New MitD Theory

[Trobby]

And I'm putting "new" in massive quotation marks, because there is always, ALWAYS the possibility that someone will have already formed this theory.

Let's consider a few facts. Rich Berlew rarely creates characters that do not, in some way, represent an idea. Roy represents steadfast but human leadership, Elan represents the freedom of the human spirit, Haley represents the price for freedom, V represents a mind owned by intellect, Durkon represents a mind owned by wisdom, and Belkar represents the unleashed ID.

Going with this idea as if it were true, maybe the Monster in the Darkness is a metaphorical representation; that is to say, he is not a monster classified by any one book, but by all of them. He is, in short, the physical manifestation of every monster hiding in the dark. Ever.

Like every good monster in the dark, he has a form that cannot be clearly defined or understood. He can manipulate the world around him, but can never be seen doing so. His powers extend outward from the darkness, but no one can ever see through it (because if they did, they would know what he was, and it would be just a plain ol' monster). In fact, people tend to keep him IN the darkness as often as possible, because they are afraid of what's inside, what they do not know. Even Xylon and Redcloak refuse to look into the darkness. And I'm betting that in that one comic, Xlyon was going to literally announce that he was sicing the Monster in the Darkness on the heroes, because he has no other name.

And, like any monster in the darkness, he can see beyond it, but never truly understand what is outside the darkness. That is why he could never see the gate. That is why he doesn't know his own origin. That is why he didn't realize that the Xylons were NOT the same person; he can only understand what he can bring into the darkness with him.

The fact that it has physical form is not a problem; it is not that he has no form, but that his form is one that cannot be defined. Monsters in the Darkness can still wreak havock on any party, especially if they never reveal themselves. The fact that Miko was blown away by a single strike when she wasn't paying attention attests to the idea that you should never, ever turn your back on the Monster in the Darkness, because it could strike at any time, in the least predictable way (who would think his weak strike would be so strong?)

When it comes time to "reveal" the identity of the MitD, it will be revealed that neither Redcloak nor Xylon have any idea what he is, and that they simply found an area of darkness with a monster they could not kill, and decided to take with them to the fortress as a guardian; theoretically, because an unkillable monster would make an excellent guard dog. MitD cannot be killed because, once a party does so, it is no longer a Monster in the Darkness, and to do so would be to unmake his very essence, something that is much harder to do than to simply "kill".

So...yeah...MitD is exactly what it says on the tin.

[shadzar]

So since it is "in the darkness" and a culmination of all that is bad in the world and should be feared, you are saying it is that? The only thing to fear is fear itself, so MitD is a fear (spelled feyr). That would explain not wanting to reveal and giving an umbrella to hide under when going outside, since a lesser feyr is destroyed by the morning sun. :smallconfused:

[Mordaedil]

Good theory. *golf-clap*

Probably one of the better and more true ones.

"Man has nothing to fear, but fear itself."

Or in this case, fear of the unknown.

[Yehomer]

Xylon

It's XyKon, dude, with a K.

It's a nice theory, however, in Start of Darkness both Xykon and Redcloak (and a few hundred nameless commoners) saw what MitD is, so it doesn't hold...

[Milandros]

Indeed, in Start of Darkness the MitD is first seen as a circus act, pointed at by the patrons and exclaimed at over his hideousness.

Plus it's possible to over-analyse sometimes. Not everything is a heavy-handed allegory for a philisophical idea. The comic strip started as a D&D rules joke strip. It picked up depth and plot as it continued, but the first few dozen strips were mostly one-shot throwaway gags. The characters were based on staple D&D concepts, parodies of the basic classes with a couple of twists thrown in to make them fun - such as Roy being a fighter with decent intelligence, wisdom and charisma, or Belkar being a lunatic pychopath "Why isn't he JOLLY?" halfling. It's hard to read strips 1-20 and say "obviously this is a philosophical work where various characters represent aspects of the human psyche and perceptions of the world". What does Fruit Pie the Sorceror represent? Or Milk Dudes?

Sometimes a storyteller just writes a good, fun, entertaining story. Not every literary or comic book creation is meant to be an allegory for the metaphysical representation of the indomitable whichness of the human why.

[Ancalagon]

MitD does not appear in the first 20 strips.

[FujinAkari]

Additionally, Rich has already specified that the MitD is an actual monster that will eventually be revealed... which basically kaboshes this theory :)

[SatyreIkon]

...the Monster in the Dark is a baby Snarl... :)

Okay, probably not, but it would be interesting.

