MitD XIX: The Potted Plant Is Starting To Look Reasonable

[Crusher]

Or implode trying to figure out how the House makes their margin. Is it souls? I usually think it is souls when it is something like this. Interest floats or transaction fees also apply.

- M

Volume. The house makes its profits off volume.

[Timy]

Volume. The house makes its profits off volume.

Yes it does !

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0135.html

[Ruck]

This one. I hate what this forum does with quotes, even when the person is right there and consenting. I almost didn't quote Peelee to himself because I dread that conversation.

Well, that's a you problem, and I don't see evidence that anyone else shares it. Your own invented rules seem to cause you more stress and frustration than anything, which makes it seem to me that they do you more harm than good and aren't actually useful to you or to whatever their intended purpose is. ("If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use is the rule?")

I hate the pervasive assumption on this board that you can change how people feel by redefining the words they use to describe themselves.

I hate that you are all completely helpless to figure out what I mean in any given situation and then accuse me of being insensitive.

Seeing these two back to back is somewhat ironic, because one of the biggest reasons people can't figure out what you mean is that you keep changing the words other people said and putting words in other people's mouths. (The other reasons are that you frequently speak elliptically around the topic rather than saying what you mean, and you frequently try to read hidden meanings into what other people are saying instead of responding to what they actually said.)

And I really hate that this could've just slid. When I refused to name the person, you could've guessed that I was never going to bring it up again because that would've required a quote.

It seems like most of the responses and questions about your claim aren't about you applying your own rules to try to protect someone's identity, which again is not a real thing to be concerned about here, but that most people don't believe anyone actually ever said the thing you are claiming.

So, no, not having this conversation.

"Don't make claims you aren't willing to support" seems like a pretty good rule of thumb for discussion and debate.

[Tubercular Ox]

you frequently speak elliptically around the topic rather than saying what you mean

I’m still not convinced this is wrong. When I say what I think people get mad at me. But if you think it counts as progress, we can try again.

I was told that the Tower Scene proves the Monster in the Dark is Epic.

I said it’d wipe the floor with the party.

I was told it was going to refuse to fight the party.

I said it would overshadow the plot after the reveal.

I was told it was going to fly away as soon as it was revealed.

I said that was a terrible ending.

I was told it’s a secondary character and I shouldn’t hope for a good ending from it.

This is dismal to me, one step away from waiting for the comet reveal to take us away.

But, hey, you have complete and total victory, right? It’s impossible to have a conversation in this thread except someone is at least thinking about the Protean. What is that buying you?

Crusher wishes we could talk about monsters with high AC.

Peelee wishes we could talk about something other than how hard a monster can hit.

Grey Wolf wishes we could have a conversation we haven’t had before.

No one wants to talk about the real Monster in the Dark anymore.

I tried to help. I brought up Start of Darkness and how the Protean doesn’t fit it, and I was told I was a bad person and I should switch to an acceptable topic, like how the Protean is better than any other candidate.

The Protean has ruined this thread not only for others, but for its fans as well. This is as close to direct as I can get, maybe next time.

[Keltest]

I’m still not convinced this is wrong. When I say what I think people get mad at me. But if you think it counts as progress, we can try again.

I was told that the Tower Scene proves the Monster in the Dark is Epic.

I said it’d wipe the floor with the party.

I was told it was going to refuse to fight the party.

I said it would overshadow the plot after the reveal.

I was told it was going to fly away as soon as it was revealed.

I said that was a terrible ending.

I was told it’s a secondary character and I shouldn’t hope for a good ending from it.

This is dismal to me, one step away from waiting for the comet reveal to take us away.

But, hey, you have complete and total victory, right? It’s impossible to have a conversation in this thread except someone is at least thinking about the Protean. What is that buying you?

Crusher wishes we could talk about monsters with high AC.

Peelee wishes we could talk about something other than how hard a monster can hit.

Grey Wolf wishes we could have a conversation we haven’t had before.

No one wants to talk about the real Monster in the Dark anymore.

I tried to help. I brought up Start of Darkness and how the Protean doesn’t fit it, and I was told I was a bad person and I should switch to an acceptable topic, like how the Protean is better than any other candidate.

The Protean has ruined this thread not only for others, but for its fans as well. This is as close to direct as I can get, maybe next time.

