MitD X: If I told you, you wouldn't believe me

[Kish]

It's also quite inaccurate to say it doesn't say anything about complexity. It does, in that each of the listed curses is a single step which only affects the victim. Handwaving "or you can also do all of those, if you want" would be both absurd and far less than what Lombard is claiming can be handwaved.

[nleseul]

You know, it occurs to me that if the command about devouring Redcloak ever becomes relevant to the main comic, it's going to have to be presented in a way that won't seem to come out of nowhere to readers who have never seen the scene in SoD. Having a scene where Xykon is shown renewing the command after it expires would handle that nicely. In that sense, a 1 day/level duration requiring periodic renewal might actually turn out to be an aid to good plotting.

[Crusher]

You know, it occurs to me that if the command about devouring Redcloak ever becomes relevant to the main comic, it's going to have to be presented in a way that won't seem to come out of nowhere to readers who have never seen the scene in SoD. Having a scene where Xykon is shown renewing the command after it expires would handle that nicely. In that sense, a 1 day/level duration requiring periodic renewal might actually turn out to be an aid to good plotting.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, this line of thinking is exactly why I remain pretty confident an unveiling is not imminent (and why it definitely wasn't happening during the interlude with Team Evil up in the Arctic).

MitD can't reveal himself until he turns on Redcloak, and he can't turn on Redcloak until Rich lampshades the "swallow whole" bit. Since Rich hasn't lampshaded it yet, we can't have a reveal. Also, Redcloak needs to threaten Xykon or the phylactery, but that'll probably happen quite soon before the reveal whereas the lampshading probably needs to happen at least a few strips before to let it soak in.

Finally, technically, Xykon might also need to figure out the switcheroo with the phylactery before that happens, but that's much wishy-washier since he doesn't 100% need to figure it out. And even if he does, Xykon might not even let it be known that he figured it out until after Redcloak betrays him even if he figured it out way earlier.

TL;DR - No reveal until the strip makes some reference to "Swallow Whole".

[The MunchKING]

TL;DR - No reveal until the strip makes some reference to "Swallow Whole".

Alternately if they wanted to make a joke about it, they oculd do a post-betrayal lampshade hanging on it. Like Redcloak betrays Xykon, Xykon lives long enough to ask the MitD why it didn't eat Redcloak, and someone's like "Oh THAT spell? The duration expired ages ago!"

Although given he was up-to-date on his Cloister castings, the idea that he would forget to update one of his anti-Redcloak betrayal plans, all for the sake of a joke about spell durations does seem a bit far fetched.

[Lombard]

There have actually been a number of discussions about alternative curses on different subsections of this site.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...rse-ideas-3-5e

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...h-Bestow-Curse

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...f-Bestow-Curse

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...-Curse-Greater

..suffice it to say I don't think I'm on an island with thinking that a custom curse could pull something like this off.

[Keltest]

While I am open to the possibility of various curses operating as a sort of hostile contingency spell in my hypothetical game, I am leery of allowing for that base assumption in our list of creatures. It requires too much guessing as to what Rich would allow as a DM for my tastes.

[rweird]

We have a very strong precedent for mind-effecting giving swirly-eyes, and no precedent for anything else giving swirly-eyes. Previously, Bestow Curse didn't give swirly-eyes (although it likely wasn't used in a mind-effecting way). I think it is about as much a stretch as "epic spell that overcomes immunity" as a reason to not to make immune to mind-effecting a requirement goes.

