|
CapnAndy posted:People who've read SoD, what's your read on that, actually? Redcloak asserting that Xykon's dancing on his strings is pretty opposed to Xykon's speech to Redcloak at the end of SoD. Is Redcloak just deluding himself into thinking he's still the boss in this partnership, or has he been playing a much deeper game than anyone realized, or is this a new development? My take on it is that Redcloak is fully cowed at the end of SoD and is genuinely on his back foot right up until the siege of Azure City. At that point, actually managing to accomplish one of his major goals is enough that he reasserts a certain amount of control. The bit with his eye then pushes him over the edge a bit further, and now he's doing a lot of backroom dealing and scheming. He's not the boss in the partnership, because the raw power division's too uneven for that, but he's now more focused on the endgame than he's been for the entire strip so far.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:26 |
|
|
NihilCredo posted:"It's not just about power, it's about how far you are willing to go before you feel bad" (quoting from memory). I think one could argue that Redcloak's stone-cold handling of Tsukiko showed that he's absorbed that lesson. Wanderer posted:He's not the boss in the partnership, because the raw power division's too uneven for that, but he's now more focused on the endgame than he's been for the entire strip so far.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 03:59
|
|
CapnAndy posted:People who've read SoD, what's your read on that, actually? Redcloak asserting that Xykon's dancing on his strings is pretty opposed to Xykon's speech to Redcloak at the end of SoD. Is Redcloak just deluding himself into thinking he's still the boss in this partnership, or has he been playing a much deeper game than anyone realized, or is this a new development? I think it's kind of 50/50. Xykon's still the one with more power, but he also still doesn't know that Redcloak's goal doesn't actually benefit Xykon, or at least he isn't shown knowing this, since his speech also indicated that he often does know a lot more than he cares to let on.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:My take on it is that Redcloak is fully cowed at the end of SoD and is genuinely on his back foot right up until the siege of Azure City. At that point, actually managing to accomplish one of his major goals is enough that he reasserts a certain amount of control. The bit with his eye then pushes him over the edge a bit further, and now he's doing a lot of backroom dealing and scheming. He's not the boss in the partnership, because the raw power division's too uneven for that, but he's now more focused on the endgame than he's been for the entire strip so far. Yeah, this was pretty much my take on it, too. If I had to guess, I'd say the actual turning point during the battle of Azure City would be when that hobgoblin sacrificed himself to save Redcloak. That snapped him out of the downward spiral he'd been in since the end of SoD and got him to re-evaluate his priorities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 04:12
|
|
|
The only priority it snapped him out of, from what I remember, was his disdain for hobgoblins when compared to regular goblins.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:The only priority it snapped him out of, from what I remember, was his disdain for hobgoblins when compared to regular goblins. But he also became a lot more proactive from that point onwards. I get the idea that Redcloak's entire plan now is to just suck up all of Xykon's abuse until he can turn the tables. It's not just power, but how much you're willing to debase yourself, after all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
Redcloak and Xykon were also becoming more bros from the time Xykon got blown up until about the time the phylactery got lost
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
"You didn't think I was going to let YOU keep carrying it, did you?" "No. No, I definitely did not." Remember the start of that scene is Redclock calling out Xykon on trying to use Tsukiko to get the whole ritual behind Redcloak's back - and Xykon backs down from admitting it. The other thing to remember is 'the difference between not knowing and not caring'; Xykon knows full well that Redcloak was asserting himself in that scene and he's going to remember it - he just doesn't care right now so long as Redclock remains on-mission. We also know from SOD that Xykon is perfectly willing to play the long game if need be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 10:42
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:"You didn't think I was going to let YOU keep carrying it, did you?" Yes, that scene warrants very careful reading. Xykon behaves quite ...specifically.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 11:37
