Did Xykon Make A New Phylactery?

[brian 333]

A lich can make a new phylactery if one is lost or destroyed and the lich survives.

Pros:
He has a ready made replacement.
He went to his Artral Fortress for an unknown amount of time for activities undisclosed.
He knows Redcloak will betray him sooner or later.
Time on the Astral Plane is meaningless, so he had minutes to mellemium to fool around there.

Cons:
It costs a load of Exp and GP.
He supposedly was unaware of the switcheroo.

Narratively, for Xykon to not prepare for betrayal would be out of character. For Redcloak to not be prepared to doublecross him when Xykon reacts is as unlikely as Xykon to be unprepared to triple-cross Redcloak, who will quadruple-cross...

You get the picture. So the winner wil be the one with the most checks to the other guy's attacks, and they both know it.

I'm thinking Xykon has more than one insurance policy.

[InvisibleBison]

There hasn't been enough time for Xykon to make a new phylactery. It takes 120 days to make a phylactery, and it's only been 32 days since he lost his (according to this timeline, at least).

[brian 333]

In the Astral Plane time is an ambiguous concept. One could spend a million years there and return a second after leaving the material plane.

[InvisibleBison]

In the Astral Plane time is an ambiguous concept. One could spend a million years there and return a second after leaving the material plane.

That's not how the Astral Plane's timelessness works.

[Peelee]

Narratively, for Xykon to not prepare for betrayal would be out of character.

He did prepare. By hiding his phylactery in a fortress in the Astral plane.

[NerdyKris]

Exactly. Xykon isn't Batman, he prepares for obvious threats, not every little contingency. He still thinks Redcloak is in too deep to cut him loose and start over. And Redcloak's reaction to Durkon seems to imply Redcloak isn't as ready to cut Xykon loose as he thought he was.

[Emanick]

A lich can make a new phylactery if one is lost or destroyed and the lich survives.

According to Libris Mortis, the 3.5e authority on undead rules, that appears to be untrue. Rich could always house rule otherwise, but we have no evidence that such a house rule is in play.

[Quebbster]

It never seemed to be an option. Neither Xykon, Redcloak, Tsukiko or Jirix suggested the possibility of making a new phylactery. I assume that means it wasn't possible.

[Quartz]

Why would Xykon make a new phylactery? He has his old one back - so he thinks. He didn't make a new one when his old one was lost in Azure City.

[hroþila]

Xykon didn't go to his astral fortress for activities undisclosed, he went to the Astral Plane to build his astral fortress.

[brian 333]

The lich template for 3.0 specifically says yes, liber mortis 3.5 specifically says no. I could argue Xykon was a lich before the comic upgraded to 3.5

But I won't. This idea appears to be off the table. I find it strange that Xykon can't tell that the fake has no life force in it, but I guess that's just me.

[Morty]

The lich template for 3.0 specifically says yes, liber mortis 3.5 specifically says no. I could argue Xykon was a lich before the comic upgraded to 3.5

But I won't. This idea appears to be off the table. I find it strange that Xykon can't tell that the fake has no life force in it, but I guess that's just me.

Neither does the real phylactery. It's an empty container waiting for Xykon's soul to go there if his body is destroyed.

[brian 333]

It's the other way around. The soul is in the phylactery until the phylactery is destroyed then goes to the body if it is still animated.

At least, that's how it was from 1e to 3.0

[Dion]

So the idea is that Xykon secretly created a new phylactery without Redcloaks assistance, and kept that phylactery a secret from Redcloak?

I imagine that is possible. My guess is that if this happened, it will be revealed when OotS destroys Xykon.

But it’s going to be a long book already! I don’t know if there will be time to include something like that.

Oh! I have a great idea. How about a sequel?

Like, maybe Kudzu and friends can destroy Xykon when he comes back unexpectedly!

[Metastachydium]

It's the other way around. The soul is in the phylactery until the phylactery is destroyed then goes to the body if it is still animated.

At least, that's how it was from 1e to 3.0

That's very definitely not the case in the Stickverse.

Spoiler: SoD

Show

It was a plot point of sorts in SoD that the phylactery is empty while Xykon is alive: Redcloak tried to influence X.'s behaviour via threatening his phylactery.

