#1231 - The Discussion Thread

[dancrilis]

Have we ever seen him without the cloak and armour?

I believe so.

It is possible that he has both of them tucked into his pants but I see no particular reason to assume he has.

[UnintensifiedFa]

I believe so.

It is possible that he has both of them tucked into his pants but I see no particular reason to assume he has.

This is actually nice to know... it kind of makes the physical cloak a non-issue, unless someone comes up with powerful enough magic to destroy it utterly.

Basically we can treat the Cloak as part of Redcloak.

[danielxcutter]

I wonder what the Mantle actually does? Outside "plot device" there actually isn't much it does for an artifact, relatively speaking.

What we do know about it is that it grants the user

• Immunity to diseases(came in handy once, not useless, but still kinda weaksauce especially for a cleric)
• Knowledge of the divine half of the Ritual(excellent for the plot, less for much else)
• Stalls the aging process(not quite unique but still very good for its purpose)

I mean it's not bad, but I guess it was never about giving much power to the Bearer and more about giving them an opportunity to do the Plan.

[hroþila]

Some speculate that it gave him an immediate power boost, depending on your interpretation of his first kill in SoD and of Right-Eye's reaction to it.

[Peelee]

I wonder what the Mantle actually does? Outside "plot device" there actually isn't much it does for an artifact, relatively speaking.

• Knowledge of the divine half of the Ritual(excellent for the plot, less for much else)

Given that it is a literal plot device, it doesn't really need to be good for much else.

[danielxcutter]

Some speculate that it gave him an immediate power boost, depending on your interpretation of his first kill in SoD and of Right-Eye's reaction to it.

Hmm, perhaps. Even if that paladin was really low-level, so was Redcloak. And there's something similar in Eberron I think, except with a location instead of an artifact.

Given that it is a literal plot device, it doesn't really need to be good for much else.

Fair.

[Peelee]

Some speculate that it gave him an immediate power boost, depending on your interpretation of his first kill in SoD and of Right-Eye's reaction to it.

Spoiler: SoD

Show

That was the same day Redcloak was being initiated as a full-fledged Cleric, IIRC, so it's likely RE may have just not known RC could do it to start with.

[danielxcutter]

As much as Redcloak's done a load of Evil things it's pretty easy to see how he was driven to that point, if you ask me.

[dancrilis]

Spoiler: SoD

Show

That was the same day Redcloak was being initiated as a full-fledged Cleric, IIRC, so it's likely RE may have just not known RC could do it to start with.

Spoiler: SOD

Show

I believe that scene was initially used to justify the Destruction domain as it grants the 'Smite' power and that power can only be used once a day - so it matches the text nicely on two counts.

[UnintensifiedFa]

Given that it is a literal plot device, it doesn't really need to be good for much else.

But given this is a tongue-in-cheek DnD parody I'd Imagine someone would complain to the GM if they were given an artifact that does jack squat except advance the plot.

[Doug Lampert]

But given this is a tongue-in-cheek DnD parody I'd Imagine someone would complain to the GM if they were given an artifact that does jack squat except advance the plot.

IIRC Redcloak is a self-admitted NPC. So is the GM going to complain to himself?

[Rrmcklin]

As much as Redcloak's done a load of Evil things it's pretty easy to see how he was driven to that point, if you ask me.

Well, yeah, that's what makes him a compelling villain. It doesn't change the fact that he's evil, or that the story is not likely to give him a "happy" (or even "content") ending. Whatever his circumstances, his choices are his own and he has not had to do all of this, whatever he tells himself.

[Ginasius]

I wonder what the Mantle actually does? Outside "plot device" there actually isn't much it does for an artifact, relatively speaking.

What we do know about it is that it grants the user
[LIST][*]Immunity to diseases(came in handy once, not useless, but still kinda weaksauce especially for a cleric)

I only know "The Start of Darkness" from references but I have a question about this:

Spoiler: From "The Start of Darkness"

Show

If I remember correctly, Xykon and RC were defeated and imprisoned by Lirian using some kind of virus-like biological weapon that stripped them of their magic.

Was RC immune to this virus?

[Ruck]

I only know "The Start of Darkness" from references but I have a question about this:

Spoiler: From "The Start of Darkness"

Show

If I remember correctly, Xykon and RC were defeated and imprisoned by Lirian using some kind of virus-like biological weapon that stripped them of their magic.

Was RC immune to this virus?

Spoiler

Show

Yes, and he theorized the Crimson Mantle's effects were the reason why.

[dancrilis]

I only know "The Start of Darkness" from references but I have a question about this:

Spoiler: From "The Start of Darkness"

Show

If I remember correctly, Xykon and RC were defeated and imprisoned by Lirian using some kind of virus-like biological weapon that stripped them of their magic.

Was RC immune to this virus?

Spoiler: Answer

Show

Yes.
That is where we learned that the Crimson Mantle protected from disease.

