MitD XVIII: It's utterly unreasonable to expect us to have been paying any attention

[Jasdoif]

He can't off Xykon, so until all that actually has a chance, he's still riding thale bony horse.

Hence keeping the phylactery intact, in case something involved with attempting to destroy it would tip off Xykon. It'd be stupid if Redcloak knows what specifically would tip off Xykon, and not worth the risk if he doesn't know anything specifically as that could just mean he doesn't know what he doesn't know,

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

like liches lacking gustatory sensations

.

Again, the second Redcloak keot the phylactery, he was committed to not needing Xykon - at least, not doing anything to save him if it comes up.

Not true.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

He kept the phylactery to have some measure of control over Xykon, and still murdered Right-Eye to protect Xykon while he had said phylactery.

More relevantly...he commissioned the fauxlactery because he guessed, correctly, that Xykon wouldn't let him keep the phylactery after losing it once. If Redcloak was going to destroy the phylactery preemptively because it was a liability, the best time would have been panel 6 of 831, immediately after he had the fauxlactery and confirmed it was a perfect match; I have to assume there's some reason he didn't...reasons that in all likelihood are still in place, especially since the daily Monster Hollow excursions mean even resource constraints have been pretty consistent since then.

[OvisCaedo]

Personally I have to wonder if a lich would just automatically know if their phylactery was destroyed. I could see that going either way, especially since OotS liches probably don't work identically to however ones in the books do. And I don't know how it works in the books to start with! But with how heavily tied to the lich's soul the phylactery is, it would make sense to me if they could sense its destruction.

[b_jonas]

I disagree with some of the above, but most of this is just my guesses, not particularly supported by evidence in the comic.

First, I have the impression that Xykon would be destroyed if his phylactery is destroyed, because the phylactery holds his soul. Xykon is simply wrong about this, while Redcloak probably knows. We know that the undead Greg held Durkon's soul captive, so presumably they need a soul to work, and it is not common knowledge that this is how vampires work.

Second, no matter whether it would destroy Xykon, Redcloak won't destroy the phylactery while there's any chance that the Plan can work. Redcloak is riding everything on this plan, and knows that there can be minor setbacks, such as in Dorukan's dungeon. Sure, Xykon will be somewhat angry when he finds out that Redcloak has swapped the phylactery, but he believes that he can eventually smooth things over. Redcloak knows that he probably won't find another partner for the ritual, so Xykon is his only hopw.

Redcloak indeed needs the phylactery as insurance against Xykon. Redcloak wants to make sure that if Xykon's relationship with him goes so bad that the Plan has failed completely then Xykon goes down with him. Redcloak would destroy the phylactery then. But even that may be unnecessary, because the failure likely means that the other gods have decided to unmake this world to stop the Plan and the Snarl, in which case the phylactery will get destroyed too. Hilgya says in #1181 that if the OotS fails and the world is unmade, she's going to bail out to another plane. It's not clear if this would work, but perhaps Xykon could survive the unmaking of the world if his phylactery is in his Astral plane fortress, and Redcloak does not want to give Xykon that chance.

Thirdly, if Redcloak wanted to destroy the Phylactery, he could. The protective spells are irrelevant, not only because Redcloak can dispel them, but because Redcloak can just teleport to one of the rifts and throw the phylactery in it, like Vaarsuvius tried, and that would probably destroy the phylactery.

Fourth, unlike what Gray Wolf said, I do believe that the phylactery is a properly made one, not just a bad one made from a holy symbol. When a D&D rule says that you need an item costing 120_000 GP and spend 4800 XP to create a phylactery, you can't just cheat by spending less, see #677 1st. Redcloak and Xykon were at this point nomadic adventurers, they probably carry all the necessary item crafting materials with themselves in bags of holding, and Xykon is probably already spending eight hours a day of his free time on crafting magic items. They had to make a proper phylactery.