I suspect more people would be willing to engage with you if you stopped doing things like saying that somebody made such and such point or statement and then refuste to provide a source for that. At best, it makes it look like you don't understand the conversation.

[Kish]

I’m still not convinced this is wrong. When I say what I think people get mad at me.

Whereas when you wink-wink-nudge-nudge people act thrilled with you?

Option that should reasonably be expected to get a negative reaction: Claim someone said "You're hurting our feelings" when no one did.
Other option that should reasonably be expected to get a negative reaction: Claim someone said you were hurting their feelings, quoting them saying something entirely different, and when they indignantly point out they didn't say you were hurting their feelings, disappear and act aggrieved about it later.
If you want people to respond positively to what you're saying you need to quote or paraphrase them accurately if at all. That does not mean it is appropriate to claim people have said things they didn't say: the two first options I listed are not the only ones in existence.

And I mean, you're still doing the first, with your "I was told" business. "I was told it was going to fly away as soon as it was revealed."--who said that where? "I was told it’s a secondary character and I shouldn’t hope for a good ending from it."--who said that where?

However, addressing your "the Protean has ruined the thread" stuff separately from the communication issues.

Ox, I cannot speak for anyone else, but for me, the protean got promoted from "one of the lead candidates, which I personally find less interesting than the white slaad" to "the candidate that gets talked about more than any other by an order of magnitude" when this guy named Tubercular Ox started posting. Not when Ruck made any number of arguments for the protean. When you "tried to help" by getting the protean thrown off the table.

If people thinking of the protean whenever the creature in the darkness is mentioned causes you distress, it is actually something you are currently causing and thus something you have the power to undo. You're the protean's press agent. Ruck spent years believing, and arguing without sticking words in anyone's mouth, that the protean is most likely without the protean taking over the thread. Stop talking about the protean and the protean will no longer be so focused on.

[Ruck]

I suspect more people would be willing to engage with you if you stopped doing things like saying that somebody made such and such point or statement and then refuste to provide a source for that. At best, it makes it look like you don't understand the conversation.

Whereas when you wink-wink-nudge-nudge people act thrilled with you?

Option that should reasonably be expected to get a negative reaction: Claim someone said "You're hurting our feelings" when no one did.
Other option that should reasonably be expected to get a negative reaction: Claim someone said you were hurting their feelings, quoting them saying something entirely different, and when they indignantly point out they didn't say you were hurting their feelings, disappear and act aggrieved about it later.
If you want people to respond positively to what you're saying you need to quote or paraphrase them accurately if at all. That does not mean it is appropriate to claim people have said things they didn't say: the two first options I listed are not the only ones in existence.

And I mean, you're still doing the first, with your "I was told" business. "I was told it was going to fly away as soon as it was revealed."--who said that where? "I was told it’s a secondary character and I shouldn’t hope for a good ending from it."--who said that where?

However, addressing your "the Protean has ruined the thread" stuff separately from the communication issues.

Ox, I cannot speak for anyone else, but for me, the protean got promoted from "one of the lead candidates, which I personally find less interesting than the white slaad" to "the candidate that gets talked about more than any other by an order of magnitude" when this guy named Tubercular Ox started posting. Not when Ruck made any number of arguments for the protean. When you "tried to help" by getting the protean thrown off the table.

If people thinking of the protean whenever the creature in the darkness is mentioned causes you distress, it is actually something you are currently causing and thus something you have the power to undo. You're the protean's press agent. Ruck spent years believing, and arguing without sticking words in anyone's mouth, that the protean is most likely without the protean taking over the thread. Stop talking about the protean and the protean will no longer be so focused on.

Co-sign all this, particularly the sections I bolded.

I'll even elaborate for you: When you make claims about things people said and refuse to provide the source where that was said, people are assuming you can't provide the source because what you're claiming was never said by anybody. You've lost the benefit of the doubt here because of the frequency with which you've misquoted people-- to the point where when someone called you out on it, you tried to argue the problem wasn't you misquoting them, but their "need to be right."

So all these claims you've made of what people have said... if you aren't willing to show your source for where someone said those things, others aren't going to take your claims seriously.

The rest of your post, well, Kish is right that the Protean keeps coming up because you want to keep re-litigating it. And back to "claiming people said things that they didn't"-- who said you were a "bad person"? Or are you misinterpreting people telling you that you had the facts wrong, or that your interpretation of the facts was wrong, as calling you a "bad person"?

