What's Xykons endgame?

[Phantom Thief]

Or maybe more broadly, what's the author's end goal for Xykon?

I feel like there's still a lot of room to expand on him in a subplot that might be starting now.

My guess is that reflecting on things for the first time will make Xykon realize he's not the same person as before he died, and he will have an existential crisis.

[dancrilis]

Or maybe more broadly, what's the author's end goal for Xykon?

I feel like there's still a lot of room to expand on him in a subplot that might be starting now.

My guess is that reflecting on things for the first time will make Xykon realize he's not the same person as before he died, and he will have an existential crisis.

Xykon is not (in my view) an existential crisis type of person.

Xykon's end goal seems to be to win.

As for what The Giant's end goal for him is we will have to wait and see.

Wild guessing - Xykon kills the Dark One in a moment of pure vicious awesome (I actually think this is fairly likely), then ascends to divinity on the back of that act and find himself trapped forever in the types of rules and regulations that he hates being trapped in (I am much less inclined to think this is likely).

[brian 333]

Self doubt is not in character for Xykon. If anything goes wrong it's someone else's fault and whatever goes right was his idea. The idea that Xykon will ever be anything but a sociopath fails to include the concept that Xykon only cares about Xykon.

Roy will either directly or indirectly destroy him in the end. There will be no reward for his life as an unrepentant agent of Chaos and Evil,

[Aquillion]

I mean, the latest comic more or less told us how he sees it: He gets to kill anyone he wants, forever and ever, the end.

I don't think some grand revelation or change of heart is in the cards for him. Some people just are who they are. Sure, maybe, hypothetically, if everything lined up perfectly, he could one day change... but since he doesn't want to change, and his awful nature means nobody is going to put in the time and effort to try and change him, and since the horrifying threat he poses to absolutely everyone means that it would be a terrible idea to distract from trying to stop him in order to make that effort, it just... isn't going to happen.

Like, there were maybe a few points in his history where things could have gone differently and he could have maybe had a slim chance to self-reflect. But I don't see it now. He doesn't want it, and his actions have resulted in a situation where nobody who would want to change him can afford to give him the benefit of the doubt on even that slender hope.

(Unlike Redcloak - who probably also isn't going to change, but who happens to be in a situation where there's a very compelling reason for the heroes to make at least some effort to change his mind.)

In fact, an interesting observation: The Quinton's request here is probably the first time in a long, long time that anyone has made any attempt to make Xykon a better person (even if "better" in this case just means "more lawful" from the Quinton's perspective.) I don't think it's likely to work, but it's interesting.

[MetroAlien]

My reading of Xykon's place in the narrative is simply the personification of "moral evil" (not to be confused with evil alignment)
He's evil just for the sake of it. Not because he has grand plans or goals, rather his ambitions are themselves the result of him being evil.
If Redcloak commits evil deeds on his path to noble intentions, then Xykon dreams up intentions that require an evil path.
The process means more to Xykon than the results, not because he's bound to it by ideology or principle, but simply because that's his nature, who he is.
It's not in him to care about consequences (of anything ever) which is why Redcloak had such a hard time convincing him to go along with the door exploration scheme.
I would like to point out that while Xykon did end up agreeing, even his desired outcome is not a goal per se.
What he wants is the ability to commit further evil.
Even his goal itself is not a goal, but just a means to other means to other means.... it's all 'means' with no 'end' in sight.

This might seem trivial to some people, but keep in mind that I don't speak for the author. It's just how I choose to interpret it.

Thematically, what this implies to me, is that our heroes are forced to explore the limits and opportunities of 'good' (the moral aspect, not the alignment) when faced with 'purposeless' evil.
The comics already explored the limits of 'good' with V's arc, and its opportunities with both V and Durkon.
Xykon represents a type of 'evil' that seems 'unturnable', such that 'good' stands no chance against it.
In some way, Serini does propose a solution: 'good' will simply outlast Xykon's evil. But I think the Giant will explore this idea further, later on.

PS: Roy's theistic scepticism, Belkar's ongoing development (and to some extent, MitD) are examples of what I mean by 'moral good/evil' as opposed to 'good/evil alignment'

[Ruck]

Xykon's end game is to have the power to rule the world, the power to kill whoever he wants whenever he wants and to be completely unaccountable to anyone.

The author's endgame for Xykon is presumably to have him destroyed by the good guys.

I'm not sure I understand the question beyond that.

[Aquillion]

Xykon's end game is to have the power to rule the world, the power to kill whoever he wants whenever he wants and to be completely unaccountable to anyone.I'm not sure he actually wants to rule the world in the sense of setting laws and collecting taxes and raising armies and taking any sort of responsibility for any of it (even his own "Empire of Xykon") - that's more Redcloak's sort of thing. Xykon would find it horribly boring and probably realizes he would find it horribly boring. He might force everyone to acknowledge him as a one-time thing but it's hard to picture him keeping it up.

A world where Xykon wins would probably see him spend most of his time in a tower or dungeon somewhere researching magic, occasionally coming out to experiment by blowing up a city or a nation or something or to gather resources. He doesn't care enough about the world to become an actual, consistent tyrant. Before he met Redcloak he was a nobody without any real larger ambitions, and I suspect that without Redcloak he would mostly go back to that, though his whims could cause occasional catastrophes on a global scale.

In that respect Serini is not wrong that a victory by Xykon (if it could happen, and if the gods weren't going to destroy the world first) isn't as unthinkable as it seems at first glance - it would be really, really bad, but of the "now there's a really bad uncontrollable Terrasque-like supermonster who occasionally causes problems" type of bad, not "the future of the entire world is Xykon's boot crushing a face forever" bad.

That said it's worth mentioning that this goal is impossible, in the sense that the ritual just doesn't work that way - we've known that for a while now. Hard to say how Xykon will react if / when he discovers that.

[Ruck]

I'm not sure he actually wants to rule the world in the sense of setting laws and collecting taxes and raising armies and taking any sort of responsibility for any of it (even his own "Empire of Xykon") - that's more Redcloak's sort of thing. Xykon would find it horribly boring and probably realizes he would find it horribly boring. He might force everyone to acknowledge him as a one-time thing but it's hard to picture him keeping it up.

No, he certainly doesn't. But to parse semantics, I said "the power to rule the world," and that's the difference. He wants to be able to demand tribute and to be unaccountable to anyone else. He wants to attain the level of power to be able to call himself the ruler of the world. He's not an administrator.

[faustin]

After reading the last comic, it seems clear to me Xykon never grew beyond that brat who murdered his parents for sending a wizard to rein in him.

[SlashDash]

Wild guessing - Xykon kills the Dark One in a moment of pure vicious awesome (I actually think this is fairly likely), then ascends to divinity on the back of that act and find himself trapped forever in the types of rules and regulations that he hates being trapped in (I am much less inclined to think this is likely).

The odds of this happening is 0.
Have you missed the whole part about Thor's plan?

[SlashDash]

The last script makes it perfectly clear that Xykon is still spoiled child who also always insists on getting things his way or even just the appearances of having his own way.

He really isn't that deep or complicated. To partially quote Seinfeld here - there isn't more to him than meets the eye - there's less actually.


My guess on what will happen next:

Team Evil are obviously going to find out the gate isn't here because without a rush to the next gate there's no story. So they will follow through on the plan with the Quinton. However, the process will annoy the heck out of Xykon and he would blame Redcloak for the whole thing which will increase the tension between those two.

This may not happen directly after and other things could be in the middle but at some point -
Curly (Hel's last vampire) will show up and join team evil. She'll also claim to have her own version of the ritual.
Curly isn't as high level as Redcloak but she doesn't have to be, it's only a bluff so the other gods will fear Xykon and rush to destroy the world like Loki said.

Eventually Xykon will just kick Redcloak out and attempt to do his thing with Curly.
This will get Redcloak to realize that he went to far and send him towards accepting peace talks with Durkon and him joining the good guys in a fight against Xykon.

Most likely, Xykon will move the gate to his fortress or something since Thor mentioned it will be brought up again and that's where the final confrontation is.

Xykon gets killed by Roy. No doubt about that. Most likely in a huge splash page.



The only part I'm missing here is the IFCC. Not 100% sure what their next move will be, but they have 2 more calls for V. My guess is that in the last one, the party will count on it to happen and will send V on purpose to influence or do something to them. Not sure what yet.

[Ruck]

This may not happen directly after and other things could be in the middle but at some point -
Curly (Hel's last vampire) will show up and join team evil. She'll also claim to have her own version of the ritual.
Curly isn't as high level as Redcloak but she doesn't have to be, it's only a bluff so the other gods will fear Xykon and rush to destroy the world like Loki said.

Eventually Xykon will just kick Redcloak out and attempt to do his thing with Curly.
This will get Redcloak to realize that he went to far and send him towards accepting peace talks with Durkon and him joining the good guys in a fight against Xykon.

Most likely, Xykon will move the gate to his fortress or something since Thor mentioned it will be brought up again and that's where the final confrontation is.

How would Xykon move the Gate? The actual ritual doesn't even give him the power to do that, let alone that you've posited in this scenario that the last vampire is bluffing about having a ritual that controls the Gate.

Thor says to Durkon, "If you hear about it later, do me a favor and act surprised, OK?" He does not say Xykon's fortress will come up again. And the title of the strip is, in fact, "But It Probably Won't Come Up. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1137.html)"

[KorvinStarmast]

What he wants is the ability to commit further evil.
Even his goal itself is not a goal, but just a means to other means to other means.... it's all 'means' with no 'end' in sight. He always wants to have his own way.

Xykon's end game is to have the power to rule the world, the power to kill whoever he wants whenever he wants and to be completely unaccountable to anyone.
The author's endgame for Xykon is presumably to have him destroyed by the good guys.
I'm not sure I understand the question beyond that. Better answer than the one I dreamed up.
He's not an administrator. Azure City demonstrated that very nicely.

After reading the last comic, it seems clear to me Xykon never grew beyond that brat who murdered his parents for sending a wizard to rein in him. Indeed, however that's SoD material that 'on-line- only' readers will not have been exposed to.

[SlashDash]

How would Xykon move the Gate?
Literally "a wizard did it". Or an undead sorcerer lich to be exact.
This is a fantasy world and anything can happen. While we know nothing that can do it now, there's nothing that says an explanation for it won't come later on.

