Who Will Kill Xykon?

[KorvinStarmast]

Heck, it’d be hilarious if V brought the phylactery to the IFCC somehow. Then Xykon could be killed, wake up helpless in Hell inside his phylactery, in the hands of the IFCC. Dunno how that would work, though. Sabine?

Yeah, I like that ... but Xykon isn't really who did Nale in, so I am not sure if it satisfies her desire for revenge.

[RatElemental]

Not saying he would deliberately engineer it that way - more that he'd be trying to fulfill it, see a way to end Xykon's threat, and take the opportunity if it presents itself.

My thought this morning to tie it all together was that V will lose all spellcasting, make themself into a magic item somehow (can a person be a magic item in D&D?), trick Xykon into blasting them, and then he's just a lich with no spells. How he'd then get trapped for all eternity is something I have not worked out yet.

1. If V loses all spellcasting then they can no longer make magic items.

2. Intelligent magic items do exist but I'm not aware of any surefire way to turn an existing person into one as opposed to make an existing item intelligent.

3. Even if V somehow managed to become a magic item destroying it wouldn't strip spellcasting. It's only disjoining artifacts that has a chance of doing that.

[Squire Doodad]

1. If V loses all spellcasting then they can no longer make magic items.

2. Intelligent magic items do exist but I'm not aware of any surefire way to turn an existing person into one as opposed to make an existing item intelligent.

3. Even if V somehow managed to become a magic item destroying it wouldn't strip spellcasting. It's only disjoining artifacts that has a chance of doing that.

Regardless, the plan strikes me as somewhat contrived and potentially tearing apart a perfectly good character on a perfectly non-physical redemption arc for what can probably be done another way.

If Xykon is to have his spells stripped, wouldn't it be better to have Durkon's Hammer of Thunderbolts (a minor artifact I think, so plausibly qualifying for the "artifacts have HUGE side effects when broken" list) be the one disjoined?

[CriticalFailure]

Regardless, the plan strikes me as somewhat contrived and potentially tearing apart a perfectly good character on a perfectly non-physical redemption arc for what can probably be done another way.

If Xykon is to have his spells stripped, wouldn't it be better to have Durkon's Hammer of Thunderbolts (a minor artifact I think, so plausibly qualifying for the "artifacts have HUGE side effects when broken" list) be the one disjoined?

That would make more sense. Though I don't think it's all that likely Xykon will lose his casting because that would make him a lot less menacing solely out of bad luck rather than the order doing much.

I don't see why people are so insistent that any time a character does bad things and feels bad about it, the aftermath must involve someone dying. Redemption equals death such a boring, played out trope that usually doesn't make any sense anyways. It's not like dying automatically undoes anything the character did in the past. If V dies I don't think it will say much about whether or not she will be redeemed. If she loses her casting it will have to show how her character is developing away from an obsession with arcane power and whether or not it's something she's really ready to let go of or if losing it is still something she can't deal with,

[Goblin_Priest]

Redcloak put the real one in a pouch which he hid on himself. His holy symbol is no longer the phylactery nor is it made to look like it.

[drazen]

Regardless, the plan strikes me as somewhat contrived and potentially tearing apart a perfectly good character on a perfectly non-physical redemption arc for what can probably be done another way.

If Xykon is to have his spells stripped, wouldn't it be better to have Durkon's Hammer of Thunderbolts (a minor artifact I think, so plausibly qualifying for the "artifacts have HUGE side effects when broken" list) be the one disjoined?

Would Roy's "Weapon of Legacy" sword qualify? It would come full circle from him freaking out about the sword in the Dungeon of Durokan to having him realize that it's a small price to pay for a permanently de-powered Xykon.

[brian 333]

Lose spellcasting is but one effect on a list of potential random results from destroying an artifact, and there is no guarantee it will be rolled, so I don't understand this degree of certainty that V will have it happen. Or Xykon. And artifacts are not easy to break and far more useful intact, so why would they want to do that anyway?

Breaking magic items carries no such penalty, so breaking Xykon's phylactery will result only in Xykon not being able to reform if destroyed.

[Fish]

If any caster will have his spellcasting powers stripped, the best candidate is a cleric. Each of them gets his spells from a god, and we know (or think we know) there’s a god-killing abomination in play.

