What does the Crimson Mantle’s aging block do?

[CriticalFailure]

I don’t exactly get how the Crimson Mantle’s halt on aging works when it comes to the mental effects it has?

For one thing, it seems to be up in the air whether it slows or halts aging. But what are the extents of the mental effects?

In SOD Right-Eye says he’s the same angry kid and is basically stuck and hasn’t matured.

Based on the general portrayal of the character it seems like this is mostly due to him being obsessed with the plan and shutting all else out. How much of this is due to the effects of the Crimson Mantle versus simply isolation and obsession? Does the Crimson Mantle cause him to remain immature to a certain extent?

Redcloak has moments of growth throughout, such as realizing he needs to treat the hobgoblins better.

also when he visits his brother he’s pretty quickly convinced to settle down, until Xykon puts the kibish on that

[Bacon Elemental]

Spoiler didnt work, its the other slash

And Redcloak's had some serious character growth since he put on the mantle, so I assume it was more like brother-brother arguing than an analytical assessment. Accusations of being childish are not strictly limited to divine artifacts after all :smallamused:

[Peelee]

I don’t exactly get how the Crimson Mantle’s halt on aging works when it comes to the mental effects it has?

For one thing, it seems to be up in the air whether it slows or halts aging. But what are the extents of the mental effects?

In SOD Right-Eye says he’s the same angry kid and is basically stuck and hasn’t matured.

Based on the general portrayal of the character it seems like this is mostly due to him being obsessed with the plan and shutting all else out. How much of this is due to the effects of the Crimson Mantle versus simply isolation and obsession? Does the Crimson Mantle cause him to remain immature to a certain extent?

Redcloak has moments of growth throughout, such as realizing he needs to treat the hobgoblins better.

also when he visits his brother he’s pretty quickly convinced to settle down, until Xykon puts the kibish on that

It doesn't affect Reddie mentally. Also, you only need a slash to close out the spoiler tags, and a forward slash instead of a backslash. For example: text becomes text

[Grey_Wolf_c]

It doesn't affect Reddie mentally.

According to SoD, IIRC, it does, after a fashion: RC is stuck in "teenager angry at the world" mode. According to his brother, anyway.

Grey Wolf

[hroþila]

According to SoD, IIRC, it does, after a fashion: RC is stuck in "teenager angry at the world" mode. According to his brother, anyway.

Grey Wolf
I think that's entirely on Redcloak, not on the Crimson Mantle.

[Peelee]

I'm with hroþila; that's a character flaw, not a magic-item-induced issue.

[CriticalFailure]

Yeah my question is basically is Redcloak supposed to be immature on a certain level and is that in part due to the crimson mantle or completely attributable to him being isolated and not having normal interactions with others or normal life goals.

[Peelee]

Yeah my question is basically is Redcloak supposed to be immature on a certain level and is that in part due to the crimson mantle or completely attributable to him being isolated and not having normal interactions with others or normal life goals.

No. Maturity comes with time, not aging. We just happen to have those as inseparable. Redcloak doesn't.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I think that's entirely on Redcloak, not on the Crimson Mantle.

No, I think it is a combination of both. Or rather, that that is what SoD is about, partially, and it sort of matches what this book is also about: you can't live in your worst day forever, because, paradoxically, not moving on warps you. RC is stuck on the worst day of his life, because he can't grow out of it, in part because the cloak keeps him a teen, which isn't exactly the most stable of mental configurations.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

No, I think it is a combination of both. Or rather, that that is what SoD is about, partially, and it sort of matches what this book is also about: you can't live in your worst day forever, because, paradoxically, not moving on warps you. RC is stuck on the worst day of his life, because he can't grow out of it, in part because the cloak keeps him a teen, which isn't exactly the most stable of mental configurations.

Grey Wolf

But even in SoD, he grows out of it. He returns to the goblin village and asks about that nice goblin his brother tried to set him up with. He's ready to hang up the plan.

Also, no way in hell the Redcloak who had just been ordained Cleric and put on the Crimson Mantle would be the same Redcloak who killed his little brother. Dude had to change substantially for that to happen.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

But even in SoD, he grows out of it. He returns to the goblin village and asks about that nice goblin his brother tried to set him up with. He's ready to hang up the plan.

Also, no way in hell the Redcloak who had just been ordained Cleric and put on the Crimson Mantle would be the same Redcloak who killed his little brother. Dude had to change substantially for that to happen.

I'm not saying he can't change. I'm saying that he is still using a teen's brain to do the thinking. It's been a while, admittedly, but I definitely do remember that for a while, I was working with substandard equipment. And any number of studies back up the assertion that teen brains are not exactly the most reliable when it comes to making the right choices - thus why we try to stop them from operating death machines and partaking of mind altering substances.

The idea behind RC's brother is that he has moved on, and that while RC is tempted by the idea of moving on, ultimately he can't for long.

Grey Wolf

[CriticalFailure]

I guess with the cloak it’s hard to tell too because he got a whole bunch of responsibility dumped on him as a teenager and simultaneously lost any help he had for that. Which isn’t conducive to growing into a functional adult even if one keeps aging normally. But not aging physically also seems to keep him constantly able to ignore anything but the plan.

[Peelee]

I'm not saying he can't change. I'm saying that he is still using a teen's brain to do the thinking. It's been a while, admittedly, but I definitely do remember that for a while, I was working with substandard equipment. And any number of studies back up the assertion that teen brains are not exactly the most reliable when it comes to making the right choices - thus why we try to stop them from operating death machines and partaking of mind altering substances.

The idea behind RC's brother is that he has moved on, and that while RC is tempted by the idea of moving on, ultimately he can't for long.

Grey Wolf

That says nothing about whether he's still stuck as a teenager; Right-Eyes assertion could also describe fully-formed adults, Ted Kaczynski as the easiest example right off the bat. Some people just grow worse over time.

[Aveline]

The question of the Crimson Mantle is equivalent to this: Is it that it's inherently impossible for Redcloak to abandon the Plan? Or is it that he himself is so proud he doesn't want to? Or is one of these an inseparable consequence of the other?

I think it's just that he's too damn proud. His whole self-conception begins in righteousness.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not saying he can't change. I'm saying that he is still using a teen's brain to do the thinking. It's been a while, admittedly, but I definitely do remember that for a while, I was working with substandard equipment. And any number of studies back up the assertion that teen brains are not exactly the most reliable when it comes to making the right choices - thus why we try to stop them from operating death machines and partaking of mind altering substances.
The idea behind RC's brother is that he has moved on, and that while RC is tempted by the idea of moving on, ultimately he can't for long.
I find your "he's stuck in teenager mode" to fit my read of SoD and Red Cloak in general very well.
It strikes me as part of the baseline for this joke/insult from Xykon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1040.html).
Xykon seems (to me) to be using a schoolyard taunt style there; maybe that's because of where Red Cloak is emotionally.
(Not sure if that was Rich's intent, but it sure seems to fit).

[Peelee]

I find your "he's stuck in teenager mode" to fit my read of SoD and Red Cloak in general very well.
It strikes me as part of the baseline for this joke/insult from Xykon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1040.html).
Xykon seems (to me) to be using a schoolyard taunt style there; maybe that's because of where Red Cloak is emotionally.
(Not sure if that was Rich's intent, but it sure seems to fit).

Wouldn't that equally apply to Xykon, and say that he's also being stuck in teenager mode, despite getting to what looks like venerable age? If anything, that should go to show that such a mentality is completely decoupled from aging.

[CriticalFailure]

That’s interesting. I interpreted it as more that at first he felt it was his responsibility and lacked anything else in life to motivate him.

when Right-Eye asked him to stay in his village, offering an alternative that he could actually see, he decided to stay pretty quickly. Until X caught up with him. And after killing Right-Eye the plan seems to be the only thing keeping him from being overwhelmed with guilt and hopelessness.

[Keltest]

Wouldn't that equally apply to Xykon, and say that he's also being stuck in teenager mode, despite getting to what looks like venerable age? If anything, that should go to show that such a mentality is completely decoupled from aging.

Only if you assume that being a jerk and having a teen mentality are inherently coupled. Xykon was a petty, mean child who grew into a petty, mean teenager, who grew into a petty, cruel man. In his case, he really is just that awful.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I find your "he's stuck in teenager mode" to fit my read of SoD and Red Cloak in general very well.

I'm AfB, but isn't there a line from his brother along this lines explicitly? SOmehting about the cloak having got him stuck?

I wasn't expecting this to be "our reading" rather than canon.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

I'm AfB, but isn't there a line from his brother along this lines explicitly? SOmehting about the cloak having got him stuck?

I wasn't expecting this to be "our reading" rather than canon.

Grey Wolf

While I do like the reading, and the idea that the Dark One literally wont let Redcloak move on, I kind of doubt that Rich would let Redcloak duck responsibility for what he did by having him be mentally manipulated for however many decades.

[Fyraltari]

It would be pretty disappointing if it turned out the Cloak had been mindcontrolling Red the entire time and that his personality so far was ‘‘fake’’ si to speak. I’m on the side of ‘‘The Mantle isn’t controlling him but it doesn’t help’’.

I will add that Redcloak has already lived over the natural goblin lifespan and still going strong which doesn’t help. He can literally put his whole life on indefinite hold for the plan, unlike Right-Eye who yearned for a family and therefore couldn’t afford to wait decades for the Plan to work.

It cannot help relating to his fellow goblins, either, as he can tell in all honesty to people who look like they could be his father ‘‘I was doing this long before you were a gleam inside your father’s eye, boy’’.

[Peelee]

Only if you assume that being a jerk and having a teen mentality are inherently coupled.

I agree, and similarly don't associate Redcloak's characterization to be inherently coupled to a teen mentality.

[PopeLinus1]

Maybe the crimson mantle doesn't prevent you from growing, but provides a mechanism that allows you to not grow, I mean after all Redcloak doesn't have to worry about getting older, so regardless of what the cloak actually does, I'm sure it would effect his maturity in some way.

[CriticalFailure]

Perhaps some aspects of his personality stopped developing when he put on the cloak while others, well mostly got worse, honestly.

[Keltest]

I agree, and similarly don't associate Redcloak's characterization to be inherently coupled to a teen mentality.

Not necessarily "a" teen mentality, but his teen mentality. Redcloak is still the same person he was as an angry and hurting teenager. I don't think he's a terrible person because he's still like a teen, but because he became locked into a period of his life where he was hurting, confused and directionless. I don't know that him being a full adult would have completely prevented it, but at the very least it wouldn't be nearly as easy for him to get so completely obsessed with this hurt he has.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

While I do like the reading, and the idea that the Dark One literally wont let Redcloak move on, I kind of doubt that Rich would let Redcloak duck responsibility for what he did by having him be mentally manipulated for however many decades.

Nor am I. I still hold people responsible for their actions even if they are teens. The cloak, in my reading, isn't manipulating RC - the cloak would need to be a conscious actor for that, sort of like the One Ring, but it is not. It is a magical item that has a number of effects, including preventing RC from aging. In game terms, that means that RC never gets those wisdom bonuses from advancing age categories; in biological terms, it means he is still using the same teen brain he grew into. But it is still his brain and thus his responsibility.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

But maturity is time passing, events happening, and learning from the events. The only way he'd still have his same teen mentality would be if he was incapable of learning from events - which we have explicitly seen multiple times is not the case. Again, Redcloak is still an angsty teen the same way Ted Kaczynski was; not at all.

[Keltest]

Nor am I. I still hold people responsible for their actions even if they are teens. The cloak, in my reading, isn't manipulating RC - the cloak would need to be a conscious actor for that, sort of like the One Ring, but it is not. It is a magical item that has a number of effects, including preventing RC from aging. In game terms, that means that RC never gets those wisdom bonuses from advancing age categories; in biological terms, it means he is still using the same teen brain he grew into. But it is still his brain and thus his responsibility.

Grey Wolf

I guess I don't see the difference between "redcloak is unable to think effectively because an artifact is impairing his brain from growing into a complete and functional state" and "redcloak is unable to think clearly because an artifact is directly messing with his thoughts." It would be like saying that Durkon is responsible for what Greg did because it was his brain, just locked into a pattern of thinking that altered his behavior.

[CriticalFailure]

I mean, I don’t think being a teenager in itself is such a mental impediment as to absolve one from responsibility.

When considering life experiences it’s reasonable to say he hasn’t matured because of being isolated and devoted to the plan. For example in the area of normal social interactions not related to military command, villainous workplace politics, or orphaned little brother rearing.

[Peelee]

I mean, I don’t think being a teenager in itself is such a mental impediment as to absolve one from responsibility.

When considering life experiences it’s reasonable to say he hasn’t matured because of being isolated and devoted to the plan. For example in the area of normal social interactions not related to military command, villainous workplace politics, or orphaned little brother rearing.

Or a year's worth of living in a goblin metropolis and having daily interactions with goblinoids?

I think it's entirely unreasonable to say he hasn't matured for whatever reason, because I dispute that he hasn't matured.

[CriticalFailure]

I mean I think he’s grown and changed in various ways some good some not (does becoming more emotionally dysfunctional count as maturing)

I didnt get the impression he was doing a ton of normal socializing in Gobbotopia though; he seemed to mostly be acting in his capacity as supreme leader, very busy trying to learn about the gates while setting up a new nation. Jirix was the only one he seemed friendly with.

[Peelee]

I mean I think he’s grown and changed in various ways some good some not (does becoming more emotionally dysfunctional count as maturing)


It counts as having grown out of your teenage mindset, at the very least.

[hroþila]

Personally I don't think Right-Eye was meant to be right in a 100% literal sense, just that he was speaking a deeper truth about Redcloak. But this is all very subjective.

[CriticalFailure]

Personally I don't think Right-Eye was meant to be right in a 100% literal sense, just that he was speaking a deeper truth about Redcloak. But this is all very subjective.

Like he’s matured in some ways but still shaped his entire life around The Plan?

[understatement]

As long as he has the Cloak, he (believes) must carry out the Plan. And since he learned about the Plan on such a fateful day -- shaped by revenge and violence and whatnot - he thinks that type of vengeance is the most appropriate to carry out his scheme.

In fact, he and Right-eye go through the exact same events -- up until the day the latter went off and had a family, and he chose to stay with Xykon.

I don't think I'd label him as a teenager either. The dude that raised Gobbotopia, flattened the Resistance, and still holds onto betraying Xykon eventually has definitely 'matured' from the day he disintegrated his brother. I'd say he "matured" in a more Lawful Evil sense.

Also, I don't even know what I just typed.

[Rrmcklin]

I agree with the sentiment that the Crimson Mantle isn't somehow stunting Redcloak's emotional growth, and would actually think it would hurt the character and make him much less interesting if that were the case.

If that's what Peelee is saying, I'm with them. I think people might be taking Right-Eye calling him out much more literally than it was actually intended, people say generic "you're stuck as that same angry teenager" lines to people like Redcloak all the time.

[Peelee]

I agree with the sentiment that the Crimson Mantle isn't somehow stunting Redcloak's emotional growth, and would actually think it would hurt the character and make him much less interesting if that were the case.

If that's what Peelee is saying, I'm with them.

Hooray, I'm popular!

[Squire Doodad]

I feel like slowed growth is better than halting. Like, if you are 20 and wear it, you may have hundreds of years before you so much as get a gray hair, and things like arthritis that aren't already present at the time of donning the mantle will probably never happen. However, if you wear it at 13, it may take a decade or two to have the natural growth finish bringing you to 20, at which point your natural growth will slow and become virtually dormant. Mentally that can have some crazy effects, but the mind develops differently from the body as events, not physical growth, cause development more than anything else. Mental development may be slowed or altered, but after a while I see little reason for it to be seriously affected.

If Redcloak were to take off the mantle for a week, would the aging come back and affect him or something?

[woweedd]

I mean...I'd argue that, in the OOTS verse, the immortal soul is something that verifiably exists, so the brain chemistry probably doesn't matter as much as you might think. And, yes, I know destroying the brian still kills you, and Elan suffered brain damage as a kid, but...OK, think of it this way: The soul is a CD, and the brain is the computer that scans and displays it. If you damage the computer, the disk may still be functional, but it's not going to display correctly because it's running on a damaged system.

[CriticalFailure]

I definitely agree the Mantle doesn’t make his choices any less his own or his responsibility. Even if there’s no physical effect on how he matured mentally I think it’s fair to say being physically frozen in time as a teen has deterred him from having to mature like RE said.

[Goblin_Priest]

No, I think it is a combination of both. Or rather, that that is what SoD is about, partially, and it sort of matches what this book is also about: you can't live in your worst day forever, because, paradoxically, not moving on warps you. RC is stuck on the worst day of his life, because he can't grow out of it, in part because the cloak keeps him a teen, which isn't exactly the most stable of mental configurations.

Grey Wolf

Wait, the cloak made him a VAMPIRE!?

[PopeLinus1]

Wait, the cloak made him a VAMPIRE!?

A monster who betrays and murders his friends and family in order to fulfill the needs of what is allowing him to live forever and hangs around with a bunch of undead?

[KorvinStarmast]

Wouldn't that equally apply to Xykon, and say that he's also being stuck in teenager mode, despite getting to what looks like venerable age? If anything, that should go to show that such a mentality is completely decoupled from aging. Yes indeed, the way Xykon is written is, to me, in the voice of a power gamer / munchkin/ who wanted to get awesome powers and liched out. I was going to mention that in the other post but was trying to focus just on Red Cloak.
FWIW, Belkar also comes across that way to me: teenager CE grief player (initially) who is ever so slowly growing up a bit.

[Vinyadan]

If he doesn't advance in age categories, he loses the bonuses to mental stats that simulate growing wiser, more beautiful and better eyed as you age.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I agree with the sentiment that the Crimson Mantle isn't somehow stunting Redcloak's emotional growth, and would actually think it would hurt the character and make him much less interesting if that were the case.

If that's what Peelee is saying, I'm with them. I think people might be taking Right-Eye calling him out much more literally than it was actually intended, people say generic "you're stuck as that same angry teenager" lines to people like Redcloak all the time.

Yeah, while I think Right-Eye is correct in the sense that he accurately describes Redcloak’s mindset, I don’t actually think it’s literally the cloak that’s responsible for it. I’m AFB, but I recall the way he phrased it makes it so it can be interpreted more as an analogy anyway?

[B. Dandelion]

Slightly extended transcription of the line in question, for those away from book:

Redcloak: My Plan is for the betterment of the goblin people!

Right-Eye: You don't even KNOW the goblin people. Do you think this is what they want? To be ruled by an insane lich? To be killed by poor planning, or mood swings?

