OOTS #1256 - The Discussion Thread

[drazen]

[QUOTE=Ruck;25440808]And how would that even work?

----

Don't look at me, I'm not the author.

But there's a dying god who is fading into nothingness and a character who said, "Oh, you poor dumb elf. Don't you get it? Be a vampire, or a ghost, or an immortal with a paint-by-numbers portrait in the rec room. Hell, even a brain-in-a-jar, in a pinch. Anything to avoid the Big Fire Below."

Seems like with Serini asking the question, there may be some sort of opportunity there. Xykon's blasted essentially everything that moves out of his way except for

Spoiler

Show

Lirian (when he was human, and he won the rematch, when he wasn't)

and the epic ghost of Soon Kim.

My thought process is simple: would Xykon rather rule the world or be raised to godhood? He's explicitly stated he intends to avoid damnation. If he's thinking ultra long term, ascension would be a logical next step.

[derfenrirwolv]

Damn. What level do bards get puppy dog eyes?

[Doug Lampert]

Eh, her "good guys love that line" chuckle here pushed me a long way into "she's Neutral"



There's also the fact that, as Roy once mentioned, neither Lien nor O'Chul are actually allowed to associate with Belkar:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code

At best, they're walking a tightrope with this party by not "knowing" Belkar is CE. One "Detect Evil" in the wrong direction, and they have a problem.

No. Association does not mean, "is in the general vicinity of" or even "is on the same side as". Nor is there ANY exception in the Paladin code for not knowing, it makes atonement easier, but if detect evil would be a problem, then they already have that problem.

Otherwise ANY paladin who enters a Big Bad Evil Guy/Gal's throneroom to kill the Big Bad Evil Guy/Gal would fall since they are in the same area and are engaged in the extremely important association of "attacker and target".

For that matter, ANY paladin who kills a devil would fall for helping demons, and ANY paladin who kills a demon would fall for helping devils.

This is nonsensical. Paladins can live in the same city as evil guys, no problem; they can serve in the same army as evil guys, no problem; they can even recruit evil guys to help defend Azure city when they rule the city, and the only problem is if the evil guys mostly turn on them, still no problem with being a Paladin.

Roy associates with Belkar. Lien can cooperate with Roy and his allies all week long and twice on Sunday without any problem even if this also means cooperating with Belkar, because association in this sense means a personal alliance.

If Lien set out on an adventure, and deliberately included Belkar in her team, or joined a team that included Belkar, that would be a problem, but three groups with the same goal pursue that goal? Go back to the fact that for the most part demons want devils dead, pursuing the same goal is not an association.

[CountDVB]

Oh, I always love seeing Belkar's unfiltered speech knocking some sense back into people. Did he take a feat that added his attack roll and/or damage roll to his diplomacy checks or something?

Wonder how's he gonna react if he learns basicall the big problem of the gods is that negotiation is your only option since doing so otherwise creates more Snarls? Heck, given Righteye's view that the Dark One is just a petty vindinctive god, what's the plan if he is wholly right and the Dark One is threatening to kill mortals and gods out of veageance? How does one negotiate with someone unwilling to admit that they were wrong or cares more about their impulses?

Of course, being a god is different from being a mortal. The Dark One may be locked in rage and desruction, but Redcloak is not as far as we know, though the Crimson Mantle is screwing wit that.

[arimareiji]

Don't look at me, I'm not the author.

But there's a dying god who is fading into nothingness and a character who said, "Oh, you poor dumb elf. Don't you get it? Be a vampire, or a ghost, or an immortal with a paint-by-numbers portrait in the rec room. Hell, even a brain-in-a-jar, in a pinch. Anything to avoid the Big Fire Below."

Spoiler: collapse for space

Show

Seems like with Serini asking the question, there may be some sort of opportunity there. Xykon's blasted essentially everything that moves out of his way except for Lirian (when he was human, and he won the rematch, when he wasn't) and the epic ghost of Soon Kim.

My thought process is simple: would Xykon rather rule the world or be raised to godhood? He's explicitly stated he intends to avoid damnation. If he's thinking ultra long term, ascension would be a logical next step.