Plus, it would be awesome to see Xykon hulk out and kill The Dark One.

[ti'esar]

I used to be rather inclined to believe the idea that V will lose spellcasting ability as a result of destroying the Crimson Mantle. Now that we know how important it is to come to a negotiated resolution with the Dark One, though, I no longer think it's likely.

[SodaQueen]

Xykon will not die. He will resurrect Tsukiko as a fellow lich and her love will bring him to the side of righteousness.

He might die trying to heroically save the world from the Snarl after his change of heart.

[GooeyChewie]

No one kills Xykon. He lives. [/peterfalk]

Came to find this response. Was not disappointed.

[Cirin]

Would Roy's "Weapon of Legacy" sword qualify? It would come full circle from him freaking out about the sword in the Dungeon of Durokan to having him realize that it's a small price to pay for a permanently de-powered Xykon.

No, an artifact, by definition, is a weapon that cannot be crafted by player characters.

A minor artifact is a magic item that, while powerful, doesn't completely re-write the campaign. . .it just can't be created by PC's (as a game balance thing). Durkon's Hammer of Thunderbolts is a textbook example of one. A Deck of Many Things is another famous D&D minor artifact.

A greater artifact is a massive game-changing item that campaigns are often built around. The One Ring in Lord of the Rings is the archetypical classic example of a Greater Artifact (the Hand of Vecna is another famous one in D&D lore). Within OotS, the Crimson Mantle is one (I think they said that in Start of Darkness, I don't have my book with me now).

A Weapon of Legacy is just a magic item, a rather powerful one, but most of it's abilities beyond being a +5 greatsword with some kind of anti-undead ability are Roy's abilities, not the sword. Well, Roy's abilities he uses the sword to invoke, but they are tied to Roy, not the sword, if someone else picked up the sword and tried to use those abilities, they couldn't.

If Xykon tried to Disjunction Redcloak's cloak, then there would be a 1% per level chance (so roughly 25%, I forgot what level they currently estimate him at) it would actually work, and then he'd have to make a DC 25 Will save (pretty easy for Xykon, but he could blow it on a Natural 1) or permanently lose all spellcasting. So, it is at least a possible outcome of Xykon and Redcloak fighting, if Xykon got very unlucky.

[Raimun]

I can see that it could be Roy.

But most likely? Halberdier-guy #7.

[diremage]

Food for thought: Roy already killed Xykon once, but that didn't qualify his father to enter Celestia. Roy has spent a lot of time and effort planning to defeat each of Xykon's defenses in detail, so he'll probably do something like Nale did to Malak with a one-strip kill (since if it takes multiple strips, and if we agree that he is sufficiently prepared, then we are just haggling over price). The score is Roy 1 Xykon 1, but Roy is really trying hard to get the next point and Xykon just...isn't bothered by it.

BUT that's not enough to get Eugene into Celestia. Then Redcloak, after a persuasive chat with Durkon, destroys the phylactery and that STILL isn't enough to get Eugene into Celestia.

Belkar is already slated for a "redemption equals death" arc, but he dies in such a way that it qualifies as a happy ending, even for him. He probably sacrifices himself to save the cat from Xykon and dies with a smile on his face.

[CriticalFailure]

I used to be rather inclined to believe the idea that V will lose spellcasting ability as a result of destroying the Crimson Mantle. Now that we know how important it is to come to a negotiated resolution with the Dark One, though, I no longer think it's likely.

The Crimson Mantle is essential to completing the plan. Destroying it could force Redcloak to reconsider.

[Squire Doodad]

The Crimson Mantle is essential to completing the plan. Destroying it could force Redcloak to reconsider.

Destroying it would also sharply reduce the odds of RC cooperating at all.

It's essentially destroying an artifact that could be used to help enable the end of the world, but it is still a highly coveted holy artifact that a religion feels very strongly about for non end of the world purposes, plus it is the only memento the high priest has of their long dead brother.

[RatElemental]

Destroying it would also sharply reduce the odds of RC cooperating at all.

It's essentially destroying an artifact that could be used to help enable the end of the world, but it is still a highly coveted holy artifact that a religion feels very strongly about for non end of the world purposes, plus it is the only memento the high priest has of their long dead brother.

