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

[ellindsey]

Deities in D&D are immune to mind-affecting spells. The MITD is not immune to mind-affecting spells (see section 2c), so it can't be a deity.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Any explanation has to meet two criteria: being plausable within the rules, and being a proper fit for the requirements of a story. It's not going to be an obscure source book monster because there'd be no dramatic payoff to such a revelation.

Nope, sorry. The "must be dramatic" requirement, that gets paraded in these threads every other month or so, has two problems. First, many disagree. MitD is not such a major character that the revelation of his species must be a famous monster. Put another way, Rich said someone would figure it out. Not everyone. Second, no two people presenting this argument have ever managed to agree on what species are famous enough to warrant a dramatic payoff.

Within the story are deities that look like animals. Why not an offspring of a deity, or possibly a diety itself.

Because they are immune to mind control.

Suppose it was unveiled and everyone saw something different. Cool, eh?

See section 4d.

Grey Wolf

[AgentPaper]

The MitD doesn't need to be a famous monster to have dramatic payoff. If anything famous monsters are much less likely than "obscure" monsters, because a famous monster would be much easier to guess, and thus have less payoff when it's finally revealed that, yes, it really was that common thing that everyone expected.

[Savannah]

Apparently I was mis-remembering something. I'll go sulk now

[kicks the dirt and walks off]

Aww, come on now. Hang out in this thread for any length of time and you'll see that all proposals are ripped apart within hours of being posted -- some survive the scrutiny, most don't. Yours wasn't bad

It's not going to be an obscure source book monster because there'd be no dramatic payoff to such a revelation.

You know, people keep coming in here and saying that, but no one can seem to agree on what the requirements are for it to be a proper "dramatic payoff" indicating that any search for something that will be properly dramatic for all viewers won't be able to come up with any sort of consensus (at least while still operating within the constraints we've been given by Rich).

Within the story are deities that look like animals. Why not an offspring of a deity, or possibly a diety itself. It might look like a fantastical creature but in reality be something more. A link to a deity gives dramatic payoff, and explains the bizarre powers that even characters who "know" what it is don't seem to expect it to have. Might a part-deity have a gigantic dad, have visited the astral plane, be scary/beautiful to look at, have inexplicable powers and vulnerabilities and be "possible to guess"? Sure.

Also, a diety or part-deity might appear differently to everyone who sees it, like Vorlons in Babylon 5 (a series that apparently inspired Rich). A big game hunter sees valuable big game, evil and ugly people see it as evil and ugly, and so on. Suppose it was unveiled and everyone saw something different. Cool, eh?

So...your proposal is that it might be a deity that acts like no deity we've seen in-comic? You're going to run into the same issues we have with the "guessability" of templates and classes, I think. (Also, this is another great example of the differences in opinion on the "dramatic payoff" -- I'd feel horribly cheated if MitD turned out to be a deity that acts the way you're saying, as I would find it breaks Rich's "no therblewurkersaurus" promise.)

Edit: curse my attention to detail and wanting to spell therblewurkersaurus correctly! Gave the ninjas an opening

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The MitD doesn't need to be a famous monster to have dramatic payoff. If anything famous monsters are much less likely than "obscure" monsters, because a famous monster would be much easier to guess, and thus have less payoff when it's finally revealed that, yes, it really was that common thing that everyone expected.

This argument is strengthened by the fact that when MitD's species was chosen around strip #100, Rich probably could safely assume most of his readership were heavy-duty D&D 3.5 players who would get a much bigger kick out of being surprised by an obscure monster they didn't even know about.

GW

[liq]

Nope, sorry. The "must be dramatic" requirement, that gets paraded in these threads every other month or so, has two problems. First, many disagree. MitD is not such a major character that the revelation of his species must be a famous monster. Put another way, Rich said someone would figure it out. Not everyone. Second, no two people presenting this argument have ever managed to agree on what species are famous enough to warrant a dramatic payoff.

