I’m not a D&D player so I don’t know how things like sensing motives works. But I feel if there’s a general skill being used rather something like a magic spell, it would work differently. While everything Redcloak said in the linked conversation was technically true, his overall intent was to deceive Xykon. And he has been intentionally deceiving Xykon for decades about the Snarl. If Xykon was just good at reading people, he would sense the underlying deceit.
Of course, maybe Xykon is aware of this underlying deceit. We’ve seen he can be smarter than he acts. He may have long figured out that Redcloak is lying, know what the spell really does, and have developed a plan that takes this into account.
But I tend to think this isn’t the case. My evidence here is the same scene. I feel Xykon is aware (or at least suspects) that Xykon is concealing something from him. But I feel he doesn’t know what’s being concealed. If he knew the full truth, he wouldn’t have had any reason to give the spell to Tsukiko to have her try to figure out its purpose.
I see it as both. Redcloak remembered exactly how the item looked and is impressed with how the craftsman managed to turn those descriptions into a spot-on recreation. Otherwise there’s be no reason to say “exactly as I remembered them”, you’d just say “Hey, he got it spot-on” in whatever words.
My read was that Xykon knows Redcloak isn’t saying everything but, since Xykon was in the middle of using Tsukiko to try and undermine Redcloak (and RC seemed aware with his asking how Tsukiko got the ritual half), he doesn’t want to push it too far. They’re both playing against one another and Xykon is aware but he needs Redcloak and assumes he still has the upper hand so he was willing to let it drop for now.
Sure, but the whole point of the “Vaarsuvius pops in and makes Team Evil lose the phylactery” plotline was that Team Evil was stuck in a rut in Azure City (on purpose through Redcloak’s machinations, because he wanted to get his new city set up proper before leaving). I see no evidence that he was even considering needing to swap out the phylactery before V showed up and stole it anywhere in the text.
For whatever it’s worth, I think discussions in terms of D&D 3.5 mechanics are a bit misguided.
The strip certainly started firmly grounded in 3.5. After 4E came out, Burlew made a few edition jokes. But then, if I remember correctly, he publicly stated that he was increasingly bored with that sort of humor, and that the strip had long since ceased to be about that sort of thing anyway. If I recall correctly, he said that going forward, while the OOTS world would continue to be firmly rooted in D&D tropes, and he might still slip in an occasional game mechanic joke, the world wouldn’t be tied to any particular edition or game system.
At this point, it might as well be using Dungeon World, for all the relevance D&D mechanics have to what’s going on.
Sure, but gotta talk about somethin’ and it beats discussing woke goblins (or dwarves woke about goblins). Plus, as long as Burlew keeps dropping in meta terms like “rolling initiative” or skill names, etc it’s going to keep drawing comparisons. While it’s fine to understand that it’s not a D&D comic, you don’t get to have it both ways and say you’re going to use D&D terminology and jokes but shame on you for looking at a scenario in D&D terms. So I think some discussion is fun provided people don’t get too hung up (“This comic sucks because a 14th level rogue could never fail that check”) which doesn’t seem to be what happens in these threads. Even in very implausible situations (like nearly everyone failing their Will saves during the Durkon fight) it felt more like the D&D-aware saying “That shouldn’t really happen but, sure, plot fiat wins over all…”
So…who said “shame on you”? I just said it seems a bit misguided to be analyzing what’s going on in specifically 3.5 terms, like the discussion upthread of how many ranks Xykon has in Sense Motive.
And I’m personally perfectly capable of “having it both ways” as a reader: the strip uses D&D tropes and makes occasional game mechanic jokes but the action in the strip isn’t actually driven by D&D 3.5 mechanics. I personally enjoy it on those terms.
There’s certainly no shame in discussing OOTS in terms of 3.5 mechanics, and I never said, and certainly never meant to imply, that some discussion of the strip in those terms couldn’t be fun. I was just pointing out that the creator himself said he’s no longer using those terms as a basis for the action in the strip.
All of that being said, if it seems like I’m telling people they’re having wrongfun having a geeky discussion of a geeky comic strip, I apologize, and will drop this tangent.
Was just a bit of phrasing, not directed at you. If anything more directed at Burlew for bristling when people get on those tangents but not even that, really.
Or so he can end Xykon when he inevitably betrays Xykon. Of course, he doesn’t know about Xykon’s command to the MitD to devour Redcloak whole and spit out the phylactery in the event of his betrayal [as per Start of Darkness], so things should get very interesting at that point.
Heh. Maybe now that Xykon thinks his phylactery is in an impregnable fortress in the Void, he’ll tell the MitD to just go ahead and digest the holy symbol…
It wouldn’t make any difference if MitD spits out RC’s holy symbol or not. Even though RC has the phylactery, he’s not wearing it round his neck. It was last seen being put in RC’s BoH and it’s likely still there. If MitD gobbles down RC, that will likely include the BoH, which means his digestive juices will eventually destroy the Bag. I believe that means the contents of the Bag are lost to some other dimension or something like that.
Which the MitD has knowledge of, even though he doesn’t know how. Which means that if he eats Redcloak and the bag dissolves, MitD just might know where the phylactery could show up.
Sure, Burlew has said that he’s not consciously following the D&D rules. But the fact remains that he’s doing a remarkable job of staying consistent with them. The most likely explanations I can see are either that he is in fact consciously following the rules, and just said he isn’t to try to forestall the inevitable complaints when he inevitably occasionally makes a mistake, or that he’s so steeped in D&D from his life experiences that he subconsciously follows them out of habit.
I thought he said that he wasn’t holding himself to stick strictly by the D&D rules. The story is still set in the D&D world, and I think his intention is to follow the D&D rules to the extent they don’t interfere with his story, and to the extent that he doesn’t have to do a lot of work/research to make sure he’s doing it right. So, he doesn’t tell us exactly what level anyone is, so we can’t nitpick about exactly which spells they can use. But I"m sure he has an idea approximately what level they all are, and to the extent it works for the story, I bet he DOES pick their spells (etc.) based on their level.
Sure, but the text never tells us anything about when he had the plan at all. We don’t find out until the exact point when he actually uses it. So all we have is what he said at that point.
My logic goes like this: Redcloak must not have had access to the phylactery when he commissioned the forgery. If he had, he could just describe it rather than memorize it. But he would have needed to have previously had access to the phylactery for a long time to be able to completely memorize it in so much detail, and such memorization would have to be intentional. So the plan must predate the actual commission by a fair bit. However, there wasn’t much time between them finding the phylactery and it being stolen, and thus not enough time to memorize it.
Hence I believe the plan itself at least predates V/Blackwing stealing the phylactery. By how much, I don’t know. The plan just wasn’t put into action until it was stolen.
True, but can you confirm the command was to spit out his holy symbol, and not his phylactery? If the latter, then perhaps the MitD would still follow the letter of the command.
It could be amusing if the MitD knows the difference and asks if spitting out the amulet he’s wearing now instead of the one he was wearing then is close enough…
Knowing MitD, he’d just get confused and ask for clarification on whether he’s still supposed to eat Redcloak if he’s unable to then spit out the amulet.