Depends on if destroying it will also blank the knowledge of how to do the ritual out of Redcloak's mind. Haven't read start of darkness so I don't know if there's ever been a case where two goblins have worn the mantle and knew its secrets at the same time, which would suggest that once you have it you have it.

[Quebbster]

Depends on if destroying it will also blank the knowledge of how to do the ritual out of Redcloak's mind. Haven't read start of darkness so I don't know if there's ever been a case where two goblins have worn the mantle and knew its secrets at the same time, which would suggest that once you have it you have it.

Without spoiling anything I can still say there aren't any simultaneous wearers of the Crimson Mantle in Start of Darkness.

[Squire Doodad]

Depends on if destroying it will also blank the knowledge of how to do the ritual out of Redcloak's mind. Haven't read start of darkness so I don't know if there's ever been a case where two goblins have worn the mantle and knew its secrets at the same time, which would suggest that once you have it you have it.

My point was that the Mantle is very dear to RC, being not only the holy artifact of the religion he is the high priest of, but also the only physical memento he has left of his brother.

Say what you will about the scenario that led to RC getting the Mantle, it is important to him for numerous reasons.

[Sir_Norbert]

Belkar is already slated for a "redemption equals death" arc

Forum speculation is the same as confirmed fact, then. Duly noted.

[diremage]

Forum speculation is the same as confirmed fact, then. Duly noted.

Snark is the same thing as a reasoned argument, then. Duly noted.

Belkar canonically is endeavoring to at least pretend to have character growth and has had several hints that his Evil alignment is being strongly influenced by those around him towards Not-Evil.

He is also canonically scheduled to die before the end of the in-comic year and it would make no dramatic sense for the team to save the world, kill the Bad Guy, and then have Belkar die of Sphinx Pox a week after the party splits.

So Belkar has two plot streams, the Belkar's Redemption stream and the Belkar's Gonna Die stream. Occam's +5 Edge of Sharpness dictates that, for narrative efficiency, the story must cross the streams. Ergo, by induction we show that Belkar's Redemption = Death. Erat demonstrandum.

[Schroeswald]

Snark is the same thing as a reasoned argument, then. Duly noted.

Belkar canonically is endeavoring to at least pretend to have character growth and has had several hints that his Evil alignment is being strongly influenced by those around him towards Not-Evil.

He is also canonically scheduled to die before the end of the in-comic year and it would make no dramatic sense for the team to save the world, kill the Bad Guy, and then have Belkar die of Sphinx Pox a week after the party splits.

So Belkar has two plot streams, the Belkar's Redemption stream and the Belkar's Gonna Die stream. Occam's +5 Edge of Sharpness dictates that, for narrative efficiency, the story must cross the streams. Ergo, by induction we show that Belkar's Redemption = Death. Erat demonstrandum.

I would like to add that its technically possible that Belkar's death isn't redemptive, but it won't be, his last act for certain won't be Evil and I find it almost certain he'll be non-Evil by the end of OOTS. Technically Xykon might not be destroyed but that hasn't stopped me from making this thread.

[Squire Doodad]

I would like to add that its technically possible that Belkar's death isn't redemptive, but it won't be, his last act for certain won't be Evil and I find it almost certain he'll be non-Evil by the end of OOTS. Technically Xykon might not be destroyed but that hasn't stopped me from making this thread.

Belkar could redeem himself shortly before his death, and then be killed in the heat of the final battle.

That's not to say that he'll die from an errant meteor swarm though, he's going down like a badass.

[Schroeswald]

Belkar could redeem himself shortly before his death, and then be killed in the heat of the final battle.

That's not to say that he'll die from an errant meteor swarm though, he's going down like a badass.

I’d say that still counts as redemption=death, dying soon after redemption still counts even if it’s not immediately.

[Squire Doodad]

I’d say that still counts as redemption=death, dying soon after redemption still counts even if it’s not immediately.

In my experience "redeemed in death" suggests that the final action or the action that triggers their death (even if it doesn't take place for a bit) is done as an act of redemption, if not something that is revealed after they die. However, it is reasonable to assume that if one redeems themself and then shortly thereafter dies from unrelated causes that it still counts as being redeemed in death.

No, dying from Lich attack after being redeemed in a fight with that Lich would not count as being redeemed in death.