Redcloak: Look, I've spent my entire life—

Right-Eye: Your life? Your LIFE?? Brother, you may have had a lifetime, but you haven't had a life since the day you put on that cloak. Life is about growing—growing older, growing wiser, growing closer to your loved ones. But you, you're frozen in time. You're the same angry kid who took that artifact off of your master's corpse that day.

Redcloak: Oh, so now you've gained some great insight on the universe by letting your body and mind deteriorate?

Right-Eye: YES! When you're faced with your own mortality, you have no choice but to consider what's best for the next generation. And this deal with Xykon is killing our spirit almost as fast as it's killing our bodies. You don't even know what it is you're trying to better, because you don't know what it's like not to serve an undead overlord, or a petty spiteful god.

It's interesting that Right-Eye explicitly does link physical aging and decay with a concept of insight and growth. Mortality, and the awareness of it, is a fundamental aspect of life as Right-Eye has come to understand it, and Redcloak's eternal youth flies in the face of that.

[woweedd]

Slightly extended transcription of the line in question, for those away from book:

Redcloak: My Plan is for the betterment of the goblin people!

Right-Eye: You don't even KNOW the goblin people. Do you think this is what they want? To be ruled by an insane lich? To be killed by poor planning, or mood swings?

Redcloak: Look, I've spent my entire life—

Right-Eye: Your life? Your LIFE?? Brother, you may have had a lifetime, but you haven't had a life since the day you put on that cloak. Life is about growing—growing older, growing wiser, growing closer to your loved ones. But you, you're frozen in time. You're the same angry kid who took that artifact off of your master's corpse that day.

Redcloak: Oh, so now you've gained some great insight on the universe by letting your body and mind deteriorate?

Right-Eye: YES! When you're faced with your own mortality, you have no choice but to consider what's best for the next generation. And this deal with Xykon is killing our spirit almost as fast as it's killing our bodies. You don't even know what it is you're trying to better, because you don't know what it's like not to serve an undead overlord, or a petty spiteful god.

It's interesting that Right-Eye explicitly does link physical aging and decay with a concept of insight and growth. Mortality, and the awareness of it, is a fundamental aspect of life as Right-Eye has come to understand it, and Redcloak's eternal youth flies in the face of that.
Ah, Redcloak's suffering "immortal immaturity" syndrome.

[KorvinStarmast]

You're the same angry kid who took that artifact off of your master's corpse that day.

I think that support's Grey Wolf's take on this.

[woweedd]

You're the same angry kid who took that artifact off of your master's corpse that day.

I think that support's Grey Wolf's take on this.
I'm pretty sure that's a metaphor. In that moment, an unknown goblin kid died, and Redcloak was born. I mean, I think his lack of aging has contributed to his immaturity, in the sense of...Right-Eye has a finite lifespan, and, even if he wasn't murdered, he'd only have so much time, and he ultimately decided that life was too short to waste on revenge. Redcloak? He has effectively infinite time. His plan to tear down humans rather then build up goblins is an inevitable consequence of his immortality not having forced him to move past his grief. It's mainly symbolic; He is, literally as well as figuratively, stuck in that one moment of watching Paladins slaughter his village, but the cloak isn't mind-controlling him: His lack of aging may have contributed to him not moving on from his grief, and him having the time to spend on elaborate revenge schemes, but his choices are still his own.

[CriticalFailure]

Putting on the mantle and accepting the duties of head priest to execute the plan seems to have ensured he wouldn’t move on, because TDO basically gave him the llamas his goal in life at that point.

As an aside, teenager has to be the worst age to be stuck at for decades. Poor Redcloak must wish he had at least gotten stuck at a less awkward age.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

You're the same angry kid who took that artifact off of your master's corpse that day.

I think that support's Grey Wolf's take on this.

Indeed it does. Thanks, B. Dandelion.


I'm pretty sure that's a metaphor
I don't see why you'd make that assumption. RE is quite clear that RC is being affected by how the clock stops aging. And if you consider it a metaphor, it doesn't make it any less true.


the cloak isn't mind-controlling him
No-one is claiming otherwise, and I have already addressed this.

Grey Wolf

[Mariele]

Honestly, I think the mantle has seriously slowed Red Cloak's physical aging, but I think his mental aging is slowed in a more symbolic way. That is, the mantle is not the cause of his delayed maturity, but is there almost to give viewers a physical token of his immaturity. It's a cue, but they're not linked aside from that. This seriously aggravates me because I am very interested in how physical brain growth and change affects personality, which means that if RC's physical aging was slowed, so should the physical aging in his brain and thus his personality should be affected--but that's something most fantasy fiction seems to toss out the window anyway...

Until we have word from Rich (unlikely), it's all speculation on something that could very easily be interpreted either way, so there's no right or canon answer. If I say "My brother Bob has been crazy since his wife left him", you could interpret it as, yes, he's been certifiable since his wife left him, but an equally valid interpretation would be that he's just been off in behavior (maybe more temperamental or more of a shut in) since his wife left him--and given that he's my brother, it's more likely that I would be speaking from a more personal point of view than a detached outsider (who wouldn't be speaking from a moment of emotion) making a psychological analysis.

[woweedd]

Honestly, I think the mantle has seriously slowed Red Cloak's physical aging, but I think his mental aging is slowed in a more symbolic way. That is, the mantle is not the cause of his delayed maturity, but is there almost to give viewers a physical token of his immaturity. It's a cue, but they're not linked aside from that. This seriously aggravates me because I am very interested in how physical brain growth and change affects personality, which means that if RC's physical aging was slowed, so should the physical aging in his brain and thus his personality should be affected--but that's something most fantasy fiction seems to toss out the window anyway...

Until we have word from Rich (unlikely), it's all speculation on something that could very easily be interpreted either way, so there's no right or canon answer. If I say "My brother Bob has been crazy since his wife left him", you could interpret it as, yes, he's been certifiable since his wife left him, but an equally valid interpretation would be that he's just been off in behavior (maybe more temperamental or more of a shut in) since his wife left him--and given that he's my brother, it's more likely that I would be speaking from a more personal point of view than a detached outsider (who wouldn't be speaking from a moment of emotion) making a psychological analysis.
Again: this is a world where an immortal soul is a thing that exists. I doubt the physical brain matters as much as it does in our world.

[tomandtish]

If he doesn't advance in age categories, he loses the bonuses to mental stats that simulate growing wiser, more beautiful and better eyed as you age.

I was looking for clarification in this in 3.5, but can't find it.

But in earlier versions of the game they distinguished between physical age and actual age. So a change on one didn't automatically affect the other.

EX: Monk's timeless body - The monk's physical stats would become immune to age changes at the point the ability was required. But they'd still get the mental bonuses.

EX: A magical attack ages a character two age categories instantly. They suffer the physical penalties but don't get the mental bonuses.

I assume it works the same way in later versions.

[Mariele]

Again: this is a world where an immortal soul is a thing that exists. I doubt the physical brain matters as much as it does in our world.

Which was my point...

[CriticalFailure]

If that's the case is Redcloak getting aging bonuses to his mental stats though he is physically still a teenager?

I got the impression he wasn't supposed to be growing older and wiser (and smarter and more charming) due to the Mantle.

If not that would seem to indicate that the Mantle stops him from maturing to a certain extent. Not that he can't mature in some ways due to experience; he clearly changes as a character.

[Rrmcklin]

If that's the case is Redcloak getting aging bonuses to his mental stats though he is physically still a teenager?

I got the impression he wasn't supposed to be growing older and wiser (and smarter and more charming) due to the Mantle.

If not that would seem to indicate that the Mantle stops him from maturing to a certain extent. Not that he can't mature in some ways due to experience; he clearly changes as a character.

Why do you have that impression? If it's because of what Right-Eye said, it should be pointed out it's not like Right-Eye is an expert on how the Crimson Mantle actually functions.

[KorvinStarmast]

Indeed it does. Thanks, B. Dandelion.
While I am not B Dandelion, you are welcome. :smallbiggrin:

Again: this is a world where an immortal soul is a thing that exists. I doubt the physical brain matters as much as it does in our world. Does that mean that everyone uses INT as a dump stat? :smalleek:

[woweedd]

While I am not B Dandelion, you are welcome. :smallbiggrin:
Does that mean that everyone uses INT as a dump stat? :smalleek:
A. I don't know what you mean.
B. No, Wisdom. I mean, have you MET the main cast?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

While I am not B Dandelion, you are welcome. :smallbiggrin:

Thor damnit, I knew I should’ve clarified. I was agreeing with you, and at the same time thanking B. for finding the quote.

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

Why do you have that impression? If it's because of what Right-Eye said, it should be pointed out it's not like Right-Eye is an expert on how the Crimson Mantle actually functions.

He is however an expert on how Redcloak actually functions having known him his entire life and all.

People mature and change because the passing of time forces them to. Right-Eye gave up on the plan because he wanted a family and realized he couldn’t do both. Redcloak being eternally young looses all reminders that his body would give him of the limited time he has. He won’t change until forced to by something he cannot ignore, like the ending of SoD.

Redcloak doesn’t want to change, very few people do as changing is hard and often painful but unlike real people and (most OOTS people) he can (mostly) afford not to.

[Peelee]

He is however an expert on how Redcloak actually functions having known him his entire life and all.

People mature and change because the passing of time forces them to. Right-Eye gave up on the plan because he wanted a family and realized he couldn’t do both. Redcloak being eternally young looses all reminders that his body would give him of the limited time he has. He won’t change until forced to by something he cannot ignore, like the ending of SoD.

Redcloak doesn’t want to change, very few people do as changing is hard and often painful but unlike real people and (most OOTS people) he can (mostly) afford not to.

Except all the other times Redcloak changed.

[Fyraltari]

Except all the other times Redcloak changed.

He does not change within SoD.

[Peelee]

He does not change within SoD.

Yeah, I started to write a lot more and then truncated it severely.

[CriticalFailure]

He is however an expert on how Redcloak actually functions having known him his entire life and all.

People mature and change because the passing of time forces them to. Right-Eye gave up on the plan because he wanted a family and realized he couldn’t do both. Redcloak being eternally young looses all reminders that his body would give him of the limited time he has. He won’t change until forced to by something he cannot ignore, like the ending of SoD.

Redcloak doesn’t want to change, very few people do as changing is hard and often painful but unlike real people and (most OOTS people) he can (mostly) afford not to.

I think he’s right about Redcloak not maturing and not gaining the perspective you get by aging, but idk if he’s that much of an expert on how Redcloak actually functions. I think it was obvious to him his brother hadn’t matured in the years they’d been apart, but when it comes to other topics he maybe has less insight.

For one thing, that conversation was the first time he realized that Redcloak has the sunk cost fallacy thing due to his hang-ups with taking responsibility for the plan, apparently.

additionally the fact that he never mentioned what he was planning to do to Xykon until the last minute, and the understandable but strategically poorly-conceived choice to push Redcloak away after being drafted by Xykon, as shown when he calls Redcloak “Xykon’s pet goblin.”

I say this was strategically a poor choice because Right-Eye saw Redcloak change his mind when he was shown what he was missing out on and presented a viable alternative. While it completely makes sense for Right-Eye to no longer want anything to do with Redcloak after what happened, in order to get him on board with striking against Xykon when the time was right I think he needed to get him to be able to see an alternative to pursuing the plan, and further isolating him worked directly against that.

Redcloak also repeatedly demonstrates a better understanding of Xykon than Right-Eye and if he had told his brother sooner it would’ve pre-empted the excuses about what Xykon would do and he could’ve taken advantage of Redcloak’s better understanding of Xykon to improve his plan.

Basically I think strategically things would’ve worked out better if he’d either brought Redcloak in on things earlier or not told him about it at all and just done it.

[Fyraltari]

I think he’s right about Redcloak not maturing and not gaining the perspective you get by aging, but idk if he’s that much of an expert on how Redcloak actually functions. I think it was obvious to him his brother hadn’t matured in the years they’d been apart, but when it comes to other topics he maybe has less insight.

For one thing, that conversation was the first time he realized that Redcloak has the sunk cost fallacy thing due to his hang-ups with taking responsibility for the plan, apparently.
So?


additionally the fact that he never mentioned what he was planning to do to Xykon until the last minute, and the understandable but strategically poorly-conceived choice to push Redcloak away after being drafted by Xykon, as shown when he calls Redcloak “Xykon’s pet goblin.”

I say this was strategically a poor choice because Right-Eye saw Redcloak change his mind when he was shown what he was missing out on and presented a viable alternative. While it completely makes sense for Right-Eye to no longer want anything to do with Redcloak after what happened, in order to get him on board with striking against Xykon when the time was right I think he needed to get him to be able to see an alternative to pursuing the plan, and further isolating him worked directly against that.

Redcloak also repeatedly demonstrates a better understanding of Xykon than Right-Eye and if he had told his brother sooner it would’ve pre-empted the excuses about what Xykon would do and he could’ve taken advantage of Redcloak’s better understanding of Xykon to improve his plan.

Basically I think strategically things would’ve worked out better if he’d either brought Redcloak in on things earlier or not told him about it at all and just done it.
You need to close your spoiler tags.
Right-Eye did not isolate himself from Redcloak, Red isolated himself from the other goblins, that is why he calls him Xykon's pet goblin.

"Now this is a surprise. Xykon's pet goblin is slumming down here with the rest of us."

[CriticalFailure]

My point with both of those things is that he overlooked things he could’ve done to get his brother to do what he wanted, and he might not have if he understood him better.

[martianmister]

Wouldn't that equally apply to Xykon, and say that he's also being stuck in teenager mode, despite getting to what looks like venerable age? If anything, that should go to show that such a mentality is completely decoupled from aging.

In hindsight, "stuck in teenager mode" describes Xykon better than Redcloak.

[Rrmcklin]

My point with both of those things is that he overlooked things he could’ve done to get his brother to do what he wanted, and he might not have if he understood him better.

What things did Right-Eye overlook that could have changed Redcloak? That's a very big claim that very much flies in the face of the entire point of the story, so I'm going to need some specifics.

[CriticalFailure]

I was more arguing that I think he could probably have manipulated Redcloak into it based on him being able to convince him to give it up and stay before Xykon showed back up. Just speculation.

[Kish]

I think if he had understood his brother better--or, more properly, had understood before he got suddenly Disintegrated that his brother was dead and Redcloak, Xykon's lackey, was the entity he needed to worry about now--he would either have conducted his attack on Xykon without giving Redcloak warning, or have struck at Redcloak first.

[CriticalFailure]

I think if he had understood his brother better--or, more properly, had understood before he got suddenly Disintegrated that his brother was dead and Redcloak, Xykon's lackey, was the entity he needed to worry about now--he would either have conducted his attack on Xykon without giving Redcloak warning, or have struck at Redcloak first.

Yeah I agree with that, I think that would have been his best bet.

I'm not trying to defend Redcloak's actions in some way by saying I think it would've been possible for Right-Eye to manipulate him into going along with what he wants, if that's how people are interpreting it. I just think that based on Right-Eye eventually convincing him to settle down in his village he likely could've also gotten him to go along with what he wanted if he managed to press his brother's buttons in just the right way. Then again, maybe at that point they were too close to getting a gate for it to be a possibility. After killing Right-Eye I think there's no way Redcloak will give up trying to execute the plan obviously.

I think this is mostly just an example of how being willing to sacrifice or not enjoying being evil doesn't actually make someone less evil. Redcloak is normal compared to villains like Xykon in that he is not a sadist for whom murder is a fun hobby, he really did love his family, and if he wasn't bearer of the mantle it's not clear that he would be getting up to much evil. The fact that he doesn't enjoy doing evil things like murdering his brother and does them to fulfill his responsibilities as high priest and complete what he has taken on as his god-given purpose in life rather than from selfishness doesn't make those things less evil, it just makes his it even more of a senseless waste than it already was.

[JBiddles]

Redcloak can still gain experience and perspective, and have character growth. He can still mature in that sense. But I like the idea that in purely physiological terms, his brain is still a teenage brain and his body is still a teenage body. He has a grown man's experience and wisdom, but a young man's impetuousness and resentment. There is no difference between brain and body (yes, OK, souls exist in OotS, but most non-undead humans still run on wetware: see e.g. Redcloak pointing out that Paladins losing the ability to fear is something unnatural and in violation of biological instinct, Elan's brain damage, and if you really insist on direct in-comic proof, this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0583.html) has Qarr directly referencing the influence on behaviour of 100%-mundane good-old-fashioned chemical hormones on behaviour).

Redcloak has the hormone profile of a much younger, angrier man.

[CriticalFailure]

Redcloak can still gain experience and perspective, and have character growth. He can still mature in that sense. But I like the idea that in purely physiological terms, his brain is still a teenage brain and his body is still a teenage body. He has a grown man's experience and wisdom, but a young man's impetuousness and resentment. There is no difference between brain and body (yes, OK, souls exist in OotS, but most non-undead humans still run on wetware: see e.g. Redcloak pointing out that Paladins losing the ability to fear is something unnatural and in violation of biological instinct, Elan's brain damage, and if you really insist on direct in-comic proof, this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0583.html) has Qarr directly referencing the influence on behaviour of 100%-mundane good-old-fashioned chemical hormones on behaviour).

Redcloak has the hormone profile of a much younger, angrier man.

That’s a good point, I had forgotten about those mentions.

Overall I think I find this line of thinking more persuasive. It’s not like teenagers can’t learn and don’t learn from experience. He can change and grow in some ways due to experience (and does do that in the story). There are also some things that are due to physically growing older that don’t change, and when it comes to experience as his brother pointed out he lacks the experience of growing older and facing mortality and so doesn’t gain the perspective that brings.

With the point about being younger and angrier... once again teenager must be the absolute worst age to be stuck at.

[magic9mushroom]

I was looking for clarification in this in 3.5, but can't find it.

But in earlier versions of the game they distinguished between physical age and actual age. So a change on one didn't automatically affect the other.

EX: Monk's timeless body - The monk's physical stats would become immune to age changes at the point the ability was required. But they'd still get the mental bonuses.

EX: A magical attack ages a character two age categories instantly. They suffer the physical penalties but don't get the mental bonuses.

I assume it works the same way in later versions.

The phane does the latter, and that's in 3.5 (well, 3.0, but it was updated). And Timeless Body's still around in 3.5 in the core books.

However, Timeless Body isn't truly immortality, because it doesn't extend lifespan. The things that do extend lifespan do tend to halt the plusses as well as the minuses (the type example being undead).


I think if he had understood his brother better--or, more properly, had understood before he got suddenly Disintegrated that his brother was dead and Redcloak, Xykon's lackey, was the entity he needed to worry about now--he would either have conducted his attack on Xykon without giving Redcloak warning, or have struck at Redcloak first.

