Why exactly would the norn join the charr? Just because "they're strong"? That's not how the norn work. I'm assuming nearly everyone would support if not side with the humans to maintain the status quo as established with the treaty, as they would recognize that the charr are reneging on said treaty just because they have the opportunity to. Perspective is important as well. Ebonhawke would be the first target in a charr/human war, it would be the main point of the conflict, the flashpoint, and crucially the humans would be on the defensive and that is far more likely to breed sympathy especially given Ebonhawke's been through all that before. The most likely outcome is a bloody stalemate unless Ebonhawke is taken by storm with the charr taking advantage of the treaty suddenly ending and moving in before the humans have a chance to react, and that would DEFINITELY mean others would be more inclined to take humanity's side given the atrocity that would have just been committed. This is how international relations work. The aggressor will nearly always be seen in a worse light, whether they have 'justifications' or not. And who is more likely to be the aggressor? The charr. The humans are more than capable of fighting the charr to a stand still even without the aid of other races.
Why exactly would the norn join the charr? Just because "they're strong"? That's not how the norn work. I'm assuming nearly everyone would support if not side with the humans to maintain the status quo as established with the treaty, as they would recognize that the charr are reneging on said treaty just because they have the opportunity to. Perspective is important as well. Ebonhawke would be the first target in a charr/human war, it would be the main point of the conflict, the flashpoint, and crucially the humans would be on the defensive and that is far more likely to breed sympathy especially given Ebonhawke's been through all that before. The most likely outcome is a bloody stalemate unless Ebonhawke is taken by storm with the charr taking advantage of the treaty suddenly ending and moving in before the humans have a chance to react, and that would DEFINITELY mean others would be more inclined to take humanity's side given the atrocity that would have just been committed. This is how international relations work. The aggressor will nearly always be seen in a worse light, whether they have 'justifications' or not. And who is more likely to be the aggressor? The charr. The humans are more than capable of fighting the charr to a stand still even without the aid of other races.
