Redcloak Won't Let Us Down

[Pronounceable]

He promised to do something wildly original to make up for the hackneyed trope of threatening innocents (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0547.html). I'm still waiting on that and while we're all waiting, we might as well speculate.

I know he technically promised to O-Chul and they probably won't meet again, but a promise is a promise and Reddy is nothing if not Lawful. aka don't burst my bubble
Spoiler, in case the Giant checks this thread and gets an urge to do something different.
I say he'll do something spectacularly treacherous to Xykon when he outunlives his usefulness. And while destroying the phylactery or backstabbing him as Xykon is losing the battle against the OotS might be effective, it's not wildly original. And destroying Xykon himself would be unexpected but that'd be stepping on Roy's literary toes. OTOH, removing the eyepatch to wink with regenerated eye at the critical moment when Xykon asks for help and then leaving him to his doom would work, providing he says something suitably epic doing that.

[David Argall]

Redcloak makes the promise to make up for doing something so cliche, but then he does not do the cliche feat, so he is not under any duty to do something original later, tho he may anyway. But we just can't predict it from the comic.

[Cracklord]

He is under an obligation to do something, David, because the cliche thing was threatening innocents, not killing them. He has done that, and must now redeem himself or bear the shame.

[Puns de León]

Actually, David Argall's right; the hackneyed trope he's referring to is "end[ing] those men up there", not just threatening them. See, he assures O-Chul he WILL do it ("it" being sending the innocents to their death) and then will just make up for it later with something wildly original. He's already threatened them, so that wouldn't fit with the future tense that he uses.

[Souhiro]

The evil guys threaten innocents.
The heros beat the cr?p out of the evil guys.
A heros with a chainsaw put the evil guys in a lot of places. Simultaneously.

So, RC's fate is to be hang in three trees, simultaneously, because all the azurites (and goblins, and hobgoblins) he killed.

[Porthos]

Until I saw the White Text in the OP, I was unsure about the seriousness of this thread.

Whether this says that I've spent waaaaaaaa <...> aaaay too much time on this board or not is better left unsaid. :smalltongue:

[Haven]

I say he'll do something spectacularly treacherous to Xykon when he outunlives his usefulness. And while destroying the phylactery or backstabbing him as Xykon is losing the battle against the OotS might be effective, it's not wildly original. And destroying Xykon himself would be unexpected but that'd be stepping on Roy's literary toes. OTOH, removing the eyepatch to wink with regenerated eye at the critical moment when Xykon asks for help and then leaving him to his doom would work, providing he says something suitably epic doing that.

That would be beautiful.

[Pronounceable]

Less nitpicking, more baseless speculation...And yeah, the threatening is cliched, not throwing people into rifts in reality where they'll be unmade.

[Optimystik]

Actually, David's right. It makes no sense for Redcloak to be saying "I WILL threaten those innocents up there" because he's already doing that. However, "I WILL end those innocents up there" does fit, because it was something he was about to do.

[Puns de León]

Actually, David Argall's right; the hackneyed trope he's referring to is "end those men up there", not just threatening them. See, he assures O-Chul he WILL do it ("it" being sending the innocents to their death) and then will just make up for it later with something wildly original. He's already threatened them, so that wouldn't fit with the future tense that he uses.


Actually, David's right. It makes no sense for Redcloak to be saying "I WILL threaten those innocents up there" because he's [I]already doing that. However, "I WILL end those innocents up there" does fit, because it was something he was about to do.

Sorry, don't mean to be anal, especially since we're on the same side here. I've just never had this kind of congruity with another post. :smalltongue:

But yeah, the threatening ISN'T what he plans to make up for, it's the actual execution of the trope, aka killing the prisoners.

[Tass]

Actually David Argall is right. Redcloack threatened to throw those prisoners in the rift, using the originality point to get a bonus to the intimidation. He didn't say "sorry for threatening, Its a hackneyed trope, I'll make up for it", he said that he would do it even though its a hackneyed trope. But he didn't do it.

[Puns de León]

Actually David Argall is right.
(...)

Well now you couldn't possibly have done that unintentionally...

Maybe we could create a meme around this?

[Optimystik]

Maybe we could create a meme around this?

The "actually" is the operative word in our posts.

Memetic mutation requires a bit more frequency of occurrence, if you get my drift.

[Babale]

Actually, David Argall is right.

He was allready threatening, so future tense won't make sense.


And actually, Optimistik is right: You need more occurrences.

[Pronounceable]

And actually, Optimistik is right: You need more occurrences.

Actually, you're right too.