They are larger than charr on average and possess an unnatural strength even for their size. They also have a human body, which is more flexible and more agile than a hunched over battlecat.

Unarmed I’d go for the charr. Nearly as large as a norn, but the charr has long claws, teeth, and horns. There’s a reason a human can be taken down by an attack dog despite the human being larger.

However if the norn invoked the power of the bear, I’d give it again to the norn. Norn from a lore perspective shouldn’t have a time limit on their transformations. It’s just something they can do.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Drakkon.4782

Drakkon.4782

Charr are larger than Norn. They’re stronger than Norn. They’re born and bred for battle. Norn are born to hunt. There’s a difference. I’ll take a Charr every time. When my back’s to the wall, I’ll take a Charr at my side over a Norn. The only creature I’d take over a Charr would be a Kodan. But of the playable races, Charr. Every time. I don’t know where people are getting that Norn are bigger and stronger than Charr. The lore clearly contradicts that. Charr are the fiercest creatures playable.

“People don’t hate Scarlet the way Game of Thrones
fans hate Joffrey. They hate her the way Star Wars
fans hate Jar Jar Binks.”-not a direct quote, but still true.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Scoobaniec.9561

Scoobaniec.9561

^ Yep. Unlike norms, charrs are born to fight. They start training as cubs, i fail to see how norm could take them down in 1v1 right now armed or not. Charr and norm size is near the same (norm are 1 feet highter olny)

Also norms been beated by Molten alliance, its says everything

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

Charr are larger than Norn. They’re stronger than Norn. They’re born and bred for battle. Norn are born to hunt. There’s a difference. I’ll take a Charr every time. When my back’s to the wall, I’ll take a Charr at my side over a Norn. The only creature I’d take over a Charr would be a Kodan. But of the playable races, Charr. Every time. I don’t know where people are getting that Norn are bigger and stronger than Charr. The lore clearly contradicts that. Charr are the fiercest creatures playable.

So much is wrong here. Norn are bigger than charr. Norn are many times stronger than charr. Norn aren’t just big humans. They are fairy tale giants. Norn have been scaled down a couple times for game mechanics but Norn are larger and stronger by far. Charr are bred for organized battle. Norn are bred for individual battle. Lorewise, a charr got picked up by the scruff of her neck and tossed across the room one handed by a norn. There’s no comparing the strength of a norn and a charr. And lorewise, one norn can take out a warband of charr.

It’s a puma fighting a gorilla. Puma has teeth and claws but they can’t compete with the raw strength of the gorilla.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: DrDivine.5378

DrDivine.5378

Armed I might lean toward norn. They are larger than charr on average and possess an unnatural strength even for their size. They also have a human body, which is more flexible and more agile than a hunched over battlecat.

Unarmed I’d go for the charr. Nearly as large as a norn, but the charr has long claws, teeth, and horns. There’s a reason a human can be taken down by an attack dog despite the human being larger.

However if the norn invoked the power of the bear, I’d give it again to the norn. Norn from a lore perspective shouldn’t have a time limit on their transformations. It’s just something they can do.

That’s a pretty good argument, I haven’t really looked into the true strength of the norn, although I did play Guild Wars 1, a lot of the races have changed since then. xD

It’s a tough call because after seeing a full scaled norn character, you can kinda imagine the physical strength behind such a large build. I guess the reason why I thought a charr might win is due to their brutality. They were born to fight, but that doesn’t always guarantee victory.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

A good example of Norn lore strength: Knut says he dragged the Great Wurm Isalmir back to the Great Hunt, himself.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Drakkon.4782

Drakkon.4782

A good example of Norn lore strength: Knut says he dragged the Great Wurm Isalmir back to the Great Hunt, himself.

Knut says a lot of things.

“People don’t hate Scarlet the way Game of Thrones
fans hate Joffrey. They hate her the way Star Wars
fans hate Jar Jar Binks.”-not a direct quote, but still true.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

A good example of Norn lore strength: Knut says he dragged the Great Wurm Isalmir back to the Great Hunt, himself.

Knut says a lot of things.

Oh? Like what?

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

another good comparison of charr and norn, In The movement of the World, organized and experienced charr warbands who grew up their whole life training and fighting with each other couldn’t overcome the individual strength of the norn. And states that it would have took a full legion to destroy Norn resistance.

Then later one lone norn hunter is compared to a charr warband when describing what would happen to each when they crossed into each others lands. There’s a reason Norn can live scattered and alone with no central government or ruling body in the unforgiving wild and still survive as a people and a force to be reckoned with. it’s because each individual norn is a major force to be reckoned with.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Movement_of_the_World#Norn

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Drakkon.4782

Drakkon.4782

And yet my Charr Engineer goes 1:1 with Norn all the time and destroys them without effort. It turns out that Norn burn just as well as every other race.

“People don’t hate Scarlet the way Game of Thrones
fans hate Joffrey. They hate her the way Star Wars
fans hate Jar Jar Binks.”-not a direct quote, but still true.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

And yet my Charr Engineer goes 1:1 with Norn all the time and destroys them without effort. It turns out that Norn burn just as well as every other race.

Game mechanics =/= lore. It sounded to me, at least, that the OP was asking a lore question rather than a personal pvp tally.

edit: I also play a charr engi and have been beat by an asura at one time or another. But I wouldn’t try to use that as a lore reason for the asura being stronger than the charr.

(edited by Dustfinger.9510)

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Drakkon.4782

Drakkon.4782

I also play a charr engi and have been beat by an asura at one time or another. But I wouldn’t try to use that as a lore reason for the asura being stronger than the charr.

Seems you are, because, despite what you’re saying now, you’ve talked about things that violate established lore, and yet are supported by lore.

However, I’ve discovered several rules…

1: Norn tell stories. Most of them are BS. “Your Legend” is only as impressive as you make it sound.
2: Charr are OFFICIALLY larger than Norn, not the other way around. This has been stated several times by ANet. I can’t help it if they waffle about it because some author has a pro-Norn agenda and doesn’t want to adhere to canon.
3: Charr are all about battle, both personal and in units. Norn are not. Norn are about fighting and the hunt. They aren’t about combat so much as sparring and hunting. I wouldn’t take a hunter into a fight over a soldier. Ever. That’s common sense.