Because they are immune to mind control.

See section 4d.

Grey Wolf

None of that poses a problem. Part-deities aren't the same as full deities, and the rules on them are vague (and may be freely ignored by Rich in any case). The theory fits 4d to a tee. And the dramatic revelation is not in what species or monster it is - that's irrevelant & it may not even have a species. The deific heritage is the revelation.

I'm prepared to bet you a shiny penny that the nature of MiTD will provide a dramatic payoff of some kind, and a link to the architecture of the story. That's simply how storytelling works.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

what species or monster it is - that's irrevelant & it may not even have a species.

MitD does have a species:

Word of God: "I know exactly what the Monster in the Darkness is.[...]It is possible to guess.[...]I trust that someone will figure it out eventually."

"A demigod" is like guessing "an intelligent humanoid" or "an undead". It is too broad to be useful, particularly if you then add "oh, and it doesn't follow the rules".

But hey, if you think that MitD isn't actually a guessable species, then this is not the thread for you.

GW

[liq]

You know, people keep coming in here and saying that, but no one can seem to agree on what the requirements are for it to be a proper "dramatic payoff" indicating that any search for something that will be properly dramatic for all viewers won't be able to come up with any sort of consensus (at least while still operating within the constraints we've been given by Rich).

Oh aye, t'is but speculation to be sure. But anyone who recognises drama and storytelling purpose as a base requirement at least has a chance of being right. Anyone who doesn't, doesn't.

And yes, a deific entity that doesn't know it's nature, with no sense of its place, could act that way. Vast power and mindset of a lost child. Kind of tragic, but with a tiny possibilty of redemption through self discovery. That would do more for me than some geek pseudo-revelation. ("wow, it's a Schlock Mercenary's Carbosilicate Amorph").

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Oh aye, t'is but speculation to be sure. But anyone who recognises drama and storytelling purpose as a base requirement at least has a chance of being right. Anyone who doesn't, doesn't.

And yes, a deific entity that doesn't know it's nature, with no sense of its place, could act that way. Vast power and mindset of a lost child. Kind of tragic, but with a tiny possibilty of redemption through self discovery. That would do more for me than some geek pseudo-revelation. ("wow, it's a Schlock Mercenary's Carbosilicate Amorph").

Again, you are arguing from personal conviction. To me, if it turned out to be a lost god, or a spawn thereof, it would be trite, overdone and boring. And gets us nowhere closer to actually figuring out what he is.

You are also extremely vague in your theorising. Yes, MitD coming out of the shadows will be a dramatic revelation "of some kind" because that is the condition for Xykon to allow it. But that doesn't require him to be a famous monster, and it certainly doesn't require him to be a deity or half-deity.

Grey Wolf

[liq]

MitD does have a species:

Word of God: "I know exactly what the Monster in the Darkness is.[...]It is possible to guess.[...]I trust that someone will figure it out eventually."

"A demigod" is like guessing "an intelligent humanoid" or "an undead". It is too broad to be useful, particularly if you then add "oh, and it doesn't follow the rules".

But hey, if you think that MitD isn't actually a guessable species, then this is not the thread for you.

GW

The requirement that it has to be a rulebook-defined "species" and not "broad" is all from you, not Rich. I think demigod is a perfectly acceptable answer to the question of what is the Monster in the Darkness. If you add requirements of your own and use them to rule things out you invite the failure of this immense project you've undertaken.

As for trite/overdone, lots of stuff in OOTS boils down to new twists on old cliches. I expect this would be the same, & trust Rich to do it right. He says storytelling trumps rules so best think from that perspective. What would the storytelling value be?

EDIT: also, purely respectul interest here, what do you, personally, think it is?

[Savannah]

Rich ays storytelling trumps rules so best think from that perspective. What would the storytelling value be?

He also says someone can figure it out, which suggests that it is following the rules of the game, especially given that its identity was set back when the comic was much more rules-based.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The requirement that it has to be a rulebook-defined "species" and not "broad" is all from you, not Rich.

