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

[thereaper]

But Grendel's mother was a very different creature from Grendel (or at least she was in the version I remember).

[Andre Fairchilde]

Hey - sorry to hijack conversations abount Grendel - (my cat) Grendel lives in Minnesota if you want pictures. He is definitely Unique.

Regarding Mitd which was described as only "Very Rare" - my theory looking back at the original Monster Manual is the Mitd is in fact a 1st Ed. *Intellect Devourer*.

Looking at all the original rules, and taking into account the Astral Plane and 1st Ed psionics, immunity to weapons less than +3, etc., I haven't seen anything to take away from my theory.

Thoughts?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Hey - sorry to hijack conversations abount Grendel - (my cat) Grendel lives in Minnesota if you want pictures. He is definitely Unique.

Regarding Mitd which was described as only "Very Rare" - my theory looking back at the original Monster Manual is the Mitd is in fact a 1st Ed. *Intellect Devourer*.

Looking at all the original rules, and taking into account the Astral Plane and 1st Ed psionics, immunity to weapons less than +3, etc., I haven't seen anything to take away from my theory.

Thoughts?

Intellect devourer

Pros:
I like that it cannot talk unless it is possessing a body - it would explain why it is so amazing it can (without one).
I can see it explaining the circus, by and large, although not why a wizard would not have seen a brain before.

Cons:
Cr7, Strength 13. Can't explain the tower scene (it would be cut to ribbons by Miko in a heartbeat, can't hit strong enough)
No teleportation abilities I can see.

Yours,

Grey Wolf

[Andre Fairchilde]

Think 1st edition, 200 psi points is massive - I believe it has tremendous Telekinesis, and Miko did not have a +3 weapon. Also I think it has abilities to teleport others - but drains Psionic energy using the big stuff requiring food to restore fatigue.

It also explains *so much* of the dialogue around it, primarily effecting higher intelligence pc's/npcs as well as being gross enough to be in a Circus. In the first edition Monster Manual the ones encountered were found with 4-6 hit dice but had a lot of immunities. I don't think the darkness has anything to do with it, except if it can't be seen it can't use mind control.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Think 1st edition, 200 psi points is massive - I believe it has tremendous Telekinesis, and Miko did not have a +3 weapon. Also I think it has abilities to teleport others - but drains Psionic energy using the big stuff requiring food to restore fatigue.

It also explains *so much* of the dialogue around it, primarily effecting higher intelligence pc's/npcs as well as being gross enough to be in a Circus. In the first edition Monster Manual the ones encountered were found with 4-6 hit dice but had a lot of immunities. I don't think the darkness has anything to do with it, except if it can't be seen it can't use mind control.

We know from strip #1 that all creatures that can be updated are updated, whether they want to or not, and whether it makes them stronger or weaker. The only exception in canon is creatures that were never updated, but that is not the case for the intellect devourer. Even if back in 1st Ed the creature would have fit MitD, it no longer does.

Grey Wolf

[Crusher]

We know from strip #1 that all creatures that can be updated are updated, whether they want to or not, and whether it makes them stronger or weaker. The only exception in canon is creatures that were never updated, but that is not the case for the intellect devourer. Even if back in 1st Ed the creature would have fit MitD, it no longer does.

Grey Wolf

The d20srd version has DR10/Adamantine, so while it would strain credulity for Miko to not have a +3 weapon by that point, its quite possible she doesn't have an adamantine one.

The rest of the problems remain, though. The current version isn't strong enough for the Tower scene and doesn't have any form of telekinesis to cover it, nor does it have an answer for the Escape scene.

I will say I'm intrigued by it having the Wild Talent feat but I don't see a way in which it could be used to cover the gaps.

[Timy]

But if it is possessing a body, it has the strengh of he possessed body.

So it could easily explain the tower scene by it possessing a very tough body...

[littlebum2002]

But if it is possessing a body, it has the strengh of he possessed body.

So it could easily explain the tower scene by it possessing a very tough body...

Only for 7 days

[Timy]

And why not just before (a few days ?) this moment ?

[b_jonas]

So an Intellect Devourer can possess the body of dead monster for a week and thus gain most of its abilities. This could perhaps explain the tower scene, because Xykon was specifically planning for this occasion, and so he could have fed the MitD the body of a very strong monster.

This would also explain why the MitD is confused about what kind of monster he is, if he keeps possessing different bodies. (Mind you, I don't think he could possess two kobolds at the same time.) It can also explain how his father was bigger: his father was possessing a bigger creature at that time.

Intellect Devourers have a bonus on bluff, which is what the MitD may have used near #901.

One problem is that in its normal form, an Intellect Devourer doesn't have eyes, so to consistently show up with two yellow eyes, he'd have to possess monsters with eyes all the time we see him. Do you think Redcloak could manage that?

