What if Xykon was the hero?

[Cap'n Gravelock]

I'm not sure if I can post this here or "World-Building" but I have sometimes wondered what Xykon would be like if he was the hero of his own strip, or at least not the villain. I have often been intrigued by the idea of a heroic lich like the Baelnorn or Archlich.

[ORione]

By hero do you mean protagonist, or someone who behaves heroically?

[factotum]

While the general idea of a heroic lich is an interesting one, Xykon just isn't that in any way, shape or form. He was throughly evil when alive, and being turned into a lich did not improve that in any way. So, if you had a heroic lich it simply wouldn't be Xykon anymore.

[woweedd]

In Vanilla D&D, a good lich is impossible. Because A. It's somewhere between heavily implied and outright stated that the process of becoming a lich involves some Evil stuff* and B. Being flooded with negative energy does a number on one's morals. That would be the reason undead are Evil by default.

*See: Voldemort. Not D&D but basically a lich, and his method of doing so involved being a serial killer.

[Emanick]

In Vanilla D&D, a good lich is impossible. Because A. It's somewhere between heavily implied and outright stated that the process of becoming a lich involves some Evil stuff* and B. Being flooded with negative energy does a number on one's morals. That would be the reason undead are Evil by default.

*See: Voldemort. Not D&D but basically a lich, and his method of doing so involved being a serial killer.

It's not literally impossible for a lich to become Good after achieving lichdom. Just incredibly difficult and rare.

In any case, I think the OP meant "protagonist" more than "Good-aligned hero," although I'm a little confused so I'd welcome some clarification on that.

[Morty]

If Xykon had ever had any inclination to serve any cause beyond his own interest, amusement and gratification, he'd be a completely different person than he is in the comic. That's before getting into the nitty-gritty of whether a good-aligned lich is possible.

[hamishspence]

It's not literally impossible for a lich to become Good after achieving lichdom. Just incredibly difficult and rare.

Yup. Even without invoking archliches, Faerun has a couple of notable Neutral Liches - the Terraseer (sarrukh lich) and Ioulaum (elder brain lich - a human created the elder brain lich then transferred his mind into its body).

[Kish]

Is this question about "if Xykon was the hero" or "if a lich was a hero"?

Xykon has been a monster with no redeeming features for much longer than he's been a lich. There is, essentially, no way to make him a hero without making him a fundamentally different character. Making a new character who's both a hero and bony is much easier.

[wumpus]

Xykon simply hasn't be drawn/written in any way to be the hero. Red cloak or Tarquin would have a chance (Tarquin knows he'd make a better villain, but isn't hostile to being the hero. It isn't clear whether or not he's realized he's neither).

Red Cloak could even be the hero *exactly*as*he*is*, although it would presumably involve looking back centuries back after peaceful PC-race/greenskin relations became the norm. He would be then seen as one of those "ancient heroes of necessity" who's morality might clash with "our" time (and plenty of people digging deeper might be surprised just how evil he was in his own times, especially considering those doing the digging would likely do so out of personal admiration for Red Cloak). Very few national heroes are as pure as Roy, and many who built nations are much closer to Red Cloak.

Tarquin would be seen much the same way as any other conqueror. They seem to get put in the heroes role no matter how peaceful the various countries were before someone decided to shove them together (admittedly this is usually not the case), nor how brutal the conquest was.

[Fyraltari]

If Xykon was the protagonist? Boring story, we'd get striop after strip of him sitting on his tailbone in Dorukan's Dungeon and Gobbotopia and going through tunnels in the Arctic, while it would initially be funny it'd become stale quickly. Also no character developpment.

If Xykon was a hero? EVIL is his most defining trait but not the only one. We'd be looking at a powerful Chaotic Good sorcerer with a high opinion of himself and a short attention span. His main goal in life would be to amuse and enjoy himself and luckily for everyone consider helping people enjoyable.* His secondary goal in life would be to show all these uppity wizards that sorcerers can be cool too. To make a better story he'd need some character development, probably something about learning some humility (alwyas a classic) and maybe some angsting about his inborn talents for "unnatural" magic (especially if he turns into a lich out of necessity rather than the more conventionnal reasons) until he learns that it's not about the power but how one wields them.

