OOTS #1263 - The Discussion Thread

[ManuelSacha]

A is lying to B and C, while B is lying to C.
Nice.

Also... it said "what's the hold up?"
I can't...

[hamishspence]

Yeah, I can only think of two examples of non-Evil fiends, and one of them is from Pathfinder. They're also both succubi, go figure.

There's a non-evil Ultraloth (fiends from the NE Lower Planes) called "The Captain" in Eberron Campaign Setting (Explorer's Handbook, page 87)

And according to TV Tropes, there's enough "ascended Fiends" in Planescape that they have their own general - K'rand Vahlix.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p.../AscendedDemon

The 3.5 module Expedition to the Demonweb Pits introduces a fiend type (the Cambion - a slightly more fiendish Half-Fiend) for which an estimated 10% are Not Evil.

[danielxcutter]

Pretty sure fallen celestials are more common.

[hamishspence]

Yup - but normally they transform into fiends.

"Fallen celestials that retain the Good subtype" with statblocks in D&D works, are very rare - about as rare as ascended fiends that retain the Evil subtype.

[WanderingMist]

Actually I don’t think they’re very common even in official lore. Pretty sure you actually see more fallen celestials than risen fiends.

It's far easier to fall down than it is to climb up.

[bunsen_h]

It's far easier to fall down than it is to climb up.

"Crowley (An Angel who did not so much Fall as Saunter Vaguely Downwards)" -- Good Omens

[KorvinStarmast]

Which is why they show up all over the place

Oh, trope subversion, how clever.

[Provengreil]

I don't know about that. Which is easier for Redcloak to believe, that the MitD concocted a plot to betray Team Evil, or that the "enemy forces secretly moving against them" acquired some paint?

Neither, it's easiest for him to believe that MitD is just that dumb. I explained my opinions on this in the same post you quoted. Him finally hitting even a glancing blow on that nail will open him up to the idea that the MitD needs to be watched more closely, which will be the gateway to him noticing betrayal.

[Velaryon]

The obligatory "time for the villains to start making progress again" strip, but delivered with a series of excellent punch lines. Well done, as always!

I loved watching MITD sweat and then Redcloak sweat right after, as each of them worried for a moment about their deceptions being discovered.

On the other hand, revealing to Xykon that he's been sloppy - so sloppy that he could be tracked with a low-level spell - might have been a miscalculation. X is going to take that as an insult, and while I don't expect him to make Redcloak pay for it right now, I do 100% believe it will come back to bite Redcloak later somehow.

[Smoutwortel]

The obligatory "time for the villains to start making progress again" strip, but delivered with a series of excellent punch lines. Well done, as always!

I loved watching MITD sweat and then Redcloak sweat right after, as each of them worried for a moment about their deceptions being discovered.

On the other hand, revealing to Xykon that he's been sloppy - so sloppy that he could be tracked with a low-level spell - might have been a miscalculation. X is going to take that as an insult, and while I don't expect him to make Redcloak pay for it right now, I do 100% believe it will come back to bite Redcloak later somehow.

Also redcloack has to make certain he keeps an edge over the Skeleton and "easily being able to track" is very helpful with keeping that edge.

[Coppercloud]

I'm sure I'm not the first to come up with this idea, but could Xykon's graffiti have been a test of Redcloak's loyalty?

Suppose Uncle Xykon knows or suspect that his long-time associate will not remain loyal, but ignores the timing of his betrayal. He draws an insulting graffiti, then carefully observe how the One-Eyed Wonder reacts. If he is upset and calls Big X out on it, it means he doesn't want to undergo such insults again in the future. But if Redcloak is willing to let it slide and unwilling to rock the boat, it could well mean that his plans will come to fruition in the short term and that he is trying to remain in good terms with Xykon up to the time he strikes. While it's not a proof by any means, it is a tiny clue.

Honestly, I don't really think this is Uncle Xykon's true intent, as he doesn't need a reason to indulge in juvenile graffiti. This is just my current pet theory.

[Fyraltari]

Suppose Uncle Xykon knows or suspect that his long-time associate will not remain loyal, but ignores the timing of his betrayal. He draws an insulting graffiti, then carefully observe how the One-Eyed Wonder reacts. If he is upset and calls Big X out on it, it means he doesn't want to undergo such insults again in the future. But if Redcloak is willing to let it slide and unwilling to rock the boat, it could well mean that his plans will come to fruition in the short term and that he is trying to remain in good terms with Xykon up to the time he strikes. While it's not a proof by any means, it is a tiny clue.

Thing is, Xykon demeans Redcloak all the damned time. It's basically his main hobby at this point. What's so special about this graffiti that it becomes a test of Redcloak's loyalty? Every time Xykon insults Redcloak, he either throws a small zinger back or, more often, just takes it and carries on. Why would Big X expect him to react differently to this one?