I respect your position regarding using the books as lore, but books are written by people who have a story to tell, and while I consider them canon, I don’t consider them reliable sources. Officially, I will always regard Charr as stronger because they are bred to be stronger, tougher, fiercer, quicker, and deadlier. That has been how they were originally described, written into the lore, and only later changed because it made for a more exciting story that someone wanted to sell as a book. Thus, respectfully, I will agree to disagree with you about our interpretations of our various sources on this subject.

  • - “Officially” comes from an image generated by ANet, posted on GW2Guru when GW2 was just launched. This is why I state that there have been changes to the lore which differentiates the official lore from the canon lore.
“People don’t hate Scarlet the way Game of Thrones
fans hate Joffrey. They hate her the way Star Wars
fans hate Jar Jar Binks.”-not a direct quote, but still true.

(edited by Drakkon.4782)

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

I’ve only been talking about established lore.

1. “Most are BS” Source please. Their entire culture is dedicated to individual feats. Real feats.

2. Source please. They were scaled down from GW1 and they were scaled down from beta for game play. The norn intro has a norn lifting a giant bolder. We never see charr do anything like this.

3. They “hunt” with swords/axes/weapons of war.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that it’s possible I misinterpreted the actual lore. But your going to have to provide those sources of what you consider official lore if you want to discredit the books and in-game examples. So far all I see are claims with no substance. if you can provide those sources, I’ll add them to my library and if they say what you claim they say, I’ll be right here supporting your view in the next thread.

I haven’t seen any source at all that makes the individual charr out to be stronger than the individual norn. All sources I have I can provide and they routinely put norn feats of strength as greater than anything any individual charr does.

edit; if you consider the first images as “more official” than the later, then the Norn won the size contest in GW1. But do you know if that image generated by a-net was concept art? because on one hand you have an image supporting your view while I have images, stories, and official history.

(edited by Dustfinger.9510)

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Tei.1704

Tei.1704

I haven’t seen any source at all that makes the individual charr out to be stronger than the individual norn. All sources I have I can provide and they routinely put norn feats of strength as greater than anything any individual charr does.

Fights don’t come down to just who is physically stronger. If we assume both parties have weapons, skill is going to be more important. If we assume barehand, claws and fangs are going to beat fists. If we’re talking about a fight where anything goes, strength means even less because a single bullet wins a fight.

You also have to consider that people are talking about averages. The norn you hear about are going to be exceptions because nobody tells the tale of Joe Everyman. If norn are all about growing their legends, feats they talk about are not going to be things any average norn could likely accomplish. Every charr can at least claim to be a trained soldier.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

Fights don’t come down to just who is physically stronger. If we assume both parties have weapons, skill is going to be more important. If we assume barehand, claws and fangs are going to beat fists. If we’re talking about a fight where anything goes, strength means even less because a single bullet wins a fight.

You also have to consider that people are talking about averages. The norn you hear about are going to be exceptions because nobody tells the tale of Joe Everyman. If norn are all about growing their legends, feats they talk about are not going to be things any average norn could likely accomplish. Every charr can at least claim to be a trained soldier.

I understand that strength is just one tool, but it is a huge tool. So we can’t assume that claws beat fists when the strength disparity is that large. I gave the example og a puma and a gorilla. The puma is a large cat, comparable in height but even with it’s teeth and claws, the gorillas strength is too great for it.

Bullets even things up a bit, but both sides have bullets so the norn still has their incredible strength as an advantage. Since both races have access to the same types of classes and fighting, bullets realy don’t negate any physical advantages.

The Norn also aren’t anything close to an “exception”. their entire society is centered around feats. In the movement of the world we see that entire warbands were not enough to stop the “individual strength of the norn”. So a-net has already told us that norn strength is great enough to be a HUGE factor in charr vs norn. It isn’t even theory crafting anymore since we have a-net confirmation about actual lore history.

And since charr train in group cohesion I fail to see how a warband wouldn’t be enough for the average norn but one lone charr would fair better. makes no sense. Charrs true strength is in their discipline and organization, coupled with their warrior society. Norn strength is in their individual prowess.

So a charr may be a sniper and just get headshots on every hit but that goes for the norn too. Generally, in one on one martial combat, a norn is going to come out on top because it has a huge individual martial advantage.

edit: Thinking on primates and big cats, The best chance a charr has against a norn is if the charr ambushes the norn. Even a chimp half the size of a puma would give the puma a good beating in a face to face fight because the strength of the chimp is enough to shatter bones and rip limbs out of sockets. And like chimps and gorillas, a Norns strength is well beyond what a human would be of similar size.

(edited by Dustfinger.9510)

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Zaxares.5419

Zaxares.5419

I still think it would depend on whether or not the Norn was a trained warrior. All Charr receive combat training in the fahrar, and even their farmers and artisans would have a basic understanding of what to do in a fight. The Norn though? Not all Norn these days are hunters or fighters. They do have the benefit of gentically superior strength and size, but that can only carry them so far in a fight against a foe who knows how to read his opponent’s posture, knows where to strike to cripple or maim, and where to strike for a killing blow.

Against a human or Asura, then yeah, I’d say the Norn’s innate strength might still win the day, but against a Charr who has only a slightly smaller build and bulk, an untrained Norn would not be a match for a Charr. (Of course, as in my original post, my money’s still on the trained Norn fighter against a trained Charr fighter.)

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

Oh, don’t get me wrong. The norn has inate advantages that are hard to deny but that doesn’t mean it is a guaranteed win. Just that that’s what would “tend” to happen.

Keep in mind that Norn also grow up having training. They have the same training that a lot of the Native American tribes had. They grow up in warrior cultures. it’s just that the type of warrior training is different. Like barbarian tribes vs roman soldiers. Romans training is dependant on the group cohesion because that’s what they actually train for. And as the saying in the military goes “You fight how you train”. This doesn’t mean the Charr is worthless without a warband but in a solo match, he is fighting on the norns terms.

