MitD XII: This Space Intentionally Left Dark

[lio45]

We've had years. The only creature you're going to find is one Rich made up, because if something fit higher standards it would be found by now. I don't care what op says.

FWIW, my belief is that it's probably a non-D&D creature, and those have been this thread's relative blind spot ever since the beginning. It's plausible that there's a better fit out there and that we geeks haven't yet heard of it or thought of it.

I tend to agree with you that if there was a D&D creature that was a better fit than the current bunch of FBS creatures, it would have likely been found by now.

The strength is a fact, the score is not. Do not overplay what you know.

Okay, but still - even a Ha-Naga with the Elite Array isn't broken enough STR-wise that even when making an effort to hit as lightly as possible it will still send the most powerful paladin in the Sapphire Guard flying through a stone wall.

[3Power]

FWIW, my belief is that it's probably a non-D&D creature, and those have been this thread's relative blind spot ever since the beginning. It's plausible that there's a better fit out there and that we geeks haven't yet heard of it or thought of it.

I tend to agree with you that if there was a D&D creature that was a better fit than the current bunch of FBS creatures, it would have likely been found by now.

It will be a D&D creature.

Were it not a D&D creature it would violate occam's razor, because the simplest answer is that it is a D&D creature.

Were it not a D&D creature it would violate Knox's 1st and Van Dyne's 10th.

The criminal must be someone mentioned in the early part of the story, but must not be anyone whose thoughts the reader has been allowed to follow. The mysterious stranger who turns up from nowhere in particular, from a ship as often as not, whose existence the reader had no means of suspecting from the outset, spoils the play altogether. The second half of the rule is more difficult to state precisely, especially in view of some remarkable performances by Mrs. Christie. It would be more exact to say that the author must not imply an attitude of mystification in the character who turns out to be the criminal.

The culprit must turn out to be a person who has played a more or less prominent part in the story--that is, a person with whom the reader is familiar and in whom he takes an interest. For a writer to fasten the crime, in the final chapter, on a stranger or person who has played a wholly unimportant part in the tale, is to confess to his inability to match wits with the reader.

As this applies to OOTS, it cannot be a creature introduced after the creature was decided, and it cannot be a creature outside the context of the story.

Were it not a D&D creature it would violate Knox's 8th and Van Dyne's 15th.

The detective must not light on any clues are not instantly produced for the inspection of the reader. Any writer can make a mystery by telling us that at this point the great Picklock Holes suddenly bent down and picked up from the ground an object which he refused to let his friend see. He whispers 'Ha!' and his face grows grave - all that is illegitimate mystery - making. The skill of the detective author consists in being able to produce his clues and flourish them defiantly in our faces: 'There!' he says, 'what do you make of that?' and we make nothing.

The truth of the problem must at all times be apparent--provided the reader is shrewd enough to see it. By this I mean that if the reader, after learning the explanation for the crime, should reread the book, he would see that the solution had, in a sense, been staring him in the face--that all the clues really pointed to the culprit--and that, if he had been as clever as the detective, he could have solved the mystery himself without going on to the final chapter. That the clever reader does often thus solve the problem goes without saying. And one of my basic theories of detective fiction is that, if a detective story is fairly and legitimately constructed, it is impossible to keep the solution from all readers. There will inevitably be a certain number of them just as shrewd as the author; and if the author has shown the proper sportsmanship and honesty in his statement and projection of the crime and its clues, these perspicacious readers will be able, by analysis, elimination and logic, to put their finger on the culprit as soon as the detective does. And herein lies the zest of the game. Herein we have an explanation for the fact that readers who would spurn the ordinary "popular" novel will read detective stories unblushingly.

What foreshadowing was there was that it was a non-D&D creature. What clues have there ever been?

You might scoff at applying detective fiction methodology to an ordinary mystery but what Rich has made perfectly clear is that this is a so called "fair play mystery."

Reasoning is Possible

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.

