New Order of the Stick Strip Up


Comics

401 to 450 of 6,563 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

DeathQuaker wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Balodek wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:


"A tool is a tool, unless it does the job itself." -unknown.

Michael Stackpole, Talion Revenant.

I also went back a few strips to see if there was an indication of Redcloak casting, he must have Silent Spell if he didn't have to call it out though.

Isnt channeling energy a Spell like ability?

They're 3.5 characters, IIRC, and rebuke/command undead is a Supernatural ability.

So no, he wouldn't need to speak or gesture.

Therefore the display of magical power (the red glowy hand) is a "literary" device and not necessarily meant to represent something that one in the OOTS world would actually be able to see.

In the Sherlock Homes novels Watson was a literary device. He was generally present so that Sherlock had someone around to explain things to.


Durkon vs Redcloak is going to be a rocking good fight.

"I'm going to get drunk and paw Sif for a while. Let me know if the dwarf lives or dies."

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Balodek wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:


"A tool is a tool, unless it does the job itself." -unknown.

Michael Stackpole, Talion Revenant.

I also went back a few strips to see if there was an indication of Redcloak casting, he must have Silent Spell if he didn't have to call it out though.

Isnt channeling energy a Spell like ability?

They're 3.5 characters, IIRC, and rebuke/command undead is a Supernatural ability.

So no, he wouldn't need to speak or gesture.

Therefore the display of magical power (the red glowy hand) is a "literary" device and not necessarily meant to represent something that one in the OOTS world would actually be able to see.

In the Sherlock Homes novels Watson was a literary device. He was generally present so that Sherlock had someone around to explain things to.

I wouldn't go so far with that -- he still activated the ability and there's no reason why it can't let off a visual effect (IIRC Turn Undead lets off a bright light and there's no reason its evil counterpart wouldn't do the same thing). But Tsukiko might not have immediately recognized it for what it was -- or even if she did, assumed her precious wights would not betray "mommy" regardless of what ability was activated, as she obviously was deluded into thinking she could talk them out of obeying Redcloak.

And Watson enables a literary device of exposition by dialogue, but he is also a legitimate character in his own right, or Conan Doyle wouldn't have bothered to give him a personality or character background, which he obviously does.


If OOTS has taught me one thing, it's that they're not dead until you see little X's on their eyes.

My money's on Tsukiko not even being dead.


Quote:
I wouldn't go so far with that -- he still activated the ability and there's no reason why it can't let off a visual effect (IIRC Turn Undead lets off a bright light and there's no reason its evil counterpart wouldn't do the same thing). But Tsukiko might not have immediately recognized it for what it was -- or even if she did, assumed her precious wights would not betray "mommy" regardless of what ability was activated, as she obviously was deluded into thinking she could talk them out of obeying Redcloak.

When Redcloak is entering the room Tsukiko is saying "who's that?" , implying that she can't see redcloak yet. If you can't see him, you don't see what he's doing, you don't know what he's doing.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

While I would normally agree with this, Redcloak was clear in saying "drain her dead, then start eating her." The "crunch" noises indicating the eating had begun, meaning she was dead. Also, I doubt Redcloak would have left until he was certain she was dead (he might have been able to see the xs in her eyes, even if we couldn't).

I think had he SHOWN her dead and in the process of being devoured, that might have been a little too grisly, even in stick figure form. In other words the off screen death isn't Rich being coy, he's just being discreet. I could be wrong--we did have all those corpses hanging from the cave walls a few strips ago, but I'd imagine something like being devoured by your own wight minions might be better left to the imagination.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nothing anyone could draw would be as bad as what you imagine the scene looking in your own mind. Thats why its offscreen.


DeathQuaker wrote:


I wouldn't go so far with that -- he still activated the ability and there's no reason why it can't let off a visual effect (IIRC Turn Undead lets off a bright light and there's no reason its evil counterpart wouldn't do the same thing). But Tsukiko might not have immediately recognized it for what it was -- or even if she did, assumed her precious wights would not betray "mommy" regardless of what ability was activated, as she obviously was deluded into thinking she could talk them out of obeying Redcloak.

It doesn't have to display, but for the purposes of a picture it kind of does. Their is no indication that what's-her-face even sees Redcloak, so display or not the point is moot.

