Xykon's Fatal Mistake

[eilandesq]

I predict the following sequence of events:

--O-Chul destroys the phylactery with repeated Power Attacks while alone, then goes off to seek Xykon;

--He finds Xykon, who quickly dispatches O-Chul, but kills him outright rather than simply knocking him out;

--Redcloak arrives back--possibly with his eye already regenerated--with a new holy symbol. Xykon doesn't notice the new holy symbol or realize his phylactery has been destroyed;

--Redcloak decides to say nothing about the destruction of the phylactery, either out of fear that Xykon will blame him for it, or because he wants to move on and not hole up in Azure City for another four months while the phylactery is being reconstructed.

[Zolem]

Let's nto forget that RC has personaly stated that he deliberatly keeps things from Xykon because he knows he doesn't have the goblins best interests in mind. Also this makes getting rid of Xykon once and for all in case he turns on tehm even easier. One huge Xanatos Roulet when Xykon summons via a magic delayed triger spell he set up his phylarchy to him, and he finds it in tiny pieces. RC then defeats him for the double cross and sets about reshaping the world, becoming the strips new main villain. The OotS will then lampshade that the cool main villain got killed off by a 'nameless, undetailed leutenant' (not even Haley knew he was the mastermind). Of course, if he does some serious gloating and backstory reveal, that would probbly change their tunes quick.

[The Wanderer]

This is a very good, very plausible idea. Redcloak has to know that not only does Xykon not have the best interests of goblins at heart, but that if The Plan were to succeed and Xykon found out about Redcloak's lies to him about the very nature of The Plan, Xykon would be taking it out on him and all goblinkind.

If Redcloak realizes it, he now for the first time really has a chance to take Xykon down after they use one of the gates, and Xykon won't know or suspect just how vulnerable he is until it's too late.

On the other hand, it may be too much of a gamble for Redcloak, since if Xykon were to be destroyed again before the plan had a chance to succeed, Redcloak and the plan would be completely out of luck.

[Raenir Salazar]

Whats with the spoiler tags? This is speculation!

[The MunchKING]

Whats with the spoiler tags? This is speculation!

The boss wants them.

He tends to get annoyed when people correctly guess upcoming plotpoints, so if he doesn't read them, he's not inclined to change the story based on them.

At least that's MY understanding of it.

[Raenir Salazar]

Well I heard he doesn't read the forums so he won't have to change anything but has there been a request somewhere that he specifically wants speculation in spoiler tags?

[Querzis]

Whats with the spoiler tags? This is speculation!

More importantly, it seems like nobody read SoD.

Redcloak killed his own brother rather then let him try to destroy Xykon. Redcloak could have destroyed Xykon easely if he wanted to back when Xykon body was destroyed. And somehow, some people still expect Redcloak to betray Xykon? If he do that, all the goblins who died until now will have been for nothing. Redcloak will never betray Xykon, its not that freaking complicated.

This is just wishfull thinking. To betray Xykon, Redcloak first have to admit that he was wrong and that all those goblins, including his brother, died because of him, not because of Xykon. He doesnt have the balls for that, Xykon proved thousands of times that Redcloak doesnt have the balls for that. I understand that Redcloak is the favorite character of lots of people here but Right-Eye proved that Redcloak actually had a choice but Redcloak is simply not as brave as his brother. You can whine all you want but thats still how Redcloak is.

[The Wanderer]

Well I heard he doesn't read the forums so he won't have to change anything but has there been a request somewhere that he specifically wants speculation in spoiler tags?

The Giant does occasionally read the Forums. Not deeply or regularly, perhaps, but he does, and occasionally replies to people and such. (Just open the spoiler box in my signature and click on the links, it will lead you back to a thread in January where he responded to a fan protesting that the way the Black Dragon was able to use the anti-magic field to almost kill V violated the rules and description of the spell. And even though it's mostly been erased now, the dumb schmuck then angrily flamed The Giant, both in the original post and in the Giant's response that he didn't care about D&D rules).