Again, so much of this comes down to the frequency with which you misquote or misinterpret people, in conjunction with the way you add in your own attempts to psychoanalyze people, further muddying the discussion with interpretations not based in fact. ("you have complete and total victory, right?" What does that even mean?) And your repeated attempts to insist people talk or not talk about something, which is both a role that's not yours to take on (similar to your own invented posting rules and customs that only exist in your head) and is often based in all these misinterpretations I've already mentioned.

If you want to communicate better on here, be more direct, and be accurate in your claims. In particular, respond to what people said, not to what you feel like they were trying to say.

[Precure]

O-Chul said he has a theory, which implies he had a candidate on his mind, and he thinks neither Lien nor MitD would believe it, which implies there is something unbelievable about Monster-san's existence or his current status of working as Xykon's minion. He was also very intrigued about the escape and Monster-san's role in it, implies it was an important clue for his theory.

[Tubercular Ox]

If O-Chul, Xykon, and Oona are all thinking of the same monster when they look at the Monster in the Dark, then O-Chul is thinking of a monster that is much larger than what fits under the umbrella, which normally eats children, and can be trained to jump out of the darkness and kill heroes.

If Lien is familiar with the same monster as O-Chul, then O-Chul might worry that she would not have the right impression of the Monster in the Dark if he accused it of being a maneating killer.

[Crusher]

O-Chul said he has a theory, which implies he had a candidate on his mind, and he thinks neither Lien nor MitD would believe it, which implies there is something unbelievable about Monster-san's existence or his current status of working as Xykon's minion. He was also very intrigued about the escape and Monster-san's role in it, implies it was an important clue for his theory.

True, but the problem is we don't know what O'Chul would think Lien (or MitD) would consider unbelievable. I mean, its probably not something *we* would consider unbelievable, right? Because we have access to all the books, zillions of splatbooks and the entire internet, and we've spent a lot time parsing this. Finding something *we* wouldn't believe would be an absolutely staggering (and maybe disappointing?) result.

But Lien... we know a bit about her, but we don't know the details of the monster bestiary Azure City's defenders were familiar with or their view of the universe so its hard to parse that.

[Kish]

"His species normally eats babies, dwarves, and dwarf babies" would fit for Lien not believing O-Chul, but not for the other part of what O-Chul said: that the creature himself wouldn't believe him if he told him what his species was. He's been hearing "you're supposed to be a mighty monster who eats people" from Xykon and Redcloak all his life.

[woweedd]

"His species normally eats babies, dwarves, and dwarf babies" would fit for Lien not believing O-Chul, but not for the other part of what O-Chul said: that the creature himself wouldn't believe him if he told him what his species was. He's been hearing "you're supposed to be a mighty monster who eats people" from Xykon and Redcloak all his life.

Yep. But then, a lot of the FBS candidates would sound really unbelievable, so it still doesn't really narrow down much. For the sake of example, if he's a White Sladd, a century old being of pure chaos with the power to warp time itself...Yeah, i'd imagine he'd find that hard to belive.

[Timy]

By the way, I officially change my vote from Protean to Slaad (not choosing between white and black)

I don't have access to the epic book where they are properly described but what I found on the internet made me prefer it.

[Tubercular Ox]

"His species normally eats babies, dwarves, and dwarf babies" would fit for Lien not believing O-Chul, but not for the other part of what O-Chul said: that the creature himself wouldn't believe him if he told him what his species was. He's been hearing "you're supposed to be a mighty monster who eats people" from Xykon and Redcloak all his life.

This is a great point but I still wonder how it would go down if Mr. Stiffly suddenly agreed with Xykon that the Monster in the Dark looks like a maneater.

[fuschiawarrior]

I've always took that O'Chul line as they would have found it unbelivable for different reasons. Lien would find that because MitD is a rare type of monster in OotS world and MitD would have found it unbelivable bacause his species is fairly intelligent and he is not the dumb muscle that Redcloak and Xykon conditioned him to be. I don't think Lien would have found shocking that MitD belongs to a maneater species, he is working with Xykon after all. It would be more surprising to both if it was revealed that MitD is not supposed to be a baby eater.

[Unoriginal]

I think it's important to note the big differences between the "eat babies" part and the "eat dwarves" part.