So an impulsive (but deceptively clever) magical anti-hero.

Assuming the Order doesn't exist in this bizarro universe that would make Redcloak the main villain as such the story would be more Grey vs Grayish.

Heh someone could make a fanfiction out of this.



*Doctor, is that you?

[warmachine]

Start of Darkness shows Xykon was never pushed to being evil, he's just plain evil. He was even given a chance to be a good guy and he thought the idea was stupid. For Xykon to be a hero, he'd have to be a radically different person.

Nonetheless, Xykon as a good guy would be an anti-hero, not a hero. He'd be vain, easily bored, and would ignore planning and tactics. He would blast bad guys, create a trail of destruction, and feel proud of himself as others clean up the mess. He'd succeed by brute force, the occasional clever trick, and enemies underestimating him.

[martianmister]

Nonetheless, Xykon as a good guy would be an anti-hero, not a hero. He'd be vain, easily bored, and would ignore planning and tactics. He would blast bad guys, create a trail of destruction, and feel proud of himself as others clean up the mess. He'd succeed by brute force, the occasional clever trick, and enemies underestimating him.

Kinda like Belkar?

[Cap'n Gravelock]

By hero do you mean protagonist, or someone who behaves heroically?

It's not literally impossible for a lich to become Good after achieving lichdom. Just incredibly difficult and rare.

In any case, I think the OP meant "protagonist" more than "Good-aligned hero," although I'm a little confused so I'd welcome some clarification on that.

Let me clarify:

Can a lich be a hero (not necessarily Xykon) and does anyone know a story or chronicle where the hero is a lich?

I'm not just talking about Xykon but what if Roy (or his dad) became a lich and Xykon remained human? Would lichdom change their personalities and alignment?

[georgie_leech]

Let me clarify:

Can a lich be a hero (not necessarily Xykon) and does anyone know a story or chronicle where the hero is a lich?

Ooh! Ooh! Read the Coldfire Trilogy. First Book is Black Sun Rising. I'm not gonna call any of the characters a pure HERO or anything, but one of the significant characters is basically a lich.

[Mandor]

I could maybe see Xykon convincing himself that he's the hero, as per Handsome Jack. "Because that's what the hero does. He shows mercy.", etc as he only tortures someone for days instead of killing them.

But Xykon actually BEING Heroic? You would need a 100% completely different lich.

Not saying it's impossible; many many many moons ago I tried to sketch out the idea of a campaign, and one recurring NPC was going to be "Talmor the Black", who was to be an high elf from the Eldar Days who as he lay dying in the wake of a demonic invasion to necromancy and turned himself into a lich to recover for round two and prepare for a Long War. (ie, "The witch-queen murdered me, destroyed all I hold dear, slew all of my kin, and laid waste to my homeland. She thinks she has won. She is wrong."). But you'd have to rewrite a LOT of motivations.

[deuterio12]

Anybody said evil lich hero?



The skeleton dude is Ainz Oal Goal, main protagonist from the Overlord novels/anime, basically an epic level lich himself, and the ones in his bony hand are his top minions.

Said minions love/worship Ainz Oal Goal as their god/hero. And they're all twisted in their own ways, all but one perfectly fine with murderizing/torturing normal humans when not using said humans as crafting materials. Sure, Ainz Oal Goal has somewhat more self-restraint than Xykon, in particular he won't kill his own dudes just for the evulz (at least not the high level ones, he's still fine sacrificing lesser pawns for petty reasons), but that just means said dudes (un)live to do more nasty stuff in his name than your average Xykon minion.

Like right at start he turns one bandit in a death knight, and then forgets about it when teleporting out. Later on the novels, we find out that said Death Knight had gone in a murder spree for a lot of time until finally being stopped by a small army of wizards kiting it from the air.

