Is Redcloak stupid to torture O'Chul?

[Charles Phipps]

Paladins are Immune to fear. They can feel pain but they can't fear Pain. So, effectively, the whole point of torture is removed. O'Chul can't be threatened with death and pain won't work because he'll just endure it.

[bluish_wolf]

Sure, he could just kill him and cast Speak With Dead on the corpse, but would that bring job satisfaction? I think not.

[Alfryd]

Sure, he could just kill him and cast Speak With Dead on the corpse...
Hey. Yeah!
Of course, it's possible Speak with Dead works differently in the OotSverse, since Eugene mentions Roy could have used it to get in touch.

[Pocketa]

But, they're not torturing him for knowledge, it's for fun. They know that the green one can get the info w/o torture.

[Alfryd]

Xykon, yes, Redcloak, no (to the best of my knowledge.) Redcloak may well enjoy the process, but I don't think he's doing it solely for entertainment value.

[Jayngfet]

am I the only one why thinks O-chul might not know anything?

[busterswd]

You don't have to fear pain to find it unpleasant, nor is the only potential mental impact of torture fear.

[verloren]

am I the only one why thinks O-chul might not know anything?

I'm sure he doesn't.

The paladins know naught of the gates. I'm sure Shojo mentioned it before.

[Ancalagon]

Pain does not equal fear. Thus, you can torture a paladin.

[Callista]

Of course you can. You just can't make him talk.

Pain definitely does have physical and mental consequences other than fear. There's the adrenaline rush, which, if prolonged, will lead to a sort of adrenaline burnout during which your willpower and energy are severely reduced. Your concentration tends to increase initially, but after a while becomes much worse; and abstract thought and planning capabilities really taper off, too. That's what's referred to as "breaking the will": You're unable to think clearly, you don't have the mental resources to make decisions; so you are more likely to do what somebody else tells you. (The Will save is usually against a fear effect.) The stress will exacerbate physical conditions, leading to early death from "natural causes" usually seen in old age: heart attack, stroke, pneumonia.

Psychologically, you almost certainly end up with depression. That's not the "emo", brooding sort, but the actual disorder: Slowed thought, slowed action, inability to concentrate, insomnia, loss of hope, problems with decision-making.

Long-term, you're going to have PTSD, guaranteed. The kinds of psychological defenses you build up during torture are really maladaptive in a safer world; and of course you can't just drop them when they're no longer useful. So you'd probably end up with blocked emotions, hypervigilance, maybe partial amnesia or just unwillingness to think about what happened. PTSD tends to fade after a while, especially in people who are willing to go back and evaluate what they went through, rather than trying not to think about it. A paladin wouldn't have the fear barrier to that, and so would probably recover more quickly. It's not that you come out of something like that unchanged, though; you'll probably sleep with your sword right next to you for the rest of your life...

[lord_khaine]

then again, i suspect highlevel adventures sleep with their swords to start with.
anyway speak with dead wont work to well, there is a willsave against it, and the information will be cryptic because of aligment difference.
as for what he actualy knows, i suspect he knows the gate is guardet by illusions, but thats it.

[CasESenSITItiVE]

you don't have to fear pain to want it to stop. that's the point of torture, offering an end to pain in exchange for information

[SolkaTruesilver]

I'm sure he doesn't.

The paladins know naught of the gates. I'm sure Shojo mentioned it before.

Indeed. Their Oath prevented them from gaining information on the other Gates.

I just can't wait to see the protection Girard put! Deception is always my favorite protection in any story! A deception within a deception within an illusion..

[boomwolf]

I am pretty sure redcloak tried mind-control (as It will cause O'Chul to fall, as proven in the battle in the throne room.), but as he said he didn't know a thing redcloak assumed mind-control won't work on him, even though O'Chul really knows nothing.

[Jayngfet]

I am pretty sure redcloak tried mind-control (as It will cause O'Chul to fall, as proven in the battle in the throne room.), but as he said he didn't know a thing redcloak assumed mind-control won't work on him, even though O'Chul really knows nothing.