Heck, Soon's gate was in the throne. What if someone would have picked up that chair and moved it with the gem inside it?

Not that it must happen, it's just we can assume that the rest of the book isn't going to be just here in the North Pole. There's plenty of other things that can and should happen so I'm assuming at some point, the characters are moving somewhere else.

I assumed Xykon's fortress would be the final battleground but there are other options of course.
Literally going to hell (IFCC involved) or perhaps they could be back in the desert OR Azure CityGobtopia if something would happen with the open rifts.

Or anywhere else of symbolic significance. Like maybe back in the original dungeon for a full circle?

[Frozenstep]

Heck, Soon's gate was in the throne. What if someone would have picked up that chair and moved it with the gem inside it?



The rift won't move with the gem. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0411.html) Nor can any of the breaches be moved, as far as we are aware, aside from Redcloak's ritual.

[Ruck]

Literally "a wizard did it". Or an undead sorcerer lich to be exact.
This is a fantasy world and anything can happen.

"Anything that would break the established rules of the fantasy world can happen, because it's a fantasy world" isn't very convincing.

[Crimsonmantle]

After reading the last comic, it seems clear to me Xykon never grew beyond that brat who murdered his parents for sending a wizard to rein in him.
He's shrunk since then if anything.

[Xirdus]

My guess is that reflecting on things for the first time will make Xykon realize he's not the same person as before he died, and he will have an existential crisis.

Except he's exactly the same person as before he died. An absolute psychopath with zero care for anything in the world except who's running it, and only in so far as whether it's him or not him.

[TaiLiu]

After reading the last comic, it seems clear to me Xykon never grew beyond that brat who murdered his parents for sending a wizard to rein in him.

The last script makes it perfectly clear that Xykon is still spoiled child who also always insists on getting things his way or even just the appearances of having his own way.
It's funny, cuz Redcloak's brother accused him of not growing up, either. I guess the central difference is that Redcloak will eventually grow up and move villages, and Xykon won't. That'll put them at odds with one another, even moreso than now.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I do not believe Xykon has much more of a character arc.

Even in some of my speculation threads, where I thought of unexpected ways Xykon could be negotiated with temporarily, for example, I was expanding upon character traits that Xykon already exhibited before, such as when he negotiated with Roy on top of the zombie dragon rather than trying to kill the lower level hero on a heroic quest, because the fight would have bored him and he wanted a good hero versus villain climactic battle.

The bits of Xykon's character where he is not purely immediately omnicidal and only concerned with power gained right this moment, have been established for quite some time. In Start of Darkness, Xykon was portrayed as patiently waiting to see if Right Eye would do a certain behavior before acting on his suspicions.

He's not really grown in many ways except more powerful and more intelligent (purely because be became a Lich, I think). His immortality and resistance to the flow of time in the way it affects living beings has made him be more patient, being willing to wait months doing nothing to execute plans, or painstakingly read through boring diaries. When he is focused on something, he can remain focused on it for much longer than he could as a mortal. It's possible for him to learn a lot more now than when he was too caught up in the moment when he was mortal.

He also established even before becoming a Lich that being a villain is a barrel of laughs, but there is more to his personality than that. Namely, doing things for his own amusement, not just reaching a villainous goal.

So all the nuance to his personality had been established before he even appeared in the first web comic where he appeared. His arc had long ended, in terms of character development.

All that remains now is that character being tested by, for example, the current challenge by the lawful quinton. But that's more of a pass/fail test of his current status than an arc, no matter how it gets resolved.

He's already proven he can resist killing someone of opposing alignment, either lawful or good or both. He's already proven he can be patient, and he can execute tasks he finds repugnant, boring, or tedious.

There is no "have a heart" arc for him. He's too far gone. He will never develop empathy and has never come close. If anything, he's lost what empathy he ever had for his dog back when he was a kid.

As far as character development goes, he's stuck in time or gone in reverse from when he was a not so innocent child with cruel tendencies and necromancy magic.

He either will achieve his goals, die in battle, or escape. He will either pass his challenge with quinton or not, he will either be negotiated with or he will not, and even so, he will not hold true to any agreement for long.

He's done being developed as a character. His arc ended the moment he killed his parents. There is no redemption, there's nothing more to learn, there's no moral lesson to gain. His function now is simply to be the antagonist to those who do have arcs that need wrapping up.

As fun as he has been as a character, the focus is no longer on him, other than to show him off as a badass boss, or to exploit whatever character weaknesses or personality quirks he has already displayed. But the point is, all of that character development already happened.

We're not going to see any new side of his personality or character growth, only death and destruction.

[MetroAlien]

From a literary perspective, the villain's purpose is to show us his downfall due to major flaws.
With Xykon, we already see how many of his personal character traits are turning to hinderances. They could accumulate to defeat him later down the line.
But his failure (or inability, or desire not) to grow is just as crucial a flaw as his impatience or arrogance.

conversely speaking, the heroes' ability to self-reflect is beginning to turn into their greatest asset.

[Kish]

Or maybe more broadly, what's the author's end goal for Xykon?
My guess? Destruction.

Possible? Stranded in the Astral Plane or otherwise helpless and suffering eternally without being destroyed.

Right out? Any sort of reforming or ever showing more dimensions than he has by this point.

[Laurentio III]

Could the Gods bribe Xykon by restoring him as a living human, youngness and a coffee maker who does espresso?

[pearl jam]

Even if they can, is there anything about Xykon to suggest that he would abide by whatever condition was supposed to merit this action on the part of the gods?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Could the Gods bribe Xykon by restoring him as a living human, youngness and a coffee maker who does espresso?

I think the author has gone to some lengths to show that particular kind of solution won't be happening in the comic, because of the rules between the gods against interference. They'd have to hold an entirely new godsmoot vote to overturn their own rules, and they'd have to mostly support the idea of ridding the world of the non-interference rules.

Because the good gods are outnumbered, you wouldn't even get a majority of the good gods to agree to this.

It's one of the solutions to this story that the author has explicitly said are impossible.

Nothing's impossible in your imagination or fanfiction, but that outcome won't be happening as far as Rich has let us know.

[Laurentio III]

I think the author has gone to some lengths to show that particular kind of solution won't be happening in the comic, because of the rules between the gods against interference. They'd have to hold an entirely new godsmoot vote to overturn their own rules, and they'd have to mostly support the idea of ridding the world of the non-interference rules.

Because the good gods are outnumbered, you wouldn't even get a majority of the good gods to agree to this.

It's one of the solutions to this story that the author has explicitly said are impossible.

Nothing's impossible in your imagination or fanfiction, but that outcome won't be happening as far as Rich has let us know.
At the same time, Hel and Thor and others are able to smuggle an interference here and there, like telling Durkon where to find a very powerful weapon or (trying to) kill someone with a heart attack, or accidentally answering a prayer of a certain blond cleric at a convenient time.

So okay, maybe resurrection is on the table, youth is much harder, the expresso maker is impossible!

[snowblizz]

So okay, maybe resurrection is on the table, youth is much harder, the expresso maker is impossible!

Resurrection won't give Xykon more life. D&D is funny that way. He'd die at his natural lifespan in a youthful body. Any exception to this would again be messing with the basic rules that were agreed upon for this version of existence.

The espresso machine is in fact the easiest one to achieve. You just need to divinely inspire (which as an added benefit doesn't seem to be divine interference) a gnome for that to happen.

[Laurentio III]

The espresso machine is in fact the easiest one to achieve. You just need to divinely inspire (which as an added benefit doesn't seem to be divine interference) a gnome for that to happen.
And yet, Banjo can't make one!

[brian 333]

And yet, Banjo can't make one!

Needs more followers, (and a steam nozzle to make the foam.)

[snowblizz]

Needs more followers, (and a steam nozzle to make the foam.)

Exactly! What I was going to say.

[ORione]

Need followers to make espresso, need espresso to gain followers. No wonder it's so hard to become a god.

[Kish]

Could the Gods bribe Xykon by restoring him as a living human, youngness and a coffee maker who does espresso?
Strip #1266 does have the answer to this, even while they would never try. He is offended by the existence of anyone who could theoretically stop him from doing anything he wants. There is no bribe the gods could offer him that would make him stop looking for a way to become more powerful than them.

[Bohandas]

I think Xykon's endgame is the same as the Joker's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylwMWpbv5Fk&t=41s

[BloodSquirrel]

Self doubt is not in character for Xykon. If anything goes wrong it's someone else's fault and whatever goes right was his idea.

I think you've got this backwards- Xykon's lack of self-doubt means that he isn't bothered by admitting that one of his plans or ideas didn't pan out. He's pretty comfortable with his "you win some, you lose some" attitude.

Ultimately, it's why he has more power than Redcloak in their relationship. Redcloak thinks he's in control, but in the end, Redcloak needs The Plan, and Xykon doesn't. The only thing Xykon is committed to is Xykon and his continued existence. When the truth comes out, and Xykon and Redcloak find themselves at an impasse, Xykon can shrug, kill Redcloak, and move on with his unlife. Redcloak, even if he had the raw magical power to do so, couldn't.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think you've got this backwards- Xykon's lack of self-doubt means that he isn't bothered by admitting that one of his plans or ideas didn't pan out. He's pretty comfortable with his "you win some, you lose some" attitude.

Ultimately, it's why he has more power than Redcloak in their relationship. Redcloak thinks he's in control, but in the end, Redcloak needs The Plan, and Xykon doesn't. The only thing Xykon is committed to is Xykon and his continued existence. When the truth comes out, and Xykon and Redcloak find themselves at an impasse, Xykon can shrug, kill Redcloak, and move on with his unlife. Redcloak, even if he had the raw magical power to do so, couldn't. That's a great summary of their dysfunctional relationship. +1 :smallsmile:

[skim172]

My guess is that Xykon wants to destroy everything. The world, the cosmos, and the gods themselves. He wants to be the end of everything and he's been given the means to do it.

I think Xykon had his existential crisis long ago - when he first became a lich and realized the cost he had paid for immortality. And I think the answer he arrived at the end of his crisis was: If my existence is meaningless, then I will erase existence. But not just for myself - I'm not gonna be the only chump who dies. I'm taking everyone and everything with me. A rather literal interpretation of nihilism.

[Trixie_One]

My guess is that Xykon wants to destroy everything. The world, the cosmos, and the gods themselves. He wants to be the end of everything and he's been given the means to do it.

