[Spoiler] Fake or Real? Maybe both?

[Hobot]

First of all, I know there are already several threads regarding this issue, but in each thread it seems the same ideas are being rehashed. I'm afraid if I were to stick this in one of the other threads most people won't read it and assume I'm saying the same things as everyone else.

If anybody else has suggested this, I apologize, I probably missed your post amongst the sea of speculation.

Now I'd like to say that I think both sides of this issue have made some excellent points. However, there are also significant problems with both sides and I don't think either side is giving the Giant enough credit.

I think the biggest problem with the fake-Xykon side is that they have not been able to supply a good candidate for the fake. Whoever the fake is, he/she appears to be rather intelligent and seems to be pretty familiar with Redcloak; familiar enough to ignore him when he says "No" and address him by name rather than "supreme leader" or "sir." The only two characters on evil's side that we've been introduced to that fit this bill are Xykon and the MitD (tho he is rather more clueless than intelligent). If Xykon really is a fake, I think the fake would have to be a new character. This strikes me as somewhat sloppy writing, and I don't think the Giant would do that.

The biggest problem with the real-Xykon side is that they don't have a very good explanation for the sudden change in Xykon's behaviour. Like it or not, Xykon is acting totally out of character. We've never seen him so nervous, not even after his body was destroyed back in Dorukan's castle! He's always been confident and in control. A sudden behind the scenes change in character without any explanation would be terrible writing, and we all know the Giant is a master story-teller. I think many of those who are pro-real-Xykon are letting their own personal hopes (e.g. having Redcloak end up being the real villain) override their judgement and are making rather dubious explanations. The bottom line is, Xykon's behaviour is definitely out of character and I just don't buy the explanations of his character put forward so far; judging from the poll, most of the board doesn't either.

So now we finally get down to my theory (I just don't shut up do I? :smallwink:). What do I think is really going on? I think that it technically is Xykon, but he's not the Xykon we really know. The fact that Xykon's new behaviour and his new amulet both début together in 422 appears to be more than a coincidence. I believe* that the new amulet he is wearing is actually changing his behaviour and making him much more passive and less sure of himself. I think that the Giant is hinting at this possibility with the demon roaches. The "hippy roach" is clearly wearing the same type of amulet as Xykon. The Giant regularly uses the the demon roaches to parody Xykon and team and I think this time is no exception.

http://mrhoboto.googlepages.com/demonroaches.PNG

http://mrhoboto.googlepages.com/demonamulet.PNG

http://mrhoboto.googlepages.com/xykonamulet.PNG

I think that this theory solves both the problem of the fake and the problem of Xykon's bizarre new behaviour. It also gives a purpose to the new amulet and the hippy demon roach wearing a similar amulet. What it doesn't tell us is how exactly this makes for a good plan. It's fairly obvious that Xykon is going to be used as a distraction somehow, but why do we need a passive Xykon? I leave that to others to speculate upon.

Summary: The Xykon in strip 422 is the real Xykon but he is acting under the influence of a magical amulet that causes him to become passive and unsure of himself. This is hinted at by Xykon's extreme change in behaviour and the hippy demon roach wearing the same type of amulet.

*This theory was basically pointed out to me by h_v in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2153413#post2153413). So credit should really go to him, I just ran with it.

[Assassinfox]

Amulet of Wussiness? :smallbiggrin:

How would Redcloak convince Xykon to put it on?

[Darkxarth]

It's got to have some sort of bonus side effect, one big enough to make it worth Xykon's time to wear it. Not that I'm entirely sure about the theory, but I'm willing to work towards a sane argument until the snippiness sets in.

[fwiffo]

I totally thought this was going to be about Roy and his adventures with cross-gendering.

[SalSar_Thiran]

Actually, I hae another idea. If they were scrying on Miko, they would know the OoTS are there. Redcloak could have the real Xykon wearing an amulet that is supposed to be his phalactery. By this I mean, Redcloak is outright planning for Xykon to engage OoTS and be defeated by them, and destroy the amulet he is wearing and once again delude themselves into thinking that Xykon has been defeated. If Xykon is as clueless as he appears most of the time, Redcloak could have honestly convinced him that he is actually wearing his phylactery.

[Assassinfox]

Actually, I hae another idea. If they were scrying on Miko, they would know the OoTS are there. Redcloak could have the real Xykon wearing an amulet that is supposed to be his phalactery. By this I mean, Redcloak is outright planning for Xykon to engage OoTS and be defeated by them, and destroy the amulet he is wearing and once again delude themselves into thinking that Xykon has been defeated. If Xykon is as clueless as he appears most of the time, Redcloak could have honestly convinced him that he is actually wearing his phylactery.