...who fell?

[ssjKammak]

Fear of torture is only a small part of the Torturing process, just because he is immune to fear (as has been mentioned above) does not mean the rest of the effects of torturing will not work simply because he is immune to fear.

The bigger question is can ochul give information, or does the oath prevent him from letting slip any information. Unless of course the oath died with the rip in the snarls prison.

I do agree with with everyone who pointed out that chances are the paladins know nothing of the gates, even miko and hinjo didn't know everything about them.

Just an aussies 2 cents

[Mauve Shirt]

O-Chul's will may be broken, whatever, but as others have said, he doesn't know anything. The oath prevents ALL paladins from knowing about the gates, even higher up ones, except members of the royal family.

[PaladinBoy]

I've frankly always thought of torturing paladins as an exercise in futility, myself. It just doesn't seem to me that someone willing to dedicate their entire life to an ideal, and usually willing to die for that ideal, will give up information which could damage their cause to someone who they know is working against their cause.

The response of someone who doesn't fear further torture is probably, "Do what you will; you will get nothing from me." This is then, generally, exactly what they do. They may not like it, and mental damage ranges from possible to almost certain depending on the length of the torture, but they will not talk.

For that matter, one rulebook I read (don't remember which one) suggested abstracting torture as an Intimidate check. In this case, it would be pointless, as a paladin's immunity to fear does preclude a successful Intimidate check.

[Callista]

It might be interesting to note that in the "real world", the only people who have any chance of not giving in to torture are the idealists specifically imprisoned because of the cause they follow--revolutionaries, persecuted religious/ethical minorities, rebels... Idealism will take you a long way even if you don't have fear immunity. And if anyone's the ultimate idealist, it's a paladin.

[SPoD]

It may be that the torture involves Redcloak trying to get O-Chul to LOSE his paladin status first. If Redcloak can trick O-Chul into Falling somehow, then O-Chul will no longer be immune to fear and can be tortured for information rather easily.

Or, it could just be that Redcloak is simply a creature of habit, and schedules the torturing in on the off-chance that it might do something useful someday.

[David Argall]

It might be interesting to note that in the "real world", the only people who have any chance of not giving in to torture are the idealists specifically imprisoned because of the cause they follow--revolutionaries, persecuted religious/ethical minorities, rebels... Idealism will take you a long way even if you don't have fear immunity. And if anyone's the ultimate idealist, it's a paladin.

This is incorrect. The idealist is often an ivory tower sort who has very little experience with how much pain hurts. He breaks quite easily and quickly. It is the thug who is proud of his ability [and/or aware of what is going to happen once he "confesses"] who can take it. Someone who is aware of what will happen to kin and good friends also resists well. But somebody who is always talking about the good of mankind or somesuch falls right apart.

[Estelindis]

This is incorrect. The idealist is often an ivory tower sort who has very little experience with how much pain hurts. He breaks quite easily and quickly. It is the thug who is proud of his ability [and/or aware of what is going to happen once he "confesses"] who can take it. Someone who is aware of what will happen to kin and good friends also resists well. But somebody who is always talking about the good of mankind or somesuch falls right apart.
Pardon me for asking, but have you read much hagiography? If you read some accounts of Christian martyrdom (and there are a lot), you may not have the same opinion afterwards.

EDIT: Of course, there are lots of other places you could look, e.g. those who protest against oppressive regimes and are imprisoned for years. But this would be a start.

[Lorn]

What Recloak is stupid to do is fail to let Xykon and co. watch. And make a profit.

[Callista]

Pardon me for asking, but have you read much hagiography? If you read some accounts of Christian martyrdom (and there are a lot), you may not have the same opinion afterwards.

EDIT: Of course, there are lots of other places you could look, e.g. those who protest against oppressive regimes and are imprisoned for years. But this would be a start.Exactly what I'm thinking of. Not the "ivory tower" type, but the person whose beliefs are expressed in his actual lifestyle. Intellectuals and theorists? Nope. Ordinary peasants with a strong belief? Yep. Every religion has its martyrs; so does every political cause. And the stories are not all exaggerated. Pick out the truth from the dramatic retellings--both modern and ancient--and you will find that there are a few extraordinary individuals who somehow manage it. One in a thousand of those put to that test; maybe fewer. But then, paladins are one in a thousand.

