What's Xykons endgame?

[hroþila]

Yeah some of you guys have weirdly restrictive views on storytelling. Beowulf for example is a fantasy story with an absolute downer of an ending and that's like 1000 years old at the very least.

Spoiler: Beowulf

Show

Hooray, the dragon is dead! Oh but so is Beowulf, and it's heavily implied that the Geats won't survive for long without him. Oh well

[brian 333]

The success of the tragedy genre (EDIT: Not to mention horror) says otherwise.
Sometimes a story has a sad ending and it works.

Spoiler: The Great Power of the Chninkel

Show

Ends with U'n burning the world in a fit of rage after his scheme to get eternal adoration is exposed and he is revealed to everybody as the cruel tyrant that he is... With the exception of a small tribe who it's strongly implied will fall for U'n's plot at some point in the far future. U'n's only defeat here is having to restart the game and a nick to his all-encompassing pride

Spoiler: John Caprenter's the Thing

Show

Ends with Mac and Childs waiting for the cold to kill them with no guarantee that every part of the Thing is dead (it only takes a cell, remember) and won't come back alive when someone comes looking for them and bring the corpses to a warmer place.

George Martin has stated that his favourite kind of ending is the "bitter-sweet". Where the heroes by-and-large succeed but the cost was bigger than anticipated or there are still many problems afoot. Which makes sense for someone who clearly prefers nuance and ambiguity to simple situations.

Hard disagree. For starter a villain isn't always required for a story to be good (in fact I love stories where the "antagonist" is the protagonists' own hang-ups").

More to your point while the villain being defeated humiliatingly is certainly a way to satisfyingly wrap up the story it is not required.
There are many stories where the villain is beaten and they gracefully acknowledge their defeat and leave with little-to-no ill will toward the protagonists.

Here are a few villains from books by this forum's second favourite author, Sir Terry Pratchett, whose comeuppance is hardly humiliating or complete.

Spoiler: Eric

Show

The Demon King Asfgtl gets to file paperwork to his heart's content in an office no-one will ever visit. He is indeed powerless, but he doesn't even realize it and is more happy than he ever has been.

Spoiler: Pyramids

Show

Dios is sent back in time to do what he had done previously. His punishment for his many crimes is... to always have done them/do them again. Note that since the core of his character is an irrational hatred for change, being stuck in a time-loop for eternity where he gets to rule over a country for a few thousand years doesn't seem very bad.

Spoiler: Small Gods

Show

While Vorbis spending an infinite amount of time unable to cross the desert that leads to the afterlife, forced to confront his own hypocrisy, would be a fitting punishment, the story ends with Brutha helping him cross the desert, just like he did in the world of the living (after which Vorbis betrayed him). Because, as Brutha says, to be Vorbis is to turn people into the worst versions of themselves, but to be Brutha is to help people. This in particular is a good example of what I am saying below.

Spoiler: Going Postal

Show

At the end of the novel, Reacher Guilt is made the same offer Moist received at the beginning (be executed for your crimes or become the Patrician's special agent). Guilt chooses death over being someone's pawn and Vetinari says he can't help but admire someone willing to follow their principles to the end.

Ultimately, I'd say that the fate of the villain doesn't matter that much to the story, because the story isn't about them. The story is about the protagonists, what it reveals about them or how they are changed by it. The villain's role is the same as any antagonist: to be an obstacle that forces the protagonist to grow in order to overcome it. That growth may manifest itself by vanquishing and destroying the villain but it may also manifest in forgiving the villain, helping them grow into a better person or realizing the hero has outgrown them and they are no longer relevant in any way.

(Side-note: many stories where the hero forgives or deems the villain irrelevant often have the villain then die by the hand of someone else, the environment or foolishly getting themselves killed, often falling to their doom. I see this as a cheat for the author to have their cake and eat it too, one that undermines the protagonist's choice.)


Roy destroys Xykon, saving the world and freeing his family from his father's neglectful abuse. What happens to Xykon next, I don't really care. I suppose him being dead is fitting enough.