Then I think it's a trivial addition to make that also function as an unholy symbol for Xykon, as the rules are rather lax on what form a phylactery and an unholy symbol can take. The rules for a lich explicitly says that a phylactery can be an amulet. The specific form and material doesn't matter as long as you intend to create the phylactery and spend the GP and XP costs. The rules for spellcasting say “A divine focus component is an item of spiritual significance”. What could have more spiritual significant for Redcloak than Xykon's phylactery, symbolizing his devotion to execute the Plan at all costs?

[Tzardok]

Personally I have to wonder if a lich would just automatically know if their phylactery was destroyed. I could see that going either way, especially since OotS liches probably don't work identically to however ones in the books do. And I don't know how it works in the books to start with! But with how heavily tied to the lich's soul the phylactery is, it would make sense to me if they could sense its destruction.

In the rules a dead lich pretty much respawns after 1d10 near his phylactery. The MM doesn't make mention of the lich being conscious in there or regenerating over time, nor about sensing it's destruction.

[Ruck]

In the rules a dead lich pretty much respawns after 1d10 near his phylactery. The MM doesn't make mention of the lich being conscious in there or regenerating over time, nor about sensing it's destruction.

After 1d10 what?

After the Dungeon of Dorukan, Xykon did regenerate over time and while being conscious in the phylactery, so presumably that's the interpretation OOTS is going with.

[Tzardok]

After 1d10 what?

After the Dungeon of Dorukan, Xykon did regenerate over time and while being conscious in the phylactery, so presumably that's the interpretation OOTS is going with.

Days. Sorry.

[Peelee]

Not true.

Ah, here's the disconnect. I mean after it was lost in the sewers. Not in SoD.

[Jasdoif]

Ah, here's the disconnect. I mean after it was lost in the sewers. Not in SoD.

It's more that Redcloak has been committed to eventually not needing Xykon ever since he first lied to Xykon about the Plan giving Xykon control of the Snarl...a discovery Xykon is, to put it mildly, not going to be happy with. This was while Xykon was still alive, there was never a point where the phylactery existed and Redcloak didn't need to put Xykon down somewhere past the horizon.

Because as you've said, he can't walk away from dealing with Xykon. If Redcloak completes the Plan, Xykon will be pissed off. If Redcloak abandons the Plan, Xykon will be pissed off. Redcloak stalled on completing the Plan, and Xykon got somewhat pissed off. Able or not, Redcloak's going to have to attempt to survive Xykon eventually. (Redcloak's explanation on Xykon leaving Gobbotopia standing will undoubtedly change; even if the Plan succeeds, Redcloak will prefer Gobbotopia intact, to bask in the concessions he expects the Dark One to attain.)

Which all leads back to why I brought up SoD: Operation Fauxlactery is a raising of the stakes (as is most every significant event in Redcloak's life), but the original throughline is still there; this is not a change in direction, there's no new committal. Redcloak has the same general incentive to protect Xykon now as when he did protect Xykon.

Similarly, the risks involved in holding onto the phylactery are broadly universal: it would take Redcloak's capture or destruction for him to lose the ability to destroy the phylactery after Xykon's soul goes into it, which also leaves Redcloak unable to pursue the Plan with anyone else...which would, in fact, be the case even if Xykon's phylactery was back in the astral fortress. As I've said, there's nothing left to lose by destroying the phylactery only after Xykon's soul goes into it, because there's no reasonable scenario where being unable to destroy it before Xykon comes back leaves Redcloak any better off if the phylactery had already been destroyed.


As an aside....When you said you didn't see any reason for Redcloak not to have destroyed the phylactery already, did you happen to mean no one (here) can prove that he hadn't? Because it's true that we can't prove if he hadn't (or had); but these are very different questions, as the raison d'être (not a phrase I get to use often!) for this very thread indicates.

[Tubercular Ox]

Belkar is currently making his way towards talking sense into Redcloak. He's done something similar for Serini, he's connected to Minrah, Minrah is connected to Durkon, and Durkon is logjammed with Redcloak because Durkon can't speak Paranoiac.

Belkar could change his mind and go somewhere else, but that's what he's approaching right now.

So I have to pull an Elan and say if Belkar talks sense into Redcloak, it's going to be a lot better for the story if Redcloak hasn't destroyed the phylactery at that point yet.