[Spiky]

Xykon, yes, Redcloak, no (to the best of my knowledge.) Redcloak may well enjoy the process, but I don't think he's doing it solely for entertainment value.

Perhaps merely because he detests paladins.

[paladinofshojo]

I think :redcloak: is stupid to try to interrogate :o-chul:, for the fact that someone who has been tortured for aproximately THREE MONTHS without caving is probably not going to give in any time soon. I mean comeone did you see how he delt with that acid tank?No hesitation nor fear. I also believe O'chul himself probably giuessed that since the bad guys want info from him, all he has to do is not reveal it and he will be kept alive as long as they don't catch anyone who was the same or more relevent information.

:redcloak: TALK DAMN YOU!!!TALK!!!!!!!!:smallfurious:
:o-chul:.................:smallamused:
:redcloak: that's IT!I SHALL MAKE YOU FEEL PAIN BEYOND DEATH, BELIEVE ME YOU WILL BE BEGGING FOR IT AFTER I'M THROUGH WITH YOU!!:smallfurious:
:o-chul:..................you do realize that no matter how much physical pain you place on me I will not talk do to my oath killing me will cause you to lose your source of information about the gates, right?:smallamused:
:redcloak: (trying every painful torture method he can think of) this is going to be harder then I thought........:smallannoyed:

[kabbor]

Why, yes, of course. I think that Redcloak is more likely to crack than O'chul.

O'Chul may learn the true significance of the Saphire from Redcloak. ('Look, you green abomination, what is this "Gate" you keep asking me about???') I could imagine O'chul having some chioce words for Redcloak when he finds out what was done. Maybe some choice words about Miko if he learns what happened.

[Callista]

I think that Redcloak is more likely to crack than O'chul.

Now, that'd be funny! Constant failure *is* rather a form of torture, isn't it!

[Thufir]

Why, yes, of course. I think that Redcloak is more likely to crack than O'chul.

O'Chul may learn the true significance of the Saphire from Redcloak. ('Look, you green abomination, what is this "Gate" you keep asking me about???') I could imagine O'chul having some chioce words for Redcloak when he finds out what was done. Maybe some choice words about Miko if he learns what happened.

O-Chul already knew about the sapphire, that's why he tried to smash it himself before Xykon paralysed him. He is perfectly aware of the gates, his oath just forbids him from finding out the details of the other ones.

[Estelindis]

I think :redcloak: is stupid to try to interrogate :o-chul:
You know, with all the pregnancy threads floating around at the moment, I initially read that as "I think Redcloak is stupid to try and impregnate O-Chul"... :smalleek:

Anyhoo... :smallbiggrin:

I too have been wondering why Redcloak continues to torture him. I would have thought that, by now, one of two things would have become clear: 1) he doesn't know anything about the location of the gates, or 2) he will not tell Redcloak anything he knows. Of course, Redcloak's hatred of paladins may encourage him to keep trying, on the chance that O-Chul would break eventually. And perhaps O-Chul is deliberately not revealing that he knows nothing in order to protect others from Xykon and Redcloak's attentions. But my first reaction on reading Redcloak's words in #543 was, indeed, puzzlement.

[SPoD]

I too have been wondering why Redcloak continues to torture him.

I'm pretty sure the answer is, "Because if he wasn't still torturing him, we (the audience) wouldn't be able to witness O-Chul getting tortured because it would have ended weeks ago." And it is more effective to WATCH O-Chul suffer than it is to be told by a character, "Wow, O-Chul really suffered when we tortured him off-panel during the time gap." Show, don't tell. And if that requires Redcloak to maybe be a little more persistent than you or I might be in the same situation, well, so be it. It's not like it would be entirely out-of-character for Redcloak to persist in something that's a bad idea simply because he's devoted too many resources to it already.