Later on, because he wants to test one of his top minions, he sends them to attack a lizardmen village, but with the condition of only using only an handful of low level chaff troops, which get pwrnzed by the lizardmen. Then Ainz Oal Goal goes "As you see you should try to think for yourself, I can't do all the planning around here. Now properly murderize all the lizardmen."

Later on the novels, Ainz Oal Goal one-shots tens of thousands of humans just to try a spell he hadn't casted in a while.

He organizes multiple conficts with huge death counts where he has his personal forces fights in both sides. At one time when somebody tries to take hostage shields he just fireballs them.

Because beauty heroism is in the eye of the beholder. Just look at greek/viking heroes, going around killing, pillaging and raping everything in sight.

[KarlMarx]

I think the real issue with Xykon is that, as I understand him, he's essentially created to be a parody of the trope of the purely, arbitrarily, and irrationally evil character found in many other fantasy works. To be that character, he has to be as over-the-top as possible in his villainy.
A narrative in which "Good Xykon" as opposed to "Good Lich" makes sense--i.e. a realistic inversion of character based on his redeeming, human traits--is a picture of a Xykon that does not succeed at being that parody. Fundamentally, it wouldn't be the same narrative.

[Cizak]

Anybody said evil lich hero?

The skeleton dude is Ainz Oal Goal, main protagonist from the Overlord novels/anime, basically an epic level lich himself, and the ones in his bony hand are his top minions.

Isn't that anime set in a virtual game reality where Ainz's player is a teenage boy and the minions are all AIs programmed to worship him? Feels like the moral implications and consequences behind their deeds get watered down when none of them affect actual people.

[deuterio12]

Isn't that anime set in a virtual game reality where Ainz's player is a teenage boy and the minions are all AIs programmed to worship him? Feels like the moral implications and consequences behind their deeds get watered down when none of them affect actual people.

Ainz was already a working salaryman for multiple years before the show starts, and initially he started in a game yes, but then somehow Ainz gets transported to an actual fantasy world and his guild's NPCs all turn sentient (plus only one was actually programmed to worship him, the others worship him because they see Ainz as the last of their "creators"). It's a new world beyond the walls of Nazarick, with Ainz having yet to meet a single one of his previous fellow players.

And for all we know all the other people in this world where the series happens after the first episode are all real, they are born, grow up, love and hate, suffer pain and happyness, age and die. Even random goblins and whatnot have their own personalities and desires.

EDIT: Doubly so for the lizardmen arc, since they start as a bunch of tribes with quite a bit of bad blood between them. They get a lot of screen time about them working to put away their grudges so they can stand united against Ainz undead army at their door, including the main lizardman character falling head over heels for a lizardwoman priestess and they end up sleeping together in the hours before the battle because they both know they may be dead soon enough and don't want to leave behind any regrets. They even discussed the possibility of the tribes just turning and fleeing, but they realize that would just mean most of them starving to death since they would have no way to get enough food for all of them while on the move.

So when Ainz's army comes upon them, we have reasons for caring about said lizardmen. They're not mmo mobs just waiting in place to be slaughtered for exp and treasure.

[littlebum2002]

I mean, it's not impossible for Xykon in his current form to be the Hero. There could easily be a scenario where he tries to save the world from being destroyed so he can conquer it instead.

[Fyraltari]

Anybody said evil lich hero?



The skeleton dude is Ainz Oal Goal, main protagonist from the Overlord novels/anime, basically an epic level lich himself, and the ones in his bony hand are his top minions.

Said minions love/worship Ainz Oal Goal as their god/hero. And they're all twisted in their own ways, all but one perfectly fine with murderizing/torturing normal humans when not using said humans as crafting materials. Sure, Ainz Oal Goal has somewhat more self-restraint than Xykon, in particular he won't kill his own dudes just for the evulz (at least not the high level ones, he's still fine sacrificing lesser pawns for petty reasons), but that just means said dudes (un)live to do more nasty stuff in his name than your average Xykon minion.

