Results 1 to 30 of 33
-
2009-06-10, 08:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Germany
- Gender
Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
Why would Xykon use high-powered spells to ward it from scrying? It's not as if that does much good, since he keeps it very close to him anyway... that kind of protection would make more sense if he kept it hidden in an unexpected place. At least after the throne room fiasco, he needs to assume that many people after him will know what his phylactery is.
If someone overpowers Redcloak - the most likely event of endangering it - Xykon will be left in the dark and can't retrieve it easily. A determined foe could simply neutralise it by, say, tossing it into the positive energy plane."A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" - Joseph Stalin
-
2009-06-10, 09:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Location
- USA
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
Yeah. If I were putting abjurations on my phylactery (not that I have one)... I'd be sure to leave myself a back door. You don't design a security system you can't get through yourself, especially if you happen to be an epic-level lich with one phylactery-shaped weakness and lots of people who want to turn you from undead into plain dead.
Xykon tends to be pretty sure he can't be defeated, though. I don't know he has the Wisdom score to plan for contingencies like his phylactery being lost or stolen, and he just depends on himself and Redcloak to be good enough at protecting it for it to be actually destroyed. He's not too far wrong; Xykon may be the most powerful creature in his world, for all we know; but he's also been too cocky to realize just how close he can come to being defeated. With this incident, that may change.Last edited by Callista; 2009-06-10 at 09:43 PM.
-
2009-06-10, 09:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Canberra, Australia
- Gender
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
Because even a high level cleric like Redcloak needs to sleep sometimes. If someone scried out his phylactory they could take out Redcloak while he was sleeping and steal it. A phylactory is a liches last line of defence against being completely dead. Making it hard to find is a really good idea.
-
2009-06-10, 09:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Location
- USA
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
There are lots of spells that leave holes for the spellcaster. Xykon is sensible to put a lot of protections on the phylactery, but stupid not to leave security holes for himself.
-
2009-06-10, 09:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- Tampa, FL
- Gender
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
"Boneheaded?"
Spoiler
-
2009-06-10, 09:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
QFT. IMO, Redcloak didn't want to show up if some epic-level idiot that wants to take on Xykon decides to scry the phylactery. He'd be too much of a target. So he suckers Xykon into putting up some competent scry resistance so he won't be dragged too much into Xykon's fights.
-
2009-06-10, 10:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
Well, even if Xykon and Redcloak could win all the teleport attacks that would ensue if the phylactery was scry-able, they'd be annoying, distracting, and time consuming.
Is there some sort of homing device that could tell Xykon where the phylactery was? And er... if so, could that device be scried and/or teleported?
I think abjuring it up the wazoo was the best thing to do, all things considered.
-
2009-06-10, 10:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
-
2009-06-10, 11:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
I guess he thinks people would think his phylactery was hidden in an unexpected place. He doesn't want them trying to scry it out only to go "Well hey, it's actually that holy symbol that Goblin that always follows him around wears.".
Plus Soon is a special case clearly - Xykon didn't expect him to know and was surprised he did. No one else, but O-Chul who overheard, knew about it.
If someone overpowers Redcloak - the most likely event of endangering it - Xykon will be left in the dark and can't retrieve it easily. A determined foe could simply neutralise it by, say, tossing it into the positive energy plane.
It is a bit of an oversight, but with some refinement it isn't a bad idea at all.
-
2009-06-10, 11:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
I thought the anti-scrying was just part of the cloister spell. You can't control someone else's homebrewed epic spell.
-
2009-06-10, 11:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Location
- A nice, sparkly place.
- Gender
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
-
2009-06-10, 11:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
He said that the phylactery had the best anti-detection spells he and Redcloak knew on it, and that they would have to search for it by hand. Not connected to Cloister, which will cease to apply as soon as the phylactery is no longer in Azure City.
Orth Plays: Currently Baldur's Gate II
-
2009-06-11, 01:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
Cloister would only have an effect if:
(a1) Xykon leaves Azure City and tries to detect the thing, or
(a2) Redcloak leaves Azure City and tries to detect the thing,
... AND ...
(b) the phylactery is still in Azure City.
It doesn't effect teleporting/scrying *within* Azure City, or *from* Azure City to somewhere else.
Only from somewhere else *into* Azure City.
-
2009-06-11, 02:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
-
2009-06-11, 02:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
It's specified that *characters* who leave Azure City have a lingering Cloister effect on them.
No mention of *objects*.
If that effect also applies to objects, then Cloister would also be effective for about three months after the phylactery leaves the city.
Thing is, the phylactery has so many anti-detection spells on it - not including Cloister - that an epic sorcerer-lich who is familiar with it and really wants to find it doesn't think it's worth the effort to try via magic. So how much does the Cloister really matter?