Also, I realized something today: Extreme pain effects like the Symbol of Pain gives a –4 penalty to skill checks. If Redcloak believes that O-Chul is lying, torturing him would give an extra –4 to O-Chul's Bluff rolls. There is no fear effect involved here, therefore, and it is entirely within the game rules for torture to have some effect on a paladin. It's not that O-Chul will spill the truth, it's that Redcloak will be sure when he is lying.

[Estelindis]

I'm pretty sure the answer is, "Because if he wasn't still torturing him, we (the audience) wouldn't be able to witness O-Chul getting tortured because it would have ended weeks ago."
Good point. I often get so immersed in the story itself that I forget that authors often take decisions about plot and character in order to produce certain effects on/in the reader. :smallwink:

[Mugen Nightgale]

From my point of view pain is the body alerting you that something is wrong, hurt or broken. So If u don't fear death, you just ignore the pain alerts. So torture a paladin is useless he will never fear death so pain to him is just a useless feeling. Something that reminds him of his life before becoming a Paladin.


May I say that paladins freak me out and if u take all the features seriously its the most unhuman thing in DnD universe.

[Callista]

No, no, not useless. If your arm's broken and you're trying to swing a sword, you'd better know about it so you can switch to the other hand. Not to mention it tells you how hurt you are, which is important because you want to know whether to chug a healing potion or attack the enemy some more. And not being afraid of it doesn't keep it from being unpleasant.

How is "unhuman" automatically "freaky"? I mean, people aren't freaked out by elves or dragons.

[zuzak]

Redcloak is an idiot for torturing O-chul.

1. O-chul is a paladin.
2. Redcloak is a goblin, and a paladin would be even less likely to talk to a goblin.
3. If O-chul knew anything that the villans want to know, he'd be dead now. Torture and risk of revealing something that would help the villans, or eternal paradise. Not a hard decision.
4. Given the amount of time, he should have concluded that either O-chul dosen't know anything, or he's capable of withstanding torture.
5. There is apparently no one who can stop Xykon, and he has a hoard of hobgoblins and undead. Unless Xykon has some reason to stay, they might as well take O-chul with him and start attacking random places.
6. Xykon has revealed himself, and is just giving other nations a chance to prepare and build up defenses, not to mention the Oots time to level, reunite, and find more about the gates themselves.

It is likely that, at least subconciously, Redcloak would rather stay in Azure City and torture a paladin than go on with the plan.

[SPoD]

5. There is apparently no one who can stop Xykon

Soon almost stopped both Xykon and Redcloak singlehandedly, and would have if Miko hadn't interfered. They have no reason to believe Girard (or Girard's heir) isn't as powerful.


6. Xykon has revealed himself, and is just giving other nations a chance to prepare and build up defenses, not to mention the Oots time to level, reunite, and find more about the gates themselves.

What other nations? All of the Southern nations are scared of Xykon, and the Northern nations seem to not even know about it (the gnome didn't), probably as a result of the Cloister keeping magical information from leaving the city. There's no evidence that any nation is planning on doing anything to stop Xykon, since they don't know about the Gates. It's a matter of, "Whoops, sucks to be Azure City, but not our problem."

And the OOTS is likely not considered enough of a threat to change plans over.

[Paragon Badger]

Exactly what I'm thinking of. Not the "ivory tower" type, but the person whose beliefs are expressed in his actual lifestyle. Intellectuals and theorists? Nope. Ordinary peasants with a strong belief? Yep. Every religion has its martyrs; so does every political cause. And the stories are not all exaggerated. Pick out the truth from the dramatic retellings--both modern and ancient--and you will find that there are a few extraordinary individuals who somehow manage it. One in a thousand of those put to that test; maybe fewer. But then, paladins are one in a thousand.

The buddhists who burned themselves in protest of Ngo Dinh Diem, for example.

That being said, I am hesitant to bestow this noble quality upon the christian martyrs. :smallwink: Often because they had no choice but to suffer. It wasn't torture for the sake of gaining information or anything- but torture for the sake of inflicting pain.