[Schroeswald]

In my experience "redeemed in death" suggests that the final action or the action that triggers their death (even if it doesn't take place for a bit) is done as an act of redemption, if not something that is revealed after they die. However, it is reasonable to assume that if one redeems themself and then shortly thereafter dies from unrelated causes that it still counts as being redeemed in death.

No, dying from Lich attack after being redeemed in a fight with that Lich would not count as being redeemed in death.

I'd say there is a minor (but existing) difference between redmption=death and redeemed in death, redeemed in death would require a causation but redemption=death just describes the trope that people who are redeemed don't get to survive very long (which as long as Belkar is redeemed would apply), the two just usually overlap.

[jwhouk]

And my argument is that dying of Sphinx Pox would be a nose-thumbing to everyone who thinks Belkar is going to do the Heroic Sacrifice thing.

Though dying in attacking the Snarl - similar to how Kraagor may have gone - could be another option.

[LadyEowyn]

I’d certainly prefer a destroyed-by-the-Snarl ending for Belkar to a redemption-equals-death one. I don’t think he’s nearly close enough to even regretting the multitudinous amounts of murder, slave-trading, etc. that he’s done for lulz, much less genuinely repenting of it or wanting to atone, to be considered non-evil. Heck, I doubt he even remembers a lot of it (or remembers it with sentiments other than “Heh, good times...).

But I don’t really expect Redcloak to get a redemption arc either. I would love it if he did - not even necessarily becoming non-evil, just becoming on the same side as the protagonists, achieving his goal of goblinoid equality, and coming to terms with the wrong choices he’s made - but I don’t expect it. When you look at Miko, Tsukiko, and others, Rich is not kind to characters who practice self-deception.

[deuterio12]

I’d certainly prefer a destroyed-by-the-Snarl ending for Belkar to a redemption-equals-death one. I don’t think he’s nearly close enough to even regretting the multitudinous amounts of murder, slave-trading, etc. that he’s done for lulz, much less genuinely repenting of it or wanting to atone, to be considered non-evil. Heck, I doubt he even remembers a lot of it (or remembers it with sentiments other than “Heh, good times...).

But I don’t really expect Redcloak to get a redemption arc either. I would love it if he did - not even necessarily becoming non-evil, just becoming on the same side as the protagonists, achieving his goal of goblinoid equality, and coming to terms with the wrong choices he’s made - but I don’t expect it. When you look at Miko, Tsukiko, and others, Rich is not kind to characters who practice self-deception.

So making Gobbotopia a reality that's recognized by other nations doesn't count for anything?

Redcloak has already succeeded in making goblins somebody you negotiate with and have diplomatic/trading relationships with instead of just xp fodder.

That it demanded allying with a bloodthirsty lich and carving a path of death and destruction accross one of the nations that frequently hunted goblins, so be it. They were made an example of, allowing Redcloak to declare "You saw what we did to Azure city and your puny 'liberation' force? Good. Now we're open to do peaceful negotiations and agreements as an alternative for mutual benefit. Or I can point Xykon your way next. Choose wisely."

[Squire Doodad]

So making Gobbotopia a reality that's recognized by other nations doesn't count for anything?

Redcloak has already succeeded in making goblins somebody you negotiate with and have diplomatic/trading relationships with instead of just xp fodder.

That it demanded allying with a bloodthirsty lich and carving a path of death and destruction accross one of the nations that frequently hunted goblins, so be it. They were made an example of, allowing Redcloak to declare "You saw what we did to Azure city and your puny 'liberation' force? Good. Now we're open to do peaceful negotiations and agreements as an alternative for mutual benefit. Or I can point Xykon your way next. Choose wisely."

RC, if he dies, looks like he's going to either get two fifths of a redemption arc or realize that at the last possible moment he started making real, meaningful changes...but threw them away to keep in line with the plan. A sort of bittersweet final moment.

He could also dies horribly with Xykon deciding to blast him because the Divine part of the ritual is done (the arcane part appears to be the second half. Thanks, Tsukiko!) or with him declaring that he will stop at nothing to make sure the plan works right before he does something extremely drastic. But that would be very harsh on the character, kind of mocking the readers, and suggesting that whoops, game over because RC is needed alive at least temporarily to help save the day for good. Or neutral.