A Wild Speculation about Redcloak (spoiler?)

[Warbanner]

Okay, so here's some things we know:

1) Redcloak has apparently had his fill of Xykon.
2) Redcloak has become very self-assured and confident all of a sudden, having had an apparent epiphany mid-battle.
3) Rich has a wonderful way of turning tradition on its head (element elementals and killing the hero, as recent examples)
4) Just as no one ever expects the lead hero to die, no one ever expects the lead villain to die before the end either
5) Last we saw Xykon, he was in a tremendous heap of trouble.

See where I'm going here?

Sure, an epic-level lich/mage who may or may not want to destroy all of existence is a heck of a villain, but a goblin cleric who leads an entire army of goblins/hobgoblins/undead and wants to kill all humans isn't anything to sneeze at either. I think it'd be a real kick in the pants if *the* bad guy is killed unexpectedly, only for the OotS to discover that his 'sidekick' is just as much trouble if not moreso.

Sure, goblins are weenies in small enough groups (witness Belkar's rampage), but there must be other decent-level hobos out there, and in large enough numbers, led by a competent leader, who knows how much havoc they could wreak?

Okay, so I'm probably totally wrong here, but you have to admit, it'd be a real clever twist if it was true.

Plausible, absurd, what say you?

[Gnome King]

I say...possible.

BUT!

Red would likely want to add normal gobbos to his army along with the Hobbos.

He hasent forgotten them. He just has to make them work together.

[EyethatBinds]

Sure, goblins are weenies in small enough groups (witness Belkar's rampage),

Just think I should point out that most people in the order's world aren't 13th level combat focussed killing machines. A hobgoblin might only have six to eight HP but that doesn't mean that a commoner can stand even a fraction of a chance against one. Heck, by the numbers a commoner in D&D doesn't stand a chance against a housecat if they are armed with a spear and wearing armor.
Secondly if Redcloak were going to betray Xykon he would most likely wait until the time it would the greatest profit to him. Exactly what IS redcloak waiting for? Tune in next week to find out!

[kirbsys]

He't not necessarily saying he'll betray Xykon, what if he's just too late, and ends up becomeing the new villain just because there's no one else?

[Mad Scientist]

Suppose Xykon's body is destroyed (again). Could Redclock do anything to prevent Xykon from regenerating from his "soul hidey thing"? I'm just curious.

[Finwe]

Suppose Xykon's body is destroyed (again). Could Redclock do anything to prevent Xykon from regenerating from his "soul hidey thing"? I'm just curious.

He could smash it, but that would be bad, because it's also his holy symbol, which he needs to cast the majority of his spells.

[knightsaline]

He could destroy the soul hidey thing by smashing it

Edit: damn, ninja-d

[Miraqariftsky]

What's preventing him from crafting/buying a new un/holy symbol after smashing his old one which was Xykon's phylactery?

[Atheist_Cleric]

From a current story standpoint, there's no real reason why Redcloak wouldnt betray Xykon. But from a long-term standpoint where you look at OOTS purely as a webcomic, its not gonna happen. Why? Because Xykon is popular. He's a villain almost everyone likes, which is actually quite hard to pull off. Killing him for good would rob Rich of tons of potential material. Redcloak may be strong, interesting and all the other stuff, but he's not nearly as funny as Xykon; in fact most of his humor relies on Xykon to exist. Its like Elan and Roy, Roy is funny because of how annoyed he gets at Elans antics. Sure Roy is currently dead, but im wagering he'll be back. Just like i'd wager that even IF Xykon died here, a fairly likely possibility, he'd come back. The only way Redcloak could overthrow him would be doing it but keeping him around, which means somehow controlling him.

[factotum]

What's preventing him from crafting/buying a new un/holy symbol after smashing his old one which was Xykon's phylactery?

I imagine his God--who is the ultimate source of his power, don't forget--might be a little annoyed if Redcloak destroyed his own unholy symbol. Having to do an atonement quest in the middle of a war might be a little tricky...

[Woof]

I imagine his God--who is the ultimate source of his power, don't forget--might be a little annoyed if Redcloak destroyed his own unholy symbol. Having to do an atonement quest in the middle of a war might be a little tricky...

Hmmm... excuse my ignorance, but if clerics need their holy symbols to cast most of their spells and if a lich needs to create his phylactery from scratch, how did Redcloak cast spells before he met Xykon? I assume he must have swapped his old holy symbol for the two-in-one-for-the-same-price symbol + inbuilt phylactery?

[jindra34]

I imagine his God--who is the ultimate source of his power, don't forget--might be a little annoyed if Redcloak destroyed his own unholy symbol. Having to do an atonement quest in the middle of a war might be a little tricky...
so he 'accidentally' drops it near the heros on the way out...

[Setra]

Presuming Redcloak was high level enough (Not saying he IS, just a hypothetical situation), could he use Soul Bind on Xykon's Skeletal Corpse(ie. After he loses all his HP)?

