MitD XI: A good man

[Keltest]

I vote you put this or something like this in either section 1l or 4c. Also, what's the difference between 3s and 3e? Just how often they're brought up?

I disagree. I don't care how supportable or unsupportable Grey Wolf finds something. He isn't making decisions for other people, and anything that doesn't have hard data to collect doesn't belong in the opening posts.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I vote you put this or something like this in either section 1l or 4c.

I'll consider it. It is definitely a recurring topic at this point.

Also, what's the difference between 3sb? and 3e? Just how often they're brought up?

(Taking a guess at the letter you meant)

The difference comes down to volume. If you'll recall our first few threads, tarrasque came up a lot, as did the Snarl. Some flavour of god has come up up often too. The others, not as much, but especially the grue tended to pop every so often so I felt it needed a bit of visibility. But there isn't a hard and fast rule, its down to my gut feeling of how likely are any of those likely to be in someones' mind when they come to post, and thus I am attempting to maximize the chances that if they are going to bring them up, at least they will have thought through the basic counterarguments I'd be posting anyway.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

I disagree. I don't care how supportable or unsupportable Grey Wolf finds something. He isn't making decisions for other people, and anything that doesn't have hard data to collect doesn't belong in the opening posts.

I agree in principle, but the assertion that it must be something recognizable (or whatever other applicable word here) is objectively unsupportable, since it inherently relies on absolutely subjective reasoning that has consistently failed to reach any sort of sturdy basis without crumbling.

(Taking a guess at the letter you meant)

It was. Thanks!

[Keltest]

I agree in principle, but the assertion that it must be something recognizable (or whatever other applicable word here) is objectively unsupportable, since it inherently relies on absolutely subjective reasoning that has consistently failed to reach any sort of sturdy basis without crumbling.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean people cant use it as one of their personal criteria in determining what they think it likely. A note in the opening post is unlikely to discourage people from trying to bring others around to their way of thinking, and frankly, it really shouldn't. If people want to argue about subjective criteria, let them. Unless somebody stumbles upon something really, really good, this thread is unlikely to reach a consensus about the MITD, so I think the OP is better served hosting only the facts rather than reflecting any specific opinion.

[Peelee]

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean people cant use it as one of their personal criteria in determining what they think it likely.

Neither does anything else in the first several posts.

[Keltest]

Neither does anything else in the first several posts.

Im not sure what you mean by this. Currently the first posts all consist of data and the examination thereof. This wouldn't be either of those things.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Im not sure what you mean by this. Currently the first posts all consist of data and the examination thereof. This wouldn't be either of those things.

And also frequent arguments brought to the thread, e.g.:

• Section 1g: (Not) Seeing the Gates
• Section 1h: Recognising MitD
• Section 1j: The meaning of Fine Line

I'd add another entry, probably titled "Drama & Recognizing MitD's species at the reveal" or something along those lines.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

Im not sure what you mean by this. Currently the first posts all consist of data and the examination thereof. This wouldn't be either of those things.

Sections 1a, b, c, d, and h, at the very least, all have information that specifically suggest how to best speculate on what the MitD is. For instance, it is surprising that it speaks Common. This still doesn't mean people cant use "it speaks Common" as one of their personal criteria in determining what they think likely, it just means that they can be pointed to a common rebuttal.

[Keltest]

Sections 1a, b, c, d, and h, at the very least, all have information that specifically suggest how to best speculate on what the MitD is. For instance, it is surprising that it speaks Common. This still doesn't mean people cant use "it speaks Common" as one of their personal criteria in determining what they think likely, it just means that they can be pointed to a common rebuttal.

The difference is, those are all heading off faulty trains of logic. This is entirely a matter of opinion. The same argument that says we cannot prove that being well known is important says we cant prove it is unimportant either. Even the ones that are more subjective, such as the ones Grey Wolf linked, head off faulty trains of logic being derived from actual statements made by the author, such as the fine line comment, and are thus examining actual data points.

Edit: Also, reading the section about not seeing the gate, it mentions that Xykon put up his own gate to stop his zombies from wandering in. Where does he say that? I cant find it. Is that in a bonus strip?

[b_jonas]

That's because you're obsessed with what species he is, as I predicted.

Hahahaha!

Exactly. For instance, if, in that scene, MITD finally stands up to Xykon, stepping out of the darkness to fight his former master, maybe even to defend O-Chul, that would still be dramatic, regardless of his species.