Hence, it's become common practice to either say spoilers in the thread title when talking about speculation, or to spoiler them in the thread itself.

[Theodoriph]

Since Redcloak is Xykon's phylactery holder, Xykon is as vulnerable to Redcloak regardless of whether the phylactery exists or not.

Regardless of whether the phylactery exists, Xykon is easily destroyed.

Case 1

The phylactery is destroyed. Something kills Xykon. Xykon is destroyed.

Case 2

Redcloak has the phylactery. Something kills Xykon. Redcloak easily destroys the phylactery. Xykon is destroyed



Redcloak gains no real advantage from having the phylactery destroyed now as opposed to at a time of his choosing. He gains no real advantage from not telling Xykon it was destroyed. In fact it is quite a disadvantage. With Xykon's phylactery destroyed now, there is an increase in the probability of their plan failing. It would be in RC's best interests to build a new holy symbol housing X's phylactery (if the first is destroyed and such a thing is possible).

[The Wanderer]

More importantly, it seems like nobody read SoD.

Redcloak killed his own brother rather then let him try to destroy Xykon. Redcloak could have destroyed Xykon easely if he wanted to back when Xykon body was destroyed. And somehow, some people still expect Redcloak to betray Xykon? If he do that, all the goblins who died until now will have been for nothing. Redcloak will never betray Xykon, its not that freaking complicated.

This is just wishfull thinking. To betray Xykon, Redcloak first have to admit that he was wrong and that all those goblins, including his brother, died because of him, not because of Xykon. He doesnt have the balls for that, Xykon proved thousands of times that Redcloak doesnt have the balls for that. I understand that Redcloak is the favorite character of lots of people here but Right-Eye proved that Redcloak actually had a choice but Redcloak is simply not as brave as his brother. You can whine all you want but thats still how Redcloak is.

I have read SOD. Many, many times. And All Redcloak needs to do is remember the words "This deal with Xykon is killing our souls almost as fast as it's killing our bodies", think about his own description of Xykon as a twisted psychopath who doesn't get pleasure from anything except killing, and remember Xykon doing things like the gladiator games with O-Chul when Xykon got bored.

If the plan succeeds, or is about to succeed, do you really think Redcloak wouldn't stab Xykon in the back knowing the likely fate his prized Goblin Nation would suffer at Xykon's hands due to Xykon's fury at having been lied to the whole time? Or the way Xykon would kill them for sport and entertainment? If nothing else it would be the only way to avoid the horror of having finally succeeded, come all that way, and watching it all fall apart at the end.

[wgabrie]

I think this strip (655) takes place in the same room as Xykon's battle with V, and we are looking at an area behind Xykon who should be just off panel to the left.

[Shadic]

You realize that you could have just put "Spoilers" in the thread title, and that this would be averted, right?

[The Grazymancer]

I haven't read SoD so I got to ask one question. So Xykon thinks he can control the gate and Redcloak thinks Dark One is going to control the gate. So how much does Xykon know about Redcloaks real plans? I mean for what reasons he think Redcloak is following him? Xykon can't be that stupid that he thinks that Redcloak wants to help him become the king of the world.

[Kish]

He thinks the ritual Redcloak knows will permit the divine and arcane casters who cast it to control the Snarl, directly.

The reality is that it will permit the Dark One to control where the rifts open.

[The Grazymancer]

He thinks the ritual Redcloak knows will permit the divine and arcane casters who cast it to control the Snarl, directly.

The reality is that it will permit the Dark One to control where the rifts open.

No that doesn't really answer my question. I hardly can imagine that either one of them would think that the other one would voluntarily share the power of Snarl. And does he think Redcloak just wants power or what? Even if what Xykon thinks about the ritual would be true he still has to know that Redcloak wouldn't want someone like Xykon control the gate.