... or it really IS his phylactery and Redcloak has finally decided to be free of Xykon.

[kabbor]

I thought that the roach's amulet might be significant, but your pictures actually give evidence against that. The amulets are all the same design: round, with a central colour: the colour is the distinguishing factor.

Xykons is clearly red. The roaches is clearly clear, or maybe grey (it's the colour of the floor). So they are different amulets.

I thought the second goblin was wearing the same amulet as well, and thought that might be significant, but that amulet is just as clearly orange.

In summary: I think it a Xyclone, but your point of who it _really_ is is a valid one.

And Redcloak's - Well, I was one of the formost thinking it significant, but now I am not so sure: An 'Art upgrade' is the most likely answer, but that is also significant: it means that colours of amulets are an important plot point now, whereas in the past they have been ambiguous.

There, my .02 times 5.

[Hobot]

It's got to have some sort of bonus side effect, one big enough to make it worth Xykon's time to wear it.

That's very true.

In the necklace thread, ObiwanNekody (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?u=22733) proposed an excellent theory regarding the effects of the amulet:


Perhaps there is a general ward on all the gates, cast as part of the creation of said gates, that prevents things of evil alignment from touching them. The first gate was destroyed prior to Xykon learning this from it and he did not have enough time to devise a method to circumvent this ward with the second gate prior to OOTS showing up. The necklace is an amulet that in some way bottles up the evilness of Xykon, which would allow him to touch the gate.
It could be that the gates are not so warded but Xykon believes them to be such from only encountering one of them long enough to study prior to it being destroyed.

The suppressing of the evilness of Xykon results in him having second thoughts of the war and being more submissive to red cloak.

The hippie daemon roach stating 'make love, not war' and the (as far as magical detection can tell) alignment altering properties of Xykon's lost crown.

Remember that Xykon originally needed Oots to help unseal Dorukan's gate. Perhaps he fears that the same type of sigils might be used to protect Soon's gate so he's using this amulet to hide/change his alignment. As a side-effect, he is now a big wuss.

[Luvlein]

If Xykon is as clueless as he appears most of the time, Redcloak could have honestly convinced him that he is actually wearing his phylactery.
No way. The phylactery was crafted by Xykon himself, and even we can see that that amulet looks nothing like Xykon's phylactery.

[Hobot]

I thought that the roach's amulet might be significant, but your pictures actually give evidence against that. The amulets are all the same design: round, with a central colour: the colour is the distinguishing factor.

Xykons is clearly red. The roaches is clearly clear, or maybe grey (it's the colour of the floor). So they are different amulets.


I'm sorry but Xykon's amulet doesn't look red at all, and I don't get how you can think that the hippie demon roach's amulet is clear or grey. Both of the amulets are orange.

EDIT: I see what you're talking about now. But I wonder if perhaps the roach's amulet was just too small to make it a complete copy of Xykon's.

[Lizard Lord]

Amulet of Wussiness? :smallbiggrin:

How would Redcloak convince Xykon to put it on?

He could have tricked him. Xykon may be smart but not very wise, and part of the ability to see through such tricks (sense motive) is wisdom based. So it is quite possible for Redcloak to trick Xykon into wearing it.

Also there could be an amulet of cowardice or passiveness.


It's fairly obvious that Xykon is going to be used as a distraction somehow, but why do we need a passive Xykon?

Because a non-passive Xykon would never agree to this plan.

[Mr Teufel]

You make a good point about the hippy roach. I mean, that's really out of character for the demon roaches, too. So it could be a big clue. And I'd forgotten the whole "pure of heart" thing.

I still think it's a hobgoblin cleric in disguise... but you've rocked my certainty a bit. Good one!

[Balathustrius]

The biggest problem with the real-Xykon side is that they don't have a very good explanation for the sudden change in Xykon's behaviour.

Like it or not, Xykon is acting totally out of character. We've never seen him so nervous, not even after his body was destroyed back in Dorukan's castle!

I believe that, once Redcloak's plan is revealed, it will become apparent why Xykon is so nervous. Xykon himself is not much of a strategist, so he let's Redcloak run the show. However, this plan is so dangerous that Xykon himself, despite his near immortality, is having second thoughts.