To me that's Xykon with too much of an ethos which I just don't think he has. As he said to Roy back on the dragon he's happy ruling the planet, and only blowing it up centuries later if he gets bored. He's not pre-AoS Nagash who has a specific goal in mind where everyone has to be dead, sure he might destroy everything, but he's not going to go out of his way to do that unless the whim strikes him to do so.

[BaronOfHell]

I suppose Xykon being chaotic evil, long term goals are nice to have, but he does not let those define him.

Like I can see RC and the Crimson Mantle being largely indistinguishable from the goblin's own PoV.
While talking to the masses we once saw RC pondering his retirement, but I doubt he has speculated about what to when the plan is done in any meaningful way.
It is of course reasonable he doesn't expect himself to outlive that very moment for very long, but on the off chance he should, I don't think he has any conception on how that life will be. Certainly he won't be the Red Cloak anymore, even though I doubt he can imagine himself in any other position.

Xykon on the other hand will just continue being Xykon.

I also don't know what Xykon contingencies are, but I think he is much smarter than what he lets on.

[Dante2001]

wild guessing - xykon kills the dark one in a moment of pure vicious awesome (i actually think this is fairly likely), then ascends to divinity on the back of that act and find himself trapped forever in the types of rules and regulations that he hates being trapped in (i am much less inclined to think this is likely).

omg that would be sooooooooo awesome!!!!!!!!

[albertov05]

I think Xykon's phylactery is gonna be destroyed and a true resurrection is gonna get thrown at him when our heroes and a defeated Red Cloak decide he's to dangerous to live. Not sure if it'll work within the rules of the stick's world. YMMV

[Peelee]

I think Xykon's phylactery is gonna be destroyed and a true resurrection is gonna get thrown at him when our heroes and a defeated Red Cloak decide he's to dangerous to live. Not sure if it'll work within the rules of the stick's world. YMMV

If I understand this theory right, it doesn't even work by the rules of D&D. Ignoring the author's stated distaste of True Resurrection to start with.

[albertov05]

If I understand this theory right, it doesn't even work by the rules of D&D. Ignoring the author's stated distaste of True Resurrection to start with.

Body destroyed. Phylactery destroyed. Soul floating free. It might work! And as I said...it might not. But this has gone past "normal" dnd rules. So who knows? Maybe a normal res would be enough in this world?

And wouldn't it be just rewards for Xykon to be a mere mortal again?

[Peelee]

Body destroyed. Phylactery destroyed. Soul floating free. It might work! And as I said...it might not. But this has gone past "normal" dnd rules. So who knows? Maybe a normal res would be enough in this world?

And wouldn't it be just rewards for Xykon to be a mere mortal again?

I thought you had meant they would use TR to destroy lich Xykon, since you said "he's too dangerous to live". But they would try to make him live again regardless, even though he's too dangerous to let live? If we're going with that for some reason, how would him being human again be worse than him going to the lower planes? Only Redcloak even knew what he was like as a human, and only Redcloak would even be able to cast TR, and Redcloak was allied with Xykon. So one would imagine the Order would stop Redcloak from attempting to resurrect Xykon, since that would seem remarkably foolish for them to allow. If Reddie even did in the first place, because again, the lower planes are objectively worse than being alive.

[brian 333]

Druid Spell: Reincarnation
Xykon comes back as a pixie.

[Tzardok]

Doesn't work on corpses that have been undead.

[albertov05]

Druid Spell: Reincarnation
Xykon comes back as a pixie.

Now we're talking!

[albertov05]

I thought you had meant they would use TR to destroy lich Xykon, since you said "he's too dangerous to live". But they would try to make him live again regardless, even though he's too dangerous to let live? If we're going with that for some reason, how would him being human again be worse than him going to the lower planes? Only Redcloak even knew what he was like as a human, and only Redcloak would even be able to cast TR, and Redcloak was allied with Xykon. So one would imagine the Order would stop Redcloak from attempting to resurrect Xykon, since that would seem remarkably foolish for them to allow. If Reddie even did in the first place, because again, the lower planes are objectively worse than being alive.

Losing his template. Living as a human again. I think he'd hate it. Even more than being in the lower planes.

Like I've said...it may not work. But it'd be a hilarious end.

[Peelee]

Losing his template. Living as a human again. I think he'd hate it. Even more than being in the lower planes.

Like I've said...it may not work. But it'd be a hilarious end.

If he'd hate it more than being in the lower planes, then why would he accept it? It's not a compulsion. The person can reject a rez.

And that's ignoring that even without the template, you suddenly have an evil, epic level sorcerer right back. It seems like an incredibly tactically poor decision with the only possible reason being spite.

[albertov05]

Doesn't work on corpses that have been undead.

Doesn't it turn them back to what they were in life? I think I read that.

I found it!

"Once turned into a zombie, a creature can't be restored to life except by powerful magic, such as a resurrection spell. - MM pg. 315"

I've said it may not work...but I like the idea that it might in the stick world.

[albertov05]

If he'd hate it more than being in the lower planes, then why would he accept it? It's not a compulsion. The person can reject a rez.

And that's ingoirng that even without the template, you suddenly have an evil, epic level sorcerer right back. It seems like an incredibly tactically poor decision with the only possible reason being spite.

Spite is a valid reason for doing something.

Turn him over to the paladins...I'm sure there's another Miko-ish npc hanging around who could lecture him on goodness for the next few decades.

[Tzardok]

Doesn't it turn them back to what they were in life? I think I read that.

I found it!

"Once turned into a zombie, a creature can't be restored to life except by powerful magic, such as a resurrection spell. - MM pg. 315"

I've said it may not work...but I like the idea that it might in the stick world.

Ressurection can, but weaker spells like Raise Dead or Reincarnation don't work on beings that became undead.

[Peelee]

Spite is a valid reason for doing something.

Depends on what that thing is. For example, bringing an epic level sorcerer back to life despite that he has murdered untold numbers of people, toppled entire kingdoms, and nearly destroyed the world in a mad quest for the power to rule the world as an omnicidal psychotic despot would be a contender for the single worst thing to do simply for spite, and I would not be surprised if anyone attempting this in Stickworld was met with immediate and lethal resistance from any and all who know about it.

[albertov05]

Ressurection can, but weaker spells like Raise Dead or Reincarnation don't work on beings that became undead.

You're right, I'm sure. The DM I played with years ago always said, "Dead is dead...they ain't coming back." So...we did alotta running from stuff. I mean a lot.

[dancrilis]

For example, bringing an epic level sorcerer back to life despite that he has murdered untold numbers of people, toppled entire kingdoms, and nearly destroyed the world in a mad quest for the power to rule the world as an omnicidal psychotic despot would be a contender for the single worst thing to do simply for spite

In this context yes, but if you were bringing him back to spite Roy (or the Greenhilt line) it might be a more sensible spite action.


and I would not be surprised if anyone attempting this in Stickworld was met with immediate and lethal resistance from any and all who know about it.

Sounds like a quest for some Greenhilt a hundred years after Roy is dead to begin an adventure path to stop some mad cult who seeks to return an ancient evil lich to life.


However within the context of anything that might happen in comic I suspect that Xykon becoming a deity might rank higher in likelihood then Roy has Xykon brought back to life to spite Xykon.

[Peelee]

In this context yes, but if you were bringing him back to spite Roy (or the Greenhilt line) it might be a more sensible spite action.

In the sense that trying to empty a lake by using a teaspoon is more sensible than trying to empty a lake by using a thimble, yes.

[Fyraltari]

Losing his template. Living as a human again. I think he'd hate it.

Pretty sure he'd be thrilled to get his taste buds back, actually.

[Peelee]

Pretty sure he'd be thrilled to get his taste buds back, actually.

Also, ya know, continuing to avoid the big fire down below. A third lease on life. Seems like he would be ecstatic at continuing to not be dead.

[brian 333]

He was dying of old age, so, you know, it has been many years since then. Resurrect him to death!

[Laurentio III]

Resurrect him.
Bring to the Astral Plane.
Bury him his fortress.
After a few years he can't go back to Material Plane because it would spell instant dead by age.
But, Astral Plane is absurdely boring and there is nothing to do.
End.

[Peelee]

Resurrect him.
Bring to the Astral Plane.
Bury him his fortress.
After a few years he can't go back to Material Plane because it would spell instant dead by age.
But, Astral Plane is absurdely boring and there is nothing to do.
End.

Ah, but who will bell the cat?

[Ruck]

Spite is a valid reason for doing something.


Depends on what that thing is.

Put me down as someone who believes the series will not climax/conclude with the heroes making an incredibly stupid and dangerous decision simply out of spite. They are the heroes, after all.

[Peelee]

Put me down as someone who believes the series will not climax/conclude with the heroes making an incredibly stupid and dangerous decision simply out of spite. They are the heroes, after all.

Aye.

And actually, I'd like to go back on what I said earlier and say that spite is never a valid reason for anything.

[Laurentio III]

Ah, but who will bell the cat?
The dumber mouse, I suppose.

[Peelee]

The dumber mouse, I suppose.

Ok, I got a chuckle out of that. But to be more blunt, who will try to constrain the epic level sorcerer who has some form of Still Spell and can Plane Shift?

[brian 333]

Apparently when he is sponsored by TDO and becomes the Epic God Of Evil Sorcery and Pointless Murder of Goblins, the gods will constrain him with the ... Wait. I seem to have missed the part where this is something he would not enjoy.

[albertov05]

I like throwing scenarios around because it's fun. Of course our heroes are going to win...it's a given. I like throwing spite into the mix because frankly....Xykon deserves a little spite. Yes...he's still epic as a human...but he's going to lose while at his most lichtastic. And consider that being a lower planes thrall of some demon lord is probably more acceptable to Xykon than getting beat by a dude with a big sword. But...he has a better chance of beating the dude with a big sword in a rematch than he does a demon lord. Of course he'll accept the rez!

Having said all that crap...I know it won't happen that way. And the mechanics of the spells may not even allow it. But it'd be more appropriate to have the paladins imprison him until he dies naturally. It feels more appropriate.

However it goes...Rich will do a great job with it...I have immense respect for his storytelling abilities...and we'll all enjoy the ride.

[Peelee]

And consider that being a lower planes thrall of some demon lord is probably more acceptable to Xykon than getting beat by a dude with a big sword.

