MitD XIX: The Potted Plant Is Starting To Look Reasonable

[Mordar]

Not at all. The difference is for how the game is played. If you're down by 2 with a minute left, you're going to play very differently than if you're up by 1. Score a 3 in the beginning and things may go very different because of that, have no score all game and make a 3 at the end and i promise you, the offense and defense were both trying their damndest, moreso than in the very beginning. This is an information difference, where the information (we need X more points and have Y time to do it) matters. A lot.

Your argument is basically an incredibly reductive "just score more points, team!"* Which isn't wrong, but i can't imagine you enjoying watching sports at all with that view.

I watch all primary American sports, and a fair share of European. But no soccer-football. I have started to watch a lot less pro basketball, for a number of reasons. But boy do I like watching Steph shoot. My argument is that if I put 35 on you in the first quarter I don't usually need to do it again in the fourth to win. Same as if I put 35 on you in the fourth I probably didn't need to do it in the first as well you win.

I might argue that early points have more impact, particularly in A. football (hereafter "football") and hockey than do late points (as you mentioned, can drive strategy). Yes, the score differential late in basketball in particular radically changes the play of the game.

I don't know that I believe in the effort argument, particularly not in football or baseball, but in basketball, yes.

Yes, I do believe the whole "the game changes if I made that TD catch back in the first quarter", at least to some degree. And I loved rooting for Elway, Farve and the other big come-back QBs, so I feel the "late game drama" as much as any fan. But you know who didn't need many comebacks? Montana. Starr. Aikman. Bradshaw. Namath. Fouts (okay, yes, not a fair choice because the poor guy hardly won). Because they didn't need them as often.

But I HATE the "swallow the whistle in the last 2 minutes" mentality, and "let the players decide the game" is spurious because if the players can't win clean and foul (or commit a penalty) they *did* decide the game. Because every minute, every play, every point, matters. I also HATE HATE the complete infiltration of gambling with the actual leagues at this point, for a multitude of reasons.

Think I'm vehement about hot dogs and Spam? Get me up on this one!

- M

* - I'm reminded of one of many great quotes attributed to Bobby Knight. When asked "How did you win that game, Coach" he said "We scored more points than they did. Next question."

[Peelee]

Think I'm vehement about hot dogs and Spam? Get me up on this one!

Ya know, that's a good point. I'll concede.

Because I'll be damned if you think you're ever going to convince me that Chicago style hot dogs are anything other than a poor attempt at a kitschy tourist trap. You know where you can find Philly cheesesteaks? Everywhere, because people like them. You more where you can find Chicago style hot dogs? Chicago, because Chicagoans are the kind of people who try to make "fetch" happen.

[Emberlily]

I've found chicago dogs in many of the hot dog places I've gone to and when you can't get maine's specific weird kind of local hotdog I didn't realise were local until adulthood, they're my fave (despite me never having lived in the midwest) so while they're not 'you find five premade ways to make them at home in every grocery store' like philly cheesesteaks there's a lotta room below that!

and with 3 points at the end vs the beginning, even handwaving away any changes that it makes to the game itself, it doesn't seem like irrationality for it to make a difference to ppl who are just observing. after all, the possibility space has shrunk and the knowledge of the game has increased; 3 points one minute in could mean a lot or nothing and you have no way to know until well afterwards, but you know pretty well how much it's worth when there's one minute left. and to bring that analogy home, yeah the climax (action or emotionally) of most stories like this one tend to be pretty close to the ending, but even without that, things that happen near the end tend to hit very differently because we can see their shape almost immediately (like that last minute 3 point score). they don't have room to see how they play out further so everything has to stand on its own as it is for the most part (and because so much tends to be happening at this point, the bar for anything to register is higher so things tend to be pushed more in a lot of storytelling). plus, with a serialised story 20+ years in and with a few more to go at least, the effect on long-term readers is going to be vastly different than ppl just tuning in, which throws another level of variability on top of this whole deal

a lot of long-form writing with heavy mystery elements tend to have opinion fall apart at the end for a lot of reasons relating in some way or another to that up there when mysteries fizzle out or have payoffs that can't hold up to long-built expectations. I trust the writing this far in enough that my answer to "what about a hypothetical situation where the monster's species was revealed in 2003" is "I don't think the whole story is going to ride very heavily on this one mystery purely for the sort of risk-reward writing situation that puts any author into (in addition to how the writing feels as a whole)" and "I feel like things of course would feel different, because the writing at this point is very interwoven and built up such that if one piece were retroactively removed, it's going to have changed how things feel, even without that one piece by itself being a huge huge deal". but this many levels deep of hypothetical is a bit... abstract to talk meaningfully about I think (it took me a bit to put this post into words)

[Tubercular Ox]

When I read that, I went "huh? What does 'in the reveal' mean that..."