Like right at start he turns one bandit in a death knight, and then forgets about it when teleporting out. Later on the novels, we find out that said Death Knight had gone in a murder spree for a lot of time until finally being stopped by a small army of wizards kiting it from the air.

Later on, because he wants to test one of his top minions, he sends them to attack a lizardmen village, but with the condition of only using only an handful of low level chaff troops, which get pwrnzed by the lizardmen. Then Ainz Oal Goal goes "As you see you should try to think for yourself, I can't do all the planning around here. Now properly murderize all the lizardmen."

Later on the novels, Ainz Oal Goal one-shots tens of thousands of humans just to try a spell he hadn't casted in a while.

He organizes multiple conficts with huge death counts where he has his personal forces fights in both sides. At one time when somebody tries to take hostage shields he just fireballs them.

The words you are looking for are "villain protagonist" (he has an entry there by the way).

Because beauty heroism is in the eye of the beholder. Just look at greek/viking heroes, going around killing, pillaging and raping everything in sight.

"Hero" when talking about Greek myths means "half-god" not "paragon we should all emulate". THey did not write "good vs evil" story. They were more on the "cautionnary tale", "tragedy", "here is why the world suck" end of things.

I know less about Norse tales admittedly. But since we know much of it from Christian writers I doubt it would be much conclusive.

Thinking of it, the Giants (and Trolls or Titans) vs Gods (Olympians or Æsir) are more about about Order (human society) vs Chaos (natural phenomena) than Good vs Evil.

[Snails]

I mean, it's not impossible for Xykon in his current form to be the Hero. There could easily be a scenario where he tries to save the world from being destroyed so he can conquer it instead.

Not impossible, no. But Xykon believes his soul is safe in a fortified location in the Astral. The mere threat of world destruction may be a bluff he would be willing to call, and be merely peeved about being on the wrong side of the bet. After all, if the Gates are not a means for conquest, they are not a means of conquest. He can find some hobbies for a century of two, and conquer OotSworld 3.0.

[Fyraltari]

He can find some hobbies for a century of two, and conquer OotSworld 3.0.

Not with that attention span, he can't.

[Snails]

Not with that attention span, he can't.

Well, yes, but the true weight of that little personal problem may not become apparent until later.

After all, Xykon has Plan A (conquer with a Gate and hope it works now) or Plan B (give up on the last Gate, and conquer the world the boring decades/centuries long way of doing things that might put a happy smirk on Redcloak as the goblins are ascendant).

[deuterio12]

"Hero" when talking about Greek myths means "half-god" not "paragon we should all emulate".

Considering how the greek gods went around sleeping with everything mortal (in particular Zeus), having divine blood was hardly a big achievement. Everybody who wanted to be somebody would claim "sure, a god/goddess slept with my grandmother/father". Ulysses himself was only 1/16th god, no special powers whatsoever, still more than enough to be the main character of the greatest greek epic.

THey did not write "good vs evil" story. They were more on the "cautionnary tale", "tragedy", "here is why the world suck" end of things.

They sure did write "good vs evil", they just had quite different standards. Like virtually everything bad that happens to any protagonist is because they dare to defy the greek gods in some way. Don't get in the greek gods bad side, make the proper sacrifices to the temples.

Also know how to be kunningly brutal or brutally kunning depending of the situation, like building a giant wooden horse to get inside that super fortified city that you've been sieging for a decade, or tricking a cyclops so you can gouge out their only eye. Muscle is not enough, have some brains too, and to the victor, the spoils.

I know less about Norse tales admittedly. But since we know much of it from Christian writers I doubt it would be much conclusive.

Thinking of it, the Giants (and Trolls or Titans) vs Gods (Olympians or Æsir) are more about about Order (human society) vs Chaos (natural phenomena) than Good vs Evil.

