MitD XIX: The Potted Plant Is Starting To Look Reasonable

[hroþila]

Also it's a bit weird to brush aside something like "we can see the MitD's unchanging eyes when he's asleep" while simultaneously saying something like "one random dude who looks like a wizard has never seen anything like a sentient pile of poo? sounds far-fetched". Seems to me like the latter would be infinitely easier to explain away than the former

[woweedd]

Also it's a bit weird to brush aside something like "we can see the MitD's unchanging eyes when he's asleep" while simultaneously saying something like "one random dude who looks like a wizard has never seen anything like a sentient pile of poo? sounds far-fetched". Seems to me like the latter would be infinitely easier to explain away than the former

I mean, there's an entire monster category called oozes, so...

[hroþila]

I mean, there's an entire monster category called oozes, so...

So? On the face of it, "that particular guy who looks like a wizard has never seen an ooze-like creature that looked like the MitD" is still a simpler explanation a priori than "the MitD's eyes as depicted in the comic bear no relation to his actual eyes, which may or many not exist". Maybe the wizard guy knows a lot of stuff and can pass lots of Knowledge checks, but he just knows nothing about oozes. Maybe he does know but he's not an adventurer and has never seen an ooze before. Maybe he's seen tons of oozes, but none that looked quite like the MitD. Maybe he's not a wizard in the first place ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Sky_Schemer]

So? On the face of it, "that particular guy who looks like a wizard has never seen an ooze-like creature that looked like the MitD" is still a simpler explanation a priori than "the MitD's eyes as depicted in the comic bear no relation to his actual eyes, which may or many not exist".

Do you think the Snarl has eyes? Because it sure is drawn with them. And a mouth, too. And claws. Despite the fact that the snarl has no anatomy or even physical form when it showed for for realisies instead of in a flashback. It's just a snag in the threads of reality that grew ever more complex, intelligent, and hateful.

So why was it given eyes and a mouth? Artistic license: so a creature that isn't a creature can emote.

[halfeye]

If you're playing a game of 20 questions, and you ask a question whose answer eliminates the last thing you thought it would be, that doesn't mean its a bad question that shouldn't be applied, it means you just don't know the answer.

Yeah, if it eliminates every option you have to consider the possibility of cheating give up that round and demand an answer that does fit the answers you got. Mind you, in a game of twenty questions, a question that only eliminates one possible answer is generally a poor question.

[Keltest]

Do you think the Snarl has eyes? Because it sure is drawn with them. And a mouth, too. And claws. Despite the fact that the snarl has no anatomy or even physical form when it showed for for realisies instead of in a flashback. It's just a snag in the threads of reality that grew ever more complex, intelligent, and hateful.

So why was it given eyes and a mouth? Artistic license: so a creature that isn't a creature can emote.

Given that we don't see the entirety of the snarl in that scene, you seem to be making a lot of assumptions.

[Metastachydium]

That too (bolded emphasis mine). At this point I don't expect to convince anyone new, but I am frustrated with how consistently the people trying to argue against me specifically keep misrepresenting what I've said.

Now, before we'd skip to business, listen here for a moment. Full disclosure: I'll be blunt.

–If I happen to misunderstand something you say, feel free to correct an explain again. I don't mind that. Doesn't mean I'll agree. But I don't mind it. If repeated explanations fail, that might be on me. Whatever. You can bask in the warm sun of being very clever. I like warm suns. I'm fine with that.

–Alternatively, if you think I'm intentionally and maliciously misrepresent your point to make it appear weaker because I can't handle your cleverness or out of spite or because I'm too invested in winning a pointless debate or whatever you think the reason is, because that is what strawmaning means, just ****ing report the ****ing post. Simple as that.

Either way, don't fling second-hand accusations at me. Because that I do mind. Thank you well in advance.

First, the Protean has a default size unless it's actively changing into a creature of a different size. That's in its statblock.

Purportedly, yes. It's an epic creature of odd design that constantly shifts its shape, and as such, can change its size as a free action without noticing, which is a poorly conceived monster design idea for something in a game (in general, and a stroy context, it would be far more viable and no less interesting, of course), but that's WotC doing Epic for you.

