Xykon question

[Souju]

Dunno if this has been asked buuuuut...
Would Xykon and redcloak be considered PCs or NPCs?
They have their own subplots since almost the very beginning, their own book, classes, character growth, and redcloaks comment about the tower full of Good aligned creatures has been nagging me for a while.

[Chronos]

Apparently, in the introduction to one of the books, Redcloak explicitly says that he's an NPC. So presumably Xykon is, too.

[VetMichael]

But, Xykon was a really powerful mage in life...he COULD have been a PC in life and BECOME and NPC in unlife...


OR, he was an NPC in life and because of his transformation has become a house-ruled PC, just run by a different gamer in a different room (preferably an isolation booth where his interaction with the others is limited to on-table play....



OR He's really neither a PC nor and NPC and instead is an illusion wrought by an ABOLETH

[Green-Shirt Q]

I belive that they should be PC's, but are in fact NPC's since Redcloack said it in OotPC

[ssjKammak]

They could always be retired PC's, from the concept presented back in 2nd edition.

[Quinsar]

I honestly think there pcs well they probably are now anyways.

[Kish]

They're antagonists, not protagonists. They're NPCs.

[Mee]

Unless they're PCs who THINK there NPCs ....

[dwagiebard]

They're NPCs with copious backstory, because it's a comic book.

[Roderick_BR]

They're NPCs with copious backstory, because it's a comic book.
Agreed. I know some DMs that spends as much time writing the background and motivation of their recurring villains as players spend with their PCs.

[Souju]

They're antagonists, not protagonists. They're NPCs.

never played an Evil campaign have you?

[Falconer]

But antagonist does NOT = evil, as protagist also does not automatically = good (at least, not in storytelling). In a campaign, the PCs would be the protagonists, regardless of alignment.

[Kneenibble]

What difference does it make?
Honestly, I want to know, as a non-D&D player, for many years.

It seems like an academic (in the pejorative sense) distinction that is really, really missing the point of reading a story.

[SadisticFishing]

They're BBEGs. It's a whole category of its own.

[factotum]

What difference does it make?
Honestly, I want to know, as a non-D&D player, for many years.


Well, in an actual D&D campaign it would make a difference because (unless you have a really malicious DM) the NPCs will eventually lose to the PCs no matter what. Since OotS is a story, it works similarly (the Big Bad almost invariably loses in a story situation), so I don't suppose it makes much difference in this case.

[Kish]

never played an Evil campaign have you?
Yes, I have. And in it, any good (or evil, for that matter) characters who tried to thwart the PCs were NPCs.

Antagonist=/=villain. But Xykon and Redcloak=/=protagonists.

Well, in an actual D&D campaign it would make a difference because (unless you have a really malicious DM) the NPCs will eventually lose to the PCs no matter what.
Well, now, wait. Most NPCs in most D&D campaigns are not villains. It makes a difference in that, well, the PCs are the center of the universe. Unless their players mean them to come across as both evil and insane, they should never act as if they know it, but it's still the case.

In OotS, the difference between PC and NPC only shows up through the nonexistent fourth wall.

[BisectedBrioche]

What difference does it make?
Honestly, I want to know, as a non-D&D player, for many years.

It seems like an academic (in the pejorative sense) distinction that is really, really missing the point of reading a story.

In a game of D&D a PC is anyone controlled by a player and a NPC is anyone controlled by the DM.

The same distinction is made in video games, although nameless enemies don't tend to be considered characters at all.

In any other form of fiction the phrases can be roughly correlated with "protagonist" and "antagonist", although the terms will only cover important characters.

[Kish]

In any other form of fiction the phrases can be roughly correlated with "protagonist" and "antagonist".
Not quite. They can be correlated with, "Protagonist" and "Non-Protagonist." Hinjo* and Shojo** and the blacksmith who reforged Roy's sword are NPCs; they are not antagonists.

*Though I realize some people think he's a new PC; there is no doubt in my mind that time will prove them wrong, but I added more examples because of this.
**Odd as it may seem to say that of someone who had the protagonists dragged across the countryside in chains.

[Shas aia Toriia]

Agreed. There is a vast difference between antagonists and NPC's.

Xykon and Redcloak are the antagonists, but the blacksmith was not. They are all NPC's though.

[Raging_Pacifist]

Twilight Zone thought: Was if the OotS are the NPCs and Redcloak and Xykon are the PCs. Naaaaaaah.

[Quorothorn]

Yes, I have. And in it, any good (or evil, for that matter) characters who tried to thwart the PCs were NPCs.