Wait, which one? Professor Xavion, the childhood master, or the winged master with a face-concealing helmet and suit of armor who taught him on Helldeathdoomfire Volcano?

I'd add another entry, probably titled "Drama & Recognizing MitD's species at the reveal" or something along those lines.

There's no need to add a new section. 1a already has “ Any number of people have jumped to the conclusion that it means that MitD must be a famous or iconic creature.” Just change that a bit.

[woweedd]

Hahahaha!
Wait, which one? Professor Xavion, the childhood master, or the winged master with a face-concealing helmet and suit of armor who taught him on Helldeathdoomfire Volcano?
There's no need to add a new section. 1a already has “ Any number of people have jumped to the conclusion that it means that MitD must be a famous or iconic creature.” Just change that a bit.

I'm referring to Xykon as MITD's former master.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'm referring to Xykon as MITD's former master.

(I'm fairly certain b_jonas is purposely misunderstanding the ambiguous possessive in your post for humour purposes)

[5a Violista]

There's no need to add a new section. 1a already has “ Any number of people have jumped to the conclusion that it means that MitD must be a famous or iconic creature.” Just change that a bit.

I've seen both people arguing that it must be an iconic creature, and that it can't be an iconic creature, using "otherwise it wouldn't make narrative sense" or "drama" as supporting evidence.

I, personally, would be in favor of making a new section that makes section 1a's "Any number of people have jumped..." more visible and relevant.

Possibly, I'd title it this: Does the fame or iconicness of the MitD matter? and have it say "Some people have argued that the MitD must be easily-recongized because <insert common reasons, including 'it would be anticlimatic and less dramatic if nobody recognized it'>. Other people have argued that the MitD can't be easily-recognized because <insert common reasons, including 'a well-known creature won't be as dramatic or make as much narrative sense'>. Some more people think that the fame of the creature is irrelevant, because <insert common reasons, including 'the author is good enough to make the scene dramatic regardless of what it is'>. You can base your guesses on whatever argument you want, but if your entire argument is supported by something not in-text, you'll have a hard time convincing others in this thread."

[Grey_Wolf_c]

There's no need to add a new section. 1a already has “ Any number of people have jumped to the conclusion that it means that MitD must be a famous or iconic creature.” Just change that a bit.

I, personally, would be in favor of making a new section that makes section 1a's "Any number of people have jumped..." more visible and relevant. [...]

I probably don't say this enough, but I do very much appreciate to hear you guy's views on how the first post should be organized. It is hard, after all these years maintaining it, to have a grasp on how others see and feel about the first post.

Thanks,

Grey Wolf

[Shashakiro]

I, personally, would be in favor of making a new section that makes section 1a's "Any number of people have jumped..." more visible and relevant.

Possibly, I'd title it this: Does the fame or iconicness of the MitD matter? and have it say "Some people have argued that the MitD must be easily-recongized because <insert common reasons, including 'it would be anticlimatic and less dramatic if nobody recognized it'>. Other people have argued that the MitD can't be easily-recognized because <insert common reasons, including 'a well-known creature won't be as dramatic or make as much narrative sense'>. Some more people think that the fame of the creature is irrelevant, because <insert common reasons, including 'the author is good enough to make the scene dramatic regardless of what it is'>. You can base your guesses on whatever argument you want, but if your entire argument is supported by something not in-text, you'll have a hard time convincing others in this thread."

I support this change fully, though I would replace "must be" with "is likely to be" and "can't be" with "is unlikely to be".

[godsflunky]

That all sounds quite sensible to me, too.

[Keltest]

I'd like to believe that people don't need to be told an argument based only on emotional appeal isn't very strong, but part of me just knows better.

In light of that, I find this an acceptable compromise, so long as it doesn't overtly favor the "a monster's fame is meaningless" position.

[Kish]

That looks good to me, as well.

[Fish]

Possibly, I'd title it this: Does the fame or iconicness of the MitD matter? and have it say "Some people have argued that the MitD must be easily-recongized because...

I like where this is going. It may be possible to simplify.

Something like: On the dramatic reveal: Some people have promoted or rejected certain candidates on the basis of the creature's familiarity to readers, eg, that the reveal can only be dramatic if the creature can be recognized by many or most readers. However, there is no evidence to confirm that the reveal of the MITD from the darkness is the same moment as the reveal of the MITD's species. These may or may not be separate events.

[Synesthesy]

I think that the MitD will be either an iconic creatures or something foreshadowed someway. It would be enough an encounter, because it would make us going to google the creature. If Kraagor tomb is filled with high level monster, it could be enough to show the MitD species to the Order (and not to team evil, of course!) with lots of other monsters not to guess too easy...