Second, the partial in "partial shapeshifting" is important here. He can easily maintain a face while the rest of his body still boils and such.

He can, through active and deliberate effort, spending the appropriate action cost when able to, yes.

Yes, I've been saying that there are both explanations that involve MitD holding his face or eyes in position, and explanations that do not involve that but involve something in the artistic style and/or the rules of dramatic convention OOTS runs on.

And I've said I don't know which one explanation is correct, but the fact that I can find enough I consider reasonable or plausible satisfies the doubts I've had there.

There's a gap between possible and plausible, plausible and likely, as well as between likely and true.

The Air Gnome Solution of the Oracle's prophecy for Belkar's death satisfies possible and arguably plausible, but it is too contrived to be likely as far as I'm concerned.

Ignoring defining features "so as not to kill the guessing game" (mute young portly female Sean Connery; advertising Deadpool 2 as a Brad Pitt movie where his not featuring in promotional material is a VERY IMPORTANT clue to the role he plays…) is possible, but hardly satisfying, not for me anyway. You do you of course, but for me it sounds both contrived and trolling.

(Also, I'll throw my support for your points about the "closed eyes as shorthand for sleep" position. It's clear that Rich has to use certain artistic conventions in order to accurately convey his characters' emotions in a stick figure comic.)

But he doesn't for the Likeable Death Worm. And Xykon's eye sockets are less of a stretch for me than having, say, Xykon maintain fixed eye sockets with two emoting yellow eyes hovering over his left shoulder "as a shorthand". (Also, while I don't think Big X. looks like he is drawn with that in mind, D&D liches may and usually do retain skin stretched over their bones, as per their official description.)

I might just be repeating or summarizing my essay here, but I felt it might help to present the sum total of my perspective on MitD's species, rather than arguing bits and pieces of it.

Yes, and I thank you for it.

[*]The white/black Slaad's reproduction cycle doesn't fit MitD's comments on his dad,

You literally linked the strip where spawning is conceptualized as parenthood, which makes this a poor argument. All White Slaadi have parents if we go by what the comic explicitly tells us: the Red or Blue that made them a Green back when. White Slaadi are Large. Red and Blue grow to Huge. Do the math. If what you are looking for is sometheing possible, ny RAW and by the comic, look no further.

and the age he would have to be and stages of evolution he would have to go through to be a white/black Slaad doesn't fit with him being a juvenile.

Origin establishes, and explicitly, that at the age of 20, Elves are still in diapers; at 26, they are kindergarten age; and, as per Origin, once more, they are still small children at 43, when a D&D!Human (physically and legally an adult at 15) can have teenaged grandchildren already. This doesn't align with official D&D fluff, despite retaining the raw numbers.

Nonhumans maturing differently is an established thing in the Stickverse. Possible again.

The SBGH should not be surprised a Slaad can talk in Common.

The same goes for a Protean. At any rate, it is a second language for a Slaad. This is neither here nor there.

As already portrayed in comic, a Slaad is also not the kind of creature that would cause a learned wizard to say "I've never seen anything like it!"

On top of that, a Slaad has already been portrayed in the comic, and I don't think Rich would do that if the Slaad was his planned reveal. (This is still a story first, and I don't think Rich would undercut a big moment in the story, a big reveal he's been planning for decades, just for a joke about a pregnant deva.)

1. We have also seen Mimics, and even Belkar knows how they work (v. trolling Durkon and the treasure chest comment). Is this a point against the Protean? Not in my book.

2. Slaadi are not even the only batrachiate Outsiders in the game. We have Neraphim, Hezrou Demons, Farastu Demodands… And then we have Gripplis, Sivs, DraMag!Vodyanoi and Anthropomorphic Toads on the race front, Ice Toads (warty, white übertoads, but quadrupedal)…

A White Slaad resembles many of these, but is very obviously not any pof the commonly encountered Slaadi, let alone the other creatures, and rare enough that even a learned caster could fail the check to recognize it properly, both from a mechanical and a logical standpoint. Unless you take "I haven't seen anything like" to mean they literally didn't (I would say that upon encountering a massive, white toad with teeth, even though I have seen toads before), it is more than plausible, and if you do… Well, that's projecting.

3. Also, unlike how

[t]he Protean normally wouldn't appear as two eyes in the dark

, it both could and would.

4. And unlike the Protean that

would have to partially shapeshift into the right creature with the right power to teleport Vaarsuvius and O-Chul away

, it can just do that. So…

If it is true that

[o]nly one of those monsters has drawbacks that are possible to explain with the rules, mechanics, and portrayal as established

, it is the Slaad. It doesn't even take anything but the rules and what the comic establishes, explicitly, elsewhere to do so. No need to imagine Astral battles with Umbral Blots. No need to come up with "the eyes are there to signify that the eyes are not there" level arguments.

Clean and simple.

It's also the strongest creature on the FBS, which I think makes it the best fit for the Tower Scene.

Undercut by the fact that it's also the one candidate that could, in fact, hit lighter, even if its powers are vibes based, I might add.

I also think its unique qualities make it the best fit for the Circus scene-- by a substantial margin, I might add.

You do. I don't. That's okay.

And, finally, the story reasons and thematic resonance for it really work for me: MITD is a character expected to be a scary monster, who's been content to follow others around and do what they want, and who now has to find the inner strength to follow his own heart and mind and change, to be who he wants to be instead of what other people expect of him.

See the parallelism I made between Sabine/Nale and MitD/O-Chul earlier. An oddly behaving Chaotic exemplar begins questioning its counterintuitive loyalties due to froming a strong bond with a Human.

That character then being revealed to be a species of constant change, with more power to change than anything else we've seen in this world, makes a lot of sense to me.

…which is just as well, because a White Slaad still has a change left in it! it's even (wait for it) literal growth, and becoming visually similar to what we have gotten used to he looks like might double as a metaphor for self-acceptance, if you lean that way. There.

And so far I have not come up with or been presented with a good story reason for any of the other candidates.

See above. A story reason, and entirely plausible.

[Precure]

Oh for...

This is the correct analogous creature for something lacking eyes. You will note the complete lack of lines where eyes might be to emote, even when it is expressing an emotional state.

I don't get it. Whole joke is that they can't tell if the creature is dead or sleeping due to its lack of eyes. That supports why it's important for MitD to have eyes.

[Sky_Schemer]

Given that we don't see the entirety of the snarl in that scene, you seem to be making a lot of assumptions.

That was your takeaway?

Do you believe the Snarl, a creature with no anatomy because it's not even a creature, has literal eyes? A literal maw?

How about this, instead. In the Crayons of Time panels, everywhere the Snarl is shown breaking through to the material world, it is drawn with claws. In the desert, where we see the Snarl "live" instead of a flashback, it isn't. We are looking at artistic license, to depict something that can't easily be literally shown, using a "language" that is familiar to the reader.

[Keltest]

I don't get it. Whole joke is that they can't tell if the creature is dead or sleeping due to its lack of eyes. That supports why it's important for MitD to have eyes.

The point isxthat if a creature doesn't have eyes, then it... doesn't have eyes. They aren't drawn on anyway.

[Metastachydium]

I don't get it. Whole joke is that they can't tell if the creature is dead or sleeping due to its lack of eyes.

That's what one panel LDW appears on is about. Otherwise, LWD emotes entirely too much for a Nightcrawler during their presence in the story, and quite, well, likeably.

That supports why it's important for MitD to have eyes.

The point is, it supports that having eyes is not something we can just take for granted. And Grey Wolf, of all people, has, I believe, in fact said that if there were no eyes visible in the window of the box, they'd have found it more believable that MitD just lied down and is asleep, and treated that as an argument for why his eyes "can't be eyes", so how important that would be is also arguable.

That was your takeaway?

Do you believe the Snarl, a creature with no anatomy because it's not even a creature, has literal eyes? A literal maw?

How about this, instead. In the Crayons of Time panels, everywhere the Snarl is shown breaking through to the material world, it is drawn with claws. In the desert, where we see the Snarl "live" instead of a flashback, it isn't. We are looking at artistic license, to depict something that can't easily be literally shown, using a "language" that is familiar to the reader.

The issue with crayon scenes is that they are canonically not showing things exactly as they happened and were. The gods back then were probably not even stick figures to start with. So, until such time as the Snarl is shown to be both not a creature and actually having eyes in the main comic, the comparison with MitD and his eyes rests on a foundation that I'd describe as a tad shaky.

[Sky_Schemer]

The issue with crayon scenes is that they are canonically not showing things exactly as they happened and were. The gods back then were probably not even stick figures to start with.

And that is completely and totally irrelevant. Just because it's a story within a story, it's still a comic where the artist and author are trying to depict things that are happening or have happened. The "creature" being depicted is the Snarl, which has even less of a physical form than a protean, and Rich somehow has to show it being angry. He does that using artistic license: by drawing eyes, claws, and a maw.

Does the MitD have eyes? I don't know. But there is a precedent in the comic for using artistic license to add physical features e.g. eyes to a being/entity/creature/whatever that doesn't have them.

[Keltest]

And that is completely and totally irrelevant. Just because it's a story within a story, it's still a comic where the artist and author are trying to depict things that are happening or have happened. The "creature" being depicted is the Snarl, which has even less of a physical form than a protean, and Rich somehow has to show it being angry. He does that using artistic license: by drawing eyes, claws, and a maw.

Does the MitD have eyes? I don't know. But there is a precedent in the comic for using artistic license to add physical features e.g. eyes to a being/entity/creature/whatever that doesn't have them.

Again, where is the evidence the snarl does not have eyes, or that it the claws were metaphorical?

[Sky_Schemer]

Again, where is the evidence the snarl does not have eyes, or that it the claws were metaphorical?

There will never be such evidence one way or another unless Rich says something, since the Snarl is his creation.

The best we can do is deduce. Taking the comic at its own word, it is literally a tangle in the threads of reality. Which is more likely? That a tangle in the threads of reality has eyes, a mouth, and claws, or there is artistic license at work?

[Tzardok]

Neither is more likely than the other, because as you say: those are the threads of creation and everything is made from them. So why not eyes? Especially as the Snarl is described as "a being born of chaos", so technically anything is possible.

[Sky_Schemer]

Neither is more likely than the other, because as you say: those are the threads of creation and everything is made from them. So why not eyes? Especially as the Snarl is described as "a being born of chaos", so technically anything is possible.

Except, again taking the comic at its word, it had no understanding of the pattern of the threads around it.

So which is more likely? That a creature born of chaos with no understanding of the patterns of the threads that formed reality is able to form eyes, claws, and a mouth even though it doesn't understand any of these things, or there is artistic license at work?

[lio45]

If you're playing a game of 20 questions, and you ask a question whose answer eliminates the last thing you thought it would be, that doesn't mean its a bad question that shouldn't be applied, it means you just don't know the answer.

Exactly! Sure, as Ruck says, “there’s an answer”, but if every suggestion so far is a bad fit, the most logical conclusion is “we probably haven’t found it yet”, not “here’s the least bad fit, we’re confident that’s actually the one”.

As a wise old man once said:

“Many Creatures have been proposed, and will be proposed in this thread of sin and woe. No one pretends that the Protean is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that the Protean is the worst fitting Creature except for all those other Creatures that have been proposed from time to time.…”

[Keltest]

Except, again taking the comic at its word, it had no understanding of the pattern of the threads around it.

So which is more likely? That a creature born of chaos with no understanding of the patterns of the threads that formed reality is able to form eyes, claws, and a mouth even though it doesn't understand any of these things, or there is artistic license at work?

Rich is the creator of the Snarl. Artistic license is not a concept that applies to it in that way.

But also, the answer is that the version we actually see is more likely.

[Sky_Schemer]

Exactly! Sure, as Ruck says, “there’s an answer”, but if every suggestion so far is a bad fit, the most logical conclusion is “we probably haven’t found it yet”, not “here’s the least bad fit, we’re confident that’s actually the one”.

The other conclusion is, "We are making assumptions that aren't true". Because we can only go on what's in the comic, what's in stat blocks, and what's in traditional D&D lore.

And we already know that stat blocks and D&D lore take a back seat to narrative.