Speculation.

[georgie_leech]

It's more that Redcloak has been committed to eventually not needing Xykon ever since he first lied to Xykon about the Plan giving Xykon control of the Snarl...a discovery Xykon is, to put it mildly, not going to be happy with. This was while Xykon was still alive, there was never a point where the phylactery existed and Redcloak didn't need to put Xykon down somewhere past the horizon.

I feel like, at the time when Xykon was alive, Redcloak's attitude towards Xykon learning the ritual doesn't give him control is that it would be simultaneous with it no longer mattering. "Do what you must for I have already won" style.

[Peelee]

I feel like, at the time when Xykon was alive, Redcloak's attitude towards Xykon learning the ritual doesn't give him control is that it would be simultaneous with it no longer mattering. "Do what you must for I have already won" style.

Exactly. That's still the way it's going, because it's still tentatively viable, but the second there's an opportunity to dust ol' bag-o-bones and try with someone else? The Gate ain't going anywhere.

As an aside....When you said you didn't see any reason for Redcloak not to have destroyed the phylactery already, did you happen to mean no one (here) can prove that he hadn't?

No, i meant what i said. If the comic (or anyone else) offers a reason i hadnt thought of, then that'll be that. As of yet, i haven't heard such a reason.

[Jasdoif]

I feel like, at the time when Xykon was alive, Redcloak's attitude towards Xykon learning the ritual doesn't give him control is that it would be simultaneous with it no longer mattering. "Do what you must for I have already won" style.

Remotely possible, I suppose; but I think "he's a goofy frail old human whose Constitution score isn't getting any higher, the two of us could possibly take him on with surprise" is far more likely than "nah, Right-Eye can fend for himself after Xykon's done his part".

[Peelee]

Remotely possible, I suppose; but I think "he's a goofy frail old human whose Constitution score isn't getting any higher, the two of us could possibly take him on with surprise" is far more likely than "nah, Right-Eye can fend for himself after Xykon's done his part".

Which is why Xykon calls Redcloak and Right-Eye by their proper names, of course.

[Jasdoif]

Which is why Xykon calls Redcloak and Right-Eye by their proper names, of course.

So...you figure Redcloak's got the whole thing figured out where they won't be there when the Gate ritual is completed?

[Peelee]

So...you figure Redcloak's got the whole thing figured out where they won't be there when the Gate ritual is completed?

I think Redcloak is resigned to die when the Gate ritual is completed and Xykon doesn't have control over the Snarl. I imagine believing he'll get an honored spot with TDO would soften the blow somewhat, of course.

[halfeye]

Which is why Xykon calls Redcloak and Right-Eye by their proper names, of course.

Refcloak's name isn't "Redcloak", any more than Right-Eye's was "Right-Eye". Or was that a joke?

[Peelee]

Refcloak's name isn't "Redcloak", any more than Right-Eye's was "Right-Eye". Or was that a joke?

That was the point, yes. Start of Darkness explains it well.

[Jasdoif]

I think Redcloak is resigned to die when the Gate ritual is completed and Xykon doesn't have control over the Snarl.

Now that really explains the disconnect; you think Redcloak is ready to give up without a fight, that he sees the long shot he's been pursuing all this time is doomed to end badly, that he can't possibly see a risk to destroying the phylactery because he'll lose no matter what but possibly maybe someone who isn't a waste of potential can possibly maybe destroy Xykon's form and possibly maybe improve the lot of goblinhood.

Whereas I think Redcloak's fatalism does not flatten his defiance but is instead tempered by it, that his escalating series of long shots show a streak of pursuing his desires in spite of the likelihood, that his plans are aimed at risky gambles to maximize the maximum gain over hedging to minimize the maximum loss...to an absurd degree. That's why he's a manifestation of the sunk cost fallacy; he repeatedly throws important things away to justify what he's already thrown away, making an ever growing pile in the face of an incoming lava flow in the hopes that there's enough ceramic to withstand the heat that he doesn't immolate in it directly.