However the point that he doesn't say "Command Undead," is because its supernatural.

DeathQuaker wrote:
And Watson enables a literary device of exposition by dialogue, but he is also a legitimate character in his own right, or Conan Doyle wouldn't have bothered to give him a personality or character background, which he obviously does.

I didn't intend to indicate that he's Just a literary device. He is a full fledged character. It's the typical "idiot and expert" scenerio. They do it on infomercials all the time. "You mean it can dice AND slice! AMAZING! How is that possible?" "Well Donna, with our patented 'sharp knife' technology..."


New strip is up.

"Oh man! I haven't seen him this mad since the last time I saw him!"

Silver Crusade

Oh man, the punchline was hilarious and evil. The writing just keeps getting better and better.

Spoiler:
I also like that we are getting to see more of goblinoid culture. Most people would never think to include things like goblin jewelers and goldsmiths. Goblins need a better PR firm.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

DeathQuaker wrote:

Yeah, I think the reason he had the corpse eaten wasn't just so her body couldn't be found, it was so she couldn't become several forms of undead.

This is also why he had the wights eat each other and the last one burn himself--so there wouldn't be a chance of her having any physical remains.

Also, if the body isn't destroyed, she'd rise as a wight in 1d4 rounds.

The 'order in which you were created' bit also ensures that the wight being eaten is under the control of the wight eating it, in addition to Redcloak directly (since Wights are controlled by the wight that spawned them. )

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nothing anyone could draw would be as bad as what you imagine the scene looking in your own mind. Thats why its offscreen.

My favourite line in The Stand, if not all of Steven King's work. "There were worse things than Crucifixion, there were teeth."

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Ross Byers wrote:


The 'order in which you were created' bit also ensures that the wight being eaten is under the control of the wight eating it, in addition to Redcloak directly (since Wights are controlled by the wight that spawned them. )

Thanks Ross, you just made me love this strip a little bit more. It's layers of funny-clever all the way down.

Shadow Lodge

DeathQuaker wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Balodek wrote:


I also went back a few strips to see if there was an indication of Redcloak casting, he must have Silent Spell if he didn't have to call it out though.

Isnt channeling energy a Spell like ability?

They're 3.5 characters, IIRC, and rebuke/command undead is a Supernatural ability.

So no, he wouldn't need to speak or gesture.

Forgot the rules for 3.5, thought it was a spell. Thank you for clarifying.

Ross Byers wrote:


Also, if the body isn't destroyed, she'd rise as a wight in 1d4 rounds.

The 'order in which you were created' bit also ensures that the wight being eaten is under the control of the wight eating it, in addition to Redcloak directly (since Wights are controlled by the wight that spawned them. )

Ok, that explains that, I figured he had a reason for ordering it like that but hadn't looked up the rules yet.

For those interested the Kickstarter is up to 190k, so both the 2nd and 3rd books are being reprinted.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Apostle of Gygax wrote:

I also like that we are getting to see more of goblinoid culture. Most people would never think to include things like goblin jewelers and goldsmiths. Goblins need a better PR firm.

That is the entire point of Redcloak's quest.


Ross Byers wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:

Yeah, I think the reason he had the corpse eaten wasn't just so her body couldn't be found, it was so she couldn't become several forms of undead.

This is also why he had the wights eat each other and the last one burn himself--so there wouldn't be a chance of her having any physical remains.

Also, if the body isn't destroyed, she'd rise as a wight in 1d4 rounds.

The 'order in which you were created' bit also ensures that the wight being eaten is under the control of the wight eating it, in addition to Redcloak directly (since Wights are controlled by the wight that spawned them. )

Given that wights have no supernatural flesh-eating powers, I find it hard to believe that they can eat enough of her in 6 to 24 seconds to stop her from rising. Of course she'll be under the command of one of them then.

On the other hand, if she's prevented from wighting out, I'd say the circumstances of her death are horrific enough to warrant her coming back as a severely traumatized ghost.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:

Yeah, I think the reason he had the corpse eaten wasn't just so her body couldn't be found, it was so she couldn't become several forms of undead.

This is also why he had the wights eat each other and the last one burn himself--so there wouldn't be a chance of her having any physical remains.