[Cúchulainn]

Xykon is already powerful enough to conquer the world if he wanted to, hell spliced V could have done it in like a month. I think at this point he's just along for the ride.

[shadzar]

Xykon is already powerful enough to conquer the world if he wanted to, hell spliced V could have done it in like a month. I think at this point he's just along for the ride.

Gonanron conquering many worlds/planes alone, just by teleporting his troops to them.

I wonder just why Xykon didn't try that?

Teleport all the hobgoblins into Azure city behind enemy lines to break up the ranks and kill everyone.

That was his fatal mistake, leaving any one person alive that could bring back Roy, or know that Roy would want to defeat Xykon should he be brought back.

Then again it could be the fact that he killed Master Fyron to cause the blood oath int he first place.

[Ellye]

This is just wishfull thinking. To betray Xykon, Redcloak first have to admit that he was wrong and that all those goblins, including his brother, died because of him, not because of Xykon. He doesnt have the balls for that, Xykon proved thousands of times that Redcloak doesnt have the balls for that.And characters are static, never growing, never developing, never moving on.

Will Redcloack betray Xykon in the backstabbing sense? I also don't think so. But betray him in a more general sense? He's already doing that. And will do it more and more.

[Cracklord]

Xykon is already powerful enough to conquer the world if he wanted to, hell spliced V could have done it in like a month. I think at this point he's just along for the ride.

Soon Kim would disagree with you there.

As for will Redcloak betray Xykon, well for a long time I've had this beutiful vision of the plan going off without a hitch, the gods don't take the blackmail and the Snarl emerges from the rift, getting Redclaok and Xykon first. As Xykon and Redcloak lay dying, Redcloak laughs at him, saying this was always the plan and Redcloak played him from the start. Xykon impotently lashes out, kills him and sends him to his god.
Lets face it, not going to happen. But it would give many Redcloak fans intense satisfaction.

[Thajocoth]

Why wouldn't a lich know that the object holding his soul was destroyed the second it happened?

[Kish]

Why wouldn't a lich know that the object holding his soul was destroyed the second it happened?
Xykon would certainly know if his skeletal body was destroyed, sending his soul to his phylactery.

Until then...

[kopout]

I always assumed that a lich has no ontological inertia and when the phylactery is distroyed they crumble to dust or explode and evey one sings "ding dong the lich is dead which old lich? the wicked lich ding dong the wicked lich is dead " or something.

[Thajocoth]

I always assumed that a lich has no ontological inertia and when the phylactery is distroyed they crumble to dust or explode and evey one sings "ding dong the lich is dead which old lich? the wicked lich ding dong the wicked lich is dead " or something.

Nah, they can make a new one. At least in 4th they can... I'm assuming they could previously as well. Destroying both the body & phylactery isn't even a guarantee...

[Alex Warlorn]

START OF DARKNESS SPOILERS!

Redlcoak has lost his left eye, Right-Eye of course lost his right. This loss of an eye might either be the push over the edge Redcloak needs to NOT tell Xykon his soul-hidey-place is gone (thus making it easier to get ride of him once The Plan is complete) OR it showed the full extent that Redcloak is unwilling to admit to his mistakes STILL and restores Xykon's soul-hidey-place at the first chance.

END OF SPOILERS

[texascarl]

With appologies to Marty Robbins and 'Big Iron'

In the town of Azure City lived a mighty famous Lich
With a zombie goblin army, and an undead-lovin' b*tch
One redcloaked goblin cleric, a few brains in a jar
And a duty bound stong Paladin with a broken iron bar
A broken iron bar

That lich was called Lord Xykon, and he liked to watch Teevo
If he took offense at 'Scry and Die' he would let you know
He said so when Varsuvius teleported from afar
And gave our favorite Paladin time to break that iron bar
He broke that iron bar

V took a mighty whupping, he got clobbered by a stone
But Xykon took a whupping too, I see some cracks in bone
I assume that's from the sunburst, with the power of a star
I bet we'll see a few more cracks from a broken iron bar
A broken iron bar

