MitD XIX: The Potted Plant Is Starting To Look Reasonable

[Tzardok]

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.

First, {scrubbed}.

Secondly, I personally think you are the one who's just arguing for the sake of arguing. You are after all confrontional with pretty much anybody else.

Thirdly, why doesn't it form a tail? Well, maybe it does. We just don't see it. Or maybe it was created without one. Who knows? Who cares? Point is, you've chosen one single possibility as the right one, and you refuse to entertain other possibilities. We don't know enough about the Snarl to say for sure what it actually looks like.

Lastly, throwing around definitions of artistic license doesn't help you. We all agree that there is a certain amount of artistic license involved in comic. So what? You have to prove that a certain depiction is actually factually incorrect if you want people to believe you.

[Metastachydium]

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.

No. It's a crayon scene. Crayon scenes only are and, indeed, have to be true from the point of view of and insofar as their narrator believes they are true. We know this for a fact. Now, the gods as Shojo and his audience imagine them were stick figures when the first world was first made because Shojo and his audience are stick figures living in a stick figure cosmos. The Snarl, regardless whether it actually has eyes or claws or both in actual fact has eyes and claws in the crayon narration because Shojo, who has never seen it, thinks it does, describes it as such ("[ i]ts claws cut through them like daggers through parchment. (…) Then, the Snarl turned its hungry eyes to the newly minted world below").

Accordingly, whether it does or does not have eyes in actual fact is perfectly irrelevant to the question at hand. The MitD is not being described and imagined by someone who has never seen it as having eyes, so it being depicted with those is not a matter of the viewer's subjective perception. And if the Snarl doesn't actually have eyes, that's so much worse for this theory, because it is not depicted with them when it appears and its appearance is not a matter of the viewer's subjective perception.

[woweedd]

Personally, I agree that the consistent eyes are a point against the Prothean, but I, personal opinion, still think it has less cons then most of the list. And I can see the artistic license argument IE you need some way for the MITD to emote while fully shrouded in darkness. It's certainly A con, but i'm not convinced it's a deal breaker. Not that it really matters, since, ya know...It's gonna be whatever it is, so really, only one person's opinion matters.

[Metastachydium]

Personally, I agree that the consistent eyes are a point against the Prothean, but I, personal opinion, still think it has less cons then most of the list. And I can see the artistic license argument IE you need some way for the MITD to emote while fully shrouded in darkness.

Yeah, but LWD emotes without eyes. Yor likewise emotes without visible eyes. There's other examples as well. It's not neccessary. It is odd, on the other hand.

[woweedd]

Yeah, but LWD emotes without eyes. Yor likewise emotes without visible eyes. There's other examples as well. It's not neccessary. It is odd, on the other hand.

Most of those existed for, like, two strips. And, more to the point, MITD's visual conveyance had been established by the time Rich decided what it was anyway. Granted, he said nothing before contradicts either, but...There is some debate on if it counts as a contradiction. It's not like the Protean can't have consistent eyes, after all, it just takes an action, and the MITD...Doesn't tend to do much. The only real wrinkle is it still being consistent when he's asleep, but that is, like, a single panel. I'd be willing to accept that the shapeshifting just happened to settle that way.

[Crusher]

Are you sure it hasn't gained enough hit dice over nineteen threads to advance to diminutive?

Checking the DM's Guide for XP advancement rules as we speak!

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Let's all cool off a little here, please.

[Metastachydium]

Are you sure it hasn't gained enough hit dice over nineteen threads to advance to diminutive?

Checking the DM's Guide for XP advancement rules as we speak!

I mean, it can also be HUGE! Or a BLAST. But blasting is suboptimal, so probably of low STR too, which makes Huge arguing a poor fit for MitD.

Most of those existed for, like, two strips. And, more to the point, MITD's visual conveyance had been established by the time Rich decided what it was anyway.

Challenge ACCEPTED! Behold the first three examples of invisible eyes, one of them technically associated with a major character, and another with our very main ensemble who emote a lot!

[Precure]

They don't even visually emote though?

[Gift Jeraff]

Not quite the same thing, but related:
The ancient black dragon goes from having only 1 eye visible from the side to both eyes visible in order to better convey shock. That's anatomically impossible, so it could be viewed as an artistic "cheat" Rich did for the sake of visual character expression.

