Re: Start of Darkness - Discussion Thread (MARK ALL SPOILERS!)
David, at the time that he made that comment, RC still had a hatred of Hobgoblins due to his childhood. After he realised he was turning into Xykon, he would have probably disagreed with that comment completely. Also, why shouldn't evil characters want to heal/revive people because they want to? Apart from the (then LN) Wee Jas wanting to be consulted before reviving people who were less then level 9 in the 1st Editon, do any other dieties have issues with relatively weak characters being brought back?
Re: Start of Darkness - Discussion Thread (MARK ALL SPOILERS!)
I just read this book and have only one thing to say.
Pork!
Re: Start of Darkness - Discussion Thread (MARK ALL SPOILERS!)
Spoiler
Show
I have read this book, and I thought that it gave a new, darker 'light' to the comic. Poor Redcloak...he was only trying to protect the goblin people. Unfortunately, that involved killing his brother. Evil Xykon...everything he has done has been for power, like the worst of villains. Also unfortunately, that involves allowing minions to die.
And last of all, poor Right-eye. He tried to better the goblin people too, but he was rash and foolish. His only surviving heir: His daughter, being raised by humans or worse. Perhaps she will make an appearance, later on...I hope so.
:smallfrown::smallfrown::smallfrown:
Re: Start of Darkness - Discussion Thread (MARK ALL SPOILERS!)
Thinking about it redcloak was really right about Right-Eye should have taken points in diplomacy.
I mean all he had to do there to convince redcloak was to say "Ok -- Forget the scroll -- IF I fail to kill Xykon I promise not to run -- I will accept my fate like a goblin and spare his wrath against the other goblins." Had he said that then RC probably wouldnt have
Re: Start of Darkness - Discussion Thread (MARK ALL SPOILERS!)
I'm pretty sure Redcloak would not have changed his actions at all in that case. What he said to his brother was an excuse, not a reason.
Re: Start of Darkness - Discussion Thread (MARK ALL SPOILERS!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
silvadel
Thinking about it redcloak was really right about Right-Eye should have taken points in diplomacy.
I mean all he had to do there to convince redcloak was to say "Ok -- Forget the scroll -- IF I fail to kill Xykon I promise not to run -- I will accept my fate like a goblin and spare his wrath against the other goblins." Had he said that then RC probably wouldnt have
Spoiler
Show
At this time, Xykon was of extremely high, vital even, value to the goblin cause, as defined by Redcloak. So any promise pales when the basic idea is attacking Xykon. The lich must "live" until the Gate can be turned over to the Dark One, and any attack against the lich has to be blocked, which means toasting Right-eye if he attacks Xykon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempest Fennac
at the time that he made that comment, RC still had a hatred of Hobgoblins due to his childhood. After he realised he was turning into Xykon, he would have probably disagreed with that comment completely.
The values he mentions are valid values of evil. This hasn't changed just because he later reclassifies hobgoblins as those he has a duty to protect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempest Fennac
Also, why shouldn't evil characters want to heal/revive people because they want to?
I'm not sure I understand the question, but as said: Saving lives is defined as good, and they are evil. There is simply a default objection there. There would be a number of exceptions, but our evil cleric has a base objection to raising the dead.
Re: Start of Darkness - Discussion Thread (MARK ALL SPOILERS!)
Since when? Raise dead doesn't have the Good descriptor, just as saving lives doesn't automatically default to good (hobgoblin saving Redcloak's life for example) Xykon talked Redcloak out of trying to raise Right Eye, but it was clear redcloak wanted to do so, before thinking it over.
Re: Start of Darkness - Discussion Thread (MARK ALL SPOILERS!)
I don't see why evil people should have problems in saving life. Being evil don't means "BWAHAHAAAA I'M BAD! I'LL KILL YOU ALL!!!" (except in extreme cases, like Xykon or Belkar), it just means that you look for yourself even at expense of others.
But an evil person has nothing against doing a good act, as long as they can take advantage from it. At the contrary, many evil people prefer doing good acts rather than evil, if both advantages them.
Also remember, as Rich himself claims in one of his gaming articles, evil people have feelings, and people they care about (agains, exception of extremely evil people like Xykon or Belkar). To that people, they have a good behaviour.
Re: Start of Darkness - Discussion Thread (MARK ALL SPOILERS!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
King of Nowere
I don't see why evil people should have problems in saving life. Being evil don't means "BWAHAHAAAA I'M BAD! I'LL KILL YOU ALL!!!" (except in extreme cases, like Xykon or Belkar), it just means that you look for yourself even at expense of others.
Which is all my case needs.
Nothing has been said here about how evils must never never Raise Dead. Rather it has been posited that they are the opposite of the goods, who do not like to kill, but do so under the right conditions, they do kill.
So our evils do not like to cast Raise Dead. They will do so under the right circumstances, but they basically don't want to and the cases in the comic are the normal cases where they refuse to cast it, or can't cast it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
King of Nowere
But an evil person has nothing against doing a good act, as long as they can take advantage from it. At the contrary, many evil people prefer doing good acts rather than evil, if both advantages them.
Note you are saying IF it advantages them. Conversely, if they lose or break even, they don't.
Re: Start of Darkness - Discussion Thread (MARK ALL SPOILERS!)
Right-Eye's children and wife weren't raised because Redcloak did not control the financial resources of Team Evil; Xykon did, and he wasn't ponying up three 5000 gp diamonds to bring back three of the lowest-level henchmen he had. Evil characters are neither prohibited nor even discouraged from raising the dead in the OOTS universe—nor in any other D&D world of which I'm aware, unless they specifically serve a god of Death.
The Voice of Mod: Now please get back onto the topic of GENERAL reactions to Start of Darkness, and take any specific debates to a new thread. Thank you.
Re: Start of Darkness - Discussion Thread (MARK ALL SPOILERS!)
Why has this been un-stickied?
And general reaction: liked it big time, I feel redcloak is made more nuanced, and a little more sympathetic and understandable. Doesn't mean his decisions were right, but does mean I think it made him a more interesting character.