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

[Peelee]

Wasn't zoidberg a big, tough tunnelling beast in one of the specials?

In one of the anthology of Interests, Zoidberg is enlarged to fight a 300-foot-tall Bender sent from a distant planet (entirely populated by Benders). As this was a "what if" episode, and would require Zoidberg to be Colossal (I believe I'm correct in that to be the largest size category), which wouldn't fit. In that episode, though, we see Zoidberg is able to cut through Bender's legs (they are still the same sizes relative to each other, so this should still work out similarly at their standard sizes), on the Titanic episode, we see his claws are able to stop the emergency airlock doors from closing, and his shell has never cracked, despite being hit with hammers, crab claws, and constantly beaten by Bender, which could be construed as great strength and toughness (though he does seem to show pain normally).

Two caveats I should note.

1.) I have yet to see anything after Season 5. I'm running my wife through the series on Netflix, and hope to get caught up soon, but if you reference anything past that, I will not know about it.

2.) This possibility is wholly tongue-in-cheek, and I do not in any way expect Zoidberg to actually be the MitD. It is intended as a humorous aside. Grey Wolf, if this still violates points 5 and 6 under 5c, lemme know and I'll stop advocating it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

2.) This possibility is wholly tongue-in-cheek, and I do not in any way expect Zoidberg to actually be the MitD. It is intended as a humorous aside. Grey Wolf, if this still violates points 5 and 6 under 5c, lemme know and I'll stop advocating it.

No need to stop, precisely because so far no-one involved in the discussion seems to be seriously proposing it. Next page, I'll just throw it into section 3c, and call it a day. In the mean time, I am mildly amused by the conversation*, so by all means, continue. Just don't go into legal reasons why Rich could or could not use it.

GW

*If it crosses the line from mildly amusing to quite amusing, it'll go in section 3e instead, of course.

[Peelee]

Well, in that case, according to Wikipedia,

As the series progressed, writers gradually introduced the themes that Zoidberg is also poor, homeless, friendless, smelly, undignified, and repulsive.[5] Regardless of these traits, Zoidberg generally attempts to make himself look refined, successful, and important in front of others, though this illusion is quickly dashed when pointed out.

If that doesn't describe the MitD to a T, I'll eat my hat I will! A feast! Woop woop woop woop!

[Dr.Gunsforhands]

Zoidberg? Actually, I do seem to recall a time where he came upon super-strength as a result of his own physiology; his species' mating season came up, and he suddenly turned into a beefed-up ball of aggression. Considering his habit of chopping sturdy metal objects with his claws purely on accident even without the extra boost, his strength probably just about hits the cartoonish levels necessary for the tower scene.

The way that he can lose something like 80% of his internal organs and still have enough left to survive just fine isn't anything to scoff at either. Scientists couldn't even figure out a way to kill him before giving him an autopsy, and he stayed awake giving them pointers during the autopsy. That's a pretty scary prospect. Scarier than a Silver Dragon even; at least with those you have some idea of where you stand.

His species starts as a little coral polyp, incredibly tiny compared to their parents, and not eating anything.

...still trying to figure out how to work him into the escape scene, though. He could have eaten a teleport gun or something, but that explanation is already taken by the Schlock Mercenary thing.

[saltysugar96]

and his shell has never cracked, despite being hit with hammers, crab claws, and constantly beaten by Bender

In the 6th season,

Spoiler

Show

there is an episode where Clamps is able to crack Zoidberg's exoskeleton pretty severely with his clamps (or clamp like devise). Although, Clamps was unable to break through the shell entirely, so it's clearly quite durable. In fact, given some of the other things Clamps has been shown to clamp, Zoidberg's shell held up surprisingly well.

...still trying to figure out how to work him into the escape scene, though. He could have eaten a teleport gun or something, but that explanation is already taken by the Schlock Mercenary thing.

How about the the Farnsworth Novelty Disintegrator Ray?

[JustSomeGuy]

Can i also add that having steel-cutting claws would make it much harder to pull something than push it? Especially pulling a rope.

[Tryfan]

Lewis Carroll's weird stuff also gets mentioned every so often.

I'd add folklore, since that is not really mythology, although it also overlaps (or rather, has been heavily stolen from) by D&D

Edit: if you count Pokemon, you have to add all other copyrighted sources mentioned in the OP. There was a black magician version in some Final Fantasy or another that got an excellent case made for it.

GW

The one major problem I have with mythology is teleportation - a lot of ancient mythologies (Greek, Norse etc.) have things that can move faster then superman on steroids but no concept, at least that I know, of teleportation. As they have that way of getting around instantly I also don't see why they would have created it. Moves really fast doesn't cover the escape scene as Xykon has his fingers down their throats at the time.