[Tzardok]

Except, again taking the comic at its word, it had no understanding of the pattern of the threads around it.

So which is more likely? That a creature born of chaos with no understanding of the patterns of the threads that formed reality is able to form eyes, claws, and a mouth even though it doesn't understand any of these things, or there is artistic license at work?

Why should it need to form those consciously? Maybe they form at random, like chaos beasts. Or maybe it simply has them, like any other creature; an accidental creation of the gods, just like its mind, just like its whole being.

[Sky_Schemer]

Rich is the creator of the Snarl. Artistic license is not a concept that applies to it in that way.

{scrubbed} I don't even know where to start.

But also, the answer is that the version we actually see is more likely.

So which version is correct? The version in the Crayons of Time, or the version on page 945?

You're giving non-answers to avoid answering. Do you believe the Snarl have eyes? Or do you believe the eyes are artistic license?

[Tubercular Ox]

So which version is correct? The version in the Crayons of Time, or the version on page 945?

You're using a reliable description of the Snarl's appearance in order to critique an unreliable depiction of the Snarl.

The Monster in the Dark isn't exactly swimming in either of those.

[Keltest]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote} I don't even know where to start.



So which version is correct? The version in the Crayons of Time, or the version on page 945?

You're giving non-answers to avoid answering. Do you believe the Snarl have eyes? Or do you believe the eyes are artistic license?

... of course it has eyes. We see it having eyes.

[Sky_Schemer]

Why should it need to form those consciously? Maybe they form at random, like chaos beasts. Or maybe it simply has them, like any other creature; an accidental creation of the gods, just like its mind, just like its whole being.

So. Why isn't it randomly forming a bicycle? Or a tail?

At this point you are arguing just to argue.

It is a reasonable conclusion that artistic license is used in the comic. Artistic license is defined as "deviation from fact or form for artistic purposes". It is reasonable to look at the depiction of the Snarl and conclude that it doesn't literally have eyes. And if you do that, you can look at the MitD, of which even less is shown than the Snarl--literally nothing at all is shown about it, except for eyes--and conclude that, if it doesn't have actual eyes, artistic license is a reasonable explanation for how it's depicted.

I don't find "the MitD is drawn with eyes so it must have eyes" to be a compelling argument, any more than I find "the Snarl is drawn with eyes so it must have eyes" to be a compelling argument.

[Sky_Schemer]

You're using a reliable description of the Snarl's appearance in order to critique an unreliable depiction of the Snarl.

The Monster in the Dark isn't exactly swimming in either of those.

Irrelevant. I am trying to establish that artistic license is a reasonable explanation for drawing eyes on things for the purpose conveying emotions.

[Sky_Schemer]

... of course it has eyes. We see it having eyes.

OK. Where are the claws in page 945?

Edit to fix page number

[Keltest]

OK. Where are the claws in page 957?

On the other side of the portal.

[Sky_Schemer]

On the other side of the portal.

On page 274 and page 275, whenever it is depicted bursting through a rift to the material plane, it is drawn with claws. Since you are using these pages as evidence for the Snarl having eyes, claws, and a mouth, why is page 945 so inconsistent?

[Gift Jeraff]

Claws were also absent from Redcloak's crayon story in SOD (such as the panels where it hypothetically kills Xykon & Redcloak or invades Thor's domain) so I've always figured they're meant to be how Shojo interprets its method of destruction or a redesign (IMO a good call on Rich's part; it better conveys that the Snarl is doing something incomprehensible to its victims rather than just being an extremely powerful beast).

[hroþila]

On page 274 and page 275, whenever it is depicted bursting through a rift to the material plane, it is drawn with claws. Since you are using these pages as evidence for the Snarl having eyes, claws, and a mouth, why is page 945 so inconsistent?

One possible answer is, "because #945 is not crayons (whose relationship with reality is canonically looser)", and neither is the MitD.

Regardless, that's kinda irrelevant. My point was not that the explanation provided for the Protean-MitD's eyes is impossible (in fact, I still think the Protean is the most likely D&D candidate). My point was that, as an explanation, it's more complicated and far-fetched than a number of possible explanations for a particular flaw of the Carbosilicate Amorph.