[Shining Wrath]

Listing the various factors at play in the SoD "Xykon does something that causes swirly eyes on MitD" scene:

1. When we see swirly eyes, it has always meant mind-control of some sort
2. Many species are immune to mind-control
3. We know MitD is not a perfectly typical example of his species - speaks Common, in a rainforest, smaller. This allows for the possibility of other differences but does not require any to exist
4. Xykon did not cast [whatever spell produced swirly eyes] in the standard method where the verbal component is [name of spell]. Therefore, it is either an artistic choice (one fewer dialogue box) OR the name of the spell would be a clue to MitD, or both
5. It's not easy to control an extremely powerful creature of any species for a long period of time with any known spell. Most of the good candidates also have good saves. For example, a Protean has Fort +40, Ref +39, Will +32. Even for Xykon, a +32 Will save is a bit of a challenge - not to mention the spell resistance 39. Xykon would have to be level 28 to even have a 50-50 chance of overcoming that.
6. While Xykon was recovering from being thrown into Dorukan's Gate, it would have been impossible for him to renew any spells without Redcloak knowing about it. There have been other times when its implied Xykon was not in the same place as MitD for a while - off building his fortress and so on. Xykon either accepts the risk of letting the spell lapse while he's away, or the spell has a non-trivial duration.

[nleseul]

Xykon did not cast [whatever spell produced swirly eyes] in the standard method where the verbal component is [name of spell]. Therefore, it is either an artistic choice (one fewer dialogue box) OR the name of the spell would be a clue to MitD, or both

Or Xykon might just have Silent Spell.

[Shining Wrath]

Or Xykon might just have Silent Spell.

Never shown elsewhere, but I suppose it has to be considered.

[Dragolord]

Or Xykon might just have Silent Spell.

Or it could be a custom spell without any verbal components, which O-Chul never saw him cast.

[Lombard]

Or it could be a custom spell without any verbal components, which O-Chul never saw him cast.

It's an interesting question to consider for the bestow (greater) curse scenario as well. As far as I can recall, magic users in the strip have pretty much always said what spell they are casting. "Fireball", "Shapechange", etc. But in the case of a spell where the actual effect is dependent on the description, such as a custom curse, would we then expect to hear "Greater Bestow Curse. You will (effect) whenever (action) occurs"? Or just "you will (effect) whenever (action) occurs"? Or "I curse you to suffer (effect) when (action) occurs"? It should be noted that the latter variant would technically be breaking the implied "have to say the spell" rule in the case of Greater Bestow Curse. And also perhaps just the regular spell version since the word "bestow" wasn't used.

The one thing I think would be lame from a narrative or immersion standpoint is if someone would just say "Greater Bestow Curse" for a custom curse variant and then the effect was whatever they were thinking. I mean, eye of the beholder, and I think it would be fine for a vanilla ability-killing variant, but if someone is going more complex with it they should really need to say what the curse is.

[rweird]

The only documented use of Bestow Curse (to my knowledge) just has the caster saying "Bestow Curse!" We don't know what the curse did (probably the save penalty thing), but there isn't really any support for Bestow Curse (or the greater variant) behaving in such a way, or giving swirly-eyes if it did. I feel like it is a pretty big reach to get around "can't be immune to mind-effecting."

[Peelee]

The only documented use of Bestow Curse (to my knowledge) just has the caster saying "Bestow Curse!"

There's another. Dude made his saving throw, though.

[Lombard]

The only documented use of Bestow Curse (to my knowledge) just has the caster saying "Bestow Curse!" We don't know what the curse did (probably the save penalty thing), but there isn't really any support for Bestow Curse (or the greater variant) behaving in such a way, or giving swirly-eyes if it did. I feel like it is a pretty big reach to get around "can't be immune to mind-effecting."

Well can we go Socratic here? I'd say there's three components:

1) Is it your opinion that it would be rules-contrary for at least one of Bestow/Greater Bestow to accomplish the behavior in question with a custom curse?

2) If you're still with me this far, is it your opinion that a custom curse like that would more be likely to be portrayed in OoTS as a text bubble reading "(Greater) Bestow Curse" at the time of casting or that the text bubble would read what the custom curse actually was, so that the reader would know?

3) If you favor the latter scenario in #2 above, would it be reasonable for such a behavior-affecting curse to result in "swirly eyes" or would it be too confusing or misleading for the reader?