Does the fact that Xykon himself refutes this assertion (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html) have any bearing on fun theorizing?

The lower planes is the ultimate game-over. He won't be a thrall of some demon lord. He'll be tortured until he doesn't even remember his own name so he cna be used as an off-brand Duracell for some gods he doesn't even care about. That's it, that's all. End of the line. He wants to stay in the game, and would do anything to achieve that. Have some guy with a sword beat him? Sure, that's not ideal, but if the alternative is the Abyss, some chump with a sword beats the hell out of it.

Hell, he's already been beaten by a guy with a sword. And after the guy even lost his sword! You know how Xykon reaxted to that? Mildly annoyed. So mildly that he didn't even remember that guy's name next time they met.

Are you sure you have a strong grasp on Xykon's character?

[Ruck]

Aye.

And actually, I'd like to go back on what I said earlier and say that spite is never a valid reason for anything.

Well, maybe it is for opening a competing coffee shop next door (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2k0VFX1FUw).

[albertov05]

Does the fact that Xykon himself refutes this assertion (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html) have any bearing on fun theorizing?

The lower planes is the ultimate game-over. He won't be a thrall of some demon lord. He'll be tortured until he doesn't even remember his own name so he cna be used as an off-brand Duracell for some gods he doesn't even care about. That's it, that's all. End of the line. He wants to stay in the game, and would do anything to achieve that. Have some guy with a sword beat him? Sure, that's not ideal, but if the alternative is the Abyss, some chump with a sword beats the hell out of it.

Hell, he's already been beaten by a guy with a sword. And after the guy even lost his sword! You know how Xykon reaxted to that? Mildly annoyed. So mildly that he didn't even remember that guy's name next time they met.

Are you sure you have a strong grasp on Xykon's character?

Congrats! You managed to complain at me while agreeing with me. I've never seen it done so well.

[Peelee]

Congrats! You managed to complain at me while agreeing with me. I've never seen it done so well.

You said that Xykon would see the lower planes as more acceptable than X. I said that the lower planes was the epitome of unacceptable for Xykon.

I fail to see any agreement.

[albertov05]

Well, maybe it is for opening a competing coffee shop next door (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2k0VFX1FUw).

Maybe those awesome urinals would put peglee in a better mood? ;)

[albertov05]

You said that Xykon would see the lower planes as more acceptable than X. I said that the lower planes was the epitome of unacceptable for Xykon.

I fail to see any agreement.

Then I said.... BUT! you stopped reading before that. Then agreed with what I said after the BUT.

[Ruck]

I like throwing scenarios around because it's fun.

Nothing personal, but since I've said it before, I'll say it again-- I tend more to try to figure out what is likely or plausible to happen, rather than just what I (or other people) might think would be cool if it happened. And that often involves poking holes in the wouldn't-it-be-cool-if theories.


Maybe those awesome urinals would put peglee in a better mood? ;)

I'm at least going to get a good laugh out of "Pegleg Peelee" now.

[Peelee]

Then I said.... BUT! you stopped reading before that. Then agreed with what I said after the BUT.
I did not. You said he was more likely to beat the guy with the sword, which has zero relevance on what he would prefer regardless. It doesn't matter if he would be more or less likely to beat the guy with the sword. There is absolutely nothing he would find less acceptable than going to the lower planes.

Also, I recommend you do not claim that people did not read what you wrote.

Well, maybe it is for opening a competing coffee shop next door (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2k0VFX1FUw).
I forgot how much I loved Curb Your Enthusiasm, but I think that clip pretty much agrees that spite is not a good reason.

Also, best part was "have you thought maybe you were just complaining too much?". I'm surprised Larry David didn't have that get the pause and went with the jacket reaction instead.

[albertov05]

Nothing personal, but since I've said it before, I'll say it again-- I tend more to try to figure out what is likely or plausible to happen, rather than just what I (or other people) might think would be cool if it happened. And that often involves poking holes in the wouldn't-it-be-cool-if theories.



I'm at least going to get a good laugh out of "Pegleg Peelee" now.

It's cool, Ruck. We both want to have fun with this stuff. I tend to look at future storylines as a what-if. Stupid speculation is fun. Looking for holes....is fun in any situation. Nudge Nudge

[albertov05]

I did not. You said he was more likely to beat the guy with the sword, which has zero relevance on what he would prefer regardless. It doesn't matter if he would be more or less likely to beat the guy with the sword. There is absolutely nothing he would find less acceptable than going to the lower planes.

Also, I recommend you do not claim that people did not read what you wrote.

I forgot how much I loved Curb Your Enthusiasm, but I think that clip pretty much agrees that spite is not a good reason.

Also, best part was "have you thought maybe you were just complaining too much?". I'm surprised Larry David didn't have that get the pause and went with the jacket reaction instead.

Ooooo...red.


Anyway...he would accept the rez...If it's possible within the stick rules...because his chances of beating the guy with the sword are better than beating a demon lord. He already killed the sword guy once.

I'm not sure what part you're disagreeing with. Unless you just want to disagree?

[albertov05]

I just noticed I misspelled your name as peglee. My bad. Not intentional.

[Peelee]

Ooooo...red.
Yes. That means you are highly advised to listen, if you are not already aware.

Anyway...he would accept the rez...If it's possible within the stick rules...because his chances of beating the guy with the sword are better than beating a demon lord.
No. His chances of beating the guy with the sword are irrelevant. It doesn't matter. He could have no chance at all and he would take the rez, because that way he's still in the game for however long. You keep adding this as if it matters. It does not matter. Xykon would take a raise from anyone for any reason regardless of whether he could beat whoever.

Also, we know that one has to accept being raised, as it's been shown in-comic from both the perspective of the person doing the raising and the person being raised. This is not a point in contention, despite that you seem to keep thinking it may or may not be in play.

Finally, Xykon could not "beat a demon lord". This isn't 8-Bit Theater, that's not how the afterlife works. In-comic, we see mages as powerful as or more powerful than Xykon be shackled to the whims of planar beings, and who try to escape at the first chance only to be apparently corralled like roaming cattle. Out-of-comic, the author has said that the lower planes torture you until you turn into a cookie cutter version of everyone else to match the alignment. Xykon wouldn't be thralled to a demon lord, he wouldn't be able to try to wrest control of a part of the underworld. He would be nothing but another soul to be chewed up by the infernal machine, and he knows it to boot which is why he is so adamant against going there.

I agree that he would take the rez. I do not agree on why. I think you are mistaken on the why, which is a large part of who Xykon is, and has been explicitly told in no uncertain terms in the comic by Xykon himself. Adding needless riders onto it is what I am disagreeing with, and you keep stating I'm agreeing. You are wrong. So long as you keep saying that it's because he could beat Roy, I am not agreeing with you.

[albertov05]

Yes. That means you are highly advised to listen, if you are not already aware.

No. His chances of beating the guy with the sword are irrelevant. It doesn't matter. He could have no chance at all and he would take the rez, because that way he's still in the game for however long. You keep adding this as if it matters. It does not matter. Xykon would take a raise from anyone for any reason regardless of whether he could beat whoever.

Also, we know that one has to accept being raised, as it's been shown in-comic from both the perspective of the person doing the raising and the person being raised. This is not a point in contention, despite that you seem to keep thinking it may or may not be in play.

Finally, Xykon could not "beat a demon lord". This isn't 8-Bit Theater, that's not how the afterlife works. In-comic, we see mages as powerful as or more powerful than Xykon be shackled to the whims of planar beings, and who try to escape at the first chance only to be apparently corralled like roaming cattle. Out-of-comic, the author has said that the lower planes torture you until you turn into a cookie cutter version of everyone else to match the alignment. Xykon wouldn't be thralled to a demon lord, he wouldn't be able to try to wrest control of a part of the underworld. He would be nothing but another soul to be chewed up by the infernal machine, and he knows it to boot which is why he is so adamant against going there.

I agree that he would take the rez. I do not agree on why. I think you are mistaken on the why, which is a large part of who Xykon is, and has been explicitly told in no uncertain terms in the comic by Xykon himself. Adding needless riders onto it is what I am disagreeing with, and you keep stating I'm agreeing. You are wrong. So long as you keep saying that it's because he could beat Roy, I am not agreeing with you.

Oh...the red is a threat? Why? Because I said the only thing I could figure was you didn't read the whole post? You just agreed that he'd take the rez. You agreed he wouldn't like being in hell. You agree that the stickverse rules may not allow a rez. You can see why I would think you skimmed it.

I'm not sure what you're upset about. I've prefaced my posts with, "This probably won't work." What are you upset about?

[dancrilis]

Oh...the red is a threat? Why? Because I said the only thing I could figure was you didn't read the whole post?

Peelee is an active commenter but they are also a moderator - and when speaking in red they are speaking as a moderator, and one of the forum rules (https://forums.giantitp.com/announcement.php?a=1) is:



Tell a poster that they didn't read something, whether upthread, elsewhere on the forum, or anywhere else. This is not a discussion tactic we permit here. Additionally, any statement that states or implies that the only way someone could disagree with you is because they don't understand/can't read properly is likewise not allowed.



There is absolutely nothing he would find less acceptable than going to the lower planes.


In general yes - but I am not sure he would choose to jump into the Snarl over the lower planes.



Finally, Xykon could not "beat a demon lord".
Well he could perhaps do it before he got destroyed - but that is likely a seperate discussion.

[Peelee]

In general yes - but I am not sure he would choose to jump into the Snarl over the lower planes.


Well he could perhaps do it before he got destroyed - but that is likely a seperate discussion.
Both fair points, and I got a chuckle at that second one.

[Jasdoif]

Finally, Xykon could not "beat a demon lord".Well he could perhaps do it before he got destroyed - but that is likely a seperate discussion.Hmm....If the King of All Roaches (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0116.html) happens to be a demon roach, does that constitute being a demon lord?

[albertov05]

Peelee is an active commenter but they are also a moderator - and when speaking in red they are speaking as a moderator, and one of the forum rules (https://forums.giantitp.com/announcement.php?a=1) is:


Alberto said this -> Hmmm....I've always felt that active posting moderators aren't a good idea. From my own experience... I'd ban everyone. I'd have my own spite forum!



In general yes - but I am not sure he would choose to jump into the Snarl over the lower planes.