The Paladin is O-chul and he broke out of his cage
He stopped to speak to MitD, showing wisdom of a sage
If the MitD chooses right, it could affect the war
Much like our favorite paladin with his broken iron bar
His broken iron bar

O-Chul then charged the cleric, withstood 'disintegrate'
Then he poked the goblins eye out, which I thought was just great
Redcloak lost his magic doodad, then used "word of recall"
To get away from the pointy end of that broken iron bar
That broken iron bar

Oh he might have kept both eyeballs but he went one step too far
When he tried to face the Paladin with the broken iron bar
That broken iron bar.

[Dr. Cthulwho]

I predict the following sequence of events:

--O-Chul destroys the phylactery with repeated Power Attacks while alone, then goes off to seek Xykon;

--He finds Xykon, who quickly dispatches O-Chul, but kills him outright rather than simply knocking him out;

--Redcloak arrives back--possibly with his eye already regenerated--with a new holy symbol. Xykon doesn't notice the new holy symbol or realize his phylactery has been destroyed;

--Redcloak decides to say nothing about the destruction of the phylactery, either out of fear that Xykon will blame him for it, or because he wants to move on and not hole up in Azure City for another four months while the phylactery is being reconstructed.

One thing I am curious about is the layout of the throne room or where ever it is this is taking place. O-Chul and the MitD started off somewhere to the side, and while the others where distracted O-Chul escaped.

Would his attack on Redcloak have attracted Xykon's attention? Since it would have happened not far from Xykon? If not that theory sounds plausible.

Although on the last point - it was Redcloak who wanted to stay in the city for so long in the first place, so unless this event has shaken him out of it I'm not sure why he would worry about spending a bit longer there.


I wonder just why Xykon didn't try that?

Teleport all the hobgoblins into Azure city behind enemy lines to break up the ranks and kill everyone.

Because he doesn't have a meaty enough transport spell for moving army sized groups would be my guess.


Why wouldn't a lich know that the object holding his soul was destroyed the second it happened?

Well if you look at it like some sort of mystical holiday home a "soul" only hangs around in till their main home gets rebuilt there is no real reason to know until they need to go there or are told/see for there own eyes.

Of course I imagine it could also be how written/played. If someone wanted a lich to be sufficiently sensitive of it they could portray it that way - it could be a cool scene with adventures deciding to take it out first without the Lich knowing, only to have the Lich deep in his dungeon raise his fist and cry "Noooooo! They shall pay!" as he senses its destruction.

[Cracklord]

With appologies to Marty Robbins and 'Big Iron'

In the town of Azure City lived a mighty famous Lich
With a zombie goblin army, and an undead-lovin' b*tch
One redcloaked goblin cleric, a few brains in a jar
And a duty bound stong Paladin with a broken iron bar
A broken iron bar

That lich was called Lord Xykon, and he liked to watch Teevo
If he took offense at 'Scry and Die' he would let you know
He said so when Varsuvius teleported from afar
And gave our favorite Paladin time to break that iron bar
He broke that iron bar

V took a mighty whupping, he got clobbered by a stone
But Xykon took a whupping too, I see some cracks in bone
I assume that's from the sunburst, with the power of a star
I bet we'll see a few more cracks from a broken iron bar
A broken iron bar

The Paladin is O-chul and he broke out of his cage
He stopped to speak to MitD, showing wisdom of a sage
If the MitD chooses right, it could affect the war
Much like our favorite paladin with his broken iron bar
His broken iron bar

O-Chul then charged the cleric, withstood 'disintegrate'
Then he poked the goblins eye out, which I thought was just great
Redcloak lost his magic doodad, then used "word of recall"
To get away from the pointy end of that broken iron bar
That broken iron bar

Oh he might have kept both eyeballs but he went one step too far
When he tried to face the Paladin with the broken iron bar
That broken iron bar.

This is brilliant.