(Also, Xykon didn't get the lichification ritual from a demon lord. I recommend reading Start of Darkness if you haven't already, it's a very good book. The Giant's second best, in my opinion.)

Yeah some of you guys have weirdly restrictive views on storytelling. Beowulf for example is a fantasy story with an absolute downer of an ending and that's like 1000 years old at the very least.

Spoiler: Beowulf

Show

Hooray, the dragon is dead! Oh but so is Beowulf, and it's heavily implied that the Geats won't survive for long without him. Oh well

The exceptions prove the rule.

What you or GRR Martin may like or prefer isn't my point. I already acknowledged that there are exceptions. My point is that modern fantasy, indeed most fantasy, has a happy ending for the protagonist and an end that punishes the villain in measure with his villainy.

Beowulf died in combat, a hero's death worthy of song. What better ending could he have? And there is room for yet another hero to come along and save the world again.

If Grendl, Grendl's Mother, or The Dragon had survived your point would be valid, but all three of the murderous monsters are slain by the hero.

The context of the story is a society very different from our own. Heroic self-sacrifice was a virtue, and thus should be viewed as the Thundershields viewed Kandro's death.

[dancrilis]

Whether a happy ending is desirable or not in stories I think it is fairly clear that the Order of the Stick will have at worst a bitter sweet ending (depending on how you view the as yet unknown conclusion of Belkar's, Redcloak's, etc's, stories) and fairly likely to just have a fairly standard happy ending (evil is punished or redeemed, good is rewarded, etc).

[InvisibleBison]

The exceptions prove the rule.

No, exceptions disprove the rule. You said that in fantasy, the heroes always win. Fyraltari provided examples of fantasy stories where the heroes don't win. There is no way evidence contrary to your hypothesis can somehow actually support your hypothesis. Trotting out a platitude that has been rendered nonsensical by linguistic evolution does not change what things mean.

[Laurentio III]

No, exceptions disprove the rule. You said that in fantasy, the heroes always win. Fyraltari provided examples of fantasy stories where the heroes don't win. There is no way evidence contrary to your hypothesis can somehow actually support your hypothesis. Trotting out a platitude that has been rendered nonsensical by linguistic evolution does not change what things mean.

While I hate that saying - because it's often missused - the point is that Beowulf doesn't get a good ending how we consider it today, but it was a good ending for his time. Dying in a battle, against a powerful enemies. That IS a good ending, so there is no "exception" here. Beowulf dying of old age, that would be a downer.

[Peelee]

No, exceptions disprove the rule.

Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. The exception proves the rule for those not excepted. Or, more simply, that things can be exceptions proves there is a rule. No rule would mean no exceptions.

[albertov05]

{scrubbed}

[Fyraltari]

The exceptions prove the rule.

Exceptions ought to be rare to be exceptions.

What you or GRR Martin may like or prefer isn't my point. I already acknowledged that there are exceptions. My point is that modern fantasy, indeed most fantasy, has a happy ending for the protagonist and an end that punishes the villain in measure with his villainy.

No, what you said was:

In a fantasy story the heros have to win, as most here appear to agree. (Exceptions for prequels and early books in a series and anything written by G.R.R. Martin)

What seems often overlooked is that the villain must also receive a commupance commensurate with the degree of villainy.

Emphasis mine.
The exceptions you allowed for where for prequels, early books and Martin (for some reason), nothing else.

You vave made two claims: first that the heroes have to win in the end (1) and furthermore that the vilain's defeat must also be humiliating and commensurate with his villainy (2).

I agree that (1) and (2) are common tropes ((1) much more than (2)) but neither are requirement.

If what you wanted to say was these are simply common occurences, then we agree, but it isn't what you wrote.

While I hate that saying - because it's often missused - the point is that Beowulf doesn't get a good ending how we consider it today, but it was a good ending for his time. Dying in a battle, against a powerful enemies. That IS a good ending, so there is no "exception" here. Beowulf dying of old age, that would be a downer.

