The Night King vs. The Balrog

[Pendaran]

That is a much prettier version.

Sadly it does leave us without somewhat-objective feats on how that helps it in this rumble. Broke the mountain side sounds nice, but is it "smashed a 100 foot long skid where it fell" or "cracked off a giant avalanche." We don't know. We know that he didn't survive it.

The intensity of their fight was such that people looking at the mountain would see a storm at the top of it. They fell a ridiculous length into the water and both of them did not consider that an especially huge impairment to keep fighting. They chased and fought each other, without pause or rest, all the way up the mountain, from beneath it, which speaks to their endurance. "Cracked off a giant avalanche" would mean saying all he did was send snow and ice rolling along when it states "broke the mountain side" as far as his death throes.

It's certainly beyond going:

If we are talking Durin's Bane, well, it fought and fell really far and long with Gandalf. There was some lightning flashing about. It died.

The text is pretty strongly leaning into that both threw a lot of power around.

I'll say it another way. If the two of them going at each other can generate what looks like a storm of intensity enough to obscure the mountaintop that it would have been visible to people who would have wanted to look at said mountain, I'm pretty cool with that the Balrog can be read to have smashed up that much of mountainside in its death throes.

It's one thing to go "the exact limits of that are hard to parse" it's another thing to go "so I'm going to lowball and talk about it as being barely impressive as hard as possible in ways the text itself does not bear out from its clear context."

[The Arbiter]

Dont use "creates natural disasters as side scatter from fights" as a feat with big_adventure. He loves math and science and hates imagination. ;P

[Pendaran]

Dont use "creates natural disasters as side scatter from fights" as a feat with big_adventure. He loves math and science and hates imagination. ;P

That's nice for him. Context is not optional when looking at something.

[Goldenbane]

Ok, I just have to go on a small rant here, forgive me, please. The Night King doesn't have crap on a Balrog. Maybe you all will lambast me for this, and I'd probably deserve it, but the Balrog is the inspiration from one of the baddest and most powerful creatures I've ever faced beside the Tarrasque...the Balor. The Balor has high cold resistance, he has EXTREMELY high magic resistance, his fire causes not just flame damage (which Night King may be immune to) but also unholy damage (which I seriously doubt the Night king is immune to). He has telekinesis, any sword he holds has a chance to instantly cut off your head! He can magically entangle you with his whip, he can create storms of fire (bye bye undead army!), he has power word stun which can instantly paralyze you and allow no movement or escape...far more powerful than even his entangle. He can teleport at will, cause you to implode with a thought, he can dominate and crush your will, call in legions upon legions of demons nearly as powerful as himself (including the Miralith). The Balor can dispel magic, he can create a blasphemy (A power that creates a radius burst of evil that weakens, dazes, stuns, or instantly kills anything within it...provided they fail their save). Even more powerful Balors have access to 1st through 8th level magic that they can do several times a day...or at will...including lightning bolts, acid attacks, sonic attacks, unholy power, blinding, taking control of undead...or creating their own undead with which to fight, causing earthquakes, and more.

If Pendaran or someone else said the Balrog could probably do all of this too, I would have no trouble believing it. Both creatures look and act EXACTLY the same! So I apologize, but I find it hard that this...ice...zombie...whatever the Night King is...created by a bunch of moronic little nature twerps (who's only other big magic example of power was throwing tiny fire/acorn grenades) could stand a chance against such a creature. The Night King has the advantage of seeming extremely powerful, in a highly non-magical dark fantasy world. His killing of one of the dragons is impressive and I have to give that to him...but you have to understand that GoT dragons are nothing compared to Tolkien or D&D dragons. In D&D, GoT dragons are little more than giant sized fire breathing wyverns (but without the poisonous stinger tail). They are big and can breath fire, but are really stupid, have no magical power, and have no access to magical items. I have no trouble believing that a white dragon (weakest of all the D&D true dragons) would be able to take it to any of the Targaryen dragons. Meanwhile, only the absolute oldest and most powerful of the absolute most powerful of the true dragons (Ancient Great Wyrm Red, Silver, Gold, and maybe Blue) could match up against a Balor (or Balrog).

The Night King isn't winning this one.

[Pendaran]

The Night King doesn't have crap on a Balrog. Maybe you all will lambast me for this,

The Night King laughed off Drogon's fire breath, which has blasted apart stone fortifications like nothing, and was straight up unharmed by a certainly not as far but still pretty significant fall. The damage one of his javelins did on impact with one of the dragons (though I wouldn't call that a pure matter of strength as much as also being influenced by being some kind of being mystically damaging thing) was also pretty impressive.