Finally, if the monster ends up being some random non-D&D character, there is no way it would be satisfying.

A lot of people have asked me whether there is any actual answer to the mystery of the Monster in the Darkness that could possibly satisfy after so many years of wondering and guessing and weighing characteristics against existing monsters and otherwise just generally thinking about it.
The answer to that question is yes. Yes, there is.

[hroþila]

Despite your explanation, I still find your use of detective story rules here rather curious. After reading Van Line's list, it is obvious to me that they're not meant to apply to just any good mystery and that they're strictly genre-specific.

edit: Yikes

Servants--such as butlers, footmen, valets, game-keepers, cooks, and the like--must not be chosen by the author as the culprit. This is begging a noble question. It is a too easy solution. It is unsatisfactory, and makes the reader feel that his time has been wasted. The culprit must be a decidedly worth-while person--one that wouldn't ordinarily come under suspicion; for if the crime was the sordid work of a menial, the author would have had no business to embalm it in book-form.

[3Power]

Despite your explanation, I still find your use of detective story rules here rather curious. After reading Van Line's list, it is obvious to me that they're not meant to apply to just any good mystery and that they're strictly genre-specific.

Most of them are not meant to apply to works other than murder mysteries, but the logic behind the ones that can be applied to other types of mystery are sound, and they align with the Giant's fair play statements.

I mentioned earlier that Umineko ruins other mysteries. Whenever a masked man appears nowadays I go "Ok, so this is either someone I already know, or its someone who's going to be introduced shortly. When the mask gets torn off It's never going to end up being "just some guy."

edit: Yikes
Servants--such as butlers, footmen, valets, game-keepers, cooks, and the like--must not be chosen by the author as the culprit. This is begging a noble question. It is a too easy solution. It is unsatisfactory, and makes the reader feel that his time has been wasted. The culprit must be a decidedly worth-while person--one that wouldn't ordinarily come under suspicion; for if the crime was the sordid work of a menial, the author would have had no business to embalm it in book-form.

That was a key one in Umineko, for reasons I won't go into. I know the language might seem harsh, but what it's basically saying that is if lots of work is put into the setup that four family members desperately want Mr. Brady's inheritance, and then it turns out the one that murdered them was none of them... Well, that might end up unsatisfying.

Notably, its one of the rules Knox doesn't have, as Van Dyne was quite a bit stricter in his interpretations. There's actually a scene in Umineko where the two physical embodiments of Knox and Van Dyne's laws are fighting... lets call them "theory zombies" side by side, and Knox is caught off guard because one of them theorizes that "no murders actually happened, everyone is faking it." She's saved by Van Dyne's "There must be a murder" rule, and he teases her that she's not strict enough, only for her to say "there are plenty of good mysteries about theft."

Basically. Knox would be fine with who shot Mr. Burns while Van Dyne would not be.

[Crusher]

So....

In other news...

I just moved back in with my folks in Wisconsin and discovered that the Majority of my 3e and 3.5 D&D books are still here from before I joined the Navy.

I dropped my interest in 3.5 around the time of pathfinder's release and moved on to Mutants and Masterminds.

I don't have many campaign setting specific books, but I do have a lot of monster manuals and fiend folios and the ilk.

I could page through something like a book a week if I could get a consensus on a sifting methodology (Appropriate CR range, known attributes, No cleric spell casting, some teleport/wish/miracle like abilities, etc).

The books are mostly out of any discernible order or sorting, but if anyone has an idea on a book that would be from prior to 2001 and would like to make the suggestion, I'm all ears.

Soon, (Maybe Tomorrow? I'm still kind of settling in and job hunting) I'll get a list of books that I have. Some have a bit of water damage, but I Think they should still be readable.

Can we move on from an unlikely candidate to something, anything really, else?

Cool, I hope the move went well! If it helps, I’ve gone through everything Hardcover WotC put out for 3 and 3.5 up to about 6 months after the cutoff date. Its possible I missed something, but I’ve been through them a few times.

