OOTS #1212 - The Discussion Thread

[Worldsong]

Yes, I noticed that logical skip when I first read the book. "The blood of a unicorn will keep you alive, even if you are an inch from death, but at a terrible price. You have slain something pure and defenceless to save yourself and you will have but a half life, a cursed life, from the moment the blood touches your lips." What if you get the blood without killing a unicorn? If, say, you get the unicorn to bleed into a container for you? Or if you scrape some up as you follow the trail of blood from an injured unicorn?

I'd guess the argument would be that the moment you try to intentionally obtain the blood somehow it counts as taking advantage of a creature of Pure Good.

[bunsen_h]

I'd guess the argument would be that the moment you try to intentionally obtain the blood somehow it counts as taking advantage of a creature of Pure Good.

Even if the only reason you're following that trail of blood in the first place is to try to assist it, to bind up its wounds?

[Worldsong]

Even if the only reason you're following that trail of blood in the first place is to try to assist it, to bind up its wounds?

We're talking about a scenario where horse with a horn and magical blood apparently embodies pure innocence. I'm not sure how the logic is supposed to work here.

[dancrilis]

Yeah, I'll totally cop to 7 years being quite some time (forgot there was an exact count good catch!). Thing is, though, that still works in my favor, since even after 7 years, she was still unwilling to commit to Evil and even directly rejected it when pushed at the end. All those years did not push her to Evil, she remained steadfast Neutral to the end.

It may have pushed her towards Evil - but I agree not into Evil, had she not had been attracted to Elan and had continued her job for a while longer she might have gotten there (or maybe not Evil isn't for everyone, she might refusing some other task down the road - and it is possible that Kubota delibrately sent her on tasks which avoided evil i.e don't send her to kill the pregnant woman etc).

[danielxcutter]

I would not be surprised if killing the unicorn in the first place has some magical significance, considering both being pure and good and killing very much do in the HPverse.

[WanderingMist]

I like you. You keep it short and simple.

Thank you! =) It's nice that this forum limits the discussion of morality to strictly the D&D character alignment system. Serebii (Pokemon website) doesn't, so I've been drawn into countless arguments there over character morality.

I'd guess the argument would be that the moment you try to intentionally obtain the blood somehow it counts as taking advantage of a creature of Pure Good.

Even if the only reason you're following that trail of blood in the first place is to try to assist it, to bind up its wounds?

We're talking about a scenario where horse with a horn and magical blood apparently embodies pure innocence. I'm not sure how the logic is supposed to work here.

Wands are made with unicorn hairs, which would imply that parts of the unicorn stay magical even when removed, so presumably their blood also retains magical properties that allow it to determine whether or not you were actively responsible for the death of the unicorn and therefore whether or not you get cursed from drinking it.

[danielxcutter]

The magic? Maybe. The nature of said magic might be different, though. It’s not very uncommon for the nature of the magic of something to change depending on how you use it in fantasy, isn’t it?

[Lethologica]

Wands are made with unicorn hairs, which would imply that parts of the unicorn stay magical even when removed, so presumably their blood also retains magical properties that allow it to determine whether or not you were actively responsible for the death of the unicorn and therefore whether or not you get cursed from drinking it.

Certainly. This is a universe where spells can tell whether the blood is of an enemy, forcibly taken. Intent is a tangible metaphysical thing in magic.

[Peelee]

Certainly. This is a universe where spells can tell whether the blood is of an enemy, forcibly taken.

Is it? Legit question, I'm not really that big into Harry Potter.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Killing people for Kubota? Evil. Saving Elan? Good. Ignoring the people who aren't Elan? Neutral. Letting the paladins arrest her? Lawful. Refusing to testify against Kubota? Neutral. Immediately killing one of the guards while they're distracted by the giant devil? Evil. Immediately afterward taking Elan to the fleet to rescue it from Kubota's schemes? Good.

Actually, she specifically states she's doing non-lethal damage. Hence the visual joke where she kicks the one guard in the nuts.

[bunsen_h]

Is it? Legit question, I'm not really that big into Harry Potter.

<*shrug*> It would seem so. It's a detail that's specified explicitly in the ritual. There are odder things of that kind in that universe. For example, Wand A is somehow able to tell that it's being wielded against person X, where person Y had defeated a previous holder of wand A, and person X had previously defeated person Y using Wand B, so by the transitive property of wand combat, person X is actually the master of Wand A. Whereas a different apparent combat over Wand A "didn't count" as a defeat because the combat's outcome had been pre-arranged.

