On phylacteries and the Snarl

[Particle_Man]

Hmmmm. If the Snarl gets Red Cloak and also Xykon’s phylactery does Xykon merely lose his safety net or does Xykon go poof? Conversely if the Snarl gets Xykon but not the phylactery what happens? Snarl annihilation seems different from regular death so I don’t know what would happen.

[Gurgeh]

My guess would be that the phylactery being destroyed by the snarl would work exactly the same as it's said to work for a more mundane destruction: Xykon's soul is still in his body, so he would remain alive undead and able to walk and talk and cast spells, but if anything were to destroy him before he could make a new phylactery, then he'd be gone for real.

What happens if the Snarl destroys Xykon's body while his phylactery remains intact is probably more up for debate (though I'd say that it's likely he'd be kaput right away and his soul, such as it is, would be annihilated before it could retreat to his phylactery).

[Metastachydium]

What happens if the Snarl destroys Xykon's body while his phylactery remains intact is probably more up for debate (though I'd say that it's likely he'd be kaput right away and his soul, such as it is, would be annihilated before it could retreat to his phylactery).

Yup. The Snarl does not destroy the body and the soul separately. It destroys both at once. If the soul of a mortal cannot flee to the outer planes when their body is destroyed by the Snarl, why should the soul of a lich be able to flee into its phylactery when its body is destroyed?

[Riftwolf]

My guess would be that the phylactery being destroyed by the snarl would work exactly the same as it's said to work for a more mundane destruction: Xykon's soul is still in his body, so he would remain alive undead and able to walk and talk and cast spells, but if anything were to destroy him before he could make a new phylactery, then he'd be gone for real.

What happens if the Snarl destroys Xykon's body while his phylactery remains intact is probably more up for debate (though I'd say that it's likely he'd be kaput right away and his soul, such as it is, would be annihilated before it could retreat to his phylactery).

I'd say its the other way round. The phylactery is Xykons soul-hidey place, meaning he keeps his soul in it and remotely pilots his body. If the Snarl destroys the phylactery (and the soul within), Xykons body crumbles. If his body is destroyed but this phylactery is alive, he can make another one.
Which is probably why Redcloak is keeping Xykons phylactery close at hand is so he can chuck it to the Snarl. No more phylactery, no more Lich.

[Lord Torath]

I'd say its the other way round. The phylactery is Xykons soul-hidey place, meaning he keeps his soul in it and remotely pilots his body. If the Snarl destroys the phylactery (and the soul within), Xykons body crumbles. If his body is destroyed but this phylactery is alive, he can make another one.
Which is probably why Redcloak is keeping Xykons phylactery close at hand is so he can chuck it to the Snarl. No more phylactery, no more Lich.In Ian Starshine's day, destroying the phylactery would be enough. Somewhere in 3.0 or 3.X, however, the immutable laws of the universe changed so that you had to destroy both the phylactery and the lich. I blame a WotC DM whose players completely bypassed his Big Boss encounter by scrupulously avoiding the lich itself in favor of finding the (not well-hidden-enough) phylactery.

[Metastachydium]

I'd say its the other way round. The phylactery is Xykons soul-hidey place, meaning he keeps his soul in it and remotely pilots his body. If the Snarl destroys the phylactery (and the soul within), Xykons body crumbles. If his body is destroyed but this phylactery is alive, he can make another one.
Which is probably why Redcloak is keeping Xykons phylactery close at hand is so he can chuck it to the Snarl. No more phylactery, no more Lich.

That's officially not the case. Redcloak threatens to destroy his empty phylactery when Xykon goes ballistic upon learning that he cannot enjoy coffee anymore, attacking Right-Eye in the process. Xykon explains that he may as well destroy it, because he's not in there at that point.

[KorvinStarmast]

In Ian Starshine's day, destroying the phylactery would be enough. Somewhere in 3.0 or 3.X, however, the immutable laws of the universe changed so that you had to destroy both the phylactery and the lich. I blame a WotC DM whose players completely bypassed his Big Boss encounter by scrupulously avoiding the lich itself in favor of finding the (not well-hidden-enough) phylactery. Thank you for saying that. (The 'How I beat Sauron' by Frodo Baggins is a trope, eh?)
It just occurred to me that Sauron (LoTR) and Xykon(OoTS) have one thing in common: neither one, at the height of their powers, can enjoy a cup of coffee.

[Riftwolf]

Thank you for saying that. (The 'How I beat Sauron' by Frodo Baggins is a trope, eh?)
It just occurred to me that Sauron (LoTR) and Xykon(OoTS) have one thing in common: neither one, at the height of their powers, can enjoy a cup of coffee.

Did Middle Earth even have coffee? Or tea? Doesn't one of the hobbits make reference to tea? Where did the tea come from?

[Riftwolf]

That's officially not the case. Redcloak threatens to destroy his empty phylactery when Xykon goes ballistic upon learning that he cannot enjoy coffee anymore, attacking Right-Eye in the process. Xykon explains that he may as well destroy it, because he's not in there at that point.