Also, note that Xykon doesn't exactly express concern for his *own* safety as for the well-being of his ultimate plan. I think that will be significant.


He's always been confident and in control. A sudden behind the scenes change in character without any explanation would be terrible writing, and we all know the Giant is a master story-teller.

But he hasn't always been in control. He's imagined that he was, but, if he was, he'd have taken control of the Snarl at Dorukan's Gate.

Plus, is this such a sudden change in character for Xykon? What about the sudden change of character for Redcloak? Even the MitD can't believe how he's acting; doubtless Xykon is taken aback. And with so much of his plan resting on Redcloak's ability to win this battle, I can see why Xykon would be eager to get along.



I think many of those who are pro-real-Xykon are letting their own personal hopes (e.g. having Redcloak end up being the real villain) override their judgement and are making rather dubious explanations.

Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation is usually correct. I think that a convoluted, behind-the-scenes plot to switch Xykon's body and/or identity by means of amulets, spells, etc. is far less likely than the simpler explanation - Xykon is surprised by Redcloak's ferocity and stunned into acquiescence.



The bottom line is, Xykon's behaviour is definitely out of character and I just don't buy the explanations of his character put forward so far; judging from the poll, most of the board doesn't either.


Hopefully, tonight's comic will put this confusion to a rest.

[skreweded]

I just kind of assumed that redcloak had been alot more confident, and it had put xykon into a fearful state. This was out of character, and i was thinking "Damn, redcloak, good job!" but it was still more likely and interesting to me than the Fauxykon idea.

[SteveMB]

Actually, I hae another idea. If they were scrying on Miko, they would know the OoTS are there. Redcloak could have the real Xykon wearing an amulet that is supposed to be his phalactery. By this I mean, Redcloak is outright planning for Xykon to engage OoTS and be defeated by them, and destroy the amulet he is wearing and once again delude themselves into thinking that Xykon has been defeated. If Xykon is as clueless as he appears most of the time, Redcloak could have honestly convinced him that he is actually wearing his phylactery.
The problem is that Xykon wearing his own phylactery obviously doesn't make much sense -- it would mean that if his current undead body is destroyed, the phylactery is likely to go with it, thus defeating its whole purpose. It's like keeping your disaster-recovery backups on the same hard drive as the original data.
To "delude themselves" as you posit, the OotS would have to believe that Xykon is stupid. (OK, he is stupid in some ways, but not that stupid.)

[Assassinfox]

Maybe, in spite of the obvious risk, Redcloak somehow convinced Xykon to wear his phylactery, and he's nervous because he really IS at risk.

[Demented]

Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation is usually correct.

The simplest explanation is not correct, it is merely preferable.

Thus, the two best explanations available are that it is Xykon, or that it's an imposter. The other explanations are all funky.

[Shott]

I'm sorry but Xykon's amulet doesn't look red at all, and I don't get how you can think that the hippie demon roach's amulet is clear or grey. Both of the amulets are orange.


The gem is the different color, not the actual amulet.

[Hobot]

Also, note that Xykon doesn't exactly express concern for his *own* safety as for the well-being of his ultimate plan. I think that will be significant.

There doesn't appear to be any evidence for what you're saying.

Xykon was saying "It's, uh...it's just that this plan doesn't really seem that conducive to my long-term well-"

He's clearly talking about himself there, and that is definitely out of character for Xykon. He has never been that concerned about his well-being before and to me, it just doesn't seem to mesh with his personality.


But he hasn't always been in control. He's imagined that he was, but, if he was, he'd have taken control of the Snarl at Dorukan's Gate. He was in the process of gaining control of the gate. Even though things didn't work out, as soon as things deviated from the original plan he was calm and back in control and knew exactly what to do.


Plus, is this such a sudden change in character for Xykon? What about the sudden change of character for Redcloak? Even the MitD can't believe how he's acting; doubtless Xykon is taken aback.It's not actually that big of a change for Redcloak as it was for Xykon. Redcloak has always been rather sarcastic in his dealings with Xykon. If my theory is correct concerning Xykon's altered state, then it wouldn't be that surprising for Redcloak to snap the way he did. He could also do it without fearing any reprisals as Xykon has been wussified by the amulet.


Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation is usually correct.Occam's razor was never meant to apply to works of fiction.


I think that a convoluted, behind-the-scenes plot to switch Xykon's body and/or identity by means of amulets, spells, etc. is far less likely than the simpler explanation - Xykon is surprised by Redcloak's ferocity and stunned into acquiescence.I don't believe that is a simpler explanation. I mean it's simpler to say, but it is such a deviation from Xykon's normal disposition that I wouldn't say it's a simple explanation.