Think of it like two sword fighters. A trained soldier and a duelist. The soldier knows how to fight in ranks, with other trained soldiers doing their job next to him. A duelist will be deadly, one on one but can’t fight the same way in a rank and file. Likewise, the soldier can’t fight a duelist the same way solo as he would in rank and file. On a battlefield, the duelist would tend to die quick and a soldier has a great disadvantage against a duelist one on one. They are each at a disadvantage when fighting on the others terms. Now, a-net has showed us that the Norn don’t need to be organized to hold their own because their incredible strength is enough to almost make up for that disadvantage. Though a-net also confirms that that particular disadvantage would eventually lose to the charrs greater organization when facing a Legion.

edit: all that to say, a one on one match is where the norn shine. And it isn’t what the charr have been training their whole lives for.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Scoobaniec.9561

Scoobaniec.9561

Bigger doesnt mean stronger.. Take a look on sport.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: LameFox.6349

LameFox.6349

another good comparison of charr and norn, In The movement of the World, organized and experienced charr warbands who grew up their whole life training and fighting with each other couldn’t overcome the individual strength of the norn. And states that it would have took a full legion to destroy Norn resistance.

The wording in there doesn’t really seem quite as clear to me. Given the context we can probably assume ‘warbands and smaller raiding parties’ didn’t show up to engage in duels, but scout and/or attack trade and infrastructure. Meanwhile, many of the norn were probably hunters, who would know the land very well, and (based on what I see of them in-game) norn do seem to have a fairly strong sense of community – just not of the sort that places community before being an individual. By which I mean they might not easily raise an army to defend everyone around (see: Cragstead) but they would probably help their friends and/or the other people in their small community (see: all sorts of events in the Shiverpeaks, and I guess also Cragstead) which could easily rival or exceed a warband’s numbers (per either game’s wiki they range from 5-20, though the GW2 wiki entry says more commonly 5-10).

I have doubts this implies their advance halted because the average norn was beating whole warbands by his or her self, at least not ‘in a fight’ (going back to the whole ‘hunters in their own familiar land’ thing, I can see how they’d have found ways to inflict casualties or just harass warbands and smaller groups until they either left or were weakened to the point that actually attacking them outright could be viable). Of course, given a warband could apparently be as little as_5 – and who knows how small the other groups could be – I also don’t doubt that in a fantasy setting some norn were indeed capable of it, because really, ‘I killed 5 <things of a comparable size to me> in combat’ isn’t eyebrow-raising in fantasy. I’m sure the occasional human (without nuking his people ’til they glowed, even) could manage it too, albeit perhaps not by relying on as much strength.

Under the circumstances I’m thinking it’s more like: the charr saw this loosely organized society who were mostly concerned for individual ability rather than that of the whole, and figured they’d be lousy at combat because the charr had always been raised to prioritize virtually the opposite of that, then they discovered a combination of asymmetrical warfare and that actually a warband-sized group of villagers probably wasn’t terribly hard to convince to help each other out when demon-hellcat-things started to interrupt their desire to drink and yell at one another.

Although it’s worded weirdly enough. For instance ‘When the Charr reached the foothills, the Norn drove them back with a single crushing blow, completely decimating every warband sent against them.’ seems highly contradictory to the following sentences, to me. These ‘initial skirmishes’ were a ‘single crushing blow’? And routing your enemy with a ‘single crushing blow’ causes you to respect their strength? I have a feeling their defeat, decisive though it may have been, wasn’t intended to look quite as effortless on the norn’s part as the preceding text made it out to be. Even if the norn were already aware of the extent of the charr and were concerned merely about being washed away by a tsunami of clawed furry things, it wouldn’t make sense then to say that it was the skirmishes which ‘taught both sides to respect the strength of the other’.

<…message length…>

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: LameFox.6349

LameFox.6349

Then later one lone norn hunter is compared to a charr warband when describing what would happen to each when they crossed into each others lands. There’s a reason Norn can live scattered and alone with no central government or ruling body in the unforgiving wild and still survive as a people and a force to be reckoned with. it’s because each individual norn is a major force to be reckoned with.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Movement_of_the_World#Norn

This I expect is because charr tend to move with their warbands or at least members thereof, and charr without warbands probably don’t go looking for fights,* whilst norn may come from the same village, homestead, or loosely affiliated group of friends, but not necessarily travel together even when they live together or otherwise associate. Charr warbands and norn hunters then may simply have been the most likely things to cross over into the other’s land and come to conflict with the inhabitants.

*I notice that there’s one in Gendarran which seems to have settled there after it was separated from its warband (who sound significantly unlikely to be alive from the dialogue) and another in Cragstead which lost its warband during F+F. Of course back then this was probably far less likely to happen, but I think it shows (especially if you talk to the one in Cragstead about it) that individuals simply wouldn’t have a whole lot of incentive to go make a fuss in some other race’s land.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: auratus.9854

auratus.9854

Charr, cause they have the cattlepult.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: MadDemon.7548

MadDemon.7548

Depends whether or not the Charr as a sniper rifle.
Possibly.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Advent.6193

Advent.6193

Another question is: do Norn possess abnormal durability/regenerative ability to go along with their strength? If so, then a single Charr’d only win by fighting like a proper feline. Namely, going all Ash Legion skulker, and beheading said Norn from behind.

Malegryne (Sylvari Mesmer), Lannka (Asura Thief) – Ferguson’s Crossing: [PRD/BRB/OMFG]
Other 80s: Any but Warrior

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: DrDivine.5378

DrDivine.5378

Then later one lone norn hunter is compared to a charr warband when describing what would happen to each when they crossed into each others lands. There’s a reason Norn can live scattered and alone with no central government or ruling body in the unforgiving wild and still survive as a people and a force to be reckoned with. it’s because each individual norn is a major force to be reckoned with.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/The_Movement_of_the_World#Norn

This I expect is because charr tend to move with their warbands or at least members thereof, and charr without warbands probably don’t go looking for fights,* whilst norn may come from the same village, homestead, or loosely affiliated group of friends, but not necessarily travel together even when they live together or otherwise associate. Charr warbands and norn hunters then may simply have been the most likely things to cross over into the other’s land and come to conflict with the inhabitants.

