MitD VIII: Everything we know about MITD (but were afraid Tarrasque)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quartz

I've just been rereading strip #55. If Xykon had hired Nale & co to retrieve the Talisman, wouldn't that be a pointer to the MITD being a monster from a previous edition?

---

Quote:

---

Xykon hired me to kill you, unaware that the Talisman for which I searched lay in his dungeon.

---

So, he didn't hire Nale to find the Talisman.

strip 57

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kish

Does it matter? He didn't hire the Linear Guild to retrieve the talisman; he hired them to kill the Order of the Stick. Nale said Xykon didn't even know the talisman Nale sought was in his dungeon; taking as read that Nale doesn't actually know what Xykon does or doesn't know, that still rules out Xykon having mentioned the talisman to Nale.

---

I'm not the first to say so either. :smallredface:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c

Zodar can't explain the circus scene without invoking some non-canonical looks. A guy in black armour does not make for a riveting show.



So I have been told, way too many times to be counted. And yet, neither is a list of "cool iconic" monsters forthcoming from such declarations, nor is there a rational reason why it would "make more sense".

I should add, for the record, that I have been informed that the Zodar is iconic, although the particular person that declared it so did not think to tell me if it is also cool.

Grey Wolf

---

IIRC The Giant decided what MITD was ~strip#100, the way the strip was at that time....the humour, the atmosphere, the references.....the sorcerers' pies, the cinema snack fights....IMO it definitely makes sense for it to be some sorta semi-joke iconic non-DnD monster (eg Godzilla, but definitely not that).

I don't have a suggestion atm, but can definitely understand & agree why people think it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arogyos

IIRC The Giant decided what MITD was ~strip#100, the way the strip was at that time....the humour, the atmosphere, the references.....the sorcerers' pies, the cinema snack fights....IMO it definitely makes sense for it to be some sorta semi-joke iconic non-DnD monster (eg Godzilla, but definitely not that).

I don't have a suggestion atm, but can definitely understand & agree why people think it...

---

I think you misunderstood Grey Wolf.

He doesn't in any way say that MitD can't be iconic (or must be DnD), but that it doesn't need to be iconic (whatever that means). The iconic-ness or DnD-ness or the coolness isn't relevant for a monster to fulfill the requirements for being MitD.

If you think that a iconic non-DnD monster is a good fit, just propose it and say why you think it could be MitD. But saying "it should be iconic" doesn't help. We don't know whether or not MitD is iconic or not (or DnD or not DnD; or cool or not).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arogyos

IIRC The Giant decided what MITD was ~strip#100, the way the strip was at that time....the humour, the atmosphere, the references.....the sorcerers' pies, the cinema snack fights....IMO it definitely makes sense for it to be some sorta semi-joke iconic non-DnD monster (eg Godzilla, but definitely not that).

---

Except #100 is also when Rich sat down and planned the rest of the comic: the plot, the major scenes, the ending and, because he had to fit all of that with what had already been written, what the MitD would turn out to be. That is the time when the comic shifted focus from silly gags to a more serious storyline. Thus, anchoring the idea that MitD might turn out to be something silly on the fact that early on the comic was sillier is not a solid argument, since MitD only became a specific type of creature when the comic underwent Cerebus Syndrome.

That said, even if you are right, I still fail to see how "silly" would equate with "iconic". Still, if that were the case, may I suggest our earliest FBS creature, Snorlax? Very iconic, fits the big scenes, known for being lazy and eating almost anything, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a child aged 8-18 that doesn't know of it or at least recognises it on sight.

Edit: Also, what ChristianSt said.

Grey Wolf

@Christian
It was more intended as a response to the statement that "nor is there a rational reason why it would "make more sense"." I tend to think the reasoning is fairly obvious.

@Grey_Wolf, true, I just went 'n read the comment and it does possibly suggest something more serious, and possible the argument against "obscure" isn't as strong as I thought. I was thinking of the sort of thing he'd come up with to be a mystery til the end (or near, mebe) of the comic....but in reality he already had a mystery shaped hole with mspaintadventures-Sepulchritude-build up to a big reveal for comedy reasons and was possibly just filling it with something level appropriate for endgame.

Snorlax? Nah, I'm not familiar enough with PM to be sure, but I don't think it's really ("should be") scary or ("we know how") powerful enough.

Also, do 8 year olds still play PM that much? It is a craze from the 90s....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arogyos

Also, do 8 year olds still play PM that much? It is a craze from the 90s....