[Querzis]

And characters are static, never growing, never developing, never moving on.

Actually yeah, Redcloak is pretty static. Right-eye said it himself, hes frozen in time. Hes still the same angry kid who took that artifact off his master corpse that day. He even prefered to murder his own brother then change or admit he was wrong. The only change Redcloak ever had was realizing that hobgoblins are actually goblins (the word hobgoblins should have been a dead giveaway in the first place). If Right-eye wasnt able to change Redcloak, I just really dont see who ever could.


Will Redcloack betray Xykon in the backstabbing sense? I also don't think so. But betray him in a more general sense? He's already doing that. And will do it more and more.

Oh definitly since the Plan is really not what Xykon had in mind. But that doesnt change the fact that he wont ever destroy him or rebel against him.

[shadzar]

Because he doesn't have a meaty enough transport spell for moving army sized groups would be my guess.

8 hours a day making magic items to pass the time, and he has nothing for that and low and behold V gets just that ability from one of the splices?

[Dr. Cthulwho]

8 hours a day making magic items to pass the time, and he has nothing for that and low and behold V gets just that ability from one of the splices?

Well, V's splice souls were all high level epics in life, and Ganonron was specifically a conjurer who had developed epic spells that played to his strengths and suited what he wanted to do.

Xykon, and the other two splice souls are different, as V is different and so on.

[Anteros]

Why would Redcloak even care if Xykon knows the phylactery is destroyed or not? It has absolutely no effect whatsoever on Red's ability to betray Xykon. He could just have easily destroyed the phylactery after offing Xykon anyway.

[Simanos]

Nah, they can make a new one. At least in 4th they can... I'm assuming they could previously as well. Destroying both the body & phylactery isn't even a guarantee...
From what I gather:
2nd ed : Destroy the phylactery and lich "dies".
3rd ed: Destroy the phylactery and lich cannot make a new one, but doesn't "die".
4th ed: Destroy th phylactery and lich makes a new one.
See the pattern there?

[Iranon]

From what I gather:
2nd ed : Destroy the phylactery and lich "dies".
3rd ed: Destroy the phylactery and lich cannot make a new one, but doesn't "die".
4th ed: Destroy th phylactery and lich makes a new one.
See the pattern there?

The design team is a coven of Lichs who are inching towards invincibility with each new edition?

[Dr. Cthulwho]

Why would Redcloak even care if Xykon knows the phylactery is destroyed or not? It has absolutely no effect whatsoever on Red's ability to betray Xykon. He could just have easily destroyed the phylactery after offing Xykon anyway.

Well Redcloak's potential to betray Xykon anyway.

It would be a problem if Xykon gets done in before Redcloak's plan no longer requires him. Plus not having around a big bad to take some of the heat when PCs and co come knocking.


From what I gather:
2nd ed : Destroy the phylactery and lich "dies".
3rd ed: Destroy the phylactery and lich cannot make a new one, but doesn't "die".
4th ed: Destroy th phylactery and lich makes a new one.
See the pattern there?

Yes... they are wanting to make PCs work harder for a comprehensive victory, and rewarding diligence.

[The Wanderer]

Why would Redcloak even care if Xykon knows the phylactery is destroyed or not? It has absolutely no effect whatsoever on Red's ability to betray Xykon. He could just have easily destroyed the phylactery after offing Xykon anyway.

Well, for one thing, Xykon may be slightly more likely to be overconfident and leave himself in an exposed position if he doesn't know Redcloak is actively plotting against him, especially since Redcloak passed up a chance to finish him before when Xykon's body was destroyed.

Possible vision in Redcloak's mind:

:xykon: Wow, that sure was some fight to get control of this very last Gate. And we just finished the Ritual right after the battle and without resting or healing, since you insisted that we needed to have control over the Snarl before anything else. Now how about hitting me with a little healing so we can take this bad boy for a spin and take over the world, eh Redcloak?