I'm pretty sure he'd have acted differently if he had another high-level arcane spellcaster available. For all Right-Eye's (and Xykon's) bluster, Xykon never truly managed to break Redcloak.

[hroþila]

I'm pretty sure he'd have acted differently if he had another high-level arcane spellcaster available. For all Right-Eye's (and Xykon's) bluster, Xykon never truly managed to break Redcloak.
That's not completely true. If Redcloak was honestly looking for a chance to ditch Xykon, he could have tried to win Tsukiko over instead of antagonizing her from the get go (it wouldn't have worked because Tsukiko had, let's say, a special interest in Xykon, but nevertheless), for example. He also has a number of browncloaks in Azure City he could be mentoring to help them reach whatever the required level is.

[Fyraltari]

Aren’t Browncloaks priests of the Dark One ?

Edit: my impression was that the church’s hierarchy went : white < brown < blue < red.

If that’s the case it’s even possible that the Dark One didn’t create the Crimson Mantle but imbued the uniform of his then-current high priest with magical properties.

[B. Dandelion]

Aren’t Browncloaks priests of the Dark One ?

Edit: my impression was that the church’s hierarchy went : white < brown < blue < red.

If that’s the case it’s even possible that the Dark One didn’t create the Crimson Mantle but imbued the uniform of his then-current high priest with magical properties.

Browncloaks like this one (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0512.html) appear to be arcane casters, not clerics. Haley calls him a wizard and Dancing Lights (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dancingLights.htm) is not a cleric spell. Yeah, even though they look identical to clerics and the different color cloak thing indicating different ranks is established. White's on the bottom and red's at the top, so it makes sense that blue (most common cloak worn by hobgoblin clerics) is somewhere in the middle. But I think brown is its own thing. Maybe the wizards even have their own cloak color-ranking thing going on separate from the clerics.

[The Pilgrim]

Regarding the question presented by the OP, I think that the problem is not that the Crimson Mantle by itself makes changes on the Bearer's mind. The problem, pointed by Right-Eye, was how stopping the aging process affects the Character.

In most fantasy works there are comments on how individuals belonging to races with more life expectancy than humans (mostly, Elves) have their behaviour affected by this fact. Most of those comments are intended to explain why they mature slower, and so a 20-years-old Elf is still a child while a 20-years-old human is an adult.

Even in our own reality, there are certain debates about how the increased life expectancy of humans has an effect on the "pace" of our lives, waiting more years to settle and all that.

General speaking, the philosophical position tends to be "the slower you age, the slower you mature". And, in Redcloak's case, he is totally removed from aging, meaning he is put under stasis on his maturity, blocked at the level of maturity of the age at which he donned the Mantle, which was the goblin equivalent to teenager.

So the question raised by the OP is more related to those philosophical questions about the relationship between life expectancy and maturity, rather than to actual "mind-related magic effects" of the Mantle.

[Kish]

For all Right-Eye's (and Xykon's) bluster, Xykon never truly managed to break Redcloak.
You say "For all Right-Eye's (and Xykon's) bluster, Xykon never truly managed to break Redcloak." and I hear, "The theme of Start of Darkness was lost on me." Let's call the whole thing off.

[Jasdoif]

You say "For all Right-Eye's (and Xykon's) bluster, Xykon never truly managed to break Redcloak." and I hear, "The theme of Start of Darkness was lost on me." Let's call the whole thing off.Yeah....I mean, I could buy that Redcloak was already broken by that point, but that would just mean Xykon broke him even further (along the same fracture lines, even).

[Rrmcklin]

You say "For all Right-Eye's (and Xykon's) bluster, Xykon never truly managed to break Redcloak." and I hear, "The theme of Start of Darkness was lost on me." Let's call the whole thing off.

I imagine they're counting Redcloak still planning to betray Xykon as not breaking him. Fair enough, though I'd point out that Redcloak had to work to get back to that point, and even now he's still pretty clearly (to me) deluding himself about what his actual situation and the power dynamic truly is.

[dude123nice]

I think that what Right Eye meant was that, due to never aging, Redcloack was never forced to face the prospect of his own mortality, to think of what it was he would be leaving behind, to realise that it is impossible to get the perfect ending and that he should just settle to doing his best in the brief time he has alive (compared to an soul's actual life span, at least). By never aging, Redcloack believes that he has all the time needed to achieve anything he needs to, no matter how impossible it may seem, which is actually a sentiment often held by teenagers before the realities of adult life hit them in the face like a ton of bricks.

[Peelee]

I think that what Right Eye meant was that, due to never aging, Redcloack was never forced to face the prospect of his own mortality, to think of what it was he would be leaving behind, to realise that it is impossible to get the perfect ending and that he should just settle to doing his best in the brief time he has alive (compared to an soul's actual life span, at least). By never aging, Redcloack believes that he has all the time needed to achieve anything he needs to, no matter how impossible it may seem, which is actually a sentiment often held by teenagers before the realities of adult life hit them in the face like a ton of bricks.
I like that reading. And not only because of my brick-smashed face.

[CriticalFailure]

^ That makes sense to me.

As for the whether Redcloak is broken question, what do you qualify as being broken? I think what happened between him and his brother and Xykon certainly messed him up pretty badly and changed him. He seems to still be functional and determined to follow his own goals.

[understatement]

^ That makes sense to me.

As for the whether Redcloak is broken question, what do you qualify as being broken? I think what happened between him and his brother and Xykon certainly messed him up pretty badly and changed him. He seems to still be functional and determined to follow his own goals.

He recuperated.

There's a bit of disjunction between SOD and Redcloak's earlier characterization up to post-Azure City, but I think being in control of thousands of hobgoblins over an official nation-state broadened his perspective considerably. Losing the phylactery makes Xykon open up old wounds -- but I'm guessing that establishing his brother's dream (of a city in peacetime) invoked some sort of change. I mean, look how he crushes the Resistance and straight-up lies (mistruths) to Xykon's skull. That's not the personality of a goblin still stuck in the sunk-cost fallacy of working with X (he possibly still might be stuck in the Plan).

what the f did i just type

[CriticalFailure]

I think he's still stuck in the sunk cost fallacy, and he's keeping it together by telling himself "it'll all be worth it."

Overall he seems to be pretty resilient, but he is also using a massive amount of denial and rationalization to cope with the situation.

[Fyraltari]

He recuperated.

There's a bit of disjunction between SOD and Redcloak's earlier characterization up to post-Azure City, but I think being in control of thousands of hobgoblins over an official nation-state broadened his perspective considerably. Losing the phylactery makes Xykon open up old wounds -- but I'm guessing that establishing his brother's dream (of a city in peacetime) invoked some sort of change. I mean, look how he crushes the Resistance and straight-up lies (mistruths) to Xykon's skull. That's not the personality of a goblin still stuck in the sunk-cost fallacy of working with X (he possibly still might be stuck in the Plan).

what the f did i just type

He's sunk cost fallacy has never been to treat Xykon as a partner, he was deceiving him from day one. is problem is that bruhes aside the countless murder of gobs perpetrated by the lich and that he has lost control of their association. Stealing the phylactery is at best limited damage control.

[Kish]

He's sunk cost fallacy has never been to treat Xykon as a partner, he was deceiving him from day one. is problem is that bruhes aside the countless murder of gobs perpetrated by the lich and that he has lost control of their association. Stealing the phylactery is at best limited damage control.
Indeed. What I believe magic9mushroom and others who have advanced the idea that Redcloak isn't Xykon's slave miss, is that Redcloak asserting "I am in control of Xykon!" even as Xykon merrily slaughters his way through the goblin people Redcloak claims to be acting on the behalf of, isn't a statement of strength or independence, but one of weakness and delusion, and an attitude that Redcloak has had ever since he became Redcloak, with the exception of the one scene where Xykon ripped off the blindfold, and then promised he would never do so again.

[martianmister]

Both Redcloak and Xykon claims to be masters of each other.
Both can be wrong or right.
In the end of the day, they both follow the Dark One's plan.
Redcloak knows that, Xykon do not.
In the end of the day, Xykon is the bigger fool.

[Rrmcklin]

Both Redcloak and Xykon claims to be masters of each other.
Both can be wrong or right.
In the end of the day, they both follow the Dark One's plan.
Redcloak knows that, Xykon do not.
In the end of the day, Xykon is the bigger fool.

This summary conveniently ignores that Xykon clearly has his suspicious of Redcloak and the Plan, even if he doesn't have all the details. He's hardly some dancing pawn. But you summary actually does work very well as a rationalization Redcloak himself would make to make himself come off better than he actually is.

[CriticalFailure]

It’s pretty clear that they are both trying to get the upper hand on each other. Cylinder has the upper hand when it comes to being more powerful and Redcloak has the upper hand when it comes to knowledge of the situation and having long term plans going on. Redcloak is wrong about how much he can control Xykon by manipulation and Xykon is wrong about how much he can control Redcloak by domination and intimidation.

[Peelee]

Xykon is wrong about how much he can control Redcloak by domination and intimidation.

He's really not, though. SoD and the Tsukiko incident both show this.

[understatement]

So to clarify [for my int-stunted brain], he was definitely lying when he said he didn't know how Tsukiko got the arcane half of the ritual?

[Ruck]

Cylinder
Well, that's a new one.


So to clarify [for my int-stunted brain], he was definitely lying when he said he didn't know how Tsukiko got the arcane half of the ritual?
Yes-- Tsukiko told Redcloak (and, previously, MitD) that Xykon gave it to her.

[understatement]

Okay, so he lied to Redcloak to get the goblin off his back, Redcloak knows he's lying, and now he knows that RC knows, but why did Xykon even bother lying in the first place? If he suspects RC's up to anything at all, he should've just annihilated him and pop the cloak onto another goblin cleric.

again, what the f did i just type

[Peelee]

Okay, so he lied to Redcloak to get the goblin off his back, Redcloak knows he's lying, and now he knows that RC knows, but why did Xykon even bother lying in the first place? If he suspects RC's up to anything at all, he should've just annihilated him and pop the cloak onto another goblin cleric.

again, what the f did i just type

Another goblin cleric who isn't high enough level to perform the ritual?

[understatement]

I don't think RC was the highest level when he got the mission or sought out Xykon either.

Besides, the lich did previously threaten Redcloak with it.

[Ruck]

Okay, so he lied to Redcloak to get the goblin off his back, Redcloak knows he's lying, and now he knows that RC knows, but why did Xykon even bother lying in the first place? If he suspects RC's up to anything at all, he should've just annihilated him and pop the cloak onto another goblin cleric.

again, what the f did i just type

Xykon didn't lie because he suspected Redcloak was up to something; he lied because he was up to something.

[understatement]

Xykon didn't lie because he suspected Redcloak was up to something; he lied because he was up to something.

Yeah, but I was just wondering why he bothered.

[B. Dandelion]

As thoroughly as Xykon crushed Redcloak at the end of SoD, there are still limits. He very effectively ensured that Redcloak will never try to cut him loose for so long as he's actively working on the Plan, and this will remain true no matter how many atrocities Xykon commits along the way. But it only works because Redcloak thinks he can still get back the value of his sunk costs. If Xykon's commitment to the Plan falters, Redcloak stops having any of that hope left to lose. His loyalty can't be assured past that point. Xykon does still want to rule the world, so giving Redcloak reason to believe their alliance is falling apart doesn't help him.

[Aveline]

Yeah, but I was just wondering why he bothered.

Redcloak bluffed that he didn't know Xykon was working against him. Xykon fell for the bluff and lied to reinforce it, since he obviously doesn't want Redcloak to suspect him.



As to the general conversation about who controls whom: Xykon can utterly destroy Redcloak. Can Redcloak even attempt to destroy Xykon? The best he's done is to hide the phylactery. My view of the power dynamic is that Redcloak lives purely at Xykon's behest, and the only reason Xykon hasn't killed him for fun is that he has something of value to Xykon: the divine half of the ritual Xykon wants to perform. It's obvious from the circumstances of Tsukiko's death that Xykon doesn't want to need Redcloak for the ritual, and is trying to move towards that goal.

Both Redcloak and Xykon only tolerate each other to get what they want, but the difference is that if Xykon has had enough of Redcloak, he kills him, trivially. But if Redcloak has had enough of Xykon, Xykon kills him, trivially, and maybe in a matter of centuries when someone defeats Xykon, he will be mildly inconvenienced by regenerating in an unexpected location.

Edit: Also, Redcloak's survival is specifically dependent on Xykon still wanting to pursue the Gate goal. If he ever decides "Whatever, this blows, I'm going to look for some other evil plan", that's pretty much curtains for Redcloak since he isn't good for much else as far as Xykon is concerned, which is not a good place to be.

[understatement]

I'm suddenly having the mental image of -- well, instead of two dudes having knives at each other's backs, one's holding an RPG to the face and the other has a Lego for him to step on.

But if Xykon just doesn't want to need RC at all, why not snuff him and find another more malleable, less devious goblin cleric?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

But if Xykon just doesn't want to need RC at all, why not snuff him and find another more malleable, less devious goblin cleric?

Because Xykon is terrible at planning. RC is the closest thing he's had to an actual, workable plan to take over the world, which is something Xykon wants to do. More malleable, less devious clerics are not devious enough to know how to take over the world.

Grey Wolf

[B. Dandelion]

It's obvious from the circumstances of Tsukiko's death that Xykon doesn't want to need Redcloak for the ritual, and is trying to move towards that goal.

Trying to move toward the goal of replacing Redcloak as the caster? I don't think that's his aim. If Redcloak specifically were a problem for him, Xykon could kill him and give his cloak to another goblin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0662.html). He wanted Tsukiko to learn the ritual so she could explain it to him (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0700.html), because he's suspicious that it does what Redcloak has said it does.

If he's going to go ahead with the Plan, he might as well use Redcloak... but he has doubts about the Plan itself.

[CriticalFailure]

While Xykon is dismissive of it, I do think Redcloak’s organization abilities, planning, and applicable strategic knowledge are very useful to him. When it comes to leadership Xykon’s at the top but Redcloak does all the actual minion managing. And if Redcloak hadn’t shown up it’s quite possible that Soon and the ghost martyrs could’ve taken Xykon out before Miko got a chance to jump to one final conclusion.

[B. Dandelion]

While Xykon is dismissive of it, I do think Redcloak’s organization abilities, planning, and applicable strategic knowledge are very useful to him. When it comes to leadership Xykon’s at the top but Redcloak does all the actual minion managing. And if Redcloak hadn’t shown up it’s quite possible that Soon and the ghost martyrs could’ve taken Xykon out before Miko got a chance to jump to one final conclusion.

Yeah, I don't think it's quite true that Xykon doesn't regard Redcloak as good for anything outside of the Plan. Clerics are useful to have around in general, and Redcloak handles most of the stuff Xykon finds tedious to do himself. If Xykon decided to blow off seizing the Gates, it's quite likely that he would get rid of Redcloak anyway, because he doesn't actually trust him or like him--and possibly because he wouldn't have quite the leash on him that he does without playing into his sunk costs. But not specifically because he couldn't have found a use for Redcloak in some other evil plan.

[understatement]

God, I love their foeplay.

And Redcloak is kind of a problem to him. He did "lose" his phylactery (and "wasted" time in Azure City).

[Ruck]

Yeah, but I was just wondering why he bothered.


Redcloak bluffed that he didn't know Xykon was working against him. Xykon fell for the bluff and lied to reinforce it, since he obviously doesn't want Redcloak to suspect him.
Yeah, exactly. "I don't trust you lately, so I'm covertly researching your work to determine if you're lying to me or if I can replace you. Please incorporate this into all future decision-making."

[B. Dandelion]

I think the underlying point here is that if Xykon doesn't want Redcloak to know, he isn't dismissive of the idea that Redcloak might do something undesirable as a result of knowing. If Redcloak were wholly powerless or completely under Xykon's control that shouldn't be a concern at all.

...he is only relatively powerless and almost completely under his control. But there is a line, and Xykon didn't want to cross it if he could avoid it.

[hroþila]

I think the underlying point here is that if Xykon doesn't want Redcloak to know, he isn't dismissive of the idea that Redcloak might do something undesirable as a result of knowing. If Redcloak were wholly powerless or completely under Xykon's control that shouldn't be a concern at all.

...he is only relatively powerless and almost completely under his control. But there is a line, and Xykon didn't want to cross it if he could avoid it.
The Giant's commentary IMO points in this direction too: for all Xykon craps on Redcloak to his face, he's realizing that he's powerful and a potential threat.

[Fyraltari]

I think the underlying point here is that if Xykon doesn't want Redcloak to know, he isn't dismissive of the idea that Redcloak might do something undesirable as a result of knowing. If Redcloak were wholly powerless or completely under Xykon's control that shouldn't be a concern at all.

...he is only relatively powerless and almost completely under his control. But there is a line, and Xykon didn't want to cross it if he could avoid it.

Because Xykon's control over Redcloak rests upon the idea that Xykon and Redcloak will, eventually, complete the ritual. Xykon gave his part to Tsukiko because he suspects Redcloak is hiding something from him (therefore something that would make him reconsider) but if he tells Redcloak what he suspects then Redcloaks loses his rationalization. Xykon wants to rule the world and he knows that Redcloak is useful to that goal, so he doesn't want to press that issue.

[The Pilgrim]

I have always wondered why Xykon allowed Redcloak to keep him stalled at Gobbtopia for so many months.

Xykon is the one who knows the location of the Gates, and made very clear at the aftermatch of the Battle of Azure City that he only cared for the MacGuffin. Still, he allowed Redcloak to kept Team Evil marooned in the ruins of Azure City for a very long time. And, even more, the Lich limited himself to torture O-Chul for amusement, instead of having fun getting goblins killed in horrible ways, which had always been his main source of amusement in the years before.

And no, it was not due to losing the Philactery. That only happened after. And in fact his outburst of anger against Redcloak was in part due to his own feelings of frustration for having to allow Redcloak have his way playing civic leader.

So I think that, yes, Xykon doesn't feels completely in control. He fears Redcloak as a force to be reckoned with. And that fact angers him, a lot. At the end of SoD, Xykon felt he had Redcloak totally under his thumb, but now he feels that the goblin is getting more and more out of his control, and he can't do much to avoid it.

[hroþila]

Xykon was almost destroyed in Azure City, for good. Redcloak's stated motive to stay in Azure City afterwards (research the defenses of the next gate) is perfectly sound and logical, it wasn't just a cover for Redcloak's nation-building efforts. It was in Xykon's best interest to take it easy, it's just that it would also have been in his best interest to stay on top of the intel-gathering to realize they weren't going to learn anything useful either from O-Chul or from the Azurite libraries and archives, and that it was time to move on.