Also, early in No Cure we see that the phylactery looks different when Xykon's soul is in it.

[RochtheCrusher]

But I won't. This idea appears to be off the table. I find it strange that Xykon can't tell that the fake has no life force in it, but I guess that's just me.

Gram for gram, both the phylactery and the fake are 99% magical buffs, most of which are gonna play havoc with any magic which could gain information about them. They did this intentionally, to prevent scrying and such by enemies... it's the same reason they couldn't just magically track it down in the sewer.

[KorvinStarmast]

I could argue Xykon was a lich before the comic upgraded to 3.5

As I read the comic, strip 0001 was the upgrade to 3.5. Your post has me a bit confused.

[snowblizz]

As I read the comic, strip 0001 was the upgrade to 3.5. Your post has me a bit confused.

Xykon was made into a Lich a considerable time before the events of strip 0001, let's say in strip -135 (not actual number) which means Xykon was created under 3.0 rules.

*However*, note that Vaarsuvius is bound by the new 3.5 rules even though he became a wizard in 3.0 (much to his annoyance). Zz'dtri does carry a 3.0 Fly spell, but that was "houseruled in" whatever that means.

Long story short, regardless of your origin, a change in the universal laws forces you to comply. Xykon may have been a 3.0 Lich before strip 0001, but as of strip 0001 he is now a 3.5 Lich and must obey all fundamental rules from that moment.

[Emanick]

Xykon was made into a Lich a considerable time before the events of strip 0001, let's say in strip -135 (not actual number) which means Xykon was created under 3.0 rules.

*However*, note that Vaarsuvius is bound by the new 3.5 rules even though he became a wizard in 3.0 (much to his annoyance). Zz'dtri does carry a 3.0 Fly spell, but that was "houseruled in" whatever that means.

Long story short, regardless of your origin, a change in the universal laws forces you to comply. Xykon may have been a 3.0 Lich before strip 0001, but as of strip 0001 he is now a 3.5 Lich and must obey all fundamental rules from that moment.

I think we have to conclude that the OOTSverse used the 3.5 rules for liches all along, since, as Metastachydium mentions, it was kinda a plot point in Start of Darkness that phylacteries worked the way they did in 3.5.

Were it not for that scene, though, it would be pretty reasonable to assume that liches worked the way they did in 3.0 up until the events of the prequels ended and the main comic began.

[snowblizz]

I think we have to conclude that the OOTSverse used the 3.5 rules for liches all along, since, as Metastachydium mentions, it was kinda a plot point in Start of Darkness that phylacteries worked the way they did in 3.5.

Were it not for that scene, though, it would be pretty reasonable to assume that liches worked the way they did in 3.0 up until the events of the prequels ended and the main comic began.

When the 3.5 rules hit they retroactively changed everything so everything looked like it did as if the 3.5 rules would have always been there.

I don't know what exactly the differences between 3.0 and 3.5 Lich rules would be. I can only posit what literally has happened based on the comic. Or in other words I take what Rich says at face value. If someone doesn't take an action the Readers think he should have or could have there was a reason they couldn't or didn't that may or may not have been apparent.

Either way a phylactery is required AFAICT. Based on the evidence we see you can't create a new one while the old one exists, in W&XP, DStP and BRitF they are forced to search for the old one, not just go "meh" and make a new one. Having the old one destroyed is not a problem as long as Xykon is alive (suggested in SoD) and the scene to me at least indicates Xykon feels he can replace it if it's destroyed.

The funny part is, we are retroactively watching the SoD scenes, which will have conformed to the altering laws of the universe by the time we see them in retrospect. Not only does Strip 0001 change the rules, they retroactively changed the rules for any future strips of the past we get to see. Except for when it's hilarious that it doesn't.

[denthor]

I am far away from the books. It still takes a fairly high level cleric to make a pylactery.

If the above statement is correct, then the only other high level cleric we have seen working with team evil is Durkons baby momma. She specifically stated unless Loki commands it she would not work with the undead. Vile disgusting things. So we can rule Helga out.

Any others?

Maybe a cleric only seen one time?

[brian 333]

Before there were sorcerors, a high level wizard or cleric could do it. I don't know if a sorceror could. Maybe it's a feat now.

So I'm guessing only clerics can create phylacteries now? Or is it a case of Xxkon not having the relevent abilities?