[rweird]

1) The rules allow custom curses at the DM's discretion, so it is Rich's (who essentially is the DM) opinion that determines whether it follows the rules. If I was the DM, I wouldn't accept it. I don't like to limit player agency in general, and for non-players, I feel like it'd be a cheap subversion if used on something otherwise immune, and if the creature isn't immune, there are better spells. However, it is Rich's opinion here that matters, so if he thought it was, it technically would be (but custom curses at DM discretion are a slightly more published version of other rule 0 stuff).

2) I believe saying (Greater) Bestow Curse is what standardly would happen. Spell names seem always to be said. For example, V says "Suggestion. [what the suggestion is]" (at least when successful), because Suggestion requires conveying the message. A curse like this wouldn't require the creature to know ahead of time what the effect entails. When the pit find is cursed, the dialogue just is "Bestow Curse" not "Bestow Curse, -4 on saving throws." For story-telling purposes, it is reasonable for Xykon to explain what spell he cast, although that doesn't mean it wouldn't need to say the name of the spell.

3) Well, I don't favor the later scenario, but if the creature is immune to mind-effecting, and a not mind-effecting spell is used in a completely unprecedented way, and gives swirly eyes, which previously only indicate mind-effecting, then I think it definitely would be overly confusing for the reader. When people use Command Undead, undead don't get swirly eyes, although they are controlled, making other not mind-effecting stuff give swirly eyes is a confusing precedent.

As the Greater Bestow Curse option relies on a custom curse we have no evidence of existing, I feel it is unlikely in the same category as "Epic spell to control creature immune to mind-effecting." The MitD could be a kobold with two rings of three wishes, and used one of the wishes for the tower, circus, and escape scene, and another wish to make everyone behave like it was (some other candidate).

[Ash_Gazn]

The link to the Protean, Hagunemnon is also interesting from its connection to Douglas Adams.

But canonically to the Hitchhikers Guide series, they evolve all the time, wouldn't always be ugly, and adapt to their momentary needs, which don't seem to fit Monster-san

[Shining Wrath]

As a stimulus to thought, I'm going to adapt a pro-protean argument as regards the swirly-eyes scene in SoD. When the question is posed "Why didn't MitD grab the steak if he is capable of forming any limb he desires?" or "Why does MitD always have two eyes if his shape is ever-shifting?", a more or less standard answer is "To be polite" or a variant along the lines of "conforming to social norms". That is, MitD doesn't do some things a protean might do because he chooses not to do so.

At least some spells allow saving throws but allow a willing target to deliberately fail the save. Is it worth considering that MitD could have resisted Xykon's spell, but deliberately failed out of politeness? Having established that as a possibility, it would not be the biggest rule bend Rich ever wrote if MitD deliberately failed a spell save that doesn't explicitly state the target can choose to fail.

[Keltest]

As a stimulus to thought, I'm going to adapt a pro-protean argument as regards the swirly-eyes scene in SoD. When the question is posed "Why didn't MitD grab the steak if he is capable of forming any limb he desires?" or "Why does MitD always have two eyes if his shape is ever-shifting?", a more or less standard answer is "To be polite" or a variant along the lines of "conforming to social norms". That is, MitD doesn't do some things a protean might do because he chooses not to do so.

At least some spells allow saving throws but allow a willing target to deliberately fail the save. Is it worth considering that MitD could have resisted Xykon's spell, but deliberately failed out of politeness? Having established that as a possibility, it would not be the biggest rule bend Rich ever wrote if MitD deliberately failed a spell save that doesn't explicitly state the target can choose to fail.

With regards saving throws, Rich is the author. If he needs an unlikely fail to occur for the plot to happen, it can happen. But any sort of immunity isn't the same thing. zombies cannot deliberately fail a saving throw against mind altering affects because they are fully immune. There is no saving throw made, they aren't affected at all, period.

[Shining Wrath]

With regards saving throws, Rich is the author. If he needs an unlikely fail to occur for the plot to happen, it can happen. But any sort of immunity isn't the same thing. zombies cannot deliberately fail a saving throw against mind altering affects because they are fully immune. There is no saving throw made, they aren't affected at all, period.