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:People who've read SoD, what's your read on that, actually? Redcloak asserting that Xykon's dancing on his strings is pretty opposed to Xykon's speech to Redcloak at the end of SoD. Is Redcloak just deluding himself into thinking he's still the boss in this partnership, or has he been playing a much deeper game than anyone realized, or is this a new development? Xykon wears the pants. No doubt. Redcloak can't do anything without him. That's just it. Redcloak needs Xykon. It doesn't go the other way. And those who've seen it in SoD know that Xykon is sitting on a bit of a Redcloak-handling trump. Redcloak's trying to pull back--and I keep rooting for him because I like him more than Xykon--but I sure don't see him actually pulling any strings right now. He's more got the tiger by the tail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 08:25
|
|
|
In don't split the party there is a bonus comic (665b) which implies that Belkar will save Hinjo's life twice. I know Belkar has done this once when he killed the guy trying to poison Hinjo. Is there a second time I am missing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 10:03
|
|
|
ZeeToo posted:Xykon wears the pants. No doubt. Redcloak can't do anything without him. That's just it. Redcloak needs Xykon. It doesn't go the other way. And those who've seen it in SoD know that Xykon is sitting on a bit of a Redcloak-handling trump. He doesn't have anything of the sort. The only thing holding Redcloak in check is that Xykon is literally too powerful (as a result of lich-supercharging his magic) for Redclock to defeat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 10:07
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:He doesn't have anything of the sort. The only thing holding Redcloak in check is that Xykon is literally too powerful (as a result of lich-supercharging his magic) for Redclock to defeat. He does, in fact: Xykon has hypnotised the Monster in the Darkness.If Redcloak tries to kill/usurp Xykon, the MitD will be compelled to eat him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 10:32
|
|
|
Mr. Moon posted:He does, in fact: Xykon has hypnotised the Monster in the Darkness.If Redcloak tries to kill/usurp Xykon, the MitD will be compelled to eat him. Note that he brought the MitD with him and Redcloak when they left Azure City. He's not going anywhere with Redcloak without that guy present.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 10:36
|
|
|
Oops, forgot about that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 10:58
|
|
|
But on the other hand, that requires that the MitD be aware of the betrayal. There'll be no need to let Xykon know until after the gate-handover-to-the-Dark-One is fait accompli. Redcloak himself is expendable in pursuit of that goal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
I'm too lazy to check the archives at the moment, but if memory serves, Redcloak is currently wearing a fake phylactery and keeping the real one in a box. Given that the MitD was specifically instructed to eat Redcloak and spit his necklace out, my guess is that's precisely what will happen, and it won't be until later that Xykon discovers he's been duped. If he ever does.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 02:21
|
|
|
The fake phylactery is currently being / has just been placed in Xykon's astral fortress. Redcloack's necklace is now just a regular holy symbol, the real phylactery being in his pocket.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
This means that, as things stand, if MitD DOES eat Redcloak, he'll be eating Xykon's real phylactery, and won't spit it out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 07:48
|
|
|
Colon V posted:This means that, as things stand, if MitD DOES eat Redcloak, he'll be eating Xykon's real phylactery, and won't spit it out. Huh. That's about clever enough to happen, nice catch. Rules question, how much power would Redcloak have over Xykon as an undead? Are Lichs exempt from turning etc?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 09:02
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:Huh. That's about clever enough to happen, nice catch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 09:23
|
|
|
I wonder if the MitD can digest a phylactery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 14:09
|
|
|
There's also the question of what would happen to the Red Cloak. Isn't it a divine object of the goblin god?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 21:08
|
|
|
YggiDee posted:There's also the question of what would happen to the Red Cloak. Isn't it a divine object of the goblin god? Yeah, but still seems subject to wear and tear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
I take it from the current discussion Start of Darkness is very much worth buying? It's something I keep meaning to pick up but never remember to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
Parts Kit posted:I take it from the current discussion Start of Darkness is very much worth buying? It's something I keep meaning to pick up but never remember to. It's really good and it will explain a lot about Redcloak, Xykon, and where they're coming from.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
Parts Kit posted:I take it from the current discussion Start of Darkness is very much worth buying? It's something I keep meaning to pick up but never remember to. It's easily the best of the print-only books, and both of the others are very good. It's a very good story about the primary parts of Team Evil
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