Also, if the body isn't destroyed, she'd rise as a wight in 1d4 rounds.

The 'order in which you were created' bit also ensures that the wight being eaten is under the control of the wight eating it, in addition to Redcloak directly (since Wights are controlled by the wight that spawned them. )

Given that wights have no supernatural flesh-eating powers, I find it hard to believe that they can eat enough of her in 6 to 24 seconds to stop her from rising. Of course she'll be under the command of one of them then.

On the other hand, if she's prevented from wighting out, I'd say the circumstances of her death are horrific enough to warrant her coming back as a severely traumatized ghost.

Which again shows Redcloak thinking ahead.

*Wights are chowing down on Tsukko, she rises.*
"Hey guys, I'm back!"
"You're the most recently created, so we have to finish eating you."
"But he didn't use command undead on me."
"Right but I created you. SO let us finish."
"Damnit! Yes master."

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Exactly right. Redcloak is flashing his new Chessmaster skillz.


New strip!

Spoiler:
We can expect some explanation from Redcloak in the next strip. Will Redcloak place the blame on Tsukiko or Bluff his way differently? Damn clifhangers.

Shadow Lodge

"You know when you answer a question that the other person didn't expect you to answer, and you do it surprisingly honestly?

That just happened."


Wrong comic, TOZ. It is rather fitting though.

Those little demon roaches are hilarious.


I *love* the expressions in the last panel.

Liberty's Edge

I expect the next comic to go as follows:

Spoiler:

Hobgoblin: You killed her!?
Redcloak: Yes, I did.
Xykon: Who are we talking about, again?
Roach: *cough*

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Redcloak: Ohw, I am sorry. I didn't know you cared, Xykon.


Indifference, meet Recloak.


Nobody said it yet? then let me rectify that mistake.
THOSE ARE SOME BIG ADAMANTINE GOBLIN BALLS, RIGHT THERE.
Recloak is on a roll with his badassery.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Yeah. I assumed with the utter disposal of the evidence that he was planning to keep it a secret.

So either 1) He flubbed. or 2) He's going to say 'she was messing with my stuff, and you would have done the same.'

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Does Xykon have a zone of truth up, do you think?

Liberty's Edge

I blame an inadvertently cast Zone of Truth

- Edit : Ninjaed - ;-)


Zone of truth? As if Redcloak wouldn't make that save.


I think that depending on how Redcloak explains it to Xykon, Xykon will be indifferent or even congratulate him.


Ross Byers wrote:

Yeah. I assumed with the utter disposal of the evidence that he was planning to keep it a secret.

So either 1) He flubbed. or 2) He's going to say 'she was messing with my stuff, and you would have done the same.'

3) She routinely failed to find the resistance, which I found and crushed as soon as I heard they captured the amulet. I discovered she was secretely working with them.

Shadow Lodge

4) She lied about her alignment on her application form.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Ross Byers wrote:
2) He's going to say 'she was messing with my stuff, and you would have done the same.'

If Redcloak understands Xykon, which I think he does, he would use this line.

And it defeats a Zone of Truth, because it is absolutely true.


He didn't even know her name, Xykon at least knows Redcloak's name.


Destroying the body completely like that prevents speak with dead. He wasn't going to hide it (that would be stupid) but he's not going to let Xykon find out what she knew when she died either.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

pipedreamsam wrote:
He didn't even know her name, Xykon at least knows Redcloak's name.

Actually, "Redcloak" is not actually his name. (This goes back to Start of Darkness.) Redcloak and his brother "Right-Eye" realized that Xykon would blast minions for having hard to pronounce and/or remember names, they identified themselves with nick-names istead.

We have yet to learn Redcloak's actual name.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Abraham spalding wrote:
Destroying the body completely like that prevents speak with dead. He wasn't going to hide it (that would be stupid) but he's not going to let Xykon find out what she knew when she died either.

Ah. Right. The wights didn't have to die because they were evidence she hadn't just disappeared: They had to go because they heard the conversation.

Likewise, the hobgoblin craftsman had to go because his presence was evidence that Redcloak had a new 'phyactery' made.