*I notice that there’s one in Gendarran which seems to have settled there after it was separated from its warband (who sound significantly unlikely to be alive from the dialogue) and another in Cragstead which lost its warband during F+F. Of course back then this was probably far less likely to happen, but I think it shows (especially if you talk to the one in Cragstead about it) that individuals simply wouldn’t have a whole lot of incentive to go make a fuss in some other race’s land.

I actually liked the way you explained this, because it explains a little bit how both function when it comes to battle. I don’t know too much about the lore, but judging from what I’m reading here, it sounds like the Charr fight more like a wolf rather than most large cats. They fight as a pack, and tend not to pick fights as an individual but rather as a whole. I’m sure they have enough physical strength and tactics to back themselves up on a 1v1 fight, but it’s mostly not the case.

Compare that to the Norn, a race that is more individualistic, yet backed up by their unrivaled strength. The Charr are more savage, but the Norn’s raw power is something that allows them to live these solitary lives. Similar to a grizzly bear, an animal that fights with packs of wolves all the time, they are balanced by sheer strength.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

Compare that to the Norn, a race that is more individualistic, yet backed up by their unrivaled strength. The Charr are more savage, but the Norn’s raw power is something that allows them to live these solitary lives. Similar to a grizzly bear, an animal that fights with packs of wolves all the time, they are balanced by sheer strength.

This. So much this. Better put than I layed it out with my sword men scenario :P

And we see that eventually if the charr dedicated enough forces, they would eventually win out.

Another question is: do Norn possess abnormal durability/regenerative ability to go along with their strength? If so, then a single Charr’d only win by fighting like a proper feline. Namely, going all Ash Legion skulker, and beheading said Norn from behind.

Nothing to point to any regeneration but they stay spry well into old age if they make it that far so they may also have abnormal durability. Especially living alone with all those fanged and horned wild animals. I imagine if they can compete with warbands and routinely fight wurms several times their size that they can take hits pretty well.

edit: nothing to point to regeration except in the case of wolform.

The wording in there doesn’t really seem quite as clear to me. Given the context we can probably assume ‘warbands and smaller raiding parties’ didn’t show up to engage in duels, but scout and/or attack trade and infrastructure. Meanwhile, many of the norn were probably hunters,…

While the wording can be interpreted different ways, it seems pretty evident that a-nets intent is to compare individual norn to a charr warband. Especiall the way they further extrapolate how the charr could have won bt dedicating an entire Legion. Tha tsaid, it was a very well thought out post and I do agree with much of it. Especially the part where it was easy for the Norn. Really, my entire point in this thread was to show that individual Norn are physically stronger than the individual charr. And I’m surprised that I even needed to introduce this much evidence to show it.

(edited by Dustfinger.9510)

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: LameFox.6349

LameFox.6349

While the wording can be interpreted different ways, it seems pretty evident that a-nets intent is to compare individual norn to a charr warband. Especiall the way they further extrapolate how the charr could have won bt dedicating an entire Legion. Tha tsaid, it was a very well thought out post and I do agree with much of it. Especially the part where it was easy for the Norn. Really, my entire point in this thread was to show that individual Norn are physically stronger than the individual charr. And I’m surprised that I even needed to introduce this much evidence to show it.

I don’t necessarily disagree with that, I just don’t think ‘physical strength’ was what they were going for in the comparison, because it seems awfully weird that they’d get some sort of mutual respect out of the encounter if a single norn was able to engage a warband based on being so physically powerful he/she was a match for the lot of them. I mean that would be like getting swarmed by very young children or something – it doesn’t really seem fitting that any respect gained would be because ‘oh wow, these are strong enough to be sort of interesting, when you get a half dozen or more’. Rather, since they apparently each came out of it with a new respect for the other, it seems to me the point is that they had very conflicting ideas about what strengths (as in stuff you’re good at) were important, and realized through the experience that maybe these other ways weren’t necessarily as daft as they seemed.

As for their actual physical strength, looking at the way their bodies move and are shaped, I think direct comparisons would be sort of meaningless. I can imagine norn in general would be better at, say, lifting something over their heads because doing so with charr arms looks fairly awkward leverage-wise, and norn probably don’t bite nearly as hard as charr do.* But then as a species which finds lifting things overhead awkward, why in the nine hells would you fight in a way that emphasised doing that? And if you had a jaw which wasn’t really well adapted for killing prey, why aside from desperation would you go biting enemies? Those are just off-hand examples, but still.

*except perhaps transformed, hard to guess to what extent that changes them or how charr compare to the normal animals which norn take on characteristics of.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Icarus Pherae.4680

Icarus Pherae.4680

Charr are larger than Norn. They’re stronger than Norn. They’re born and bred for battle. Norn are born to hunt. There’s a difference. I’ll take a Charr every time. When my back’s to the wall, I’ll take a Charr at my side over a Norn. The only creature I’d take over a Charr would be a Kodan. But of the playable races, Charr. Every time. I don’t know where people are getting that Norn are bigger and stronger than Charr. The lore clearly contradicts that. Charr are the fiercest creatures playable.

So much is wrong here. Norn are bigger than charr. Norn are many times stronger than charr. Norn aren’t just big humans. They are fairy tale giants. Norn have been scaled down a couple times for game mechanics but Norn are larger and stronger by far. Charr are bred for organized battle. Norn are bred for individual battle. Lorewise, a charr got picked up by the scruff of her neck and tossed across the room one handed by a norn. There’s no comparing the strength of a norn and a charr. And lorewise, one norn can take out a warband of charr.

It’s a puma fighting a gorilla. Puma has teeth and claws but they can’t compete with the raw strength of the gorilla.

Well I think you have it pretty well, but we should mention that the gorilla can also shapeshift into an even larger half bear creature.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

I don’t necessarily disagree with that, I just don’t think ‘physical strength’ was what they were going for in the comparison, because it seems awfully weird that they’d get some sort of mutual respect out of the encounter if a single norn was able to engage a warband based on being so physically powerful he/she was a match for the lot of them. I mean that would be like getting swarmed by very young children or something – it doesn’t really seem fitting that any respect gained would be because ‘oh wow, these are strong enough to be sort of interesting, when you get a half dozen or more’. Rather, since they apparently each came out of it with a new respect for the other, it seems to me the point is that they had very conflicting ideas about what strengths (as in stuff you’re good at) were important, and realized through the experience that maybe these other ways weren’t necessarily as daft as they seemed.