As for the location of the gates, they both knew them, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Redcloak knew them, while Xykon knew the coordinates and could easily learn the exact locations if he put himself to it instead of tasking Redcloak with that analysis. Or, well, if he read Redcloak's dossier, which he might have or have not done.

[Kish]

Okay, so he lied to Redcloak to get the goblin off his back, Redcloak knows he's lying, and now he knows that RC knows, but why did Xykon even bother lying in the first place? If he suspects RC's up to anything at all, he should've just annihilated him and pop the cloak onto another goblin cleric.

again, what the f did i just type
Redcloak murdered his baby brother to protect Xykon. What he's up to behind Xykon's back, a new goblin cleric would be as well, with no investment in "the Plan has to hinge on Xykon to justify my actions!"

[tomandtish]

Redcloak murdered his baby brother to protect Xykon. What he's up to behind Xykon's back, a new goblin cleric would be as well, with no investment in "the Plan has to hinge on Xykon to justify my actions!"

Minor disagreement...

Redcloak...

murdered his baby brother to protect THE PLAN. That it protects Xykon is secondary. It seems apparent to me by that time that Redcloak would ditch Xycon IF he thought there was a better alternative, but he doesn't.

And if Redcloak ever truly believed the plan would be better off if Xykon was destroyed, then i suspect he would immediately turn all his efforts to doing so.

[Kish]

That's not a minor disagreement--it's a total disagreement, with me thinking you're missing the entire point of the scene under debate in Start of Darkness and the one that followed it.

[Jasdoif]

Redcloak...

murdered his baby brother to protect THE PLAN. That it protects Xykon is secondary. It seems apparent to me by that time that Redcloak would ditch Xycon IF he thought there was a better alternative, but he doesn't.

And if Redcloak ever truly believed the plan would be better off if Xykon was destroyed, then i suspect he would immediately turn all his efforts to doing so. If Redcloak ditches Xykon, he has to accept that he murdered his baby brother with nothing to show for it. You know, the whole thing Xykon rubbed Redcloak's nose in....And a natural extension of the sunken cost fallacy speech said baby brother had given not too long before.

At this point, the Plan is a subgoal of "don't feel as bad about murdering my baby brother". If by "the plan would be better off if Xykon was destroyed" you mean "the plan is doomed to fail unless Xykon is destroyed", I do agree Redcloak would turn all his effort in that direction; but there's an awful lot of ground between those two.

[Aveline]

Minor disagreement...

Redcloak...

murdered his baby brother to protect THE PLAN. That it protects Xykon is secondary. It seems apparent to me by that time that Redcloak would ditch Xycon IF he thought there was a better alternative, but he doesn't.

And if Redcloak ever truly believed the plan would be better off if Xykon was destroyed, then i suspect he would immediately turn all his efforts to doing so.

Redcloak might abandon Xykon if he thought Xykon were detrimental to the Plan. But he's too proud to realize that he's just digging himself in deeper in Xykon's service.

Redcloak killed his brother because Redcloak had invested his personal pride into Xykon, his own creation. Right-Eye threatened that pride. To Redcloak, Xykon and the Plan are inseparable. Yes, he's wrong. That's the point of Start of Darkness.

[Keltest]

I'm with Tomandtish. While he may have stuck with Xykon afterwards to justify his actions as necessary to himself, at the time of the decision making, he made the call based on the threat to the Plan, not Xykon. Until that moment Redcloak would have happily abandoned Xykon for another magic user if he thought he could have done so safely.

[B. Dandelion]

Redcloak might abandon Xykon if he thought Xykon were detrimental to the Plan. But he's too proud to realize that he's just digging himself in deeper in Xykon's service.

Redcloak killed his brother because Redcloak had invested his personal pride into Xykon, his own creation. Right-Eye threatened that pride. To Redcloak, Xykon and the Plan are inseparable. Yes, he's wrong. That's the point of Start of Darkness.

I don't think "pride" is the issue per se, more like "cowardice" and "guilt". Belkar has the right idea here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1151.html).

Redcloak needs for all the people who died to have been martyrs to a holy cause. If the Plan was a mistake then they were just dead goblins, goblins that Redcloak himself led to ruin. He can't handle that kind of guilt. He has to keep believing that the Plan will make all those sacrifices worthwhile.

I have never read him as having invested personal pride in Xykon. Honestly it never even occurred to me to read it that way before, which makes it kind of interesting considering how long it's been.

But Redcloak had clearly-defined reasons for killing Right-Eye to protect Xykon, the ones that Redcloak himself laid out (if Right-Eye's scheme failed, Xykon was likely to slaughter all the goblins at camp in retaliation), and the ones that Right-Eye more accurately saw (that Redcloak would be willing to throw good lives after bad in order to avoid accepting blame for all the previous deaths). The notion that Redcloak acted to protect his own creation wasn't ever suggested.

[Peelee]

Minor disagreement...

Redcloak...

murdered his baby brother to protect THE PLAN. That it protects Xykon is secondary. It seems apparent to me by that time that Redcloak would ditch Xycon IF he thought there was a better alternative, but he doesn't.

And if Redcloak ever truly believed the plan would be better off if Xykon was destroyed, then i suspect he would immediately turn all his efforts to doing so.


I'm with Tomandtish. While he may have stuck with Xykon afterwards to justify his actions as necessary to himself, at the time of the decision making, he made the call based on the threat to the Plan, not Xykon. Until that moment Redcloak would have happily abandoned Xykon for another magic user if he thought he could have done so safely.

Whatever Reddie tells himself so he can sleep at night, I say. Self-delusion is a helluva drug.

[CriticalFailure]

I don't think "pride" is the issue per se, more like "cowardice" and "guilt". Belkar has the right idea here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1151.html).

Redcloak needs for all the people who died to have been martyrs to a holy cause. If the Plan was a mistake then they were just dead goblins, goblins that Redcloak himself led to ruin. He can't handle that kind of guilt. He has to keep believing that the Plan will make all those sacrifices worthwhile.

I have never read him as having invested personal pride in Xykon. Honestly it never even occurred to me to read it that way before, which makes it kind of interesting considering how long it's been.

But Redcloak had clearly-defined reasons for killing Right-Eye to protect Xykon, the ones that Redcloak himself laid out (if Right-Eye's scheme failed, Xykon was likely to slaughter all the goblins at camp in retaliation), and the ones that Right-Eye more accurately saw (that Redcloak would be willing to throw good lives after bad in order to avoid accepting blame for all the previous deaths). The notion that Redcloak acted to protect his own creation wasn't ever suggested.

Yeah I agree with this take. Redcloak doesn’t seem to really care that much about pride; his inability to admit mistakes seems to be a lot more tied to guilt.

I think it also kind of ties back to questions of maturity. I get the impression that he accepted the duty of being high priest and executing the plan, but lacked the maturity and leadership experience and moral courage necessary. He was put into the position unexpectedly and never learned to deal with the responsibility, nor it seems did he have any preparation for doing so. In a way it seems to kind of be a bit of an inversion of the whole “chosen one” trope playing on the idea that giving that much responsibility to a teenager is honestly a terrible idea.

[Aveline]

I don't think "pride" is the issue per se, more like "cowardice" and "guilt". Belkar has the right idea here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1151.html).

Redcloak needs for all the people who died to have been martyrs to a holy cause. If the Plan was a mistake then they were just dead goblins, goblins that Redcloak himself led to ruin. He can't handle that kind of guilt. He has to keep believing that the Plan will make all those sacrifices worthwhile.

I have never read him as having invested personal pride in Xykon. Honestly it never even occurred to me to read it that way before, which makes it kind of interesting considering how long it's been.

But Redcloak had clearly-defined reasons for killing Right-Eye to protect Xykon, the ones that Redcloak himself laid out (if Right-Eye's scheme failed, Xykon was likely to slaughter all the goblins at camp in retaliation), and the ones that Right-Eye more accurately saw (that Redcloak would be willing to throw good lives after bad in order to avoid accepting blame for all the previous deaths). The notion that Redcloak acted to protect his own creation wasn't ever suggested.

That's what I call pride. He doesn't think of himself as cowardly or guilty because he's convinced himself his solution (being Xykon's lapdog) is best.

I'm using the word "creation" a bit loosely, but the existence and threat of Xykon rests at Recloak's feet. Who made Xykon a lich? Redcloak. Who couldn't allow Xykon to be killed? Redcloak. He had ample opportunity to take his brother's advice - but he was too proud of his alliance with Xykon, and what he thought it meant for the Plan, to leave it.


Yeah I agree with this take. Redcloak doesn’t seem to really care that much about pride; his inability to admit mistakes seems to be a lot more tied to guilt.

I think it also kind of ties back to questions of maturity. I get the impression that he accepted the duty of being high priest and executing the plan, but lacked the maturity and leadership experience and moral courage necessary. He was put into the position unexpectedly and never learned to deal with the responsibility, nor it seems did he have any preparation for doing so. In a way it seems to kind of be a bit of an inversion of the whole “chosen one” trope playing on the idea that giving that much responsibility to a teenager is honestly a terrible idea.

That's what I call pride. He can't admit mistakes because he can't even see them, because he's obviously 100% correct and never ever ever makes a serious mistake.

[Keltest]

Whatever Reddie tells himself so he can sleep at night, I say. Self-delusion is a helluva drug.

I don't think youre wrong, I just think that's the point where the self delusion began. Heck, Redcloak DID happily abandon Xykon for a time, until Xykon came back to reclaim him.

[hroþila]

I don't think youre wrong, I just think that's the point where the self delusion began. Heck, Redcloak DID happily abandon Xykon for a time, until Xykon came back to reclaim him.
That's true, and I mostly agree with you. However, it should be noted that that happened at a time when Xykon had left without saying anything, and Redcloak didn't expect him to come back. That's important, IMO - whatever guilt or blame he felt could be transferred to Xykon for abandoning the Plan without giving him a choice.

[CriticalFailure]

I think we're talking about the same thing, but it seems odd to me to call avoiding responsibility/guilt pride. I think it's fair to say that he has some sense of pride going on in that he seems to always need to feel he has the situation under control and stuff, but it makes more sense to characterize most of it as being too cowardly and immature to deal with guilt and the taking responsibility part of leadership. That's less pride and more suppressed self-loathing.

[Goblin_Priest]

I don't think Redcloak has any pride in Xykon. He loathes him, he hates him. And he hates himself both for making him a lich, and needing him still. Every single time he talks about Xykon, it's with disdain or resentment. Whether to his brother, to fellow goblinoids, to Tsutsiko, etc. He calls Xykon a mistake, a tool to be manipulated, an ally of circumstance, etc. He regularly scolds Xykon directly, as well.

He dreams of the day that will make it all have been worth it, and he envisions Xykon as being an essential means to that end, but that doesn't reduce in any way the contempt he holds for him.


That's what I call pride. He doesn't think of himself as cowardly or guilty because he's convinced himself his solution (being Xykon's lapdog) is best.

I'm using the word "creation" a bit loosely, but the existence and threat of Xykon rests at Recloak's feet. Who made Xykon a lich? Redcloak. Who couldn't allow Xykon to be killed? Redcloak. He had ample opportunity to take his brother's advice - but he was too proud of his alliance with Xykon, and what he thought it meant for the Plan, to leave it.



That's what I call pride. He can't admit mistakes because he can't even see them, because he's obviously 100% correct and never ever ever makes a serious mistake.

I don't call that pride.

Let's not forget he was drilled a holy mission into his head by his patron god himself. This isn't Miko making up all sorts of fantasies about what to do, it's a cleric with a godly artifact, a divine-given mission, and a daily confirmation to keep doing what he's doing.

There's never been indication that he's been doing any of this for personal gain. Yes, he's arrogant, but not to the point of hubris. He's putting himself in the face of danger, and in situations that overall are far from comfortable, for the sake of others (no matter how twisted that view of others may be).

If anything, we haven't seen a single other character in this strip accept so much humiliation as Redcloak has. Pride is really a bad adjective to describe him.

[Fyraltari]

*coughs*:durkon:*coughs*

[magic9mushroom]

You say "For all Right-Eye's (and Xykon's) bluster, Xykon never truly managed to break Redcloak." and I hear, "The theme of Start of Darkness was lost on me."

I'm saying Xykon's summation at the end of SoD, much as it may have been the climax of the book, may or may not have been accurate at the time and clearly isn't accurate by the end of book 5.

Xykon says a lot of things, and his accurate portrayal as having an inhuman Charisma means that most of those things will sound cool and compelling even to the audience. But he's not always right.

[Keltest]

I'm saying Xykon's summation at the end of SoD, much as it may have been the climax of the book, may or may not have been accurate at the time and clearly isn't accurate by the end of book 5.

Xykon says a lot of things, and his accurate portrayal as having an inhuman Charisma means that most of those things will sound cool and compelling even to the audience. But he's not always right.

While Xykon's control over Redcloak is clearly not as tight now as it was back in DCF, I think the general ideas he put forward still apply. Redcloak will not overtly act against Xykon or endanger his alliance with him until after The Plan is complete, and Redcloak is still broken on the inside.

[Kish]

I'm saying [...]
Yes, I know.

And I continue to think you're rejecting the theme of the entire book, not just the summary at the end, and that Redcloak, at the end of Book 5, is a lot more under Xykon's control than you think he is.

Feel free to restate it yet again if you really want to, but don't expect me to have a different reaction.

[CriticalFailure]

While Xykon's control over Redcloak is clearly not as tight now as it was back in DCF, I think the general ideas he put forward still apply. Redcloak will not overtly act against Xykon or endanger his alliance with him until after The Plan is complete, and Redcloak is still broken on the inside.

Xykon can keep Redcloak from blatantly defying him, but he can’t stop Redcloak from manipulating him and scheming against him. If Redcloak is delusional about how much he controls Xykon via manipulation and scheming, Xykon is delusional about how much he controls Redcloak through domination and emotional manipulation. While Redcloak wont abandon their alliance and won’t openly disobey him, Cumin is still unaware that the plan won’t benefit him at all, and Redcloak did manage to get him to sit around AC while he established a goblinoid state. That Xykon is able to use emotional manipulation and that Redcloak is broken inside are both because unlike Xykon, Redcloak does have emotions for others.

[Fyraltari]

Xykon ordering Tsukiko to look into the ritual and then lying to Redcloak about it is solid evidence that Xykon knows Redcloak is up to something. And he charmed the MitD to get back at Redcloak, just in case. He is much more aware of how their partnership works than Redcloak.

[CriticalFailure]

Xykon knows Redcloak is up to something; Redcloak knows Xykon is investigating. Neither of them trust the other.

[Kish]

If you look at the situation solely in terms of "who claims to be controlling whom," then Redcloak vs. Xykon is a wash.

If you look at the situation in terms of "who's getting what they want," then the current (not future) situation looks like all Xykon to me. He's working toward Redcloak's scheme, but that's literally what he asked for. He regularly grinds Redcloak into the dirt, kills everyone Redcloak claims to care about, and makes Redcloak complicit in it. Redcloak is counting on a future time when Xykon has been manipulated into performing the Dark One's ritual with him, which I don't believe has the slightest chance of actually happening in the comic. And if it never happens, Xykon has had decades of Redcloak being his obedient and horribly degraded slave while he got to have fun and increase his personal power, and it's cost him nothing he hadn't already lost the second he rose as a lich.

[CriticalFailure]

He's working toward Redcloak's scheme, but that's literally what he asked for.


He asked to use the snarl to rule the world, not to give the goblins' god a weapon.



He regularly grinds Redcloak into the dirt, kills everyone Redcloak claims to care about, and makes Redcloak complicit in it. Redcloak is counting on a future time when Xykon has been manipulated into performing the Dark One's ritual with him, which I don't believe has the slightest chance of actually happening in the comic. And if it never happens, Xykon has had decades of Redcloak being his obedient and horribly degraded slave while he got to have fun and increase his personal power, and it's cost him nothing he hadn't already lost the second he rose as a lich.

I agree that it won't end up happening in the comic; clearly the heroes are going to end up stopping it. I agree that Xykon is getting more out of the situation even though there's no chance of him actually using the snarl to rule the world.

[B. Dandelion]

Yeah I agree with this take. Redcloak doesn’t seem to really care that much about pride; his inability to admit mistakes seems to be a lot more tied to guilt.

I think it also kind of ties back to questions of maturity. I get the impression that he accepted the duty of being high priest and executing the plan, but lacked the maturity and leadership experience and moral courage necessary. He was put into the position unexpectedly and never learned to deal with the responsibility, nor it seems did he have any preparation for doing so. In a way it seems to kind of be a bit of an inversion of the whole “chosen one” trope playing on the idea that giving that much responsibility to a teenager is honestly a terrible idea.

Yes, a lot of it is how I read it, his immaturity is a factor. He neither sought the position nor was he prepared for it, he got in over his head almost immediately and not being able to cope with the fallout properly he fell into sunk cost reasoning quite early on. But since it's not his Plan, he's just following orders, it's not really his fault, he reasons. He will deliberately avoid questioning the wisdom of the Plan itself as it has become his only refuge against his otherwise crushing circumstances and sense of having failed his first and most important task ever given to him as an adult.


That's what I call pride. He doesn't think of himself as cowardly or guilty because he's convinced himself his solution (being Xykon's lapdog) is best.

I guess the word "pride" carries a somewhat narrower connotation to me. If "being convinced that one's solution to a current problem is best" is prideful, a lot of people are "proud" that I would have termed "confident" at most. Being boastful about it, convinced that the solution is better because of one's innate superiority, is more what I would think of.

A willingness to adopt a humiliating subservient position isn't something I would see as innately prideful either. A prideful person might (unhappily) do such a thing, but a humble person could as well (probably also unhappily, as being humble doesn't mean you necessarily enjoy being degraded).


I'm using the word "creation" a bit loosely, but the existence and threat of Xykon rests at Recloak's feet. Who made Xykon a lich? Redcloak. Who couldn't allow Xykon to be killed? Redcloak. He had ample opportunity to take his brother's advice - but he was too proud of his alliance with Xykon, and what he thought it meant for the Plan, to leave it.

Apologies but I really don't see what you're talking about. When was he was ever "proud" of the alliance or of Xykon's increased power? The fact that he was responsible for those things isn't in dispute, but that doesn't necessarily mean pride. He doesn't seem to affirmatively demonstrate anything I would associate with pride in those circumstances.

I guess I dispute "ample opportunity" as well. Redcloak doesn't get a chance to break things off in any way that wouldn't carry their own drawbacks or major risks. He had ample opportunity to... stay imprisoned in a pit. Or join in an assassination attempt that was inherently quite risky, and turned out to be doomed. Pride can't really be isolated as the only possible factor here.