The bigger problem of course is the escape scene. How do you suppose an Intellect Devourer have managed to teleport Mr. Stiffly? I don't think an Intellect Devourer can gain spells by eating spellcasting monsters.

[goto124]

One problem is that in its normal form, an Intellect Devourer doesn't have eyes, so to consistently show up with two yellow eyes, he'd have to possess monsters with eyes all the time we see him. Do you think Redcloak could manage that?

Glow-in-the-dark stickers :P

[b_jonas]

Glow-in-the-dark stickers :P

Wouldn't last long. The MitD would lose them, or eat them thinking they're donuts or something.

[Throknor]

There was something they could not have known at the time,
That no blade on earth, no blacksmith's art
Could ever damage their demon opponent.

Wouldn't Miko's blades and even possibly attacks have had their bonuses granted by the 12 Monkeys Gods? Possibly Good-Aligned, specifically useful against demons? I could see the argument being made that human magic bonuses on Belkar's blades could fall under a loose definition of "blacksmith's art". But it seems likely Miko's blades were blessed in some way leaving this open to disagreement.

Admittedly nothing is specifically shown either way for her blades. It just seems likely as well as something the above wording doesn't really address. So not an absolute unless anyone has a way to prove it one way or another.

[rweird]

Wouldn't Miko's blades and even possibly attacks have had their bonuses granted by the 12 Monkeys Gods? Possibly Good-Aligned, specifically useful against demons? I could see the argument being made that human magic bonuses on Belkar's blades could fall under a loose definition of "blacksmith's art". But it seems likely Miko's blades were blessed in some way leaving this open to disagreement.

Admittedly nothing is specifically shown either way for her blades. It just seems likely as well as something the above wording doesn't really address. So not an absolute unless anyone has a way to prove it one way or another.

If they are magic, they are masterwork, meaning they'd have a high degree of quality from a "blacksmith's art." Her swords (probably) would have some sort of magic enhancement. Whether it is arcane or divine, we don't know.

[littlebum2002]

Considering the MitD has always been approximately the same height, and has always had the same amount of eyes, I really think any suggestion which involved shapechanges is tentative at best.

[RighteousWarior]

Could MitD be a creature out of Greek mythology or some other mythology we aren't considering? After reading a ton of data here, I find it unlikely that Rich made him a creature out of the monster manual.

[Bird]

Could MitD be a creature out of Greek mythology or some other mythology we aren't considering? After reading a ton of data here, I find it unlikely that Rich made him a creature out of the monster manual.

Sure. The thread doesn't assume that the MitD is a D&D creature--have a look at section 3d on the first page, and you'll find examples. Do you have any guesses in particular?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Could MitD be a creature out of Greek mythology or some other mythology we aren't considering? After reading a ton of data here, I find it unlikely that Rich made him a creature out of the monster manual.

As long as the creature has abilities that would be translated into the D&D abilities in the comic, it fits just fine. Of course, a lot of mythological creatures were made in D&D monsters.

[Ron Miel]

Could MitD be a creature out of Greek mythology or some other mythology we aren't considering? After reading a ton of data here, I find it unlikely that Rich made him a creature out of the monster manual.

I think that's highly likely. The Giant has been trying for years to make the story accessible to non-gamers. I predict that it will be something that ordinary people will have heard of. I shall be surprised and disappointed if it turns out to be something only found in a D&D sourcebook.

[Qwertystop]

I think that's highly likely. The Giant has been trying for years to make the story accessible to non-gamers. I predict that it will be something that ordinary people will have heard of. I shall be surprised and disappointed if it turns out to be something only found in a D&D sourcebook.

On the other hand (as was said every time this comes up), the identity of MitD was determined around #100 - well before that point, right when all the rest of the plot was roughed out.

[SavageWombat]

Could MitD be a creature out of Greek mythology or some other mythology we aren't considering? After reading a ton of data here, I find it unlikely that Rich made him a creature out of the monster manual.

This has always been my feeling - but just try thinking of a mythological creature that hasn't been converted to D&D at some point.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

This has always been my feeling - but just try thinking of a mythological creature that hasn't been converted to D&D at some point.

Especially western mythology, and especially especially greco-roman mythology has been thoroughly stat'ed by now.

Re: "can't be in the monster manual", as Qwertystop says, when Rich crafted the plot and determined MitD, the comic was a hell of a lot more D&D-centric. But no, this thread does not restrict itself to D&D creatures, as should be obvious from the fact that the carbosilicate amorph is on the FBS list.

Grey Wolf

[Ron Miel]

On the other hand (as was said every time this comes up), the identity of MitD was determined around #100 - well before that point, right when all the rest of the plot was roughed out.

Didn't they happen at about the same time? Are there any rules-based jokes after that? And there appear to be fewer rules-based references in the plot too, post 100.

Also, we think he will not use anything under copyright. That pretty much excludes anything created for a D&D sourcebook.