You mean "his species can still be that," correct?

And later when you say things like "On the other end would be a Monster in the Dark so critical to the plot that ripping it out of the book leaves unanswerable questions that ruin the story."--that again refers to the creature's species specifically, correct? If he ended the comic as a still-shrouded-in-shadows major character, that would equal "ripping it out of the book"?

No, I'm referring to how connected the Monster in the Dark's plot is to the other plots in the story. For safety, I'll remind people this is completely independent of whether the story is enjoyable or high quality, and just because a story is disconnected from the rest of the plot doesn't imply it doesn't belong in the book.

Two MitD related examples. The Jungle Scene is great, we all love it, but if you bought a copy of Start of Darkness, ripped those pages out (or painted over them, since you need the story on the other side of the page), then gave it to someone who's never read the story before, would it matter to the rest of the story?

I argue it wouldn't. The Circus Scene becomes a little more abrupt, but in media res is a thing. Much later on there's a reference to living in the jungle, but that reference was written to include members of the audience who have never read Start of Darkness.

It is too late for the MitD's entire plot to be one long jungle scene. If you blotted out everything the Monster in the Dark does in the Escape, it breaks the story. How did O-Chul and V escape? You can infer that something happened in the blotted out parts, but that's the point. It's connected.

So there is still room for the reveal to be either an Escape scene, a Jungle scene, or anything in between. We all think it's going to be great, but is Rich indicating one or the other?

"I don't think the whole story is going to ride very heavily on this one mystery purely for the sort of risk-reward writing situation that puts any author into (in addition to how the writing feels as a whole)"

Are you saying you think Rich would be cautious about a long term mystery because of the tendency for long term mysteries to fall apart near the end? If so then obviously he went forward with it anyways, but I'm trying to understand.

"I feel like things of course would feel different, because the writing at this point is very interwoven and built up such that if one piece were retroactively removed, it's going to have changed how things feel, even without that one piece by itself being a huge huge deal". but this many levels deep of hypothetical is a bit... abstract to talk meaningfully about I think (it took me a bit to put this post into words)

Without picking a point on the scale where you think the story will be, it sounds like you are saying you think the MitD's reveal will not be extremely low on the plot importance plot connectedness scale. Is that right?

[ElliotO]

No, I'm referring to how connected the Monster in the Dark's plot is to the other plots in the story. For safety, I'll remind people this is completely independent of whether the story is enjoyable or high quality, and just because a story is disconnected from the rest of the plot doesn't imply it doesn't belong in the book.

Two MitD related examples. The Jungle Scene is great, we all love it, but if you bought a copy of Start of Darkness, ripped those pages out (or painted over them, since you need the story on the other side of the page), then gave it to someone who's never read the story before, would it matter to the rest of the story?

I argue it wouldn't. The Circus Scene becomes a little more abrupt, but in media res is a thing. Much later on there's a reference to living in the jungle, but that reference was written to include members of the audience who have never read Start of Darkness.

It is too late for the MitD's entire plot to be one long jungle scene. If you blotted out everything the Monster in the Dark does in the Escape, it breaks the story. How did O-Chul and V escape? You can infer that something happened in the blotted out parts, but that's the point. It's connected.

So there is still room for the reveal to be either an Escape scene, a Jungle scene, or anything in between. We all think it's going to be great, but is Rich indicating one or the other?

Without picking a point on the scale where you think the story will be, it sounds like you are saying you think the MitD's reveal will not be extremely low on the plot importance plot connectedness scale. Is that right?