:redcloak: This is for my brother, you bastard. Disintegrate. By the way, bad news, your phylactery has been destroyed since Azure City. Funny how it completely slipped my mind to tell you that, otherwise you might have been more careful and absorbed less damage while facing Greenhilt...

[Querzis]

:redcloak: This is for my brother, you bastard. Disintegrate.

Ok that one really made me laugh. Its Redcloak who killed Right-eye, how could he possibly kill Xykon in the name of his brother? Especially since the whole point of Xykon speech after that is that, as long as Redcloak still serve him, Redcloak can somehow excuse his inexcusable behavior. If Redcloak kill Xykon though then that means he killed his baby brother in cold blood for absolutely no reason. :xykon: «And you dont have the balls for that.»

Maybe you guys read SoD but I'm kinda wondering if you understood it.

[The Wanderer]

Ok that one really made me laugh. Its Redcloak who killed Right-eye, how could he possibly kill Xykon in the name of his brother? Especially since the whole point of Xykon speech after that is that, as long as Redcloak still serve him, Redcloak can somehow excuse his inexcusable behavior. If Redcloak kill Xykon though then that means he killed his baby brother in cold blood for absolutely no reason. :xykon: «And you dont have the balls for that.»

Maybe you guys read SoD but I'm kinda wondering if you understood it.

1) Redcloak killed him for Xykon's sake.

2) Do you think a guy who has as much of a problem as Redcloak does with taking personal responsibility for his mistakes wouldn't use number one to blame Xykon for Right Eye's death? :smallconfused:

[Fish]

Redlcoak has lost his left eye, Right-Eye of course lost his right.
Which means Redcloak will see his brother's image every time he looks in a mirror.

[Logalmier]

I think that if Xykons Phylactery (how do you spell that?) was sestroyed, he'd probably know.

Xykon was infected with Guardian Virus by Liran, he became a lich to overcome its affects, this is pure speculation, but what if the virus is still there, that he's infected but not affected? If his Phylactery was destroyed, he'd become vulnerable to the virus again. If so, it's possible that he wont be able to cast any more of his spells.

[Badgercloak]

Not researching a spell that lets him taste coffee BWAHAHAHAHA :smallbiggrin:

[Querzis]

1) Redcloak killed him for Xykon's sake.

Thats the whole freaking point. If Redcloak kill Xykon despite the fact that he prefered to murder his brother then let him harm Xykon then Redcloak has no excuse anymore (not to mention how much of an hypocrite that would make him).


2) Do you think a guy who has as much of a problem as Redcloak does with taking personal responsibility for his mistakes wouldn't use number one to blame Xykon for Right Eye's death? :smallconfused:

THATS THE WHOLE FREAKING POINT! He does blame Xykon and its actually Xykon who told Redcloak to blame it on him and do as if he had no choice! But that doesnt change the fact that he, in fact, had a choice and Redcloak is smart enough to know it no matter how much he try to deny it. He know fully well he killed his baby brother in cold blood and, if he kill Xykon, not only does he have no one to blame anymore but it also means he killed Right-eye for absolutely no reason!

Really just read SoD again before even arguing any further.

[The Wanderer]

He know fully well he killed his baby brother in cold blood and, if he kill Xykon, not only does he have no one to blame anymore but it also means he killed Right-eye for absolutely no reason!

It's only for no reason if the Plan doesn't work out with Xykon. If the Plan works out with Xykon, and the first thing Redcloak does after the plan works is eliminate Xykon, then Right Eye's death was just one more unfortunate sacrifice that was made for the greater good, and Redcloak will be able to rationalize it as such.

I'm really not getting your obstinacy on this point.

Look, for the sake of clarity, lets go through the premise from the start.