I am arguing that MitD may have deliberately "suppressed immunity", then, and it wouldn't be the biggest "house rule" Rich ever wrote if he did.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I am arguing that MitD may have deliberately "suppressed immunity", then, and it wouldn't be the biggest "house rule" Rich ever wrote if he did.

So effectively, you are saying "lets just ignore the whole mind control thing, because Rich may have house ruled it". How is that different from, say, ignoring the escape scene because Rich could have given MitD a one-time use wish item?

As always, I am deeply suspicious of explanations for MitD scenes that rely on rendering the whole scene null & void.

Grey Wolf

[Shining Wrath]

So effectively, you are saying "lets just ignore the whole mind control thing, because Rich may have house ruled it". How is that different from, say, ignoring the escape scene because Rich could have given MitD a one-time use wish item?

As always, I am deeply suspicious of explanations for MitD scenes that rely on rendering the whole scene null & void.

Grey Wolf

Because it relies on an accepted idea; MitD doesn't do some things he is capable of doing out of politeness. How is "suppress immunity" completely invalid while "always has 2 eyes" is perfectly acceptable?

[Keltest]

Because it relies on an accepted idea; MitD doesn't do some things he is capable of doing out of politeness. How is "suppress immunity" completely invalid while "always has 2 eyes" is perfectly acceptable?

well for one thing, having two eyes is extrapolated from an existing ability the MITD has, whereas "suppressing immunity" is not a thing that can happen by RAW and thus requires giving him a new ability to cancel out his other ability.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Because it relies on an accepted idea; MitD doesn't do some things he is capable of doing out of politeness. How is "suppress immunity" completely invalid while "always has 2 eyes" is perfectly acceptable?

Because the number of eyes does not depend on a house rule.

Put another way: Rich is writing this story. If he had chosen a creature immune to mind control as MitD, why would he have a scene where he gets mind controlled? There are infinite ways for Xykon to bend the monster to his will, from mundane (blackmail) to skills (charisma check) to magic. Why would he chose one that would not work with the monster he picked?

GW

[SirKazum]

So effectively, you are saying "lets just ignore the whole mind control thing, because Rich may have house ruled it". How is that different from, say, ignoring the escape scene because Rich could have given MitD a one-time use wish item?

As always, I am deeply suspicious of explanations for MitD scenes that rely on rendering the whole scene null & void.

Grey Wolf

Because it relies on an accepted idea; MitD doesn't do some things he is capable of doing out of politeness. How is "suppress immunity" completely invalid while "always has 2 eyes" is perfectly acceptable?

While the "suppressing immunity isn't possible in the normal game rules and requires house-ruling" answers above address this issue quite well, I'd like to turn the question around: Why would Rich pick a creature whose form is constantly shifting and then have it go against that nature by keeping its eyes constantly the same way? I mean, yeah, it's perfectly possible by standard game rules (whether it's plausible is up to debate), but it raises the same question of setting up an important detail we can judge the creature by (its eyes) and then rendering that whole characterization null & void, to use Grey Wolf's own words. THAT is the main reason why I don't personally like the Protean as an answer to the MitD's identity.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Why would Rich pick a creature whose form is constantly shifting and then have it go against that nature by keeping its eyes constantly the same way?

Because MitD's key personality characteristic is his struggle to fit in. Even when he is treated badly, even when he knows those people are not his friends, he tries to fit in. It's the central pathos of his existence, and what better way to reflect on that than use a creature that by its very nature cannot fit in anywhere for any extended period of time without constant struggle?

Grey Wolf

[Kish]

I'd just like to point out that the order's wrong there. He drew a creature of what-was-then-to-be-permanently undefined identity (who had been created by Xykon) who consistently had two eyes. Then he came up with the overall plot and decided on a type of monster that that creature (who had not been created by Xykon) was; nothing prior to strip 100 contradicts what he is, but nothing there was chosen to point to it, either. By contrast, the "Xykon hypnotizes him with an unknown spell" scene was well after Rich had decided what his species is.

