• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

OotS 830

I'm bummed. I really liked the psycho :):):):):).

It's Redcloak I dislike, because he has no flaws. He's the "perfect" villain, which bugs me in a story, just like "mary sue" heroes.

Care to expound on that? I actually find it interesting.

Personally I like Redcloak, he's a very cool...antihero? tragic villain? He does have one huge character flaw, and that's self-righteousness and lack of insight into his own character. From insulting Miko for being "unnatural" (coming from a goblin that's lived three times the normal lifespan or so, through a divine artifact) to how he constantly rationalizes how's doing everything for the greater (goblin) good even after all (and everybody) he has sacrificed).

Xykon is way more honest than Redcloak. He owns up to what he does and his motivations without deceiving himself.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Care to expound on that? I actually find it interesting.

Personally I like Redcloak, he's a very cool...antihero? tragic villain? He does have one huge character flaw, and that's self-righteousness and lack of insight into his own character. From insulting Miko for being "unnatural" (coming from a goblin that's lived three times the normal lifespan or so, through a divine artifact) to how he constantly rationalizes how's doing everything for the greater (goblin) good even after all (and everybody) he has sacrificed).

Xykon is way more honest than Redcloak. He owns up to what he does and his motivations without deceiving himself.

A villain who never makes a mistake bugs me just like a hero who never makes a mistake. His rationalizations of his "evilness" and self-righteousness are irrelevant to his 1.000 batting average. Ever since his cognizance of his role to play in promoting his people, he hasn't had a snare in his plans yet, even down to just now having a quickened, stilled, silent Command Undead ready when he saw Tsukiko in his room. (Can you even DO that? :))

The villain who plans for every contingency, like he's read the Evil Overlord list, bugs me.
 

I don't think Redcloak is without his flaws. Like Tsukiko, he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the universe that I think will somehow ultimately do him in.

His misunderstanding is this: Humans don't randomly slay goblins just because they're goblins; humans attack goblins because goblins do things like sack Sapphire City.
 

A villain who never makes a mistake bugs me just like a hero who never makes a mistake. His rationalizations of his "evilness" and self-righteousness are irrelevant to his 1.000 batting average. Ever since his cognizance of his role to play in promoting his people, he hasn't had a snare in his plans yet, even down to just now having a quickened, stilled, silent Command Undead ready when he saw Tsukiko in his room. (Can you even DO that? :))

The villain who plans for every contingency, like he's read the Evil Overlord list, bugs me.

I kinda like that character type. His plans do tend to go off well, but not always - Haley saw through the Xykon Shell Game quickly, for one thing. But I see your point that he breezes through a lot of difficulties.

Good catch on the command undead - rebuke/turn definetly has a verbal component in the OotS setting (too long since I played 3e to comment on the rules). I think it gave a very cool climax to the scene though.

Have you read Start of Darkness? Redcloak faced a ton of setbacks in that book. It might be why I like him so much.

His misunderstanding is this: Humans don't randomly slay goblins just because they're goblins; humans attack goblins because goblins do things like sack Sapphire City.

According to goblin lore, they do slay goblins just because they're goblins. Per start of darkness:
Goblins and other monsters were created so that clerics could gain xp, which they did by slaying goblins.
Goblin-human relations are a bit like Israel-Palestine, just over thousands of years instead of fifty. Of course, goblins are evil, but humans are neutral - not good.

A gentle reminder: no real-world political references, please. Thanks! - Piratecat
 
Last edited by a moderator:

A villain who never makes a mistake bugs me just like a hero who never makes a mistake. His rationalizations of his "evilness" and self-righteousness are irrelevant to his 1.000 batting average. Ever since his cognizance of his role to play in promoting his people, he hasn't had a snare in his plans yet...
No snare? Even overlooking the destruction of Darukon's gate before "his cognizance of his role," the whole aftermath of Varsuvius' invasion forced him to considerably shorten his plan timeline.

He is missing an eye because he made a mistake: keeping O'Chul around. He was mistaken in thinking O'Chul must have info on the other gates.

He has almost died three times: once against Miko, once against the Sapphire Guard "ghosts," and once against O'Chul.

He has constantly been disrespected and mistreated by Xykon and Tsukiko.

I think he is far from perfect. Compare him to Elan's dad. There's a villain who has everything go/going right for him.

Bullgrit
 

even down to just now having a quickened, stilled, silent Command Undead ready when he saw Tsukiko in his room.
Yeah, that omission bugged me. Rich could have shown it in one panel right before Red Cloak sicced them on Tsukiko. Doing so wouldn't really have thrown off the flow of the situation.

Bullgrit
 

Commanding undead is not a spell and has no speech requirement. You only have to "present" your holy symbol, which Redcloak could have done off camera. While people in the OotS-verse commonly "call" the use of their special abilities, they do not always do so.

As for Redcloak never having setbacks, I beg to differ.
 

His misunderstanding is this: Humans don't randomly slay goblins just because they're goblins; humans attack goblins because goblins do things like sack Sapphire City.

Bingo.

Redcloak doesn't see himself at the villain, not really (he's admitted he has that narrative role, but seems to think it's undeserved), he sees what he's doing as a huge quest for justice for the Goblins and revenge for the goblins that the Sapphire Guard, commanded by Soon, killed to purge the world of the threat of the Gates.

The problem is, that the Goblins, as a whole, serve The Dark One. His master plan is to use The Snarl to hold all of creation, the world and all the Gods, hostage, to force massive changes in the world for the benefit of goblins (and almost certainly to the detriment of all other races and Gods).

The Goblins all serve this plan, unknowingly except for whoever wears the Crimson Mantle (unless they have completely left goblin society and renounced The Dark One). Now, they might not know the plan per-se, but goblins are a "usually" neutral evil race, so they have probably done a lot of other bad things they know about (remember, they were whipping human slaves just for fun during the occupation), and it's a safe bet to say they'd be cool with finding out their God actually has a secret plan to hold all of reality hostage so Goblins can rule the world.

The Sapphire Guard learned of this, and went on their crusade to destroy the Goblin civilization to prevent this plan from ever coming to fruition. What Redcloak saw as the unwarranted and unjustified murder of his people was actually trying to prevent the apocalyptic destruction of the world and/or gods.

Even when he had The Plan shown to him, he never pieced that together, he just jumped onboard with the idea of getting revenge.
 


Redcloak actually had a very huge sacrifice, but it occurred during "Start of Darkness," a print only book. I recommend buying it and reading it. It actually make me "shaken" for a minute!
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top