That's what I call pride. He can't admit mistakes because he can't even see them, because he's obviously 100% correct and never ever ever makes a serious mistake.

I think he views a lot of things as being mistakes. Certainly in the sense that if he had it to do over again he wouldn't make the same choices. He doesn't go on and on about his failures for the most part, it's true. Though he was visibly disgusted with himself for how he initially treated the hobgoblins.


If anything, we haven't seen a single other character in this strip accept so much humiliation as Redcloak has. Pride is really a bad adjective to describe him.


*coughs*:durkon:*coughs*

I think of Durkon as the most humble member of the cast, but it can be true that Durkon is more humble than Redcloak and also that Redcloak has endured more humiliation than Durkon has. Not that Durkon's circumstances have been enviable either, but...

[Aveline]

Here is my basic working definition. Pride: ignoring valid doubts and criticisms to protect an inflated self-image. You could call this a type of arrogance. This is what I mean when I say Redcloak is proud: he won't change his course of action because he's built his self-image around being the heroic savior of all goblinkind, but he's given Xykon the reins and ultimately hasn't advanced the Plan all that much. For Redcloak to change his plans would mean acknowledging that his current plans aren't working, and that would mean he's made several crucial, costly mistakes. And he just won't do that. That's what I call pride.

There is a second sense. Pride: satisfaction drawn from one's achievements. This isn't what I mean when I say Redcloak is proud.

I'm pretty sure we agree on everything but what "pride" means, though.

[Goblin_Priest]

I think of Durkon as the most humble member of the cast, but it can be true that Durkon is more humble than Redcloak and also that Redcloak has endured more humiliation than Durkon has. Not that Durkon's circumstances have been enviable either, but...

Yea, this.

Durkon doesn't have the happiest story, but it's all rainbows compared to Redcloak's. I'm also not sure which part of Durkon's story involves accepting humiliation, just taking it in without saying anything, or doing things he hates or repulses him because he was asked to or for a greater cause.

I never made any comments about anyone being humble or not.


Here is my basic working definition. Pride: ignoring valid doubts and criticisms to protect an inflated self-image. You could call this a type of arrogance. This is what I mean when I say Redcloak is proud: he won't change his course of action because he's built his self-image around being the heroic savior of all goblinkind, but he's given Xykon the reins and ultimately hasn't advanced the Plan all that much. For Redcloak to change his plans would mean acknowledging that his current plans aren't working, and that would mean he's made several crucial, costly mistakes. And he just won't do that. That's what I call pride.

There is a second sense. Pride: satisfaction drawn from one's achievements. This isn't what I mean when I say Redcloak is proud.

I'm pretty sure we agree on everything but what "pride" means, though.

He literally is the hero of goblinkind, the avatar of their patron deity. But he's never boasted about this.

You are conflating pride with denial, but intend it in the sens of hubris.

He doesn't fail to acknowledge his failings because he thinks he's /too good/ to fail. That would be pride/hubris. He fails because he can't cope with the ramifications of his failures. That's not pride/hubris at all.

[Aveline]

He literally is the hero of goblinkind, the avatar of their patron deity. But he's never boasted about this.

You are conflating pride with denial, but intend it in the sens of hubris.

He doesn't fail to acknowledge his failings because he thinks he's /too good/ to fail. That would be pride/hubris. He fails because he can't cope with the ramifications of his failures. That's not pride/hubris at all.

This is completely a semantic debate at this point - but I think denial and hubris are both forms of pride. If he subconsciously fears the notion that Xykon is bad for goblins and the Plan (which he totally is) there are other things he could be doing about it than serving Xykon. His denial about the situation he's created, and the hubris to keep going, is part of that umbrella I call pride, because it stems from an unwillingness to see oneself in a poor light.

Again, this isn't a substantive disagreement. I said "Redcloak is proud" as a counter to the idea that the cloak is stunting him. Obviously, I do not agree with Right-Eye's finer point that Redcloak was being deprived of perspective by the Crimson Mantle; he could still be with his community and learn about their personal struggles, if he so chose. If we both agree it's his own personality that's gotten him into this position, then really we just think of the same concept somewhat differently. We're just splitting hairs here.

[Peelee]

This is completely a semantic debate at this point - but I think denial and hubris are both forms of pride.

Where werecyou when I was discussing the sins in the Shazam! thread?

[CriticalFailure]

Where werecyou when I was discussing the sins in the Shazam! thread?


I don't know what a Shazam is but I'm sure learning would be worth it to understand that undoubtedly exciting discourse.

[Aveline]

Where werecyou when I was discussing the sins in the Shazam! thread?

The what and the where? Shazam, the smartphone app for computationally recognizing songs in real time?

[understatement]

(A DC film).

If he's afraid to acknowledge his mistakes, wouldn't it be filed under "cowardice"?

[Peelee]

I don't know what a Shazam is but I'm sure learning would be worth it to understand that undoubtedly exciting discourse.


The what and the where? Shazam, the smartphone app for computationally recognizing songs in real time?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uilJZZ_iVwYFun fact, he's the original Captain Marvel. He's only allowed to be called that in comics, IIRC, but I'm amused both Captain Marvels have movie or art the same time.

[CriticalFailure]

(A DC film).

If he's afraid to acknowledge his mistakes, wouldn't it be filed under "cowardice"?

Yeah, I consider his fear and inability to cope with the guilt to be cowardice and immaturity. I guess the concepts of "ego injury" or "moral injury" come into play maybe? idk much about those topics.

[magic9mushroom]

Yes, I know.

And I continue to think you're rejecting the theme of the entire book, not just the summary at the end, and that Redcloak, at the end of Book 5, is a lot more under Xykon's control than you think he is.

Feel free to restate it yet again if you really want to, but don't expect me to have a different reaction.

Actually, what you say here is not the same and not as offensive to me as what you said the last time. Missing something and rejecting it are not the same, and it is nice that you are no longer accusing me of the former.

[Goblin_Priest]

This is completely a semantic debate at this point - but I think denial and hubris are both forms of pride. If he subconsciously fears the notion that Xykon is bad for goblins and the Plan (which he totally is) there are other things he could be doing about it than serving Xykon. His denial about the situation he's created, and the hubris to keep going, is part of that umbrella I call pride, because it stems from an unwillingness to see oneself in a poor light.

Again, this isn't a substantive disagreement. I said "Redcloak is proud" as a counter to the idea that the cloak is stunting him. Obviously, I do not agree with Right-Eye's finer point that Redcloak was being deprived of perspective by the Crimson Mantle; he could still be with his community and learn about their personal struggles, if he so chose. If we both agree it's his own personality that's gotten him into this position, then really we just think of the same concept somewhat differently. We're just splitting hairs here.

He did choose to stick with his community. And then Xykon came back. And made it clear that there were only two kinds of goblins, those that serve him, and those that get brutally murdered by him.

Also, Redcloak did try to threaten Xykon into submission before, but was made to realize that he's severely regret the betrayal.

At this point, Redcloak has no choice but to work with Xykon, because he's not strong enough to defeat him, and there's never been any indication of him having access to a substitute arcane spellcaster.

The only way he could hope to kill Xykon at this point, would be to get Oona on board, and backstab Xykon in the caves, in the middle of an epic fight. But aside from the fact that would remove his strongest arcane spellcaster, the odds of successfully pulling that off are abysmal. The monster in the darkness is enchanted to turn on him if he does, which he may or may not know by now. Also just walking up to Oona and hitting her up with "hey, by the way, want to backstab my epic level buddy over here in the middle of what would be, to us, a life-threatening encounter?" Eh... That's asking her to take a huge risk for no obvious gain. That's also a huge risk to himself.

Making Xykon a Lich might have been a bad call though honestly, beats living for all of eternity in a cave, depending on how exactly him Crimson Mantle aging effect works, but the fact remains that he's stuck with that now.

He can't kill Xykon. He can't run away from Xykon. His options are pretty limited. If you really think he has a ton of good options he could turn to, that haven't already been shown to not be workable whatsoever, then feel free to present them. Because in SoD, between him and his brother, it's been fairly well demonstrated that options aren't something he's got a lot of. And in the main comic, it's been shown again and again that he makes the most of what little margin he has, such as lying to Xykon in order to extend their stay in Azure City (allowing it to be defended long enough for it to become robust enough to pursue without them).

[Aveline]

He can't kill Xykon. He can't run away from Xykon. His options are pretty limited. If you really think he has a ton of good options he could turn to, that haven't already been shown to not be workable whatsoever, then feel free to present them. Because in SoD, between him and his brother, it's been fairly well demonstrated that options aren't something he's got a lot of. And in the main comic, it's been shown again and again that he makes the most of what little margin he has, such as lying to Xykon in order to extend their stay in Azure City (allowing it to be defended long enough for it to become robust enough to pursue without them).

He had ample opportunity to destroy Xykon's phylactery in the main books, especially at the end of book 1. He's been supplying Xykon with tactics and strategies, which he doesn't have to do. When he recognized the Order as a serious threat to Xykon in book 5, he tried to kill them over Xykon's own objections. Redcloak's situation is not ideal but it's not totally hopeless either, and Redcloak just keeps digging himself deeper because he's convinced it's the right thing to do.

Even if Redcloak thought of Xykon as some kind of problem, all he's done about that is hide the phylactery, which is a feeble grasp at something he already had.

[Kish]

He had ample opportunity to destroy Xykon's phylactery in the main books, especially at the end of book 1. He's been supplying Xykon with tactics and strategies, which he doesn't have to do. When he recognized the Order as a serious threat to Xykon in book 5, he tried to kill them over Xykon's own objections. Redcloak's situation is not ideal but it's not totally hopeless either, and Redcloak just keeps digging himself deeper because he's convinced it's the right thing to do.

Even if Redcloak thought of Xykon as some kind of problem, all he's done about that is hide the phylactery, which is a feeble grasp at something he already had.
Indeed. The one time Redcloak absolutely could have annihilated Xykon, no issues, no ambiguity, no effort, was between strips #115 and #193...

but you know, 1 isn't 0. Xykon was entirely at Redcloak's mercy for 78 strips, during which he laughed about humiliating Redcloak and talked about how he didn't expect him to live much longer. And Redcloak behaved exactly as Xykon predicted he would, in the speech magic9mushroom dismissed as "bluster." I can't prove that he didn't reevaluate his relationship with Xykon at some point after #193, since Xykon's body hasn't gotten destroyed again, but it's fairly goofy to expect that to be the default assumption. (A lot like the perennial "I'm sure Roy has realized that he can't defeat Xykon as a single-classed fighter and will multiclass at his next level up" posts forum optimizers used to make.)

[hroþila]

And again, no effort to nurse a few browncloaks, no attempt to see whether Tsukiko would be a viable replacement, nothing. I imagine if Redcloak was presented with the opportunity to destroy Xykon in a way that actually put the Plan closer to completion, even he might be forced to take it, but it would have to be a very obvious step forward for him not to prefer to stick with Xykon at this point. And I'm sure Redcloak would do his damn best to convince himself that destroying Xykon wouldn't be for the best even in that scenario.

The phylactery switcheroo was first and foremost about appeasing/fooling his own conscience about not doing anything against Xykon and about not being in control. It only matters if Xykon is destroyed, and Redcloak doesn't want him destroyed in the first place and he's clearly not working towards that particular goal.

edit: Also, even if none of this was true, Redcloak still has a choice. It wouldn't be an easy one and it would likely result in his death, but he does have it, just like Right-Eye chose to do the right thing to the best of his ability. Xykon said this explicitly at the end of SoD and it was also a big part of that book's message. At any rate, cooperation under duress is fair only as long as you try to impede your oppressor as much as you possibly can.

[The Pilgrim]

There is one big good reason why keeping control of the Philactery is important for Redcloak. After completing the Plan and proving Xykon a fool, he needs him destroyed. Yeah the Dark One can release the Snarl on him on the spot, but without the Philactery at hand, which is were Xylon's soul remains, he would regenerate someplace else and remain a problem.

(The Snarl undoes souls, but Xykon's is not in his body at this moment. All the released Snarl can do is undo his body, which he can regenerate as long as the Philactery remains safe).

[Fyraltari]

Actually Xykon soul is his body, it only retreats inside his phylactery to regenerate.
Which is why he wasn't worried about it being smashed down.

[B. Dandelion]

Here is my basic working definition. Pride: ignoring valid doubts and criticisms to protect an inflated self-image. You could call this a type of arrogance. This is what I mean when I say Redcloak is proud: he won't change his course of action because he's built his self-image around being the heroic savior of all goblinkind, but he's given Xykon the reins and ultimately hasn't advanced the Plan all that much. For Redcloak to change his plans would mean acknowledging that his current plans aren't working, and that would mean he's made several crucial, costly mistakes. And he just won't do that. That's what I call pride.

When you say "inflated self-image", does that mean inflatedly high self-image, or anything that's elevated from the baseline of reality?

You could say that Redcloak has an inflated self-image in the sense that he believes himself to be something other than a monster, or a slave.

I don't know how much higher he has set his sights from "not a monster or slave" though.

He believes his cause is noble. It doesn't have to mean he views himself as heroic exactly. He has made statements indicating he believes he has made a deal with the devil, pushed his chips into the middle of the pile, come too far to turn back, etc.


I'm pretty sure we agree on everything but what "pride" means, though.

I think we could agree that Redcloak's flaws of self-conception have played a large role in him ending up where he is today. He has not been wholly without agency in the story of his own ruination.

But it's not just that I see daylight in between a kind of "pride" that means needing to maintain a self-conception of oneself as superior or without flaw and in the kind that means needing to maintain a self-image of oneself that isn't wholly beneath the dirt. It's that you have directly implied the former as well as the latter: that Redcloak believes himself to be a heroic savior figure, that he can't bear to be wrong about anything, ever, and that he couldn't allow Xykon to be destroyed because of how much pride it brought him to have created him. I was curious to know if there was a specific place those impressions are coming from, other than that they could all fall under an umbrella term of "pride".

[Aveline]

When you say "inflated self-image", does that mean inflatedly high self-image, or anything that's elevated from the baseline of reality?

You could say that Redcloak has an inflated self-image in the sense that he believes himself to be something other than a monster, or a slave.

I don't know how much higher he has set his sights from "not a monster or slave" though.

He believes his cause is noble. It doesn't have to mean he views himself as heroic exactly. He has made statements indicating he believes he has made a deal with the devil, pushed his chips into the middle of the pile, come too far to turn back, etc.

What is the difference between inflated, and inflatedly high? It sounds redundant to me.


I think we could agree that Redcloak's flaws of self-conception have played a large role in him ending up where he is today. He has not been wholly without agency in the story of his own ruination.

But it's not just that I see daylight in between a kind of "pride" that means needing to maintain a self-conception of oneself as superior or without flaw and in the kind that means needing to maintain a self-image of oneself that isn't wholly beneath the dirt. It's that you have directly implied the former as well as the latter: that Redcloak believes himself to be a heroic savior figure, that he can't bear to be wrong about anything, ever, and that he couldn't allow Xykon to be destroyed because of how much pride it brought him to have created him. I was curious to know if there was a specific place those impressions are coming from, other than that they could all fall under an umbrella term of "pride".

I admit it was hyperbolic of me to say he thinks he is automatically without flaw. But I can think of only three times he seemed to acknowledge a mistake: briefly doubting whether it's good to work for Xykon in SOD (obviously that doubt went nowhere), "You're goblins" (I'll grant you that moment of humility, but when Xykon said they were moving on from Gobbotopia, Redcloak went right back to servility), and mocking Thahn before having him killed (but I don't think that really counts, and it's immaterial to the fact that he's still Xykon's willful lackey anyway).

At all other times he is dismissive at the thought of having made a mistake. He thinks he's in control and he asserts this to Right-Eye, to Tsukiko, and to himself. His savior complex is different from Miko's but it's still pride, pride in his self-perceived ability to stay calm, manipulate Xykon and accomplish his goals.

[The Pilgrim]

Actually Xykon soul is his body, it only retreats inside his phylactery to regenerate.
Which is why he wasn't worried about it being smashed down.

He seemed quite worried when Blackwing almost threw it into the Rift (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0659.html), though.

If that deep into the webcomic Xykon didn't know what would happen if his phylactery got destroyed, I bet he didn't knew either back in SoD. But it was a good bluffing, it's almost as if Bluff were a class skill for Sorcerers, and like if Charisma were Xykon's main stat.

[Peelee]

He seemed quite worried when Blackwing almost threw it into the Rift (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0659.html), though.

If you sold your soul for an insurance policy and someone threatened to rip up the paperwork, you'd be quite worried, I assume.

[The Pilgrim]

If you sold your soul for an insurance policy and someone threatened to rip up the paperwork, you'd be quite worried, I assume.

Still, my point stands. A Lich can't be destroyed unless his Phylactery also is. Meaning Redcloak needs to keep Xykon's phylactery at hand if he even wants to dispose of him. Which he certainly needs to in case the Plan is fulfilled and Xykon discovers that he has been fooled the whole time.

[Fyraltari]

He seemed quite worried when Blackwing almost threw it into the Rift (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0659.html), though.

If that deep into the webcomic Xykon didn't know what would happen if his phylactery got destroyed, I bet he didn't knew either back in SoD. But it was a good bluffing, it's almost as if Bluff were a class skill for Sorcerers, and like if Charisma were Xykon's main stat.

The phylactery has to have some kind of link to his soul for it to retreat into it and the Sanrl destoys soul, he can't really chance that the Snarl wouldn't be able to reach him through the phylactery. Note that he refuses later on (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0662.html) to purposefully destroy his curretn skeleton to regenarate around the phylactery in order to locate it on the ground that a monster could destroy it. If that meant his destruction wether or not he had a body, that reasonning wouldn't make any sense. to the point,More Redcloak knows more about liches than Xykon does and would have known wethr smashing the phylactery would kill Xykon. Xykon wasn't the one bluffing there.

[The Pilgrim]

Yep, Redcloak was either bluffing in SoD, or didn't really know how Liches work. Note that the IFCC doesn't know either, despite being quite old fiends.

But we know, because we have the rulebooks. And according to the rulebooks, the Phylactery stores the Lich's soul (or life essence, or life force, depending on the book version). If my memory serves, nowere it says that the soul of a lich retreats to the phylactery if his body is destroyed. It is already there.

The rules also state that a Lich in unharmed if the Phylactery is destroyed. The only effect is that he is no longer able to regenerate from it. However I don't remeber if it is ever stated anywere what happens with the soul/life force/life essence stored in the Phylactery if it is destroyed before the Lich is.

Of course, Rich can disregard the Rulebooks if he wants. But nothing shown so far in the comic about the Phylactery contradicts the rules.