[Sky_Schemer]

Yeah, but LWD emotes without eyes. Yor likewise emotes without visible eyes. There's other examples as well. It's not neccessary. It is odd, on the other hand.

But in all those cases you can see the creature, too. If you take away the dialog you still have posture to work with.

The MitD has nothing at all for us to go on. If you take away the eyes, how would you visually depict emotion from a black field?

[Sky_Schemer]

Not quite the same thing, but related:
The ancient black dragon goes from having only 1 eye visible from the side to both eyes visible in order to better convey shock. That's anatomically impossible, so it could be viewed as an artistic "cheat" Rich did for the sake of visual character expression.

Well. Now I insist we have a multi-page argument on whether black dragons in the OOTS-verse have four eyes and normally keep two of them closed.

[Keltest]

But in all those cases you can see the creature, too. If you take away the dialog you still have posture to work with.

The MitD has nothing at all for us to go on. If you take away the eyes, how would you visually depict emotion from a black field?

I suppose we would have to intuit it from context like some sort of crazy person reading text on a screen with no face attached to it.

[Peelee]

I suppose we would have to intuit it from context like some sort of crazy person reading text on a screen with no face attached to it.

Without taking a side here, books have a lot more descriptors and often openly tell the state of mind of various characters, or at least how they seem. Comics are a visual medium, as the author has said before. Comparing a comic to a pure-text story may not be accurate.

[Keltest]

Without taking a side here, books have a lot more descriptors and often openly tell the state of mind of various characters, or at least how they seem. Comics are a visual medium, as the author has said before. Comparing a comic to a pure-text story may not be accurate.

I was actually making a reference to somebody's signature here on the forums, as well as wryly poking fun at the fact that we have very little trouble here conveying emotion without even the minimal visual aid of eyes, but beyond that, the question of how to interpret mood and such from dialogue is not exactly a new or unsolved problem.

[Peelee]

I was actually making a reference to somebody's signature here on the forums, as well as wryly poking fun at the fact that we have very little trouble here conveying emotion without even the minimal visual aid of eyes, but beyond that, the question of how to interpret mood and such from dialogue is not exactly a new or unsolved problem.

Ah. My fault for misreading, then.

[Errorname]

I think if a Protean MiTD stepped out of the darkness and his eyes suddenly went haywire, people would rightfully call that cheap. That said, I suspect a Protean MiTD would retain the basic eye placement for the sake of readability, a visual anchor in a roiling sea of shifting shapes. No need to explain why his eyes weren't shifting around if they never start.

[Emberlily]

I think if a Protean MiTD stepped out of the darkness and his eyes suddenly went haywire, people would rightfully call that cheap. That said, I suspect a Protean MiTD would retain the basic eye placement for the sake of readability, a visual anchor in a roiling sea of shifting shapes. No need to explain why his eyes weren't shifting around if they never start.

this is an example where while I'm not sure it's "evidence", I would find it more satisfying for a protean reveal than many others. the retention of the eyes as the steady visual trademark from "nothing else visible" to "what else is visible always changes" would feel p effective for me, as there's no new definitive shape jockeying for mental space with the mental image we've had for 20 years now (a fairly formless monster would also fit here but I can't recall any at this exact moment (I have not checked the list in a while))

[Ruck]

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.

If you're playing a game where there is, 100%, an answer among a set of possible answers, and the questions you ask lead you to eliminate all the possible answers, it's the wrong question.

Have you changed your stance on this?

Given the lack of a perfect candidate, I'm not sure what else there is to do in this thread besides picking at imperfect candidates to see how they don't work

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, maybe, but I find it highly unlikely that an adult human (I think) wizard has never seen a pile of poo; he might react to a sentient creature that looks like one, but "I've never seen anything like it!" seems unlikely. If it "seems to" you that one is easier to explain than the other, you can try.

I also think the variety of reactions aren't really explained by the Amorph; while the nausea and vomiting would be, "It's horrible!" "and yet... beautiful!" also strike me as not particularly fitting.

I think the Circus Scene is pretty critical for figuring out MitD, and I think the Protean best explains the wide variety of reactions we see there, by a significant margin over any other candidate. Besides everything I've already said, I think in particular it best explains why the goblin children are excited to keep going back to see MitD, because I think they would eventually get bored of looking at the same thing every time they went to the circus.

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.…”

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.