Right, but Beowulf wasn't one of my examples. In fact I intentionally only picked examples contemporary to us (I didn't use Shakespeare's body of work, for example) precisely to avoid this kind of culture clash.

[Laurentio III]

Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. The exception proves the rule for those not excepted. Or, more simply, that things can be exceptions proves there is a rule. No rule would mean no exceptions.

In Italy it's said "L'eccezione conferma la regola" ("The exception proves the rule") which is fine, but most people interprete it as "I can set arbitrary, unworkable rules and whatever doesn't fit is a confirmation that the rule is fine".
It gets me mad every single time. It's abused as few things, and I'm speaking about Italy, so going against rules is already covered.
Things like a woman I know saying: "Every man falls in love with me!" "Well, I don't." "You are the exception proving the rule!"
No, it's not. It's just that someone consider every opposing results as "exception", even when they outnumber expected results.

Sorry for the rant.

[Peelee]

In Italy it's said "L'eccezione conferma la regola" ("The exception proves the rule") which is fine, but most people interprete it as "I can set arbitrary, unworkable rules and whatever doesn't fit is a confirmation that the rule is fine".
It gets me mad every single time. It's abused as few things, and I'm speaking about Italy, so going against rules is already covered.
Things like a woman I know saying: "Every man falls in love with me!" "Well, I don't." "You are the exception proving the rule!"
No, it's not. It's just that someone consider every opposing results as "exception", even when they outnumber expected results.

Sorry for the rant.

I thought you'd appreciate my proto-Italian, since as far as I know that's the origin of the phrase. But yeah, its horribly misused, I agree. It's supposed to be more along the lines of Bender telling Fry the museum is free on Tuesdays - the existence of an exception proving there is a rule that it is not free the rest of the week.

[InvisibleBison]

Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. The exception proves the rule for those not excepted. Or, more simply, that things can be exceptions proves there is a rule. No rule would mean no exceptions.

This principle isn't relevant to the current discussion. To apply this principle, the putative exception has to actually be recognizable as an exception in some way beyond just not conforming to a proposed rule. The stories Fyraltari cited are only exceptions to a rule if you assume that the rule you're trying to prove exists through their exceptionality already exists. In other words, attempting to apply this principle here is circular reasoning.

[Peelee]

This principle isn't relevant to the current discussion. To apply this principle, the putative exception has to actually be recognizable as an exception in some way beyond just not conforming to a proposed rule. The stories Fyraltari cited are only exceptions to a rule if you assume that the rule you're trying to prove exists through their exceptionality already exists. In other words, attempting to apply this principle here is circular reasoning.

I agree. I was merely responding to the claim that "exceptions disprove the rule". I made no comment on whether the exception proved the rule in this case.

[Rodin]

Going back to Xykon's motivation, I see him as a sort of Kefka-like figure without the extreme nihilism. He's evil because its fun to be evil. He doesn't want to rule. He wants to sit at the top of a tower with ultimate power to zap anyone at any time because he finds it funny. He doesn't want to destroy the world, but not for any moral reason. The world is where he keeps his stuff, and wiping out all life means nobody for him to terrorize.

As long as he's the #1 dog with nobody to tell him what to do, Xykon doesn't really care what happens to anyone else. I would expect him to act like he did with O-Chul, only on a global scale. Order a country to gather 10000 men and then kill and zombify half of them so a big battle can take place. That sort of thing.

[hroþila]

Beowulf died in combat, a hero's death worthy of song. What better ending could he have? And there is room for yet another hero to come along and save the world again.

While I hate that saying - because it's often missused - the point is that Beowulf doesn't get a good ending how we consider it today, but it was a good ending for his time. Dying in a battle, against a powerful enemies. That IS a good ending, so there is no "exception" here. Beowulf dying of old age, that would be a downer.