As for their actual physical strength, looking at the way their bodies move and are shaped, I think direct comparisons would be sort of meaningless. I can imagine norn in general would be better at, say, lifting something over their heads because doing so with charr arms looks fairly awkward leverage-wise, and norn probably don’t bite nearly as hard as charr do.* But then as a species which finds lifting things overhead awkward, why in the nine hells would you fight in a way that emphasised doing that? And if you had a jaw which wasn’t really well adapted for killing prey, why aside from desperation would you go biting enemies? Those are just off-hand examples, but still.

*except perhaps transformed, hard to guess to what extent that changes them or how charr compare to the normal animals which norn take on characteristics of.

I can’t disagree with any of this. I’d say the norn probably saw charr savagery, organization and penchant for battle as pretty impressive and respectable. Maybe not so much jaw strength or anything like that since norn also routinely fight wild animals who’s only weapons are jaws, claws and horns.

So my intention was not to suggest that a-net was comparing charr physical astrength against norn physical strength. just that we know Norn use their own physical strength as a primary tool. So being able to take on 5 or 6 charr who only know war and have been training since childhood, with that primary tool that the norn tend to use because it’s so readily available, is pretty impressive and a testament to norn physical strength.

Well I think you have it pretty well, but we should mention that the gorilla can also shapeshift into an even larger half bear creature.

This. And not just bear. Wolf, leopard, and bird from hell!

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Drakkon.4782

Drakkon.4782

It’s a puma fighting a gorilla. Puma has teeth and claws but they can’t compete with the raw strength of the gorilla.

Well I think you have it pretty well, but we should mention that the gorilla can also shapeshift into an even larger half bear creature.

Except it isn’t a puma. It’s a tiger. And that fight isn’t quite as unbalanced. Plus, the tiger already is a match for the bear, too.

Dustfinger continues to fail to cite his sources, but has asked for others to cite theirs. So long as he remains hyperbolic and rhetorical, there’s no point in not doing the same. This argument is verging quickly on being pointless without them.

“People don’t hate Scarlet the way Game of Thrones
fans hate Joffrey. They hate her the way Star Wars
fans hate Jar Jar Binks.”-not a direct quote, but still true.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

It’s a puma fighting a gorilla. Puma has teeth and claws but they can’t compete with the raw strength of the gorilla.

Well I think you have it pretty well, but we should mention that the gorilla can also shapeshift into an even larger half bear creature.

Except it isn’t a puma. It’s a tiger. And that fight isn’t quite as unbalanced. Plus, the tiger already is a match for the bear, too.

Dustfinger continues to fail to cite his sources, but has asked for others to cite theirs. So long as he remains hyperbolic and rhetorical, there’s no point in not doing the same. This argument is verging quickly on being pointless without them.

I posted the movement of the world, referenced the opening cinematic of the norn lifting a boulder and referenced the book where a norn took a charr up by the scruff of her neck and threw her across the room one handed, referenced direct NPC dialog. What more can I do except send you signed copies of original scripts? Sounds to me like you have no sources and are looking for any excuse not to back up your weak claims of charr being stronger than norn and Knut Whitebear being a nown liar. GG.

In fact, you actually addressed sources that I DID bring up, by making unsupported allegations about how they aren’t valid! So it seems you’ll say anything to not appear wrong when it’s clear every one else here knows norn are stronger than individual char. because the evidence is obvious and everywhere. Lol. fail.

Superluigi really summed up evidence of norn strength in a thread dedicated to norn strength:

the first Norn encountered by the players in GW1 was Jora. When they ran into her, Ogden Stonehealer was extremely worried about her killing himself, Vekk, the PC, and their 3-7 allies in short order. To put this in perspective, his advice when the Destroyers attack is to run away. His advice when he sees Jora is for nobody to move.

This is advice one normally gets when facing a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Eir, as stated earlier, carried a 500 pound statue from her home in Hoelbrak, to the Asura Gateway, then to Snaff’s workshop. Also, as the books have shown, Eir was basically a walking ballista, so far and hard could she fire her bow.

The books also gave us Gullik Oddsson, who very casually wiped out a Charr scouting party and survived Ascalon City—and not, like, survived by running away or sneaking around the ghosts, he picked a fight with them directly.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/races/norn/How-powerful-are-individual-Norn-in-lore/first#post1109840

(edited by Dustfinger.9510)

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Zaxares.5419

Zaxares.5419

The Norn in GW2 seem to have undergone a racial “weakening” though. Only Norn of at least level 30 (which I take to mean they are seasoned and experienced individuals) can assume Bear form (or any other animal form). Whereas in GW1, just about every Norn under the sun could become the Bear. Even Helga, who is by all accounts a Norn just entering adulthood and by her own words “isn’t very good at hunting”, can assume Bear form and inflict serious damage on attacking Charr.

I rationalise this by the assumption that, as the Norn have settled down more and embraced more sedentary pursuits, they have also grown more out of touch with their roots. Norn who are still active hunters or who challenge themselves physically are still as formidable as their forebears (heh), but the majority of Norn these days can no longer assume spirit form and aren’t as imposing a threat as their ancestors might be.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: LameFox.6349

LameFox.6349

I can’t disagree with any of this. I’d say the norn probably saw charr savagery, organization and penchant for battle as pretty impressive and respectable. Maybe not so much jaw strength or anything like that since norn also routinely fight wild animals who’s only weapons are jaws, claws and horns.

My point re: jaw strength and so on was mainly that neither is likely to fight in ways that emphasise the things they’re not good at anyway. Charr being fairly flexible and having lanky arms which they’re still not quite sure whether to run on or not don’t really seem built to use strength in the same ways the norn are.

As a rough comparison, we can probably assume quite safely that the average adult male human is in no danger of ever losing an arm wrestling contest with even the largest of dogs, supposing one learned to make the attempt, because the dog would be incredibly awkward at the motions involved (this being the optimistic version where it can actually make said motions at all, since charr do seem able to operate in roughly similar fashion). This is of course just arms, if you start to look at how our legs compare with a dog’s it’s even further off – ours make theirs look sort of twig-like – and when it comes to things like moving other objects around, our stronger arms/legs and more rigid spine (ignoring the drawbacks of paws in this case) allow us to carry things around when a dog would long ago have been limited to dragging them instead, whether or not it has the strength to move the object in question.