If he didn't mean a specific species, he would not have used a specific species as his example.

I think demigod is a perfectly acceptable answer to the question of what is the Monster in the Darkness.

It isn't. Neither is undead. Or plant. Or humanoid. Even though all four could be a dramatic revelation.

If you add requirements of your own and use them to rule things out you invite the failure of this immense project you've undertaken.

I agree, thus why I don't add "it must be a dramatic revelation" to the list of requirements, since we have no evidence other that the occasional personal conviction of posters that there must be one.

And it's Rich who says storytelling trumps rules. So best think from that perspective. What would the storytelling value be?

MitD's species is deducible. Thus is must be playing by the rules.

As to its storytelling value, I have already told you: a puzzle, and a difficult one at that, to entertain those readers that want to figure it out. Performing anagnorisis on a secondary villain is a waste, when he has plenty of main characters and villains on which to perform it.

Grey Wolf

[liq]

If he didn't mean a specific species, he would not have used a specific species as his example. Grey Wolf

What example? Therka-whatever-saurus? Wasn't that a specific example of the kind of thing it definitely wasn't?

If you ask what is the MiTD, "demigod" strikes me as a very different type of answer than "humanoid". But you are right, it's a conviction like every other answer here.

What do you think it is?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

What example? Therka-whatever-saurus? Wasn't that a specific example of the kind of thing it definitely wasn't?

Yes, which means that we are looking for an equivalent level of detail. If he meant, like you seem to suggest, that he had only figured a broad category, he would have used a fake broad category as the kind of invented-by-him concept he was not going to use.

If you ask what is the MiTD, "demigod" strikes me as a very different type of answer than "humanoid".

Not in D&D. If anything, a demigod is a broader category than a type, but in the end they are both descriptors.

But you are right, it's a conviction like every other answer here.

No, most of the answers here are, or at least try to be, based on evidence. You are just arguing from personal conviction, and have yet to produce any evidence for your position other than the extremely subjective "that's what you would do, if you were Rich."

What do you think it is?

I fail to see how this is relevant to the conversation.

Grey Wolf

[liq]

No, most of the answers here are, or at least try to be, based on evidence. You are just arguing from personal conviction, and have yet to produce any evidence for your position other than the extremely subjective "that's what you would do, if you were Rich."Grey Wolf

Good lord. You surely don't count matching a D&D rule as "evidence" after everything Rich has said about rules having no standing in the story. Your notion of what should be counted as evidence is a conviction in itself, and one that contradicts the author's own statements.

When we get to arguing under what circumstances the author uses fake broad categories, we're probably done. You are making assertions about things that are literally impossible for you to know.

[AgentPaper]

Good lord. You surely don't count matching a D&D rule as "evidence" after everything Rich has said about rules having no standing in the story. Your notion of what should be counted as evidence is a conviction in itself, and one that contradicts the author's own statements.

When we get to arguing under what circumstances the author uses fake broad categories, we're probably done. You are making assertions about things that are literally impossible for you to know.

Not this again.

That's not what Rich said, it's not what he meant, and it's not true in any sense.

First of all, Rich was following the rules to a T back when he decided what MitD was, and while he's gotten a bit lax there, that doesn't mean that he's thrown all the rules out the window. Durkon is not casting time stop, V is not throwing around heals, and Haley isn't wearing platemail, and none of them ever will because while Rich might not follow the rules of strict DnD, he absolutely follows the rules of strict OotS-verse. And OotS-verse has many rules about how things work, most of which mirror the rules of 3.5 DnD.

Secondly, whether or not Rich is throwing out the rules is irrelevant to this thread, because if he was, this thread would be irrelevant. In other words, our only two choices are to A) Assume that Rich follows the rules at least in relation to MitD to uphold his promise of "guessable", or B) Assume that he actually has thrown out the rules even when it comes to MitD and broken his word on "guessable", and have the thread quickly die because there's nothing to discuss.

