MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)

[Qwertystop]

Yeah. If you have a better way to run things, say so.

If you just say the current way is wrong? That's not a suggestion, that's a complaint without a solution, and with no way to fix it provided, there's not really much to do about it.

In this case, it feels like an unfounded complaint as well.

[DaggerPen]

Joining in the support of Grey_Wolf here. His response to FlawedParadigm seemed perfectly reasonable and well thought out, and was certainly not a "bunch of insults, misinterpretations, assumptions, and hypocrisy."

Seriously, everyone always comes in and starts going on about how Grey_Wolf is a tyrannical dictator unfairly ruling out suggestions, but I've yet to see anyone who didn't completely ignore how the thread actually works in doing so. We vote on suggestions. Grey_Wolf compiles all clues and discussion and edits the consensus. The three big scenes are generally good metrics by which to judge the MitD, as they cover the best spread of abilities- he must have some magical/psionic ability to explain the escape, he must have incredible strength, and he must be ugly and hard to identify. When a suggestion is proposed, it's ruled against these bare minimum requirements, and its other characteristics are judged, and then everyone critiques and researches the suggestion. Grey_Wolf then decides where to add it to the thread based on the community consensus and existing rules, which were in turn established by community consensus.

You want to suggest something else that's not a creature, such as the idea that a creature could have developed psionic abilities between the circus and the comic? Sure, go ahead. I know that most of my contributions to this thread has been "Hey, this clue seems like it might suggest this characteristic" vs. suggesting actual creatures. If this is a useful enough interpretation, it gets added to the first post so people can keep it in mind when proposing further creatures.

How else would you optimize our system? Do you think a different set of criteria would work better? Tell us. I thought that vulnerability to mind-affecting effects should be part of the criteria, and when I suggested that, we had a long discussion in which the consensus was that there are enough ways around it that it doesn't quite fit as a big scene. We hear revisions to our criteria all the time. "Reevaluate the criteria" is not an actual revision.

[Rakoa]

I frequently read this thread but have yet to contribute. Stopping by to say you're doing a great job, Grey Wolf.

[Bulldog Psion]

Grey Wolf, I'm still astonished at your ability to stay calm, logical, and thoughtful with the stuff that people periodically feel obliged to fling your way. I would have gone into a rage and said stuff that would have gotten me banned long ago if I were curating this thread, I'm too hot-tempered and emotional for this work.

Bravo on the excellent job you've done, your fairness, and the superb thread you've maintained for years! Thank you!

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Thanks for the support guys, as always. It helps more than you can imagine - I really don't like being called names, even when I think the person is wrong.

GW

[DaggerPen]

A thought about MitD's size: if he can swallow Redcloak whole, it seems unlikely that he'd be only medium size. Redcloak is medium size himself, after all, so unless MitD can not only unhinge his jaw to a ludicrous degree but also has a very large esophagus and stomach, I think he'd have to be larger than medium size. I mean, can you imagine a scene like this with a medium creature swallowing another medium creature?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

A thought about MitD's size: if he can swallow Redcloak whole, it seems unlikely that he'd be only medium size. Redcloak is medium size himself, after all, so unless MitD can not only unhinge his jaw to a ludicrous degree but also has a very large esophagus and stomach, I think he'd have to be larger than medium size. I mean, can you imagine a scene like this with a medium creature swallowing another medium creature?

I thought about that, but on the other hand, we know that particular physical rule is crying in a corner after RC had a bunch of medium sized ghouls eat each other in succession. The last one would effectively eaten four times his own size worth of meat, and presumably its stomach would be as incapable of holding all that much food as an undead as if he were alive.

Grey Wolf

[rodneyAnonymous]

Yes, although DaggerPen is talking about swallowing whole.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Yes, although DaggerPen is talking about swallowing whole.

Yes, I agree. But, to further complicate matters, Xykon didn't actually use the correct name for the ability. The ability is indeed called "swallow whole" and does indeed require the target to be at least one category size smaller.

But Xykon commands MitD to "devour him whole". Devour isn't quite the same as swallow, and I understood DaggerPen to be more referring to the difficulties in devouring something your size than the actual ability. Devour does allow for you to chew before swallowing, so need not have the same problems with the esophagus (because RC would go down MitD's throat, if he has one, in bite sized chunks), but the stomach could still be an issue.

Thus, I point out that in OotS, we already have evidence of creatures with bags of holding for stomachs. Yes, they are undead, and flesh eating undead at that, so special rules may apply (or they might have taken all day), but on the other hand, it also suggests that devouring whole another creature of your same size is possible.

Edit: to be clear on the semantics argument I am using:
"Swallow whole" suggests that your target goes down your throat in one go, i.e. ¨swallow your target whole"
"Devour whole" merely suggests "eat until all of the target is gone down your throat", which I think we can agree is slightly easier.

Grey Wolf

[JustWantedToSay]

I mean, can you imagine a scene like this with a medium creature swallowing another medium creature?