In such a case, you have no choice but to endure it until the very end.

As such, these stories are often glorified.

[Estelindis]

I am hesitant to bestow this noble quality upon the christian martyrs. :smallwink:
:smallconfused: Um, you couldn't bestow it upon them. That's not a quality you can give them - either they had it or they didn't. You wouldn't be able to make it otherwise by saying so.


Often because they had no choice but to suffer. It wasn't torture for the sake of gaining information or anything- but torture for the sake of inflicting pain.
Many were called upon to recant their faith in order to escape pain, but refused. Sounds like a choice to me. If you read many of the accounts that have come down to us through time (I have, as at one point I was considering this subject for my doctoral thesis), you will see that the Roman authorities (for instance) saw Christians in much the same way as the Chinese authorities see practitioners of Falun Gong (or some kinds of Buddism - or, for that matter, non-state-sanctioned Christianity): as a threat to the integrity of the state. The worship of all the Roman gods generally, and whatever god was favoured in each city or district particularly, as well as the willingness to burn a grain of incense to the emperor (at some points in Roman history), were seen as civic duties. Those who refused to worship the gods were blamed for whatever disasters befell the people "as a result" of the gods being displeased. In many cases, going back on one's Christian beliefs and promising to worship the gods and acknowledge certain godly qualities of the emperor was enough to get Christians off the hook. (In fact, many did capitulate, and how to reintegrate these people into the Church - or not, as some wished - became a huge controversy when Christianity was legalised and made the official religion of the Roman Emperor during the reign of Constantine the Great.) So, for those who refused to go back on their beliefs, I have good reason to believe that it was a matter of great courage and conviction.

I suppose this isn't particularly on-topic, but I felt it was important to answer your comments. I hope the thread doesn't suffer too much as a result. :smallredface:

[Moriarty]

Redcloak is an idiot for torturing O-chul.

1. O-chul is a paladin.
2. Redcloak is a goblin, and a paladin would be even less likely to talk to a goblin.
4. Given the amount of time, he should have concluded that either O-chul dosen't know anything, or he's capable of withstanding torture.

well, so its hard to get the information he wants, not impossible



3. If O-chul knew anything that the villans want to know, he'd be dead now. Torture and risk of revealing something that would help the villans, or eternal paradise. Not a hard decision.

true, we don't know why O-chul refuses to die. but i assume he has his reasons (redcloak could've threatened him with torturing someone else instead if he dies, a paladin would rather suffer himself than risking the life of innocents)


5. There is apparently no one who can stop Xykon, and he has a hoard of hobgoblins and undead. Unless Xykon has some reason to stay, they might as well take O-chul with him and start attacking random places.

their army was even bigger at the attack of azure city, but they were unable to get control of the gate, because their lack of information.



6. Xykon has revealed himself, and is just giving other nations a chance to prepare and build up defenses, not to mention the Oots time to level, reunite, and find more about the gates themselves.

so? they aren't going to attack the other nations, klick (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0300.html)


It is likely that, at least subconciously, Redcloak would rather stay in Azure City and torture a paladin than go on with the plan.


if redcloak wanted just to torture a paladin, he would partipicate mind of Xykons games

[Eric]

From my point of view pain is the body alerting you that something is wrong, hurt or broken. So If u don't fear death, you just ignore the pain alerts. So torture a paladin is useless he will never fear death so pain to him is just a useless feeling. Something that reminds him of his life before becoming a Paladin.

It's still possible to exhaust someone and constant pain will do this. Sleep deprivation is a lot more efficient, but maybe not in RC's style. But if you're exhausted your reasoning will suffer. That's how you turn someone, not through pain but by breaking the will.

As to why RC's still doing this, I'm thinking of that old saw: there's none so blind as will not see. It could be RC doesn't *want* to believe O'Chul is telling the truth when he breaks and says "I know nothing".

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Uh, I don't know why so many are saying that fear is not the only thing you get from torture, because in D&D, yes, it is.