Here is what Redcloak might be planning/thinking after his eye socket stops hurting:

1) Xykon is going to be a problem even if The Plan works. He's interested in taking over the world using the Snarl, which he assumed The Plan is about, but that's not true.
2) Xykon will be furious about being fooled, and will slaughter the goblin nation I've done everything to achieve before it even gets started.
3) Xykon doesn't know about the phylactery being destroyed.
4) Because of that, Xykon may be more reckless when facing the heroes, because he'll assume he can always just regenerate again. Therefore, he'll soak up more damage than he would otherwise, and be more vulnerable.
5) I can use some goody two shoes to do a number on Xykon, leave him damaged, complete the plan with him, then take him out before he realizes his mistake from number 1 or that the phylactery is gone and becomes a threat to all goblinkind.

[RebelRogue]

Redlcoak has lost his left eye, Right-Eye of course lost his right.
Actually, it's the other way around: Righteye lost his right eye, while Redcloak has now lost his left! I dunno if it's intentional or a blunder from Rich's side (or does terminology of what constitues "left" and "right" eyes vary from country to country?)

Edit: my brain is out of order today, clearly!

[The Grazymancer]

Actually, it's the other way around: Righteye lost his right eye, while Redcloak has now lost his left! I dunno if it's intentional or a blunder from Rich's side (or does terminology of what constitues "left" and "right" eyes vary from country to country?)

Why in the hell are so many people saying Redcloak lost hisleft eye? He lost his right eye you idiots. Just use your freaking brains.

[Kaytara]

Actually, it's the other way around: Righteye lost his right eye, while Redcloak has now lost his left! I dunno if it's intentional or a blunder from Rich's side (or does terminology of what constitues "left" and "right" eyes vary from country to country?)

No, no. XD Right-Eye lost his left eye, so he only had his right eye remaining. Which is why he was called Right-Eye. :)

[Alias]

I am shocked at how many people in this thread cannot tell their right from their left. Look again. O'Chul just destroyed Recloak's RIGHT eye folks. When you face someone their right hand is on your leftside. This is why theatre student's refer to stage-right and stage-left - so named because those are the sides of the stage relative to an actor facing the audience. When an actor exits stage right he's moving to his right but to you in your seat in the audience he's moving left.

Similarly Redcloak's right eye is on our left in the comic frame because he is facing us -- but that is HIS right eye.

The character Right Eye was so named because he'd lost his left eye and his right eye was his only eye remaining. And again, that good eye is on our left in the comic panel.

Sheesh.

Functioning eye wise the characters are now mirror images of each other.

[The Grazymancer]

No, no. XD Right-Eye lost his left eye, so he only had his right eye remaining. Which is why he was called Right-Eye. :)

I don't have SoD, but the goblin on that image (http://apegames.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=OOTS03&Category_Code=) lost his right eye like Redcloak.

[Alias]

I don't have SoD, but the goblin on that image (http://apegames.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=OOTS03&Category_Code=) lost his right eye like Redcloak.

No, that's his left. It may be on your right side, but it's the character's left.

If this wasn't true cars couldn't be instructed to stick to the "right" side of the road. The oncoming driver passes on your left side because he is staying to his right.

Or shake hands with someone today. Notice that your right hand must reach to the left to grab their right hand.

I figured this out in kindergarten. Sheesh.

[The Grazymancer]

No, that's his left. It may be on your right side, but it's the character's left.

If this wasn't true cars couldn't be instructed to stick to the "right" side of the road. The oncoming driver passes on your left side because he is staying to his right.

Or shake hands with someone today. Notice that your right hand must reach to the left to grab their right hand.

I figured this out in kindergarten. Sheesh.

No look at the freaking picture (https://secure.paizo.com/image/product/catalog/IMPGIP/IMPGIPOTS99_500.jpeg).

[Alias]

No look at the freaking picture (https://secure.paizo.com/image/product/catalog/IMPGIP/IMPGIPOTS99_500.jpeg).

Curious. Well, I own the freaking book and it's reversed on the book itself, and the patch is over his left eye in every frame of the actual book. I'm guessing the picture is an early prototype or Rich simply goofed. If you don't own the book I can see the source of the confusion.