Well he could perhaps do it before he got destroyed - but that is likely a seperate discussion.

My whole point is he'd rather not try. That coming back to face his mortal enemies is an easy choice. Even if he didn't have his lich powers upon....reintegration.

Honestly...being beaten and imprisoned by mortal folk....especially the kind who would preach at him all day about Law and Goodness...is the end I'd like to see for him.

Is it mechanically possible for this to happen? Probably not. It's just my preference.

[Ruck]

I'm at least going to get a good laugh out of "Pegleg Peelee" now.

It reminds me of both Pegleg Pete (https://bcdbimages.s3.amazonaws.com/disney/char/pete.jpg) and Peg Pelvis Pete (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZEszeuDxoQ).

[brian 333]

In a fantasy story the heros have to win, as most here appear to agree. (Exceptions for prequels and early books in a series and anything written by G.R.R. Martin)

What seems often overlooked is that the villain must also receive a commupance commensurate with the degree of villainy.

Sauron wants to rule the whole world forever: ends up a faded spirit able to do no more than observe all he worked for destroyed.

The White Witch wants to kill Aslan and usurp his throne: is killed by Aslan.

Raistlin Majere wants to be a god: is tied to a pillory in hell and tormented.

It is not enough that they fail. The villain must fail completely in a humiliating fashion. So it must be with Xykon. Any ending that leaves him in a position of potential power should not be considered seriously.

[albertov05]

It reminds me of both Pegleg Pete (https://bcdbimages.s3.amazonaws.com/disney/char/pete.jpg) and Peg Pelvis Pete (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZEszeuDxoQ).


When I was a kid...we had a neighbor in his early 70's. He was a roofer. His wife made the best fried apple pies. Anyway....I was outside one day and he yelled for me to come over. He asked me to help him carry a bench from his truck to the porch. His wife yelled, "Be careful your leg doesn't fall off!" I thought she was making a joke. Then his leg came off. It seems he had worn out the straps that connected to a belt on his waist. And his leg fell off. He lost it due to infection in the 1920"s.

This guy climbed ladders for 50+ years with one leg. And you'd never know from watching him walk.

[albertov05]

In a fantasy story the heros have to win, as most here appear to agree. (Exceptions for prequels and early books in a series and anything written by G.R.R. Martin)

What seems often overlooked is that the villain must also receive a commupance commensurate with the degree of villainy.

Sauron wants to rule the whole world forever: ends up a faded spirit able to do no more than observe all he worked for destroyed.

The White Witch wants to kill Aslan and usurp his throne: is killed by Aslan.

Raistlin Majere wants to be a god: is tied to a pillory in hell and tormented.

It is not enough that they fail. The villain must fail completely in a humiliating fashion. So it must be with Xykon. Any ending that leaves him in a position of potential power should not be considered seriously.

You make very good points.

Evil characters, in a world where there's confirmation of an afterlife, know they're going to miserable place upon death. Xykon has insulated himself against that eventuality. Though he's dead...he doesn't want to die.

What is his comuppance? Being a punching bag to some demon lord he got the lich creation ritual from? Or my preference...resurrecting him and letting paladins preach at him until he begs for death?

What's your preference?

[Laurentio III]

What's your preference?
Trapped inside his Astral Plane Fortress for eternity, unable to escape.

[Ruck]

It is not enough that they fail. The villain must fail completely in a humiliating fashion. So it must be with Xykon. Any ending that leaves him in a position of potential power should not be considered seriously.

That I agree with, but also, the heroes are the heroes, and they don't torture people. They need to kill Xykon because as long as he's alive he's a threat to literally every living mortal being. Their goal is to end that threat, not to further punish him for revenge.


I forgot how much I loved Curb Your Enthusiasm, but I think that clip pretty much agrees that spite is not a good reason.

Also, best part was "have you thought maybe you were just complaining too much?". I'm surprised Larry David didn't have that get the pause and went with the jacket reaction instead.

Well, it's a good reason in the sense that it entertains me. (Maybe "valid reason" is more accurate?) And as I recall Larry had some good points. Or at least I remember that season being pretty funny.


When I was a kid...

Cutting the post because I didn't want to quote the whole thing, but that was a cool story.

[Fyraltari]

In a fantasy story the heros have to win, as most here appear to agree.
The success of the tragedy genre (EDIT: Not to mention horror) says otherwise.
Sometimes a story has a sad ending and it works.
Ends with U'n burning the world in a fit of rage after his scheme to get eternal adoration is exposed and he is revealed to everybody as the cruel tyrant that he is... With the exception of a small tribe who it's strongly implied will fall for U'n's plot at some point in the far future. U'n's only defeat here is having to restart the game and a nick to his all-encompassing pride
Ends with Mac and Childs waiting for the cold to kill them with no guarantee that every part of the Thing is dead (it only takes a cell, remember) and won't come back alive when someone comes looking for them and bring the corpses to a warmer place.


(Exceptions for prequels and early books in a series and anything written by G.R.R. Martin)
George Martin has stated that his favourite kind of ending is the "bitter-sweet". Where the heroes by-and-large succeed but the cost was bigger than anticipated or there are still many problems afoot. Which makes sense for someone who clearly prefers nuance and ambiguity to simple situations.

What seems often overlooked is that the villain must also receive a commupance commensurate with the degree of villainy.

Sauron wants to rule the whole world forever: ends up a faded spirit able to do no more than observe all he worked for destroyed.

The White Witch wants to kill Aslan and usurp his throne: is killed by Aslan.

Raistlin Majere wants to be a god: is tied to a pillory in hell and tormented.

It is not enough that they fail. The villain must fail completely in a humiliating fashion. So it must be with Xykon.
Hard disagree. For starter a villain isn't always required for a story to be good (in fact I love stories where the "antagonist" is the protagonists' own hang-ups").

More to your point while the villain being defeated humiliatingly is certainly a way to satisfyingly wrap up the story it is not required.
There are many stories where the villain is beaten and they gracefully acknowledge their defeat and leave with little-to-no ill will toward the protagonists. (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GracefulLoser)

Here are a few villains from books by this forum's second favourite author, Sir Terry Pratchett, whose comeuppance is hardly humiliating or complete.
The Demon King Asfgtl gets to file paperwork to his heart's content in an office no-one will ever visit. He is indeed powerless, but he doesn't even realize it and is more happy than he ever has been.

Dios is sent back in time to do what he had done previously. His punishment for his many crimes is... to always have done them/do them again. Note that since the core of his character is an irrational hatred for change, being stuck in a time-loop for eternity where he gets to rule over a country for a few thousand years doesn't seem very bad.

While Vorbis spending an infinite amount of time unable to cross the desert that leads to the afterlife, forced to confront his own hypocrisy, would be a fitting punishment, the story ends with Brutha helping him cross the desert, just like he did in the world of the living (after which Vorbis betrayed him). Because, as Brutha says, to be Vorbis is to turn people into the worst versions of themselves, but to be Brutha is to help people. This in particular is a good example of what I am saying below.

At the end of the novel, Reacher Guilt is made the same offer Moist received at the beginning (be executed for your crimes or become the Patrician's special agent). Guilt chooses death over being someone's pawn and Vetinari says he can't help but admire someone willing to follow their principles to the end.

Ultimately, I'd say that the fate of the villain doesn't matter that much to the story, because the story isn't about them. The story is about the protagonists, what it reveals about them or how they are changed by it. The villain's role is the same as any antagonist: to be an obstacle that forces the protagonist to grow in order to overcome it. That growth may manifest itself by vanquishing and destroying the villain but it may also manifest in forgiving the villain, helping them grow into a better person or realizing the hero has outgrown them and they are no longer relevant in any way.

(Side-note: many stories where the hero forgives or deems the villain irrelevant often have the villain then die by the hand of someone else, the environment or foolishly getting themselves killed, often falling to their doom (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisneyVillainDeath). I see this as a cheat for the author to have their cake and eat it too, one that undermines the protagonist's choice.)


What is his comuppance? Being a punching bag to some demon lord he got the lich creation ritual from? Or my preference...resurrecting him and letting paladins preach at him until he begs for death?

What's your preference?
Roy destroys Xykon, saving the world and freeing his family from his father's neglectful abuse. What happens to Xykon next, I don't really care. I suppose him being dead is fitting enough.

(Also, Xykon didn't get the lichification ritual from a demon lord. I recommend reading Start of Darkness if you haven't already, it's a very good book. The Giant's second best, in my opinion.)

[hroþila]

Yeah some of you guys have weirdly restrictive views on storytelling. Beowulf for example is a fantasy story with an absolute downer of an ending and that's like 1000 years old at the very least.
Hooray, the dragon is dead! Oh but so is Beowulf, and it's heavily implied that the Geats won't survive for long without him. Oh well

[brian 333]

The success of the tragedy genre (EDIT: Not to mention horror) says otherwise.
Sometimes a story has a sad ending and it works.
Ends with U'n burning the world in a fit of rage after his scheme to get eternal adoration is exposed and he is revealed to everybody as the cruel tyrant that he is... With the exception of a small tribe who it's strongly implied will fall for U'n's plot at some point in the far future. U'n's only defeat here is having to restart the game and a nick to his all-encompassing pride
Ends with Mac and Childs waiting for the cold to kill them with no guarantee that every part of the Thing is dead (it only takes a cell, remember) and won't come back alive when someone comes looking for them and bring the corpses to a warmer place.


George Martin has stated that his favourite kind of ending is the "bitter-sweet". Where the heroes by-and-large succeed but the cost was bigger than anticipated or there are still many problems afoot. Which makes sense for someone who clearly prefers nuance and ambiguity to simple situations.

Hard disagree. For starter a villain isn't always required for a story to be good (in fact I love stories where the "antagonist" is the protagonists' own hang-ups").

More to your point while the villain being defeated humiliatingly is certainly a way to satisfyingly wrap up the story it is not required.
There are many stories where the villain is beaten and they gracefully acknowledge their defeat and leave with little-to-no ill will toward the protagonists. (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GracefulLoser)

Here are a few villains from books by this forum's second favourite author, Sir Terry Pratchett, whose comeuppance is hardly humiliating or complete.
The Demon King Asfgtl gets to file paperwork to his heart's content in an office no-one will ever visit. He is indeed powerless, but he doesn't even realize it and is more happy than he ever has been.