Oh, and actually, Xykon can find his phylactery any time he's willing to dedicate 1D10 days to the task. No matter where it is, and a mile or two out to sea might be a relatively safe place.Last edited by warrl; 2009-06-11 at 02:48 AM.
-
2009-06-11, 06:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
Well, because he can't scry for it, Xykon is forced to order a couple of thousand hobgoblins to go look for it by hand. If he's lost his phylactery, he has to find it the hard way - but so does anyone else. Nobody else can scry and grab it.
Life rarely presents a "good" choice and a "bad" choice. Almost every choice is in fact a package deal - you get good things, with some risks or consequences associated with it. The trick is to choosing regrets you can live with, not choosing a perfect path without problems. This is true here as well. Shielding the phylactery from scrying has advantages and disadvantages. Xykon didn't expect it to go missing; he was enjoying the advantages of all the defences it had that stopped it being smashed very much right up to the point where it went "ploop".Last edited by Milandros; 2009-06-11 at 06:49 AM.
-
2009-06-11, 07:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
-
2009-06-11, 07:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
The only question I have is why Xykon didn't add Instant Summons to the thing. Surely if you're going to be bored and adding all the wards you can to it, a quick-find spell is surely a no-brainer. Especially for someone as lazy as Xykon.
Then again, the story is more interesting this way.
Though it would have been awesome in an evilgasm way for Xykon to crash through the wall and say he was going to kill O-Chul for losing his Phylactery in the sewers then...
Nah, I'm just messing with you. Here it is! *Says the activation word and holds up the amulet.* And just when you thought you had accomplished at least something with your desperate antics... ah well. Time to die!
-
2009-06-11, 08:00 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
DND and RPG rules come into play. the mooks can NEVER find plot specific items after the show has started, though apparently building the destructo-ray came on time and under budget. the only way they can find it is if a hero or innocent bystander finds it and they take it from himOriginally Posted by theinsulabot;Originally Posted by Roland St. Jude;
-
2009-06-11, 08:02 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Location
- Newcastle, Australia
- Gender
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
Why?
The Power of Plot or for gag worthiness.
Trying to establish logic into a fictional character is fraught with danger. The giant wants certain things to happen, ergo, other things need to be.
-
2009-06-11, 08:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
Urks. That'd be the worst idea he could have.
A) He does not really need it to summon.
B) Imagine this "To get to the Evil Overlords Phylactery, you must cross the River of Damned, go through the Plains of Hunger, climb the Hills of Death, dive through the Cavern of Desperation, fight Lava-Golems, Hope-Draining Monsters, Face the Demon of Deception, solve the Unsolveable Riddle and finally get the phylactery from the Chamber of the Traps. And after that, you must face the Head Cleric of the Evil Goblin God, who happens to carry it around his neck. Or, well, you could just find out what the word to summon the thing is, then it just appears in your hand."
Together with A), B) would be totally stupid, both Redcloak and Xykon are genre-educated enough to know that'd boomerang right back at them and result in a broken phylactery.
-
2009-06-11, 08:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
-
2009-06-11, 08:21 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
Not to mention you need to steal/obtain the gem from the Epic level Lich to even find out the word.
-
2009-06-11, 08:26 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
Genre. Conventions.
Ask Sauron, all that had to happen was "to lose that uber-power ring that contained his own essence". How are the chances for that?
Reason and Probability have no chance as soon as genre-conventions start to play a role. Makeing the thing summonable is a free ticket to the good guys to (ab)use that effect in some (improbable) way...
-
2009-06-11, 08:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
Why exactly is that supposed to be more likely than losing the phylactery itself? I mean if you're going all DM fiat that he's going to lose something, then in the absence of the gem that only leaves the phylactery. Explain to me again what exactly he loses again from this?
-
2009-06-11, 08:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
-
2009-06-11, 09:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
You want some advice? No matter where you go in life, always keep an eye out for Johnny the Tackling Alzheimer’s Patient.
thanks to XenoTherapy for my avatar!
-
2009-06-11, 09:16 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
Errrm, what happens if the heros dublicate the gem? Like mad haxXors? That'd make a fine plot and doom you brought upon yourself!
-
2009-06-11, 09:34 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Location
- TEXAS and 49 Other States
Re: Phylactery Abjurations: A boneheaded mistake?
First, the hero would need the gem. Second he'd have to know the special word to summon it. Third, the phylactery would have to be unattended. Since Redcloak always kept it on him, the spell would fail. All the hero would get is the knowledge that Redcloak has the phylactery and the location of Redcloak.
As for the anti-scry bit. I'd say that is a good idea. O-Chul only knew about it because Soon Kim identified it during the battle. The OOTS had no clue about where the phylactery would even be until O-Chul told them. If they tried to scry out the phylactery, their attempts would fail. They'd need some epic magic to try and learn anything. Possibly a trip to the oracle.If God had wanted you to live he would not have created me!
-
2009-06-11, 10:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009