[dancrilis]

Thing is, Xykon demeans Redcloak all the damned time.

I am not sure this is entirely true.

Xykon tends to be fairly insulting to everyone - Redcloak is not special in that regard, he just interacts with Redcloak more then most.

[brian 333]

Thing is, Xykon demeans Redcloak all the damned time. It's basically his main hobby at this point. What's so special about this graffiti that it becomes a test of Redcloak's loyalty? Every time Xykon insults Redcloak, he either throws a small zinger back or, more often, just takes it and carries on. Why would Big X expect him to react differently to this one?

I agree. Both are acting pretty much as they always have.

We forum browsers have been speculating about the eventual betrayal of TE by TE since before there was bonus material. That speculation has gotten more attention lately because we readers know time is running out.

What if there never is a betrayal? What if RC and Xykon need each other right up until the end and neither one breaks the deal? What if the precautions each has taken is enough to discourage both?

We know that.both are prepared for betrayal. They each know they are prepared, and must surely suspect the other of having prepared. And both still strive to achieve their goal.

Mostly, at this point, what would either gain vs. what each would lose in the event of vanquishing the other?

The completion of the ritual may be a turning point, or maybe not. Xykon may already know what the ritual does, and during his stay at his fortress he may have altered his part to make it do what he wants it to do. If he gets what he wants, Redcloak may try to keep the con going and ultimately trick or force Xykon to use the gate for his purposes. That could keep the two together and happily scheming for years, decades, even.

(Neither knows or believes the gods are ready to destroy the world, or cares, either, so that cannot factor in this equation.

[Ruck]

I agree. Both are acting pretty much as they always have.

We forum browsers have been speculating about the eventual betrayal of TE by TE since before there was bonus material. That speculation has gotten more attention lately because we readers know time is running out.

What if there never is a betrayal? What if RC and Xykon need each other right up until the end and neither one breaks the deal? What if the precautions each has taken is enough to discourage both?

"Who wastes perfectly good foreshadowing like that?"

But, seriously, it is possible that they keep their détente until the bitter end-- or at least until one of them is destroyed, since I expect Xykon will be destroyed and Redcloak will be enlisted to re-seal the rifts. I mean, from the reader perspective, we know the good guys are going to defeat them somehow. But each one has started to prepare for what they suspect about the other.

Anyway, as much as anything I think the point with these strips is to contrast Team Evil's growing suspicions and mistrust of one another with the Order's cohesion and ability to recruit allies, whether or not that mistrust ever comes to fruition.

More to your other points:

We know that.both are prepared for betrayal. They each know they are prepared, and must surely suspect the other of having prepared. And both still strive to achieve their goal.

Mostly, at this point, what would either gain vs. what each would lose in the event of vanquishing the other?

I don't think "vanquishing each other" is really the intent for either of them. I think they've started to mistrust each other and make contingency plans in the event of a betrayal. When this kind of mistrust begins sowing, people start looking for ways to protect themselves from the other party.

Redcloak has the most obvious reasons because he knows the ritual doesn't do what Xykon thinks it does. But then, Xykon has his suspicions about the ritual and now may be thinking Redcloak is getting up to things he doesn't know about. Xykon's trust in Redcloak was already slipping or he wouldn't have given Tsukiko the ritual; he knows Redcloak suspects he did that, but he knows he has to act like he doesn't know, so he might be preparing for if Redcloak betrays him over that. And Redcloak knows he has to protect himself from Xykon, and the only way have any measure of protection or control is to secretly keep his phylactery. It's a vicious spiral of mistrust.

The completion of the ritual may be a turning point, or maybe not. Xykon may already know what the ritual does, and during his stay at his fortress he may have altered his part to make it do what he wants it to do. If he gets what he wants, Redcloak may try to keep the con going and ultimately trick or force Xykon to use the gate for his purposes. That could keep the two together and happily scheming for years, decades, even.

Xykon gave Tsukiko the ritual to research while he was gone because he didn't understand it. I highly doubt he managed to figure it out enough to alter it at the same time she was studying it-- especially having no understanding of divine magic.

And if the Gate did what Xykon thought it did, I'm not sure how anything else you suggest would even work. If Xykon can unleash the Snarl to destroy things whenever he wants, what does he even need Redcloak for? How would that keep them "together and happily scheming for years, decades even"?

(Neither knows or believes the gods are ready to destroy the world, or cares, either, so that cannot factor in this equation.

Redcloak knows and doesn't care, right. Xykon may or may not know-- he often does not let on what he does know. That said, I lean toward "doesn't know," because really nobody outside of the Godsmoot, the Order, or anyone they told knows. I think he would care about the world getting destroyed: "I like the world. Some of my best evilness took place here. I wouldn't mind ruling it, in fact."