[Morty]

I really doubt the comic cleaves particularly close to any actual rules on the subject. Xykon didn't even know what a lich was before Redcloak told him, which is why Redcloak performed the procedure. Xykon may or may not have learned how to do it by now, but it's clearly not an option, or he'd have done it instead of looking for it in the sewers.

[Peelee]

I'm like 80% sure it just needs to be a mage who makes it.

[Emanick]

When the 3.5 rules hit they retroactively changed everything so everything looked like it did as if the 3.5 rules would have always been there.

I don't know what exactly the differences between 3.0 and 3.5 Lich rules would be. I can only posit what literally has happened based on the comic. Or in other words I take what Rich says at face value. If someone doesn't take an action the Readers think he should have or could have there was a reason they couldn't or didn't that may or may not have been apparent.

Either way a phylactery is required AFAICT. Based on the evidence we see you can't create a new one while the old one exists, in W&XP, DStP and BRitF they are forced to search for the old one, not just go "meh" and make a new one. Having the old one destroyed is not a problem as long as Xykon is alive (suggested in SoD) and the scene to me at least indicates Xykon feels he can replace it if it's destroyed.

The funny part is, we are retroactively watching the SoD scenes, which will have conformed to the altering laws of the universe by the time we see them in retrospect. Not only does Strip 0001 change the rules, they retroactively changed the rules for any future strips of the past we get to see. Except for when it's hilarious that it doesn't.

On the Origin of the PCs had 3.0 rules in it that hadn't been updated, so I'm not sure why Start of Darkness would operate differently (aside from the out-of-universe fact that Rich had largely stopped making rules jokes by then).

Can you explain why you think the scene indicates to you that Xykon feels he can replace the phylactery if it's destroyed? I don't see evidence of anything of the sort.

[snowblizz]

Can you explain why you think the scene indicates to you that Xykon feels he can replace the phylactery if it's destroyed? I don't see evidence of anything of the sort.

He's not worried by the fact that the Redcloak's threaten to destroy it. He dares them to do it. And Xykon isn't that big a bluffer he is a rather direct person. The phylactery is a huge safety net for a Lich so without it he'd be massively vulnerable.


Other interpretations exist. Xykon might not know exactly how it works. He might be mad enough not to care. Etc etc etc.

[hroþila]

I think at the time the main point was to assure Redcloak that he couldn't stop him from killing Right-Eye. He was asserting dominance before compromising and backing off. In that sense, it wasn't a bluff.

It is a bit weird that he never tried to take his phylactery from Redcloak between that moment and the end of SoD when he managed to break Redcloak, come to think of it. This could be explained if he just didn't care too much about it because lichdom was new to him I guess.

[Metastachydium]

He probably saw Redcloak's falling back in line as evidence that he was powerless to harm him and he made sure Redcloak knew harming the phylactery will achieve nothing, so he probably figured there's nothing to be afraid from there. Also, humiliating Redcloak via rubbing the fact that he may as well carry around his phylactery and yet he can feel safe because they don't play in the same league under Redcloak's nose sounds like something X. would do.

[M1982]

It's the other way around. The soul is in the phylactery until the phylactery is destroyed then goes to the body if it is still animated.

At least, that's how it was from 1e to 3.0

Actually not quite so clear.

They way it's spelled out in Dragon Magazine Issue 26 (1979) is that the would-be liches soul enters the phylactery during the inital transformation into lichdom during which the mortal body dies. Then it goes back out again to posses an available corpse (usually re-possessing the just deceased original body) to become a fully functioning lich. So any lich walking around has his soul in the body he's walking around him with the phylactery being an empty vessel.

I also quickly cross-checked the 2e MM, but the way it's written there is ambiguous.

[brian 333]

I suppose I've always read the ambiguity as supporting the line in the AD&D MM which said a lich keeps its soul in a phylactery.

Regardless, it seems Xykon can't have made a new phylactery regardless of the condition of his original under the current ruleset. Too bad. I had rather looked forward to Redcloak taking a moment to gloat only to discover he had been double-doublecrossed.

The next panel might have been him saying, "Um, Mr. Greenhilt, forget what I said in my previous two-page rant. I think I've changed my mind about that mutual cooperation thing."