Dios is sent back in time to do what he had done previously. His punishment for his many crimes is... to always have done them/do them again. Note that since the core of his character is an irrational hatred for change, being stuck in a time-loop for eternity where he gets to rule over a country for a few thousand years doesn't seem very bad.

While Vorbis spending an infinite amount of time unable to cross the desert that leads to the afterlife, forced to confront his own hypocrisy, would be a fitting punishment, the story ends with Brutha helping him cross the desert, just like he did in the world of the living (after which Vorbis betrayed him). Because, as Brutha says, to be Vorbis is to turn people into the worst versions of themselves, but to be Brutha is to help people. This in particular is a good example of what I am saying below.

At the end of the novel, Reacher Guilt is made the same offer Moist received at the beginning (be executed for your crimes or become the Patrician's special agent). Guilt chooses death over being someone's pawn and Vetinari says he can't help but admire someone willing to follow their principles to the end.

Ultimately, I'd say that the fate of the villain doesn't matter that much to the story, because the story isn't about them. The story is about the protagonists, what it reveals about them or how they are changed by it. The villain's role is the same as any antagonist: to be an obstacle that forces the protagonist to grow in order to overcome it. That growth may manifest itself by vanquishing and destroying the villain but it may also manifest in forgiving the villain, helping them grow into a better person or realizing the hero has outgrown them and they are no longer relevant in any way.

(Side-note: many stories where the hero forgives or deems the villain irrelevant often have the villain then die by the hand of someone else, the environment or foolishly getting themselves killed, often falling to their doom (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisneyVillainDeath). I see this as a cheat for the author to have their cake and eat it too, one that undermines the protagonist's choice.)


Roy destroys Xykon, saving the world and freeing his family from his father's neglectful abuse. What happens to Xykon next, I don't really care. I suppose him being dead is fitting enough.

(Also, Xykon didn't get the lichification ritual from a demon lord. I recommend reading Start of Darkness if you haven't already, it's a very good book. The Giant's second best, in my opinion.)


Yeah some of you guys have weirdly restrictive views on storytelling. Beowulf for example is a fantasy story with an absolute downer of an ending and that's like 1000 years old at the very least.
Hooray, the dragon is dead! Oh but so is Beowulf, and it's heavily implied that the Geats won't survive for long without him. Oh well

The exceptions prove the rule.

What you or GRR Martin may like or prefer isn't my point. I already acknowledged that there are exceptions. My point is that modern fantasy, indeed most fantasy, has a happy ending for the protagonist and an end that punishes the villain in measure with his villainy.

Beowulf died in combat, a hero's death worthy of song. What better ending could he have? And there is room for yet another hero to come along and save the world again.

If Grendl, Grendl's Mother, or The Dragon had survived your point would be valid, but all three of the murderous monsters are slain by the hero.

The context of the story is a society very different from our own. Heroic self-sacrifice was a virtue, and thus should be viewed as the Thundershields viewed Kandro's death.

[dancrilis]

Whether a happy ending is desirable or not in stories I think it is fairly clear that the Order of the Stick will have at worst a bitter sweet ending (depending on how you view the as yet unknown conclusion of Belkar's, Redcloak's, etc's, stories) and fairly likely to just have a fairly standard happy ending (evil is punished or redeemed, good is rewarded, etc).

[InvisibleBison]

The exceptions prove the rule.

No, exceptions disprove the rule. You said that in fantasy, the heroes always win. Fyraltari provided examples of fantasy stories where the heroes don't win. There is no way evidence contrary to your hypothesis can somehow actually support your hypothesis. Trotting out a platitude that has been rendered nonsensical by linguistic evolution does not change what things mean.

[Laurentio III]

No, exceptions disprove the rule. You said that in fantasy, the heroes always win. Fyraltari provided examples of fantasy stories where the heroes don't win. There is no way evidence contrary to your hypothesis can somehow actually support your hypothesis. Trotting out a platitude that has been rendered nonsensical by linguistic evolution does not change what things mean.
While I hate that saying - because it's often missused - the point is that Beowulf doesn't get a good ending how we consider it today, but it was a good ending for his time. Dying in a battle, against a powerful enemies. That IS a good ending, so there is no "exception" here. Beowulf dying of old age, that would be a downer.

[Peelee]

No, exceptions disprove the rule.

Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. The exception proves the rule for those not excepted. Or, more simply, that things can be exceptions proves there is a rule. No rule would mean no exceptions.

[albertov05]

{scrubbed}

[Fyraltari]

The exceptions prove the rule.
Exceptions ought to be rare to be exceptions.


What you or GRR Martin may like or prefer isn't my point. I already acknowledged that there are exceptions. My point is that modern fantasy, indeed most fantasy, has a happy ending for the protagonist and an end that punishes the villain in measure with his villainy.
No, what you said was:


In a fantasy story the heros have to win, as most here appear to agree. (Exceptions for prequels and early books in a series and anything written by G.R.R. Martin)

What seems often overlooked is that the villain must also receive a commupance commensurate with the degree of villainy.
Emphasis mine.
The exceptions you allowed for where for prequels, early books and Martin (for some reason), nothing else.

You vave made two claims: first that the heroes have to win in the end (1) and furthermore that the vilain's defeat must also be humiliating and commensurate with his villainy (2).

I agree that (1) and (2) are common tropes ((1) much more than (2)) but neither are requirement.

If what you wanted to say was these are simply common occurences, then we agree, but it isn't what you wrote.

While I hate that saying - because it's often missused - the point is that Beowulf doesn't get a good ending how we consider it today, but it was a good ending for his time. Dying in a battle, against a powerful enemies. That IS a good ending, so there is no "exception" here. Beowulf dying of old age, that would be a downer.
Right, but Beowulf wasn't one of my examples. In fact I intentionally only picked examples contemporary to us (I didn't use Shakespeare's body of work, for example) precisely to avoid this kind of culture clash.

[Laurentio III]

Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. The exception proves the rule for those not excepted. Or, more simply, that things can be exceptions proves there is a rule. No rule would mean no exceptions.
In Italy it's said "L'eccezione conferma la regola" ("The exception proves the rule") which is fine, but most people interprete it as "I can set arbitrary, unworkable rules and whatever doesn't fit is a confirmation that the rule is fine".
It gets me mad every single time. It's abused as few things, and I'm speaking about Italy, so going against rules is already covered.
Things like a woman I know saying: "Every man falls in love with me!" "Well, I don't." "You are the exception proving the rule!"
No, it's not. It's just that someone consider every opposing results as "exception", even when they outnumber expected results.

Sorry for the rant.

[Peelee]

In Italy it's said "L'eccezione conferma la regola" ("The exception proves the rule") which is fine, but most people interprete it as "I can set arbitrary, unworkable rules and whatever doesn't fit is a confirmation that the rule is fine".
It gets me mad every single time. It's abused as few things, and I'm speaking about Italy, so going against rules is already covered.
Things like a woman I know saying: "Every man falls in love with me!" "Well, I don't." "You are the exception proving the rule!"
No, it's not. It's just that someone consider every opposing results as "exception", even when they outnumber expected results.

Sorry for the rant.

I thought you'd appreciate my proto-Italian, since as far as I know that's the origin of the phrase. But yeah, its horribly misused, I agree. It's supposed to be more along the lines of Bender telling Fry the museum is free on Tuesdays - the existence of an exception proving there is a rule that it is not free the rest of the week.

[InvisibleBison]

Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. The exception proves the rule for those not excepted. Or, more simply, that things can be exceptions proves there is a rule. No rule would mean no exceptions.

This principle isn't relevant to the current discussion. To apply this principle, the putative exception has to actually be recognizable as an exception in some way beyond just not conforming to a proposed rule. The stories Fyraltari cited are only exceptions to a rule if you assume that the rule you're trying to prove exists through their exceptionality already exists. In other words, attempting to apply this principle here is circular reasoning.

[Peelee]

This principle isn't relevant to the current discussion. To apply this principle, the putative exception has to actually be recognizable as an exception in some way beyond just not conforming to a proposed rule. The stories Fyraltari cited are only exceptions to a rule if you assume that the rule you're trying to prove exists through their exceptionality already exists. In other words, attempting to apply this principle here is circular reasoning.

I agree. I was merely responding to the claim that "exceptions disprove the rule". I made no comment on whether the exception proved the rule in this case.

[Rodin]

Going back to Xykon's motivation, I see him as a sort of Kefka-like figure without the extreme nihilism. He's evil because its fun to be evil. He doesn't want to rule. He wants to sit at the top of a tower with ultimate power to zap anyone at any time because he finds it funny. He doesn't want to destroy the world, but not for any moral reason. The world is where he keeps his stuff, and wiping out all life means nobody for him to terrorize.

As long as he's the #1 dog with nobody to tell him what to do, Xykon doesn't really care what happens to anyone else. I would expect him to act like he did with O-Chul, only on a global scale. Order a country to gather 10000 men and then kill and zombify half of them so a big battle can take place. That sort of thing.

[hroþila]

Beowulf died in combat, a hero's death worthy of song. What better ending could he have? And there is room for yet another hero to come along and save the world again.


While I hate that saying - because it's often missused - the point is that Beowulf doesn't get a good ending how we consider it today, but it was a good ending for his time. Dying in a battle, against a powerful enemies. That IS a good ending, so there is no "exception" here. Beowulf dying of old age, that would be a downer.
Yeah no. When Beowulf dies nobody is like "awesome dying dude". In fact, Wiglaf laments that they couldn't convince Beowulf to stay away from the dragon's den. The tone of the poem is very much elegiac. The Geats appreciate Beowulf's sacrifice and are impressed that he managed to stop the dragon before it could cause much harm, but the point is that Beowulf didn't actually save his people - his people are left terribly vulnerable to the Swedes, and the Geats fully expect them to take advantage of Beowulf's death to conquer them and enslave them. This is all explicitly told in the ending of the poem. Beowulf's death is not depicted as just a heroic death, it's depicted as a tragedy that dooms the whole tribe.

[Jasdoif]

Whether a happy ending is desirable or not in stories I think it is fairly clear that the Order of the Stick will have at worst a bitter sweet ending (depending on how you view the as yet unknown conclusion of Belkar's, Redcloak's, etc's, stories) and fairly likely to just have a fairly standard happy ending (evil is punished or redeemed, good is rewarded, etc).This seems like a good time to bring up the Oracle-related commentary.



