Are badgers too overpowered?

[Mhera]

It seems as though neither the size difference or size equality theory are correct; the proportions between creatures are weird and seem to lie somewhere in between the two theories. At the end of Taggerung Deyna, a huge otter, is holding Martin's sword. The sword is described as being only a little small. If the size difference theory were applied, the sword would be more accurately described as a toothpick rather than a large knife as mice are tiny compared to otters in real life. However, if size equality applied then it wouldn't make sense that Mhera, who was probably about average height for an otter, is later described as barely coming up to the height of Russano's waist when both were standing. So I think a better guess would be that size differences do apply but aren't as exaggerated as in real life.

[James Gryphon]

Well, here's the size comparison used for the Redwall game, for what that's worth. I think it's pretty good for most of them, although I think badgers should probably be taller than they are.

As for your post: I think it is somewhere in between, but how much in between depends on the race. There's a pronounced bias towards badgers and wildcats that skew their size much greater in comparison to other species than it actually is. All the other ones seem to be on a pretty linear scale -- shrews, mice/voles, squirrels, then hares/otters for the good guys; rats, then weasels/stoats/ferrets, and finally foxes for the bad guys. Each "tier" of races is a little bigger than the last, but just a little more so -- not proportionate to real life. The 'bad' races are, on average, a little bigger than the good guys (a weasel, for instance is a close match for an otter).

Badgers, and thus wildcats, are both much larger than life. An adult badger isn't much larger than an otter, certainly not as much larger as an otter is to a mouse or squirrel. They're actually very similar in size, but Redwall portrays badgers as much bigger than everything else. Wildcats in real life are about the same as house cats (a little more muscular, given their lifestyle), but are portrayed as being a force capable of contesting a badger one-on-one. Finally, foxes are typically smaller than, or at the most as large as wildcats, which, while it is possible, very much understates their average size.

Overall, though, the last time I posted about this subject, I said that the only consistent rule was that badgers were bigger than everybody else. I still think that's pretty much the case. To figure out how it works, someone would have to go through each and every book and take notes on size whenever it's mentioned in the story.

As far as the personality traits thing goes, Mr. Jacques said something to the effect that the personality trait doesn't come from the race -- rather, the race comes from the personality trait. Epic leader-types that are 'larger than life' (in this case, literally) are often portrayed as badgers. With that in mind, having one be cowardly or lazy doesn't make sense.

[Mhera]

Quote: Badgers, and thus wildcats, are both much larger than life. An adult badger isn't much larger than an otter, certainly not as much larger as an otter is to a mouse or squirrel. They're actually very similar in size, but Redwall portrays badgers as much bigger than everything else. Wildcats in real life are about the same as house cats (a little more muscular, given their lifestyle), but are portrayed as being a force capable of contesting a badger one-on-one. /quote

That all sounds about right, except for the above quote about wildcats. Where are they portrayed as being able to take on a badger alone? In High Rhulain, for example, they seem no more capable than any other vermin, and certainly not super-powerful.

[Izeroth]

 There's only one wildcat in High Rhulain. All the others are feral cats, which are considerably weaker.

[James Gryphon]

As far as High Rhulain goes, remember that most of those were feral cats, not wildcats. Riggu Felis makes this distinction himself. In real life, it isn't as big of a deal as he makes it out to be, but in the story there is apparently supposed to be a difference. Also, their primary enemies are otters, who were on the bigger end of the spectrum -- I don't think we see them get whupped up on by a bunch of mice or shrews.

Ungatt Trunn, Lord Greeneyes' older brother, fights Lord Brocktree at the end of the book of that name. While Lord Brocktree is portrayed as being definitely stronger than Ungatt Trunn by the end of it, there's enough of a build-up to the fight and enough of a tussle that it's clear they're expected to be a good match. In Salamandastron both Ferahgo and Klitch fight Lord Urthstripe and start to lose before their archers bail them out, so it's evident that an individual wildcat is definitely stronger and more dangerous than weasels/other 'lesser' races.

[Mhera]

Okay, thanks! That clears things up a bit.

Also, to answer the original question: No, I don't think badgers are too overpowered. I see them as a sort of equalizer. Vermin usually have relatively large armies when compared to the woodlanders, so to even things out woodlanders have badgers.

[Delthion]

But when you think about it, badgers are no more good and noble than any of the Redwallers. If some were made bad then it would make them worse than all of the other goodbeasts in the Redwall series.

[Hickory]

Possibly.

If you read the books carefully, all badgers have a weakness, usually during the bloodwrath. Thus, that weakness makes them to underpowered, hence the Bloodwrath usually saves them from this (not in the case of Gorath, though). Bloodwrath is like the avatar state (if you've seen the show), it is more of a defense mechanism designed to, well, help the Badger... soldier his way though anything. Anything! Hence, the real answer is... it depends.

[Sebias of Redwall]

I don't really think badgers are over-powered. Though I still kinda wonder if a wolverine would kill a badger or not...

[The Grey Coincidence]

Depends on the wolverine, depends on the badger.
Bork for example would get his tail handed to him by any badger (even hotheaded Urthblaze and definitely ones like Umber and Rockfur- don't even get me started on the canon Badgerlord's)
But somebeast like, say , Baro, while not guaranteed to beat all of them could probably take down a younger badger or the inexperienced Urthblaze. So it depends.

[Sebias of Redwall]

Depends on the wolverine, depends on the badger.
Bork for example would get his tail handed to him by any badger (even hotheaded Urthblaze and definitely ones like Umber and Rockfur- don't even get me started on the canon Badgerlord's)
But somebeast like, say , Baro, while not guaranteed to beat all of them could probably take down a younger badger or the inexperienced Urthblaze. So it depends.

Slightly off topic but do you think you'll have a badger vs wolverine fight in your fanfic?

[The Grey Coincidence]

Nah... but the sequel.

[Sebias of Redwall]

Basically when Bork get's older...

[The Grey Coincidence]

Well... I have a planned drabble of Umber and Bork...
But yeah. *If* he grows older. Haven't decided yet.

[MathLuk]

Slightly off topic but do you think you'll have a badger vs wolverine fight in your fanfic?

We don't do that in my fics.
Sure, you have Taggerungs wrecking entire armies, battles in the centre of the mind, and weapons that can enhance seer powers tenfold, but a badger fighting a wolverine? *shakes head fervently* Nope!