The classic greek gods were actually the third generation in their own mythology, and Zeus actually had help from all the generations for his coup de etat against Cronos, the previous big daddy who had in turn betrayed his own father. Gaia, the original mother earth, backed Zeus up all the way, while several titans like the Hecatonchires and the Cyclopes actually allied with Zeus against Cronos and his loyalist scum, and it was even Cyclopes who gave Zeus his iconic lighting bolts. So they all liked order, just couldn't agree who should be on top of said order (Cronos eating his own children because it was prophecised one would lead a rebellion against him).

[Fyraltari]

Considering how the greek gods went around sleeping with everything mortal (in particular Zeus), having divine blood was hardly a big achievement. Everybody who wanted to be somebody would claim "sure, a god/goddess slept with my grandmother/father". Ulysses himself was only 1/16th god, no special powers whatsoever, still more than enough to be the main character of the greatest greek epic.

So? That doesn't change what the word means.

They sure did write "good vs evil", they just had quite different standards. Like virtually everything bad that happens to any protagonist is because they dare to defy the greek gods in some way. Don't get in the greek gods bad side, make the proper sacrifices to the temples.

So your interpretation of "guy who is punished for immorality and fights man-eating monsters" is "good vs evil"?
Or how the Iliad presents the Trojans as morally equal to the Greeks and the gods litterally split in half over who to support?
Compare with the medieval chansons de gestes where the good knight breath smells of rose and the bad knight is a blight unto the land.

Also know how to be kunningly brutal or brutally kunning depending of the situation, like building a giant wooden horse to get inside that super fortified city that you've been sieging for a decade, or tricking a cyclops so you can gouge out their only eye. Muscle is not enough, have some brains too, and to the victor, the spoils.

The classic greek gods were actually the third generation in their own mythology, and Zeus actually had help from all the generations for his coup de etat against Cronos, the previous big daddy who had in turn betrayed his own father. Gaia, the original mother earth, backed Zeus up all the way, while several titans like the Hecatonchires and the Cyclopes actually allied with Zeus against Cronos and his loyalist scum, and it was even Cyclopes who gave Zeus his iconic lighting bolts. So they all liked order, just couldn't agree who should be on top of said order (Cronos eating his own children because it was prophecised one would lead a rebellion against him).

Yeah Gaia backed Zeus all the way. That's why she spawned the giants specifically to get him killed.

As a rule of thumb the Giants and Titans are personnifications of natural phenomena (Ocean, time, chaos, night, earth, sky etc) while the Olympians are personnifications of man-made concepts (kingship, farming, smithwork, seafaring, war, poetry, love etc). It's not clear cut of course since mythologies are always evolving and reinventing themselves but this is a clear theme.

And since they went to war with each other and that Zeus and the Olympians are explicitly portrayed as behaving similarly to the Titans, I would say that, yes, "Order vs Chaos" in the sense of "Civilization vs Nature" is a more relevant angle of analysis of Greek mythology than "Good vs Evil".

[deuterio12]

So? That doesn't change what the word means.

1/2 =/=1/16th.

Like, a giant chunk of the modern world's population is descended from Genghis Khan. Does that means all those people should be considered half-mongols and half-khans?

So your interpretation of "guy who is punished for immorality and fights man-eating monsters" is "good vs evil"?
Or how the Iliad presents the Trojans as morally equal to the Greeks and the gods litterally split in half over who to support?
Compare with the medieval chansons de gestes where the good knight breath smells of rose and the bad knight is a blight unto the land.

Depends on who you ask. Paris is often portrayed as a craven coward.

The greek gods picked sides mostly out of petty grudges (the whole mess started as a contest between the 3 main goddess for which one was prettiest after all).

Yeah Gaia backed Zeus all the way. That's why she spawned the giants specifically to get him killed.

That was after Cronos was gibbed since Zeus proved to not be that good of a ruler either.

As a rule of thumb the Giants and Titans are personnifications of natural phenomena (Ocean, time, chaos, night, earth, sky etc) while the Olympians are personnifications of man-made concepts (kingship, farming, smithwork, seafaring, war, poetry, love etc). It's not clear cut of course since mythologies are always evolving and reinventing themselves but this is a clear theme.