A big assumption of mine is that the answer is likely among the FBS creatures, due to the sheer extent of the work this thread has done in the past looking for monsters.

As I've said, if you don't think it is, then you might want to see if there are any sourcebooks unexplored where the answer might be. Personally, I wouldn't know where to begin, but I'm also satisfied with the Protean as answer, so I don't feel the need to.

Metastachydium-- I'll get to your post later when I have more time.

[Gurgeh]

If you're playing a game where there is, 100%, an answer among a set of possible answers, and the questions you ask lead you to eliminate all the possible answers, it's the wrong question.

Well, that depends heavily on how confident you are that "all possible answers" have been presented. It is entirely possible that the MitD will turn out to be something that is not on the list, or something that has been suggested but has been judged to fail one or more FBS tests because the author has taken liberties that the thread consensus leans against.

[Ruck]

Well, that depends heavily on how confident you are that "all possible answers" have been presented. It is entirely possible that the MitD will turn out to be something that is not on the list, or something that has been suggested but has been judged to fail one or more FBS tests because the author has taken liberties that the thread consensus leans against.

Yeah, of course it does, which is why I said as much:

A big assumption of mine is that the answer is likely among the FBS creatures, due to the sheer extent of the work this thread has done in the past looking for monsters.

As I've said, if you don't think it is, then you might want to see if there are any sourcebooks unexplored where the answer might be. Personally, I wouldn't know where to begin, but I'm also satisfied with the Protean as answer, so I don't feel the need to.

What I haven't seen, is anyone who's nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking, or is convinced that since nothing in the FBS list is a perfect fit the answer must not be in there, look elsewhere to find an answer that's a better fit, or make an argument that we're using a wrong criterion or set of standards.

I am uninterested in nitpicking for nitpicking's sake, because we know there is an answer. I am interested in attempts to find that answer, not so much attempts to "prove" that every possible answer is wrong.

[Errorname]

Well, that depends heavily on how confident you are that "all possible answers" have been presented. It is entirely possible that the MitD will turn out to be something that is not on the list, or something that has been suggested but has been judged to fail one or more FBS tests because the author has taken liberties that the thread consensus leans against.

Sure, but digging through esoteric sourcebooks and magazine articles and old blogs isn't something everyone is going to be good at or have the time to commit to. I think we can acknowledge the possibility that the thread hasn't found it while still arguing about our favourites from the list we do have.

[Gurgeh]

Yes, I feel that it is not unreasonable for somebody to say "none of them" without having to offer their own, novel guess as to what the correct answer is. How they say it matters, of course, but I don't think it should be necessary to bring a new guess to the table in order for criticism or analysis to be valid.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Yes, I feel that it is not unreasonable for somebody to say "none of them" without having to offer their own, novel guess as to what the correct answer is. How they say it matters, of course, but I don't think it should be necessary to bring a new guess to the table in order for criticism or analysis to be valid.

It's ok to not like any proposal so far, and it is ok to not have a better one to offer. But when all they can post in the same old tired "I don't like the protean because MitD's eyes" for the hundredth time or more, and argument we have discussed to death, true resurrection, lichdom and back to death over the last decade, it gets a bit tiring. If they really feel that strongly that the protean cannot possibly be it that they just must bring it up over and over, then I think the counter "well, then, what is it?" is a valid counter. If nothing else to move the conversation on.

GW

[Ruck]

Yes, I feel that it is not unreasonable for somebody to say "none of them" without having to offer their own, novel guess as to what the correct answer is. How they say it matters, of course, but I don't think it should be necessary to bring a new guess to the table in order for criticism or analysis to be valid.

It's ok to not like any proposal so far, and it is ok to not have a better one to offer. But when all they can post in the same old tired "I don't like the protean because MitD's eyes" for the hundredth time or more, and argument we have discussed to death, true resurrection, lichdom and back to death over the last decade, it gets a bit tiring. If they really feel that strongly that the protean cannot possibly be it that they just must bring it up over and over, then I think the counter "well, then, what is it?" is a valid counter. If nothing else to move the conversation on.

GW

Or my other favorite, "the Protean would be cheating because it can just shapeshift to do literally anything," which is a)not an accurate description of its powers, at all, and b)not even that relevant considering the Protean's actual partial-shapeshifting powers are only needed to explain one scene.

Perhaps Grey Wolf's point is more in line with what I was thinking, that really, any new analysis or criticisms or proposals would be valuable. But I don't think rehashing the same two criticisms over and over is. And at this point, I am just not interested in doing that, particularly with people who don't have a proposal and aren't looking for one.

Because, again, there is an answer, and anyone who is only trying to pick apart the existing proposals without offering one of their own isn't really trying to find the answer.

[Crusher]

Perhaps Grey Wolf's point is more in line with what I was thinking, that really, any new analysis or criticisms or proposals would be valuable.

I'd just like to second this. I *love* when new people wander in and say "Have you thought of X?" Because, sure, 95% of the time, the answer is "yes, and it doesn't work because Y".

But, A) I love that they're contributing, because new people are new! Welcome new people! Just because we'd already thought of your idea doesn't mean we unhappy you suggested it! If we seemed grumpy, we were probably just having a bad day and it wasn't your fault. Unless you refuse to accept that we'd already thought of your point, but that's a different topic. Also, B) 5% of the time the idea *is* new. And new ideas are fun! Its nice to have new things to think about.

[Ruck]

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.

I am under the impression that the Protean maintains its default size and just randomly sprouts parts from different creatures, unless it is trying to maintain a specific part or overall form.

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

OK then. He is tired and lazy all the time; it could be from the effort from using that action.

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

There is a gap, but as I've said often enough before, I find a number of the explanations that have been proposed plausible enough, that I am comfortable there will be a plausible explanation if needed. And again, many of these explanations don't even require MitD to be actively holding a face; it's a trick of the "camera" or of the magical darkness or what have you.

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.

Again, nothing before strip #100 "contradicts the truth of what he is." We've already established that Rich uses artistic license to better convey facial expressions and emotions; all he has to do is come up with a justification for why MitD's eyes always appear in the same place-- a number of which have been proposed here-- and he can proceed. And we've established it's possible for a Protean to do this, which is all that really matters.

I would not phrase it as "ignoring defining features." I would phrase it as "hiding them in the darkness," and I do, in fact, believe that hiding the most defining features of MitD's species in the darkness is not just not a cheat, but is actually pretty important so as not to give away the reveal early, whatever the creature is.

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.)

The Death Worm is a pretty minor character. It's probably more important to him to have a way to portray the expressions and emotions of a character who is going to be a part of the story until or nearly until the very end more accurately. From Rich's perspective, I'm not sure how he's supposed to accurately convey MitD's expressions if his eyes are constantly moving around or changing in number.

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.

I should be clear that I'm not all that familiar with the details of the Slaad, and it's unfortunately not publicly available to my knowledge, so I'm going with what has already been written in these threads.

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 maturing differently thing is true. According to the FBS post, though, the Slaads that fit would be at least the fourth evolutionary stage for the MitD, which makes it harder for me to conceive as "juvenile" (but I don't know how many stages of evolution it goes through in total or how long it lives).

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

I don't think it does go the same. Or at least, based on the combination of Proteans generally only speaking an ever-evolving language only other Proteans can understand, even though they can speak Common, and the fact that Proteans generally regard non-shapeshifting creatures with disdain, is what makes the SBGH surprised. Normally, a Protean wouldn't deign to talk to them, and certainly not in their own language. As far as I know, Slaadi don't have either of those two characteristics, so it's probably not nearly as surprising that one would talk or in Common (hey, the one we've seen is doing just that).

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.

Mimics aren't Proteans, though. Not at all. I think there is a significant difference between "portraying a creature with some similar powers" and "portraying the exact creature."

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.

I mean, that's what "like" means; "having the same characteristics or qualities as; similar to." I don't think it's projecting.

The Circus scene is not one where MitD's powers or actions are well-defined, so of course it has to be up to interpretation to a certain degree what he is or what happens while he's standing still and doing nothing that would cause such reactions. I think a Protean explains those reactions, both the wide variety of them and several of them in particular, better than anything else. A learned wizard might have never seen anything like it because there is nothing like it. And as I said earlier on this page, I don't think the goblin kids would be so excited to keep going back to see MitD if they just saw the same thing every time.

3. Also, unlike how


, it both could and would.

4. And unlike the Protean that


, it can just do that. So…

That's not in dispute.

If it is true that


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.

OK, by the rules, you've convinced me that the Slaad is a better fit than I realized. I still don't think it's the best fit for the Circus scene (or really, that anything but the Protean is a good fit), and I still don't think Rich would depict a Slaad in the comic already if he was going to reveal MitD as one, because that cheapens the reveal.

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.

Not really. From its page:

it may substitute a melee attack form for one of its slam attacks, using its own base attack bonus and Strength modifier to damage, but dealing base damage appropriate to the attack type.

So even if MitD shifted into the thing he thought would hit Miko and Windstriker as lightly as possible, he would still be using the Protean's base attack bonus and Strength modifier. (The Protean has +33 for the base attack and 53 strength.)

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

Yes, I don't know where to go from here. The Protean is so unusual and what it does even while not moving is so bizarre that I think it easily explains the wide variety of reactions.

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 forming a strong bond with a Human.

It's not really an upgrade on the "tainted with chaos at the time of their race's creation" Protean, though. Just similar.

…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.



See above. A story reason, and entirely plausible.

The other thing about the story reason is, I'm thinking about some of the things Rich has said about storytelling that I've referenced in this post: specifically, storytelling as a means to communicate ideas and messages, and applicability to the real world. I don't think being an exemplar of Chaos that bonds with a human has much applicability to the real world, whereas finding the will to change and be whoever you want to be does. The Slaad grows and changes, but just into another Slaad, not into whatever it wants to be. And while I don't know the process of Slaadi evolution, I also thus have no information that the change has to do with willing itself to change. Whereas the Protean clearly does have to will itself to change into what it wants to change into-- and I think for that reason it best represents the "finding the will to change and not be what people expect or tell you you are" of MitD's story.

I dunno. One of those people is Redcloak, who we know reads lots of sourcebooks and is well-studied. I take it the other you mean is O-Chul? And he wished to consult Azure City's "most learned" scribe about "questions about how we escaped."

If anything, I draw the opposite conclusion-- the only people who seem to know what MitD is are or have access to well-read, scholarly, highly knowledgeable people.

I left out a couple of people, I now realize. Most notably Oona, and I'm thinking of her "So small, though. But will grow in time!" comment. Does the Slaad grow in size at its next stage of evolution? (What stage are we even at?)

I'm also thinking about her comments in the same panel about how MitD looks like a spicy-food nightmare, which I don't think really describes something that looks roughly like a giant toad. Between that and the Circus scene, I'm really leaning toward those moments as indicators that MitD is something that appears truly bizarre, not just monstrous.

[halfeye]

It's ok to not like any proposal so far, and it is ok to not have a better one to offer. But when all they can post in the same old tired "I don't like the protean because MitD's eyes" for the hundredth time or more, and argument we have discussed to death, true resurrection, lichdom and back to death over the last decade, it gets a bit tiring. If they really feel that strongly that the protean cannot possibly be it that they just must bring it up over and over, then I think the counter "well, then, what is it?" is a valid counter. If nothing else to move the conversation on.

GW

The way I'm looking at it is you don't have to be a master carpenter to know whether you are comfortable sitting on a chair. If after a while sitting in a particular chair your back hurts, it's not the chair for you no matter who made it.

I think the Boojum fits as the MitD, others clearly don't, and that's fine as we all keep saying.

The thing about the protean's eyes is that every now and then, a cry starts up "New evidence, the protean is now a perfect fit for the MitD", so the people who have objections to the old evidence say "well, does it now answer the old objections ?" and so far, the new evidence doesn't in fact change the problem some of us have with the eyes. If people could resist saying they have new evidence for the protean when they don't, then there would be no incentive to mention the eyes. Conversely, if people must keep on proselytizing for the protean, then the old objections will also probably resurface.

No offence taken, and none intended.

[Ruck]

The thing about the protean's eyes is that every now and then, a cry starts up "New evidence, the protean is now a perfect fit for the MitD"

When has this happened?

I don't think we've gotten meaningfully new evidence regarding MitD in years.

[hroþila]

I think the Circus Scene is pretty critical for figuring out MitD, and I think the Protean best explains the wide variety of reactions we see there, by a significant margin over any other candidate. Besides everything I've already said, I think in particular it best explains why the goblin children are excited to keep going back to see MitD, because I think they would eventually get bored of looking at the same thing every time they went to the circus.

I guess I also disagree about the Circus scene. In my opinion, while it is likely to be intended as a clue about the identity of the MitD, it is inherently too subjective to be of much use in the guessing game