Antagonist=/=villain. But Xykon and Redcloak=/=protagonists.

Actually...the OotS are the ones basically trying to thwart Team Evil's affairs, not the other way around. :smallwink:

[Raging_Pacifist]

Actually...the OotS are the ones basically trying to thwart Team Evil's affairs, not the other way around. :smallwink:

Precisely. The leader of team evil can't even remember them.

[Kish]

Actually...the OotS are the ones basically trying to thwart Team Evil's affairs, not the other way around. :smallwink:
I could point out that Xykon, whether or not he has the faintest idea who Roy is, is still successfully to date thwarting his efforts to complete his father's Blood Oath of Vengeance (to say nothing of the entire Order's efforts to remain in a world which is neither destroyed nor enslaved by an evil lich). :smallyuk: But somehow, I doubt you're seriously suggesting that the members of the Order are not protagonists or that Xykon is not an antagonist.

[Quorothorn]

I could point out that Xykon, whether or not he has the faintest idea who Roy is, is still successfully to date thwarting his efforts to complete his father's Blood Oath of Vengeance (to say nothing of the entire Order's efforts to remain in a world which is neither destroyed nor enslaved by an evil lich). :smallyuk: But somehow, I doubt you're seriously suggesting that the members of the Order are not protagonists or that Xykon is not an antagonist.

:xykon: Look, it's hardly my fault if Crossguard and his Organization VI get all up in my business. I've got my own agenda here, they have theirs: and I am absolutely not making a Bluff check when I tell you I care more about mine than theirs. We mix it up, it's all Evil, and therefore good. Or possibly the other way around. Anyway, I've got my own book, now, too.

[someonenonotyou]

didn't the giant say they were no players so there all NPC's the OOTS just think there PC's

[Jayngfet]

can't they alternate, dosen't a lycanthrope become an NPC when transformed?

[Raging_Pacifist]

No players = no PCs or NPCs
So then why are there references to PCs and NPCs.

[Yubari]

Because the distinction seems to have some bearing on the mechanics of the world they are adventuring in. Off the top of my head, the threat level for a PC character is (comparatively) much higher. PCs also have lower mortality and a better chance of influencing the outcome of battles. I think it was Hinjo that mentioned PCs don't take orders well, and if you want their help you have to let them act freely. From this, I think we can conclude that PCs are different and superior when compared to NPCs. Of course, Redcloak would probably have something to say about that, so let me clarify that I don't think PCs are innately better so much as ... privileged. And to be perfectly honest, I don't know what makes a character from a PC-available race one or the other. According to the criteria we've been given so far, Miko could be a particularly annoying plot device, but she could just as well be an un-rezzed PC who joined the party late. I think the Giant is intentionally blurring the boundaries between who is "real" and who exists solely to advance the story. Celia's latest appearance, though awesome, seems to be a clear example of the latter. She's dispensing plot-relevant information that the main characters would not otherwise be aware of, and getting them unstuck. Redcloak, on the other hand, appears to be basing his assumption that he is an NPC rather heavily on the fact that he is an evil-aligned character from an overwhelmingly NPC race. He and Xykon have detailed backstories, complex motivations, and have been known to carry the OotS plot independently. When they're not coming in direct conflict with Roy and the others, they behave like an evil adventuring team, and the NPC world accordingly revolves around them. Whether it's the good-aligned monsters in the tower they collected XP from, or the Miko vs. Redcloak battle, we're seeing interactions that they wouldn't be able to have if these guys were straight-up NPCs.

[Paragon Badger]

In the Ootsverse, PC is a bit of a misnomer. Roy and other people refer to themselves as Player Characters, because they believe they are the players.

Speaking OOC is impossible because Roy and Roy's player are the same.

So, to awnser your question... No, Xykon is not a PC. Neither is Roy. No one is a PC. No one is an NPC either, since there is no GM.

Therefore, PC and NPC are erroneusly used by the inhabitants of the Ootsverse. A more accurate pair of words would be:

NPC: Anyone but the PCs.
PC: Main Characters.

[Mr._Michael]

Well, in an actual D&D campaign it would make a difference because (unless you have a really malicious DM) the NPCs will eventually lose to the PCs no matter what. Since OotS is a story, it works similarly (the Big Bad almost invariably loses in a story situation), so I don't suppose it makes much difference in this case.
It seems I've had a succession of malicious DMs. Or, and I hate to even consider this, I suffer from a severe case of Character Development Disability brought on by too frequent Total Party Kill... :smalleek:

But we die LAUGHING!!!:biggrin: