How does Xykon control all those undead?

[craverguy]

In pictures of Xykon's army, it looks like there are dozens, if not hundreds, of zombies and ghouls populating his army. But how can he control that many undead at once? Under the rules, he can only control 4 HD of undead per caster level. Assuming he's 25th level (a pretty big assumption), that's just 100 HD worth of undead. Quite a bit, certainly, but not enough to control hundreds of ghouls and zombies.

Unless Xykon multiclassed as a cleric or blackguard and took the Undead Mastery feat, those ghouls really ought to be turning on the rest of his army, while the zombies sort of mill around in confusion.

[Acero]

others can control them for him too...

[craverguy]

Well, if by "others" you mean "Redcloak", maybe. But does that really sound like something Xykon would do?

[Eldrys]

well, if he had vampires, ghouls, and other spawning undead, they could control their own units. Plus he has, like, a bajillion cleric underlings that do whatever Redcloack tells them to, and that would probably be to create undead.


Well, if by "others" you mean "Redcloak", maybe. But does that really sound like something Xykon would do?

I really don't think Xykon would care.

[Acero]

I really don't think Xykon would care.

does he ever?

[derfenrirwolv]

wight #7 "Look, i know you created me, but i'm a free willed undead, you can only control wights 1-6.

Xykon: Disintigrate. Any of you other wights have a problem doing what i tell you?


wights 8- 312 "SIR NO SIR! "

[Gift Jeraff]

Assuming he's 25th level (a pretty big assumption)
The folks over at the Class and Level Geekery threads have estimated him to be 27th level or higher.

Also, why just Redcloak? The hobgoblin horde had plenty of clerics and several wizards (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0512.html).

[Eldrys]

does he ever?

Exactly! .........

[Optimystik]

There are a bunch of hobgoblin clerics in the army as well, IIRC.

[MReav]

wight #7 "Look, i know you created me, but i'm a free willed undead, you can only control wights 1-6.

Xykon: Disintigrate. Any of you other wights have a problem doing what i tell you?

wights 8- 312 "SIR NO SIR! "

That made me laugh.

[ThePhantasm]

Xykon doesn't strike me as the micromanaging type. Anyone who thinks that he is has gravely (pun intended) misinterpreted his character. He delegates the boring stuff to Redcloak and the other inferiors and chooses instead to entertain himself with TiVo and gladiator fights. You can see examples of Tsukiko and others commanding wights.

[Dr.Epic]

For team evil we have Xykon, Red Cloak, Tsukiko, Jirix, and nameless other (hob)goblin clerics. How many HD is that in total?

[Conuly]

Also, why just Redcloak? The hobgoblin horde had plenty of clerics and several wizards.

Hey, I just realized that in that entire group of strips, Haley keeps hiding in the box marked "Imported from Greysky City".

And while I know little about D&D, it seems reasonable to think that Xykon doesn't bother himself much with controlling each and every undead. He has a few clerics help him out, and Tsukiko, and figures he's scary enough to control the clerics. End of problem.

[slayerx]

Well we do have to take into account the possibility that Rich could be stretching the rules for controlling undead... If i recall teleportation also has some more limits than what we have seen in the strip, considering how many units they are moving


For team evil we have Xykon, Red Cloak, Tsukiko, Jirix, and nameless other (hob)goblin clerics. How many HD is that in total?
Well as others mentioned above, what you also have to take into account is that some undead can control undead that they create... The clerics and wizards control the main ghouls, while the rest of the ghouls follow those ghouls... So the total HD only covers what they personal control, not what they can have under their control indirectly

[Asta Kask]

Sheer force of terror and personality.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Well, if by "others" you mean "Redcloak", maybe. But does that really sound like something Xykon would do?
Seeing as Redcloak created, and therefore controlled Xykon’s zombie dragon… (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0300.html) yeah.

And as has been pointed out, Redcloak is not the only cleric available. Note that every cleric of the Dark One of at least 2nd level can control at least a couple of skeletons (not that Team Evil has used any skeletons on-panel). The same ability to command undead also raises any 5th or higher level clerics’ effective limit to five times their cleric level. It begins to add up rather quickly.

[Milandros]

All justifications about heirachys of clerics aside, this is simply one of those rules that's for PCs and not for NPCs. Use the spirit of the rules, and not the exact letter.

Do you think Shojo had seventeen-dozen Leadership feats? After all, he ran a city of tens of thousands of people, and having the whole sapphire guard as cohorts and all the rest as followers would require a *lot* of leadership feats. What about kings of major nations? They'd have to have levels in the hundreds, and every feat to be Leadership.

Again, not a rule, or feat for that matter, intended for NPCs. I've seen one DM think about screwing his players over by having several sessions taken up with defeating an enemy who had every other opponent they faced controlled through his lieutenants via leadership feats or controlling undead, on the basis that those lieutenants were effectively just one of his class features (so no XP for them) and their minions were one of their class features (so no XP for them either) - so they PCs would get no XP for anything except the BBEG at the end, and then they'd only get the XP for defeating him.

Needless to say, people argued with him.

The wights follow Xykon because he's the big chosen bad guy dude who awes them with his power and evilness. And he's got the bonus feat "Campaign Villain Plot Bonuses". It's on O-Chul's list, just below where the panel cuts it off.

[NerfTW]

During the battle, Red Cloak sends clerics to the front lines. When the cleric says "To heal our troops?" he replies "No, to zombify the dead. We're evil, remember?"


There's your answer right there. In fact, we usually see Red Cloak making the zombies. Xykon seems to only raise special zombies most of the time.

Plus, Red Cloak mentions in one of the army strips that the ghouls and zombies are eating other troops, implying that he doesn't control all of them, and relies on sheer force of the mob to move them towards the enemy.