Exactly -- subtlety as he put it. He can explain each bit and it's all just plausible enough that Xykon isn't going to check too hard. Having Wrights loose would have been enough of a problem to justify getting rid of them and the fact he wiped out the resistance that she failed to handle helps too.

The method he used to kill her certainly helps his case too as if he is pressed on how he did it Xykon will get a good laugh out of using her own undead against her.


I am certain that Redcloak mentioned killing her on purpose here - certainly it wasn't accidental. This is just a part of undead-is-a-tool-to-be-used Redcloak thinking with Xykon being the tool manipulated. I just wonder in which way this manipulation is going.

Also, Xykon could probably learn that Redcloak killed Tsukiko anyway so it's better to cover the truth with truth.


Exactly.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Hrmm. When Redcloak said he might of had to kill the hobgoblin spy himself, I assumed he wanted to keep the whole mess about the phylactery secret: that he wanted Xykon to keep looking as much as the resistance did. But that no longer seems to be the case. Any ideas?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Ross Byers wrote:
Hrmm. When Redcloak said he might of had to kill the hobgoblin spy himself, I assumed he wanted to keep the whole mess about the phylactery secret: that he wanted Xykon to keep looking as much as the resistance did. But that no longer seems to be the case. Any ideas?

Also, Gobotopia is up and running. He no longer needs to take an active hand in it.

So, wants to get back on the original quest to control the gates.

By possessing the True phylactery (without Xykon knowing), he has the time to remove the protective magics. This will let him destroy it when Xykon is no longer of use to him. (Remember, Undead are tools.)


Ross Byers wrote:
Hrmm. When Redcloak said he might of had to kill the hobgoblin spy himself, I assumed he wanted to keep the whole mess about the phylactery secret: that he wanted Xykon to keep looking as much as the resistance did. But that no longer seems to be the case. Any ideas?

It might be just evil officer syndrome of removing the witnesses. While the Redcloak is becoming more and more genere savvy and more and more efficient he might also becoming more and more paranoid. Or just wanted to remove anyone who had contact with the phylactery to avoid scrutiny over supposed change of chain for new.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Ross Byers wrote:
Hrmm. When Redcloak said he might of had to kill the hobgoblin spy himself, I assumed he wanted to keep the whole mess about the phylactery secret: that he wanted Xykon to keep looking as much as the resistance did. But that no longer seems to be the case. Any ideas?

Hmmm...maybe to hide the fact that he knew about the resistance spy and allowed the resistance to take the amulet in the first place? He allowed the chain of custody to be broken by the resistance, which allowed him access to the phylactery without anyone else knowing. If his spy had survived, Xykon might've learned that Redcloak allowed the phylactery to fall into resistance hands on purpose. It's not as though that needed to happen in order to destroy the resistance (Redcloak had a spy, he could've destroyed the resistance at his convenience, and only allowed them to exist to provide the opportunity to tamper with they phylactery).

That's my best guess.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Favorite line from latest strip "Roach: I think they have a pill for that now." What? I'm easily amused! Actually, I like that whole frame.


Yeah I'm seeing the phylactery being lost as a blessing for Redcloak. Remember he doesn't want the gate destroyed -- he wants control of them. He's also the type to remember the 'do gooders' that keep getting in his way, and is probably worried about what they are up too.

Also Xykon is dangerous -- the sooner he gets the gates into his God's hands the sooner he can destroy Xykon for good.

With a fake phylactery he can destroy the real one without Xykon knowing it was done until it is too late.

Shadow Lodge

Lord Fyre wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
2) He's going to say 'she was messing with my stuff, and you would have done the same.'

If Redcloak understands Xykon, which I think he does, he would use this line.

And it defeats a Zone of Truth, because it is absolutely true.

Good call both of you.

Also I feel bad for that poor roach in the last panel.


"When the xxxx were YOU ever on the Astral Plane?"

I'm more and more certain the MitD is linked to the Snarl in some fashion.

And Redcloak's expression as Xykon is talking about offing uppity minions...so much smug evil.


Why kill the poor demon roach? What did he ever do to Jirix? T-T

Time for a swarm of revenge-seeking demon roaches if you ask me.

401 to 450 of 6,563 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Comics / New Order of the Stick Strip Up All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.