MitD II: Lighting a candle in the Darkness

[Darakonis]

This was probably brought up before, but is there any significance in the fact that MitD's eyes glowed when it said "Escape," ?

The significance is that the MitD somehow caused O-Chul and V to be whisked away, as opposed to it being a coincidence.

Peace,
-Darakonis

[Nerdanel]

It could be noteworthy that Psionic Teleport has Display: Visual.

The default visual display:


The manifester’s eyes burn like points of silver fire while the power remains in effect. A rainbow-flash of light sweeps away from the manifester to a distance of 5 feet and then dissipates, unless a unique visual display is described.

Close enough? I suppose we could have missed the rainbow-flash due to the panel framing and/or the probably-magical darkness.

[Beowulf DW]

It could be noteworthy that Psionic Teleport has Display: Visual.

The default visual display:



Close enough? I suppose we could have missed the rainbow-flash due to the panel framing and/or the probably-magical darkness.

Yes.

That is what I meant: powers that cause one's eyes to glow when used.

[Asta Kask]

Yes.

That is what I meant: powers that cause one's eyes to glow when used.

Wouldn't Tsukiko have noticed the huge rainbow flash? Especially since the MitD has hinted that she swings both ways... :smallsmile:

[Gift Jeraff]

It might also be hinting at any psionic power*, considering Rich has depicted psionic effects as (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0494.html) coming from the head (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0546.html).

*I've always been a fan of Bend Reality/Reality Revision (and [Limited] Wish) due to the lack of effects shown--O-Chul and V weren't actually transported or anything, the universe just said "Okay, they're not there anymore, they're over here."

[Selene]

It could be noteworthy that Psionic Teleport has Display: Visual.

The default visual display:



Close enough? I suppose we could have missed the rainbow-flash due to the panel framing and/or the probably-magical darkness.

Interesting. I didn't know that. It does sound like a reasonable possibility. Maybe Rich didn't want to include the rainbow bit, and decided to just use eye-glow.

[Kish]

Interesting. I didn't know that. It does sound like a reasonable possibility. Maybe Rich didn't want to include the rainbow bit, and decided to just use eye-glow.
Well, on one hand, a rainbow flash of light appearing in the comic would have been a big clue. On the other hand...a rainbow flash of light appearing in the comic would have been a big clue.

To be less obscurely flip, I could see "It would have been a big clue" being a reason for Rich to include it or to leave it out, depending on how much he wants us to know at this point.

[Saldre]

Especially since he zoomed in: it could have had the double purpose of dramatic effect, and hiding the rainbow exiting the magical darkness.

[Selene]

Well, on one hand, a rainbow flash of light appearing in the comic would have been a big clue. On the other hand...a rainbow flash of light appearing in the comic would have been a big clue.

To be less obscurely flip, I could see "It would have been a big clue" being a reason for Rich to include it or to leave it out, depending on how much he wants us to know at this point.

Well, yeah. That's kind of what I meant. :smallsmile:

[derfy]

Just a thought - may have already been mentioned.

I was reading DStP and noticed some foreshadowing in comic #543 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0543.html):

:mitd: [...] "I hoped really, really hard and he still didn't escape. I don't know why it didn't work!"

Apparently it knew it could pull this off with the proper stimulus.

[Ancalagon]

I fear everything has been mentioned at this point. ;)

[Lord Bingo]

Apparently it knew it could pull this off with the proper stimulus.

I don't think it is a case of the MitD knowing he can do this but rather that he simply expects things he wants to happen to happen, probably due to some precedence to which we the readers are not privy. He did not know that he was the cause until after the escape incident, and even then he does not know how he did it.
We should remember that the MitD is, in some ways, a very simple creature with very simple pleasures. We know he was happy in the jungle although he had nothing but what nature offered and that he thrived in the circus where he had nothing but stew -which BTW was all he ever wished for while there anyway. Even now with Team Evil he does not ask for much and what ever little thing he does wish for I get the impression he is given -if only to shut him up. Likely the only strong wish he has ever had not accommodated is that Mr. Stiffly escape.

[Lord Bingo]

He want's to get out of the dark, of course, but I reckon that it is something else, you know -besides a recurring joke.

[mastermind]

So from this, we can find that he has a "Limited wish" like ability.

Probably not a standard monster, and it'd be a stretch for him to be a monster with class levels.

The Jötunn thing mentioned earlier matches well with the Norse themed northern gods, and Rich Burlew had already decided on that theme before strip 100.

And if it does not seem redundant to my other idea, may I bring up the possibility of a half-Jötunn?

Albeit, the recognition thing does get in the way, Again, from the SBGH.

And as for the circus thing, of the "It's ugly! But yet beautiful!" Barely anything fits, besides the 'It appears as people want it to appear" from earlier.

[Optimystik]

Personally I'm still betting on Black Slaad (adjusted downward for size.)

[Lord Bingo]

Personally I don't think that the concept of the Jotunn brings us any closer to what the MitD is.
Ultimately in norse mythology Jotunn are representatives of wild and untamed nature and are so diverse a group that if we settle upon Jotunn we might as well settle on nothing at all.

I'm not rooting for the Black/White Slaad either. It gets ahead of Munchlax/Snorlax only by virtue of it having access to Greater Teleport and requires of us that we disregard everything we know about it but its cold hard stats.

Admittedly at the moment I can bring nothing better to the table.

[Selene]

I'm not rooting for the Black/White Slaad either. It gets ahead of Munchlax/Snorlax only by virtue of it having access to Greater Teleport and requires of us that we disregard everything we know about it but its cold hard stats.

Slaadi are also ahead of them because they are at least from the D&D universe. But yeah, they're obviously not a perfect fit.

[Darklord Xavez]

I still think that the MitD should be called the Thing in the Shadows. Hee Hee! :smallbiggrin:
-Xavez

[Optimystik]

I'm not rooting for the Black/White Slaad either. It gets ahead of Munchlax/Snorlax only by virtue of it having access to Greater Teleport and requires of us that we disregard everything we know about it but its cold hard stats.

You can't be serious. A Black Slaad has a lot more in its favor than that.
- Always shrouded in Deeper Darkness
- Only its two eyes are visible (like stars).
- Hideously ugly
- Extremely strong
- DR/epic
- exists in D&D (i.e.: not a pokemon)

And finally, Slaad aren't actually listed as Product Identity by WotC, (www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/Legal.rtf) making them completely fair game. Though one wonders why Jans (the SRD guy) thought they were.

[Magicyop]

You can't be serious. A Black Slaad has a lot more in its favor than that.
- Always shrouded in Deeper Darkness
- Only its two eyes are visible (like stars).
- Hideously ugly
- Extremely strong
- DR/epic
- exists in D&D (i.e.: not a pokemon)

And finally, Slaad aren't actually listed as Product Identity by WotC, (www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/Legal.rtf) making them completely fair game. Though one wonders why Jans (the SRD guy) thought they were.

I'm not sure we can rely on the Deeper Darkness thing. Yes, it's true that there have been situations where the MitD seems to be in a puddle of darkness with light on either side of him, but it's my opinion that this is just an artistic decision, and depicts him in a corner, or something like that. The MitD has implied multiple times that he could step out of the shadows if he wanted to.

I'm definitely with the group that says that the reveal is very important. Oh, look, it turns out the thing in the darkness is really A thing in darkness!!! No way!

[Optimystik]

I'm not sure we can rely on the Deeper Darkness thing. Yes, it's true that there have been situations where the MitD seems to be in a puddle of darkness with light on either side of him, but it's my opinion that this is just an artistic decision, and depicts him in a corner, or something like that. The MitD has implied multiple times that he could step out of the shadows if he wanted to.

Of course he can - any light effect stronger than Deeper Darkness will cancel it out. Deeper Darkness doesn't mean "can never be lit up by anything."

The important thing is that he stays obscured even with flashlights and torches around, which implies magical darkness.

[Shale]

We already know it's magical darkness - Redcloak says so at one point, I believe. We have no indication at all that it's inherent to the MitD and not cast on him by Xykon, the guy who wants him staying in the shadows at all times. We know he was perfectly visible int he wild and in the circus, though.

[Optimystik]

We already know it's magical darkness - Redcloak says so at one point, I believe. We have no indication at all that it's inherent to the MitD and not cast on him by Xykon, the guy who wants him staying in the shadows at all times. We know he was perfectly visible int he wild and in the circus, though.

Darkness and its variants can only be cast on objects, yet the MitD is shrouded in it even when not holding his umbrella. As for the circus reveal, magical light may have played a part in that.

[Selene]

We know he was perfectly visible int he wild and in the circus, though.

We also know that he expected to be leaving the shadows behind when they left Dorukon's Dungeon. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0147.html

[Optimystik]

We also know that he expected to be leaving the shadows behind when they left Dorukon's Dungeon. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0147.html

He also believes he can step out of it during his tea party. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0477.html) Interestingly, this is in the evening...

[Fitzclowningham]

The stereotyped big game hunters could see him in the jungle.

[Optimystik]

The stereotyped big game hunters could see him in the jungle.

Correction: they knew what he was. That doesn't mean they could see him. (Or rather, see anything more defined than a blob of darkness with eyes.)

[Darakonis]

It's been a couple years since I've played 3e, but I was under the impression that a creature could suppress its special abilities if it chose to do so. (i.e. that if the MitD has a special ability that shrouds it in darkness, it can "turn it off")

Peace,
-Darakonis

[Selene]

... Did he just send O-Chul more rain? Or is that a coincidence?

[doodthedud]

... Did he just send O-Chul more rain? Or is that a coincidence?

I'd say it's an expression, it's a big rainstorm, or it's wishful thinking.

I don't think he honestly summoned a rainstorm. That'd be cool though.

[zimmerwald1915]

We don't see him sleep after he talks about rain, and after it is shown raining in O-Chul's vicinity. Then again, those are the last two panels, so lack of sleep-depiction probably means nothing.

[Gamgee]

I've got it!

He's the Bogeyman!

MUAHAHAH!!!! Rules be damned when the Bogeyman is around, he can do anything he needs to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman

[Nerdanel]

Reality Revision has Display: Visual, which suggests that if the MitD's "rain ability" is real and not just a coincidence it's not the psionic Wish-like power Reality Revision (or the lesser Bend Reality). The glowing eyes of the "Escape" incident are consistent with its being a psionic power.

I'm not aware of any monster or template that has Reality Revision or Bend Reality as a psi-like power whereas Psionic Teleport is easily and invisibly acquired from the Phrenic template, no class levels required.

[magic9mushroom]

I've got this feeling that it's "Greater Teleport" (or normal Teleport) and "Control Weather" that it's got as spell-likes. The former appears to be 1/day, because it can't get rid of the Hobgoblin.

The problem is, there aren't many monsters with a Control Weather SLA, and of those that do, none appear to have Greater Teleport or Wish.

I have to agree with Black Slaad. Just a list of things I see about it that agree with MitD:

True Seeing: "What gate?" It can see whatever the truth is behind the gates. Also its Know (the planes) modifier is super-high as is its Know (arcana) (with the "half of a ritual").

Ruin: The Stomp.

Strength: Sufficient to do what it did to Miko.

Superior Initiative: "My turn first!"

Tongue attacks: when it appears to move things with its tongue (because its claws can't hold things). Also explains the paper cut - when it was eating the letter, it counted as attacking itself with a tongue-wielded weapon, and hence ignored its own DR.

[Shreav]

In strip 709 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0709.html), the demon roach has a comedic commentary going on, but the last thing it said caught my eye.

The MitD had just said "Oh, man ... I'm right back to the cutting board!" and Tsukiko had corrected him/her/it, saying "You mean 'drawing board.'".

The demon roach's comment was then "Was he ever drawn in the first place?"

Unlike the earlier roach utterances in this strip, this last comment seems a bit obscure. Could it be a further clue?

[HPhage]

In strip 709 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0709.html), the demon roach has a comedic commentary going on, but the last thing it said caught my eye.

The MitD had just said "Oh, man ... I'm right back to the cutting board!" and Tsukiko had corrected him/her/it, saying "You mean 'drawing board.'".

The demon roach's comment was then "Was he ever drawn in the first place?"

Unlike the earlier roach utterances in this strip, this last comment seems a bit obscure. Could it be a further clue?

More likely a joke, ie. "Rich never drew him since he's always been in the darkness."

[Lord Bingo]

I've got it!

He's the Bogeyman!

Certainly one would never expect to encounter a Bogeyman in a Jungle and actually capturing one would be an awesome feat in any event. I would not expect it to speak either. On top of this I can totally understand why something which is always relegated to the dark might yearn to step out once in a while. Surely since the Bogeyman is an amorphous cross cultural concept he can pretty much have any and every power he would need.

The real problem with this idea, at least potentially, is that the Bogeyman is ill defined when it comes to shape and size, as well as powers. It is a thing in the shadows which is never seen which is generally considered to be scary and evil. This would make a reveal sort of a moot point unless Rich were to work an argument into the plot that the bogeyman looks like something which is conventionalized.

[Lord Bingo]

I do like this idea, though:smallwink:

[doodthedud]

More likely a joke, ie. "Rich never drew him since he's always been in the darkness."

That's what i figured. he's just blackness and two eyes, not really a drawn form.

[Asta Kask]

If the MitD has as many HD as we believe, the hunters must have been über-ultra-epic level to recognize him... :smalleek:

[UltimatheChosen]

It's worth noting that MitD could probably still be undead (although I doubt it). Him needing to eat doesn't rule that out. Plenty of undead creatures require some sort of sustenance (the most notable being vampires).

I don't think it's likely, though, given Redcloak's threat to use him as raw material for undead. And the fact that he has a father (although, again, it could be a metaphorical parenthood that some of the undead races can have, such as a vampire's sire).

[Nerdanel]

I wonder if the MitD could be some form of life that can reproduce itself from cuttings. Some form of ambulatory carnivorous plant monster might do it, but the one I'm primarily thinking of is the Ephemeral Hangman. Does the fluff have anything about how it reproduces itself?

It could be that the MitD was a cut-off part from his "father" and that therefore he has no mother... I think the Ephemeral Hangman could work well, especially if templated. A Phrenic Ephemeral Hangman would be able to use Psionic Teleport, at least if advanced in HD.

Unfortunately I don't have access to the stats of the Ephemeral Hangman, which is making this speculation difficult...

[Qwertystop]

One idea I have that I do not think anyone else had yet is that the MitD is invisible (either through an innate ability or someone {:xykon:} cast [greater] Invisibility on him) as well as being in the darkness. This could explain how he seems to move things without touching them: he isn't telekinetic, he is just invisible. That way the darkness would make it SEEM to everyone that he is telekinetic. So, maybe that should be considered when trying to find possible things he might be.

[Asta Kask]

But we can see his eyes. So, no.

[Qwertystop]

But we can see his eyes. So, no.

Good point...
Unless his eyes glow for some reason...
But you are probably right.

[theangelJean]

Here's a joke idea that doesn't appear in the original post.

I'm not qualified to propose it seriously because I don't know enough about D&D ... the idea came from the current comic (#709) reminding me of a key plot element in Jasper Fforde's second Nursery Crime novel, The Fourth Bear.


MitD: Oh, man ... I'm right back to the cutting board!
Tsukiko: You mean "drawing board".

Of course ... the MitD is the Gingerbread Man! In Jasper Fforde's Nursery Crime universe, the Gingerbread Man is a seven-foot-tall cookie?cake?biscuit? serial killer whose preferred modus operandi is to chase people down, tear them apart limb from limb in a gratuitously gory manner, occasionally eat them, and then of course run away. (The gratuitous gore is on the part of the murderer, not the author ... Fforde merely tells us that sometimes people observing the crime scenes feel violently sick.)

The right size? Yep. Superhuman strength? Check. Above-average intelligence? In this case, yes (no comment on wisdom). Huge appetite? Something like that. Love of tea parties? You bet!

Anyway, I have no idea how that would fit in with the OotS-verse, but I'm throwing it out there for consideration :P

Jean

[Optimystik]

Of course ... the MitD is the Gingerbread Man!