Yeah no. When Beowulf dies nobody is like "awesome dying dude". In fact, Wiglaf laments that they couldn't convince Beowulf to stay away from the dragon's den. The tone of the poem is very much elegiac. The Geats appreciate Beowulf's sacrifice and are impressed that he managed to stop the dragon before it could cause much harm, but the point is that Beowulf didn't actually save his people - his people are left terribly vulnerable to the Swedes, and the Geats fully expect them to take advantage of Beowulf's death to conquer them and enslave them. This is all explicitly told in the ending of the poem. Beowulf's death is not depicted as just a heroic death, it's depicted as a tragedy that dooms the whole tribe.

[Jasdoif]

Whether a happy ending is desirable or not in stories I think it is fairly clear that the Order of the Stick will have at worst a bitter sweet ending (depending on how you view the as yet unknown conclusion of Belkar's, Redcloak's, etc's, stories) and fairly likely to just have a fairly standard happy ending (evil is punished or redeemed, good is rewarded, etc).

This seems like a good time to bring up the Oracle-related commentary.

Spoiler: War and XPs

Show

...in the end this is still a comedy-adventure, not a drama. When the entire Order of the Stick saga is over, Elan will have a happy ending. Not everyone in the story will be able to say the same, but it doesn't take much work to extrapolate a few things that simply could not happen without invalidating Elan's prophecy-assured happy ending. Consider it my way of turning to the audience and sayings, "Don't worry folks! It might get scary for a while, but it will all work out in the end!"

If nothing else, it provides a focus for argumentation.

[RatElemental]

Ah, but who will bell the cat?

If we're already going completely off the wall with a theory in which Xykon is resurrected and then imprisoned on the astral plane forever, it's not too much further to think that someone might slap a pair of antimagic shackles on his wrist bones while he's destroyed so they're in place after the res.

Right now without magic he's still a skeleton with the strength to crush people's windpipes, but after getting resurrected he'd be a venerable human with no lich template giving him bonuses or negating his age penalties anymore.


I still fail to see how this is worse for Xykon than being some demon's chew toy, but I suppose denying the demon their chew toy might be a worthy goal.

[Peelee]

If we're already going completely off the wall with a theory in which Xykon is resurrected and then imprisoned on the astral plane forever, it's not too much further to think that someone might slap a pair of antimagic shackles on his wrist bones while he's destroyed so they're in place after the res.

Right now without magic he's still a skeleton with the strength to crush people's windpipes, but after getting resurrected he'd be a venerable human with no lich template giving him bonuses or negating his age penalties anymore.


I still fail to see how this is worse for Xykon than being some demon's chew toy, but I suppose denying the demon their chew toy might be a worthy goal.

Being destroyed and resurrected kind of precludes any sort of "shackle his wrist bones", though. There are no wrist bones to shackle, are there?

[Fyraltari]

Being destroyed and resurrected kind of precludes any sort of "shackle his wrist bones", though. There are no wrist bones to shackle, are there?

What? Living humans have lots of wrist bones.

[dancrilis]

What? Living humans have lots of wrist bones.

Resurrection reconstructs the body from the remains, True Resurrection doesn't need remains so when he is returned to life he would still need to be contained after being brought back - can't just slap bracers on the corpse (and we don't know what spells he might have to bypass anti-magic).

Further even without magic he could still become a lich again, and if he doesn't then he is fairly old so baring a major alignment shift he would merely end up back in the abyss a few years later.

[Peelee]

What? Living humans have lots of wrist bones.

Yes, but a destroyed lich is not a living human. It's that pesky in between state we're talking about here. We've already seen Xykon nearly destroyed once - pretend, for the moment, that in the Dungeon of Dorukan, they had managed to smash dlthe phylactery as well. Where would you put the shackles? There were no wrists.

[brian 333]

No, exceptions disprove the rule. You said that in fantasy, the heroes always win. Fyraltari provided examples of fantasy stories where the heroes don't win. There is no way evidence contrary to your hypothesis can somehow actually support your hypothesis. Trotting out a platitude that has been rendered nonsensical by linguistic evolution does not change what things mean.