Indeed, an interesting possibility. There's less distance between "Evil people should be wiped out" and "Evil people should never get what they want" than is obvious on first glance. Thor may not have "realized he was wrong" to immediately want to wipe out TDO, but I think there's room for a reader to wonder whether he might now have second thoughts - and whether Evil gods need to exist for balance, whether we hate them or not.

That said, I have no idea whether Loki swearing vengeance on Thor if Hel doesn't make it was raising a flag or lowering a flag. The Giant does seem to have fun with subverting tropes, or subverting their subversion when subversion has become the new trope. (^_~)

No. Association does not mean, "is in the general vicinity of" or even "is on the same side as". Nor is there ANY exception in the Paladin code for not knowing, it makes atonement easier, but if detect evil would be a problem, then they already have that problem.

Spoiler: collapse for space

Show

Otherwise ANY paladin who enters a Big Bad Evil Guy/Gal's throneroom to kill the Big Bad Evil Guy/Gal would fall since they are in the same area and are engaged in the extremely important association of "attacker and target".

For that matter, ANY paladin who kills a devil would fall for helping demons, and ANY paladin who kills a demon would fall for helping devils.

This is nonsensical. Paladins can live in the same city as evil guys, no problem; they can serve in the same army as evil guys, no problem; they can even recruit evil guys to help defend Azure city when they rule the city, and the only problem is if the evil guys mostly turn on them, still no problem with being a Paladin.

Roy associates with Belkar. Lien can cooperate with Roy and his allies all week long and twice on Sunday without any problem even if this also means cooperating with Belkar, because association in this sense means a personal alliance.

If Lien set out on an adventure, and deliberately included Belkar in her team, or joined a team that included Belkar, that would be a problem, but three groups with the same goal pursue that goal? Go back to the fact that for the most part demons want devils dead, pursuing the same goal is not an association.

I think you have a really strong point, but I suspect the original intent of RAW was to have a game-mechanical way to make being a paladin genuinely difficult. (Which unfortunately gets twisted by the Mikos of the world to rationalize being "a mean socially inept bully who hides behind a badge and her holier-than-thou morality as excuses to treat other people like crap.") In that sense, depending on the DM you may indeed have a problem. (Though as you point out, such a DM would probably step on such behavior eventually even if "they didn't know".)

Plus, I suspect it may have originated with people who were twisting the lack of a rule in the other direction: "I didn't poison the benevolent priest, I only helped someone do it while not formally allying with them." Scratch the origin of any rule, and you'll find someone who was breaking it. The trouble comes about because the purpose of rules is to thwart intent, but they can only measure behavior that has historically coincided with such intent.

[Psyren]

I mean, given the way they voted, can you say they don't deserve it?

I don't know how I feel about this one. It feels more like a "bash the gods" moment more than anything else.

Don't get me wrong, they deserve bashing for a number of things, but "do nothing and let Xykon and the Dark One win" isn't one of them.

But there's a dying god who is fading into nothingness and a character who said, "Oh, you poor dumb elf. Don't you get it? Be a vampire, or a ghost, or an immortal with a paint-by-numbers portrait in the rec room. Hell, even a brain-in-a-jar, in a pinch. Anything to avoid the Big Fire Below."

Seems like with Serini asking the question, there may be some sort of opportunity there. Xykon's blasted essentially everything that moves out of his way except for Lirian (when he was human, and he won the rematch, when he wasn't) and the epic ghost of Soon Kim.

My thought process is simple: would Xykon rather rule the world or be raised to godhood? He's explicitly stated he intends to avoid damnation. If he's thinking ultra long term, ascension would be a logical next step.

Yes obviously godhood would appeal to Xykon. But in the words of one of our heroes: "I don't want you to get what you want! Forget it!"

[Thermophille]

How would they come by this knowledge in order to tell Xykon? Only Tsukiko was able to figure it out, and they that took having Xykon directly give her everything she needed to even be able to guess that.

Let's see what they know:

Redcloak plans to use the Gate to give it to TDO, to extort the gods for concessions (Redcloak said as much to Durkon).

Xykon is slaughter innocents for lulz level of psychopathically evil.


From this, they can likely conclude:

Xykon would not be okay with giving the gate up to TDO.

If he knew how it was going to be used, he'd likely turn on Redcloak.


Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Whether they've connected those dots is another matter.