In any case, if Redcloak wants Xykon even destroyed (and he certainly wants to get rid of him after the Plan is completed), he needs the Phylactery at hand. The Snarl can unmade Xykon's body, but his soul/life force/life essence is in the Phylactery.

[hroþila]

We can only be 100% sure by seeing it tested on-panel, but right now the only info we have suggests Xykon's soul is in his body, not in his phylactery.

Regardless, I doubt the Snarl can be used as a precision weapon against Xykon or anyone else. Once you release it, that's it for that particular plane.

[The Pilgrim]

We can only be 100% sure by seeing it tested on-panel, but right now the only info we have suggests Xykon's soul is in his body, not in his phylactery.

Does it, though? Because we have the IFCC stating that they don't know what happens if the Phylactery is destroyed. And betting that Xykon doesn't knows either. And the Lich certainly acts very scared in that scene, as if he, indeed didn't know.

In SoD
Xykon tells Redcloak that his soul is not in the Phylactery. But Xykon had back then zero knowledge about how Liches work. He had been just turned into a Lich, only knew what Redcloak told him. Redcloak did tell Right-Eye that he was going to lie to Xykon about how liches work. And, as the scene at the coffe shop shows, his knowledge about liches was not very deep either, he didn't knew Xykon would lose his taste sense.

Xykon was right in that destroying the Phylactery wouldn't destroy him. The D&D Rules state so. But not for the reasons he belived. According to the Rules, his soul/life essence/whatever is indeed stored in the Phylactery. Years later, in DStP, he displayed a lot more concern for the "pricey bauble". Perhaps he had got the time to learn a bit about his own nature?


Regardless, I doubt the Snarl can be used as a precision weapon against Xykon or anyone else. Once you release it, that's it for that particular plane.

Redcloak's Crayons account of The Plan in SoD
Specifically showns he and Xykon killed by the Snarl after completing the Ritual

It doesn't matters if the Snarl actually can do it or not. Redcloak believes it can.

[Fyraltari]

The ideas that the soul is always within the phylactery and that the lich can survive the phylactery’s destruction are mutually incompatible.

If the rulebook states that the lich isn’t destroyed with their phylactery unless their body were destroyed first then the conclusion is that the lich’s soul is inside the phylactery only when it has no body to go to. This also means that the lich’s awareness is tied to their soul which makes plenty of sense.

The Directors never said they didn’t know what happens when a phylactery is destroyed they said they didn’t know what would happen if one fell into the Rifts, an event that would be extremely rare. Also the Directors’ general demeanor screams that as far as Archfiend go, they are young.

[Keltest]

The ideas that the soul is always within the phylactery and that the lich can survive the phylactery’s destruction are mutually incompatible.

If the rulebook states that the lich isn’t destroyed with their phylactery unless their body were destroyed first then the conclusion is that the lich’s soul is inside the phylactery only when it has no body to go to. This also means that the lich’s awareness is tied to their soul which makes plenty of sense.

The Directors never said they didn’t know what happens when a phylactery is destroyed they said they didn’t know what would happen if one fell into the Rifts, an event that would be extremely rare. Also the Directors’ general demeanor screams that as far as Archfiend go, they are young.

Why are they incompatible? The soul has an alternate vessel to retreat to if the Phylactery is destroyed: The Lich himself. What is it that makes you think destroying the phylactery with a soul in it would automatically destroy/banish the soul as well?

[CriticalFailure]

I got the impression that Redcloak believes the ritual will likely result in the casters being destroyed by the snarl, not that it can actually be used as a precision weapon.

[The Pilgrim]

The ideas that the soul is always within the phylactery and that the lich can survive the phylactery’s destruction are mutually incompatible

Incompatible or not, the Rules does state that the Phylactery holds the soul/life whatever of the Lich. And if you think about it, the whole tension of that scene with Blackwing is built around the idea that nobody knows what happens if the Phylactery is thrown into the Rift.

[Peelee]

The ideas that the soul is always within the phylactery and that the lich can survive the phylactery’s destruction are mutually incompatible.

If the rulebook states that the lich isn’t destroyed with their phylactery unless their body were destroyed first then the conclusion is that the lich’s soul is inside the phylactery only when it has no body to go to. This also means that the lich’s awareness is tied to their soul which makes plenty of sense.


The Lich’s Phylactery
An integral part of becoming a lich is creating a magic phylactery in which the character stores its life force. As a rule, the only way to get rid of a lich for sure is to destroy its phylactery. Unless its phylactery is located and destroyed, a lich reappears 1d10 days after its apparent death.

The rulebook isn't terribly clear on this; the terms of destruction as per the phylactery seem to be under the assumption that the lich has already been defeated.

[The Pilgrim]

The rulebook isn't terribly clear on this; the terms of destruction as per the phylactery seem to be under the assumption that the lich has already been defeated.

My rationalization of the Rules is that if the Phylactery is destroyed, the soul/life force/life essence (all three terms are used in different versions of the Rules) returns to the Lich. But that is just my rationalization, the rules never state what happens with whatever the phylactery holds according to the rules, if the item is destroyed.

But, all in all, I think we can agree on something:
Redcloak's plan on keeping control over Xykon by holding the Phylactery never made much sense.

[Peelee]

My rationalization of the Rules is that if the Phylactery is destroyed, the soul/life force/life essence (all three terms are used in different versions of the Rules) returns to the Lich.
Same, and so far as I know that's the most common interpretation.


But, all in all, I think we can agree on something:
Redcloak's plan on keeping control over Xykon by holding the Phylactery never made much sense.
Oh absolutely.

[Fyraltari]

Why are they incompatible? The soul has an alternate vessel to retreat to if the Phylactery is destroyed: The Lich himself. What is it that makes you think destroying the phylactery with a soul in it would automatically destroy/banish the soul as well?

I thought The Pilgrim was saying that the soul was definitively within the phylactery which is, in fact, not what they said. My bad.

Wether the soul is genrally within the phylactery or wthin the body as long as it can travel to any of the two when the other is destroyed doesn't really change anything, though.

[The Pilgrim]

Oh absolutely.

Yet Redcloak still holds on the Phylactery. So either he believes he can use it to directly destroy Xykon (unlikely at this point, IMHO), or he expects to get Xykon destroyed at some point and he knows that in order to achieve that, he needs to destroy the Phylactery also.

[hroþila]

Does it, though? Because we have the IFCC stating that they don't know what happens if the Phylactery is destroyed. And betting that Xykon doesn't knows either. And the Lich certainly acts very scared in that scene, as if he, indeed didn't know.

In SoD
Xykon tells Redcloak that his soul is not in the Phylactery. But Xykon had back then zero knowledge about how Liches work. He had been just turned into a Lich, only knew what Redcloak told him. Redcloak did tell Right-Eye that he was going to lie to Xykon about how liches work. And, as the scene at the coffe shop shows, his knowledge about liches was not very deep either, he didn't knew Xykon would lose his taste sense.

Xykon was right in that destroying the Phylactery wouldn't destroy him. The D&D Rules state so. But not for the reasons he belived. According to the Rules, his soul/life essence/whatever is indeed stored in the Phylactery. Years later, in DStP, he displayed a lot more concern for the "pricey bauble". Perhaps he had got the time to learn a bit about his own nature?

Why would Redcloak back off at that moment if he didn't believe Xykon's soul was in his body? No matter where Xykon's soul actually is, that clearly wasn't a lie by Redcloak.
What we see in the comic is perfectly consistent with Xykon's concern being entirely about the possibility of losing his phylactery, which would be a big deal for any lich, and not knowing whether the Snarl would detect the phylactery, or destroy it, or even if it didn't, whether recovering it would be at all possible.


Redcloak's Crayons account of The Plan in SoD
Specifically showns he and Xykon killed by the Snarl after completing the Ritual

It doesn't matters if the Snarl actually can do it or not. Redcloak believes it can.
That's not the Snarl being used to kill Redcloak and Xykon in particular, though, that's Redcloak and Xykon being the first to die because they're in ground zero of a ritual gone wrong and the Snarl getting loose.

[The Pilgrim]

Why would Redcloak back off at that moment if he didn't believe Xykon's soul was in his body? No matter where Xykon's soul actually is, that clearly wasn't a lie by Redcloak.

Because Redcloak knows that destroying the Phylactery doesn't destroys Xykon, no matter what the phylactery holds. After all, the D&D rules state so.

It is interesting to note that Redcloak believes Xykon The Lich to be just a construct, not a person (as he told Tsukiko (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html)). In Redcloak's view, "Lord Xykon" is just a Swampman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swampman)*. So it is consistent with Redcloak's views on Xykon that the Phylactery can be destroyed without destroying the Lich. The Phylactery just holds something that allows the Construct to be regrown, but nothing else, the Lich works completely independent from what the Phylactery holds. That scene in SoD you mention may be the moment Redcloak realized that, hence what he told to his brother at the end of that scene.

So, in the end, it doesn't matters if Xykon's soul is held in the phylactery or not, or if the Snarl would destroy Xykon fully because Xykon's soul is in his body or not. For Redcloak, all that matters is that the Phylactery allows The Construct to be rebuilt, so he needs it destroyed if he wants to permanently get rid of "Lord Xykon". Hence, Redcloak has a very good reason to find it important to keep hold of the item.

*(Too bad for Eugene that the bureaucratic Devas at Celestia doesn't believe so).

[B. Dandelion]

What is the difference between inflated, and inflatedly high? It sounds redundant to me.

Well, if you'll forgive me for making this into a painfully literal analogy, say you have two basketballs. One has received two small pumps of air. The other has received many more. Both balls could be said to be "inflated" in a sense... but only one bounces, or is useful as a ball.


I admit it was hyperbolic of me to say he thinks he is automatically without flaw. But I can think of only three times he seemed to acknowledge a mistake: briefly doubting whether it's good to work for Xykon in SOD (obviously that doubt went nowhere), "You're goblins" (I'll grant you that moment of humility, but when Xykon said they were moving on from Gobbotopia, Redcloak went right back to servility), and mocking Thahn before having him killed (but I don't think that really counts, and it's immaterial to the fact that he's still Xykon's willful lackey anyway).

At all other times he is dismissive at the thought of having made a mistake. He thinks he's in control and he asserts this to Right-Eye, to Tsukiko, and to himself. His savior complex is different from Miko's but it's still pride, pride in his self-perceived ability to stay calm, manipulate Xykon and accomplish his goals.

He doesn't assert that he's in control to Right-Eye, he pretty much runs in the opposite direction and says they're powerless in the face of their situation. If they move against Xykon he will just kill them all. From his phrasing about Xykon going off to enslave some other goblin village to replace them he is literally calling himself a slave there.

He does assert that he's got a "subtle" control over Xykon to Tsukiko. He acknowledges that she might be right about Xykon killing him and all of his hobgoblin friends in retribution for murdering her, but says he wouldn't have reacted any better to finding out the truth anyway. He thinks he has some power and influence over the situation, but he admits that his control is subtle, could be lost, and doesn't suggest he could do anything to save himself if that happened.

(He also makes it quite plain that he doesn't view the undead as people but magically animated things best thought of as tools for the living. I guess it helps him feel better somehow to imagine that Xykon isn't a person in a meaningful way.)

He thinks that he can still win, and make all the sacrifices worth it, but he seems aware that his situation is precarious. He doesn't seem to mention or dwell on his own mistakes that got him there, but I guess the omission alone hadn't given me the impression that he's necessarily "dismissive".

I don't really know exactly where Redcloak's character is going to wind up, though. I can safely rule out options like "he wins and is vindicated for having stuck by Xykon for so long". Clearly it was a mistake to work with him, and clearly he hasn't learned that lesson well enough to stop. Pride may turn out to be more of a factor than I've realized. But it hasn't seemed to have leaned into that angle especially so far.

[Rrmcklin]

As far as SOD goes:

Xykon specifically calls Recloak's bluff on the phylactery, because his soul wasn't currently inside of it. Perhaps it'll be revealed that isn't how it works, but for now the assumption is that Xykon's soul is in his body, and destroying the phylactery does nothing directly to him.

[CriticalFailure]

Well, if you'll forgive me for making this into a painfully literal analogy, say you have two basketballs. One has received two small pumps of air. The other has received many more. Both balls could be said to be "inflated" in a sense... but only one bounces, or is useful as a ball.



He doesn't assert that he's in control to Right-Eye, he pretty much runs in the opposite direction and says they're powerless in the face of their situation. If they move against Xykon he will just kill them all. From his phrasing about Xykon going off to enslave some other goblin village to replace them he is literally calling himself a slave there.

He does assert that he's got a "subtle" control over Xykon to Tsukiko. He acknowledges that she might be right about Xykon killing him and all of his hobgoblin friends in retribution for murdering her, but says he wouldn't have reacted any better to finding out the truth anyway. He thinks he has some power and influence over the situation, but he admits that his control is subtle, could be lost, and doesn't suggest he could do anything to save himself if that happened.

(He also makes it quite plain that he doesn't view the undead as people but magically animated things best thought of as tools for the living. I guess it helps him feel better somehow to imagine that Xykon isn't a person in a meaningful way.)

He thinks that he can still win, and make all the sacrifices worth it, but he seems aware that his situation is precarious. He doesn't seem to mention or dwell on his own mistakes that got him there, but I guess the omission alone hadn't given me the impression that he's necessarily "dismissive".

I don't really know exactly where Redcloak's character is going to wind up, though. I can safely rule out options like "he wins and is vindicated for having stuck by Xykon for so long". Clearly it was a mistake to work with him, and clearly he hasn't learned that lesson well enough to stop. Pride may turn out to be more of a factor than I've realized. But it hasn't seemed to have leaned into that angle especially so far.

^ his delusion seems to be that "it'll all be worth it" and that he isn't responsible for everything that's happened rather than having a rosy view of the current situation. Also I think that it's pretty likely he put the most positive possible spin on things when telling Tsukkiko what was going on to rub her face in it.

[Goblin_Priest]

He had ample opportunity to destroy Xykon's phylactery in the main books, especially at the end of book 1. He's been supplying Xykon with tactics and strategies, which he doesn't have to do. When he recognized the Order as a serious threat to Xykon in book 5, he tried to kill them over Xykon's own objections. Redcloak's situation is not ideal but it's not totally hopeless either, and Redcloak just keeps digging himself deeper because he's convinced it's the right thing to do.

Even if Redcloak thought of Xykon as some kind of problem, all he's done about that is hide the phylactery, which is a feeble grasp at something he already had.

He had a very limited opportunity to do so, where he was running for his life and still getting his spirits back together. At that point, he also didn't have Gobbotopia. And possibly, didn't know where the other gates were. A lot has changed since that one opportunity to deal with Xykon.


Yep, Redcloak was either bluffing in SoD, or didn't really know how Liches work. Note that the IFCC doesn't know either, despite being quite old fiends.

But we know, because we have the rulebooks. And according to the rulebooks, the Phylactery stores the Lich's soul (or life essence, or life force, depending on the book version). If my memory serves, nowere it says that the soul of a lich retreats to the phylactery if his body is destroyed. It is already there.

The rules also state that a Lich in unharmed if the Phylactery is destroyed. The only effect is that he is no longer able to regenerate from it. However I don't remeber if it is ever stated anywere what happens with the soul/life force/life essence stored in the Phylactery if it is destroyed before the Lich is.

Of course, Rich can disregard the Rulebooks if he wants. But nothing shown so far in the comic about the Phylactery contradicts the rules.

In any case, if Redcloak wants Xykon even destroyed (and he certainly wants to get rid of him after the Plan is completed), he needs the Phylactery at hand. The Snarl can unmade Xykon's body, but his soul/life force/life essence is in the Phylactery.

Neither. Redcloak wasn't bluffing, and he knew how the Phylactery worked. He just assumed that Xykon would be more attached to his rejuvenation ability, and would not want to risk losing it. Poor planning and bad assumptions, that's all.


Incompatible or not, the Rules does state that the Phylactery holds the soul/life whatever of the Lich. And if you think about it, the whole tension of that scene with Blackwing is built around the idea that nobody knows what happens if the Phylactery is thrown into the Rift.

Right, because nobody quite knows what the rift is, and what's on the other side. Would it destroy the phylactery? Would it it just be a plane shift effect? Would it drag Xykon along with it? Would to guide the Snarl to Xykon's soul?

This rift is homebrewed world-destroying material. Of course nobody would know how anything interacts with it.

[Keltest]

I think the bigger thing to keep in mind about the rift is that no matter what happens to his phylactery in there, including "nothing," its bad for him. If it gets destroyed, or unmade, or loses his soul to the snarl or is otherwise rendered unusable, then he doesn't have it at best. If it isn't destroyed, then its lost in space in another dimension that he knows nothing about. Its not the end of the world, but it is completely undesirable too.

Whereas his threat to Redcloak is that destroying the phylactery will be taken as a sign of absolute war between them, and that Xykon will win even if he does take some hits. In both cases losing the Phylactery is bad, but in Redcloak's case Xykon is warning that it isn't life endingly bad and that he can still inflict some consequences for it.

[Goblin_Priest]

I think the bigger thing to keep in mind about the rift is that no matter what happens to his phylactery in there, including "nothing," its bad for him. If it gets destroyed, or unmade, or loses his soul to the snarl or is otherwise rendered unusable, then he doesn't have it at best. If it isn't destroyed, then its lost in space in another dimension that he knows nothing about. Its not the end of the world, but it is completely undesirable too.

Whereas his threat to Redcloak is that destroying the phylactery will be taken as a sign of absolute war between them, and that Xykon will win even if he does take some hits. In both cases losing the Phylactery is bad, but in Redcloak's case Xykon is warning that it isn't life endingly bad and that he can still inflict some consequences for it.

Furthermore, when Redcloak threatened to destroy the phylactery, Xykon had never really gained anything from it. At that moment, he was basically the same as before, except with a few buffs.

At Dorukan's gate, Xykon was destroyed for the very first time in his life. At Azure City, he was almost destroyed by the paladin ghosts.

I think that between the moment Redcloak threatened him with it, and the moment it almost fell into the rift, Xykon had become much more aware of its value and his own vulnerabilities. And thus, he's grown more attached to his rejuvination ability.

[The Pilgrim]

Still, Redcloak has an analityc mind. He knows that Xykon will become a liability once the Ritual is completed. Not just a liability, but an enemy. He knows that he will need him destroyed as soon as he no longer needs him for the Plan. And he knows that he needs to destroy the Philactery in order to get rid of Xykon for good. Therefore, Redcloak has a pretty good reason to keep hold of the item.