[Peelee]

Now that really explains the disconnect; you think Redcloak is ready to give up without a fight, that he sees the long shot he's been pursuing all this time is doomed to end badly, that he can't possibly see a risk to destroying the phylactery because he'll lose no matter what but possibly maybe someone who isn't a waste of potential can possibly maybe destroy Xykon's form and possibly maybe improve the lot of goblinhood.

I think none of that, and am flabbergasted as to how you could interpret that from what ive said.

I think Redcloak is resigned to due at thr rituals completion. I dont think he is ready to give up without a fight. I think he just knows that he can't take down Xykon and Xykon can take him down.

He sees the long shot hes been pursuing to end well (namely, that they complete the ritual and TDO gains control of the Gate).

That there is no risk in destroying the phylactery because the risk of it being destroyed and the risk of him being discovered with it and the risk of him not being able to destroy it at a nebulous point in the future are all the same - Big X will kill him. Conversely, if Xykon's body is destroyed, then the phylactery already being destroyed means he can immediately move to finding a new caster to help.

[Jasdoif]

I think none of that, and am flabbergasted as to how you could interpret that from what ive said.

Two primary reasons:

• "resigned" literally means "accept something bad that you can't do anything about".
• You did this thing earlier where you omitted part of what I said as "irrelevant" despite it having the exact same topic as your response, so at this point I have negligible confidence in my ability to understand what you're trying to say.

[Peelee]

Two primary reasons:

• "resigned" literally means "accept something bad that you can't do anything about".
• You did this thing earlier where you omitted part of what I said as "irrelevant" despite it having the exact same topic as your response, so at this point I have negligible confidence in my ability to understand what you're trying to say.

Im resigned to die. Doesn't mean im not going to try as hard as i can not to for as long as i can.

As for the omitted part, im sorry, but this:

For completeness, here's the part omitted from the paragraph you quoted:

Unless you're claiming that hearing the gods are afraid of the Plan is what convinces Redcloak to abandon his fixation on using Xykon to rationalize everything he's done, as opposed to doubling down by using the possibility that gods actively watching means targeting any arcane casters Redcloak might try to tap.

is not the exact same topic as my response, and i likewise cannot fathom how one might think it is.

[Jasdoif]

Im resigned to die. Doesn't mean im not going to try as hard as i can not to for as long as i can.

I don't think Redcloak sees Xykon as impossible to overcome, that's my point.

---

As for the omitted part, im sorry, but this: is not the exact same topic as my response, and i likewise cannot fathom how one might think it is.

Okay, here:

No, Redcloak loses the entire Plan when Xykon soul appears in his phylactery and not in his fortress. Unless you're claiming that hearing the gods are afraid of the Plan is what convinces Redcloak to abandon his fixation on using Xykon to rationalize everything he's done, as opposed to doubling down by using the possibility that gods actively watching means targeting any arcane casters Redcloak might try to tap.

No, Redcloak loses the arcane person he had gotten on board. So long as Redcloak survives, he can find another. If he cant destroy the phylactery then for any reason, and Xykon returns, then he loses the entire Plan. Because Xykon will kill him.

(omitted portion underlined for emphasis/clarity)

The part you omitted is about why Redcloak wouldn't use someone else for an arcane caster, and your reply is...about Redcloak using someone else for an arcane caster, which would work equally well as a rebuttal to what I said. Either I (still) have no idea what you point you were making, or this was a desperate move on your part to hide what would undercut your point; and I know you well enough to tell desperation is not your style.

[Peelee]

I don't think Redcloak sees Xykon as impossible to overcome, that's my point.

---

Okay, here:
(omitted portion underlined for emphasis/clarity)

The part you omitted is about why Redcloak wouldn't use someone else for an arcane caster, and your reply is...about Redcloak using someone else for an arcane caster, which would work equally well as a rebuttal to what I said. Either I (still) have no idea what you point you were making, or this was a desperate move on your part to hide what would undercut your point; and I know you well enough to tell desperation is not your style.

Let me be as clear as i possibly can be. I am not claiming that hearing the gods are afraid of the Plan is what convinces Redcloak to abandon his fixation on using Xykon to rationalize everything he's done, as opposed to doubling down by using the possibility that gods actively watching means targeting any arcane casters Redcloak might try to tap.