[Psyren]

Let's see what they know:

Redcloak plans to use the Gate to give it to TDO, to extort the gods for concessions (Redcloak said as much to Durkon).

Xykon is slaughter innocents for lulz level of psychopathically evil.


From this, they can likely conclude:

Xykon would not be okay with giving the gate up to TDO.

If he knew how it was going to be used, he'd likely turn on Redcloak.


Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Whether they've connected those dots is another matter.

You're forgetting that Redcloak is the one they need most of the pair. The most likely result of telling Xykon about Redcloak's trickery is that Xykon slaughters him, which means the world is doomed. Hell, even raising Redcloak later (assuming Xykon leaves anything to raise) might still mean we're screwed, because whoever TDO's priest is specifically needs to be able to contribute a 9th-level spell slot for Thor's quiddity plan to work.

[Robots]

This was a great strip. And I love how Belkar is the one who talked some sense into Serini and made her understand immediately. Those two really are kindred spirits.

Also the ending of the strip is probably the best one yet.

[Vikenlugaid]

Oh, really good comic, full of good arguments and good jokes. Belkar is just brilliantly smart when he wants.

[ManuelSacha]

Love Haley staring at Elan buddying up with the "beholder" with a on her face.
She gotta be asking herself a bunch of questions right now...

[Thermophille]

You're forgetting that Redcloak is the one they need most of the pair. The most likely result of telling Xykon about Redcloak's trickery is that Xykon slaughters him, which means the world is doomed. Hell, even raising Redcloak later (assuming Xykon leaves anything to raise) might still mean we're screwed, because whoever TDO's priest is specifically needs to be able to contribute a 9th-level spell slot for Thor's quiddity plan to work.

In Pathfinder, Greater Restoration can remove negative levels from being raised. Is that not how it worked in 3.5?

[Psyren]

In Pathfinder, Greater Restoration can remove negative levels from being raised. Is that not how it worked in 3.5?

Nope - in 3.5, being raised means you actually lose those levels and must go regain them.

There are some cheesy tricks to get around it e.g. Thought Bottle, but I imagine the more dramatic approach for the webcomic (and also the one that requires the least ludonarrative minutiae) will be that the Order must keep Redcloak alive at all costs.

[hungrycrow]

The bigger problem with letting Xykon kill Redcloak is that Redcloak would probably refuse to be raised. He doesn't want to come back just to get coerced into concessions.

[Fish]

Seems to me the easiest way to create a solution that is what Xykon wants is to

Spoiler

Show

turn him into a demilich — an evil skull that cannot move or leave — and set him to guard the last gate. After moving that gate to the inside of Xykon’s fortress on the astral plane.

Anything to avoid the Fire Below, he says. Even being a brain in a jar.

[LadyEowyn]

As far as Paladins associating wuth evil characters, I think them allying with the Order (which contains an Evil character) is fine, given that Hinjo was also willing to leave Belkar free to assist in the defense of Azure City.

If they stood by and did nothing while Belkar did something Evil in front of them (which I expect is what that rule was meant to address), that would be an issue - but Belkar hasn’t done anything Evil in Book 7 so far. (That doesn’t mean he’s not still Evil, for reference - Neutral means something more than “haven’t slaughtered innocents for lulz in the past few weeks”).

[NoHaxJustPi]

You're forgetting that Redcloak is the one they need most of the pair. The most likely result of telling Xykon about Redcloak's trickery is that Xykon slaughters him, which means the world is doomed. Hell, even raising Redcloak later (assuming Xykon leaves anything to raise) might still mean we're screwed, because whoever TDO's priest is specifically needs to be able to contribute a 9th-level spell slot for Thor's quiddity plan to work.

I mean, if the monsters in the dungeons were (at least sometimes) strong enough for Xykon to gain EXP, then wouldn't Redcloak probably have leveled at least once? (I don't expect killing Redcloak and then raising him to be the solution, but still.)

[Thermophille]

I mean, if the monsters in the dungeons were (at least sometimes) strong enough for Xykon to gain EXP, then wouldn't Redcloak probably have leveled at least once? (I don't expect killing Redcloak and then raising him to be the solution, but still.)

Nor do I expect powerlevelling Jirix to be the solution.