Huh. I thought the phylactery housed the Lich soul (as I think it was in the Korschei myths) rather than acted as a safety net for it. In which case Xykons body would be more vulnerable to the Snarl than the phylactery.
(and really I much prefer the idea of Lich Heist campaigns than Punch-The-Wizard fights. Facing enemies you can't legitimately defeat makes you way more incentive.)

[Fyraltari]

Did Middle Earth even have coffee? Or tea? Doesn't one of the hobbits make reference to tea? Where did the tea come from?

Given that they have tobacco (Tolkien gives a long explanation about how it came from Numenor) and the Numenoreans got what sounds suspiciously like tomatoes from the Elves even further West, I don't see why they wouldn't have tea or coffee.

Edit: adressing the thread's actual topic, even archfiends aren't sure (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0659.html) so don't expect a definitive answer from us.

[KorvinStarmast]

For Riftwolf: where would one find tea in Middle Earth?

Near Harandor or Khand, I would guess.

[Ionathus]

Edit: adressing the thread's actual topic, even archfiends aren't sure (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0659.html) so don't expect a definitive answer from us.

But DO expect wild speculations!

The archfiends' uncertainty makes me think that maybe the soul and the phylactery are linked somehow...like an appliance plugged into an outlet.

Cutting power to the outlet (regular death) won't annihilate the device, but something like a power surge or lightning strike (Snarl Death) could very well destroy the device too.

[Fyraltari]

For Riftwolf: where would one find tea in Middle Earth?

Near Harandor or Khand, I would guess.

Through Rhûn would be my guess, as that’s much more eastward than everything else.

Or maybe Dorwinion, wherever that is.

[snowblizz]

For Riftwolf: where would one find tea in Middle Earth?

Near Harandor or Khand, I would guess.

It's all grown by the Entwives.

[knag]

It's all grown by the Entwives.

Gandalf is offered tea by Bilbo during the unexpected party but asks for wine. He had, in fact, been invited over for tea in the first place. When Gandalf visits Frodo just prior to the long expected party, he is offered wine and asks for tea. Bilbo also puts out coffee for the dwarves during the unexpected party. So both exist.

On-topic, as a longtime AD&D (1e & 2e), I side with Ian Starshine on this one. Destroying the phylactery should destroy the lich, but post New Edition, it would seem it does not in OOTS.

[Riftwolf]

Gandalf is offered tea by Bilbo during the unexpected party but asks for wine. He had, in fact, been invited over for tea in the first place. When Gandalf visits Frodo just prior to the long expected party, he is offered wine and asks for tea. Bilbo also puts out coffee for the dwarves during the unexpected party. So both exist.

On-topic, as a longtime AD&D (1e & 2e), I side with Ian Starshine on this one. Destroying the phylactery should destroy the lich, but post New Edition, it would seem it does not in OOTS.

Thinking about it, if tobacco grows in the Shire, then there's no reason coffee or tea couldn't grow either. It just means the Shire doesn't have a British climate (or even an idealised British climate). Thinking about it, the seasons in Middle Earth are kinda muddy anyway; doesnt the Fellowship try to take the pass of Caradhras in winter? Even without the fell voice on the air, mountaineering in winter would be near suicidal for them.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's all grown by the Entwives. Oh, bravo, well played! :smallsmile::smallcool:

[Fyraltari]

It's all grown by the Entwives.
10/10 best answer.

Thinking about it, if tobacco grows in the Shire, then there's no reason coffee or tea couldn't grow either. It just means the Shire doesn't have a British climate (or even an idealised British climate). Thinking about it, the seasons in Middle Earth are kinda muddy anyway; doesnt the Fellowship try to take the pass of Caradhras in winter? Even without the fell voice on the air, mountaineering in winter would be near suicidal for them.
It just serves to underscore how much they didn't want to go in Moria.

[Precure]

Tea doesn't grow on British climate?

[BaronOfHell]

In SoD, if I'm not mistaken, we see a couple of souls being captured. It makes me wonder if one can do the same trick against a Lich and thereby nullify its phylactery?

[Bohandas]

I'd say its the other way round. The phylactery is Xykons soul-hidey place, meaning he keeps his soul in it and remotely pilots his body. If the Snarl destroys the phylactery (and the soul within), Xykons body crumbles. If his body is destroyed but this phylactery is alive, he can make another one.

What if it's split between the two like Voldemort?

[Riftwolf]

Tea doesn't grow on British climate?

If it did, we wouldn't have had to import the stuff for centuries.

[The Pilgrim]

Huh. I thought the phylactery housed the Lich soul (as I think it was in the Korschei myths) rather than acted as a safety net for it. In which case Xykons body would be more vulnerable to the Snarl than the phylactery.
(and really I much prefer the idea of Lich Heist campaigns than Punch-The-Wizard fights. Facing enemies you can't legitimately defeat makes you way more incentive.)

By the way Xykon reacts when Blackwing attempts to drop the Phil into the Snarl, I bet he really doesn't knows how it works. The scene in SoD was probably a massive bluff by Xykon that Redcloak ate. Bluff is a class skill for Sorcerers, and Charisma is their primarly attribute.

