Thor's plan may already have fulfilled it's narrative purpose [SPOILERS: SoD]

[Jasdoif]

As to the discussion about how they need Redcloak for Thor's plan... I am surprised at how attached people are to Thor's plan. He wants to re-imprison the Snarl within the planet. The same planet that has a planet within it. That he explicitly doesn't know about. Seems like it could be a bad idea. Also the plan is to just keep the Snarl imprisoned under stronger locks, which is kind of MEH. Who is to say a more permanent solution won't present itself? We don't know everything about the Snarl yet. Or the planet within the rift. Or the nature of the purple quiddity! Redcloak specifically is only tied to the incredibly flawed version of the plan that kicks the can down the road for a few centuries before needing to be refreshed. Would it truly be surprising if a new plan emerged that didn't require a 9th-level clerical spell slot specifically?

Personally, I don't think my dislike of starvation warrants starving to death when food is available.

That is to say, Thor's plan has a tremendous advantage in that it could plausibly save the world, given what we know. The world being destroyed because it's not an ideal solution is, itself, far from an ideal solution...especially if finding/implementing a better solution needs more time to accomplish, which a stopgap measure like Thor's plan could provide.

Lots of different people feel otherwise, of course....Some insist that goblins get a better existence, some insist that gods get a more balanced distribution of souls, some insist that Redcloak be punished for his role in events thus far, some insist that gods be expunged for their role in events thus far; amongst all those groups are people willing to put the lives of everyone on the world on the line as long as they get what they personally want. Some accept the risk as worth it, others rationalize it away by imagining how unknown things could still work out for the best.

[CriticalFailure]

I really don’t get why people insist that OOTS must end with Redcloak being killed or punished for his naughty deeds. That isn’t to say that he won’t die, it’s absolutely on the table. But they are many reasons why it isn’t necessary:

1) a big theme seems to be that people need to swallow their pride and make sacrifices to work together and fix things. It’s more likely that they will have to accept dealing with Redcloak despite finding him loathsome than that they will punish them as they would like to.

2) the idea that stories aren’t good if they don’t end with all the villains punished so that the reader can tell how bad they are is childish and boring.

3) seeing Redcloak killed or punished wouldn’t be satisfying in the same way it would gd for Xykon. Redcloak’s life is miserable, in large part due to his own choices, and he has already accepted his own death and even the destruction of his own soul to be acceptable and likely in the pursuit of his goals. In my opinion this makes redemption=death very unlikely. Redcloak dying would most likely lack the impact of many character deaths since he’s been shown not to value his own life. For this reason, I also think it’s likely that Redcloak will have to face realizing that everything he did was for nothing and the plan won’t work. That’s what he’s emotionally invested in, not whether he lives or dies. And if he does die he gets an out from having to actually deal with how much he’s messed things up.

[The Pilgrim]

Redcloak has always been a more complex character than Nale. By the time Nale died, he may have had more screen time, but Redcloak had more characterization and character development. It’s incredibly unlikely that Redcloak will go from a dynamic character that changes in every plot line he has to a static character. That would most likely not be great writing.

Redcloak's characterization in-comic has been focused in turning him from a random goblin subservant lackey into a proper villain who looks like a real menace for the Heroes. Start of Darkness was a way for The Giant to retcon why Redcloak began the main comic as a subservant lackey to Xykon.

Logic dictates that a character who has been groomed to look like a Big Bad Evil Guy, is intended to perform the narrative role of a Big Bad Evil Guy. That is, scalating conflict with the Heroes up to an explosive climax confrontation. Not an anticlimatic "okay you are right and I'm wrong, I'll collaborate with you guys".

I really don’t get why people insist that OOTS must end with Redcloak being killed or punished for his naughty deeds.

Basically because The Giant has been a big fan of characters getting the consequences of their actions, thus far.

1) a big theme seems to be that people need to swallow their pride and make sacrifices to work together and fix things. It’s more likely that they will have to accept dealing with Redcloak despite finding him loathsome than that they will punish them as they would like to.

The Heroes aren't going to punish Redcloak, beacuse the Heroes doesn't even know the deep of Redcloak's faults. It's Redcloak himself who is trapped by his own past, and who will have to face the consequences.

2) the idea that stories aren’t good if they don’t end with all the villains punished so that the reader can tell how bad they are is childish and boring.

I think that the real childish idea is to think that people doesn't need to be held accountable for their actions.

I also think it’s likely that Redcloak will have to face realizing that everything he did was for nothing and the plan won’t work.

1) He does that and, thus, follows the next logical stept, that is performing final sacrifice.

Or

2) He performs final sacrifice precisely to avoid having to accept realizing that.

[dancrilis]

3) seeing Redcloak killed or punished wouldn’t be satisfying in the same way it would gd for Xykon.

Frankly I hope Xykon survives.

Spoiler: SOD

Show

He doesn't even need to be destroyed for Eugene's benefit as all Eugene stated with the blood oath was that vengeance would be achieved - not specifically destruction.