[lio45]

It will be a D&D creature.

Were it not a D&D creature it would violate occam's razor, because the simplest answer is that it is a D&D creature.

? You don't seem to understand Occam's Razor.

It's perfectly normal that "reality"/"the truth" would violate Occam's Razor once in a while. Occam's Razor is simply a predictive technique. If you wanted to bet, you'd ALWAYS be better off betting on whatever satisfies Occam's Razor best, but you'd not ALWAYS be right. This distinction is critical.

For example, the laws of probability tell me that Grey Wolf and you likely don't share a birthday. But it's actually possible that you do, and if you did, this "violation of probabilities" wouldn't unravel the very fabric of the spacetime continuum and destroy the entire universe.

[lio45]

Finally, if the monster ending up being some random non-D&D character, there is no way it would be satisfying.

A lot of people have asked me whether there is any actual answer to the mystery of the Monster in the Darkness that could possibly satisfy after so many years of wondering and guessing and weighing characteristics against existing monsters and otherwise just generally thinking about it.
The answer to that question is yes. Yes, there is.

For the record, I've been interpreting this comment of Rich the opposite way: if the monster ends up being an obscure "official therblewurkersaurus" that no one has ever heard about and only existed in a low-print manual that's rarer than Pope ****, then that is what's "an unsatisfying answer to the mystery".

[lio45]

Also, I'm 100% certain The-Tower-Scene-As-Is combined with MitD turning out to be physically marginally stronger than a strong human would violently violate some Knox and Van Dyke basic foreshadowing principles.

[3Power]

? You don't seem to understand Occam's Razor.

It's perfectly normal that "reality"/"the truth" would violate Occam's Razor once in a while. Occam's Razor is simply a predictive technique. If you wanted to bet, you'd ALWAYS be better off betting on whatever satisfies Occam's Razor best, but you'd not ALWAYS be right. This distinction is critical.

For example, the laws of probability tell me that Grey Wolf and you likely don't share a birthday. But it's actually possible that you do, and if you did, this "violation of probabilities" wouldn't unravel the very fabric of the spacetime continuum and destroy the entire universe.

I really have no response to this, it's a false equivalency.

For the record, I've been interpreting this comment of Rich the opposite way: if the monster ends up being an obscure "official therblewurkersaurus" that no one has ever heard about and only existed in a low-print manual that's rarer than Pope ****, then that is what's "an unsatisfying answer to the mystery".

You're not wrong. An obscure monster and some random copyrighted creature can both be unsatisfying.

Also, I'm 100% certain The-Tower-Scene-As-Is combined with MitD turning out to be physically marginally stronger than a strong human would violently violate some Knox and Van Dyke basic foreshadowing principles.

Again, strength is not in question. The specific strength score is. It has to do with how the author fudged the rules to allow for an illegal D&D maneuver to be performed. If the MitD turns out to be a creature with 10 STR and no foreshadowed method of buffing it, then the mystery required clues that were not presented, and it was not a fair play mystery. However if the creature turns out to have 28 STR and the cutoff was 30, then all that meant was that you estimated wrong.

[lio45]

I really have no response to this, it's a false equivalency.

So you agree I'm right and you're wrong?

It's perfectly normal that "reality"/"the truth" would violate Occam's Razor once in a while.

It will be a D&D creature. Were it not a D&D creature it would violate occam's razor, because the simplest answer is that it is a D&D creature.

"Occam's Razor says it's probably a D&D creature", is fine.

"Occam's Razor precludes it being a non-D&D creature", is not.

Reality sometimes violates Occam's Razor, because the simplest explanation doesn't ALWAYS end up being the correct one (even if it's always the one a smart gambler should bet on).

[lio45]

It has to do with how the author fudged the rules to allow for an illegal D&D maneuver to be performed.