Parts Kit posted:I take it from the current discussion Start of Darkness is very much worth buying? It's something I keep meaning to pick up but never remember to. It's one of the best OotS arcs. As I said earlier, I think it's up there with Vaarsuvius's rampage in terms of sheer awesomeness. It's also got a lot of plot. It completely changed how I felt about Redcloak. He went from "badass minion with an agenda" to something of a tragic antihero, in my eyes. If you buy only one OotS book, buy Start of Darkness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
The prequel book about the heroes was a boring waste of time and money so I don't blame anyone for being leery about SoD, but it's seriously excellent and has actually interesting backstory
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
RentACop posted:The prequel book about the heroes was a boring waste of time and money so I don't blame anyone for being leery about SoD, but it's seriously excellent and has actually interesting backstory Aw, it's not that bad. But yes, SoD is proper pop literature and a must-get.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
RentACop posted:The prequel book about the heroes was a boring waste of time and money so I don't blame anyone for being leery about SoD, but it's seriously excellent and has actually interesting backstory Yeah, I was kind of disappointed in On the Origins of PCs. Snips, Snails, and Dragon Tails was fun, though. The Dragon magazine strips were quite amusing. Imagine the dungeon crawl from early OotS, with the better art and writing you got later on. The OotS vs the 4th Edition OotS strips were pretty good, too. But Start of Darkness is the real winner amongst the print-only books.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
Speaking of the print-only books, I got my three-pack along with the other goodies yesterday. I only skimmed a friend's SoD before, so it's been nice reading while waiting for Rich to update (assuming he's not dead  )
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 04:10
|
|
|
Thanks all! I'll have to pick up copy a soon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 06:17
|
|
|
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel that after all the buildup over Redcloak's betrayal, it would almost be a letdown if the Order managed to stop them pulling off the ritual?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 06:33
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:I wonder if the MitD can digest a phylactery. No it most likely has way too much acid resistance for that to be a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 09:17
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Is it just me, or does anyone else feel that after all the buildup over Redcloak's betrayal, it would almost be a letdown if the Order managed to stop them pulling off the ritual?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 09:20
|
|
|
Poil posted:No it most likely has way too much acid resistance for that to be a possibility. Xykon would have to put some spells on it afterward to give it that kind of protection, but yeah, it's not outside the realm of possibility. It'd need to be pretty hefty protection or immunity, though, since immersion in acid is 10D6/round. It'd easily get through 40 HP, even with hardness of 20.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
Red Cloak growing as a character is probably the most enjoyable part of the comic, as long as you have read SoD. If you haven't he's still cool, but if you have you can see how the sacrifice of the hobgoblins at Azure City really started to change him into someone stronger, and his destruction of Tsukiko (and everything that followed) is testament to how he's changing on the inside. That's where he's got one over on Xykon - as much as he's self-aware of it and plays it up for dark-delight, Xykon is a one-note character with no room to change or grow. Red Cloak up and decided he wasn't. If the Oots weren't around he'd be a compelling protagonist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 00:14
|
|
|
Vicissitude posted:Xykon would have to put some spells on it afterward to give it that kind of protection, but yeah, it's not outside the realm of possibility. It'd need to be pretty hefty protection or immunity, though, since immersion in acid is 10D6/round. It'd easily get through 40 HP, even with hardness of 20. That depends on how bloody mindedly you want to read that rule, or whether you are sensible and realise that 'stomach acid' is not the same thing as 'trap full of concentrated sulphuric acid' (um... depending possibly on the stomach in question). Metal things tend to survive digestion by normal creatures (yeah I know, the MitD is blatently something not-normal).
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:26 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:That depends on how bloody mindedly you want to read that rule, or whether you are sensible and realise that 'stomach acid' is not the same thing as 'trap full of concentrated sulphuric acid' (um... depending possibly on the stomach in question). I just assumed he was taking for granted the not-normal-ness of the MitD with that figure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 05:15
|
|