[Perficio]

Certainly. This is a universe where spells can tell whether the blood is of an enemy, forcibly taken. Intent is a tangible metaphysical thing in magic.

Different amounts of adrenaline traces in the blood, and whatever else...

[B. Dandelion]

Redcloak is so obviously in over his head. I wasn't sure what to expect from his first meeting with the heroes, but I guess I did think he'd hold out for longer looking like a guy who plausibly has it together. Instead he came off as emotional and volatile right from the start, even when it looked like he might still listen to reason. Durkon's now calling him an "absolute lunatic" and his response is both weak and weak-sounding. Minrah hammering him on the hypocrisy front clearly has him enraged and on the defensive.

Previous major antagonists have held up a front of relative stability for longer. Granted, Redcloak isn't like most previous antagonists because the audience is already familiar with him, while the protagonists aren't. But I hadn't thought of that, and was expecting a bit more of a buffer between the display of Redcloak's usual outward persona and the reality. As crazy as the Plan is, I thought he'd give a better defense of it for longer.

...They don't even know yet about how he's deluded himself into thinking he has control of Xykon! His Plan is absolute lunacy even separated from the part where he's gotten himself leashed to a monstrously evil lich sorcerer who would exact horrific vengeance on him and all goblins on the planet if he ever learned that Redcloak is tricking him -- we're so deep down already and we somehow haven't even touched on anything Xykon-related!

This sequence has already gone on for some time and I'm not sure how much longer it will persist, but I do hope Redcloak tries to mount some kind of verbal defense here. Not that I expect it will pass any real scrutiny but if that isn't one of the most essential things he has to tell himself I'm not sure what else would be. "Of course I care! Why would I be doing this if I didn't care? I don't like it, I didn't ask for it, I must be doing it out of caring!"

[Riftwolf]

Even if the only reason you're following that trail of blood in the first place is to try to assist it, to bind up its wounds?

What if it gets some food stuck between its teeth and it comes loose after midnight? Technically it didn't *eat* that food. And what about if its on a plane between time zones? Its always midnight *somewhere*, right?

[danielxcutter]

What if it gets some food stuck between its teeth and it comes loose after midnight? Technically it didn't *eat* that food. And what about if its on a plane between time zones? Its always midnight *somewhere*, right?

Time zones are an artificial distinction, but technically proper “noon” (as in when the sun is at its highest” is different from place to place, so maybe it has to be “midnight” at the specific place you are?

[WanderingMist]

Actually, she specifically states she's doing non-lethal damage. Hence the visual joke where she kicks the one guard in the nuts.

Oh, hmm, hadn't actually seen the strip in a while and couldn't remember the name to look it up. Thought she decapitated him. It's just more points to Neutral in her case, then. A Good character probably would have tried to take the guards with them as back-up.

[danielxcutter]

You know, I thought Sudden Strike didn’t work with nonlethal damage. Maybe she just hits hard?

[Worldsong]

Redcloak is so obviously in over his head. I wasn't sure what to expect from his first meeting with the heroes, but I guess I did think he'd hold out for longer looking like a guy who plausibly has it together. Instead he came off as emotional and volatile right from the start, even when it looked like he might still listen to reason. Durkon's now calling him an "absolute lunatic" and his response is both weak and weak-sounding. Minrah hammering him on the hypocrisy front clearly has him enraged and on the defensive.

Previous major antagonists have held up a front of relative stability for longer. Granted, Redcloak isn't like most previous antagonists because the audience is already familiar with him, while the protagonists aren't. But I hadn't thought of that, and was expecting a bit more of a buffer between the display of Redcloak's usual outward persona and the reality. As crazy as the Plan is, I thought he'd give a better defense of it for longer.

...They don't even know yet about how he's deluded himself into thinking he has control of Xykon! His Plan is absolute lunacy even separated from the part where he's gotten himself leashed to a monstrously evil lich sorcerer who would exact horrific vengeance on him and all goblins on the planet if he ever learned that Redcloak is tricking him -- we're so deep down already and we somehow haven't even touched on anything Xykon-related!

This sequence has already gone on for some time and I'm not sure how much longer it will persist, but I do hope Redcloak tries to mount some kind of verbal defense here. Not that I expect it will pass any real scrutiny but if that isn't one of the most essential things he has to tell himself I'm not sure what else would be. "Of course I care! Why would I be doing this if I didn't care? I don't like it, I didn't ask for it, I must be doing it out of caring!"