Pretty sure your buddies Knox and Van Dyne would massively frown upon authors fudging rules when distilling precious clues to the mystery.

[Mightymosy]

And I'm saying that the size of the net should be strictly determined by what we see in the comic, not worked out backwards from the fact we want at least a certain minimum number of contenders.

If the correct net - the one taking into account all the dealbreakers and the solid inescapable facts - is so narrow that we don't find anything, it simply means we haven't yet found the right creature.


Personally, I don't even think I'm "choosing" anything. Whether or not the Tower Scene sends the message that MitD is physically extraordinarily powerful isn't my choice. It's fact. Cold hard fact.

If the Tower Scene hadn't happened (and while at it, if the box/umbrella had been bigger), then yeah, your "glowing yellow eyes contender with Wish" would likely be at the top of the running right now.

But it's not my fault or my "choice" that it isn't. It's just how things are.

There is a creature with yellow eyes and wish?
Which one?

[lio45]

There is a creature with yellow eyes and wish?
Which one?

Not sure if serious but: Ha-Naga.

[3Power]

"Occam's Razor says it's probably a D&D creature", is fine.

"Occam's Razor precludes it being a non-D&D creature", is not. Reality sometimes violates Occam's Razor, because the simplest explanation doesn't ALWAYS end up being the correct one (even if it's always the one a smart gambler should bet on).

Occams Razor on its own does not preclude it, no.

Occam says it's unlikely, Knox, Van Dyne and Rich say its unfair.

You're making a Devil's Proof that ignores all of them.

Yes, it could be Snorlax, but if it is what was the point of trying to guess?

Pretty sure your buddies Knox and Van Dyne would massively frown upon authors fudging rules when distilling precious clues to the mystery.

Only if they didn't give clues. Pretty good clues were given that size and language were fudged.

[lio45]

Yes, it could be Snorlax, but if it is what was the point of trying to guess?

Actually, you'll have to agree with me that "Snorlax is guessable" is a truism.

[woweedd]

Actually, you'll have to agree with me that "Snorlax is guessable" is a truism.

Stop double-posting, please.

[lio45]

Stop double-posting, please.

That one wasn't even a double posting, and if you're concerned with minimizing the number of posts in the thread, what you're doing is counter-productive.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

That one wasn't even a double posting, and if you're concerned with minimizing the number of posts in the thread, what you're doing is counter-productive.

You have doube or triple-posted twice in this page alone, and we are not concerned with miniminzing anything so much as not breaking the forum rules.

That said, given your attitude, I think I will instead start reporting you, as I should have done from the start.

Grey Wolf

[lio45]

That said, given your attitude, I think I will instead start reporting you, as I should have done from the start.

Grey Wolf

Okay, but then don't forget to also report Crusher, who double-posted here and also double-posted here, and that's only from the past couple days.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Okay, but then don't forget to also report Crusher, who double-posted here and also double-posted here, and that's only from the past couple days.

I was unaware I was talking to a six year old. This day is truly full of revelations.

Grey Wolf

[Son of A Lich!]

Every candidate is unlikely if we're bound by this thread's "assumptions" or "consensus" or whatever. There are major flaws for everything on the FBS, for instance.


The following books meet this criteria.