Torture gives you bonuses to intimidation. Paladins are immune to intimidation.

In D&D that is ALL torture does (besides, y'know, hurt them).

[Callista]

You're right, by the mechanics; but we're arguing flavor, not mechanics.

[Mewtarthio]

I think Redcloak's best bet is to get O-chul to fall somehow. It's entirely possible that he's spent all these months trying to plant doubt into his mind. I think the BoED has rules for using Diplomacy to change alignments, no?

[zuzak]

true, we don't know why O-chul refuses to die. but i assume he has his reasons (redcloak could've threatened him with torturing someone else instead if he dies, a paladin would rather suffer himself than risking the life of innocents)

If Redcloak threatened to torture someone else, O-chul could simply let Xykon kill him. Redcloak would blame Xykon, and wouldn't bother wasting time torturing anyone because a) it was Xykon's fault and b) there's nothing to gain from it.


their army was even bigger at the attack of azure city, but they were unable to get control of the gate, because their lack of information.
True, but that was because Xykon decided to head for the gate for fun, and because he and Redcloak forgot that Redcloak has to survive for Xykon to. The army wasn't directly involved and prepared for the fight in the thone room. Besides, how likely is it that O-chul knew that Soon would return to help him? He would be even less likely to know about the defenses for other gates.


they aren't going to attack the other nations
The only reason that they decided against attacking the other nations was that Soon's gate was available. Xykon was prepared to conquer the 8 nations to get the other gate before Redcloak told him about Azure City.


if redcloak wanted just to torture a paladin, he would partipicate mind of Xykons games
I said that He wanted to torture the paladin subconciously rather than getting a gate.


What other nations? All of the Southern nations are scared of Xykon, and the Northern nations seem to not even know about it (the gnome didn't), probably as a result of the Cloister keeping magical information from leaving the city. There's no evidence that any nation is planning on doing anything to stop Xykon, since they don't know about the Gates. It's a matter of, "Whoops, sucks to be Azure City, but not our problem."


The nations who do know about the gates, however, could notice that three gates have been destroyed, and notice a pattern. Also, because the other nations don't know about Azure City being invaded, it is important to hurry, because they'll find out after a while. The gnome, had he survived, would have taken news back. The concern Xykon would have with the other cities would not be that they would come and stop him, but that they would be on guard in case he came to them. The fact that Azure City wasn't expecting an attack at all was one of the reasons it fell.

[Alex Warlorn]

Also, I realized something today: Extreme pain effects like the Symbol of Pain gives a –4 penalty to skill checks. If Redcloak believes that O-Chul is lying, torturing him would give an extra –4 to O-Chul's Bluff rolls. There is no fear effect involved here, therefore, and it is entirely within the game rules for torture to have some effect on a paladin. It's not that O-Chul will spill the truth, it's that Redcloak will be sure when he is lying.

Redlcoak: 'Now tell me what you know!'

Paladin: You are a goblin with several psychological issues that you are not willing to face and willing to go extreme lengths NOT to face them, resulting in you submitting to the first authority figure that comes along that tells you what you want to hear, so you can say later 'it's not my fault.'

Redcloak: I chose NOT to make a sense motive check. I'm just going to assume you're lying.

[Callista]

I think Redcloak's best bet is to get O-chul to fall somehow. It's entirely possible that he's spent all these months trying to plant doubt into his mind. I think the BoED has rules for using Diplomacy to change alignments, no?Yes. There's a note at the beginning that says "With DM permission", though, presumably to keep you from rehabilitating Orcus or something...

There are rules to change Evil alignment to Good alignment.

The process:
1. Treat the prisoner a LOT better than he expects to be treated, even by a good guy.
2. Be willing to forgive him.
2. Spend an hour a day talking to him about Good.
3. Each day, he makes a will save vs. your Diplomacy check, adding his level to the check. He gets a bonus if he would lose class abilities, or if his alignment is "always evil". If he has the evil subtype, he's immune. If he fails seven saves in a row, the Evil part of his alignment goes to Neutral.