To switch his body or wear a magic amulet however isn't convoluted at all in the Oots world! It's nothing that out of the ordinary, remember the belt of gender changing?



The gem is the different color, not the actual amulet.

Oh is that what was meant? Honestly, the roach's amulet is so small it's hard to say whether that difference is notable or not. It might just have been too small to make it look exactly like Xykon's.

[Mr Teufel]

Darn I hope Rich resolves this soon. The lengths to which some people will go to uphold their implausible theories is getting to me! :smallmad:

[Hobot]

Heh who knows how many strips it'll take for him to reveal it. All this discussion might provoke him to keep it a secret for longer. ;)

[fwiffo]

The simplest explanation is that Xykon became a fearful, subservient creature, while Redcloak asserted himself and started to act like a boss dressing down a low-level peon employee? And that all happened suddenly and off-screen?

I'd hate to see the explanations rejected just so this one became the simplest.

Rulers, especially rulers in fiction, have always employed body doubles. And this "Xykon" is acting exactly like someone who was told to emulate Xykon's mannerism, but doesn't quite have talent for it. Something that doubles have always been portrayed as. The interaction Redcloak has with "Xykon" shows that whoever plays Xykon is such a subordinate, and neither he nor Redcloak have really bothered playing their roles exactly as they should, because nobody is paying enough attention to go to that length of acting.

That is far more in character and follows #416 to a lot greater degree than the theory that Redcloak managed to convert aloof and dismissive Xykon into someone who is that subservient that he says things like "Excuse me" and "Sorry! Sorry!"

[Assassinfox]

It's really Xykon disguised as a hobgoblin disguised as a skeleton disguised as Xykon!

[Charity322]

I think the hippy demon roach is there for the sole purpose of making a joke about INFERNAL hippies.

I doubt the introduction of stones in necklaces means anything more than an art upgrade. It looked a bit silly to have them all see through rings.

[Demented]

It's really Xykon disguised as a hobgoblin disguised as a skeleton disguised as Xykon!

No wai!

Occam's razor just went dull.

[dragoncmd]

has anyone checked redcloaks amulet? its changed color a couple of times.

[Hobot]

Might just be an art upgrade and the Giant may have just forgotten to add it in in the last panel of 423.

EDIT: Or as Demented suggests, he could be toying with us and laughing maniacally ;)

[Demented]

It's a red herring. Rich changes it just to confuse people.

[JackMage666]

Is it possible that Xykon and Redcloak switched bodies?

Possibly a Bone creature in Lich disguise?

Art upgrade?

Doing something so blaringly obvious that it'll be overlooked?

It's all possible.. We'll see in the next week, I suppose.

[Totally Guy]

Well I think that Xykon is actually the one under the umbrella in the darkness and the monster in the dark has come out of the shadows and is the skeleton tha't dressed as Xykon. :smalltongue::smalltongue:

[Vargtass]

Concerning old Occam and his razor:


Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation is usually correct. I think that a convoluted, behind-the-scenes plot to switch Xykon's body and/or identity by means of amulets, spells, etc. is far less likely than the simpler explanation - Xykon is surprised by Redcloak's ferocity and stunned into acquiescence.


The simplest explanation is not correct, it is merely preferable.

Thus, the two best explanations available are that it is Xykon, or that it's an imposter. The other explanations are all funky.



Occam's razor was never meant to apply to works of fiction.


True. In fiction, the events are preplanned by the author. It is thus 100% probability that they will happen in exactly the manner planned. In science, for example, we try to figure out how things work, where we do not know beforehand how they work. Here, it is the simpler hypothesis that is preferable, and Occam's razor is supposed to work.

If you are trying to figure out the plot ibn a fictional story, the Holmes technique is probably more efficient: "Once you have eliminated all impossible explanations, the remaining explanation, no matter how improbable, must be correct" (cited from memory of Sherlock Holmes fictional strories. then, the following probably comes closer to the truth.


The simplest explanation is that Xykon became a fearful, subservient creature, while Redcloak asserted himself and started to act like a boss dressing down a low-level peon employee? And that all happened suddenly and off-screen?

I'd hate to see the explanations rejected just so this one became the simplest.