Of course none of this prevents them from being dangerous to us, especially if for the sake of continuing this comparison we assume no weapons are involved. I’m not personally concerned about encounters with a lone angry dog (no rabies here), but nonetheless I recognise that, excluding the punt-able variety, even smaller ones can cause damage and once we reach something like a 20kg difference in bodyweight (in my favour, at that), that fight could go either way more easily than I’d be happy with. Fortunately in this case I’m the only tool user in the fight. Anyway, since it seems to me that comparing the strength of norn and charr probably runs into similar difficulties, I don’t really think which is ‘stronger’ is necessarily helpful to determining which would win in a fight, even if we assume neither is using weapons. So I’m sort of confused why everyone started talking about that, I guess.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: CETheLucid.3964

CETheLucid.3964

… In short, it would be one helluva fight. Charr and norn are the big bruisers in this world.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

My point re: jaw strength and so on was mainly that neither is likely to fight in ways that emphasise the things they’re not good at anyway. Charr being fairly flexible and having lanky arms which they’re still not quite sure whether to run on or not don’t really seem built to use strength in the same ways the norn are.

As a rough comparison, we can probably assume quite safely that the average adult male human is in no danger of ever losing an arm wrestling contest with even the largest of dogs, supposing one learned to make the attempt, because the dog would be incredibly awkward at the motions involved (this being the optimistic version where it can actually make said motions at all, since charr do seem able to operate in roughly similar fashion). This is of course just arms, if you start to look at how our legs compare with a dog’s it’s even further off – ours make theirs look sort of twig-like – and when it comes to things like moving other objects around, our stronger arms/legs and more rigid spine (ignoring the drawbacks of paws in this case) allow us to carry things around when a dog would long ago have been limited to dragging them instead, whether or not it has the strength to move the object in question.

Of course none of this prevents them from being dangerous to us, especially if for the sake of continuing this comparison we assume no weapons are involved. I’m not personally concerned about encounters with a lone angry dog (no rabies here), but nonetheless I recognise that, excluding the punt-able variety, even smaller ones can cause damage and once we reach something like a 20kg difference in bodyweight (in my favour, at that), that fight could go either way more easily than I’d be happy with. Fortunately in this case I’m the only tool user in the fight. Anyway, since it seems to me that comparing the strength of norn and charr probably runs into similar difficulties, I don’t really think which is ‘stronger’ is necessarily helpful to determining which would win in a fight, even if we assume neither is using weapons. So I’m sort of confused why everyone started talking about that, I guess.

Ah, I see what you are saying now and in this case I would have to disagree. The type of strength the Norn has offers many options to employ that strength in many different ways. Even making the same attacks the charr would be likely to utilize (since charr are also humanoid), more devastating than the charr could achieve. especially in melee combat. Every hit and swing of a weapon is more devastating from the norn due to it’s massive strength. Versus each hit and swing of a weapon that the charr would aslo be doing.

Then when we look at two animals we can say a gorilla would beat a puma even though they both fight vastly different ways. Now put all the strength into the puma’s jaws and turn it inot a hyena with boencrushing jaws and neck. The gorilla still wins. But add strength to the puma and turn it into a tiger and the fight isn’t as one sided as it was when it was a gorilla against a puma. So we see that even with vastly different fighting styles, strength plays a large role and is a benefit to each combatant. When the strength disparity is as great as it is between a norn and a charr, then we start to forsee the basic outcome of most matchups.

(edited by Dustfinger.9510)

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

The Norn in GW2 seem to have undergone a racial “weakening” though. Only Norn of at least level 30 (which I take to mean they are seasoned and experienced individuals) can assume Bear form (or any other animal form). Whereas in GW1, just about every Norn under the sun could become the Bear. Even Helga, who is by all accounts a Norn just entering adulthood and by her own words “isn’t very good at hunting”, can assume Bear form and inflict serious damage on attacking Charr.

I rationalise this by the assumption that, as the Norn have settled down more and embraced more sedentary pursuits, they have also grown more out of touch with their roots. Norn who are still active hunters or who challenge themselves physically are still as formidable as their forebears (heh), but the majority of Norn these days can no longer assume spirit form and aren’t as imposing a threat as their ancestors might be.

I’d chalk this all up to game mechanics since playable characters and NPC’s can be varying age with varying backgrounds. And we really see no evidence at all concerning any non-corrupted norn not being able to assume spirit form.

(edited by Dustfinger.9510)

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Tei.1704

Tei.1704

The Norn also aren’t anything close to an “exception”. their entire society is centered around feats.

I’m not saying norn as a whole are exceptions. I’m saying some individual norn and some of things they do are exceptions.

Feats are exceptional by definition. If you google “feat,” most of the definitions you see will mention being exceptional, notable, requiring superior ability or something along those lines. It doesn’t have to be those things 100% of the time, but 9 times out of 10 “feat” is used to describe things the average person (or norn) can’t do. If we’re talking about what would tend to happen on average, feats mean almost nothing. If anything feats merely tell you what you shouldn’t expect the average norn to be capable of.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: LameFox.6349

LameFox.6349

…Even making the same attacks the charr would be likely to utilize (since charr are also humanoid), more devastating than the charr could achieve. especially in melee combat. Every hit and swing of a weapon is more devastating from the norn due to it’s massive strength…

If anything I’d expect giving them weapons would make strength less important. So long as they’re both swinging hard enough, adding more force isn’t necessarily going to help, and when it did, it might still be less relevant than other factors (especially agility/speed for obvious reasons). In the case that they’re both well equipped I imagine the norn’s main advantage would be armour, as in the ability to bear (no pun intended) heavier armour more easily.

Charr tending to flex more would need suitably flexible armour (not necessarily the material, but the design; flexible parts could create potential weaker areas or require more material and weight for the same level of protection compared to fairly solid plates) or presumably be limiting themselves to somewhat rigid and uncomfortable movement.¹ A lot more of the weight would also be supported by their spine compared to the norn, given the hunched forward shape – on the norn this weight sits immediately above his legs, and his spine can remain more or less upright. Of course it’s possible charr having such muscled necks and torsos would be quite alright with that, I’m not really sure if any precedent has been established there.