...in the end this is still a comedy-adventure, not a drama. When the entire Order of the Stick saga is over, Elan will have a happy ending. Not everyone in the story will be able to say the same, but it doesn't take much work to extrapolate a few things that simply could not happen without invalidating Elan's prophecy-assured happy ending. Consider it my way of turning to the audience and sayings, "Don't worry folks! It might get scary for a while, but it will all work out in the end!"
If nothing else, it provides a focus for argumentation.

[RatElemental]

Ah, but who will bell the cat?

If we're already going completely off the wall with a theory in which Xykon is resurrected and then imprisoned on the astral plane forever, it's not too much further to think that someone might slap a pair of antimagic shackles on his wrist bones while he's destroyed so they're in place after the res.

Right now without magic he's still a skeleton with the strength to crush people's windpipes, but after getting resurrected he'd be a venerable human with no lich template giving him bonuses or negating his age penalties anymore.


I still fail to see how this is worse for Xykon than being some demon's chew toy, but I suppose denying the demon their chew toy might be a worthy goal.

[Peelee]

If we're already going completely off the wall with a theory in which Xykon is resurrected and then imprisoned on the astral plane forever, it's not too much further to think that someone might slap a pair of antimagic shackles on his wrist bones while he's destroyed so they're in place after the res.

Right now without magic he's still a skeleton with the strength to crush people's windpipes, but after getting resurrected he'd be a venerable human with no lich template giving him bonuses or negating his age penalties anymore.


I still fail to see how this is worse for Xykon than being some demon's chew toy, but I suppose denying the demon their chew toy might be a worthy goal.

Being destroyed and resurrected kind of precludes any sort of "shackle his wrist bones", though. There are no wrist bones to shackle, are there?

[Fyraltari]

Being destroyed and resurrected kind of precludes any sort of "shackle his wrist bones", though. There are no wrist bones to shackle, are there?

What? Living humans have lots of wrist bones.

[dancrilis]

What? Living humans have lots of wrist bones.

Resurrection reconstructs the body from the remains, True Resurrection doesn't need remains so when he is returned to life he would still need to be contained after being brought back - can't just slap bracers on the corpse (and we don't know what spells he might have to bypass anti-magic).

Further even without magic he could still become a lich again, and if he doesn't then he is fairly old so baring a major alignment shift he would merely end up back in the abyss a few years later.

[Peelee]

What? Living humans have lots of wrist bones.

Yes, but a destroyed lich is not a living human. It's that pesky in between state we're talking about here. We've already seen Xykon nearly destroyed once - pretend, for the moment, that in the Dungeon of Dorukan, they had managed to smash dlthe phylactery as well. Where would you put the shackles? There were no wrists.

[brian 333]

No, exceptions disprove the rule. You said that in fantasy, the heroes always win. Fyraltari provided examples of fantasy stories where the heroes don't win. There is no way evidence contrary to your hypothesis can somehow actually support your hypothesis. Trotting out a platitude that has been rendered nonsensical by linguistic evolution does not change what things mean.

I made a generic statement, acknowledged that there were exceptions, and concluded by stating an opinion.

This is not science. You don't refute a generic argument by exacting measurements.

Disagree or not with my statement. Fyaralti did. And did so without demanding my statement be either 100% true or 100% false. There is a lot of gray.

As for the exact exceptions I listed, they were neither an exhaustive, all inclusive list, nor intended to be taken literally.

It was a joke.

Not a funny one, apparently, because I had to explain it. Still, a joke. So, please take a moment to reconsider what I wrote. Does it imply in any way a statement of doctrine which must be rigorously obeyed? Or does it convey a general sentiment which is, in the end, an opinion?

I stand by my opinion, and the words I used to convey it. I wasn't 100% accurate, but then I wasn't trying to be. 100% accuracy is for science experiments.

[Jasdoif]

Yes, but a destroyed lich is not a living human. It's that pesky in between state we're talking about here. We've already seen Xykon nearly destroyed once - pretend, for the moment, that in the Dungeon of Dorukan, they had managed to smash dlthe phylactery as well. Where would you put the shackles? There were no wrists.Clearly(?) you'd first get one of those skeleton-shaped gelatin or cake molds, mix bonemeal with resin to make a paste (pretend it's shalk resin and you're trying to raise your Alchemy skill), fit the paste into the mold, and let/make it solidify.

[Fyraltari]

Yes, but a destroyed lich is not a living human. It's that pesky in between state we're talking about here. We've already seen Xykon nearly destroyed once - pretend, for the moment, that in the Dungeon of Dorukan, they had managed to smash dlthe phylactery as well. Where would you put the shackles? There were no wrists.
I'm confused, if you destroy a lich and then resurrect them, doesn't they get back the way they were as a mortal?

Fyaralti
Who dat?

[Peelee]

I'm confused, if you destroy a lich and then resurrect them, doesn't they get back the way they were as a mortal?

Who dat?

Sure. But if the body is destroyed... Well, let me put it this way. Let's say you wanted to put the shackles on Durkon after the vampire was destroyed and before Durkon was resurrected. Where you gonna put em (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1149.html)?

[Fyraltari]

Sure. But if the body is destroyed... Well, let me put it this way. Let's say you wanted to put the shackles on Durkon after the vampire was destroyed and before Durkon was resurrected. Where you gonna put em (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1149.html)?
Okay but "before resurrection" wasn't what was under discussion:


Being destroyed and resurrected kind of precludes any sort of "shackle his wrist bones", though. There are no wrist bones to shackle, are there?

[Peelee]

Okay but "before resurrection" wasn't what was under discussion:



Yes it was. Bolding mine:
If we're already going completely off the wall with a theory in which Xykon is resurrected and then imprisoned on the astral plane forever, it's not too much further to think that someone might slap a pair of antimagic shackles on his wrist bones while he's destroyed so they're in place after the res.
That was what my initial reply was to, specifically and directly concerning the bolded part.

[Fyraltari]

Yes it was. Bolding mine:
That was what my initial reply was to, specifically and directly concerning the bolded part.

Oh, I missed that. My bad.

[Peelee]

Oh, I missed that. My bad.

No worries. Not like I've never done that myself. :smallwink:

[InvisibleBison]

I'm pretty sure Xykon's body was only destroyed when he was killed in the Dungeons of Dorukan because he was thrown into the Gate. In the illusion in Girard's dungeon his body remained intact (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0886.html) after being killed. Admittedly, the unreal nature of the illusion makes it tricky to use as evidence - it could have just shown what Roy, Haley, and/or Elan expected would happen when a lich died rather than what would actually happen - but it's also possible that it was accurate about this detail.

[RatElemental]

Being destroyed and resurrected kind of precludes any sort of "shackle his wrist bones", though. There are no wrist bones to shackle, are there?

Destroyed is just the term for an undead creature that no longer... is. Roy's bone golem had to be destroyed before he was brought back with bog standard resurrection cast on said bones. That's the angle I was approaching Xykon's hypothetical resurrection from.

[Peelee]

Destroyed is just the term for an undead creature that no longer... is. Roy's bone golem had to be destroyed before he was brought back with bog standard resurrection cast on said bones. That's the angle I was approaching Xykon's hypothetical resurrection from.

Roy is also great example! So, where would you put the shackles (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0665.html)?

[RatElemental]

Roy is also great example! So, where would you put the shackles (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0665.html)?

Probably on his wrists, they're probably around somewhere (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0649.html).

But my point is that destroyed doesn't have to be quite so dramatic as total bodily disintegration. Here's (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0441.html) a pretty good example of intact wrists. A bunch of ghouls here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0445.html) are completely bodily intact after being destroyed. Some more intact ghouls here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0452.html), had Xykon bit it here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0462.html) I can't imagine he'd have exploded dramatically for some reason, bunch of bisected but largely intact mummies here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0861.html), and finally although it's an illusion it's supposed to be lifelike to the point of being indistinguishable from reality and it features an almost completely intact destroyed Xykon (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0886.html).

[Peelee]

Probably on hist wrists, they're probably around somewhere.
Yeah. Over on the ground somewhere. Not on the reforming body.

But my point is that destroyed doesn't have to be quite so dramatic as total bodily disintegration. Here's (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0441.html) a pretty good example of intact wrists. A bunch of ghouls here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0445.html) are completely bodily intact after being destroyed. Some more intact ghouls here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0452.html), had Xykon bit it here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0462.html) I can't imagine he'd have exploded dramatically for some reason, bunch of bisected but largely intact mummies here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0861.html), and finally although it's an illusion it's supposed to be lifelike to the point of being indistinguishable from reality and it features an almost completely intact destroyed Xykon (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0886.html).

And my point is that every time we have seen an undead or golem be destroyed and then rezzed, they were actually destroyed. This also counts for Xykon regenerating as well - after all, his wrists were also around somewhere (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0115.html). I'm aware of what "destroyed" means as a game mechanic. I'm also aware that the author has shows all examples of destroyed undead/golem bodies being actually destroyed in addition to being "killed" and reforming largely to entirely in their own space. They're drawn that way, it's a conscious decision to do it that way.

And I'm not in any way swayed by the illusion, since
A.) it only needs to be believable to them, not "indistinguishable from reality", and
2.) they know so little about liches that they didn't even know they needed to destroy the phylactery as well to start with, so what is believable to them need not necessarily have any basis in reality.

[RatElemental]

Yeah. Over on the ground somewhere. Not on the reforming body.

And if the resurrection spell had been cast on them instead of his skull?


And my point is that every time we have seen an undead or golem be destroyed and then rezzed, they were actually destroyed. This also counts for Xykon regenerating as well - after all, his wrists were also around somewhere (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0115.html). I'm aware of what "destroyed" means as a game mechanic. I'm also aware that the author has shows all examples of destroyed undead/golem bodies being actually destroyed in addition to being "killed" and reforming largely to entirely in their own space. They're drawn that way, it's a conscious decision to do it that way.

There's been a grand total of 6 resurrections/regenerations we've seen in the online comic if memory serves. Of them, only two were performed on a formerly undead person, and one of those was a vampire so that just comes with the territory. Lich reformation is pretty much left up entirely to the DM (author, in this case) as the SRD only says that once destroyed a lich "reappears" in 1d10 days. Some other rules for similar creatures specify where and how a lich reforms but I doubt Xykon is a dracolich or using the lich class instead of the lich template.