And since they went to war with each other and that Zeus and the Olympians are explicitly portrayed as behaving similarly to the Titans, I would say that, yes, "Order vs Chaos" in the sense of "Civilization vs Nature" is a more relevant angle of analysis of Greek mythology than "Good vs Evil".

Yet Poseidon and Zeus ended up becoming gods of nature too, one ruling over the oceans then making storms and earthquakes whenever in a foul mood and the other becoming god of the skies then throwing lighting bolts around for the lulz plus being unable to control his sexual urges.

However, the reason Zeus revolts in the first place and gets the backing of Gaea and several titans is because Cronos was Evil with capital E, devouring every one of his own children just to try to stay in power, which is definitely not a natural phenomena. Then when Zeus proves to be a jerk when in charge, Gaea tries to revolt too.

[Fyraltari]

1/2 =/=1/16th.

Like, a giant chunk of the modern world's population is descended from Genghis Khan. Does that means all those people should be considered half-mongols and half-khans?

If there is one thing the ancient Greeks were good at, it was not genetics. I mean Zeus in the form of a bird rapes a woman who lay two eggs each containing two babies and of these quadruplets one was immortal and the other three perfectly human.

If it makes you feel better consider that (for the greeks) it means "person of divine blood". Still won't mean "person of excellent moral standing" though.

Depends on who you ask. Paris is often portrayed as a craven coward.

And diomedes as a bloodthirsty idiot. Palamedes as a shady egoistical *******, Agammemnon as a kinslayer, Odysseus is literally called "heartless" a few times (if I am not mistaken). Also their collective abandonment of Philoctetes.

The greek gods picked sides mostly out of petty grudges (the whole mess started as a contest between the 3 main goddess for which one was prettiest after all).

And that meas the war is a "good vs evil" conflict? Which side was evil, tell me?

That was after Cronos was gibbed since Zeus proved to not be that good of a ruler either.

I think you are mistaken, Gaia supported Kronos against Ouranos and opposed Zeus after he overthrew Kronos but I don't remember her siding with Zeus against Kronos (then again it has been a long time since I have read that particular myth and there's got to be several versions).

Yet Poseidon and Zeus ended up becoming gods of nature too, one ruling over the oceans then making storms and earthquakes whenever in a foul mood and the other becoming god of the skies then throwing lighting bolts around for the lulz plus being unable to control his sexual urges.

The god of the unbrideled ocean (Oceanos) being overthrown by the god of fishing and seafaring is symbolic of men conquering the sea. Same for Hades (gods of the riches in the earth) taking the the place of Gaia (goddess of the Earth). Zeus (whois the maker of mankind) taking Kronos' spot as ruler of the sky (=universe) is likewise symbolic of men conquering nature in general.

However, the reason Zeus revolts in the first place and gets the backing of Gaea and several titans is because Cronos was Evil with capital E, devouring every one of his own children just to try to stay in power, which is definitely not a natural phenomena. Then when Zeus proves to be a jerk when in charge, Gaea tries to revolt too.

Anthropomorphizations of things do more than those things because that's why they are anthropomophized i the first place.
Also do you really not see the metaphor in Time devouring his own children? Because I have no idea of how they could have made it more blatant.



I really don't understand what you are trying to say here. You seem to be saying that I am wrong to claim that Greek myths are not about "goodvs evil" yet instead of providing examples of said myths celebrating their main figures as what people should aspire to be, you provide examples of main characters who are explicitly called out on their actions by the narrative.
I'mconfused to say the least.

[warmachine]

Ugh. Who cares what the ancient Greek or Viking concept of heroism was? OotS is a modern story and the OP's question was written in the context of modern, Western culture.

[Ron Miel]

If Xykon was the protagonist? Boring story,

He was the protagonist in Start of Darkness, and that was not boring.

Let me clarify:

Can a lich be a hero (not necessarily Xykon) and does anyone know a story or chronicle where the hero is a lich?

The Nightmare Before Christmas?