[Fyraltari]

Xykon may already know what the ritual does, and during his stay at his fortress he may have altered his part to make it do what he wants it to do.

I really don't think that's possible. Xykon has no access to the divine part of the ritual, so he can't account for what that does in his hypothetical modifications. And more importantly, the reason Tsukiko sussed out that the Ritual doesn't do what it is advertised as doing is that it's not even in the right School of magic for that.

Xykon would have an easier time making his own ritual from scratch.

[Ginasius]

Infinity is super easy to divide. It's divisible by, like, all the numbers! Do you have any idea how common it is for something to have an infinite amount of divisors?

I loved the old Internet, before Twitter and Facebook, because of answers like this.

[brian 333]

"Who wastes perfectly good foreshadowing like that?"

But, seriously, it is possible that they keep their détente until the bitter end-- or at least until one of them is destroyed, since I expect Xykon will be destroyed and Redcloak will be enlisted to re-seal the rifts. I mean, from the reader perspective, we know the good guys are going to defeat them somehow. But each one has started to prepare for what they suspect about the other.

Anyway, as much as anything I think the point with these strips is to contrast Team Evil's growing suspicions and mistrust of one another with the Order's cohesion and ability to recruit allies, whether or not that mistrust ever comes to fruition.

More to your other points:



I don't think "vanquishing each other" is really the intent for either of them. I think they've started to mistrust each other and make contingency plans in the event of a betrayal. When this kind of mistrust begins sowing, people start looking for ways to protect themselves from the other party.

Redcloak has the most obvious reasons because he knows the ritual doesn't do what Xykon thinks it does. But then, Xykon has his suspicions about the ritual and now may be thinking Redcloak is getting up to things he doesn't know about. Xykon's trust in Redcloak was already slipping or he wouldn't have given Tsukiko the ritual; he knows Redcloak suspects he did that, but he knows he has to act like he doesn't know, so he might be preparing for if Redcloak betrays him over that. And Redcloak knows he has to protect himself from Xykon, and the only way have any measure of protection or control is to secretly keep his phylactery. It's a vicious spiral of mistrust.



Xykon gave Tsukiko the ritual to research while he was gone because he didn't understand it. I highly doubt he managed to figure it out enough to alter it at the same time she was studying it-- especially having no understanding of divine magic.

And if the Gate did what Xykon thought it did, I'm not sure how anything else you suggest would even work. If Xykon can unleash the Snarl to destroy things whenever he wants, what does he even need Redcloak for? How would that keep them "together and happily scheming for years, decades even"?



Redcloak knows and doesn't care, right. Xykon may or may not know-- he often does not let on what he does know. That said, I lean toward "doesn't know," because really nobody outside of the Godsmoot, the Order, or anyone they told knows. I think he would care about the world getting destroyed: "I like the world. Some of my best evilness took place here. I wouldn't mind ruling it, in fact."

Team Evil distrusted each other and began to prepare for betrayal from the start (of Darkness.) There is nothing new here.

As for Tsukiko, she was given Xykon's half of the ritual to study. Why? If Xykon had confidence that Redcloak was being straight with him about The Ritual, he would have had no need for her assistance. He already had reason to suspect something. Xykon has proven time and again that Int is not his dumpstat, and a relatively high Spellcraft skill is a requirement for a lich. There is no reason he could not know what his half of The Ritual does, or suspect what Redcloak's half does.
I think Tsukiko was a test. Xykon realized that his half of The Ritual didn't work as advertised, and wanted to know if Redcloak knew. Killing Tsukiko proved that Redcloak knew as well. There was no confrontation, just acceptance and a warning about the price uppity minions pay. Xykon has very likely already taken steps to deal with The Ritual. Probably before giving Tsukiko his half.

[bunsen_h]

Redcloak knows and doesn't care, right.

He's been told, but he thinks that the claim is unlikely to be true. And he's willing to take that chance. The worst outcome that he conceives as being plausible -- this world is destroyed; the next world will be a better place for goblinoids -- is acceptable to him. The claim that TDO may not make it to the next world isn't plausible to him.

[Shining Wrath]

He's been told, but he thinks that the claim is unlikely to be true. And he's willing to take that chance. The worst outcome that he conceives as being plausible -- this world is destroyed; the next world will be a better place for goblinoids -- is acceptable to him. The claim that TDO may not make it to the next world isn't plausible to him.

To be fair, the idea of a god dying of starvation makes little sense to mortals.

[dancrilis]

To be fair, the idea of a god dying of starvation makes little sense to mortals.

Particularly when most creatures cannot die in that manner.

[Peelee]

Particularly when most creatures cannot die in that manner.