The Evil version, by the method of switching things to their evil opposites, Linear-Guild style:
1. Treat him badly. Torture him.
2. Offer him power/money/etc. Some kind of temptation.
3. Spend an hour a day with him talking about Evil.
3. Each day, he makes a will save vs. your Intimidate check, adding his level. He gets a bonus if he would lose class abilities, or if his alignment is "always good". If he has the good subtype, he's immune. If he fails seven saves in a row, the Good part of his alignment switches to Neutral.

The doubtful parts: You could reason with him, rather than torturing him; you could use Diplomacy rather than Intimidate. However, if Redcloak is using Diplomacy + torture, he's getting penalties, not bonuses. Diplomacy will take a long time--seven saves in a row is a lot. Intimidate won't work at all.

[Mewtarthio]

I see. Well, it looks as though Redcloak's gone for the more traditional route: Set up one of those contrived "damned if you do, damned if you don't" moral dilemmas that always show up in Paladin threads.

[Moriarty]

True, but that was because Xykon decided to head for the gate for fun, and because he and Redcloak forgot that Redcloak has to survive for Xykon to. The army wasn't directly involved and prepared for the fight in the thone room. Besides, how likely is it that O-chul knew that Soon would return to help him? He would be even less likely to know about the defenses for other gates.
Xykon heading for the throne was always part of the plan, Xykon should fly to the throne while invisible, kill the paladins (just like he did) and revive them to attack the rest of the army, #431 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0431.html)


if they just conquered the city without killing the paladins first, the paladins would have destroyed the gate anyway before team evil would be able to kill them


The only reason that they decided against attacking the other nations was that Soon's gate was available. Xykon was prepared to conquer the 8 nations to get the other gate before Redcloak told him about Azure City.
the only nations aware of Xykon are the nations in the south, which were visited by Hinjo's fleet. Xykon doesn't need to conquer them, because they don't have gates


I said that He wanted to torture the paladin subconciously rather than getting a gate.
we can only argue about RCs actions, not his subconciousness



The nations who do know about the gates, however, could notice that three gates have been destroyed, and notice a pattern. Also, because the other nations don't know about Azure City being invaded, it is important to hurry, because they'll find out after a while. The gnome, had he survived, would have taken news back. The concern Xykon would have with the other cities would not be that they would come and stop him, but that they would be on guard in case he came to them. The fact that Azure City wasn't expecting an attack at all was one of the reasons it fell.

are there any other nations who know about the gates?

one gate is in the desert, protected by illusions, the other in a dungeon with tough monsters. the only ones who know about the gates (besides the main characters) are Girard and Serini (if they are still alive), so theres no need for team evil to hurry.

well actually there IS, because the linear guild is heading to the gates, but nobody knows that :X

[Callista]

I see. Well, it looks as though Redcloak's gone for the more traditional route: Set up one of those contrived "damned if you do, damned if you don't" moral dilemmas that always show up in Paladin threads.Thing is, it's a forced choice--thus not a willing act. And O-Chul seems to have gone for an attempted third choice anyway.

Here's the classic scenario that a lot of these dilemmas are based from:

You are standing by a railroad track when you notice that a trolley, with no one aboard, is rolling down the track, heading for a group of five people. If the trolley continues on its present track, they will all be killed. The only thing you can do to prevent this tragedy is throw a switch that will divert the trolley onto a sidetrack. But there is one person on this sidetrack, and he will be killed. Should you throw the switch?

Utilitarian answer: Yes; it will mean fewer people die.
Intuitive answer: No; you don't want to take an active part in someone's death.

For dramatic and realistic purposes (rather than the theoretical dilemma), other options exist:
Third choice: Throw the switch and take the small chance that you will be able to warn the single individual. Or throw the switch halfway, attempting to damage the connection so that the trolley itself has an accident (with possible injury to the people on board).
Action by the Hostages: One of the people on the tracks notices the problem and drags his fellows off, making your choice easy. (You could combine this with the Utilitarian answer, of course: One person is more likely than all five to see the train coming on time and move.)
Deus ex Machina: Someone else is able to warn the people on the tracks, averting your need to make the choice.