EDIT: More specifically I own a second printing. Anyone know if this mistake happens on the first printing?

[Lord_Drayakir]

Yeah, this whole thread got me thinking- why doesn't Xykon just cast either Dominate Monster, or even better, Thrall, on Redcloak. Or ANY divine spellcaster. That way, he'll have a pet cleric that didn't go over to him under shifty circumstances.

[Laughing Dragon]

I am shocked at how many people in this thread cannot tell their right from their left. Look again. O'Chul just destroyed Recloak's RIGHT eye folks. When you face someone their right hand is on your leftside. This is why theatre student's refer to stage-right and stage-left - so named because those are the sides of the stage relative to an actor facing the audience. When an actor exits stage right he's moving to his right but to you in your seat in the audience he's moving left.

Similarly Redcloak's right eye is on our left in the comic frame because he is facing us -- but that is HIS right eye.

The character Right Eye was so named because he'd lost his left eye and his right eye was his only eye remaining. And again, that good eye is on our left in the comic panel.

Sheesh.

Functioning eye wise the characters are now mirror images of each other.

While you got the second half of this correct, you goofed on the "Stage Left/Right" part. Stage left/right refer to where the actors go from the audience's perspective. Therefore, when an actor (who is facing the audience) is told to go to "stage right" he moves to his left; causing the audience to see him moving to the right side of the stage. It's a little like Port/Starboard ... stage left/right are always in the same places regardless of which way the actors are facing, because the audience doesn't move. Of course, if you do "theatre in the round" it gets more tricky ...

Originally posted by my in another thread:
I had thought of the idea that Redcloak might not tell him that the phylactery had been destroyed, it would make for an interesting dynamic.



Xykon: The OOTS are coming, have we got everything prepared?
Redcloak: Sir, I'm afraid I have some bad news.
Xykon: MitD is weapy over O'Chul again?
Redcloak: No, fortunately for us he's moved on to "Denial" but it is something related to O'Chul.
Xykon: Are you going to tell me? We don't have time for a game of 20 questions.
Redcloak: Well sir you remember when he escaped and stabbed out my eye?
Xykon: Yes. He came at me in his underwear, swinging a bent metal bar, and he was all "You will now pay for your evil deeds." I was laughing so hard I almost couldn't kill him.
Redcloak: Well, between then and when he stabbed out my eye he destroyed your phylactery.
Xykon: :smalleek: ... Ha, ha, ha. You almost had me punked there. It might have worked except that you forgot to take it off.
Redcloak: Oh, you mean this? No, this is just my unholy symbol. After the incident with the elf, then O'Chul, then MitD depression, I just didn't want to tell you one more piece of bad news. So I made a new unholy symbol that looked just like the old one.
Xykon: You deceitful little ...
>>door bangs open<<
Roy: You will now pay for your evil deeds, Xykon.
Xykon: You know ... that just doesn't seem that funny the second time around.
Redcloak: Bye ... Word of Recall
Xykon: :smalleek:

[Fish]

While you got the second half of this correct, you goofed on the "Stage Left/Right" part. Stage left/right refer to where the actors go from the audience's perspective.
Only in Bizarro World. In the 10+ plays I've done in the USA, STAGE left is the actor's left, HOUSE left is the audience's left. I know this is the Internet and all, but check your facts before you spout off.

[Laughing Dragon]

Only in Bizarro World. In the 10+ plays I've done in the USA, STAGE left is the actor's left, HOUSE left is the audience's left. I know this is the Internet and all, but check your facts before you spout off.

SORRY ... My Bad. I've always just concentrated on just hitting my mark and not flubbing my lines. Come to think of it, none of the directors of the plays I've been in have used actual "stage direction" ... they've just told us where to go, where to stand etc. And yes, these have all been in the USA too.

[Berserk Monk]

Whats with the spoiler tags? This is speculation!

Just role with it. It's the theme of the thread