No worries, it’s definitely not settling. ‘On the Origin of PCs’ is good fun, but ‘Start of Darkness’ contains copious amounts of real backstory and some of the finest gut punches Burlew is capable of.
So could Tsukiko just dismiss the undead if she wasn’t crazy, or does control undead even wrest that control away from her (or else do animated dead not work that way)?
Quick Theory: The fiends want that gate, they can control V, is there a chance that they could take control of V at the right moment and make some modifications to the arcane part of the ritual, somehow wresting control (or at least physical location) of the gate to them?
Nope. Undead are not summoned creatures and cannot be dismissed.
Oh! I just got that in panel 6 of ‘A Study in Viridian’ is when Redcloak silently cast Command Undead on the wights. I had thought it was just a continuation of the gathering of his magic power he had done when he realized someone had broken into his study.
Or am I totally offbase? He tells Tsukiko that he used his Command Undead ability when he walked in the room – does that require casting?
Redcloak casted “Control Undead”, but held off killing her until he found out what she knows and wants.
He not so dumb.
RIP, Wight With The Boots. You will be missed.
Er, and Tsukiko, too. But mostly the Wight With The Boots.
Redcloak’s expression in panels 27-30 (watching Tsukiko’s execution) is VERY thought-provoking. That dude is a hard-core muthafucker.
So what was Tsukiko’s plot purpose, exactly? This scene? I.e. giving Redcloak a chance to explain his plans to the readers?
Thinking back, I can’t remember if she really furthered the main plot in any concrete way. Perhaps her purpose will manifest in Xykon’s reaction to her death.
Not that I’m complaining, this scene alone makes her presence worth it.
That’s always been my assumption – that they let Vaarsuvius assume that the time his soul would be under their control would be after he died, but they never specified anything of the sort.
In Strip 633, the dialog* goes:
Then in Strip 634, Vaarsuvius makes the assumption again:
Then, in Strip 656, after Vaarsuvius turns invisible and is fleeing Xykon’s wrath, the IFCC guys watching on their HDTV say (it’s the last sentence that’s really significant, IMHO):
And, of course, in Strip 667, when Durkon and Vaarsuvius are making up:
So yes, I think that Vaarsuvius made a grave error in assuming that the IFCC would wait until he died to take control of his soul. Perhaps they intend to seize control of his soul for … um … 44m16s and make him seize the gate for them right at a crucial moment. Or pull his soul out of his body entirely for 44m16s and stuff somebody else’s soul into it, in order to accomplish the same thing. Or something like that.
Of course, I don’t know if that’s even possible in the D&D world. Hopefully you guys who are more familiar with the game can enlighten me.
And hey, if it is possible to pull a wizard’s soul out and possess his body, will the possessed wizard have the same spellcasting powers? Or will the possessed wizard now have the spellcasting powers of the new soul? In the last panel (panel 11) of Strip 163, Vaarsuvius says “I’d like to point out that my ghost will be both angry and vengeful, and will retain all of my spellcasting powers.” So it sounds like the magic goes with the soul, not the body … hey, maybe Haerta Bloodsoak will get a chance to cast spells with V’s body as a mortal host again, and they’ll have her try to seize the gate for them!
Anyway, back to work.
- Sorry I can’t specify whether it’s Lee, Nero, or Cedrik saying each line, and have to go by colors instead. I’m at work and my copy of Don’t Split the Party is at home, so I can’t check who is what color.
Her presence also did a lot to show off/build up the rift between Xykon and RedCloak.
A few of the books are indeed out of print, but can still be purchased secondhand from Amazon or whoever. I myself accidentally bought two copies of On the Origin of PCs a few years ago, so if you’d like, I could probably send one of them to you. PM me if you’re interested.
You know, I’m very sad that I didn’t notice the Kickstarter thing earlier. I really wanted that four-magnet set; I’ve been craving that Vaarsuvius magnet ever since I saw it, and I was all set to bite the bullet and donate the $100 when I saw that all 10 of those rewards had already been claimed. 
Not right now, but thanks!
Close! And you bringing it up reminds me that it occurred right before of one of my favorite cryptograms from Haley.
Heh heh … good stuff, Haley! Good stuff!
So for those of you in the know, was Teleport a Transmutation spell in 3.0, or has it been in Conjuration longer than that?