Now there's a half-baked idea. :smallwink:

[Ozymandias9]

... Did he just send O-Chul more rain? Or is that a coincidence?

Humm. I went in an entirely different direction with that and took the comic to mean that MiTD was scrying on O-Chul itself and not realizing it or narrowing it down to a specific location (thus he knows that it's raining where O-Chul is).

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

It could be a god or maybe the chathulu. :smallconfused:

[Selene]

It's worth noting that MitD could probably still be undead (although I doubt it). Him needing to eat doesn't rule that out. Plenty of undead creatures require some sort of sustenance (the most notable being vampires).

But do you know of any undead creatures that require stew? Blood, brains, energy, sure. Stew, not so much.

[Gamgee]

I do like this idea, though:smallwink:

I'm placing all my Order of the Stick cred on the line and making the bet it's the bogeyman. Only time will tell though. Also if it does turn out to be the bogeyman... I... I will laugh. :P

[Qwertystop]

Has anyone considered that the "tracks" Belkar couldn't identify were a combination of:
~The MitD's tracks
~The marks from Roy and O-Chul being dragged across the ground
~and the marks from the tea table being dragged
because those tracks would definitely be hard to identify, especially for Belkar.

[dmuzzy]

Sorry if this has been discussed already..

The "back to the cutting board" has me wondering if the MiTD is some sort of golem. Demonflesh or something or other. But I'm not real familiar with golems to know if they have any inherent spell-like abilities.

Just a thought.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Sorry if this has been discussed already..

The "back to the cutting board" has me wondering if the MiTD is some sort of golem. Demonflesh or something or other. But I'm not real familiar with golems to know if they have any inherent spell-like abilities.

Just a thought.

Some do, some don't. But golems are constructs, and as such don't sleep and don't eat.

Grey Wolf

[Asta Kask]

Has anyone considered that the "tracks" Belkar couldn't identify were a combination of:
~The MitD's tracks
~The marks from Roy and O-Chul being dragged across the ground
~and the marks from the tea table being dragged
because those tracks would definitely be hard to identify, especially for Belkar.

I think Belkar would have problems identifying horse-tracks...

[Harr]

Hi, I'm wondering if this has been discussed already. I looked in your SoD section and didn't find it; but maybe someone brought it up along the length of the thread, if so, feel free to disregard :).

Anyway, I just recently read SoD and one thing struck me. The MitD makes several references along the way as to how hard it is to be "looked at":

First, after he comes out of the show, he says, "Today's show sure was tough."

To which his handler replies, "You did the same thing you do every show, stand there and get gawked at."

To which the MitD replies "Yeah, but there were a lot of people today. Sometimes it's hard being looked at by so many."

Then later, when he's being convinced to leave the circus, he again says, "I get all the stew I can eat, but they make a lot of people look at me, which is hard."

Which makes me think that maybe the MitD has some kind of magical/supernatural effect which is triggered by sight? As in some kind of medusa/basilisk type of thing, and those lines are referencing the use of that power on the people.

Not saying he's one of those, but that he has a power similar... maybe confusion? fear? nauseate? The people in the audience certainly had a wide variety of reactions to him. Has this been explored already?

PS, pretty awesome thread you have here, has definitely made piqued my curiosity a lot since finally I let myself come in after reading SoD :) Keep up the good work.

Edit -> Replaced my paraphrases with the actual lines from the book (hope there's no problem with this, if so let me know and I'll change back).

Also, Now that I think about it, could it be some kind of anti-good/anti-lawful ability? That would explain why the goblin family, being "evil", wasn't affected, while the humans were all affected in different ways and severities.

[Shale]

Those exchanges are a large part of the support for the theory that MitD is a dream larva - a creature that literally becomes the worst fear of whatever creature sees it. Being looked at by many people at once would cause a dream larva to assume a lot of forms almost instantaneously, which sounds like hard work to me.

[Lord Bingo]

Those exchanges are a large part of the support for the theory that MitD is a dream larva - a creature that literally becomes the worst fear of whatever creature sees it. Being looked at by many people at once would cause a dream larva to assume a lot of forms almost instantaneously, which sounds like hard work to me.

As the Bogeyman is a cross cultural amorphous creature those exchanges would also support the theory that the MitD is a Bogeyman since Bogeymen too probably would take the shape or form of whatever the perceiver expect it to look like.

[Optimystik]

Those exchanges are a large part of the support for the theory that MitD is a dream larva - a creature that literally becomes the worst fear of whatever creature sees it. Being looked at by many people at once would cause a dream larva to assume a lot of forms almost instantaneously, which sounds like hard work to me.

But none of them died, which seems a bit odd for a DC 43 Will save. :smalltongue:

Also, wouldn't the goblins have seen something horrifying as well?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

But none of them died, which seems a bit odd for a DC 43 Will save. :smalltongue:

Also, wouldn't the goblins have seen something horrifying as well?

The proposal is a young dream larva, with plot-induced weaker powers. The goblins would have saved their will and thus are not subject to it for a while.

The dream larva fits the circus scene quite well. Not so much the escape.

On the bogeyman topic, I find the argument to how it teleported O'Chul out unpersuasive. Bogeyman are definitely not known for such abilities, no matter what country. Also, the bogeyman is a spirit of terror; most of the spectators in the circus don't show terror as much as supreme disgust (stomach-turning revolt, in fact). I believe we are looking for something more ugly than terrifying.

Grey Wolf

[Gamgee]

The proposal is a young dream larva, with plot-induced weaker powers. The goblins would have saved their will and thus are not subject to it for a while.

The dream larva fits the circus scene quite well. Not so much the escape.

On the bogeyman topic, I find the argument to how it teleported O'Chul out unpersuasive. Bogeyman are definitely not known for such abilities, no matter what country. Also, the bogeyman is a spirit of terror; most of the spectators in the circus don't show terror as much as supreme disgust (stomach-turning revolt, in fact). I believe we are looking for something more ugly than terrifying.

Grey Wolf

But a bogeyman can be anything. It is subjective to the individual viewing it. So perhaps we are looking for a bogeyman esque monster, but... ugliness?

In any myths or legends does anything come to mind?

[Forbiddenwar]

Those exchanges are a large part of the support for the theory that MitD is a dream larva - a creature that literally becomes the worst fear of whatever creature sees it. Being looked at by many people at once would cause a dream larva to assume a lot of forms almost instantaneously, which sounds like hard work to me.

Those exchanges are also a large part of the support for the theory that MitD is a Vorlon, as what is said is a practically word for word description of their appearance. I'm just pointing out how a few lines can be interpreted in different ways.

[EmperorSarda]

Maybe the MitD is a boggart from Harry Potter? That would explain the fascination, if it turns into something someone fears but that another doesn't.

Doesn't explain the stomping though. Maybe. It depends on which physical form it chooses.

But doesn't explain the wish-like ability to teleport Ochul.

[Morthis]

I think it's a Tarrasque.

We'd gone like 5 pages without someone saying that, I'm afraid the universe will implode if the thread went on much longer without a post like that.

[WowWeird]

I may be missing something here, but I read through 19 pages of the thread, and I don't see an explanation for another( relatively minor) problem with plane shift- "you appear 5-500 miles (5d100) from your intended destination". I doubt that you could specify something as specific as a persons location(mentioned before), and if you could, then with the "Vaarsuvius wishing s/he had never left the island" idea, they would end up in the ocean! Same with the "somewhere safe" idea- long story short, without a very specific destination and a plot-induced roll, there is no way they would land right on top of Hinjo. Just a thought.

Oh, and PS is "creature(s) touched". While a SLA would be able to ignore it, it is still another argument stretching the PS idea. And it's not exactly in need of more.

[Optimystik]

The proposal is a young dream larva, with plot-induced weaker powers. The goblins would have saved their will and thus are not subject to it for a while.

Why would the goblins in particular have made their will save? Goblins don't get any boosts to Will or Wisdom.

I was always under the impression that the goblins weren't put out by the MitD's reveal because its monstrous appearance wasn't as out of place to them as it would be to a human.

[Lord Bingo]

I believe it is possible that the goblin children cheering the MitD on in the circus may be likened to children who like gross monster splatter flicks.
The goblin children are fans of the MitD. If he looks disgusting or horrifying to them they are accustomed to it and probably think that its cool. After all, they come to the show every day.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I may be missing something here, but I read through 19 pages of the thread, and I don't see an explanation for another( relatively minor) problem with plane shift- "you appear 5-500 miles (5d100) from your intended destination".

Irrelevant. The Plane Shift escape explanation says that they go to another plane completely - usually the Southern God's plane - and then get miracle'd back. This is mentioned in the first post (section 1b: the escape).


Oh, and PS is "creature(s) touched". While a SLA would be able to ignore it, it is still another argument stretching the PS idea. And it's not exactly in need of more.

Wrong. In OotS-verse, there is no need to touch for plane shift. Again, from section 1b: example (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0497.html).


Why would the goblins in particular have made their will save? Goblins don't get any boosts to Will or Wisdom.

Sorry, I seem to have skipped a few words: I meant that the goblins had saved (or suffered) at some prior time. Survivors to the Dream Larva's change are immune to it from then on. Even if they failed and were grossed out the first time, from then on they'd be fine.

Grey Wolf

[WowWeird]

I know- that's why I said *another* problem. Thank you for the clarification though.

[Optimystik]

Sorry, I seem to have skipped a few words: I meant that the goblins had saved (or suffered) at some prior time. Survivors to the Dream Larva's change are immune to it from then on. Even if they failed and were grossed out the first time, from then on they'd be fine.

You're making a couple of key assumptions there - that the goblins were the only repeat customers to the circus (otherwise, some of the humans would be immune as well); and that the goblin children, having been thoroughly grossed out at some point before, would want to keep coming back (or that their parents want to bring them back.)

Outside of the circus scene, many other things don't fit. Abominations are all immune to mind-affecting effects, so Xykon's implanted spell wouldn't have worked; Dream Larvae have no way to teleport anything as far as I can tell; and I don't see anything in its stats that can create darkness.

While a Dream Larva sort of fits the MitD's seeming unwillingness to be looked at by a crowd... so does simply being ugly, shy, or concerned by the fact that you make humans lose their lunch. All three are likely for the MitD.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

You're making a couple of key assumptions there - that the goblins were the only repeat customers to the circus (otherwise, some of the humans would be immune as well); and that the goblin children, having been thoroughly grossed out at some point before, would want to keep coming back (or that their parents want to bring them back.)

Outside of the circus scene, many other things don't fit. Abominations are all immune to mind-affecting effects, so Xykon's implanted spell wouldn't have worked; Dream Larvae have no way to teleport anything as far as I can tell; and I don't see anything in its stats that can create darkness.

While a Dream Larva sort of fits the MitD's seeming unwillingness to be looked at by a crowd... so does simply being ugly, shy, or concerned by the fact that you make humans lose their lunch. All three are likely for the MitD.

Yes, I know all this. We've discussed the dream larva before, after all. I was just giving you the situation as it ended. I don't particularly like the dream larva, actually. I think it is the weakest of the top contenders. On the other hand, it was also the first to at least have an explanation for both escape and circus, and only for that I'll keep it there.

Grey Wolf

[Nerdanel]

It could be a Phrenic Dream Larva... Phrenic is a nice template in that it can explain the "Escape" scene very well with sufficient HD since it gives Psionic Teleport as a psi-like ability. Phrenic can also be added on top of nearly anything, with the ones it can't be added on are mindless creatures that can't be the MitD anyway.

[Ancalagon]

Was mentioned I guess, if not... in 709: Monsters goes back to the "cutting board" instead to the "drawing board". Proof/hint it has claws and no hands?

edit: never mind, just found it. Yet the comment seemed to drown a bit quickly, given that it's a pretty specific comment.

[fishguy]

Red Cloak knows what the MitD is and what his abilities are

MitD was one of only a few people present when O'Chul and V were teleported away. Also MitD had been spending time with O'Chul and had been friendly with him

Red Cloak did not, for one minute, suspect that MitD had anything to do with the teleporting

Therefore.... teleportation like abilities are not among the normally existing abilities of the MitD creature type... any creature which does have this sort of ability should be knocked lower on the probability ranking

[fishguy]

What if Rich has created a youngling of a very powerful creature type for the MitD. Suppose he has given this creature a powerful magic or magic-like special ability, something like "Puissant Tantrum" which has wish/miracle type powers and is activated by yelling and/or stomping of feet.

No need for teleportation, no need for earthquake... just one (major) special ability.

[Optimystik]

It could be a Phrenic Dream Larva... Phrenic is a nice template in that it can explain the "Escape" scene very well with sufficient HD since it gives Psionic Teleport as a psi-like ability. Phrenic can also be added on top of nearly anything, with the ones it can't be added on are mindless creatures that can't be the MitD anyway.

The trouble I have with templates is that you could take just about any creature and stack enough of them to mimic the MitD's abilities shown thus far. I'm not sure I see much difference between a well-known monster with a bunch of templates tacked on and the "therblewerkersaurus" that Rich claimed it wouldn't be in his commentary.


Red Cloak did not, for one minute, suspect that MitD had anything to do with the teleporting

Actually, we don't know what Redcloak thought of it. All he had of events after teleporting to the basement was Xykon's account, which was that the MitD was asleep during the fight. So he may not have even considered things enough to come to the right conclusion.

We also don't know if Redcloak knew that the MitD and O-Chul were becoming friends. Right now, the only person who seems to be aware of their relationship is Tsukiko.

[Savannah]

Outside of the circus scene, many other things don't fit. Abominations are all immune to mind-affecting effects, so Xykon's implanted spell wouldn't have worked; Dream Larvae have no way to teleport anything as far as I can tell; and I don't see anything in its stats that can create darkness.

Whether the dream larva can create darkness is unimportant; Xykon is keeping it in the dark and it actually wants to leave the dark. In fact, not being able to create darkness probably helps, not hurts, a given creature's case. (The rest of your critique is good, though -- there is a proposed "escape" explanation, but it's pretty weak.)

[Optimystik]

Whether the dream larva can create darkness is unimportant; Xykon is keeping it in the dark and it actually wants to leave the dark. In fact, not being able to create darkness probably helps, not hurts, a given creature's case. (The rest of your critique is good, though -- there is a proposed "escape" explanation, but it's pretty weak.)

If we had ever seen Xykon cast Darkness on it then my objections about that would cease, but he remains shrouded even outside his box, without his umbrella, and with Xykon nowhere in the vicinity (e.g. during Redcloak/Jirix's speech.)

I mean, sure the Giant could just have him say "Xykon, when are you going to take this Deeper Darkness spell off me already?" But until then, I'm assuming the MitD is the source of the darkness, and not some external spell.

[DaggerPen]

If we had ever seen Xykon cast Darkness on it then my objections about that would cease, but he remains shrouded even outside his box, without his umbrella, and with Xykon nowhere in the vicinity (e.g. during Redcloak/Jirix's speech.)

I mean, sure the Giant could just have him say "Xykon, when are you going to take this Deeper Darkness spell off me already?" But until then, I'm assuming the MitD is the source of the darkness, and not some external spell.

If the MITD is the source of the darkness, then why did he think he would be lit up in 147 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0147.html)? For that matter, why bother with the umbrella at all? I think it's more likely that either a. Xykon cast some type of darkness spell on him or b. it's artistic license. Personally, my bet's on the latter; after all, if we were shown a comic with the MITD where we saw him while he wasn't in the darkness, it'd be the reveal, wouldn't it?

He could, of course, still be a monster with some type of darkness-creating ability, but he by no means has to be. I, for one, wouldn't count it as a MITD candidate criterion either way.

[Optimystik]

If the MITD is the source of the darkness, then why did he think he would be lit up in 147 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0147.html)?

Because he was about to emerge from underground. Suppressing his darkness ability down there wouldn't make a difference, because it was still dark.


For that matter, why bother with the umbrella at all?

A) It keeps the sun (as a strong Light effect) from overcoming his darkness.
B) It keeps his darkness concentrated while outdoors, preventing any attenuation that would outline his form.


He could, of course, still be a monster with some type of darkness-creating ability, but he by no means has to be. I, for one, wouldn't count it as a MITD candidate criterion either way.

His darkness is almost certainly magical - no mundane light source seems to affect it. Until I have reason to believe that the magic came from somewhere else (i.e. one of the characters referencing a spell or item of some kind), the most logical assumption is that he is its source. This also explains why he's so sure he can step out of the darkness when he wants.

[Shale]

If he can suppress it, why does he need to beg archons to shoot him with light beams? Why not just turn it off?

[waterpenguin43]

Hmmm...
I got DStP, and it says that Rich dropped too many clues in War and XP's. Forgive me if you already have, but maybe somebody whould look there.

[Savannah]

Until I have reason to believe that the magic came from somewhere else (i.e. one of the characters referencing a spell or item of some kind), the most logical assumption is that he is its source.

Or Xykon, who wants to keep him in the shadows, has cast (or more likely had one of his minions cast) a darkness spell on the umbrella, box, and any area where the MitD is likely to stay for a while. The MitD is confidant that he can step out of the darkness because he can step outside of the spell's range.

See the above linked strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0147.html) for further evidence. I've quoted the most relevant parts (comments in italics):
:mitd: You can't keep me in these impenetrable shadows all of the time any more!
If he were creating the shadows, why does he use that phrasing? Wouldn't "I don't have to keep myself cloaked in darkness all of the time anymore" make much more sense? More importantly, if he were creating the darkness because Xykon told him to, why would he assume that going outside would be any different?
:xykon: Oh, no. We've got that covered. Do you still have it, Redcloak?
If the MitD were creating the darkness, wouldn't Xykon just say "No, you need to keep yourself in the dark, even outside"? His actual phrasing strongly implies that the umbrella has previously had a darkness spell cast on it.

Further, see strip 194 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0194.html), in which the MitD asks the lantern archons to light him up. If he is creating the light and can suppress it (as you propose), why does he need the archons to light him up (and why is he willing to take damage in order to be lit up)? It seems to me that the logical explanation is that he is asking them to cut through a darkness spell that someone else has cast on him.

[Herald Alberich]

His darkness is almost certainly magical - no mundane light source seems to affect it.

No almost about it. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0082.html)

[Nimrod's Son]

Hmmm...
I got DStP, and it says that Rich dropped too many clues in War and XP's. Forgive me if you already have, but maybe somebody whould look there.
You consider it likely that in 87 pages of this topic, not one person here has thought to look in one of the compilation books to see if there's anything there? :smallconfused: The first post of this thread contains EVERYTHING that is known about the monster. The rest of the thread is discussing what it all means.

[Selene]

Because he was about to emerge from underground. Suppressing his darkness ability down there wouldn't make a difference, because it was still dark.

A) It keeps the sun (as a strong Light effect) from overcoming his darkness.
B) It keeps his darkness concentrated while outdoors, preventing any attenuation that would outline his form.

His darkness is almost certainly magical - no mundane light source seems to affect it. Until I have reason to believe that the magic came from somewhere else (i.e. one of the characters referencing a spell or item of some kind), the most logical assumption is that he is its source. This also explains why he's so sure he can step out of the darkness when he wants.

Do you notice how you're coming up with evidence to support your conclusion, rather than coming up with a conclusion to fit the evidence? Logic doesn't work that way.

Logic says that he thought he would be lit up by coming out into the sun, because everything else is lit up when it is out in the sun. Logic says that he was not lit up by the sun, because Redcloak handed him an umbrella of not-getting-lit-up-by-the-sun-ness. Logic does not say "I think he makes his own darkness; how might he achieve that without breaking canon?"

[Optimystik]

Or Xykon, who wants to keep him in the shadows, has cast (or more likely had one of his minions cast) a darkness spell on the umbrella, box, and any area where the MitD is likely to stay for a while. The MitD is confidant that he can step out of the darkness because he can step outside of the spell's range.


Logic says that he thought he would be lit up by coming out into the sun, because everything else is lit up when it is out in the sun. Logic says that he was not lit up by the sun, because Redcloak handed him an umbrella of not-getting-lit-up-by-the-sun-ness. Logic does not say "I think he makes his own darkness; how might he achieve that without breaking canon?"

To both of you:

As Alberich pointed out, he's surrounded by magical darkness even without the "umbrella of not-getting-lit-up-by-the-sun-ness."

And while we're on the subject of logic, Selene, I refer you to Occam's Razor. Which is simpler - that Xykon ran around the tower casting Darkness on every object he was likely to pick up and every area he was likely to stand, or that the darkness is just emanating from him? And before you answer, recall that you can't cast Darkness on creatures. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/darkness.htm)

By the way, I can absolutely argue logically by starting at his specific circumstances and working my way back to the generalities of his situation. There's a whole term for it, even. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning)


If he were creating the shadows, why does he use that phrasing? Wouldn't "I don't have to keep myself cloaked in darkness all of the time anymore" make much more sense?

Because Xykon wants him kept in the dark, and therefore he won't lower it without Xykon's permission.

Note here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0477.html) when he says he can step out of the dark and devour Haley and Belkar - the only reason he's considering doing this, is because Xykon did actually tell him he could (i.e. to eat the Order of the Stick.)


More importantly, if he were creating the darkness because Xykon told him to, why would he assume that going outside would be any different?[/I]

Because he knows the sun is strong enough to overcome his emanation, so there's no way he can keep his darkness up even if Xykon wants him to. (Hence "you can't keep me...") Of course, he was not considering the umbrella.


If the MitD were creating the darkness, wouldn't Xykon just say "No, you need to keep yourself in the dark, even outside"? His actual phrasing strongly implies that the umbrella has previously had a darkness spell cast on it.

No, all it implies is that Xykon gave Redcloak an umbrella to use on the MitD in the event that they had to go outside. It doesn't have to mean the umbrella has any magic at all.


Further, see strip 194 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0194.html), in which the MitD asks the lantern archons to light him up. If he is creating the light and can suppress it (as you propose), why does he need the archons to light him up (and why is he willing to take damage in order to be lit up)? It seems to me that the logical explanation is that he is asking them to cut through a darkness spell that someone else has cast on him.

1) Again, you can't cast Darkness on creatures.
2) He's asking the Archons to light him up because then he won't be in trouble with Xykon for voluntarily dropping his darkness. Think of the common children's excuse - "he made me do it!"

[Lord Bingo]

We know for a fact that it is magical darkness, because RC tells us this in strip 82, everything else is strictly speaking inferred. So, what are the possibilities really, if we choose to disregard "artistic freedom"?

1: Xykon, RC or some minion has cast darkness or an equivalent in every corner of every place Team Evil ever stays, including the umbrella.
2: The MitD is actively creating the darkness himself.
3: MitD has some innate supernatural or spell like ability that causes him to blend into shadows whenever he is in contact with even the slightest of shadows (whether he wants to or not) creating magical darkness unless he is lit up by sunlight or an equivalent..

Option number 1 is unlikely, to say the least, which means that either way the MitD is the source of the Darkness. In this case I find option 3 to be the most likely scenario given the MitDs seemingly genuine yearning to leave the shadows behind.

[Savannah]

Because Xykon wants him kept in the dark, and therefore he won't lower it without Xykon's permission.

Note here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0477.html) when he says he can step out of the dark and devour Haley and Belkar - the only reason he's considering doing this, is because Xykon did actually tell him he could (i.e. to eat the Order of the Stick.)

That could just as easily be interpreted as putting down the umbrella that is generating a darkness effect on him. He keeps it up because Xykon tells him to. (I'm not saying that my interpretation is better here; both are equally possible.)

If the umbrella exists to keep the sun from overcoming his magical darkness, why does he use it inside? I argue that it's to use the umbrella's darkness effect. Also, do you know of any darkness supernatural abilities that are overcome by natural daylight? Effects mimicking darkness and deeper darkness should not be affected by the sun.


Again, you can't cast Darkness on creatures.


Yes, I know. That phrasing must have gotten missed when I proofread. I meant to indicated that he was in the area of a darkness spell.


3: MitD has some innate supernatural or spell like ability that causes him to blend into shadows whenever he is in contact with even the slightest of shadows (whether he wants to or not) creating magical darkness unless he is lit up by sunlight or an equivalent..

I guess I could see that. It's pretty unusual, though. Are there any monsters with that ability?

[Lord Bingo]

I guess I could see that. It's pretty unusual, though. Are there any monsters with that ability?

There is a super natural ability called Shadow Blend:
Shadow Blend (Su): In any conditions other than full daylight, a shadow creature can disappear into the shadows, giving it total concealment. Artificial illumination, even a light or continual flame spell, does not negate this ability, but a daylight spell will.

The ability is inherent to creatures which use the Shadow template from the Lords of Madness sourcebook (which is an updated version of the same template from 3.0). Creatures which use the shadow template appear similar to the base creature albeit spookier, darker and more elusive.

I know that templated creatures are not our favorite contenders, and nor do I know whether or not there are other creatures that has this or a similar ability. It's worth considering IMO.

[Optimystik]

That could just as easily be interpreted as putting down the umbrella that is generating a darkness effect on him. He keeps it up because Xykon tells him to. (I'm not saying that my interpretation is better here; both are equally possible.)

If the umbrella exists to keep the sun from overcoming his magical darkness, why does he use it inside?

I don't see the relevance of why he uses it inside. The important thing is that he's still dark even when he doesn't have it (both in Dorukan's tower and Xykon's), therefore the umbrella can't be the source of the darkness. Redcloak's comment about "magical darkness" comes before he gets the umbrella.


Yes, I know. That phrasing must have gotten missed when I proofread. I meant to indicated that he was in the area of a darkness spell.

Cast on what? That's the problem I have with this explanation. If it was the walls it wouldn't follow him, and if it's an item, Rich should've alluded to its existence.

EDIT: Here's another problem - if the darkness is something external to himself, something cast on him by Xykon or whomever wants to keep him shrouded, how exactly is it that he can see anything? (Gates not included.)

[WowWeird]

Good point on
EDIT: Here's another problem - if the darkness is something external to himself, something cast on him by Xykon or whomever wants to keep him shrouded, how exactly is it that he can see anything? (Gates not included.)
I can't fight that logic, but I do note that w/ the mutiple statements that "Xykon would have to runs around casting Darkness on everything" are missing the obvious- just ONE item, like a ring, that MitD has to carry around.

Yes, that misses why MitD is still stuck with the umbrella, andi doubt that it's right, but it's still possible.
Maybe Xykon cast Summon Ominous Darkness! :smallsmile: There really isn't much way to tell, but I think that Xykon is just keeping MitD there for the drama.

[Selene]

And while we're on the subject of logic, Selene, I refer you to Occam's Razor. Which is simpler - that Xykon ran around the tower casting Darkness on every object he was likely to pick up and every area he was likely to stand, or that the darkness is just emanating from him? And before you answer, recall that you can't cast Darkness on creatures. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/darkness.htm)

Hostile tone aside, your question is fallacious. I suggest what is simpler[I] is that Rich doesn't want to reveal MitD, and he occasionally justifies the continual darkness with a prop.


By the way, I can [I]absolutely argue logically by starting at his specific circumstances and working my way back to the generalities of his situation. There's a whole term for it, even. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning)

Which is not what you did. You presupposed your conclusion independently of the facts, and then invented answers to support it. e.g. "I think the sun is actually green. I realize that it looks yellow, but since it is green, we must have anti-blue filters on our eyes that only make it look yellow." You can absolutely[I] argue anything you like, but that does not make it valid.


I don't see the relevance of [I]why he uses it inside.

I also don't see the relevance of why we would have anti-blue filters on our eyes. Evidence that contradicts our presupposed conclusions should clearly be thrown out.

[Optimystik]

Hostile tone aside, your question is fallacious. I suggest what is simpler[I] is that Rich doesn't want to reveal MitD, and he occasionally justifies the continual darkness with a prop.

Hostile? I don't see how mentioning Occam's Razor was hostile.

I know Rich doesn't want to reveal the MitD. That doesn't have anything to do with whether the umbrella is the source of the darkness or not, only that it keeps the sun off.


Which is not what you did. You presupposed your conclusion independently of the facts, and then invented answers to support it. e.g. "I think the sun is actually green. I realize that it looks yellow, but since it is green, we must have anti-blue filters on our eyes that only make it look yellow." You can [I]absolutely[I] argue anything you like, but that does not make it valid.

I did no such thing.
He is dark without the umbrella, therefore the umbrella cannot be the source of the darkness. I really don't see how that is such a leap to make.

Some other item in his possession or spell cast on him could be the source of the darkness, but Rich has never alluded to either of them. He could introduce something like that later of course, but I would think we'd at least get a hint. Finally, external sources of darkness don't explain how he can still see anything.


I also don't see the relevance of [I]why we would have anti-blue filters on our eyes. Evidence that contradicts our presupposed conclusions should clearly be thrown out.

How does using an umbrella inside contradict the fact that he is shrouded in darkness without it? What was that about throwing out evidence, again?

[Forbiddenwar]

I'm fairly certain that if an epic level sorceror wanted to keep you in darkness, he would find a way.

Sorry for jumping in this discussion in the middle, have have you explained why he wasn't in darkness in SOD? I mean, darkness has never made me throw up before.

[Darakonis]

I'm fairly certain that if an epic level sorceror wanted to keep you in darkness, he would find a way.

Sorry for jumping in this discussion in the middle, have have you explained why he wasn't in darkness in SOD? I mean, darkness has never made me throw up before.

If the MitD is the source of the darkness, by D&D rules, he should be able to suppress whatever power enables him to be shrouded in darkness.

Peace,
Darakonis

[Optimystik]

I'm fairly certain that if an epic level sorceror wanted to keep you in darkness, he would find a way.

Sorry for jumping in this discussion in the middle, have have you explained why he wasn't in darkness in SOD? I mean, darkness has never made me throw up before.

I would assume because he turned it off as part of the act.

And again, if it was cast on him (or something he carries) by Xykon at some point, he should be blind. We know he's not getting around via Tremorsense or Blindsense or something, because he knows O-Chul's beard is blue. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0709.html)

[Forbiddenwar]

I would assume because he turned it off as part of the act.
and when not part of the act, as anyone who looks in the box sees him clearly
:xykon: (paraphrased) Woah, you're an ugly sob



And again, if it was cast on him (or something he carries) by Xykon at some point, he should be blind.[/URL]

Unless he has true sight. If he was generating his own magical darkness, wouldn't he be equally blind?

[Optimystik]

and when not part of the act, as anyone who looks in the box sees him clearly
:xykon: (paraphrased) Woah, you're an ugly sob

Point. Or he hadn't turned it back on yet/Xykon can see through it. We don't know either way.

Xykon is the only one we know can see him in the box. Both the SBGH and Redcloak merely said they know what he is, which doesn't require seeing him.


Unless he has true sight. If he was generating his own magical darkness, wouldn't he be equally blind?

Most creatures that generate darkness (like black slaadi) aren't hampered by it. I suppose it's possible that he always had True Seeing (or just the ability to see through magical darkness) and thus isn't hampered by some form of external shadow... but if it's not coming from him, then what? Some mystery item that has never been referenced or hinted at in the strip? (and no, this is not the umbrella; he was in magical darkness before that.)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I would assume because he turned it off as part of the act.

He doesn't. He very specifically points out that he does nothing but stand there. Given his difficulties with any kind of task, something like suppressing an ability would be mentioned.

Picking up where everyone else left - you are building your whole argument in the fact that there were shadows near the rope he needed to pull. That is all the evidence you have for your hypothesis. On the opposite corner, there is the fact that Xykon tells him to stay in the shadows, and he does so in shadows that we know are magical and cast on a section of the throne room in Dorukan's Dungeon. When he MitD finally gets to a place not surrounded in shadows, he is given an umbrella specifically to make sure he continues surrounded by shadows - umbrella he is forced to use even indoors, multiple times, indicating the sun is not the only thing that would disperse those shadows. Xykon's orders are very much in effect at all times.

Now, you claim that he must be surrounded by shadows because of the rope pulling moment. When reading that scene, what I deduce is that the rope, like in any theatric situation, is purposely in shadows to prevent the public from seeing the mechanics of the act. I honestly believe that my interpretation is much less of a stretch.

To review: either there were shadows near the rope where he could hide in one page, or MitD has been carrying around the umbrella indoors for dozens of pages without needing to. Occam, I'd say, would go for the first one.

Grey Wolf

[Optimystik]

He doesn't. He very specifically points out that he does nothing but stand there. Given his difficulties with any kind of task, something like suppressing an ability would be mentioned.

Not if it's unconscious. He wants to be seen - he is.
He doesn't seem to know any of his abilities, remember?


Picking up where everyone else left - you are building your whole argument in the fact that there were shadows near the rope he needed to pull. That is all the evidence you have for your hypothesis.

No, I'm not. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0082.html)
That's magical darkness there. Notice also the distinct lack of an umbrella.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Not if it's unconscious. He wants to be seen - he is.
He doesn't seem to know any of his abilities, remember?
My point precisely. If he is not conscious of his shadows, he wouldn't be suppressing them. I do not for a moment buy that he could unconsciously suppress a magical exuding of shadows. He'd need to be coached by the circus owners, less he forgets (and MitD forgets all the time, after all) and spoils the act. We don't see this happening at all.


No, I'm not. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0082.html)
That's magical darkness there. Notice also the distinct lack of an umbrella.

Yes, those are the magical shadows in Dorukan's throne room, where MitD lives at that point. Leaving aside the non-canonical parts of that strip, the fact that RC is walking around the shadows looking for MitD indicates that they are much larger than a small field surrounding MitD. It does not support your position.

Grey Wolf

[Optimystik]

My point precisely. If he is not conscious of his shadows, he wouldn't be suppressing them.

Uh, I said the suppression was unconscious, not the shadows.


Yes, those are the magical shadows in Dorukan's throne room, where MitD lives at that point. Leaving aside the non-canonical parts of that strip, the fact that RC is walking around the shadows looking for MitD indicates that they are much larger than a small field surrounding MitD. It does not support your position.

His field is always that large without a box or umbrella limiting the emanation.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Uh, I said the suppression was unconscious, not the shadows.
If the shadows are conscious, then they would not be always on - MitD would forget about them every three or four minutes.


His field is always that large without a box or umbrella limiting the emanation.

Wait, what? MitD is consistently shown at the edge of the darkness - in that scene, for example. What kind of creature has a field of darkness extending behind it so much someone can get lost in it, but not in front? Certainly not anything suggested so far.

That simply makes no sense.

Grey Wolf

[Optimystik]

If the shadows are conscious, then they would not be always on - MitD would forget about them every three or four minutes.

No, you're misunderstanding me. I think his shadows are always-on, unless the MitD wants to be seen, which unconsciously suppresses them for a time.


Wait, what? MitD is consistently shown at the edge of the darkness - in that scene, for example. What kind of creature has a field of darkness extending behind it so much someone can get lost in it, but not in front? Certainly not anything suggested so far.

A) His eyes are at the front of the darkness, that says nothing about his own body shape.
B) You don't know how far back either he, or his field, extends. Redcloak is trying to look at him when he mentions the magical darkness (meaning he could be standing in regular darkness.) In fact, the fact that we can see Redcloak himself, indicates that he is doing just that.

[Forbiddenwar]

I believe the evidence for Pro self generation of darkness is no stronger than the evidence Con self generation of darkness.

[Mawhrin Skel]

No, you're misunderstanding me. I think his shadows are always-on, unless the MitD wants to be seen, which unconsciously suppresses them for a time.
He's often wanted to be seen (e.g. asking super V for a lightbeam) but never dropped the shadows.


A) His eyes are at the front of the darkness, that says nothing about his own body shape.
B) You don't know how far back either he, or his field, extends.

He fits in a box, and under an umbrella. It's unlikely he goes too far back.


Redcloak is trying to look at him when he mentions the magical darkness (meaning he could be standing in regular darkness.) In fact, the fact that we can see Redcloak himself, indicates that he is doing just that.

We can see RC because of artistic licence. If there was only a small patch of magical darkness RC would know where MiTD was - on the only bit of ground he couldn't see.

Allow me to echo what others have said: you are desperately twisting the evidence to fit your pet theory.

But still: can we conclude that the MiTD has at least one of:

True seeing
Generates own magical darkness
?

[Silver2195]

But still: can we conclude that the MiTD has at least one of:

True seeing
Generates own magical darkness
?

Yes, one of those two (and if it's the latter it would need to not affect the MitD himself for some reason, so he probably has True Seeing either way).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

But still: can we conclude that the MiTD has at least one of:

True seeing
Generates own magical darkness
?

No, not really. His ability to see out of the shadows is far more likely rules bending to plot.

Grey Wolf

[Optimystik]

He's often wanted to be seen (e.g. asking super V for a lightbeam) but never dropped the shadows.

I addressed this already - by letting something else light him up, he won't technically be disobeying Xykon.


He fits in a box, and under an umbrella. It's unlikely he goes too far back.

Which proves nothing unless we know how far his darkness extends from him without those enclosures.


We can see RC because of artistic licence. If there was only a small patch of magical darkness RC would know where MiTD was - on the only bit of ground he couldn't see.

1) Once we bring "artistic license" into the equation then all bets are off. Anything inconsistent can be explained away with that phrase.

2) "The bit of ground he can't see" shows him where the magical darkness starts, but not how far it extends or where anything is within it.


Allow me to echo what others have said: you are desperately twisting the evidence to fit your pet theory.

"Desperation" implies that the opposing view has a shred more evidence than I do.


But still: can we conclude that the MiTD has at least one of:

True seeing
Generates own magical darkness
?

Can we conclude that one of the following is the source of the darkness:

Umbrella
Box
Homebrew darkness spell that can be cast on creatures
Unnamed and unreferenced Macguffin
?

[Kish]

Umbrella
Box
Unnamed and unreferenced Macguffin
?
I think "Xykon" should be on the list. Thanks for the demonstrating of how to do a bullet-point list here, btw, I didn't know that could be done.

[Optimystik]

I think "Xykon" should be on the list. Thanks for the demonstrating of how to do a bullet-point list here, btw, I didn't know that could be done.

Added. (see "homebrew")

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Added. (see "homebrew")

Wait, that list is supposed to be complete? Then I have to point out that the most basic explanation (MitD has to keep to shadows in any room, and use an umbrella in other occasions, when shadows aren't available) has not made the list. I actually spelled it out like the most parsimonious explanation, that does not require MitD to have any particular abilities in the area, and matches what the comic shows: MitD staying to part of rooms that are darkened or in the box, and using the umbrella at other times.

Grey Wolf

[Optimystik]

Wait, that list is supposed to be complete? Then I have to point out that the most basic explanation (MitD has to keep to shadows in any room, and use an umbrella in other occasions, when shadows aren't available) has not made the list. I actually spelled it out like the most parsimonious explanation, that does not require MitD to have any particular abilities in the area, and matches what the comic shows: MitD staying to part of rooms that are darkened or in the box, and using the umbrella at other times.

Grey Wolf

"Shadows in a room" does not explain the darkness being magical, parsimonious or not.

[Savannah]

Optimystik, you are arguing that the umbrella is used to prevent the sun from suppressing the MitD's own generated darkness, yes? (Conveniently forgetting all the times he's used it inside, of course.)

Neither darkness nor deeper darkness would be suppressed by the sun, so it can't be a supernatural ability mimicking either of those spells. Is there any creature that has the ability you propose? I can't recall seeing anything like that before in any D&D source.

[Silver2195]

Wait, that list is supposed to be complete? Then I have to point out that the most basic explanation (MitD has to keep to shadows in any room, and use an umbrella in other occasions, when shadows aren't available) has not made the list. I actually spelled it out like the most parsimonious explanation, that does not require MitD to have any particular abilities in the area, and matches what the comic shows: MitD staying to part of rooms that are darkened or in the box, and using the umbrella at other times.

Grey Wolf

I agree. The umbrella and the spot in the throne room were magical darkness, and the rest of the time MitD was just in the shadows with nothing magical involved.

[Optimystik]

Optimystik, you are arguing that the umbrella is used to prevent the sun from suppressing the MitD's own generated darkness, yes? (Conveniently forgetting all the times he's used it inside, of course.)

Neither darkness nor deeper darkness would be suppressed by the sun, so it can't be a supernatural ability mimicking either of those spells. Is there any creature that has the ability you propose? I can't recall seeing anything like that before in any D&D source.

1) I have not forgotten him holding it inside. The fact that he stays dark inside without it just makes it not noteworthy.

2) Both darkness and deeper darkness only provide partial (20%) concealment. I was not arguing that the sun would negate his darkness entirely, but I do think it would reveal him more than Xykon would want.

[DaggerPen]

"Shadows in a room" does not explain the darkness being magical, parsimonious or not.

My bet? Xykon cast darkness on the particular area the MITD was supposed to stay in. After that, the MITD had to either stay in shadowed areas or use an umbrella.

Keep in mind that the "magical darkness" bit was in comic 82, when the MITD had not only not been shown in any place other than the darkness of the throne room, but Rich likely didn't know what the monster was yet, since, IIRC, he didn't make a decision until comic 100.

My interpretation: Rich drew the MITD in Xykon's throne room first and had it be magical darkness so as to explain why it was randomly dark (or something like that). After they left Dorukan's Dungeon, Rich just kept finding ways to keep him in the darkness, using shadowed corners, boxes and the kitty umbrella. No magic needed, just a borderline running gag.

[Savannah]

1) I have not forgotten him holding it inside. The fact that he stays dark inside without it just makes it not noteworthy.

Why does he hold it inside if it's "not noteworthy"? Walking around inside with an open umbrella is a pain in the butt (not to mention that the umbrella has to be harder to draw than just shadows). Logically (and artistically) he has no reason to use the umbrella inside if your theory is true.

Better explanation: Xykon has had some lackeys cast a darkness spell on areas where the MitD is likely to be, and the MitD uses the umbrella inside when he isn't in those spots.

[Forbiddenwar]

keep in mind that we cannot use any strip prior to #100 as evidence to MITD creature type as Rich did not know what MitD was prior to then. So, has the words "Magical Darkness" been uttered post 100?

[Shale]

Which proves nothing unless we know how far his darkness extends from him without those enclosures.


An umbrella is not an enclosure.

[Vargtass]

keep in mind that we cannot use any strip prior to #100 as evidence to MITD creature type as Rich did not know what MitD was prior to then. So, has the words "Magical Darkness" been uttered post 100?


Rich said, though, that nothing previous to strip 100 contradicts what MitD is, so it does not really matter.

[Selene]

Hostile? I don't see how mentioning Occam's Razor was hostile.

I said your tone was hostile, not the content of your question. Your tone comes across very often as hostile, IMO. I will assume that it's unintentional, since you don't seem to be aware of it.


My interpretation: Rich drew the MITD in Xykon's throne room first and had it be magical darkness so as to explain why it was randomly dark (or something like that). After they left Dorukan's Dungeon, Rich just kept finding ways to keep him in the darkness, using shadowed corners, boxes and the kitty umbrella. No magic needed, just a borderline running gag.

I concur. I suspect that there is most likely magical darkness under the umbrella, given that it's not actually dark under an umbrella, but there's no need for magical darkness to explain the rest of the shadows. It was just as dark in his box with the hunters and at the circus as it is in his box now. It was also just as dark in the normal shadows in the jungle where we meet him.

[Optimystik]

I said your tone was hostile, not the content of your question. Your tone comes across very often as hostile, IMO. I will assume that it's unintentional, since you don't seem to be aware of it.

I apologize if so; but I will point out that you're the only one who seems to think that way, or at least the only one who has ever told me that here. Just as it can be easy to accidentally put more abrasion into text than needs to be there, so can it be just as easy to accidentally infer it.


An umbrella is not an enclosure.

Barrier then, or border. In the hallway with the curtains, his darkness doesn't extend above the umbrella - once he puts it down, the shadows fill the vertical space from ceiling to floor.

[Savannah]

I apologize if so; but I will point out that you're the only one who seems to think that way, or at least the only one who has ever told me that here. Just as it can be easy to accidentally put more abrasion into text than needs to be there, so can it be just as easy to accidentally infer it.

Actually, I agree with Selene. Your phrasing gave me the impression that you thought she was too stupid to know what Occam's razor was. I didn't say anything as I assumed that it was something that sounded fine in your head but came out badly in text. (And just FYI, apologizing while simultaneously implying she's making it up also comes out hostile.)


Barrier then, or border. In the hallway with the curtains, his darkness doesn't extend above the umbrella - once he puts it down, the shadows fill the vertical space from ceiling to floor.

Or, when he puts it down, he is hiding in the shadows that are there naturally. Shouldn't his shadows extend beyond the edges of the umbrella since the shadows when he puts it down are bigger around than when he is under the umbrella? (When he is inside, there is no strong top light to suppress anything outside the umbrella.)

[pinwiz]

As I recall, the shadows outside of the umbrella and box were only said to be magical in Dorukan's Dungeon. So the shadows since could just be shadows.

I very well could be wrong about this, and i have not read SoD.

I am also of the opinion that we don't have enough information either way to say whether MitD creates his darkness or it has been cast on him (or a ring or whatever).

[Optimystik]

Actually, I agree with Selene. Your phrasing gave me the impression that you thought she was too stupid to know what Occam's razor was. I didn't say anything as I assumed that it was something that sounded fine in your head but came out badly in text. (And just FYI, apologizing while simultaneously implying she's making it up also comes out hostile.)

I never meant to imply that anyone was "stupid" at all. But since that's your hostility threshold, her statement to me - "Logic doesn't work that way" - seems to be every bit as didactic.

Anyway, this side-discussion is getting pretty off-topic, so I'll just refer to the quote in my signature and ignore it further.


Or, when he puts it down, he is hiding in the shadows that are there naturally. Shouldn't his shadows extend beyond the edges of the umbrella since the shadows when he puts it down are bigger around than when he is under the umbrella? (When he is inside, there is no strong top light to suppress anything outside the umbrella.)

The top of the hallway is clearly visible (read: brightly lit) while his umbrella is up. Once he puts it down, the darkness spreads to the very ceiling. I don't consider that a coincidence.

Notice also that the darkness around him is deeper with the umbrella up - more concentrated, with no attenuation. That fits magical darkness, which is an emanation just like light is.


I am also of the opinion that we don't have enough information either way to say whether MitD creates his darkness or it has been cast on him (or a ring or whatever).

It can't have been cast on him, since you can cast neither darkness nor deeper darkness on creatures.

[Magicyop]

I really think that you should not discount that the darkness may be just an artistic choice. Remember that OotS is a mostly two dimensional comic(it has backgrounds, and it is three dimensional in a way, but generally), how would you show the MitD farther back in the comic? He could just be in a corner of the room. Rather than thinking like this: "He sets down his umbrella, and suddenly, he is in a pillar of darkness", think like this: "Rich needs to keep him in darkness and also put down the umbrella. Either he can not show the MitD at ALL[implying him to be in the light] or he can draw him still in the darkness, and just drawing a bubble of darkness around him which doesn't go beyond five feet would be weird. Such a bubble of darkness would definitely look magical.

Now you may cite Redcloak's comment about 'blast, what good is darkvision in magic darkness', but I think that that was before comic #100, and Rich said he didn't even know what the MitD was until around comic #100. Until then, I think he assumed that Xykon had created an area of magical darkness for the monster to hide in.

So rather than looking at what appears to happen when the MitD puts down his umbrella, just think how else YOU would draw him if you wanted to keep him in regular darkness. If you need to show people on both sides of him, but keep him in the darkness for storytelling reasons, then you would have to most realistically draw it like he did. In my opinion, it really just looks like he's in a corner a little bit farther back.

[DaggerPen]

The top of the hallway is clearly visible (read: brightly lit) while his umbrella is up. Once he puts it down, the darkness spreads to the very ceiling. I don't consider that a coincidence.

Where do we see that, again? I know we've seen him in the dark in hallways and under the umbrella, but I don't think we've ever seen him in the dark and then put up the umbrella in the same spot, so it's not like we've seen the umbrella cut off darkness above him, IIRC. Unless there's a specific strip I'm missing?


I really think that you should not discount that the darkness may be just an artistic choice. Remember that OotS is a mostly two dimensional comic(it has backgrounds, and it is three dimensional in a way, but generally), how would you show the MitD farther back in the comic? He could just be in a corner of the room. Rather than thinking like this: "He sets down his umbrella, and suddenly, he is in a pillar of darkness", think like this: "Rich needs to keep him in darkness and also put down the umbrella. Either he can not show the MitD at ALL[implying him to be in the light] or he can draw him still in the darkness, and just drawing a bubble of darkness around him which doesn't go beyond five feet would be weird. Such a bubble of darkness would definitely look magical.

Now you may cite Redcloak's comment about 'blast, what good is darkvision in magic darkness', but I think that that was before comic #100, and Rich said he didn't even know what the MitD was until around comic #100. Until then, I think he assumed that Xykon had created an area of magical darkness for the monster to hide in.

So rather than looking at what appears to happen when the MitD puts down his umbrella, just think how else YOU would draw him if you wanted to keep him in regular darkness. If you need to show people on both sides of him, but keep him in the darkness for storytelling reasons, then you would have to most realistically draw it like he did. In my opinion, it really just looks like he's in a corner a little bit farther back.

This.

[Nimrod's Son]

Where do we see that, again? I know we've seen him in the dark in hallways and under the umbrella, but I don't think we've ever seen him in the dark and then put up the umbrella in the same spot, so it's not like we've seen the umbrella cut off darkness above him, IIRC. Unless there's a specific strip I'm missing?
I believe Optimystik is referring to this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0701.html) strip, but the monster has clearly changed positions in between the two panels in question so we can't say for sure that it was the lowering of the umbrella that caused the shadows to rise to the ceiling. They might well have just been there already.

I also see no reason whatsoever to assume that the darkness is inherent to the monster. An argument can be made for it, sure, but I always assumed that the umbrella was magical and whenever the monster isn't under it he's hiding in shadows that are already there, be they magical or otherwise. Nothing I've read here has made me change my mind.


Notice also that the darkness around him is deeper with the umbrella up - more concentrated, with no attenuation. That fits magical darkness, which is an emanation just like light is.
See, to me the strong black edges of the darkness under the umbrella suggests magical darkness - and the gradient seen elsewhere suggests, well, shadows.

[Optimystik]

Where do we see that, again? I know we've seen him in the dark in hallways and under the umbrella, but I don't think we've ever seen him in the dark and then put up the umbrella in the same spot, so it's not like we've seen the umbrella cut off darkness above him, IIRC. Unless there's a specific strip I'm missing?

Panel one, clear hallway above umbrella. Panel 4, darkness top to bottom. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0701.html)

Also, notice that the lighting next to the balcony stays the same both before and after he opens the curtains.

I'm not fully discounting that this could be artistic license, but that would require a degree of thoughtlessness on Rich's part that I'm not willing to ascribe.


I also see no reason whatsoever to assume that the darkness is inherent to the monster. An argument can be made for it, sure, but I always assumed that the umbrella was magical and whenever the monster isn't under it he's hiding in shadows that are already there, be they magical or otherwise. Nothing I've read here has made me change my mind.

If the darkness is from the umbrella and not him, how can he see anything? Darkvision doesn't work in magical darkness in 3.5.

And we know he can see (as opposed to Blindsense, Mindsight etc.) He watches Teevo and knows O-Chul's beard is blue, so he can't be approximating vision.

[Nimrod's Son]

Panel one, clear hallway above umbrella. Panel 4, darkness top to bottom. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0701.html)

Also, notice that the lighting next to the balcony stays the same both before and after he opens the curtains.

I'm not fully discounting that this could be artistic license, but that would require a degree of thoughtlessness on Rich's part that I'm not willing to ascribe.
The monster is in two different places in those two panels. He follows the hobgoblin down the hallway for an unknown distance; panel four is very likely not even the same room as panel one.


If the darkness is from the umbrella and not him, how can he see anything? Darkvision doesn't work in magical darkness in 3.5.

And we know he can see (as opposed to Blindsense, Mindsight etc.) He watches Teevo and knows O-Chul's beard is blue, so he can't be approximating vision.
I don't for one second think he's approximating vision. I've seen nothing to suggest that the monster isn't just using his eyes. And as for not being able to see in magical darkness, all it takes is for Rich to handwave that by saying that in OotS, you can see for a foot or so in front of you provided that's where the darkness ends. If Rich followed the absolute letter of 3.5 rules in writing this strip, there'd be an awful lot of impossible-to-explain situations. The monster's eyes are always right at the edge of the darkness; if it turns out that this means he can see well enough from there for his field of vision to reach out into the light, I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

[WowWeird]

Panel one, clear hallway above umbrella. Panel 4, darkness top to bottom. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0701.html)

Also, notice that the lighting next to the balcony stays the same both before and after he opens the curtains.
But...but he moved! While I can't dispute that the light doesn't change, the hobbo says "Well, come on then!" and seems to be walking to the readers left. They could have just normal shadows there, backstage. If you've ever been on a stage, the rope is almost never onstage- it's off to the side. Rich could be changing his perspective between RC and MitD.

[Asta Kask]

The MitD is Jewish. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8194602&postcount=805) Has this been taken into account?

[mastermind]

Asta Kask, probably not.

And as for what kind of darkness he's in, will it determine who he is?
If not, I think you are all being a little nitpicky.

[Asta Kask]

Nitpicky? On this forum? Nah... :smallwink:

[Garwain]

I'm not fully discounting that this could be artistic license, but that would require a degree of thoughtlessness on Rich's part that I'm not willing to ascribe

If the darkness is from the umbrella and not him, how can he see anything? Darkvision doesn't work in magical darkness in 3.5.


If the umbrella would generate the darkness, we wouldn't be able to see its handle. Thus the darkness is not generated by the underside of the umbrella.

MitD is ordered not to show himself by X, and he obeys this order and/or mind control (sod -> swirly eyes) by actively searching for cover.

outside the shadows:
He generates the darness himself and is only carrying the umbrella because it looks cool. (I'm wearing +5 insight goggles, so trust me on this one.)
inside the shadows
I would call it CCCs: coincidential convenient covers.

To conclude: the darkness is not inherent to the species MitD is, but he's capable of generating it.

[Nimrod's Son]

If the umbrella would generate the darkness, we wouldn't be able to see its handle.
And if the monster is generating the darkness, we still wouldn't be able to see the handle. We're not talking about photorealistic artwork here.

[Mawhrin Skel]

I addressed this already - by letting something else light him up, he won't technically be disobeying Xykon.
This seems a curious amount of self control for what you claim is the sub-conscious act of dropping his darkness.


1) Once we bring "artistic license" into the equation then all bets are off. Anything inconsistent can be explained away with that phrase.
The viewer, not any character, can see Redcloak, in darkness, complaining about magical darkness. The viewer can see whatever the artist wants. I doubt the viewer has a character sheet with "dark vision" but not "true seeing" (and humans, which is what most of us are, have neither). I am aware we couldn't see the Order in magical darkness when they met the young black dragon, but that was to get a joke across.


2) "The bit of ground he can't see" shows him where the magical darkness starts, but not how far it extends or where anything is within it.
MiTD and any darkness he creates fits in a box and under an umbrella.


"Desperation" implies that the opposing view has a shred more evidence than I do.
You are the one making a claim. You are the one who needs to supply the evidence.

[Selene]

you're the only one who seems to think that way, or at least the only one who has ever told me that here.

You're welcome, then, for alerting you to the situation. No one else saying it does not mean that no one else is thinking it. I know I've been accidentally rude more than one time that no one has called me on. Doesn't mean it wasn't rude.


Actually, I agree with Selene. Your phrasing gave me the impression that you thought she was too stupid to know what Occam's razor was. I didn't say anything as I assumed that it was something that sounded fine in your head but came out badly in text. (And just FYI, apologizing while simultaneously implying she's making it up also comes out hostile.)

Thank you.


her statement to me - "Logic doesn't work that way" - seems to be every bit as didactic.

Except, well, it really *doesn't* work that way. I was explaining that you had committed a logical fallacy. Which you had. I was not implying anything about you, personally. I'm generally pretty WYSISWYG.

[ocdscale]

her statement to me - "Logic doesn't work that way" - seems to be every bit as didactic.


Except, well, it really *doesn't* work that way. I was explaining that you had committed a logical fallacy. Which you had. I was not implying anything about you, personally. I'm generally pretty WYSISWYG.

Without taking sides in this gratuitous digression, consider both tone and content. "You fell?!" can communicate either concern or mockery. And obviously it can still be mockery even if the person *actually* fell.

Back on topic, although it's foolish to rule any plausible interpretation out at this point, I really can't subscribe to the argument that the MitD is generating the darkness.
I'm not sure if I missed it, but if the MitD generates his own darkness, what's the rationale for using the umbrella indoors?

Edit: Also, don't really buy the explanation that the MitD subconsciously suppresses the darkness when he wants to be out of the darkness, doesn't do so because Xykon told him not to, but still wants to be out of the darkness enough to tell Lantern Archons to light him up.

[Magicyop]

If you read my previous post, I'm not trying to 'explain away' the darkness using artistic license. The fact is it's just not a clear enough point that it doesn't work as a reliable factor for determining what the MitD is. Perhaps it isn't just the way he's drawn(It looks like it's just the way he's drawn to me, but, eh) but the distinction is not clear enough for us to use it as a fact in determining what the MitD is.

[Morithias]

About the monster being able to see even in magical darkness? Don't Devils/Baazaru or however you spell it, have the ability to see in magical darkness of ANY kind? If I recall even lemures have that ability. Although I highly doubt MITD is one of those. XD

[Phylactery]

Panel one, clear hallway above umbrella. Panel 4, darkness top to bottom. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0701.html)

Also, notice that the lighting next to the balcony stays the same both before and after he opens the curtains.

I'm not fully discounting that this could be artistic license, but that would require a degree of thoughtlessness on Rich's part that I'm not willing to ascribe.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0229.html

There aren't ever any shadows unless they're magical and/or plot-necessary, so i don't think we should read too much into the exact nature of the shadows that we do see... I think it's probably that shadows are only shown whilst they're hiding MitD, and the other shadows just aren't drawn.

[Nimrod's Son]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0229.html

There aren't ever any shadows unless they're magical and/or plot-necessary
Magical tents? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0673.html) :smalltongue:

[Fish]

Explain how Occam's Razor brought you to the conclusion that:

Xykon ran around the tower casting Darkness on every object he was likely to pick up and every area he was likely to stand.
...because I must have missed that strip. So while you throw around terms like "Occam's Razor" and cite Wikipedia for inductive reasoning, look up "straw man fallacy."

You're right, it IS unlikely Xykon would do as you said. What makes you think that's the only explanation for the MITD being kept in the shadows?

Xykon: Stay here in the shadows.
MITD: Awwww, man.

There. Occam, razor.

[Selene]

look up "straw man fallacy."

Yeah, that's pretty much where I was going with that. Didactically. :smallamused:

[Manga Shoggoth]

Back on topic, although it's foolish to rule any plausible interpretation out at this point, I really can't subscribe to the argument that the MitD is generating the darkness.
I'm not sure if I missed it, but if the MitD generates his own darkness, what's the rationale for using the umbrella indoors?

Indeed. #147 The Light at the End of the Tunnel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0147.html) shows Redcloak and Xykon (in the Philactatry) outside the cave, and the MITD (or, at least, his eyes) still inside the cave:

:mitd:: Wait, We're going outside? Yes! Sunlight! Fresh air! Cool breezes! You can't keep me in these impenetrable shadows all the time any more!

:xykon:: Oh no, we've got that covered. Do you still have it, Redcloak?

:redcloak:: It's right here, Sir.

:mitd:: (now under the umbrella): Well. shoot!

Now, the MITD's box does not need any form of magical darkness - it's a box with a small panel in so the MITD can see out (and people can see in - Xykon does at one point). Likewise all the other places we see the MITD sans umbrella he can be quite reasonably stated to be in the shadows (and if his skin colouration is dark enough he won't be [easily] visible).

So, it is quite reasonable to assume that the unbrella is generating the darkness.

[Optimystik]

An umbrella indoors explanation. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7937072&postcount=34)

Discuss.

@ Fish: Um... that was the position I was arguing against?

[Nimrod's Son]

Fish: Um... that was the position I was arguing against?
I assumed that Fish meant that you shouldn't have included that as the most obvious counterpoint to your own position. The idea that Xykon had cast darkness on one specific small area and demanded that the monster stay there is much simpler than the idea that the monster was free to roam and so Xykon cast darkness on every single place and object that it was likely to come into contact with. I don't think too many people are arguing for the latter; I rather think that the monster was confined to one small shaded area that acted as his "pen", and the umbrella was kept in reserve should he absolutely need to leave it.

[Necromancy]

I thought this was a clue as soon as I saw it. Read through this thread a bit and surprised it's not mentioned at all.

Does anyone else think the stones game on page 651 has suspicious stone placements and may be meant to look like a picture?

[Darakonis]

I thought this was a clue as soon as I saw it. Read through this thread a bit and surprised it's not mentioned at all.

Does anyone else think the stones game on page 651 has suspicious stone placements and may be meant to look like a picture?
People did think this, then proceeded to postulate any number of possibilities. If you look at it hard enough, you can see whatever you want to see. A tarrasque, Bowser, David Hasselhoff...

Peace,
-Darakonis

[Selene]

An umbrella indoors explanation. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7937072&postcount=34)

Discuss.

Well, the Giant obviously just found out about that problem a month/eight comics ago. I'd say it was irrelevant for the 600 comics before that.


I assumed that Fish meant that you shouldn't have included that as the most obvious counterpoint to your own position. The idea that Xykon had cast darkness on one specific small area and demanded that the monster stay there is much simpler than the idea that the monster was free to roam and so Xykon cast darkness on every single place and object that it was likely to come into contact with.

Yep, that is exactly what he meant. Thus the reference to the straw man fallacy...


Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[Optimystik]

Well, the Giant obviously just found out about that problem a month/eight comics ago. I'd say it was irrelevant for the 600 comics before that.

It proves that:

a) He was going to have the MitD be dark indoors without the umbrella.

b) He was going to have the same floor-to-ceiling darkness gradient that he usually draws without the umbrella;

c) The darkness with the umbrella does not need a gradient (solving his crayon problem), thus it fits my theory of the darkness under the umbrella being more concentrated.

If you disagree with my findings, state why.

[Bongos]

Hey did we figure this one out yet? I'm with the Slaad party.

[Nimrod's Son]

a) He was going to have the MitD be dark indoors without the umbrella.
But not necessarily magically dark.


b) He was going to have the same floor-to-ceiling darkness gradient that he usually draws without the umbrella
He did draw that at first, that's why the comic had a speckled appearance when it was first uploaded. It was promptly changed.


c) The darkness with the umbrella does not need a gradient (solving his crayon problem), thus it fits my theory of the darkness under the umbrella being more concentrated.
I'd expect magical darkness to be more concentrated than a shadowy alcove. He hasn't changed position from where he was when he pulled the curtain; you can still see the rope at his feet. In this strip, however, it was necessary to do away with the gradient on the shadows that we'd seen in the preceding strips. It proves nothing; the shadows surrounding the monster should have been the same as they were in the previous couple of strips but unfortunately Rich's software prevented that.

[Optimystik]

Hey did we figure this one out yet? I'm with the Slaad party.

*hands out free cake and t-shirt*


But not necessarily magically dark.

Sure, I'm not 100% on it.


He did draw that at first, that's why the comic had a speckled appearance when it was first uploaded. It was promptly changed.

Yes, that was my point. He drew the darkness (w/ gradient), realized it wouldn't work with the crayons, so made the MitD have the umbrella so he wouldn't have to draw the gradient.

In other words, he drew the darkness with the umbrella and without it.
Also, he was going to have the MitD be dark indoors without the umbrella. Only color considerations stopped him. Not orders from Xykon or magic umbrellas or whatever else people were saying.

[Saph]

Just out of curiosity, for those advocating the Black Slaad, how do we explain it being able to use Wish or Miracle? I don't remember those being on the Black Slaad's list of SLAs.

[Optimystik]

Just out of curiosity, for those advocating the Black Slaad, how do we explain it being able to use Wish or Miracle? I don't remember those being on the Black Slaad's list of SLAs.

It doesn't - but it has Greater Teleport.

[Saph]

It doesn't - but it has Greater Teleport.

Greater Teleport has a range of Personal and Touch. It teleports you and willing creatures that you're physically touching. Doesn't seem to match up very well with the MitD's actions with Vaarsuvius and O-Chul.

[Saldre]

In the OOTS world, You don't need to touch to teleport- as per the Drunk Wizard and the Lizardman Cleric.

[Optimystik]

You don't need to touch for Plane Shift either - Evil Adventuring Party.

[Saph]

Yes, but as far as we know, an OotS Teleport or Plane Shift DOES still require that you travel along with the subjects. The only effect I know of that lets you transport travellers without going along yourself is Wish/Miracle.

This seems to be the major hole in the Black Slaad theory.

[Nimrod's Son]

In other words, he drew the darkness with the umbrella and without it.
Also, he was going to have the MitD be dark indoors without the umbrella. Only color considerations stopped him. Not orders from Xykon or magic umbrellas or whatever else people were saying.
I'm really not sure what point you're making here. The monster was dark, indoors, without the umbrella in the strip immediately preceding that one. He hasn't moved an inch from that spot in the time between; all that's changed is the artwork, out of necessity. Several people here, myself included, have postulated that a) the spot the monster is standing in, just behind the curtain, is for whatever reason dark enough to hide him and b) that the umbrella is a constant source of magical darkness.

I really can't see the relevance of that quote from Rich at all. He was prevented from drawing the shadows the way he wanted, so he had the darkness come from the umbrella instead. That tells us nothing about the nature of the shadow behind the curtain OR the darkness under the umbrella.

[Optimystik]

All right, I'll explain again.

You say he's standing in a shadowy spot - the same spot, in fact, that he was standing in in the previous strip.

1) If that is the case, why isn't his umbrella in the shadows?
2) What happened to the darkness obscuring the top half of the hallway, above his umbrella? If it's just naturally dark in that spot, what lit it up?

[Nimrod's Son]

1) If that is the case, why isn't his umbrella in the shadows?
2) What happened to the darkness obscuring the top half of the hallway, above his umbrella? If it's just naturally dark in that spot, what lit it up?
1) It disappeared from view immediately after he put it down. Perhaps Rich just didn't want to keep drawing it because it's visually distracting and he didn't plan on having the monster pick it up again. For whatever reason, we see the monster put it down - outside of the shadows he's standing in - and it doesn't appear again for the next couple of strips.

2) Pure artistic convenience. Rich HAD to leave out the gradient to make the strip work, and a straight black line would have looked ugly. When he first drew that strip, the shadows went from floor to ceiling. I don't assume there's any more light above the umbrella now than there was before - it's just drawn that way for technical reasons.

[Optimystik]

1) It disappeared from view immediately after he put it down. Perhaps Rich just didn't want to keep drawing it because it's visually distracting and he didn't plan on having the monster pick it up again. For whatever reason, we see the monster put it down - outside of the shadows he's standing in - and it doesn't appear again for the next couple of strips.

No, you misread my point. I meant - if he is simply standing in a shadowy area and holding his umbrella, how can we see it so clearly?

I say it's because the hallway is actually well-lit, except for what is underneath said umbrella. So the umbrella is easily visible, and it is containing the darkness beneath so that everything else is easily visible.


2) Pure artistic convenience. Rich HAD to leave out the gradient to make the strip work, and a straight black line would have looked ugly. When he first drew that strip, the shadows went from floor to ceiling. I don't assume there's any more light above the umbrella now than there was before - it's just drawn that way for technical reasons.

If that works for you, fine. We can't prove "artistic convenience one way or another, without Rich's word. What we can show is that the shadows extended further without the umbrella than with.

That may be artistic license... or it may be an emanation from the creature. Without further proof, we're at an impasse; you go your way, I'll go mine.

[Nimrod's Son]

No, you misread my point. I meant - if he is simply standing in a shadowy area and holding his umbrella, how can we see it so clearly?
I chalk that up to the art as well. Same reason we can see the curtain rope perfectly clearly as far as I'm concerned.


That may be artistic license... or it may be an emanation from the creature. Without further proof, we're at an impasse; you go your way, I'll go mine.
Absolutely. My way is and always has been "avoid speculating", which is why I spend most of my time on these forums shooting down theories rather than coming up with my own. :smallwink:

I remain perfectly open to having my mind changed. In situations like this, though, I'm always going to lean toward simplified art rather than obvious clue. Making calls based on nothing more than the artistic accuracy of a collection of stick figures and their simple props seems a bit silly to me - I prefer textual evidence of some sort.

[Optimystik]

I chalk that up to the art as well. Same reason we can see the curtain rope perfectly clearly as far as I'm concerned.

That's different. We see the rope clearly but it's still surrounded by darkness. The top of the umbrella has no darkness at all, therefore I don't see how he could be standing in a shadowy area.


Absolutely. My way is and always has been "avoid speculating", which is why I spend most of my time on these forums shooting down theories rather than coming up with my own. :smallwink:

The thing is, "artistic style" doesn't shoot anything down. It presents an alternate hypothesis, sure, but doesn't actually disprove any existing ones.


I remain perfectly open to having my mind changed. In situations like this, though, I'm always going to lean toward simplified art rather than obvious clue. Making calls based on nothing more than the artistic accuracy of a collection of stick figures and their simple props seems a bit silly to me - I prefer textual evidence of some sort.

Whereas I think that if the Giant deliberately tries to draw things a certain way (full darkness without umbrella, half-darkness with) even when doing so isn't convenient, he's doing so for a reason.

[Nimrod's Son]

That's different. We see the rope clearly but it's still surrounded by darkness. The top of the umbrella has no darkness at all, therefore I don't see how he could be standing in a shadowy area.
I don't see how Rich could draw darkness above the umbrella without either the forbidden gradient or an ugly, stark black line which while fine for a character outline would be much more visually distracting as background. Since he chose to draw the shaded area with a gradient in the first place, I expect he did so because the look of a sheer black line from floor to ceiling displeased him.


I think that if the Giant deliberately tries to draw things a certain way (full darkness without umbrella, half-darkness with) even when doing so isn't convenient, he's doing so for a reason.
In that case, what is the deliberate reason he's drawn this magical emanation stopping just inches in front of the monster's face, yet extending more than double his own height above his head?

[Optimystik]

I don't see how Rich could draw darkness above the umbrella without either the forbidden gradient or an ugly, stark black line which while fine for a character outline would be much more visually distracting as background. Since he chose to draw the shaded area with a gradient in the first place, I expect he did so because the look of a sheer black line from floor to ceiling displeased him.

But he's never drawn darkness above the umbrella, even in non-Crayon comics. The gradient wouldn't have been a problem in those, yet he didn't do so. Which is why I believe it means something.


In that case, what is the deliberate reason he's drawn this magical emanation stopping just inches in front of the monster's face, yet extending more than double his own height above his head?

If I knew that, I'd probably know what it is :smalltongue:

Is there a strip without the umbrella, where we can tell how far back his darkness extends?

[Reshbj]

Despite the copyright issues, Absol does seem to be a good fit. Through excessively convoluted means, one can have a Absol with:

Rock Tomb (Used Here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0477.html)) Supported by:

Rock Tomb using boulders is apparently non-canon. See here (http://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/b/ba/Trapinch_Rock_Tomb2.png). All sources apart from the original depictions use sharp rocks.
Rock Tomb causes flinching (Row 6, Panel 3)
Rock Tomb lowers Speed. The 'roach told him to use it as the Order was getting away.


False Swipe (Used here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0374.html).) Supported by:

False Swipe is a "restrained attack". The game was "hit as lightly as you can".
A foe will always survive False Swipe. Miko gets up.


Wish (probably non-canon), Psychic abilities (Used here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0661.html)) Supported by:

If Absol having Wish is considered canon, and it follows the same rules as D&D's Wish, it's a likely possibility.
Absol can learn Psychic abilities. This would suggest it using Psionics in a world with D&D rules.
It's implied that one can have Psychic abilities without realizing it (Psyduck), or can use them inadvertently (Togepi).

Role Play (No strip given, as it could have been used at any time)

Role-playing (no, not the thing we do) is done by children at a young age. MitD is child-like.
It would allow him to copy Shout from Tsukiko.
It would allow him to copy an equivalent of Scrappy, Sturdy or Solid Rock from O-Chul.
Role Play is Psychic, hinting at Psionics.




Also, these other things:

Absol is Dark-Type.
Absol is found in rainy areas, at high elevations. (See here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0550.html))
Absol neither live in rainforests, nor do they speak Common. Also, there is more than one.
Absol are quadrupedal, explaining the odd placement of the Stomp.
Absol have a criminally high Attack stat.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Despite the copyright issues, Absol does seem to be a good fit. Through excessively convoluted means, one can have a Absol with:


Unlike Snorlax, Absol does not, however, fit MitD's general personality, which is about the greatest asset of the Pokemon (i.e. "eats a lot, sleeps a lot"). And, of course, it has the same crippling copyright issues.

Grey Wolf

[Nimrod's Son]

But he's never drawn darkness above the umbrella, even in non-Crayon comics. The gradient wouldn't have been a problem in those, yet he didn't do so. Which is why I believe it means something.
He's never needed to. The monster only carries the umbrella when he's not already in darkness. The only reason he's holding the umbrella at all in #704 is because of the art glitch, otherwise it would have been floor-to-ceiling darkness as it was when he first posted the comic. There will never be a need to draw darkness above the umbrella, because if it's already dark then the monster won't use the umbrella.

[Cealocanth]

Just to rule this out. have pokemon EVER been an official creature of a Dnd campaign and do you think that if he came out revealing that it was "Mewtwo" or whatever that he would still keep the audience who don't like pokemon at all?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Just to rule this out. have pokemon EVER been an official creature of a Dnd campaign and do you think that if he came out revealing that it was "Mewtwo" or whatever that he would still keep the audience who don't like pokemon at all?

To answer your two questions: No, to the best of my knowledge; and, who cares about them? Certainly not Rich, who has long refused to cater to the "obscure D&D jokes" crowd, and may not even be aware there is such group as "those that don't like pokemon at all". Sound like jerks to me, if one transplanted character would make them stop reading the comic.

In any case, neither of those two things rule anything out in this thread. Copyright issues, yes - but those are not the same as "never used in an official campaign" and certainly has nothing to do with pleasing the audience. Every good writer writes to please himself, not others.

Grey Wolf

[Optimystik]

He's never needed to. The monster only carries the umbrella when he's not already in darkness. The only reason he's holding the umbrella at all in #704 is because of the art glitch, otherwise it would have been floor-to-ceiling darkness as it was when he first posted the comic. There will never be a need to draw darkness above the umbrella, because if it's already dark then the monster won't use the umbrella.

But if it was already dark, where then did that darkness go? It seems to me that if he wanted to show "the monster is actually standing in pre-existing darkness" then he wouldn't suddenly light up the hallway except for what is under the umbrella.

[Nimrod's Son]

We're going round in circles; I've already answered that. You even quoted it in your post #1172.

It was a one-off panel so he went with the quick-fix solution to avoid taking the strip back offline or leaving it looking weird. It's perfectly possible that when the book hits print the monster will be back in floor-to-ceiling darkness without the umbrella. I'm not going to read anything into it until we see the monster do the same thing when it ISN'T the result of a technical problem.

He'd never noticed the problem before doing 700-odd comics and he's fairly unlikely to encounter it again. Given the nature of the crayon strips and how few and far between they tend to be, I wouldn't expect too much call for the monster - drawn non-crayon style - to be in many of them.

[Optimystik]

I guess we are. You think it's artistic license, I don't. Time will tell.

[enigmatime]

Just to rule this out. have pokemon EVER been an official creature of a Dnd campaign and do you think that if he came out revealing that it was "Mewtwo" or whatever that he would still keep the audience who don't like pokemon at all?

Agh... I'm leaving this thread. If we've seriously gotten on the topic that the MiTD could be a Pokemon then we're obviously just typing whatever we feel. Grey Wolf, I thank you for your intelligent arguments.

[hamishspence]

Pokeballs have appeared in the strip
(for paladin mount summoning- "I choose you!")

Still, I'm not keen on the idea of the MITD being a pokemon.

[enigmatime]

Pokeballs have appeared in the strip
(for paladin mount summoning- "I choose you!")

Still, I'm not keen on the idea of the MITD being a pokemon.

Yes, that is true. The first time (and everytime) I read through OOTS that made me laugh like a mad man. Pokemon are still the least likely possibility. I changed my mind on leaving. Rich said though that he got it from some obscure source book.

[Sanguine]

Yes, that is true. The first time (and everytime) I read through OOTS that made me laugh like a mad man. Pokemon are still the least likely possibility. I changed my mind on leaving. Rich said though that he got it from some obscure source book.

No what he said was that it wasn't something he made up. He didn't say it was in any source books.

[hamishspence]

To be precise:



Rich Burlew, in War and XPs c.368
So, just so everyone is clear: I know exactly what the Monster in the Darkness is. I have (almost) always known. Its first two or three appearances were before I had worked out much of the plot's details, so at that point, I just figured it was a mystery I would never answer. Once I started developing the real story that I was telling, around strip #100, I figured out what the monster really was and have been dropping hints ever since. (Note that nothing from before strip #100 actually contradicts the truth of what it is, either.) [...]
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 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.

[enigmatime]

No what he said was that it wasn't something he made up. He didn't say it was in any source books.

Well, okay. I stand corrected.

[Hardcore]

I think the monsters actual personality belong to the plot side, and should be ignored for this discusion.

Also I am pretty certain that Rich would not use a non-DnD monster.
He has included references to such but only as one-off jokes.

[enigmatime]

I think the monsters actual personality belong to the plot side, and should be ignored for this discusion.

Also I am pretty certain that Rich would not use a non-DnD monster.
He has included references to such but only as one-off jokes.

I agree with you completelly!

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I think the monsters actual personality belong to the plot side, and should be ignored for this discusion.

While I say were you are coming from, I'm afraid we cannot really drop them from the discussion. To put an example: lets say we had two top options, one being the white slaad, and the other being a hypothetical creature that has wish, earthquake, high strength, human size and was both an indiscriminate eater and sleepy. This hypothetical creature would be far better fit than the white slaad, thanks to those extra details.

MitD is what he is. We cannot know how much of his characteristics was modified by Rich; Rich believes that, regardless of what changes he made it is possible to guess, so it cannot be far removed from the original, but on the other hand, some changes must have been made, because nothing that goofy is given epic-level powers.

As such, everything must be considered. D&D being what it is, the powers expressed by MitD are the least likely to have been changed, and consequently tend to be the focus of the conversation. But the details, such as conduct, environment, traits and so on can't be ignored - while Rich can change some of those to fit characterisation, if he changes too many, we're back in "invented monster".

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

[Hardcore]

Given that Rich think he has given enough clues allready it is entirely possible that we can figure out the right creature type if we focus on clear phsyical traits, but get confused by his personality if we inlcude it in the analysis.
I do now know if this approach has been tried before, but it come to my mind earlier today when noticing a detail about MitD.


As such, everything must be considered.
As a jerk said somewhere else, and at another time, "That way lies madness!" :smallsmile:

Edited to remove embarrasing typo:smallbiggrin:

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Given that Rich think he has given enough clues allready
[citation needed]


it is entirely possible that we can figure out the right personality type if we focus on clear phsyical traits, but get confused by his personality if we inlcude it in the analysis.
I do now know if this approach has been tried before, but it come to my mind earlier today when noticing a detail about MitD.

As a jerk said somewhere else, and at another time, "That way lies madness!" :smallsmile:

You can ignore whatever pieces of evidence you want of course, this being a free world and all that, but don't be surprised if those criticising your suggestions aren't as ready to dismiss clues.

Grey Wolf

[Hardcore]

To put the finger more spot on; When I read the list at the start of the thread about his traits etc. the proper expression occured to me; IOW to ignore that which is speculation and only consider that which isn't. Of course this will make a short list, but what creatures would fit then?

Anyway no offence meant in previous post! I am as curious as the next stick avatar:smallsmile: and just want to add my piece to the work.

[Selene]

But if it was already dark, where then did that darkness go?

The roadies turned the lights up after the show.

[Cealocanth]

To answer your two questions: No, to the best of my knowledge; and, who cares about them? Certainly not Rich, who has long refused to cater to the "obscure D&D jokes" crowd, and may not even be aware there is such group as "those that don't like pokemon at all". Sound like jerks to me, if one transplanted character would make them stop reading the comic.

In any case, neither of those two things rule anything out in this thread. Copyright issues, yes - but those are not the same as "never used in an official campaign" and certainly has nothing to do with pleasing the audience. Every good writer writes to please himself, not others.

Grey Wolf

Very well put.

Maybe he IS a rock. A rock golem or elemental who has a human brain so he needs to eat and sleep.

[Bongos]

The MitD should be scary, per Xykon or Redcloak stating back in the day "I doubt there is anything in there scarier than you." I don't know much about Pokemon, but I've never seen a scary Pokemon. Now Slaads, those are scary.:smalltongue:

[Joyless]

We're going round in circles; I've already answered that. You even quoted it in your post #1172.

It was a one-off panel so he went with the quick-fix solution to avoid taking the strip back offline or leaving it looking weird. It's perfectly possible that when the book hits print the monster will be back in floor-to-ceiling darkness without the umbrella. I'm not going to read anything into it until we see the monster do the same thing when it ISN'T the result of a technical problem.

He'd never noticed the problem before doing 700-odd comics and he's fairly unlikely to encounter it again. Given the nature of the crayon strips and how few and far between they tend to be, I wouldn't expect too much call for the monster - drawn non-crayon style - to be in many of them.

Just curious, everyone keeps pointing out that the darkness is floor-to-ceiling, not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, and if so sorry (I did try to read all the other posts to catch up, but there is a lot there to go through)But comic #96 seems to show that the darkness is not floor to ceiling, it does stop, although it does stop well about everyones head.

(and again sorry I've not posted here before, was just curious to see what everyone thought it was and noticed that maybe some thought the darkness was always to the ceiling. Also I have no clue how to link to the strip) :smallamused:

[Nimrod's Son]

Just curious, everyone keeps pointing out that the darkness is floor-to-ceiling, not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, and if so sorry (I did try to read all the other posts to catch up, but there is a lot there to go through)But comic #96 seems to show that the darkness is not floor to ceiling, it does stop, although it does stop well about everyones head.
That's a fair point, but since we know that Rich claims he hadn't decided on the monster's identity before (give or take) strip #100 everything before that has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

There's also the fact that Redcloak had already referred to the shadows that hid the monster in Dorukan's dungeon as "magical darkness" by that point, so we can't use it as a basis for comparison against common-or-garden shadows.


The MitD should be scary, per Xykon or Redcloak stating back in the day "I doubt there is anything in there scarier than you." I don't know much about Pokemon, but I've never seen a scary Pokemon.
I have frequent nightmares about Pokémon, though that probably says more about my own head-space than it does about the franchise itself.

[Sebastrd]

I assume there has been plenty of speculation as to the nature of the MitD. Is there a general consensus as to what it is, or has it been revealed fairly conclusively at any point?

I only ask because I'm fairly confident that I've finally figured it out, but I wonder if the fan community already figured it out a long time ago and I'm late to the ballgame.

NOTE: This is NOT an MitD speculation thread.

[Vargtass]

It has not been conclusively proven, and there is no consensus as to what the MitD is. The current speculation thread can be found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134194), please check your theory against the first post, and feel free to present your conclusions accordingly.

[NerfTW]

I assume there has been plenty of speculation as to the nature of the MitD. Is there a general consensus as to what it is, or has it been revealed fairly conclusively at any point?

I only ask because I'm fairly confident that I've finally figured it out, but I wonder if the fan community already figured it out a long time ago and I'm late to the ballgame.

NOTE: This is NOT an MitD speculation thread.

Those two lines are mutually exclusive. Obviously, as it hasn't been stated in comic, it hasn't been conclusively proven. ANY consensus, no matter how much evidence we have, is still speculation until he reveals himself.

[Garwain]

Bite me if it's been proposed already, but I'll blame your 40page thread for it.

I'd say MitD is a Pit Fiend. Not an exact match though:

edit: proposed before but rejected because it's not child-like enough and can raise the death. Too bad, it had it all

[Moogleking]

Bite me if it's been proposed already, but I'll blame your 40page thread for it.

I'd say MitD is a Pit Fiend. Not an exact match though:

edit: proposed before but rejected because it's not child-like enough and can raise the death. Too bad, it had it all

Why hello there, first post!

[Joyless]

Could it be an Utterdark spell that causes the darkness? I know there is some problems with the spell, evil aligned can see through it as a dimly lit area. . . I would assume RC is evil, but maybe not?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Could it be an Utterdark spell that causes the darkness? I know there is some problems with the spell, evil aligned can see through it as a dimly lit area. . . I would assume RC is evil, but maybe not?

RC is certainly evil, Rich has said as much in SoD. I don't know this Utterdark spell, though, so won't comment on it.

Grey Wolf

[DaggerPen]

Could it be an Utterdark spell that causes the darkness? I know there is some problems with the spell, evil aligned can see through it as a dimly lit area. . . I would assume RC is evil, but maybe not?

You mean for the umbrella? I don't know much about the spell, but if the evil aligned can see through it, then Belkar would've seen the MitD when he and Haley encountered him while retrieving Roy's body? It didn't seem like he saw through it, even as only a dimly lit area.

[Cealocanth]

Earlier in the comic, much earlier, but not too way back, Belkar is seen faced with his two "angells and demons" on his shoulders.:belkar: of course, they were just demons/devils. But I quote from them, "No, it's just us two and the slaad, and you don't wabt him to come out." Those two demons, though unlikely, could have referred to the MitD, "coming out" of the darkness.:mitd:

This is supporting evidence to him being a slaad.

[Forbiddenwar]

*snip* This is supporting evidence to him being a slaad.

As much as Thanksgiving is supporting evidence that Mel Torme is a turkey.:smallamused:

[Imgran]

Keep gathering clues guys. We still don't have nearly enough information to make a really educated guess.

There's just not enough info. For all we know right now, the Monster in the Dark is the juvenile form of Beldin from the Belgariad, on far too many sedatives. It would certainly explain why he was so constantly crabby in the book.

[ArlEammon]

Couldn't the Monster In the Darkness be Rich Burlew himself?

Or a Baby Snarl?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Couldn't the Monster In the Darkness be Rich Burlew himself?

Or a Baby Snarl?

Please see the first post, section 3b for baby snarl. You may want to check the rest of the first post since you are at it.

As for MitD being a Mary Sue... well, it is possible, since Mary Sues are unlimited in power as long as the author is willing... but I have more respect for Rich's abilities as a writer than that.

Grey Wolf

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Couldn't the Monster In the Darkness be Rich Burlew himself?

Or a Baby Snarl?

THAT'S IT!!!!!!!!!
The MOTD is the giant, it dosen't fit any of the other monsters and that would be sooooo awesome!!!
Before my theory was babie chathulu but that's way cooler. :smallwink:

[ocdscale]

As for MitD being a Mary Sue... well, it is possible, since Mary Sues are unlimited in power as long as the author is willing... but I have more respect for Rich's abilities as a writer than that.


I agree that it's highly unlikely that the MitD is Rich.
But why would that make the MitD a Mary Sue? He's very powerful to be sure, but the universe hardly revolves around him. He's treated poorly by some, treated well by others, he's naive but learning and has real character development.

[Asta Kask]

I think the MitD is Haley's Latent Bisexuality and the whole thing is a metaphor for her coming out. It's as good a theory as many here. :smallbiggrin:

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I agree that it's highly unlikely that the MitD is Rich.
But why would that make the MitD a Mary Sue? He's very powerful to be sure, but the universe hardly revolves around him. He's treated poorly by some, treated well by others, he's naive but learning and has real character development.

Because Rich cannot punch people through walls. The only way he could was by poorly self-inserting himself into his own story, and giving himself powers that he doesn't, in fact, posses. It wouldn't be a total Mary Sue in the way Twilight's Bella is, but still would be one.

Grey Wolf

[DaggerPen]

I think the MitD is Haley's Latent Bisexuality and the whole thing is a metaphor for her coming out. It's as good a theory as many here. :smallbiggrin:

I LOL'd. Hard.

[Qwertystop]

Has anyone considered that the MitD might be something with 2 heads, but only 1 eye per head? (I dont play d&d so i dont know what, if anything, is like that):smallredface:

[Kish]

http://www.headinjurytheater.com/article73.htm Scroll down to Biclops.

That said, I think we should look for "what do the known traits point to." Two eyes is a known trait. Number of heads is not a known trait, and since having two heads, in and of itself, would explain exactly none of the known traits...

[Qwertystop]

http://www.headinjurytheater.com/article73.htm Scroll down to Biclops.

That said, I think we should look for "what do the known traits point to." Two eyes is a known trait. Number of heads is not a known trait, and since having two heads, in and of itself, would explain exactly none of the known traits...

I know it doesn't explain any of the known traits, but it does expand the list of options that would fit the known traits (because some people might have automatically assumed the 2 eyes were on 1 head, and therefore not bothered to search anything with more than 1 head) As i said, I don't play D&D, so I am very limited in what specific suggestions I can give. All I can do is try to offer points of view on information, to get people to think about it differently, and therefore maybe see new possibilities.

[Sebastrd]

It has not been conclusively proven, and there is no consensus as to what the MitD is. The current speculation thread can be found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134194), please check your theory against the first post, and feel free to present your conclusions accordingly.

Thanks. My theory is that it's a grue. Since I see now that "grue" has already been suggested, I guess I'm not the first to figure it out. This quote from Rich seems to almost guarantee that the MitD is a grue: "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."

For reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grue_(monster))

[Basooned]

In strip http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0103.html Xykon tells MitD to leap out of the shadows - does that imply he has knees? :P

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Thanks. My theory is that it's a grue. Since I see now that "grue" has already been suggested, I guess I'm not the first to figure it out. This quote from Rich seems to almost guarantee that the MitD is a grue: "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."

For reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grue_(monster))

Grues are getting close to being moved to the discarded ideas bin, if it continues to gather drive-by posters...

In very short: check first post, section 3d, Grue

In short: a grue wouldn't desire to leave the darkness, and they are not known to have the ability to teleport others.


In strip http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0103.html Xykon tells MitD to leap out of the shadows - does that imply he has knees? :P

I can see knee-less things jumping, like slime monsters, snakes, etc.

Grey Wolf

[Garwain]

So, after all these fact gathering, there is still no consensus. Either this means there are an unlimited number of monsters to consider or you are focussing to hard to fit them all without taking into account some story telling freedoms. And yet we know the story is more important than straight "facts".

[chionophile]

So, after all these fact gathering, there is still no consensus. Either this means there are an unlimited number of monsters to consider or you are focussing to hard to fit them all without taking into account some story telling freedoms. And yet we know the story is more important than straight "facts".

Or there simply isn't enough information to narrow it down yet. Or we're just not creative enough.

And are you implying that Rich would change the capabilities of the MitD just to fit the story? Rich has said it is possible to figure it out; changing what it can do would seem to contradict that. Not to mention being poor storytelling.

[Garwain]

Or there simply isn't enough information to narrow it down yet.
It's not that we have several perfect fits, but not enough information to narrow it down. After so much speculation, I think we need to rethink the approach of finding perfect matches.


Rich has said it is possible to figure it out; changing what it can do would seem to contradict that. Not to mention being poor storytelling.
"It is possible to figure out" doesn't mean that we can research it and come to the exact conclusion. It means that you can get very close if you're willing to find a nice match and then add a pinch of "Rule of Funny" or "Rule of Plot" or "Rule of Storytelling".

I don't necessarely agree to GreyWolf's approach of banning monsters based on the slightest mismatch.

For example, the darkness is so heavily focussed upon, while this might very well be that 1 feat Rich added to make it less obvious. I'm seeing it as a monster with a Rich template.

[Shale]

For example, the darkness is so heavily focussed upon, while this might very well be that 1 feat Rich added to make it less obvious. I'm seeing it as a monster with a Rich template.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to be getting at; the standing assumption is that it's not a monster that would normally be shrouded in darkness.

[pinwiz]

Garwain, the problem I see with using "Rule of Funny" and the others like it is that it doesn't allow us to pin down anything. Heck, using Rule of Plot it could be a Giant Parrot that only has these extraordinary abilities to further the plot, like the miko punch letting her get away, or the teleport letting V and O-Chul get away. I know this is an exagerated example, but it still shows that we can just throw away at will any of the hardest abilities to explain.

And honestly, where's the fun in doing it the easy way? :smalltongue:

By the way, i kind of like the idea that MitD is a monster that is analogous to the baby snarl. But i don't know what that might be, just my tiny input.

And a big thanks to all of you who have been searching so hard for so long. I wish i had the kind of mind that was good at searching for monsters like this. Esspecially Grey_Wolf_c for putting together this awesome thread.

[Forbiddenwar]

I'm seeing it as a monster with a Rich template.

The problem with it being a "Rich" template, created just for the story, is that it violates Rich's own words on the subject. Are you flat out stating that Rich is deliberately lying to mislead us? Somehow, I don't think that makes for a good story. It has the same affect as the whole story being Eugene's fevered dream when he was 12. I don't buy it.

[Darakonis]

I don't necessarely agree to GreyWolf's approach of banning monsters based on the slightest mismatch.
GW isn't trying to be some fascist overlord; he's just maintaining order, else this thread will devolve into wild speculation. I understand your point--but unfortunately, the moment we bring in artistic license, it is impossible to come up with a concrete argument, because "artistic license" becomes the hand-waved excuse for any mismatches with the facts.

The purpose of this thread is to base ourselves on the evidence presented. Yes, that makes things restrictive, but again--we have little choice. If you'd like to start up a "MitD: Wild Speculation" thread, you're more than welcome :)

Peace,
-Darakonis

[Forbiddenwar]

I don't necessarely agree to GreyWolf's approach of banning monsters based on the slightest mismatch.


I can't find any evidence in support of this statement. Would you care to elaborate.
GW doesn't "ban" monsters. He may edit the first post to reflected rejected monsters, of which there are only 3. All 3 are rejected for numerous impossible mismatches. The criteria for rejected category is clear. 1)Numerous people behind the theory, 2)overwhelming evidence against the theory 3) Little to no evidence in support of the theory.
That being said, the 3 rejected creatures fit MITD as well as an unaltered bunny fits MITD

[Cealocanth]

I have an Idea, We are only seeing the mitd's head, possible something with pincers that can lift or tetacles sprouting from it's face or something. The MitD is poking his head out of a dimentional door or something of the like that consumes it's body but leaves it's head out in the open, maybe letting a few limbs out. If htis were true that means that the MitD s=doesn't even need to fit completely under that umbrella at all.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

So, after all these fact gathering, there is still no consensus.


It's not that we have several perfect fits, but not enough information to narrow it down. After so much speculation, I think we need to rethink the approach of finding perfect matches.