Spoiler

Show

Player's Handbook: Core Rulebook I July 2, 2000
Dungeon Master's Guide: Core Rulebook II September 1, 2000
Monster Manual: Core Rulebook III October 1, 2000
Monster Manual II September 1, 2002
Player's Handbook: Core Rulebook I v.3.5 July 1, 2003
Dungeon Master's Guide: Core Rulebook II v.3.5 July 1, 2003
Monster Manual: Core Rulebook III v.3.5 July 1, 2003
Monster Manual III April 1, 2003
Arms and Equipment Guide March 1, 2003 Mounts and Transport Creatures. Includes a few CR 20 but none fit.
Book of Challenges: Dungeon Rooms, Puzzles, and Traps June 1, 2002
Book of Exalted Deeds October 1, 2003
Book of Vile Darkness October 1, 2002
Complete Divine May 1, 2004 (Bogun only, doesn't fit.)
Complete Warrior December 1, 2003
Defenders of the Faith May 1, 2001
Deities and Demigods February 1, 2002 Olympian, Egyptian, and Asgardian Monsters only, none fit.
Draconomicon November 1, 2003
Enemies and Allies October 1, 2001 - You'd think so, but no. Just standard monsters with class levels.
Epic Level Handbook July 1, 2002
Expanded Psionics Handbook April 1, 2004
Fiend Folio April 1, 2003
Ghostwalk June 1, 2003 None fit.
Hero Builder's Guidebook December 1, 2000
Manual of the Planes September 1, 2001
Masters of the Wild February 1, 2002 Dire and Legendary animals, none fit.
Miniatures Handbook October 1, 2003
Oriental Adventures October 1, 2001
Planar Handbook July 1, 2004
Psionics Handbook March 1, 2001
Races of Stone August 1, 2004 192 Races only, none fit.
Savage Species February 1, 2003 Small section, most of this is templates and monster classes (as well as prestiege classes for monsters.
Song and Silence December 1, 2001
Stronghold Builder's Guidebook May 1, 2002
Sword and Fist January 1, 2001
Tome and Blood July 1, 2001
Unearthed Arcana February 1, 2004 Races only, none fit.

Faerun:
Faiths and Pantheons May 2002
Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 2001
Lords of Darkness 2001
Magic of Faerûn 2001 Very few
Monsters of Faerûn 2001
Player's Guide to Faerûn March 2004
Races of Faerûn March 2003 A few.
Serpent Kingdoms July 2004
Silver Marches 2002 Very few
Unapproachable East May 2003
Underdark October 2003

Eberron:
Eberron Campaign Setting June 2004

Annoyingly, many of them are 3.0 books which later had their contents reprinted elsewhere.
I will gradually bold the books that have monster sections as I confirm them.

EDIT: All done.

(Thank you, I appreciate the list!)

Essentialist philosophy hinges on the idea that everything has an "Essence" about it, and that the essence of the item leads to its properties. The classic example is comparing a hammer to a screwdriver; A Hammer is not built to screw screws, and you can tell by the way that a Screwdriver is designed and contrast it to the way that a hammer is designed. This idea works with something that is designed by a rational mind, but only if everything is taken into account AND the designer is fundamentally perfect in every way. Grey Wolf was not designed, nor was his designer perfect in how he Grey Wolf operates, so trying to backwards engineer what Grey Wolf's essence is, for example, is a waste of time because of a flawed and false premise - Grey Wolf does not have to have an Essence.

Its an old Philosophy set that I'm sure Zimmer is well versed in (I think Zimmer may have a law background, based on their posts, and Lawyers tend to get really well read in Argumentation Theory) and can go into more detail if they are so inclined. The comparison to Flat Earthers was not to say you are on par with a Flat Earther, but simply to highlight the similarities in the argument structure to show case where your argumentation is failing you.

Rationalism, conversely, is to take the data at whole cloth and use that to gauge the viability of legitimacy. With that legitimacy in hand, they can look at where the gaps in the argumentation exist and fill it in with reasoned assumptions until more data can be uncovered to prove yay or nay on the subject. From there, we fall into a best fit for the data and compare notes. If Ruck and I both agree on Protean, but for different reasons, our argumentation helps us both build a meaningful conclusion - If I believed that MitD was a Teleporking Orc, Ruck's argumentation would test out where the logic and conclusions are shoddy and failing.

This is called Dialetics and is a very important part of higher education; You have to be willing to throw your work into the fires of peer revision and eat the consequences of your failures. It will only make you a stronger academic in the long run.