This has always been my feeling - but just try thinking of a mythological creature that hasn't been converted to D&D at some point.

Doesn't matter. The point is, that the creature is known outside D&D. It makes no difference if there is a D&D version too.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Didn't they happen at about the same time? Are there any rules-based jokes after that?

Yes. Yes.

Also, we think he will not use anything under copyright. That pretty much excludes anything created for a D&D sourcebook.

Doesn't matter. The point is, that the creature is known outside D&D. It makes no difference if there is a D&D version too.

These two statements directly contradict each other. The first one also uses a royal "we" that I'm not sure who encompasses, but definitely not this thread.

GW

[Ron Miel]

These two statements directly contradict each other.

how so? I'm not seeing it.

The first one also uses a royal "we" that I'm not sure who encompasses, but definitely not this thread.

Section 3c: Copyrighted Ideas
All ideas listed here, regardless of how well they fit, have a major problem: they are trademarked, or otherwise unavailable for Rich's use due to legal issues (see Section 4a: Inappropriate Topics)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

how so? I'm not seeing it.

"It makes no difference if there is a D&D version too." vs "That pretty much excludes anything created for a D&D sourcebook."

Make up your mind: either it does count that it is in a D&D splatbook, or it doesn't.

Section 3c: Copyrighted Ideas
All ideas listed here, regardless of how well they fit, have a major problem: they are trademarked, or otherwise unavailable for Rich's use due to legal issues (see Section 4a: Inappropriate Topics)

And if you go to 4a, you will see that it is defined as "Intellectual Property ("copyrighted") creatures not belonging to WotC." (emphasis mine).

Grey Wolf

[Ron Miel]

"It makes no difference if there is a D&D version too." vs "That pretty much excludes anything created for a D&D sourcebook."

Make up your mind: either it does count that it is in a D&D splatbook, or it doesn't.

You misunderstand. Let me give you an example.

Case 1: Illithid/ Mind-flayer. Created for a D&D sourcebook. Under copyright. Owned by WotC. May not be used without permission, fair use excepted.

Case 2: Pegasus. Creature from ancient mythology. Public domain. Anyone may use. Has been used in D&D sourcebooks. This does not make it the property of WotC.

See the difference? One is "created for D&D" the other is "D&D version too." And they are different.

And if you go to 4a, you will see that it is defined as "Intellectual Property ("copyrighted") creatures not belonging to WotC." (emphasis mine).

Which I believe to be misstated. I think The Giant will respect WotC's copyright as much as anyone's.

[Peelee]

"It makes no difference if there is a D&D version too." vs "That pretty much excludes anything created for a D&D sourcebook."

Make up your mind: either it does count that it is in a D&D splatbook, or it doesn't.

I think he's saying there is a distinction between "created by mythology and converted to D&D" and "created specifically for D&D."

EDIT: ...yep.

And if you go to 4a, you will see that it is defined as "Intellectual Property ("copyrighted") creatures not belonging to WotC." (emphasis mine).

Grey Wolf

I'd like to not get too close to the line about legal advice and opinions, but isn't parody protected speech?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

You misunderstand. Let me give you an example.

Case 1: Illithid/ Mind-flayer. Created for a D&D sourcebook. Under copyright. Owned by WotC. May not be used without permission, fair use excepted.

Case 2: Pegasus. Creature from ancient mythology. Public domain. Anyone may use. Has been used in D&D sourcebooks. This does not make it the property of WotC.

See the difference? One is "created for D&D" the other is "D&D version too." And they are different.

No, I really don't see the difference, for the purposes of the thread.

Which I believe to be misstated. I think The Giant will respect WotC's copyright as much as anyone's.

That is your opinion/interpretation of applicable laws. I have my own, which is different from yours. I have even got a PM from a lawyer, giving their own views in the matter which disagree with both you and I. But going into the details would violate the board rules. Which is why this is against the thread rules to discuss.

So we are back to: all creatures can be considered. But all non-WotC copyrighted creatures will have "we don't know if Rich can use them" as their first Con, unlike non-copyrighted and WotC creatures. You are free to think what you want, but I'm not going to get carded a second time over this topic, nor am I wanting to see the thread shuttered, so further discussion of Copyright will be directly reported to the mods.

Bottom line: Rich uses WotC creatures in the comic, both ones which existed prior to D&D, ones that were created for D&D, and ones that were created for D&D but reuse old names from mythology, so all those are fine. Non-copyrighted creatures are also fine. Everything else, we do not know, we cannot know, and if brought up, get lumped in the same category.

Grey Wolf

[littlebum2002]

Copyright issues aside, I think it would be very unlikely for the umbrella to be thrown off and the MitD be some obscure creature from a random Dungeon magazine you've never heard of. I think he will either be at least a SOMEWHAT familiar D&D monster, or something well-known from other media or mythology.