Xykon tries to make the MitD eat babies to increase the MitD's "that's how proper, fearsome villains behave" factor. The Lich is aware of the MitD's objections of the practice, but is insisting regardless (although not enough to make sure the kids are actually eaten). He doesn't argue "this is what your species do" or anything like that, or at least the MitD doesn't mentions Xykon doing it.

On the other hand, when the Sorcerer mentions eating the dwarves, he expects the MitD to be at his usual "extremely hungry" level, and he seems to point out "I recall reading your kind considers dwarves to be a delicacy" out of genuine surprise that what he read was wrong. Furthermore, he doesn't insist about it at all, accepting the MitD's "no thanks" attitude without any issue.

[Argis13]

Oh well I can help you with that one. No one is thinking about "changing how people feel" except perhaps you.

Looking at the bet discussion (and recognizing, of course, that there will be no actual bets), I do not think "you're not willing to put actual money on the Protean, so your faith is weak" would be a logically valid approach. A much more interesting question, to me, is how people would act in the following situation:

An entity offers the following bets. You can choose any number of them, and put an amount of money on each with a limit somewhere in six figures. Each has 1:1 odds.

1) The comic will reveal the creature in the darkness to be a protean.
2) The comic will reveal the creature in the darkness to be anything that is not a protean.
3) The comic will reveal the creature in the darkness to be a hunting horror.
4) The comic will reveal the creature in the darkness to be anything that is not a hunting horror.

There is no doubt that the entity will pay off all bets that someone wins, nor that the entity is able to collect if someone loses. It is unclear whether, if someone should bet and lose money they do not have, the entity would be able to teleport away future paychecks, able to enslave that person's soul if they die still indebted, or would simply disappear (with all the money that person currently has but no more) if they declared bankruptcy.

Betting both 1 and 2, or both 3 and 4, means hedging. If you bet an exactly equal amount on either of those pairs, the entity will give you a flat look and not record the bet.

Betting 1 and 3 would guarantee losing at least one bet.

Betting the same amount on 2 and 4 would mean that if the creature turns out to be (say) a slaad, you win both. If the creature turns out to be either a protean or a hunting horror, you get nothing. You cannot lose money in this scenario.

Betting the same amount on 1 and 4, or 2 and 3, would mean you could potentially win--or lose--twice the limit.

Given the guarantees I've stated, betting nothing at all would be fundamentally irrational (the 2 and 4 combination can get much money and can't lose any), but I suspect some people would have enough of an aversion to gambling to choose it anyway.

Luckily for you, I'm not averse to gambling with forum-magic entities that I automatically trust.

Hypothetically speaking, in the Kish-Approved Scenario, I put as much as I can evenly split between 2 and 4.

Hm. I'm going to add the further constraint that my memory of previous bets is erased after each bet, so each prediction of the future is made without knowledge of the others. In that case,

1. I bet $7.00.
2. I bet $25.00
3. I ask if there is a secondary market for bets that this entity has made with other persons.
4. I bet $80.00

[mashlagoo1982]

The Monster in the Dark needs three things to be self sufficient (meaning it works even if you’ve never heard of what it is).

1. Importance in the plot
2. A reason why we were not allowed to know what was revealed beforehand.
3. A reason it had to be in the story before the reveal.

So, for example
1. Both the Snarl and every FBS monster has symptoms of Cosmic Horror, and Snarl Jr. was a thing even without that. What if the Monster in the Dark has a role in finishing the Snarl’s subplot?
2. What if the Monster in the Dark is drawn Snarled in some way? It does weird things to the Circus Scene, but it establishes that Rich could not have revealed it before he actually did.
3. What if the important thing is the Monster in the Dark's relationship to O-Chul? That establishes that it had to be in the story from early on.

I’m not against criticism of my example, but I put a lot of work into making it a template for other ideas to follow, so I’d like to request we move on to other ideas at some point.

To those questioning where certain things were stated regarding MitD's role/purpose, there was some discussion starting here. It's on the 4th page of this thread, post 105.

I do seem to recall there being other discourse later on, but I am not about to read through +25 pages.

I honestly thought it was a given that MitD's story may not have any huge conclusion because it isn't a main character.

[Tubercular Ox]

In an effort to avoid reliving an argument, I'd like to point out that the first three points are the theory, and the second three points are an example that fits the theory. You can reject the example if you wish, but I think the theory applies even to a modest Monster in the Dark whose importance to the plot isn't mission critical.

[Keltest]

In an effort to avoid reliving an argument, I'd like to point out that the first three points are the theory, and the second three points are an example that fits the theory. You can reject the example if you wish, but I think the theory applies even to a modest Monster in the Dark whose importance to the plot isn't mission critical.

If you want to die on that hill for whatever reason, its still not useful criteria because at this point, ANYTHING can be behind the darkness. It already has a reason to be in the plot, a reason to be behind the shadows, and the third one is honestly just a rehash of the first one.

[mashlagoo1982]

In an effort to avoid reliving an argument, I'd like to point out that the first three points are the theory, and the second three points are an example that fits the theory. You can reject the example if you wish, but I think the theory applies even to a modest Monster in the Dark whose importance to the plot isn't mission critical.

I wasn't trying to reopen an old argument.

I did just recall this being discussed before where some posters rightfully stated MitD is not a primary character and if The Giant wanted he could have MitD fly away after doing what it needs to do.

The spinning wheels was bothering me and I was hoping the discussion could move beyond that point.

I tried to help. I brought up Start of Darkness and how the Protean doesn’t fit it, and I was told I was a bad person and I should switch to an acceptable topic, like how the Protean is better than any other candidate.

I'm actually interested in clarification regarding the above statement.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

If you want to die on that hill for whatever reason, its still not useful criteria because at this point, ANYTHING can be behind the darkness. It already has a reason to be in the plot, a reason to be behind the shadows, and the third one is honestly just a rehash of the first one.

Heck, as another thread just reminded me, Shelby passes those tests. He has importance to the plot (killed the silver dragon), he was not revealed in advance (to highlight the danger Xykon was in when faced with the dragon), and had a reason to be in the story before the reveal (his ax was thrown and killed the dragon before he was revealed, surprising the audience).

So if that is all it takes to fit MitD, then it turns out a goblin in a bonus comic that was immediately zombified by Xykon to demonstrate what happens to those who upstage Xykon fits that criteria. Which, as you point out, is of literally no use to a thread that is trying to narrow down MitD's species from "yeah, it could be anything".

Grey Wolf

[Unoriginal]

Personally, I think Protean doesn't fit, because the Proteans' main gimmick is their shapechanging abilities.

My reasoning: the only reason Xykon makes the Monster stays in the Darkness is because he wants a big, dramatic reveal during a worthwhile encounter against heroes.

In other words, the sight of the MitD/people reacting to that sight while in a combat encounter is something Xykon would deem big and dramatic enough to set up in advance and keep ongoing for months and years.

Now, there can be many reasons for that... but the fact is that a Protean can look like most creatures in creation. So if Xykon wanted a big, dramatic reveal would be for the Monster first look like an harmless bunny or a puppy or the like, then BAM! turn into a big dangerous being like a Gray Render, revealing his shapechanging power.

What I mean is that visually obscuring a being who can look like any creature isn't a great way to conceal them, in-universe-drama-wise.

Unless Xykon is trying to set up a fake-out by having the Monster reveals himself as an harmless being... and then change into the scary form. But I doubt Xykon would trust the MitD with that kind of script.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

the fact is that a Protean can look like most creatures in creation.

No it can't.

Gods I'm sick and tired of hearing this.

Crusher, was it you that was keeping count? Notch another one for "The protean can look like any creature".

GW

[Keltest]

No it can't.

Gods I'm sick and tired of hearing this.

Crusher, was it you that was keeping count? Notch another one for "The protean can look like any creature".

GW

Yes it can. It's bad (relatively) at pretending to be something, but it can assume the shape of a horse or rabbit or whatever. It would just be behaving really strangely for a horse due to having to concentrate at holding that shape.

[Unoriginal]

No it can't.

Gods I'm sick and tired of hearing this.

Crusher, was it you that was keeping count? Notch another one for "The protean can look like any creature".

GW

I mean fair, I should have read the statblock more attentively, but Proteans can look like any creature or combo of creatures (which let them get the special capacities of up to four creatures).

I guess revealing an ever-shifting soup of random creature parts could be a big, dramatic reveal, but IDK, doesn't seem like it would be that to me.

[Kish]

In an effort to avoid reliving an argument, I'd like to point out that the first three points are the theory, and the second three points are an example that fits the theory. You can reject the example if you wish, but I think the theory applies even to a modest Monster in the Dark whose importance to the plot isn't mission critical.