[Fyraltari]

I only know "The Start of Darkness" from references but I have a question about this:

Spoiler: From "The Start of Darkness"

Show

If I remember correctly, Xykon and RC were defeated and imprisoned by Lirian using some kind of virus-like biological weapon that stripped them of their magic.

Was RC immune to this virus?

Spoiler

Show

Yes. The Crimson Mantle allowing him to retain his magical abilities is what allowed their escape (by way of turning Xykon into a lich). Redclaok pretended he was affected too because they had already lsot the battle at this point. In fact I'm fairly confident this is the only time this property of the Mantle is ever mentionned.

[Ruck]

win - Ruck
place - dancrilis
show - Fyraltari

[WanderingMist]

For the Doylist Reason that Rich doesn't want to depict suicide as an answer (Even for the ghost in That's the spirit, moving on to the afterlife isn't the answer).

For the Watsonian reason that in the setting suicide doesn't even let you avoid your problems. If Redcloak kills himself, he'll end up face to face with Right-Eye and TDO.

Suicide may have been what Javert chose, but that doesn't mean it was the right choice for him. He was a man of law and good, and when to be good required him to break the law, his entire worldview shattered.

This, though, is a potentially fatal problem with the theory. I don't recall the Thor/Tiger discussion--where'd that happen? (#453's just a conflict over geography, not spell domains, right?) And do we know enough about what domain spells TDO clerics have versus what domains Loki/Tiamat/Rat have, to tell if there's an inconsistency?

It may be an argument about geography, but Thor seems to be implying that "bending the rules" is an alert to the other gods, since by Hel's own statement in #1170, the gods don't watch everywhere all the time.

Though, I've actually come up with an even better argument:

There have been billions of worlds. Why wouldn't ANY of the trickster gods have thought of pulling this exact con before? The most likely answer is that they have, and that's why the other gods are skeptical of this one's existence.

[arimareiji]

(SoD spoiler)

Spoiler

Show

Yes. The Crimson Mantle allowing him to retain his magical abilities is what allowed their escape (by way of turning Xykon into a lich). Redclaok pretended he was affected too because they had already lsot the battle at this point. In fact I'm fairly confident this is the only time this property of the Mantle is ever mentionned.

Apologies if this has already been gone over countless times over the history of the forum: Did Xykon's lichification occur under an earlier rule version, a homebrew, or Because The Story Works Better This Way? I got curious and found this in the 3.5 SRD (emphases added)...

Each lich must make its own phylactery, which requires the Craft Wondrous Item feat. The character must be able to cast spells and have a caster level of 11th or higher. The phylactery costs 120,000 gp and 4,800 XP to create and has a caster level equal to that of its creator at the time of creation.

---

Suicide may have been what Javert chose, but that doesn't mean it was the right choice for him. He was a man of law and good, and when to be good required him to break the law, his entire worldview shattered.

Yours is more concise, but I think it could also be expressed as "When faced with a choice that made it impossible to rationalize that every Lawful action must also be morally Good, it forced him to re-examine the worldview he'd built upon that belief. He finally had to admit that many of his Lawful actions (based on that worldview) had in fact been immoral, and couldn't bear living with that knowledge."

Spoiler: I think it's clearer in the book, but the musical lyrics are more concise

Show

🎵 And must I now begin to doubt, who never doubted all these years?
My heart is stone, and still it trembles -- the world I have known is lost in shadow
Is he from heaven or from hell, and does he know?
By granting me my life today, this man has killed me even so
I am reaching, but I fall
And the stars^* grow black and cold
As I stare into the void
Of a world that cannot hold 🎶

_{* - I lost touch of the changes they kept making, so I don't know if the "Stars" song survived. In the earliest versions every major character gets a song that tells their story, and "Stars" was Javert's. He looks up to the stars as untouchable ideals, unaffected by the whims of man, and they serve as a metaphor for his absolute belief in Law.}

It's why Redcloak reminds me of Javert. He's been incapable of questioning his escalating rationalizations that the Plan justifies anything, but he's coming up fast on events that will make that rationalization impossible. I can see him being so broken by the realization (that he's completely lost sight of the Plan's goal) that he chooses a path that abnegates (but doesn't destroy) his existence.

_{Edit: Adding another reply}

[Peelee]

Though, I've actually come up with an even better argument:

There have been billions of worlds. Why wouldn't ANY of the trickster gods have thought of pulling this exact con before? The most likely answer is that they have, and that's why the other gods are skeptical of this one's existence.

I know you didn't say "infinite", but it's the easiest way to explain it so I'm still using it. "Infinite" does not mean "all". There is an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2, but none of those numbers are 3. Just because there are billions of worlds does not make it likely that the trickster gods (or even any gods, for that matter) have pulled a con like this before if it's not possible to pull the con to start with. Assuming that it's a con by the trickster gods assumes facts not in evidence (ie that gods can make fairly convincing illusory gods).

[Ruck]

Suicide may have been what Javert chose, but that doesn't mean it was the right choice for him. He was a man of law and good, and when to be good required him to break the law, his entire worldview shattered.