In reading your argumentation between the other users and yourself about the Ha-Naga, I am beginning to believe that the Ha-Naga cannot be a viable candidate because of the external data that has to be added in to make it work. Size, Strength, Cleric Spell casting, Basic anatomy, and other problems are all very suspect and make it a hard sell. Pointing out spell casting as an answer to just about everything makes Teleporking Orc with 20 levels in Sorcerer a more reliable answer then a Ha-Naga and that is a problem with your analysis because we know it isn't a Teleporking Orc.

You are taking known qualities and figuring out how a Ha-Naga could fit the registry and trying to hand wave away anything that doesn't fit. This is the exact opposite of Rationalism. As we continue to point out the problems your arguments are facing, you have continued to jury rig various means that spell casting can curtail the problem. While your argument is Very specific, that doesn't mean it is necessarily accurate and we have issues seeing it from your view due to the lengths you have to bend the plausible to make it fit.

This isn't a devils proof; you are simply asking us to prove a negative and we're not falling for it. We won't support a Ha-Naga could use mage hand when we don't see MitD casting it, we won't support that Slamming a tail could be read as a "Stomp" without evidence of the case, we won't hear that Red Cloak knows enough about MitD to know that he can cast sorcerer spells but not cleric spells because MitD can't raise dead, and we won't hear that he could be absurdly small for his species due to age with an elite array to boost his strength score without some kind of evidence suggesting this is the case.

I believe you when say you are well versed in solving mysteries, but I do NOT believe that you are successful if this is what you are bringing to the table. I nailed that you are practiced in reading literature, but not necessarily the methodology. (I will look up the book, by the way - thank you for the recommendation)

----

So, with this all being said - Why is a Ha-Naga the best fit for the evidence? Without introducing external data (Magehand, not learning Create Undead, not knowing it was casting wish, etc), what does a Ha-Naga bring to the table that fits the bill better then a Glabrazu (And to be perfectly clear, I don't like Glabrazu on the FBS list either. This is a baseline to pass for viability)?

[Peelee]

I think Zimmer may have a law background, based on their posts

Lawyer specializing in wage theft, IIRC.

[lio45]

I was unaware I was talking to a six year old. This day is truly full of revelations.

Grey Wolf

I think the same of you. I don't think an adult would make a big deal of occasional double-posting (I certainly have nothing against Crusher's). Even though it's generally frowned upon, in practice it often helps break up posts so that they aren't walls of text.

But if you really insist on acting like a six year old, go ahead and report us so we can get the slap on the wrist we deserve.

[Son of A Lich!]

Lawyer specializing in wage theft, IIRC.

And my mom says DMing has NO practical applications...

Actually, speaking of which, What's your background Peelee? You have really good insights; My Player-potential shot-in-the dark is "Software engineering" with follow up in "Sales and Marketing"? Can I get a three-peat?

I mean, aside from the whole dragon hording and reinvestment thing Naturally...

Cool, I hope the move went well! If it helps, I’ve gone through everything Hardcover WotC put out for 3 and 3.5 up to about 6 months after the cutoff date. Its possible I missed something, but I’ve been through them a few times.

The move was pretty smooth. It's a bit of head spin going from Cali to Wisconsin - Did you know Wisconsin is cool with just, y'know, giving out plastic bags when you buy things!? and the Cheese is REAL! oh, I never knew how much I missed cheese curds until I got back home.

I figured there wouldn't be much issue with redundancy, and it would be pretty good to have a record of what was skimmed for analysis off the top of the WotC stuff. I think I might have A kobald press book in there too, but most of the player useful stuff was snatched from my collection when I moved out initially.

[Peelee]

The move was pretty smooth. It's a bit of head spin going from Cali to Wisconsin - Did you know Wisconsin is cool with just, y'know, giving out plastic bags when you buy things!?

Meanwhile I'm fighting a losing war on getting fewer plastic bags. I swear, Publix, if I have a single item purchase of a your fried chicken and the big already has a handle built in, I don't need a dang bag, stop making more trash!

