Yes, all the way back at the inn:
This is where I miss the “like” button. 
5 quatloos says it involves Belkar’s death.
If Burlew had just dropped this conversation in out of the blue, I might well be as annoyed as some. But the argument they’re having is intrinsic to both the plot as it has unfolded over the years and to Roy’s specific character development - for those that have read the On The Origin of PCs prequel book, remember that the reason Durkon wanted to work with Roy in the first place was because he didn’t just kill every creature with a different alignment to him (in the book’s case, refusing to massacre a bunch of orcs just waiting to attend a rock concert).
It may be going on slightly longer than it would have if it weren’t a current topic of discussion in other contexts, but Burlew isn’t jumping on a bandwagon here (or at least not on one he hasn’t already been on for over a decade).
Go back to 1gp = 1xp rules and then just steal back and forth from one another after your xp’s been locked in.
I thought – correct me if I’m wrong – that Burlew had the story all mapped out so the solution is going to be the solution regardless even if current events provide more narrative fodder. It’s not as though resolving this via some sort of negotiation and agreement with the Dark One is something just getting scribbled in now. That said, I’m starting to feel “less talky, more smashy”
We do that all the time- milepost leveling. The Characters get to a certain point, they level. If they kill lost of monsters- level. If they someone skip killing any- they level.
In my D&D games, needless killing costs experience. You don’t get XP for being a murderhobo.
And I’ve ditched random encounters, they’re silly. What’s my job if not to determine when stuff happens to players. I use encounter tables when planning sessions, but never during.
The discussion in this strip was integral to the plot. If Burlew had started his strip earlier and we reached this point 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30… years ago, some people still would have been made uncomfortable, some would have cheered him on, and some would have noted that the strip was integral to the plot.
I’m not convinced that Redcloak fully embodies sunk cost fallacy. I think he did during his first few years with Xykon. But he’s passed a lot of time in his study by now and the last few panels of strip 1209 imply some level of introspection. I perceive ambiguity with regards to his current thinking: I opine that’s he’s playing a somewhat deeper game.
I’m sure that Burlew has had some sort of outline of the overall plot for a very long time, but that doesn’t necessarily prove or disprove anything. It could be that what he outlined was “the Order secures Redcloak’s cooperation against Xykon”, but hadn’t yet decided the details of how. It could be that this wasn’t part of his outline, because the actual outline involves something that nobody in the strip right now is planning around (such as the World Within the Rift), and he never bothered to outline a list of all the things that wouldn’t happen. And it could be, too, that as he’s been writing the story, he’s changed his mind on some things that he had previously outlined.
There are several narrative threads that Burlew could weave together.
- Redcloak has concealed the real secret of the Snarl from Xykon. And the real location of Xykon’s phylactery.
- Xykon has a contingency plan for killing Redcloak via the MitD. We’ve also seen hints that Xykon has a magical hold over Redcloak that limits how much Redcloak can directly lie to Xykon.
- O-Chul and the MitD are friends.
- O-Chul is a member of the paladin order that killed Redcloak’s family (although he joined years afterwards).
- We still haven’t had the big reveal about what the MitD is.
I can imagine all of these elements coming together in a big climatic scene.
While he wouldn’t need to have the exact language planned, it seems he would have always had to have had the idea that Redcloak has a point about the goblins being given a bum deal. And since Thor isn’t a bad guy, and his exposition about what is going on is so necessary, I think it must have always* been planned that it wasn’t his fault, exactly.
Nothing said here is a new idea in the real world, either, and is consistent with the sort of things that Burlew has said for a long time. The type of guy who finds having “evil races” to be racist is the type of guy who would have this understanding of the concept of privilege.
* I mean, from the point where Redcloak had a backstory. Anything to the first gate and a bit longer seems to have not had any real plan for a continuous story.
This is not something I had considered. Is there a way this could be done within the rules of D&D 3.5? I know Zone of Truth exists, but wouldn’t that affect everyone? I know that geas is something that exists, but I would expect you to use that to do more than make someone always tell you the truth. Plus can’t high level characters shrug off the damage/stat losses from those?
I had just always assumed that Redcloak was from the school of thought that it’s better to tell a misleading truth than a lie. I thought it was more a character trait than something specific to how he interacted with Xykon.
I have a hard time accepting that Redcloak would hesitate to tell a lie to advance the Plan just as a matter of principle. I find it much more likely that he knows he can’t tell a direct lie to Xykon.
It may not be that Xykon has cast some spell over Redcloak. Perhaps Xykon just has a general spell that lets him know when people are telling a lie.
For those who want to see the evidence of this, check out 832 and 833. The most obvious response Redcloak should have given to Xykon’s question about Tsukiko would have been “No, haven’t seen her all day.” But he admitted he had killed her a few minutes earlier, even though he had taken efforts to destroy the evidence. And when he described what happened to Xykon, notice that while he made it sound like Tsukiko was acting against Xykon, everything he said was technically true. On the other hand, when Redcloak asks Xykon if he knows how Tsukiko got the spell (which Xykon gave her) Xykon is able to answer “No.” - he’s able to lie to Redcloak.
A lie would have been pointless there, because even without a truth-telling spell, it wouldn’t have been too hard for Xykon to determine the truth, or at least enough of it to demonstrate that Redcloak was lying. So he told the truth, or at least, enough of it to explain any other lines of evidence Xykon might stumble upon. Of course, the truth was also risky, but it was less risky than a lie: It parallels Redcloak’s explanation to Tsukiko before he killed her, about how killing her was risky, but at that point less risky than leaving her alive.
I figured that was less “hiding the fact that he killed Tsukiko” and more “Making sure that Tsukiko couldn’t be Raised/Resurrected and tell Xykon what she knew”. With an extra helping of irony that she was killed & consumed by her beloved undead pets just because Redcloak very much disliked her.
Yes, i didn’t think he was trying to hide the evidence. After all, her absence would be pretty obvious. I thought he just wanted to be really certain she was gone. And then he, cleaned up all those disgusting undead. I think redcloak has developed a real dislike for undead.
I see that as a masterclass in manipulation. Redcloak knows that Xykon is a lot more perceptive than he seems, and that he’d see through any overt lies he’d tell him. So instead, he surprises him with the truth, and while Xykon is knocked off balance, he slips in a lie about the spell. That’s how it’s done: you hide a small lie in a big truth.
Nothing in what Redcloak said about killing Tsukiko was a lie. That’s what’s brilliant about it. Jirix jumped to a useful false conclusion, but Redcloak didn’t lie himself.
He did lie just beforehand about putting Xykon’s phylactery “on a new chain” though.
Also, Xykon is an epic level sorcerer. Sorcerers’ primary stat for deriving their spell casting abilities is charisma, which is also the stat you use to tell if someone is bullshitting you or not. Xykon might just be hard to lie to because he’s got 30+ charisma and has consistently put some of his 2+ skill points per level into Sense Motive.
Edit: nope, brain fart, Sense Motive is wisdom derived, not charisma.
I assume he DID put it on a new chain.
Honestly, I find it odd that Xykon didn’t notice that the phylactery was fake. Also, I forget what Redcloak actually did with that phylactery.