---

Couldn't tell you whether or not they play it more or less than they did in the '80s, but yes they do still play Pokemon.

Not sure if this has been discussed already, but I don't see reference to it in the OP, so probably either it has been and was rejected for a reason that isn't occurring to me, or hasn't been mentioned...

In appearances where the MitD is in darkness but not under the umbrella, the darkness-falloff-gradient is vertical in front of it instead of horizontal below it. Despite its eyes partly appearing in that light/dark gradient, we don't see its body at all, not even a silhouette or something. Does that maybe mean it has eye-stalks, or that its eyes are otherwise not closely attached to its body? (Being outright incorporeal is apparently ruled out by Redcloak's "undead material" comment, but maybe that was reading too much into it.)

Example: the "moldy cheeseburger" flashback panel in #475. Note that the gradient could have easily been more narrow, or drawn a little further to the left (behind the goblin with its tongue sticking out), putting the MitD entirely in an area of complete dark/black. Also note that, in the time since the strips this is a flashback to, there have been a few art upgrades and so that detail is less likely to be due to the sketchy/"deformed" (Haley's words) style of the earliest strips.

Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rodneyAnonymous

Not sure if this has been discussed already, but I don't see reference to it in the OP, so probably either it has been and was rejected for a reason that isn't occurring to me, or hasn't been mentioned...

In appearances where the MitD is in darkness but not under the umbrella, the darkness-falloff-gradient is vertical in front of it instead of horizontal below it. Despite its eyes partly appearing in that light/dark gradient, we don't see its body at all, not even a silhouette or something. Does that maybe mean it has eye-stalks, or that its eyes are otherwise not closely attached to its body? (Being outright incorporeal is apparently ruled out by Redcloak's "undead material" comment, but maybe that was reading too much into it.)

Example: the "moldy cheeseburger" flashback panel in #475. Note that the gradient could have easily been more narrow, or drawn a little further to the left (behind the goblin with its tongue sticking out), putting the MitD entirely in an area of complete dark/black. Also note that, in the time since the strips this is a flashback to, there have been a few art upgrades and so that detail is less likely to be due to the sketchy/"deformed" (Haley's words) style of the earliest strips.

Thoughts?

---

We did discuss this with reference to the planks in the circus. Nothing came of it that time. Good luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rodneyAnonymous

Thoughts?

---

Two of 'em:

1) It's a drawing clue. As such, it is subject to the same uncertainties of every other drawing clue.

2) I doubt it means much. The darkness is not connected to MitD that we know of, so the fact that magical impenetrable darkness is drawn with an horizontal or vertical gradient is of little consequence. Presumably, the gradient is generated with some ease by Illustrator, and any artifacts are consequence of the tool, rather than a fact about MitD or the magical darkness that surrounds him (at least, until such time as someone comments upon it in-comic).

As to why we only see the eyes, the answer is that we shouldn't see them, but they are drawn because that allows Rich to express MitD emotions. By RAW, a creature standing in the last square of magical darkness can see out, but no-one can see into the darkness, not even to spy the silhouette.

Grey Wolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c

Two of 'em:

1) It's a drawing clue. As such, it is subject to the same uncertainties of every other drawing clue.

2) I doubt it means much. The darkness is not connected to MitD that we know of, so the fact that magical impenetrable darkness is drawn with an horizontal or vertical gradient is of little consequence. Presumably, the gradient is generated with some ease by Illustrator, and any artifacts are consequence of the tool, rather than a fact about MitD or the magical darkness that surrounds him (at least, until such time as someone comments upon it in-comic).

As to why we only see the eyes, the answer is that we shouldn't see them, but they are drawn because that allows Rich to express MitD emotions. By RAW, a creature standing in the last square of magical darkness can see out, but no-one can see into the darkness, not even to spy the silhouette.

Grey Wolf

---

I think his point was about non-magical darkness.

Wouldn't it be interesting if the MitD got an art upgrade too? One with hints?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SavageWombat

Wouldn't it be interesting if the MitD got an art upgrade too? One with hints?

---

Oh, definitely. Seeing if there are any changes to what we can see of the MitD in the new art is one of the things I really want to see. I'm also beating that whatever it is, his new form will look totally awesome in the new art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaxzan Proditor

Oh, definitely. Seeing if there are any changes to what we can see of the MitD in the new art is one of the things I really want to see. I'm also beating that whatever it is, his new form will look totally awesome in the new art.