Of course, I doubt that Xykon isn't seeing it coming, and I doubt he will happily fulfill the Plan. That would make the OOTS irrelevant for the story, if the villiain is going to get himself destroyed by fulfilling his plan anyway. This comic doesn't looks like an Indiana Jones movie to me (even though the Heroes did indeed survive a nuke by hiding inside a fridge).

[Doug Lampert]

Still, Redcloak has an analityc mind. He knows that Xykon will become a liability once the Ritual is completed. Not just a liability, but an enemy. He knows that he will need him destroyed as soon as he no longer needs him for the Plan. And he knows that he needs to destroy the Philactery in order to get rid of Xykon for good. Therefore, Redcloak has a pretty good reason to keep hold of the item.

Of course, I doubt that Xykon isn't seeing it coming, and I doubt he will happily fulfill the Plan. That would make the OOTS irrelevant for the story, if the villiain is going to get himself destroyed by fulfilling his plan anyway. This comic doesn't looks like an Indiana Jones movie to me (even though the Heroes did indeed survive a nuke by hiding inside a fridge).

In theory, surviving a nuke by hiding in a fridge is perfectly reasonable. A fridge is insulated, sealed, and older ones were large enough to hold someone and fairly heavy in construction. A blast that destroys the house will not necessarily destroy every item of the contents, fridge hiding is a pretty good way to maximize your odds of living.

Now, being thrown around the way the fridge was in the movie would be blatantly fatal due to concussion; and this all ignores the difficulty of GETTING OUT once the blast is over given that it's a fifties refrigerator (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator_death).

[The Pilgrim]

Looks like a job for the MythBusters.

[Peelee]

Looks like a job for the MythBusters.

Or preferably a group that actually follows the scientific method.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Or preferably a group that actually follows the scientific method.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/unscientific.png

Link (https://xkcd.com/397/)

Also, they did do repeated experiments, where feasible. They usually didn't show it because editing, but they did do it.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/unscientific.png

Link (https://xkcd.com/397/)

Also, they did do repeated experiments, where feasible. They usually didn't show it because editing, but they did do it.

Grey Wolf

Experiments that seek to primarily achieve truth, not primarily achieve entertainment. It's fun to watch and all, but if you glue a bunch of mirrors to some wood and don't bother doing much math, you'll never be able to see if Archimedes could have been able to torch a fleet.

I have nothing against Mythbusters getting people interested in science. It's a laudable goal, and they're right up there with Bill Nye and Beakman. But the first panel is accurate. After all, ideas tested by experiment was also the core of alchemy. Sorry, Randall, I ain't buying that.

[understatement]

What would happen if RC already destroyed the phylactery? That way, he could be permanently reassured that Xykon is dead forever if the Plan succeeds.

I don't think Xykon has any spells (yet) that'll make him 'reveal' the truth.

[Keltest]

Experiments that seek to primarily achieve truth, not primarily achieve entertainment. It's fun to watch and all, but if you glue a bunch of mirrors to some wood and don't bother doing much math, you'll never be able to see if Archimedes could have been able to torch a fleet.

I have nothing against Mythbusters getting people interested in science. It's a laudable goal, and they're right up there with Bill Nye and Beakman. But the first panel is accurate. After all, ideas tested by experiment was also the core of alchemy. Sorry, Randall, I ain't buying that.

I mean, if it required more precision than they could muster out of a group of volunteers, i'd say that definitively disproves the myth regardless of whether its technically possible to light a fire on something with polished... it was bronze, right?

[Peelee]

I mean, if it required more precision than they could muster out of a group of volunteers, i'd say that definitively disproves the myth regardless of whether its technically possible to light a fire on something with polished... it was bronze, right?

Oh, I'm fairly sure he never did that, but slapping a few mirrors around isn't mythbusting. It's hardly even quality presentation.

ETA: Also, Archimedes' mirror is not a hill I'm going to die on, it was just an example. They can be very accurate and in-depth, but they can also be fast and sloppy. The primary goal was entertainment, not accuracy.

[Keltest]

Oh, I'm fairly sure he never did that, but slapping a few mirrors around isn't mythbusting. It's hardly even quality presentation.

Some myths simply have a very high bar to clear. Does it matter if the quality of mirrors needed could have existed if they could never have been focused to the degree needed in the first place? It only takes one impossibility to bust a myth.

[Peelee]

Some myths simply have a very high bar to clear. Does it matter if the quality of mirrors needed could have existed if they could never have been focused to the degree needed in the first place? It only takes one impossibility to bust a myth.

Agreed, see edit.

[Rrmcklin]

What would happen if RC already destroyed the phylactery? That way, he could be permanently reassured that Xykon is dead forever if the Plan succeeds.

I don't think Xykon has any spells (yet) that'll make him 'reveal' the truth.

I mean, the plan succeeding and Xykon being permanently gone aren't particularly interwoven. Xykon being gone is connected very much to Redcloak living in this hypothetical situation of it working, but it's totally possible that the Plan could work, and then Xykon immediately murders Redcloak for lying to him all these years. Doing so won't reverse the Dark One getting control over the Gate if it's already happened.

Anyway, the point is basically moot, since I'm sure we'd actually see Redcloak destroying it. But as has already been discussed, destroying the phylactery doesn't help destroy Xykon in the present.

[understatement]

Hm, okay, I'm just thinking of the impression that Xykon will only realize RC is lying when the ritual is complete, because instead of wielding a Snarl he'll be coming face-to-face with the TDO, who should be powerful enough to intervene. If not Redcloak can also reveal he has the phylactery, which will make X believe he can still retrieve it, but if RC already destroyed it then for himself at least it's a 100% of ensuring Xykon will be dead (somewhat like the shell game) but still allowing himself to remain potentially alive because Xykon needs to use him to find the phylactery, unbeknownst to him that it's already been destroyed. And in that time span the TDO probably could take care of Xykon easily enough.

Not sure where the OOTS fits into this.

I, uh, will check my brain cells later.

[ijuinkun]

Destroying the phylactery without Xykon's knowledge might be a sticking point if Xykon is able to "feel" the phylactery's destruction.

[Goblin_Priest]

Oh, I'm fairly sure he never did that, but slapping a few mirrors around isn't mythbusting. It's hardly even quality presentation.

ETA: Also, Archimedes' mirror is not a hill I'm going to die on, it was just an example. They can be very accurate and in-depth, but they can also be fast and sloppy. The primary goal was entertainment, not accuracy.

Haha, I liked Mythbusters, though I haven't watched it in a very long that. I do remember that episode, though, and I do remember it being very unsatisfying. I'll agree with you that the quality was rather variable, between episodes. It's also possible that some things were done but were just cut out at montage.

I'd add, though, that a cheap and sloppy trial is not particularly entertaining. Doing a lousy job and failing to yield any result from it... not entertaining whatsoever.


I mean, if it required more precision than they could muster out of a group of volunteers, i'd say that definitively disproves the myth regardless of whether its technically possible to light a fire on something with polished... it was bronze, right?

I don't agree at all. If the technique requires skill and/or training, there's absolutely no reason to believe that the story the myth hinges upon was not based on people with said skill and/or training.

You need to find a way to make it work to prove that it's do-able, not find a way that doesn't work and then use that as an excuse to claim it isn't doable.

Also, the original used glass-coated mirrors, I think? I /think/ the glass actually lessens the efficiency at infra-reds (and ultra-violets). Polished bronze could potentially be even more deadly, but I can't find any data on that.


Destroying the phylactery without Xykon's knowledge might be a sticking point if Xykon is able to "feel" the phylactery's destruction.

Also runs the risk of Xykon dying in an epic trap in the Tomb, and then being stuck without the required arcane caster. Edit: Mind you, Xykon resurrecting anywhere else than his fortress would be bad news.

[Keltest]

I don't agree at all. If the technique requires skill and/or training, there's absolutely no reason to believe that the story the myth hinges upon was not based on people with said skill and/or training.

You need to find a way to make it work to prove that it's do-able, not find a way that doesn't work and then use that as an excuse to claim it isn't doable.

Also, the original used glass-coated mirrors, I think? I /think/ the glass actually lessens the efficiency at infra-reds (and ultra-violets). Polished bronze could potentially be even more deadly, but I can't find any data on that.

Admittedly its been a few years, but my recall is that it was found to be basically impossible to actually aim that many mirrors on a single point. There were so many reflections showing up on the ship that nobody could tell which one was theirs, compounded by the sun being in their eyes. It wasn't a question of training so much as logistics and circumstance. Could a group of professionals done better? Maybe a little, but a lot of the problems were of the "you cant just get better at it to make them go away" variety.

Plus, and I think they mention this in the episode itself, what do you do on a cloudy day? Or if its morning and the enemy is sailing in from the west?

[Peelee]

Plus, and I think they mention this in the episode itself, what do you do on a cloudy day? Or if its morning and the enemy is sailing in from the west?

What do you do if your gun is out of ammo? "people used to use guns" myth busted, I say! :smallamused:

[Keltest]

What do you do if your gun is out of ammo? "people used to use guns" myth busted, I say! :smallamused:

Put more ammo in? I recognize that youre being tongue in cheek here, but theres a rather large difference between having to reload and the sun not being out, in that one is something a person could reasonably control.

[Peelee]

Put more ammo in? I recognize that youre being tongue in cheek here, but theres a rather large difference between having to reload and the sun not being out, in that one is something a person could reasonably control.

Assume mirror weapon actually existed. Unless that was their only defense, the clouds and west bits are ridiculous, because the simple answer is "dont use it, go with a different tactic" for this battle." Also, the spirit was clearly "you have no more ammo," not "there's more lying right beside you."

It's about as stupid as "if we use solar power, what about when the sun goes down or it gets cloudy?"

[Keltest]

Assume mirror weapon actually existed. Unless that was their only defense, the clouds and west bits are ridiculous, because the simple answer is "dont use it, go with a different tactic" for this battle." Also, the spirit was clearly "you have no more ammo," not "there's more lying right beside you."

It's about as stupid as "if we use solar power, what about when the sun goes down or it gets cloudy?"

I mean you say that, but from my understanding that's one of the major logistical hurdles in actually getting solar power to be effective. And if a weapon can be defeated by the extremely simple tactic of... just waiting until the afternoon before invading, its a terrible weapon.

[Peelee]

I mean you say that, but from my understanding that's one of the major logistical hurdles in actually getting solar power to be effective. And if a weapon can be defeated by the extremely simple tactic of... just waiting until the afternoon before invading, its a terrible weapon.

A.) Energy storage, along with alternative power sources (wind, hydroelectric, etc), right off the top of my head.
2.) That assumes the enemy knows about the weapon, and have exact control over their plans. Weather prediction was notoriously difficult back then, storms wiped out entire fleets on multiple occasions, etc.
iii.) Even if they wait until circumstances are in their favor, if the city only has the one weapon, then they pretty much deserve to be conquered. If it ever existed at all, it would clearly be relegated to "if we ever get the chance, totally use it. But firm all strategies under the assumption we won't have that," because it's pretty easy to assume that military commanders wouldn't have the mentality of a pre-teen and think one weapon solves everything.

Again, it's a patently ridiculous complaint that falls apart at the slightest inspection. But it was entertaining to hear.

[Keltest]

A.) Energy storage, along with alternative power sources (wind, hydroelectric, etc), right off the top of my head.
2.) That assumes the enemy knows about the weapon, and have exact control over their plans. Weather prediction was notoriously difficult back then, storms wiped out entire fleets on multiple occasions, etc.
iii.) Even if they wait until circumstances are in their favor, if the city only has the one weapon, then they pretty much deserve to be conquered. If it ever existed at all, it would clearly be relegated to "if we ever get the chance, totally use it. But firm all strategies under the assumption we won't have that," because it's pretty easy to assume that military commanders wouldn't have the mentality of a pre-teen and think one weapon solves everything.

Again, it's a patently ridiculous complaint that falls apart at the slightest inspection. But it was entertaining to hear.

I feel the need to point out, again, that if there were so many problems and potential problems with deploying such a weapon, doesn't that make it, you know, a bad weapon that doesn't work well, or not work at all? Thus disproving the myth?

[Fyraltari]

Plus, and I think they mention this in the episode itself, what do you do on a cloudy day? Or if its morning and the enemy is sailing in from the west?

You sacrifice twenty oxen and one hundred sheep to Helios, of course. And Syracuse has no water on its western side, as it is on the East coast of Sicily.

[Goblin_Priest]

Admittedly its been a few years, but my recall is that it was found to be basically impossible to actually aim that many mirrors on a single point. There were so many reflections showing up on the ship that nobody could tell which one was theirs, compounded by the sun being in their eyes. It wasn't a question of training so much as logistics and circumstance. Could a group of professionals done better? Maybe a little, but a lot of the problems were of the "you cant just get better at it to make them go away" variety.

Plus, and I think they mention this in the episode itself, what do you do on a cloudy day? Or if its morning and the enemy is sailing in from the west?

I was curious, I re-watched the "return" episode.

To be clear, I didn't mean to say that I thought it was absolutely possible, but merely that the original episode on it left me wanting, and it did not feel like they had done it well enough to positively bust it.

Given that the story about mirrors only come up hundreds of years after the battle, there's very good reason to be skeptic about it every happening. You'd think it'd have been worth mention in earlier accounts.

There's also a large gap between "they never used reflective surfaces as weapons" and "they made a death ray capable of setting dozens of ships ablaze from afar". For example, it is quite possible that they both weaponized reflection, AND set the ships ablaze, WITHOUT setting the ships ablaze from reflection. I remember as a kid that we'd like to take reflective surfaces, and aim for our class-mates' faces, basically blinding them. Now imagine dozens, or hundreds (or more?) people doing that, reflecting the sun's light at enemy ships. It might not be precise enough to set it on fire, but it will most probably make their aiming extremely difficult. The increased heat, without being deadly, could also tire and exhaust them. But, more importantly, the light in the face is both painful and makes aiming very hard.

So with that in mind, and considering every soldier is probably going to have shields anyways, using the sun as a weapon in order to be able to attack them with flaming weapons with very limited retaliation... could be a very cheap and devastating technique.

And it could easily explain how the myth came to be, hundreds of years later.

[Peelee]

I feel the need to point out, again, that if there were so many problems and potential problems with deploying such a weapon, doesn't that make it, you know, a bad weapon that doesn't work well, or not work at all? Thus disproving the myth?

A.) pointing out deficiencies does nothing to disprove that it existed.
2.) "it won't work in most scenarios, but whenever it does its an instant win button" sounds like something worth investing in. Especially if he built the proof of concept independently of the military.

The best way to disprove the myth? Actually try to recreate it as closely as possible. If they can't do that under the budget and within the time constraints required for the show, we'll, it's not scientific and more entertainment, isn't it? That's certainly convenient for me, since that's my entire argument to begin with.

[Keltest]

I was curious, I re-watched the "return" episode.

To be clear, I didn't mean to say that I thought it was absolutely possible, but merely that the original episode on it left me wanting, and it did not feel like they had done it well enough to positively bust it.

Given that the story about mirrors only come up hundreds of years after the battle, there's very good reason to be skeptic about it every happening. You'd think it'd have been worth mention in earlier accounts.

There's also a large gap between "they never used reflective surfaces as weapons" and "they made a death ray capable of setting dozens of ships ablaze from afar". For example, it is quite possible that they both weaponized reflection, AND set the ships ablaze, WITHOUT setting the ships ablaze from reflection. I remember as a kid that we'd like to take reflective surfaces, and aim for our class-mates' faces, basically blinding them. Now imagine dozens, or hundreds (or more?) people doing that, reflecting the sun's light at enemy ships. It might not be precise enough to set it on fire, but it will most probably make their aiming extremely difficult. The increased heat, without being deadly, could also tire and exhaust them. But, more importantly, the light in the face is both painful and makes aiming very hard.

So with that in mind, and considering every soldier is probably going to have shields anyways, using the sun as a weapon in order to be able to attack them with flaming weapons with very limited retaliation... could be a very cheap and devastating technique.

And it could easily explain how the myth came to be, hundreds of years later.

Sure, although theres still the rather large problem of having the sun in the faces of your soldiers while the fighting is going on. Im not sure that blinding both armies is especially worth it unless you have, like, rocks or something the enemy will crash their ships on.


A.) pointing out deficiencies does nothing to disprove that it existed.
2.) "it won't work in most scenarios, but whenever it does its an instant win button" sounds like something worth investing in. Especially if he built the proof of concept independently of the military.

The best way to disprove the myth? Actually try to recreate it as closely as possible. If they can't do that under the budget and within the time constraints required for the show, we'll, it's not scientific and more entertainment, isn't it? That's certainly convenient for me, since that's my entire argument to begin with.

The whole point is that the myth is already logically tenuous and logistically unsound even before actually trying to recreate it. It didn't have anything to do with budget or time constraints because it just didn't work the way the myth needed it to. Theres no amount of money and time you can throw at a problem like people not being able to see where theyre aiming to make it go away.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

You sacrifice twenty oxen and one hundred sheep to Helios, of course.

No, no, no. You consult the sacred chickens. And when they don't eat of the grain (indicating it is a bad day), you wonder if they are thirsty instead and throw them overboard.

Not a word of that is made up (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Drepana) (by me, at least).

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

Joking aside, and unless, I am mistaken, the story takes place during a siege, so once Archimedes was done they could just wait for the right meteorological conditions. Not that I think it actually happened though. Then again, if you managed to blind the ships’ pilotes you could easily create enough chaos that some ships will ram each other.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Joking aside, and unless, I am mistaken, the story takes place during a siege, so once Archimedes was done they could just wait for the right meteorological conditions. Not that I think it actually happened though. Then again, if you managed to blind the ships’ pilotes you could easily create enough chaos that some ships will ram each other.

Sure, but that isn't the myth. The myth is that he could set ships on fire with those things. Which I agree with Keltest was sufficiently disproved by the Mythbusters. And even if it was, I think you are seriously underestimating the ability of people to shield their eyes from directed beams of light.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

Sure, but that isn't the myth. The myth is that he could set ships on fire with those things. Which I agree with Keltest was sufficiently disproved by the Mythbusters.

Grey Wolf

Mythbusters gave reason to doubt it. Given that the myth arise a suvnificant amount of time after the supposed event, with no firsthand accounts or mentions in any of the writings at the time, I'd say the myth was sufficiently disproven well before the Mythbusters, if you want to put the threshold for "proving" at the level of what they did.

[Fyraltari]

Sure, but that isn't the myth. The myth is that he could set ships on fire with those things. Which I agree with Keltest was sufficiently disproved by the Mythbusters. And even if it was, I think you are seriously underestimating the ability of people to shield their eyes from directed beams of light.