I cannot speak for others, but here is my belief. The reveal will happen at the same time that MitD decides to come out and openly go against Team Evil. It would work very well symbolically, wouldn't it? Revealing both his true form and his true intentions?
With this in mind as my idea of how it will go, it will be immensely plot important/connected. It caps off MitD's character arc and swings the balance suddenly to the good guys. We don't know how strong MitD is exactly, but what we've seen so far could be game-changing as a surprise attack. It would definitely be a major hinge point in the final battle.

However, I believe that what MitD is fundamentally isn't important. The scene will be awesome whether he's a Protean or an ogre with 50 instances of the half green dragon template. On your "jungle scene/escape scene" scale, I think it will be an "escape scene" no matter what MitD ends up being. Perhaps specifics would matter, but in the impact of the scene, both plot and emotional, I think this will be a durkon-memory-deluge level scene regardless.


Of course, this relies on my pure speculation of how the scene fits into his character arc, but I believe that the only reason Rich would do this differently is if he came up with a reveal that ties in even better. This is a reveal set up for 20 years, he won't waste it on a weak scene.

[Emberlily]

Are you saying you think Rich would be cautious about a long term mystery because of the tendency for long term mysteries to fall apart near the end? If so then obviously he went forward with it anyways, but I'm trying to understand.

I meant more of, I suppose I could word it as, "load-bearing long-term mystery". there've been mysteries of greater or lesser import spread thru the story, and while the monster's form is possibly the longest spread of intro-to-payoff by far, I don't see it as likely to play out any differently than the others: as one of many interconnected threads bringing any storyline or character arc to a conclusion

Without picking a point on the scale where you think the story will be, it sounds like you are saying you think the MitD's reveal will not be extremely low on the plot importance plot connectedness scale. Is that right?

I believe so, assuming I'm understanding you right, though to use your terms I'd phrase it as more in the 'character arc connectedness' scale to be more precise. I don't think it's going to be Its Own Story, but rather will play some part, alongside many other threads, in the character arcs of the monster and O-chul for certain, possibly Xykon, Redcloak, and Roy, and maybe a few others, though not in any way that dominates any of those (including the monster itself, by my guess). I think there are definitely story elements that would play out differently were the monster a different species, or if the reveal were 1200 strips ago, but I don't think in any way that would make things unrecognisably different than what we get. the further the story has developed, the less 'what you are in the monster manual' has mattered quite as much to character elements

again, it's a bit abstract to make predictions about hypothetical changes to a story someone else is writing and is still ongoing, even as a thought experiment to sound out other aspects, but I hope this clarifies!

[Tubercular Ox]

Thank you both for telling me how you feel. I think my next question is if it would make you like the plotline less if the Monster in the Dark does have a good reason for being hidden the entire time.

Examples:

If it's a monstrosity, the kind of creature that other characters would have to comment on regularly were it visible.

If it's connected to X, where X is plot related, but does not conflict with any of the other clues. Redcloak's Niece is connected to X, but she conflicts with other clues. (There are a lot of connected to X suggestions and I wonder if the suggesters have something like the Monster in the Dark's reason for being in hiding in mind when they suggest it)

And that's it. My English teacher wants me to have a third idea, but instead I have to ask if there are any other reasons to be hidden that don't rely on caring about what D&D monster it is.

[Keltest]

Thank you both for telling me how you feel. I think my next question is if it would make you like the plotline less if the Monster in the Dark does have a good reason for being hidden the entire time.

Examples:

If it's a monstrosity, the kind of creature that other characters would have to comment on regularly were it visible.

If it's connected to X, where X is plot related, but does not conflict with any of the other clues. Redcloak's Niece is connected to X, but she conflicts with other clues. (There are a lot of connected to X suggestions and I wonder if the suggesters have something like the Monster in the Dark's reason for being in hiding in mind when they suggest it)

And that's it. My English teacher wants me to have a third idea, but instead I have to ask if there are any other reasons to be hidden that don't rely on caring about what D&D monster it is.

Because Xykon is petty and dramatic? Not everything needs some sort of deep reason, especially in a comedy.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Because Xykon is petty and dramatic? Not everything needs some sort of deep reason, especially in a comedy.