Because we like hunting through trying to find all the hints and all the obscure monsters to see if they match up, we go with option A. Also because it is by far the more likely and believable option.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Good lord. You surely don't count matching a D&D rule as "evidence" after everything Rich has said about rules having no standing in the story.

False. This is what Rich has actually said:

Plus I barely even reference the 3.5 rules anymore, using them just to determine what sort of spells or class abilities a character might have and then ignoring them the rest of the time.

(emphasis mine)

Notice that, first, the rules still apply to what a character can and cannot do. MitD is a character. Thus, it still follows the rules. Second, that this is a new development. MitD is an early character, from the time when the rules were followed far more strictly.

He also has said:

So, just so everyone is clear: I know exactly what the Monster in the Darkness is. I have (almost) always known. Its first two or three appearances were before I had worked out much of the plot's details, so at that point, I just figured it was a mystery I would never answer. 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. (Note that nothing from before strip #100 actually contradicts the truth of what it is, either.) [...]
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.

Thus, third, as we have told you, Rich expects us to be able to figure it out, and he is giving us hints, which point to a specific answer. One of those clues happens to be "MitD can be mentally dominated" which rules out all deities level 0 and above, which includes demigods.

Your notion of what should be counted as evidence is a conviction in itself, and one that contradicts the author's own statements.

False, as per the above.

When we get to arguing under what circumstances the author uses fake broad categories, we're probably done.

No, we are not, unless you concede that Rich was talking about specific species in the quote above, and not about some nebulously defined broad category such as "demigod".

You are making assertions about things that are literally impossible for you to know.

False. I am making assertions based on the author's words.

Grey Wolf

[Irish Musician]

Can I say I miss reading the purely logical argument of the GW?

[rweird]

I'd like to suggest adding the Rich's claim that nothing follows the rules and that the revelation will be dramatic and common section to the beginning (in case someone reads it) to hopefully reduce the number of times we went over it, the majority of the last i'd guess 10-ish places at the least was arguments about this.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'd like to suggest adding the Rich's claim that nothing follows the rules and that the revelation will be dramatic and common section to the beginning (in case someone reads it) to hopefully reduce the number of times we went over it, the majority of the last i'd guess 10-ish places at the least was arguments about this.

Good point. I'll add it to the FAQ. Thanks for the suggestion.

GW

[Coat]

Narrative is still important though: all the hints the Giant has dropped are also expectations he has set for the very large number of readers that aren't playing the MitD guessing game, but are invested in the actual MitD character. At the point when the MitD is revealed, those expectations have to be met, and the Giant has to meet them in a way which makes sense within the comic, and which it is possible to portray within the comic.

So, for example, Xykon explicitly calls the MitD ugly: so when the MitD is revealed, it needs to be ugly, in a way that can actually be drawn in a stick-figure comic book. If, for example, the candidate creature is described has having 'a huge mis-shapen nose weeping green pus', that fits the requirement nicely, but doesn't work for the comic, because no noses.

It's a problem for templates too: all readers know the MitD is incredibly strong - the tower scene with Miko is very clear in that regard. When the MitD is revealed, if that strength is only provided by a template, unless that template is very visual, The Giant is going to have a real problem explaining how the MitD is consistent with its previous behaviour, regardless of whether it was possible to guess.

Finally, while a Carbosilicate Amorph probably works pretty well for anyone who also reads Schlock Mercenary, for anyone who doesn't, it's going to be very confusing. I can't see The Giant allowing the story to be spoilt for people who don't read another webcomic: after all, he's never even done cross-overs before - at least not for anything other than a single-page gag strip.

Plus, the eyes are completely wrong.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

It's a problem for templates too: all readers know the MitD is incredibly strong - the tower scene with Miko is very clear in that regard. When the MitD is revealed, if that strength is only provided by a template, unless that template is very visual, The Giant is going to have a real problem explaining how the MitD is consistent with its previous behaviour, regardless of whether it was possible to guess.