[WarforgedGoblin]

Why does everyone think Redcloak's unholy symbol is the thing around his neck? Yeah, it's obviously Xykon's phylactery, but why does it need to be Red's symbol? Back in 369 where Red and Miko fight it out, Miko called Red the "bearer of the Crimson Mantle". Does that sound a bit important to anyone else? Also, two comics later in 371, Red explains how his mentor wore the Crimson Mantle before he did. Now, and this may be a wild thought, but what if Red's cloak is his unholy symbol and that necklace is something Xykon tossed at him saying, "Here, wear this and make sure not to break it"? Am I saying that Red's gonna backbone-stab Xykon? No, or at least not yet. However, Redcloak has far more common sense than Xykon, huzzah high Wisdom for the cleric, meaning he's probably at least one-step ahead of the lich. I wouldn't be surprised is Red deliberately made it look like Xykon's phylactery was his unholy symbol. Think about it as a PC, what are you going to try and sunder on an enemy cleric; the thing that looks like his unholy symbol or his cloak? Should a Stick member manage to destroy the necklace, not only can Red still blast away at them with his cleric spells, but he now has an out for avoiding Xykon's wrath. Redcloak didn't break it and he probably suggested Xykon should hide it somewhere instead of bringing it along on conquest. If that were to occur, Redcloak would have a subtle way to control Xykon; "Fine, don't listen to my ideas, we can do it your way. And if your body gets destroyed, you'll just come back, right? Oh no, that's right, a certain phylactery got destroyed because someone didn't listen to his cleric in the first place..." And before you ask, no, a liches phylactery cannot be remade once it is destroyed. What Xykon and Redcloak would have do to is this:

1) Ressurect Xykon, more than likely using true ressurection to cut the Xp loss.
2) Gather the materials and gp required to create another phylactery.
3) Have the now ressurected human Xykon create a new phylactery and die, rising once again as a lich.

Granted, this is all wild speculation, but the plan could work in this manner. Now, if yunz will excuse me, it's lunch time.

[Setra]

Why does everyone think Redcloak's unholy symbol is the thing around his neck?
Because he says that is his symbol?

:redcloak:My Holy Symbol is also Lord Xykon's phylactery (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0117.html)

[BisectedBrioche]

1) Ressurect Xykon, more than likely using true ressurection to cut the Xp loss.
2) Gather the materials and gp required to create another phylactery.
3) Have the now ressurected human Xykon create a new phylactery and die, rising once again as a lich.

Is that actually possible within the rules?

[WarforgedGoblin]

Ah, your OotS-Fu is far stronger than mine I see. Ok, so that is his unholy symbol. Also, considering how long Xykon said since he's been alive (30 years) that means true ressurection is out of the picture. The only way I can see Xykon not being boned by the destruction of his phylactery is a carefully worded wish spell.

[Finwe]

Ah, your OotS-Fu is far stronger than mine I see. Ok, so that is his unholy symbol. Also, considering how long Xykon said since he's been alive (30 years) that means true ressurection is out of the picture. The only way I can see Xykon not being boned by the destruction of his phylactery is a carefully worded wish spell.

True resurrection can revive people dead for up to TEN years per caster level. So it'll work on Xykon. Regular resurrection, however, would not work unless you had a very epic character to cast it.

[Warbanner]

From a current story standpoint, there's no real reason why Redcloak wouldnt betray Xykon. But from a long-term standpoint where you look at OOTS purely as a webcomic, its not gonna happen. Why? Because Xykon is popular. He's a villain almost everyone likes, which is actually quite hard to pull off. Killing him for good would rob Rich of tons of potential material. Redcloak may be strong, interesting and all the other stuff, but he's not nearly as funny as Xykon; in fact most of his humor relies on Xykon to exist.

Maybe; but Redcloak has done a fine job of being funny these last few comics, with no Xykon around him. Honestly, I think Xykon is funny primarily because Rich MAKES him funny. I mean, I'm not a writer of the same sort as Rich, but still, when I think funny, the first that comes to mind is NOT "epic-level lich". If he can make Xykon hilarious and (hence) popular, there's no reason he can't do the same with Redcloak. Would it rob him of material? Yeah. It'd also give him a rich new vein of material to explore. I agree that Xykon's popularity speaks against the likelihood, but it doesn't rule it out, I think.

[Froody]

I really don't think Redcloak as the main villain without Xykon could be constantly funny without making some major and stupid changes to his character.

Anyway, I think from the new comic you can clearly see that Redcloak has no intent of backstabbing Xykon at the moment.
(:redcloak: "Xykon! Are you OK?")

[Thanatos 51-50]

For further evidence that Xykon's phylacarey <SP?> is Recloak's Unholy symbol, see the most recent strip (#459), where Redcloak's Turn Undead ("Kinda") is obviously originating from his symbol.

If Red ever does backstab Xykon, smashing the unholy symbol wouldn't be too be of a transgression.
"O, Dark One, I smash your symbol to slay one of our great enemies, yadda yadda yadda...
Forgive this sin, and know soon that I shall bear the symbol of Your Dark Might once more...
yadda yadda yadda..."