Regardless, I still think Serini's line in this comic may have been foreshadowing. Especially with MitD ready to turn, breaking apart Xykon and Redcloak might offer a solution that doesn't involve fighting them together. Who knows, maybe the gods will offer Xykon a cushy spot on the pantheon in exchange for not killing RC and screwing everything up. It's not like Hel is going to last much longer if current trends continue.

[Liquor Box]

As far as Paladins associating wuth evil characters, I think them allying with the Order (which contains an Evil character) is fine, given that Hinjo was also willing to leave Belkar free to assist in the defense of Azure City.

If they stood by and did nothing while Belkar did something Evil in front of them (which I expect is what that rule was meant to address), that would be an issue - but Belkar hasn’t done anything Evil in Book 7 so far. (That doesn’t mean he’s not still Evil, for reference - Neutral means something more than “haven’t slaughtered innocents for lulz in the past few weeks”).

It may be that neither O-Chul or Lien even knows Belkar is evil.

[drazen]

Show
Indeed, an interesting possibility. There's less distance between "Evil people should be wiped out" and "Evil people should never get what they want" than is obvious on first glance. Thor may not have "realized he was wrong" to immediately want to wipe out TDO, but I think there's room for a reader to wonder whether he might now have second thoughts - and whether Evil gods need to exist for balance, whether we hate them or not.

That said, I have no idea whether Loki swearing vengeance on Thor if Hel doesn't make it was raising a flag or lowering a flag. The Giant does seem to have fun with subverting tropes, or subverting their subversion when subversion has become the new trope. (^_~)

One of my other predictions is that Eugene Greenhilt will get a comeuppance where he is left to wander the clouds for all of eternity, never entering Celestia. Should Roy "defeat" Xykon by elevating him to godhood, where the lich will be bound by The Rules, Roy will have done a Lawful Good thing "to the best of his ability, including his ability to judge what is best" as the Deva says. Even Xykon himself points out to Roy how crazy a direct physical showdown is. But then there is no "horrible vengeance" nor is Xykon destroyed "once and for all."

My final prediction is V will lose their magic spellcasting. Probably by destroying the red cloak with a Disintegrate spell (I am not too familiar with D&D rules, but saw something in a thread once about destroying artifacts having a chance to remove all spellcasting powers).

After all, only Elan (and likely by extension Haley, Roy, and Durkon) gets a happy ending, according to the Oracle... although I suppose he already got one of those on the back of the purple worm in the desert, ba-dum-tsh.

[Peelee]

One of my other predictions is that Eugene Greenhilt will get a comeuppance where he is left to wander the clouds for all of eternity, never entering Celestia. Should Roy "defeat" Xykon by elevating him to godhood, where the lich will be bound by The Rules, Roy will have done a Lawful Good thing "to the best of his ability, including his ability to judge what is best" as the Deva says. Even Xykon himself points out to Roy how crazy a direct physical showdown is. But then there is no "horrible vengeance" nor is Xykon destroyed "once and for all."

And all the story around the Greenhill sword being broken, then reforged in starmetal, culminating in becoming a Weapon of Legacy, along with the spellsplinter maneuver, all amount to absolutely nothing? Along with Eugene's prediction that Roy, as a fighter, would be unable to defeat Xykon (not withstanding elevating him to godhood, which somehow is a thing Roy is able to do now), ultimately being proved correct?

That's certainly a bold prediction, I'll give you that.

After all, only Elan (and likely by extension Haley, Roy, and Durkon) gets a happy ending, according to the Oracle

"Only Elan is guaranteed a happy ending" is quite different from "only Elan gets a happy ending".

[No good @ names]

Regardless, I still think Serini's line in this comic may have been foreshadowing. Especially with MitD ready to turn, breaking apart Xykon and Redcloak might offer a solution that doesn't involve fighting them together.

Strong agree

Who knows, maybe the gods will offer Xykon a cushy spot on the pantheon in exchange for not killing RC and screwing everything up. It's not like Hel is going to last much longer if current trends continue.

Alternatively Xykon just needs to THINK he’s getting what he wants. If Xykon thinks he’s getting a “get out of jail free” by bugging out to his astral fortress to watch the world crumble and getting to start again on a new Prime Material Plane with essentially meta knowledge for easy world domination, unaware that his real phylactery is actually still down there (with Redcloak?)