With weapons… I can see sheer force helping to manoeuvre heavier stuff like hammers² and be more useful with blunt weapons in general. Piercing weapons it would depend on whether either of them had armour capable of stopping the other in the first place: impaled on a spear and impaled on a spear harder being notably less important a difference than something like impaled on a spear or really uncomfortable having the tip of a spear lodged between those ribs but not quite dead. With cutting weapons strength would probably be limited to making it slightly more effective vs armour but still not as useful as something specifically meant to tackle armour.

In a no-weapon scenario, strength starts to matter more because in a lack of mechanical advantages it’s less likely to be useless excess. In those cases I think charr would rely on agility, slashing and biting, while norn probably fight like upscaled humans. Or rather… female norn probably fight like upscaled humans. Norn actually seem quite sexually dimorphic, and the males have very thick limbs for their bodies compared to females (and humans). I’m guessing free from e-sport balancing the females would retain fairly human agility, maybe a bit worse for being larger or maybe not if something else compensated for it, while males would be much stronger probably still able to make sudden movements (their limbs are heavier, but don’t seem longer, so they’re keeping the weight fairly close) but once they did commit a lot of momentum to something they may be slower to make adjustments. Though I’m neither a biologist/zoologist nor a physicist and may be missing something in that assessment.

Then when we look at two animals we can say a gorilla would beat a puma even though they both fight vastly different ways….

That’s somewhat hard to judge given the two species would never naturally coexist nevermind fight. Cougars can kill things much larger than themselves, though as predators I suspect they’d prefer to kill smaller, safer things if they could. Wiki (as in -pedia) suggests gorillas may sometimes be prey to leopards, and even quotes that “[a] silverback gorilla and a leopard were both found dead from mutually inflicted wounds” as evidence that the leopards may not exclusively scavenge from already dead gorillas, but the citation unfortunately links to a site which no longer exists (well, I can’t load it at the moment, at least). However, it also gives a weight range for cougars which indicates they can actually be notably heavier than leopards, so that’s… interesting, anyway.

¹for whatever it’s worth their cultural heavy armours do appear to reflect this: the first two seem to have segments of overlapping metal something like a carapace, while the last looks like ‘bits of metal attached to otherwise light/medium armour’.

²in the GW2 sense where hammer = maul.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

The Norn also aren’t anything close to an “exception”. their entire society is centered around feats.

I’m not saying norn as a whole are exceptions. I’m saying some individual norn and some of things they do are exceptions.

Feats are exceptional by definition. If you google “feat,” most of the definitions you see will mention being exceptional, notable, requiring superior ability or something along those lines. It doesn’t have to be those things 100% of the time, but 9 times out of 10 “feat” is used to describe things the average person (or norn) can’t do. If we’re talking about what would tend to happen on average, feats mean almost nothing. If anything feats merely tell you what you shouldn’t expect the average norn to be capable of.

feat simply means “note worthy achievement”. We know the average norn acomplisghes feats because the entire society revolves around them. We know they are disproportionately strong and we know that their general ability, fighting tendancies and "individual strength were enough to drive back a charr invasion and withstand charr warbands. They have little organization and no standing army. Which is noteworthy, in itself.

(edited by Dustfinger.9510)

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

If anything I’d expect giving them weapons would make strength less important. /snip

it is less important but no where near unimportant.Im paling your enemy on a spear means you need to get your enemy in a position to impale him. being able to man handle your opponent is a great advantage. case in point, If I give a twelve year old a sword, he is at a disadvantage because he needs to recover from my heavier strikes while all I need to do is try not to get hit. Which is also something he needs to do. So I have a clear advantage.

That’s somewhat hard to judge given the two species would never naturally coexist nevermind fight. Cougars can kill things much larger than themselves, though as predators I suspect they’d prefer to kill smaller, safer things if they could. Wiki (as in -pedia) suggests gorillas may sometimes be prey to leopards, and even quotes that “[a] silverback gorilla and a leopard were both found dead from mutually inflicted wounds” as evidence that the leopards may not exclusively scavenge from already dead gorillas, but the citation unfortunately links to a site which no longer exists (well, I can’t load it at the moment, at least). However, it also gives a weight range for cougars which indicates they can actually be notably heavier than leopards, so that’s… interesting, anyway.

¹for whatever it’s worth their cultural heavy armours do appear to reflect this: the first two seem to have segments of overlapping metal something like a carapace, while the last looks like ‘bits of metal attached to otherwise light/medium armour’.

²in the GW2 sense where hammer = maul.

I think your making it harder than it actually is. Adult humans may be killed by a couger ambush but what we actually see is that adult humans tend to fight them off. So citing one incident of a gorilla dieing from wounds without having any details doesn’t really discredit the gorillas tendancies in a fight. remember, we’re discussing tendancies here, not possibilities. It’s also noteworthy that leopards are known for their strength. So as per my examples, giving the puma more general strength is benefit to the puma.

(edited by Dustfinger.9510)

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Bathos.6341

Bathos.6341

Probably depends more on what weapons they had on them, who was more experienced, and who was drunker at the time!

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Namica.2951

Namica.2951

This really a fight? It’s rather obvious. Books and lore have told us many times that on a 1 to 1 basis, a Norn is going to win. They are just plain stronger and better built for it.

On an organized basis? Charr. Their strength lies in their ability to work together as a unit. Norn on the other hand, lore wise, seldom work together. I mean jeez, they walked one at a time into the dragon because each one wanted the glory for themselves. That’s how Norn society works.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

High five Namica! I don’t get how it’s this much trouble. each playable species has their own specialty that they bring to the table. Norn’s is 1 on 1 combat.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: LameFox.6349

LameFox.6349

it is less important but no where near unimportant.Im paling your enemy on a spear means you need to get your enemy in a position to impale him. being able to man handle your opponent is a great advantage. case in point, If I give a twelve year old a sword, he is at a disadvantage because he needs to recover from my heavier strikes while all I need to do is try not to get hit. Which is also something he needs to do. So I have a clear advantage.