In a fictional context, the trolley scenario is often something like: The villain has put Superman's girlfriend and sidekick into death traps. Superman has only the time to save one. If Superman cooperates, they live.

Third choices exist because these scenarios can never be realistic: There are never only two choices; there are an infinity of choices. The more creative and intelligent you are, the better you are at finding a third choice. So this would be Superman rushing to save both his girlfriend and his sidekick, despite having been told there's not enough time for both. Usually, a Third Choice involves any or all of: self-sacrifice (villains often don't take this into account), outwitting the enemy, "cheating", attacking the enemy directly, or putting sheer power to use. It also involves a good deal of risk--even the risk that BOTH bad things will happen.

Action by the hostages (the people in danger) is another possibility, of course. It's pretty self-explanatory: Lois Lane kicks somebody in the nuts, and Superman has all the time he needs to rescue Jimmy Olson.

IMO, the deus ex machina approach is a cop-out. The entire purpose of a situation like that is to show the character's moral tendencies, and it's useless if, thanks to a deus ex machina, nothing is revealed. Unless your hero actually has an ace in the hole in the form of an ally who can help him resolve the dilemma--turning it into more of a spotlight for the ally, and thus a Third Choice--this kind of resolution is, in my mind, the mark of a bad writer. If you're going to bring up issues like this, don't avert them. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth of your readers.

[zuzak]

Xykon heading for the throne was always part of the plan, Xykon should fly to the throne while invisible, kill the paladins (just like he did) and revive them to attack the rest of the army, #431
#447 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0447.html)
Even in 431, Redcloak says, after revealing the plan, "Its all shot to hell now that they decloaked him, though."


the only nations aware of Xykon are the nations in the south, which were visited by Hinjo's fleet. Xykon doesn't need to conquer them, because they don't have gates
But the other nations will find out about him eventually. Sooner or later, someone like the Gnome will come and find out what happened, and tell everyone else. Wiping a major city off the map is a good way to get yourself noticed. Also, controlling a gate isn't all that powerful. Basically, its holding the world hostage, and a single hostage is useless: if you destroy it, than you lose your bargaining power. Only if everyone is convinced that Xykon is willing to release the snarl is it useful. Therefore, there will probably be nations that don't think that Xykon is willing to open the gate, which would lead to his own destruction, and will oppose Xykon. Even though there's great risk, if Azure City is any indication, people won't be willing to just sit under his control. Destroying them before he makes his presence known worldwide would be much easier than after they're expecting him. Besides, the fewer nations opposing him, the less powerful any alliance that they would be involved in would be. It's not like he's doing anything productive anyway.


we can only argue about RCs actions, not his subconciousness
Why? We know that Redcloak would enjoy torturing a paladin, but that he's too focused on the plan to waste time, unlike Xykon. It seems reasonable that he justifies his wasting time with torture by telling himself that O-chul might know something, regardless of how unlikely it is in reality.


are there any other nations who know about the gates?
Although there is a possibility that no one is there at either of the gates, this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html) suggests that someone would be monitering them.
"And we agree, no interference with the other four gates. We'll set up some sort of monitering divination to tell if someone else's gate is broken but that's it."
Whoever is in charge of protecting the gates (if anyone) would probably send scouts and notify nearby nations.

[Sethis]

Tsk tsk. These villains never learn. Torture a Paladin?! Ridiculous.

"When my compatriots wanted information, they called upon me. I never failed at extracting it. The torture was just for style, I find it softens one up for a Mind Probe."

-Eldwen Amaratharr, CE Grey Elf Psion.

Why does noone else use a Psion? So much easier.

:P

[EvilElitest]

Most likely he hopes to trick O'Chul into revealing something over time/emotional break down
from
EE

[Callista]

I think he'd lose touch with reality completely before he ever told Redcloak anything... and once you're crazy, they can't count on anything you say to be true. It's rather a refuge in that way.