I suppose if one were to ignore the rules on starvation, that would be true.

Assuming you are talking about mortals, of course. Which shouldn't need to be said, as the post you're replying to was specifically talking about mortals, but still.

[dancrilis]

I suppose if one were to ignore the rules on starvation, that would be true.

I am not sure what you think I am ignoring.

The rules on starvation:

Starvation And Thirst

Characters might find themselves without food or water and with no means to obtain them. In normal climates, Medium characters need at least a gallon of fluids and about a pound of decent food per day to avoid starvation. (Small characters need half as much.) In very hot climates, characters need two or three times as much water to avoid dehydration.

A character can go without water for 1 day plus a number of hours equal to his Constitution score. After this time, the character must make a Constitution check each hour (DC 10, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage.

A character can go without food for 3 days, in growing discomfort. After this time, the character must make a Constitution check each day (DC 10, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage.

Characters who have taken nonlethal damage from lack of food or water are fatigued. Nonlethal damage from thirst or starvation cannot be recovered until the character gets food or water, as needed—not even magic that restores hit points heals this damage.

The rules on nonlethal damage:

Certain attacks deal nonlethal damage. Other effects, such as heat or being exhausted, also deal nonlethal damage. When you take nonlethal damage, keep a running total of how much you’ve accumulated. Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points. It is not "real" damage. Instead, when your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, you’re staggered, and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious. It doesn’t matter whether the nonlethal damage equals or exceeds your current hit points because the nonlethal damage has gone up or because your current hit points have gone down.

Starvation is not something that can kill Redcloak or Roy (unless I have missed something) - so convincing Redcloak that it can kill the Dark One is likely a tall order.

[danielxcutter]

Ignoring the fact that I'm not even sure if RAW strictly works like that - doesn't it spill over to lethal damage eventually - it makes no sense and Rich would absolutely ignore that for the sake of a story.

[Fyraltari]

I am not sure what you think I am ignoring.

The rules on starvation:


The rules on nonlethal damage:


Starvation is not something that can kill Redcloak or Roy (unless I have missed something) - so convincing Redcloak that it can kill the Dark One is likely a tall order.

It may not be RAW, but I would question the logic of any DM who doesn't rule that a character who passed out due to starvation of dehydration eventually dies if no help is received.

[Peelee]

I am not sure what you think I am ignoring.

The ones in Sandstorm, which have dehydration damage become lethal damagr once you're unconscious.

RAW not having one die from starvation is about in the same level of ridiculous as the infamous drowning by heing healing by drowning and I can't help but think it is untenable to assume that such RAW is the case in Stickworld.

[hamishspence]

Some sources of nonlethal damage specifically do lethal damage when the character reaches unconsciousness. And once the character is below zero hit points, they begin Dying and need to make checks to stabilise.

Cold
Cold and exposure deal nonlethal damage to the victim. This nonlethal damage cannot be recovered until the character gets out of the cold and warms up again. Once a character is rendered unconscious through the accumulation of nonlethal damage, the cold and exposure begins to deal lethal damage at the same rate.


Heat
Heat deals nonlethal damage that cannot be recovered until the character gets cooled off (reaches shade, survives until nightfall, gets doused in water, is targeted by endure elements, and so forth). Once rendered unconscious through the accumulation of nonlethal damage, the character begins to take lethal damage at the same rate.

Maybe for realism, something like that is treated as applying to thirst/starvation?

[Fyraltari]

The ones in Sandstorm, which have dehydration damage become lethal damagr once you're unconscious.

RAW not having one die from starvation is about in the same level of ridiculous as the infamous drowning by heing and I can't help but think it is untenable to assume that such RAW is the case in Stickworld.

Drowning by what?

[danielxcutter]

Drowning by what?

Before Stormwrack by RAW you could heal by starting to drown.

Yes, this is as stupid as it sounds.

[dancrilis]

Ignoring the fact that I'm not even sure if RAW strictly works like that - doesn't it spill over to lethal damage eventually - it makes no sense and Rich would absolutely ignore that for the sake of a story.

Not to my memory - could be wrong just going by SRD - was not going to look through the books until Peelee pointed out their view below.

It may not be RAW, but I would question the logic of any DM who doesn't rule that a character who passed out due to starvation of dehydration eventually dies if no help is received.

Well they would still die of old age for most beings - so eventually they would die.

The ones in Sandstorm, which have dehydration damage become lethal damagr once you're unconscious.

Taken a look at this they only seem to apply to thirst not to starvation so my comment above to say that most creatures cannot die of starvation seems to still stand as correct.

RAW not having one die from starvation is about in the same level of ridiculous as the infamous drowning by heing and I can't help but think it is untenable to assume that such RAW is the case in Stickworld.

But it does seem to still be RAW.