That's not a very large sample size to extrapolate from, and we've seen plenty of undead be destroyed on screen without turning into giblets though they weren't subsequently resurrected.


And I'm not in any way swayed by the illusion, since
A.) it only needs to be believable to them, not "indistinguishable from reality", and
2.) they know so little about liches that they didn't even know they needed to destroy the phylactery as well to start with, so what is believable to them need not necessarily have any basis in reality.

This is fair enough. I think it's pretty good indication that destruction doesn't have to involve the undead exploding, but I agree it's not the best example.

[Peelee]

And if the resurrection spell had been cast on them instead of his skull?
Given that eveerything formed around a single central piece, is at that the cuffs probably still wouldn't be on the wrists. Maybe on one, at best, but ever that's petty iffy (and without knowing exactly how stuff cuffs work, knowing D&D, they'd almost certainly have to be on both to function).

There's been a grand total of 6 resurrections/regenerations we've seen in the online comic if memory serves. Of them, only two were performed on a formerly undead person, and one of those was a vampire so that just comes with the territory. Lich reformation is pretty much left up entirely to the DM (author, in this case) as the SRD only says that once destroyed a lich "reappears" in 1d10 days. Some other rules for similar creatures specify where and how a lich reforms but I doubt Xykon is a dracolich or using the lich class instead of the lich template.

That's not a very large sample size to extrapolate from, and we've seen plenty of undead be destroyed on screen without turning into giblets though they weren't subsequently resurrected.

While I agree with almost all of this (the exception noted below), small sample size or not, I have to go with what that indicates. Barring any new evidence, established precedent is the ground I'm going to pitch my tent on - a small amount of evidence being better than no evidence.

The noted disagreement: bodily destruction does not come with the territory for vampires. Quite the opposite (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm) - staking slays the creature but explicitly does not destroy the body. The disintegration was 100% the author's own devising, which fits into my assertion that bodily destructions were deliberate by the author.

[gbaji]

If I were to put on my GM hat and make a ruling, I'd argue that the ritual magic that created the lich in the first place completely disconnects the soul from the body. It's in the phylactery now. That's why destroying a lich's body doesn't kill them. The body is just a physical manifestation that the lich can operate in the physical world through. To perform a resurrection, you'd need the phylactery, not some random former bits of a previously used body/skeleton. I might even go a step further and argue that the very nature of becoming a lich precludes anything short of True Resurrection working anyway.

This prevents the absurdity of someone wandering around finding a bone left in the ruins of Durokan's dungeon, or bones left outside Girard's pyramid, or just some random toe bone that popped off because it got caught on something, from being used to resurrect him. It also means that he *cant* be resurrected as long as the phylactery is intact (I'm assuming that's a given we're all accepting here). But to the degree that any object may assist in resurrection, it should be the phylactery (or remains thereof), since that's the closest thing to a "body" he's had since becoming a lich (at least in the context of sympathetic magic and being "connected to" his soul).

Honestly though, I'm still left with the question: "Why"? He's dead. His phylactery has been destroyed. He's not coming back. Why would you go through the trouble of resurrecting him? The afterlife he's been consigned to is explicitly designed to be a far more effective prison and punishment for souls with his alignment than anything you are likely to ever come up with. I'm just not seeing it. Yeah, I get the motivation for fans wanting stuff like this to happen, but actual characters who exist in the story? Not seeing it.

The only possible rationale for this is if we assume that some other evil person would preform a True Resurrection on him and allow him to resume his reign of terror or something, so you do it first to trap/contain him somehow. Eh. That's a terrific reason for a game creator to not allow that spell to exist in the first place. And honestly? If such a spell does exist in the world, and you had it, would Xykon really be the guy you'd bring back? Presumably you are powerful (can cast the spell to do this, whatever it is), and presumably have an evil agenda of your own. Why put a wildcard like Xykon into play? Aside from his raw power (which, let's be honest he's likely to first use to force his own whims on *you*), he doesn't have anything he really brings to the table. If I were said powerful evil person, I'd be bringing back a number of high (but not that high) level specialists who bring abilities or resources that I need and can use for my own evil plans. Not just a super powerful chaotic curbstomper like Xykon.

[RatElemental]

If I were to put on my GM hat and make a ruling, I'd argue that the ritual magic that created the lich in the first place completely disconnects the soul from the body. It's in the phylactery now. That's why destroying a lich's body doesn't kill them. The body is just a physical manifestation that the lich can operate in the physical world through. To perform a resurrection, you'd need the phylactery, not some random former bits of a previously used body/skeleton. I might even go a step further and argue that the very nature of becoming a lich precludes anything short of True Resurrection working anyway.

This prevents the absurdity of someone wandering around finding a bone left in the ruins of Durokan's dungeon, or bones left outside Girard's pyramid, or just some random toe bone that popped off because it got caught on something, from being used to resurrect him. It also means that he *cant* be resurrected as long as the phylactery is intact (I'm assuming that's a given we're all accepting here). But to the degree that any object may assist in resurrection, it should be the phylactery (or remains thereof), since that's the closest thing to a "body" he's had since becoming a lich (at least in the context of sympathetic magic and being "connected to" his soul).

The rules are actually way ahead of you on all of this. A corpse bit can't be used to resurrect something unless it was part of them when they died (else you could give your local priest a vial of your blood to keep on file just in case, or someone might find that arm you lost and had regenerated decades ago and give resurrecting it a go). And while the lich mechanics are purposely left vague one of the few details we do have is that the soul of the lich resides in its current body and flees to the phylactery when it is destroyed, and a lich whose phylactery is destroyed is simply at risk of final death if their body is destroyed before they make a new one.

[gbaji]

The rules are actually way ahead of you on all of this. A corpse bit can't be used to resurrect something unless it was part of them when they died (else you could give your local priest a vial of your blood to keep on file just in case, or someone might find that arm you lost and had regenerated decades ago and give resurrecting it a go). And while the lich mechanics are purposely left vague one of the few details we do have is that the soul of the lich resides in its current body and flees to the phylactery when it is destroyed, and a lich whose phylactery is destroyed is simply at risk of final death if their body is destroyed before they make a new one.

I did actually know that about resurrection at one point (came up at one point about Durkon's dad's arm, I think?), and then completely forgot it. And yeah. That makes sense about where the lich's soul is as well. I didn't know for sure how the 3.5e rules handled that. I've played in a game where necromancers had the ability to basically create soul jars (more or less phylacteries), but in this case they weren't made into liches, they just removed their souls from their bodies in a way that retained a link to it, so they could continue walking, talking, etc, but "killing" the body wouldn't cause death, just damage that would have to be healed for it to become functional again. Quite the surprise when that big bad guy you thought you killed years ago, is still stomping around somewhere causing new problems. Good times!

Anyhow. So if we assume any part of his current remains matter, then the order things are destroyed is key. If his body is destroyed, his soul goes into his phylactery, and then if that is destroyed prior to a new body forming, then *that* is what you'd need to resurrect him. If his phylactery was destroyed first, and then his body, you'd need a piece of his body to do so (I guess).

Alternatively, we could assume that he really "died" when he was first made into a lich, so you'd need a piece of his body from that point. Which, um, gets silly tricky IMO.

Or, we can just punt the whole thing and go with "needs a True Resurrection" and be done with it.

[Smoutwortel]

I did actually know that about resurrection at one point (came up at one point about Durkon's dad's arm, I think?), and then completely forgot it. And yeah. That makes sense about where the lich's soul is as well. I didn't know for sure how the 3.5e rules handled that. I've played in a game where necromancers had the ability to basically create soul jars (more or less phylacteries), but in this case they weren't made into liches, they just removed their souls from their bodies in a way that retained a link to it, so they could continue walking, talking, etc, but "killing" the body wouldn't cause death, just damage that would have to be healed for it to become functional again. Quite the surprise when that big bad guy you thought you killed years ago, is still stomping around somewhere causing new problems. Good times!

Anyhow. So if we assume any part of his current remains matter, then the order things are destroyed is key. If his body is destroyed, his soul goes into his phylactery, and then if that is destroyed prior to a new body forming, then *that* is what you'd need to resurrect him. If his phylactery was destroyed first, and then his body, you'd need a piece of his body to do so (I guess).

Alternatively, we could assume that he really "died" when he was first made into a lich, so you'd need a piece of his body from that point. Which, um, gets silly tricky IMO.

Or, we can just punt the whole thing and go with "needs a True Resurrection" and be done with it.

True resurrection still requires the ashes of the body.

[dmc91356]

I don't think ashes are required (not listed in the spell description):

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueResurrection.htm

"This spell can even bring back creatures whose bodies have been destroyed, provided that you unambiguously identify the deceased in some fashion (reciting the deceased’s time and place of birth or death is the most common method)."

[Peelee]

True resurrection still requires the ashes of the body.

Got a source on that?

[Kish]

Resurrection requires the ashes of the body. That True Resurrection does not is a significant chunk of what "two levels higher" gets you.

(No one is going to resurrect Xykon.)

Xykon died when he was made into a lich; that as well is not ambiguous. An undead creature must be destroyed before the living person they used to be can be resurrected. If Xykon the lich was destroyed--phylactery first, body first, it doesn't matter--and then Durkon cast Resurrection on one of his toe bones, it would give him the option of coming back, if he wanted to accept resurrection from a Lawful Good cleric of Thor named Durkon Thundershield. It would be just like when Vampire Durkon was destroyed and Hilgya cast Resurrection on his ashes.

(No one is going to resurrect Xykon.)

[KorvinStarmast]

(No one is going to resurrect Xykon.)
But Redcloak could if he had the necessary diamond, right?

[Psyren]

But Redcloak could if he had the necessary diamond, right?

Diamonds* (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0579.html) - and theoretically he might, if the Plan hadn't been carried out yet, since Xykon would come back as a very old man rather than an immortal lich.

[Peelee]

Diamonds* (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0579.html)

Well, if you could get a single diamond worth at least 25,000 gold....

[Psyren]

Well, if you could get a single diamond worth at least 25,000 gold....

Maybe - the spell does specifically say diamonds, but I wouldn't quibble as the DM.

[hroþila]

On d20srd at least the wording is identical for True Resurrection and for Resurrection, and we know that in the case of the latter one (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0410.html) diamond (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0649.html) will do the trick as long as it's big enough.