The in-story answer is exactly that. And the meta reason is that Rich "just figured it was a mystery [he] would never answer", then when he sat down to figure out the plot, decided to turn the MitD mystery into a guessing game, which obviously requires him to stay in the dark until the reveal happened. Simple as that.

GW

[Kish]

Thank you both for telling me how you feel. I think my next question is if it would make you like the plotline less if the Monster in the Dark does have a good reason for being hidden the entire time.

Like, I suspect, at least a couple of other people, I'm having trouble parsing the question. I think the closest I can come to answering it is to say, as I have once before, that I am confident Rich will not turn out to be writing a shaggy dog story.

And that's it. My English teacher wants me to have a third idea, but instead I have to ask if there are any other reasons to be hidden that don't rely on caring about what D&D monster it is.

Why was Malack being a vampire hidden for 151 strips?

Why was Vampire Durkon not actually being Durkon hidden for 40 strips?

I will be surprised if the reason the creature in the darkness has not yet been revealed to the audience is significantly different from the reason for those.

[Yendor]

The Monster's reveal is part of the plot, not an end in itself.

Probably, there will be something specific he does which requires him to be a particular creature, but the point of the scene will be what he does and why he does it, not "hey, it's a whatevermon."

[Mordar]

The Monster's reveal is part of the plot, not an end in itself.

Probably, there will be something specific he does which requires him to be a particular creature, but the point of the scene will be what he does and why he does it, not "hey, it's a whatevermon."

Respectfully, do people think otherwise?

- M

[Ruck]

Respectfully, do people think otherwise?

- M

It's unclear to me, but I get the impression some do.

[Tubercular Ox]

Because Xykon is petty and dramatic? Not everything needs some sort of deep reason, especially in a comedy.

The in-story answer is exactly that. And the meta reason is that Rich "just figured it was a mystery [he] would never answer", then when he sat down to figure out the plot, decided to turn the MitD mystery into a guessing game, which obviously requires him to stay in the dark until the reveal happened. Simple as that.

GW

I asked how people would feel if Rich presented a certain plot. The focus is on their feelings, not the realities of the plot. Let me ask you two a similar question: Would you like the plotline less if Rich added reasons for the Monster in the Dark to be hidden in addition to the ones you present?

Why was Malack being a vampire hidden for 151 strips?

Why was Vampire Durkon not actually being Durkon hidden for 40 strips?

How appropriate that your invitation should involve vampires.

Let me do both in full.

Malack.

Plot connectedness: Extremely high. If you blot out Malack, there is no explanation for how Durkon became a vampire, and that is the plot for an entire book. (And it seems I’ve adopted the idea that what is done with the reveal is conceptually a part of the reveal.)

Why is Malack in the story before the reveal? This is hard because there are so many choices Rich is free to make. He chose to turn Durkon undead. He chose a vampire to do it. Vampires choose to make spawn, and Rich chose his donor vampire would make an informed choice, as opposed to a wild vampire that vampirizes Durkon out of violence.

Given those choices by Rich, my guess is that Malack had to build a friendship with Durkon while the audience was watching, so that his decision to vampirize Durkon made sense in context. That same friendship also contributes to selling Durkon’s anger and sense of betrayal to the audience.

How much did the revealed vampirism have to be hidden? A lot. Rich seems to indicate that Durkon would never have become friends with a vampire except under false pretenses, and without any friendship, there’s no informed choice, no anger, no betrayal.

Vampire Durkon.

Plot connectedness: I’m considering only Vampire Durkon from the moment he’s free-willed to the moment it’s revealed to the audience that he’s Greg. And while it’s far from the Jungle scene, I was surprised to see how low it is. He contributes to the party and the plot, and has that moment where he kills Zz’dtri, but after the reveal itself, this stuff is hardly mentioned.

In hindsight this makes sense, because Durkon is pretending to be Durkon and Durkon, according to Rich, was a bit of a wallflower. That’s why he got his own book.

For some reason I’m not excited to include, “He goes on to become the villain!” as a direct consequence of the reveal and/or the plotline leading up to the reveal. I realize this probably seems inconsistent and I’ll think about it.