As far as I can tell some arabic myths have teleportation (see Djinns) as does some far eastern but that's about it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The one major problem I have with mythology is teleportation - a lot of ancient mythologies (Greek, Norse etc.) have things that can move faster then superman on steroids but no concept, at least that I know, of teleportation.

I used to think as much, thinking of Zeus having to turn into all manner of beasts and objects (including rain) to approach his latest paramour.

However, someone that knew far more about Greek mythology several threads back listed a whole range of situations where Greek gods had to have teleported themselves and, more importantly, others. IIRC, the most important one involves Athena teleporting a hero out of a battle for a chat.

Grey Wolf

[allenw]

Rich committed himself only to it being something that was made up by someone other than him.

Not quite: He said that it wasn't something that he made up "for the story," or "for just one purpose". I'm still pulling for it to be something that he at least had a hand in creating for a sourcebook, based on the following quote.
I do realize that the last line of the quote can easily be read to say that the MitD isn't "something Rich made up," but in context I prefer to intepret it as a hint that the situation isn't that simple.

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.
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.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Not quite: He said that it wasn't something that he made up "for the story," or "for just one purpose". I'm still pulling for it to be something that he at least had a hand in creating for a sourcebook, based on the following quote.
I do realize that the last line of the quote can easily be read to say that the MitD isn't "something Rich made up," but in context I prefer to intepret it as a hint that the situation isn't that simple.

I personally disagree with the broader interpretation, but as curator, the thread operates under the assumption that anything Rich created outside of OotS is fair game.

GW

[Tryfan]

With the fine line I think that is could be that as we're already pretty sure the base creature doesn't speak common Rich has created a version of it that does.

I personally think the fine line is when you've taken a creature and given it some extra attributes. It seems that Rich would lampshade when this happens, but he's still had creative input.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

With the fine line I think that is could be that as we're already pretty sure the base creature doesn't speak common Rich has created a version of it that does.

This is the core of my problem with your interpretation of the fine line comment. The fine line, to me, clearly refers to the fact that a the therblewurkersaurus and the Tarrasque Beholder are equally made up, and that pretending they are different because the author of the first one is called Rich and the author of the second one isn't, is indeed a fine line that to 99.9% of the population is irrelevant. It is not connected to any lampshades at all. But I have learnt to accept that other people don't see it that way.

The entire page of the commentary feels (again, to me personally) like Rich letting us know that this guessing game is a fair one, that does have a solution, and that he believes he is giving us enough clues to solve it. It is an important page for me, because it means that this thread is not a snipe hunt like the V gender threads. To other people, that distinction is not as important: they seem to get as much enjoyment of discussing questions with no answers as they do from questions with answers (and good for them). So to each their own.

Grey Wolf

PD: Huh, I thought I had written up my thoughts on the fine thread somewhere in the OP, but can't find it...

[Olinser]

[QUOTE=Grey_Wolf_c;14983046]

With the fine line I think that is could be that as we're already pretty sure the base creature doesn't speak common Rich has created a version of it that does. /QUOTE]

This is the core of my problem with your interpretation of the fine line comment. The fine line, to me, clearly refers to the fact that a the therblewurkersaurus and the Tarrasque are equally made up, and that pretending they are different because the author of the first one is called Rich and the author of the second one isn't, is indeed a fine line that to 99.9% of the population is irrelevant. It is not connected to any lampshades at all. But I have learnt to accept that other people don't see it that way.

The entire page of the commentary feels (again, to me personally) like Rich letting us know that this guessing game is a fair one, that does have a solution, and that he believes he is giving us enough clues to solve it. It is an important page for me, because it means that this thread is not a snipe hunt like the V gender threads. To other people, that distinction is not as important: they seem to get as much enjoyment of discussing questions with no answers as they do from questions with answers (and good for them). So to each their own.

Grey Wolf

PD: Huh, I thought I had written up my thoughts on the fine thread somewhere in the OP, but can't find it...

I agree - to Rich's mind we have been given a riddle with a concrete solution, we just haven't been able to figure it out (or if we already have, Rich won't tell us the answer until he makes The Big Reveal).

I get the feeling we're going to be getting another big clue with Team Evil's arrival at Girard's Gate though.

[SavageWombat]

I don't think your phrasing makes clear that the Tarrasque is a legendary monster and not something made up just for D&D. (It's abiliites are, of course - it was just sort of a dragon.)

Doesn't contradict your point, but wanted to clarify.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I don't think your phrasing makes clear that the Tarrasque is a legendary monster and not something made up just for D&D. (It's abiliites are, of course - it was just sort of a dragon.)