Right. I don't think if Redcloak did decide to take off the Mantle and give up, it would be a "solution" to anything. It would only come after The Plan failed in some way and he realizes he can no longer rationalize all the terrible things he's done in its service.

[Shosho]

A dwarf came up to me and said
"I'd like to change your mind
By hitting it with a hammer, " he said,
"Though I am not unkind."

[bunsen_h]

Apologies if this has already been gone over countless times over the history of the forum: Did Xykon's lichification occur under an earlier rule version, a homebrew, or Because The Story Works Better This Way? I got curious and found this in the 3.5 SRD (emphases added)...

The Order was upgraded from 3.0 to 3.5 in the first strip, and the lichification was sometime before that. This implies that it should have involved rules from 3.0 or earlier.

In SoD, when Redcloak is suggesting the process to Xykon, he says:

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

You would need to build a special phylactery. It would hold your soul if your body was ever destroyed. I can help you with that, though -- there's no actual spellcasting involved.

I don't know if that matches any of the pre-3.5 rules sets.

[arimareiji]

The Order was upgraded from 3.0 to 3.5 in the first strip, and the lichification was sometime before that. This implies that it should have involved rules from 3.0 or earlier.

In SoD, when Redcloak is suggesting the process to Xykon, he says:

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

You would need to build a special phylactery. It would hold your soul if your body was ever destroyed. I can help you with that, though -- there's no actual spellcasting involved.

I don't know if that matches any of the pre-3.5 rules sets.

Thank you for the nudge and confirmation. (^_^) I ended up digging around a bit and it looks like the first character template came out 6 months after 3.5 was first published, but to me it doesn't look as properly fleshed-out (pun intended) as what's on d20srd. Tbh I have trouble understanding it, but unlike the template on d20srd I don't see anything in the first template that contradicts the story.

Plus: I initially thought otherwise, but the more I think about it, I don't see there being any inherent contradiction in SoD following a process that wasn't published until 3.5. If anything I think it's even more free of constraints that way... i.e. "Obviously a process must have existed, but the exact details are up to the DM".

Spoiler: 12/2003 template, published as web article

Show

To complete her transformation to a lich, the character must create a phylactery using the Craft Wondrous Item feat. The phylactery is crafted in three stages, and the lich transfers a bit more of her life force to it at each stage. It does not, however, grant her any of the normal benefits of a phylactery until it is fully completed.

Paying the cost of each stage of its construction is a prerequisite for the corresponding level in the lich template class. Thus, to take the 2nd level in this class, the lich must invest 40,000 gp and 1,600 XP in her phylactery. She must spend the same amount again to take the 3rd level, and once again to take the 4th level (for a total investment of 120,000 gp and 4,800 XP). She can complete the phylactery early if she wishes, though doing so does not grant her any additional abilities until she takes the appropriate levels in the template class.

[Fyraltari]

win - Ruck
place - dancrilis
show - Fyraltari

I don't get it?

[The MunchKING]

I don't get it?

Ruck answered first and thus "Won", dan answered second, and thus placed second, you answered third, and thus just got "Showed up".

[Ruck]

I don't get it?

That's how horse races list who finished first, second, and third.

I may have also borrowed from another forum I used to post on where "slow pony" instead of "ninja'd" was more common when posting something immediately after someone else had posted the same information.

[pearl jam]

A dwarf came up to me and said
"I'd like to change your mind
By hitting it with a hammer, " he said,
"Though I am not unkind."

nice. lol

[KorvinStarmast]

So the DO sees Redcloak as purely a tool

I've always thought that Redcloak was a tool ...

The last thing Rich wants is TDO micromanaging Redcloak's life

Indeed, and by the way that whole post was full of goodness. +1.

But given this is a tongue-in-cheek DnD parody I'd Imagine someone would complain to the GM if they were given an artifact that does jack squat except advance the plot.

This is why rocks sometimes fall and everyone sometimes dies ...

A dwarf came up to me and said
"I'd like to change your mind
By hitting it with a hammer, " he said,
"Though I am not unkind."

Nice, but rather than have said rhyme with said in lines A and C ... let's try this, maybe?
A dwarf came up to me and said
"I'd like to change your mind,
By using this hammer to hit your head -
"Though I am not unkind."

[Quizatzhaderac]

Suicide may have been what Javert chose, but that doesn't mean it was the right choice for him. He was a man of law and good, and when to be good required him to break the law, his entire worldview shattered.

The idea isn't to avoid depicting suicide as the rational answer, but as one of the options at all. Really, the question of if his decision was rational is irrelevant as people engaging in rational, critical thought aren't at risk for suicide.

Javert's suicide wasn't rational, but it was definitely romantic. When people are in a mindset to make deeply irrational decisions (like when your entire worldview is shattered) they may act out example behaviors they've seen. Especially iconic examples. The Romanticism is problematic because it provides superficial justifications for the behavior (Javert was longer troubled by the law/good conflict; only a more rational/critical mind would see that his suicide did not create good or law, and eliminated the potential for both).