Why is Crouching Durkon, Hidden Vampire in the story before the reveal? My guess, and it’s just a guess, is that Rich wanted to sell the idea that Durkon could keep himself concealed from the party by concealing Durkon from the audience. Rich does go on to tell a few jokes in the vein of Durkon doing something that should give him away and the party ignoring it, which are traditional, but it helps if the audience is sold on the idea mystery is possible.

Another possibility is that Rich was waiting to be clear of the BRITF plot before introducing the villain of the next plot. This would be a different reason from characterization for a character to be in the story before a reveal, which is exciting to think about.

How much did the revealed evilness have to be hidden? Not much, mostly because the reveal was to the audience and not the other characters. Rich could’ve told us instantly and all the party members would’ve reacted the same because they didn’t know.

I’m going to admit that my categorization does not handle dramatic irony at all well. It also screws up my metaphor for measuring plot connectedness. You can blot out every panel that produces dramatic irony and the story reads as if nothing was missing, but I would obviously rank a scene that produces dramatic irony as more connected than a scene that does not.

[Keltest]

I asked how people would feel if Rich presented a certain plot. The focus is on their feelings, not the realities of the plot. Let me ask you two a similar question: Would you like the plotline less if Rich added reasons for the Monster in the Dark to be hidden in addition to the ones you present?

I don't care?

Speculation about the plot is, quite frankly, not helpful for the purpose of this thread. The MITD's plot importance is as a character, not a monster. Besides the fact that you flat out seem to be acting as if 75% of the plot is not already written and set in stone, your methodology is not actually telling us anything we dont already know about the MITD, even if we did follow it to its conclusion.

[Timy]

I asked how people would feel if Rich presented a certain plot. The focus is on their feelings, not the realities of the plot. Let me ask you two a similar question: Would you like the plotline less if Rich added reasons for the Monster in the Dark to be hidden in addition to the ones you present?

I can answer this question and no, I would not like it less. Nor more...

Not unto itself I would add (not sure my english is on point on this one...).

What I am trying to say is that it has kind of no relevance to me. And I have difficulty understanding what your point is here.

Wall of text.

I have REAL difficulty understanding what your point is...

And to add something to the discussion, I will say that none of these questions really help finding what is or is not the MitD.
You speak about feelings and intent. It reminds me of my literature teachers back in college who would find in every text some hidden intent, some deep philosophy where I am quite sure at least some of them are random thoughts and poetic licence.

Except you seem to go further by trying to do it backward. To me, you seem to have some hidden intent in mind and try to find clues "explaining" this intent.

[OvisCaedo]

If it clears things up any, one theoretical extra reason the MitD could have for being in the dark could be something like, say, being physically harmed by light. How many abstract theoreticals would it take for you to say "MitD being physically harmed by light is perfectly reasonable and would not preclude any candidates"?

If the answer is "I do not think that would ever be reasonable", then you are ideologically opposed to there being any other potential extra reason for the monster being in the dark.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

If it clears things up any, one theoretical extra reason the MitD could have for being in the dark could be something like, say, being physically harmed by light.

Except that theoretical reason is known to be incorrect. MitD has been in the sunlight, with no indication he was harmed by it.

"Oh man, I love the jungle! The sun, the blue skies, the fresh air -"

GW

[OvisCaedo]

Except that theoretical reason is known to be incorrect. MitD has been in the sunlight, with no indication he was harmed by it.

"Oh man, I love the jungle! The sun, the blue skies, the fresh air -"

GW

Yes, well, pointing that out simply brands you as ideologically opposed to arguments and hypotheticals. Which I must be as well, since I agree.

[Kish]

I'm not theoretically opposed to any unheralded reason for him to be in the dark...

...but yes, he's been established as not hurt by sunlight to the point where "I trust that Rich is not writing a shaggy dog story" includes no later revelations that he is, as far as that goes.

[Mordar]

I'm not theoretically opposed to any unheralded reason for him to be in the dark...

...but yes, he's been established as not hurt by sunlight to the point where "I trust that Rich is not writing a shaggy dog story" includes no later revelations that he is, as far as that goes.

I think that quote doesn't require MitD to be unimpacted by sunlight (you can see the sun and the sky, and certainly enjoy the air) all while not being in direct sunlight...particularly in a jungle)...but it sure seems to be the case to me.