I was thinking of the spear being used from beyond arm’s reach… I’m not really sure why you’d be taking hold of someone or whatever in order to use a spear, that seems quite awkward and contrary to the reason for being armed with a spear. As far as your advantage goes, its importance in practice does depend on you actually landing those hits as well, so which of you is the more agile and to what extent will also play a part here. Although a 12 yr old has other much more severe disadvantages like being 12 to contend with.

I think your making it harder than it actually is. Adult humans may be killed by a couger ambush but what we actually see is that adult humans tend to fight them off. So citing one incident of a gorilla dieing from wounds without having any details doesn’t really discredit the gorillas tendancies in a fight. remember, we’re discussing tendancies here, not possibilities. It’s also noteworthy that leopards are known for their strength. So as per my examples, giving the puma more general strength is benefit to the puma.

The reason I found that case interesting was because it suggests your choice of animals may not be as imbalanced in their potential to kill one another as you think. Predators – especially solitary ones which can’t rely on support from a social group if they’re temporarily unable to hunt – typically will not engage in anything like a fight to the death, making that case extremely rare. Even fairly light injuries could kill through infection or preventing them from obtaining food, and natural selection then leaves us with the ones not too enthusiastic about risking injury over lunch. ‘Fighting off’ a cougar may not even require actual fighting takes place^ and how successful it may be isn’t really a relevant tendency when we’re imposing unnatural behaviour on them.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Dustfinger.9510

Dustfinger.9510

I was thinking of the spear being used from beyond arm’s reach… I’m not really sure why you’d be taking hold of someone or whatever in order to use a spear, that seems quite awkward and contrary to the reason for being armed with a spear. As far as your advantage goes, its importance in practice does depend on you actually landing those hits as well, so which of you is the more agile and to what extent will also play a part here. Although a 12 yr old has other much more severe disadvantages like being 12 to contend with.

A few point here: Are we only talking about spear fighting? “A battle plan is only good until the first shot is fired”. And what about being 12 years old is absolutely a disadvantage beyond the strength and size? feel free to replace 12 year old with a RL little-person. Size and strength advantages should be obvious. I’m really not sure you believe your own point here. Strength is a clear advanatage in most melee battles even though most advanatges have some kind of counter. But being agile enough to dodge all blows is a pretty unrealisitic expectation and expends an enormous amount of energy. This is getting kind of ridiculous.

The reason I found that case interesting was because it suggests your choice of animals may not be as imbalanced in their potential to kill one another as you think. Predators – especially solitary ones which can’t rely on support from a social group if they’re temporarily unable to hunt – typically will not engage in anything like a fight to the death, making that case extremely rare. Even fairly light injuries could kill through infection or preventing them from obtaining food, and natural selection then leaves us with the ones not too enthusiastic about risking injury over lunch. ‘Fighting off’ a cougar may not even require actual fighting takes place^ and how successful it may be isn’t really a relevant tendency when we’re imposing unnatural behaviour on them.

The choice of animals is fine since we are talking about tendancies. Thee complete lack of details means the case doesn’t suggest anything beyond what can be possible. How old was the gorilla? Was it already injured? or healthy? How big was the jaguar? We have nothing to suggest anything about beyond the fact that something isn’t impossible. But that point was never in contention. Yet I just discovered your equating of a cougar and a jaguar is flawed. A cougar can weigh up to 220 lbs. While larger jaguar males can be puma sized in some areas (Though more heavily muscled) but have been recorded up to 350 lbs in other areas. It is more heavily muscled than a puma (so your attempt to turn a puma into a jaguar demonstrates how the puma needs more strength to even conceivably compete with a gorilla). So this entire tangent is inherently flawed. Strength is a clear advantage no matter how we look at it.

(edited by Dustfinger.9510)

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: LameFox.6349

LameFox.6349

A few point here: Are we only talking about spear fighting?

I don’t know, that just seemed to be the part you addressed. My original comment about piercing weapons was:
‘Piercing weapons it would depend on whether either of them had armour capable of stopping the other in the first place: impaled on a spear and impaled on a spear harder being notably less important a difference than something like impaled on a spear or really uncomfortable having the tip of a spear lodged between those ribs but not quite dead.’

And what about being 12 years old is absolutely a disadvantage beyond the strength and size? feel free to replace 12 year old with a RL little-person. Size and strength advantages should be obvious.

Inexperience. But you could replace this with something like 5ft human adult vs 7ft human adult or something like that, and when they’re both provided weapons and a history of combat or training for it, I still wouldn’t be surprised by either outcome.

I’m really not sure you believe your own point here. Strength is a clear advanatage in most melee battles even though most advanatges have some kind of counter. But being agile enough to dodge all blows is a pretty unrealisitic expectation and expends an enormous amount of energy. This is getting kind of ridiculous.

I’m not saying it isn’t an advantage, I just don’t think it’s as important as it’s been made out to be. In no small part because it seems the basis for assuming the strength difference is so great in the first place depends a lot on how literally we take one sentence.

The choice of animals is fine since we are talking about tendancies. Thee complete lack of details means the case doesn’t suggest anything beyond what can be possible. How old was the gorilla? Was it already injured? or healthy? How big was the jaguar? We have nothing to suggest anything about beyond the fact that something isn’t impossible. But that point was never in contention.

We’re speculating about what might tend to happen in imaginary circumstances, based on ability. A tendency like cougar attacks on humans being (relatively) easily thwarted is based on animal behaviour, and not useful here. I pointed out that it was possible because it involved a generally smaller species than you selected, and on that note:

Yet I just discovered your equating of a cougar and a jaguar is flawed. A cougar can weigh up to 220 lbs. While larger jaguar males can be puma sized in some areas (Though more heavily muscled) but have been recorded up to 350 lbs in other areas. It is more heavily muscled than a puma (so your attempt to turn a puma into a jaguar demonstrates how the puma needs more strength to even conceivably compete with a gorilla). So this entire tangent is inherently flawed. Strength is a clear advantage no matter how we look at it.

A leopard is not a jaguar.

Who would win in a fight, a Charr or Norn?

in Charr

Posted by: Scoobaniec.9561

Scoobaniec.9561

Someone been talking about size

Attachments: