Why rule out non-reproducers for MitD?

[InfectiousFight]

I keep seeing this brought up again and again in MitD threads, and I had to sign up just because it makes me bang my head against a wall, and the hospital bills were becoming quite prohibitive.
Just because the MitD has a "father who eats a lot more than he does" doesn't mean it necessarily has to be a BIOLOGICAL father. He could easily have been referring to some adoptive parent or a mentor, and I'm absolutely dumbfounded that in all my browsing of MitD threads I've never seen this brought up, ONCE.

[Shale]

Problems with that are:

(a) The MitD is obviously a child, at least mentally. Most non-reproducers also don't have any kind of development cycle.

(b) You'd then have to chalk up the fact that both of them are big eaters to sheer coincidence.

[Nerdanel]

I think a tarrasque at least shouldn't be ruled out on these grounds. Even if there was one (1) tarrasque total in the OOTS world so that it by definition cannot reproduce within its species, there is nothing to say that it is unable to theoretically reproduce at all. In particular, D&D dragons are known for their ability to breed with anything with a pulse (and with some things that don't even have that). Just look at the requirements for the half-dragon template.

Living? Check. Corporeal? Check. Creature? Check. A half-dragon tarrasque is entirely rules-legal, and you can heap more templates on that too if necessary.

I mean, the only reason you can't have a half-dragon petunia is that petunias are technically objects in D&D, not creatures. A half-dragon treant would be just fine.

[Shpadoinkle]

Except I'm pretty sure that Rich said somewhere that the MitD wasn't something found in any of the Monster Manuals, or something like that.

[Kish]

I will not rule out the possibility that he said that somewhere I haven't seen. However, I will say two things.

1) He didn't say it anywhere published.
2) Lots of people misquote what he did say in all sorts of ways.

[NerfTW]

Except I'm pretty sure that Rich said somewhere that the MitD wasn't something found in any of the Monster Manuals, or something like that.

No, he said the exact opposite, actually. It IS something that people will recognize and can figure out. (said in the War and XPs commentary).

[Ancalagon]

Except I'm pretty sure that Rich said somewhere that the MitD wasn't something found in any of the Monster Manuals, or something like that.

He did not say that. He said in the supplemental material of the printed book that the MitD would be something "someone else came up with, not something he thought up himself". Nowhere (anywhere, someplace else) is said it's not from some Monster Book. It could not be from one but... we simply don't know.

[Ancalagon]

No, he said the exact opposite, actually. It IS something that people will recognize and can figure out. (said in the War and XPs commentary).

Not the exact opposite. The exact opposite of the statement you quoted would be a statement that it IS from one of the monster books. But Rich never wrote that...

[Kish]

I will say this much: It is possible to guess.
That is, it isn't something I just made up for the story. It wouldn't be any fun for the answer to a mystery to be something I invented just for this one purpose, would it? I won't finally throw back the darkness and have someone say, "Look! It was a therblewurkersaurus the entire time!" or some other made-up monster.
I realize that the line between something I made up and something someone else made up is a pretty fine one, but I trust that someone will figure it out eventually.

Is what he said.

[Sholos]

i.e. Guessable, but not necessarily something that everyone will recognize.

[Raging Gene Ray]

Is what he said.

So, it's a pre-existing creature that may or may not be from D&D...and may or may not be something widely recognizable (maybe some creature from Babylon 5, which I've never seen, but Rich is apparently a big fan).

[Trobby]

With those parameters, it could be an actual person or creature from our Earth for all we know. :/ Heck, there could be clipart behind the darkness.

...Oh, the two yellow eyes? He just likes to hold a pair of gemstones in front of him all the time. Yes.

...;p Okay, so maybe it's something more reasonable than that.

You know, I still have the feeling that it COULD be a God of some sort. Maybe a young offspring to one of the lost Greek Gods that escaped the Snarl, or one that was formed out of the will of the Gods, or one that doesn't entirely know what he is, and was left on Earth for no particular reason.

I'm pretty sure that if Deities manifest themselves on the material plane, then it is possible, if unlikely, for them to be defeated.

Heck, it could even be Cat! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_%28zodiac%29)

[Volkov]

He mentioned his father.