I made a generic statement, acknowledged that there were exceptions, and concluded by stating an opinion.

This is not science. You don't refute a generic argument by exacting measurements.

Disagree or not with my statement. Fyaralti did. And did so without demanding my statement be either 100% true or 100% false. There is a lot of gray.

As for the exact exceptions I listed, they were neither an exhaustive, all inclusive list, nor intended to be taken literally.

It was a joke.

Not a funny one, apparently, because I had to explain it. Still, a joke. So, please take a moment to reconsider what I wrote. Does it imply in any way a statement of doctrine which must be rigorously obeyed? Or does it convey a general sentiment which is, in the end, an opinion?

I stand by my opinion, and the words I used to convey it. I wasn't 100% accurate, but then I wasn't trying to be. 100% accuracy is for science experiments.

[Jasdoif]

Yes, but a destroyed lich is not a living human. It's that pesky in between state we're talking about here. We've already seen Xykon nearly destroyed once - pretend, for the moment, that in the Dungeon of Dorukan, they had managed to smash dlthe phylactery as well. Where would you put the shackles? There were no wrists.

Clearly(?) you'd first get one of those skeleton-shaped gelatin or cake molds, mix bonemeal with resin to make a paste (pretend it's shalk resin and you're trying to raise your Alchemy skill), fit the paste into the mold, and let/make it solidify.

[Fyraltari]

Yes, but a destroyed lich is not a living human. It's that pesky in between state we're talking about here. We've already seen Xykon nearly destroyed once - pretend, for the moment, that in the Dungeon of Dorukan, they had managed to smash dlthe phylactery as well. Where would you put the shackles? There were no wrists.

I'm confused, if you destroy a lich and then resurrect them, doesn't they get back the way they were as a mortal?

Fyaralti

Who dat?

[Peelee]

I'm confused, if you destroy a lich and then resurrect them, doesn't they get back the way they were as a mortal?

Who dat?

Sure. But if the body is destroyed... Well, let me put it this way. Let's say you wanted to put the shackles on Durkon after the vampire was destroyed and before Durkon was resurrected. Where you gonna put em?

[Fyraltari]

Sure. But if the body is destroyed... Well, let me put it this way. Let's say you wanted to put the shackles on Durkon after the vampire was destroyed and before Durkon was resurrected. Where you gonna put em?

Okay but "before resurrection" wasn't what was under discussion:

Being destroyed and resurrected kind of precludes any sort of "shackle his wrist bones", though. There are no wrist bones to shackle, are there?

[Peelee]

Okay but "before resurrection" wasn't what was under discussion:

Yes it was. Bolding mine:

If we're already going completely off the wall with a theory in which Xykon is resurrected and then imprisoned on the astral plane forever, it's not too much further to think that someone might slap a pair of antimagic shackles on his wrist bones while he's destroyed so they're in place after the res.

That was what my initial reply was to, specifically and directly concerning the bolded part.

[Fyraltari]

Yes it was. Bolding mine:
That was what my initial reply was to, specifically and directly concerning the bolded part.

Oh, I missed that. My bad.

[Peelee]

Oh, I missed that. My bad.

No worries. Not like I've never done that myself.

[InvisibleBison]

I'm pretty sure Xykon's body was only destroyed when he was killed in the Dungeons of Dorukan because he was thrown into the Gate. In the illusion in Girard's dungeon his body remained intact after being killed. Admittedly, the unreal nature of the illusion makes it tricky to use as evidence - it could have just shown what Roy, Haley, and/or Elan expected would happen when a lich died rather than what would actually happen - but it's also possible that it was accurate about this detail.

[RatElemental]

Being destroyed and resurrected kind of precludes any sort of "shackle his wrist bones", though. There are no wrist bones to shackle, are there?

Destroyed is just the term for an undead creature that no longer... is. Roy's bone golem had to be destroyed before he was brought back with bog standard resurrection cast on said bones. That's the angle I was approaching Xykon's hypothetical resurrection from.