[Killer Angel]

It's XyKon, dude, with a K.

.

I'm not Introbulus, but I suppose it's a typo. Y'know, "L" is just near the "K".

[Hardcore]

From wiki
The tarrasque (pronounced tah-RASK[1]) is a magical beast in the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy role-playing game.
Tarrasques are gigantic lizard-like creatures which exist only to eat, kill and destroy. In most campaign settings, only one tarrasque is said to exist on each world. Tarrasques have low intelligence and cannot speak. They are neutrally aligned, for despite their violent and savage nature, they lack the mental capacity to choose between good or evil.

This idea was posted in the 651 OOTs thread and I think it's plausible; except for being rather small and able to speak the MitD could be such a creature.

[Killer Angel]

From wiki

This idea was posted in the 651 OOTs thread and I think it's plausible; except for being rather small and able to speak the MitD could be such a creature.


'bout Big T, see also this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110908) thread.

[Mariel Dragon]

:mitd: is a grue

[Haven]

Interesting theory, but I imagine something representing the unknowable darkness would act scarier.

...Also, it is contradicted by everything we know about it. :|

[DabblerWizard]

Let me first mention, Introbulus, that your theory is clear and concise, which is a nice plus.

Whether or not the Mitd is an allegory / metaphor, and whether or not it gets revealed to us in all of its glory, the Mitd, like many elements in the OOTS story, is an unknown that makes readers think.

A good quality for a DM (and a storyteller) to have, is the ability to weave mystery, foreshadowing, and suspense into the story... not just through dramatic irony, where the players know things the characters don't, but in cases where both the player and the character are left wondering about future possibilities.

In my mind, the mystery behind the Mitd is just another example of how awesome this comic is.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

I called the MitD a long time ago, and every new bit of evidence tells me I'm right!

Minya (Minilla), son of Godzilla!) (http://americankaiju.kaijuphile.com/articles/sonofgodzilla.shtml) By the way, Hulu has this movie here (http://www.hulu.com/son-of-godzilla?c=Science-Fiction). Compare Minya to the image on the Go board, and you'll see the similarities.
A monster non-D&D playing readers will easily recognize, powerful, dangerous, yet loved by children.

So you don't need to drag together a dozen monsters from a half-dozen different sourcebooks, just accept the fact that not every monster that has existed has stats in one of the Monster Manuals.

(I cribbed this from a post I made in the main thread, and one I've made several times before. I couldn't add the links from work, so...)

[xyzzy]

(SoD spoilers in my post.)

Woot! A Monster-san theory that's really new! And highly plausible!

I think this works best with the caveat that Monster-san is similar to a Boggart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_creatures_(Harry_Potter)#Boggarts) --- Monster-san is literally the sum of all monsters, but he appears to people as a sort of Ultimate Monster; whatever someone visualizes as the worst possible monster is whatever he'll seem to be to them.

This requires rather liberal translation of Rich's commentary in WaXP; Monster-san isn't just one pre-existing monster; he's every monster that anyone has ever imagined.

This fits perfectly with the two hunters; they perceive Monster-san as the monster so tremendously powerful and scary that capturing it is the thing that'll make them famous forever.

Also, this fits perfectly with the other huge piece of info about Monster-san from SoD --- "I know what you are." Redcloak sees Monster-san double: both as his own most-feared monster and the Dark One's most-feared, and it makes sense that he alone would realize Monster-san's true identity.

One thing, though: if you're right, Monster-san isn't coming out of the darkness. Just as every one of us has a theory about what lurks behind the darkness, everyone to whom he's revealed sees something else. If we ever see Monster-san, then suddenly Rich will be thrusting a definitive image of exactly what Monster-san looks like to us, and suddenly whatever we perceive him as will go away.

I love this theory. I think I'm going to have to switch to officially supporting this, because it fits so perfectly with absolutely every piece of evidence we've received.

[shadzar]

I was just reading about boggarts in MMII last night, and will have to did it out to explain my objections, but something about it, just quite didn't seem to fit with mitd for me.

I will locate the book again in the closet and return with specifics after dinner.

[Zael Zuran]

:mitd: is a grue

YES!!!

You have moved into a dark place.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

[NerfTW]

Interesting theory, except that not only do Xykon and Redcloak know what it is, but so do

(from SOD)
the hunters that captured him in the first place

And Rich has stated in the War and XPs commentary that the MitD is not something he made up, and an actual monster that can be deduced from the clues given.