Edit: This is if Xykon becomes aware of the Gods’ plan, at the moment to my knowledge he has no direct knowledge.

[danielxcutter]

Considering how the comic tends to treat its villains, I don't imagine Xykon to get an even remotely satisfying conclusion at the end of this story.

[drazen]

And all the story around the Greenhill sword being broken, then reforged in starmetal, culminating in becoming a Weapon of Legacy, along with the spellsplinter maneuver, all amount to absolutely nothing? Along with Eugene's prediction that Roy, as a fighter, would be unable to defeat Xykon (not withstanding elevating him to godhood, which somehow is a thing Roy is able to do now), ultimately being proved correct?

That's certainly a bold prediction, I'll give you that.

"Only Elan is guaranteed a happy ending" is quite different from "only Elan gets a happy ending".

Roy has pointed out he got into the quest for the wrong reason of proving his father wrong. But nothing is written in stone that Roy absolutely HAS to destroy Xykon with a pointy metal stick. Even if it is a special magic stick with a cool maneuver.

Besides, even if he DOES win -- and the odds are stacked against the OOTS and friends with just Xykon, let alone 17+ Redloack and a bunch of bugbears -- Redcloak has the real phylactery in a bag of holding. So... then what? How can OOTS *truly* win a straight up fight in this situation when they don't even know where the phylactery IS?

[Jacky720]

The bigger problem with letting Xykon kill Redcloak is that Redcloak would probably refuse to be raised. He doesn't want to come back just to get coerced into concessions.

Would he rather stay dead and get nothing (ultimate failure of the Plan, unless someone smuggles the cloak out somehow) or come back and get a compromise? It's not a long shot versus a compromise anymore, just nothing vs a little. Is he that stubborn? I don't know.

[Peelee]

Roy has pointed out he got into the quest for the wrong reason of proving his father wrong. But nothing is written in stone that Roy absolutely HAS to destroy Xykon with a pointy metal stick. Even if it is a special magic stick with a cool maneuver.

Besides, even if he DOES win -- and the odds are stacked against the OOTS and friends with just Xykon, let alone 17+ Redloack and a bunch of bugbears -- Redcloak has the real phylactery in a bag of holding. So... then what? How can OOTS *truly* win a straight up fight in this situation when they don't even know where the phylactery IS?

Never said they would win a straight up fight. I said I think that Xykon becoming a god through Roy's doing (which, if Roy could make people gods, would be an odd choice for him to use his rather insane powers on) would make large swaths of the story so for irrelevant. Not to mention the entire theme of systemic injustice in the world, to boot.

It's not a binary choice of either your theory or them hitting Xykon and Redcloak with a magic sword. Other options exist. I strongly suspect the answer is one of the other options, even if I don't know what it is.

[ziproot]

Got a little typo on the first speech bubble, 4th panel of page 2 says "when was I working the angles" instead of "when I was working the angles", love the fact that Belkar is the one to convince her.

Ah, so that's the bug Sunny found.

[Thermophille]

Never said they would win a straight up fight. I said I think that Xykon becoming a god through Roy's doing (which, if Roy could make people gods, would be an odd choice for him to use his rather insane powers on) would make large swaths of the story so for irrelevant. Not to mention the entire theme of systemic injustice in the world, to boot.

It's not a binary choice of either your theory or them hitting Xykon and Redcloak with a magic sword. Other options exist. I strongly suspect the answer is one of the other options, even if I don't know what it is.

Strawmanning aside, I don't think we've been made terribly clear on the exact ascension process. Is it possible to oust a god? Does character level help in this endeavor? Does targeting a dying god make it easier? Does making a deal with the gods not to mess up their plans help? We don't know.

Granted, I don't think Xykon ascending to godhood is likely. Far more likely is that he gets annoyed and leaves.

[Saint-Just]

Do we even know what The Dark One's desires/conditions would be if he managed to successfully get his "assassin"? Because I am under impression that even godly consensus cannot override "no major alterations" clause, so he either would not believe the other gods, or try to coerce them into participating into relatively mundane and violent redistribution of resources in the goblinoids' favour.

[danielxcutter]

I imagine "stop letting your mortal worshipers killing goblins for no real reason" would be relatively doable.