New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 67 of 67
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is there an explanation about the reverting shape of Redcloak's holy symbol?

    Quote Originally Posted by dancrilis View Post
    Your opinion of O-Chul might be lower then Redcloak's - he did after all spend months around it.

    Further Redcloak doesn't know how they figured out about the phylactery initially so he doesn't know who well they might know it.
    But why would he care? He clearly didn't brought Xykon would let him keep it, and having it with them almost led to catastrophe twice now, so it was reasonable to believe that big X would hide it somewhere secure. So why bother making a diversion? Or doesn't really buy them anything that the ohylactery bring completely hidden doesn't, except the belief that Xykon has been defeated, and it requires a remarkably specific set of circumstances - Xykon defeated but not Redcloak, despite that Xykon is stronger both offensively and defensively, which was only accomplished before due to a complete fluke that cannot be recreated.

    It offers practically no advantage and requires a ludicrous amount of attention to detail to keep the plan under wraps - Redcloak himself admitted he would have killed the craftsman if Tsukiko had not, and disintegrated him to boot. Redcloak had only shown one creature he fears so much to go to such great lengths: Xykon. Further, he knows the Sapphire Guard is decimated, knows O-Chul is no threat to them, and did not know yet that anyone s actively opposing them regarding the Gates, so that adds yet another layer of unnecessary paranoia. And, to top it all off, why would he keep it a secret from Xykon, and take on an enormous amount of extra risk in case he finds out when the specific intent of this plan is to absolutely minimize risk to an absurd degree?
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: Is there an explanation about the reverting shape of Redcloak's holy symbol?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    But why would he care? He clearly didn't brought Xykon would let him keep it, and having it with them almost led to catastrophe twice now, so it was reasonable to believe that big X would hide it somewhere secure. So why bother making a diversion? Or doesn't really buy them anything that the ohylactery bring completely hidden doesn't, except the belief that Xykon has been defeated, and it requires a remarkably specific set of circumstances - Xykon defeated but not Redcloak, despite that Xykon is stronger both offensively and defensively, which was only accomplished before due to a complete fluke that cannot be recreated.

    It offers practically no advantage and requires a ludicrous amount of attention to detail to keep the plan under wraps - Redcloak himself admitted he would have killed the craftsman if Tsukiko had not, and disintegrated him to boot. Redcloak had only shown one creature he fears so much to go to such great lengths: Xykon. Further, he knows the Sapphire Guard is decimated, knows O-Chul is no threat to them, and did not know yet that anyone s actively opposing them regarding the Gates, so that adds yet another layer of unnecessary paranoia. And, to top it all off, why would he keep it a secret from Xykon, and take on an enormous amount of extra risk in case he finds out when the specific intent of this plan is to absolutely minimize risk to an absurd degree?
    My assumption is that in the unlikely event that Redcloak presented the real phylactery to Xykon that Xykon knows about the fake being commissioned.

    In the event that Xykon and Redcloak are both destroyed then having Xykon reform to claim the Crimson Mantle and give it to a Goblin would allow the plan to continue - and if the heroes are convinced that Xykon is gone for good they would not be expecting to fight him a second time so the retrieval of the Mantle would be easier.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Metastachydium's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2020

    Default Re: Is there an explanation about the reverting shape of Redcloak's holy symbol?

    Quote Originally Posted by dancrilis View Post
    My assumption is that in the unlikely event that Redcloak presented the real phylactery to Xykon that Xykon knows about the fake being commissioned.
    This part still does not make much sense if we weigh it against available evidence.

    In the event that Xykon and Redcloak are both destroyed then having Xykon reform to claim the Crimson Mantle and give it to a Goblin would allow the plan to continue - and if the heroes are convinced that Xykon is gone for good they would not be expecting to fight him a second time so the retrieval of the Mantle would be easier.
    So, you're implying that despite being worried that the heroes will be able to tell a fake phylactery from the real one unless he reproduces with absolute precision every scratch and every protective spell on it, Redcloak would consider the chance that they will destroy the Mantle (which does not seem to be necessary for performing the Rift-sealing procedure Thor wants to put on the road) before Xykon could reform his body and fetch it negligible?

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RatElemental's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Is there an explanation about the reverting shape of Redcloak's holy symbol?

    Quote Originally Posted by Metastachydium View Post
    So, you're implying that despite being worried that the heroes will be able to tell a fake phylactery from the real one unless he reproduces with absolute precision every scratch and every protective spell on it, Redcloak would consider the chance that they will destroy the Mantle (which does not seem to be necessary for performing the Rift-sealing procedure Thor wants to put on the road) before Xykon could reform his body and fetch it negligible?
    Well to be fair, the mantle is a deific artifact. The only set in stone way to destroy those is to cast a 9th level spell on them (with a 1% chance per caster level of it even working) and if you succeed you have to make a pretty tough will save or lose the ability to cast spells forever. If the good guys think the plan is kaput they'd probably just keep the cloak to guard somewhere rather than actually try to destroy it, and in fact we know the OotS lacks the capability to destroy it at all.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Is there an explanation about the reverting shape of Redcloak's holy symbol?

    Quote Originally Posted by dancrilis View Post
    My assumption is that in the unlikely event that Redcloak presented the real phylactery to Xykon that Xykon knows about the fake being commissioned.
    Then why hide it whey he went to Xykon? Why leave it in the case whole casting spells on it on the way, only to change it out at the last moment (including replacing the chain)? Assuming that theory to be true, those would serve no purpose other than to deliberately mislead the audience, which the author has, to date, never done yet. He's presented things in misleading light before, but never openly deliberately misled - it's the difference between mentioning there are drinks available when the closest bottle is poison, and handing someone a glass filled with poison.
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    PirateWench

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Is there an explanation about the reverting shape of Redcloak's holy symbol?

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    Yeah, and I have news for you. Mr Occam called, and thanks you for his nice clean shave today. Appreciated.
    Can you let Mr. Chekhov know his appointment at the shooting range has been moved up?

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: Is there an explanation about the reverting shape of Redcloak's holy symbol?

    I'd like to remind people that "Chekhov's gun" isn't an actual rule just a convention sometimes appropriate to consider.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •