MitD XIX: The Potted Plant Is Starting To Look Reasonable

[Peelee]

Fair points, I hadn't considered them.

Thank you for pointing that out.

If it makes you feel any better, no small part of why I'm good at pointing out stuff like that is I've been on the receiving end of similar things than enough times.

[endoperez]

I had a quick look at the true neutral planar beings, and noticed the rilmani. I had a quick look, and came across this: In AD&D, they could grant Wish.

"Once per day the aurumach can use any symbol or time stop, once per year she can grant another's wish."

https://www.completecompendium.com/appendix/rilmauru/

There were a few references to old-edition creatures transported to 3.0, back when MitD's type was set in stone. rilmani and aurumach is just one such option, I'm sure there are other ones. If someone dislike the Protean option, they could go looking for old AD&D stuff... and being from a previous edition could be an interesting meta-explanation for various reactions to MitD's appearance.

I don't think Aurumach is a perfect fit, even though it's the one I noticed this with. Still, while the stats and abilities don't quite fit, having a true neutral keeper of balance join team evil at first, then switch to team good if they are losing would fit some of their themes.

[Tubercular Ox]

maybe that's not their point of commonality.

Maybe. I appreciate you considering it. And since we were just talking about confidence, I'm not super confident in this going anywhere. Just enough to mention it.

EDIT: OTOH, maybe this is a good time to mention again how much more efficient the story would be if monsters from the other side of the gate came to this side. Then we could learn more about what's on the other side of the gate without having to travel there.

Confidence: Probably less than the previous, but I'd be excited for this to happen. Finding out just that the gates are related to people knowing what the Monster in the Dark is would be meh.

[InvisibleBison]

Everybody who thinks they know what the Monster in the Dark is has a connection to the gates.

Except for the Stereotyped Big Game Hunters.

[Tubercular Ox]

Except for the Stereotyped Big Game Hunters.

I'm happy to just include that and let people decide for themselves. Everyone except the Stereotyped Big Game Hunters.

Who knows, maybe it will turn out the Stereotyped Big Game Hunters were surprised to find the monster because it's not near a gate.

[Keltest]

I'm happy to just include that and let people decide for themselves. Everyone except the Stereotyped Big Game Hunters.

Who knows, maybe it will turn out the Stereotyped Big Game Hunters were surprised to find the monster because it's not near a gate.

And whichever sage O-chul consulted.

[Tubercular Ox]

And whichever sage O-chul consulted.

Soon. He wrote stuff down, and they teach it to inductees.

Also, somewhere in here I quietly joined the camp that thinks Serini will recognize the Monster in the Dark.

So there it is, you teased a prediction out of me. But I'd like it remembered as a C-tier prediction at best.

[Keltest]

Soon. He wrote stuff down, and they teach it to inductees.

Also, somewhere in here I quietly joined the camp that thinks Serini will recognize the Monster in the Dark.

So there it is, you teased a prediction out of me. But I'd like it remembered as a C-tier prediction at best.

Soon is absolutely not the sage that was consulted? The sage isn't a member of the Sapphire Guard, all surviving members are accounted for.

[Peelee]

Everybody who thinks they know what the Monster in the Dark is has a connection to the gates.

Well, sure, but that's sort of by necessity since MitD is being used by people whose entire plan of action is to capture a Gate. Most everyone he meets and spends any significant time with is going to have a connection to the Gates because of that.

[Unoriginal]

Well, sure, but that's sort of by necessity since MitD is being used by people whose entire plan of action is to capture a Gate. Most everyone he meets and spends any significant time with is going to have a connection to the Gates because of that.

Indeed.

In fact, the only recurring characters who don't have any tie to the Gates are people related to the Order's members through their pre-comic life and/or family history.

If it makes you feel any better, no small part of why I'm good at pointing out stuff like that is I've been on the receiving end of similar things than enough times.

I don't feel bad when people demonstrates I am incorrect about something.

Being proven incorrect means I'll be more correct going forward.

[Metastachydium]

Be careful, crows eat flowers ! (I know it because the internet told me).

But… They are birdies and very smart and very pretty and BIRDIES.

isn't a member of the Sapphire Guard, all surviving members are accounted for.

No? When Azure City fell, as per O-Chul himself, many Paladins were away, and the only one of these whose ultimate fate we are aware of is Thanh.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

- Xykon claims to have read about the species.

Please remind me, where was this?

GW

[Unoriginal]

Please remind me, where was this?

GW

Here.

The fact that he changes from "eat the dwarves" to "maybe I'll zombify them then" seems to imply this isn't Xykon lying or just trying to get the MitD to be more intimidating. After all, he insists on the you-should-eat-children diet.

Even if it is Xykon lying or misremembering, it does indicate that he considers "I read about your kind" to be a believable situation.

[Ruck]

I was more interested in giving people the opportunity to commit to their assessments than winning. After what happened last time, even 20% seems like too much confidence.

What do you mean "what happened last time"?

[Peelee]

Heh, I didn't actually know that was a rule. But I already have a gambling forum I can post on for gambling, and also I generally discourage gambling if you're not a professional (or aspiring to be).

Spoiler: But I have a system!

Show

The house always wins, so you just need to bet the house. By definition, you can't lose!

Charles Wells, eat your heart out.

[Tubercular Ox]

Well, sure, but that's sort of by necessity since MitD is being used by people whose entire plan of action is to capture a Gate. Most everyone he meets and spends any significant time with is going to have a connection to the Gates because of that.

So this is not going to be well said, because I never mastered thinking only in necessary and sufficient conditions, but the questions at the back of my mind are:

Which characters has Rich emphasized as having seen the Monster in the Dark? Like, the people in the Circus Scene obviously, but not Tsukiko, who has had plenty of opportunity but Rich hasn't brought up whether she has or hasn't.

Of those characters, which has Rich emphasized as not recognizing the Monster in the Dark? So, the guy in the Circus Scene who's never seen anything like it, but not the other people in the Circus Scene because they don't say anything.

How big is that group compared to Xykon, Redcloak, O-Chul, Oona, the Big Game Hunters, and Qarr?

If we're going to dismiss being close to the gates as a commonality because everyone in the story is close to the gates, do we have to talk about the possibility that it's not that hard to know what the Monster in the Dark is? It seems like a big chunk of the people who've seen it and said something have a hunch what it is.

And if that's silly, then identifying the group that Rich wants us to know don't recognize the Monster in the Dark might make it easier to identify what group is recognizing the Monster in the Dark. But if I can forget the big game hunters, I'm not the guy to do that.

What do you mean "what happened last time"?

I alleged that there were scenes in Start of Darkness that the Protean didn't fit. I can't remember anyone actually disagreeing with me. Instead I got, "That's not fair," "You're hurting our feelings," "It's okay if the Protean doesn't fit because we don't have a better answer," "It's good that the Protean doesn't fit because it creates mystery and ambiguity," and, "We have to talk about something else now."

I will grant that the wisdom of the crowd could be on to something here, I just want to know if that really shakes out as, "85% chance it's a Protean."

[Peelee]

How big is that group compared to Xykon, Redcloak, O-Chul, Oona, the Big Game Hunters, and Qarr?

Conversely, how well does it bode for your theory that 28% of the people who recognized him are not even involved with the Gates? 42% if we count Qarr among them, since he got to involved significantly later than anyone else and we don't have much indication he knows all that much at all about them anyway.

"You're hurting our feelings,"

I don't recall anyone ever saying this about any creature. Can you provide a quote? Your other claims as to responses seem heavily editorialized as well, but this one is by far the most glaring.

[Tubercular Ox]

Conversely, how well does it bode for your theory

What theory?

I don't recall anyone ever saying this about any creature. Can you provide a quote? Your other claims as to responses seem heavily editorialized as well, but this one is by far the most glaring.

If that person speaks up, I will talk with them about it, but I'm not outing them just so you can defend their words as meaning something else, without their permission.

You were in the, "It's okay if it doesn't fit because we can't find better," and the, "Let's talk about something else," camp:

Then I assume you object to every creature suggested so far, including yours?

I hate quoting you here because we are so obviously going to sink into a discussion about how you are generally awesome and if your words don't convey that instantly then it's the fault of the people reading them.

The real point is your first reaction was not to say that the Protean fits everything.

But, to be fair, in searching for who said the feelings quote, I came across a few people who tried to make the Protean fit the scenes I suggested, so my memory cheated everyone there. I think the way forward for me from here is to say that the attempt was worth a lot more than whether or not they persuaded me, given all the people who wouldn't even attempt.

[woweedd]

What theory?



If that person speaks up, I will talk with them about it, but I'm not outing them just so you can defend their words as meaning something else, without their permission.

You were in the, "It's okay if it doesn't fit because we can't find better," and the, "Let's talk about something else," camp:



I hate quoting you here because we are so obviously going to sink into a discussion about how you are generally awesome and if your words don't convey that instantly then it's the fault of the people reading them.

The real point is your first reaction was not to say that the Protean fits everything.

But, to be fair, in searching for who said the feelings quote, I came across a few people who tried to make the Protean fit the scenes I suggested, so my memory cheated everyone there. I think the way forward for me from here is to say that the attempt was worth a lot more than whether or not they persuaded me, given all the people who wouldn't even attempt.

Maybe some people are willing to admit their proposal has flaws while still beliving it?

[Tubercular Ox]

Maybe some people are willing to admit their proposal has flaws while still beliving it?

Totally legit! But how much? It took me months to figure out I was ready to try the gambling thing, and if someone else hadn't brought it up first I might've sat on it forever, but I really was ready to cover every single bet just to find out what odds people would actually put money down on. I was thinking of putting them in my signature to discourage people betting longer odds than they'd accept. Probably would've failed. And if I can't bring it up later I'm not sure what placing bets buys me.

[dmc91356]

Which characters has Rich emphasized as having seen the Monster in the Dark? Like, the people in the Circus Scene obviously, but not Tsukiko, who has had plenty of opportunity but Rich hasn't brought up whether she has or hasn't.

Of those characters, which has Rich emphasized as not recognizing the Monster in the Dark? So, the guy in the Circus Scene who's never seen anything like it, but not the other people in the Circus Scene because they don't say anything.

Cherry picking the above, I want to point out that just because the other people in the circus scene do not say that they have never seen anything like it does not mean that they have ever seen anything like it prior to the circus. A perfectly reasonable inference here is that many people at the circus are repeat customers, like, say, the goblins. They have seen it before, but only AT THE CIRCUS. They don't necessarily have a clue what it is, but they have seen it before.

That's just my two cents and I can certainly be completely wrong here.

[Mordar]

What theory?

Your statement implying an interest in exploring the idea that you might think a connection to the Gates might provide some commonality in recognizing the MitD.

While I don't think that a likely connection, I think there may be other commonalities...like the races of the non-specialists that suggest they recognize it. Big game hunters and liches being specialists in this case.

Random thoughts:

"Bet the house" is colloquial for betting everything you have deemed appropriate to risk. I would be all-in on "not protean" assuming no worse than flat odds (which obviously would be a stupid set for the house), and very likely at most any reasonable odds.

No one needs anyone's permission to render an opinion on something put in a public forum. There is no reasonable right to privacy or control of opinion on what anyone posts GitP. So espousing taking the moral high ground on not backing up your statement that someone said (in quotes) you hurt their feelings as fallout from a previous post is well within your scope, but it makes it look an awful lot like a girlfriend at Niagara Falls, and casts a cloud over your other statements. I think you often have interesting things to say. I agree with your expectation that post reveal there won't be any legitimate "But wait, that can't be!" arguments. I think that sometimes these nuggets get lost, that's all.

My opinions, for whatever that's worth.

- M

[Ruck]

If that person speaks up, I will talk with them about it, but I'm not outing them just so you can defend their words as meaning something else, without their permission.

The posts are public. You can't "out" someone by quoting something they publicly posted. Frankly, this looks like a thinly veiled excuse for not even attempting to support your assertion. (Or another one of those posting rules that you invented in your head.)

[Tubercular Ox]

(Or another one of those posting rules that you invented in your head.)

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.

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.

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.

So, no, not having this conversation.

[Peelee]

I almost didn't quote Peelee to himself because I dread that conversation.

Not much conversation to be had when you take what i say differently from what I mean, despite that few, if any, other people seem to have similar difficulty interpreting my (usually quite plain and direct) words.

Also, I'm going to go ahead and assume nobody said "you're hurting my feelings".

[Kish]

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

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

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.

And I really hate that this could've just slid.

You could try not saying people have said things they haven't?

Let the record state that, whether or not I am one of the people Tubercular Ox is attributing lines to today, I do not give my consent for him to stick words in my mouth. Ever. I do give my consent for anyone (including Tubercular Ox) to point out "Kish never said that" if he does so despite my expressed lack of consent.

************************************************** ************************************************** ***

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.

[Mordar]

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.

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

[ReaderAt2046]

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

Well, since we're dealing with mysterious cosmic entities, one possibility would be that the entity accumulates karma points or something similar by offering bets or brokering deals. Whether you win or lose, the mere fact that you made the bet gives the entity its "commission".

[Grey_Wolf_c]

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.

Well, duh. Any deal too good to be true is likely to be precisely that. So if this entity presents such a deal, possibly hinting with a smile that certain betting pattern is guaranteed to gain me money, the only rational conclusion I can reach is that it's a scam, and that I shouldn't just walk way, but probably run.

And if it is NOT a scam, I am still left in a position where the bad feelings from potentially losing easily surpass any good feelings I could get. The anxiety alone would add such a malus to the potential gains that makes any betting just impossible.

Also, is Ox once again claiming people said thing that no-one has actually said? Is it Thursday already?

GW

[Tubercular Ox]

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:

Have we had this discussion? Like, maybe we talked about odds, and maybe someone proposed something like this, so maybe this is how I got started thinking like this in the first place?

If so, then I can testify that this game works all the way until it doesn’t. I found a number, and I was proud of it, but then I looked at it and said, “If I’m really this confident, why aren’t I doing something?” But no sooner did I put my fingers on the keyboard than the number I thought about changed. I was thinking about things like whether I wanted escrow, whether I would need that money before Rich had the reveal, what to do if something happened and we never got a reveal.

But that’s exactly what I wanted out of this experiment. Not how much money I want to bet, but how important this is to me. It’s possible one of the reasons I came forward is because I’m still playing the game of trying to make that number budge. It’s possible that I think this was a wonderful experience and everyone should have a chance. It’s possible that I think this was a miserable experience and misery loves company. I don’t know. But there is more at stake here than just money.

And since betting is out, I will go back to the drawing board on how to isolate what I think my actual chances are from any bravado that might be in play.

Cherry picking the above, I want to point out that just because the other people in the circus scene do not say that they have never seen anything like it does not mean that they have ever seen anything like it prior to the circus. A perfectly reasonable inference here is that many people at the circus are repeat customers, like, say, the goblins. They have seen it before, but only AT THE CIRCUS. They don't necessarily have a clue what it is, but they have seen it before.

That's just my two cents and I can certainly be completely wrong here.

With your help, I think my mistake the first time was in being too Watsonian. I’m curious about what Rich is saying when he’s trying to talk to us, rather than what we can infer. So the circus scene, regardless of any of that, is most memorable (on this topic) for telling us that the Monster in the Dark is not easily recognized.

I’m the guy who let the big game hunters slip, so it seems like getting a better picture is the next step.