Well there's the snake that swallowed an elephant:

http://d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net...550997935.jpeg

Edit: to be clear on the semantics argument I am using:
"Swallow whole" suggests that your target goes down your throat in one go, i.e. ¨swallow your target whole"
"Devour whole" merely suggests "eat until all of the target is gone down your throat", which I think we can agree is slightly easier.

Grey Wolf

But that would be "Wholly devour him." Whole is an adjective, and thus has to describe a thing, ie redcloak. In fact m-w's first definition for whole is "Free of wound or injury." Devour him whole should indeed be in one piece.

However, just because Xykon commanded it, doesn't mean it would be possible.

(EDIT: Most of websters, oxford and cambridge entries for Whole say words along the lines of unbroken, undivided etc.)

[rodneyAnonymous]

"Devour whole" merely suggests "eat until all of the target is gone down your throat", which I think we can agree is slightly easier.

No, "whole" means "in one piece" regardless of devour/swallow.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

No, "whole" means "in one piece" regardless of devour/swallow.

No, no it doesn't. It means "all"

1. comprising the full quantity, amount, extent, number, etc., without diminution or exception; entire, full, or total: He ate the whole pie. They ran the whole distance.

Notice the first example cannot possibly indicate that he ate it in one bite.

GW

[rodneyAnonymous]

Yeah, the example is "he ate the whole pie" not "he ate the pie whole". The latter would mean he didn't cut the pie. Context is important. "Devour whole" means eat in one gulp.

And the third definition there is "undivided; in one piece".

[Bling Cat]

No, no it doesn't. It means "all"

1. comprising the full quantity, amount, extent, number, etc., without diminution or exception; entire, full, or total: He ate the whole pie. They ran the whole distance.

Notice the first example cannot possibly indicate that he ate it in one bite.

GW

Actually, in the same dictionary you linked to, it lists a definition as 'undivided; in one piece: to swallow a thing whole.' The word can mean different things based on context.

In the context of the sentence 'Devour him whole', the first definition is redundant. You do not need to state that you will devour all of him, that is implied by 'Devour him'. Even if you wish to specify it, the better way of saying it is 'Devour him all'. The use of the word Whole in that sentence actually implies the second definition, that of eating him in one piece, because it is the definition that makes the most sense in the context of the sentence.

Of course, just because Xykon says it does not mean it to be possible. But he does know what MitD is, so it has some weight.

EDIT: Or I'll be ninja'd with a slightly briefer version of my point. That could happen too.

[DaggerPen]

Actually, in the same dictionary you linked to, it lists a definition as 'undivided; in one piece: to swallow a thing whole.' The word can mean different things based on context.

In the context of the sentence 'Devour him whole', the first definition is redundant. You do not need to state that you will devour all of him, that is implied by 'Devour him'. Even if you wish to specify it, the better way of saying it is 'Devour him all'. The use of the word Whole in that sentence actually implies the second definition, that of eating him in one piece, because it is the definition that makes the most sense in the context of the sentence.

Of course, just because Xykon says it does not mean it to be possible. But he does know what MitD is, so it has some weight.

Xykon may not know what the MitD is, but he has seen him, so he presumably has some sense of size.

The stomach capacity thing is a point, but I think that "devour him whole" does imply devouring him in one piece; otherwise, "devour him" would suffice. Eating a pizza whole is different from eating a whole pizza, for example.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Actually, in the same dictionary you linked to, it lists a definition as 'undivided; in one piece: to swallow a thing whole.' The word can mean different things based on context.

In the context of the sentence 'Devour him whole', the first definition is redundant. You do not need to state that you will devour all of him, that is implied by 'Devour him'. Even if you wish to specify it, the better way of saying it is 'Devour him all'. The use of the word Whole in that sentence actually implies the second definition, that of eating him in one piece, because it is the definition that makes the most sense in the context of the sentence.

Of course, just because Xykon says it does not mean it to be possible. But he does know what MitD is, so it has some weight.

While I agree with you and rodneyA. et al, you are now arguing exclusively semantics. Whole does not mean only "undivided" (rodneyA's original claim) and while by strict grammar rules whole in that sentence would mean undivided, it could also be construed as a reinforcing redundancy. "Don't just devour his flesh, no, devour him whole, clothes and all, and spit out the amulet".

And since now 4 people misunderstand my position, I shall clarify it: semantics is not enough to declare this scene evidence that MitD is a size category larger than RC, which in the end is all I care about. That whole could easily be interpreted to be Xykon clarifying the meaning of his instruction.

Grey Wolf

[rodneyAnonymous]

I didn't claim that, and I am not the one splitting semantic hairs. Just "oops I'm wrong" would be much easier :)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I didn't claim that, and I am not the one splitting semantic hairs. Just "oops I'm wrong" would be much easier :)

Err, yes, you did:
"No, "whole" means "in one piece" regardless of devour/swallow."

Whole has other definitions than that one.

Also, I am in no way claiming you guys are wrong. But neither am I wrong. Semantically you are correct, I concede that, but Xykon wouldn't. Because he was never a great student, and didn't finish school, and when people disagree with him, he kills them. If Xykon wants to be semantically redundant, who is to stop him?