[ThePhantasm]

Plus, Red Cloak mentions in one of the army strips that the ghouls and zombies are eating other troops, implying that he doesn't control all of them, and relies on sheer force of the mob to move them towards the enemy.

Anyone recall which strip that was?

[The Rose Dragon]

Anyone recall which strip that was?

It was linked just a few posts ago. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0300.html)

[ThePhantasm]

It was linked just a few posts ago. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0300.html)

Ok thanks. I didn't notice because of the different context.

[Lecan]

Plus, Red Cloak mentions in one of the army strips that the ghouls and zombies are eating other troops, implying that he doesn't control all of them, and relies on sheer force of the mob to move them towards the enemy.

To me that indicated that Redcloak fed some of the hobgoblin dissenters to the ghouls, not that they just ate some because they couldn't be controlled.

[Thanatosia]

Dont things killed by undead like wights and shadows reanimate as similar undead under the control of their killer? So even if Xykon only created 1 wight and controls it through his spell, could it not kill a few dozen other creatures and raise them as wights under its control, thus creating an indirect chain of control beyond the HD he directly commands?

[Kish]

To me that indicated that Redcloak fed some of the hobgoblin dissenters to the ghouls, not that they just ate some because they couldn't be controlled.
Indeed, 341 discipline problems among the hobgoblins become 315 new ghouls...with (341-315)=26 hobgoblins becoming food for the ghouls.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Do you think Shojo had seventeen-dozen Leadership feats? After all, he ran a city of tens of thousands of people, and having the whole sapphire guard as cohorts and all the rest as followers would require a *lot* of leadership feats. What about kings of major nations? They'd have to have levels in the hundreds, and every feat to be Leadership.
Citizens of a city you rule are not followers. They are simply citizens.

Followers are people who who take a personal interest in the person with the Leadership feat, not people who simply happen to be living under a person’s legal jurisdiction. Followers do not automatically transfer to the heir of the followed in the way the citizens fell under the rule of Hinjo.

Similarly, government employees are just that, employees, not cohorts. They are closer in relationship to Shojo as hirelings.

[Milandros]

A king may well have had dozens, even hundreds of noblemen who have sworn personal fealty to him. I would still argue strongly that it shouldn't need the king to have large numbers of leadership feats. It's because he's the king, and that's good enough.

Plot doesn't always have to follow the rules perfectly. How many games have focussed on a desperate attempt by low or mid-level characters to stop a ritual which will summon back the dark god / control every dragon in the world / put out the sun / unlease a plague of undeath / drown the island / whatever, and yet the bad guy wasn't a massively epic character with the ritual carefully designed under the epic rules for 10th level spells? How many quests have been to destroy or recover the mighty McGuffin to slay the baddy / bring the captial city out of stasis / end the plague in the country / perform some other mighty feat, without ever bothering to carefully design the artifact or relic precisely according to the rules? Puzzles and traps are often designed mereely tro be cool and fun, without carefully fdollowing XP guidelines and rules on magical trap resetting.

One of the main reasons for things like rules on numbers of undead that can be controlled is to stop the *players* abusing them, not to stop the DM from playing games with them in. Some players would happily raise armies of hundreds without such rules, just as in the old days they used to look at the trivial costs for hirelings on a daily rate and bring a thousand or so low-level soldiers with them to clean out the dungeon.

In other words, the wights follow Xykon because Xykon has raised a huge undead army. How? Because he's Xykon, and he has. Don't worry about it.

[ericgrau]

Hobgoblin clerics. Except that doesn't solve the loyalty issue. Eh, blame it on story then.

[brionl]

He probably found a feat in the same obscure splatbook where Julio Scoundrel found the Dashing Swordsman prestige class. :smallbiggrin:

[Devils_Advocate]

One of the main reasons for things like rules on numbers of undead that can be controlled is to stop the *players* abusing them, not to stop the DM from playing games with them in. Some players would happily raise armies of hundreds without such rules, just as in the old days they used to look at the trivial costs for hirelings on a daily rate and bring a thousand or so low-level soldiers with them to clean out the dungeon.
See, that's... not good.

Saying that someone doesn't need the Leadership feat in order to acquire cohorts and followers is fine. (And, indeed, I don't believe that any book says that you have to have the Leadership feat to do that.) Saying that someone can lead intelligent undead just like someone can lead humans is also fine, and, barring some sort of peculiarity to undead psychology, only sensible. But these things hold true for PCs as well as NPCs, and often fall under the general principle that creatures in D&D are usually capable of doing the things that they're capable of doing in real life, even if not every possibility is spelled out in the rules.

Saying "The PCs, completely arbitrarily, are not allowed to do that" is not good GMing. It's bad for verisimilitude, and it creates a competitive atmosphere for what should be a cooperative game. If you feel the need to give your bad guys abilities that would allow the players to break the game, maybe you shouldn't be GMing. Partly because this may well require you to frequently say "You arbitrarily can't do that" again when and if the PCs attempt to acquire these abilities indirectly through shapechanging, mind control, or just plain asking for help. But also partly because it raises the question of why the heck the creatures with these abilities aren't using them in obvious ways (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReedRichardsIsUseless). Heck, never mind archmagi, what about the gods (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheGodsMustBeLazy)? If there's nothing stopping them from routinely intervening in the world to further their interests, then why don't they? Keeping potential exploits out of PC hands tends to go hand in hand with saddling countless NPCs with plot-induced stupidity (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotInducedStupidity).

Edit: Characters, without stated nor implied explanation, not doing things that they seem to have the motivation and the ability to do, is bad storytelling and/or bad setting design whether its done by a GM, by game designers, or by the author of a non-interactive fictional work.