Rulers, especially rulers in fiction, have always employed body doubles. And this "Xykon" is acting exactly like someone who was told to emulate Xykon's mannerism, but doesn't quite have talent for it. Something that doubles have always been portrayed as. The interaction Redcloak has with "Xykon" shows that whoever plays Xykon is such a subordinate, and neither he nor Redcloak have really bothered playing their roles exactly as they should, because nobody is paying enough attention to go to that length of acting.

That is far more in character and follows #416 to a lot greater degree than the theory that Redcloak managed to convert aloof and dismissive Xykon into someone who is that subservient that he says things like "Excuse me" and "Sorry! Sorry!"

In conclusion, I chime in with Dwemented...



Occam's razor just went dull.

... when applied fiction, at least.

[Glorfindel]

You forget that the roaches know Xykon quite good as well. Maybe Xykon has polymorphed one of them into a Xyclone, and Xykon himself is disguised as a roach. I can't see why, but we probably will see in the next few strips ...

[Vargtass]

You forget that the roaches know Xykon quite good as well. Maybe Xykon has polymorphed one of them into a Xyclone, and Xykon himself is disguised as a roach. I can't see why, but we probably will see in the next few strips ...

That's the best theory so far!

[Snake-Aes]

Another complement: RedCloak's symbol is brighty white on the #423 comic, usually it's only black. The time we've seen it white was when Xykon was defeated by Gate(Roy didn't do that, Gate did! :p)and had to stay by the philactery.

[PirateMonk]

Another complement: RedCloak's symbol is brighty white on the #423 comic, usually it's only black. The time we've seen it white was when Xykon was defeated by Gate(Roy didn't do that, Gate did! :p)and had to stay by the philactery.

Great theory, but:

1) It's been that way since 415.
2) When Xykon was inside, it had eyes.

[Snake-Aes]

#2 Is broken by the fact he could simply hide. Well, I do find the change odd, it's not the usual state of his amulet.

"Necklace of Wussiness" is a bit too strange for me, I'm not sure I like the concept

[Hobot]

"Necklace of Wussiness" is a bit too strange for me, I'm not sure I like the concept

And the belt of gender changing isn't strange? :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, I think the wussiness is just a side effect. Perhaps, as has been suggested, it's actually for altering Xykon's alignment in order for him to use the gate.

[Tamis]

Well I think that Xykon is actually the one under the umbrella in the darkness and the monster in the dark has come out of the shadows and is the skeleton tha't dressed as Xykon. :smalltongue::smalltongue:

Wouldn't that make the :mitd: the good twin and :xykon: the evil twin. Or mabye the :mitd: is just the neutral twin, and we haven't met the good one yet. :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

[fwiffo]

"Necklace of Wussiness" is a bit too strange for me, I'm not sure I like the concept

It exists. I've seen my brother, who used to be a pretty opinionated and assertive guy, wearing one of those when he got married. Now he is a picture of wussiness personified.

Hey! What if...? Could it be that Xykon and Redcloak...? Maybe it is time to congratulate the newlywed.

[redcodekevin]

There's one argument about Redcloak and Xykon switching bodies...
Whatever Redcloak's plan is, it's still his plan. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0416.html) Do you think he'll sacrifice himself, with his hour at hand, to win Xykon's battle? Nope, because as we can see since #414 this is his battle. So, if "Xykon" would actually be Redcloak, will he be asking "Redcloak" (remember they "switched", so it's Xykon) to reconsider "his" plan as it can hurt himself, when actually it was his own (real Redcloak) plan? :smalleek:
I know, it's a complicated way of saying that Redcloak wouldn't make a plan that will put himself into danger when he has a battle to win.

[Kilbia]

Maybe, in spite of the obvious risk, Redcloak somehow convinced Xykon to wear his phylactery, and he's nervous because he really IS at risk.

ZOMG. This could actually work, because nobody would believe that a lich would ever wear his own phylactery, because it's too risky! So they'll think the Xykon wearing the amulet has GOT to be a fake, and they need to tear up the rest of the ranks looking for the real one.

And it ties in with the whole "shall I paint the bullseye on you now or later" remark.

[Chikin'Soup]

Doesn't a Lich regrow near it's Phylactery? 'Cause, if the heros tell themselves that no Lich would ever be stupid enough to wear his own phylactery into battle, then he might pop back up in the middle of the city and...... follow up on some other plan from inside, maybe level the castle?


EDIT: If Roy takes the Phylactery as a trophy, coulden't Xykon know anything he talks about?


EDIT 2: Oh wait, that's not his Phlactery, is it?