Grey Wolf

The objection I was adressing was ‘‘but that wouldn’t work on rainy days or at the wrong time of day’’ which, as I said isn’t relevant to the story, as it is supposed to be a weapon made for a specific set of circumstances. I don’t know enough about mirrors and wood’s temperature of spontaneous combustion to know wether that is a feasible reason thing (but my guess is no) and, since all I know about Mythbusters is the basic premise of the show, I have no ground to judge its scientific merits on and do not care to.

As to your own point, you need both hands to pilot a ship and can’t move from your spot.

[Peelee]

The objection I was adressing was ‘‘but that wouldn’t work on rainy days or at the wrong time of day’’ which, as I said isn’t relevant to the story, as it is supposed to be a weapon made for a specific set of circumstances. I don’t know enough about mirrors and wood’s temperature of spontaneous combustion to know wether that is a feasible reason thing (but my guess is no)

Devils advocate: Or whatever cloth they used for the sails. Fire likes to go up, but it also likes fuel, I'd assume.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

As to your own point, you need both hands to pilot a ship and can’t move from your spot.

Not during a siege on a sunny day, you don't. The ships aren't going to be in rough waters and going at max sail. Besides, Roman ships used, as far as I know, a rudder - ship wheels came much later. The guy giving the orders only had a stick to point out where to go. The guys pushing and pulling on the rudder can do that with their eyes closed.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

Not during a siege on a sunny day, you don't. The ships aren't going to be in rough waters and going at max sail. Besides, Roman ships used, as far as I know, a rudder - ship wheels came much later. The guy giving the orders only had a stick to point out where to go. The guys pushing and pulling on the rudder can do that with their eyes closed.

Grey Wolf

Which is why the Romans never invaded the Alpine states with their naval forces; the natives would have just built great alphorns to drown out commands, and the ships would steer into each other!

If you object to taking landlocked states with naval forces for any other reason, then you are clearly not a naval commander.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Which is why the Romans never invaded the Alpine states with their naval forces; the natives would have just built great alphorns to drown out commands, and the ships would steer into each other!

You kid, but according to Roman mythology, that's exactly what happened to the Sybarites, sort of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybaris).

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

You kid, but according to Roman mythology, that's exactly what happened to the Sybarites, sort of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybaris).

Grey Wolf

So you're saying I'm not a modern American idiot, but rather an ancient Roman genius?

...ill take it!

[Grey_Wolf_c]

So you're saying I'm not a modern American idiot, but rather an ancient Roman genius?

...ill take it!

An ancient Krotonite genius taking advantage of the idiocy of others. Rome wasn't involved (although the first time I heard of this, it was supposed to have been the Roman army playing loud brass music to drown out the flutes. Can't find a reference to that version, though. Given it's likely neither actually happened, I think I like the Roman version better, so it's a bit of a pity it doesn't get referenced as an alternative bit of myth).

Grey Wolf

[Fyraltari]

Not during a siege on a sunny day, you don't. The ships aren't going to be in rough waters and going at max sail. Besides, Roman ships used, as far as I know, a rudder - ship wheels came much later. The guy giving the orders only had a stick to point out where to go. The guys pushing and pulling on the rudder can do that with their eyes closed.

Grey Wolf

I stand corrected.

[Goblin_Priest]

Sure, although theres still the rather large problem of having the sun in the faces of your soldiers while the fighting is going on. Im not sure that blinding both armies is especially worth it unless you have, like, rocks or something the enemy will crash their ships on.



The whole point is that the myth is already logically tenuous and logistically unsound even before actually trying to recreate it. It didn't have anything to do with budget or time constraints because it just didn't work the way the myth needed it to. Theres no amount of money and time you can throw at a problem like people not being able to see where theyre aiming to make it go away.

Well, no, there's no symmetry in the sun's effect. If the sun is used late enough in the morning, far enough from the horizon, you can easily shield your eyes from it while aiming at an enemy on the horizon line (i.e. anybody at the same height you are, or below). However, if people at ground level redirect sunlight towards other people at ground level... the blinding effect is one-sided. You can shield your eyes from the sun, when it is high, to aim at a target at ground level. But if the light coming to your face is reflected from ground level, than you cannot both avert your eyes from the ground-level reflection and target it. So the defenders could have half their men blinding the attacking ships, and the other half manning various weapons and siege engines to destroy the incoming fleet. If the captains can't see well, ships that are ablaze could accidentally ram into friendly ships, spreading the fire.

Also, in Mythbusters, they successfully used mirrors to light ablaze a ship in the bay. Then they went on and said "yea, we did it, but, uhm, busted anyways". While I'll agree with them that it likely hadn't been done, it's another thing to go claim it couldn't have been done.

And while their setup wasn't incredibly efficient, it did prove it was possible, and thus could probably be optimized. And thus, potentially, weaponized. It's also possible that the ships contained some highly-flammable materials that could be targeted. Again, the historical sources on this myth are terrible, and that alone is reason enough to dismiss the myth, but if you are going to take the trouble of actually testing it out in the field, then you are trying to verify if it is technically possible. And their experiment did just that, they proved that they could use reflection to set a ship on fire.

[The Pilgrim]

About the plausability of that Archimedes' stunt...

1) Syracuse is on the East coast of Sicily. So any invading fleet will come sailing from the East.

2) No one would sail on a rainy day in ancient times. Moreso, a place with a mediterranian climate has very few cloudy or rainy days at all during the year. It tends to be either sunny or rainy. Just overcast with no rain, doesn't happens much.

3) Anyone going to start a battle, begins the attack in the morning, right at dawn. And in the particular case of the enemy being to your west, you have even more incentive to start your attack right at dawn, as they will have the sun on their eyes.

So, the chances that Archimedes got the right time and enemy positioning to pull off the stunt with the mirrors are... pretty high, actually.

[CriticalFailure]

Hm, okay, I'm just thinking of the impression that Xykon will only realize RC is lying when the ritual is complete, because instead of wielding a Snarl he'll be coming face-to-face with the TDO, who should be powerful enough to intervene. If not Redcloak can also reveal he has the phylactery, which will make X believe he can still retrieve it, but if RC already destroyed it then for himself at least it's a 100% of ensuring Xykon will be dead (somewhat like the shell game) but still allowing himself to remain potentially alive because Xykon needs to use him to find the phylactery, unbeknownst to him that it's already been destroyed. And in that time span the TDO probably could take care of Xykon easily enough.

Not sure where the OOTS fits into this.

I, uh, will check my brain cells later.

I don't get the impression that Redcloak really knows what will happen when the ritual is complete, but he knows that Xykon won't have control of the snarl. He seems to believe the two possibilities are be permanently destroyed, including his soul, or else have an angry epic lich sorcerer on his hands.

[Peelee]

I don't get the impression that Redcloak really knows what will happen when the ritual is complete

I do (http://www.giantitp.com/GIPOTS99.html).

[Kish]

He seems to believe the two possibilities are be permanently destroyed, including his soul, or else have an angry epic lich sorcerer on his hands.
Aside from what Peelee said, I don't know where you're getting this.

In the conscious parts of his brain, that insist he'll still finish the Plan and prove it all worth it, I'm sure he's thinking of something more along the lines of "and the Dark One will deal with Xykon, and I can True Resurrect my brother and graciously accept his apology..."

[Jasdoif]

Aside from what Peelee said, I don't know where you're getting this.

In the conscious parts of his brain, that insist he'll still finish the Plan and prove it all worth it, I'm sure he's thinking of something more along the lines of "and the Dark One will deal with Xykon, and I can True Resurrect my brother and graciously accept his apology..."I'm honestly not sure Redcloak is considering his survival after the ritual is complete. Unless he accepts that he is in fact the self-centered monster he doesn't want to see himself as, and moves forward to change that....Actually completing the Gate ritual is the only thing that will make all the sacrifices he's made (with other goblins' lives) "worth it"; surviving the aftermath is optional. Failing that, or perhaps even with that, having his soul expunged by the Snarl saves him from an eternity of guilt.

[understatement]

Redcloak has to preemptively finish off Xykon so that even if he's killed, X doesn't have his big safety net anymore. There's no advantage in still preserving the phylactery.

[Rrmcklin]

Redcloak has to preemptively finish off Xykon so that even if he's killed, X doesn't have his big safety net anymore. There's no advantage in still preserving the phylactery.

And yet he still didn't immediately destroy the real one, even after getting the fake one and making sure that Xykon wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

So clearly Redcloak sees some value in keeping it around for now, even if he does probably ultimately plan on destroying it.

[Keltest]

And yet he still didn't immediately destroy the real one, even after getting the fake one and making sure that Xykon wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

So clearly Redcloak sees some value in keeping it around for now, even if he does probably ultimately plan on destroying it.

I don't believe that the Monster Manual says anything about whether a lich knows when their phylactery is destroyed, so presumably Redcloak doesn't know either. He may not be willing to risk it until they actually commence the ritual.

[B. Dandelion]

It's possible he wasn't able to destroy the phylactery right away, depending on what protection spells are on it. I assume most of them he cast himself, but if Xykon cast a few, it might take a while to dispel them all. Whether his actual intent is to destroy it is another matter.

If Redcloak believes the Dark One can simply smite Xykon after the ritual is done, he hasn't specifically mentioned it. He said Xykon wouldn't be able to challenge the Dark One or undo what had been done, but didn't mention anything about the Dark One killing him afterward.


Right-Eye: Anyway, what will Xykon do when he discovers that it doesn't work the way he thinks it does?

Redcloak: It won't matter. Once the rituals are completed, the Dark One himself will control the ability to shift the Snarl's rift. Xykon is strong, but not strong enough to challenge our god. Besides, we can give him a cushy retirement in the new goblin nation.

So Xykon explicitly lived in the version Redcloak first told, and his initial plan was to buy off his discontent with a "cushy retirement" -- not just have the Dark One clean up the mess.

[Rrmcklin]

It's possible he wasn't able to destroy the phylactery right away, depending on what protection spells are on it. I assume most of them he cast himself, but if Xykon cast a few, it might take a while to dispel them all. Whether his actual intent is to destroy it is another matter.

If Redcloak believes the Dark One can simply smite Xykon after the ritual is done, he hasn't specifically mentioned it. He said Xykon wouldn't be able to challenge the Dark One or undo what had been done, but didn't mention anything about the Dark One killing him afterward.



So Xykon explicitly lived in the version Redcloak first told, and his initial plan was to buy off his discontent with a "cushy retirement" -- not just have the Dark One clean up the mess.

I was going to say that the gods can't just smite mortals they don't like because of all of their agreements, but then I realized that the Dark One specifically isn't party to most (all?) of the things that bind all the other gods into their tense "harmony".

[B. Dandelion]

I was going to say that the gods can't just smite mortals they don't like because of all of their agreements, but then I realized that the Dark One specifically isn't party to most (all?) of the things that bind all the other gods into their tense "harmony".

True. The Plan also is to give the Dark One greater leverage over the others, so it's not like him winding up with the sole discretion to smite whomever he likes on the prime material plane is out of the question even if he actually were a party to their agreements before. So it's not implausible for Redcloak to believe that the Dark One could get rid Xykon afterward. Just that he hasn't said anything specific.

[Kish]

So Xykon explicitly lived in the version Redcloak first told, and his initial plan was to buy off his discontent with a "cushy retirement" -- not just have the Dark One clean up the mess.
That was when proto-Redcloak and his brother both thought of Xykon as an ally, and his brother was pissed off that proto-Redcloak had lied at all to the entity Redcloak's brother would one day sacrifice his life trying to destroy. I think we can take as a given that Redcloak does not now want Xykon to have a cushy retirement--though it never spells out what Redcloak's vision of the ideal ending is for himself or Xykon now.

[CriticalFailure]

I mean, hiding the real phylactery is clearly a hostile move meant to set him up for dealing with Xykon down the road, and SOD implies

That Redcloak believes that he and Xykon may be destroyed during the ritual.

So I think it's fair to say we know that he considers both those a possibility. I'm sure he'd like it if they didn't get snarled and TDO smote Xykon before he had time to get really mad about the betrayal.

I keep accidentally trying to use LaTex syntax for formatting in comments rip

[B. Dandelion]

That was when proto-Redcloak and his brother both thought of Xykon as an ally, and his brother was pissed off that proto-Redcloak had lied at all to the entity Redcloak's brother would one day sacrifice his life trying to destroy. I think we can take as a given that Redcloak does not now want Xykon to have a cushy retirement--though it never spells out what Redcloak's vision of the ideal ending is for himself or Xykon now.

Was Right-Eye pissed off on Xykon's behalf, or worried on their own? He'd conceded that Xykon didn't seem the type to risk his own life on the behalf of goblinkind. It would be reasonable for him to worry whether Xykon wouldn't actually retaliate against them, and nothing that Redcloak says about the Dark One specifies anything about protection for them personally. "It won't matter" because the Dark One retains control over the rifts no matter what Xykon does, and because Redcloak makes it plain he considers the Dark One's victory priority #1, with the lives of all other goblins coming in a very distant second at best. The cushy retirement angle may have been his obviously very naïve idea of what could appease Xykon. He might have cared to see his ally actually rewarded as well.

He knows better now, and doesn't wish Xykon well, but that might just mean he was expecting to get killed afterward. Still a win for him because it's a win for the Dark One.

[The Pilgrim]

Redcloak has to preemptively finish off Xykon so that even if he's killed, X doesn't have his big safety net anymore. There's no advantage in still preserving the phylactery.

There is. Redcloak doesn't wants Xykon destroyed before the Plan comes to fruition. An in the event that Xykon is destroyed before the completion of the Plan, the Phylactery allows the Lich to be rebuilt.

[magic9mushroom]

My rationalization of the Rules is that if the Phylactery is destroyed, the soul/life force/life essence (all three terms are used in different versions of the Rules) returns to the Lich. But that is just my rationalization, the rules never state what happens with whatever the phylactery holds according to the rules, if the item is destroyed.

But, all in all, I think we can agree on something:
Redcloak's plan on keeping control over Xykon by holding the Phylactery never made much sense.

Not sure if you're actually saying that the rules don't say what happens to a lich whose phylactery is destroyed, but to those (possibly including you) who do think so...


A lich whose phylactery is destroyed suffers no harm, but cannot construct a new one.

Libris Mortis p.151.

[Ghosty]

Not sure if you're actually saying that the rules don't say what happens to a lich whose phylactery is destroyed, but to those (possibly including you) who do think so...



Libris Mortis p.151.

Which, while useful, unfortunately doesn't answer the question of, "Would Xykon know if his phylactery were destroyed?" Not suffering harm from its destruction doesn't mean he won't know if its destroyed.

Otherwise, sure, drop it into Mt. Doom or whatever. (I wonder if the Gnomes' Municipal Waste Disposal firepit could do it, if a bunch of the protective aberrations were dispelled off the phylactery beforehand?)

Have we ever determined just how powerful the arcane caster has to be to cast The Ritual? I know RedCloak tried to get Xykon/Jirix to think that RedCloak was thinking Tsukiko might have tried it, but could she? Could V do it?

[Goblin_Priest]

Not sure if you're actually saying that the rules don't say what happens to a lich whose phylactery is destroyed, but to those (possibly including you) who do think so...



Libris Mortis p.151.

"Would Xykon know if his phylactery is destroyed"? The rules don't say so. But... would Redcloak know all the rules? That sounds like it'd be a pretty high knowledge DC. It's sensible to simply not want to take the risk.

[understatement]

There is. Redcloak doesn't wants Xykon destroyed before the Plan comes to fruition. An in the event that Xykon is destroyed before the completion of the Plan, the Phylactery allows the Lich to be rebuilt.

If Xykon is destroyed before the Plan is completed, he's not going to respawn in the Astral Fortress -- and he'll instantly know that Redcloak has betrayed him. Once Xykon realizes that, Redcloak has to get rid of him ASAP.

Xykon's not going to get destroyed by whatever's in the Tomb so easily. That's why Redcloak is right next to him; he can just spam Inflict Wounds to keep him alive.

[CriticalFailure]

Yeah the thing I was most curious about is what Redcloak plans to do if Xykon is destroyed before they cast the ritual. They did almost get taken out by the defenses at Soon's gate.

[Peelee]

Yeah the thing I was most curious about is what Redcloak plans to do if Xykon is destroyed before they cast the ritual.

Find another wizard.

[CriticalFailure]

Presumably he destroys the phylactery first?

It's likely he believes that if Xykon is destroyed before that then he most likely will have been killed, and in that situation someone else will deal with the phylactery.

[Kish]

Find another wizard.
:xykon: "Did...did you just call me a wizard? Meteor Swarm!"

[Peelee]

:xykon: "Did...did you just call me a wizard? Meteor Swarm!"

It's not my fault he's never been late.

[Fyraltari]

Yeah the thing I was most curious about is what Redcloak plans to do if Xykon is destroyed before they cast the ritual. They did almost get taken out by the defenses at Soon's gate.

Lose his mind over the fact that he killed his little brother for squat.

[understatement]

He has to help keep Xykon alive (such as healing him) up until the exact point the ritual is completed -- because once it is, Xykon will instantly know he's been deceived.

Thus, no reason to keep around the phylactery.

again, no clue how the Order comes into play

[CriticalFailure]

Lose his mind over the fact that he killed his little brother for squat.

Yeah; I was just thinking about how he'd deal with Xykon regenerating into a phylactery that is definitely not in is astral fortress, but I doubt the comic will end without Redcloak having one hell of a mental breakdown. What bearing that will have on Durkon's mission to parley with him, idk

[The Pilgrim]

If Xykon is destroyed before the Plan is completed, he's not going to respawn in the Astral Fortress -- and he'll instantly know that Redcloak has betrayed him. Once Xykon realizes that, Redcloak has to get rid of him ASAP.

Or... Redcloak can cast Plane Shift, and place the real phylactery were Xykon supposes it to be.

[Peelee]

Or... Redcloak can cast Plane Shift, and place the real phylactery were Xykon supposes it to be.

Cool, he'll be 5-500 miles away from the fortress. Even if he showed up at the front door, it'd be more time to get the ohylaxtrt to where Xykon put it than it takes Xykon's soul to get into the phylactery (which is instantaneous). Also, Reddy dish know where in the fortress it's supposed to be in any event.

[CriticalFailure]

Redcloak can cast gate, too. I wonder if he has a scroll for that.

[hroþila]

Cool, he'll be 5-500 miles away from the fortress. Even if he showed up at the front door, it'd be more time to get the ohylaxtrt to where Xykon put it than it takes Xykon's soul to get into the phylactery (which is instantaneous). Also, Reddy dish know where in the fortress it's supposed to be in any event.
And even if all those things weren't a deal breaker already, that's assuming Redcloak can freely enter the fortress on his own, effectively without Xykon. Which I find unlikely.