The thread has had a "let's lowball the Balrog for no good reason" thing, don't get me wrong, but that doesn't mean the Night King isn't impressive for what it is.

and I'd probably deserve it, but the Balrog is the inspiration from one of the baddest and most powerful creatures I've ever faced beside the Tarrasque...the Balor.

You would deserve it, because the Balrog and Balor, aside from the second thing being a rip of the first, have nothing to do with each other and are not in any way comparable or usable to talk about the capacity of the other.

He has telekinesis, any sword he holds has a chance to instantly cut off your head! He can magically entangle you with his whip, he can create storms of fire (bye bye undead army!), he has power word stun which can instantly paralyze you and allow no movement or escape...far more powerful than even his entangle. He can teleport at will, cause you to implode with a thought, he can dominate and crush your will, call in legions upon legions of demons nearly as powerful as himself (including the Miralith). The Balor can dispel magic, he can create a blasphemy (A power that creates a radius burst of evil that weakens, dazes, stuns, or instantly kills anything within it...provided they fail their save). Even more powerful Balors have access to 1st through 8th level magic that they can do several times a day...or at will...including lightning bolts, acid attacks, sonic attacks, unholy power, blinding, taking control of undead...or creating their own undead with which to fight, causing earthquakes, and more.

None of this has anything to do with Balrogs, though there's a whooooooooooloe lot I'd want to unpack here as far as statements about D&D monsters, but to paraphrase my ancestors, it wouldn't be worth the tsuris.

If Pendaran or someone else said the Balrog could probably do all of this too, I would have no trouble believing it.

I wouldn't say that. We're shown what Balrogs can do roughly. It is not that (and a bunch of that is being a touch generous on what Balors can do, but again, that's another story),

Both creatures look and act EXACTLY the same! So I apologize, but I find it hard that this...ice...zombie...whatever the Night King is...created by a bunch of moronic little nature twerps (who's only other big magic example of power was throwing tiny fire/acorn grenades) could stand a chance against such a creature.

Fortunately, the creature you are talking about has nothing to do with the capacity of the Balrog, so your speculation here is without meaning.

.but you have to understand that GoT dragons are nothing compared to Tolkien or D&D dragons.

True, but breathtakingly irrelevant. Though there are some D&D dragons that GoT dragon firebreath would be more impressive than, that said.

The Night King isn't winning this one.

If he's not, it's not because of anything you said.

[The Arbiter]

Ok so, a couple of problems here. Huge problems.

1: The Balor or whatever isn't a Balrog. It's not even from the same universe. Being the inspiration for something is not some sort of free pass on feats, otherwise Homelander and Bright Burn kid get all of Superman's stuff, which they dont because that would be silly.

2: The Children of the Forest do sooo much more then throw fireballs. In the Histories and Lore (which are canon tellings in the DVD box sets of GoT), we learn that they shatter a land bridge, help create the wall and have flooded huuuge swaths of land with a little prep time at the peak of their magic. Same peak that made the Night King. But again, their feats are not his.

Edit: Alternatively, literally everything Pen said is a great rebuttal to your point.

[Goldenbane]

None of this has anything to do with Balrogs, though there's a whooooooooooloe lot I'd want to unpack here as far as statements about D&D monsters, but to paraphrase my ancestors, it wouldn't be worth the tsuris.

So what exactly did I say that was so untrue that you're holding back so much about unloading on me? I was literally looking right at the monster's stats as I was listing off what he could do for reference/remembering. Every single thing I listed is true about the Balor's spell like abilities. The only thing you MIGHT be able to call me out on is the casting of 1st through 8th level spells...that IS reserved for "Balor Lords" but they are still Balors all the same and I did specify "some". The Balor IS a DC 20 creature, as are the most powerful of the most powerful dragons I mentioned (some of them are higher, actually, specifically the gold) but come, don't disappoint your ancestors. You did very well negating my other points, which I admitted I'd probably get called out on, but I fail to see how I am so "ignorant" on Dungeons and Dragons monsters when I listed off EXACTLY what they can do from their own damn entry in the Monster Manual? I admit this is 3.5 edition, but I still stand by it.

[Goldenbane]

Ok so, a couple of problems here. Huge problems.

1: The Balor or whatever isn't a Balrog. It's not even from the same universe. Being the inspiration for something is not some sort of free pass on feats, otherwise Homelander and Bright Burn kid get all of Superman's stuff, which they dont because that would be silly.

2: The Children of the Forest do sooo much more then throw fireballs. In the Histories and Lore (which are canon tellings in the DVD box sets of GoT), we learn that they shatter a land bridge, help create the wall and have flooded huuuge swaths of land with a little prep time at the peak of their magic. Same peak that made the Night King. But again, their feats are not his.