[Keltest]

Meanwhile I'm fighting a losing war on getting fewer plastic bags. I swear, Publix, if I have a single item purchase of a your fried chicken and the big already has a handle built in, I don't need a dang bag, stop making more trash!

I cant speak for Publix, but our bags/boxes of fried chicken tend to be both fairly hot and extremely greasy, to the point where sometimes it outright leaks juices hot enough to mildly burn somebody if its freshly bought. Maybe their containers are more secure than ours, but I suspect theres more to it than just wanting to give you a bag.

[Peelee]

I cant speak for Publix, but our bags/boxes of fried chicken tend to be both fairly hot and extremely greasy, to the point where sometimes it outright leaks juices hot enough to mildly burn somebody if its freshly bought. Maybe their containers are more secure than ours, but I suspect theres more to it than just wanting to give you a bag.

Never had an issue with leaks or grease. That's my go-to because it has a handle built in (same for milk). It's not uncommon I'll go in for a couple things on the way home, and every tie they try to bag it. I understand other people want everything bagged no matter what, but if its three things or less (and especially if they stack easily), i don't see the harm in at least asking instead of assuming.

[Son of A Lich!]

Aw, man, I use to be a deli clerk in a Grocery Store - Loved the work, loved my regular customers, hated the employer.

We had the plastic domes with the sleeve handle thing. I had to crank out 20 of those roasted chickens by myself every 2 hours AND slice AND make sandwiches AND the salad bar and without fail, someone would pick up one of the Roasted chickens, the sleeve would come off and the chicken would fall to the ground at least once a day. Then I had to swab the floor and put a wet floor sign down because the grease would be a trip hazard and I would usually have a line of customers waiting while I worked.

So many problems with the way that deli worked. I was always surprised it ever made it's money back.

[3Power]

Pointing out spell casting as an answer to just about everything makes Teleporking Orc with 20 levels in Sorcerer a more reliable answer then a Ha-Naga and that is a problem with your analysis because we know it isn't a Teleporking Orc.

Class levels on top of base monster is a hard sell given that word of god says MitD doesn't know how to use all his abilities. If he's gaining them as class levels I feel he should know.

We won't support a Ha-Naga could use mage hand when we don't see MitD casting it, we won't support that Slamming a tail could be read as a "Stomp" without evidence of the case

You don't have to support it, you just can't rule it out.

, we won't hear that Red Cloak knows enough about MitD to know that he can cast sorcerer spells but not cleric spells because MitD can't raise dead,

I'm so tired of this redcloak fallacy. I'm not going into it again.

and we won't hear that he could be absurdly small for his species due to age with an elite array to boost his strength score without some kind of evidence suggesting this is the case.

Elite Array is secondary. There are multiple clues that he's smaller than normal.

So, with this all being said - Why is a Ha-Naga the best fit for the evidence? Without introducing external data (Magehand, not learning Create Undead, not knowing it was casting wish, etc), what does a Ha-Naga bring to the table that fits the bill better then a Glabrazu (And to be perfectly clear, I don't like Glabrazu on the FBS list either. This is a baseline to pass for viability)?

Why is it better than Glabrezu specifically?

1. Unhindered access to Wish
2. Access to Earthquake
3. Better fit for "Beast."
4. More unsettling for circus scene.
5. Capable of having parents.
6. Trouble with pulling.
7. Eats and sleeps.
8. Not a literal embodiment of evil.
9. Is capable of being "young."
10. Listed as speaking no languages, rather than Abyssal, Celestial, Draconic, and possibly telepathic communication.

[lio45]

Definitely a better fit than Glabrezu, IMO.

Biggest dealbreaker to me, as already mentioned, is that I absolutely cannot see Rich choosing Ha-Naga THEN deliberately and cool-headedly deciding to give us the Tower Scene as written.

If it weren't so weak physically, I'd be a fan.