---

Interesting that the art-upgraded Monster out of the Darkness is the only Monster out of the Darkness we'll probably ever see in the main strip--assuming he's of a species that hasn't appeared before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bird

Interesting that the art-upgraded Monster out of the Darkness is the only Monster out of the Darkness we'll probably ever see in the main strip--assuming he's of a species that hasn't appeared before.

---

I was thinking the same. It would be kind of funny if some sort of mystery remained after the reveal.

Edit: Nevermind .... here stood a "maybe it's GRUE" post before I read section 3... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rich

I realize that the line between something I made up and something someone else made up is a pretty fine one, but I trust that someone will figure it out eventually.

---

Rich didn't invent MitD. His niece / granny / room-mate made something up tongue-in-cheek and Rich liked it so much he decided to use it.
:tongue:

Or, the MitD emerged (templated or otherwise) from a RPG campaign Rich was aware of / participating in. It would be possible for someone to figure out the MitD... but only one of those players.

(Actually I think this quote is just Rich's usual self-reflective philosophy, musing on the fact that a fictional monster is still a fictional monster whether he created it or someone else did... hence the "fine line"... and, further, that although there is a fine line someone [ahem] pondering and philosophising over the fundamental nature of the universe and literature will figure out what that line is, rather than someone will figure out MitD.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeG

Rich didn't invent MitD. His niece / granny / room-mate made something up tongue-in-cheek and Rich liked it so much he decided to use it.
:tongue:

Or, the MitD emerged (templated or otherwise) from a RPG campaign Rich was aware of / participating in. It would be possible for someone to figure out the MitD... but only one of those players.

(Actually I think this quote is just Rich's usual self-reflective philosophy, musing on the fact that a fictional monster is still a fictional monster whether he created it or someone else did... hence the "fine line"... and, further, that although there is a fine line someone [ahem] pondering and philosophising over the fundamental nature of the universe and literature will figure out what that line is, rather than someone will figure out MitD.)

---

That sounds like the kind of fan-trolling only Andrew Hussie is capable of. So unless Rich has secretly been Andrew Hussie all along, no. :smalltongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeG

Rich didn't invent MitD. His niece / granny / room-mate made something up tongue-in-cheek and Rich liked it so much he decided to use it.
:tongue:

Or, the MitD emerged (templated or otherwise) from a RPG campaign Rich was aware of / participating in. It would be possible for someone to figure out the MitD... but only one of those players.

(Actually I think this quote is just Rich's usual self-reflective philosophy, musing on the fact that a fictional monster is still a fictional monster whether he created it or someone else did... hence the "fine line"... and, further, that although there is a fine line someone [ahem] pondering and philosophising over the fundamental nature of the universe and literature will figure out what that line is, rather than someone will figure out MitD.)

---

Not sure whether your parenthetical is meant to be taken entirely seriously, but I don't think your interpretation is supported by what he wrote. He states early that "Once I started developing the real story that I was telling, around strip #100, I figured out what the monster really was and have been dropping hints ever since." This creates context which establishes that the mystery is in fact "what the monster is," not "what the line between something I made up and something someone else made up" is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bird

Not sure whether your parenthetical is meant to be taken entirely seriously, but I don't think your interpretation is supported by what he wrote. He states early that "Once I started developing the real story that I was telling, around strip #100, I figured out what the monster really was and have been dropping hints ever since." This creates context which establishes that the mystery is in fact "what the monster is," not "what the line between something I made up and something someone else made up" is.

---

Right. If it's out of copyright, it's old, older than Mickey Mouse. Which leaves us with Lewis Caroll, myth, and the stories Cervantes railed against (which sound like fine fantasy, if in need of translation).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bird

Not sure whether your parenthetical is meant to be taken entirely seriously, but I don't think your interpretation is supported by what he wrote. He states early that "Once I started developing the real story that I was telling, around strip #100, I figured out what the monster really was and have been dropping hints ever since." This creates context which establishes that the mystery is in fact "what the monster is," not "what the line between something I made up and something someone else made up" is.

---

Oh there's no doubt he knows what the MitD is, and that he's happy to generate fan interest on the point, and that that's the general point of the post.

But I genuinely believe that closing separate paragraph is Rich's self-reflective philosophical muse, not a specific hint about the MitD. He often muses like that in his prefaces and so forth... mixing discussion of OotS specifically with muses about the creative process, story telling, the nature of fiction in general, how all this reflects on real life and so forth. I'd read that many times and never once thought he meant anything other than a wry "my fiction, someone else's fiction ... amusement that one would be considered legitimate and the other would be cheating".