Doesn't contradict your point, but wanted to clarify.

I didn't make it clear because I was unaware it predated D&D. A quick wiki check tells me you are both right and wrong: the original creature is Tarasque (one 'r'), the D&D one is Tarrasque (2 'r's), which while technically means I was correct, I will freely admit that the difference in spelling is slight enough that it will regularly be overlooked, so your general point stands.

Would beholder work? Maybe the brain-slurper squid things whose name I can't quite recall?

Grey Wolf

[Tryfan]

This is the core of my problem with your interpretation of the fine line comment. The fine line, to me, clearly refers to the fact that a the therblewurkersaurus and the Tarrasque are equally made up, and that pretending they are different because the author of the first one is called Rich and the author of the second one isn't, is indeed a fine line that to 99.9% of the population is irrelevant. It is not connected to any lampshades at all. But I have learnt to accept that other people don't see it that way.

The entire page of the commentary feels (again, to me personally) like Rich letting us know that this guessing game is a fair one, that does have a solution, and that he believes he is giving us enough clues to solve it. It is an important page for me, because it means that this thread is not a snipe hunt like the V gender threads. To other people, that distinction is not as important: they seem to get as much enjoyment of discussing questions with no answers as they do from questions with answers (and good for them). So to each their own.

Grey Wolf

PD: Huh, I thought I had written up my thoughts on the fine thread somewhere in the OP, but can't find it...

Fair enough: to me the fine line is more akin to Simba in the lion king, for example. Disney did not invent the lion: however by giving it a voice and a personality (which, lets face it, we're pretty sure Rich has done both of those to the MitD) they did create Simba.

What muddies the water further with the MitD is that Rich was already starting from a made up creature. I also believe it is a fair guessing game and he had remained true to the base creature-but thanks to Rich's input the MitD is now more than just something out of a monster manuel.

[SavageWombat]

Would beholder work? Maybe the brain-slurper squid things whose name I can't quite recall?

Grey Wolf

the Mind Flayer is a little too Cthulhuan. Beholder works perfectly for the example, I'd say.

[Tryfan]

To clarify my thoughts a bit more:

Is the sylph something Rich Burlew made up? no
Is Celia something Rich Burlew made up? I'd say yes

Now imagine the MitD turns out to be the Protean:

Is the Protean something Rich Burlew made up? no
Is the MitD something Rich Burlew made up? Eek- I don't know how to answer that, Rich hasn't made up the Protean: but, as with Celia, he has made that character his own (even if it obeys all the laws of a protean and is therefore comepletely guessable).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

To clarify my thoughts a bit more:

Is the sylph something Rich Burlew made up? no
Is Celia something Rich Burlew made up? I'd say yes

Now imagine the MitD turns out to be the Protean:

Is the Protean something Rich Burlew made up? no
Is the MitD something Rich Burlew made up? Eek- I don't know how to answer that, Rich hasn't made up the Protean: but, as with Celia, he has made that character his own (even if it obeys all the laws of a protean and is therefore comepletely guessable).

I'm sorry, but I still don't find your interpretation at all persuasive. Rich was talking about the MitD's species, not MitD himself. Of course each author creates his own characters. That is beyond dispute. The fine line cannot possibly be referring to the difference between a character's species and the character itself ("Sherlock Holmes is a creation of Doyle, but he didn't create mankind").

GW

[Tryfan]

I'm sorry, but I still don't find your interpretation at all persuasive. Rich was talking about the MitD's species, not MitD himself. Of course each author creates his own characters. That is beyond dispute. The fine line cannot possibly be referring to the difference between a character's species and the character itself ("Sherlock Holmes is a creation of Doyle, but he didn't create mankind").

GW

I don't think it is that narrow and even if it wasn't I can't buy your explanation:

a) Rich is writing to people interested in finding out what the MitD is so the fact that 99% of people don't know about D&D monsters is irrelevent, he's writing to the 1% that do.

b) A fine line indicates blurring of definition so for example there's a fine line between courage and recklessness. There is not a fine line between who created laws of motion (Newton) and laws on springs (Hooke)

Now let's say Fred created the species of MitD - he created it so there is no fine line. However if Rich tweaked it slightly or had some slight creative input then I can see it getting towards that line.

So we then have a spectrum from MitD is entirely Fred's creation, species 'X'.

According to the first post the MitD could be X but Rich has given it the ability to speak - still Fred's creation but not quite.