I think another important difference (beyond the audience already being familiar with Redcloak) is that Redcloak is a lot more emotionally troubled than the other villains. Every other villain is either perfectly happy with their situation or their issues are deep enough that they only come out when said villain is pushed to the brink. Redcloak barely hides the fact that he's miserable and has nothing in his life other than completing The Plan.

Makes sense that once confronted he'd quickly crack and show that despite his attempts at being logical and reasonable his main motivation is a whole boatload of emotions.

[danielxcutter]

I’m not going to say that he’s not an Evil villain but I will say that the multiverse has been kicking him in the nuts way too long and too hard for not much reason.

[dancrilis]

...even separated from the part where he's gotten himself leashed to a monstrously evil lich sorcerer who would exact horrific vengeance on him and all goblins on the planet if he ever learned that Redcloak is tricking him ...

Xykon hasn't been shown to kill to vent - I suspect that most goblins on the planet would be fine.

For reference:

This has been answered by other posters, so let me just add my support to these:

I thought I was very believable. Xykon isn't particularly emotionally invested in the Gates - if Kraagor's Gate explodes as well, he'll be irritated, shrug, vapourise Redcloak and move onto the next scheme for world domination, because he has the assets to do so. However, he ''is'' very concerned about protecting himself and his phylactery; if Xykon discovered Redcloak's treachery, Redcloak would be waking up with the Dark One in less time than it takes for Miko to reach a conclusion. Last time Xykon listened to Redcloak, he only just managed to save his phylactery and would've been reduced to ash by two Epic spellcasters and an androgynous elf if not for V's arrogance.

That said, I personally find it bewildering how many people think the MitD fooled Xykon. I think Xykon saw through it like a wet t-shirt, but I also think Xykon is frustrated with delays and the MitD -did- actually make a good point... why waste EVEN MORE time in a squabble for a freaking -crater- when there is another gate completely unaccounted for?

The only dissenting explanation I've seen is "Well, Xykon should be horrifically pissed! He should want to kill something!" That doesn't match how Xykon is presented in the comic. Xykon is shown killing out of boredom or killing to solve a problem, but he isn't shown as someone who murders as a way to vent.

[understatement]

I think another important difference (beyond the audience already being familiar with Redcloak) is that Redcloak is a lot more emotionally troubled than the other villains. Every other villain is either perfectly happy with their situation or their issues are deep enough that they only come out when said villain is pushed to the brink. Redcloak barely hides the fact that he's miserable and has nothing in his life other than completing The Plan.

Makes sense that once confronted he'd quickly crack and show that despite his attempts at being logical and reasonable his main motivation is a whole boatload of emotions.

Yup. Redcloak got into the Plan in the first place because of emotional motivations (rage, guilt, spite), and if he ever plausibly decided to drop it it's not going to be because of logic either.

I’m not going to say that he’s not an Evil villain but I will say that the multiverse has been kicking him in the nuts way too long and too hard for not much reason.

Why did I laugh at this (despite this being true)?

[danielxcutter]

Because it’s true but most people don’t put it like that? Iunno.

[Worldsong]

I’m not going to say that he’s not an Evil villain but I will say that the multiverse has been kicking him in the nuts way too long and too hard for not much reason.

It's one of the main reasons I'm rooting for him turning around and helping seal the rifts. His past does not excuse his actions but his actions also don't undo his past. Xykon getting vanquished would feel cathartic because the guy is blatantly, excessively and unrepentantly Evil with no justification beyond personal entertainment. Redcloak getting struck down would just feel like a tragedy, a lost opportunity to set things right.

Of course it's possible and even likely that even without The Plan Redcloak would still be Evil but there's various grades of Evil and I imagine he'd be the kind of Evil you can at least deal with in a non-lethal fashion.

Yup. Redcloak got into the Plan in the first place because of emotional motivations (rage, guilt, spite), and if he ever plausibly decided to drop it it's not going to be because of logic either.

Would be amusing if this entire book ends up as one big therapy session for Redcloak with the killing of Xykon being the final step in his recovery program. Well, helping the Order kill Xykon at least.

[Goblin_Priest]

Well, if we go by Harry Potter rules, eating unicorn meat/drinking their blood is Evil because unicorns are creatures of pure Good. Presumably this applies only if you actively kill them rather than the unicorn doing something like offing itself to save you or it happening to be dead when you stumble across it while starving and dehydrated.