(sorry, "ps" for clarity ... I'm just quoting and commenting on that "fine line" *last* one-sentence paragraph. But yes explicitly the MitD as he said is not just invented out of his own head for OotS so certainly it can be found elsewhere.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeG

Rich didn't invent MitD. His niece / granny / room-mate made something up tongue-in-cheek and Rich liked it so much he decided to use it.

---

No. The same quote from Rich definitely excludes this. Recall,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rich

I will say this much: It is possible to guess.
That is, it isn't something I just made up for the story. It wouldn't be any fun for the answer to a mystery to be something I invented just for one purpose, would it? I won't finally throw back the darkness and have someone say, "Look! It was a therblewurkersaurus the entire time!" or some other made-up monster.

---

The monster the Giant's room-mate has invented is not possible to guess, and it wouldn't be any fun if it was the answer to the mistery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by halfeye

Right. If it's out of cpyright, it's old, older than Mickey Mouse. Which leaves us with Lewis Caroll, myth, and the stories Cervantes railed against (which sound like fine fantasy, if in need of translation).

---

We've already mentioned lots of other works whose copyright have expired. Even I have mentioned one or two, though they're not really good matches.

I have a query -- is it possible that Rich's "fine line" comment might be interpreted as authorial spin? For instance, we pretty clearly have "vampires" (which somebody else invented) and "vampires as used in OOTS," which is Rich's. That *could* be an admonition for us not to get too technical (except for fun) while we try to guess, and maybe instead simply to focus on what best fits the big iconic scenes as we get the list of "things that this dude could be."

(I still think "my Daddy's a big eater" has got to be a hugenormous hint, but darned if I can really come up with anything beyond my already-shot-down which fits the bill).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happycrow

I have a query -- is it possible that Rich's "fine line" comment might be interpreted as authorial spin? For instance, we pretty clearly have "vampires" (which somebody else invented) and "vampires as used in OOTS," which is Rich's. That *could* be an admonition for us not to get too technical (except for fun) while we try to guess, and maybe instead simply to focus on what best fits the big iconic scenes as we get the list of "things that this dude could be."

(I still think "my Daddy's a big eater" has got to be a hugenormous hint, but darned if I can really come up with anything beyond my already-shot-down which fits the bill).

---

Rich's vampires are D&D vampires. Mechanically, they are certainly the same, and as far as the whole possession thing goes, I believe there is something in Libris Mortis indicating that is what happens. Admittedly, I don't have LM, so I can't be certain.

That said, I do think the creature in the darkness will most likely wind up fitting whatever he is as well as a succubus who can drain with any touch rather than needing a kiss or "act of passion" and has an innate Plane Shift fits "D&D succubus," or a paladin with Evasion fits "paladin," rather than carefully crossing the i's and dotting the t's of an entirely-by-the-book creature.

Hang on. If Xykon regularly casts Cloister, wouldn't that mean that Vaarsuvius was unaffected by it? Although O-Chul should have been affected by it.

Unless RC's greater dispel or Xykon's Superb Dispel eliminated the cloister effect..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atomburster

Hang on. If Xykon regularly casts Cloister, wouldn't that mean that Vaarsuvius was unaffected by it? Although O-Chul should have been affected by it.

Unless RC's greater dispel or Xykon's Superb Dispel eliminated the cloister effect..

---

I fail to see what this has got to do with MitD, so, in short:

V was affected by it. He needed an epic teleport to punch through. Once inside, though, Cloister does not stop you from teleporting out, so it would not affect O-Chul, except inasmuch as he would still be under the effect for things like locating him through magic for a few weeks after the escape.

Grey Wolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kish

That said, I do think the creature in the darkness will most likely wind up fitting whatever he is as well as a succubus who can drain with any touch rather than needing a kiss or "act of passion" and has an innate Plane Shift fits "D&D succubus," or a paladin with Evasion fits "paladin," rather than carefully crossing the i's and dotting the t's of an entirely-by-the-book creature.

---

A paladin with 2 levels of monk and wearing the correct armor could certainly have Evasion.

I know it isn't relevant, since the Giant said it long before strip 100 (around 52) and it directly contradicts Start of Darkness, but I found this sweet little sentence: "[...]he didn't create goblins or ogres, but he did create zombies and ogre zombies and whatever is in the shadows there."
Which, I think, is funny. That's all. *Hides in shadows again*

(Psst, how does one link to one specific post?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Murk

(Psst, how does one link to one specific post?)

---

Right-click the post number on the top right hand corner, select "Copy Link Location"

GW