I'm kind of reminded of Olaf in Frozen...MitD seems to channel some of that "generally oblivious but sometimes super-nose-on with wise advise, and sometimes strangely effective", so MitD could certainly want to experience "sunlight" in the same way that Olaf wanted to experience "summer".

While it wouldn't be off-putting to me, I don't think MitD is adversely impacted by sunlight and the darkness is wholly explained by Episode 23.

- M

[ElliotO]

I asked how people would feel if Rich presented a certain plot. The focus is on their feelings, not the realities of the plot. Let me ask you two a similar question: Would you like the plotline less if Rich added reasons for the Monster in the Dark to be hidden in addition to the ones you present?

As long as those reasons make sense and don't contradict what we've seen so far, I would have no objection.

One note is that MitD wants to leave the darkness so I doubt he'll return to it after he reveals himself and/or leaves Team Evil.

I also agree with some of the other people here that these hypotheticals aren't particularly helpful to the goal of this thread.

[Ruck]

I don't care?

Speculation about the plot is, quite frankly, not helpful for the purpose of this thread. The MITD's plot importance is as a character, not a monster. Besides the fact that you flat out seem to be acting as if 75% of the plot is not already written and set in stone, your methodology is not actually telling us anything we dont already know about the MITD, even if we did follow it to its conclusion.

I have REAL difficulty understanding what your point is...

Yeah, I'm with both of you. I don't understand the purpose of these thought experiments, what they're trying to get us to think about, or why whatever that is is relevant.

Except that theoretical reason is known to be incorrect. MitD has been in the sunlight, with no indication he was harmed by it.

"Oh man, I love the jungle! The sun, the blue skies, the fresh air -"

GW

I'm not theoretically opposed to any unheralded reason for him to be in the dark...

...but yes, he's been established as not hurt by sunlight to the point where "I trust that Rich is not writing a shaggy dog story" includes no later revelations that he is, as far as that goes.

I think that quote doesn't require MitD to be unimpacted by sunlight (you can see the sun and the sky, and certainly enjoy the air) all while not being in direct sunlight...particularly in a jungle)...but it sure seems to be the case to me.

And, of course, asking to be hit with the lantern archons' "deadly rays of light." Which are already a weapon and would be even more damaging if MitD was damaged by light.

(And sure, I suppose you could come up with a "maybe he's a masochist who likes the pain of light!" theory, but at that point you're just inventing explanations that aren't supported, or are even contradicted, by what's in the text.)

[Tubercular Ox]

If it clears things up any, one theoretical extra reason the MitD could have for being in the dark could be something like, say, being physically harmed by light. How many abstract theoreticals would it take for you to say "MitD being physically harmed by light is perfectly reasonable and would not preclude any candidates"?

If the answer is "I do not think that would ever be reasonable", then you are ideologically opposed to there being any other potential extra reason for the monster being in the dark.

I tried to ask a question that was as parallel as possible to the question I asked Emberlily and ElliotO. It was not my intent to spur any discussion of the Hunting Horror.

If you look at what mashlagoo reposted you can see that the example I disavowed tried to include ideas that were not connected to any particular candidate.

I’m happy to hear people’s expectations for the reveal. I believe Rich thinks about our expectations all the time when writing.

I’m happy to talk about other reveals Rich has written. I believe Rich uses the same process for other storylines that he uses for the MitD’s storyline.

I am not happy to have my own ideas on this subject right now. That’s why I wasn’t the one to bring it back up. But other people are still having their own ideas, so the conversation isn’t a loss for me.

As long as those reasons make sense and don't contradict what we've seen so far, I would have no objection.

Would you be interested in sharing how you would end the MitD’s story to the benefit of people who don’t care about D&D candidates? I don’t care about evidence or precedent, just how you would do it.

I also agree with some of the other people here that these hypotheticals aren't particularly helpful to the goal of this thread.

Of course everything I remember is wrong if I can't quote it, but I remember being told that if I started a thread to talk about the Monster in the Dark without mentioning candidates it would be closed as a duplicate. I'm definitely struggling to keep people interested, so maybe that's the right decision, if that thread would just become a clone of this one because of what people want to talk about.