This can be avoided with the appropriate foreshadowing. If we learn that MitD's dad was a (very strong creature) and MitD's mom was a (human-sized creature), then people will be predisposed to accept he "got his strength from dad, and size from mom" without even needing to explain the insane way in which templates work in D&D. The issue with templates is that, so far, the only hint in that direction is that his dad was "bigger". If and when we learn about mom's differences in size/strength/species from his dad, templates will become viable. Until then, they are a big stretch.

Plus, the eyes are completely wrong.

This is a species that needs to borrow eyes from other their environment. MitD's dad found himself needing to get his son eyes, and borrowed a local set.

The carb-amorph biggest problem is, indeed, the same it always has been: it fits all the clues, but it is extremely unlikely that Rich would borrow a species from a sci fi webcomic.

Grey Wolf

[Irish Musician]

This can be avoided with the appropriate foreshadowing. If we learn that MitD's dad was a (very strong creature) and MitD's mom was a (human-sized creature), then people will be predisposed to accept he "got his strength from dad, and size from mom" without even needing to explain the insane way in which templates work in D&D.
Grey Wolf

Kind of like a Hercules type of thing? Human mom, god father? Not saying MitD is part deity, merely using that as an example to understand your meaning. Would explain a few things about MitD, unfortunately, like you said, we haven't gotten any information of MitD's mother.....if, in fact, he has one.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Kind of like a Hercules type of thing? Human mom, god father? Not saying MitD is part deity, merely using that as an example to understand your meaning. Would explain a few things about MitD, unfortunately, like you said, we haven't gotten any information of MitD's mother.....if, in fact, he has one.

More like father dragon, mother human. I believe the dragon template does indeed confer extra strength (at work, can't check d20) without inconvenient characteristics such as mind-affecting ability immunity.

Note that it probably doesn't give enough of a strength bonus to make a difference, but as IIRC, there are templates that give +8 strength and the like.

If all it was missing was strength, this would be an easy solution. However, the issue for templates (apart from lack of evidence) is that no single template gives enough. If your base creature needs two or more templates, it quickly becomes the potted plant situation.

GW

[Coat]

This can be avoided with the appropriate foreshadowing. If we learn that MitD's dad was a (very strong creature) and MitD's mom was a (human-sized creature), then people will be predisposed to accept he "got his strength from dad, and size from mom" without even needing to explain the insane way in which templates work in D&D. The issue with templates is that, so far, the only hint in that direction is that his dad was "bigger". If and when we learn about mom's differences in size/strength/species from his dad, templates will become viable. Until then, they are a big stretch.

Agreed on both points.

This is a species that needs to borrow eyes from other their environment. MitD's dad found himself needing to get his son eyes, and borrowed a local set.

The amorph eyes are a lot more specialised than that - acquiring more eyes for Schlock has been a major plot point in Schlock Mercenary, in a context where they've had access to fabbers capable of making whole spaceships, so I'd argue that if you're going to include an amorph from that continuity, picking up a local set would need to be justified. All amorph eyes seen have had pupils.

Either way, I suggest this is worth mentioning in the 'cons' of the Amorph on first page, along with the suggested explanation, as it is quite an obvious objection.

Also - how do the hunters recognise an amorph? It's easy enough to imagine that Redcloak knows because he reads Schlock Mercenary, but unless they're interplanetary big game hunters, how they recognise an amorph probably needs explanation.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The amorph eyes are a lot more specialised than that - acquiring more eyes for Schlock has been a major plot point in Schlock Mercenary, in a context where they've had access to fabbers capable of making whole spaceships, so I'd argue that if you're going to include an amorph from that continuity, picking up a local set would need to be justified.

They have always been in a hurry. An amorph, by its very definition, given enough time, can adapt to new conditions. That is how they went from storage devices to independent creatures. I don't remember how the eye trees evolved, but presumably the amorphs adapted to using those eyes preferentially. Cut off from the eye trees, an amorph would eventually adapt to whatever local eyes he could find.