Edit: Alternatively, literally everything Pen said is a great rebuttal to your point.

The Children have shown jack ****. The rumors and stories SAY they flooded the land, helped build the wall, and shattered the land bridge, but as far as I know, we've never seen them do any of this. Just as Bran the builder was supposedly in 600 places at once spanning thousands of miles apart. Unless George Martin confirms it was Bran Stark time hoping or whatever, all it is is hearsay. Also, the Children "helped" with the wall...who else was involved? Did they also get help with the land bridge or the flood? Those stories are extremely strange and muddled, as they say the Children of the forest did all this to cut themselves off from humans, but huge tribes of humans/first men are all sitting around on the same side of the wall with them. The stories also say they defeated the Night King the first time around. If that's untrue, why did they block themselves with the wall and be on the WRONG side of it? Why would they be with the monsters they created, and not safe on the other side with their newly befriended humans? Why would they also allow those other human tribes to remain on the wrong side of the wall where the White Walkers can regain their strength by using them in their undead armies? Why did the Night King...or his successor...wait so damn long to do any of this? As far as I know, Martin hasn't addressed any of this in any story directly. He's mostly concentrated on the Targaryens, the iron throne, and that stuff. I know he's written books set in this world aside from the Song of Ice and Fire trilogy (such as Dunc and Egg) but I don't recall him writing specifically about the Children and First Men wars with point of view characters or anything. From what I've read, anyone who recites it is just reciting what history said...they weren't actually there. And, as with history in real life, George has made it a point that those who wrote about specific events in the past are not always right, specific, or even willfully telling the truth.

[Pendaran]

So what exactly did I say that was so untrue that you're holding back so much about unloading on me? I was literally looking right at the monster's stats as I was listing off what he could do for reference/remembering. Every single thing I listed is true about the Balor's spell like abilities. The only thing you MIGHT be able to call me out on is the casting of 1st through 8th level spells...that IS reserved for "Balor Lords" but they are still Balors all the same and I did specify "some". The Balor IS a DC 20 creature, as are the most powerful of the most powerful dragons I mentioned (some of them are higher, actually, specifically the gold) but come, don't disappoint your ancestors. You did very well negating my other points, which I admitted I'd probably get called out on, but I fail to see how I am so "ignorant" on Dungeons and Dragons monsters when I listed off EXACTLY what they can do from their own damn entry in the Monster Manual? I admit this is 3.5 edition, but I still stand by it.

Look at that last thing you said and consider how many editions deep we are at this point for what passes for D&D canon, as it were.

[The Arbiter]

The Children have shown jack ****. The rumors and stories SAY they flooded the land, helped build the wall, and shattered the land bridge, but as far as I know, we've never seen them do any of this. Just as Bran the builder was supposedly in 600 places at once spanning thousands of miles apart. Unless George Martin confirms it was Bran Stark time hoping or whatever, all it is is hearsay. Also, the Children "helped" with the wall...who else was involved? Did they also get help with the land bridge or the flood? Those stories are extremely strange and muddled, as they say the Children of the forest did all this to cut themselves off from humans, but huge tribes of humans/first men are all sitting around on the same side of the wall with them. The stories also say they defeated the Night King the first time around. If that's untrue, why did they block themselves with the wall and be on the WRONG side of it? Why would they be with the monsters they created, and not safe on the other side with their newly befriended humans? Why would they also allow those other human tribes to remain on the wrong side of the wall where the White Walkers can regain their strength by using them in their undead armies? Why did the Night King...or his successor...wait so damn long to do any of this? As far as I know, Martin hasn't addressed any of this in any story directly. He's mostly concentrated on the Targaryens, the iron throne, and that stuff. I know he's written books set in this world aside from the Song of Ice and Fire trilogy (such as Dunc and Egg) but I don't recall him writing specifically about the Children and First Men wars with point of view characters or anything. From what I've read, anyone who recites it is just reciting what history said...they weren't actually there. And, as with history in real life, George has made it a point that those who wrote about specific events in the past are not always right, specific, or even willfully telling the truth.

Ok. More problems with this.

1: Your right! We never actually see the Children do any of that. Then again, we never actually see the Balrog create a storm or damage a mountain with its death either, so I guess your cool telling Pen or whatever that Gandalf and Balrog "have shown jack ****" as well? In both circumstances, it's second hand info, told to us in good faith.

If you go on to say "not in good faith - what about my point that George has claimed that past events arent always right?" well then, see my second problem.

2: We are discussing, as specified, Live Action GoT's characters. This is a distinctly different universe backed by a different creative team to the ASOIAF books. As discussed earlier, "based on" is not the same as "actually being the same". These feats are in canon narrated to us as actually having happened.