But I got some nice comments from you and other people. Thank you.

[mashlagoo1982]

Would you be interested in sharing how you would end the MitD’s story to the benefit of people who don’t care about D&D candidates? I don’t care about evidence or precedent, just how you would do it.

I'll bite as I have given this some thought due to the fact I have been considering we are barking up the wrong tree assuming the candidate needs to have a DnD source.

I don't have a specific ending in mind for a specific candidate. Only some guidelines I kinda take into account.

MitD shouldn't be something incredibly obscure. Not that it can't be a somewhat unknow entity. But, if everyone looking at it scratches their head in confusion and there are no sources online, it may as well be something Rich made up (even if he didn't).

It should obviously fit what we know about it to a reasonable degree.

It would probably need to follow many of the other rules we have (not copyrighted... to a certain degree, within the proper time frame, etc).

Multiple versions could be combined. Maybe there are more then one source for MitD's identity and Rich has some amalgamation. That may stray too far into something Rich made for others. But I would find it perfectly acceptable if multiple sources for the same creature were used. These could even be combined with DnD sources (like DnD titian and mythical text titian).

There are probably others I am forgetting.

[Keltest]

I'll bite as I have given this some thought due to the fact I have been considering we are barking up the wrong tree assuming the candidate needs to have a DnD source.

I don't have a specific ending in mind for a specific candidate. Only some guidelines I kinda take into account.

MitD shouldn't be something incredibly obscure. Not that it can't be a somewhat unknow entity. But, if everyone looking at it scratches their head in confusion and there are no sources online, it may as well be something Rich made up (even if he didn't).

It should obviously fit what we know about it to a reasonable degree.

It would probably need to follow many of the other rules we have (not copyrighted... to a certain degree, within the proper time frame, etc).

Multiple versions could be combined. Maybe there are more then one source for MitD's identity and Rich has some amalgamation. That may stray too far into something Rich made for others. But I would find it perfectly acceptable if multiple sources for the same creature were used. These could even be combined with DnD sources (like DnD titian and mythical text titian).

There are probably others I am forgetting.

Given that the story as a whole is something Rich made up, I don't think there is any obligation to stick to a certain level of pop culture presence for a candidate. The only reason to exclude something on those grounds is if Rich literally could not have known about it at the time the decision was made, such as with the Athasian Nightmare Beast.

[Tzardok]

The Nightmare Beast did exist in 2e. It's the 3.x stats that were written too late for him to use, not the thing in itself.

[mashlagoo1982]

Given that the story as a whole is something Rich made up, I don't think there is any obligation to stick to a certain level of pop culture presence for a candidate. The only reason to exclude something on those grounds is if Rich literally could not have known about it at the time the decision was made, such as with the Athasian Nightmare Beast.

I agree that pop culture presence is not a requirement. However, some type of presence of a reasonable amount in some space would help. I only bring this up because I was researching mythic creatures that could cause earthquakes. I found some, but they were so obscure I couldn't find anything beyond a line or two description. They were some religious icons that were worshiped in very remote parts of the world and I believe nobody follows that religion anymore.

The Nightmare Beast did exist in 2e. It's the 3.x stats that were written too late for him to use, not the thing in itself.

Interesting. How similar is the 2e to it's 3.x version?

[Keltest]

I agree that pop culture presence is not a requirement. However, some type of presence of a reasonable amount in some space would help.

Would it? How many people recognized, say, the big worm monster that the vampires summoned at the end of the last book? I've played D&D for years and I still couldnt tell you what it was without consulting the tomes first.

[mashlagoo1982]

Would it? How many people recognized, say, the big worm monster that the vampires summoned at the end of the last book? I've played D&D for years and I still couldnt tell you what it was without consulting the tomes first.

Yes it would. Just because you didn't recognize that monster doesn't mean nobody recognized it. I couldn't tell you its name, but I recognized it could have found it with a moderate amount of effort. Someone else probably identified it on sight. The point is, somehow the collective community had access to the information and could share it.

Some of the things I found were so obscure the only pieces of information were; 1. known to cause earthquakes and 2. part of a dead religion that was worshiped in some remote part of the world.

This probably falls into the "can be guessed" category.