ETA: Incidentally, remembering Haley’s funny complaint almost word-for-word made this strip much easier to find than they usually are when I look them up to quote things. Very courteous of her!
No problem. By the way, just to clarify a point that I may not have been clear, I wasn’t offering to SELL it to you, just to give it to you. Or at least loan it to you, you know, depending on whether I make my saving throw against the crushing despair that parting with an Order of the Stick book causes. 
Almost all of my D&D knowledge comes from Order of the Stick and similar webcomics, so I’m not sure I used that “saving throw” joke in a manner that makes sense or not. But hopefully so…
I think Burlew wanted to show us that Redcloak is a serious player in the plot. We’re so used to seeing him as a subordinate to Xykon, it’s easy to forget he’s secretly Xykon’s rival. This scene reminded us that there will be an inevitable foght between Redcloak and Xykon - and its outcome is not fore-ordained. Xykon is more powerful that Redcloak but Redcloak is craftier.
And Xykon has the oft-discussed Monster in the Darkness “fail-safe order” that silenus mentioned above, from Start of Darkness page 96, panel 8*. That’s what really makes me wonder how Redcloak could possibly come out on top when his secret rivalry with Xykon inevitably becomes not-so-secret… although I just had a thought, which I’ll spoiler for those who haven’t read Start of Darkness:
[spoiler]Now that I think about it, Xykon’s specific wording may leave a loophole for Redcloak’s survival: “And if Redcloak ever betrays me, you will devour him whole and spit out that gold amulet he wears.” After all, Haley was “devoured whole” by a dragon, and she survived just fine, brief though the encounter with the dragon’s stomach may have been. Maybe Redcloak could survive being “devoured whole” too, so long as he got out soon enough. If Xykon really wanted to ensure Redcloak’s death, perhaps he should have ordered the Monster in the Darkness to chew a little. Even if he bites the phylactery, it’s protected by so many seems unlikely that a few chomps from a monster can harm the phylactery anyway, right?
[/spoiler]
*Which, if I understand correctly, also demonstrates that the MitD is not an unknown deity, because they’re supposed to be immune to mind-affecting spells, and that must have been a mind-affecting spell Xykon was using on the Monster in the Darkness, right? Which one could leave a long-term subconscious trigger in someone like that?
Holy smackers. A 3 pager.
Whelp, so much for my Craft(Convoluted Plot) roll.
Again: he outwitted Tsukiko.
No, wait, let me break it down further: he killed the girl who, having found evidence of treachery, rushes to the traitor’s most safest of strongholds with backup he could easily turn. To confront him. Before alerting anyone of what was going on. And who told him she hadn’t told anyone, too, without even token prompting on his part.
So, yeah. Doesn’t really take a magnificent bastard to undo someone who’s Grappling the Idiot Ball so hard it’s probably cracked by now.
I’m not sure Redcloak cares too much about that – for certain values of “come out on top”.
Let’s say the rivalry becomes not-so-secret immediately after the spell is cast. Let’s even say Redcloak gets torn apart by Xykon or the MitD in the very next panel, dying with a smile on his face. The point is, let’s say all of the above occurs because the Dark One can now (a) threaten the divine realm with the Snarl and thereby (b) start bullying the other gods into making the world a better place for goblins, like Redcloak was just saying.
Sure, from Redcloak’s perspective it’d be great to also survive the falling-out that’s sure to follow – either by winning the ensuing fight or just running away with the phylactery. But so long as he succeeds in his primary goal, what does he care whether he can stymie a furious Xykon or a rampaging MitD or whatever?
It’s… iffy.
Command Undead is the Evil version of the cleric’s Turn Undead. In the D&D rules it’s not a spell per se but a Supernatural Ability, which means it can be cast at will without having to speak or move. OTOH, we’ve seen Durkon cast Turn Undead before, which apparently required him to handle his holy symbol and shout “Turn Undead”. The description of the ability in the SRD states
but there are no mechanical rules attached to this particular bit of fluff.
So evidently Redcloak did silently use Control Undead in the panel you’ve noted, but the DM probably should have forced him to do something mojo-ey with his unholy symbol, which would have clued Tsukiko in.
Or not, y’know, because she’s an idiot.