[rweird]

While I don't believe the suppressing immunity to mind-effecting thing is a good line of argument to pursue as it widens the base with no real support, page 177 of the PHB says (under voluntarily failing a saving throw) "Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf's resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality." So, the MitD could probably suppress his immunity to mind-effecting if he had one.

The idea that the MitD realizes Xykon is casting a spell to enchant him to kill another "friend" of his in the future, and choses not to resist it doesn't seem to be fitting with the MitD's characterization.

[Emanick]

While I don't believe the suppressing immunity to mind-effecting thing is a good line of argument to pursue as it widens the base with no real support, page 177 of the PHB says (under voluntarily failing a saving throw) "Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf's resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality." So, the MitD could probably suppress his immunity to mind-effecting if he had one.

The idea that the MitD realizes Xykon is casting a spell to enchant him to kill another "friend" of his in the future, and choses not to resist it doesn't seem to be fitting with the MitD's characterization.

I'd like to add my qualified support to this idea, and also to add that unlike many other MitD scenes in SoD, the primary purpose of the scene where the MitD gets mind controlled is probably not to give us a hint about who he is, but (presumably) to set up the scene where the MitD will attack Redcloak for betraying Xykon. So although I doubt the MitD has any sort of immunity to mind-affecting spells, like Kish I tend to treat our assumption that he has no such immunity as one of the softer ones - because that scene is not necessarily written in order to give us clues. It has a different primary function.

I also take issue with the assumption that there are other plausible ways Xykon could have done what he did. How and why would he blackmail the MitD? He doesn't know anything about the creature - what would he do, threaten to kill it? Threaten the zoo or the lives of some other character(s)? And using a skill check would be far more cumbersome to show, nor would it be remotely as effective, plot-wise, as a mind-affecting spell - Diplomacy and Intimidate don't permanently bind a character to act in a certain way, as they leave ample chances for a character to change his or her mind. Furthermore, there is no nonmagical way for Xykon to make the MitD forget his compulsion to eat Redcloak if he betrays Xykon.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'd like to add my qualified support to this idea, and also to add that unlike many other MitD scenes in SoD, the primary purpose of the scene where the MitD gets mind controlled is probably not to give us a hint about who he is, but (presumably) to set up the scene where the MitD will attack Redcloak for betraying Xykon. So although I doubt the MitD has any sort of immunity to mind-affecting spells, like Kish I tend to treat our assumption that he has no such immunity as one of the softer ones - because that scene is not necessarily written in order to give us clues. It has a different primary function.

I fail to see why you think that "having a different primary function" and "it's a clue" are mutually exclusive, and if that is so, why is it that only this clue falls under those rules. After all, MitD causing the escape also has a different primary function.

I also take issue with the assumption that there are other plausible ways Xykon could have done what he did. How and why would he blackmail the MitD? He doesn't know anything about the creature - what would he do, threaten to kill it? Threaten the zoo or the lives of some other character(s)? And using a skill check would be far more cumbersome to show, nor would it be remotely as effective, plot-wise, as a mind-affecting spell - Diplomacy and Intimidate don't permanently bind a character to act in a certain way, as they leave ample chances for a character to change his or her mind. Furthermore, there is no nonmagical way for Xykon to make the MitD forget his compulsion to eat Redcloak if he betrays Xykon.

Xykon could use whatever he is using to keep MitD from leaving the shadows. Including telling him to not tell anyone else about the orders, which fulfills the same storytelling function as telling him to forget them. Again, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Rich knows what MitD is, and therefore can write around any and all limitations of the base creature. If he did pick a creature immune to mind control he could have writen the story in such way that Xykon could instead use a different magic spell to ensure MitD's loyalty. For example, by introducing a teddy bear and having Xykon threaten to burn it to ash. Or any other of infinite ways. But he did not. He decided to show MitD being mind controlled, swirly eyes and all.

Grey Wolf