[xyzzy]

Interesting theory, except that not only do Xykon and Redcloak know what it is, but so do

(from SOD)
the hunters that captured him in the first place

And Rich has stated in the War and XPs commentary that the MitD is not something he made up, and an actual monster that can be deduced from the clues given.

Which is why this theory works best with the assumption that people see the monster that haunts their dreams most.

[greywords]

I hereby dub this theory "Shrödinger's Monster."

Quick! Somebody observe it so we can collapse the waveform!

[shadzar]

I hereby dub this theory "Shrödinger's Monster."

Quick! Somebody observe it so we can collapse the waveform!

:smallconfused: Many have already observed it like the hunters, Xykon, and Redcloak.

[David Argall]

Rich Berlew rarely creates characters that do not, in some way, represent an idea.
Well, this is true in a technical sense. All characters everywhere can be said to represent an idea. But our writer obvious, and thankfully, does not start with an idea and develop a character to model that idea. He develops a character, who will model some idea simply because there are a whole lot of ideas.



Roy represents steadfast but human leadership, Elan represents the freedom of the human spirit, Haley represents the price for freedom, V represents a mind owned by intellect, Durkon represents a mind owned by wisdom, and Belkar represents the unleashed ID.
Each of these representations can be challenged and replace with other ideas, or simply recognized as more or less random collections of traits that are not really intended to represent anything at all beyond a character we will like or will hate.

[greywords]

:smallconfused: Many have already observed it like the hunters, Xykon, and Redcloak.

It would have to be one of the readers, though. It doesn't help to have someone inside the sealed box observing the cat if they can't (or won't) communicate the results to you.

[shadzar]

It would have to be one of the readers, though. It doesn't help to have someone inside the sealed box observing the cat if they can't (or won't) communicate the results to you.

But aren't they?

All the SoD stuff others have read and mentioned.

Xykon and Redcloak, even the roaches, know what it is and have done things to try to tell what it is. Even MitD himself has tried telling everyone what it is in the last comic.

Eating children will make it meaner.
It can stomp earth quakes. (Implies at least one foot and something else to "stand on")
Can hold a flashlight. (Implies at least one hand or other appendage aside formt he foot or pseudopod mentioned above.)
Father was BIG and ate a LOT.

People inside the box are doing everything BUT shining archon light upon it. Even two hobgoblins tried to get it to come out to borrow its umbrella to shade fromt he sun and make it feel useful, but it was too dense to get it. So it isn't very bright, and doesn't like to think for itself.

Hungry and eats a lot, and eats things most people wouldn't. (Belkar's cooking, gruel, Durkon's note to home, etc)

Seems to be an omnivorous scavenger.

We just aren't listening to the people inside the box enough, or just not understanding them very well.

[greywords]

Hints do not equal exact replies. To me, that's about as useful as an observer inside the Shrödinger box saying "the cat is not now in the process of dying" thus still not ruling out whether it's alive or dead. Sure, we can rule out some options that don't fit the data but we can't definitively declare what the monster is.

[Trobby]

It's XyKon, dude, with a K.

Yeah, I always make that mistake. Probably because I keep pronouncing it that way. <.<;


It's a nice theory, however, in Start of Darkness both Xykon and Redcloak (and a few hundred nameless commoners) saw what MitD is, so it doesn't hold...

Dang. Only four posts to debunk my theory. Must be a new record. Unfortunately, I can't verify/defend against this argument, since I've never seen Start of Darkness, and I don't know how that comic panned out.

All I can say is that maybe XyKon, the hunters, and the crowd were just amazed at the massive...darkness that they had. But that's a pretty loose justification at best. ^^;

[rokar4life]

could... could it be a SNORLAX

[Morgan Wick]

I don't know about the theory itself, but I do know aspects of it are compelling. Can't actually comprehend what's outside the darkness... :smallcool:

[harami2000]

+1 for good hIDden monster theory/plot device. :)

[BardicLasher]

Dang. Only four posts to debunk my theory. Must be a new record. Unfortunately, I can't verify/defend against this argument, since I've never seen Start of Darkness, and I don't know how that comic panned out.

Give me a poke, Intro, and I'll talk to you about what's in it. I got that thing day one. I totally didn't realize you hung out here.

[Arkenputtyknife]

:smallconfused: Many have already observed it like the hunters, Xykon, and Redcloak.

The hunters were obviously Wigner and his friend.

</obscurephysicsjoke>