As discussed previously, the theory might be true but only at an amazingly low level of "need." A reason to be in the story before the reveal? Aside from all his character development (which might not matter if the only characters who actually matter here are the members of the eponymous Order, that is, in a comic written by someone who isn't Rich Burlew; remember the forum complaints when there was a subplot focused entirely on Bandana's becoming captain of the Mechane?), he saved one of the protagonists' lives already. A reason for him not to be immediately and casually revealed? I can't fathom how that claim, without "the guessing game is the reason," goes with anything Rich Burlew...or any fiction writer ever, has written.

Or to put it another way: Sure. He needs as much to do in the comic as his friend O-Chul, and as much reason not to have been revealed as Malack had to have not been revealed prior to the comic where he was revealed. I...am really not seeing any way those could point to any creature; he has both of them multiple times over even now, before the reveal.

I mean fair, I should have read the statblock more attentively, but Proteans can look like any creature or combo of creatures (which let them get the special capacities of up to four creatures).

I guess revealing an ever-shifting soup of random creature parts could be a big, dramatic reveal, but IDK, doesn't seem like it would be that to me.

I'm pretty sure it would be significantly more shocking than (looks in Crusher's guess post for Unoriginal's guesses, doesn't find any) than pretty much anything else that's been seriously proposed.

[Hardcore]

I recall from somewhere else that dwarf meat was stringy. The disc world? "Eating babies" is familiar too. Hm, Witches eat babies. Does the those dnd Hags count?

It it seems there is no section for minor hints .A pity that; i think they are very relevant as clues

[Ruck]

I mean fair, I should have read the statblock more attentively, but Proteans can look like any creature or combo of creatures (which let them get the special capacities of up to four creatures).

Can, but by default, a Protean looks like a Protean. Which as I understand it, is more like a weird mass of flesh that is constantly changing and sprouting new parts.

I guess revealing an ever-shifting soup of random creature parts could be a big, dramatic reveal, but IDK, doesn't seem like it would be that to me.

Well, that's only relevant insofar as you think the drama in MitD's reveal is dependent on his appearance.

I recall from somewhere else that dwarf meat was stringy. The disc world? "Eating babies" is familiar too. Hm, Witches eat babies. Does the those dnd Hags count?

It it seems there is no section for minor hints .A pity that; i think they are very relevant as clues

I would surmise (read: "Grey Wolf can probably tell you the actual answer") that it's much more difficult to come to any kind of consensus as to what qualifies as a minor hint, than it was to agree on the big scenes (two of which show MitD's abilities in action and the third of which lets us infer clues about his appearance).

An example I've used before: MitD's line in #701, panel 3 that "Pulling has all those tricky parts where you hold something AND move it. At the same time!"

If MitD is a Protean, then that line seems like a clue-- as a Protean, MitD would find pulling difficult because he has to concentrate on maintaining a limb in order to do it. But the line also works simply as a joke about MitD's well-established incompetence. Which, if MitD is not a Protean, is all it is.

So, is it a minor hint, or not? I think the answer is "We won't know until we know what MitD is." Which means it's not very useful as a hint.

So how do we establish which possible minor hints might actually be hints? I don't know. I think a lot of them are going to be similar to the above, where the item could be a minor hint to MitD's species but is also general enough to work no matter what MitD is.

(Personally, though, I don't think "something that might have been in Discworld" is particularly relevant here, in a series based on D&D and whose author has said he's never read any Terry Pratchett.)

[Unoriginal]

Can, but by default, a Protean looks like a Protean. Which as I understand it, is more like a weird mass of flesh that is constantly changing and sprouting new parts.



Well, that's only relevant insofar as you think the drama in MitD's reveal is dependent on his appearance.

I mean, it isn't what I think, it's what Xykon thinks.

The Lich wouldn't set up a visual reveal if he didn't think the visual of the MitD was drama-worthy.

As I said earlier, there can be many reasons for that. But one way or another the MitD steppkng out of the darkness is supposed to generate an "oh ****" reaction in adventurers who aren't experts with obscure monster knowledge like Team Evil.

Also while we know Xykon is far more clever than what most people who met him give him credit for, he's really not a subtle person.

So now that I thought about it more, I admit that an ever-shifting primordial soup of disparate body parts could be considered dramatic enough, given Xykon's tastes.