All amorph eyes seen have had pupils.

Again: Dad-amorph would have had about 2000 years to adapt to OotS-eyes.

Either way, I suggest this is worth mentioning in the 'cons' of the Amorph on first page, along with the suggested explanation, as it is quite an obvious objection.

No, it isn't. While I am playing along, the fact is that the explanation is "he is being drawn OotS-style, not Schlock-Mercenary style" and in OotS style, eyes don't have pupils.

Also - how do the hunters recognise an amorph? It's easy enough to imagine that Redcloak knows because he reads Schlock Mercenary, but unless they're interplanetary big game hunters, how they recognise an amorph probably needs explanation.

Dad-amorph has budded off several times, and the hunters have seen/heard of others elsewhere (possibly closer to where dad-amorph lives).

Grey Wolf

[AgentPaper]

More like father dragon, mother human. I believe the dragon template does indeed confer extra strength (at work, can't check d20) without inconvenient characteristics such as mind-affecting ability immunity.

Note that it probably doesn't give enough of a strength bonus to make a difference, but as IIRC, there are templates that give +8 strength and the like.

If all it was missing was strength, this would be an easy solution. However, the issue for templates (apart from lack of evidence) is that no single template gives enough. If your base creature needs two or more templates, it quickly becomes the potted plant situation.

GW

That's an interesting take on it. Stacking on tons of templates is definitely something we don't want to get into, but perhaps a human/other creature with strictly one template should be something we look into? Perhaps even only templates that you can get from inheritance, or other effects of mixed heritage (strictly half-half).

Depending on how many candidates this brings up, it may need to be in another section, but it could be a more useful use of time while we wait for more clues or obscure monsters to come out of the woodwork.

To start, I think we would need to come up with a list of templates that A) Provide some feature that could help a creature better fit the clues, such as super strength, or teleport SLA, or granting extreme ugliness, and B) Is obtained in some way that would allow MitD to have that template (and only that template), such as inheritance for a half-X template, or a template you can get during life, such as being bitten by a werewolf or infused in wild magic.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That's an interesting take on it. Stacking on tons of templates is definitely something we don't want to get into, but perhaps a human/other creature with strictly one template should be something we look into? Perhaps even only templates that you can get from inheritance, or other effects of mixed heritage (strictly half-half).

I'd still call Occam's Razor against it, since even a single template is an added assumption that pure-blood monsters don't need to have. Yes, his mother might have not been the same species as his father given his ignorance (or silence) in the matter, so it can fit the evidence, but at the end of the day, it is still a crutch.

To start, I think we would need to come up with a list of templates that A) Provide some feature that could help a creature better fit the clues, such as super strength, or teleport SLA, or granting extreme ugliness, and B) Is obtained in some way that would allow MitD to have that template (and only that template), such as inheritance for a half-X template, or a template you can get during life, such as being bitten by a werewolf or infused in wild magic.

If someone takes up the task, and presents it in a format that is easy for me to add to the first post, I'll happily add it to the relevant section, but I'm not volunteering. I don't know anywhere near enough about templates, and it is not a topic I'm willing to spend any time educating myself in, sorry.

(If anyone does take it up, remember you can only use templates that predate strip #100. For example, Dungeonbred, which used to be invoked to reduce the size of too-big monsters, didn't exist when Rich came up with MitD)

Grey Wolf

[SavageWombat]

For example, Dungeonbred, which used to be invoked to reduce the size of too-big monsters, didn't exist when Rich came up with MitD)

Although, to be fair, maybe Rich made that one up himself to explain how the MitD fit in the box - and then got it published in his book.

[Olinser]

Although, to be fair, maybe Rich made that one up himself to explain how the MitD fit in the box - and then got it published in his book.

Rich has been more than willing to alter the size of species to suit his needs - see 'inexplicably Medium-sized fairies'.