If he needs to suffer some difficulty maybe getting traped in his fortress or something for a few years might be sufficient.

[KorvinStarmast]

It’s incredibly unlikely that Redcloak will go from a dynamic character that changes in every plot line he has to a static character.

Glad to see another advocate for "Redcloak is not a static character" theme.

1) a big theme seems to be that people need to swallow their pride and make sacrifices to work together and fix things.

A significant part of Roy's own character development.

3) seeing Redcloak killed or punished wouldn’t be satisfying in the same way it would gd for Xykon.

I remember an adage from some years back along the lines of "we all construct our own private Hells" - which I think captures Redcloak pretty well.

Spoiler: SOD

Show

He doesn't even need to be destroyed for Eugene's benefit as all Eugene stated with the blood oath was that vengeance would be achieved - not specifically destruction.

If he needs to suffer some difficulty maybe getting trapped in his fortress or something for a few years might be sufficient.

Well, if we want to be rough on him, trapping him in his fortress for a century or two would be a fitting punishment. One thing Xykon hates is being bored.

[CriticalFailure]

Redcloak has been set up to contrast to Xykon, being conflicted where Xykon is untroubled and changing where Xykon is static. SOD does a lot to set that up, including setting up the conflict between Xykon and Redcloak. It seems impossible that we won’t see the conflict between Xykon and Redcloak come to a head, at this point this pretty much has to have a payoff. And that will involve Redcloak having to face his partnership with Xykon being pointless. Frankly his attempts to keep up his rationalizations have also been brought up enough that they need to come to a head as well. Yeah, he’s a villain, but Xykon is the real big bad and these plot threads are going to need to be dealt with.

[Worldsong]

Redcloak has been set up to contrast to Xykon, being conflicted where Xykon is untroubled and changing where Xykon is static. SOD does a lot to set that up, including setting up the conflict between Xykon and Redcloak. It seems impossible that we won’t see the conflict between Xykon and Redcloak come to a head, at this point this pretty much has to have a payoff. And that will involve Redcloak having to face his partnership with Xykon being pointless. Frankly his attempts to keep up his rationalizations have also been brought up enough that they need to come to a head as well. Yeah, he’s a villain, but Xykon is the real big bad and these plot threads are going to need to be dealt with.

Personally I think that as Redcloak and Xykon are portrayed to contrast one another and serve as each other's foil the final difference is going to be Redcloak actually turning around while Xykon goes down in defiance.

[understatement]

3) seeing Redcloak killed or punished wouldn’t be satisfying in the same way it would gd for Xykon. Redcloak’s life is miserable, in large part due to his own choices, and he has already accepted his own death and even the destruction of his own soul to be acceptable and likely in the pursuit of his goals. In my opinion this makes redemption=death very unlikely. Redcloak dying would most likely lack the impact of many character deaths since he’s been shown not to value his own life. For this reason, I also think it’s likely that Redcloak will have to face realizing that everything he did was for nothing and the plan won’t work. That’s what he’s emotionally invested in, not whether he lives or dies. And if he does die he gets an out from having to actually deal with how much he’s messed things up.

I pretty much agree with your all of your points. I never got the "redemption = death" trope going on; it feels like the creator tries to cop out of the character dealing with all the emotional mess of that choice.

In Redcloak's case, he would absolutely choose death over redemption at this point in the story. Death for him means going to his god's afterlife; redemption means living , possibly near-forever, with the horrible choices he made and having to atone for them one by one to the end of his days.

Just because you die after doing something good isn't redemption, FYI.

[The Pilgrim]

Redcloak has been set up to contrast to Xykon, being conflicted where Xykon is untroubled and changing where Xykon is static. SOD does a lot to set that up, including setting up the conflict between Xykon and Redcloak. It seems impossible that we won’t see the conflict between Xykon and Redcloak come to a head, at this point this pretty much has to have a payoff. And that will involve Redcloak having to face his partnership with Xykon being pointless. Frankly his attempts to keep up his rationalizations have also been brought up enough that they need to come to a head as well. Yeah, he’s a villain, but Xykon is the real big bad and these plot threads are going to need to be dealt with.

Conflict between Redcloak and Xykon is clearly expectable.

But that conflict won't explode because Redcloak has a change of heart regarding The Plan. That conflict will come because Xykon and Redcloak are two scoundrels with a toxic relationship who have been betraying each other from the very beginning.

Where the Order has learnt to trust each other and work together, Team Evil has grown into distrusting each other and imposing cooperation by brute force and manipulation.

Redcloak can, and will, come to a fallout with Xykon. But his faith in The Plan or his hatred towards humans and other PC races are different questions, unrelated to Xykon.

[CriticalFailure]

His faith in the plan is completely tied to his belief he must use Xykon for it at this point. You can’t have one without the other.

[The Pilgrim]

Redcloak has just stated that Destruction of the World is an acceptable outcome for him. He doesn't needs Xykon for that.