However, I vote a withe Slaad turning into a black one just after the reveal. It would be really really giantish. And the one who first thought that is a genius.

[Crusher]

Proposed change sounds good to me, too.

Edit - I’m noting your vote now, Synesthesy.

Edit2 - I’ll probably update the league tables in a day or two. Doubt there have been any huge changes, but things may have shifted around a bit.

[b_jonas]

Something like: On the dramatic reveal:

No, don't do that heading. The addition is supposed to be about whether the monster species is a famous one, because that's what we keep having a big argument about, not just some general stuff about the reveal.

[Crusher]

FYI - I updated post #7 along with the commentary.

The ranking currently goes:

#1 - Protean (or some variant of Protean) - 18.8
#2 - ANB - 8.2
#3 - Slaad - 7.9
#4 - Glabrezu - 2.8
#5 - Zodar - 2.6

[Synesthesy]

I don't know if someone is interested, but this is the reasons I voted Slaad: first, because I didn't find a new creature :P

I don't like Athasian Nightmare Beast because it's psionic, and I don't think that MitD should be psionic, as Redcloak is smart and have a lot of knowledge, and he would have known it way before the scene with O-Chul. If that wasn't just a joke, of course....
But the fact that it wasn't public knowledge at the time also make me think that it shouldn't be the right pick. I think that Rich used something that came to his mind, something he's familiar with, not something he just read about.

I don't like Glabrezu because first I think the MitD is too good to be a demon, second because he couldn't grant his own wishes. While wish surely is the best pick on the ability that made O-Chul escape, it was MitD's wish to make them go away safe. O-Chul was ready to sacrifice himself, he was in peace: if he wished something in that moment would have been more strenght, a way to fight more, not a safe route to home. He was in his home, after all.

Protean for me is the last pick. The only sure thing about MitD are his eyes, and they never change. It doesn't fit protean at all, IMHO.

I don't like Hunting Horror because I think that MitD has (at least) 4 limbs, 2 hands to hold the painting and the brush, and at least 2 legs. And he wouldn't have a clear way to save O-Chul too. I think that the ability he used that day is something he always had, not something random.

Uvuudaum doesn't have eyes, and can't talk because he doesn't have a mouth. MitD clearly have both (we can see his eyes and see him eating and burping).

Instead the Slaad:
They have a singular reproduction system, but clearly they reproduce themselves. They are asexual, and that would explain why MitD talk about his father and never mention a mother. Obviously, not having a clear sex doesn't mean he can't have a clear gender, as a chaotic creature can decide it anyway he likes.
For the evolution (green->gray->death->white), we don't know how it should work. We always think that MitD is a child of his species. I instead think that he is old, but he's so chaotic that he behave like a child. Just like Elan. And maybe the evolution system messes with his sanity... Or maybe in oots white slaad can reproduce directly, so he's a young white slaad.
The fact that everybody say he'll grow larger is a hint about his next evolution as a black slaad.
About the talking ability, I think that we may overstimate the hunters knowledge... Maybe they don't recognize MitD species, only his type. And they think that an outsider who can talk is strange. This would explain why they have captured an epic creatures and they have sold it to a circus, instead to having taken him to a warlord or a powerfull mage for 10 times the price.
The wizard at circus didn't recognize him as a slaad because he only knew the normal form of slaad, ignoring the 2 epic.
Last but not least, the idea that MitD can actually be (or become) a monster made of darkness, it's awesome. I want to see it come true!

[Hans of Frysia]

(wordy thesis ahead, tl;dr at the bottom)

From the FBS options, the Slaad fits my ideas about the MitD best (if far from perfect). I suspect that the MitD’s current species is not the species it was born with. That is to say, I think someone’s soul/mind/spirit/anim(a/us)/whatever ended up in a monstrous body. In this case, someone infected by a blue Slaad (disclaimer: I own precisely 0 D&D sourcebooks, so I’m basing this on information from the Forgotten Realms wiki). I’m thinking blue Slaad because their infection transforms the target into a Slaad (rather than incubate one inside the target, which will then devour it). Quoting the wiki, “Whether the transformation was mental was unknown (sic)”. The shock of the transformation coupled with a strong will fighting the infection can, to my mind at least, explain MitD’s apparent amnesia and initial child-like personality. This also provides a predetermined means for someone to end up in a different body besides ‘completely unprecedented side effect from an accidental magical kablooey’ or something like that (looking at you, Rand/Ishamael and your unsatisfying narrative wrap-up).