I mean, Redcloack's plan when he made Xykon a Lich was always to control him via the Philactery, assuming that destroying it would destroy the Lich. But when threatening him with destroying the Philactery failed, he was too scared to try destroying it anyway. After the ending of SoD, the point was moot because Redcloak would never allow Xykon get destroyed until the fulfillment of The Plan.

Anyway, regarding the OP question, I see three possiblities:

1- Xykon's soul is in his body, the Philactery is totally empty until Xykon's body is destroyed. If this is the case, getting Xykon unmade by the Snarl would effectively destroy him, as the Snarl would unmade his soul also. In theory, casting Soul Bind inmediately after destroying the body should also prevent the Philactery from rebuilding his body.

2- Xykon's soul is in his Philactery, and destroying the Philactery will destroy Xykon. As mentioned, this is the traditional interpretation of how a Philactery works, and it's the one Redcloak did probably believe, initially. Under this interpretation, getting Xykon's body destroyed by the Snarl is meaningless. Main problem I see with this interpretation is that Xykon should be able to feel where his Philactery is, or at least tell a fake one from the real, because his soul is inside it and he should sense it.

3- Xykon's soul is in his Philactery, but the soul is totally detatched from him. Therefore, destroying the Philactery will not destroy the Lich, just prevent his regeneration, like in option #1. However, destroying the Body to the Snarl or casting a Soul Bind after destroying the Body would be meaningless because, like in option #2, the soul is not there. And it would make sense that Xykon can't tell a fake from his real Philactery because he's totally detatched from the Soul inside it.

My bet is that Xykon doesn't knows which of the three scenarios is the correct one, and he's obvously not going to perform experiments to find the truth.

[BaronOfHell]

because his soul is inside it and he should sense it.

I don't know if this is something to do with D&D, because otherwise I don't know why he should be able to sense his soul?
E.g. if you remote control a vehicle with a cam, even if other sensory input also would go through the vehicle to your input station, you don't sense if you are getting closer to yourself.

[The Pilgrim]

E.g. if you remote control a vehicle with a cam, even if other sensory input also would go through the vehicle to your input station, you don't sense if you are getting closer to yourself.

Perhaps. But if you are remotely controling a vehicle, you definitely know where you are.

[Riftwolf]

Perhaps. But if you are remotely controling a vehile, you definitely know where you are.

Maybe not. If you wake up in a dark soundproof room in the seat of a remote piloting device with video/audio feed, you'd know where the machine you're operating is but not where you are.

[The Pilgrim]

Maybe not. If you wake up in a dark soundproof room in the seat of a remote piloting device with video/audio feed, you'd know where the machine you're operating is but not where you are.

Still you would know you aren't in the machine.

But, you know, I don't mind. I like the idea that Xykon's soul may be in the Philactery but he believes to be in the skeleton body.

[Riftwolf]

Still you would know you aren't in the machine.


That'd depend on the sophistication of the machine, surely. But going back to Baron's point; let's say you're piloting a machine from an enclosed box. You know you're not in the machine, and can sense the world through audio/video feed, but you don't know your location. The machine can travel round a building with several boxes inside. How does the machine recognise the box of its controller?

[Bohandas]

By the way Xykon reacts when Blackwing attempts to drop the Phil into the Snarl, I bet he really doesn't knows how it works. The scene in SoD was probably a massive bluff by Xykon that Redcloak ate. Bluff is a class skill for Sorcerers, and Charisma is their primarly attribute.

I mean, Redcloack's plan when he made Xykon a Lich was always to control him via the Philactery, assuming that destroying it would destroy the Lich. But when threatening him with destroying the Philactery failed, he was too scared to try destroying it anyway. After the ending of SoD, the point was moot because Redcloak would never allow Xykon get destroyed until the fulfillment of The Plan.

Anyway, regarding the OP question, I see three possiblities:

1- Xykon's soul is in his body, the Philactery is totally empty until Xykon's body is destroyed. If this is the case, getting Xykon unmade by the Snarl would effectively destroy him, as the Snarl would unmade his soul also. In theory, casting Soul Bind inmediately after destroying the body should also prevent the Philactery from rebuilding his body.

2- Xykon's soul is in his Philactery, and destroying the Philactery will destroy Xykon. As mentioned, this is the traditional interpretation of how a Philactery works, and it's the one Redcloak did probably believe, initially. Under this interpretation, getting Xykon's body destroyed by the Snarl is meaningless. Main problem I see with this interpretation is that Xykon should be able to feel where his Philactery is, or at least tell a fake one from the real, because his soul is inside it and he should sense it.

3- Xykon's soul is in his Philactery, but the soul is totally detatched from him. Therefore, destroying the Philactery will not destroy the Lich, just prevent his regeneration, like in option #1. However, destroying the Body to the Snarl or casting a Soul Bind after destroying the Body would be meaningless because, like in option #2, the soul is not there. And it would make sense that Xykon can't tell a fake from his real Philactery because he's totally detatched from the Soul inside it.

Or, 4- His soul is divided between the two (like Voldemort from Harry Potter)