[Jasdoif]

Let me be as clear as i possibly can be. I am not claiming that hearing the gods are afraid of the Plan is what convinces Redcloak to abandon his fixation on using Xykon to rationalize everything he's done, as opposed to doubling down by using the possibility that gods actively watching means targeting any arcane casters Redcloak might try to tap.

In that case, what are you claiming convinced Redcloak to abandon his Xykon rationalization fixation? It definitely existed,

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

Xykon wielded it against Redcloak himself at the book's climax, even against Redcloak saying he could still destroy the phylactery

; so if it's not there now, what do you think caused the change? I know you said he was committed when he took the phylactery and gave Xykon the fauxlactery, but he had to have made a decision to commission the fauxlactery in the first place; what do you think prompted it?

If nothing else, it's bound to be more interesting that what Libris Mortis says about phylacteries.

[Peelee]

In that case, what are you claiming convinced Redcloak to abandon his Xykon rationalization fixation? It definitely existed,

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

Xykon wielded it against Redcloak himself at the book's climax, even against Redcloak saying he could still destroy the phylactery

; so if it's not there now, what do you think caused the change? I know you said he was committed when he took the phylactery and gave Xykon the fauxlactery, but he had to have made a decision to commission the fauxlactery in the first place; what do you think prompted it?

If nothing else, it's bound to be more interesting that what Libris Mortis says about phylacteries.

Ok, so the issue here is that (correct me if I'm wrong) you do not see any time for a Redcloak to change between SoD and his falk with Durkon? Because i never mentioned the talk with Durkon except to dismiss it when others brought it up.

Does it matter what i think prompted it?

[Jasdoif]

Ok, so the issue here is that (correct me if I'm wrong) you do not see any time for a Redcloak to change between SoD and his falk with Durkon? Because i never mentioned the talk with Durkon except to dismiss it when others brought it up.

Does it matter what i think prompted it?

There's been plenty of time for Redcloak to have changed; I just haven't seen/noticed/comprehended anything you've mentioned that poses what would cause such a change, instead of just assuming a change has been made or asserting something as a change that's actually been the case the whole time. I picked the talk with Durkon as the most likely source of change partly because "the gods are afraid of me" is something Redcloak would want to believe and "so the gods are watching me" is easy to fit into his preferred perspective (especially with Durkon there on behalf of Thor), partly because hinting at an option has more of an entertaining vibe as opposed to reading like "no you're just wrong"; and partly because if you did have something in mind I hadn't thought of, presenting an analog would be the most likely way I'd ever hear it.

Of course it matters what you think. I got into this because maybe I knew a reason you didn't; why would I be so special that the converse couldn't happen?

[dmc91356]

Eh, this is all quite interesting but, are we now positing that Redcloak is somehow the MitD? (Looks at thread title to make sure he's in the place he thinks he is . . . )

[Tzardok]

Redcloak, having grown old, repentant and regretful, dabbles with forbidden chronnomancy to return to the past and change his lot. The spell goes awry, erasing his memory and mutating his body, but it's still there, drawing him to his old plot and causing him to instinctually work against it. And so the loop closes and Redcloak foils himself, as he always does.

Boom, I solved it. Close the thread, please.

[Jasdoif]

Eh, this is all quite interesting but, are we now positing that Redcloak is somehow the MitD? (Looks at thread title to make sure he's in the place he thinks he is . . . )

Back in Start of Darkness, Xykon put a geas-like effect on MitD to devour Redcloak and spit out "the gold amulet he wears" if Redcloak ever betrays him; the state of the phylactery could become important, if the underlying magic indicates the phylactery rather than "whatever gold amulet Redcloak is wearing when Redcloak betrays Xykon" and the effect fails to kick in because it's impossible to carry out. A sizable "if", admittedly.

[b_jonas]

Eh, this is all quite interesting but, are we now positing that Redcloak is somehow the MitD?

Of course not. Redcloak's niece is the MitD.