And regardless of who is right and who is wrong, the original point remains: MitD size can't be tied to Xykon's order. Especially since creatures like Protean liquify their enemies with successful hits, which makes the whole endeavour of devouring them whole so much easier.

Grey Wolf

[rodneyAnonymous]

You inserted an "only" and put emphasis on it.

[SavageWombat]

It's like insisting that we saw the MitD stomp his foot, so it must be the "stomp" power. It's a close fit, but it's not demonstrably the case.

If we SEE the MitD swallow something whole, or he directly refers to it, it would be evidence - but this way it could refer to multiple effects.

[JustWantedToSay]

i'm not a D&D player, and going off a bit of a tangent..

But lets say Xykon meant 'whole' loosely: 'all the pieces'. But MitD understanding of the word is strictly in 'one unbroken piece'

So which interpretation matters for the affect of Gaes? Caster's or target's?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

i'm not a D&D player, and going off a bit of a tangent..

But lets say Xykon meant 'whole' loosely: 'all the pieces'. But MitD understanding of the word is strictly in 'one unbroken piece'

So which interpretation matters for the affect of Gaes? Caster's or target's?

The DM's, I believe, but that is a cop-out answer. Lacking, as in OotS, a DM, in the end the limitation is that you must follow the geas to the best of your ability. If he had ordered him to "fly to the moon", and MitD can't fly, he still must try, I'm guessing, by jumping a lot in place or something. If he can't devour RC in a single bite, then MitD will use as big a bites as he can, while under the geas.

Grey Wolf, who isn't all that up to speed on the technicalities of the geas spell either

[rodneyAnonymous]

So which interpretation matters for the affect of Gaes? Caster's or target's?

The rules don't say, but if it were my game, I'd say the caster's.

Also, it's a different spell, but the description of wish implies it has a mind of its own: "You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.)"

[allenw]

Semantically you are correct, I concede that, but Xykon wouldn't. Because he was never a great student, and didn't finish school, and when people disagree with him, he kills them. If Xykon wants to be semantically redundant, who is to stop him?

Now I'm really hoping that, when the moment comes, MitD will go all swirley-eyed... and then blink and say "Wait a minute, I don't even *have* the 'Swallow Whole' ability! Sorry, Xykon."

[Dr.Gunsforhands]

Now I'm really hoping that, when the moment comes, MitD will go all swirley-eyed... and then blink and say "Wait a minute, I don't even *have* the 'Swallow Whole' ability! Sorry, Xykon."

That, or he'll turn out to be medium-sized, but try to swallow Redcloak whole anyway.

: What are you doing?
: Rrorg shlykong shled to deshlour eeou horl!
: What?
: *Ptui!* Lord Xykon said to devour you whole! You know, because you betrayed him.
: Uh, yeah, well, I don't think that's going to- HEY!
: *GLOMP!*

[DaggerPen]

That, or he'll turn out to be medium-sized, but try to swallow Redcloak whole anyway.

: What are you doing?
: Rrorg shlykong shled to deshlour eeou horl!
: What?
: *Ptui!* Lord Xykon said to devour you whole! You know, because you betrayed him.
: Uh, yeah, well, I don't think that's going to- HEY!
: *GLOMP!*

I just wanted you to know that I laughed hysterically for about 3 minutes.

[JackRose]

Well there's the snake that swallowed an elephant:

http://d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net...550997935.jpeg

That's a nice picture of a hat you've drawn, but I'm not sure why it's relevant. Unless you think the MitD is secretly a hat?

[JustWantedToSay]

That's a nice picture of a hat you've drawn, but I'm not sure why it's relevant. Unless you think the MitD is secretly a hat?

No, I think he's a Baobab tree. Those eyes are just a fox sitting in the branches.

[asphias]

hey, just an idea:

the MitD does not see any gates, because it knows what a gate looks like. namely, a gate looks like one of the things redcloak makes here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0833.html

if MitD thinks that whenever redcloak and xykon talk about a gate, they're talking about one of the kind that redcloak can summon, then his responses suddenly make a lot of sense.

"okey, you're pointing to a giant archway with a rift inside, now where is this gate you're talking about?"

then, we have the statement MitD makes in this strip: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0096.html

"if there was a gate of some sort, i should have - " which could easily be finished with something like "i should have noticed", or "i should have seen it".

put this together with the hint that MitD might have been to the astral plane before, and i think that the MitD has used gates the past, and i wouldn't be surprised if he can cast the spell himself.

no clue if this helps anything, as i don't really play DnD myself, but at least my money goes to any creature that can cast gate ;-)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

the MitD does not see any gates, because it knows what a gate looks like. namely, a gate looks like one of the things redcloak makes here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0833.html

I like the explanation for why MitD doesn't know what gate means, but I think the extrapolation that he must be able to cast gate is too far-fetched. For all we know, the reason why he is familiar with the astral plane is because he was pushed through a gate, and was trapped there for some time before being rescued, since he couldn't open a gate himself.

Grey Wolf