Now lets say we have X + speaking + Rich's amazing teleport + Rich's amazing strength + Rich's revolting aura + Rich's earthquake. It's not Fred's creation anymore- a line has definately been crossed and it's now Rich's creation.

I think the fine line Rich is talking about is the slight tweak he has made (speaking or personality or something else very minor but lampshaded) but has left the base creature otherwise unchanged so that all his other comments about it being deductable stand. There is the fine line because he has changed the creature everso slightly but it's very clear which side of it he is on.

[Bulldog Psion]

[Various stuff]

Huh?

[rodneyAnonymous]

Yeah I think you are reading way too much into it. He said what the fine line is: it's a creature someone else made up (not that he made up).

[allenw]

Yeah I think you are reading way too much into it. He said what the fine line is: it's a creature someone else made up (not that he made up).

He implied, but didn't *quite* say, that the MitD is a creature someone else made up. But I'm willing to await further clues before arguing the matter further.

[DaggerPen]

b) A fine line indicates blurring of definition so for example there's a fine line between courage and recklessness. There is not a fine line between who created laws of motion (Newton) and laws on springs (Hooke)

Well, actually-

No, no, I'll stay on topic.

Regardless, I think the "fine line" interpretation argument is a little bit pointless. I personally agree with Grey_Wolf's interpretation, but even if Rich is referring to the fact that he customized MitD a bit, I would not expect him to not lampshade any significant changes (such as the MitD speaking), so the exact interpretation is irrelevant. MitD's species was created by Rich. He's changed at least one thing, but he lampshaded that change, and clearly believes that the MitD's species is possible to guess, so he's not likely to change anything else major without lampshading that, too. The exact semantics are about as irrelevant as the complicated history of Newton, Hooke and the laws of motion.

[CloakedDancer]

You know, there's lots of fine lines in the guessing game. There's even some fine lines used to draw stick figures in the comic. I'm sure if everyone keeps guessing and worries less about fine lines we're more likely to get somewhere with it.

Has anyone suggested a Holyphant?

Pros:
1) Can cast teleport without error
2) Has psionic powers
3) "Hollyphants can also be encountered transiting the Astral or Ethereal Planes, since many of their tasks involve journeying to the prime material"
4) "If removed, a hollyphant’s tusk can be ground into a magical powder that transforms water or wine into an elixir of health. ’Course, hollyphants take a real dim view of some basher hunting them for their tusks."

Cons:
Can't explain the circus scene (subjective)
Might not be high enough CR
Alignment is very much good-oriented

EDIT: Another con, I don't think it fits the tower scene either. Not enough damage.

[Savannah]

What's the source of the holyphant? I don't think I remember seeing it. (Of course, based on the name, there's a good chance it's one of the monsters I have attempted to scrub from my mind )

[Nimrod's Son]

That's a good point, and in fact the only other (fictional, but still) psionic to be featured also had a purplish aura.

One is just a quirk of a character, but two unrelated characters suggests that is what psionics look like in OotS.

Your rule of thumb seems to be different than mine, I usually go by: once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence, and three times is a pattern. But sure, let's roll with it.

In fact, there is a third example. It comes from a non-canon source (a bonus strip in SSaDT), but it fits the existing pattern all the same:

Spoiler

Show

The Order are briefly joined by a "Poochie"-type character called Psteve who has psionic powers. He has a pink-and-purple colour scheme (including head-to-foot purple tattoos like in Grey Wolf's link) and begins his attack with the purple head aura before unleashing a whole load of fancy purple spell effects on his target.

[Bulldog Psion]

What's the source of the holyphant? I don't think I remember seeing it. (Of course, based on the name, there's a good chance it's one of the monsters I have attempted to scrub from my mind )

The hollyphant appeared in the 1st edition Monster Manual II, the 2nd edition Planescape setting, and the 3rd edition Book of Exalted Deeds.

Since it's a 2 foot long, golden-furred, white-winged elephant celestial, I think there are probably about 50 reasons to disqualify it immediately.

I do wonder what this creature it's talking to in this picture is, though:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/bo...lery/75113.jpg

[hamishspence]

Hollyphants have an Alternate Form ability allowing them to shift to a larger, bat-winged form.

The second one is another Hollyphant- in alternate form.

[Throknor]

Hollyphants have an Alternate Form ability allowing them to shift to a larger, bat-winged form.

The second one is another Hollyphant- in alternate form.

Is it strong and ugly? Maybe he switched forms and then got the memory wipe, so he doesn't know to switch back. Redcloak only took him as part of a family activity, not to be a minion. It could be just one more thing he's hiding from Xykon.

Edit: Just followed the link. It's ugly but I'd call it a bat-elephant right away, not just something I've never seen.