Edit: again, not that it matters as the NK only gets /his/ feats. No freebies are given just based on a things creators.

[The Dork Knight]

1: Your right! We never actually see the Children do any of that. Then again, we never actually see the Balrog create a storm or damage a mountain with its death either, so I guess your cool telling Pen or whatever that Gandalf and Balrog "have shown jack ****" as well? In both circumstances, it's second hand info, told to us in good faith.

We do actually, in the movie. One of the reasons movie version would lose, it's not as impressive (the battle)

Edit - not as impressive in terms of feats that is. The fight itself was really cool , very well done

[Pendaran]

1: Your right! We never actually see the Children do any of that. Then again, we never actually see the Balrog create a storm or damage a mountain with its death either, so I guess your cool telling Pen or whatever that Gandalf and Balrog "have shown jack ****" as well? In both circumstances, it's second hand info, told to us in good faith.

Ugh, I missed that in the general sprawl of the posts. Gandalf straight up from the Two Towers describes the fight. We are told what happens. That's not second hand info in good faith, that's "the guy who was one half of that fight narrates what happened for us." The things you are trying to compare are not super comparable. It would require one of the Children themselves who was around at the time noting all the stuff you're talking about. Which, if that's what happens, hey, nevermind me, but otherwise, not the same thing.

edit: I get the point you are trying to make and certainly the idea that the Children didn't do the things they do, especially if the dvd bothered to include them as part of some canonical narrative thing, is significantly bereft of validity from the context of the narrative, particularly when the narrative is "The most ancient stories are true", I'm just saying, these aren't comparable states of being for pointing to a narrative. Still, the idea that they didn't shatter the arm of Dorne when the Children themselves are noting their war with humanity totally happened, as did the Long Night, and tossing into it "also, we made the white walkers", wellllll…

Oh, and certainly the movie fight was well done, but yes the book fight has more over the top, throw a few Kirby dots around it fwackoom in it, yes.

[Pendaran]

The most you can say about the arm of Dorne thing is that, again, contextually speaking, that wasn't some small effort of the Children, that was a significant thing and they still in the end basically lost.

Particularly when in show most of their workings involve having to make a thing, to do a thing (their fireballs are from created things, the obsidian chunk thing they made the Night King with), nothing they accomplish really bears a sense of just stuff they can bust out. The Wall itself is a created object that involved massive effort. Etc. etc.

[The Arbiter]

Ugh, I missed that in the general sprawl of the posts. Gandalf straight up from the Two Towers describes the fight. We are told what happens. That's not second hand info in good faith, that's "the guy who was one half of that fight narrates what happened for us." The things you are trying to compare are not super comparable. It would require one of the Children themselves who was around at the time noting all the stuff you're talking about. Which, if that's what happens, hey, nevermind me, but otherwise, not the same thing.

edit: I get the point you are trying to make and certainly the idea that the Children didn't do the things they do, especially if the dvd bothered to include them as part of some canonical narrative thing, is significantly bereft of validity from the context of the narrative, particularly when the narrative is "The most ancient stories are true", I'm just saying, these aren't comparable states of being for pointing to a narrative. Still, the idea that they didn't shatter the arm of Dorne when the Children themselves are noting their war with humanity totally happened, as did the Long Night, and tossing into it "also, we made the white walkers", wellllll…

Oh, and certainly the movie fight was well done, but yes the book fight has more over the top, throw a few Kirby dots around it fwackoom in it, yes.

"Second hand info" was definitely the wrong choice of words in regards to Gandalf at least. I more so meant that neither thing were explicitly "shown" just "told" which I thought Goldenbane was protesting.

For what it's worth, the Histories and Lore segment was narrated by Bran well into his 3 eyed Raven training. Dude was the living memory of the world and could see past events with his own eyes. A bit more meaningful then if say... Littlefinger had done the tale :P

By and large, Histories and Lore takes itself pretty seriously as an entry in the series, so I'm pretty ok with using it seriously. Mileage may vary.

[The Arbiter]

The most you can say about the arm of Dorne thing is that, again, contextually speaking, that wasn't some small effort of the Children, that was a significant thing and they still in the end basically lost.

Particularly when in show most of their workings involve having to make a thing, to do a thing (their fireballs are from created things, the obsidian chunk thing they made the Night King with), nothing they accomplish really bears a sense of just stuff they can bust out. The Wall itself is a created object that involved massive effort. Etc. etc.

Total agreement that these things aren't just some simple effort on their part. I think I mentioned they were prep time feats in my initial response to Goldenbane. More like a theoretical max then a practical fight move to bust out.