There are, however, two issues that this theory doesn’t (yet) resolve satisfactorily, and I’d be curious to hear y’all’s opinions. The first is the MitD’s identity (as in, who’s inside the Slaad). Essentially, this could be anyone. If the MitD is currently a white Slaad, it narrows it down somewhat, as they would have to have been a spellcaster, and have been infected several hundred years ago. As of right now, I can’t think of anyone relevant enough (spellcaster or otherwise) that’s reported missing, rather than confirmed deceased. A question for those of you more familiar with D&D mechanics: For a green Slaad to be hatched, does it have to be an arcane spellcaster, or do divine casters work too?

The second issue is recognition (or failure thereof). As far as I know, the only people who have explicitly stated knowing/not knowing are Redcloak (SoD), the robed man in the circus scene (SoD), the Stereotyped Big Game Hunters (SBGH; SoD), Oona (#1037), O-Chul (#1042) and Kodrog the Slayer (#259). Most of these, I can sort of reason out. Redcloak, being the bookish type with access to Monster Manuals, would know exactly what a Slaad is, and even what type MitD would be. O-Chul might have learned about the great enemies of Law and Good in paladin school, thus know about the Slaad. About Kodrog the Slayer we know nothing, but since he has a name and a title, this makes him more developed than 99% of all hobgoblins shown, so he may well be a renowned expert on Slaad. The robed man may be a sorcerer, who in the OOTS verse are frequently stereotyped to be of low intelligence, so maybe that’s why he doesn’t know what a Slaad is. Oona and the SBGH though, are problematic. Either they know what a Slaad is, or they mistakenly think he’s a big toad monster (e.g. a werefrog or something). If Oona knows what a Slaad is, she wouldn’t call him a beast. If she thinks he’s a big toad, she wouldn’t have reason to think that he’s still not fully grown. For the SBGH, if they know he’s a Slaad, they wouldn’t be surprised that he speaks (or sell him to a circus, probably). If they think he’s a big toad, it wouldn’t be surprising to find one in the jungle.
Those are my (current) thoughts. If you guys have similar ideas, or you think I’m full of baloney, I’m all ears.

Tl;dr: @Crusher, I guess/vote Slaad as species. Identity someone else. Slaad doesn’t mesh with all the people who claim to know/not know what he is.

[Shashakiro]

I don’t think Oona calling a Slaad (or a Protean) a “beast” is particularly inaccurate; it’s at best weak evidence supporting ANB over those, since of course ANB is literally a “beast”. I’d say any vaguely animalian monster can be called a “beast” without stretching the word enough to matter, though.

I do think it’s basically completely certain Oona recognizes MitD’s species and has at least basic knowledge about it, though, due to the “will grow bigger” comment.

As for general in-universe recognition, Slaads have been mentioned once by name (435) and once by depiction (68). Both appearances are in the context of being "chaotic" versions of "shoulder angels/devils"; one may infer that they are at least known in-universe in this capacity, but it's hard to say how much else various characters would know about the specifics of the species (i.e. reproduction cycle, growth cycle, etc.)

[Synesthesy]

The definition of "beast" may mean either: 1) anything wild, in opposite of the world "human", word that for example can apply to demons like Sabine but not to demons like glabrezu 2) an animal, so something live in the prime material plane that follow the nature law

2 would kill almost every theory ever presented, I think. So I'll stick with 1.

[Synesthesy]

Kodrog the Slayer (#259).

I don't believe this should be taken seriously. We don't even know what he would have said. I bet he was going to propose a Tarrasque with 3 template added on.

EDIT: sorry I multiposted instead of edit

[Shashakiro]

One question: can someone with a 3.5 sourcebook verify whether all types of Slaadi are supposed to speak Common by RAW?

OP indicates that this is the case for white/black, but IMO the weight of that counterargument depends quite a bit on whether or not it's true for all Slaadi.

(It doesn't help that my one "official" experience with them is Neverwinter Nights OC/SoU/HotU, in which only the white/black ones actually speak to you--but that's the 3.0 system, which could maybe be different, and maybe the other colors just happen never to talk to you because they're hostile)

[Kish]

Neverwinter Nights really shouldn't be used as a source for D&D, even 3.0.

The slaadi there are just mooks for you to fight. I can't remember any white or black slaad (the closest I can come is the Death Slaad Lord boss...who is still just a mook for you to fight).