This approach has been brought up before, at least twice that I can remember. Both times, the person proposing it ended up throwing a fit, and saying we were groupthinking close-minded people because we refused to discard the evidence that didn't fit his preconceived idea of MitD. The conclusion I draw from those experiences is that relaxing what contitutes a perfect match is not the way forward.

And it should be obvious why: you come up with an idea, that matches 90% of the evidence, and sweep everything else under rule of plot & rule of funny. But just because that works for you, that doesn't mean there is consensus - the only way to build consensus is if everyone's objections are properly addressed by using evidence.


Either this means there are an unlimited number of monsters to consider or you are focussing to hard to fit them all without taking into account some story telling freedoms. And yet we know the story is more important than straight "facts".


"It is possible to figure out" doesn't mean that we can research it and come to the exact conclusion. It means that you can get very close if you're willing to find a nice match and then add a pinch of "Rule of Funny" or "Rule of Plot" or "Rule of Storytelling".

There are a virtually unlimited number of monsters - D&D has accumulated a lot of baggage over the last 20+ years. As to your second point, you are simply wrong. Even when considering a lot of the things that happen rule of funny or rule of plot (or rule of dramatic scene, for things like the tower), nothing proposed matches well - as long as Rich was not lying when he said it can be figured out and it is not something he invented. Because, sure, MitD could be a pixie, strength 1, and everything else be explained with plot (yes, it is a beautiful, weak creature, but plot requires it to be ugly and immensely strong) but somehow, that wouldn't really work, would it?


I don't necessarely agree to GreyWolf's approach of banning monsters based on the slightest mismatch.

And I don't "necessarely"[sic] agree with your words about me. I have not "banned" anything from this thread - first and foremost, because I of course have no such power, but in second place because what I do is categorise. Yes, there is a section for discarded ideas (not banned), and in it are the three ideas that everyone (i.e. not just me) was sick of hearing by the end of the first thread. But you can bring them up again, assuming you have something to add - they have their own special place because I want people to see them, if they look through the first post, so they at least try to bring something new to the table, rather than "it has to be Tarrasque, because it is big, hungry and famous" which is, sincerely, boring to have to answer to after the first dozen times.

Or possibly you refer to the copyrighted ideas, which are "banned" only in the sense that Rich cannot use them without having to deal with lawyers. Or even the one-off ideas, for all I know.


For example, the darkness is so heavily focussed upon, while this might very well be that 1 feat Rich added to make it less obvious. I'm seeing it as a monster with a Rich template.

Darkness was discussed in thread 2, pages 30-40 - i.e. not "heavily focused", only recently focused. Someone proposed it was a characteristic inherent to MitD, several other people pointed out there was not enough evidence. That's it. There is no need for even a template, since it is perfectly possible to see it as external to MitD.

And of course, the problem with the "Rich template" is that is is absurd to consider it and the possibility of guessing. MitD, according to your proposed "method", could be a potted plant with a Rich template that gives it mobility, super strength, and magical powers. And the rest you wave away with power of plot/funny.

I.e. like it was patientely explained every other time it was proposed, it has no explanatory power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanatory_power), and thus it is a fruitless approach to the discussion.


I have an Idea, We are only seeing the mitd's head, possible something with pincers that can lift or tetacles sprouting from it's face or something. The MitD is poking his head out of a dimentional door or something of the like that consumes it's body but leaves it's head out in the open, maybe letting a few limbs out. If htis were true that means that the MitD s=doesn't even need to fit completely under that umbrella at all.

It leaves tracks, so it would need more than just pincers and head. Other than that, I'm not sure such monster exists in D&D, but that's not a reason to discard it. It made me think of PSIV's Dimension Worm - was that your idea, too? Its biggest problem would be the magic power section, I'd think (i.e. explain the escape).

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

[DaggerPen]

Random question, but- I've been looking through some lists of D&D monsters online, and I've encountered a few references to monsters that seem to only have been featured in some issue of Dragon magazine, and upon further research it seems that Dragon magazine did, indeed, offer new supplementary monsters, ones that aren't necessarily in source manuals or featured elsewhere. Does anyone here have access to any old Dragon magazines, or better yet, a full Dragon magazine archive? Has anyone checked that over for MitD candidates yet? I'm not too familiar with Dragon magazine, so forgive me if I'm totally off base here, but it seems like that's probably a good place to start combing through for MitD candidates.

Sorry if it's been suggested already. I don't remember seeing anything about it in the first post, so...

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Random question, but- I've been looking through some lists of D&D monsters online, and I've encountered a few references to monsters that seem to only have been featured in some issue of Dragon magazine, and upon further research it seems that Dragon magazine did, indeed, offer new supplementary monsters, ones that aren't necessarily in source manuals or featured elsewhere. Does anyone here have access to any old Dragon magazines, or better yet, a full Dragon magazine archive? Has anyone checked that over for MitD candidates yet? I'm not too familiar with Dragon magazine, so forgive me if I'm totally off base here, but it seems like that's probably a good place to start combing through for MitD candidates.

Sorry if it's been suggested already. I don't remember seeing anything about it in the first post, so...

If someone has checked the old Dragon magazines, they haven't made an issue of it.

GW

[Dancing_Fox]

Has anyone considered that the MitD might be something with 2 heads, but only 1 eye per head? (I dont play d&d so i dont know what, if anything, is like that):smallredface:

I've brought up the joke there being two tigers, each walking in sync and with one eye closed.

I like the extension to a two headed, one eyed each, monster as a thought exercise. I'm not sure it helps much though, unless someone brings forth such a two-headed, one eye per head monster as an example.

Off-hand, I can only think of a two-headed Cyclops.

So problems:
* Maybe a lack of monsters that fit the bill, whether in D&D or outside of it.

* Would need to explain why the eyes *always* seem to move together. Whereas you would expect that in a two headed monster that the heads would naturally separate and come closer. This is a big problem for the theory. (Both heads are held in place by a big hat that MitD really likes!)

* The eyes also seem to share the same expression, such as shock or bewilderment - and in a two headed monster, you may reasonable expect that some of the time, each head will be 'thinking its own thing.'

* Explains 'Why it has two eyes' but doesn't do anything else explanatory such as the Escape or Earthquake. So it widens the field, but in doing so, it also allows all hundred eyed monsters (with 98 closed), and so on.

Hope that helps. (And yes, work got to me!)

[Sebastrd]

Grues are getting close to being moved to the discarded ideas bin, if it continues to gather drive-by posters...

In very short: check first post, section 3d, Grue

I did.


In short: a grue wouldn't desire to leave the darkness, and they are not known to have the ability to teleport others.

I don't presume to know what a grue might desire or what it can do. If that's all you can come up with, I'm pretty comfortable in my assertion that the MitD is a grue.

Just to clarify, I'm talking the Zork version, not the Jack Vance or D&D versions.

[Garwain]

This approach has been brought up before, at least twice that I can remember. Both times, the person proposing it ended up throwing a fit, and saying we were groupthinking close-minded people because we refused to discard the evidence that didn't fit his preconceived idea of MitD. (...) You come up with an idea, that matches 90% of the evidence, and sweep everything else under rule of plot & rule of funny. This is a bit easy. Because you had a bad experience (or two) before, my proposal is de facto neglected. I did propose a monster, but self-edited before anyone else replied. This means i'm not trying to bend the discussion so that my monster will win. Because I know it won't. It's not about winning but trying to find out what hides in the darkness. And I propose a different approach. Something more subtle. I can 'clip your wings' even though you don't have wings. See... that's the little stretch from cold facts I find not so farfetched IMO.


And I don't "necessarely"[sic] agree with your words about me.
Sure, banned might not be the right word. Take discarded. But there are no words about you, only your approach. And I still have doubts about it.
Because, sure, MitD could be a pixie, strength 1, and everything else be explained with plot (yes, it is a beautiful, weak creature, but plot requires it to be ugly and immensely strong) but somehow, that wouldn't really work, would it? (...)And of course, the problem with the "Rich template" is that is is absurd to consider it and the possibility of guessing. MitD, according to your proposed "method", could be a potted plant with a Rich template that gives it mobility, super strength, and magical powers. And the rest you wave away with power of plot/funny. Now you are trying to make fun of my point. MitD is not a potted plant (although I liked the gazebo idea). It is also not an obscure long-forgotten monster. The MitD mystery has grown so much that the AAah!-effect will/should not be reserved for the select few that bothered dusting off their old books. Therefore I'm confidend that MitD will be a known monster with a little twist. Something witty that will us all give the Aah-effect because we know we've been outsmarted. MitD is a monster with a pinch of Rich.

[Kish]

I did.



I don't presume to know what a grue might desire or what it can do. If that's all you can come up with, I'm pretty comfortable in my assertion that the MitD is a grue.
You're comfortable in asserting he is a grue based on it not being possible to absolutely prove that he's not a grue, despite the existence of minimal to nonexistent evidence that he is? By that argument, he's several hundred monsters, all at once. Most of them moreso than he is a grue.

[Magicyop]

You're comfortable in asserting he is a grue based on it not being possible to absolutely prove that he's not a grue, despite the existence of minimal to nonexistent evidence that he is? By that argument, he's several hundred monsters, all at once. Most of them moreso than he is a grue.

Correct. It's simple logic. It is virtually impossible to prove that something is not true.

I could assert the MitD is, in fact, non existent, and you are just being a schizophrenic. All those panels in the comic are empty, and you just think there is a character there. And you could not prove me wrong. No matter how you try, there is always some explanation for why I'm still right.

But that's not true, of course. Just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean it's most definitely true. I cannot disprove that my cat is now silently traveling through time, since it just walked out of my view, but the odds of my cat actually being able to travel through time are very low.

[Sliver]

I wonder... Was it ever suggested that the MitD is Son Goku? :smalltongue: (well, it of course it was... Wondering how that was resolved, as I didn't see it in the first post..)

[pinwiz]

I wonder... Was it ever suggested that the MitD is Son Goku? :smalltongue: (well, it of course it was... Wondering how that was resolved, as I didn't see it in the first post..)

I actually really like this idea. One problem i see is the circus scene, but maybe someone with access to SoD can confirm or deny this. And the escape might be tough to explain, but I will admit i haven't watched the whole series so it may be an ability.

[Sliver]

He actually has teleportation powers... Although I recall them working like the spell and taking the caster with the others.

[pinwiz]

What if he has all of the dragonballs as well or something? then he actually could use wish.

[Sliver]

But then there would be a giant show of a dragon coming up...

He could be the dragon! Probably that of Namek. But smaller. Or someone who wished to be able to grant wishes and then turned into a dragon or something.

[pinwiz]

I dunno. If his teleportation abilites can be used to explain the escape i think he fits well. i also seem to recall some extreme reactions at the appearance of him naked. Could that explain the circus scene? I'll admit that it's been a really long time since i watched the show, and i could be imagining things.

Though maybe it could be another character from the series. they all kind of match in abilities.

[chionophile]

Has anyone proposed any monsters from (one of) the Final Fantasy universe(s)? I'm not that familiar with them, but I seem to recall there being an "Escape" spell. And I know the Giant is at least somewhat familiar with them from Elan and Thog's little side adventure.

[Moogleking]

Has anyone proposed any monsters from (one of) the Final Fantasy universe(s)? I'm not that familiar with them, but I seem to recall there being an "Escape" spell. And I know the Giant is at least somewhat familiar with them from Elan and Thog's little side adventure.
Very few Earthquake causers actually, so it wouldn't be too hard.
Comic started in 2003, which was FFX if memory serves?
May be worth looking, although Escape affects the whole party, so MitD should have gone along with them. Also it sends them to the entrance of the dungeon, not the elven continent :smalltongue:

[Grey_Wolf_c]

This is a bit easy. Because you had a bad experience (or two) before, my proposal is de facto neglected. I did propose a monster, but self-edited before anyone else replied. This means i'm not trying to bend the discussion so that my monster will win. Because I know it won't. It's not about winning but trying to find out what hides in the darkness. And I propose a different approach. Something more subtle. I can 'clip your wings' even though you don't have wings. See... that's the little stretch from cold facts I find not so farfetched IMO.

You ignored the actual problem with your approach. That doesn't bode well.


Sure, banned might not be the right word. Take discarded. But there are no words about you, only your approach. And I still have doubts about it.

Unsupported assertion. Getting worse.


Now you are trying to make fun of my point. MitD is not a potted plant (although I liked the gazebo idea). It is also not an obscure long-forgotten monster.

And again you didn't bother/manage to dispute my actual points. I conclude, then, that you don't/can't actually argue your position, only state it. It is pointless, then, to talk to you.

I'll repeat, for the peanut gallery, what the problem with your "subtle" approach is: discarding evidence that does not fit your proposal, no matter how well-intending, does not lead to the consensus (which ironically enough, was your reason to suggest it in the first place).


The MitD mystery has grown so much that the AAah!-effect will/should not be reserved for the select few that bothered dusting off their old books. Therefore I'm confidend that MitD will be a known monster with a little twist. Something witty that will us all give the Aah-effect because we know we've been outsmarted. MitD is a monster with a pinch of Rich.

That would be reasonable if it was not because Rich said otherwise. That said, two concepts you are taking for granted that you shouldn't: that there will be an "AAaah" effect, and that Rich needs him to be recognisable.

And of course, what is just a "pinch" to you is "too much of a change" to the next person. The "consensus" you are looking for will never happen with your approach.


Correct. It's simple logic. It is virtually impossible to prove that something is not true.

There is no "virtually" - in logic, you cannot prove a negative, full stop. Which, of course, leads back to explanatory power: an idea proposed that is supported by "you can't prove it to be wrong" (a.k.a. potted plant with a Rich template) is worthless.


I wonder... Was it ever suggested that the MitD is Son Goku? :smalltongue: (well, it of course it was... Wondering how that was resolved, as I didn't see it in the first post..)

Humans are very unlikely to be MitD: two very definitive characteristics are puke-inducing ugliness and surprise at the ability to talk. Specifically, Goku is not that ugly, and it is not surprising it can talk. He also cannot teleport others without going along.

For the record, I don't add every single idea to the first post - ideas that are only stated (i.e. someone posts once to say "MitD is a purple elephant"), without bothering to explain their case, don't get added, mostly because I don't do other people's work for them. They can tell me why they think it is a good idea, or they are treated like an empty post. It would be too much work otherwise, particularly for ideas no-one else likes.


Has anyone proposed any monsters from (one of) the Final Fantasy universe(s)? I'm not that familiar with them, but I seem to recall there being an "Escape" spell. And I know the Giant is at least somewhat familiar with them from Elan and Thog's little side adventure.

They have been proposed, kind-of. Someone suggested the black wizard. It's under copyrighted ideas. More generally, 'escape' doesn't fit all that well (for the reasons given by Moogleking), although it gets points for matching MitD's actual words.

Grey Wolf

[cd4]

While I cannot easily propose any new ideas for what MitD could be. I can help with a simple fact from SoD:

"Hey! You in the box! Lean all your weight to the left!"

And he did making the box change direction.

This proves that the MitD has physical mass and weight and that anything composed of pure energy can be discarded.

Most of this was already a highly accepted theory because of the undead creation mention but this is futher proof that the MitD has a body.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

While I cannot easily propose any new ideas for what MitD could be. I can help with a simple fact from SoD:

"Hey! You in the box! Lean all your weight to the left!"

And he did making the box change direction.

This proves that the MitD has physical mass and weight and that anything composed of pure energy can be discarded.

Most of this was already a highly accepted theory because of the undead creation mention but this is futher proof that the MitD has a body.

Errr... enough energy has weight, too, as per E=mc^2. In fact, as you add energy to accelerate a body, it gains mass - particularly as you get closer to the speed of light (at some point, you simply stop gaining speed, and only gain mass - that's why you cannot ever get to the speed of light)

Grey Wolf

[chionophile]

Errr... enough energy has weight, too, as per E=mc^2

Grey Wolf

Actually, energy has mass according to that equation. Says nothing about weight.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Actually, energy has mass according to that equation. Says nothing about weight.

... Since there is gravity in OotS-verse, any mass has a weight. That is so obvious I saw no reason to explain it.

Grey Wolf