Why are vermin always worse fighters than goodbeasts?

[LT Sandpaw]

Mobility is more effective than heavy armour. Ever heard of Genghis Khan?

On the contrary sir, movies and stories would have us believe that armor is useless and simply clutters one's movement however that is completely false. Why do you think armor has been used over the centuries? If all it did was slow someone down then it wouldn't be used.

In fact armor does almost nothing to slow someone down. I have attended several tourneys (Renaissance medieval tournaments.) And I have seen those men and women wearing full plate body armor moving like lightning. I have also tried said armor on, and while it is heavy it does very little to impede movement. Actually the great weight allows for a more powerful blow, the only negative effect is that it wears the soldier out faster. But even then, a someone who works out could fight, and run for a good thirty minutes before being truly exhausted.

Furthermore armor does its job, it stonewalls swords, and blunts spears, and even deflects arrows. In a fight, all you can do to you're opponent is bruise them, making blunt weapons, like clubs, maces, and flails much more effective the standard sword. Axes don't count because they are the terror of the battle field.

I think what brought about the loss of more soldiers was the fact that they were starving, and they also had very low moral. Sun Tzu says that those that have no wish to fight, and who are unwilling will lose a battle before it begins. (Not a direct quote)

Plus plot.

[The Skarzs]

I remember Bane (I think it was Bane) shaking his head in disbelief at how his forces lost more than the woodlanders.

[Sanddunes]

The real answer: Plot.

Agree

[Ashleg]

Agreed, but stronger villains usually equal better plot...so, hrm.

[Sanddunes]

Agreed, but stronger villains usually equal better plot...so, hrm.

Mostly only the leaders because Brian is saving them for the end so that the main character can fight and defeat them

[Ashleg]

I'm saying that the more strong ones there are the more conflict there is, usually bettering the plot.

You know, like Eefera ('s that how you spell it) and that other guy from Taggerung, the fox from Pearls of Lutra, and Cheesethief (though not exactly strong, he was smart enough to survive a long time).

This ties into character development, for a character with more screen time has more time for the readers to get invested in them...again bettering the plot, usually. Unless they're annoying as heck, like Triss.

[The Skarzs]

It has to do, I think, with the overall feel/formula of the universe. Good will always be stronger than evil. So what better way to demonstrate that than to show how worthless they are when faced with strong-willed fighters?

Not saying I like it, it's just what I think is the reason for it.



I like strong villains because of the element of hoplessness it can give the protagonists. It is that obstacle in the journey of the good guys that they need to overcome.

[Sanddunes]

I'm saying that the more strong ones there are the more conflict there is, usually bettering the plot.

You know, like Eefera ('s that how you spell it) and that other guy from Taggerung, the fox from Pearls of Lutra, and Cheesethief (though not exactly strong, he was smart enough to survive a long time).

This ties into character development, for a character with more screen time has more time for the readers to get invested in them...again bettering the plot, usually. Unless they're annoying as heck, like Triss.

The problem is those guys are strong against other vermin but not so much against woodlanders or don't have a scene where they fight against them.

[Ashleg]

Because Woodlanders are speeshul.

[The Skarzs]

Fight fight fight fight.


Once again, it goes back to the formula of the series: "Goodbeasts" are always going to be good.

[Ashleg]

Tugga Bruster.

[The Skarzs]

Blaggut.

Conflict between two characters of the same. . . "side" always makes good reading.

[Grond]

It has to do, I think, with the overall feel/formula of the universe. Good will always be stronger than evil. So what better way to demonstrate that than to show how worthless they are when faced with strong-willed fighters?

Not saying I like it, it's just what I think is the reason for it.



I like strong villains because of the element of hoplessness it can give the protagonists. It is that obstacle in the journey of the good guys that they need to overcome.

Yes but another thing is Brian could have made the series more interesting, in my opinion, if the Redwallers used different methods to defeat the vermin by playing on their weaknesses and not just always defeating them in a massive battle at the end. For example, in the Book Raketty Tam- I found that ending particularly stupid- Tam kills Gulo through sheer luck and divine intervention. Gulo was an extremely skilled and fearsome fighter (just by being a wolverine) but he wasn't exactly a talented thinker. It would of made the book more interesting if he was defeated using strategy or "out thought" rather than "out fought". For example I think it would have been a better ending if the woodlanders realized that he and his horde were too dangerous of opponents to be killed in open battle and that Gulo got killed when his forces fell over the waterfall after being tricked into following the woodlanders down river.

[Sanddunes]

It has to do, I think, with the overall feel/formula of the universe. Good will always be stronger than evil. So what better way to demonstrate that than to show how worthless they are when faced with strong-willed fighters?

Not saying I like it, it's just what I think is the reason for it.



I like strong villains because of the element of hoplessness it can give the protagonists. It is that obstacle in the journey of the good guys that they need to overcome.

Yes but another thing is Brian could have made the series more interesting, in my opinion, if the Redwallers used different methods to defeat the vermin by playing on their weaknesses and not just always defeating them in a massive battle at the end. For example, in the Book Raketty Tam- I found that ending particularly stupid- Tam kills Gulo through sheer luck and divine intervention. Gulo was an extremely skilled and fearsome fighter (just by being a wolverine) but he wasn't exactly a talented thinker. It would of made the book more interesting if he was defeated using strategy or "out thought" rather than "out fought". For example I think it would have been a better ending if the woodlanders realized that he and his horde were too dangerous of opponents to be killed in open battle and that Gulo got killed when his forces fell over the waterfall after being tricked into following the woodlanders down river.

The problem was Brian wasn't very big on Strategy the only thing the vermin had on their side was numbers

[Dante8002]

I agree, but light shines in darkness. Good guys should have luck, man.