We don't, though, go by Harry Potter rules. :P

Yes, I noticed that logical skip when I first read the book. "The blood of a unicorn will keep you alive, even if you are an inch from death, but at a terrible price. You have slain something pure and defenceless to save yourself and you will have but a half life, a cursed life, from the moment the blood touches your lips." What if you get the blood without killing a unicorn? If, say, you get the unicorn to bleed into a container for you? Or if you scrape some up as you follow the trail of blood from an injured unicorn?

How is a horse, an already mighty and dangerous beast in and of itself, with the extra frigging horn on its forehead, considered "defenseless"?

And to add my own what-ifs, what if you try to defend a unicorn from someone trying to kill it, and he lands a blow that makes its blood spray onto your lips? Huh!? HUH!? :P

[Jason]

I’m not going to say that he’s not an Evil villain but I will say that the multiverse has been kicking him in the nuts way too long and too hard for not much reason.

If he made better choices and stopped digging himself deeper with his alliance with Xykon maybe the universe would stop kicking him quite so hard.
Everybody has it rough. Some people learn to overcome their background and become good people anyway. Others use it as a rationalization for their bad choices and try to export their pain to others.
Durkon is the first kind of person and Red Cloak is the second.

[WanderingMist]

We don't, though, go by Harry Potter rules. :P



How is a horse, an already mighty and dangerous beast in and of itself, with the extra frigging horn on its forehead, considered "defenseless"?

And to add my own what-ifs, what if you try to defend a unicorn from someone trying to kill it, and he lands a blow that makes its blood spray onto your lips? Huh!? HUH!? :P

1) I don't think there's anything about unicorns in the OotS-verse, which is why I went by Harry Potter rules as a default.

2) Because they're innocent creatures. They're not defenseless in that they don't have any defenses, they're defenseless in that they won't defend themselves and/or are pathologically incapable of fighting back against attackers.

3) Unicorns have magic blood. It knows whether or not the action you are responsible for spilling it.

[bunsen_h]

Xykon hasn't been shown to kill to vent - I suspect that most goblins on the planet would be fine.

Not entirely true... there was

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

the waitress in the Evil Diner, in Start of Darkness.

[Metastachydium]

If he made better choices and stopped digging himself deeper with his alliance with Xykon maybe the universe would stop kicking him quite so hard.
Everybody has it rough. Some people learn to overcome their background and become good people anyway. Others use it as a rationalization for their bad choices and try to export their pain to others.
Durkon is the first kind of person and Red Cloak is the second.

I'd say growing up loved but in relative poverty and getting exiled for reasons one does not quite understand (but retaining the ability to regularly communicate with one's loved ones) is not quite the same thing as

Spoiler: SoD

Show

being forced to watch all those loved ones slaughtered for no justifiable reason before getting complicated cosmic-level stuff dropped on one as a teenager and then spending years on the run from the same people responsible for said atrocity.
Also, ever since Right-Eye made the decision of recruiting Xykon, Redcloak never had a realistic chance of quitting, except shortly before Right-Eye's death and in that case quitting would have meant death (for him and quite probably for every other goblin present).

[dancrilis]

Not entirely true... there was

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

the waitress in the Evil Diner, in Start of Darkness.

This is fair, and you could possible add perhaps the former executioner in Gobbotopia or even the attempt on Vaarsuvius and O-Chul right before they vanished - but it is very immediate murder rather then 'kill every goblin everywhere' kindof stuff.

Even when he was fairly angry he had Jirix raised (where Redcloak would have seemingly let him stay dead) because he deemed Jirix as having done his job, he didn't for instance slaughter a district of Gobbotopia to punish Redcloak for the situation.

As such the idea that he would 'exact horrific vengeance on ... all goblins on the planet' seems unsupported.

[understatement]

If he made better choices and stopped digging himself deeper with his alliance with Xykon maybe the universe would stop kicking him quite so hard.
Everybody has it rough. Some people learn to overcome their background and become good people anyway. Others use it as a rationalization for their bad choices and try to export their pain to others.
Durkon is the first kind of person and Red Cloak is the second.

A better comparison would probably be between Redcloak and his brother.

Spoiler: SOD

Show

One is willing to fix a terrible mistake he made (even to the point of risking his life), and the other was not.